Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-19 Each emergency shelter will provide an interior and exterior waiting area adequate to accommodate waiting clients and to prevent queuing into the public right-of-way. An exterior waiting area must be physically separated and visually screened from the public right-of-way. The emergency shelter facility will provide an on-site resident manager on site at all times. A minimum distance of 300 feet must be maintained from another emergency shelter. The distance of separation shall be measured in a straight line between the property lines of each use without regard to intervening structures or objects.
The shelter operator shall provide minimum exterior lighting in compliance with the city’s security requirements.
The shelter operator shall patrol a half-mile radius surrounding the shelter site during hours that the shelter is in operation to ensure that shelter clients and homeless individuals who have been denied access are not congregating in the neighborhood. Alcohol and narcotics use, and consumption are prohibited within the facility and on the property. An operations plan will be submitted for review and approval by the development services director and police chief prior to operation of the emergency shelter. The plan must include minimum provisions related to on-site security and safety, staff training, loitering control, client eligibility, counseling services, and indoor and outdoor management of the facility.
In April 2021, the City of Costa Mesa completed the construction of its permanent Bridge Shelter within the City. The Costa Mesa City Council purchased the Airway property in March of 2019 and completed $4.5 million worth of capital improvements to convert the 26,000-square-foot industrial warehouse to a 12,000- square-foot 72-bed shelter with a 14,000-square-foot tenant space. The permanent Bridge Shelter was built in coordination with the neighboring City of Newport Beach who made a one-time payment of $1.4 million in capital costs as well as $200,000 in furniture, fixtures, and equipment for the site. Additionally, Newport Beach will provide $1 million annually for 20 set-aside beds.
Construction of the Bridge Shelter, as well as the organization and operation of the temporary Bridge Shelter at Lighthouse Church, represent the Costa Mesa’s commitment to assisting those residents currently experiencing homelessness. With the shelter in full operation, the City is now able to assist up to 72 residents at one time. This multi-year effort is a tremendous step towards helping to house residents within the City of Costa Mesa who may need assistance and transition to more permanent housing. The City also provides services and assistance to residents of the Bridge Shelter.
In addition, a total of 294 parcels (483.5 total acres and an average parcel size of 1.6 acres) are zoned MP and 150 parcels (168.7 total acres and an average parcel size of 1.1 acres) are zoned PDI which allows for the development of emergency shelters by-right without discretionary approval. Additionally, the Bridge Shelter parcel is approximately 1.3 acres large – which is similar to the average size of other parcels in the MP and PDI zones. These parcels currently include industrial uses such as light manufacturing, warehousing, and logistics centers, office buildings, schools, churches, civic uses and surface parking lots. There are two areas of the City with a mix of PDI and MP zoning – these include the area between John Wayne Airport and the 55 Freeway and the area to the north-west of the City between the 405 Freeway and W MacArthur Boulevard. Parcels located in these PDI and MP zones are all located approximately within a half-mile of a Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-20 transit stop. In the area closest to John Wayne Airport, the 71 OCTA line runs through Red Hill Avenue. In the area closest to W MacArthur Boulevard, OCTA lines 43, 76, and 37 run along Harbor Boulevard and W MacArthur Boulevard.
Based on CalEnviroScreen 4.0, there are 3 hazardous waste generators within the MP and PDI zones in the north-west portion of the City and 4 near the north-east portion of the City as shown in Figure 3-1b. These generators are light industrial uses and do not create an environment unfit for human habitation. Located in close proximity to the area are existing and new housing units. In fact, residential development is allowed in certain industrial zones in the City pursuant to residential overlay zoning and subject to an adopted master plan. As such, the hazardous waste generators identified by CalEnviroScreen 4.0 do not pose a threat to the development and use of future emergency shelters in the area.
Figure 3-1a: Map of MP Zones in Costa Mesa
Source: City of Costa Mesa, Zoning Code Map.
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-21 Figure 3-1b: Map of Hazardous Waste Generators
Source: CalEnviroScreen 4.0, Hazardous Waste.
Farmworker Housing
California Health and Safety Code Sections 17021.5 and 17021.6 require agricultural employee housing to be permitted by-right, without a conditional use permit (CUP), in single-family zones for six or fewer persons and in agricultural zones with no more than 12 units or 36 beds. The City has completed Program 2H identified in Chapter 4: Housing Plan ensuring the City’s development standards allow Farmworker Housing by-right, without a CUP, in single-family zones for six or fewer persons. In March 2026, the City amended the Zoning Code to allow Farmworker housing, also known as employee housing consistent with California Health and Safety Code Sections 17021.5 and 17021.6.
Low Barrier Navigation Centers (LBNC)
AB 101 states that “Low Barrier Navigation Center developments are essential tools for alleviating the homelessness crisis in this state.” Low Barrier Navigation Centers are defined as a Housing First, low-barrier, service-enriched shelter focused on moving people into permanent housing that provides temporary living facilities while case managers connect individuals experiencing homelessness to income, public benefits, health services, shelter, and housing. Low Barrier Navigation Centers are required as a use by right in areas zoned for mixed uses and nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses if it meets specified Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-22 requirements. The City has completed Program 4E in Chapter 4: Housing Plan to ensure the City’s development standards allow Low Barrier Navigation Centers by-right in all zones that permit mixed-uses and non-residential uses. Specifically, in March 2026, the City amended the Zoning Code to allow LBNC consistent with AB 101 (2019).
5. Planned Development
The intent and purposed of Planned Developments are to provide a method by which appropriately located areas of the City can be developed utilizing more imaginative and innovative planning concepts than would be possible through strict application of existing zoning and subdivision regulations. It is intended that these developments will meet the broader goals of the General Plan and Zoning Code by exhibiting excellence in design, site planning, integration of uses and structures, and protection of the integrity of neighboring developments. Additional standards for PDs may be found in Chapter V. Article 6 of the City’s Zoning Code.
All PDs require approval through a Master Plan and must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. The following provides the process by which PDs may be reviewed:
Preliminary Master Plan: a preliminary master plan may be processed in advance of the master plan to determine the general location, type, and intensities of uses proposed in large scale planned developments prior to the preparation and submittal or more detailed development plans. Preliminary master plans may also be used as conceptual plans for long-term or phased PDs.
Upon approval of the preliminary master plan, development plans for individual components or phases of the PD are required and will be processed according to the provisions for master plans. Subsequent plans must be consistent with the parameters and general allocation and intensity of uses of the approved preliminary master plan. At the time of approval of the preliminary master plan, the Planning Commission may determine that subsequent development plans may be approved by the Zoning Administrator. In such cases, development plans will be forwarded by the Zoning Administrator, upon an appeal filed or upon motion by the Planning Commission or City Council.
Amendments to the Master Plan: Minor changes in the location, siting or character of buildings and structures may be authorized by the planning division if required by engineering specifications or other circumstances not foreseen at the time the master plan was approved. No change authorized under this section may cause any of the following:
A change in the use of character of the development;
An increase in the overall density of the development; An increase in overall coverage of structures;
A reduction or change in character of approved open space; A reduction of required off-street parking;
A detrimental alteration to the pedestrian, vehicular and bicycle circulation, and utility networks; or A reduction in required street pavement widths.
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-23 Major changes involving substantial amendments to the master plan encompassing one or more of the minor changes listed above, or any other proposed change determined by the Development Services Director as a major amendment, shall be subject to review and approval by the Zoning Administrator. If the major amendment results in an overall building square footage that exceeds the maximum density or building square footage allowed by the approved master plan, the Zoning Administrator must find that the major amendment is consistent with the density, floor area ratio, and trip budget standards established by the general plan, as applicable.
Minor Additions to an Existing PD:
Residential buildings—Single-story additions: Minor single-story additions to existing residential buildings not meeting the criteria below may be approved by a Minor Modification application if the Planning Division finds that the proposed construction does not materially affect the required open space, site coverage, or parking of the PD.
Unenclosed patio covers: Unenclosed patio covers in planned development residential zones, which meet the setback criteria may be approved by the Planning Division:
Enclosed patios and room additions: Enclosed patios and room additions may be permitted pursuant to the parameters for such additions established in the master plan. In cases where the master plan does not include criteria for future enclosed patios and/or room additions, the addition may be permitted if the required open space percentage is met on the affected lot and the addition meets the setbacks established for patio covers with the exception of small lot developments. Residential buildings—Second story additions: In cases where the master plan does not include criteria for future second-story additions, the planning division may approve any proposed secondstory addition that meets the setback standards. Nonresidential buildings: Minor additions to existing nonresidential buildings may be approved by Development Review if the Planning Division finds that the proposed construction does not materially affect required open space, floor area ratio, and parking requirements specified in the approved master plan. If the minor addition results in an overall building square footage that exceeds the maximum building square footage allowed by the approved master plan, the Planning Division must find that the minor addition is consistent with the floor area ratio and trip budget standards established by the general plan, as applicable.
Site Design Concept
To maintain similar development designs and intensities within the different residential zones in the Costa Mesa, the City encourages the following standards and housing types:
Low-Density Zone: Small-lot, single-family detached residential developments including clustered development, zero lot line development and conventional development are appropriate.
Medium-Density and High-Density Zone, and North Costa Mesa Zones: Single- and multi-family residential developments containing any type or mixture of housing units, either attached or detached, including but Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-24 not limited to, clustered development, townhouses, patio homes, detached houses, duplexes, garden apartments, and high-rise apartments or common interest developments are appropriate.
As a Complementary Use: nonresidential use of a religious, educational, or recreational nature may be allowed if the planning commission finds the use to be compatible with the PD residential project.
As a Complementary Use in PDR-MD, PDR-HD, PDR-NCM Zones: nonresidential uses of a commercial nature may be allowed if the Planning Commission finds the uses to be compatible with the PD residential project and if the FAR does not exceed that established for the Neighborhood Commercial General Plan Land Use designation.
6. Growth Management Measures
Measure Y:
Growth management measures allow cities to grow in a responsibly and orderly manner, however, if overly restrictive, these measures can produce constraints to the development of housing, specifically affordable and accessible housing.
In 2016, residents of Costa Mesa voted to pass Measure Y: An Initiative to Require Voter Approval on Certain Development Projects. The Measure amended the Costa Mesa Municipal Code to require voter approval of any projects involving certain legislative actions (i.e. projects that amend, change, or replace the General Plan, the Zoning Code, a specific plan, or an overlay plan) which:
Add 40 or more dwelling units;
Generates more than 200 additional average daily trips (ADT); Increases the volume/capacity of an intersection based on specified formulas; Changes the intersection capacity utilization or level of service (LOS) based on specified formulas; Adds 10,000 square feet of retail, office, or other nonresidential uses; and/or Where the proposed project, combined with other projects within 8 years and a half-mile of each other, meet the above criteria.
Voter approval is also required for projects involving the above listed legislative actions which involve:
Changes from public uses to private uses under special circumstances; Land designated as utility right-of-way under specified circumstances; Land donated, bequeathed, or otherwise granted to the City; Land used or designated for Costa Mesa school property; and/or Land owned, controlled, or managed by the City.
Any of these proposed changes as listed above are required to be approved by the Costa Mesa voters through a special or general election after the City Council has approved the project. Applicants may choose to put their project on a General Election which could result in timing delays to the project as those typically only occur in June and November of even numbered years or may pay for a Special Election to occur. Special Elections typically cost approximately $200,000, a cost which must be paid for by the developer. This can Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-25 be a significant capital investment that may return uncertain election results (even if a project is approved by the City Council through an entitlement process). This process may discourage developers from pursuing housing development projects and particularly affordable housing projects.
The precise impact on development projects depends heavily on the type of project, number of residential units, and funding sources. The City has not had a project go through the entire Measure Y process to date.
While the exact cost and impact is not known, it can be assumed based on the analysis above that the Measure Y process adds time to the entitlement schedule and potentially additional costs if a Special Election is required. Program 3G discusses specific actions the City will take to address Measure Y in the context of the Housing Element and making sites available to accommodate the City’s RHNA.
Measure K:
In 2022, Costa Mesa voters approved Measure K, which authorized the City to update zoning for certain commercial, industrial, and mixed-use areas to allow additional residential and mixed-use development while minimizing impacts on existing residential neighborhoods. The City is implementing Measure K through updates to the Mixed-Use Overlay District (MUOD). This effort not only supports rezoning of Housing Element sites needed to accommodate the RHNA but also expands residential development opportunities to additional Measure K sites beyond the Housing Element inventory. As a result, the City is taking a broader, proactive approach to facilitating housing production and creating residential capacity beyond the minimum RHNA obligation.
7. Specific Plans
The purpose of a Specific Plan is to implement the goals and objectives of a city’s General Plan in a more focused and detailed manner that is area and project specific. The Specific Plan promotes an enhanced aesthetic level throughout the project/community. Specific Plans can contain their own development standards and requirements that may be more restrictive than those defined for a city as a whole.
East 17th Street Specific Plan
The East 17th Street Specific Plan encompasses approximately 33 acres along 17th Street, east of Santa Ana Avenue and west of Irvine Avenue. The area is designated for General Commercial by the General Plan Land Use Element and contains a mix of office and commercial uses.
The intent and purpose of the specific plan is to provide a good transition to neighboring residential areas by alleviating the problems generated by the proximity of commercial and residential uses in the area. In order to do this, the City adopted the following development standards:
Properties on the south side of the 400 block of the Specific Plan area must maintain a 10-foot landscape buffer and properties on the north side of the 400 block must maintain a 5-foot landscape buffer.
A Conditional Use Permit is required to permit any development over 2 stories / 30 feet.
Developments over 4 stories are prohibited.
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-26 Newport Boulevard Specific Plan
The Newport Boulevard Specific Plan was prepared in order to address the development issues that resulted from the completion of the Costa Mesa Freeway. The intent and purpose of this specific plan is to encourage viable commercial businesses along Newport Boulevard, as well as to encourage marginal uses to redevelop. The Newport Boulevard Specific Plan added the “Commercial-Residential” land use designation to allow for a mix of residential and commercial zoning, which would otherwise only occur in Planned Development zoning districts. Maximum residential density ranges from 12 units to 17.4 units per acre through the specific plan area; Table 3-6 below provides the permitted densities.
The Commercial-Residential land use designation is intended to allow commercial uses which serve and complement the residential neighborhoods to the east and within the specific plan. Appropriate uses include markets, drug stores, retail shops, financial institutions, service establishments and support office uses. Single room occupancy hotels are also permitted in this area. The location of these uses near residential neighborhoods is further intended to reduce the need for longer vehicle trips to areas of more intense commercial activity in order to obtain goods or services.
Table 3-6: Permitted Residential Density
Lot Size Street Frontage Allowable Density
40,000 square feet 120 feet 1 unit/ 3,630 square feet
(Medium density at 12 units per acre)
60,000 square feet 150 feet 1 unit/ 3,000 square feet
(High density at 14.5 units per acre)
80,000 square feet 180 feet 1 unit/2,500 square feet
(High density at 17.4 units per acre)
Source: Newport Boulevard Specific Plan SP-96-01 (1996) North Costa Mesa Specific Plan
The North Costa Mesa Specific Plan encompasses 423 acres north of the San Diego Freeway and was adopted in 1994 and last updated in 2016. A specific plan was developed to set standards and strategies for the development of two large areas of undeveloped land in this area. The intent of the specific plan is to implement the policies of the General Plan in a manner that seamlessly integrates a variety of uses and considers the impact of new development on surrounding areas.
Table 3-7 provides the permitted land uses and densities within the specific plan areas, and Table 3-8 provides the maximum building heights allowed.
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-27 Table 3-7: Permitted Land Uses and Development Standards Land Use
Designation Typical Uses Zoning Districts
Residential
Density
FAR
Low Density
Residential
Single family detached and attached
units, granny units, accessory
apartments, family day care
R1, PDR-LD,
I&R
≤ 8 units per
acre
0.15 high traffic
0.25 moderate traffic
0.35 low traffic
Medium
Density
Residential
Single-family attached units, multiple
family units, senior
congregate care facilities,
convalescent hospitals, and group
residential homes. Ancillary
commercial uses are permitted
the planned development zones.
R1, R2-MD,
PDR-MD,
MU, I&R
≤ 12 units per
ace
0.15 high traffic
0.25 moderate traffic
0.35 low traffic
High Density
Residential
Multiple family units, senior
congregate care facilities,
convalescent hospitals and group
residential homes.
Ancillary commercial uses are
permitted in the planned
development zones.
R2-HD, R3,
PDR-HD,
PDR-NCM,
MU, I&R
≤ 20 units per
acre
(except the
density in
PDR-NCM
zone is 25-35
units per
acre)
0.15 high traffic
0.25 moderate traffic
0.35 low traffic
Commercial
Center (1)
Major shopping, service, and office
facilities designated
serve city-wide and regional markets.
C1, C2, C1-
S,
PDC, AP, P,
CL
≤ 20 units per
acre
0.25 high traffic
0.35 moderate traffic
0.45 low traffic
0.75 very low traffic
Regional
Commercial
Regional scale uses including major
department stores,
specialty retail outlets, restaurants,
offices, and hotels.
PDC
≤ 20 units per
acre
0.652 South Coast Plaza
(east of Bear Street)
0.89 South Coast Plaza
(west of Bear Street)
Urban Center
Commercial
Intensively developed mixed
commercial including offices, retail
shops, restaurants, and hotels.
Residential uses are also
permitted pursuant to the North
Costa Mesa Specific Plan
PDC, TC
≤ 20 units per
acre
See Note 2.
Industrial
Park
Wide variety of industrial and
compatible office and support
commercial uses.
MP, POI, CL
≤ 20 units per
acre
0.20 high traffic
0.30 moderate traffic
0.40 low traffic
0.75 very low traffic
Notes:
(1) Home Ranch has a site-specific FAR: 0.37 for the IKEA portion of the project and 0.64 for the office portion (2) South Coast Metro Center (Area 6) has a site- specific FAR of 0.79. Sakioka Lot 2 (Area 8) has a maximum site- specific FAR of 1.0.
Source: North Costa Mesa Specific Plan (2016)
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-28 Table 3-8: Maximum Building Height – North Costa Mesa Specific Plan Sub-Are Max. Building Height
Area 1 – Home Ranch Varies (1)
Area 2 – Metro Pointe
30 feet / 2 stories (2)(3)
(North of South Coast Drive)
90 feet / 6 stories (2)(3)
(South of South Coast Drive)
Area 3 – South Coast Plaza and Crystal
Court
85 feet / 4 stories
Area 4 – SCP Town Center 315 feet / 25 stories (2)
Area 5 – The Lakes
90 feet / 6 stories (2)
(Mid-Rise Residential)
280 feet / 26 stories (2)
(High-Rise Residential)
Area 6 – South Coast Metro Varies (2)(4)
Area 7 – Sakioka Lot 1 60 feet / 4 stories (4)
Area 8 – Sakioka Lot 2
60 feet / 4 stories (2)(4)
180 feet / 12 stories (2)(4)
Notes:
(1) See North Costa Mesa Specific Plan.
(2) Buildings above 173 feet in height will require a determination of no hazard by the FAA. (3) Current development agreement allows buildings up to 15 stories. (4) Buildings which encroach into the setback for Anton Blvd. and/or Sakioka Dr. cannot exceed 30 feet (approx. 2 stories) within the setback area.
Source: North Costa Mesa Specific Plan (2016)
Costa Mesa Theater and Arts District Plan
The Costa Mesa Theater and Art District includes 54 acres of land located east of Bristol Street, south of Sunflower Avenue, west of Avenue of the Arts, and north of the San Diego Freeway. The specific plan area includes high-rise office buildings, cultural facilities, hotels, restaurants, and other commercial uses; it neighbors high-density residential developments. The goals of the plan are to:
Create a strong sense of place and awareness of a coherent identity for the Costa Mesa Theater and Arts District that will recognize existing cultural and corporate resources in the area and successfully integrate new resources as they are developed. Assist pedestrians and vehicle operators in reaching their destinations quickly and easily, and, once they are in the area, make information available that highlights additional points of attraction throughout the district.
Inform local, regional, national, and international communities about the Costa Mesa Theater and Arts District.
Support occasional programs and installations in the Costa Mesa Theater and arts District that will recognize the importance of culture and the arts in daily life.
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-29 Encourage appropriate interplay between policies that apply particularly to the Costa Mesa Theater Arts District and those policies that evolve in the City of Costa Mesa to serve regional needs. Improve communication and cooperation among area property owners in monitoring and fostering design and development within the district.
8. Housing for Persons with Disabilities
Both the Federal Fair Housing Amendment Act (FHAA) and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act require governments to make reasonable accommodations (that is, modifications or exceptions) in their zoning laws and other land use regulations to afford disabled persons an equal opportunity to housing.
State law also requires cities to analyze potential and actual constraints to the development, maintenance, and improvement of housing for persons with disabilities.
The Housing Element Update must also include programs that remove constraints or provide reasonable accommodations for housing designed for persons with disabilities. The analysis of constraints must touch upon each of three general categories: 1) zoning/land use; 2) permit and processing procedures; and 3) building codes and other factors, including design, location, and discrimination, which could limit the availability of housing for disabled persons.
Reasonable Accommodation
Reasonable accommodation in the land use and zoning context means providing individuals with disabilities or developers of housing for people with disabilities, flexibility in the application of land use and zoning and building regulations, policies, practices, and procedures, or even waiving certain requirements, when it is necessary to eliminate barriers to housing opportunities. For example, it may be reasonable to accommodate requests from persons with disabilities to waive a setback requirement or other standard of the Zoning Code to ensure that homes are accessible for the mobility impaired. Whether a particular modification is reasonable depends on the circumstances.
The Reasonable Accommodations Chapter of the City of Costa Mesa’s Municipal Code identifies the applicability and procedures needed to obtain relief from a Zoning Code provision, regulation, policy, or condition which may cause a barrier to equal opportunity for housing. This regulation applies to any person seeking approval to construct and/or modify residential housing for persons(s) with disabilities, and/or operate a residential care facility, group home, or referral facility, which will substantially serve persons with disabilities.
An application for a reasonable accommodation must be submitted to the City of Costa Mesa’s Planning Division and requires approval by the Development Services Director within 60 days of the application being deemed complete. A denied application may be appealed to the Planning Commission and is subject to the notice, review, approval, and appeal procedures prescribed for any other discretionary permit. There are no fees associated with the application and it must include:
The Zoning Code provision, regulation, policy, or condition from which accommodation is being requested;
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-30 The basis for the claim that the individuals are considered disabled under state or federal law, and why the accommodation is necessary to provide equal opportunity for housing and to make the specific housing available to the individual;
Any other information that the Director reasonably determines is necessary for evaluating the request; Documentation that the applicant is either an individual with a disability, applying on behalf of one or more individuals with a disability, or a developer or provider of housing for one or more individuals with a disability;
The specific exception or modification to the zoning code provision, policy, or practices requested; Documentation that the specific exception or modification requested by the applicant is necessary to provide one or more individuals with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the residence; and
Any other information that the hearing officer reasonably concludes is necessary to determine whether the grounds for reasonable accommodation can be made, so long as any request for information regarding the disability of the individual(s) benefited complies with fair housing law protections and the privacy rights of the individual(s) affected.
The following factors are considered during the review of the application:
Is the requested accommodation necessary to afford a disabled person an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling? To determine whether the accommodation is necessary, the director may consider, among other things: The nature of the disability including the special needs created by the disability, the physical attributes and setting of the property and structures, the potential benefit that can be accomplished by the requested accommodation, and alternative accommodations that may provide a comparable level of benefit. Is the requested accommodation reasonable? A requested accommodation is not reasonable if it would impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the City. It is also not reasonable if it would fundamentally alter a City program, such as the City’s zoning scheme. o In considering the financial or administrative burden on the City, the director may consider, among other things, the extent to which the City would have to dedicate resources, such as staff time and funds, to grant the request and other requests like it. o In considering the potential alteration to a City program, such as the City’s zoning scheme, the director may consider, among other things, whether granting the request would be consistent with the City’s General Plan, with the purpose and nature of the particular zoning district, and with nearby uses. The director may also consider whether the requested accommodation would potentially have adverse external impacts on properties in the vicinity.
The inherent constraints of any reasonable accommodation process are that the accommodation must be both “reasonable” and “necessary.” Each of these concepts are unavoidably subjective in some ways and entail a highly specific inquiry into a particular, typically unique, set of circumstances. Impacts to individuals and properties in the vicinity of any requested deviation from standards is a routine and appropriate factor to review in determining whether a particular accommodation requested is reasonable under all the Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-31 circumstances presented. The City has established Program 2N and has committed to as a primary objective to review and revise the “Reasonable Accommodation” procedure to promote access to housing for persons with disabilities, address potential constraints and establish potential objective standards. The revisions will also provide applicant guidance and amend as necessary to promote greater certainty on how approval findings will be implemented. Importantly, any revisions will be consistent with the requirements of State law, and to consider public comments to determine whether revisions can be made to minimize constraints in the process. In April 2026, the City approved amendments to its “Reasonable Accommodations” findings and procedures to promote access to housing for persons with disabilities, address potential constraints and establish greater certainty in approval findings.
Definition of Family
Under the right of privacy, the California Constitution prohibits a restrictive definition of “family” which limits the number of unrelated persons and differentiates between related and unrelated individuals living together. The City of Costa Mesa’s Municipal Code defines the term “family” as one or more persons occupying one dwelling unit and living together as a single housekeeping unit. The City also defines a “single housekeeping unit” as occupants which have established ties and familiarity with each other, jointly use common areas, interact with each other, share meals, household activities, and expenses and responsibilities. Membership in the single housekeeping unit must be fairly stable as opposed to transient, the members have some control over who becomes a member of the household, and the residential activities of the household are conducted on a nonprofit basis. The City also includes that there is a rebuttable presumption that integral facilities do not constitute single housekeeping units.
The City’s Municipal Code provides the following indicators that a household is not operating a single housekeeping unit:
The occupants do not share a lease agreement or ownership of the property; Members of the household have separate, private entrances from other members; Members of the household have locks on their bedroom doors; and/or Members of the household have separate food storage facilities, such as separate refrigerators.
The Courts have clearly distinguished between single housekeeping units and those of a more transient nature, such as boarding homes, motels, etc. The City’s code does not restrict single housekeeping units to those who are related, but does properly define a single housekeeping unit consistently with the law. State zoning law allows the city to establish zones of different residential density, such as R-1 (single family residential), R-2 (two unit/family residential), multi-family, mixed use, etc. The City’s definition of family does not touch on whether the members are disabled or not, is not based on and is not intended to discriminate against any based on different levels of ability or disability. The City has added Program 2O to review and revised the definition of single-housekeeping unit (which is language within the definition of family) to provide greater flexibility in consideration of accommodating a variety of household situations for related and unrelated individuals living together.
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-32
9. Development Fees
Residential developers are subject to a variety of fees and exactions to process permits and provide necessary services and facilities as allowed by State law. Development fees can be a constraint to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing because the added costs for developers results in higher housing unit costs. Development fees are, however, necessary to provide planning and public services. Table 3-9 provides the planning processing fees and Table 3-10 provides the engineering fees.
Table 3-9: Planning Processing Fees
Review Process Fee
ABC License Review $500
Administrative Adjustment $3,800
Address / Address Change $200
Appeal
Planning Commission
Decision
Located within 500 ft. of
project site $1,220
Located greater than 500 ft.
of project site $3,825
Non-Planning Commission
Decision
Located within 500 ft. of
project site $690
Located greater than 500 ft.
of project site $3,825
Banner Permit $25
CC&Rs Review $1,000
Certificate of Appropriateness $7,500
Certificate of Compliance $1,500
Conditional Use Permit $7,500
Conditional Use Permit – Measure X $27,508
Density Bonus Review $12,000
Design Review Minor $1,500
Major $3,800
Designating a Cultural Resource No fee
Development Agreement
Time and materials with
$20,000 min. deposit
Development Agreement
Annual Review
Planning Commission Review $1,425
City Council Review $1,875
Development Review (Staff) $1,500
Environmental Review / CEQA Total consultant contract
estimates plus 10%
Flood Zone Determination Letter $250
Gate Permits $500
General Plan Amendment Screening $5,000
General Plan Amendment $12,000
Home Occupation Permit (Planning Review) $100
Land Use Restriction $500
Lot Line Adjustment $1,500
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-33 Table 3-9: Planning Processing Fees
Review Process Fee
Master Plan $9,000
Master Plan Amendment
Minor Change $1,250
Minor Amendment $6,000
Major Amendment $7,500
Minor Modification $500
Minor Conditional Use Permit $3,800
Minor Design Review $1,500
Mixed-Use Development Plan Screening $5,000
Mobile Home Park
Applications
Mobile Home Park Conversion $7,500
Tenant Relocation (Staff Review) $5,000
Tenant Relocation (Third Party Review)
Total consultant contract
estimates plus 10%
Off-Site Hazardous Waste
Facility
Notice of Intent $5,000
Conditional Use Permit $12,000
Local Assessment Committee (Formation
and Convening) $5,000
Planned Signing Program $1,500
Plan Check
Commercial $250
Industrial $250
Residential – Minor, 4 or Less $250
Residential – Major, 5 or More $500
Landscape Plan Only $500
Pre-Application Review $1,500
Public Entertainment Permit $1,500
Public Notice (500-Foot Radius and Newspaper Publishing) $1.00 per mailing address plus publishing costs
Reasonable Accommodation No fee
Renewal/Time Extension
Director Action $500
Zoning Administrator Action $2,500
Planning Commission Action $3,800
Residential and Non-Residential Common Interest Development Conversion
$7,500 plus $115 per unit
for required building
inspection
Rezone $10,000
Second-Story Notification $500
Shared Parking Approval $500
Small Cell Facility Encroachment Permit – Planning Review $1,000 Special Use Permit $5,500
Specific Plan / Amendment $12,000
Specific Plan Conformity Review $9,000
Tentative Tract Map $6,000
Tentative Parcel Map $3,800
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-34 Table 3-9: Planning Processing Fees
Review Process Fee
Tree Removal Review / Tree Replacement Plan $500
Urban Master Plan Screening $10,000
Use Determination Letter $500
Variance $7,500
Zoning Verification Letter $250
Source: City of Costa Mesa Planning Processing Fee Schedule (2019) Table 3-10: Engineering Fees
Type Fee
Drainage Fee $6,283 - $11,309 per acre + storm drain upgrade Final Map Check Fee $90/hour
Off-Site Plan Check $90/hour
Street Improvement Plan Check Fee $90/hour
Deposit/bond – Off-Site Work Twice the amount of the cost estimate of off-site work Construction Access Permit $230
Curb and Gutter Permit $365
Driveway Approach $425
Sidewalk Approach $380
Wheelchair Ramp $365
Public Right-of-Way Inspection $125/hour
Source: City of Costa Mesa Development Fees (2019)
The City of Costa Mesa assesses impact fees on a project-by-project basis, taking into account the number of units proposed in the development and the impact these units may have on the local school district, parkland, circulation in the area, and sewage and water infrastructure. Table 3-11 provides the development impact fees as they relate to the development of housing in Costa Mesa.
Table 3-11: Development Impact Fees
Use Fee
Newport-Mesa Unified School District
Residential Developer Fees $1.84 per sq.ft. (additions under 500 sq.ft. may be exempt)
Transportation
Low Density Residential (9.41 ADT) $235 per net trip
Medium Density Residential (7.5 ADT) $235 per net trip
High Density Residential (6.85 ADT) $235 per net trip
Parkland
Single-Family Residential $13,572 per dwelling unit
Multi-Family Residential $13,829 per dwelling unit
Apartment $5,000 per dwelling unit
Costa Mesa Sanitary District
Small New Development Plan Check $420
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-35 Table 3-11: Development Impact Fees
Use Fee
Large New Development Plan Check $1,260
Single Family Residential
1 Bedroom $3,083
2 Bedrooms $4,029
3 bedrooms $4,973
4 Bedrooms $5,918
5+ Bedrooms $6,912
Multi-Family Residential
Studio $1,591
1 Bedroom $2,486
2 Bedrooms $3,482
3 bedrooms $4,426
4+ Bedrooms $5,371
San Juaquin Hill Trans. Corridor Agency
Single-Family Residential $4,448 per dwelling unit
Multi-Family Residential $2,595 per dwelling unit
Mesa Water District
Service Establishment Fee $20/account
Sources: City of Costa Mesa and Other Agencies Development Fees (2019) Newport-Mesa Unified School District Developer Fees
CMSD Sewer Connection Fees (2020)
The development fees associated with each project is dependent on the housing type, density, intensity of use, and location. In addition to these direct fees, the total cost of development is contingent on the project meeting the City’s policies and standards, as well as the project applicant submitting necessary documents and plans in a timely manner.
The estimated total development and impact fees for a typical single-family residential project, assuming it is not part of a subdivision and is consistent with existing city policies and regulations, can range from $40,069 to $45,069. Estimated total development and impact fees for a typical multi-family residential project with ten units, assuming it is consistent with existing city policies and regulations range from $303,008 to $308,008.
These estimates are illustrative in nature and actual costs are contingent upon unique circumstance inherent in individual development project applications. Considering the cost of land in Costa Mesa, and the International Code Council (ICC) estimates for cost of labor and materials, the combined costs of permits and fees range from approximately 3.98 percent to 4.48 percent of the direct cost of development for a single-family residential project and 4.27 percent to 4.34 percent for a multi-family residential project.
Direct costs do not include, landscaping, connection fees, on/off-site improvements, shell construction or amenities. The percentage of development and impact fees charged by the City may be smaller if all direct and indirect costs are included.
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-36
10. On-/Off-Site Improvements
Site improvements in the City consist of those typically associated with development for on-site improvements (street frontage improvements, curbs, gutters, sewer/water, and sidewalks), and off-site improvements caused by project impacts (drainage, parks, traffic, schools, and sewer/water). Because residential development cannot take place without the addition of adequate infrastructure, site improvement requirements are considered a regular component of development of housing within the City and may also influence the sale or rental price of housing. The majority of cost associated with on and offsite improvements is undertaken by the City and recovered in the City’s development and impact fees.
The Costa Mesa Municipal Code requires that all abutting public rights-of-way must be fully improved to the full extent possible as required through the Master Plan of Highways, adopted specific plans, or applicable code sections as directed by the Public Services Department. On-site improvements may include, but are not limited to, curbs, gutters, sewers/water, sidewalks, and undergrounding utility lines for housing developments with at least five units. For example, a project may be accompanied by a condition to upgrade an existing sidewalk. Larger multi-family residential developments may also be conditioned to improve an intersection as a response to the change in traffic patterns. The required public improvements standards are used to ensure that the existing roadways adjacent to new residential construction maintain or provide the appropriate right-of-way. Street work permits are required to authorize construction in these areas.
On- and off-site improvements in Costa Mesa do not pose a constraint for the development of housing.
Although these improvements create an additional cost, they also ensure adequate services and infrastructure for residents and existing uses. In addition, the improvements are site and project specific.
A multi-family project may require the addition of a sidewalk at a specific site, while the same project may not in a different location.
Subdivision Improvements
Title 13 Chapter XI of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code establishes on- and off-site improvements required for subdivisions. The Code states that subdividers must agree to improve all land dedicated for streets, highways, public ways, and easements as a condition precedent to acceptance and approval of a final map.
The improvements must include grading, surfacing, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, culverts, bridges, storm drains, water mains, and service connections to the property line with cutoff valves, sanitary sewers, and other structures or improvements which may be required by ordinance for the general use of the lot in the subdivision and for local neighborhood traffic and drainage needs.
Subdivision improvements may add development costs for developers. However, these subdivision improvements are consistent with that of neighboring communities. Additionally, all improvements required add to the livability, safety, and resources of future housing units. Such requirements do not pose an unreasonable constraint to development.
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-37
11. uilding Codes and Enforcement
The City of Costa Mesa’s construction codes are based upon the California Code of Regulations, Title 24 that includes the California Administrative Code, Building Code, Residential Code, Electrical Code, Mechanical Code, Plumbing Code, Energy Code, Historical Building Code, Fire Code, Existing Building Code, Green Building Standards Code, and California Referenced Standards Code. These are considered to be the minimum necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the City’s residents. In compliance with State law, the California Building Standards Code is revised and updated every three (3) years. The newest edition of the California Building Standards Code is the 2019 edition with an effective date of January 1, 2020.
Code enforcement is conducted by the City and is based on systematic enforcement in areas of concern and on a complaint basis throughout the city. The Code Enforcement Division works with property owners and renters to assist in meeting State health and safety codes. The Code Enforcement Division investigates complaints regarding violations of the Costa Mesa Municipal Codes. The City’s caseload is complaint-based, and deals with issues such as unpermitted structures, poor property maintenance, debris accumulation, and inappropriate storage of vehicles or materials with the intention and goal of working with the community to help resolve issues through voluntary compliance. On average, there are 1,292 total code enforcement cases generated per year.
12. Local Processing and Permit Procedures
The development community commonly cites the permit processing time as a contributor to the high cost of housing. Depending on the magnitude and complexity of the development proposal, the time that elapses from application submittal to project approval may vary considerably. Factors that can affect the length of development review on a proposed project include the completeness of the development application and the responsiveness of developers to staff comments and requests for information. Approval times are substantially lengthened for projects that are not exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), require rezoning or general plan amendments, or encounter community opposition.
Applicants for all permits or reviews are recommended to request a pre-application meeting with the respective department to: confirm City requirements as they apply to the proposed project; review the City’s review process, possible project alternatives or revisions; and identify information and materials the City will require with the application, and any necessary technical studies and information relating to the environmental review of the project. In April 2026, the City amended the Planning Applications chapter of the Zoning Code to streamline residential development application reviews. The City replaced the subjective design review process with objective development reviews, established objective design standards for multifamily and mixed-use development, and created a streamlined development review process. One-story residential projects in the R-1, R2-MD, R2-HD, and R3 zones, residential projects that qualify as “permitted by right” under State law, and projects with at least 20 percent of the residential units committed to rates affordable to lower income households are now processed through “Development Review, Streamlined.” This ministerial review was designed specifically to expedite housing approvals and facilitate affordable housing development.
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-38 All permit applications are first reviewed by City Staff for completeness, and discretionary applications must then receive a recommendation through a staff report prior to a review by the appropriate authority.
Various applications may also require public noticing and a public hearing. Table 3-12 identifies the appropriate review process for each planning permit application.
Table 3-12: Planning Application Review Process (March 2026) Planning Application
Public
Notice
Required
Public
Hearing
Required
Recommending
Authority
Final Review
Authority
Notice of
Decision
Streamlined Development Review No No None Planning Division No Development Review No No None Planning Division No Minor Modification Lot Line Adjustment No No None Planning Division No
Major Modification
Yes No None Zoning
Administrator Yes Minor Conditional Use Permit
Minor Design Review
Planned Signing Program
Design Review
Yes Yes Planning
Division
Planning
Commission Yes
Mobile Home Park Conversion
Common Interest Development
Conversion
Specific Plan Conformity Review
Tentative Parcel Map
Tentative Tract Map
Variance
Conditional Use Permit
Yes Yes Planning
Division
Planning
Commission (1) Yes Density Bonus
Master Plan
Master Plan – Preliminary
Rezone Yes Yes Planning
Commission City Council No
Local Register of Historic Places No No Planning
Commission (2) City Council Yes
Certificate of Appropriateness No No Planning
Commission (2)
Planning
Commission (3) No
Note:
(1) Except where noted otherwise in the Zoning Code.
(2) Or other commission/committee as designated by the City Council.
Source: City of Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29. Planning Application Review Process, amended March 2026.
Table 3-13 shows recent projects which received entitlement approval and the date applicants submitted for building permits. As shown, the gap between planning approval and building submittal ranges from about one week to a little over a year. Applicants may submit for building permits directly after the appeal period ends (the appeal period is seven days). Timing of submittals is dependent on applicants and may vary based on unique situations unrelated to City processes.
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-39 Table 3-13: Residential Project Entitlements
Application
Reference
Entitlement
Approval
Building Permit
Submittal Description
DR-18-13 09/10/2018 06/04/2019
(9 months)
Development Review for the construction of a new twostory residence with an attached two-car garage.
DR-18-07 10/02/2018
10/11/2018
(after end of
appeal period)
Development Review for the demolition of an existing
single-story residence, and the construction of a new,
two-story 2,523 sq. ft.
DR-18-12 10/04/2018 11/02/2018
(1 month)
Development Review for a new, two-story single family
residence (3,121 sq. ft.) with 4 bedrooms, 4.5 bathrooms and an attached two-car garage.
DR-18-16 01/07/2019 01/22/2019
(2 weeks)
Development Review for the demolition of an existing
attached garage structure and 2nd floor deck, to be
replaced with a new garage and 425 sq. ft. master
bedroom above. Interior work is limited to the 2nd floor master bedroom only
DR-19-03 06/26/2019
08/24/2020
(1 year 2
months) *
Development Review to construct a new two-story
residential unit (ADU) which consists of 1 bed, kitchen, family room, parlor and 2 baths. Total square footage is 1,196 sq. ft. Includes a new three car garage.
* The COVID-19 may have played a factor in delay of submitted plans. The City also had to adapt to taking in plans electronically.
Between 2017 and April 2022, the Planning Commission reviewed a total of 35 projects proposing 152 total housing units. The average entitlement processing for these projects was an average of 175 days from submittal (less than six months) to final entitlement approval with projects typically being approved in one hearing (only seven of the 35 projects had more than one hearing and none of the projects required more than two hearings). The City’s entitlement processing fees are flat rate fees, with any costs associated with project delays resulting from the costs associated with holding the land. All but three of the proposed projects received approval. The following details the reasoning behind the denial of the three projects (eight total units):
PA-16-68 (March 2017): 2-unit Small Lot Subdivision project Project did not meet the Residential Design Guidelines and was not compatible with the surrounding properties due to the large mass and scale of structures, lack of open space, and the side entryway design which resulted in a project closed itself off from the neighborhood. PA-16-20/ T-18034 (March 2018): Master Plan for 5-unit live/work development Proposed Master Plan does not meet the goals of the General Plan, 19 West Urban Plan and the Zoning Code in terms of design, site planning, integration of uses and structures and protection of the integrity of neighboring development. The project did not comply with live/work development standards such as setbacks and parking standards and the deviations from objective Code requirements requested by the applicant would have resulted in a project that was inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the General Plan and Urban Plan for the area.
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-40 PA-18-36/ ZA-18-40 (October 2018): Proposal does not meet minimum lot size development standards; applicant requested a Variance for ADU on an R1 property. Variance findings could not be made. ADU development standards have since been modified to remove minimum lot size requirements.
13. Applicable Residential Entitlement Approval Findings Indicated below are the applicable approval findings specified in the Costa Mesa Municipal Code for various residential project entitlements. In order to reduce processing time, and set clear application expectations, staff is trained to provide developers and applicants guidance for compliance with satisfying required findings. This guidance comes in the form of preliminary application reviews, creating and distributing residential development hand-outs (such as specific Residential Design Guidelines and FAQs), planning counter discussions, providing applicants with examples of successful project application submittals and various other types of staff/applicant assistance. In addition, the Planning Commission is regularly trained on the importance of adequately evaluating project findings and offerings project design modifications/solutions for project approval when the Commission believes that the findings are not being satisfied. As indicated further in this Section, very few residential projects have been denied in the last five years, which is an indicator of success for the aforementioned staff and Planning Commission residential development efforts.
Conditional Use Permit Findings.
The proposed development or use is substantially compatible with developments in the same general area and would not be materially detrimental to other properties within the area; Granting the conditional use permit or minor conditional use permit will not be materially detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the public or otherwise injurious to property or improvements within the immediate neighborhood; and Granting the conditional use permit or minor conditional use permit will not allow a use, density or intensity, which is not in accordance with the general plan designation and any applicable specific plan for the property.
Master Plan Findings.
The master plan meets the broader goals of the general plan, any applicable specific plan, and the Zoning Code by exhibiting excellence in design, site planning, integration of uses and structures and protection of the integrity of neighboring development; As applicable to affordable multi-family housing developments, the project complies with the maximum density standards allowed pursuant to the general plan and provides affordable housing to low or very-low income households, as defined by the California Department of Housing and Community Development. The project includes long-term affordability covenants in compliance with state law.
In its analysis, Costa Mesa reviewed the approval findings listed above that are applicable to residential projects and found that some contain language which may be interpreted broadly. For example, the first Master Plan finding requires that projects exhibit excellence in design. The master plan process applies to Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-41 specific areas of the City where flexibility in development standards is offered through the master plan process due to unique circumstances in the area and to promote revitalization and flexibility necessary to accommodate differing types of residential development within the city. As it is a process used to modify approved development standards, the City reviews development project Master Plans to promote a high quality of life for future residents at all income levels, as well as compatibility with surrounding development. Further, no project has been denied on the basis of not being able to meet these specific findings. Nevertheless, the City understands that approval findings should be clear to applicants and strives to promote quality development within the community. In an effort to further clarify this process, The City included Program 3S, committing to review and revise required findings. To implement this program, the City has approved amendments to the permit review process, including replacing the design review process with more streamlined review pathways. These amendments allow more projects to be reviewed at the staff level, reduce subjectivity, and provide greater clarity and certainty in the development review process.
C. Infrastructure Constraints
Another factor that may constrain new residential construction is the requirement and cost to provide adequate infrastructure (major and local streets; water and sewer lines; and street lighting) needed to serve new residential development. In most cases, where new infrastructure is required, it is funded by the developer and then dedicated to the City, which is then responsible for its maintenance. Because the cost of these facilities is generally borne by developers, it increases the cost of new construction, with much of that increased cost often “passed on” as part of home rental or sales rates.
1. Water Supply
The Mesa Water District is responsible for providing safe, local, and reliable water to 110,000 customers in Costa Mesa, as well as some parts of Newport Beach and unincorporated areas of Orange County. Mesa Water pumps water from Orange County’s groundwater basin, which is located beneath north-central Orange County between Irvine and the Los Angeles County border and from Yorba Linda to the Pacific Ocean. The groundwater basin derives its water from the Santa Ana River and imported water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. Mesa Water does not depend on other water sources, however, water from Northern California and the Colorado River can be imported as necessary.
In addition to Mesa Water District, a small portion of the City to the east, south of the John Wayne Airport, receives its water from the Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD). Approximately 50 percent of the IRWD water supply is derived from the Orange County Groundwater Basin. The remaining amount comes from recycled water (23 percent) and potable water imported from MWD (27 percent).
2. Water Production
The independent special district pumps, treats, and delivers about 5 billion gallons of drinking water to homes and businesses per year. The system includes 317 miles of pipeline, 7 wells, 2 reservoirs and the Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-42 Mesa Water Reliability Facility (MWRF/ “Murph”). The MWRF features 2 deep-water wells, a million-gallon reservoir and nanofiltration technology for water treatment. 1
3. Water Quality
Mesa Water provides safe, drinking water to the community and is considered the most efficient water provider of the 10 Orange County water districts. The water is naturally filtrated through sand and gravel as the Orange County groundwater basin is replenished from the Santa Ana River. Before it enters the distribution system, the water is treated and disinfected with chloramines, which include chlorine and ammonia. In addition to the groundwater, Mesa Water also uses source water from the MWRF, which is safe to drink prior to treatment but has an amber tint. Nanofiltration technology is used to remove the tint prior to adding it to the water supply. 1
In the event of an emergency, Mesa Water would be provided with water from the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC), which sources its water from the State Water Project and the Colorado River.
The imported water is filtered at Metropolitan’s Diemer and Weymouth Filtration Plants where the water is also disinfected with chloramines.
According to Mesa Water District and the City of Costa Mesa Conservation Element, access to water does pose a constraint to the development of housing in the City. Mesa Water District has adopted and regularly updates an Urban Water Management Plan in order to ensure an adequate supply of water for the following 5 years, and the District continuously maintains the reservoir, water mains, and wells. Through continued community outreach and water conservation strategies, the City and the District are able to conserve more water than before – customers have reduced their water usage by 20 percent since 20152 .
4. Wastewater
Wastewater includes used water, solids, storm water, surface water, groundwater infiltration, and used water from industrial processes, which flows to a treatment plant. Costa Mesa Sanitary District (CMSD) oversees 224.2 miles of gravity sewer mains and, as of 2019, a total of 47,471 connections to single-family residences, multi-family residences, commercial properties, and industrial properties. The District continuously cleans the collection system and uses closed circuit televising (CCTV) to identify problems and ensure quick maintenance. Twenty (20) sewer pumps are located throughout the collection system to maintain gravity flow and continuously report data to the headquarters. Standby generators and bypass pumps are also used in case of emergency. Wastewater collected by CMSD is sent to and treated at the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD)3
.
Wastewater does not pose a constraint on the development of housing in the City. Given the sufficient infrastructure, access to services, and continuous maintenance, CMSD is confident it can continue to serve 1 Mesa Water District
2 Mesa Water District
3 Costa Mesa Sanitary District
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-43 the Costa Mesa community through the addition of more housing. Furthermore, CMSD has developed a Sewer Management Plan which ensures the District avoids sewage spills and maintains adequate facilities.
5. Fire and Emergency Services
The City of Costa Mesa's Fire & Rescue Department aims to protect life, property, and the environment using highly trained professionals committed to service excellence. Across six fire stations and City Hall, the Department has 94 full-time employees, 84 sworn positions, ten non-sworn positions, and the equivalent of one full-time position with part-time staff to provide 24-hour protection and response to the community's residents, businesses, and visitors. The Costa Mesa Fire & Rescue Department is an "all-risk" and “all-hazard” organization.
Fire Administration Division
The Fire Administration Division provides direction for strategic, operational, and emergency planning through the following:
Establish policies and procedures;
Coordinate internal functions of all divisions, programs, and external functions with other City departments and community organizations;
Develop and manage the budget;
Coordinate ordering and purchasing;
Manage the Department's human resources;
Coordinate additional functions and performs duties as delegated by the City Manager or the City Council;
Continue to manage and safeguard the City’s rights for local control, including the Emergency Medical Services (EMS) system, as expressly guaranteed by the Health & Safety Code Section 1797.201.
Operations Division
This Division manages Fire, Rescue, and Emergency Medical Services and maintains constant readiness to answer calls for assistance. The Division is tasked with responding to fire, rescue, and environmental emergencies that threaten life, health, and property. The Division also provides fire cause and origin determinations, life and safety inspections, and educational programs. To support these services, the Division offers the following services: emergency planning, communications, training and education, equipment maintenance and repair, supplies, records, and quality control.
Community Risk Reduction Division
This Division works to prevent and reduce risks to the community by enforcing protections standards and fire and life safety codes through fire prevention, planning, and code enforcement. The Department achieves such goals by doing the following:
Reviewing building construction plans;
Conducting building construction and business inspections; Investigating citizen complaints;
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-44 Monitoring the City's hazardous materials disclosure program as Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) liaison to the Orange County Environmental Health Division; Providing training to department personnel regarding fire and life safety codes; and Assisting professional trades with technical fire code requirements and department public education efforts.
Community risk reduction and fire prevention strategies are critical components for new development projects and throughout the life of the building. During the entitlement and pre-construction phases of a new building or tenant improvement project, the CRR team applies the California Fire Code (CFC) and locally adopted amendments to building and fire system plan review to ensure conformance to state and international standards. Once plans are reviewed and approved and building permits are issued, Fire Protection Specialists perform technical inspections and acceptance tests of fire protection systems and building construction for Fire & Life Safety compliance. After the Certificate of Occupancy is issued for a new building or tenant improvement, Annual Operational Fire Permits are issued based on the hazard of the use, and Company Inspections are conducted to complete emergency response pre-planning operations and verify ongoing compliance with the CFC.
Fire and Emergency Services provide sufficient services which would not cause a strain on the Department's ability to respond to community emergencies. The City recognizes in its General Plan Safety Element that additional emergency services and funding will be required as the population ages and additional residents and employees come to the City; however, this is addressed and maintained in the Safety Element's goals and policies. The existing six facilities are spread out throughout the City in such a way to provide the fastest service possible; the Department aims to respond to at least 80 percent of emergency calls within 5 minutes. In addition, no part of Costa Mesa lies within a State Responsibility Area (SRA), which indicates a fire hazard area, nor the very High Fire Severity Zone4 .
6. Police Services
The Police Department is tasked with protecting life and property while preserving the peace. As of 2020, the department has 215 full-time positions, of which 138 are sworn and 77 are professional staff. Full-time staffing is composed of 13 management positions, 32 supervisory, and 170 line-level positions. Part-time staffing consists of 21.21 full-time equivalents. The department is comprised of three divisions and each division is further split into bureaus and units.
The three divisions are as follows:
Police Administration
Police Field Operations
Police Support Services
Administration Division
The Administration Division is responsible for the department's overall direction and planning with input from other divisions; provides advice to the city manager and the City Council on public safety issues; 4 Costa Mesa Safety Element
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-45 manages the department budget and financial planning; oversees the department's Volunteer Program and Citizens' Academy through the Crime Prevention Unit; maintains and updates the department's policy and procedures manual; coordinates and disseminates information to the media; provides internal investigation services through the Professional Standards Unit; and supervises training and recruitment.
Administration is comprised of the following bureaus and units:
Professional Standards
Public Affairs & Crime Prevention
Training & Recruitment
The Office of Emergency Management
(OEM)
Field Operations Division
The Field Operations Division provides public safety services through both geographic-based and community-oriented policing. In January 2008, the Costa Mesa Police Department (CMPD) implemented geographic-based policing, which divided the City into two areas, based upon calls for service and geographical boundaries. Each area is overseen by a lieutenant who is the designated area commander for either Area 1 or Area 2. The area commanders are responsible for the delivery of police services to the communities within the designated geographical area. Field Operations is comprised of three bureaus:
Patrol Services
Traffic Safety
Field Operations Administration
Within the three bureaus, there are various specialized units that provide specific police services. They include Patrol, Traffic Safety, Community Policing Unit, South Coast Plaza Detail, K9 Unit, Reserve Program and Park Rangers.
Support Services Division
The Support Services Division is responsible for specialized investigations and provides essential logistical support services to the Police Department. It is responsible for computer-related activities associated with the 24-hour operation of the City’s public safety computer system; and responsible for the research and development of numerous programs, including safety equipment, new laws and regulations, and policy development. Support Services is comprised of the following bureaus:
Investigative Services Bur
Records and Evidence
Telecommunications
The City contracts with G4S Secure Solutions (USA) Inc. for jail services and the City of Huntington Beach for airborne law enforcement services.
D. Environmental Constraints
The City of Costa Mesa contains a variety of natural landscapes and environmental features, which may cause constraints to the development of housing. The City is located approximately one mile from the Pacific Ocean, directly alongside the Santa Ana River, and atop an uplifted mesa. As with most of California Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-46 cities, the City of Costa Mesa sits along major fault lines. In total, the City is susceptible to a variety of environmental hazards that could affect housing, including fires, flooding, and geological and seismic hazards. However, the City has analyzed all housing element sites including sites identified as part of the initial housing element submittal and new sites added as part of this current 2026 amendment, and found that no known environmental or other conditions pose a constraint to or preclude development of housing on identified sites during the planning period.
1. Geologic and Seismic Hazards
According to the Costa Mesa Safety Element of the General Plan, geologic risks are defined as those associated with geological hazards such as seismically induced surface rupture, ground shaking, ground failure, tsunamis, seiches and dam failure, and slope instability leading to mudslides, landslides, and subsidence. The specific geological hazards that may affect the development of housing the City are detail below.
2. Mineral Resources
The City is located over portions of the West Newport Oil Field, particularly on the west side. The Safety Element of the General Plan identifies 15 active oil wells located west of Irvine Avenue, east of the City boundary with Huntington Beach, north of 16th Street, and south of Baker Street. Another 132 oil wells exist in the City; however, they are either plugged and abandoned, idle, or buried.
In addition to oil, peat deposits have been found adjacent to the Santa Ana River. While the quantity does not justify extraction, it is an unstable base for construction and requires removal prior to development.
This may create a constraint to the development of housing as it creates additional costs to remove the peat deposits.
3. Seismic Hazards
The City of Costa Mesa is located near several active earthquake faults such as the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone and the San Joaquin Hills Fault Zone, which would prove the most damaging to the City in the event of an earthquake. Other faults such as the San Andreas, Whittier, Elsinore, Palos Verdes, and Puente Hills Faults are located further away and would potentially cause less direct damage to the City’s infrastructure, depending on the magnitude of the quake. The Safety Element notes indirect impact to the City resulting from a severe quake of one of these faults, particularly the San Andreas Fault, includes the need to provide aid, an infusion of households seeking housing, and mass care and sheltering services.
The General Plan Safety Element defines ground shaking as resulting from seismic activity which may be intensified depending on the recorded magnitude and duration of the quake, proximity to the ruptured fault, and the presence of deeper soft soils below the ground surface. The Newport-Inglewood Fault runs directly through the City; the largest quake from this fault was in 1933 at a recorded magnitude of 6.3 on the Richter scale. The San Joaquin Hills Fault is located near Huntington Beach and it is estimated a rupture of this blind thrust fault could result in a magnitude 7.3 quake. The third most likely seismic hazard to the City of Costa Mesa is from the San Andreas Fault, which is expected to produce a magnitude 6.8 to 8 quake in the near future. While the fault is located approximately 48 miles from the City, a quake from the fault Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-47 may result in simultaneous ruptures of nearby faults. The Safety Element notes a major earthquake occurs on this zone approximately every 145 years; 2002 marked 145 years since the last major rupture.
Given the extent of seismically active areas in California, any new residential structures will face potential hazards. The location of the City of Costa Mesa on relatively flat land improves enable it to provide a safer location for development in comparison to neighboring cities with steep slopes or along the Pacific Ocean. Therefore, seismic activity in Costa Mesa does not create a burden or constraint to the development of housing.
4. Flood Hazards
The City of Costa Mesa and surrounding areas are, like most of Southern California, subject to unpredictable seasonal rainfall, and every few years the region is subjected to periods of intense and sustained precipitation that result in flooding. Flooding can be a destructive natural hazard and is a recurring event. A flood is any relatively high streamflow overtopping the natural or artificial banks in any reach of a stream. The City of Costa Mesa’s Safety Element Identifies 100-year and 500-year flood zones in the City. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood zones are geographic areas that the FEMA has defined according to varying levels of flood risk. Each zone reflects the severity or type of flooding in the area.5
The 100-year flood zone are areas with a one percent annual chance of flooding, the 500-year flood zones are areas with a 0.2 percent annual chance of flooding. The City’s Safety Element cites 100- year floods as potentially having low impacts on the City with minimal flooding in the channels adjacent to Talbert Nature Preserve. A 500-year flood would pose flooding dangers to the northern and western boundaries of the City.
With increased development, there is also an increase in impervious surfaces, such as asphalt. Water that used to be absorbed into the ground becomes runoff to downstream areas. However, various flood control measures help mitigate flood damage in the City, including reservoirs in the San Joaquin Hills and Santa Ana Mountain foothills, and channel alterations for the Santa Ana River. These structures help regulate flow in the Santa Ana River, San Diego Creek, and smaller streams and hold back some of the flow during intense rainfall period that could otherwise overwhelm the storm drain system in Costa Mesa.
Figure 3-2 illustrates the flood zones within the City of Costa Mesa in relation to the proposed sites selected for future housing. There are two housing sites that are adjacent to a 100-year flood zone channel running between the two sites. The majority of the sites are located within the 500-year flood zone. The 500-year flood zone is considered an area of minimal flood hazard and does not present a constraint on the development of housing as the sites are located within an existing developed context. Additionally, all housing sites including new sites identified as part of the 2026 amendment are serviced by the City’s emergency services.
5 FEMA Flood Zone Designations, Natural resources Conservation Service – Field Office Technical Guides Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-48 Figure 3-2: Flood Zones and Identified Sites Map
Sources: FEMA, Flood Zones SCAG, published by Southern California Association of Governments, 2019, accessed December 2021.
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-49
5. Dam Inundation
Costa Mesa and numerous other Orange County cities are protected from flooding by both the Santiago Creek Dam and the Prado Dam. The Santiago Creek Dam serves to protect from flooding of the Irvine Lake, approximately 15 miles from the City. While it historically provided irrigation for agriculture, the water is now protected within the reservoir and downstream flow only occurs from seepage and storm water. The Prado Dam is located approximately 30 miles from the City and is continuously improved and maintained by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Recent improvements to the dam have added 190 years of protection.
However, should failure occur to either of the dams, flooding would likely occur in the northern and western portions of the City. Such a flood would cause varying degrees of damage to structures north of the San Diego Freeway (I-405) and up to approximately one-mile east of the Santa Ana River. The threat of flooding in these areas due to dam failure is a constraint on the development of housing.
6. Sea Level Rise
Sea level rise is an important consequence of anthropogenic climate change – resulting from human activity – to coastal communities. Sea level rise may affect Costa Mesa through flooding in low-lying areas, water infiltration into sanitary sewer and storm drain systems, and earthquake-induced tsunami flooding. The City’s location along the Santa Ana River places it at risk of these impacts; the City’s Safety Element identifies areas to the west of the City, near Talbert Regional Park and Fairview Park, that will become inundated by unimpeded Pacific coastal flooding under a scenario of 100-year flood with a 55-inch (1.4 meters) sea level rise. A 100-year flood risk does not pose significant risk to developments in the City and would likely result in flooding within the channels adjacent to the Talbert Nature Preserve; however, a 500-year flood event would cause significant flooding in the northern and west regions of the City and therefore poses a minimal constraint on housing development. The potential hazard is minimal as the chances of a 500-year floor occurring each year is 0.2 percent.
7. Fire Hazards
The Costa Mesa Safety Element determines the fire hazard severity of an area by the amount and type of vegetation, slope gradient, and weather. Wildfires are particularly prone during late summer and early fall, and during Santa Ana wind events. The Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire) does not list any area within Costa Mesa as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. The most likely fire risk within the City comes from urban and grassland fires in open spaces, such as Talbert Regional Park. A direct threat from fire is not a significant risk for housing development in Costa Mesa; poor air quality from local and State fires, however, may pose significant health risks to the Costa Mesa population.
Figure 3-3 maps the fire hazard severity zones identified within the City in relation to the proposed sites for future housing. Based on the map there are no fire hazard severity zones within the City of Costa Mesa.
As there are no fire hazard severity zones identified within the City, fire is not considered a major hazard or constraint to the development of housing.
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-50 Figure 3-3: Fire Hazard Severity Zones and Proposed Sites Source: VHFHSV in LRA, Cal Fire, November 2011.
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-51 E. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
Beginning January 1, 2019, AB 686 established new requirements for all California jurisdictions to ensure that local laws, programs, and activities affirmatively further fair housing. All Housing Elements due on or after January 1, 2021, must contain an Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) consistent with the core elements of the analysis required by the federal Affirmatively Further Fair Housing Final Rule of July 16, 2015.
Fair housing is a condition in which individuals of similar income levels in the same housing market have like ranges of choice available to them regardless of race, color, ancestry, national origin, age, religion, sex, disability, marital status, familial status, source of income, sexual orientation, or any other arbitrary factor.
Under State law, affirmatively further fair housing means “taking meaningful actions, in addition to combatting discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics. These characteristics can include, but are not limited to race, religion, sec, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familiar status, or disability.
The Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (Impediments Analysis), prepared for the County of Orange, examines local housing conditions, economics, policies, and practices in order to ensure that housing choices and opportunities for all residents are available in an environment free from discrimination. The (Impediments Analysis) assembles fair housing information, identifies any existing impediments that limit housing choice, and proposes actions to mitigate those impediments. The Regional (Impediments Analysis) examines fair housing issues in the County’s unincorporated areas and cooperating cities from 2020 to 2024, it includes additional fair housing issues and data for the City of Costa Mesa.
1. Needs Assessment
The (Impediments Analysis) contains a Countywide analysis of demographic, housing, and specifically fair housing issues in the City of Costa Mesa. The City's demographic and income profile, household and housing characteristics, housing cost and availability, and special needs populations were discussed in the previous Chapter 2: Community Profile.
Analysis of Impediments Outreach FY 2019-2024
As a part of the Regional Analysis for the County, a series of outreach workshops and events were hosted, including the following:
Outreach by the Lawyers’ Committee to tenants, landlords, homeowners, fair housing organizations, civil rights and advocacy organizations, legal services provers, social services providers, housing developers, and industry groups;
Stakeholder and focus group meetings organized by the Lawyers’ Committee in Mission Viejo, Westminster/Garden Grove, Santa Ana, and Fullerton;
Community meetings across Orange County with additional outreach to members of protected classes, including the Latino and Vietnamese communities; and Virtual public hearings and City Council meetings.
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-52 Of the fair housing impediments listed in the Regional AI, the City of Costa Mesa was identified as experiencing the following local contributing factors as impediments to fair housing choice:
Housing Discrimination
Racial and Ethnic Segregation
Unfair Lending
Overcrowding
Local contributing factors are detailed further below in Section E.4 “Assessment of Contributing Factors to Fair Housing.”
Fair Housing Issues
Within the legal framework of federal and state laws and based on the guidance provided by the HUD Fair Housing Planning Guide, impediments to fair housing choice can be defined as:
Any actions, omissions, or decisions taken because of age, race, color, ancestry, national origin, age, religion, sex, disability, marital status, familial status, source of income, sexual orientation, or any other arbitrary factor which restrict housing choices or the availability of housing choices; or Any actions, omissions, or decisions which have the effect of restricting housing choices or the availability of housing choices on the basis of age, race, color, ancestry, national origin, age, religion, sex, disability, marital status, familial status, source of income, sexual orientation, or any other arbitrary factor.
As a part of the 2019-2024 AI, the County identified fair housing impediments including the following:
Housing Discrimination Racial and Ethnic Segregation Reasonable Accommodations Unfair Lending
Density Bonus Incentive Discriminatory Advertising
Zoning Cost Burden
Affordable Homeownership Accessibility
Fair Housing Laws
All jurisdictions across California are subject to a number of fair housing laws. The following section details how the City of Costa Mesa maintains compliance with the listed laws. More specific laws are detailed throughout this Chapter 3 (such as Senate Bill 330 and Assembly Bill 686), and programs in the Housing Plan specify which Legislature is addressed.
California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA): The FEHA provides employees with protection from discrimination, retaliation, and harassment in employment, as well as protects tenants or homeowners from discrimination from landlords, real estate agents, home sellers, builders, and mortgage lenders. The City reviews fair housing complaints and lending patterns – details on both are provided within this Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing section. The City also implements and updates programs to promote fair and equal access to housing. Lastly, the City continues to review standards and requirements that may constrain equal access to housing and the development of affordable housing.
Government Code Section 65008: This Legislature protects lower- and moderate-income households and persons experiencing homelessness from discrimination that inhibits affordable Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-53 units and emergency shelters. The following programs address the development of affordable units and emergency shelters: Programs 2B, 2J, 4A, 4B, 4C, 4E, and 4F. Government Code Section 8899.50: This Legislature establishes the requirement for jurisdictions to administer programs and activities that affirmatively further fair housing. Program 4A establishes actions the City will commit to throughout the 6th Planning Cycle to affirmatively further fair housing.
Government Code Section 11135: This legislation protects residents of the State of California from discrimination on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, ethnic group identification, age, mental disability, physical disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, or sexual orientation. Through the Housing Element, the City assesses potential constraints that inhibit all residents from accessing housing and resources. The Housing Plan contains a number of programs that provide for greater access to a variety of housing types for all income levels, promotion of information and resources to special needs groups, and continued review of City permits and processing for streamlining and removal of constraints. Government Code Section 65863 (No-Net-Loss Law): This Legislature establishes guidance on NoNet-Loss requirements. Jurisdictions are required to maintain adequate sites to accommodate its RHNA at each income category throughout the entirety of the Planning Cycle. Program 3A is included to address the requirements of this Legislature. Density Bonus Law: The City has an adopted Density Bonus Ordinance. Program 2I is included in the Housing Plan to ensure the Ordinance maintains compliance with State Density Bonus Law.
Chapter 3.B.2 provides details on incentives and concessions granted to qualifying projects through the Density Bonus Ordinance.
Housing Element Law: All California jurisdictions are required to adequately plan for the needs of their current and future population. All policies and programs included in the Housing Plan are included to maintain compliance with all California housing laws and to comply with the California State Department of Housing and Community Development’s requirements for Housing Elements.
Lending Patterns
Availability of financing affects a person’s ability to purchase or improve a home. The analysis of the lending patterns and practices within a community or city help to identify persons who regularly experience disproportionate roadblocks to home ownership. Table 3-14 below identifies the lending patterns by race and ethnicity, as well as income category for the Anaheim-Santa Ana-Irvine MSA. According to the data, applicant in the highest income category were more likely to have a loan approved, compared to applicants in the lower income categories where approval rates were consistently under 55 percent. Additionally, within each income category, applicants who identified as White consistently had higher rates of approval than applicant of color. Overall, applicants who identified as Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, American Indian/Alaska Native, and Black/African American had the lowest rates of loan approval in all income categories.
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-54 Table 3-14: Disposition of Loan Applications by Race/Ethnicity– Anaheim-Santa Ana-Irvine MSA Applications by Race/Ethnicity Percent
Approved
Percent
Denied
Percent
Other
Total
(Count)
LESS THAN 50% OF MSA/MD MEDIAN
American Indian and Alaska Native 26.2% 52.3% 23.1% 65
Asian 33.9% 42.5% 26.7% 1,382
Black or African American 41.6% 33.7% 25.8% 89
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 25.0% 44.2% 30.8% 52 White 45.6% 31.2% 26.1% 5,240
Hispanic or Latino 37.9% 38.2% 26.8% 1,566
50-79% OF MSA/MD MEDIAN
American Indian and Alaska Native 38.1% 34.0% 29.9% 97
Asian 53.3% 25.3% 29.4% 3,153
Black or African American 43.4% 19.1% 41.4% 152
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 49.4% 39.8% 16.9% 83 White 54.5% 23.3% 27.6% 8,677
Hispanic or Latino 47.6% 27.7% 29.3% 3,245
80-99% OF MSA/MD MEDIAN
American Indian and Alaska Native 51.4% 25.7% 31.4% 35
Asian 59.5% 19.2% 29.3% 1,495
Black or African American 52.9% 22.1% 30.9% 68
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 43.5% 13.0% 43.5% 23 White 61.9% 17.2% 26.1% 3,873
Hispanic or Latino 54.0% 21.4% 29.1% 1,347
100-119% OF MSA/MD MEDIAN
American Indian and Alaska Native 48.9% 22.7% 29.5% 88
Asian 62.3% 15.6% 28.8% 4,820
Black or African American 55.6% 20.1% 28.6% 234
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 49.4% 27.6% 31.0% 87 White 66.2% 13.8% 25.1% 12,607
Hispanic or Latino 60.8% 16.4% 26.8% 3,398
120% OR MORE OF MSA/MD MEDIAN
American Indian and Alaska Native 59.2% 13.0% 32.0% 169 Asian 62.8% 12.9% 29.0% 17,800
Black or African American 57.7% 17.3% 27.2% 624
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 64.2% 11.4% 26.8% 254 White 68.3% 11.3% 24.9% 49,811
Hispanic or Latino 64.6% 13.3% 26.7% 6,095
Source: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Disposition of loan applications, by Ethnicity/Race of applicant, 2019.
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-55 Hate Crimes
Hate crimes are violent acts against people, property, or organizations because of the group to which they belong or identify with. The Federal Fair Housing Act makes it illegal to threaten, harass, intimidate, or act violently toward a person who has exercised their right to free housing choice. In Orange County, there were a total of 9 hate crimes reported in 2019. Table 3-15 below identifies the reported hate crimes in Costa Mesa between 2014 and 2019. Data for hate crimes reported in Costa Mesa was not available by bias for the years 2014-2016 and 2018. However, in 2017 and 2019 a total of 5 hate crimes were reported in the City, all of which were motivated by race, ethnicity, or ancestry.
Table 3-15: Reported Hate Crimes by Bias Motivation for City of Costa Mesa (2014-2019) Year Race/Ethnicity/
Ancestry Religion Sexual Orientation Disability Gender Gender Identity Total 2014 NA NA NA NA NA NA 0
2015 NA NA NA NA NA NA 0
2016 NA NA NA NA NA NA 0
2017 2 0 0 0 0 0 2
2018 NA NA NA NA NA NA 0
2019 3 0 0 0 0 0 3
2020 7 0 1 0 0 0 8
Total 12 0 1 0 0 0 13
Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reporting. Hate Crime Statistics Report, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019.
Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach Capacity
The City of Costa Mesa utilizes the Fair Housing Foundation. The Fair Housing Foundation was formed in 1964 to support and promote freedom of residence through education, advocacy, and litigation, to ensure that all persons have the opportunity to secure safe and decent housing that they desire and can afford.
The Fair Housing Foundation is dedicated to eliminating discrimination in housing and promoting equal access to housing choices for everyone.
The City of Costa Mesa has identified the following goals regarding fair housing in collaboration with the Fair Housing Foundation:
Provide fair housing education and information to apartment managers and homeowner associations on why denial of reasonable modifications/accommodations is unlawful. Conduct multi-faceted fair housing outreach to tenants, landlords, property owners, realtors, and property management companies. Methods of outreach may include workshops, informational booths, presentations to community groups, and distribution of multi-lingual fair housing literature.
There are no current fair housing lawsuits within Costa Mesa. The City analyzed data from the Costa Mesa Fair Housing Action Plan from the 2016/2017 reporting period to 2020/2021 and found the following relating to outreach and engagement, property management trainings, fair housing issues, and fair housing allegations as well as how they were resolved:
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-56 Fair Housing Action Plan 2016/2017 Summary:
The Fair Housing Foundation (FHF) conducted 2 tenant & 2 landlord workshops. FHF conducted 2 certificate property managers training. FHF provided fair housing related serves to 204 unduplicated households: 77.5% of calls came from tenants, 6.4% from property owners & 5.4% from landlords/managers. FHF addressed 230 housing issues; top 3 issues were habitability (21%), notices (27%) & lease terms & rent increase (tied at 8% each).
18 fair housing allegations were received by FHF regarding mental & physical disability (14) familial status (3), race (2) & gender (1). 11 allegations were resolved via counseling & 7 cases opened; no evidence was found to sustain 4 allegation, 1 investigation was inconclusive, 1 allegation was sustained & 1 case is pending.
FHF provided over 4,600 pieces of fair housing literature in English, Spanish and Vietnamese.
Fair Housing Action Plan 2017/2018 Summary:
The Fair Housing Foundation (FHF) conducted 2 tenant & 2 landlord workshops. FHF conducted 2 certificate property managers training. FHF provided fair housing related serves to 206 unduplicated households: 82.5% of calls came from tenants, 4.9% from property owners & 5.8% from landlords/managers. FHF addressed 241 housing issues; top 3 issues were notices (22%) habitability (20%) & deposits (12.5%).
12 fair housing allegations were received by FHF regarding mental & physical disability (10) familial status (1) & race (1). 7 allegations were resolved via counseling & 5 cases opened; no evidence was found to sustain 2 allegations 1 investigation was inconclusive & 1 case is pending. FHF provided over 3,700 pieces of fair housing literature in English, Spanish and Vietnamese.
Fair Housing Action Plan 2018/2019 Summary:
The Fair Housing Foundation (FHF) conducted 1 tenant & 1 landlord workshop. FHF conducted 1 certificate property managers training. FHF provided fair housing related serves to 178 unduplicated households: 86.0% of calls came from tenants, 2.8% from property owners & 3.9% from landlords/managers. FHF addressed 198 housing issues; top 3 issues were habitability (27%), notices (21%) & deposits (9%). 19 fair housing allegations were received by FHF regarding mental & physical disability (14), gender (1), race (2), national origin (1), & sexual orientation (1). 16 allegations were resolved via counseling & 3 cases opened; no evidence was found to sustain 1 allegation. Allegations were sustained in 2 cases and resolved through conciliation and education. FHF provided over 1,600 pieces of fair housing literature in English, Spanish and Vietnamese.
Fair Housing Action Plan 2019/2020 Summary:
The Fair Housing Foundation (FHF) conducted 1 Fair Housing Workshop. FHF provided fair housing related serves to 153 unduplicated households: 91.5% of calls came from tenants, 3.2% from property owners & .6% from landlords/managers. FHF addressed 167 housing issues; top 3 issues were habitability (22.1%), notices (14.3%) & lease terms (8.9%).
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-57 14 fair housing allegations were received by FHF regarding mental & physical disability (12), national origin (1), & familial status (1). 11 allegations were resolved via counseling & 3 cases opened; no evidence was found to sustain 1 allegation. Allegations were sustained in 2 cases and resolved through conciliation and education.
FHF provided over 2,803 pieces of fair housing literature in English, Spanish and Vietnamese.
Fair Housing Action Plan 2020/2021 Summary:
The Fair Housing Foundation (FHF) conducted 5 Fair Housing Workshop. FHF provided fair housing related serves to 173 unduplicated households: 82.6% of calls came from tenants, 1.7% from property owners & 7.5% from landlords/managers. FHF addressed 183 housing issues; top 3 issues were habitability (15.3%), eviction (14.7%) & notices (10.9%).
21 fair housing allegations were received by FHF regarding mental & physical disability (10), Age (1), Gender (1), Martial Status (1), national origin (2), familial status (1), Race (4), Source of Income (1). 13 allegations were resolved via counseling & 8 cases opened; no evidence was found to sustain 4 allegations. Allegations were inconclusive in 1 case, allegations were sustained in 3 cases and resolved through conciliation.
FHF provided over 2,812 pieces of fair housing literature in English, Spanish and Vietnamese.
As noted, the City tracks fair housing cases reported as well as how they were resolved (if resolved) annually through completion of the City of Costa Mesa Fair Housing Action Plan. In addition, as the City updates its Specific Plans, additional outreach will occur to collect feedback from the community and identify rehabilitation and enforcement needs and priorities.
2. Analysis of Federal, State, and Local Data and Local Knowledge Summary of Local Data
As a part of the Housing Element Update for 2021-2029, the City of Costa Mesa implemented a thorough and expansive outreach program. The program intended to gather a deeper understanding of housing concerns and issues, challenges, and opportunities to housing, and gain insight and feedback from residents and the community on housing in Costa Mesa. As a part of the outreach program, the City hosted the following:
Virtual townhall community meeting #1 – November 18, 2020 Online community survey – November 19, 2020
Subject matter expert meetings – February 9-11, 2021
District specific meetings – February 18 and 18, 2021 Targeted focus group meetings – throughout the update 202-2021 Virtual townhall community meeting #2 – September 2, 2021 In-person community open house – June 3, 2026
Stakeholder focused discussions – June 10, 2026
NWWAB in-person community open houses/workshops (4) in summer 2025 NWWAB Stakeholder focused discussions (3) in fall 2025 NWWAB in-person community workshops (2) in March 2026 NWWAB virtual community workshop-March 5, 2026
NWWAB Stakeholder focused discussions (2) in March 2026 Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-58 NWWAB Open House- June 3, 2026
NWWAB Stakeholder focused discussions (2) in June 2026 During the outreach program the City gathered input and ideas from the public. Key feedback or concerns related to fair housing, which were identified during engagement, include the following:
Accessory Units should be affordable to lower income households The City needs more housing
There should be more bike lanes to support active transportation Housing should be focused on increasing quality of life for residents More education about affordable housing to increase public awareness and public opinion Need supportive services along with housing
Overcrowding often occurs and there need to be opportunity for multigenerational living Senior housing should be prioritized, followed by housing for persons with disabilities More affordable housing near transit and jobs
Overall need for more affordable housing for residents of Costa Mesa, both for renters and owners In addition to the fair housing and housing accessibility related concerns, a large percentage of residents were not interested in increasing the housing stock in Costa Mesa during the initial outreach for the Housing Element. At this time, a number of residents identified a desire and interest to keep Costa Mesa lower density for single-family homes, a disinterest in ADUs and objections to growth in affordable housing stock.
However, the Neighborhoods Where We All Belong (NWWAB) efforts to rezone Housing Element sites and create additional housing opportunities in the City heard more diverse and varying feedback. While a number of residents expressed overall concern regarding parking and traffic from increased density and housing, there was a significant amount of voiced support for new housing opportunities across the City and opportunities for walkable, mixed-use environments that come with new and more dense housing.
Historical Impediments to Local Housing Choices and Mobility Local impediments to housing choices and mobility have been considered as a part of the Housing Element Update for 2021-2029.
Land Use and Zoning Provisions: The City’s previous land use and zoning provisions include certain regulations that are considered restrictive in regard to increasing the development of housing units in the City. The City’s parking standards for multi-family development requires parking relating to “tenant covered parking,” “tenant open parking” and “guest parking,” and in certain bedroom configurations, the City’s multi-family parking standards require up to four parking spaces per unit. To address this, Program 2M was included and completed to reduce parking requirements for all multifamily developments and removing minimum parking required for residential development on Housing Element sites. The City’s adopted Specific Plans and overlays include density standards that, if increased, would allow for a broader range of housing choices and support housing opportunities closer to jobs, services, and transit. Housing Programs 3C and 3D were included to amend the City’s specific plans and overlays to increase residential densities and ensure the City can accommodate its RHNA. To implement these programs, the City has developed amendments to the Mixed-Use Overlay District (MUOD) to increase allowable residential densities for Housing Element sites and Measure K sites, Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-59 including sites beyond those needed to accommodate the RHNA. The MUOD allows residential densities ranging from 30 to 90 dwelling units per acre, expands opportunities for mixed-use and residential development in commercial and employment areas, and establishes a more comprehensive regulatory framework to facilitate housing production. This effort not only supports the City’s RHNA strategy, but also advances broader housing choices by creating additional residential capacity beyond the Housing Element inventory and throughout the City.
Also, in 2016, residents of Costa Mesa voted to pass Measure Y: An Initiative to Require Voter Approval on Certain Development Projects. One of the provisions of this measure requires voter approval for changes in zoning and/or land use that would increase housing within an area by 40 or more residential units. Such a vote may discourage developers from pursuing housing development projects and particularly affordable housing projects (the Housing Element includes Program 3G to take steps to identify and address specific ways in which the City-wide vote process functions as a constraint to housing compliance, the City’s housing goals, and other shared community goals). In 2022, Costa Mesa voters approved Measure K, which authorized the City to update zoning for certain commercial, industrial, and mixed-use areas to allow additional residential and mixed-use development while preserving existing residential neighborhoods. The City is implementing Measure K through updates to the MUOD. This effort not only supports rezoning of Housing Element sites needed to accommodate the RHNA, but also expands residential development opportunities to additional Measure K sites beyond the Housing Element inventory. As a result, the City is taking a broader, proactive approach to facilitating housing production and creating residential capacity beyond the minimum RHNA obligation.
Lastly, the City has focused in the past on transportation investments related primarily to mobility of singleoccupant vehicles (SOVs) instead of multi-modal transportation which available generally to all demographic segments. However, the City now focuses on multi-modal circulation investments such as transportation projects related to traffic calming to increase pedestrian and bike safety, and enhancements to existing sidewalks and the provision of new sidewalks and bike paths and facilities to encourage walkability/bikability in the City.
Past Community Development Action Analysis - Urban Plan Development As the Costa Mesa community has changed over time from a primarily suburban community within larger Orange County to a mixed use community that includes urban, semi-urban and suburban neighborhoods, the City began to modify its land use plans and zoning to promote mixed use, mixed income walkable residential communities. The first overlay districts, adopted by the City in April 2006, were the SoBECA Urban Plan district and three Westside Residential Urban Plans. These plans served as "overlay zones" and established provisions for mixed-use development and residential development in the mixed-use overlay areas. The Urban Plans resulted from the collaboration of a 40-member Westside Revitalization Oversight Committee (WROC) appointed in 2003 by the City Council. The Urban Plans followed previous efforts to revitalize the Westside and create an artist village around Bristol Street by other committees.
The intent of the various Westside Urban Plans was to provide an incentive for redevelopment of marginal commercial and industrial properties in an area of the City that was closest to the beach. The 19th West and Mesa West Bluffs plans were developed to provide for a variety of land uses such as mixed use, live/work and residential lofts and to create ownership opportunities on the Westside.
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-60 The Mesa West Residential Ownership Overlay was intended to redevelop older rental residential structures with new ownership properties. The overlay allowed for development up to the High Density Residential General Plan capacity regardless of the residential zoning and to allow development up to threestories in height.
The SoBECA overlay was intended to allow a mix of housing, eclectic retail/service, creative studios and entertainment/restaurant uses that attract local residents and visitors.
Since 2006, the majority of projects in the Westside of the City have been approved under the Urban Plans/overlay districts. Over time, some concerns have been expressed that development under the urban plans has changed the character of neighborhoods and encouraged new development that in some cases removed and replaced existing older housing stock with residential ownership opportunities that were less affordable to existing residents of the area. There is a perception that this has resulted in increased property values limiting the opportunity to consolidate smaller parcels into larger development lots. While much of the development pursuant to the urban plans in the last decade replaced industrial uses and resulted in remediation of a number of brownfield sites, concerns have, nonetheless, arisen regarding the concept of these Urban Plans. The following Table 3-16 lists concerns that have been expressed regarding implementation of the Urban Plans/overlay districts and potential actions to address these concerns:
Table 3-16: Feedback on the Implementation of the Urban Plans/Overlay Districts Concern Remedial Action
Increased density and proximity to single family
residences
Modify the boundaries to allow an appropriate
transition between the overlay zones and R1 zones
Limited open space / park access The 2015 amendment requires a minimum of 30- percent open space and inclusion of common
recreational areas to promote quality living
environments
No variety in products (all 3-4 stories with multiple living levels - not conducive to all ages)
Modify standards to require a mix of two-story and
three-story product types
Parking - live/works are used as residential uses but with less parking
Increase guest parking requirement and require the
same parking ratio for live/work and residential loft
development consistent with residential standards
based on number of bedrooms
Saturation of market for live/work products The majority of new development on the Westside are live/work units; require a mix of live/work and
residential lofts, and two-story residential product types Proximity of residential uses to existing industrial uses CC&Rs and homebuyer notices provide advance notification to the buyers regarding potential noise
nuisance impacts associated with living in a mixed use
urban environment. Additional buffer may be needed
between residential and major industrial uses
Privacy Impacts Three-story in proximity to single story and two-story development must demonstrate minimal privacy
impacts; roof decks and balconies should face project
interiors
Increased Height - Live/work development are allowed
to be four stories or a maximum 60 feet in height; the
Rooftops should be considered as stories to improve
neighborhood compatibility. The 30-percent open
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-61 Table 3-16: Feedback on the Implementation of the Urban Plans/Overlay Districts Concern Remedial Action
amendment in 2015 allowed rooftops to be counted
toward open space requirement and not considered a
story
space requirement should not include roof tops and
focus on ground floor amenities to promote quality
living environments.
The overlay plans have been amended periodically since adoption to address changes in market demands, land use patterns, and community concerns as identified above. The 6th cycle housing element proposes amendments which respond to community needs and the community’s need for a range of housing types and more housing opportunities affordable at all income levels.
Since adoption of the Housing Element, the City has taken additional steps to address these concerns and modernize the City’s approach to urban plans, specific plans and overlays. Rather than relying solely on the older Urban Plans as standalone overlay areas, the City has advanced a broader update to the MUOD to provide a more comprehensive and consistent regulatory framework for residential and mixeduse development.
In April 2026, the City amended the MUOD to establish specific provisions for Housing Element Opportunity Sites and adopted a revised zoning map to apply the MUOD to those Housing Element sites. This action directly supported implementation of the Housing Element sites strategy and helped ensure that sites identified to accommodate the RHNA are subject to clear development standards intended to facilitate residential development.
The City is also taking steps beyond the Housing Element inventory. In Fall 2026, the City anticipates a broader MUOD update that will overhaul the existing MUOD provisions and apply the overlay to the remaining Measure K sites, including both Housing Element and non-Housing Element sites. Through this effort, the City is expanding opportunities for residential and mixed-use development beyond the sites needed to accommodate the RHNA. The MUOD is anticipated to apply to approximately 1,079 parcels and will establish updated standards, including residential densities ranging from 30 to 90 dwelling units per acre, to support additional housing choices.
This phased approach demonstrates that the City is not only addressing its Housing Element obligations, but is also taking a broader, proactive approach to updating older urban plan and overlay frameworks. By integrating Housing Element sites and additional Measure K sites into the MUOD, the City is creating additional residential capacity beyond the RHNA, improving clarity and consistency in development standards, and supporting broader fair housing objectives by expanding housing opportunities in areas with access to employment, services, and amenities.
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-62 Integration and Segregation Patterns and Trends
Race and Ethnicity
The dissimilarity index is the most used measure of segregation between two groups, reflecting their relative distributions across neighborhoods (as defined by census tracts). The index represents the percentage of the minority group that would have to move to new neighborhoods to achieve perfect integration of that group. An index score can range in value from 0 percent, indicating complete integration, to 100 percent, indicating complete segregation. An index number above 60 is considered to show high similarity and a segregated community.
It is important to note that segregation is a complex topic, difficult to generalize, and is influenced by many factors. Individual choices can be a cause of segregation, with some residents choosing to live among people of their own race or ethnic group. For instance, recent immigrants often depend on nearby relatives, friends, and ethnic institutions to help them adjust to a new country.6 Alternatively, when white residents
leave neighborhoods that become more diverse, those neighborhoods can become segregated. Other factors, including housing market dynamics, availability of lending to different ethnic groups, availability of affordable housing, and discrimination can also cause residential segregation.
Figure 3-4 shows the dissimilarity between each of the identified race and ethnic groups and Costa Mesa’s White population. The White population within Costa Mesa makes up the majority of the City’s population at approximately 71 percent according to 2019 American Community Survey (ACS) estimates.
The higher scores shown in the figure below, directly indicate higher levels of segregation among those race and ethnic groups. The race and ethnic groups with the high scores were Native Hawaiian (52.4 percent) and Hispanic (51.8 percent). These scores correlate directly with the percentage of people within that racial or ethnic group that would need to move into a predominantly White census tract in order to achieve a more integrated community. For instance, 52.4 percent of the Native Hawaiian population would need to move into predominantly White census tract areas to achieve “perfect” integration, or 51.8 percent of the Hispanic population would need to move into predominantly White census tract areas for perfect integration.
As indicated above, a score of 60 or higher indicates a highly similar and segregated area. The City does not have any racial or ethnic groups with scores higher than 60. However, scores above 30 indicate moderate levels of segregation. It is important to note the areas where moderate segregation occurs in order for Costa Mesa to understand any additional disparities in access to opportunities or housing, as well as identify lack of resources for the communities. In the City of Costa Mesa, all racial and ethnic groups, except for those who identify as two or more races, show a score of 30 or greater dissimilarity index. The City of Costa Mesa is committed to furthering fair housing access and increasing fair housing opportunities to communities of color.
6 Allen, James P. and Turner, Eugene. “Changing Faces, Changing Places: Mapping Southern California”. California State University, Northridge, (2002).
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-63 Figure 3-4: Dissimilarity Index with White Population in Costa Mesa Source: Census Scope, Social Science Data Analysis Network Disability
In 1988, Congress added protections against housing discrimination for persons with disabilities through the FHA, which protects against intentional discrimination and unjustified policies and practices with disproportionate effects. The FHA also includes the following unique provisions to persons with disabilities:
(1) prohibits the denial of requests for reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities if necessary, to afford an individual equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling; and (2) prohibits the denial of reasonable modification requests. With regards to fair housing, persons with disabilities have special housing needs because of the lack of accessible and affordable housing, and the higher health costs associated with their disability. In addition, many may be on fixed incomes that further limit their housing options.
Table 3-24 provides data for persons with disabilities in Costa Mesa, Orange County, and across California; Figure 3-15 also maps out populations with disabilities throughout the City. There are five census tracts that report 10 to 20 percent of the population with a disability. These tracts are located the center of the City in the south-western region. The central census tracts include the Fairview Developmental Center and a senior living development (Azulon at Mesa Verde). The census tracts in the south-western region also include a senior living development (Vivante Newport Mesa). These may contribute to the higher occurrence of persons with disabilities.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Hispanic
Two or More Races
Other
Native Hawaiian
Asian
American Indian
Black
Hispanic
Two or
More
Races
Other Native
Hawaiian Asian AmericanIndian Black
Dissimilarity Index with Whites 51.8% 19.4% 36.7% 52.4% 36.3% 31.0% 35.9% Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-64 Regarding access to community resources and services, the central census tracts are located near community parks, fire and police services, grocery stores and commercial uses, and medical offices. Public transit runs directly between both central census tracts along Harbor Boulevard, as well as Fairview Road.
The south-western census tracts are also located near community parks, grocery stores and commercial uses, medical offices, and they have access to public transit along Placentia Avenue, 19th Avenue, and Victoria Street.
It is the policy and practice of the City to take all reasonable steps to ensure its services, programs and activities are accessible to all members of the public including persons with disabilities. The City’s leadership team and accessibility experts work to ensure all departments comply with this policy by carrying out the following functions:
Provide technical assistance to support City departments in complying with federal, state, and local disability access laws.
Assist departments and divisions in evaluating their facilities, programs, services, and activities to ensure provision of reasonable accommodations to people with disabilities. Facilitate the resolution of grievances filed against the City of Costa Mesa that allege noncompliance with disability access laws.
Additionally, the City is concerned with public right-of-way access for everyone including people with disabilities. Staff is aware of pedestrian mobility concerns for people with various disabilities. The following information describes department programs available to the public:
Curb Ramp Program – The City administers the Sidewalk Accessibility Curb Ramp Program by identifying locations and managing the installation of curb ramps throughout the city. These ramps provide safer and easier pedestrian access to sidewalks, particularly for persons with disabilities.
All newly constructed ramps comply with the current Americans with Disabilities Act standards. Contractual Services – The City utilizes contractual services to install curb ramps each year through the ongoing capital-funded program. Along with these ongoing City-funded installation projects, the program also assists and coordinates installation projects with a variety of other programs and construction projects.
City Staff also utilize a priority approach to select locations for new ramps. Installation project priorities are based on the following criteria:
o Known routes used, and requests by persons with disabilities o Known locations in the walking route to school plans
o Known routes to senior and community centers and around parks o Requests from the community
o Mobility Access Analysis for People with Disabilities o Upon request, staff conducts a study of obstructions blocking pedestrian or wheelchair travel.
Costa Mesa residents with disabilities living in the five census tracts listed above may also benefit from regional resources. The Regional Center of Orange County provide services to person with developmental Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-65 disabilities, including: housing options, employment opportunities, prenatal diagnostic evaluations, as well as services for early intervention, therapy, respite care, childcare, adult day programs, transportation, medical and dental, and recreation. The following lists a number of additional agencies and organizations and the services they provide for Costa Mesa residents:
Dayle McIntosh Center - Provides support services, advocacy, transition services, information and referral, peer support, housing assistance, health care access and more. Employment Development Department - The California State Disability Insurance Program (SDI) provides short term Disability Insurance (DI) and Paid Family Leave (PFL) wage replacement benefits to eligible workers who need time off work.
Family Caregiver Resource Center - Assists families who are coping with the physical, emotional, and financial responsibilities of caregiving.
Help Me Grow - Connects families with developmental, behavioral or learning concerns to resources in the community for children birth to 6 years of age. In Home Supportive Services (IHSS) - Provides supportive services to aged, blind, and disabled persons who are limited in their ability to care for themselves and cannot live safely at home without help.
Lions Sight and Hearing Foundation of Southern California - Provides hearing aids and common eye surgeries Income qualifications apply.
Orange County Deaf Equal Access Foundation - Provides services to deaf and hard of hearing community including employment assistance, information and referral, advocacy, peer counseling, independent living, communication assistance ([email protected]). Protection and Advocacy Inc. (PAI) - Provides legal representation in response to rights/violations for persons with disabilities.
Rehabilitation Institute of Southern California - Programs which increase the ability of disabled individuals to function at home and at school, on the job, and in the community. St. Jude Brain Injury Network - Assist persons with a traumatic brain injury to attain access into gainful employment, appropriate community reintegration programs, accessible housing, and research-related education.
Costa Mesa children with disabilities living in the five census tracts listed above also have access to assessments/evaluations and education plans through the Newport-Mesa Unified School District Harper Assessment Center, as well as individual and family counseling, suicide prevention services, and residential services through the South Coast Community Services Student Assistance Program (SAP). Acuity Behavior Solutions provides a variety of Applied Behavioral Analysis techniques for children and teens with autism in Orange County, this includes: play-based applied behavior analysis services, individual in-home therapy, and social skills groups for children and teens.
Income
Government Code Section 65008 provides protection against the discrimination of lower- and moderateincome households that inhibits affordable housing development. As detailed in Chapter 2.C.2, the City of Costa Mesa is made up of households earning a variety of income levels. Table 2-12 shows over a quarter Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-66 of Costa Mesa households earn less than 50 percent of the area median family income (AMFI) and just under 40 percent earn over $100,000. Figures 3-5a and 3-5b provide mapping of median incomes and poverty status across the City and in surrounding communities.
Figure 3-5a illustrates a greater tendency for lower median incomes towards the center of the City with higher median incomes along the City’s western, northern, and eastern edges. When considering zoning, block groups with lower median incomes generally overlap with zones that allow for multi-family housing development at higher densities. In comparison, block groups with higher median incomes tend to be zoned for single-family residential. This shows lower income households have a greater ability to afford apartments and condominiums over single-family residences. Chapter 2.F.5 also indicates the housing market for single-family residences is more difficult to access for households not earning an above moderate income.
Figure 3-5b illustrates poverty status by census tract. The data is similar to that of Figure 3-5a as it shows higher concentrations of poverty towards the City’s southern and central region. There is one census tract (636.05) that reports 30 to 40 percent of its population falling under the poverty line. This census tract is further detailed in the following section as an area of high segregation and poverty; however, the data is dated 2019 and does not reflect recent development and financing. While the area is identified as high segregation and poverty, it has seen much redevelopment over recent years and the median home value according to 2020 ACS 5-Year Estimates is $922,500. The median contract rent for the census tract is $1,665, and the median household income is $71,150. Program 4I is included in the Housing Plan to specifically address the high segregation and poverty finding for census tract 636.05 by partnering with local community-based organizations, stakeholders and groups who provide supportive resources and programs to further identify specific needs of this community and connect community members with appropriate resources.
Furthermore, the Appendix B Sites Analysis includes the identification of a number of sites throughout the entirety of the City so as to provide for future residential development at a variety of densities. This is intended to allow for a variety of housing types affordable to all income categories. Sites were selected based on the availability of land, property owner and developer interest, and access to transportation, resources, and services. A number of sites are located in areas that report both high and lower median incomes, as shown in Figure 3-5a, so as to provide for future affordable units in areas where existing communities may benefit from and in areas of high opportunity. More details on the sites selection are provided in Appendix B.
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-67 Figure 3-5a: Income Segregation – Median Income
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-68 Figure 3-5b: Income Segregation – Poverty Status
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-69 Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP) To assist communities in identifying racially/ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAPs), HUD has developed a census tract-based definition of R/ECAPs. The definition involves a racial/ethnic concentration threshold and a poverty test. The racial/ethnic concentration threshold is straightforward: RECAPs must have a non-white population of 50 percent or more. Regarding the poverty threshold, Wilson (1980) defines neighborhoods of extreme poverty as census tracts with 40 percent or more of individuals living at or below the poverty line. Because overall poverty levels are substantially lower in many parts of the country, HUD supplements this with an alternate criterion. Thus, a neighborhood can be a R/ECAP if it has a poverty rate that exceeds 40% or is three or more times the average tract poverty rate for the metropolitan/micropolitan area, whichever threshold is lower.
Location of residence can have a substantial effect on mental and physical health, education opportunities, and economic opportunities. Urban areas that are more residentially segregated by race and income tend to have lower levels of upward economic mobility than other areas. Research has found that racial inequality is thus amplified by residential segregation. However, these areas may also provide different opportunities, such as ethnic enclaves providing proximity to centers of cultural significance, or business, social networks, and communities to help immigrants preserve cultural identify and establish themselves in new places. Overall, it is important to study and identify these areas in order to understand patterns of segregation and poverty in a City.
Figure 3-6a below displays the R/ECAP analysis of the Costa Mesa area. The low poverty index captures the depth and intensity of poverty in a given neighborhood. The index uses both family poverty rates and public assistance receipt, in the form of cash-welfare, such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).
The poverty rate and public assistance for neighborhoods are determined at the census tract level, and the higher the score, the less exposure to poverty in a neighborhood. HUD provides data for the entire Orange County region, and not Costa Mesa specific, as shown in the map. Figure 3-6a shows that Costa Mesa has a pocket of concentrated Hispanic population towards the southern central region of the City. The eastern region of the City is shown to be mostly made up of concentrated White, Non-Hispanic, population. There is also a minor concentration of Hispanic and Native American, Non-Hispanic, populations in the SoBECA area of Northern Costa Mesa.
While there are no R/ECAP areas within the City, Figure 3-6a shows one in the nearby City of Irvine surrounding the University of California – Irvine campus. According to the AI, it is likely that they qualify as R/ECAPs due to the high proportions of students. In addition, the figure shows a large concentration of Hispanic population directly north of Costa Mesa in the City of Santa Ana. The City of Costa Mesa is committed to increasing housing mobility opportunities for persons outside of the City and in Orange County as a whole. Chapter 4: Housing Plan of this Housing Element outlines housing opportunity, affordable housing, and fair housing strategies to increase opportunities to all households.
Additionally, Figure 3-6b displays the data for TCAC areas of high segregation and poverty. The maps shows that there is one census tract that is designated as high segregation and poverty (census tract: 636.05).
Areas that are identified as high segregation and poverty are consistent with the standards for both poverty (30% of the population below the federal poverty line) and racial segregation (overrepresentation of people of color relative to the county).
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-70 Census tract 636.05 is generally located in the southwestern portion of the City. This tract contains 3 different Costa Mesa City Council Districts - Districts 4, 5, and 6. The zoning designations within this tract is majority industrial (MG, General Industrial) and high density residential (R2-HD and R3), with commercial corridors along Newport Boulevard and 19th Street. The general Westside area also has 3 adopted urban plans, which do not change the underlying zoning of the property but allows for the development of live/work units and/or residential development. Since the adoption of the urban plans in 2006, the City has approved 541 newly constructed units, which includes the subject census tract.
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-71 Figure 3-6a: R/ECAP Areas, Costa Mesa
Source: HUD Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Data and Mapping Tool, Data Versions: AFFHT0006, April 28, 2021 Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-72 Figure 3-6b: TCAC Area of High Segregation and Poverty
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-73 Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Affluence
Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty have long been analyzed and reviewed as a contributing factor to segregation. However, patterns of segregation in the United States show that of all racial groups, the White population is the most severely insulated (separated from other racial groups).7 Research also identifies segregation of affluence to be greater than the segregation of poverty. Racial and economic segregation can have significant effects on respective communities, including but not limited to, socioeconomic disparities, educational experiences and benefits, exposure to environmental conditions and crime, and access to public goods and services.
Data used in the analysis of Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAA) comes from the 2015-2019 ACS and measured at the census track level. The definition for an RCAA is a census tract in which 80 percent or more of the population is White and a median income of at least $125,000. The nationwide RCAA analysis identifies the following:
RCAA tracts have more than twice the median household income of the average tract in their metro area.
Poverty rates in RCAAs are significantly lower and are, on average about 20 percent of a typical tract. RCAAs tracts are more income homogenous than R/ECAPs. The average RCAA is about 57 percent affluent, whereas the average R/ECAP had a poverty rate of 48 percent.
The typical RCAA tract has a rate of affluence 3.2 times that of a typical tract, whereas R/ECAPs on average had a poverty rate 3.2 times that of a typical tract.
Overall, RCAAs may represent a public policy issue to the extent that they have been created and maintained through exclusionary and discriminatory land use and development practices. Postwar patterns of suburbanization in many metropolitan areas were characterized by White communities erecting barriers to affordable housing and engaging in racially exclusionary practices. Figure 3-7 illustrates five RCAAs mostly along the City’s edges. As noted above, these areas overlap with the presence of single-family neighborhoods. Table 3-17 displays the RCAAs for Costa Mesa, and Table 3-18 shows local (Costa Mesa) and regional (Orange County) context for the median household incomes of White residents.
7 Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence: A Preliminary Investigation. University of Minnesota. Edwards Goets, Damiano, Williams. 2019.
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-74 Figure 3-7: Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence, Costa Mesa Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-75 Table 3-17: RCCAs - Median Household Income by Race by Census Tract, Costa Mesa Census Tract Percent Population White Median Income
Census Tract 638.05 69.5% $122,750
Census Tract 636.01 62.3% $120,057
Census Tract 638.02 65.5% $118,000
Census Tract 631.02 81.6% $127,153
Census Tract 631.03 75.3% $131,477
Source: (U.S. Census Bureau) from HCD AFFH Data Viewer, Accessed November 3, 2022.
Table 3-18: RCCAs - Median Household Income by Race, Costa Mesa and Orange County Race
Costa Mesa Orange County
Median Income Population Median Income Population
White $91,9591 72.2% $98,5351 64.3%
All Households $90,370 -- $94,441 --
Notes: 1. Median income in the past 12 months (in 2020 inflation-adjusted dollars) Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2020.
Disparities in Access to Opportunity
The UC Davis Center for Regional Change and Rabobank partnered to develop the Regional Opportunity Index (ROI) intended to help communities understand local social and economic opportunities. The goal of the ROI is to help target resources and policies toward people and places with the greatest need to foster thriving communities. The ROI incorporates both “people” and “place components, integrating economic, infrastructure, environmental, and social indicators into a comprehensive assessment of the factors driving opportunity.”
The ROI: People is a relative measure of people's assets in education, the economy, housing, mobility/transportation, health/environment, and civic life as follows:
Education Opportunity: Assesses people’s relative success in gaining educational assets, in the form of a higher education, elementary school achievement, and regular elementary school attendance. Economic Opportunity: Measures the relative economic well-being of the people in a community, in the form of employment and income level.
Housing Opportunity: Measures the relative residential stability of a community, in the form of homeownership and housing costs.
Mobility/Transportation Opportunity: Contains indicators that assess a community’s relative opportunities for overcoming rural isolation.
Health/Environment Opportunity: Measures the relative health outcomes of the people within a community, in the form of infant and teen health and general health. Civic Life Opportunity: A relative social and political engagement of an area, in the form of households that speak English and voter turnout.
The ROI: Place is a relative measure of an area's assets in education, the economy, housing, mobility/transportation, health/environment, and civic life.
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-76 Education Opportunity: Assesses a census tract's relative ability to provide educational opportunity, in the form of high-quality schools that meet the basic educational and social needs of the population.
Economic Opportunity: Measures the relative economic climate of a community, in the form of access to employment and business climate.
Housing Opportunity: Measures relative availability of housing in a community, in the form of housing sufficiency and housing affordability.
Health/Environment Opportunity: A relative measure of how well communities meet the health needs of their constituents, in the form of access to health care and other health-related environments. Civic Life Opportunity: Measures the relative social and political stability of an area, in the form of neighborhood stability (living in same residence for one year) and US citizenship.
Figure 3-8 shows the ROI: People classifications throughout the City, the “ROI: People” data identifies the achievement levels that persons living within these census tracts have attained. As the figure shows, classifications vary greatly throughout Costa Mesa. The City has areas of high opportunity to the west and east of the City, but also has areas classified as the low opportunity in the southern and central regions of the City. Persons living in the areas identified as low opportunity “people” are considered to have low achievement opportunities for economic, health, and housing. The figure shows one census tract, identified as Inset B, where the general attainment for education, transportation, housing, economic opportunity, or jobs was low the residents living in this tract. Further analysis shows the census tract, identified as Inset A, has overall very low levers of education, economic, housing, transportation, and civic life attainment among residents. Low attainment levels may project generational poverty, lower levels of upward mobility, and increased challenges accessing essential resources and opportunities. Increase housing opportunities and access, specifically affordable housing, in this area can provide stability, safety, and important resources to a community. The City of Costa Mesa has identified portions of this area to accommodate future growth for low and very low-income housing.
Figure 3-9 displays opportunities provided within each census tracts. The map shows that most of the City is classified as high opportunity. High opportunity areas mean that individual census tracts provide the necessary and essential resources for housing, economic or job opportunity, quality education and educational services, safe and affordable transportation, and quality civic and environmental life. Utilizing areas which provide important and essential resources, to increase housing opportunities can help to break cycles of poverty and increase overall community health. The City of Costa Mesa has identified housing opportunity sites to accommodate the RHNA in a variety of high opportunity areas.
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-77 Figure 3-8: Regional Opportunity Index, People – City of Costa Mesa Source: UC Davis Center for Regional Change and Rabobank, 2014.
Inset A
Inset B
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-78 Figure 3-9: Regional Opportunity Index, Place – City of Costa Mesa Source: UC Davis Center for Regional Change and Rabobank, 2014.
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-79 Additionally, Table 3-19 and Figure 3-10 below display the data for Regional Opportunity Index in Costa Mesa overall compared to the State of California. The data shows the following key findings:
Costa Mesa residents reportedly have lower math and English proficiency levels; however, they have higher rates of college education, high school graduation, UC/CSU eligibility. The economic conditions in Costa Mesa are high. There is a higher rate of high-quality employment amongst residents and higher minimum basic income than the State. There are many jobs available, and that trend continues to increase. Costa Mesa households are predominantly renter households. Housing adequacy is the same for the City and the State, but homes in Costa Mesa are reportedly less affordable. The City reports high rates of available vehicles per household, as well as commute time. Costa Mesa residents spend more time traveling to and from work than residents across the State. Despite lower air quality reports, Costa Mesa residents have high access to medical and health care, as well as access to supermarkets.
Costa Mesa residents have high rates of English fluency, despite slightly lower rates of citizenship.
Figure 3-10: Regional Opportunity Index, Costa Mesa and California Source: UC Davis Center for Regional Change and Rabobank, 2014.
Educati
on:
People
Econo
my:
People
Housin
g:
People
Mobilit
y/Trans
:
People
Health/
Env:
People
Civic
Life:
People
Educati
on:
Place
Econo
my:
Place
Housin
g:
Place
Health/
Env:
Place
Civic
Life:
Place
Statewide Average 52.95 68.74 56.26 74.02 94.31 53.7 52.68 14.77 55.19 36.73 80.19 City of Costa Mesa 54.44 72.78 46.85 83.51 95.51 51.87 69.51 20.83 45.61 55.11 78.24 0 20
40 60
80 100
120
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-80 Table 3-19: Opportunity Indicators, Costa Mesa and California ROI Indicator Costa Mesa California
Education
People
College Educated Adults 45% 38%
Math Proficiency 67% 70%
English Proficiency 63% 65%
Elementary Truancy 24% 24%
Place
High School Graduation Rate 93% 83%
UC/CSU Eligibility 53% 41%
Teacher Experience 66% 36%
High School Discipline Rate 8% 6%
Economic
People
Employment Rate 92% 89%
Minimum Basic Income 66% 64%
Place
Job Availability 1291.12 701.75
Job Quality 50% 40%
Job Growth 4% 3%
Bank Accessibility 0.38 0.24
Housing
People
Home Ownership 39% 55%
Housing Cost Burden 50% 52%
Place
Housing Adequacy 91% 91%
Housing Affordability 0.14 0.19
MobilityPeople
Vehicle Availability 88% 86%
Commute Time 73% 60%
Internet Access 4.81 4
Health/Environmental
Place
Infant Health 96% 95%
Birth to Teens 5% 7%
Years of Life Lost 25.68 29.84
Place
Air Quality 9.35 10.01
Prenatal Care 91% 83%
Access to Supermarket 65% 53%
Health Care Availability 3.63 1.76
Civic Life
People
Voting Rates 27% 31%
English Speakers 91% 88%
Place
US Citizenship 81% 83%
Neighborhood Stability 83% 85%
Source: UC Davis Center for Regional Change and Rabobank, 2014.
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-81 California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) Opportunity Area Maps The Department of Housing and Community Development together with the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee established the California Fair Housing Task Force to provide research, evidencebased policy recommendations, and other strategic recommendations to HCD and other related state agencies/departments to further the fair housing goals (as defined by HCD). The Task force developed the TCAC/HCD Opportunity Area Maps to understand how public and private resources are spatially distributed. The Task force defines opportunities as pathways to better lives, including health, education, and employment. Overall, opportunity maps are intended to display which areas, according to research, offer low-income children and adults the best chance at economic advancement, high educational attainment, and good physical and mental health.
According to the Task Force’s methodology, the tool allocates the 20 percent of the tracts in each region with the highest relative index scores to the “Highest Resource” designation and the next 20 percent to the “High Resource” designation. Each region then ends up with 40 percent of its total tracts as “Highest” or “High” resource. These two categories are intended to help State decision-makers identify tracts within each region that the research suggests low-income families are most likely to thrive, and where they typically do not have the option to live—but might, if given the choice. As shown in Figure 3-11a below, much of Costa Mesa is classified moderate to high resource areas with pockets of low resource areas in the southwest region of the City. Costa Mesa has one area identified in Figure 3-11b classified as high segregation and poverty in the southern area of the City – census tract 636.05. This census tract includes industrial, residential, and retail/commercial uses, as well as the Costa Mesa Senior Center and new Superior Pointe and 17 West residential developments. While the area is identified as high segregation and poverty, it has seen much redevelopment over recent years and the median home value according to 2020 ACS 5-Year Estimates is $922,500. The median contract rent for the census tract is $1,665, and the median household income is $71,150.
These census tracts sit within part of the westside Costa Mesa community bound roughly by 19th Street to the north, Anaheim Avenue and Newport Blvd (55 Freeway) to the east, Industrial Way and 16th Street to the south, and Placentia Avenue to the north. The following is a qualitative analysis of the area based on observation and historical reference:
The northern portion between 18th and 19th Streets is primarily single and lower density multifamily residential with some neighborhood serving commercial (including two grocery stores in Smart & Final and El Metate Market) along 19th Street. Roadways are clean and sidewalk improvements were made approximately two years ago along Center Street and Pomona Avenue with a new slurry seal applied to most streets in the neighborhood around the same time. Directly adjacent to this area across Anaheim Avenue is the renovated Downtown Recreation Center and new Norma Hertzog Community Center, Costa Mesa (Donald Dungan Branch) Library, and Lions Park playground and ball fields. The City invested approximately $36.5 million into renovation of the area which serves as a vital resource to the surrounding neighborhoods.
The library and parks host community events and the Downtown Recreation Center host youth and adult sports leagues and daycare services for families. This area is also approximately a quarter mile from one of the City’s main commercial hubs in the Triangle Square shopping Center and Costa Mesa Courtyards shopping centers.
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-82 This area contains the Shalimar Drive neighborhood which has been found to require greater attention from code enforcement due to housing conditions. This analysis is described in Section 2.F.4 (Housing Age and Condition). Within that section, the City describes investment into the area through Community Clean-Up Days, staff time, and donations to community businesses and non-profit community groups multiple times per year. South of 17th Street is a mixture of light industrial/office and new townhome communities developed within the last four years. Portions of the street frontage and public ROW improvements along 17th Street, Pomona Avenue, and Superior Avenue have all been newly constructed as part of these new communities.
Most all streets contain dedicated sidewalks with limited cracking or damage. Some industrial local roadways such as Commercial Way see roadway conditions typical throughout the City in light industrial areas, such as the areas further west between Placentia and Monrovia, along Harbor Blvd, and in the northeast portion of the City adjacent to the airport. These are maintained regularly through the City’s CIP.
Placentia Avenue, which serves as the western boundary of the area, is a major thoroughfare through the City and has consistent sidewalk and on-street dedicated bike lanes which provide safe transit routes to Estancia High School directly to the north. There are no school facilities within these census tracts but they are served by local schools in adjacent neighborhoods accessed by local neighborhood roads. School buses have regular pick ups at the Costa Mesa Women’s Club parking lot and at several stops in the area to transport K5 students to local public schools. All major roadways in this area (16th, 17th, 18th, 19th Streets and Pomona, Placentia, and Anaheim Avenues) are maintained consistent with the rest of the City and none show a current need for major repair.
The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) runs multiple bus lines (47, 55, 178) along 17th Street, 19th Street, and Placentia Avenue regularly with approximately 15 minute headways for most routes during weekdays.
As demonstrated above, these areas have recently received a large amount of City investment through the Downtown Recreation Center, Library, and Lions Park projects. These projects added vital community amenities and improved corresponding streets and public ROW areas. These census tracts, while designated as an Area of High Segregation and Poverty, see community investment consistent with or in excess of the typical condition citywide. Program 2L is included in the Housing Plan to facilitate access to funding, priority processing, and outreach for lower income households, including those located in census tract 636.05. Program 4I is also included to specifically address the high segregation and poverty finding for census tract 636.05 by partnering with local community-based organizations, stakeholders and groups who provide supportive resources and programs to further identify specific needs of this community and connect community members with appropriate resources.
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-83 Figure 3-11a: TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map – Costa Mesa and Surrounding Region Source: California Tax Credit Allocation Committee and Department of Housing and Community Development, 2021.
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-84 Figure 3-11b: TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map – High Segregation and Poverty (2021) Source: California Tax Credit Allocation Committee and Department of Housing and Community Development, 2021.
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-85 Opportunity Areas – Education
The TCAC/HCD Opportunity Area Maps include education data, as illustrated in Figure 3-12. This data represents opportunity levels based on the following four factors:
Math proficiency – Percentage of 4th graders who meet or exceed math proficiency standards. Reading proficiency – Percentage of 4th graders who meet or exceed literacy standards. High school graduation rates – Percentage of high school cohort that graduated on time. Student poverty rate – Percentage of students not receiving free or reduced-price lunch.
As Figure 3-12 shows, the City has a variety of education outcome scores. The more positive education outcomes are located over East Side Costa Mesa, east of the 55 Freeway, as well as over the neighborhoods south of the 405-freeway and in the center of the City. The area of the City west of Harbor Boulevard and north of Fairview Park are rated moderate for educational outcomes. West Side Costa Mesa in the City’s south-western region has the lowest educational outcome.
Title 1 schools receive additional government funding to assist their lower-income student base who are at risk of falling behind. Within Newport-Mesa Unified School District, there are a total of 10 elementary schools, 2 middle schools, and 2 high schools. The following 3 elementary schools are Title 1 schools: Davis Elementary School, Heinz Kaiser Elementary School, and Woodland Elementary School. Davis Elementary School is located in the center of Costa Mesa just north of the OC Fairgrounds and Heinz Kaiser and Woodland Elementary Schools are both located in East Side Costa Mesa between the 55 Freeway and the Upper Newport Bay State Marine Conservation Area.
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-86 Figure 3-12: TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map – Education
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-87 Opportunity Indicators
Opportunity indicators also help inform communities about disparities in access to opportunity. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) developed the opportunity indicators to help inform communities about disparities in access to opportunity, the scores are based on nationally available data sources and assess resident’s access to key opportunity assets in the City. Table 3-20 provides the index scores (ranging from zero to 100) for the following opportunity indicator indices:
Low Poverty Index: The low poverty index captures poverty in a given neighborhood. The poverty rate is determined at the census tract level. The higher the score, the less exposure to poverty in a neighborhood.
School Proficiency Index: The school proficiency index uses school-level data on the performance of 4th grade students on state exams to describe which neighborhoods have high-performing elementary schools nearby and which are near lower performing elementary schools. The higher the score, the higher the school system quality is in a neighborhood. Labor Market Engagement Index: The labor market engagement index provides a summary description of the relative intensity of labor market engagement and human capital in a neighborhood. This is based upon the level of employment, labor force participation, and educational attainment in a census tract. The higher the score, the higher the labor force participation and human capital in a neighborhood.
Transit Trips Index: This index is based on estimates of transit trips taken by a family that meets the following description: a three-person single-parent family with income at 50% of the median income for renters for the region (i.e. the Core-Based Statistical Area (CBSA)). The higher the transit trips index, the more likely residents in that neighborhood utilize public transit. Low Transportation Cost Index: This index is based on estimates of transportation costs for a family that meets the following description: a three-person single-parent family with income at 50 percent of the median income for renters for the region/CBSA. The higher the index, the lower the cost of transportation in that neighborhood.
Jobs Proximity Index: The jobs proximity index quantifies the accessibility of a given residential neighborhood as a function of its distance to all job locations within a region/CBSA, with larger employment centers weighted more heavily. The higher the index value, the better the access to employment opportunities for residents in a neighborhood. Environmental Health Index: The environmental health index summarizes potential exposure to harmful toxins at a neighborhood level. The higher the index value, the less exposure to toxins harmful to human health. Therefore, the higher the value, the better the environmental quality of a neighborhood, where a neighborhood is a census block-group.
Table 3-20 below displays the opportunity indices by race and ethnicity for persons in Costa Mesa.
According to the data, there is some poverty among the population of Costa Mesa, across all racial/ethnic groups. There are higher levels of poverty among the Hispanic and Native American populations. All racial/ethnic groups in Costa Mesa experience levels of environmental health below 50, meaning all residents are exposed to a higher degree of environmental pollutants. Otherwise, the data shows the City has high marks for school proficiency, labor market, transit, transportation cost, and job proximity.
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-88 Table 3-20: Opportunity Indicators, City of Costa Mesa
(Costa Mesa,
CA CDBG)
Jurisdiction
Low
Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor
Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, NonHispanic 60.10 72.71 73.56 89.69 81.33 83.04 28.03 Black, NonHispanic 55.04 70.24 69.80 90.47 83.27 83.47 25.72 Hispanic 40.06 60.53 56.72 90.42 83.05 78.57 30.24
Asian or Pacific
Islander, NonHispanic 61.51 71.28 73.20 90.57 82.88 87.44 22.65 Native
American,
Non-Hispanic
53.54 70.81 68.03 90.49 82.74 81.69 28.26
Population Below Federal Poverty Line
White, NonHispanic 53.85 69.80 68.91 90.07 82.43 80.51 28.58 Black, NonHispanic 61.70 78.78 82.00 91.46 84.89 87.37 19.50 Hispanic 33.36 56.69 51.57 90.56 83.60 78.70 31.40
Asian or Pacific
Islander, NonHispanic 55.36 71.81 73.29 90.38 83.08 84.52 24.46 Native
American,
Non-Hispanic
50.53 67.96 56.06 91.85 77.66 85.70 19.03
Source: Department of Housing and Urban Development, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Online Mapping tool, Decennial Census; ACS; Great Schools; Common Core of Data; SABINS; LAI; LEHD; NATA
Access to Transit
Transit explores metrics that reveal the social and economic impact of transit, specifically looking at connectivity, access to jobs, and frequency of service. According to the data provided and as shown in Figure 3-13, Costa Mesa scored a 5.4 AllTransit performance score, illustrating a moderate combination of trips per week and number of jobs accessible that enable a moderate number of people to take transit to work. In comparison to neighboring cities – Huntington Beach scores a 4.4, Irvine scored a 3.6, Santa Ana scored a 6.6, and Newport Beach scored a 3.9. Access to transportation increases both the economic and environmental/health opportunities. Additionally, AllTransit provides the following data for Costa Mesa transportation:
98.8% of jobs are located within ½ of transit.
99,721 customer households have access to a business within a 30-minute transit commute. 2.29% of workers walk to work and 1.43% bike to work
There are no households within a ½ miles of high frequency transit. On average, there are 6 transit routes within ½ of a block group on average.
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-89 Table 3-21: Opportunity Indicator – Transit
Jurisdiction
AllTransit
Performance
Score
Transit Trips Per
Week within
1/2 Mile
Jobs Accessible
in 30-min trip
Commuters Who
Use Transit
Transit Routes
within 1/2 Mile
Costa Mesa 5.4 837 292,009 2.55% 6
Orange
County 4.2 528 172,595 2.28% 4
Source: AllTransit Fact Sheet, Costa Mesa, 2021.
Figure 3-13: All Transit Performance Score – Costa Mesa Source: AllTransit Fact Sheet, 2021.
Environmental Justice
The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) developed a screening methodology to help identify California communities disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution called the California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool (CalEnviro Screen). In addition to environmental factors (pollutant exposure, groundwater threats, toxic sites, and hazardous materials exposure) and sensitive receptors (seniors, children, persons with asthma, and low birth weight infants), CalEnviro Screen also takes into consideration socioeconomic factors. These factors include educational attainment, linguistic isolation, poverty, and unemployment. Research has shown a heightened vulnerability of people of color and lower socioeconomic status to environmental pollutants. Figure 3-14 below displays mapped results for the CalEnviro Screen in Costa Mesa and the Orange County region. The map shows that Costa Mesa is primarily moderate-scoring, with a few low-scoring census tracts and a couple high-scoring census tracts. High scores signify high levels of pollution burdens and low scores signify Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-90 low levels of pollution. Table 3-22 and Table 3-23 below identifies the CalEnviro Screen scores for the highest and lowest scoring census tracts in Costa Mesa, respectively.
Table 3-22: CalEnviro Screen 3.0 – Highest Scoring Census Tract (6059063605) Pollutant Percentile* Health Risk/Burden Percentile*
Ozone 40 Asthma 47
PM 2.5 53 Low Birth Weight 78
Diesel 51 Cardiovascular Rate 33
Pesticides 0 Education 92
Toxic Releases 85 Linguistic Isolation 76
Traffic 58 Poverty 88
Drinking Water 10 Unemployment 76
Cleanups 98 Housing Burden 74
Groundwater Threats 92
Hazardous Waste 93
Impaired Water 0
Solid Waste 53
*Percentile derived using a weighted scoring system to determine average pollution burden/ socioeconomic scores relative to other census tracts.
Source: CalEnviro Screen 3.0 Map Tool, June 2018 Update. Accessed April 28, 2021.
Table 3-23: CalEnviro Screen 3.0 – Lowest Scoring Census Tract (6059063905) Pollutant Percentile* Health Risk/Burden Percentile*
Ozone 40 Asthma 33
PM 2.5 53 Low Birth Weight 11
Diesel 46 Cardiovascular Rate 24
Pesticides 0 Education 27
Toxic Releases 89 Linguistic Isolation 22
Traffic 47 Poverty 34
Drinking Water 10 Unemployment 13
Cleanups 44 Housing Burden 59
Groundwater Threats 25
Hazardous Waste 63
Impaired Water 0
Solid Waste 0
*Percentile derived using a weighted scoring system to determine average pollution burden/ socioeconomic scores relative to other census tracts.
Source: CalEnviro Screen 3.0 Map Tool, June 2018 Update. Accessed May 24, 2021.
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-91 Figure 3-14: CalEnviro Screen, Costa Mesa (2018)
Source: CalEnviro Screen 3.0 Map Tool, June 2018 Update. Accessed April 28, 2021.
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-92
3. Discussion of Disproportionate Housing Needs
The analysis of disproportionate housing needs within Costa Mesa evaluates existing housing need, need of the future housing population, and units within the community at-risk of converting to market-rate.
Existing Needs
As described in Section 3.G.1 of this Housing Element, the Orange County Housing Authority (OCHA) administers Section 8 Housing Choice vouchers within the City of Costa Mesa. For the 2020 year, there were a total of 561 Section 8 voucher holders within the community: 110 for persons with disabilities, 394 for seniors, and 54 families with at least one dependent.
Housing Needs in Costa Mesa
A variety of factors affect housing needs for different households. Most commonly, disability, household income, and household characteristics shape the type and size of housing needed, as well as accessibility based on existing units in a City. Tables 3-24 through 3-31 display data for demographic characteristics of Costa Mesa, as compared to Orange County and the State of California. Additional detailed analysis of the Costa Mesa community is provided in Chapter 2: Community Profile.
Table 3-24 displays the data for persons with disabilities in the City, County, and State. Overall, about 10.6 percent of the California population has at least one disability. Orange County and the City of Costa Mesa both have lower percentages by about 2 percent less persons with disabilities. Ambulatory, Independent Living, and Cognitive Difficulties are the top three most common disabilities for all three jurisdictions, in order starting from most common. These figures may be reflective of disabilities commonly found amongst the senior population. Each of reasonable accommodation procedures and opportunity for accessible housing can provide increased housing security for the population with disabilities.
Table 3-24: Population by Disability Type by Geography, 2019 Disability Type Costa Mesa Orange County California
Hearing Difficulty 2.4% 2.5% 2.9%
Vision Difficulty 1.6% 1.5% 2%
Cognitive Difficulty 3.4% 3.4% 4.3%
Ambulatory Difficulty 4.3% 4.5% 5.8%
Self-Care Difficulty 1.7% 2.2% 2.6%
Independent Living Difficulty 3.8% 4.3% 5.5%
Total with a Disability* 8.3% 8.5% 10.6%
* Total of noninstitutionalized population with at least one disability.
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2019.
Figure 3-15 shows the population with a disability throughout the City. As illustrated, the majority of the City has census tracts that report less than 10 percent of a disabled population. There are a few census tracts with a population of 10 to 20 percent reporting at least one disability.
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-93 Figure 3-15: Population with a Disability, Costa Mesa
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-94 Table 3-25 and Table 3-26 displays household type and income data for the State, County, and City. Overall, Orange County has the largest percentage of family households (71.7 percent) and Costa Mesa has the smallest with about 10 percent less. Costa Mesa has the lowest percentage of female households without a spouse. Non-family households represent the largest household type in Costa Mesa at 40.5 percent, which is about 9 percent more than California and 12 percent more than Orange County. About 40 percent households in both the State and the County have at least one person above the age of 60, while there are about 30 percent of households in Costa Mesa with at least one person over the age of 60. Different household types have varying housing needs – senior households may benefit from reasonable accommodation procedures and being located near medical facilities, single-parent households may benefit from affordable housing options due to limited income, and family households may benefit from larger housing units located near community areas and schools.
Table 3-25: Population by Familial Status by Geography, 2019 Familial Status Costa Mesa Orange County California
Family Households 59.5% 71.7% 68.7%
Married-Couple Family
Households 43.2% 54.9% 49.8%
With Related Children
Under 18
29.3% 34.1% 34%
Female Households, No Spouse 10.1% 11.5% 13%
Non-Family Households 40.5% 28.3% 31.3%
Households with One or More
People 60 Years+ 29.5% 39.9% 39.1%
Total Households 40,986 1,037,492 13,044,266
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2019.
Table 3-26 provides a breakdown on incomes for the State, County, and City. The majority of households in each region earn between $100,000 and $200,000 annually. Orange County has the highest median income at $90,234, about $6,000 more than for Costa Mesa and $15,000 more than for California as a whole.
Table 3-26: Households by Income by Geography, 2019
Household Income Costa Mesa Orange County California
Less than $10,000 4.5% 4.2% 4.8%
$10,000-$14,999 2.3% 2.7% 4.1%
$15,000-$24,999 5.6% 5.6% 7.5%
$25,000-$34,999 6% 6% 7.5%
$35,000-$49,999 9.5% 8.8% 10.5%
$50,000-$74,999 15.8% 14.6% 15.5%
$75,000-$99,999 13.9% 12.8% 12.4%
$100,000-$149,999 19.9% 18.6% 16.6%
$150,000-$199,999 10% 11.1% 8.9%
$200,000 or More 12.4% 15.5% 12.2%
Median Income $84,138 $90,234 $75,235
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2019.
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-95 Figure 3-16 below shows the City has varying rates of married-couple households throughout its different census tracts. In general, the map shows the eastern and western edges of the City, which are predominantly single-family neighborhoods, have the highest rates of married-couple households (40-60 percent). Towards the center of the City, census tracts report approximately 20 to 40 percent marriedcouple households.
When compared to Figure 3-17, the census tracts with the highest rates of married-couple households overlap with the highest rates of children living in married-couple family households. Costa Mesa has a generally high propensity of children living in married-couple family households throughout most census tracts. In comparison to neighboring communities, however, Costa Mesa has less census tracts with children in married-couple family households.
Figure 3-18 shows the City, as with its neighboring communities, has very low rates of children living in femaleheaded households with no spouse present. Most of the City reports approximately 20 percent of less, except for a census tract towards the southern edge of the City which reports 40 to 60 percent of children living in female-headed households. This same census tract is also one of two which reports 20 to 40 percent of its population over the age of 18 living alone, as illustrated in Figure 3-19. The rest of the City has fairly low rates of individuals living alone, with the remaining census tracts reporting less than 20 percent.
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-96 Figure 3-16: Married-Couple Households, Costa Mesa
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-97 Figure 3-17: Children in Married-Couple Households, Costa Mesa Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-98 Figure 3-18: Children in Female-Headed Households, Costa Mesa Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-99 Figure 3-19: Individuals Living Alone, Costa Mesa
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-100 Table 3-27 displays data for households experiencing overpayment or cost burden in the State, County, and City. Housing cost burden can cause mainly displacement, which may create limited access to essential goods and community, as well as employment by potentially increasing commute times. The percentages of households that experience a cost burden greater than 30 percent is overall similar amongst the State, County, and City. Costa Mesa experiences higher rates of cost burden than the County by about two percent. The City also has the largest percentage of households with a cost burden over 50 percent at about
21.6 percent, compared to about 19 percent in both the State and County. Increased opportunity for affordable housing and housing assistance funds help to prevent cost burden on households.
Table 3-27: Household Overpayment by Geography, 2019
Overpayment Costa Mesa Orange County California
Cost Burden > 30% 42.1% 40.5% 40.1%
Cost Burden > 50% 21.6% 19.3% 19.4%
Cost Burden Not Available 1.3% 1.4% 1.4%
Source: HUD Consolidated Planning/CHAS Data, 2013-2017.
Figure 3-20 shows household overpayment for homeowners and Figure 3-21 shows household overpayment for renters. As illustrated, overpayment disproportionately affects Costa Mesa renters compared to homeowners. Overpayment for homeowners is greater in census tracts along the 55 Freeway.
Overpayment for renters is higher to the south of the City in census tracts along Placentia Avenue and to the north in Mesa Verde and along Harbor Boulevard.
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-101 Figure 3-20: Overpayment by Homeowners, Costa Mesa
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-102 Figure 3-21: Overpayment by Renters, Costa Mesa
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-103 Table 3-28 displays data for household tenure (homeowners and renters) for the State, County, and City.
Homeownership is a crucial foundation for households with low incomes to build strength, stability, and independence. The opportunity for transition into the homebuyer’s market is important in a healthy housing market. Table 3-28 shows that the City of Costa Mesa has a much lower percentage of homeowners than the County and State, reporting about 38 percent, compared to 57 percent in the County and 55 percent in the State. Costa Mesa also has higher rates of renter at 62 percent, compares to 43 percent in the County and 45 percent in the State.
Table 3-28: Households by Tenure by Geography, 2019
Household Tenure Costa Mesa Orange County California
Owner Households 38.3% 57.4% 54.8%
Renter Households 61.7% 42.6% 45.2%
Total Occupied Housing Units 40,986 1,037,492 13,044,266 Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2019.
Additionally, Table 3-29 displays data for overcrowding. Overcrowding is defined as between 1.01 and 1.5 persons per bedroom in a household, and severe overcrowding is defined as more than 1.51 persons per bedroom. Overcrowding often occurs when nonfamily members combine incomes to live in one household, such as college students and roommates. Overcrowding also occurs when there are not enough sizeappropriate housing options for large or multigenerational households. The City has the lowest percentages of owner-occupied households with overcrowded and severely overcrowded households compared to the County and State. Renters in Costa Mesa are disproportionately affected by overcrowding when compare to homeowners. Overall, across all three regions, owners were less affected by overcrowding and severe overcrowding.
Figure 3-22 also shows overcrowded households within the City. The figure shows three census tracts with over 20 percent of overcrowded households along Placentia Avenue west of the 55 Freeway. This also overlaps with areas of high overpayment rates for renters, higher levels of pollution burdens, low TCAC resource areas, as well as the High Segregation and Poverty area. As noted throughout this AFFH analysis, the City has placed a great amount of attention on the area. New residential developments and a new library, community center, and senior center in the area have participated in improving access to resources and general revitalization of the area. A number of candidate housing sites are located within this higher overcrowding region, and the City will work further with developers in ensuring that amenities, sidewalks, streetscape, and general conditions meet the needs of the community.
Table 3-29: Households by Overcrowding by Geography, 2019 Overcrowding and Tenure Costa Mesa Orange County California Owner Households
Overcrowded 0.6% 1.5% 1.6%
Severely Overcrowded 0.2% 0.6% 0.6%
Renter Households
Overcrowded 5.3% 4.2% 3.6%
Severely Overcrowded 2.7% 2.6% 2.4%
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2019.
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-104 Figure 3-22: Overcrowded Households, Costa Mesa
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-105 Housing Stock in Costa Mesa
Table 3-30 and 3-31 display comparative housing stock data for the State, County, and City. Table 3-20 below shows data for occupied housing units by type. A variety of housing stock provides increased opportunity in communities for different size and household types. The majority of housing stock in Costa Mesa is multi-unit developments (50.6 percent for 2 or more units). Single-family housing units represent about 48 percent of the housing stock in Costa Mesa. Comparatively, single family units represent about 63 percent and 64 percent of the housing stock in the County and the State, respectively.
Table 3-30: Occupied Housing Units by Type by Geography, 2019 Housing Unit Type Costa Mesa Orange County California
1-Unit, Detached 37.9% 50.6% 57.7%
1-Unit, Attached 9.2% 12.3% 7.0%
2 Units 2.9% 1.6% 2.4%
3 or 4 Units 9.6% 6.9% 5.5%
5 to 9 Units 9.4% 6.7% 6.0%
10 to 19 Units 9.1% 5.4% 5.2%
20 or More Units 19.6% 13.7% 12.3%
Mobile Home 2.2% 2.7% 3.7%
Boat, RV, Van, etc. 0.2% 0.1% 0.1%
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2019.
Table 3-31 below displays housing stock by year built for the City, County, and State. Older housing units generally require more upkeep, regular maintenance, and can cause a cost burden on both renters and homeowners. The majority of Costa Mesa’s housing stock (68.2 percent) was built during a housing boom between 1950 and 1979. The trend is similar for the County and State, with majority of units built between 1980 and 2013. Overall, increased numbers of older housing can lead to displacement, cost burden, and substandard living conditions. An analysis of the housing stock in provided in Chapter 2: Costa Mesa Community Profile.
Table 3-31: Housing Unit by Year Built by Geography, 2019 Year Built Costa Mesa Orange County California
Built 2014 or later 2.6% 2.7% 1.7%
Built 2010 to 2013 1.0% 2.0% 1.7%
Built 2000 to 2009 5.2% 8.3% 11.2%
Built 1990 to 1999 6.3% 11.7% 10.9%
Built 1980 to 1989 12.3% 14.9% 15.0%
Built 1970 to 1979 23.6% 23.3% 17.6%
Built 1960 to 1969 26.7% 19.5% 13.4%
Built 1950 to 1959 17.9% 13.0% 13.4%
Built 1940 to 1949 3.1% 2.1% 5.9%
Built 1939 or earlier 1.3% 2.5% 9.1%
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2019.
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-106 Future Growth Need
The City’s future growth need is based on the RHNA production of 2,919 very low and 1,794 low-income units within the 2021-2029 planning period. Appendix B of this Housing Elements shows the City’s ability to meet its 2021-2029 RHNA need at all income levels. This demonstrates the City’s ability to accommodate the anticipated future affordable housing needs of the community.
4. Displacement Risk
The potential for economic displacement risk can result from a variety of factors, including large-scale development activity, neighborhood reinvestment, infrastructure investments, and changes in local and regional employment opportunity. Economic displacement can be an inadvertent result of public and private investment, where individuals and families may not be able to keep pace with increased property values and market rental rates.
Urban Displacement
The Urban Displacement Project developed a neighborhood change database to map neighborhood transformations and identify areas vulnerable to gentrification and displacement. This data was developed to assist local decision makers and stakeholders better plan for existing communities and provide additional resources to areas in need or at-risk of displacement and gentrification. Table 3-32 provides the criteria used to identify each displacement typology and the total number of Costa Mesa Census Tracts that currently fall within each category.
Table 3-32: Displacement Typology Criteria and Costa Mesa Census Tracts Modified Types and Criteria Census Tracts
Low-Income/Susceptible to Displacement
Low or mixed low-income tract in 2018.
6059063701
6059063605
Ongoing Displacement of Low-Income Households
Low or mixed low-income tract in 2018.
Absolute loss of low-income households, 2000-2018.
--
At Risk of Gentrification
Low or mixed low-income tract in 2018.
Housing affordable to low or mixed low-income households in 2018. Didn’t gentrify 1990-2000 OR 2000-2018.
Marginal change in housing costs OR Zillow home or rental value increases in the 90th percentile between 2012-2018.
Local and nearby increases in rent were greater than the regional median between 2012-2018 OR the 2018 rent gap is greater than the regional median rent gap.
--
Early/Ongoing Gentrification
Low or mixed low-income tract in 2018.
Housing affordable to moderate or mixed moderate-income households in 2018.
Increase or rapid increase in housing costs OR above regional median change in Zillow home or rental values between 2-12-2018. Gentrified in 1990-2000 or 2000-2018.
--
Advanced Gentrification
Moderate, mixed moderate, mixed high, or high-income tract in 2018. Housing affordable to middle, high, mixed moderate, and mixed highincome households in 2018. 6059063604
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-107 Table 3-32: Displacement Typology Criteria and Costa Mesa Census Tracts Modified Types and Criteria Census Tracts
Marginal change, increase, or rapid increase in housing costs. Gentrified in 1990-2000 or 2000-2018.
Stable Moderate/Mixed Income
Moderate, mixed moderate, mixed high, or high-income tract in 2018. 6059062610
6059063908
6059063902
6059063803
6059063702
6059063201
6059063101
At Risk of Becoming Exclusive
Moderate, mixed moderate, mixed high, or high-income tract in 2018. Housing affordable to middle, high, mixed moderate, and mixed highincome households in 2018. Marginal change or increase in housing costs.
6059063903
6059063904
6059063102
6059063906
6059063905
6059063808
6059063802
6059063807
6059063202
Becoming Exclusive
Moderate, mixed moderate, mixed high, or high-income tract in 2018. Housing affordable to middle, high, mixed moderate, and mixed highincome households in 2018. Rapid increase in housing costs.
Absolute loss of low-income households, 2000-2018.
Declining low-income in-migration rate, 2012-2018.
Median income higher in 2018 than in 2000.
6059063301
Stable/Advanced Exclusive
High-income tract in 2000 and 2018
Affordable to high or mixed high-income households in 2018. Marginal change, increase, or rapid increase in housing costs. 6059063907
6059063805
6059063806
6059063601
6059063302
6059063103
Source: Urban Displacement Project, University of California Berkeley (2021).
Table 3-32 and Figure 3-23 both show the City is mostly made up of census tracts which are currently identified as “exclusive” or are in the process/at-risk of becoming exclusive. These areas overlap with most of the City’s single-family neighborhoods. Two census tracts on the west-side of Costa Mesa and to the east of Placentia Avenue are currently identified as low-income and susceptible to displacement. The southwestern-most census tract to the west of Placentia Avenue is categorized as “Advanced Gentrification”, signifying a rapid increase in housing cost over the past few years. A possible reason for these classifications may be new developments within the census tract and the recently added/renovated public library, community center, and senior center. The census tracts have also seen increases in housing cost; however, this is fairly consistent with the City as a whole and the region. As detailed in the section above, the area has historically been subject to lower access to resources, higher poverty and segregation rates, and greater pollution burdens. These recent projects and investments in the community seek to improve conditions and amenities for residents. Candidate sites have also been identified in this area, as detailed in Appendix B, which may provide for future affordable housing units to increase housing choices and opportunities and amenities for existing residents. The City has worked with developers constructing new residential developments in the area and will continue to ensure that future projects consider the needs of the existing community. The Housing Plan contains a number of programs to facilitate these partnerships with both the community and housing developers, as well as limit displacement and the gentrification of the area. c
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-108 Figure 3-23: Urban Displacement Project - Gentrification and Displacement Source: Urban Displacement Project, University of California Berkeley (2021).
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-109 Inventory of Assisted Affordable Housing
Affordable covenants help to ensure that certain housing units remain affordable for an extended period of time. Covenants provide lasting affordable options to low and very low-income households in a community. Table 3-33 below provides a list of 1,144 housing units with affordability covenants, of which 75 housing units are at-risk of converting to market-rate between 2021 and 2031.
Jurisdictions are required by State Housing Element Law to analyze government-assisted housing that is eligible to convert from lower income to market rate housing over the next 10 years. State law identifies housing assistance as a rental subsidy, mortgage subsidy or mortgage insurance to an assisted housing development. Government assisted housing may convert to market rate housing for several reasons, including expiring subsidies, mortgage repayments, or expiration of affordability restrictions. Consistent with the requirements to analyze the impacts of the potential conversion of these units to market-rate units, this section provides an analysis of preservation of assisted housing units at-risk of conversion.
Table 3-33: Affordable Housing Units in Costa Mesa with Covenants Name of Project Address Target Group Potential
Expiration Funding
Target
Income
Level
Assisted
Units
Casa Bella 1844 Park Ave. Senior 2025 HUD Section 8 Very Low 75 Bethel Towers 678 W. 19th St. Senior 2067 LIHTC Low 53
St. John’s Manor 2031 Orange Ave. Senior 5/2062
HUD Section 8,
HOME, Costa
Mesa
Redevelopment,
Federal Rental
Rehab
Very Low 36
Costa Mesa
Family Village
2015 -2019 Pomona Ave.
755-771 W. 20th St.
1924-1932 Wallace Ave.
General 12/2038
Costa Mesa
Redevelopment
Ground Lease
Very
Low/Low 72
Park Place Village
(SRO) 1662 Newport Blvd. General Perpetuity Land Use Restriction Very Low 60 Costa Mesa
Village (SRO) 2450 Newport Blvd. General Perpetuity
OC Housing
Authority, Costa
Mesa
Redevelopment Very Low 96
Newport Senior
Village (SRO) 2080 Newport Blvd. Senior Perpetuity Land Use Restriction
Very
Low/Low 91
HOME
Rehabilitation
Project #1
734-744 James Street General 4/2049 HOME Very
Low/Low 11
HOME
Rehabilitation
Project #3A
745 W. 18th Street General 5/2056 HOME Very
Low/Low 3
HOME
Rehabilitation
Project #6
717-721 James Street General 6/2058 HOME, Federal
Rental Rehab
Very
Low/Low 8
HOME
Rehabilitation
Project #3B
707-711 W. 18th
Street General 5/2056 Costa Mesa Redevelopment
Very
Low/Low 8
Other Density
Bonus Units Scattered General Various Land Use Restriction Very
Low/Low/ 156
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-110 Table 3-33: Affordable Housing Units in Costa Mesa with Covenants Name of Project Address Target Group Potential
Expiration Funding
Target
Income
Level
Assisted
Units
Moderate
Harbor Village 2501 Harbor
Developmentally
Disabled and
General
Perpetuity State-Owned
Very
Low/Low/
Moderate
550
TOTAL 1,144
TOTAL UNITS AT-RISK 75
Sources:
1. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
2. California Housing Partnership Corporation.
3. City of Costa Mesa, 2013
Cost of Preservation of Units
While there are many options to preserving units including providing financial incentives to project owners to extend lower income use restrictions, purchasing affordable housing units by a non-profit or public agency, or providing local subsidies to offset the difference between the affordable and market rate units, the strategy considered below is to provide local rental subsidy to residents. The rent subsidy would provide financial assistance to residents if their affordable units converted to market rate. To determine the subsidy needed, Fair Market Rents were compared to market rate rents.
Table 3-34: Estimated Monthly Subsidy to Preserve “At-Risk” Units Unit Size
Monthly Rents Number of
Units At-Risk Difference Monthly Subsidy
Annual
Subsidy Fair Market
Rents1 Market Rate2
Efficiency $1,716 $2,293 0 $577 $0 $0
1-Bedroom $1,905 $2,707 75 $802 $60,150 $721,800
2-Bedroom $2,324 $3,352 0 $1,028 $0 $0
3-Bedroom $3,178 $3,712 0 $534 $0 $0
4-Bedroom $3,674 N/A 0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL $721,800
Source:
1. HUD FY 2022 Fair Market Rent Documentation System – Santa Ana-Anaheim-Irvine, CA HUD Metro FMR Area
2. Kimley-Horn and Associate Analysis – based on apartments listed for rent across ten properties on September 22, 2021.
Cost of Replacement of Units
The City of Costa Mesa can also consider the cost of replacing the units with new construction. Construction cost estimates include all hard and soft costs associated with construction in addition to per unit land costs.
The analysis assumes the replacement units are apartments with concrete block with steel frame buildings and parking provided on-site. Square footage estimates are based on estimated size of units to be replaced and assume housing units are developed on multi-family zoned properties. Land costs have been determined on a per unit basis.
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-111 Table 3-35: Replacement Cost by Unit Type of At-Risk Units Size of Unit Cost Per Square
Foot1
Average
Square
Foot/Unit2
Replacement
Cost/Unit3
Number of
Units
Total
Replacement
Cost
Efficiency 131.24 508 $66,670 0 $0
1-Bedroom 131.24 761 $99,874 75 $7,490,523
2-Bedroom 131.24 1,080 $141,739 0 $0
3-Bedroom 131.24 1,390 $182,424 0 $0
4-Bedroom 131.24 N/A N/A 0 $0
TOTAL $7,490,523
Source:
1. International Code Council – August 2020 Report.
2. Kimley-Horn and Associate Analysis – based on apartments listed for rent across ten properties on September 22, 2021.
3. Includes financing and land acquisition costs of $30,000 per unit.
Resources for Affordable Housing Units
A variety of programs exist to help cities acquire, replace, or subsidize at-risk affordable housing units. The following summarizes financial resources available:
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) – CDBG funds are awarded to cities on a formula basis for housing activities. The primary objective of the CDBG program is the development of viable communities through the provision of decent housing, a suitable living environment and economic opportunity for principally low- and moderate-income persons. Eligible activities include administration, fair housing, energy conservation and renewable energy sources, assistance for economic development, public facilities and improvements and public services. HOME Investment Partnership – Local jurisdictions can receive funds by formula from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to increase the supply of decent, safe, sanitary, and affordable housing to lower income households. Eligible activities include housing acquisition, rehabilitation, and development, homebuyer assistance, and rental assistance. Section 8 Rental Assistance Program – The Section 8 Rental Assistance Program provides rental assistance payments to owners of private, market rate units on behalf of very low-income tenants, senior citizens, disabled and/or handicapped persons, and other individuals for securing affordable housing.
Section 202/811 Program – Non-profit and consumer cooperatives can receive no-interest capital advances from HUD under the Section 202 program for the construction of very low-income rental housing with the availability of supportive services for seniors and persons with disabilities. These funds can be used in conjunction with Section 811, which can be used to develop group homes, independent living facilities and immediate care facilities. The capital advance funding can also provide project rental assistance for the properties developed using the funds. Eligible activities include acquisition, rehabilitation, new construction, and rental assistance. California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA) Multifamily Programs – CalHFA’s Multifamily Programs provide permanent financing for the acquisition, rehabilitation, and preservation of new construction of rental housing that includes affordable rents for low- and moderate-income Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-112 families and individuals. One of the programs is the Preservation Loan program which provides acquisition/rehabilitation and permanent loan financing designed to preserve or increase the affordability status of existing multifamily housing projects. Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) – This program provides tax credits to individuals and corporations that invest in low-income rental housing. Tax credits are sold to those with high tax liability and proceeds are used to create housing. Eligible activities include new construction, rehabilitation, and acquisition of properties.
California Community Reinvestment Corporation (CCRC) – The California Community Reinvestment Corporation is a multifamily affordable housing lender whose mission is to increase the availability of affordable housing for low-income families, seniors, and residents with special needs by facilitating private capital flow from its investors for debt and equity to developers of affordable housing. Eligible activities include new construction, rehabilitation, and acquisition of properties.
Qualified Entities for Preservation of Affordable Housing Units The following organizations may potentially assist in preserving future at-risk units:
Jamboree Housing Corporation
Irvine Housing Opportunities, Inc.
Bridge Housing Corporation
The Irvine Company
Orange County Housing Authority
Housing Corporation of America
Southern California Housing
Development Corporation
Century Housing
Quantified Objectives
Housing Element law requires that cities establish the maximum number of units that can be preserved over the planning period. The City’s objective it to preserve the 75 affordable housing units “at-risk” of converting to market rate through policy programs provided in Chapter 4: Housing Plan.
SB 330
Effective January 1, 2020, Senate Bill 330 (SB 330) aims to increase residential unit development, protect existing housing inventory, and expedite permit processing. Under this legislation, municipal and county agencies are restricted in ordinances and polices that can be applied to residential development. The revised definition of “Housing Development” now contains residential projects of two or more units, mixeduse projects (with two-thirds of the floor area designated for residential use), transitional, supportive, and emergency housing projects. SB330 sets a temporary 5-year prohibition of residential density reduction associated with a “housing development project”, from January 1, 2020, to January 1, 2025. For example, during this temporary prohibition, a residential triplex cannot be demolished and replaced with a duplex as this would be a net loss of one unit.
The City is committed to making diligent efforts to engage underrepresented and disadvantaged communities in studying displacement.
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-113
5. Summary of Fair Housing Analysis
The analysis conducted in this section regarding fair housing issues within Costa Mesa yielded the following conclusions:
The dissimilarity analysis shows that nearly all racial and ethnic groups experience moderate to high segregation in the City of Costa Mesa. The Native Hawaiian and the Hispanic population experience the highest levels of segregation, meaning that to create a more integrated city, more than 45 percent of each respective population would need to move into a predominantly white census tract.
There are no racially or ethnically concentrated census tracts (RECAPs) within Costa Mesa as identified by HUD. This indicates that there are no census tracts within the City with a non-white population of 50 percent or more or any census tracts that have a poverty rate that exceeds 40% or is three or more times the average tract poverty rate for the metropolitan area. However, there is one area identified as high segregation and poverty. The data shows that Costa Mesa has ten block groups which meet the criteria for racially concentrated areas of affluence (RCAA). RCAAs are areas which the population is predominantly white with an income over $125,000 or higher.
The UC Davis Regional Opportunity Index shows that the majority of residents within Costa Mesa have a moderate to high level of achievement and attainment. However, there are two census tracts in the south western portion of the City which show the lowest levels of attainment and achievement for residents, these areas also overlap with the high segregation and poverty area identified by the TCAC map (Figure 3-5b).
The UC Davis Regional Opportunity Index (ROI)shows that the majority of residents within Costa Mesa have the highest level of access to opportunity throughout the City. Additional analysis of the ROI maps show that the northern portion of the City has moderate to lower levels of access to affordable or appropriate housing.
The City provides moderate transit trip opportunity, a score of 5.4. Additionally, about 98.8% of all City jobs are within ½ mile of transit but just under 3 percent of the working population uses public transit as a primary source of transportation.
The City has demonstrated the ability to meet the anticipated future affordable housing needs of the community through the designation of sites to meet the very low and low income RHNA need (Appendix B: Candidate Sites and Housing Resources). These sites are dispersed throughout the community and are identified on sites with high opportunity for residential development. There are 75 current units with affordable covenants at risk of converting to market rate before the year 2029 in the City.
The CalEnviro Screen mapping tool (2018) identified most of the City as “moderate” to “low to moderate” scoring, indicating moderate exposure to harmful pollutants. Additionally, the area which is identified as high segregation and poverty is the highest scoring census tract on the CalEnviro Screen map, indicating high exposure to harmful pollutants.
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-114
6. Assessment of Contributing factors to Fair Housing in Costa Mesa Regionally Identified Contributing Factors
As identified by the AI and the above analysis the City of Costa Mesa experiences the following local contributing factors to fair housing:
Housing Discrimination – The 2020 AI identified housing discrimination as an impediment to fair housing choice in the City. The AI reports that 609 households in Costa Mesa received fair housing services relating to general housing issues and discrimination allegations. The Fair Housing Foundation (FHF) received 65 housing discrimination inquiries with 9 based on physical or mental disability, 8 related to race, 2 related to national origin, 2 related to gender, 1 related to sexual orientation, and 5 related to familial status.
o Through CDBG funding the City contracts with the Fair Housing Foundation to provide educational and support services to persons who experience housing discrimination in Costa Mesa. Services include: 1) responding to discrimination inquiries and complaints through screening and counseling, 2) documenting discrimination complaints by opening fair housing cases, 3) investigating discrimination complaints through extensive testing, and 4) resolving discrimination complaints through conciliation, mediation, administrative agency referrals, and litigation.
Racial and Ethnic Segregation – The Analysis above identifies moderate segregation through the dissimilarity index analysis. Persons who identify as Hispanics, Asian, Native Hawaiian, American Indian, and Black experience over 30 percent dissimilarity with the white population in Costa Mesa.
Additionally, while the R/ECAP analysis did not identify R/ECAPs in the City, there are two racially and ethnic concentrated areas of poverty near the City consisting of primarily Hispanic and Asian population. o During the AI report period, the City distributed literature on fair housing in English, Spanish, and Vietnamese to target neighborhoods and in conjunction with other neighborhood improvement efforts. This information was also provided at workshop events, at community centers, and at City Hall.
o The City will continue to outreach specifically to low and very low-income residents as wells considered targeted outreach to residents with moderate and high levels of segregation, Unfair Lending – The Lending Analysis identifies lower rates of home loan approval for moderate, low, and very low-income residents. Additionally, applicants in Costa Mesa who identify as Black experience both lower rates of home loan approval and purchase and higher rates of home loan denial, indicating disparity in access to funding.
o Currently, the City does not offer homebuyer assistance, but the AI reports that information on housing rehab programs are available on the City’s website. The City will continue to provide important ownership information on the City’s website. Costa Mesa recognizes that an educated community is an empowered commitment and will considered target education and outreach about loan purchase to residents. Overcrowding – the Analysis of Existing Housing Needs in Costa Mesa identified a significantly higher percentage of renters who experience overcrowding in the City than in the County and the State. Overcrowding can be an indicator of multi-generational living, however in renter ship it is Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-115 often an indicator that there are not sufficient affordable housing options causing residents to increase the number of persons per unit to lower the overall cost of housing. Overcrowding may also indicate a lack of adequate housing unit types available to residents with large families. While the City does not build housing, they will work with developers and interested parties to increase feasibility and opportunities for both affordable housing and multigenerational housing.
Locally Identified Contributing Factors
There are a number of factors and elements that contribute to and cause fair housing issues. The following lists a number of contributing factors within the City of Costa Mesa:
Community Opposition – As a part of the Housing Element Update, the City hosted a variety of community engagement opportunities to gather feedback and input related housing needs. A large number of community members identified an overall objection to new housing in the City, specifically higher income housing. Traditionally, affordable housing and higher density residential projects receive community pushback or opposition. However, outreach and education can help to shift negative views of additional housing in a positive manner. Lack of Investment in Specific Neighborhoods – The TCAC map identified census tract:
06059063605 as an area of high segregation and poverty (Figure 3-5b); meaning the demographics of this tract are consistent with the standards for both poverty (30% of the population below the federal poverty line) and racial segregation. Additionally, this census tract is scored as lowest opportunity in civic life, health, mobility, housing, economy, and education by the UC Davis ROI:
People (Figure 3-8), which is a relative measure of people’s assets in a census tract. While the area was scored as low opportunity for resident assets, it was scored highest opportunity for Place (Figure 3-9), meaning the geographic area has high assets and opportunity in education, economic, housing, mobility, health and civic life. The census tract is also identified as having less positive educational outcomes by the TCAC-Education map (Figure 3-12) and the highest exposure to harmful pollutants according to the CalEnviro Screen (Figure 3-14). Combined data shows that conditions in this area may exacerbate existing segregation trends, low opportunity for community and resident enhancement and upward mobility and that there may be overall lack of public investment in the area.
Displacement of Residents Due to Economic Pressures – The data in the RCAA analysis (Figures 3- 6 through 3-7) show that there are ten census tracts which meet the criteria for a racially concentrated area of affluence (RCAA). The definition for an RCAA is a census tract in which 80 percent or more of the population is White and has a median income of at least $125,000. The RCAAs are located in the highest resource and highest opportunity areas and are also within areas with the lowest exposure to harmful pollutants. If RCAA expand and gentrification occurs across the city, lower income households are at risk of displacement due to economic pressures and potential changing or increasing costs in housing and essential retail.
7. Analysis of Sites Pursuant to AB 686
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-116 AB 686 requires that jurisdictions identify sites throughout the community in a manner that is consistent with its duty to affirmatively further fair housing. The site identification requirement involves not only an analysis of site capacity to accommodate the RHNA (provided in Appendix B), but also whether the identified sites serve the purpose of replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity.
Figures 3-24 through 3-32 below identify the sites to accommodate future housing, as identified in the adequate sites analysis, overlaid on demographic data using the 2022 American Community Survey 5-Years Estimates.
Figure 3-24 – Sites Proposed to Accommodate RHNA and Percent Population Hispanic Figure 3-25 – Proposed Sites to Accommodate RHNA and Percent Population Non-White Figure 3-26 – Proposed Sites to Accommodate RHNA and Percent Population Low and ModerateIncome Figure 3-27 – Proposed Sites to Accommodate RHNA and Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty
Figure 3-28 – Proposed Sites to Accommodate RHNA and Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Affluence
Figure 3-29 – Proposed Sites to Accommodate RHNA and TCAC Opportunity Areas Figure 3-30 – Urban Displacement Project – Gentrification and Displacement Figure 3-31 – Overcrowded Households
Figure 3-32 – Overpayment by Renters
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-117 A. Segregation and Integration
This section evaluates the proposed housing sites inventory in relation to segregation and integration indicators, including race/ethnicity and income.
Race and Ethnicity
Figures 3-24 and 3-25 show the proposed sites inventory in relation to predominant race or ethnicity of the area in which each site is located.
120 housing element sites, or 71.9 percent of the sites, are located in areas where the predominant population is White alone, not Hispanic or Latino. These sites accommodate 10,811 units, or 87.0 percent of the total RHNA capacity analyzed. Of those units, 3,510 units are lower-income units, 1,920 units are moderate-income units, and 5,381 units are above moderate-income units. 47 housing element sites, or 28.1 percent of the sites, are located in areas where the predominant population is Hispanic or Latino. These sites accommodate 1,617 units, or 13.0 percent of the total RHNA capacity analyzed. Of those units, 564 units are lower-income units, 287 units are moderateincome units, and 766 units are above moderate-income units.
The data shows that the proposed sites inventory is not concentrated in areas with higher concentrations of non-White populations. A majority of both sites and total RHNA capacity are located in areas where the predominant population is White alone, not Hispanic or Latino. This includes 86.2 percent of the lowerincome RHNA capacity, indicating that the lower-income capacity in the sites inventory is primarily located outside areas where the predominant population is Hispanic or Latino.
What does this mean? This distribution supports AFFH objectives by providing opportunities for future housing development, including lower-income housing, in areas that are not characterized by higher concentrations of communities of color. However, the inventory also includes a meaningful share of sites and units in predominantly Hispanic or Latino areas.
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-118 Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-119 Income — Low- and Moderate-Income Population
Figure 3-26 shows the proposed sites inventory in relation to census data identifying the percentage of low- and moderate-income residents in the areas where the sites are located. Figure 3-26 shows the following findings:
29 housing element sites, or 17.4 percent of the sites inventory, are located in areas where the lowand moderate-income population is less than 10 percent. These sites accommodate 1,146 units, or
9.2 percent of the total RHNA capacity analyzed. Of those units, 333 units are lower-income units, 218 units are moderate-income units, and 595 units are above moderate-income units. 83 housing element sites, or 49.7 percent of the sites inventory, are located in areas where the low- and moderate-income population is between 10 and 14.9 percent. These sites accommodate 9,397 units, or 75.6 percent of the total RHNA capacity analyzed. Of those units, 3,069 units are lower-income units, 1,652 units are moderate-income units, and 4,676 units are above moderateincome units.
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-120 48 housing element sites, or 28.7 percent of the sites analyzed, are located in areas where the lowand moderate-income population is between 15 and 19.9 percent. These sites accommodate 1,687 units, or 13.6 percent of the total RHNA capacity analyzed. Of those units, 605 units are lower-income units, 301 units are moderate-income units, and 781 units are above moderate-income units. 7 housing element sites, or 4.2 percent of the sites inventory, are located in areas where the lowand moderate-income population is 20 percent or greater. These sites accommodate 198 units, or
1.6 percent of the total RHNA capacity analyzed. Of those units, 67 units are lower-income units, 36 units are moderate-income units, and 95 units are above moderate-income units.
The data shows that the majority of the sites inventory capacity is located in areas with relatively lower shares of low- and moderate-income residents. Approximately 85 percent of the total RHNA capacity is located in areas where the low- and moderate-income population is below 15 percent. Similarly, approximately 83.5 percent of the lower-income RHNA capacity is located in these same areas.
What does this mean? This distribution supports AFFH objectives because the sites inventory does not concentrate lower-income RHNA capacity in areas with higher concentrations of low- and moderate-income residents. Instead, the lower-income RHNA capacity is primarily located in areas with comparatively stronger income characteristics, which may help expand housing choice and access to economic opportunity.
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-121 Income — Median Household Income
Additionally, the City analyzed the proposed sites inventory in relation to median household income and noted the following key findings:
10 housing element sites, or 6.0 percent of the sites analyzed, are located in areas with a median household income below $75,000. These sites accommodate 492 units, or 4.0 percent of the total RHNA capacity analyzed. Of those units, 148 units are lower-income units, 94 units are moderateincome units, and 250 units are above moderate-income units. 57 housing element sites, or 34.1 percent of the sites analyzed, are located in areas with a median household income between $75,000 and $99,999. These sites accommodate 1,675 units, or 13.5 percent of the total RHNA capacity analyzed. Of those units, 517 units are lower-income units, 313 units are moderate-income units, and 845 units are above moderate-income units. 48 housing element sites, or 28.7 percent of the sites inventory, are located in areas with a median household income between $100,000 and $124,999. These sites accommodate 2,353 units, or 18.9 Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-122 percent of the total RHNA capacity analyzed. Of those units, 792 units are lower-income units, 463 units are moderate-income units, and 1,098 units are above moderate-income units. 45 housing element sites, or 26.9 percent of the sites inventory, are located in areas with a median household income between $125,000 and $149,999. These sites accommodate 7,809 units, or 62.8 percent of the total RHNA capacity analyzed. Of those units, 2,578 units are lower-income units, 1,318 units are moderate-income units, and 3,913 units are above moderate-income units. 7 housing element sites, or 4.2 percent of the sites analyzed, are located in areas with a median household income of $150,000 or greater. These sites accommodate 99 units, or 0.8 percent of the total RHNA capacity analyzed. Of those units, 39 units are lower-income units, 19 units are moderate-income units, and 41 units are above moderate-income units.
The data shows that the proposed sites inventory is primarily located in moderate- and higher-income areas. Approximately 82.6 percent of total RHNA capacity is located in areas with median household incomes of $100,000 or greater. Similarly, approximately 83.7 percent of lower-income RHNA capacity is located in areas with median household incomes of $100,000 or greater.
What does this mean? This distribution supports AFFH objectives by providing substantial lower-income housing capacity in moderate- and higher-income areas, rather than concentrating lower-income capacity in lower-income areas of the City. This pattern can help expand housing choice and improve access to areas with stronger income characteristics.
Poverty Status
The City analyzed the proposed housing element sites in relation to poverty rates and noted the following key findings:
102 housing element sites, or 61.1 percent of the sites inventory, are located in areas where the poverty rate is less than 10 percent. These sites accommodate 3,074 units, or 24.7 percent of the total RHNA capacity analyzed. Of those units, 995 units are lower-income units, 570 units are moderate-income units, and 1,509 units are above moderate-income units. 62 housing element sites, or 37.1 percent of the sites inventory, are located in areas where the poverty rate is between 10 and 19.9 percent. These sites accommodate 9,212 units, or 74.1 percent of the total RHNA capacity analyzed. Of those units, 3,031 units are lower-income units, 1,610 units are moderate-income units, and 4,571 units are above moderate-income units. 3 housing element sites, or 1.8 percent of the sites inventory, are located in areas where the poverty rate is between 20 and 29.9 percent. These sites accommodate 142 units, or 1.1 percent of the total RHNA capacity analyzed. Of those units, 48 units are lower-income units, 27 units are moderate-income units, and 67 units are above moderate-income units. No housing element sites are located in areas where the poverty rate is 30 percent or greater.
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-123 The data shows that the sites inventory is not concentrated in areas with high poverty rates. Approximately
98.2 percent of housing element sites and 98.9 percent of total RHNA capacity are located in areas where the poverty rate is below 20 percent. Similarly, approximately 98.8 percent of lower-income RHNA capacity is located in areas where the poverty rate is below 20 percent.
What does this mean? This distribution supports AFFH objectives because the sites inventory does not concentrate the lower-income RHNA capacity in high-poverty areas. Instead, the lower-income RHNA capacity is primarily located in areas with comparatively lower poverty rates, which may help expand housing choice and reduce patterns of concentrated poverty.
Conclusion - What This Means for Fair Housing Choice
Overall, the proposed sites inventory supports AFFH objectives related to segregation and integration. The site-level and unit-capacity analysis shows that the inventory is not disproportionately concentrated in areas with higher concentrations of non-White populations, lower-income households, or high poverty rates. A majority of RHNA capacity, including lower-income RHNA capacity, is in areas where the predominant population is White alone, not Hispanic or Latino, and in areas with moderate- to higherincome characteristics.
The data shows that 86.2 percent of lower-income RHNA capacity is located in areas where the predominant population is White alone, not Hispanic or Latino, and 83.7 percent of lower-income RHNA capacity is located in areas with median household incomes of $100,000 or greater. In addition, 98.8 percent of lower-income RHNA capacity is located in areas where the poverty rate is below 20 percent, and no housing element sites are located in areas where the poverty rate is 30 percent or greater.
Together, these findings indicate that the sites inventory has the potential to expand housing choices in areas of the City with stronger income characteristics and lower levels of poverty, rather than concentrating lower-income capacity in areas already experiencing economic disadvantage. This distribution supports AFFH objectives by providing opportunities for future housing development, including lower-income housing, in areas that may offer greater access to economic stability and opportunity.
B. Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP) and Affluence This section evaluates the sites inventory in relation to racially/ethnically concentrated areas of poverty and racially concentrated areas of affluence (RCAA). The analysis includes data for R/ECAP and RCAA tracts.
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-124 R/ECAP Tracts
Figure 3-27 shows the housing element sites in relation to Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty. Figure 3-27 shows the following findings:
No housing element sites are located within a R/ECAP tract. Therefore, 0 units, or 0 percent of the total RHNA capacity analyzed, are located within a R/ECAP tract.
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-125 Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence
Figure 3-28 shows the housing element sites in relation to Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence. Figure 3-28 shows the following findings:
14 housing element sites, or 8.4 percent of the sites inventory, are located within a Racially Concentrated Area of Affluence. These sites accommodate 442 units, or 3.6 percent of the total RHNA capacity analyzed. Of those units, 148 units are lower-income units, 80 units are moderateincome units, and 214 units are above moderate-income units.
What does this mean? The data shows that the sites inventory is not concentrated in Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence. However, the inventory does include some lower-income RHNA capacity within these Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-126 areas, including 148 lower-income units. This supports AFFH objectives by providing some opportunity for lower-income housing in more affluent areas of the City.
Conclusion - What This Means for Fair Housing Choice
Overall, the sites inventory supports AFFH objectives related to avoiding the concentration of housing capacity in areas of poverty. No housing element sites are located within R/ECAP tracts, and no sites are located in areas where the poverty rate is 30 percent or greater.
However, the City recognizes that the analysis also shows that the sites inventory includes a limited share of capacity in Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence. Only 14 housing element sites, or 8.4 percent of the sites inventory, are located in RCAAs. These sites accommodate 442 units, or 3.6 percent of the total RHNA capacity, including 148 lower-income units, or 3.6 percent of the lower-income RHNA capacity. As a result, while the sites inventory does include some lower-income housing capacity in RCAAs, it does not place a substantial share of the RHNA capacity in these areas.
The limited share of capacity in RCAAs suggests that the sites inventory alone may not fully address patterns of exclusion from the City’s most affluent areas. However, the RCAA findings should be considered together with the broader access to opportunity and income findings. Although only a limited share of capacity is located within RCAAs specifically, the sites inventory places a substantial majority of housing capacity in higher-opportunity areas. Specifically, 111 housing element sites, or 66.5 percent of the sites inventory, are located in High or Highest Resource areas. These sites accommodate 9,483 units, or 76.3 percent of the total RHNA capacity analyzed, including 3,101 lower-income units, or 76.1 percent of the lower-income RHNA capacity.
The income analysis also supports this finding. The sites inventory accommodates 10,261 units, or 82.6 percent of total RHNA capacity, in areas with median household incomes of $100,000 or greater. This includes 3,409 lower-income units, or 83.7 percent of the lower-income RHNA capacity. Therefore, while the sites inventory has limited capacity in RCAAs, it does provide substantial lower-income housing capacity in higher-income and higher-resource areas of the City.
Therefore, although the sites inventory does not concentrate a large share of capacity within RCAAs specifically, it does provide significant lower-income housing capacity in higher-income areas of the city.
This distinction is important because RCAAs are one measure of affluence, but they are not the only indicator of access to higher-income neighborhoods or economic opportunity. When evaluated against median household income and TCAC Opportunity Area data, the sites inventory provides substantial capacity in areas with stronger income and opportunity characteristics.
The City’s ADU strategy also plays an important role in addressing this finding. Unlike larger housing element sites, which depend on parcel size, zoning, redevelopment feasibility, and realistic capacity assumptions, ADUs may be developed on residential parcels throughout the City, including in higherincome and lower-density neighborhoods where larger multifamily opportunity sites may be limited. To Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-127 the extent ADUs are anticipated in RCAA or higher-income areas, they can help expand lower-cost housing opportunities in neighborhoods that may otherwise have limited multifamily development capacity.
Over the first five years of the planning period (2021 – Current), the City permitted a total of 374 ADUs, exceeding the original projection of 250 ADUs for the 8-year planning period. This demonstrates that actual ADU permitting has outpaced the assumptions included in the 2021 Housing Element, particularly in later years as property owner familiarity, streamlined regulations, and local implementation efforts have continued to support ADU development. Completed ADUs have also increased steadily over time, reflecting the typical lag between permitting and construction while confirming that ADUs are being delivered as part of the City’s housing supply.
From an AFFH perspective, continued ADU production supports the City’s broader strategy to expand housing opportunities throughout existing residential neighborhoods, including areas where larger multifamily Housing Element sites may be limited. While ADUs are not relied upon in this amendment to satisfy RHNA capacity, they remain an important tool for increasing housing choice in established neighborhoods, including single-family and lower-density areas. This is particularly relevant in areas identified as Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence, where the availability of traditional multifamily sites may be more limited. By allowing additional housing units within existing residential lots, ADUs can help incrementally diversify housing options, support smaller households, older adults, caregivers, and extended families, and create additional rental opportunities in neighborhoods with access to schools, services, and amenities.
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-128 C. Access to Opportunities
This section evaluates the housing element sites inventory in relation to access to opportunity indicators, including TCAC/HCD Opportunity Area designations and environmental conditions. These indicators help evaluate whether future housing capacity, including lower-income RHNA capacity, is located in areas with greater access to economic, educational, environmental, and other opportunity-related resources.
Tax Credit Allocation Committee/HCD Opportunity Areas
Figure 3-29 shows the housing element sites in relation to TCAC/HCD Opportunity Area designations. Figure 3-29 shows the following findings:
70 housing element sites, or 41.9 percent of the sites inventory, are located in Highest Resource areas. These sites accommodate 8,320 units, or 66.9 percent of the total RHNA capacity analyzed.
Of those units, 2,736 units are lower-income units, 1,426 units are moderate-income units, and 4,158 units are above moderate-income units.
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-129 41 housing element sites, or 24.6 percent of the sites inventory, are located in High Resource areas.
These sites accommodate 1,163 units, or 9.4 percent of the total RHNA capacity analyzed. Of those units, 365 units are lower-income units, 214 units are moderate-income units, and 584 units are above moderate-income units.
34 housing element sites, or 20.4 percent of the sites inventory, are located in Moderate Resource areas. These sites accommodate 2,160 units, or 17.4 percent of the total RHNA capacity analyzed.
Of those units, 692 units are lower-income units, 434 units are moderate-income units, and 1,034 units are above moderate-income units.
22 housing element sites, or 13.2 percent of the sites inventory, are located in Low Resource areas.
These sites accommodate 785 units, or 6.3 percent of the total RHNA capacity analyzed. Of those units, 281 units are lower-income units, 133 units are moderate-income units, and 371 units are above moderate-income units.
The data shows that the sites inventory is strongly oriented towards higher-opportunity areas. Combined, 111 housing element sites, or 66.5 percent of the sites inventory, are located in High or Highest Resource areas. These sites accommodate 9,483 units, or 76.3 percent of the total RHNA capacity analyzed.
Importantly, these High and Highest Resource sites also accommodate 3,101 lower-income units, or 76.1 percent of the lower-income RHNA capacity.
What does this mean? This distribution supports AFFH objectives by placing a substantial majority of total housing capacity and lower-income housing capacity in areas with greater access to opportunity. The data indicates that the sites inventory does not concentrate lower-income RHNA capacity in Moderate or Low Resource areas. Instead, the majority of lower-income RHNA capacity is located in High and Highest Resource areas, which may improve access to economic, educational, environmental, and other resources for lower-income households.
Environmental Conditions / CalEnviroScreen
The City also analyzed housing element sites in relation to CalEnviroScreen scores. Lower CalEnviroScreen scores generally indicate lower environmental burden, while higher scores indicate higher environmental burden. Key findings included:
20 housing element sites, or 12.0 percent of the sites inventory, are located in areas with a CalEnviroScreen score below 25. These sites accommodate 599 units, or 4.8 percent of the total RHNA capacity analyzed. Of those units, 208 units are lower-income units, 109 units are moderateincome units, and 282 units are above moderate-income units. 102 housing element sites, or 61.1 percent of the sites inventory, are located in areas with a CalEnviroScreen score between 25 and 49.9. These sites accommodate 10,080 units, or 81.1 percent of the total RHNA capacity analyzed. Of those units, 3,291 units are lower-income units, 1,781 units are moderate-income units, and 5,008 units are above moderate-income units.
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-130 23 housing element sites, or 13.8 percent of the sites inventory, are located in areas with a CalEnviroScreen score between 50 and 74.9. These sites accommodate 964 units, or 7.8 percent of the total RHNA capacity analyzed. Of those units, 294 units are lower-income units, 184 units are moderate-income units, and 486 units are above moderate-income units. 22 housing element sites, or 13.2 percent of the sites inventory, are located in areas with a CalEnviroScreen score of 75 or greater. These sites accommodate 785 units, or 6.3 percent of the total RHNA capacity analyzed. Of those units, 281 units are lower-income units, 133 units are moderate-income units, and 371 units are above moderate-income units.
What does this mean? The data shows that most housing capacity is located in areas with lower to moderate environmental burden. Approximately 85.9 percent of total RHNA capacity is located in areas with CalEnviroScreen scores below 50. Similarly, 85.9 percent of lower-income RHNA capacity is located in areas with CalEnviroScreen scores below 50.
Only 6.3 percent of total RHNA capacity and 6.9 percent of lower-income RHNA capacity are located in areas with CalEnviroScreen scores of 75 or greater. This indicates that the sites inventory does not disproportionately place lower-income RHNA capacity in areas with the highest environmental burden.
Conclusion - What This Means for Fair Housing Choice
Overall, the sites inventory strongly supports AFFH objectives related to access to opportunity. A substantial majority of total RHNA capacity and lower-income RHNA capacity is located in High or Highest Resource areas. Specifically, 76.3 percent of total RHNA capacity and 76.1 percent of lower-income RHNA capacity are located in High or Highest Resource areas. This is a strong finding because it shows that the City is not simply accommodating lower-income RHNA capacity in lower-resource areas but is instead identifying meaningful capacity in areas with greater access to opportunity.
The CalEnviroScreen analysis also supports this conclusion. Approximately 85.9 percent of total RHNA capacity and 85.9 percent of lower-income RHNA capacity are located in areas with CalEnviroScreen scores below 50. This indicates that most of the sites inventory is located outside areas with comparatively higher environmental burden.
Comparison to 2021 Housing Element Sites Inventory
The updated sites inventory reflects a stronger distribution of housing capacity in relation to TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas than the sites inventory analyzed in the 2021 Housing Element. This improvement appears to reflect two related factors: the addition of new housing element sites are more broadly distributed throughout the City and no longer concentrated north of the I-405 and changes in the underlying fair housing datasets and opportunity area designations over time.
The TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps are updated regularly and are intended to identify areas associated with positive economic, educational, and health outcomes for lower-income families. Because the maps are periodically updated, changes between the 2021 analysis and the current analysis may reflect both changes Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-131 to the City’s sites inventory and changes in how areas are classified under the current TCAC/HCD methodology and data. (Cal HCD)
The housing element submitted originally in 2021 found that the majority of potential units were located in Moderate Resource areas, with only a limited share of capacity located in High Resource areas.
Specifically, the 2021 inventory included 9 sites in High Resource areas, accommodating 578 units, or 3.5 percent of total potential units. Of those units, 165 units were affordable to lower-income households. The 2021 analysis also identified 17 sites in High Segregation and Poverty areas and 10 sites in Low Resource areas, together accommodating 1,595 units, or 9.6 percent of total potential units, including 498 lowerincome units.
By comparison, the updated sites inventory reflected in this 2026 amendment includes 111 housing element sites in High or Highest Resource areas, accommodating 9,483 units, or 76.3 percent of the total RHNA capacity analyzed. These sites include 3,101 lower-income units, or 76.1 percent of the lower-income RHNA capacity. The updated inventory also includes a smaller share of capacity in Low Resource areas, with 22 housing element sites accommodating 785 units, or 6.3 percent of total RHNA capacity, including 281 lower-income units, or 6.9 percent of lower-income RHNA capacity.
The updated AFFH data also shows that Costa Mesa now includes areas classified as Highest Resource and areas identified as Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence, which were not reflected in the same way in the 2021 sites inventory analysis. This suggests that, under current TCAC/HCD and AFFH datasets, portions of Costa Mesa demonstrate stronger opportunity and affluence characteristics than were reflected in the prior analysis. However, because opportunity maps and AFFH layers are updated over time, this change should be understood as a combination of updated site selection, updated data, and changes in mapped opportunity classifications.
Overall, while the 2021 and 2026 updated analyses are not perfectly comparable, the current sites inventory demonstrates a substantially improved fair housing outcome. The updated inventory places a much larger share of total and lower-income RHNA capacity in High and Highest Resource areas and a smaller share of capacity in lower-resource areas. This improved distribution supports the City’s AFFH objectives by expanding the potential for lower-income households to access higher-opportunity neighborhoods while reducing the relative concentration of future housing capacity in lower-resource geographies.
D. Disproportionate Housing Needs
This section evaluates the housing element sites inventory in relation to indicators of disproportionate housing needs, including displacement risk, overcrowding, and housing overpayment by renters and homeowners. These indicators help assess whether the sites inventory may concentrate future housing capacity in areas already experiencing housing instability, or whether the inventory can help address existing housing needs through new housing opportunities.
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-132 Displacement Risk
Figure 3-30 shows the housing element sites in relation to displacement risk. Figure 3-30 shows the following findings:
43 housing element sites, or 25.7 percent of the sites inventory, are located in areas identified as At Risk of Displacement. These sites accommodate 1,672 units, or 13.5 percent of the total RHNA capacity analyzed. Of those units, 548 units are lower-income units, 302 units are moderateincome units, and 822 units are above moderate-income units. 124 housing element sites, or 74.3 percent of the sites inventory, are located in areas identified as having Lower Displacement Risk. These sites accommodate 10,756 units, or 86.5 percent of the total RHNA capacity analyzed. Of those units, 3,526 units are lower-income units, 1,905 units are moderate-income units, and 5,325 units are above moderate-income units.
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-133 What does this mean? This distribution supports AFFH objectives because the sites inventory does not disproportionately place future housing capacity in areas where existing residents may be more vulnerable to displacement. Although 25.7 percent of housing element sites are located in areas identified as at risk of displacement, these sites accommodate only 13.5 percent of total RHNA capacity. By contrast, the substantial majority of total and lower-income capacity is located in areas with lower displacement risk.
Meaningful Actions: At the same time, the presence of 548 lower-income units in areas at risk of displacement is important. Lower-income housing capacity in these areas can help respond to existing housing displacement risks by creating opportunities for deed-restricted affordable housing in neighborhoods where lower-income residents may otherwise face increasing housing pressure.
The City has already established programs to help respond to displacement risk and housing affordability pressures. In 2024, the City adopted its first Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, Title 13, Chapter XVII of the Zoning Code which is intended to increase the production of affordable housing as new residential development occurs. This program is especially relevant for sites located in areas at risk of displacement because it helps ensure that new housing production includes affordable units and does not only result in market-rate development.
To support the implementation of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, the City has also allocated $2.5 million to an affordable housing trust fund. As part of the adoption of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, the City committed to monitoring the effectiveness of the ordinance with the intent to return to City Council for an update on implementation and opportunity to consider potential modifications to in-lieu fees, as needed, to strengthen affordable housing outcomes.
Through Program 2A: Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, the City will assess the ordinance for effectiveness and recommend changes, as needed. This work is scheduled to be completed by December 2027 and will be led by the City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department, including the Housing and Community Development Division and Planning Division. This program supports AFFH objectives by helping expand access to affordable housing, including in areas where residents may be vulnerable to displacement or housing cost pressures.
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-134 Overcrowding
Figure 3-31 shows the housing element sites in relation to overcrowding rates. Figure 3-31 shows the following findings:
80 housing element sites, or 47.9 percent of the sites inventory, are located in areas where overcrowding is less than 5 percent. These sites accommodate 9,328 units, or 75.1 percent of the total RHNA capacity analyzed. Of those units, 3,036 units are lower-income units, 1,637 units are moderate-income units, and 4,655 units are above moderate-income units. 60 housing element sites, or 35.9 percent of the sites inventory, are located in areas where overcrowding is between 5 and 9.9 percent. These sites accommodate 2,127 units, or 17.1 percent of the total RHNA capacity analyzed. Of those units, 697 units are lower-income units, 402 units are moderate-income units, and 1,028 units are above moderate-income units.
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-135 27 housing element sites, or 16.2 percent of the sites inventory, are located in areas where overcrowding is 10 percent or greater. These sites accommodate 973 units, or 7.8 percent of the total RHNA capacity analyzed. Of those units, 341 units are lower-income units, 168 units are moderate-income units, and 464 units are above moderate-income units.
The data shows that most RHNA capacity is located outside areas with higher overcrowding rates.
Approximately 75.1 percent of total RHNA capacity and 74.5 percent of lower-income RHNA capacity are located in areas where overcrowding is less than 5 percent. Only 7.8 percent of total RHNA capacity and 8.4 percent of lower-income RHNA capacity are located in areas where overcrowding is 10 percent or greater.
What does this mean? This distribution indicates that the sites inventory does not disproportionately concentrate housing capacity in areas already experiencing higher levels of overcrowding. At the same time, the inclusion of some housing capacity in areas with higher overcrowding may help address local housing needs by increasing the supply of housing in areas where existing households may be experiencing pressure from limited housing availability.
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-136 Housing Overpayment by Renters
Figure 3-32 shows the housing element sites in relation to the percentage of renter households experiencing housing overpayment.
46 sites, or 27.5 percent of the sites inventory, are located in areas where less than 50 percent of renter households are overpaying for housing. These sites accommodate 1,164 units, or 9.4 percent of the total RHNA capacity analyzed. Of those units, 417 units are lower-income units, 198 units are moderate-income units, and 549 units are above moderate-income units. 108 sites, or 64.7 percent of the sites inventory, are located in areas where 50 to 59.9 percent of renter households are overpaying for housing. These sites accommodate 10,797 units, or 86.9 percent of the total RHNA capacity analyzed. Of those units, 3,497 units are lower-income units, 1,920 units are moderate-income units, and 5,380 units are above moderate-income units. 13 sites, or 7.8 percent of the sites inventory, are located in areas where 60 percent or greater of renter households are overpaying for housing. These sites accommodate 467 units, or 3.8 percent of the total RHNA capacity analyzed. Of those units, 160 units are lower-income units, 89 units are moderate-income units, and 218 units are above moderate-income units.
The renter overpayment data shows that housing cost burden is a widespread issue in Costa Mesa. A substantial majority of the sites inventory is located in areas where at least half of renter households are overpaying for housing. Specifically, 121 housing element sites, or 72.5 percent of the sites inventory, are located in areas where renter overpayment is 50 percent or greater. These sites accommodate 11,264 units, or 90.6 percent of the total RHNA capacity analyzed, including 3,657 lower-income units, or 89.8 percent of the lower-income RHNA capacity.
What does this mean? This finding should be framed carefully. The high share of RHNA capacity in areas with renter overpayment does not necessarily indicate that the sites inventory is worsening disproportionate housing needs, because renter overpayment appears to be broadly distributed across the city. Rather, the data indicates that renter cost burden is a citywide housing issue. The inclusion of significant lower-income RHNA capacity in these areas may help address existing affordability needs by increasing opportunities for income-restricted and lower-cost housing. Additionally, increasing the capacity for housing development across the community on Housing Element sites as well as non-Housing Element sites has the potential to increase supply throughout the City, potentially reducing rental prices and overpayment in general.
Housing Overpayment by Homeowners
Additionally, the City analyzed the housing element sites in relation to the percentage of homeowner households experiencing housing overpayment. Key findings included:
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-137 8 housing element sites, or 4.8 percent of the sites inventory, are located in areas where homeowner overpayment is less than 20 percent. These sites accommodate 1,041 units, or 8.4 percent of the total RHNA capacity analyzed. Of those units, 336 units are lower-income units, 224 units are moderate-income units, and 481 units are above moderate-income units. 106 housing element sites, or 63.5 percent of the sites inventory, are located in areas where homeowner overpayment is between 20 and 39.9 percent. These sites accommodate 9,684 units, or 77.9 percent of the total RHNA capacity analyzed. Of those units, 3,176 units are lower-income units, 1,679 units are moderate-income units, and 4,829 units are above moderate-income units. 53 housing element sites, or 31.7 percent of the sites inventory, are located in areas where homeowner overpayment is 40 percent or greater. These sites accommodate 1,703 units, or 13.7 percent of the total RHNA capacity analyzed. Of those units, 562 units are lower-income units, 304 units are moderate-income units, and 837 units are above moderate-income units.
The data shows that most RHNA capacity is located in areas with moderate levels of homeowner overpayment. Approximately 77.9 percent of total RHNA capacity and 78.0 percent of lower-income RHNA capacity are located in areas where homeowner overpayment is between 20 and 39.9 percent. A smaller share, approximately 13.7 percent of total RHNA capacity and 13.8 percent of lower-income RHNA capacity, is located in areas where homeowner overpayment is 40 percent or greater.
What does this mean? This distribution indicates that the sites inventory does not disproportionately concentrate housing capacity in areas with the highest levels of homeowner overpayment. However, the presence of homeowner overpayment across many areas of the city reinforces the need for a broad housing strategy that includes both rental and ownership opportunities, affordable housing production, and programs that support housing stability.
Conclusion - What This Means for Fair Housing Choice
Overall, the sites inventory generally does not concentrate RHNA capacity in areas with the highest indicators of disproportionate housing need. A substantial majority of total and lower-income capacity is located in areas with lower displacement risk, lower overcrowding rates, and moderate levels of homeowner overpayment.
Specifically, 86.5 percent of total RHNA capacity and 86.5 percent of lower-income RHNA capacity are located in areas with lower displacement risk, while 75.1 percent of total RHNA capacity and 74.5 percent of lowerincome RHNA capacity are located in areas where overcrowding is less than 5 percent.
However, the renter overpayment data shows that housing affordability pressures are widespread throughout Costa Mesa. Approximately 90.6 percent of total RHNA capacity and 89.8 percent of lowerincome RHNA capacity are located in areas where at least half of renter households are overpaying for housing. This should not be interpreted as a disproportionate concentration of capacity in a small highneed area; rather, it indicates that renter cost burden is a broad citywide condition. The sites inventory can help respond to this need by creating opportunities for new housing, including lower-income housing, in areas where renter households are experiencing affordability pressure.
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-138
8. Analysis of Fair Housing Priorities and Goals
To enhance mobility and promote inclusion for protected classes, the chief strategy included in this Housing Element is to provide sites suitable for affordable housing in high-resource, high-opportunity areas, as demonstrated by the analysis of the housing resource sites contained in Chapter 3: Housing Resources.
Other programs that affirmatively further fair housing and implement the AI’s recommendations include:
PROGRAM 2A: Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
PROGRAM 2B: Affordable Housing Development
PROGRAM 2C: Supportive Services for Persons with Special Needs PROGRAM 2D: Facilitate Development of Senior Housing Options PROGRAM 2E: Encourage Development of Housing Options for Large-Family Households PROGRAM 2F: Persons with Physical and Developmental Disabilities PROGRAM 2H: Farmworker Housing
PROGRAM 4A: Fair Housing
PROGRAM 4B: Rental Housing Assistance
PROGRAM 4D: Fair Housing Assistance
PROGRAM 4E: Low Barrier Navigation Centers
PROGRAM 4F: Homeless Shelter
The following table also lists fair housing issues identified and relevant programs included in the Housing Plan addressing each.
Local Meaningful Actions
Since adoption of the 2021 Housing Element, the City has initiated and completed several meaningful actions to address land use constraints, expand housing opportunities, facilitate housing production, and affirmatively further fair housing. These actions include updates to zoning, development standards, permit procedures, and local housing programs intended to increase residential capacity, provide greater certainty for housing development, and support a broader distribution of housing opportunities throughout the City.
While these actions are discussed throughout this chapter, they are summarized below to demonstrate the City’s continued progress in implementing the Housing Element and addressing fair housing issues Community Engagement / Neighborhoods Where We All Belong. The City is conducting extensive community engagement as part of fair housing actions identified in Program 4A. The Neighborhoods Where We All Belong initiative is a comprehensive effort to address housing needs in Costa Mesa. Through this process, the City is engaging the community about future housing opportunities and proposed updates to the Zoning Code, specific plans, General Plan overlays, and creating Objective Design Standards. This outreach is helping to inform the City’s approach to Housing Element implementation, Measure K implementation, and broader changes intended to expand housing opportunities, reduce constraints, and support fair housing objectives. The initiative was recently recognized by the American Planning Association Orange Section with a 2026 Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-139 Award of Merit in the Opportunity and Empowerment category for the Neighborhoods Where We All Belong Round One Community Visioning.
Inclusionary Housing Program. As part of addressing housing mobility, the City included Programs 2A and 4A to help respond to displacement risk and housing affordability pressures. In 2024, the City adopted its first Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to increase the production of affordable housing as new residential development occurs. This program is especially relevant for sites located in areas at risk of displacement because it helps ensure that new housing production includes affordable units and does not result solely in market-rate development. To support implementation of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, the City has also allocated $2.5 million to an affordable housing trust fund. As part of adopting the ordinance, the City committed to monitoring its effectiveness and returning to the City Council with an implementation update and an opportunity to consider potential modifications to in-lieu fees, as needed, to strengthen affordable housing outcomes.
Voter Initiated Measures. Through Program 3G, the City had committed to evaluating voterinitiated measures such as Measure Y as a constraint on housing. In 2022, Measure K was approved by Costa Mesa voters. Measure K provides an important local framework for expanding housing opportunities in commercial, industrial, and mixed-use areas while preserving existing residential neighborhoods. Through Measure K implementation, the City is creating opportunities for additional residential and mixed-use development in areas closer to jobs, services, transit, and amenities. This effort supports the City’s fair housing goals by expanding housing choice and creating additional capacity beyond the minimum RHNA obligation. Mixed-Use Overlay District (MUOD). The City is currently amending the MUOD to facilitate residential and mixed-use development on Housing Element sites and additional Measure K sites.
In April 2026, the City amended the MUOD to establish specific provisions for Housing Element Opportunity Sites and adopted a revised zoning map to apply the MUOD to those sites. Scheduled for Fall 2026, the City is also advancing a broader MUOD update to apply the overlay to Measure K sites beyond the Housing Element inventory. This phased effort increases residential capacity, creates clearer development standards, and supports a more comprehensive approach to housing production beyond RHNA compliance.
Design. As part of completed Program 3S, the City is preparing Objective Design Standards to replace the design review process to provide clearer, more predictable standards for residential and mixed-use development. These standards are intended to reduce subjectivity in the review process, provide greater certainty to applicants, and support streamlined review of housing projects consistent with State law.
Housing Element Rezoning. As committed in Programs 3C, 3D and 3N, the City completed rezoning actions for Housing Element sites to ensure adequate capacity to accommodate the RHNA. These actions included applying the MUOD to Housing Element sites and establishing development criteria intended to encourage and facilitate residential development. The amended sites inventory also results in a broader distribution of Housing Element sites throughout the City, rather than a concentration primarily north of I-405. Lastly, the revised inventory identifies capacity for approximately 15,000 units, exceeding the City’s RHNA obligation and providing an approximately Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-140 28 percent buffer. This additional capacity supports the City’s ability to accommodate its RHNA while providing flexibility to account for potential changes in site availability, development feasibility, and project timing over the remainder of the planning period. Development Standards. Pursuant to Program 2M, the City has updated development standards, including standards related to parking, building height, and residential density, to better facilitate housing development. These changes are intended to reduce barriers to residential development and support a broader range of housing types.
Accessory Dwelling Units. The City implemented Programs 3E and 3M to support ADU production as a meaningful component of the City’s housing supply. Although the amended Housing Element no longer relies on projected ADU production to satisfy RHNA capacity, actual ADU permitting has exceeded the assumptions included in the 2021 Housing Element. Continued ADU production supports housing choice in existing residential neighborhoods, including areas where larger multifamily Housing Element sites may be limited.
Please see Chapter 4, Housing Plan, for detailed information on each of the City’s fair housing programs and completed efforts to date.
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-141 Fair Housing Issue Contributing Factors Priority Programs Racial and Ethnic Segregation
1. Census tract 636.05 is identified as a High
Segregation and Poverty area. It is also rated the lowest ROI score for people’s assets in education, the economy, housing, mobility/transportation, health/environment, and civic life.
2. Ten census tracts are identified as Racially
Concentrated Areas of Affluence.
3. The Hispanic population experiences higher
levels of poverty according to HUD Opportunity Indicators.
High PROGRAM 4A: Fair Housing – The City will take meaningful actions, in addition to resisting discrimination, that overcomes patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristic, as defined by California law. The City will explore the feasibility of additional actions to mitigate racial and ethnic segregation, and outreach specifically to low and very low-income residents as wells considered targeted outreach to residents with moderate and high levels of segregation. PROGRAM 4I: Partnerships with Local Organizations and Community Groups – The Ccity will partner with local community-based organizations, stakeholders and groups who provide supportive resources and programs to further identify specific needs of this community and connect community members with appropriate resources.
Housing Discrimination
1. The 2020 AI identified housing discrimination
as an impediment to fair housing choice in the City.
Medium PROGRAM 4A: Fair Housing – The City will take meaningful actions, in addition to resisting discrimination, that overcomes patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristic, as defined by California law. The City will explore the feasibility of additional actions to mitigate housing discrimination, as well as continue contracting with the Fair Housing Foundation. PROGRAM 4I: Partnerships with Local Organizations and Community Groups – The city will partner with local community-based organizations, stakeholders and groups who provide supportive resources and programs to further identify specific needs of this community and connect community members with appropriate resources.
Unfair Lending 1. The Lending Analysis identified lower rates of home loan approval for moderate, low, and very low-income residents. Applicants who identified as Black experienced both lower rates of home loan approval and purchase Medium PROGRAM 4A: Fair Housing – The City will take meaningful actions, in addition to resisting discrimination, that overcomes patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristic, as defined by California law. The City will explore the feasibility of Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-142 Fair Housing Issue Contributing Factors Priority Programs and higher rates of home loan denial, indicating disparity in access to funding. additional actions to mitigate unfair lending, as well as continue providing important ownership information on the City’s website.
Access to Opportunity
1. Two census tracts in the City’s southern
region are rated the lowest ROI score for people’s assets in education, the economy, housing, mobility/transportation, health/environment, and civic life.
2. Three census tracts are identified as Low
Resource areas and one is identified as High Segregation and Poverty according to TCAC data.
3. Four census tracts are identified as having
the lowest TCAC Education Outcomes.
High PROGRAM 4I: Partnerships with Local Organizations and Community Groups – The city will partner with local community-based organizations, stakeholders and groups who provide supportive resources and programs to further identify specific needs of this community and connect community members with appropriate resources.
Environmental Conditions
1. All racial and ethnic groups have low
environmental health indices according to HUD Opportunity Indicators.
2. Census tract 636.05 has a CalEnviroScreen
3.0 environmental burden of 81 to 90 percent.
Medium PROGRAM 4I: Partnerships with Local Organizations and Community Groups – The city will partner with local community-based organizations, stakeholders and groups who provide supportive resources and programs to further identify specific needs of this community and connect community members with appropriate resources.
Availability of Accessible Housing for Persons with Disabilities
1. Five census tracts reporting 10 to 20 percent
of their population having at least one disability.
2. Approximately 86 percent of housing units
were built prior to 1989 before the Fair Housing Act and State laws regarding accessibility requirements for persons with disabilities were adopted.
High PROGRAM 1A: Owner-Occupied Housing Rehabilitation – This program may be used to assist qualified property owners in improving single-family residential properties, including: health and safety repairs such as mechanical, plumbing, electrical, roofing, security, medical emergency requirements, and/or aid the mobility of the physically disabled and/or elderly. PROGRAM 2C: Supportive Services for Persons with Special Needs – The City will promote information and outreach to local organizations regarding the availability of CDBG funds for special needs populations to secure decent housing and supportive services. PROGRAM 2F: Persons with Physical and Developmental Disabilities – The City will take actions to accommodate ADA retrofit efforts, ADA compliance and/or other measures to facilitate access to adequate housing for persons with disabilities.
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-143 Fair Housing Issue Contributing Factors Priority Programs PROGRAM 2N: Reasonable Accommodation – The City will outreach to local organizations to promote access to housing for persons with disabilities and address potential constraints, and review and revise its reasonable accommodations process to be consistent with State and federal housing requirements.
Need for affordable housing in new developments.
1. Ten census tracts are identified as Racially
Concentrated Areas of Affluence.
2. Eight census tracts with 40 to 60 percent
overpayment by homeowners and five census tracts 60 to 80 percent overpayment by renters.
3. Three census tracts with overcrowding
greater than 20 percent.
4. Six census tracts reporting Stable/Advanced
Exclusive affordability, one census tract reporting Becoming Exclusive, and nine census tracts reporting At Risk of Becoming Exclusive according to the Urban Displacement Project.
High PROGRAM 2A: Inclusionary Housing Ordinance – The City will consider the adoption of an inclusionary zoning ordinance within 12 months of adoption of the 6th Cycle Housing Element.
PROGRAM 2B: Affordable Housing Development – The City will seek funding, coordinate outreach, provide incentives, and publish informational materials to facilitate and promote the development of affordable housing units.
Displacement Risk 1. One census tract reporting Advanced Gentrification and two census tracts reporting Low-Income/Susceptible to Displacement according to the Urban Displacement Project.
2. A total of 75 assisted affordable units at risk
of becoming market-rate between 2021 and 2031.
High PROGRAM 1C: Monitoring and Preservation of At-Risk Housing Units – The City will regularly monitor units that have the potential to convert to market-rate, and work with property owners on potential contract and funding extensions.
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-144 F. Housing Resources
1. Regional Housing Needs Allocation
This section of the Housing Element provides an overview of the resources available to the City to meet the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The City of Costa Mesa is required to plan for the following 2021-2029 RHNA allocation:
Future Housing Needs
Future housing need refers to the share of the regional housing need that has been allocated to the City.
The State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has supplied a regional housing goal to the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). SCAG was then required to allocate the housing goal to each jurisdiction within the region through a RHNA Plan. In allocating the region’s future housing needs to jurisdictions, SCAG is required to take the following factors into consideration pursuant to Section 65584 of the State Government Code:
Market demand for housing;
Employment opportunities;
Availability of suitable sites and public
facilities;
Commuting patterns;
Type and tenure of housing;
Loss of units in assisted housing
developments;
Over-concentration of lower income
households; and
Geological and topographical
constraints.
HCD, through a determination process, allocates units to each region across California. It is then up to each region to determine a methodology and process for allocating units to each jurisdiction within that region.
SCAG adopted its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA Plan) in March 2021. This RHNA covers an 8- year planning period (starting in 2021) and addresses housing issues that are related to future growth in the region. The RHNA allocates to each city and county a “fair share” of the region’s projected housing needs by household income group. The major goal of the RHNA is to assure a fair distribution of housing among cities and counties within the SCAG region, so that every community provides an opportunity for a mix of housing for all economic segments.
Costa Mesa’s share of the SCAG regional growth allocation is 11,760 new units for the current planning period (2021-2029). Table 3-36: Housing Needs for 2021-2029, indicates the City’s RHNA need for the stated planning period.
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-145 Table 3-36: Housing Needs for 2021-2029
Income Category Percent of Median Family
Income (MFI)
Costa Mesa’s RHNA Allocation for the
2021-2029 Planning Period
Very Low Income 0-50% MFI 2,919 units
Low Income 51-80% MFI 1,794 units
Moderate Income 81-120% MFI 2,088 units
Above Moderate Income >120% MFI 4,959 units
TOTAL 11,760 units
Residential Sites Inventory
Appendix B of the Housing Element includes the required site analysis tables and site information for the vacant and non-vacant properties to meet the City’s RHNA need through the 2021-2029 planning period.
The following discussions summarize the City’s site inventory and adequate sites identification strategy.
Adequacy of Sites for RHNA
The City of Costa Mesa conducted a thorough analysis of all parcels within the City to determine which areas may have the most realistic potential to redevelop for residential uses within the planning period.
The analysis included an in depth look at the following site characteristics for each parcel within the inventory:
Address
Ownership
Zoning (including Specific Plan areas, Urban Plans, and Overlays, if applicable) Size (Net developable acres removing known development constraints) Density
Vacancy status
Previous Housing Element identification
Potential Development Capacity (Dwelling Units) by income category Description of existing use
Most sites identified meet AB 1397 requirements for size as well as infrastructure requirements for available utility service. There is a further analysis regarding consolidation of small sites as well as the development potential of large sites within Appendix B.
The City of Costa Mesa has a total 2021-2029 RHNA allocation of 11,760 units. The Housing Element update lists sites, including accessory dwelling units, that can accommodate approximately 17,531 additional units.
Table 3-37 shows a summary of the City’s overall capacity to accommodate its RHNA. Overall, the City has adequate capacity to accommodate its 2021-2029 RHNA with a 30% buffer in excess of the City’s RHNA need.
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-146 Table B-2: Summary of RHNA Status and Sites Inventory
Very Low
Income* Low Income Moderate Income
Above
Moderate
Income
Total
RHNA (2021-2029) 2,919 1,794 2,088 4,959 11,760
Credit Towards RHNA 274 195 79 95 643
Remaining Unmet RHNA 2,645 1,599 2,009 4,864 11, 117
Overlays and Specific Plans
North Costa Mesa Specific
Plan/MUOD Sub-Area 1,214 1,214 1,405 3,087 6,920
SoBECA MUOD Sub-Area 199 200 240 536 1,175
Mesa West Bluff MUOD SubArea 10 11 110 370 686
19 West MUOD Sub-Area 135 135 122 346 738
Harbor Blvd MUOD Sub-Area 186 186 255 655 1,282
Newport Blvd Specific
Plan/MUOD Sub- Area 92 93 98 272 555
Fairview Developmental Center 0 920 690 690 2300
One Metro West Specific Plan 106 0 851 957
Total Potential Capacity for the
RHNA (Overlays and Specific
Plans)
1,836 2,865 2,920 6,807 14,613
RHNA Capacity
Total Units towards RHNA
(includes Credit towards RHNA
+ Overlays and Specific Plans)
5,167 2,999 6,902 15,256
Total Capacity over RHNA +454 +911 +1,943 +3,496
Buffer 9.6% 43% 39% 30%
*The City’s Extremely Low Income (ELI) housing need is assumed to be 50% of the very low RHNA need for the planning period.
Projects in the Pipeline
Development projects that are in the planning process but have not received approvals or building permits are considered “in the pipeline.” For applications submitted for a land use approval, projects are considered “pending” until the necessary land use approvals are issued, at which point a project is deemed “approved.” Once a building permit is issued, the project is identified as “building permit issued.” When project construction is completed and all necessary building safety inspections have been completed a certificate of occupancy or “final building permit” is issued.
While the City has several projects in the development pipeline, it does not rely on pipeline projects to meet its RHNA obligations. Instead, pipeline projects are reviewed to understand prevailing development trends and to inform site selection. The characteristics of submitted projects helped guide the identification of suitable sites for inclusion in the inventory.
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-147 Redevelopment of Non-Vacant Sites for Residential Uses
The City of Costa Mesa does not have sufficient vacant land available to accommodate fifty percent of their low/very-low income RHNA and are reliant on non-vacant sites to meet their RHNA need. To accommodate the need at all income levels, the City has analyzed sites within non-residentially zoned areas that permit residential development through Specific Plans, Urban Plans, or Overlays. The City also evaluated and included parcels not currently within Urban Plans which will be added when those Urban Plans are amended.
As part of the candidate housing sites analysis, the City has evaluated recent projects that have redeveloped within non-residentially zoned areas that included residential units. Those projects, including the zoning, use prior to redevelopment, and a project analysis of the approved development plan, are shown in Table 3-38. The City’s analysis showed that prior uses on these redeveloped sites were similar in nature to the existing uses on sites identified within the sites inventory in Table B-6.
The City has also conducted a parcel specific analysis of existing uses for each of the identified sites. This analysis of existing uses, including indicators of a likelihood that the existing use will redevelop within the next eight years, are provided in Table B-9. This analysis is based on information readily available to the City and research that can be found through online research. The City does not always have access to private lease information but has included information that property owners have shared regarding individual sites.
Table B-5 summarizes recent, approved, entitled, and constructed residential and mixed-use projects in Costa Mesa to demonstrate local redevelopment patterns and the City’s experience converting underutilized commercial, industrial, motel/hotel, office, and vacant sites into housing. The table identifies each project’s location, acreage, unit count, density, zoning, prior use, development classification, TCAC/HCD resource area, and relationship to similar sites included in the Housing Element sites inventory.
Together, these examples show that residential development has occurred across multiple areas of the City and that many projects have been built or approved on sites with characteristics similar to those identified in the sites inventory.
Lease Analysis
Existing lease agreements on infill and non-vacant properties present a potential impediment that may prevent residential development within the planning period. State law requires the City to consider lease terms in evaluating the use of non-vacant sites, however the City does not have access to private party lease agreements or other contractual agreements amongst private parties. Additionally, COVID-19 has increased the potential number of vacancies, especially within commercial uses. As part of the sites analysis for very-low and low-income sites, the City conducted discussions with property owners who felt comfortable sharing this information and came forward as interested in developing their properties for housing through the planning period. Notes regarding discussion are found in Table B-9.
Regulatory Incentives
Density bonus is a State law which permits increased density, a lowered parking standard, and concessions for projects which provide a certain percentage of their dwelling units as deed restricted to residents at the Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-148 very-low, low, and moderate-income levels. Projects within infill areas such as Costa Mesa often utilize density bonus provisions to construct affordable units. The City understands that existing land use policy may not necessarily contribute to the development of housing. Therefore, regulatory incentives can be helpful in bringing housing units to the market. The City has committed through Program 2I, to annually update the local density bonus ordinance to be consistent with State law if changes are adopted at the State level.
The City has created programs expressly written to address the analysis and potential development of additional regulatory incentives to incentivize the creation of affordable housing. As stated in Program 2B, these may include, but are not limited to, the following for projects that propose a percentage of their housing units as affordable:
Deferment of fees
Priority Processing
Modified development standards (above and beyond what is permitted under Density Bonus) Development Trends and Current Market Demand for Existing Uses The existing uses within the identified candidate housing sites are primarily commercial, light industrial, and office/business park. The following excerpts are from the Winter 2021 Allen Matkins/UCLA Anderson Forecast Commercial Real Estate Survey.
Office Space Markets
The COVID-19 pandemic took a toll on traditional office uses when the majority of California’s office workforce was required to work from home. This taught employees and employers that remote work was possible and may have sparked a trend of more remote work options in a post-COVID world. An excerpt from the above referenced study indicated that “survey participants are confident about the growth in demand for office space between 2020 and 2023, they are pessimistic about the return to investment in new space today.”8
This indicates that while we may return to a more normal work setting in the short term, there is likely to be less investment going forward in new office space as employers look to downsize the leasable space they occupy and expand flexible work options to keep employees happy and hard costs down. It is likely this trend occurs into the next decade, opening up existing office uses not operating at full occupancy for residential redevelopment opportunities.
Retails Space Markets
In regard to future retail development trends and demand, the above referenced study noted the following observations from their analysis on participant responses. “During the previous economic expansion, retail space struggled. The current recession tripled down on that struggle. First, the loss of household income and the shelter-in-place policies reduced current demand for brick-and-mortar retail. Second, the inability to physically frequent many retail establishments created a new set of online shoppers, and third, increases 8 Allen Matkins/UCLA Anderson Forecast Commercial Real Estate Survey, Winter 2021, Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-149 in the savings rate on the part of households in response to the recession portends less individual consumption. To be sure, some activities will be coming back, particularly personal services and experiential retail. But now, more marginal properties will not find tenants willing to pay sufficient rent to keep the properties in the retail space.”9
While COVID-19 had a large impact on retail in the immediate future, overall market trends pointed to a decline in the need for brick-and-mortar retail spaces going back over the past decade. The rise in online retailers such as Amazon and the shift in focus to online sales of major retailers like Target, Walmart, and others have kept shoppers in their homes and away from smaller mom and pop retailers as well.
Experiential uses such as restaurants and dining provide more incentive and are likely to bounce back quickly following the removal of COVID-19 protocols. These uses do well in walkable, mixed-use settings with a strong flow of permanent consumers. Residential uses, especially at higher densities, present an opportunity to support future commercial growth including supporting smaller mom and pop retailers in infill settings such as Costa Mesa.
Development Trends
State, regional, and local policy direction promoting the development of housing at all levels to meet existing housing shortages, especially for low-income families, has further driven up the demand for housing. The redevelopment of existing non-vacant land, both in residential and non-residential zones, for multi-family rental and for sale housing provides a realistic opportunity to create affordable housing using the resources available within communities such as Costa Mesa. As a result, much of Costa Mesa’s future growth will be on infill opportunities within the City. To facilitate this, the City has proposed actions to evaluate and revise the development standards and permitted uses within many key areas within the City.
This increases the developable area within the City where residential development can occur and promotes development at densities which may support affordable housing.
As stated previously, much of Costa Mesa’s anticipated future housing growth is expected to occur on infill sites, or sites with existing uses. Development on non-vacant parcels was analyzed to determine a reasonable development capacity based on known constraints and historic development patterns within each of the different zones. Table B-9 in Appendix B contains a detailed description of each existing use.
Many of the existing uses were found to be similar with recent redevelopment examples in Costa Mesa.
Appendix A also includes outreach to property owners and letters of owner support/developer interest for specific parcels identified in the Housing Element.
Accessory Dwelling Unit Productions
Accessory dwelling units, or ADUs) are housing units which may be developed in addition to an existing single- or multi-family residential use. These housing units can be free-standing or attached to a primary structure and are intended to provide additional housing on an existing residential lot. Often ADUs provide housing for family members or are rented to members of the community. 9 Allen Matkins/UCLA Anderson Forecast Commercial Real Estate Survey, Winter 2021, Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-150 A number of State Assembly and Senate Bills were passed in 2018 and 2019 that promote development of ADUs and remove barriers that may inhibit their development within communities. The following is a summary of those bills:
AB 68 and 881
o Prohibit minimum lot size requirements
o Cap setback requirements at 4’, increasing the size and location opportunities for ADUs o Prohibit the application of lot coverage, FAR, or open space requirements that would prevent an 800 square foot from being developed on a lot o Remove the need for replacement parking when converting an existing garage to an ADU o Limit local discretion in establishing min and max unit size requirements o Mandate a 60-day review period for ADU applications through a non-discretionary process SB 13
o Prohibit owner-occupancy requirements for 5 years
o Reduce impact fees applicable to ADUs
o Provide a program for homeowners to delay compliance with certain building code requirements that do not relate to health and safety
AB 670
o Prohibits Homeowner’s Associations (HOAs) from barring ADUs As a result of new legislation and an increased effort by the City to promote ADUs, the City has seen an increase in applications since 2021. Over the first four years of the planning period (2021-2025), the City permitted a total of 374 ADUs, significantly exceeding the original annual projection of 50 units per year.
This demonstrates that actual ADU production has outpaced initial expectations, particularly in later years as market familiarity, streamlined regulations, and local incentives have taken effect. Completed units have also increased steadily over time, reflecting a lag between permitting and construction but confirming sustained delivery.
In the 2021 Housing Element, the City relied on ADU production projections to support RHNA capacity, estimating approximately 391 ADUs over the 2021–2029 planning period (or about 50 units annually). These projections were based on observed increases in ADU activity between 2018 and 2021, as well as the anticipated continued impact of recent State legislation and local incentives promoting ADU development.
As part of this amendment, the City no longer relies on projected ADU production to meet RHNA obligations. Instead, ADU production is captured as part of credit towards RHNA reflecting actual permitting and completion reported in the City’s APRs. To assist in reaching the City’s ADU development projections, Costa Mesa has included Program 3E, which explores actions the City will take to promote and incentivize the development of ADUs during the planning period. As outlined in the program, these actions may include:
Coordinating with the County on implementation of a permit-ready ADU program Waiving specific permitting fees to make ADU development more feasible Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-151 Creating an expedited plan check review process to ease the process for homeowners Explore potential State and Regional funding sources for affordable ADUs Summary of Sites Inventory and RHNA Obligations
As described in this section and in further detail in Appendix B, the City of Costa Mesa has identified adequate sites to accommodate the 2021-2029 RHNA obligation of 11,760 housing units. These candidate housing sites, in combination with the programs stated in Chapter 4, will help to facilitate the development of future housing within the city.
G. Financial Resources
Providing an adequate supply of decent and affordable housing requires funding from various sources, the City has access to the following funding sources.
1. Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher, CDBG and HOME funds The Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program is a Federal government program to assist very low-income families, the elderly, and the disabled with rent subsidy payments in privately owned rental housing units.
Section 8 participants are able to choose any housing that meets the requirements of the program and are not limited to units located within subsidized housing projects. They typically pay 30 to 40 percent of their income for rent and utilities. The Orange County Housing Authority (OCHA) administers Section 8 Housing Choice vouchers within the City of Costa Mesa. OCHA reports that as of June 30, 2014, a total of 640 vouchers were granted to Costa Mesa households.
Community Development Block Grants (CDBG)
The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program provides annual grants on a formula basis to cities to develop viable urban communities by providing a suitable living environments and by expanding economic opportunities, principally for low- and moderate-income persons (up to 80 percent AMI). CDBG funds can be used for a wide array of activities, including:
Housing rehabilitation;
Lead-based paint screening and abatement;
Acquisition of buildings and land;
Construction or rehabilitation of public facilities and infrastructure, and:
Public services for low-income households and those with special needs.
In order to receive CDBG funding, the City of Costa Mesa is required to approve and implement the 2020- 2024 Consolidated Plan. This is a planning document that identifies the City’s housing and community needs and outlines a strategy to address these needs utilizing funds from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
HUD also requires the City to prepare a One-Year Action Plan for each of the five years covered by the Consolidated Plan. For the 2020-2021 fiscal year the City of Costa Mesa received $1,600,000 in CDBG and HOME funding (including public service grants associated with CDBG) are anticipated to be allocated towards:
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-152 (1) Housing Rehabilitation
(2) Tenant-Based Rental Assistance
(TBRA)
(3) HOME Administration
(4) Community Housing Development
Organization (CHDO) Housing Reserve
(5) Special Housing Code Enforcement
(6) Mercy House – Bridge Shelter
(7) City of Costa Mesa Senior Social
Services
(8) Community SeniorServ Meal Programs
(9) Fair Housing Foundation
(10) Youth Employment Services Program
(11) CDBG Administration
(12) Families Forward
HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME)
The HOME program provides federal funds for the development and rehabilitation of affordable rental and ownership housing for households with incomes not exceeding 80 percent of area median income. The program gives local governments the flexibility to fund a wide range of affordable housing activities through housing partnerships with private industry and non-profit organizations. HOME funds can be used for activities that promote affordable rental housing and homeownership by low-income households.
As with CDBG funding, HOME funds require the City complete a Consolidated Plan and a One-Year Action Plan. The 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan identifies the following objectives for HOME funds:
High Priority Need:
Housing rehab: $275,000
Tenant Based Rental Assistance:
$150,000
Community Housing Development
Organization Reserve: $180,365
Program Admin: $50,582
2. Opportunities for Energy Conservation
The primary uses of energy in urban areas are for transportation lighting, water heating, and space heating and cooling. The high cost of energy demands that efforts be taken to reduce or minimize the overall level of urban energy consumption. Energy conservation is important in preserving non-renewable fuels to ensure that these resources are available for use by future generations. There are also a number of benefits associated with energy conservation including improved air quality and lower energy costs.
Energy Use and Providers
Southern California Gas Company (SCG) provides natural gas service for the City. Natural gas is a “fossil fuel” and is a non-renewable resource. Most of the major natural gas transmission pipelines within the City are owned and operated by SCG. SCG has the capacity and resources to deliver gas except in certain situations that are noted in state law. As development occurs, SCG will continue to extend its service to accommodate development and supply the necessary gas lines. Electricity is provided on an as-needed basis to customers within existing structures in the City.
Southern California Edison Company (SCE) is the distribution provider for electricity in Costa Mesa. SCE services an area of 50,000 square miles with a population over 10 million; Costa Mesa represents less than one percent of the population served by SCE. Currently, SCE has no immediate plans for expansion of infrastructure, as most of the City is built out. However, every year SCE expands and improves existing facilities Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-153 according to demand and they have indicated that future growth in Costa Mesa as anticipated in the General Plan is within the parameters of the overall projected load growth which they are planning to meet.
Energy Conservation
The City’s Conservation Element of the General Plan identify and establish goals and policies for preserving and managing natural resources in the City. The element states that solutions to energy problems can be solved through conservation and through the development of alternate energy sources. Energy suppliers are continuously searching for new and expanded sources of conventional fuels such as oil, gas, and coal.
More recently developed fuels, such as nuclear and geothermal, make up a small share of the nation's energy supplies.
The City’s Conservation Element states the City does not operate any local utilities related to energy, however, it partners with and supports energy providers to promote sustainable practices through local regulations. The Element also reports that while the national consumption of energy has increased by over 50 percent in the last 30 years, the State of California has remained stable due to conservation campaigns by individuals, businesses, utilities companies, and State and local regulations.
Solar energy is the viable alternate energy source for the City of Costa Mesa. As of January 2020, the State of California requires all new single-family and multi-family homes (up to 3 stories high) include a solar photovoltaic (PV) system as a source of electricity. The California Clean Energy Commission determined this mandate increases the cost of single-family residences by $8,400, but it saves homeowners and renters about $80 per month on electricity costs. To further promote the switch to solar energy, the City of Costa Mesa initiated the Go Green Program which waives permit fees for residential solar installations and electric vehicle charging stations.
The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification is a world-wide rating system which reviews and rates buildings, communities, and cities on their energy efficiency and conservation strategies.
A LEED certified building is rated based on a set of points received and may be rated “certified” at the lowest and “Platinum” at the highest. In 2007, the City of Costa Mesa implemented a Green Building Program aimed at promoting energy efficiency by expediting the permitting process and waive certain fees for LEED certified projects. The City also became the first California city to require all new Municipal buildings be LEED Gold certified. LEED certified buildings are recognized for providing the following:
Improved productivity and morale amongst workers, recruitment, and higher retention rates; Improved indoor environmental quality and air quality; Minimized energy and water costs during construction and operation; Minimized waste output;
Pollution prevention; and
Low-impact materials that last longer and may be non-toxic, recycled, and sustainably produced.
In February 2021, the City of Costa Mesa became the first city in California to achieve a LEED Gold for Cities and Communities certification.
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-154 Lastly, the City also abides to Title 24 standards as mandated by the State. Title 24 establishes energy efficiency standards for residential and nonresidential buildings (new structures and additions) to reduce energy consumption. The standards are updated every three years to achieve greater efficiency and reach for new goals.
Housing Plan
Element Update
Chapter 4
Element Update
Chapter 4: Housing Plan 4-1
Housing Plan
The Housing Plan describes the City of Costa Mesa 2021-2029 policy program. The Housing Plan describes the specific goals, policies, and programs to assist City decision makers to achieve the long-term housing objectives set forth in the Costa Mesa Housing Element. This Plan identifies goals, policies, and programs aimed at providing additional housing opportunities, removing governmental constraints to affordable housing, improving the condition of existing housing, and providing equal housing opportunities for all residents. These goals, policies, and programs further the City’s overall housing policy goal is to Inspire a more diverse, sustainable, and balanced community through implementation of strategies and programs that will result in economically and socially diversified housing choices that preserve and enhance the special character of Costa Mesa.
Regional Housing Needs Assessment
The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) has conducted a Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) to determine the City’s share of the affordable housing needs for the Orange County region. The RHNA quantifies Costa Mesa’s local share housing needs for the region by income category.
Income categories are based on the most current Median Family Income (MFI) for Orange County. The City’s 2021-2029 RHNA growth need is as follows:
• 2,919 units - Very low income (0-50% County MFI)
• 1,794 units - Low income (51-80% of County MFI)
• 2,088 units - Moderate income (81-120% of County MFI) • 4,959 units - Above moderate income (120% or more of County MFI) 11,760 units – Total
A. Guiding Principles
The City of Costa Mesa followed certain “guiding principles” in developing its approach and strategy for accommodating future housing growth. These guiding principles assist with implementation of the housing goals, policies and programs and will aid overall decision making. The guiding principles are rooted in community engagement and local knowledge and input into the planning process. The guiding principles are as follows:
• The City will plan for future housing primarily along major commercial, industrial, and mixed-use corridors within Costa Mesa that are compatible with growth, while preserving established residential neighborhoods.
• Each neighborhood, community, and district within Costa Mesa has its own unique characteristics and needs. Future housing growth will build upon Costa Mesa’s history and complement the diversity and unique characteristics that already exist within each area. • The City will plan for a diverse range of housing forms, types, and densities to address the housing needs of an inclusive and diverse community and provide housing opportunities that meet the needs of all residents, including low-income households, seniors, multi-generational families, larger households, and special needs groups.
Chapter 4: Housing Plan 4-2
As identified in Chapter 2, the City will need to address the following findings based on the data presented in this Community Profile:
• The Costa Mesa population is showing aging trends – housing goals should address the needs of seniors who may have less flexible income, need accessibility accommodations, or may seek assisted living options. The City has established Housing Program 2D to address this finding. • Over a quarter of the Costa Mesa population identifies as Hispanic or Latino – housing needs should account for possible cultural needs such as larger or multigenerational housing units. Additionally, housing information should be made available in Spanish to assist in the location of appropriate housing within the community. The City has established Housing Programs 2E and 4A to address this finding.
• Approximately 47 percent of the Costa Mesa population earn a lower income, indicating that production of and access to affordable housing including affordable rental options and entry level home ownership facilitation should be addressed. The City has established Housing Programs 2B, 4A, 4B, and 4C to address this finding.
• Approximately 48.8 percent of renters and 31.8 percent of homeowners are estimated to spend more than 30 percent of their income on housing, indicating a high housing cost burden overall with a higher proportion of renters compared to owners experiencing overpayment. The City has established Housing Programs 2B, 4A, 4B, and 4C to address this finding. • Based on for sale and rental housing prices, a moderate-income household cannot afford to own a home in Costa Mesa, while lower income households cannot afford to own or rent in Costa Mesa without experiencing overpayment. The City has established Housing Programs 2B, 4A, 4B, and 4C to address this finding.
• The majority of housing units in Costa Mesa were built over 30 years ago – households in older homes may benefit from assistance in renovating their homes and ensuring safe living environments with access to all utilities. The City has established Housing Programs 1A and 1B to address this finding.
• Costa Mesa has a relatively low vacancy rate, indicating high demand for housing and low availability of housing units within the City. The City has established Housing Programs 2B and 3A to address this finding.
• 46.5 percent of Costa Mesa households have at least one of the four identified housing problems, which include:
o Units with physical defects (lacking complete kitchen or bathroom); o Overcrowded conditions (housing units with more than one person per room – excluding bathrooms and kitchens);
o Housing cost burdens, including utilities, exceeding 30 percent of gross income; and o Severe housing cost burdens, including utilities, exceeding 50 percent of gross income.
The City has established Housing Programs 1A, 1B, and 4A to address this finding.
Chapter 4: Housing Plan 4-3
B.Housing Goals
The City of Costa Mesa has identified the following housing goals as part of this Housing Element Update:
Housing Goal #1: Preserve and enhance the City’s existing housing supply.
Housing Goal #2: Facilitate the creation and availability of housing for residents at all income levels and for those with special housing needs.
Housing Goal #3: Identify adequate, suitable sites for residential use and development to meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) at all income levels and promote a range of housing types to meet the needs of all segments of the Costa Mesa community.
Housing Goal #4: Provide housing opportunities to residents of all social and economic segments of the community without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, disability/medical conditions, national origin or ancestry, marital status, age, household composition or size, source of income, or any other arbitrary factors.
The goals listed above are described below and on following pages with accompanying policies and programs to achieve them.
C.Housing Policies and Programs
This Housing Element expresses the Costa Mesa’s overall housing goals and supporting policies, quantified objectives, and the housing programs to achieve the objectives. The stated Housing Programs are based on a review of past performance of the prior 2013-2021 Housing Element, analysis of current constraints and resources, and input from Costa Mesa residents and stakeholders.
Housing Goal #1
Preserve and enhance the City’s existing housing supply.
POLICIES HOU-1
HOU-1.1 Assist low and moderate-income homeowners and renters through housing assistance programs as long as funds are available. Consideration should be given to low and moderate-income homeowners within designated environmental justice area boundaries.
HOU-1.2 Minimize the displacement risk for existing residents when considering approval of future redevelopment and public projects.
HOU-1.3 Prioritize enforcement of City regulations regarding derelict or abandoned vehicles, outdoor storage, substandard or illegal construction and establish regulations to abate blighted or substantially unmaintained properties, particularly when any of the above is deemed to constitute a health, safety, or fire hazard.
HOU-1.4 Establish housing programs and code enforcement as a high priority and provide adequate funding and staffing to support those programs.
Chapter 4: Housing Plan 4-4
HOUSING GOAL 1 IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS
PROGRAM 1A: Owner-Occupied Housing Rehabilitation
This program is designed to assist qualified property owners to improve single-family residential properties.
Improvements include, but are not limited to, health and safety repairs such as mechanical, plumbing, electrical, roofing, security, medical emergency requirements, and/or aid the mobility of the physically disabled and/or elderly. The program provides rehabilitation loans (up to $50,000) and grants (up to $17,500). The loan offers deferred payment that will accrue zero percent interest and will be fully deferred without principal repayment until the sale or transfer of all or any interest in the property, or the occurrence of any other default by the property owner identified in the terms and conditions of the Loan Agreement. Maximum loan-to-value is 85 percent of the current market value.
Objectives:
• Provide informational materials on the Owner-Occupied Housing Rehabilitation program. • Encourage the participation of seniors, veterans, and disabled residents in this program. • Evaluate the effectiveness of this program and, if necessary, modify program characteristics.
Timeframe: Annually market information and evaluate the program’s effectiveness. Any program modifications to be made by December 2023
Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Housing and Community Development Division
Funding Source: Federal HOME funds
PROGRAM 1B: Mobile Home Rehabilitation
The City encourages the preservation of mobile homes as an affordable housing resource. Specifically, the City provides financial assistance (up to $12,500) as a grant to eligible owner-occupants to rehabilitate existing dwelling units.
Objectives:
• Provide financial assistance as long as funding from HOME funds remains available. • Market information on funding as available.
• In 2025, the City assisted 6 households through this program.
Timeframe: Annually market assistance available and grant funding on a case-by-case basis.
Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Housing and Community Development Division
Funding Source: Federal HOME Funds
PROGRAM 1C: Monitoring and Preservation of At-Risk Housing Units The City has 1,144 total housing units with affordability covenants. Of these units, none are at risk of converting to market rate between 2021 and 2031. The Casa Bella Apartments affordability covenant will expire during this period; however, these units are under an agreement with the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, which renews every five-years and mandates project affordability.
Therefore, the Casa Bella Apartments are not at risk of conversion.. All residential developments with affordability covenants are listed in Section 3.E.4 of this Housing Element.
Chapter 4: Housing Plan 4-5
Objectives:
• Regularly monitor deed-restricted units that have the potential of converting to market-rate during the planning period.
• Work with the property owners of Casa Bella on potential extensions past the current 2025 agreement.
• Comply with noticing requirements and coordinate with qualified entities to preserve at-risk units. • Assist with funding, as available, or support funding actions for tenant education.
Timeframe: (Completed.) Annually market tenant education information and available assistance.
Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Housing and Community Development Division and Planning Division
Funding Source: CDBG, Golden State Acquisition Fund (GSAF), Multifamily Housing Program (MHP)
Housing Goal #2
Facilitate the creation and availability of housing for residents at all income levels and for those with special housing needs.
POLICIES HOU-2
HOU-2.1 Facilitate the development of housing that meets the needs of all segments of the population including affordable housing and households with specialized needs.
HOU-2.2 Promote the use of State density bonus provisions to encourage the development of affordable housing for lower and moderate-income households, as well as senior housing through the dissemination of informational materials and discussions with project applicants.
HOU-2.3 Monitor the implementation of the City’s ordinances, codes, policies, and procedures to ensure they comply with State requirements for “reasonable accommodation” for disabled persons and all fair housing laws.
HOU-2-4 Encourage housing programs and future actions that address the need for affordable housing options as well as the housing needs of Costa Mesa’s senior resident population and the large households population.
HOUSING GOAL 2 IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS
PROGRAM 2A: Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
As of 2024, the City of Costa Mesa has established an inclusionary housing ordinance. To support this effort, the City has allocated $2.5 million to an affordable housing trust fund. The City will continue to monitor the effectiveness of the inclusionary housing ordinance and will consider potential modifications to in-lieu fees, as needed.
Objectives:
• Assess inclusionary housing ordinance for effectiveness and recommend changes, as needed.
Chapter 4: Housing Plan 4-6
Timeframe: To be completed by December 2027.
Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Housing and Community Development Division and Planning Division
Funding Source: In Kind, General Fund
PROGRAM 2B: Affordable Housing Development
The City understands that there may be local procedures or standards that could impact the development of affordable housing. The development process relies on a number of factors working together, including timing, fees and flexibility in design components required of a project. As such, this program aims to inform and incentivize the development community to develop affordable housing.
Objectives:
• Pursue State and regional funding for affordable housing development. • Pursue local partnerships and annually meet with affordable housing organizations to encourage the development of housing affordable to all segments of the population. • Establish development incentives (i.e. deferment of fees, priority processing, modified development standards, etc.) for affordable housing projects that meet objective evaluation criteria similar to the process for density bonus concessions. The City established a streamlined development review for qualifying projects on Housing Element sites and in the MUOD.
Streamlined development review allows for a ministerial approval consistent with applicable provisions of State Law. Residential construction of two or more stories is subject to development review, which is a ministerial planning division review against applicable objective zoning standards of the Citywide Multifamily Residential and Mixed-Use Objective Design Standards.
State Density Bonus Law review has also been modified to Planning Division review authority. • Develop clear instructional materials for achieving incentives and make them publicly available on the City’s website.
Timeframe: Establish incentives and instructional materials by December 2023. Pursue funding and partnership annually. Meet with organizations annually.
Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/ Housing and Community Development Division and Planning Division
Funding Source: HOME, General Fund, State Department of Housing and Community Development Funds, Low Income Housing Tax Credits and CalHFA
PROGRAM 2C: Supportive Services for Persons with Special Housing Needs The City recognizes special needs groups (as defined in Chapter 2 of this Housing Element) require additional assistance to secure decent housing and supportive services. Through the annual Action Plan process for the CDBG program, the City evaluates the needs of various special needs groups and the allocation of CDBG Public Service dollars accordingly. The City will continue to expend available CDBG funds in a manner that addresses local needs and augments the regional continuum of care system in Orange County.
Objectives:
• Provide information regarding the City’s Annual Action Plan findings regarding special needs groups and the availability and allocation of CDBG funds on the City’s website.
Chapter 4: Housing Plan 4-7
• Outreach to local organizations working with special needs populations to receive feedback and provide information on the availability of funding.
Timeframe: Annually outreach to local organizations and provide information online regarding the Annual Action Plan findings regarding special needs populations and availability and allocation of CDBG funds.
Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Housing and Community Development Division
Funding Source: CDBG
PROGRAM 2D: Facilitate Development of Senior Housing Options Senior residents, generally defined as those over 65 years of age, make up approximately 10.7 percent of the population in Costa Mesa and 7.5 percent of all households within the City are seniors living alone. As part of the candidate housing sites analysis, the City has identified one parcel suitable for the specific development of senior housing. In 2025, the City approved entitlements for a 70-unit senior housing development at this site. This program aims to coordinate with the project developer to facilitate the development of senior housing on this parcel. Further, the City will continue to seek other potential opportunities to facilitate the development of senior housing across the City.
Objectives:
• Identify potential opportunities for Senior Housing developments within Costa Mesa, including working with developers who specialize in the development of Senior Housing. • Support the development of senior housing on the Senior Center parcel identified as part of the candidate housing site analysisthrough developer coordination and letters of support for financing, as needed.
Timeframe: Annually meet with senior housing developers to receive feedback, market housing sites adequate for the development of senior housing and pursue other opportunities for senior housing development.
Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Housing and Community Development Division
Funding Source: HOME, In Kind
PROGRAM 2E: Encourage Development of Housing Options for Large-Family Households Large households are defined as those consisting of five or more members. In Costa Mesa, approximately 10 percent of all households meet the definition of a large-family household. The majority of large-family households are renter-occupied (62.8 percent) as opposed to owner-occupied (37.2 percent). This is compounded by the fact that single-family detached households, which generally tend to be owneroccupied in Costa Mesa, are more likely to be able to accommodate five or more people while apartment complexes rarely develop units larger than 3 bedrooms.
Objectives:
• Promote and work with applicants who propose for-rent residential projects to encourage 4- bedroom units as part of proposed developments.
• Review development standards to determine if any pose an impediment to the development of larger units. If it is found that certain standards present an impediment, the City will adopt amendments to the Zoning Code to alleviate those impediments. In April 2026, the City amended Chapter 4: Housing Plan 4-8
its parking requirements to eliminate standards based on the number of bedrooms, reducing constraints on the development of larger units.
Timeframe: Review development standards for larger units and, if necessary, amend the Zoning Code by Winter 2025. Annually meet with housing developers to encourage the development of larger units.
Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Housing and Community Development Division
Funding Source: HOME funds, In Kind
PROGRAM 2F: Persons with Physical and Developmental Disabilities As identified in Chapter 2, the City of Costa Mesa has a total of 9,224 persons reported having at least one physical disability. As of May 2021, approximately 932 persons with a developmental disability have received services through the Regional Center of Orange County (RCOC). The City understands that people with physical and developmental disabilities may have unique needs when looking for housing accommodations and is committed to assisting residents.
Objectives:
• Take actions to accommodate ADA retrofit efforts, ADA compliance and/or other measures where appropriate through the implementation of Title 24, as well as reviewing and amending its procedures to comply with State Law.
• Review procedures and consider revisions to the reasonable accommodation procedures to provide more flexibility in housing accommodations for persons with physical and developmental disabilities. On April 7, 2026 the city adopted changes to its reasonable accommodates procedure. • City will proactively reach out to developers and other agencies annually to take steps to improve and develop housing for persons with disabilities.
Timeframe: Review procedures to accommodate ADA retrofit efforts, ADA compliance and/or other measures where appropriate, and, if necessary, amend the Zoning Code by Winter 2025 Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Housing and Community Development Division
Funding Source: HOME, CDBG, In Kind
PROGRAM 2G: Safety Element Update and adoption of Environmental Justice Policies SB 1035 requires that the City review and revise the Safety Element to identify new information relating to flood and fire hazards that was not previously available during the previous revision of the Safety Element.
SB 1000 requires that the City incorporate environmental justice policies within the General Plan. In 2025, a study session was held with the City’s Planning Commission to discuss the draft update to the Safety Element. In January 2026, the City received grant funds to support review and recommendations for Environmental Justice revisions to the City’s General Plan.
Objectives:
• Revise and amend the current Safety Element.
• Amend portions of the General Plan to include environmental justice policies in compliance with SB 1000.
Chapter 4: Housing Plan 4-9
Timeframe: To be completed by December 2026.
Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Development Services Department/Planning Division Funding Source: State and Federal Grant Funds (e.g., SB2 LEAP funds), In Kind, General Fund PROGRAM 2H: Farmworker Housing
Per California Health and Safety Code Sections 17021.5 and 17021.6, the City is required to permit farmworker housing by-right, without a conditional use permit (CUP), in single-family zones for six or fewer persons and in agricultural zones with no more than 12 units or 36 beds. In March 2026, the City adopted revisions to the Municipal Code related to farmworker housing, also known as employee housing, consistent with State Law.
Objectives:
• Maintain consistency with the California Health and Safety Code Sections 17021.5 and 17021.6 and any subsequent revisions.
Timeframe: Completed March 2026
Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Planning Division Funding Source: In Kind
PROGRAM 2I: Promote State Density Bonus Incentives
Density bonus is an effective incentive to aid in the development of affordable housing units within Costa Mesa through providing concessions to proposed developments that meet specific affordability criteria.
These concessions may take the form of additional residential units permitted beyond the density allowed in the base zoning, a relaxed parking standard, as well as the ability to deviate from development standards.
Currently, the maximum number of concessions a project can receive through density bonus is three. In January 2026, the City received grant funds to support review and recommendations for revisions to the Density Bonus Ordinance.
Objectives:
• Evaluate and update the Density Bonus Ordinance to comply with State Density Bonus Law.
Timeframe: Adopt revisions to the City’s Density Bonus Ordinance – December 2026 Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Planning Division Funding Source: In Kind/General Fund
PROGRAM 2J: Transitional and Supportive Housing
California Government Code Section 65583(c)(3) requires transitional and supportive housing to be permitted in all residential zoning districts under the same restrictions as other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone. Government Code Section 65651(a) also requires permanent supportive housing to be permitted by-right in zones where multi-family and mixed-use development is permitted, including non-residential zones permitting multi-family uses if they meet the Government Code Section requirements. In March 2026 the City adopted revisions to the municipal code consistent with State Law.
Objectives:
• Monitor the inventory of sites appropriate to accommodate transitional and supportive housing.
Chapter 4: Housing Plan 4-10
• Proactively engage relevant organizations to meet the needs of persons experiencing homelessness and extremely low-income residents.
Timeframe: Completed March 2026.
Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Planning Division Funding Source: In Kind/HOME-ARP
PROGRAM 2K: Planning Application Fees
Residential developers are subject to a variety of fees and exactions to process permits and provide necessary services and facilities as allowed by State Law. Development fees are necessary to implement planning, zoning and building safety laws and to provide the public services and infrastructure necessary to serve City residents. This program seeks to avoid application fees creating constraints to the development of affordable housing and to reduce development costs in other ways, where possible. In March 2026, the City adopted revisions to the Zoning Code, creating by-right permit processing for qualifying residential developments, reducing the overall timing and cost associated with development.
Objectives:
• Review planning application fees, with a special focus on the density bonus fee, and update the fee(s) to avoid creating a constraint to the development of affordable housing.
Timeframe: Completed March 2026
Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Planning Division Funding Source: In Kind/General Fund
PROGRAM 2L: Development of Housing for Extremely Low and Low-Income Households The City recognizes the importance of supporting the development of housing for low and extremely low income households. It is a primary goal of the Housing Element to increase the feasibility of development of housing for extremely low and low income households. In March 2026, the City approved revisions to the Zoning Code to include a zoning overlay that creates new opportunities for housing to be developed by-right, especially those developments with units affordable to lower income households.
Objectives:
• Subsidize up to 100 percent of the City’s application processing fees for qualifying developments where all units are affordable to 80 percent AMI or lower, as funding is available. • Annually promote the benefits of this program to the development community by posting information on its webpage and creating a handout to be distributed with land development applications regarding development opportunities and incentives. • Proactively reach out to developers at least once annually to identify and promote development opportunities.
• (Completed)Support funding development applications throughout the planning period for projects proposing units affordable to lower income households.
Timeframe: As funding is available, promote the program and outreach; adopt priority processing and other incentives by December 2024.
Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Planning Division Funding Source: In Kind/General Fund
Chapter 4: Housing Plan 4-11
PROGRAM 2M: Parking Standards for Residential Developments The City’s residential off-street parking requirements are provided in Section 3.B.3 of this Housing Element. Parking requirements ensure that there is adequate parking provided for residents and for guests in both single-family and multi-family residences. This program seeks to avoid potential constraints due to parking requirements to facilitate the development of multi-family developments, and specifically affordable housing projects. In April2026, the City approved reduced parking requirements for all multifamily development and no minimum parking required for residential uses on sites identified by the Housing Element.
Objectives:
• Review and revise the Zoning Code’s requirements for residential off-street parking for multi-family projects to facilitate the development of multi-family housing, and specifically affordable housing. • Seek opportunities to reduce off-street parking requirements for residential uses beyond the Housing Element sites.
Timeframe: Review by December 2024; revise Code by Winter 2026.
Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Planning Division Funding Source: In Kind/General Fund
PROGRAM 2N: Reasonable Accommodation
The City has completed an analysis of its Reasonable Accommodation process in Section 3 of this Housing Element. By the nature of Reasonable Accommodation requests and the range of potential modifications that could need to be accommodated, the City has to evaluate each request individually. This process is described within the City’s Zoning Code and persons may contact the City’s planning department for assistance with requests. In April 2026, the City approved revisions to its Reasonable Accommodation process to be consistent with State and federal fair housing requirements.
Objectives:
• Review and revise the Reasonable Accommodation procedure to promote access to housing for persons with disabilities, address potential constraints and establish potential objective standards, and provide guidance and amend as necessary to promote greater certainty on how approval findings will be implemented.
• Meet with local organizations and developers to promote access to housing for persons with disabilities and address potential constraints.
Timeframe: Review and revise Code by December 2024. (Completed). Annually review and, if necessary, revise the reasonable accommodations procedures. Annually meet with local organizations and housing developers to promote access to housing for persons with disabilities and address potential constraints.
Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Planning Division Funding Source: In Kind/General Fund
PROGRAM 2O: Definition of Single Housekeeping Unit
The City’s definitions of “family” and “single housekeeping unit” within the zoning code do not differentiate between related and unrelated individuals, or between disabled and non-disabled individuals, living together. Notwithstanding, in order to promote flexibility to accommodate residents with different living conditions, in April 2026, the City adopted revisions to its Zoning Code per the objectives below.
Chapter 4: Housing Plan 4-12
Objectives:
• Review and revise the definition of “single housekeeping unit” within the zoning code to provide greater flexibility in consideration of accommodating a variety of household situations for related and unrelated individuals living together.
Timeframe: Completed – March 2026.
Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Planning Division Funding Source: In Kind/General Fund
PROGRAM 2P: Group Homes
The City has completed an analysis of its regulations applicable to group homes in Section 3 of this Housing Element. Group homes are allowed in all residential zoning districts through a conditional or special use permit. In April 2026, the City approved revisions to its Zoning Code applicable to group homes to affirmatively further fair housing and comply with fair housing laws per the objectives below.
Objectives:
• Review and revise the City’s zoning code and application procedures applicable to group homes to promote objectivity and greater approval certainty similar to other residential uses.
Housing Goal #3
Identify adequate, suitable sites for residential use and development to meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) at all income levels and promote a range of housing types to meet the needs of all segments of the Costa Mesa community.
POLICIES HOU-3
HOU-3.1 Encourage the conversion of existing marginal, underutilized, or vacant motels, commercial, and/or industrial land to residential, where feasible and consistent with environmental conditions that are suitable for new residential development.
HOU-3.2 Encourage the development of well-planned and designed residential or mixed-use projects which, through vertical or horizontal integration, provide for the development of compatible residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, or public uses within a single project, neighborhood, or geographic area within the City.
HOU-3.3 Actively engage and partner with large employers, the Chamber of Commerce, and major commercial and industrial developers to identify and implement programs to balance employment growth with the ability to provide housing opportunities affordable to the incomes of the newly created job opportunities.
HOU-3.4 Consider the potential impact of new housing opportunities and their impacts on existing residential neighborhoods when reviewing development applications affecting residential properties.
Timeframe: Review and revise Code by Winter 2024 (Completed) Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Planning Division Funding Source: In Kind/General Fund
Chapter 4: Housing Plan 4-13
HOU-3.5 Encourage residential and mixed-use development along transportation routes and major commercial/mixed use corridors.
HOUSING GOAL 3 IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS
PROGRAM 3A: Adequate Sites
The City of Costa Mesa is required to maintain an inventory of vacant and underutilized sites and provide this inventory to interested developers as well as make the information publicly available. To keep this list accurate, the City will monitor its status of meeting the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) annually and ensure that the City has adequate sites available to accommodate its RHNA. Additionally, the City has completed its rezoning for Housing Element sites to increase residential capacity in key areas across the City.
Objectives:
• Maintain an inventory of vacant and underutilized sites and provide this inventory to interested developers.
• Monitor its status of meeting the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) annually and ensure that the City has adequate sites available to accommodate its RHNA. If the City’s inventory of adequate sites falls below its remaining RHNA, the City will take actions to identify additional capacity to accommodate the shortfall.
• Promote the development of housing, live/work, and mixed-use development on the sites identified within the inventory through actions such as:
o Make information on candidate housing sites readily available through a database available to the public.
o Priority processing for candidate housing sites which provide the amount of affordable housing units at the income levels identified within the housing element for individual candidate sites.
o If funding becomes available, the City shall subsidize up to 100 percent of the City’s application processing fees for qualifying developments that provide the amount of affordable housing units at the income levels identified within the housing element for individual candidate sites.
Timeframe: Publish candidate housing sites on the City website by December 2023. Provide priority processing for candidate housing sites that meet the outlined requirements throughout the planning period. Market available funding, as available, for projects on candidate housing sites that meet outlined requirements Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Planning Division Funding Sources: In Kind
PROGRAM 3B: Fairview Developmental Center – State Property Fairview Developmental Center, owned by the State of California, is a 109-acre property located at 2501 Harbor Boulevard in Costa Mesa. This property historically housed adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities but is closed and has been identified as surplus property by the State. The City has engaged with the State Department of General Services regarding the future use of the property as a master planned residential/mixed-use community with a substantial affordable housing component and other community amenities.
Chapter 4: Housing Plan 4-14
The City has been coordinating with the State of California Department of General Services (DGS) for future use of the site. The City is considering various zoning strategies permit the residential densities and development of the acreage identified within the candidate housing sites inventory, while also considering expedited permitting.
On June 26, 2022, Senate Bill No. 188 was approved by the State Assembly, which authorized the State to enter into an agreement with the City of Costa Mesa for the City to develop a specific plan for the Fairview Developmental Center property. The State appropriated $3.5 Million to the State Department of Development Services for allocation to the City to facilitate disposition of the Fairview Developmental Center property, by amending the general plan of the City and any appropriate planning documents and zoning ordinances, completing any environmental review, and addressing the economic feasibility of future development to be utilized for a mixed-use development, including mixed-income housing. Pursuant to the Senate Bill, the development would include and prioritize affordable housing, including at least 200 units of permanent supportive housing, and open space.
Objectives:
• Partner with the State to pursue compatible development on the Fairview Developmental Center site consistent with the State’s Site Assessment and the Housing Element’s sites analysis to permit residential development at the identified densities.
• Complete land use and rezoning actions at the Fairview Developmental Center through development of a Specific Plan, and/or other appropriate actions necessary to implement the Specific Plan by the end of 2026. The Specific Plan will be consistent with the residential dwelling units identified in the sites inventory for the site and will be subject to affordability requirements and development process incentives such as expedited processing including a dedicated staff project manager to promote future projects within the Fairview Developmental Center property to include affordable housing. The Specific Plan will include objective development standards to give clear guidance to future development projects with the intent of reducing the time it takes to entitle and develop projects for residential uses. The City will facilitate parceling and site planning at appropriate sizes as part of the Specific Plan implementation. • DGS opened their application portal in January 2026, for the disposition of the site (available as either for sale or long-term lease) to allow interested developers to submit proposals for State consideration for the selection of a master developer for the redevelopment of the Fairview Developmental Center. The City’s assigned project manager will facilitate and coordinate the review of future development applications with the master developer for any potential entitlements that may be needed and all applicable building permits. • On October 4, 2022, the City approved an agreement with the State of California to fund planning services relating to the Fairview Developmental Center. The agreement stipulates that the State will provide up to $3.5 million in funds to the City to support an up to three-year agreement for a City-led local outreach and land planning effort for the FDC site. The funds will be used for the following land use planning activities: extensive community engagement, technical analysis and infrastructure studies, conceptual land use exhibits and Land Use Alternatives, preparation of a Specific Plan and associated general plan and zoning amendment, preparation of the Environmental Impact Report and associated technical studies pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, public hearings and review of the State prepared RFP process for site disposition.
Chapter 4: Housing Plan 4-15
• The draft Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) were released for public review and comments in Spring 2026; adoption is anticipated in Summer/Fall 2026. The specific plan includes a minimum residential development capacity of 2,300 units up to a maximum of 4,000 units based on the financial feasibility analysis completed as part of the specific plan scope of work.
• Rezoning will be completed to meet all by right requirements pursuant to California Gov Code 65583(h & i)
Timeframe: Adopt the Specific Plan to facilitate future housing development at the Fairview Developmental Center site by December 2026, unless an agreement extension is approved by the State.
Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa/State of California Funding Sources: State and Federal Grant Funds, In Kind PROGRAM 3C: Update the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan
The North Costa Mesa Specific Plan is an existing specific plan located north of the 405 Freeway, containing a mixture of residential, commercial, office, and cultural/arts uses. Development in this area is typically of higher densities/intensities than other areas in Costa Mesa. This area is a key component of the City’s sites strategy for future housing growth.
The City will complete the required zoning code/Specific Plan amendments to update the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan based on the sites analysis to permit residential development at an allowable density up to 90 dwelling units per acre. Through this program, the City will modify development standards to promote residential development at the allowable density. These updates may include amending the boundary of the Specific Plan area as well as revising development standards. The number of housing units able to be developed in these areas is determined by the density. This program modifies densities within the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan to accommodate the assumptions within the Housing Element. As part of this effort, in April 2026, the City approved an amendment to the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan to rezone the Housing Opportunity sites and to meet all by right requirements pursuant to California Gov Code 65583 (h & i). The City will further amend the specific plan to accommodate additional residential and mixed-use development capacity as part of a greater citywide effort to implement Measure K.
Objectives:
• Complete the required zoning code/Specific Plan amendments to update the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan based on the sites analysis to permit residential development at an allowable density of up to 90 dwelling units per acre. As noted in the program, development capacity is determined by density so effectively there are no total unit caps within the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan.
Rezoning has been completed to meet all by right requirements pursuant to California Gov Code 65583(h & i)
Timeframe: Completed – March 2026 .
Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Planning Division Funding Sources: State and Federal Grant Funds (e.g. SB2 LEAP funds), In Kind, General Fund Chapter 4: Housing Plan 4-16
PROGRAM 3D: Update the City’s Urban Plans and Overlays
The City has adopted Urban Plans and overlays that apply to specific planning areas and corridors within the City. These plans are intended to encourage compatible development through modified development standards and guidelines specific to a localized area of the City.
The City will complete the required Zoning Code amendments to rescind the existing Urban Plans and update the Overlays based on the sites analysis to permit residential development at the densities identified in the candidate housing sites analysis. These updates may include amending the boundary of the Specific Plan area as well as revising development standards. Densities for residential development are anticipated to differ depending on the surrounding context and are listed in Appendix B.
The City has identified the acreage shown below in and around the identified Urban Plan and Overlay areas to be rezoned. Urban Plan and overlays do not change the base zoning of a parcel, but rather add flexibility in development potential, including uses and densities. There are no caps on residential development within the Urban Plan and Overlay areas.
Objectives:
• Complete the required Zoning Code amendments to update the existing Urban Plans and Overlays based on the candidate housing sites analysis to permit residential development at the identified allowable densities:
o 19 West Urban Plan (50 du/ac). The City will rescind the 19 West Urban Plan, and consolidate the area into a greater Mixed-Use Overlay District (MUOD). o SoBECA Urban Plan (60 du/ac). The City will rescind the SoBECA Urban Plan , and consolidate the area into a greater MUOD.
o Mesa West Bluff Urban Plan (40 du/ac). The City will rescind the Mesa West Bluff Urban Plan , and consolidate the area into a greater MUOD.
o Harbor Mixed-Use Overlay (50 du/ac). The City will rescind the Harbor Mixed-Use Overlay, and consolidate the area into a greater MUOD.
• Remove the Mesa West Residential Ownership Overlay. The opportunities established in the Mesa West Residential Ownership Urban Plan will be codified in amendments to the Residential Common Interest Development section of the Zoning Code. The urban plan will be rescinded. • Rezoning will be completed to meet all by right requirements pursuant to California Gov Code 65583(h & i)
Timeframe: To be completed by December 2026.
Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Planning Division Funding Sources: State and Federal Grant Funds (e.g., SB 2 LEAP funds), In Kind, General Fund PROGRAM 3E: Promote the Development of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) Costa Mesa has single-family and multi-family residential neighborhoods which create the environment for accessory dwelling units to be built. As discussed in the analysis in Chapter 3, new State Laws, combined with relaxed development standards (such as waiver of parking requirements along with increased educational efforts by the City) have resulted in an increased number of ADUs being permitted and constructed since 2018. In 2023 and 2025, the City approved updates to the ADU ordinance, consistent with State Law.
Additionally, in January 2025, the City launched a pre approved ADU program to offer homeowners an expedited and efficient path to adding ADUs by selecting pre-approved design plans to ensure a streamlined Chapter 4: Housing Plan 4-17
site plan review process. The City anticipates continued growth in ADU development as the concept becomes more common within Southern California. The City will implement programs with the intent of promoting the development of accessory dwelling units within the 6th cycle including the following.
Objectives:
• Review and revise the City’s ADU ordinance as necessary to comply with State Law. (Completed) • Coordinate with the County on implementation of a permit-ready ADU program. • Post a user-friendly FAQ on the City’s website to assist the public. • Offer permitting fee waivers, as funding is available. • Create an expedited plan check review process to ease the process for homeowners. • Research potential State and Regional funding sources for affordable ADUs and make the information found publicly available to homeowners.
• Engage with residential development applicants regarding ADU opportunities that may not have been considered.
Timeframe: Program components analyzed by December 2023, with implementation by December 2024. Review and revise the ADU ordinance within one year. (Completed) Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Planning Division Funding Sources: In Kind, General Fund
PROGRAM 3F: Motel Conversions, Efficiency Units, and Co-living Housing Types Motel conversions to permanent housing are referenced in the Zoning Code but policies and standards have not been updated for many years and may serve as an impediment to conversions. Participants in the City’s community outreach process expressed that these types of units may meet a need for students, young professionals, seniors, or anyone within the community who may desire smaller housing unit options that are more affordable. Additionally, the City’s analysis in Chapter 2 showed that non-family households made up an estimated 40.2 percent of total households within Costa Mesa in 2018. Co-living or flexibility in housing types may present increased housing options at different affordability levels for this large portion of households in Costa Mesa.
In April 2026, the City approved amendments to the Zoning Code to define “efficiency unit” and “single room occupancy unit” to address the need for development types with small unit sizes and shared facilities.
Further, to address the potential housing need that motels may serve, the City approved an amendment to the Motel Ordinance to ensure that all laws are followed related to the displacement and relocation of residents in the event that a motel is converted.
If an appropriate project becomes available, the City will explore opportunities to implement motel conversions through Project Homekey understanding that it is a competitive grant process that does not guarantee funding. The City has received a grant for two projects under project Homekey and has approved a funding commitment of up to $5.85 million for local match funding for these Homekey projects.
Permits have been issued for these projects totaling 126-units. A qualified /experienced City staff member has been assigned to manage these potential program activities.
Chapter 4: Housing Plan 4-18
Objectives:
• Establish definitions of co-living and efficiency housing options within the Costa Mesa Zoning Code (Completed).
• Develop informational materials which outline the City’s process for permitting efficiency unit and co-living housing types and distribute them to interested members of the development community.
• Explore opportunities to implement motel conversions through Project Homekey. • Comply with State and Federal laws related to displacement and relocation of long-term residents when considering motel conversion opportunities.
Timeframe: Completed March 2026
Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Planning Division Funding Sources: State and Federal Grant Funds (e.g., HUD funds, State Project Homekey funds), In Kind
PROGRAM 3G: Address City-wide Vote Requirement in Relation to Housing Element Compliance As it exists upon adoption of the 2021‐2029 Costa Mesa Housing Element, the City’s Municipal Code requires voter approval of certain changes in land use, defined as those projects that amend, change or replace the General Plan, the Zoning Code, a specific plan, or an overlay plan, (collectively, legislative changes) and that involve any one of the following changes: adds 40 or more dwelling units, generates more than 200 additional average daily trips; increases the volume/capacity of an intersection based on specified formulas; changes the intersection capacity utilization or level of service based on specified formulas; adds 10,000 square feet of retail, office or other nonresidential; or, where the proposed project, combined with other projects within 8 years and a half mile of each other, meet the above criteria.
Additionally, voter approval is required for projects that involve one of the above legislative changes and:
changes from public uses to private uses under specified circumstances; land designated as utility right‐of‐ way under specified circumstances; land donated, bequeathed, or otherwise granted to the City; land used or designated for Costa Mesa school property; or land owned, controlled, or managed by the City.
To address this constraint, in November of 2022, the Costa Mesa Voters approved an amendment to the Costa Mesa Zoning Code (Measure K) to revitalize key commercial and industrial corridors by allowing for housing development opportunities. The voter approved initiative provides flexibility for the City Council to authorize amendments to applicable documents affecting the Measure K sites without the need to receive public voter approval. While the City-wide vote process still exists for those sites not identified by Measure K, this voter initiative creates a clear path to implementing the land use and zoning changes necessary to achieve State‐mandated compliance with the RHNA allocation and State housing requirements.
The City took the following steps to identify and address specific ways in which the City-wide vote process functions as a constraint to housing compliance, the city’s housing goals, and other shared community goals.
Chapter 4: Housing Plan 4-19
Milestones Timing For Completion
(1) Engage the community and other stakeholders, and complete legal analysis necessary to identify appropriate modifications to the City’s Municipal Code requirement for voter approval
Complete by June 2022
(2) Prepare ballot measure language and obtain City Council approval for placement of modifications on the ballot for the November 2022 general election.
Complete by August 2022
(3) Inclusion of the proposed measure on the Ballot of Local Election. Complete by November 2022 (4) Creation and adoption of an inclusionary housing ordinance. The Municipal Code exempts “affordable housing proposals required by state or federal law” from the City-wide vote requirement. A City Council- approved inclusionary housing ordinance provides an opportunity to address affordable housing needs City-wide.
Within 12 months of final
adoption of the Housing
Element, consistent with
Program 2A
(5) Engage in a community planning and visioning process. Prepare General Plan amendments, rezones, and revisions to existing specific plans, urban plans, and overlays included as program actions necessary to meet the City’s RHNA allocation as identified within the Housing Element. Complete appropriate technical studies and CEQA compliance documents. Obtain City Council approval.
Complete by December 2026
In addition to these actions, beginning in 2022 and in conjunction with the City Attorney’s Office, the City will evaluate and pursue various options to minimize the constraints of a city-wide vote requirement on housing by providing the City Council greater discretion in approving housing and affordable housing projects to comply with all requirements in State Housing Element law without further ballot initiative.
Objective:
• Minimize the constraint of a city-wide vote requirement on creation of housing including affordable housing through the modification of existing City overlays, urban plan areas, and specific plans to rezone candidate housing sites that can accommodate affordable housing and a variety of mixed use/ housing options near jobs and transit. By 2025, initiate a ballot measure, or other alternative option, to provide City Council greater discretion in approving affordable housing and mixed use/ housing options in appropriate locations.
Timeframe: To be completed by Winter 2026.
Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Planning Division Funding Sources: In Kind/General Fund
PROGRAM 3H: Analyze the Potential of Establishing an Overlay to Permit Residential Uses in the Airport Industrial Area
The airport industrial area presents an opportunity for future housing growth. There are several sites within this area that do not fall within significant noise contours relating to operations at John Wayne Airport. The City has not included any sites within this area within the candidate housing sites analysis in Appendix B but recognizes that this area may be able to accommodate housing within the planning period.
Chapter 4: Housing Plan 4-20
Objectives:
• Evaluate the potential to add an overlay to an area in the airport industrial area which would permit residential development.(Completed). As part of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), the City evaluated the potential to accommodate additional housing capacity in this area and identified development constraints related to height, density, and noise. Based on these constraints, the City determined that the area is not suitable for additional housing capacity. •
Timeframe: Completed – Spring 2026.
Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Planning Division Funding Sources: In Kind, General Fund
PROGRAM 3I: Analyze the Potential of Establishing an Overlay to Permit Residential Uses in the 17th Street Corridor Area
The 17th Street corridor has developed into a successful commercial and restaurant hub within the City of Costa Mesa. This area presents the opportunity for focused mixed-use development which would further enliven the corridor through the addition of residential uses. . The City analyzed both Housing Element sites and Measure K sites in this area. The Housing Element sites identified in this area have been rezoned pursuant to State Law, while additional Measure K sites will be rezoned through the Mixed-Use Overlay District (MUOD) in October 2026.
Objectives:
• Evaluate the potential to add an overlay to an area in the 17th Street corridor area which would permit residential development. (Completed)
• Complete a market analysis to determine the potential factors involved with permitting residential uses in the 17th Street corridor area. (Completed).
Timeframe: Apply the MUOD to Measure K sites located in the East and West 17th Street Corridor Area by October 2026.
Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Planning Division Funding Sources: In Kind, General Fund
PROGRAM 3J: Analyze the Potential of Modifying the Newport Boulevard Specific Plan to Promote Residential Uses along Newport Boulevard
The Newport Boulevard corridor contains a mix of commercial uses including 1980’s-era motels on small lots fronting Newport Boulevard adjacent to SR-55, with established residential communities located in close proximity. This area presents the opportunity for focused mixed-use development which would further enliven the corridor through the addition of strategically located residential uses. The City adopted a Specific Plan for the area in the 1990’s which allows for residential development; however, many of its policies have not been updated. The City analyzed both Housing Element sites and Measure K sites in this area. The Housing Element sites identified in this area have been rezoned pursuant to State Law, while additional Measure K sites will be rezoned through the Mixed-Use Overlay District (MUOD) in October 2026.
Chapter 4: Housing Plan 4-21
Objectives:
• Evaluate potential modifications to the Newport Boulevard Specific Plan that would promote quality residential development. (Completed).
Timeframe: Apply the MUOD to Measure K sites located in the area by October 2026.
Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Planning Division Funding Sources: In Kind, General Fund
PROGRAM 3K: Explore Potential Future Housing Opportunities on Church Sites The City did not identify any church properties as housing opportunity sites within the 2021-2029 Housing Element but believes these partnerships with the local faith-based organizations that serve Costa Mesa could be an important component of the overall process of creating more affordable housing in the community. This program is underway and will be completed as part of the City’s REAP 2.0 grant initiative.
The City is conducting stakeholder meetings in June to better understand opportunities and needs related to faith-based sites. City staff will prepare an informational handout for faith-based organizations that explains applicable State Law and available housing opportunities on faith-based sites.Objectives:
• Collaborate with members of the faith-based community to discuss housing and the unique opportunities and challengesfaced by faith-based organizations when considering creating housing opportunities on church properties with the potential for wrap around services. • Develop materials outlining the development process and make them available on the City’s website.
Timeframe: Develop online materials on the development process by December 2026 and update, as necessary.
Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Planning Division Funding Sources: In Kind, General Fund
PROGRAM 3L: Annual Progress Reports
The Annual Progress Report outlines the status of residential development projects within the City at various phases of the development process as well as the City’s progress towards meeting the stated program actions within the Housing Element. The report is due to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) each year within a timeline determined and published by the State.
Objectives:
• Annually complete the required housing status reporting through the City’s Annual Progress Report.
Timeframe: Annually complete and submit an Annual Progress Report to HCD.
Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Planning Division Funding Sources: In Kind
PROGRAM 3M ADU and JADU Monitoring Program
ADUs and JADUs may be developed in addition to an existing single- or multi-family residential use and can provide a source of affordable housing for family members, students, and other members of the community. As a result of new legislation and an increased effort by the City to promote ADUs, the City has seen an increase in applications in recent years and anticipates growth throughout the planning Chapter 4: Housing Plan 4-22
period, as detailed in Appendix B of this Housing Element. In 2023, the City launched a new permit application and land management system – the Totally Electronic Self Service Application (TESSA) to help monitor ADU development as well as affordability levels. The City also established a Pre-Approved ADU Program. This program is intended to streamline the ADU review process by allowing homeowners to select from pre-approved ADU plans that meet State and local requirements, thereby reducing review times, costs, and uncertainty for applicants. The City is currently working with interested architects to review proposed pre-approved ADU plans, and approved plans and vendor information will be made available to the public once finalized.
Objectives:
• Create a monitoring program to track ADU and JADU development and affordability levels throughout the planning period. (Completed)
• As of the 2026 housing element amendment, the City is no longer relying on ADUs to accommodate the RHNA. However, the City has seen strong trends related to ADU development well beyond the projects made in 2021.
Timeframe: Monitoring program (completed)
Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Planning Division Funding Sources: In Kind
PROGRAM 3N: Candidate Sites Used in Previous Housing Elements Pursuant to State Housing law, candidate sites identified in this Housing Element to accommodate a portion of the City’s low- and very low-income RHNA that were identified in previously adopted Housing Elements must be rezoned to allow residential use by right at specified densities for housing developments in which at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower income households. By right shall mean the jurisdiction may not require a Conditional Use Permit or other discretionary, local-government review or approval that would constitute a “project”, except if the project requires a subdivision; however, the City may impose objective design review standards on projects.
The City has identified as part of this Housing Element updated vacant and nonvacant sites that were used in previous Housing Elements to meet the current RHNA need. This can be found in Table B-6 in Appendix B.
In April 2026, the City approved an amendment to the Zoning Code to amend an overlay for by right housing for applicable projects on sites used in previous Housing Elements, consistent with the objectives of this program.
Objectives:
• Place a housing overlay zone over all nonvacant sites included in a prior Housing Element and all vacant sites included in two or more consecutive planning periods that permits by right housing development for projects that meet the requirements of State housing law (Gov Code Section 65583.2(c).
Timeframe: Completed March 2026 .
Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Planning Division Funding Sources: In Kind
Chapter 4: Housing Plan 4-23
PROGRAM 3O: Water and Sewer Resources
Pursuant to Chapter 727, Statues of 2005 (SB 1087), the City of Costa Mesa is required to deliver its adopted Housing Element and any amendments thereto to local water and sewer service providers. This legislation allows for coordination between the City and water and sewer providers when considering approval of new residential projects. Additionally, cooperation with local service providers will support the prioritization of water and sewer services for future residential development, including units affordable to lower-income households.
Objectives:
• Submit the General Plan amendment and rezone sites to local water and sewer providers for their review and consideration when reviewing new residential projects.
Timeframe: Completed July 2023
Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Planning Division Funding Sources: In Kind
PROGRAM 3P: Federal/State Housing Programs
The City will provide technical assistance to developers, nonprofit organizations, or other qualified private sector interests in the application and development of projects using Federal and State housing programs/grants. Additionally, the City will continue to partner with the OC Housing Finance Trust to identify potential funding sources.
Objectives:
• Provide technical assistance to developers, nonprofit organizations, or other qualified private sector interests in the application and development of projects using Federal and State housing programs/grants.
• Continue to partner with the OC Housing Finance Trust to identify potential funding sources.
Timeframe: Annually market available Federal and State housing programs and grants, when funding is available.
Meet with qualified interested parties annually to provide technical assistance. Partner with the OC Housing Finance Trust throughout the planning period to identify additional potential funding sources.
Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Housing and Community Development Division
Funding Sources: State and Federal Grants, OC Housing Finance Trust PROGRAM 3Q: Lot Consolidation
The City of Costa Mesa has identified several candidate housing sites that are smaller than half an acre in size. These sites are identified within Table B-6 under the “Potential Consolidation” column of the table.
Assembly Bill 1397 identifies general size requirements for candidate housing sites of greater than half an acre and less than 10 acres in size. The City has only identified sites smaller than half an acre which show the likelihood of redeveloping in conjunction with other parcels which collectively meet the half acre requirement. In April 2026, the City amended the Zoning Code to streamline residential development application processing, establish staff as the final review authority for more application types, removed the parking minimum for residential projects on Housing Element sites, and reduced the parking minimums required for multifamily housing citywide.
Chapter 4: Housing Plan 4-24
Objectives:
• Promote consolidation of residential properties to the development community and property owners to facilitate and promote the development of housing on smaller sites. • Maintain information on the lot consolidation process and fees online and at City Hall. • Continue to provide streamlined measures to facilitate consolidation and establish a menu of incentives by 2025. (Completed)
Timeframe: Completed March 2026.
Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Planning Division Funding Sources: General Fund
PROGRAM 3R: Development of Large Sites
The City of Costa Mesa has identified several candidate housing sites that are larger than 10 acres in size as identified previously in Appendix B. Assembly Bill 1397 identifies general size requirements for candidate housing sites of greater than half an acre and less than 10 acres in size. These sites are:
• Fairview Developmental Center (Addressed separately in Program 3B) • Sakioka Lot 2
• Pacific Arts Plaza (former restaurant and parking lot) With the exception of the Fairview Developmental Center which is addressed separately, all of these properties are regulated by the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan and the zoning will be updated per the objectives in Program 3C. Additionally, most of these properties have development agreements which already anticipate the development of housing under existing zoning regulations. These agreements may be modified as necessary to reflect additional housing units and re-zoning as identified by the programs within this housing element. These agreements have been amended in the past so there is precedent for modifying them to adjust to market trends and current development conditions. Therefore, there are no unit caps within the City which would limit the number of units which can be developed on these sites. The sites will be planned to the densities provided within the City’s zoning code as amended by the programs within this housing element.
Furthermore, the City has engaged each of these property owners multiple times throughout the development of the Housing Element and the anticipated number of units within the candidate sites inventory is based on input received. These assumptions have been reviewed in depth and the City has confirmed that these sites meet all requirements for the candidate sites inventory and they are likely to develop with residential uses within the planning period.
As stated below, the City will evaluate the development status of these sites within three years of the zoning amendments being completed to the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan. If there are not clear indications that the development of residential units is likely to occur within the planning period, the City will review its current RHNA progress and identify additional candidate sites within one year if necessary. In April 2026, the City of Costa Mesa removed several large sites from the Housing Element inventory at the request of the property owners. The City continues to communicate with the property owners of large Housing Element sites.
Chapter 4: Housing Plan 4-25
Objectives:
• Continue outreach to property owners through annual meetings. Provide technical assistance, incentives, and strategies as appropriate to facilitate the development of affordable housing, including parceling at appropriate sizes or other tools. • Promote development of large sites at the densities and affordability levels identified within the housing element.
• Promote the potential subdivision of large sites into multiple parcels for future development through technical assistance, incentives, and strategies during the initial development phases and when applications come into the City for the identified parcels.
Timeframe: Completed.
Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Planning Division Funding Sources: General Fund
PROGRAM 3S: Review and Revise Findings
The City of Costa Mesa has reviewed the approval findings for the three entitlement processes which are potentially applicable to residential development: Conditional Use Permits, Design Review, and Master Plan. Although no projects have been denied due to not meeting the specific findings noted in Section 3, the City found that some approval findings may be interpreted broadly and could be modified for clarity.
In April 2026, the City approved amendments to the permit review process, removing the design review process and created more clarity and streamlining within existing processes. The application of administrative and streamlined processes has been applied where required and is being further explored for opportunities across a variety of uses.
Objectives:
• Review all approval findings for Conditional Use Permits, Design Review, and Master Plans and revise findings which are capable of being interpreted broadly, with the goal of improving housing cost, supply, timing of approvals, and approval certainty.
Timeframe: To be completed by December 2026.
Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Planning Division Funding Sources: General Fund
Housing Goal #4
Provide housing opportunities to residents of all social and economic segments of the community without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, disability/medical conditions, national origin or ancestry, marital status, age, household composition or size, source of income, or any other arbitrary factors.
POLICIES HOU-4
HOU-4.1 Support equal housing opportunities as expressed in Federal and State fair housing laws.
Chapter 4: Housing Plan 4-26
HOU-4.2 Promote actions and programs that provide fair housing and counseling services and other housing assistance programs for all Costa Mesa residents in an effort to remove barriers and promote access to affordable housing in the City as funding is available.
HOU-4.3 Encourage and support the construction, maintenance and preservation of residential developments which will meet the needs of families and individuals with specialized housing requirements, including those with developmental disabilities.
HOU-4.4 Promote community involvement in the development and implementation of housing programs and actions. Outreach should facilitate participation of residents within designated environmental justice communities.
HOUSING GOAL 4 IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS
PROGRAM 4A: Fair Housing
The City of Costa Mesa participated in the 2020-24 update to the Orange County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice, as well as completed an analysis of local factors to fair housing issues in the City within the Housing Element. Through each analysis, the City identified the following fair housing issues:
• Housing Discrimination
• Racial and Ethnic Segregation
• Unfair Lending
• Overcrowding
As part of the AFFH assessments, the City also identified the following factors as contributing to fair housing issues in Costa Mesa:
• Community Opposition
• Lack of Investment in Specific Neighborhoods
• Displacement of Residents Due to Economic Pressures
Pursuant to AB 686, the City will affirmatively further fair housing by taking meaningful actions, in addition to resisting discrimination, that overcomes patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristic, as defined by California law. The City will continue current efforts to further fair housing as well as implement the actions identified in the following table to mitigate local contributing factors to fair housing issues in Costa Mesa.
Chapter 4: Housing Plan 4-27
Contributing
Factor
Specific Commitments
Timeframe and
Priority
Geographic
Target
Metrics
Type: Housing Mobility
Housing
Discrimination
1. The City will continue to work in
collaboration with the Orange
County Housing Authority (OCHA)
to implement the Housing Choice
Voucher Program.
The City contracts with Fair
Housing Foundation (FHF), a HUDapproved housing counseling agency, to provide fair housing
services to the City of Costa Mesa
including educational programs for
both landlords and tenants. FHF
provides free Fair Housing
Workshops that are open to
anyone to attend. Workshops
cover: Federal & State Fair Housing
Laws, Housing Discrimination,
Modifications & Accommodations,
Rental Application Process,
General Guidelines, Families with
Children, Notices, Eviction Process,
Security Deposits, Habitability &
Repairs, Rent Increases, Occupancy
Standards, and more.
The City’s Network for Homeless
Solution (NHS) Department is
staffed with eight individuals with
a budget of over one million
dollars to provide a comprehensive
system of care aimed at providing
a complete continuum of
Priority Level 1
Continue to
collaborate
with OCHA
Housing
Voucher
Program
Continue to
contract with
FHF or other
HUD-approved
housing
counseling
agency every
year
Update City
Housing
Webpage to
include
information on
OCHA Housing
Voucher
Program
housingrelated events
provided
through OCHA,
Census tracts
with higher rates
of housing choice
vouchers usage:
631.02, 632.02,
636.04, 636.05,
637.01, 637.02,
638.07, 639.04,
639.06,
639.08
• Costa Mesa’s HCD staff will continue to attend quarterly OCHA Housing Advisory Committee meetings to enhance
the exchange of information regarding the availability, procedures, and policies related to the Housing Assistance Voucher Program and regional housing issues. The City’s website will be updated to include information and
encourage participation in OCHA’s Housing Choice Voucher Program and public events on a quarterly basis or as they are available.
• The City will assist approximately 200 unduplicated
residents with fair housing services every year, through the CDBG contract with Fair Housing Services provider.
• Through the City’s contract with FHF, a minimum of 3 fair housing workshops will be provided to residents each fiscal year. The workshops may be in-person or virtual workshops and are open to anyone to attend. They will be regularly offered in English and Spanish.
• The City will advertise Fair Housing Workshops and
webinars on the City’s Housing webpage, through social
media outlets and distribute flyers in both Spanish and English.
• The Fair Housing Foundation will advertise workshops with flyers sent to community based organizations, a news
release, and advertisement on their website and through social media.
• FHF will continue to offer the following outreach and promotional information for each workshop: send
workshop flyers through mail to city departments, libraries, community centers and other community organizations
with heavy foot traffic one month before workshop; send out press release via email to local media, city and
organizations one month before workshop; post on social media (Facebook, Instagram, Twitter) one week and one
Chapter 4: Housing Plan 4-28
Contributing
Factor
Specific Commitments
Timeframe and
Priority
Geographic
Target
Metrics
programs and services for
residents experiencing
homelessness and those at risk for
homelessness. One of the
Department’s main day-to-day
function is to assist and advocate
for fair housing; including assisting
community members that may
quality for housing vouchers,
including, providing landlord
education on fair housing practices
and voucher programs.
FHF, City’s
Network for
Homeless
Solutions,
City’s Housing
and
Community
Development,
and other nonprofit events -
December
2023
day before workshop, and workshop is added to the
calendar on FHF website as soon as it’s scheduled.
Literature on FHF services and protections are regularly sent to libraries and community based organizations.
Outreach materials are available in Spanish and
Vietnamese. With proper notice, FHF can arrange for
interpretation for other languages including sign language for the virtual workshops.
• The City’s NHS Department will continue to meet with
landlords to provide information regarding the voucher
programs and other educational programs as part of their day-to-day operations.
2. OCHA administers the Housing
Choice Voucher Program for the
City of Costa Mesa. The City’s NHS
Department will continue to assist
and advocate for voucher
participants to receive extensions
on search times for particular
groups with housing choice
vouchers, such as larger families
with children or persons with
disabilities.
Priority Level 2
By December
2024.
City-wide The City’s NHS Department will continue to assist and advocate for voucher program participants as part of their day-to-day operations. In 2022, the NHS Department assisted over 400 participants. The NHS Department staff interacts with people experiencing or at-risk for homelessness to identify needs and voucher programs that they may qualify for. The Department staff will assist clients in extending search times, locating units and setting up appointments with landlords; as well as, drive clients to potential housing sites.
The Department staff will also attend Match meetings on behalf of the client to ensure that they are fairly represented and their needs are met. The City’s NHS will continue to provide high quality service to those in need
3. Accessibility programs focused on
improving access to housing,
transit, public buildings and
facilities, sidewalks, pedestrian
crossings, and businesses.
Priority Level 2
Identify and
adopt
programs by
December
2024.
Census tracts
with greater than
10% population
with a disability:
636.01, 636.04,
638.02, 638.07,
639.05
• Establish and implement new programs geared at
improving accessibility in the focus areas by coordinating with Public Works Department to prioritize accessibility programs focused on improving access to housing, transit, public buildings and facilities, sidewalks, pedestrian
crossings, and businesses.
• Identify and pursue a minimum of 2 funding opportunities annually to address accessibility issues.
Chapter 4: Housing Plan 4-29
Contributing
Factor
Specific Commitments
Timeframe and
Priority
Geographic
Target
Metrics
• Host a workshop with relevant organizations and groups to identify specific needs in the target areas for persons with disabilities. Invite at least five organizations. Establish programs and identify applicable funding within one year following feedback.
• Conduct an annual survey to receive feedback on
accessibility and resources throughout the community.
• Work with developers, applicants, property owners early in the land use/housing development to identify, provide for, and improve accessibility
4. Continue to participate in regional
and local agencies efforts and
collaborate with non-profit
housing organizations to develop
affordable housing in higheropportunity areas. Including, but not limited to, the Joint Power
Authority (JPA) – Orange County
Housing Finance Trust (OCHFT) and
Housing Committee.
Priority Level 1
Ongoing and
continue to
actively
participate in
regional and
local agencies
efforts to
develop
affordable
housing;
including
participating in
community
outreach and
meetings.
Highest Resource
census tracts:
638.05, 638.06,
639.02, 639.04
High Resource
census tracts:
626.1, 631.02,
636.01, 637.02,
638.02, 638.03,
638.07, 639.03,
639.05, 639.06,
639.07, 639.08,
Continue to participate in the Orange County Housing
Opportunities Committee and the JPA – OCHFT. These
entities commit State, County and local funds to build
affordable units. The City of Costa Mesa has a joint Homekey project with the County of Orange to convert a Motel 6 to 88 units of permanent supportive housing. The City provided HOME and ARPA funding to help complete the project. Phase 1 of the project is complete with 40 units leased up by the end of FY23/24. Phase 2 is anticipated to be complete by the end of 2026. The City will continue to advocate for affordable housing development opportunities and facilitate the
development of at least five residential development projects, with affordable units, in areas of high opportunity. The City awarded HOME funding to two affordable housing
development projects in FY 2025. The first is to Jamboree Housing to develop 68 affordable housing units at the City’s existing Senior Center, and the second is to American Family Housing to develop 76 affordable housing units.
Racial and
Ethnic
Segregation
1. Conduct affirmative marketing to
increase awareness and diversity
throughout the city and in Racially
Concentrated Areas of Affluences
(RCAA). This may include, but is
not limited to, noticing of
Priority Level 1
Ongoing and
continue to
market and
outreach as
RCAA census
tracts:
638.05, 638.02,
636.01, 631.03,
633.02
• Continue to conduct affirmative marketing for each new project that is developed with affordable units.
• Department of NHS as part their daily activities, will continue to work with clients to identify household needs and locate affordable housing.
Chapter 4: Housing Plan 4-30
Contributing
Factor
Specific Commitments
Timeframe and
Priority
Geographic
Target
Metrics
affordable units/projects through
direct mail targeted outreach to
lower income census tracts,
publishing advertising materials in
multiple language, informing
service agencies, outreach to
community organizations or places
of worship. As part of the City’s
affirmative marking to increase
awareness of the City’s rental
assistance program and production
of affordable housing, the
Department of NHS and Housing
and Community Development will
continue to inform the community
by disseminating information at
local School District, local nonprofit organizations and religious institutions, hand out flyers and
utilize the City’s website and
various social media platforms.
programs are
available.
Census tracts
with greater than
10 percent
population living
below the
poverty line:
626.1, 632.01,
633.01, 636.04,
636.05, 637.01,
637.02, 638.07,
638.08, 639.04,
639.07
High Segregation
and Poverty
census tract:
636.05
• Conduct a biennial survey of affordable units to identify how households find affordable units – aim for 25 percent of households, at minimum, to find affordable units through affirmative marketing within the City limits.
Type: Housing Choice and Affordability in Areas of Opportunity Unfair Lending 1. Continue targeted investment and
programs, including sweat equity,
down payment assistance, and
new rental construction. The City
currently utilizes Redevelopment
Successor Funds, HOME, CDBG,
and American Rescue Plan Act
(ARPA) Funds to support these
investments and programs, and
will continue to leverage these and
other funding resources.
Priority Level 2
By December
2024. Review
funding
opportunities
annually. By
December
2024, post on
the City’s
website and
otherwise
City-wide Continue to identify investments and programs to provide assistance for homeowners and residential development.
Yearly, contact HUD Office of Fair Housing and Equal
Opportunity (FHEO) and the local Fair Housing Foundation and request information regarding discriminatory housing
practices in the City of Costa Mesa. Specifically, request local information to assess if the FHEO is receiving and the City is experiencing significant amounts of fair housing complaints. If the City is experiencing an abundance of these housing issues and/or the housing complaints are increasing from previous years, contact the FHEO and request guidance on what a local Chapter 4: Housing Plan 4-31
Contributing
Factor
Specific Commitments
Timeframe and
Priority
Geographic
Target
Metrics
2. Post on the City’s website
information regarding the Fair
Housing Act and the unlawful
lending practices based on race,
color, national origin, religion, sex,
familial status or handicap. Provide
a link on the City’s website to
HUD’s how to file a fair housing
discrimination complaint, and to
the Fair Housing Program funding
and resources and other resource
similar agencies that can provide
legal aid.
disseminate
information
thought the
community
regarding the
Fair Housing
Act and the
unlawful
lending
practices based
on race, color,
national origin,
religion, sex,
familial status
or handicap.
agency can do to reduce these types of housing issues, then follow up with an applicable response program.
Community
Opposition
1. Develop an educational housing
campaign to address community
opposition. This may include, but is
not limited to, community
workshops on housing, educational
materials, partnerships with
community organizations and
groups. During the City’s required
housing program updates outreach
efforts, include education on the
importance of providing housing
for all segments of the community
and all income levels.
Priority Level 2
By December
2024.
Commercial and
Industrial
Corridors,
Housing Element
Sites and
surrounding
communities
• Conduct extensive community outreach as part of Housing Element Visioning Program and Housing Element Zoning
efforts. The outreach efforts will elicit community input to shape priorities and goals to guide future revitalization and residential development of the City’s commercial and
Industrial corridors identified in the Housing Element, urban plans, and specific plans. The City has implemented this program through the Neighborhoods Where We All Belong
outreach process, which served as the City’s Housing
Element Visioning program and rezoning outreach effort.
The process included extensive community engagement to
solicit input on future residential and mixed-use
development, rezoning of Housing Element sites, objective design standards, and revitalization opportunities along the City’s commercial and industrial corridors.
• The City used this input to help shape priorities and goals for future housing development, including development
standards and zoning strategies for areas identified in the Housing Element, urban plans, and specific plans.
Chapter 4: Housing Plan 4-32
Contributing
Factor
Specific Commitments
Timeframe and
Priority
Geographic
Target
Metrics
• This outreach effort helped inform the City’s Housing Element zoning implementation and the 2026 Housing
Element Amendment by providing community input on site
planning, design, building scale, neighborhood
compatibility, affordability, infrastructure, parking, mobility, and community-serving amenities. As a result, the City has completed the outreach envisioned by this program and
incorporated the input into its ongoing Housing Element implementation efforts.
• For housing projects that are proposed by the City, staff will continue to reach out to surrounding neighborhood and
local non-profit organizations to provide informational and educational materials through the City’s website, radius notification direct mailing, provide site tours of successful nearby housing development, and include similar
information on Costa Mesa TV videos.
Displacement
Due to
Economic
Pressures
1. Adopt inclusionary requirements. Priority Level 1
By December
2023.
City-wide Complete Feasibility Analysis, conduct community outreach and study sessions, prepare ordinance and program
guidelines. Adopt and implement inclusionary requirements by December 2023. (completed)
The City has adopted its inclusionary ordinance.
2. As funding resources are available
for housing development, the City
will release an RFP/NOFA to
partner with developers to
develop affordable housing and
multigenerational housing.
Administer annual workshops and
meetings, specific outreach and
surveys, adopt incentive packages,
fee waivers, and priority
processing for projects that include
affordable housing.
Priority Level 1
Begin outreach
and
collaboration
by December
2023. Annually
outreach and
discuss
opportunities
and issues. If
changes are
necessary
City-wide • Provide opportunity for affordable housing and multigenerational housing development with the goal of
developing a minimum of 100 new affordable and
multigenerational housing units on public properties and on private property consistent with the City’s RHNA
throughout the Planning Cycle. Housing options includes ADU development and SB-9 qualified duplexes.
• Continue to reach out to developers and non-profit
organizations when funding opportunities are available
through the City’s HOME program and Redevelopment
Successor Agency program for low and moderate income
level housing. In 2026, the City awarded federal HOME
Chapter 4: Housing Plan 4-33
Contributing
Factor
Specific Commitments
Timeframe and
Priority
Geographic
Target
Metrics
Prepare educational material and
update City’s website to encourage
and streamline ADU development
as a housing option for families.
based on
feedback,
adopt within a
year. Review
annually as
necessary.
funding to two affordable housing development projects for a total of 144 affordable units.
• Annually outreach and collaborate with the development community (at least three local developers) to discuss
opportunities and issues.
• Adopt incentives and changes based on feedback received.
3. Continue to work with Orange
County Community Resources to
update and make information on
affordable housing units (including
information on size and type)
available to the public on City’s
Housing webpage.
Priority Level 1
By December
2023. Review
annually and
update as
necessary.
City-wide • Continue to make information on affordable housing units available to the public on City’s webpage.
• Maintain information updated throughout the Planning
Cycle.
Type: Place-Based Strategies – Conservation and Revitalization Investment in
Specific
Neighborhoods
1. Targeted investment in areas of
low resource and high segregation
and poverty focused on improving
community assets such as schools,
recreational facilities and
programs, social service programs,
parks, streets, active
transportation and infrastructure.
Continue to utilize HOME
Investment Partnership and CDBG
funds for community improvement
programs in areas of low resources
high segregation and poverty.
Continue to fund Community
Improvement Division’s activities
for community educational
programs and cleanup activities;
for example in 2022 the City
provided clean-up efforts at
Shalimar/James, Fillmore/Coolidge,
Priority Level 2
By December
2024. Review
funding
opportunities
and
community
need annually.
Low Resource
and High
Segregation and
Poverty TCAC
census tracts
636.04, 636.05,
637.01, 638.08
• Annually provide funding and pursue new opportunities to address resources and facilities in areas of low resource and high segregation and poverty.
• Coordinate with local organizations and groups to identify specific needs and disseminate information on new
improvements as they occur.
• Update Community Improvement Division website and
disseminate on social media information to promote
neighborhood clean-up activities and provide resources and educational information. Continue to set-up informational booths at local public events to provide information
regarding clean-up events, waste-hauling, City HCD Grants, Fair Housing, and links to report issues and resources. • Annually provide funding for the City’s homeowner
rehabilitation program to provide federal grant funds to low-income homeowners to address code deficiencies and
health and safety conditions.
Chapter 4: Housing Plan 4-34
Contributing
Factor
Specific Commitments
Timeframe and
Priority
Geographic
Target
Metrics
and Mission/Mendoza
neighborhoods.
2. Facilitate inter-governmental
coordination on areas of low
resource and high segregation and
poverty. This may include, but is
not limited to, annual meetings
and workshops, outreach to
partner agencies and departments,
and partnerships to prioritize, fund
and implement neighborhood
improvement programs.
Priority Level 2
Annually host
intergovernmental
meetings.
Review funding
opportunities
and
community
need annually.
Low Resource
and High
Segregation and
Poverty TCAC
census tracts
636.04, 636.05,
637.01, 638.08
• Annually host an inter-governmental meetings to discuss partnerships, funding, and implementation of a variety of programs.
• Pursue new funding opportunities during the planning
period (a minimum of three new neighborhood
improvement programs).
3. Prioritize capital improvement
programs in areas of low resource
and high segregation and poverty.
Continue to commit CDBG funds
for Capital Improvement projects
in these areas.
Priority Level 2
By December
2024. Review
funding
opportunities
and
community
need annually.
Low Resource
and High
Segregation and
Poverty TCAC
census tracts
636.04, 636.05,
637.01, 638.08
• Prioritize capital improvement programs in areas of low resource and high segregation and poverty by identifying these areas specifically in the City’s Capital Improvement Program. Create a list of CIP projects that can be prioritized and considered when funding is available to improve
community needs in areas of low resource and high
segregation and poverty.
• Each year of the Planning Period, conduct a review of one applicable census tract to identify gaps in the CIP and allocate CDBG funding towards this community area.
4. Adopt Environmental Justice
policies to address the needs of SB
535 Disadvantaged Communities,
which overlaps with the TCAC Area
of High Segregation and Poverty
census tract.
Priority Level 1
By September
2026 – in
conjunction
with Program
2G.
Census Tract
636.05
• Adopt Environmental Justice policies into the City’s General Plan, and conduct outreach as part of the adoption process. • Engage households within the applicable census tract to discuss and receive feedback on environmental justice
issues and solutions.
Type: Protection from Displacement
Housing
Discrimination/
Unfair Lending
1. Continue to provide resources
and/or services for multi-lingual
tenant legal counseling. Create and
promote informational materials
on tenant rights and counseling.
Priority Level 2
Publish
information
materials by
December
Census tracts
with greater than
40 percent
renter-occupied
units: 626.1,
• Conduct targeted outreach to renter occupied households (minimum of 200 housing units) located within the
applicable census tracts with information on resources, services, tenant rights, and counseling – in English and Spanish.
Chapter 4: Housing Plan 4-35
Contributing
Factor
Specific Commitments
Timeframe and
Priority
Geographic
Target
Metrics
Continue to contract with the Fair
Housing Foundation or other fair
housing services provider and
provide information to the
community regarding the Public
Law Center and other similar
organizations to address Housing
Discrimination and unfair lending.
2024. Outreach
and review
need and
services
annually.
631.02, 632.01,
632.02, 633.01,
633.02, 636.04,
636.05, 637.01,
637.02, 638.03,
638.07, 638.08,
639.02, 639.04,
639.05, 639.06,
639.07, 639.08
• Continue to contract with the Fair Housing Foundation or other fair housing services provider to advocate for fair housing, provide landlord and tenant counseling, rental counseling, and outreach and education. Provide
information regarding Public Law Center, a non-profit
organization that provides free legal services to low income residents, and other similar nonprofits in Orange County.
Housing
Discrimination/
Displacement
Due to
Economic
Pressures
1. Continue to contract with the Fair
Housing Foundation or other fair
housing service provider and
provide information regarding the
Public Law Center to address
Housing Discrimination and unfair
lending, including promoting
mediation services, foreclosure
assistance and/or multilingual
tenant legal counseling services.
Priority Level 2
Publish
information
materials by
December
2024.
Outreach and
review need
and services
annually.
Census tracts
with greater than
40 percent
renter-occupied
units: 626.1,
631.02, 632.01,
632.02, 633.01,
633.02, 636.04,
636.05, 637.01,
637.02, 638.03,
638.07, 638.08,
639.02, 639.04,
639.05, 639.06,
639.07, 639.08
• Continue to contract with the Fair Housing Foundation or other fair housing services provider to advocate for fair housing, provide landlord and tenant counseling, rental counseling, and outreach and education to approximately 200 Costa Mesa residents each fiscal year.
• Provide information regarding Public Law Center, a nonprofit organization that provides free legal services to low income residents and other nonprofits in Orange County. • As part of the City’s Rental Assistance Program, continue to engage with at least 50 renter households and local
organizations/groups to discuss the needs of renters.
(Ongoing)
• Establish and implement a rent review board or mediation services.
• The City provides federal funds to Community Legal Aid to provide free civil legal services to prevent displacement for eligible households.
Timeframe: Annually outreach to local organizations and lower income communities to discuss fair housing issues and promote actions to mitigate local contributing factors. Promote available funds, ownership information, and details on affordable housing units on the City’s webpage by Winter 2026.
Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/ Housing and Community Development Division Funding Sources: CDBG
Chapter 4: Housing Plan 4-36
PROGRAM 4B: Rental Housing Assistance
The City began offering a Tenant Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) and other rental assistance programs in 2021. The City will continue to evaluate and offer rental housing assistance programs based on the availability of funding. The City continues to support housing stability for lower-income households through rental assistance and supportive service programs. The City maintains an agreement with a communitybased organization to provide tenant-based rental assistance to lower-income families with minor children and will continue this partnership. The City also continues to participate in the Orange County Housing Authority’s Housing Choice Voucher set-aside program. In addition, the City provides federal grant funding to community organizations that offer housing assistance and supportive services to lower-income households and individuals experiencing homelessness.
Objectives:
• Participate in the Orange County Housing Authority’s Housing Choice Vouchers program to provide rent subsidies to very low-income households provided funding is available. • Evaluate and offer rental housing assistance programs based on the availability of funding.
Timeframe: Promote OCHA Housing Choice Voucher information and rental housing assistance programs, as available, on the City’s website.
Responsible Agency: Orange County Housing Authority and City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/ Housing and Community Development Division Funding Sources: HUD Section 8 Housing Choice funds administered by the Orange County Housing Authority; State and Federal Grant funds; HOME funds
PROGRAM 4C: Ownership Housing Assistance
In 2021, the City Council approved allocation of half a percent of the City’s seven percent retail cannabis tax to fund a first-time homebuyer program in Costa Mesa. The City is holding a study session with City Council on June 16th to consider establishing this program with efforts to launch this program (if approved by City Council) in Fall 2026.
Objectives:
• Evaluate and adopt ownership housing assistance programs, such as a First-Time Home Buyer Program, based on the availability of funding.
• Provide informational materials, online and at City Hall, on potential paths to home ownership and on assistance and resources available for first-time home buyers.
Timeframe: Annually evaluate and, as funding is available, offer ownership housing assistance programs. Promote informational materials online and at City hall on potential paths to home ownership and on assistance and resources available by December 2026.
Responsible Agency: Orange County Housing Authority and City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/ Housing and Community Development Division Funding Sources: Cannabis Retail Tax Revenue
PROGRAM 4D: Fair Housing Assistance
The City contracts with the Fair Housing Foundation to provide fair housing and tenant/landlord mediation services. The Fair Housing Foundation provides fair housing outreach to tenants, landlords, property Chapter 4: Housing Plan 4-37
owners, realtors, and property management companies, as well as housing education and information to apartment managers and homeowner associations. The City continues to promote fair housing education and outreach through multiple communication channels. Fair housing workshop information is shared through the City’s weekly snapshot, City Manager announcements at City Council meetings, and workshop and event postings on the City calendar. In addition, fair housing information and resources are available on the City’s dedicated fair housing webpage.
Objectives:
• Continue to contract with the Fair Housing Foundation and promote available services on the City’s webpage.
Timeframe: Complete.
Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/ Housing and Community Development Division; Fair Housing Foundation Funding Sources: CDBG
PROGRAM 4E: Low Barrier Navigation Centers
Low Barrier Navigation Centers are housing or shelter in which a resident who is homeless or at risk of homelessness may live temporarily while waiting to move into permanent housing. These requirements include implementing standards, provisions and limitations governing the permitting, development, siting, and management of Low Barrier Navigation Centers.
To meet the objectives of this program, in March 2026, the City approved amendments to the Zoning Code to permit Low Barrier Navigation Centers consistent with State Law.
Objectives:
• Update the Zoning Code to permit Low Barrier Navigation Center development as a matter of right in appropriate zoning districts, subject to requirements of State Law.
Timeframe: Completed March 2026.
Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Planning Division Funding Sources: In Kind
PROGRAM 4F: Homeless Shelter
In April 2021, the City of Costa Mesa completed the construction of its permanent Bridge Shelter within the City. Construction of the Bridge Shelter, as well as the organization and operation of the temporary Bridge Shelter at Lighthouse Church, and ongoing efforts of the City’s Street Outreach Team represent Costa Mesa’s commitment to assisting those residents currently experiencing homelessness. With the shelter in full operation, the City is now able to assist up to 72 residents at one time and connect those residents with services and assistance toward permanent housing solutions.
Objectives:
• Continue to operate and maintain the Bridge Shelter throughout the planning period. • Promote information on services and assistance available to residents online on the City’s website.
Chapter 4: Housing Plan 4-38
Timeframe: Annually review and, if necessary, revise services and assistance programs available based on funding availability. Annually meet with homeless services providers to respond to the needs of persons experiencing homelessness and identify potential opportunities.
Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa
Funding Sources: State and Federal Grant Funds (e.g., State SB 2 and Housing and Homelessness Assistance Programs (HHAP), and Federal Emergency Food and Shelter (EFSP)), General Fund PROGRAM 4G: Assembly Bill 139
AB 139 includes providing sufficient parking to accommodate all staff working in the emergency shelter, provided the standards do not require more parking for emergency shelters than other residential or commercial uses within the same zone.
To meet the objectives of this program, in March 2026, the City approved amendments to the Zoning Code to ensure that parking requirements for emergency shelters are consistent with requirements under State Law.
Objectives:
• Review and update, as necessary, the Zoning Code to comply with parking requirements of AB 139 for emergency shelters.
Timeframe: Completed March 2026.
Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/ Planning Division Funding Sources: In Kind/General Fund
PROGRAM 4H: Housing Education and Outreach Program
As a part of the outreach and engagement process, the City found that community opposition to increased housing and affordable housing may create a barrier to housing development. Outreach and education about the importance and benefits of affordable housing can help to address community concerns and negative opinions about affordable housing.
Objectives:
• Develop an outreach program providing educational materials about the purpose and benefits of affordable housing options in the City. This effort will be completed as part of the City’s website updates by the end of 2026.
Timeframe: Develop program (Completed) and distribute materials by December 2026.
Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/ Planning Division Funding Sources: In Kind/General Fund
PROGRAM 4I: Partnerships with Local Organizations and Community Groups The City identified Census Tract 636.05 as an area of high segregation and poverty. Areas that are identified as high segregation and poverty are consistent with the standards for both poverty (30 percent of the population below the federal poverty line) and racial segregation (overrepresentation of people of color relative to the county). This area is also considered low opportunity and achievement by the ROI: People analysis and experience the highest exposure to harmful pollutants, according to the CalEnviro Screen.
Chapter 4: Housing Plan 4-39
The City annually awards a percentage of its federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for public services with local nonprofit organizations and community groups that are designed to improve neighborhood environments and living conditions. The programs funded by the City all support low- and moderate- income households or vulnerable populations including seniors and people experiencing homelessness. Types of services provided include case management for people experiencing homelessness, neighborhood improvement projects, and supportive services for survivors of domestic violence.
Objectives:
• Partner with local community-based organizations, stakeholders and groups who provide supportive resources and programs to further identify specific needs of this community and connect community members with appropriate resources.
Timeframe: Complete.
Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/ Planning Division Funding Sources: In Kind/General Fund
D.Summary of Quantified Objectives
Table 4-1 summarizes the City of Costa Mesa’s quantified objectives with regard to the construction, rehabilitation, and preservation of housing. These objectives are established based on the City’s resources available over the planning period.
Table 4-1: Summary of Quantified Objectives
Income Group
Extremely
Low
Very Low Low Moderate
Above
Moderate
Total
New Construction (RHNA) 4,713 units 2,088 units 4,959 units 11,760 units Accessory Units 583 units 257 units 18 units 858 units
Conservation1 600 units 1,000 units -- --
Rental Subsidy2 570 persons annually -- -- --
Rehabilitation3 88 units -- -- --
1. Based on 2021-2022 Annual Action Plan estimate of 200 housing units that will benefit from proposed code enforcement activities using CDBG funds.
2. Based on current Orange County Housing Authority (OCHA) rental assistance estimates
3. Based on 2021-2022 Annual Action Plan estimate of rehabilitation of 11 existing units per year.
Review of Past Performance
Appendix A
Element Update
Appendix A: Review of Past Performance A-1
Review of Past Performance
The following chart is a review of the City of Costa Mesa ’s housing project and program performance in the 2014-2021 Planning cycle. It is an evaluation of the 5th cycle’s Policy Program and considers all current and existing programs and projects, as well as the most current effectiveness and appropriateness for the 2021-2029 6th Cycle.
Program Evaluation for Households with Special Needs
The City of Costa Mesa has demonstrated a significant effort in working towards accomplishing many of the objectives set for the programs of the past cycle. During the fifth cycle, the City completed a number of key programs to support housing opportunity and made substantial progress towards many of its programs. The City’s successful programs have been identified as continued for the sixth cycle, due to their success in the fifth cycle.
As a part of analyzing prior programs, the element must provide an explanation of the effectiveness of goals, policies, and related actions in meeting the housing needs of special needs populations. The table below provides an overview of the City’s prior program accomplishments; achievements related to special needs populations are summarized below:
Seniors
As shown in Section 2, approximately 11% of the population in Costa Mesa are seniors aged 65 years or older. Throughout the 5th Cycle the City partnered and consulted with a variety of groups to address the needs of persons with specialized needs in the City, including: Community SeniorServ, Elwyn California, Council on Aging Orange County. The City’s Action Plan identifies 500 persons assists using $56,180 CDBG funds through Services for Seniors/Frail Elderly. Additionally, a Single Room Occupancy Ordinance was adopted in 1991. since then, three projects were completed and occupied for a total of 247 units; including 91 senior units and 11 SRO units.
On July 21, 2020, the City Council approved an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) with Jamboree Housing Corporation in determining the feasibility, and potential terms, for the right to acquire a long-term leasehold interest in an approximately 0.90-acre portion of the parking lot at the Senior Center property to develop a senior housing project. The conceptual density study plans envisioned the potential for 60 senior affordable dwelling units at the site. An application for an Urban Master Plan Screening for the proposed project was submitted in November 2021 and staff continues to work with the applicant to bring the project forward for a decision.
Appendix A: Review of Past Performance A-2
Persons with Disabilities
As shown in Section 2, approximately 8 percent of the population in Costa Mesa have at least one disability. On November 16, 2021, the City Council directed staff to collaborate with the County of Orange and associated development partners to submit application(s) for the Homekey Program grant funding for the acquisition, rehabilitation and conversion of one or two motel locations proposed for permanent supportive housing. City staff have been working with several existing motel owners of properties that range between approximately 40 to 90 units. The proposals will provide direct permanent supportive housing with funding from the City of Costa Mesa, the County and (if awarded) Homekey grant funds from the State. The target population for these units would include at risk or currently homeless individuals and seniors, age 62 and over, and chronic homeless individuals and couples, with a subset of the units for eligible persons that qualify for Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) programs. Because the City operates the 72 bed Bridge Shelter on Airway Avenue, the Homekey Program could provide a seamless opportunity to stabilize this most vulnerable population where supportive services are provided on site, in the expedited Homekey permanent supportive housing model.
In 2020, the owner of Costa Mesa Village was awarded “Section 811” program funds for up to 24 of the 96 affordable units. The Section 811 program is a federal Housing and Urban Development (HUD) program administered by the State’s Housing and Community Development (HCD) that provides subsidies for housing for very-low income persons with disabilities, in this case developmentally disabled persons. As such, as units become vacant through attrition, Section 811 eligible residents are being referred to CMV through the Regional Center of Orange County. The referral entity is responsible for providing the supportive services to the Section 811 tenants. Programming and services are individualized based on each person’s needs and provided off-site.
Large Households
Large households are classified as those consisting of five or more members. These households can have difficulty in finding housing options that are adequately sized and affordable. As shown in Section 2, large-family households make up approximately 10% of the total households within Costa Mesa. The City permitted over 950 units across all income levels during the 5th cycle, many of which were single-family and could accommodate large-family households. The majority of those housing units were market rate and not available at levels affordable to low and very low-income households.
The City has implemented Program 2E in the 2021-2029 Housing Element to prioritize development of housing options to accommodate largefamily households, including outreach to the development community and a review of the current development standards to determine if any pose potential impediments to building housing that can accommodate larger households.
Appendix A: Review of Past Performance A-3
Farmworkers
As previously discussed, farm workers are not a significant portion of the Costa Mesa community. Their needs are accommodated through housing programs and policies that assist lower-income households in general rather than specialized programs, such as:
• Program HOU 1-6 (rehabilitation loan and grant programs) which provided funding for 7 owner-occupied rehabilitation projects; 4 of which were for extremely-low income households, 1 for very low income, and 2 for low income. • Program HOU 2-5 (OCHA rental assistance), which provided homeless prevention services or transitional housing assistance and services to over 450 individuals
• Program HOU 4-4 (preservation of residential developments for families and individuals with specialized housing needs) Single-Parent Households:
As shown in Section 2, approximately 7.6 percent of Costa Mesa households are single-parent households, a quarter of which (27 percent) live below the poverty line. Costa Mesa Village (CMV), located at 2450 Newport Boulevard, is a 96-unit single room occupancy (SRO) affordable housing development with one manager’s unit for a total of 97 units on site. CMV was originally approved and developed as a two-story Travelodge motel in the mid-1980s. In 1991, a conditional use permit (CUP) was approved to allow the conversion of the existing motel into a single room occupancy (SRO) affordable housing development. As part of the conversion project, the City through its Redevelopment Agency (Agency) provided financial assistance for land acquisition costs in the form of a $500,000.00 loan in addition to a $1,200,000.00 loan from the Orange County Housing Authority. The Agency entered into several agreements with Costa Mesa Village, Ltd. (original developer and current owner of CMV) including a Regulatory Agreement to ensure that the units were provided as very low-income units at or below 50-percent of the area median income (AMI) in perpetuity. The conversion improvements were completed in 1993 and the loans were fully repaid in 2014. Changes to the CUP and Regulatory Agreement were proposed and require approval by the City Council. The CUP modifications were reviewed by the Planning Commission on January 24, 2022 and were recommended for City Council approval by the Planning Commission. The modifications are scheduled for review and consideration by the City Council on February 1, 2022. In conjunction with the CUP changes, the property owner is also changing to a well-known California affordable housing developer (Century Housing Corporation). Century Housing Corporation is mission-driven to support and develop quality affordable home development and manage and administer 1000s of affordable units throughout the State.
Appendix A: Review of Past Performance A-4
Persons Experiencing Homelessness (Unhoused)
As shown in Section 2, the 2019 Point in Time Count showed 193 total persons experiencing homelessness (sheltered and unsheltered). As of 2018 staff worked on establishing a temporary and permanent homeless shelter that will be housing first modeled and will provide housing navigation services. In 2019, the City approved the use of a temporary modular structures at Lighthouse Church for the City’s temporary interim bridge shelter. Later in 2019, the City Council adopted an urgency ordinance relating to Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units, to be consistent with state law. In 2020, the City approved a permanent homeless shelter (Costa Mesa Bridge Shelter) to replace the temporary bridge shelter identified in 2019. The shelter opened on March 23, 2021. The City of Costa Mesa partners with Newport Beach to leverage scarce resources to better services the homeless population.
During the 5th Cycle, the City provided homeless prevention services (i.e., rental assistance to prevent eviction or deposit assistance to move into housing and rapid housing) or transitional housing assistance and services to over 450 individuals.
In 2020, Families Forward helped house and bring an end to homelessness for 15 Costa Mesa families (49 adults and children), with 33 Costa Mesa families accessing the Families Forward food pantry and taking another step towards stability. When complete, the Pomona project will serve as an entry point for families in and near Costa Mesa. Also, on November 17, 2020, the City Council approved a Subrecipient Agreement with Families Forward to establish a Tenant Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) program to assist qualified, very low-income households who are current residents of Costa Mesa (or households with strong community ties to Costa Mesa).
Extremely Low Income Households
As shown in Section 2, there are approximately 6,610 extremely low-income households in Costa Mesa per the 2013-2017 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data available. Extremely low-income renter households have the highest rate of cost burden at 17.5 percent.
Between 2013 and 2020, the City completed 111 mobile home rehabilitation projects, 52 of which were for individuals or family which qualified as extremely low income. The Housing and Community Development Division provided assistance with the purchase and rehabilitation of rental units by non-profit organizations to operate as affordable to low and very-low-income tenants. Funding was provided for 7 owner-occupied rehabilitation projects; 4 of which were for extremely-low income households, 1 for very low income, and 2 for low income.
In 2020, Families Forward helped house and bring an end to homelessness for 15 Costa Mesa families (49 adults and children), with 33 Costa Mesa families accessing the Families Forward food pantry and taking another step towards stability. When complete, the Pomona project will serve as Appendix A: Review of Past Performance A-5
an entry point for families in and near Costa Mesa. Also, on November 17, 2020, the City Council approved a Subrecipient Agreement with Families Forward to establish a Tenant Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) program to assist qualified, very low-income households who are current residents of Costa Mesa (or households with strong community ties to Costa Mesa).
Additionally in 2020, the owner of Costa Mesa Village was awarded “Section 811” program funds for up to 24 of the 96 affordable units. The Section 811 program is a federal Housing and Urban Development (HUD) program administered by the State’s Housing and Community Development (HCD) that provides subsidies for housing for very-low income persons with disabilities, in this case developmentally disabled persons. As such, as units become vacant through attrition, Section 811 eligible residents are being referred to CMV through the Regional Center of Orange County. The referral entity is responsible for providing the supportive services to the Section 811 tenants. Programming and services are individualized based on each person’s needs and provided off-site.
Policy Objective Program Accomplishments Status for Sixth Cycle HOUSING GOAL-1: Preservation and Enhancement
Preserve the availability of existing housing opportunities and conserve as well as enhance the quality of existing dwelling units and residential neighborhoods.
HOU-1.1: Develop standard and/or
guidelines for new development with
emphasis on site (including minimum
site security lighting) and building
design to minimize vulnerability to
criminal activity.
This is a standard condition of approval for new multiple family residential developments. This concept is reviewed during the planning application process and new multiple family residential development projects are subject to a standard condition of approval.
Ongoing. The City of Costa Mesa has
developed standards for approval for
new multiple family residential
developments through standard
condition of approval. The City will
continue to maintain development
standards for new developments to
minimize vulnerability to criminal
activity.
HOU-1.2: Protect existing stabilized
residential neighborhoods, including
but not limited to mobile home parks
and manufactured home parks, from
the encroachment of incompatible or
The Anchor Mobile Home Park (1527 Newport Blvd.) was
closed in 2013 and the property is being developed with live/work units consistent with the visions of the West Side Urban Plans.
Continued. The City of Costa Mesa
recognizes the importance of maintain
existing residential neighborhoods and
providing housing for all sectors of the
Community. The City will continue to
encourage compatible development
Appendix A: Review of Past Performance A-6
Policy Objective Program Accomplishments Status for Sixth Cycle potentially disruptive land uses
and/or activities.
The City has taken additional action to protect existing stabilized residential neighborhoods including (i) Adoption of a Group Home Ordinance on October 21, 2014 to limit the number and concentration of group homes and sober living facilities; (ii) Extension of a moratorium to prohibit the establishment of new hookah lounges; and (iii) Abatement of a hookah lounge and revocation of a Conditional Use Permit issued to a recycling center due to associated nuisance activities.
Additionally, the Zoning Code requires Planning Commission approval to convert to another land use. The City has taken additional action to protect existing stabilized residential neighborhoods, including (i) adoption of a Multiple Family Group Home Ordinance on November 17, 2015 to limit the
number and concentration of group homes and sober living facilities in the Multiple Family Residential zones.
Rehabilitation: The City completed:
• 7 mobile home rehabilitation projects during FY 12-13 • 19 mobile home rehabilitation projects during FY 13-14 (12 extremely low income; 7 very low income)
• 21 mobile home rehabilitation projects during FY 14-15 (15 extremely low income; 6 very low income)
• 19 mobile home rehabilitation projects during FY 15-16 (14 extremely low income; 5 very low income)
• 7 mobile home rehabilitation projects during FY 16-17 (2 extremely low income; 5 very low income)
• 10 mobile home rehabilitation projects during FY 2018 (9 extremely low income; 1 very low income)
through the enforcement of the Land
Use and Zoning Designations.
Appendix A: Review of Past Performance A-7
Policy Objective Program Accomplishments Status for Sixth Cycle • 9 mobile home rehabilitation projects during FY 2019
(5 extremely low income; 2 very low income; 2 low
income)
• 17 mobile home rehabilitation projects during FY 2020 (9 extremely low income; 6 very low income; 2 low
income)
The City has continued to protect existing stabilized
residential neighborhoods, through adoption of an Ordinance to limit the number and concentration of group homes and sober living facilities in the Multiple Family Residential zones.
HOU-1.3: Actively enforce existing
regulations regarding derelict or
abandoned vehicles, outdoor
storage, and substandard or illegal
building and establish regulations to
abate weed-filled yards when any of
the above is deemed to constitute a
health, safety, or fire hazard.
Ongoing through the implementation and enforcement of
Title 20 Property Maintenance, of the Municipal Code. Title 20 establishes standards to ensure proper maintenance,
removal of hazardous and improper storage, and removal of weeds and other public nuisances.
From 2016 to 2019 the following code enforcement citations were issued:
2016: 454 Citations
2017: 204 Citations
2018: 455 Citations
2019: 171 Citations
Information regarding community improvement and code
enforcement is available to the public on the City of Costa Mesa’s Website, here:
https://www.costamesaca.gov/city-hall/citydepartments/development-services/communityimprovement-division Continued. The City of Costa Mesa
has implemented and enforces Title
20 throughout the 5th cycle. The City
will continue to enforce existing
regulations on property maintenance
during the 6th cycle.
Appendix A: Review of Past Performance A-8
Policy Objective Program Accomplishments Status for Sixth Cycle HOU-1.4: Establish code enforcement
as a high priority and provide
adequate funding and staffing to
support code enforcement programs.
Code enforcement in the City of Costa Mesa is an active department under the Community Improvement Division,
between 2016-2018 there were 500 active cases. Citations given each year are listed above.
Code enforcement contact and information is found on the City’s webpage: https://www.costamesaca.gov/city-hall/citydepartments/development-services/communityimprovement-division Continued. The City recognizes the
importance of code enforcement in
maintaining its existing housing stock
and made it a high priority throughout
the 5th cycle. The City of Costa Mesa
will continue to make code
enforcement a priority for the 6th
cycle.
HOU-1.5: Install and upgrade public
service facilities (streets, alleys, and
utilities) to encourage increased
private market investments in
declining or deteriorating
neighborhoods.
The City of Costa Mesa has continued installing and upgrading public service facilities based upon funding during the 5th cycle.
Modified. The City will modify
Housing Element Program 1.5 for the
6 th Cycle, as necessary, to ensure it is
resourceful and useful in efforts to
promote and encourage the
development of housing in Costa
Mesa.
HOU-1.6: Continue existing
rehabilitation loan and grant
programs for low and moderateincome homeowners as long as funds are available.
Ongoing assistance through the Housing and Community
Development Division for owner-occupied units. The Housing and Community Development Division provides assistance
with the purchase and rehabilitation of rental units by nonprofit organizations to operate as affordable to low and verylow-income tenants.
During the 5th Cycle, the City completed a total of 7 owneroccupied rehabilitation projects (4 extremely low income, 1 very low income and 2 low income).
• FY 13/14: 1 owner-occupied unit (1 extremely low
income)
• FY 14/15: 1 owner-occupied unit (1 low income)
Continued. The City of Costa Mesa
recognizes the importance of funding
for low- and moderate-income
households in efforts to maintain
existing affordable housing stock. The
City will continue rehabilitation loan
and grant programs for low and
moderate-income homeowners as
funds are available during the 6th
cycle.
Appendix A: Review of Past Performance A-9
Policy Objective Program Accomplishments Status for Sixth Cycle • FY 15/16: 0 owner-occupied unit
• FY 16/17: 0 owner-occupied unit
• 2018 APR: 3 owner-occupied units (3 extremely low
income)
• 2019 APR: 1 owner-occupied unit (very low income)
• 2020 APR: 1 owner-occupied unit (very low income)
Information regarding the loan and grant program as well as contact information is available to the public on the City’s webpage at: https://www.costamesaca.gov/city-hall/citydepartments/development-services/housing-andcommunity-development/neighborhood-improvementprograms HOU-1.7: Minimize the displacement
of existing residences due to public
projects.
The City of Costa Mesa continued to monitor and mitigate displacement of residential residences, as a result of public projects, throughout the 5th cycle.
Continued. The City of Costa Mesa
acknowledges the importance of
maintaining existing residential, as
well as protecting residential
displacement as a result of public
projects and facilities. The City will
continue to monitor public projects as
they relate to existing residential in
the 6th cycle.
HOU-1.8: Encourage the
development of housing that fulfills
specialized needs.
Through the 5th Cycle the City partnered and consulted with a variety of groups to address the needs of persons with
specialized needs in the City, including: Community
SeniorServ, Elwyn California, Council on Aging Orange County.
The City’s Action Plan identifies 500 persons assists using $56,180 CDBG funds through Services for Seniors/Frail
Elderly.
Continued. The City recognizes that
special needs populations (i.e.,
seniors, disabled and households with
extremely low-income) are more likely
at risk to become homeless because
they have limited incomes and have
other issues that require housing and
Appendix A: Review of Past Performance A-10
Policy Objective Program Accomplishments Status for Sixth Cycle supportive services. The City of Costa
Mesa will continue to support
development of housing that fulfills
specialized needs during the 6th cycle.
HOUSING GOAL 2 Preserving and Expanding Affordable Housing Opportunities Provide a range of housing choices for all social and economic segments of the community, including housing for persons with special needs.
HOU-2.1: Encourage concurrent
applications (i.e., rezones, tentative
tract maps, conditional use permits,
variance request, etc.) if multiple
approvals are required, and if
consistent with applicable processing
requirements.
Applications for multiple family residential projects requiring multiple approvals are generally processed concurrently. 1957 Newport Blvd. (38 units)
125 E. Baker (240 units)
2277 Harbor Blvd. (200 units)
Continued. The City recognizes that a
swift and effective review and
permitting process can encourage the
development of housing in Costa
Mesa. The City will continue
encouraging concurrent applications
when multiple approvals are required,
and if consistent with applicable
processing requirements during the
6 th cycle.
HOU-2.2: Promote the use of State
density bonus provisions to
encourage the development of
affordable housing for lower and
moderate-income households, as
well as senior housing.
All units under density bonus agreements with the City are monitored on an annual basis; as of 20121, 2 projects (78 units) are in compliance with the density bonus program that exist in the City. The 2277 Harbor project includes 9 very lowincome units; however, the project is still under construction and will be added to the monitoring list.
Continued. The City will continue to
work with developers to promote the
use of density bonus as a means of
providing affordable housing, as well
as continue to monitor all
developments which have been
granted density bonuses.
Appendix A: Review of Past Performance A-11
Policy Objective Program Accomplishments Status for Sixth Cycle HOU-2.3: Provide incentive bonus
units to encourage the
redevelopment of residential units
that are nonconforming in terms of
density. The incentive shall be limited
to the multi-family residential land
use designations. The density
incentive shall be limited to an
increase of 25 percent above the
Medium-Density or an increase of 50
percent above High-Density. In no
case shall the resulting number of
units exceed the existing number of
units on each site.
Property owners are encouraged to redevelop the site
bringing them into conformance while keeping the same
number of units.
Continued. The City will continue to
provide incentive bonus units to
encourage the redevelopment of
residential units that are
nonconforming in terms of density in
the 6th cycle.
HOU-2.4: Encourage developers to
employ innovative or alternative
construction methods to reduce
housing costs and increase housing
supply.
Most housing construction of wrap and podium product is done with wood construction reducing construction cost.
Currently the City provides a variety of handouts regarding building construction on the City’s webpage:
https://www.costamesaca.gov/residents/informationhandouts-forms Continued. The City continued to
encourage housing construction with
the materials that reduce costs during
the 5th cycle. The City of Costa Mesa
will continue encouraging developers
to utilize alternative construction
methods to reduce housing costs and
increase housing supply in the 6th
cycle.
HOU-2.5: Continue membership in
the Orange County Housing Authority
to provide rental assistance to very
low-income households.
The Orange County Housing Authority maintains the City of Costa Mesa housing assistance program (Section 8).
During the 5th Cycle, the City provided homeless prevention services (i.e., rental assistance to prevent eviction or deposit assistance to move into housing and rapid housing) or
Continued. The City of Costa Mesa
has continued membership in the
Orange County Housing Authority to
provide rental assistance to very lowincome households in the 5th cycle and will continue to do so in the 6th cycle.
Appendix A: Review of Past Performance A-12
Policy Objective Program Accomplishments Status for Sixth Cycle transitional housing assistance and services to over 450 individuals.
• FY 13/14:
o 7 individuals provided homelessness prevention
services
o 23 individuals provided transitional housing
assistance and services
• FY 14/15:
o 7 individuals provided homelessness prevention
services
o 23 individuals provided transitional housing
assistance and services
• FY 15/16:
o 9 individuals provided homelessness prevention
services
o 41 individuals provided transitional housing
assistance and services
o 2 individuals funded with Rapid Rehousing
• FY 16/17:
o 20 individuals provided homelessness prevention
services
o 25 individuals provided transitional housing
assistance and services
o 1 individual funded with Rapid Rehousing
• 2018 APR:
o 7 individuals provided homelessness prevention
services
o 49 individuals provided transitional housing
assistance and services
o 23 individuals funded with Rapid Rehousing
Appendix A: Review of Past Performance A-13
Policy Objective Program Accomplishments Status for Sixth Cycle HOU-2.6: Provide clear rules, policies,
and procedures, for reasonable
accommodation in order to promote
equal access to housing. Policies and
procedures should be ministerial and
include but not be limited to
identifying who may request a
reasonable accommodation (i.e.,
persons with disabilities, familymembers, landlords, etc.), timeframes for decision making, and
provisions for relief from the various
land-use, zoning, or building
regulations that ma constrain the
housing for persons of disabilities.
The City continued to address regulations for reasonable accommodation through Zoning Codes through the 5th cycle.
In March of 2013, the City adopted an Ordinance, in
accordance with Senate Bill 2, to permit emergency shelters by right in the Planned Development Industrial zone. The Ordinance also created provisions for transitional housing and supportive housing that would allow these uses to be subject only to those restrictions that apply to other
residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone. This section is regularly updated to be consistent with State requirements.
Continued. As required by state law,
the City of Costa Mesa will continue to
provide, policies and procedures, for
reasonable accommodation in order
to promote equal access to housing
during the 6th cycle.
HOU-2.7: Monitor the
implementation of the City’s
ordinances, codes, policies, and
procedures to ensure they comply
with the “reasonable
accommodation” for disabled
provisions and all fair housing laws
Title 13, Chapter IX, Section 15 is regularly reviewed and updated as necessary to be consistent with State
requirements.
During the 5th cycle, 5 residential developments were
presented to the City with requests for reasonable
accommodation, of those proposed projects, 5 were
approved to include reasonable accommodation measures.
Continued. The City of Costa Mesa
continually updates City’s ordinances,
codes, policies, and procedures to stay
consistent with State requirements. As
required by State law, the City will
continue monitoring the
implementation of the City’s
ordinances, codes, policies, and
procedures to accommodation for
disabled provisions and all fair housing
laws.
Appendix A: Review of Past Performance A-14
Policy Objective Program Accomplishments Status for Sixth Cycle HOUSING GOAL 3: Provisions of Adequate Sites
Provide adequate, suitable sites for residential use and development or maintenance of a range of housing that varies sufficiently in terms of cost, design, size, location, and tenure to meet the housing needs of al segment of the community at a level that can be supported by infrastructure.
HOU-3.1: Encourage the conversion
of existing marginal or vacant motels,
commercial, and/or industrial land to
residential, where feasible and
consistent with environmental
conditions that are suitable for new
residential development.
The City continued to encourage the conversion of existing marginal or vacant industrial land as well as taking a number of other actions to support new residential development consistent with environmental conditions during the 5th cycle.
In 2006, the City adopted three Urban Plans to encourage the conversion of existing marginal or vacant industrial land in the West Side to mixed-use and residential developments. To date, a total of 966 units have been approved in the Urban Plans.
Continued. The City of Costa Mesa
will continue to support the change of
existing minor or tenantless motels,
commercial, and/or industrial land to
residential when conditions permit in
the 6th cycle.
HOU-3.2: Provide opportunities for
the development of well-planned and
designed projects which, through
vertical or of horizontal integration,
provide for the development of
compatible residential, commercial,
industrial, institutional, or public uses
within a single project or
neighborhood.
Through the 5th cycle, these design elements were reviewed and considered with development projects.
The City is currently reviewing a mixed-use project (One Metro West) with 1,057 residential units, 6,000 SF of
commercial retail and 25,000 SF of office space, proposed north of the 405 Freeway that allows for horizontal and vertical mixed use within a single project. The project is anticipated to be reviewed by City Council in mid-2021.
With the 2016 General Plan update, the City added a new urban plan overlay for mixed-use on 19th street and Harbor.
Modified. The City acknowledges the
importance of well-integrated and
sustainable design for the future of
development in Costa Mesa. The City
will continue to review and encourage
well-planned, well-design projects
during the 6th cycle.
HOU-3.3: Cooperate with large
employers, the Chamber of
Commerce, and major commercial
and industrial developers to identify
and implement programs to balance
employment growth with the ability
The City has continued to facilitate discussion with the Chamber of Commerce, industrial and commercial
developers, and large employers to identify programs for a balanced employment/housing opportunity in Costa Mesa.
The proposed One Metro West (mixed-use) project has the Continued. The City of Costa Mesa
will continue to work with large
employers, the Chamber of
Commerce, and major commercial and
industrial developers to create
Appendix A: Review of Past Performance A-15
Policy Objective Program Accomplishments Status for Sixth Cycle to provide housing opportunities
affordable to the incomes of the
newly created job opportunities.
potential to provide affordable housing located within
proximity to jobs. It includes:
• Residential with up to 1,057 rental dwelling units,
• 6,000 square feet of specialty retail,
• 25,000 square feet of creative office, and
• Recreational uses.
HOU-3.4: Consider the potential
impact on housing opportunities and
existing residential neighborhoods
when reviewing rezone petitions
affecting residential properties.
Throughout the 5th cycle, the City continually reviewed rezone applications, of which 8 rezone proposals affected residential properties.
Continued. The City of Costa Mesa
will continue to review rezoning
applications through the 6
th cycle. The
City will continue to consider
HOU-3.5: Encourage transit-oriented
development along transportation
corridors.
The City of Costa Mesa is uniquely situated in that more than 90 percent of the residential properties in the City is located within a half-mile of public transit. Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) developments are not subject to parking requirements if located within a half mile of a transit stop.
Continued. The City of Costa Mesa
recognizes the importance of mobility
in the framework of housing, the City
will continue to support development
that is transit oriented in the 6
th cycle.
HOUSING GOAL 4: Equal Housing Opportunity
Ensure that all existing and future housing opportunities are open and available to all social and economic segments of the community without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, disability/medical conditions, national origin or ancestry, marital status, age, household composition or size, source of income, or any other arbitrary factors.
HOU-4.1: Support the intent and
spirit of equal housing opportunities
as express in Federal and State fair
housing laws.
The City of Costa Mesa continued to support equal housing in the 5th cycle, as well as continued an ongoing partnership with the Orange County Fair Housing Council.
Continued. As required by state law,
the City will continue to support
Federal and State fair housing laws
through equal housing opportunities
during the 6th cycle. .
Appendix A: Review of Past Performance A-16
Policy Objective Program Accomplishments Status for Sixth Cycle HOU-4.2: Continue to provide fair
housing and counseling services for
all Costa Mesa residents in an effort
to remove barriers and promote
access to affordable housing in the
City.
The City is a member of a region-wide effort to ensure equal access to housing. Generally, activities have included
investigation, resolution, and education. During the 5th Cycle, the City assisted over 1,600 Costa Mesa households with fair housing issues.
• FY 13/14: 357 Costa Mesa households were assisted with fair housing issues
• FY 14/15: 331 Costa Mesa households were assisted with fair housing issues
• FY 15/16: 314 Costa Mesa households were assisted with fair housing issues
• FY 16/17: 204 Costa Mesa households were assisted with fair housing issues
• 2018 APR: 200 Costa Mesa households were assisted
with fair housing issues
• 2019 APR: 117 Costa Mesa households were assisted
with fair housing issues
• 2020 APR: 153 Costa Mesa households were assisted
with fair housing issues
Continued. The City continued to
provide Costa Mesa Residents with
fair housing and counseling services in
the 5th cycle and will continue
providing fair housing and counseling
services for residents during the 6th
cycle.
HOU-4.3: Encourage programs that
address the housing needs of senior
citizens.
Ongoing. The 2013-2021 Housing Element was adopted by
City Council on January 21, 2014. The Housing Element
includes special programs for special housing needs (i.e., seniors, large families, etc.).
As of 2013, accessibility is now required through ADA
standards. A 50 percent density increase for construction of very low.
Additionally, a Single Room Occupancy Ordinance was
adopted in 1991, since three projects are completed and Continued. The City was successful in
approving programs for senior housing
needs in the Housing Element as
shown under program
accomplishments. As required by state
law, the City will continue to support
programs for the housing needs of
senior citizens through the
appropriate methods listed in this
table as well as new methods should
Appendix A: Review of Past Performance A-17
Policy Objective Program Accomplishments Status for Sixth Cycle occupied for a total of 247 units; including 91 senior units and 11 SRO units.
they become available during the 6th
cycle.
HOU-4.4: Encourage and support the
construction, maintenance and
preservation of residential
developments which will meet the
needs of families and individuals with
specialized housing requirements.
2014/2015/2016/2017: The 2013-2021 Housing Element was
adopted by City Council on January 21, 2014. The draft was certified by California Department of Housing and Community Development on November 22, 2013 in meeting statuary
requirements. The Housing Element includes special
programs for special housing needs (i.e., seniors, large families, etc.).
As of 2018 staff worked on establishing a temporary and permanent homeless shelter that will be housing first
modeled and will provide housing navigation services.
In 2019, the City approved the use of a temporary modular structures at Lighthouse Church for the City’s temporary interim bridge shelter. Later in 2019, the City Council adopted an urgency ordinance relating to Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units, to be consistent with state law.
In 2020, the City approved a permanent homeless shelter (Costa Mesa Bridge Shelter) to replace the temporary bridge shelter identified in 2019. The shelter opened on March 23, 2021. The City of Costa Mesa partners with Newport Beach to leverage scarce resources to better services the homeless population.
Continued. The City of Costa Mesa
completed a number of actions during
the 5th cycle to support families and
individuals with specialized housing
requirements. As required by state
law, the City will continue to support
the construction, maintenance, and
preservation of residential
developments for families and
individuals with specialized housing
requirements.
Appendix A: Review of Past Performance A-18
Policy Objective Program Accomplishments Status for Sixth Cycle HOU-4.5: Encourage and support the
construction, maintenance, and
preservation of residential
developments to meet the needs of
the developmentally disabled
The 2013-2021 Housing Element was adopted by City Council on January 21, 2014. The draft was certified by California Department of Housing and Community Development on
November 22, 2013 in meeting statuary requirements. The Housing Element includes special programs for special
housing needs (i.e., seniors, large families, etc.).
The City partnered with Elwyn California to provide services to persons with special needs. The agency provided input on City's special needs populations, specifically economic opportunities for persons with developmental disabilities using CDBG funds ($5,720).
Continued. The City completed a
number of actions during the 5th cycle
to support the developmentally
disabled as shown under program
accomplishments. The City of Costa
Mesa will continue to promote
construction, maintenance, and
preservation of residential
developments for developmentally
disabled within the 6th cycle.
HOUSING GOAL 5: Coordination and Cooperation
Coordinate local housing efforts with appropriate federal, state, regional, and local governments and/or agencies and to cooperate in the implementation of intergovernmental housing programs to ensure maximum effectiveness in solving local and regional housing problems.
HOU-5.1: Investigate alternative
intergovernmental arrangements and
program options to deal with areawide housing issues and problems.
The City of Costa Mesa continued to investigate alternative intergovernmental arrangements and program options to
meet the housing issues.
As of 2015, 48 single- and multiple-family units constructed over the last several years through a combination of
public/private partnerships.
Continued. As required by state law,
the City will continue to identify
alternative intergovernmental
arrangements and program for the
housing problem in the 6th cycle.
Sites Analysis
Appendix B
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-1
A. Sites Analysis Overview
The Housing Element is required to identify housing sites by income category to meet the City’s RHNA Allocation. The sites identified within the Housing Element represent the City of Costa Mesa’s ability to plan for housing at the designated income levels within the 6th housing cycle planning period (2021-2029).
As described in this appendix, the realistic development capacity for each site was reduced to 80% of maximum allowable density while some sites included additional deductions based on the site location and other known development factors including land use controls, site improvement requirements, infrastructure access and property owner input. Where possible, property owners were consulted to help the City better understand potential future housing growth on candidate housing sites within the City.
This appendix contains Table B-8, which identifies each site within Costa Mesa’s site’s inventory. The sites are identified by assessor parcel number (APN) as well as a unique identifier used to track sites within the inventory. Additionally, the following information is provided for each parcel:
Address
Ownership
Zoning (including Specific Plans, and Overlays, if applicable) Size (Net developable acres removing known development constraints) Density
Vacancy status
Previous Housing Element identification
Potential Development Capacity (Dwelling Units) by income category Description of existing use
A summary of this information is included within the Housing Resources section (Chapter 3) of Costa Mesa’s 2021-2029 Housing Element.
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-2
2026 Housing Element Amendment – Overview of Changes to the Sites Analysis
As part of the 2026 Housing Element Amendment, the City implemented several key updates to strengthen the sites inventory and ensure compliance with State law:
1. Refined RHNA Approach:
a. The revised approach to address the RHNA relies on verified production credits toward RHNA based on the Annual Progress Report (APR); and;
b. Sites identified in the Housing Element sites inventory may also include specific projects with approved or pending applications. Sites with projects that have active applications are being counted as sites and are subject to all the rezoning requirements. c. Lastly, the City is no longer relying on Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) projections to satisfy the RHNA.
2. Revised Realistic Capacity Assumptions:
The 2021 Housing Element submittal assumed development at approximately 90 percent of maximum allowable density across most sites. As part of the 2026 amendment, the City has revised its methodology to reflect more conservative assumptions. For most sites, capacity is now calculated at 80 percent of the maximum allowable density (i.e., a 20 percent reduction from the maximum).
Additional site-specific reductions have been applied where physical, regulatory, or market constraints warrant further adjustments.
3. Removal and Replacement of Sites:
During implementation of required rezonings to accommodate RHNA, the City received requests from property owners to remove their sites from the inventory. In response, in March 2026, the City removed the sites, conducted a no-net loss analysis and began the process of identifying replacement sites to maintain adequate capacity. This process continued as part of the Housing Element Amendment and public review period, during which the City continued to evaluate and, where appropriate, honor property owner requests to remove or add sites. a. On August 12, 2026, as part of the revised Housing Element submitted to HCD in July 2026, the City was notified by two property owners requesting the removal of three Housing Element sites. Specifically, Sites 81 (1751 Placentia Avenue) and 79 (1791 Placentia Avenue), which together accounted for 286 units in the Mesa West Bluffs area, were removed from the sites inventory, along with Site 164 (1491 Baker Street), which accounted for 50 units in the Harbor Boulevard corridor.
b. On August 19, 2026, following the City's Planning Commission hearing, the City received a request from a property owner to remove two Housing Element sites: Site 49 (3539 Howard Way) and Site 80 (1650 Sunflower Avenue) which together accounted for 694 units in the North Costa Mesa area. The City has honored this request and removed both sites from the sites inventory.
c. On August 25, 2026, the City received a request from the property owner of an existing Housing Element site at 1485 Dale Way (APN 418-102-10) to add the adjoining APN 418-102-11 to the sites inventory to more accurately reflect the full extent of the property. The City honored the request and incorporated APN 418-102-11 into the broader 1485 Dale Way Housing Element site, identified as Site 180.
Summary of Removed and Replacement Sites
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-3
The changes summarized in Table B-1, below, are also reflected within the sites inventory (Table B-8 and electronic sites inventory).
Table B-1: Summary of Removed and Replacement Sites
Topic Sites Removed Replacement Sites (2026 Housing Element Amendment)
Number of Sites 28 22 Sites 96 Sites
Density
14 sites at 90 du/ac
Remaining sites between
30-50 du/ac
24 sites at 90 du/ac
40 sites at 30 du/ac
7 sites at 40 du/ac
10 sites at 50 du/ac
14 sites at 60 du/ac
Site Size 0.19–30 acres 0.13–15 acres (avg. ~1.44 acres) Capacity (Units)
Lower Income: 1,849
Moderate: 1,189
Above Moderate: 4,123
Total: 7,161
Lower Income: 2,381
Moderate: 1,195
Above Moderate: 3,420
Total: 6,996 (realistic capacity)
Location
North Costa Mesa
Harbor Blvd.
18th Street West
Placentia Avenue
Mesa West Bluff
Expanded distribution including:
North Costa Mesa
Harbor Blvd.
19 West
SoBECA
Newport Blvd
Mesa West Bluff
Existing Uses
Parking lots, office uses, and
institutional uses including
National University, Women’s
Club, South Coast Plaza and
Post Office.
Primarily underutilized commercial, retail,
office, and parking sites with strong
redevelopment indicators.
The amended Housing Element reflects replacing several previously identified sites with a broader and more diverse pool of 96 sites. The removed sites were generally larger (ranging from 0.19 to 30 acres) and located north of I-405 or along Harbor Boulevard. The existing uses on the removed sites included a mix of parking, office, and institutional uses, some of which had constraints such as long-term nonresidential leases.
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-4
The replacement sites generally share a similar size to the sites that were removed (ranging from 0.13 to 15 acres, with an average size of approximately 1.44 acres) and are distributed more evenly throughout the City including along mixed-use corridors. The updated inventory expands into additional areas, thereby improving geographic equity and supporting Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) objectives.
From a density perspective, the prior inventory primarily relied on higher-density sites, including 24 sites at 90 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) and the remaining sites ranging from 30-60 du/ac. The revised inventory maintains a subset of high-density sites (24 at 90 du/ac) but introduces a broader range of densities, with the remaining sites generally ranging from 30 to 60 du/ac. This shift supports a more flexible and realistic development pattern, distributing sites more broadly across the City.
The updated sites inventory results in an overall increase in realistic unit capacity, from 6,043 units in the previous inventory to 6,996 units under the revised assumptions. Finally, the replacement sites are characterized primarily by underutilized commercial, retail, office, and storage uses that exhibit strong redevelopment potential, in contrast to several prior sites that involved more complex constraints. Overall, the revised inventory improves feasibility, distribution, and alignment with State housing policy objectives.
Summary of RHNA Status and Sites Inventory
The City’s 2021-2029 RHNA need by income category and summary of the sites identified to meet that need is provided in Table B-2. The analysis within this appendix demonstrates that the City of Costa Mesa has the capacity to meet and exceed the 2021-2029 RHNA allocation through a variety of methods, including:
Identification of development capacity on sites that have been rezoned to permit development of residential uses at or above 30 dwelling units per acre Credit towards the RHNA
Table B-2: Summary of RHNA Status and Sites Inventory
Very Low
Income* Low Income Moderate Income
Above
Moderate
Income
Total
RHNA (2021-2029) 2,919 1,794 2,088 4,959 11,760
Credit Towards RHNA 274 195 79 95 643
Remaining Unmet RHNA 2,645 1,599 2,009 4,864 11, 117
Overlays and Specific Plans
North Costa Mesa Specific
Plan/MUOD Sub-Area 1,214 1,214 1,405 3,087 6,920
SoBECA MUOD Sub-Area 199 200 240 536 1,175
Mesa West Bluff MUOD SubArea 10 11 110 370 686
19 West MUOD Sub-Area 135 135 122 346 738
Harbor Blvd MUOD Sub-Area 186 186 255 655 1,282
Newport Blvd Specific
Plan/MUOD Sub- Area 92 93 98 272 555
Fairview Developmental Center 0 920 690 690 2300
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-5
One Metro West Specific Plan 106 0 851 957
Total Potential Capacity for the
RHNA (Overlays and Specific
Plans)
1,836 2,865 2,920 6,807 14,613
RHNA Capacity
Total Units towards RHNA
(includes Credit towards RHNA
+ Overlays and Specific Plans)
5,167 2,999 6,902 15,256
Total Capacity over RHNA +454 +911 +1,943 +3,496
Buffer 9.6% 43% 39% 30%
*The City’s Extremely Low Income (ELI) housing need is assumed to be 50% of the very low RHNA need for the planning period.
1. Credit Towards RHNA
As shown in Table B-3, the City of Costa Mesa has approved several residential development projects that have contributed to meeting the RHNA since the start of the 6th Cycle planning period. For jurisdictions within the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) region, RHNA credit may be applied to units that received building permits on or after June 30, 2021, consistent with HCD guidance.
The City of Costa Mesa tracks progress toward its 6th Cycle RHNA consistent with California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) Annual Progress Report (APR) requirements.
Credit toward RHNA reflected in Table B-2 is based solely on residential units for which building permits have been issued during the planning period. As defined by HCD, permitted units represent the official metric for demonstrating progress toward RHNA. Credit includes only units that have received building permits. Credit excludes projects that are either in the application phase or entitled but have not yet received building permits. A project-level breakdown of the 643 permitted units, including project address, affordability level, and affordability mechanism for each project, is provided in Table B-9.
Based on the City’s 2025 APR, Costa Mesa has issued building permits for 643 units for the 6th cycle planning period. These units represent the City’s cumulative credited progress toward its RHNA obligation for the 6th Cycle planning period.
Table B-3: RHNA Credit – Permitted Units by Affordability Income Category Deed-Restricted Units Non-Deed
Restricted Units Total Units
Very Low Income 202 72 274
Lower N/A 195 195
Moderate N/A 79 79
Above Moderate N/A 95 95
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-6
Total 202 441 643
Source: City of Costa Mesa 2025 Annual Progress Report, Table B (cumulative totals across planning period)
Demonstrating Affordability
For units credited toward the lower-income RHNA categories (very low- and low-income), the City documents affordability consistent with HCD’s APR requirements. Deed-Restricted Units: For deed-restricted units, affordability was determined based on affordable housing regulatory agreements and covenants.
Non-Deed-Restricted Units: For non-deed-restricted units counted toward lower-income RHNA categories, affordability was determined using one of two methods depending on the project’s stage of completion at the time of reporting.
o Building permit issued: For non-deed-restricted units where a building permit has been issued but construction is not yet complete and was counted toward lower-income RHNA categories, affordability was determined using a methodology consistent with the unit's year of permit submittal. For ADU applications submitted to the City in 2023 or earlier, affordability was based on the SCAG Regional ADU Affordability Analysis. For ADU applications submitted in 2024, the City distributed a survey to ADU property owners requesting their intended monthly rental price and used the survey results to determine the affordability level of each 2024 application. Beginning with applications submitted in 2025, applicants are required to complete a questionnaire disclosing the anticipated monthly rent for the unit at the time of application; the City then applies HCD's affordability calculator, based on the unit's bedroom count and anticipated rent, to determine the applicable income category. This questionnaire process has since been incorporated directly into the City's online permitting system.
o Certificate of Occupancy: For non-deed restricted units where a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued, affordability was verified based on actual reported rents or sales prices provided by the applicant.
ADU Rental Survey:
For ADU permits submitted to the City in 2024, affordability determinations were based on results of a survey distributed to ADU owners regarding intended rental pricing. Survey results indicated that studio units rented at levels affordable to low-income households, one-bedroom units at levels affordable to very low-income households, two-bedroom units at levels affordable to moderate-income households, and three-bedroom units at levels affordable to above moderate-income households. These results were applied to determine the affordability level of 2024 ADU applications based on unit bedroom count.
The City's progression from a region-wide affordability assumption to project-specific, unit-level verification reflects both improved local data collection and HCD's current guidance requiring an affordability methodology no more than two years old at the time of reporting. The affordability mechanism applied to each project is identified in Table B-9.
Project Status:
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-7
The City's approach to crediting units toward its RHNA progress relies on building permits issued, consistent with HCD's own methodology for tracking Housing Element implementation. While a housing development may receive entitlements well in advance of construction, entitlement alone does not reliably indicate that a project will be built within the planning period. The issuance of a building permit reflects a substantially firmer commitment to construction, as it follows a developer's investment in final design, plan check, and permit fees, and initiates the statutory clock for commencing work.
By anchoring its RHNA credit to permitted units rather than entitled units, the City has applied a conservative and defensible standard: the 643 units represent housing for which construction activity has been formally authorized to proceed, not merely approved at the discretion stage. This approach avoids overstating progress based on projects that remain speculative and provides HCD with a more reliable indicator of the City's actual production trajectory during the current planning period.
Conclusion
Consistent with HCD guidance, Costa Mesa’s RHNA progress is measured using building permits issued, rather than earlier development milestones such as applications or entitlements. As of the 2025 reporting year, the City has credited 643 units toward its RHNA based on cumulative permitting activity during the 6th Cycle planning period. This demonstrates continued advancement toward meeting the City’s housing obligations through projects that have reached the construction-ready stage. Lastly, the City's sites inventory identifies additional adequate sites with capacity to accommodate the City's remaining RHNA obligation across all income categories, independent of the units addressed in this analysis. This additional capacity provides the City with a reasonable buffer to ensure that the City can accommodate its share of the regional housing need throughout the remainder of the planning period, consistent with Government Code Section 65583.2.
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-8
Figure B-1: Housing Element Sites (All Income Categories) 8-
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-9
2. Selection of Sites - Redevelopment of Non-Vacant Sites for Residential Uses
The City of Costa Mesa has identified sites with sufficient capacity to accommodate its 2021–2029 RHNA.
In total, 169 parcels have been identified across a range of zones, specific plan areas and overlay districts.
Rezoning Status: As of April 2026, the City completed the required rezoning of all Housing Element sites at the densities specified in Table B-8 to permit residential development, as reflected in Resolution No. 2026- 11, 2026-12. in compliance with Government Code § [65583 and 65583.2 (c)]. Accordingly, Program 3C (Update the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan), Program 3D (Update the City’s Urban Plans and Overlays) and Program 3N (Candidate Sites Used in Pervious Housing Elements) have been completed.
A. Overview
All identified sites have been evaluated to determine the extent to which on-site uses are likely to redevelop within the planning period. The analysis found that a number of existing uses (identified in Table B-8) are either permanently closed or available for lease. Many of the uses are in multi-tenant commercial centers with one ownership and most show little to no evidence of recent investment or redevelopment.
When assuming the potential for low/very low-income development on non-vacant parcels, state law requires that the City analyzes the following:
Analysis of leases where possible, that would prevent redevelopment of the site, The extent to which existing uses may constitute an impediment to the future residential development within the planning period,
Record of converting existing uses to higher density residential uses, Current market demand for the existing use,
Development trends and market conditions, and
Regulatory or other incentives to encourage redevelopment.
Lease Analysis
Existing lease agreements on infill and non-vacant properties present a potential impediment to residential development within the planning period. State law requires the City to consider lease terms in evaluating the use of non-vacant sites; however the City does not have access to lease agreements or other contractual agreements amongst parties because they are private documents. Therefore, the City has conducted an analysis to identify sites that show characteristics indicating they are likely to redevelop within the planning period, including past performance, an on-the ground existing use analysis and a market analysis to understand cost of land, construction, and development trends in Costa Mesa.
To identify sites with existing uses that have the potential to redevelop into housing or that the existing use will not be an impediment to additional redevelopment, the City developed objective redevelopment criteria based on characteristics observed in sites that have successfully redeveloped into housing during Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-10
the current and prior planning cycles. After applying these criteria and confirming suitability, the City conducted (and is continuing to conduct) outreach to property owners, developers, and the broader community. Based on feedback from this outreach, additional refinements were made, including the removal and addition of sites to ensure a realistic and achievable sites inventory. Where the City received explicit property owner requests to include a site or documented developer interest, this information is noted alongside the respective site in the inventory. The analysis also notes where the City received an interest letter from a developer or property owner.
B. Application of Objective Threshold Criteria:
As a first step in identifying sites to accommodate the RHNA, the City established threshold redevelopment criteria to guide site selection. The threshold criteria are based on characteristics observed in prior Housing Element sites that successfully redeveloped into residential uses. The criteria are as follows:
Existing uses fall within the development classifications (typologies) identified in the section below as having demonstrated redevelopment potential in the City; and The site has a utilization rate (“percent occupied”) of 50% or less, with the exception of two sites.
To determine utilization rate, the City evaluated the relative intensity of existing development on each site by comparing existing building square footage to the maximum development permitted under the applicable floor area ratio (FAR). This calculation expressed as “% Occupied” indicates the extent to which each site is currently utilized. Sites with lower utilization rates are considered more likely to redevelop because existing improvements occupy a limited portion of the site’s total development capacity, indicating that the current use is not a significant impediment to redevelopment and may be accommodated or replaced as part of future development.
All Housing Element sites meet the threshold criteria described above except for sites listed in Table B-4. 2026 Housing Element Amendment:
To offset the removal of several sites in March 2026, the City added 94 sites as part of the second 2026 Housing Element Amendment. For these additional sites, the City conducted a detailed screening process to ensure that replacement sites exhibit strong redevelopment potential. All new sites added as part of this amendment were required to meet the following threshold criteria:
Utilization rate of less than 60%:
o While the screening threshold was set at 60%, most sites are well below this level. Of the 94 new sites:
36 sites have utilization rates between 0–30%
31 sites fall between 31–50%
11 sites fall between 51–59%
Improvement-to-land value (ILV) ratio of less than 1.0 o Of the 94 new sites:
Approximately 57 (61%) have an ILV ratio of less than 0.5 26 sites have an ILV between 0.5 and 1.0
9 sites have an ILV greater than 1.0
Building age greater than 40 years
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-11
In addition, as part of the 2026 amendment process, the City conducted targeted outreach to property owners and the broader community. Property owners were notified of the potential inclusion of their properties in the Housing Element sites inventory, and the City held a public workshop to solicit input and confirm the appropriateness of the proposed sites. Feedback from this outreach informed final site selection and refinement.
All new sites added through the 2026 amendment meet the threshold criteria described above, with the exception of the sites identified in Table B-4. Based on the combination of low utilization, low improvementto-land value ratios, older building stock, and consideration of AFFH factors—along with input received through outreach—these sites are considered suitable and likely to redevelop with residential or mixeduse development during the 6th Cycle planning period. The low level of existing site utilization indicates that current uses do not fully occupy the sites’ development capacity and are therefore unlikely to present a significant impediment to redevelopment.
Sites Included Based on Additional Redevelopment Evidence:
As noted above, the City initially screened sites using objective threshold criteria, including degree of underutilization, building age, and improvement-to-land value. However, certain sites were retained or added to the inventory based on additional site-specific evidence demonstrating that redevelopment during the planning period is realistic.
Table B-4 includes a separate analysis of sites that may not meet every objective screening threshold; however, the City determined that other factors support their inclusion in the sites inventory. This section identifies those sites and describes the site-specific information used to substantiate their redevelopment potential.
Table B-4: Additional Redevelopment Information
APN %
occupied
ILV RHNA
Units
Building
age
Development
Classification
Additional Information
139-031-
42 51% .30 576
units
1976 A This site is under the 60% utilization
threshold, has an ILV of less than
1.0, and meets development
classification A. The city has
received interest in the potential
redevelopment of the site. Existing
single-story light industrial/office
uses on large site. In addition, the
site has extensive areas for
residential development.
419-112-
02 24% 1.16 6 1963 C While the site has an improvementto-land value (ILV) ratio slightly above 1.0, it is significantly
underutilized (approximately 24%)
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-12
Table B-4: Additional Redevelopment Information
APN %
occupied
ILV RHNA
Units
Building
age
Development
Classification
Additional Information
and meets development
classification C. The site is currently
developed as a gas station with
surface parking along Newport
Blvd., There is a track record of nonresidential sites being cleaned-up and redeveloped for housing in
Costa Mesa.
426-262-
06 42% 1.23 10 1940 C ILV above 1.0 (1.23); however, the site is moderately underutilized
(42%) and meets development
classification C. Existing car wash
use along Newport Blvd. and is
considered redevelopable based on
City experience.
424-281-
22 30% 1.52 90 1956 B ILV above 1.0 (1.52); however, the site is underutilized (30%) and
meets development classification B.
Existing self-storage use is
considered redevelopable based on
City experience.
418-161-
02 34% 2.41 23 1976 C ILV above 1.0 (2.41); however, the site is underutilized (34%) and
meets development classification C.
The site is a shuttered gas station.
439-311-
06 47% 2.67 27 >40 years C ILV above 1.0 (2.67); however, the site is moderately underutilized
(47%) and meets development
classification C. The site is currently
developed as a restaurant that has
closed and is In close proximity to
residential development.
439-081-
02 34% 2.89 21 1984 B, C ILV above 1.0 (2.89); however, the site is underutilized (34%) and
meets development classification B
and C. The existing U-Haul/self-
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-13
Table B-4: Additional Redevelopment Information
APN %
occupied
ILV RHNA
Units
Building
age
Development
Classification
Additional Information
storage use is adjacent to
residential development.
425-432-
10 132% 0.86 35 >40 years B, C The site occupies 132%, however the ILV is below 1.0 (0.86) and
meets development classification B
and C. The existing self-storage use
(Public Storage) is located across
the street from residential
development.
422-291-
04 108% 0.27 44 1976 B The site occupies 108%, however
the ILV is significantly below 1.0
(0.27) threshold and meets
development classification B.
Existing use is Public Storage/selfstorage use and adjacent to recently developed townhomes and
apartments, indicating an ongoing
transition toward residential uses in
the surrounding area.
426-121-
12 100% 0.24 24 1976 C The site occupies 100%, however
the ILV is significantly below 1.0
(0.24) threshold and meets
development classification C.
Existing single-story
contractor/industrial building
developed at approximately 46% of
allowable commercial intensity
(0.35 existing FAR compared to 0.75
allowable FAR), leaving
approximately 54% of allowable
development capacity unused. The
approximately one-acre site
includes a fenced outdoor yard and
is currently occupied by lowintensity contractor-related uses, Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-14
Table B-4: Additional Redevelopment Information
APN %
occupied
ILV RHNA
Units
Building
age
Development
Classification
Additional Information
indicating opportunity for more
intensive redevelopment.
426-053-
01 89% 0.73 23 1973 C, D The site occupies 89%, however the site has an ILV below 1.0, and meets
development classification C and D.
The existing use is Ali Baba Motel
along Newport Blvd. The City has a
record of converting motels to
housing. The improvements date to
1973 and have a documented
history of property maintenance
and code-enforcement issues,
indicating aging improvements and
limited reinvestment. The site is
also located within an area
previously identified by the City for
residential redevelopment.
426-121-
15 79% 0.38 4 1970 C While the site is moderately utilized (79%), the ILV is below 1.0 (0.38)
threshold and meets development
classification C. The existing use is
an auto related use. The site is
adjacent to two vacant properties.
Additionally, the existing
commercial/auto-service property
developed at approximately 54% of
allowable commercial intensity
leaving approximately 46% of
allowable development capacity
unused. The building dates to 1983,
and a substantial portion of the site
is devoted to surface parking,
further supporting redevelopment
potential.
426-262-
16 73% 0.28 4 1987 C While the site is moderately utilized (73%), the ILV is significantly below
1.0 (0.28) threshold and meets
development classification C. The
existing use is commercial along
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-15
Table B-4: Additional Redevelopment Information
APN %
occupied
ILV RHNA
Units
Building
age
Development
Classification
Additional Information
Newport Blvd. and is adjacent to
residential development. Public
records describe the existing use as
a 1,960 sq.ft one-story, class C retail
building with 15+ parking spaces.
Existing low-intensity commercial
development with substantial
surface parking, developed at
approximately 32% of allowable
commercial intensity (0.24 existing
FAR compared to 0.75 allowable
FAR). The site also has a low ILV of
approximately 0.28, indicating that
land value substantially exceeds
improvement value and supporting
its redevelopment potential.
139-031-
62 (One
Metro
West)
66% 0.62 957 1975 A This site is an entitled project
known as One Metro West. While
the site slightly exceeds the
utilization threshold, it has an
improvement-to-land value (ILV)
ratio below 1.0 and was included in
the inventory due to its entitled
status and high likelihood of
redevelopment into actual built
units as allowed by the One Metro
West Specific Plan. The existing use
was manufacturing/warehousing.
139-652-
02 61% 0.61 153 1978 A This site is marginally over the utilization threshold (61%),
however the ILV is below the 1.0
(0.61) threshold and meets
development classification A. The
existing use is manufacturing and
distribution. Specific plans in Costa
Mesa and an adjacent city would
result in housing in the area.
Existing industrial/manufacturing
and distribution site developed at
approximately 61% of allowable
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-16
Table B-4: Additional Redevelopment Information
APN %
occupied
ILV RHNA
Units
Building
age
Development
Classification
Additional Information
intensity, leaving approximately
39% of development capacity
unused. The site has an ILV of
approximately 0.62 and is located
near the One Metro West project,
where a former industrial site is
approved for redevelopment with
up to 1,057 residential units,
demonstrating an ongoing
transition toward higher-intensity
residential and mixed-use
development in the surrounding
area.
426-262-
01 65% 0.11 6 1975 C This site is marginally over the
utilization threshold (65%),
however it is significantly below the
ILV threshold (0.11) and meets
development classification C. The
existing use is auto service related
and the site is on Newport Blvd
near residential development.
Existing auto repair/tire service
facility developed at approximately
34% of allowable commercial
intensity (0.26 existing FAR
compared to 0.75 allowable FAR),
leaving approximately 66% of
development capacity unused. The
building dates to 1975 and the site
has a low ILV of approximately 0.12,
indicating land value substantially
exceeds improvement value. The
small building footprint and
substantial area devoted to vehicle
access, parking, and service
activities further indicate potential
for more intensive redevelopment.
426-262-
03 85% 0.22 8 1950 C While this site is over the utilization threshold (85%), it is significantly
below the ILV threshold (0.22) and
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-17
Table B-4: Additional Redevelopment Information
APN %
occupied
ILV RHNA
Units
Building
age
Development
Classification
Additional Information
meets development classification C.
The existing use is commercial and
it is on Newport Blvd. adjacent to
residential development. Existing
improvements include small
commercial and restaurant
buildings, surface parking, and
vehicle circulation areas. Individual
parcels demonstrate substantial
underutilization; for example, 1974
Newport Boulevard is developed at
approximately 0.24 FAR, or about
31% of the allowable 0.75 FAR, and
contains improvements dating to
1950 with a low ILV of
approximately 0.22. These
conditions indicate aging
improvements, substantial unused
development capacity, and
potential for parcel consolidation
and higher-intensity
redevelopment.
426-121-
40 78% 0.18 13 1980 C While this site is over the utilization threshold (78%), it is significantly
below the ILV threshold (0.18) and
meets development classification C.
The multi-tenant building is vacant.
Existing single-story office
development with substantial
surface parking, developed at
approximately 35% of the maximum
allowable commercial intensity. The
building dates to 1980 and has a
low ILV of approximately 0.17,
indicating that land value
substantially exceeds the value of
existing improvements. The
property has also recently been
marketed as a
development/investment
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-18
Table B-4: Additional Redevelopment Information
APN %
occupied
ILV RHNA
Units
Building
age
Development
Classification
Additional Information
opportunity, further supporting its
redevelopment potential.
C. Development Classifications (Typologies)
As part of the housing sites analysis, the City evaluated recent residential projects that have redeveloped within non-residentially zoned areas. The zoning, use prior to redevelopment, and a brief project analysis of the approved development plan, are shown in Table B-5. The analysis showed that prior uses on these redeveloped sites were similar in nature to existing uses on many sites identified in the sites inventory in Table B-8. Based on the information provided in Table B-5, the City created a classification system for sites with characteristics that are applicable to the candidate sites inventory. The intent of this classification system is to draw parallels from past development, staff knowledge, and trends in development to the potential future development of the candidate housing sites identified. These classifications are based in real past development that has occurred within the City. While some comparisons may not be an exact match for the sites identified, they show a strong correlation with the understanding that every parcel is unique in terms of site characteristics, existing use, ownership, and other factors which can affect future development. The development classes are generally defined as:
Development Class A: Uses on these sites prior to redevelopment included either light industrial such as manufacturing, assembly, processing, packaging, or storage of products takes place or office type uses. These are areas that previously served commercial or office businesses and have redeveloped throughout the city based on property owner interest and market trends. This also includes uses within the North Costa Mesa and SoBECA areas. Development Class B: Uses on these sites prior to redevelopment included self-storage, vehicle storage, and industrial uses. Many of these sites are located within the Mesa West or 19 West areas which covers a large portion of the industrial areas south of I-405. Development Class C: Uses on these sites prior to redevelopment included primarily commercial uses including gas stations and underutilized surface parking lots along Harbor Boulevard, Newport Boulevard and other major commercial corridors. These projects are typically in a mixed-use setting, whether within the same development or directly adjacent. Many of these sites are within the Newport Boulevard Specific Plan area.
Development Class D: These sites are potential motel conversions within the City. The City is continuing to pursue Project Homekey funds and other resources to encourage the redevelopment of motels in coordination with property owners and service providers.
D. Field Survey Assessment
In addition to applying objective screening criteria (ILV, building age and utilization) and reviewing existing uses to meet development classifications, City staff, in coordination with the Economic Development Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-19
Division, conducted a field-based survey and site reconnaissance to further evaluate redevelopment potential.
This effort included on-the-ground observation of site conditions to identify vacancies, underutilized properties, aging structures, and broader patterns of disinvestment at the block and corridor level. The field survey supplemented the quantitative analysis (e.g., utilization and ILV) by providing real-world context regarding site activity, tenant occupancy, and overall economic viability. Observations from this effort informed the identification and refinement of sites included in the Housing Element inventory.
E. Community Input on Sites Selection
The City initially identified sites based on objective criteria, including improvement-to-land value (ILV), building age, and degree of utilization, and then evaluated them for consistency with established development typologies. Throughout this process, the City also incorporated community input, which played an important role in informing site identification and selection.
As part of the 2021 housing element update, the City had conducted multiple public outreach meetings, including district specific meetings where community members gave input on areas of importance within their district. This information was collected as notes on maps of each district and can be found in Appendix C. Community members also provided feedback on potential housing development types and focus areas on the online community survey. Additionally, draft versions of the sites inventory were discussed at both Planning Commission and City Council study sessions, with decision makers providing input and community members able to make public comments.
Lastly, the City held discussions with major property owners within the City to better understand their longrange plans for development of the properties under their ownership. The City used these discussions to more accurately determine potential unit yield and affordability assumptions for some of the identified candidate housing sites. Additional information is provided for specific properties in Table B-8. 2026 Housing Element Amendment:
As part of the inclusion of additional sites in this 2026 Housing Element Amendment, the City undertook a comprehensive and proactive outreach and engagement process to ensure transparency and meaningful community participation. The City formally notified all property owners of sites under consideration for inclusion in the updated inventory. Property owners were invited to participate in the review process and to provide input regarding site suitability, development feasibility, and long-term plans. The City also held two dedicated stakeholder meetings and workshops focused specifically on the candidate sites, allowing for more in-depth discussion of site-specific conditions, constraints, and opportunities.
Where the City received explicit property owner requests to include a site or documented developer interest, this information is noted alongside the respective site in the inventory. 2026 Housing Element Rezone:
In addition to property owner notification, the City conducted targeted outreach throughout the rezoning process, including public workshops and informational meetings designed to inform both affected Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-20
stakeholders and the broader community. These workshops provided an opportunity for participants to ask questions, express concerns, and offer feedback on proposed zoning changes and development assumptions. Through this expanded outreach effort, the City was able to further the sites inventory effectively incorporating community and stakeholder feedback to ensure that the rezoning program and 2026 housing element amendment reflect both community priorities, and realistic development conditions.
F. Experience Developing Non-Vacant Sites for Residential Uses (Development Trends)
The City has also conducted a parcel specific analysis of existing uses for each of the identified sites. This analysis of existing uses, including indicators of a likelihood that the existing use will redevelop within the next eight years, are provided in Table B-8. This analysis is based on information readily available to the City and research that can be found through online research. The City does not always have access to private lease information but has included information that property owners have shared regarding individual sites.
Table B-5 summarizes recent, approved, entitled, and constructed residential and mixed-use projects in Costa Mesa to demonstrate local redevelopment patterns and the City’s experience converting underutilized commercial, industrial, motel/hotel, office, and vacant sites into housing. The table identifies each project’s location, acreage, unit count, density, zoning, prior use, development classification, Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC)/HCD resource area, and relationship to similar sites included in the sites inventory. Together, these examples show that residential development has occurred across multiple areas of the City, including North Costa Mesa, along Newport Boulevard, Harbor Boulevard, and within the Mesa West Bluffs and 19 West Sub-Areas. Many projects have been built or approved on sites with characteristics similar to those identified in the sites inventory.
This table is intended to support the City’s realistic capacity assumptions by showing that nonvacant and underutilized sites in Costa Mesa have a demonstrated pattern of redeveloping with housing, including affordable housing, senior housing, live/work units, mixed-use projects, and adaptive reuse projects. The examples also help illustrate the types of existing uses that may transition to residential development during the planning period, including light industrial buildings, warehouses, auto-related uses, and motels.
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-21
Table B-5: Reference Projects and Nonvacant Trends
Address/APN Site Size Total
Dwelling Units
Allowable Maximum Density
Built/Proposed Density (% of maximum)
Zoning Site
uƟliza
Ɵon
(%Occupied)
ILV Building
Year
Uses prior to Redevelopment
Development Classifica
Ɵon
TCAC Classifica
Ɵon
Area Project Info 1
Rela
Ɵonship to Housing Element Sites
Inventory
One Metro West 1683 Sunflower Ave APN: 139-031-62
15.74 acres
957
units
106 LI
Units
80 du/ac
Project
proposed
density = 62
du/ac
78.5% of
maximum
density
90% of
specific plan
unit cap
MP 66% .62 1975 Light industrial A Moderate Resource North Costa Mesa One Metro West is an en
Ɵtled mixed-use
project consis
Ɵng of residen
Ɵal, o
ffice,
retail and recrea
Ɵonal uses. Prior exis
Ɵng
uses included light industrial; o
ffice,
manufacturing and warehousing The Sites Inventory includes 31 sites located in North Costa Mesa and has a
development classifica
Ɵon as “A”. Of
these 31 sites, all have a u
Ɵliza
Ɵon of
less than 60%.
Senior Housing Project at the Senior Center 695 W 19th St APN: 424-211-01
1.55 acres
(a
Ōer
subdividing)
70 LI
Senior
units 50 du/ac
Project
proposed
density = 46.6
du/ac
91% of
maximum
density
C1 11% .81 1957
City-owned Senior
Center parking lot
N/A
City-owned
site
Low
Resource
19 West
Urban
Plan
En
Ɵtled Project
Project Homekey 1400 Bristol Street APN: 439-312-11
3.53 acres
78 units
76 LI
Units
30 du/ac
Project
proposed
density = 22.1
du/ac
74% of
maximum
density
C1 66% 1.62 1970 Motel D High Resource
Newport
Blvd
Specific
Plan
Building Permits Issued Motel Conversion (Project Homekey) The Sites Inventory includes a total of 5
sites with the “D” classifica
Ɵon where
exis
Ɵng uses generally include
hotels/motels.
Project Homekey 2274 Newport Blvd. APN: 426-053-15
1.16 acres 48 LI Units 30 du/ac
Built density =
41.4 du/ac
138% of
maximum
density
R2-HD 118% .76
Late 1970S
(approx.
47-49
years old)
Motel D High Resource
Newport
Blvd
Specific
Plan
Constructed Motel Conversion Phase II (Project Homekey) Costa Mesa Village
1.59 acres
97 units
96 LI
Units
60 du/ac
Built density =
61 du/ac C1 87% 1.27 1985 Motel D Highest Resource
Newport
Blvd
Specific
Plan
Constructed. Costa Mesa Village conver
Ɵng an exis
Ɵng motel to provide 97
housing units along with wraparound
1 Entitled project (being counted as site, not pipeline project for the purposes of RHNA) Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-22
Table B-5: Reference Projects and Nonvacant Trends
Address/APN Site Size Total
Dwelling Units
Allowable Maximum Density
Built/Proposed Density (% of maximum)
Zoning Site
uƟlizaƟon (%Occupied)
ILV Building
Year
Uses prior to Redevelopment
Development ClassificaƟon
TCAC ClassificaƟon
Area Project Info 1 RelaƟonship to Housing Element Sites Inventory
2450 Newport Blvd. APN: 439-281-48
101% of
maximum
density
services to lower-income residents and persons with disabiliƟes. 2277 Harbor BlvdAPN: 422-163-31 4.15 acres 200 units 40 du/ac Built density =
48 du/ac
120% of
maximum
density
PDR -
HD 26% 0.99 1950-1959 Motel D Low Resource
Harbor
MixedUse
Overlay
200-unit apartment complex on a previous motel use site. This development is located on Harbor Boulevard.
Urban Plan Project – Live/Work Units 1711 & 1719 Pomona Avenue APN: 424-081-22 .23 acres 8 units 30 du/ac
Project
proposed
density = 34.8
du/ac
115% of
maximum
density
MG 44% 0.069 1936 Light industrial Auto repair shop B Low Resource Mesa
West
Bluff
Urban
Plan
EnƟtled Project: Live/work units
The Sites Inventory includes 23 sites in
the Mesa West Bluffs area. Site
uƟlizaƟon ranges from 0-55% and
majority of the uses include in
warehouses and self storage units with
large surface parking lots, light industrial
related to auto repairs.
Urban Plan Screening Project – Live Work Units 1540 Superior APN: 425-351-06 .43 acres
9 units
3 LI
Units
50 du/ac
Project
proposed
density = 20.9
du/ac
42% of
maximum
density
MG 25% .34
65+ years
≤1959
(esƟmated)
Light industrial –
vacant building B Low Resource 19 West Urban Plan 9 live/work units on a 0.44-acre lot.
The Sites Inventory includes 18 sites in
19 West area. Majority of the sites have
a uƟlizaƟon of less 0-50%. Uses on these
sites include warehouses, public storage
units, and auto related uses.
The Plant 2972 Century Place APN:418-202-12
.93 acres 62 units 60 du/ac
Project
proposed
density = 66.7
du/ac
111% of
maximum
density
MG 61% .39 1962
Auto repair shop
with surface
parking
Light industrial
A Moderate Resource SoBECA Urban Plan
Proposed project renovaƟng of three exisƟng commercial buildings (containing the former Car Mart and Plant Stand) totaling 19,100 square feet, for retail and restaurant uses and a four-story mixeduse building with 48 residenƟal units, 14 live/work units, and 2,570 square feet of workshop/maker office space above a two-level parking structure.
The Sites Inventory includes 33 sites in
the SoBECA area. The exisƟng uses
include single story commercial,
warehouses and auto related uses with
large surface parking lots.
125 Baker StreetAPN: 427-021-04
4.2 acres 240 units 57 du/ac
Built density =
57 du/ac
99% of
maximum
density
(GPA/Rezone)
PDR –
HD 33% 1.12 1974 Industrial and office spaces A Moderate Resource North Costa Mesa This development is a 240-unit wrap apartment complex on a 4.2-acre parcel in a largely industrial and office area of Costa Mesa. The project was rezoned from CL to PDR-HD.
The Sites Inventory includes 31 sites
located in North Costa Mesa and has a
development classificaƟon as “A”. Of
these 31 sites, all have a uƟlizaƟon of
less than 60%.
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-23
Table B-5: Reference Projects and Nonvacant Trends
Address/APN Site Size Total
Dwelling Units
Allowable Maximum Density
Built/Proposed Density (% of maximum)
Zoning Site
uƟlizaƟon (%Occupied)
ILV Building
Year
Uses prior to Redevelopment
Development ClassificaƟon
TCAC ClassificaƟon
Area Project Info 1 RelaƟonship to Housing Element Sites Inventory
1957 Newport Blvd APN: 419-211-05
1.86 acres 38 units 20 du/ac
Built density =
20.4 du/ac
100 % of
maximum
density
PDR -
HD 7% 0.38 1950-1959
Self-storage use
and trailer storage
lot
B High Resource
Newport
Blvd
Specific
Plan
38-unit condominium project along the Newport Blvd commercial corridor. The project was rezoned from C1 to PDR-HD.
The Sites Inventory includes 33 sites in
the Newport Blvd area. Several of these
sites are single-story self storage and
underuƟlized commercial along with
auto related uses and large surface
parking lots.
1620 and 1644 Whiƫer Ave.
5.7 acres 89 units 30 du/ac
Approved FAR2
= 0.87
Maximum
allowable FAR
= 1.0
87% of
maximum
allowable
development
intensity
MG 27% Not Available 1961 Industrial use (Ametek Aerospace and Defense) B Low Resource Mesa
West
Bluffs
Urban
PLan
89 live/work residenƟal units on a former industrial use site in the Mesa West Bluffs Urban Plan area. While ILV informaƟon was not available, the project site met several redevelopment criteria idenƟfied for the sites inventory. Pre-development site included low site uƟlizaƟon at 27%, building age was over 50 years old and the exisƟng use was an aging industrial development.
The Sites Inventory includes 23 sites in
the Mesa West Bluffs area. Site
uƟlizaƟon ranges from 0-55% and
majority of the uses include warehouses
and self storage units with large surface
parking lots, light industrial related to
auto repairs.
1500 Mesa Verde Drive EastAPN:139-361-42
7.41 acres 215 units 50 du/ac
Built density =
29 du/ac
58% of
maximum
density
PDC
N/A
(Vacant
Site)
N/A
(Vacant
Site)
N/A
(Vacant
Site)
Vacant C High Resource
Harbor
MixedUse
Overlay
This development is 215 senior apartments developed at four stories along Harbor Boulevard directly adjacent to exisƟng commercial uses. This project is an example of the types of horizontal mixed-use projects.
The Sites Inventory includes 30 sites in
the Harbor Blvd Area. Sites have a
uƟlizaƟon between 0-55% and a
majority of the uses include
underuƟlized, single story commercial,
auto related, and large surface parking.
1527 Newport Boulevard
1.9 acres 40 units 50 du/ac
Built density =
21 du/ac
43% of
maximum
density
C2 &
MG 70% 0.86 1945
Industrial uses,
including boat and
automobile repair
B High Resource 19 West Urban Plan
40 live/work units with ground floor commercial/office workspaces and two stories above for residenƟal.
The Sites Inventory includes 18 sites in
19 West area. Majority of the sites have
a uƟlizaƟon of less 0-50%. Uses on these
sites include warehouses, public storage
units, and auto related uses.
132, 134, 140 Industrial Way
1.01 acres
22 units 50 du/ac
Built density =
21 du/ac
43% of
maximum
density
C2 &
MG 51% 0.86 1963-1970
Industrial uses,
including boat and
automobile repair
B Low Resource 19 West Urban Plan
22 live/work units with ground floor commercial/ office workspaces and two stories above for residenƟal. 2 For the 1620–1644 Whittier Avenue project, the applicable Mesa West Bluffs Urban Plan regulated residential development intensity through FAR rather than a maximum dwelling-units-per-acre standard. Accordingly, project utilization is measured against the applicable 1.0 FAR maximum. The approved project achieved approximately 0.87 FAR, or 87% of the maximum allowable development intensity.
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-24
Table B-5: Reference Projects and Nonvacant Trends
Address/APN Site Size Total
Dwelling Units
Allowable Maximum Density
Built/Proposed Density (% of maximum)
Zoning Site
uƟlizaƟon (%Occupied)
ILV Building
Year
Uses prior to Redevelopment
Development ClassificaƟon
TCAC ClassificaƟon
Area Project Info 1 RelaƟonship to Housing Element Sites Inventory
1677Superior Avenue
2.53 49 units 50 du/ac
Built density =
19 du/ac
39% of
maximum
density
C2 &
MG 30.3% 0.97
Approx.
1964
(49+ years
old)
Gas staƟon and a
mixture of
commercial and
industrial uses.
B Low Resource 19 West Urban Plan
49 live/work units with ground floor commercial/ office workspaces and two stories above for residenƟal. 2025 PlacenƟa AvenueAPN: 937-78-210
1.85 36 units 40 du/ac
Built density =
19.5 du/ac
92% of
maximum
allowable
development
intensity (0.92
FAR / 1.0 FAR
maximum)3
MG ~11.5% 0.73 Late 1950s ~55+ years
Commercial and
industrial uses,
including storage
and repair for boats
B Moderate Resource
Mesa
West
Bluffs
Urban
Plan
36 live/work units with ground floor commercial/ office workspaces and two stories above for residenƟal.
The Sites Inventory includes 23 sites in
the Mesa West Bluffs area. Site
uƟlizaƟon ranges from 0-55% and
majority of the uses include in
warehouses and self storage units with
large surface parking lots, light industrial
related to auto repairs.
2095 Harbor Boulevard 1.53 32 units 40 du/ac
Built density =
20.9 du/ac
52% of
maximum
density
MG 10.6% 0.0 1981 Boat yard and industrial building B Moderate Resource Mesa
West
Bluffs
Urban
Plan
32 live/work units with ground floor commercial/ office workspaces and two stories above for residenƟal. 3 This project relied on the Mesa West Bluffs Urban Plan which regulated live/work development intensity through FAR rather than a maximum dwelling-unit-per-acre standard. Accordingly, utilization is measured against the applicable 1.0 FAR maximum.
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-25
Additional Redevelopment Information
In addition to the: 1) application of objective redevelopment criteria (including building age, site utilization, and improvement-to-land value ratios), 2) the analysis of existing uses based on development classifications, 3) field survey assessments conducted by City staff, 4) and the consideration of community input, 5) the City also conducted further qualitative and market-informed analysis to evaluate the realistic development potential of candidate sites included in the 2026 Housing Element Amendment. This analysis considered broader redevelopment trends within coastal and high-resource areas.
Overall trends and data indicated that many candidate sites are currently occupied by older building stock with limited reinvestment, lower-intensity commercial uses, or transitional uses that are increasingly considered underutilized relative to their location and zoning potential.
The analysis also found that broader geographic patterns, including entire blocks characterized by aging building stock and fragmented, low intensity uses. These areas are especially well-positioned for consolidation and redevelopment, particularly where parcel configurations allow for lot aggregation and more efficient site planning.
Location-specific factors further reinforce redevelopment potential. Many of the identified sites are located within designated High or Very High Resource Areas, where access to amenities, employment, and transit significantly increases market demand for housing. In these areas, the underlying land value is already substantial, and the introduction of higher allowable residential densities amplifies redevelopment feasibility.
As part of the 2026 amendment, the City evaluated the implications of proposed rezoning on land value and development viability. For example, along the Newport Boulevard corridor, allowable densities are proposed to increase from approximately 17 dwelling units per acre to 30 dwelling units per acre. This increase in development capacity is expected to substantially enhance land value, improving the financial feasibility of redevelopment projects and making residential uses more competitive relative to existing commercial uses. While precise value increases vary by site, the upzoning establishes a clear economic incentive for property owners to transition to higher-density residential or mixed-use development over time.
Housing Market Analysis
Recent market indicators continue to show strong housing demand and sustained affordability pressures in Costa Mesa and Orange County. According to the California Association of Realtors’ April 2026 Sales and Price Report4
, the median sold price for an existing single-family home in Orange County was $1,470,000 in April 2026, up 3.7 percent from $1,417,450 in April 2025. This also represents an increase of approximately 31 percent from the $1,120,000 Orange County median home price cited in the prior 2021 4 California Association of Realtors, “April Home Sales and Price Report,” May 19, 2026, accessed May 20, 2026, https://www.car.org/aboutus/mediacenter/newsreleases/2026releases/april2026sales.
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-26
analysis. C.A.R. also reported that, statewide, the median time on market was 21 days and the statewide sales-price-to-list-price ratio was 100.0 percent, indicating continued competition for available homes.
Orange County market data similarly reflects continued demand. As of March 2026, Redfin5 reported that
Orange County homes sold for a median price of $1,260,000, up 4.9 percent year-over-year, with homes selling after a median of 36 days on the market. The countywide sale-to-list price ratio was 99.7 percent, and approximately 36.6 percent of homes sold above list price.
Current new-construction indicators also point to high-cost housing conditions. Realtor.com reported that new construction homes for sale in Costa Mesa had a median listing price of approximately $1,532,000 and spent an average of 48 days on the market, with only a limited number of new construction listings available. Together, these indicators demonstrate that Costa Mesa and the broader Orange County market remain high-cost, competitive housing markets, supporting the continued need for additional housing production and a broader range of housing opportunities.
G. Conclusion
The City concludes that it has applied a robust and evidence-based methodology to identify sites with a strong likelihood of redevelopment during the planning period, where existing uses will not pose a significant impediment to residential development. This conclusion is supported by a multi-layered analysis that incorporates development trends, local market conditions, and demonstrated redevelopment patterns.
The City first applied a set of objective criteria to evaluate candidate sites. These criteria included improvement-to-land value (ILV) ratios, building age, and the degree to which a site is currently utilized.
Together, these metrics help identify underperforming or economically underutilized properties that are more likely to transition to higher-value residential or mixed-use projects. In addition, the City applied its development classification system, which categorizes existing uses based on their historical propensity to redevelop into housing. This system is grounded in local precedent and reflects uses that have demonstrably transitioned to residential development in prior planning cycles.
To further validate these findings, the City conducted field survey work to ground-truth site conditions and assess neighborhood-level trends. This on-the-ground analysis provided additional insight into factors such as property maintenance, vacancy characteristics, surrounding land uses, and broader market dynamics.
The City also incorporated community input, which helped inform local context and identify areas experiencing change or redevelopment pressure.
The selected criteria and thresholds are directly supported by empirical evidence documented in Table B8 which summarizes recent residential development projects in the City. Notably, many of these projects redeveloped from sites with similar or even less favorable characteristics than those included in the current inventory. In this regard, the City’s thresholds can be considered conservative. 5 Redfin, “Orange County, CA Housing Market: House Prices & Trends,” accessed May 20, 2026, https://www.redfin.com/county/332/CA/Orange-County/housing-market.
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-27
For sites that did not meet all objective criteria, the City provided additional justification, as documented in Table B-4. These sites are supported by supplemental information demonstrating their redevelopment potential, such as strong market indicators, strategic location, or alignment with specific plan areas.
Furthermore, the examples included in Table B-5 illustrate that residential development has occurred on sites beyond the established thresholds, reinforcing the conclusion that the inventory is realistic and achievable.
Overall, the methodology ensures that the identified sites are both market-feasible and that the existing uses will not be an impediment to additional development.
3. Development of Small Site Parcels
The City of Costa Mesa has identified a total of 44 housing sites that are smaller than half an acre in size.
Assembly Bill 1397 identifies general size requirements for candidate housing sites of greater than half an acre and less than 10 acres in size. The City has only identified sites smaller than half an acre which show the likelihood of redeveloping in conjunction with other parcels which collectively meet the half acre requirement. The likelihood of redevelopment was based primarily on common ownership amongst adjacent parcels which share a property line. In most instances, these parcels are currently developed as a single use and it is reasonable to anticipate that the collection of parcels will redevelop as one new development to maximize efficiency and design of the new use. Candidate sites less than half an acre in size represent a small portion of the City’s overall RHNA need. A total of 45 parcels comprise the potential for 436 units, which is 3.71% percent of the City’s total RHNA need. 2026 Housing Element Amendment: The potential candidate sites which are anticipated to be consolidated into a single development are identified within Table B-8.
The City has identified a total of 45 parcels that are less than 0.5 acres. Specifically, the 2026 Housing Element Amendment includes 39 new parcels that are smaller than 0.5 acres and collectively accommodate 148 lower-income units, 69 moderate-income units, and 219 above moderate-income units.
The inclusion of these smaller sites is supported by the same redevelopment criteria described in the sections above. These sites were not added based on parcel size alone; rather, they exhibit characteristics that support a reasonable likelihood of redevelopment during the planning period, including underutilized site conditions, existing low-intensity commercial or industrial uses, surface parking areas, location within adopted urban plan or mixed-use areas, proximity to similar redevelopment activity, and/or demonstrated property owner or developer interest.
In addition, 4 of the 45 parcels were added based directly on property owner requests to include the sites in the Housing Element inventory. Another 3 of the 45 parcels were added because they are associated with active development applications and/or have received land use entitlements. These factors provide additional evidence that the identified sites are realistic candidates for residential or mixed-use redevelopment during the planning period.
Some of the sites smaller than 0.5 acres are individual parcels that may be developed in coordination with adjacent parcels, shared parking areas, or larger development sites. Where applicable, the City has identified potential candidate sites that are anticipated to be consolidated or developed as part of a larger Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-28
project. Some of these sites are further detailed in Table B-4, which includes recent and anticipated development examples demonstrating redevelopment patterns on similarly situated sites.
A subset of
the
candidate
sites that
are smaller
than 0.5
acres are
shown in
Table B-4
below. APN
Address
MUOD SubArea
Size
(Ac) Use Description
42543103 1666 Superior
Ave
19 West 0.29 These are all adjacent parcels in a contiguous block bounded by E 16th Street, Superior Avenue, E 17th Street, and Newport Blvd. All parcels within this block have been identified as candidate housing sites and total 4.70 acres.
Sites 22 and 23 are owned by the same property owner.
The existing uses are all car-related industrial uses which are single-story.
As shown in Table B-5, the City worked with property
owners of parcels along Industrial Way (Specifically 132, 134, and 140 Industrial Way, less than a quarter mile
southwest of these identified parcels) to facilitate the development of residential uses on parcels previously
occupied with the same types of uses as these three
parcels (boat and auto repair uses). These parcels are
located within the 19 West Urban Plan area and are
permitted to develop in the same manner as the parcels
along Industrial Way.
42543105 126 E 16th St 19 West 0.42
42543106 126 E 16th St 19 West 0.35
41817101 754 Saint
Clair St
SoBECA 0.27 These parcels are occupied by warehouse and light industrial uses within the SoBECA Urban Plan area. The
SoBECA Urban Plan focuses on residential as a mixed-use component and promoting the development of residential
in addition to the existing commercial anchors in the Mall and the Camp. The City has established Program 3D to
update the Urban Plans within the City to focus more
heavily on residential uses at the identified densities.
As identified in Table B-5, the City developed Baker Block on industrial parcels which previously occupied similar light industrial uses in a largely industrial corridor approximately one-third of a mile from the SoBECA area. These uses have similar historical context and assumptions have been tied to this project and others as examples of redeveloping
these types of uses for residential within industrial areas. 41817102 752 Saint
Clair St
SoBECA 0.26
41820202 841 Baker St SoBECA 0.33
41820205 2969 Century
Pl
SoBECA 0.09
13931321 1590 Adams
Ave
SoBECA 0.27
14004183 N/A North Costa
Mesa
0.23 This parcel is part of the overall Home Ranch parcel described in the Large Site analysis in the following section.
Home Ranch is currently a mostly vacant site within the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan area that has an existing Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-29
A subset of
the
candidate
sites that
are smaller
than 0.5
acres are
shown in
Table B-4
below. APN
Address
MUOD SubArea
Size
(Ac) Use Description
development agreement and is currently planned for
residential development. The City has actively worked with the property owner throughout the 6th Cycle Housing
Element update process to identify an appropriate number of residential units to allocate towards the site. The
property owner has indicated they intend to develop
residential uses on the Home Ranch site and they are
permitted to alter their development agreement or
develop outside of it, meaning there are no unit caps in place.
While this individual parcel is less than half an acre, it is in common ownership with the larger Home Ranch site which
exceeds the half acre standard. This parcel is currently vacant.
Additionally, Policy LU-2.10 of the City of Costa Mesa’s Land Use Element within the General Plan promotes lot consolidation of residential properties. While the sites identified in the table above are commercial in nature, the intent of the policy remains effective in consolidating smaller parcels towards the creation of a larger residential development.
Small Sites (Under 0.5 Acre) – Realistic Capacity and Lot Consolidation Analysis Consistent with Government Code Section 65583.2, the City has evaluated whether sites under 0.5 acre included in the sites inventory are adequate to accommodate their assigned realistic capacity. The sites inventory includes 46 individual parcels under 0.5 acre, representing 436 units of realistic capacity. Of these, 44 parcels (406 units) rely on lot consolidation with one or more adjacent parcels, reflecting the pattern of small-lot assemblage that has occurred and continues to occur along the City’s commercial corridors; these 44 parcels consolidate into 18 distinct development sites, summarized in the table below.
The remaining 2 parcels (30 units) are evaluated on a standalone basis and are addressed following the summary table.
Lot consolidation is not a speculative assumption in Costa Mesa: an entitled project at 1711 and 1719 Pomona Avenue (Group I below) demonstrates this exact pattern, where two contiguous, commonlyowned parcels under 0.25 acre each were assembled into a single entitled live/work development. All 18 consolidation groups below are supported by site-specific notes in the sites inventory documenting parcel contiguity and consolidated acreage. For several groups, the consolidated development site also includes one or more additional parcels that individually exceed 0.5 acre; the table below shows both the small- Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-30
parcel subset (parcels under 0.5 acre only) and the full consolidated site (all parcels comprising the development), since the site’s realistic capacity reflects the assembled parcels together, not the small parcels in isolation.
Table B-6: Small Parcels and Aggregated Sites
Group Consolidated Parcels (Address /
APN)
Small Parcels Only
(Under 0.5 Acre)
Full Consolidated Site
(All Parcels) Consolidation Information
# Acres Total
Units # Acres Total Units
A
1666 Superior Ave (APN 425-431-
03); 126 E 16th St (APN 425-431-
05); 126 E 16Th St (APN 425-431-
06); 116 E 16th St (APN 425-431-
04) – anchor parcel
3 1.06 41 4 1.80 70 Comprised of 3 parcels smaller than
0.5 acre and 1 parcel of 0.73 acre.
B
1491 Baker St, 754 Saint Clair St
(APN 418-171-01); 752 Saint Clair
St (APN 418-171-02)
2 0.53 25 3 1.80 75 Comprised of 2 parcels smaller than
0.5 acre and 1 parcel of 1.27 acre.
D
841 Baker St (APN 418-202-02);
841 Baker St (APN 418-202-03) –
anchor parcel
1 0.33 15 2 0.93 43 Comprised of 1 parcel smaller than 0.5 acre and 1 parcel of 0.60 acre.
E
2969 Century Pl (APN 418-202-
05); 2969 Century Pl (APN 418-
202-06) – anchor parcel
1 0.09 4 2 0.76 36 Comprised of 1 parcel smaller than 0.5 acre and 1 parcel of 0.68 acre.
I
1711 Pomona Ave (APN 424-081-
21); 1719 Pomona Ave (APN 424-
081-22)
2 0.46 8 2 0.46 8 Comprised of 2 parcels, all smaller
than 0.5 acre.
J
1525 W Macarthur Blvd (APN
415-041-04) – anchor parcel;
3581 Harbor Blvd (APN 415-041-
08)
1 0.01 1 2 2.97 213 Comprised of 1 parcel smaller than 0.5 acre and 1 parcel of 2.95 acre.
K
751 Baker St (APN 418-161-02);
763 Baker Street (APN 418-161-
01); 2991 Randolph Ave (APN
418-161-03); 2973 Randolph Ave
(APN 418-161-04)
4 1.46 69 4 1.46 69 Comprised of 4 parcels, all smaller than 0.5 acre.
L 2966 Bristol St (APN 418-163-03);
2956 Bristol St (APN 418-163-04) 2 0.63 29 2 0.63 29 Comprised of 2 parcels, all smaller than 0.5 acre.
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-31
Table B-6: Small Parcels and Aggregated Sites
Group Consolidated Parcels (Address /
APN)
Small Parcels Only
(Under 0.5 Acre)
Full Consolidated Site
(All Parcels) Consolidation Information
# Acres Total
Units # Acres Total Units
M
2480 Harbor Blvd (APN 141-491-
09) – anchor parcel; 2490 Harbor
Blvd (APN 141-491-11) – anchor
parcel; 2480 Harbor Blvd (APN
141-491-10)
1 0.19 4 3 2.71 85
Comprised of 1 parcel smaller than 0.5
acre and 2 parcels of 1.92 and 0.60
acres.
N 2931 Bristol St (APN 418-173-01);
2927 Bristol St (APN 418-173-02) 2 0.86 41 2 0.86 41 Comprised of 2 parcels, all smaller than 0.5 acre.
O
2049 Harbor Blvd (APN 422-091-
14) – anchor parcel; 2048 Charle
St (APN 422-091-16)
1 0.18 7 2 0.72 28 Comprised of 1 parcel smaller than 0.5 acre and 1 parcel of 0.54 acre.
P
2145 Placentia Ave (APN 422-
454-23); 2139 Placentia Ave (APN
422-454-24); 2121 Placentia Ave
(APN 422-454-26)
3 0.99 39 3 0.99 39 Comprised of 3 parcels, all smaller than 0.5 acre.
Q
1540 Superior Avenue (APN 425-
351-06); 1550 Superior Ave (APN
425-351-05) – anchor parcel
1 0.44 9 2 1.27 29 Comprised of 1 parcel smaller than 0.5 acre and 1 parcel of 0.83 acre.
R
1950 Newport Blvd (APN 426-
262-01); 1960 Newport Blvd (APN
426-262-02); 1974 Newport Blvd
(APN 426-262-03); 1982
NEWPORT BLVD (APN 426-262-
04); 1984 Newport Blvd (APN
426-262-05); 1996 Newport Blvd
(APN 426-262-06); 1970 Newport
Blvd (APN 426-262-13); 1960
Newport Blvd (APN 426-262-16)
8 2.09 46 8 2.09 46 Comprised of 8 parcels, all smaller than 0.5 acre.
S
2156 Newport Blvd (APN 426-
121-13); 2134 Newport Blvd (APN
426-121-14); 2136 Newport Blvd
(APN 426-121-15); 2138 Newport
Blvd (APN 426-121-16)
4 0.92 21 4 0.92 21 Comprised of 4 parcels, all smaller than 0.5 acre.
T 2275 Newport Blvd (APN 419-
111-15); 2211 Newport Blvd (APN
3 1.14 25 3 1.14 25 Comprised of 3 parcels, all smaller than 0.5 acre.
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-32
Table B-6: Small Parcels and Aggregated Sites
Group Consolidated Parcels (Address /
APN)
Small Parcels Only
(Under 0.5 Acre)
Full Consolidated Site
(All Parcels) Consolidation Information
# Acres Total
Units # Acres Total Units
419-111-16); 2281 Newport Blvd
(APN 419-112-02)
U
2624 Newport Blvd (APN 439-
071-05); 2620 Newport Blvd (APN
439-071-06)
2 0.91 20 2 0.91 20 Comprised of 2 parcels, all smaller than 0.5 acre.
V
1778 Newport Blvd (APN 425-
443-18); 1770 Newport Blvd (APN
425-443-17) – anchor parcel;
1780 Newport Blvd (APN 425-
443-19); 1784 Newport Blvd (APN
425-443-20)
3 0.14 2 4 1.26 28 Comprised of 3 parcels smaller than
0.5 acre and 1 parcel of 1.12 acre.
Small Sites w/out Lot Consolidation
N/A 3001 Bristol St (APN 418-131-10) 1 0.42 20 N/A
TOTAL 45 12.90 436 54 23.69 905
3001 Bristol Street (APN 418-131-10) This 0.43-acre parcel is designated General Commercial (GC) in the General Plan and zoned C1, which allows residential density of 20 to 60 dwelling units per acre. The site's assigned realistic capacity of 20 units (8 lower, 4 moderate, 8 above moderate income) equates to approximately 46.7 dwelling units per acre – within the density range permitted by the existing zoning, without reliance on lot consolidation with an adjacent parcel.
The feasibility of new residential development on a parcel of this size is supported by comparable projects in Costa Mesa. A 6-unit development including 1 moderate-income unit, currently in the City's development review process on a 0.42-acre site – nearly identical in size to 3001 Bristol Street – is proposed at a density of 14.2 dwelling units per acre against a maximum allowed density of 12 dwelling units per acre. While that project's base zoning allows a lower maximum density than the C1 zoning applicable to 3001 Bristol Street, it demonstrates that parcels of comparable size in Costa Mesa are actively moving through the development review process at or above their maximum allowed density, supporting the feasibility of achieving higher-density residential development on a small site. The City has also approved live/work residential development on a similarly-sized underutilized site: the Urban Plan Screening Project at 1540 Superior Avenue (APN 425-351-06) redeveloped a 0.43-acre, vacant light industrial building into 9 live/work units, including 3 lower-income units.
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-33
The site is currently developed with a retail commercial center and surface parking lot at approximately 50 percent site utilization, consistent with the pattern of underutilized commercial parcels along the Bristol Street corridor that the City has identified for residential redevelopment in this planning cycle, including the consolidated sites at 2966/2956 Bristol Street (Group L) and 2931/2927 Bristol Street (Group N) in the immediate vicinity. The site's improvement-to-land value ratio of 0.48 indicates that existing improvements represent less than half the value of the underlying land, supporting the economic feasibility of redevelopment relative to the land's value. The site has existing infrastructure in place, is privately owned, and is listed as available; it was not relied upon in the prior Housing Element cycle. 2821 Bristol Street (APN 418-181-11) is a 0.43-acre vacant parcel currently used as a surface parking lot, located within the General Commercial (GC) General Plan designation and Commercial Limited (CL) zoning district, which allows residential density of 20 to 30 dwelling units per acre. Unlike the other 41 small parcels evaluated in this analysis, this site is not assumed to consolidate with an adjacent parcel and is evaluated on a standalone basis at its existing 0.43-acre lot size. The sites inventory notes that development interest for the site has been provided to the City in writing. Given the site's size and standalone development scenario, the City has revised its realistic capacity assumption for this site to reflect development at the moderate-income affordability level rather than lower-income.
4. Development of Large Site Parcels
The 2021-2029 sites inventory includes four sites that are larger than 10 acres. These sites exceed the AB1397 size requirement and require additional analysis. The following background and analysis relates to each site in the inventory that exceeds that inventory. The City has conducted meetings with each of these major property owners to determine their future interest in developing housing on the identified properties. These properties when developed pursuant to the densities included within this Housing Element would be subject to the City’s inclusionary housing requirements which are in process and anticipated to be adopted per Program 2A. This supports the City’s assumptions of affordability on the sites described below. The housing element also includes Program 3R which commits the City to take actions to promote the development of large parcels at the densities and affordability levels identified within the housing element. There are no unit caps within the City which would limit the number of units which can be developed on these sites. That is subject to the densities provided within the City’s zoning code.
Fairview Developmental Center
The Fairview Developmental Center (FDC) is a State-owned property that is approximately 109 acres in size and located on Harbor Boulevard within Costa Mesa. The FDC served as one of the largest residential facilities for developmentally disabled persons in the State of California, and a closure plan was issued in April 2016 with the facility officially concluding its operations in December of 2025. The FDC was previously identified in the City’s 5th cycle Housing Element (2013-2021) and the City has continued discussions with the State to determine the potential residential yield of the area taking into consideration the existing uses.
Senate Bill 188 (2022) allocated $3.5 million of State funds to the City to develop a specific plan for the FDC site, and to manage the land use planning process integrated with a disposition process for the property, to be carried out by the California Department of General Services (DGS). The disposition of the property shall provide for affordable housing to the greatest extent feasible and shall be upon terms and conditions the director of DGS deems to be in the best interests of the State. The intent of the legislature is that the FDC property be utilized for a mixed-use development, including mixed-income housing. The development Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-34
would include and prioritize affordable housing, including at least 200 units of permanent supportive housing, and open space.
The City issues a request for proposals and selected a consultant in 2022 to manage the community engagement process and prepare the specific plan, the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) including its associated technical studies, market and financial feasibility analyses, and coordinate with the City and State regarding the specific plan. Community engagement was conducted throughout 2023 and 2024, which informed alternative land use plans for consideration. The Planning Commission recommended, and the City Council approved a preferred land use plan for environmental study purposes and inclusion in the specific plan in August and October of 2025. The public draft specific plan was released for 30-day public comment in March 2026, and the public draft EIR was made available for public comment beginning May 14, 2026, through July 1, 2026.
The City has established Program 3B to work with the State of California to establish the FDC area as a mixed-use and mixed-income community that prioritizes housing and promotes development at the densities and affordability levels identified within this housing element through creation of a specific plan that includes objective development standards, affordability requirements and development incentives.
The City’s 6th Cycle analysis includes an assumption of 2,300 dwelling units broken down into the very low, low, moderate, and above moderate-income categories. The State opened their application portal in January 2026 for interested developers to submit proposals and be considered for selection as a master developer of the FDC site. As stated in Program 3B, the City anticipates Specific Plan adoption in summer/fall 2026 and the specific plan includes a maximum residential unit capacity up to 4,000 units.
Sakioka Lot 2
Sakioka Lot 2 is a 30.93-acre site located north of the 405 Freeway with General Plan Land Use designation that allows up to 660 residential units, 863,000 Square feet of office or retail use and a Floor Area Ratio of
1.0. The property is also located in the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan or up to 90 du/ac under and the newly amended Mixed-Use Overlay District (MUOD)
The site is currently under a development agreement (DA) that was recently extended for ten years until May of 2031. The City has had continued discussions with the property owners who have indicated there is the potential for future housing development on the site in strategic areas. This development would occur pursuant to the new densities identified within the Housing Element, which may lead to the development of more units than currently established under the DA. The property owner and City could potentially amend the current DA or the property owner may develop outside of the DA but under the zoning requirements of the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan in order to achieve more than 660 residential units in the future. Therefore, the existing DA does not present a cap or restriction on the future number of potential units on the Sakioka Lot 2 parcel. Furthermore, there are not affordability caps within the current DA which would limit the number of units which may be affordable. The City’s 6th Cycle analysis includes an assumption of 1,200 dwelling units broken down into the very low, low, moderate, and above moderate-income categories. The property owner has expressed interest in communications with the City in developing for residential uses within the 8-year planning cycle. Continued coordination with the property owner indicates sustained interest in pursuing redevelopment, including residential uses, and reflects strong market interest in repositioning the site over the planning period.
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-35
Former Restaurant and Parking Lot
Pacific Arts Plaza is an approximately 18.3-acre site located within the South Coast Plaza Town Center. The site is currently developed with a mix of office buildings and restaurant uses and is designated Cultural Arts Center (CAC) by the General Plan and has a zoning designation of Town Center (TC). The property is also located in the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan. Portions of the site are under a Development Agreement. The existing development approvals referenced in the original Development Agreement that allows for a maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 1.55 and maximum building square footage of 1,227,978. The Development Agreement has expired as of August of 2023.
While the full 18-acre site could theoretically accommodate up to 1,620 dwelling units based on maximum densities of 90 dwelling units per acre, the City has taken a more targeted and conservative approach in estimating realistic capacity. Residential development is only assumed on a limited portion of the site, specifically the area occupied by a closed restaurant and associated surface parking lot. This portion of the site is largely underutilized and presents the most immediate opportunity for redevelopment.
Consistent with this approach, the City has assumed a total capacity of 535 dwelling units for the site. This assumption reflects the portion of the property that is currently vacant or underutilized, rather than the entirety of the developed site, which continues to support active office and commercial uses. The City’s estimate is further supported by ongoing discussions with the property owner, who has indicated potential interest in introducing residential uses in strategic areas of the site for redevelopment during the planning period.
One Metro West (1683 Sunflower Avenue)6
One Metro West is an approved mixed-use multifamily redevelopment project located on a 15.23-acre site at 1683 Sunflower Avenue. The site is currently developed with office, warehouse, and manufacturing uses within an approximately 345,000-square-foot, one-story industrial building, demonstrating the redevelopment of an existing nonvacant, lower-intensity industrial/commercial site into high-density residential and mixed-use development. The approved project includes up to 957 apartment units, 6,000 square feet of ground-floor retail space, a 25,000-square-foot office building, 1.5 acres of publicly accessible open space, and related off-site improvements along Sunflower Avenue, including new bicycle lanes and landscaped medians. The project also includes a Development Agreement that provides public benefits, including 106 affordable units, consisting of 67 very low-income units and 39 low-income units, which are required to remain affordable for at least 40 years.
The City Council initially approved the project entitlements in 2021, including certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report, approval of the General Plan Amendment, Master Plan, Tentative Tract Map, Development Agreement, Rezone, and Specific Plan. The General Plan Amendment changed the land use designation from Industrial Park to High Density Residential, establishing a site-specific maximum density of 80 dwelling units per acre and a maximum of 1,057 units. The Rezone changed the zoning from Industrial Park to Planned Development Residential – High Density, and the Specific Plan establishes site-specific 6 City of Costa Mesa. “One Metro West.” City of Costa Mesa, Economic and Development Services Department, Planning Division. Accessed May 20, 2026. https://www.costamesaca.gov/government/departments-and-divisions/economic-anddevelopment-services/planning/one-metro-west.
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-36
development standards, design guidelines, zoning regulations, infrastructure systems, and implementation requirements for future project implementation.
At the time of the 2021 approval, the project remained subject to voter approval under Measure Y because the project involved major land use changes, including a General Plan Amendment, Rezone, Specific Plan, and more than 40 residential units. As a result, the 2021 ordinances were conditioned to become effective only after approval by the electorate. However, in November 2022, Costa Mesa voters approved Measure K, which amended Article 22 of the Costa Mesa Zoning Code to allow housing development in specified commercial and industrial areas without a separate electorate vote. The One Metro West site is located within the Measure K boundaries and therefore no longer requires voter approval.
In 2024, the applicant returned to the City to update the project approvals to reflect the Measure K changes and eliminate the prior Measure Y voter approval condition. On June 18, 2024, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2024-05 approving the amended Development Agreement, Ordinance No. 2024-06 approving the Rezone, and Ordinance No. 2024-07 approving the Specific Plan. These ordinances made the project approvals effective without a subsequent electorate vote. The 2024 amendments did not modify the approved development plans; instead, they clarified the effective date of the approvals and modified the timing of certain development impact fee and community benefit payments to assist with project implementation.
For Housing Element purposes, One Metro West provides strong evidence that nonvacant, underutilized commercial/industrial sites larger than 10 acres can realistically redevelop with high-density multifamily housing during the planning period. The project has progressed beyond conceptual interest: it has certified environmental review, approved land use entitlements, adopted implementing ordinances, an effective zoning designation allowing high-density multifamily residential development, a project-specific Specific Plan, a Development Agreement, and committed affordable housing units. The project’s continued advancement also supports the City’s reliance on similar nonvacant sites where zoning, site size, redevelopment patterns, and market conditions support multifamily or mixed-use residential development.
Site Lower Income Moderate
Income
Above
Moderate
Income
Total Units
Fairview Developmental Center 920 690 690 2,300
Sakioka Lot 2 360 240 600 1,200
Pacific Arts Plaza and Town Center 104 69 176 349
One Metro West 106 0 851 957
Total Potential Capacity - Large
Sites 1,490 999 2,317 4,806
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-37
5. Accessory Dwelling Units
Accessory dwelling units, or ADUs, are housing units which may be developed in addition to an existing single- or multi-family residential use. These housing units can be free-standing or attached to a primary structure and are intended to provide additional housing on an existing residential lot. Often ADUs provide housing for family members or are rented to members of the community.
In the 2021 Housing Element, the City relied on ADU production projections to support RHNA capacity, estimating approximately 391 ADUs over the 2021–2029 planning period (or about 50 units annually).
These projections were based on observed increases in ADU activity between 2018 and 2021, as well as the anticipated continued impact of recent State legislation and local incentives promoting ADU development.
As part of this amendment, rather than relying on only projected ADU production, the City is crediting RHNA progress based on actual units reported through the City's Annual Progress Reports (APRs), reflecting permits issued and units completed. The majority of RHNA credit reported through this method consists of ADUs.
However, to provide context on performance and trends, the City has updated this analysis to compare projected assumptions with actual ADU activity during the 6th Cycle planning period (2021–2025)Table B-7 compares the City’s original ADU production assumptions from the 2021 Housing Element with actual permitting and completion activity during the 6th Cycle planning period to date.
Table B-7: ADU Projection vs. Actual Production (2021–2025) Reporting Year Projected ADUs
(2021 HE) Actual Permitted Actual Completed
2021 50 43 9
2022 50 69 14
2023 50 81 28
2024 50 92 66
2025 50 89 73
Totals (2021-2025) 250 374 190
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development. “Annual Progress Reports — Data Dashboard and Downloads.” Accessed May 20, 2026. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/housing-open-data-tools/apr-dashboard Over the first five years of the planning period (2021-2025), the City permitted a total of 374 ADUs, significantly exceeding the original annual projection of 50 units per year. This demonstrates that actual ADU production has outpaced initial expectations, particularly in later years as market familiarity, streamlined regulations, and local incentives have taken effect. Completed units have also increased steadily over time, reflecting a lag between permitting and construction but confirming sustained delivery.
Consistent with State law, ADUs continue to be permitted in all zones that allow residential uses residential zones. The City has supported ADU production through flexible local development standards, including reduced parking requirements and allowances for larger unit sizes compared to State minimums.
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-38
Overall, while the City no longer relies on ADU projections for RHNA compliance, actual RHNA credit based on building permits and certificates of occupancy reported through the City’s APR demonstrate that ADUs remain a meaningful and growing component of the City’s housing supply. These outcomes validate the assumptions made in 2021 and reflect the effectiveness of both State legislation and local implementation efforts in facilitating ADU development.
To assist in furthering the recognition and understanding of ADUs potential within Costa Mesa and reach the City’s ADU development projections, Costa Mesa included Program 3E, which identified actions the City will take to promote and incentivize the development of ADUs during the planning period. The following summarizes the progress the City has made in implementing the program:
In 2025, the City updated the ADU ordinance to be consistent with changes to State law. In 2023, the City launched a new permitting and land management system known as the Totally Electronic Self Service Application (TESSA) to facilitate application processing and help monitor ADU trends and affordability levels.
Established an ADU webpage to serve as a local clearinghouse of ADU information. Posted California Housing Finance Agency ADU Grant Program and Orange County Housing Finance Trust Subsidized ADU Loan Program information on the City’s ADU webpage. Invited architects and engineers to submit ADU plans for a Pre-Approved ADU Program. Staff continues to research potential funding sources for affordable ADUs and make new information publicly available to Costa Mesans.
6. Water, Sewer, and Dry Utility Availability
All sites, including the additional sites identified as part of the 2026 amendment, were evaluated to ensure there is adequate access to water and sewer connections as well as dry utilities. Each site is situated with a direct connection to a public street that has the appropriate water and sewer mains and other infrastructure to service the candidate site. The City has sufficient total water and sewer capacity (existing and planned) to accommodate the 2021-2029 regional housing need. The City plans for future housing growth through the Mesa Water District Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). This was most recently updated in 2020. Future sewer capacity is planned for through the Costa Mesa Sanitary District Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP), which was most recently amended and recertified by the Board of Directors in 2025.
B. Calculation of Unit Capacity
This section contains a description of the candidate sites identified to meet Costa Mesa’s RHNA need at all income levels. The full list of these sites is presented in Table B-8.
7. Realistic Capacity and Affordability Calculations
Costa Mesa’s 2021-2029 Housing Element sites analysis assumes that each identified candidate housing site will develop with at a range of income levels. Primarily, it is assumed that sites identified within Table B-8 will redevelop with the following affordability characteristics:
40% of units available to residents in the low and very low-income categories Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-39
20% of units available to residents in the moderate-income category 40% of units available to residents in the above moderate-income category Costa Mesa recognizes that not all sites within the inventory will develop such that they meet these affordability assumptions and has included a 30% buffer on the total number of units to assist in accommodating potential differences in future housing development. This buffer is to accommodate the potential that sites may develop for 100% nonresidential uses, however recent development within Costa Mesa has indicated that is unlikely. Additionally, all housing element sites have been rezoned pursuant to meet the performance standards required as part of Government code section 65583.2, subsection (h)(1)(B) requiring that 100 percent residential uses are permitted on all housing element sites and that mixed-use projects must be provide at least 50 percent of the total floor area as residential uses. As such, 100 percent nonresidential development is not allowed on the sites identified for the housing element.
The City has a record of approving residential and mixed-use development on previously non-residential sites. The following developments have all occurred recently within the City’s urban plans, specific plans, overlays, or on non-residentially zoned sites. Many of these are described in more detail in Table B-4. 2277 Harbor Blvd – Previous motel use that underwent a rezone from C1 to PDR-HD and developed as a fully residential project with 200 apartment units. 671 W 17th Street – Previous industrial brownfield site in the Mesa West Bluff Urban Plan which developed as a fully residential project with 177 live/work units. 1620 and 1644 Whittier Avenue – Previous industrial use in the Mesa West Bluff Urban Plan which developed as a fully residential project with 89 live/work units. 1500 Mesa Verde East Drive – Commercially zoned parcel along Harbor Boulevard which developed as a fully residential project with 215 senior apartments. Brickyard East and West – Previous industrial warehouse uses along Placentia Avenue which developed as a fully residential project with 29 townhouse units.
To account for site-specific development considerations and avoid assuming development at theoretical maximum buildout, the sites inventory applies a realistic capacity factor of 80 percent of maximum allowable residential density. Recent development trends in Costa Mesa demonstrate that this assumption is reasonable and achievable. As shown in the project reference table, recently constructed, entitled, and proposed residential projects have developed across a range of densities, with numerous projects achieving or exceeding 80 percent of the maximum allowable density or development intensity. Examples include 125 Baker Street, which was constructed at approximately 99 percent of maximum density; 1957 Newport Boulevard, constructed at approximately 100 percent; The Plant, proposed at approximately 111 percent; and the Senior Center affordable housing project, proposed at approximately 91 percent of the applicable density benchmark. For certain live/work projects within the 19 West and Mesa West Bluffs Urban Plan areas, residential development intensity was regulated through FAR rather than a maximum dwelling-unitper-acre standard. For these projects, the analysis compares the approved or built FAR to the applicable maximum FAR. These examples similarly demonstrate development approaching maximum allowable intensity, including 1620–1644 Whittier Avenue at approximately 87 percent and 2025 Placentia Avenue at approximately 92 percent of maximum FAR.
The examples also include projects providing lower-income housing. The Senior Center project proposes 70 lower-income senior units at approximately 91 percent of the maximum allowable density, while Costa Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-40
Mesa Village provides 96 lower-income units at approximately 101 percent of maximum density. These examples demonstrate that development approaching or exceeding the 80 percent capacity assumption is achievable for both market-rate and affordable housing projects.
While individual projects may develop below 80 percent based on project-specific circumstances, the range of recent development demonstrates that densities approaching maximum allowable capacity are regularly achieved in Costa Mesa. Accordingly, application of an 80 percent realistic capacity factor appropriately accounts for project-level variability while remaining consistent with demonstrated local development trends.
Consistent with local housing market trends data presented earlier in this appendices, the City of Costa Mesa is seeing an increase in residential development and rarely receives requests for fully non-residential uses in the area identified within the candidate housing sites analysis.
The City has established goals and programs within the Housing Element aimed at identifying funding opportunities and partnering with the development community to increase the amount of affordable housing built in future developments. If the City is able to identify partnerships leading to fully affordable projects, that would also help to cover any potential shortfall in capacity in any of the four income categories. The City of Costa Mesa recognizes that should a “No Net Loss” situation occur, they will be required to identify additional sites and has analyzed additional potential housing sites within the Housing Element’s environmental clearance document.
There are several candidate housing sites in which the affordability assumptions differ from those presented above. Those sites include:
Costa Mesa Senior Housing Project (APN 424-211-01). This site is owned by the City of Costa Mesa who has had previous discussions with a developer on a fully affordable project on this site. This site assumes 70 units which are all affordable at the lower income levels. Fairview Developmental Center. This site is analyzed previously in the large site analysis portion of this appendices. This site is owned by the State of California and the City anticipates working in collaboration with the State to support the goal of developing affordable housing. The City has assumed that approximately 40% of the units on this site will be available to residents at the lower income levels, while 30% will be available to residents at the moderate-income levels. The remaining units are anticipated to be market-rate.
Sakioka Lot 2. The City has conducted outreach meetings with this property owner and determined that it is realistic to assume that 15% of future units on this site may be available to residents at the lower income levels. This site has an existing development agreement. Pacific Arts Plaza and Town Center. The City has conducted outreach meetings with this property owner and determined that it is realistic to assume that 15% of future units on this site may be available to residents at the low and very-low income levels. This site has an existing development agreement.
8. Specific Plan and Overlays
At the time the 6th Cycle Housing Element was originally adopted, Costa Mesa implemented zoning regulations through a combination of base zones, overlay zones, urban plans, and specific plans. Urban plans were adopted as standalone documents outside the Zoning Code that provided supplemental development standards. The Mesa West Residential Ownership Urban Plan, 19 West Urban Plan, Mesa Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-41
West Bluffs Urban Plan, and SoBECA Urban Plan, along with the Harbor Mixed-Use Overlay, established additional regulations applicable to specific areas of the City in addition to base zones and specific plans, resulting in a complex regulatory framework.
The City approved the rezone and application of Mixed-Use Overlay District on Housing Element Sites in April 2026. As identified in Programs 3B and 3C, of the Housing Plan (Chapter 4), the City proposes to rescind the urban plans, and established objective development standards for those sites through amending the Mixed-Use Overlay District and other parts of the Zoning Code. Additionally, the City modified relevant existing Specific Plans, to accommodate the RHNA. The densities identified in Table B-8 reflect the revisions made to these areas to permit residential development at a higher densities. As of April 2026, the City has rezoned all sites identified in the housing element consistent Government Code § [65583 and 65583.2 (c)].
In an effort to implement both the required rezoning of Housing Element sites, facilitate housing development, and simplify the City’s zoning framework, the City Council took the following actions on April 7, 2026:
Rezoned all Housing Element sites, except the Fairview Developmental Center, by applying the MUOD, specifically amended to the MUOD (as Article 11 of Chapter V of Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code) to apply specific Housing Element site provisions regarding permitted uses, minimum residential densities, increased maximum building heights, decreased setbacks, flexible open space standards, no minimum parking requirements, and ministerial review and approval. On Housing Element properties that are also within a specific plan, such that the provisions of the MUOD that allow a greater number of residential units shall supersede and prevail over any conflicting provisions of the site’s base zone, specific plan, and any other applicable zoning provision.
Amended other sections of the Zoning Code to encourage and facilitate residential development and redevelopment, such as reducing multifamily parking minimums, removing the requirement for additional parking for bedroom additions, establishing a streamlined development review process, and permitting transitional, supportive, and employee housing in the community. Amended the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan to reflect the application of the MUOD, with the specific provisions mentioned above, to Housing Element sites within the specific plan area.
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-42
Table B-8: Sites to Accommodate Costa Mesa 2021-2029 RHNA Note: This table is sorted by unique identifier (Unique ID).
Some sites were removed as part of the analysis and sites were not renumbered to retain continuity for the community and other users when referring to specific sites.
Unique
ID APN Address Zip Code Consolidated Sites
General
Plan Land
Use
Designation
Zoning
Designation
Overlay or
Specific
Plan
Designation
MUOD
Sub-Area
Min.
Density
Allowed
(units/
acre)
Max.
Density
Allowed
(units/
acre)
Parcel
Size
(acres)
Existing
Use/
Vacancy
LowerIncome
Capacity
Moderate
-Income
Capacity
Above
Moderate
-Income
Capacity
Total
Capacity
Development
Classification
%
Occupied ILV Existing Uses Detail
Ownership
(Consolidated
Sites)
Identified in
prior
planning
periods7
1 139-031-62 1683 Sunflower 92626 IP MP MUOD North Costa Mesa 20 90 15.74 Industrial 106 0 851 957 A 66% 0.620 Entitled project - One Metro West N 2 139-031-71 1503 S Coast Dr 92626 GC CL MUOD North Costa Mesa 20 90 2.95 Commercial 84 42 86 212 A 29% 0.094 Office/medical office building with surface parking lot. N 3 139-031-75 1507 S Coast Dr 92626 GC CL MUOD North Costa Mesa 20 90 0.97 Commercial 27 13 29 69 A 22% 0.341 Restaurant with large parking lot. N 4 139-031-76 1515 S Coast Dr 92626 GC CL MUOD North Costa Mesa 20 90 2.47 Hotel/motel 70 35 72 177 D 35% 0.189 Property includes lodging and surface parking. N 5 139-652-01 1685 Scenic Ave 92626 IP MP MUOD North Costa Mesa 20 90 1.45 Industrial 41 20 43 104 A 59% 0.696 Industrial / light industrial with a surface parking lot. N 6 139-652-02 3560 Cadillac Ave 92626 IP MP MUOD North Costa Mesa 20 90 2.13 Industrial 61 30 62 153 A 61% 0.616 Industrial/light
industrial with a
surface parking lot.
Existing
industrial/manufact
uring and
distribution site
developed at
approximately 61%
of allowable
intensity, leaving
approximately 39%
of development
capacity unused.
The site has an ILV
of approximately
0.62 and is located
near the One Metro
West project,
where a former
industrial site is
approved for
redevelopment
with up to 1,057
residential units,
demonstrating an
ongoing transition
toward higherintensity residential
and mixed-use
N
7 Pursuant to Government Code section 65583.2(c), Housing Element sites used to accommodate the lower-income RHNA that were identified in previous planning periods (nonvacant sites identified in a prior planning period and vacant sites identified in two or more consecutive planning periods) is allowed as a residential use by right for developments in which at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower-income households. Sites denoted with a “Y” are subject to this requirement.
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-43
Table B-8: Sites to Accommodate Costa Mesa 2021-2029 RHNA Note: This table is sorted by unique identifier (Unique ID).
Some sites were removed as part of the analysis and sites were not renumbered to retain continuity for the community and other users when referring to specific sites.
Unique
ID APN Address Zip Code Consolidated Sites
General
Plan Land
Use
Designation
Zoning
Designation
Overlay or
Specific
Plan
Designation
MUOD
Sub-Area
Min.
Density
Allowed
(units/
acre)
Max.
Density
Allowed
(units/
acre)
Parcel
Size
(acres)
Existing
Use/
Vacancy
LowerIncome
Capacity
Moderate
-Income
Capacity
Above
Moderate
-Income
Capacity
Total
Capacity
Development
Classification
%
Occupied ILV Existing Uses Detail
Ownership
(Consolidated
Sites)
Identified in
prior
planning
periods7
development in the
surrounding area.
7 139-652-07 1675 Toronto Way 92626 IP MP MUOD North Costa Mesa 20 90 1.50 Industrial 43 21 44 108 A 47% 0.423 Industrial/light industrial with a surface parking lot. N 8 139-652-11 1700 Sunflower 92626 IP MP MUOD North Costa Mesa 20 90 2.51 Industrial 72 36 72 180 A 50% 0.194 Industrial /
manufacturingshowroom/wareho
use use with
surface parking lot.
N
9 139-652-12
1670
Sunflower
Ave
92626 IP MP MUOD
North
Costa
Mesa
20 90 2.39 Industrial 68 34 70 172 A 55% 0.286
Existing uses
include warehouse,
showroom, and
light manufacturing
uses with a surface
parking lot.
N
10 140-041-59 3363 Via Merano 92626 UCC PDC
North Costa
Mesa
Specific
Plan/MUOD
North
Costa
Mesa
20 90 9.70 Parking 279 139 280 698 C 0% 0.096 Parking lot N 11 141-221-40 1085 Baker St 92626 GC C2 MUOD N/A 20 60 0.86 Commercial 16 8 17 41 A 42% 0.278 Commercial use
with a drive-thru
window and surface
parking lot
N
12 424-202-02 719 W 19th St 92627 G C1 MUOD 19 West 20 50 1.29 Commercial 15 10 26 51 C 18% Small commercial
uses in a strip mall
center.
Approximately half
of the parcel is
surface parking and
property abuts a
major
transportation
corridor (19th
Street). Shopping
Center shows no
recent sign of
renovation.
Y
13 424-202-03 707 W 19th St 92627 G C1 MUOD 19 West 20 50 2.00 Commercial 23 15 41 79 C 19% Existing single-use
grocery store with
large surface
parking lot.
Potential to
redevelop for
mixed-use adjacent
to major
transportation
corridor (19th
Street).
Y
14 424-211-01 695 W 19th St 92627 G C1 MUOD 19 West 20 50 2.66 Commercial 70 0 0 70 B 11% Approved lower- income Senior Y Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-44
Table B-8: Sites to Accommodate Costa Mesa 2021-2029 RHNA Note: This table is sorted by unique identifier (Unique ID).
Some sites were removed as part of the analysis and sites were not renumbered to retain continuity for the community and other users when referring to specific sites.
Unique
ID APN Address Zip Code Consolidated Sites
General
Plan Land
Use
Designation
Zoning
Designation
Overlay or
Specific
Plan
Designation
MUOD
Sub-Area
Min.
Density
Allowed
(units/
acre)
Max.
Density
Allowed
(units/
acre)
Parcel
Size
(acres)
Existing
Use/
Vacancy
LowerIncome
Capacity
Moderate
-Income
Capacity
Above
Moderate
-Income
Capacity
Total
Capacity
Development
Classification
%
Occupied ILV Existing Uses Detail
Ownership
(Consolidated
Sites)
Identified in
prior
planning
periods7
Center Housing
project in the
parking lot (the
Senior Center
would remain).
15 NOT USED
16 424-281-20 1710 Pomona Ave 92627 LI MG MUOD 19 West 20 50 1.08 Industrial 12 8 23 43 B 30% Existing self-storage
facility in close
proximity to new
residential uses and
major
transportation
corridor (17th
Street).
Y
17 424-281-21 670 W 17th St 92627 LI MG MUOD 19 West 20 50 1.06 Industrial 12 8 22 42 A 21% Existing 2-story
office and
commercial uses in
close proximity to
new residential
uses and major
transportation
corridor (17th
Street).
Y
18 424-281-22 660 W 17th St 92627 LI MG MUOD 19 West 20 50 2.22 Industrial 26 17 45 88 B 30% 1.520 Existing self-storage
facility and light
industrial/commerc
ial use in close
proximity to new
residential uses and
major
transportation
corridor (17th
Street).
Y
19 425-431-02 1680 Superior Ave 92627 G CL MUOD 19 West 20 50 2.11 Commercial 25 16 43 84 D 22% Existing hotel use
with large surface
parking lot.
Property is directly
adjacent to
Newport Boulevard
and next to new
multi-family
development.
Y
20 425-431-03 1666 Superior Ave 92627 A LI MG MUOD 19 West 20 50 0.29 Industrial 3 2 6 11 B 23% Lot consolidation
info: This site is
comprised of 4
parcels equating 1.7
acres and are
contiguous.
Collection of
existing warehouse
and industrial uses
SCHWARTZ
PAUL D 2007
TR
Y
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-45
Table B-8: Sites to Accommodate Costa Mesa 2021-2029 RHNA Note: This table is sorted by unique identifier (Unique ID).
Some sites were removed as part of the analysis and sites were not renumbered to retain continuity for the community and other users when referring to specific sites.
Unique
ID APN Address Zip Code Consolidated Sites
General
Plan Land
Use
Designation
Zoning
Designation
Overlay or
Specific
Plan
Designation
MUOD
Sub-Area
Min.
Density
Allowed
(units/
acre)
Max.
Density
Allowed
(units/
acre)
Parcel
Size
(acres)
Existing
Use/
Vacancy
LowerIncome
Capacity
Moderate
-Income
Capacity
Above
Moderate
-Income
Capacity
Total
Capacity
Development
Classification
%
Occupied ILV Existing Uses Detail
Ownership
(Consolidated
Sites)
Identified in
prior
planning
periods7
adjacent to new
multi-family
development. The
Housing Element
anticipates this
property may be
redeveloped with
adjacent uses as
indicated in this
table.
21 425-431-04 116 E 16th St 92627 A LI MG MUOD 19 West 20 50 0.73 Industrial 8 5 16 29 B 35% Lot consolidation
info: This site is
comprised of 4
parcels equating 1.7
acres and are
contiguous.
Collection of
existing warehouse
and industrial uses
adjacent to new
multi-family
development. The
Housing Element
anticipates this
property may be
redeveloped with
adjacent uses as
indicated in this
table.
SHEEHAN
MICHAEL W
TR
Y
22 425-431-05 126 E 16th St 92627 A LI MG MUOD 19 West 20 50 0.42 Industrial 4 3 9 16 B 48% Lot consolidation
info: This site is
comprised of 4
parcels equating 1.7
acres and are
contiguous. A
vehicle repair
facility developed
with older and
randomly located
structures. The
Housing Element
anticipates this
property may be
redeveloped with
adjacent uses as
indicated in this
table. The existing
collection of
vehicular repair and
vehicle storage
buildings are
126
PROPERTIES
LLC
Y
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-46
Table B-8: Sites to Accommodate Costa Mesa 2021-2029 RHNA Note: This table is sorted by unique identifier (Unique ID).
Some sites were removed as part of the analysis and sites were not renumbered to retain continuity for the community and other users when referring to specific sites.
Unique
ID APN Address Zip Code Consolidated Sites
General
Plan Land
Use
Designation
Zoning
Designation
Overlay or
Specific
Plan
Designation
MUOD
Sub-Area
Min.
Density
Allowed
(units/
acre)
Max.
Density
Allowed
(units/
acre)
Parcel
Size
(acres)
Existing
Use/
Vacancy
LowerIncome
Capacity
Moderate
-Income
Capacity
Above
Moderate
-Income
Capacity
Total
Capacity
Development
Classification
%
Occupied ILV Existing Uses Detail
Ownership
(Consolidated
Sites)
Identified in
prior
planning
periods7
located across 16th
Street from
approximately 60
affordable
modular/mobile
home residential
units and also
located in close
proximity to more
than one-hundred
multi-story
residential loft units
located on 17th
Street.
23 425-431-06 126 E 16Th St 92627 A G C1 MUOD 19 West 20 50 0.35 Commercial 4 2 8 14 B 27% Lot consolidation
info: This site is
comprised of 4
parcels equating 1.7
acres and are
contiguous.
Collection of
existing warehouse
and industrial uses
adjacent to new
multi-family
development. The
Housing Element
anticipates this
property may be
redeveloped with
adjacent uses as
indicated in this
table.
126
PROPERTIES
LLC
Y
24 425-431-07
1601
Newport
Blvd
92627 G C1 MUOD 19 West 20 50 0.79 Commercial 9 6 16 31 B 22% Collection of
existing warehouse
and industrial uses
adjacent to new
multi-family
development. The
Housing Element
anticipates this
property may be
redeveloped with
adjacent uses as
indicated in this
table.
Y
25 141-221-41 2990 Grace Ln 92626 LI MG MUOD SoBECA 20 60 0.81 Industrial 15 7 16 38 A 60% 0.341 Freestanding
industrial/ light
industrial building
with a surface
parking lot.
N
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-47
Table B-8: Sites to Accommodate Costa Mesa 2021-2029 RHNA Note: This table is sorted by unique identifier (Unique ID).
Some sites were removed as part of the analysis and sites were not renumbered to retain continuity for the community and other users when referring to specific sites.
Unique
ID APN Address Zip Code Consolidated Sites
General
Plan Land
Use
Designation
Zoning
Designation
Overlay or
Specific
Plan
Designation
MUOD
Sub-Area
Min.
Density
Allowed
(units/
acre)
Max.
Density
Allowed
(units/
acre)
Parcel
Size
(acres)
Existing
Use/
Vacancy
LowerIncome
Capacity
Moderate
-Income
Capacity
Above
Moderate
-Income
Capacity
Total
Capacity
Development
Classification
%
Occupied ILV Existing Uses Detail
Ownership
(Consolidated
Sites)
Identified in
prior
planning
periods7
26 141-221-49 1139 Baker St 92626 LI MG MUOD SoBECA 20 60 2.72 Industrial 52 26 52 130 A 53% 0.388 The site is
developed for light
industrial use,
supporting
manufacturing,
fabrication, and
industrial service
functions.
N
27 141-312-21 2729 Bristol St 92626 GC CL MUOD SoBECA 20 60 0.95 Commercial 18 9 18 45 A 35% 0.465 Developmentintere
st provided in
writing. Two-story
office/medical
building of about
18,133 square feet.
The site is currently
configured as a flex
office/medical
office building and
surface parking
lot.The parcel is
located in a dense
commercial
corridor near SR73and the I-405
N
28 141-421-23 2507 Carnegie Ave 92626 NC C1 MUOD Harbor Blvd 20 50 1.67 Commercial 26 13 27 66 C 28% 0.437 Surface parking lot. N 29 141-491-09 2480 Harbor Blvd 92626 M GC C1 MUOD Harbor Blvd 20 30 1.92 Commercial 26 13 28 67 C 0% 1.290 Lot consolidation
info: This site
includes 3 parcels,
all contiguous with
each other, all
under common
ownership.
Developer interest -
2.7 acres/67 units
for sale -
Commercial /
automotive facility.
The larger 2480–
2490 Harbor Blvd
site is listed as a
retail/auto
dealership property
with existing
automotive
improvements,
service bays,
offices, yard area,
and C-1 zoning.
EDEN BAY
PROPERTIES
LLC
N
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-48
Table B-8: Sites to Accommodate Costa Mesa 2021-2029 RHNA Note: This table is sorted by unique identifier (Unique ID).
Some sites were removed as part of the analysis and sites were not renumbered to retain continuity for the community and other users when referring to specific sites.
Unique
ID APN Address Zip Code Consolidated Sites
General
Plan Land
Use
Designation
Zoning
Designation
Overlay or
Specific
Plan
Designation
MUOD
Sub-Area
Min.
Density
Allowed
(units/
acre)
Max.
Density
Allowed
(units/
acre)
Parcel
Size
(acres)
Existing
Use/
Vacancy
LowerIncome
Capacity
Moderate
-Income
Capacity
Above
Moderate
-Income
Capacity
Total
Capacity
Development
Classification
%
Occupied ILV Existing Uses Detail
Ownership
(Consolidated
Sites)
Identified in
prior
planning
periods7
30 141-491-10 2480 Harbor Blvd 92626 M GC C1 MUOD Harbor Blvd 20 30 0.19 Commercial 1 0 3 4 C 0% 0.123 Lot consolidation
info: This site
includes 3 parcels,
all contiguous with
each other, all
under common
ownership.
Developer interest -
proposing lot
consolidation for
2.7 acres/67 units
for sale
Developed with a
vacant commercial
retail (auto sales)
building and surface
parking lot.
EDEN BAY
PROPERTIES
LLC
N
31 141-491-11 2490 Harbor Blvd 92626 M GC CL MUOD Harbor Blvd 20 30 0.60 Commercial 5 2 7 14 C 0% 0.037 Lot consolidation
info: This site
includes 3 parcels,
all contiguous with
each other, all
under common
ownership.
Developer interest -
2.7 acres/67 units
for sale, Corner lot
on the corner of
Harbor Blvd and
Fair Dr. Developed
with a vacant
commercial retail
(auto sales) building
and surface parking
lot
EDEN BAY
PROPERTIES
LLC
N
32 141-521-49 3150 Bear Street 92626 GC AP MUOD SoBECA 20 30 6.13 Commercial 60 45 46 151 A 0% 0.000 Entitled Project -
Meritage Homes .
Large
office/specialty
campus; former
broadcasting
facility.
N
33 415-041-01
1571 W
Macarthur
Blvd
92626 IP MP MUOD
North
Costa
Mesa
20 90 3.31 Industrial 95 47 96 238 A 57% 0.621
Industrial /
warehouse-flex use.
Parcel includes a
large surface
parking lot.
N
34 415-041-02
1561 W
Macarthur
Blvd
92626 IP MP MUOD
North
Costa
Mesa
20 90 1.52 Industrial 43 21 45 109 A 54% 0.801
Industrial /
warehouse-flex use;
also associated with
exotic auto
N
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-49
Table B-8: Sites to Accommodate Costa Mesa 2021-2029 RHNA Note: This table is sorted by unique identifier (Unique ID).
Some sites were removed as part of the analysis and sites were not renumbered to retain continuity for the community and other users when referring to specific sites.
Unique
ID APN Address Zip Code Consolidated Sites
General
Plan Land
Use
Designation
Zoning
Designation
Overlay or
Specific
Plan
Designation
MUOD
Sub-Area
Min.
Density
Allowed
(units/
acre)
Max.
Density
Allowed
(units/
acre)
Parcel
Size
(acres)
Existing
Use/
Vacancy
LowerIncome
Capacity
Moderate
-Income
Capacity
Above
Moderate
-Income
Capacity
Total
Capacity
Development
Classification
%
Occupied ILV Existing Uses Detail
Ownership
(Consolidated
Sites)
Identified in
prior
planning
periods7
sales/showroom
activity. The
rectangular lot
includes an
industrial /
warehouse / light
industrial building
with associated
surface parking.
35 415-041-03
1545 W
Macarthur
Blvd
92626 IP MP MUOD
North
Costa
Mesa
20 90 1.78 Industrial 51 25 52 128 A 55% 0.456
Property includes
an low-rise,
industrial/office flex
building with a
surface parking lot.
N
36 415-041-04
1525 W
Macarthur
Blvd
92626 J IP MP MUOD
North
Costa
Mesa
20 90 2.95 Industrial 84 42 86 212 A 55% 0.406
Lot consolidation
info: this site contains two
parcels, one parcel
that is 2.9 acres and
one parcel that is
0.014. These two
parcels are
contiguous, making
up the greater site.
.. The site contains
two multi-tenant
industrial/commerc
ial buildings with
associated surface
parking around the
buildings.
MAC ARTHUR
BUSINESS
PARK LLC
N
47 415-041-08 3581 Harbor Blvd 92626 J IP MP MUOD North Costa Mesa 20 90 0.01 Industrial 0 0 1 1 A 0% 0.990 Lot consolidation
info: this site contains two
parcels, one parcel
that is 2.9 acres and
one that is 0.014.
These two parcels
are contiguous,
making up the
greater site. A small
triangular parcel
that is part of a
larger development
and assumed to be
consolidated.
COUNTY
SANITATION N
37 415-041-06 3597 Harbor Blvd 92626 IP CL MUOD Harbor Blvd 20 90 0.77 Hotel/motel 22 11 22 55 D 47% 0.990 Hotel/motel.
Building is currently
occupied by a
three-story motel.
Site includes
N
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-50
Table B-8: Sites to Accommodate Costa Mesa 2021-2029 RHNA Note: This table is sorted by unique identifier (Unique ID).
Some sites were removed as part of the analysis and sites were not renumbered to retain continuity for the community and other users when referring to specific sites.
Unique
ID APN Address Zip Code Consolidated Sites
General
Plan Land
Use
Designation
Zoning
Designation
Overlay or
Specific
Plan
Designation
MUOD
Sub-Area
Min.
Density
Allowed
(units/
acre)
Max.
Density
Allowed
(units/
acre)
Parcel
Size
(acres)
Existing
Use/
Vacancy
LowerIncome
Capacity
Moderate
-Income
Capacity
Above
Moderate
-Income
Capacity
Total
Capacity
Development
Classification
%
Occupied ILV Existing Uses Detail
Ownership
(Consolidated
Sites)
Identified in
prior
planning
periods7
wrapped surface
parking..
38 419-111-16
2211
Newport
Blvd
92627 T GC C2 MUOD Newport Blvd 20 30 0.36 Commercial 3 1 4 8 c 7% 0.164 The site is
comprised of 3
parcels equating 1.1
acres that are
contiguous. Existing
uses include boat
repair and surface
parking.
FRANK
THOMAS E
THE FRANK
FAMILY TRUST
N
56 419-111-15
2275
Newport
Blvd
92627 T GC C2 MUOD Harbor Blvd 20 30 0.49 Commercial 4 2 5 11 C 18% 0.700 Commercial use;
cannabis retail
storefront. The site
is comprised of 3
parcels equating 1.1
acres and are
contiguous. The
small commercial
retail building is
surrounded by
surface parking on
3 sides.
STEIN,MARKY N
94 419-112-02
2281
Newport
Blvd
92627 T GC C2 MUOD Newport Blvd 20 30 0.29 Commercial 2 1 3 6 C 24% 1.160 Gas station use. The
site is comprised of
3 parcels equating
1.1 acres and are
contiguous.
Property currently
operates as a gas
station with surface
parking.
COSTA MESA
INVESTMENTS
LLC
N
39 141-361-06 2706 Harbor Blvd 92626 G C1 MUOD Harbor Blvd 20 50 0.68 Commercial 8 5 14 27 C 22% Mixed us building with first floor retail and offices Y 40 141-361-11 2666 Harbor Blvd 92626 G C1 MUOD Harbor Blvd 20 50 2.41 Commercial 28 19 49 96 C 34% Former Ace
Hardware store,
now for lease after
Ace went out of
business. Large big
box structure with
surface parking
along a major
transportation
corridor (Harbor
Blvd)
Y
41 141-361-21 2790 Harbor Blvd 92626 G C1 MUOD Harbor Blvd 20 50 0.75 Commercial 9 6 15 30 C 25% Mixed use building
with retail and
offices on first floor
and offices on 2nd
and 3rd floor.