Cities Index.
Exhibit A to Attachment 4 General Plan Amendments

Costa Mesa City Council
October 20, 2026

Document
Exhibit A to Attachment 4 General Plan Amendments
Meeting
October 20, 2026
Body
Costa Mesa City Council
Pages
18
Original file
26.3 MB
Text extracted from the city's file for reading and search. Open the original on costamesa.legistar1.com. That file is the official record.

Building is partially
Y
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-51
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
vacant with large
surface parking lot
adjacent to major
transportation
corridor (Harbor).
42 141-361-22 2750 Harbor Blvd 92626 G C1 MUOD Harbor Blvd 20 50 1.71 Commercial 20 13 35 68 C 13% Existing older
commercial
shopping center
adjacent to major
transportation
corridor (Harbor).

Uses range from
commercial to
office and
restaurants. Large
surface parking lot.

Y
43 141-361-23 2730 Harbor Blvd 92626 G C1 MUOD Harbor Blvd 20 50 0.68 Commercial 8 5 14 27 C 33% Existing older
commercial
shopping center
adjacent to major
transportation
corridor (Harbor).

Uses range from
commercial to
office and
restaurants. Large
surface parking lot.

Y
44 141-361-27 2710 Harbor Blvd 92626 G C1 MUOD Harbor Blvd 20 50 0.67 Commercial 7 5 14 26 C 25% Existing older
commercial
shopping center
adjacent to major
transportation
corridor (Harbor).

Uses range from
commercial to
office and
restaurants. Large
surface parking lot.

Y
45 141-361-28 2706 Harbor Blvd 92626 G C1 MUOD Harbor Blvd 20 50 0.97 Commercial 11 7 20 38 C 28% Vacant box store
and surface parking
lot. Building is
currently for lease.

Y
46 415-041-07 3587 Harbor Blvd 92626 IP MP MUOD North Costa Mesa 20 90 1.12 Industrial 32 16 32 80 A 35% 0.738 Office and
warehouse space.

Property includes a
two-story
office/light
industrial flex
building with
surface parking.

N
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-52
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
48 415-101-04 3590 Harbor Gtwy N 92626 IP PDI MUOD North Costa Mesa 20 90 1.47 Commercial 42 21 42 105 A 29% 0.984 Retail/light industrial use with a large surface parking lot. N 50 415-112-16 1665 Scenic Ave 92626 IP MP MUOD North Costa Mesa 20 90 2.71 Industrial 77 38 79 194 A 32% 0.447 Office / commercial
office.. Developed
with a two-story,
51,176 sq. ft. office
building on a 2.71-
acre site with a
surface parking lot.

N
51 415-112-17 3535 Hyland Ave 92626 IP MP MUOD North Costa Mesa 20 90 1.56 Commercial 44 22 46 112 A 33% 0.888 Light industrial/office use with surface parking lot. N 52 419-031-08 2200 Harbor Blvd 92627 G C1 MUOD Harbor Blvd 20 50 0.75 Commercial 9 6 15 30 C 0% Surface parking lot
within large retail
shopping center.

Potential for mixeduse redevelopment.

Retail center has
major big box
tenants which have
permanently
closed, leaving an
excess of surface
parking.

Y
53 419-031-09 2200 Harbor Blvd 92627 G C1-S MUOD Harbor Blvd 20 50 4.35 Commercial 70 31 73 174 C 156% Former K-Mart box
store which has
permanently
closed. Shopping
center is adjacent
to multi-family
residential and may
redevelop for
mixed- use. While
the data shows a
high development
usage, this tenant
space remains
vacant.

Y
54 419-101-12
2285
Newport
Blvd
92627 GC C2 MUOD Harbor Blvd 20 30 1.02 Commercial 9 4 11 24 C 26% 0.666 Auto-related uses
including a car wash
and surface parking
lot.

N
55 NOT USED
57 422-021-09
2131 Harbor
Blvd 92627 G C2 MUOD
Harbor
Blvd 20 50 0.83 Commercial 9 6 18 33 C 15%
Auto parts store,
retail store, and pet
grooming store,
with large surface
parking area
Y
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-53
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 major
transportation
corridor (Harbor
Blvd).
58 422-091-11
2075 Harbor
Blvd 92627 G C2 MUOD
Harbor
Blvd 20 50 0.63 Commercial 7 5 13 25 C 9%
Tools and
equipment rental
yard adjacent to
major
transportation
corridor (Harbor
Blvd).

Y
59 422-091-12
2069 Harbor
Blvd 92627 G C2 MUOD
Harbor
Blvd 20 50 0.54 Commercial 6 4 11 21 C 17%
Auto repair shop
with large yard
adjacent to major
transportation
corridor (Harbor
Blvd).

Y
60 415-112-18
3540
Howard Way 92626 IP MP MUOD
North
Costa
Mesa 20 90 1.15 Industrial 32 16 34 82 A 33% 1.000
Light
industrial/office
with a surface
parking lot.

N
61 422-091-14
2049 Harbor
Blvd 92627 O G C2 MUOD
Harbor
Blvd 20 50 0.54 Commercial 6 4 11 21 C 16%
The site is
comprised of 2
parcels equating
approximately 0.7
acres and are
contiguous. Auto
repair shop with
large yard adjacent
to major
transportation
corridor (Harbor
Blvd).

BOUKATHER,

GEORGE A
TRUST
Y
103 422-091-16
2048 Charle
St 92627 O GC C2 MUOD
Harbor
Blvd 20 50 0.18 Commercial 2 1 4 7 B 48% 0.730
The site is
comprised of 2
parcels equating
approximately 0.7
acres and are
contiguous. Existing
one-story structure
on site resembling a
live-work use.

Public records
classify the
property as
commercial.

KILLIAN,HELE

NA W TRUST
N
62 422-091-24
2015 Harbor
Blvd 92627 G C2 MUOD
Harbor
Blvd 20 50 0.62 Commercial 7 4 13 24 C 29%
Auto related uses
including car repair
and car wash uses
adjacent to major
transportation
Y
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-54
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
corridor (Harbor
Blvd).
63 422-091-26
2007 Harbor
Blvd 92627 G C2 MUOD
Harbor
Blvd 20 50 0.83 Commercial 9 6 18 33 B 31%
Self-storage facility
with surface
parking lot and
access to major
transportation
corridor (Harbor
Blvd).

Y
64 422-101-03
1989 Harbor
Blvd 92627 G C2 MUOD
Harbor
Blvd 20 50 0.56 Commercial 6 4 12 22 C 2%
Truck rental yard
which is largely a
paved surface
parking lot with a
small building. Site
is adjacent to major
transportation
corridor (Harbor
Blvd).

Y
65 422-101-06
1974 Charle
St 92627 G C2 MUOD
Harbor
Blvd 20 50 0.53 Commercial 6 4 11 21 A 27%
Existing lowintensity light
industrial and
warehouse uses.

Y
66 422-193-23
2215 Harbor
Blvd 92627 G C2 MUOD
Harbor
Blvd 20 50 0.58 Commercial 6 4 13 23 C 41%
Aging furniture
store structure with
surface parking lot
adjacent to major
transportation
corridor (Harbor
Blvd).

Y
67 422-193-24
2205 Harbor
Blvd 92627 G C2 MUOD
Harbor
Blvd 20 50 0.58 Commercial 6 4 13 23 C 32%
Aging motel use
with large surface
parking lot adjacent
to major
transportation
corridor (Harbor
Blvd).

Y
68 422-282-11
2044
Placentia
Ave 92627 LI MG MUOD
Mesa
West Bluff 20 40 1.18 Industrial 11 7 19 37 B 41%
Auto repair shop
and light industrial
uses with surface
parking adjacent to
recently developed
townhouses and
apartments.

Building shows little
sign of recent
renovation.

Y
69 422-291-04
2066
Placentia
Ave 92628 LI C1 MUOD
Mesa
West Bluff 20 30 1.85 Commercial 17 8 19 44 B 108% 0.270 Existing self-storage
facility developed
at approximately
58% of allowable
commercial
Y
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-55
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
intensity (0.43
existing FAR
compared to 0.75
allowable FAR),
leaving
approximately 42%
of allowable
development
capacity unused.

The improvements
date to 1976 and
have an ILV of 0.27,
further indicating
redevelopment
potential. The site is
adjacent to recently
developed
townhomes and
apartments,
indicating an
ongoing transition
toward residential
uses in the
surrounding area.
70 422-291-05
2065
Placentia
Ave 92627 LI MG MUOD
Mesa
West Bluff 20 40 0.92 Industrial 8 5 16 29 B 47%
Self-storage facility
adjacent to recently
developed
townhouses and
apartments.

Building shows little
sign of recent
renovation.

Y
71 422-291-06
2051
Placentia
Ave 92627 LI MG MUOD
Mesa
West Bluff 20 40 0.92 Industrial 8 5 16 29 A 13%
Existing office/light
industrial uses
adjacent to recently
developed
townhouses and
apartments.

Y
72 422-301-01
1987
Placentia
Ave 92627 LI MG MUOD
Mesa
West Bluff 20 40 2.31 Industrial 21 14 38 73 A 30%
Warehouses with
large surface
parking lot. Two
buildings on the
site. Adjacent to
recently developed
townhouses and
apartments.

Building shows little
sign of recent
renovation.

Y
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-56
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
73 415-112-19
1675 Scenic
Ave 92626 IP MP MUOD
North
Costa
Mesa 20 90 1.29 Industrial 36 18 38 92 A 36% 0.430
Light
industrial/office
with surface
parking lot.

N
74 422-454-28
2101
Placentia
Ave 92627 LI MG MUOD
Mesa
West Bluff 20 40 0.91 Industrial 8 5 16 29 C 10%
Restaurant with
large surface
parking lot.

Potential for mixeduse development.

Y
75 NOT USED
76 424-061-03
859 W 18th
St 92627 LI MG MUOD
Mesa
West Bluff 20 40 0.81 Industrial 7 5 13 25 C 38%
Auto repair shop
with surface
parking lot.

Y
77 424-061-04
851 W 18th
St 92627 LI MG MUOD
Mesa
West Bluff 20 40 1.79 Industrial 17 11 29 57 C 26%
Auto body shop
with large surface
parking lot.

Y
78 415-112-20
3545
Howard Way 92626 IP MP MUOD
North
Costa
Mesa 20 90 1.13 Commercial 32 16 33 81 A 34% 0.545
industrial/office
with a surface
parking lot.

N
82 418-131-10
3001 Bristol
St 92626 GC C1 MUOD SoBECA 20 60 0.43 Commercial 8 4 8 20 A 50% 0.481 Retail commercial
center with a
surface parking lot.

N
83 418-161-01 763 Baker St 92626 K GC C2 MUOD SoBECA 20 60 0.25 Commercial 4 2 6 12 A 28% 0.200 Lot consolidation
info: This site
includes 4 parcels,
all contiguous with
each other.

Developed with a
commercial
building with
surface parking. PROJECT C LLC
N
84 418-161-03
2991
Randolph
Ave 92626 K LI MG MUOD SoBECA 20 60 0.36 Commercial 6 3 8 17 A 27% 0.200 Lot consolidation
info: This site
includes 4 parcels,
all contiguous with
each other. Parcel
includes a light
industrial/commerc
ial building and
surface parking lot,
SOBECA

PARTNERS LLC
N
85 418-161-04
2973
Randolph
Ave 92626 K LI MG MUOD SoBECA 20 60 0.36 Industrial 6 3 8 17 A 18% 0.169 Lot consolidation
info: This site
includes 4 parcels,
all contiguous with
each other. The site
contains a singlestory light
industrial/office
building with a
surface parking lot.
2973

RANDOLPH
LLC
N
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-57
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
147 418-161-02 751 Baker St 92626 K GC C2 MUOD SoBECA 20 60 0.49 Commercial 9 4 10 23 A 34% 2.410 Lot consolidation
info: This site
includes 4 parcels,
all contiguous with
each other. Existing
use is a former gas
station and surface
parking.

THRIFTY OIL
CO
N
86 418-162-02
2968
Randolph
Ave 92626 LI MG MUOD SoBECA 20 60 0.72 Industrial 10 6 18 34 A 78% 0.400 Warehouses with
surface parking lot.

Site is within the
SoBECA Urban Plan
redevelopment
area.

Y
87 418-163-03
2966 Bristol
St 92626 L GC C1 MUOD SoBECA 20 60 0.29 Commercial 5 2 6 13 A 16% 0.099 Lot consolidation
info: This site
includes 2 parcels,
all contiguous with
each other. The
property is a
restaurant with
surface parking.

TK BURGERS

III INC
N
88 418-163-04
2956 Bristol
St 92626 L GC C1 MUOD SoBECA 20 60 0.35 Commercial 6 3 7 16 A 20% 0.155 Lot consolidation
info: This site
includes 2 parcels,
all contiguous with
each other.

Property includes
fast food restaurant
with surface
parking.

WALTON,JAM

ES W TRUST
N
89 418-173-01
2931 Bristol
St 92626 N GC C2 MUOD SoBECA 20 60 0.44 Commercial 8 4 9 21 A 37% 0.344 The site is
comprised of 2
parcels equating
approximately 0.8
acres and are
contiguous. The site
contains a singlestory commercial
building and a
surface parking lot.

FISCHER,EDDI

E R TRUST
N
90 418-173-02
2927 Bristol
St 92626 N GC C2 MUOD SoBECA 20 60 0.42 Commercial 8 4 8 20 A 25% 0.118 Retail / commercial
use. The site is
comprised of 2
parcels equating
approximately 0.8
acres and are
contiguous. BFCM LLC
N
91 418-181-11
2821 Bristol
St. 92626 GC CL MUOD SoBECA 20 30 0.43 Vacant 0 6 4 10 A 0% 0.000 Development
interest provided in
writing. Existing use
N
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-58
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
is a surface parking
lot.
93 419-101-08
143 W
Wilson St 92627 GC C1 MUOD
Newport
Blvd 20 30 1.09 Commercial 10 5 11 26 C 29% 0.575
Office building with
a surface parking
lot.

N
95 419-171-58
2150 Harbor
Blvd 92627 G C1 MUOD
Harbor
Blvd 20 50 1.17 Commercial 13 9 24 46 C 17% 0.180
Restaurant with
large surface
parking lot adjacent
to major
transportation
corridor (Harbor
Blvd).

N
96 419-203-02
1998 Harbor
Blvd 92627 G C1 MUOD
Harbor
Blvd 20 50 0.76 Commercial 12 14 14 40 C 39% 0.820
Development
interest provided in
writing. Existing use
is a vacant light
manufacturing
building and surface
parking lot.

N
97 419-203-08
2000 Harbor
Blvd. 92627 GC C1 MUOD
Harbor
Blvd 20 50 1.57 Commercial 15 7 16 38 C 0% 0.480
Development
interest provided in
writing. Existing
commercial center
with surface
parking.

N
98 420-012-16
2476 Mark
Ln 92626 MUC I&R-MLT MUOD
Harbor
Blvd 20 60 108.91 Mixed Use 920 690 690 2,300 N/A N/A N/A Fairview
Developmental
Center
N
99 424-281-01
1730
Pomona Ave 92627 LI MG MUOD
Mesa
West Bluff 20 40 0.99 Industrial 9 6 16 31 B 22%
Warehouses with
surface parking lot.

One building on the
site.

Y
100 424-281-19
424 Pomona
Ave 92832 LI MG MUOD
Mesa
West Bluff 20 40 1.19 Industrial 11 7 20 38 B 30%
Warehouses with
large surface
parking lot. One
building on the site.

Y
101 424-281-23
660 W 17th
St 92627 LI MG MUOD
Mesa
West Bluff 20 40 2.26 Industrial 21 14 37 72 B 41%
Large single-story
self-storage facility
adjacent to existing
multi-family
residential.

Y
102 424-321-17
1882
Whittier Ave 92627 MDR MG MUOD
Mesa
West Bluff 20 40 1.08 Commercial 10 6 18 34 B 32%
Large single-story
self-storage facility
adjacent to existing
multi-family
residential.

Y
104 422-291-02
2085
Placentia
Ave 92627 LI MG MUOD
Mesa
West Bluff 20 40 0.93 Industrial 11 5 13 29 B 55% 0.325 Industrial / auto
body use with a
surface parking lot.

Adjacent to
live/work and other
N
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-59
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
residential
development.
106 422-291-08
2035
Placentia
Ave 92627 LI MG MUOD
Mesa
West Bluff 20 40 1.38 Industrial 17 8 19 44 B 51% 0.119 Industrial uses with
a surface parking
lot. Adjacent to
live/work
development.

N
107 422-291-12
2013
Placentia
Ave 92627 LI MG MUOD
Mesa
West Bluff 20 40 0.92 Industrial 11 5 13 29 B 45% 0.330 Industrial uses with
a surface parking
lot. Adjacent to
live/work
development.

N
108 422-454-23
2145
Placentia
Ave 92627 P NC C1 MUOD
Mesa
West Bluff 20 50 0.25 Commercial 4 2 4 10 B 9% 0.139
The site is
comprised of 4
parcels equating
approximately 1.4
acres and are
contiguous. The site
is currently
occupied by a
restaurant uses
within a with
surface parking.

DUBAR,ROND
A JO
N
109 422-454-24
2139
Placentia
Ave 92627 P NC C1 MUOD 19 West 20 50 0.29 Commercial 4 2 5 11 B 17% 0.150 The site is
comprised of 4
parcels equating
approximately 1.4
acres and are
contiguous. Existing
use is a light
industrial building
with a surface
parking lot.

FUNDING

CAPITAL CORP
LLC
N
111 422-454-26
2121
Placentia
Ave 92627 P NC C1 MUOD 19 West 20 50 0.45 Commercial 7 3 8 18 B 26% 0.195 The site is
comprised of 4
parcels equating
approximately 1.4
acres and are
contiguous.

Commercial/office
space with a
surface parking
lot.The building
appears to be
currently vacant.

Adjacent to
residential
development.

PACIFIC

DIVERSIFIED
LLC
N
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-60
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
112 422-461-18
2138
Placentia
Ave 92627 NC C1 MUOD 19 West 20 50 2.65 Commercial 28 14 30 72 B 0% 0.000 Developer interest
in residential
development.

Existing use is
commercial with a
surface parking lot.

N
113 424-081-18
746 W 17th
St 92627 LI MG MUOD
Mesa
West Bluff 20 40 1.65 Industrial 4 2 4 10 B 47% 0.389
Developer interest
in residential uses.

Existing uses are
Industrial including
auto repair, and a
surface parking lot.

N
114 424-081-21
1711
Pomona Ave 92627 I LI MG MUOD
Mesa
West Bluff 20 40 0.23 Commercial 1 0 3 4 B 40% 0.356
Lot consolidation
info: This site is
made up of two
parcels under
common ownership
and contiguous and
is an entitled
project. This is an
entitled project
across 424-081-21
and 424-081-22,
Live Work
Development. The
site is developed
with an existing
single-story,
commercial/light
industrial building
and associated
surface parking..

The property is
occupied by
commercial and
auto uses.

BUILDGROUP

PROPERTIES
LLC
N
115 424-081-22
1719
Pomona Ave 92627 I LI MG MUOD
Mesa
West Bluff 20 40 0.23 Commercial 1 0 3 4 B 44% 0.069
Lot consolidation
info: This site is
made up of two
parcels under
common ownership
and contiguous and
is an entitled
project. This is an
entitled project
across 424-081-21
and 424-081-22,
Live Work
Development. The
site is developed
with an existing

P & P GROUP
LLC
N
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-61
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
single-story,
commercial/light
industrial building
and associated
surface parking.

The property is
occupied by
commercial and
auto uses.
116 425-351-03
1535
Newport
Blvd 92627 GC C2 MUOD 19 West 20 30 1.45 Commercial 13 6 15 34 B 0% 0.000 Self-storage facility.

N
117 425-351-05
1550
Superior Ave 92627 Q LI MG MUOD 19 West 20 30 0.83 Commercial 0 0 20 20 B 35% 0.700 Development
interested provided
in writing. 20 units.

Existing
development is a
light
industrial/office
building with a
surface parking lot.

The site is
comprised of 2
parcels equating
approximately 1.2
acres and are
contiguous.

SHARE OUR

SELVES CORP
N
118 425-351-06
1540
Superior
Avenue 92627 Q LI MG MUOD
Newport
Blvd 20 30 0.44 Commercial 3 1 5 9 B 25% 0.346
Entitled Project -
Live Work The site is
comprised of 2
parcels equating
approximately 1.2
acres and are
contiguous. Former
auto repair building
appears to be
vacant.

BENEDICT,SHE

LLEY R TRUST
N
119 425-432-10
1600
Newport
Blvd 92627 GC C1 MUOD
Newport
Blvd 20 30 1.48 Commercial 14 7 14 35 B 132% 0.860
Existing self-storage
facility developed
at approximately
70% of the
allowable 0.75 FAR.

The site has an ILV
of 0.86, indicating
land value exceeds
improvement value,
and the existing
low-intensity use
provides an
opportunity for
N
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-62
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
higher-density
residential
redevelopment.
120 NOT USED
121 426-121-12
2140
Newport
Blvd 92627 CR C1 MUOD
Newport
Blvd 20 30 1.03 Commercial 9 4 11 24 B 100% 0.240
Existing single-story
contractor/industri
al 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 low-intensity
contractor-related
uses, indicating opportunity for
more intensive
redevelopment
N
122 426-121-13
2156
Newport
Blvd 92627 S CR C1
Newport
Blvd Specific
Plan/MUOD
Newport
Blvd 20 30 0.42 Commercial 4 2 4 10 D 61% 0.180
The site is
comprised of 4
parcels equating 0.9
acres and are
contiguous.

Commercial
building with a
surface parking lot.
located along a
one-directional,
two-lane stretch of
Newport Boulevard.

P & C

PROSPERITY PROPERTIES
LLC
N
123 426-121-14
2134
Newport
Blvd 92627 S CR C1
Newport
Blvd Specific
Plan/MUOD
Newport
Blvd 20 30 0.19 Commercial 1 0 3 4 C 60% 0.930
The site is
comprised of 4
parcels equating 0.9
acres and are
contiguous.

Commercial use
and surface parking
lot located along a

MOLLER,JORG

EN & IRMA
N
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-63
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
one-directional,
two-lane stretch of
Newport Boulevard.
124 426-121-15
2136
Newport
Blvd 92627 S CR C1
Newport
Blvd Specific
Plan/MUOD
Newport
Blvd 20 30 0.17 Commercial 1 0 3 4 C 79% 0.380
The site is
comprised of 4
parcels equating 0.9
acres and are
contiguous.

Commercial
building and a
surface parking lot
located along a
one-directional,
two-lane stretch of
Newport Boulevard.

Additionally this
parcel has existing
commercial/autoservice 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.

LUDGATE,PAU

L D TRUST
N
125 426-121-16
2138
Newport
Boulevard 92627 S CR C1
Newport
Blvd Specific
Plan/MUOD
Newport
Blvd 20 30 0.14 Commercial 1 0 2 3 C 38% 0.060
The site is
comprised of 4
parcels equating 0.9
acres and are
contiguous. Vacant
commercial
building and surface
parking lot.

TALAR N

TAMAR CORP
N
126 426-121-40
2146
Newport
Blvd 92627 CR C1
Newport
Blvd Specific
Plan/MUOD
Newport
Blvd 20 30 0.55 Commercial 5 2 6 13 C 78% 0.180
Vacant commercial
building with a
surface parking lot
located along
Newport Boulevard.

N
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-64
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
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/inves
tment opportunity,
further supporting
its redevelopment
potential.
127 426-181-28
20382
Newport
Blvd 92627 CR C1
Newport
Blvd Specific
Plan/MUOD
Newport
Blvd 20 30 1.45 Commercial 13 6 15 34 C 0% 0.000 Self-storage facility.

N
128 426-262-01
1950
Newport
Blvd 92627 R CR C1
Newport
Blvd Specific
Plan/MUOD
Newport
Blvd 20 30 0.27 Commercial 2 1 3 6 C 65% 0.117
The site is
comprised of 8
parcels equating 2.0
acres and are
contiguous. The
property is
developed with an
auto-oriented
commercial
building located
along a onedirectional, twolane stretch of
Newport Boulevard.

Existing auto
repair/tire service
facility developed
at approximately
34% of allowable

HAMPTON,JO

HN H TRUST
N
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-65
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
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.
129 426-262-02
1960
Newport
Blvd 92627 R CR C1
Newport
Blvd Specific
Plan/MUOD
Newport
Blvd 20 30 0.19 Commercial 1 0 3 4 C 42% 0.252
The site is
comprised of 8
parcels equating 2.0
acres and are
contiguous. The site
is developed with
an auto-oriented
commercial
building and surface
parking lot located
along a onedirectional, twolane stretch of
Newport Boulevard.

Adjacent to
residential
development.

APEX CAPITAL

VENTURE LLC
N
130 426-262-03
1974
Newport
Blvd 92627 R CR C1
Newport
Blvd Specific
Plan/MUOD
Newport
Blvd 20 30 0.35 Commercial 3 1 4 8 B 84% 0.220
The site is
comprised of 8
parcels equating 2.0
acres and are
contiguous. The site
consists of
acommercial

PALANJIAN,JE

RRY O TRUST
N
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-66
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
building with
surface parking
located along a
one-directional,
two-lane stretch of
Newport Boulevard.

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.
131 426-262-04
1982

NEWPORT
BLVD 92627 R CR C1
Newport
Blvd Specific
Plan/MUOD
Newport
Blvd 20 30 0.14 Mixed Use 1 0 2 3 C 27% 0.003
The site is
comprised of 8
parcels equating 2.0
acres and are
contiguous. The site
is developed with a
commercial
building located

PALANJIAN,AL

EX TRUST
N
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-67
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
along a onedirectional, twolane stretch of
Newport Boulevard.

Adjacent to
residential
development.
132 426-262-05
1984
Newport
Blvd 92627 R CR C1
Newport
Blvd Specific
Plan/MUOD
Newport
Blvd 20 30 0.19 Commercial 1 0 3 4 C 53% 1.000
The site is
comprised of 8
parcels equating 2.0
acres and are
contiguous. The site
is developed with a
commercial
building and surface
parking lot along a
one-directional,
two-lane stretch of
Newport Boulevard.

Adjacent to
residential
development.

RANKIN,JESSIC

A PALANJIAN
N
136 426-262-06
1996
Newport
Blvd 92627 R CR C1
Newport
Blvd Specific
Plan/MUOD
Newport
Blvd 20 30 0.44 Commercial 4 2 4 10 C 42% 1.230
The site is
comprised of 8
parcels equating 2.0
acres and are
contiguous. The site
contains an older
two-story
commercial
building located
along a onedirectional, twolane stretch of
Newport Boulevard.
. Adjacent to
residential
development.

PALANJIAN,JE

RRY O TRUST
N
137 426-262-13
1970
Newport
Blvd 92627 R CR C1
Newport
Blvd Specific
Plan/MUOD
Newport
Blvd 20 30 0.32 Commercial 2 1 4 7 C 101% 1.030
The site is
comprised of 8
parcels equating 2.0
acres and are
contiguous. The site
contains a
commercial
building along a
one-directional,
two-lane stretch of
Newport Boulevard.

Adjacent to

PALANJIAN,JE

RRY O TRUST
N
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-68
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
residential
development.
138 426-262-16
1960
Newport
Blvd 92627 R CR C1
Newport
Blvd Specific
Plan/MUOD
Newport
Blvd 20 30 0.19 Commercial 1 0 3 4 C 73% 0.280
The site is
comprised of 8
parcels equating 2.0
acres and are
contiguous. Public
records describe
the existing use as a
1,960 sq.ft onestory, class C retail
building with 15+
parking spaces.

Existing lowintensity
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.

AOYAMA,ROS

ALIE R TRUST
N
134 139-031-42
1575
Sunflower
Ave 92626 IP MP MUOD
North
Costa
Mesa 20 90 8.03 Industrial 173 115 290 578 A 51%
Existing single-story
light
industrial/office
uses on large site.

The City has
received interest in
the potential future
redevelopment of
the site for
residential uses.

Y
135 139-031-67
3333 Harbor
Blvd 92626 IP MP MUOD
North
Costa
Mesa 20 90 10.00 Industrial 216 144 360 720 A 40%
Sofia University site
(former Whittier
Law School site)
with large surface
parking lot and
Y
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-69
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
largely
underdeveloped
land. The City has
received interest in
the potential future
redevelopment of
the site for
residential uses.
139 439-071-05
2624
Newport
Blvd 92627 U CR C1
Newport
Blvd Specific
Plan/MUOD
Newport
Blvd 20 30 0.46 Commercial 4 2 4 10 C 17% 0.813
The site is
comprised of 2
parcels equating 0.9
acres and are
contiguous.

Irregularly shaped
parcel located along
a one-directional,
two-lane stretch of
Newport Boulevard.

The existing
development is an
office building and
vehicle
storage.Adjacent to
residential
development. . IKEDA,ROY
N
140 439-071-06
2620
Newport
Blvd 92627 U CR C1
Newport
Blvd Specific
Plan/MUOD
Newport
Blvd 20 30 0.46 Commercial 4 2 4 10 C 28% 0.270
The site is
comprised of 2
parcels equating to

0.9 acres and are
contiguous. Existing
use is a gas station
located on a onedirectional, twolane stretch of
Newport Boulevard.

Adjacent to
residential
development.

BERMAN,BRY

AN A TRUST
N
141 439-081-02
2680
Newport
Blvd 92627 CR C1
Newport
Blvd Specific
Plan/MUOD
Newport
Blvd 20 30 0.91 Commercial 8 4 9 21 C 34% 2.890
U-Haul / truck
rental and movingservices use N
142 439-311-06
1265 Bristol
St 92626 GC C1 MUOD SoBECA 20 30 1.16 Commercial 10 5 12 27 C 47% 2.670 Closed restaurant
and a surface
parking lot.

N
143 439-311-09
192 The
Masters Cir 92627 GC C1 MUOD SoBECA 20 30 2.12 Commercial 20 10 20 50 C 138% 3.920 Self-storage
adjacent to
residential
development.

N
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-70
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
144 410-441-17
14850
Sunflower
Ave 92626 UCC PDC
North Costa
Mesa
Specific
Plan/MUOD
North
Costa
Mesa 20 90 30.93 Vacant 360 240 600 1,200 A 1%
Sakioka Lot 2
property. See
analysis in
Appendix B for
additional
information on
potential to
redevelop.

Y
145 410-501-31
589 Anton
Blvd 92626 UCC PDC
North Costa
Mesa
Specific
Plan/MUOD
North
Costa
Mesa 20 90 3.39 Commercial 73 48 123 244 A 0%
Large surface
parking lot.

Analysis assumes
only
redevelopment of
the surface parking
lot area. The City
has discussed the
potential future
redevelopment of
this site for highdensity residential
uses with the
property owner.

Y
146 418-161-06
2957
Randolph
Ave 92626 LI MG MUOD SoBECA 20 60 0.72 Industrial 10 6 18 34 A 43% Existing light
industrial/brewery
with large surface
parking lot. Site is
within the SoBECA
Urban Plan
redevelopment
area.

Y
148 418-163-05
2064 Bristol
St 92626 G C1 MUOD SoBECA 20 60 1.47 Commercial 21 14 35 70 A 24% Tire shop with large
surface parking lot.

Site is within the
SoBECA Urban Plan
redevelopment
area.

Y
149 418-171-02
752 Saint
Clair St 92626 B G C2 MUOD SoBECA 20 60 0.26 Commercial 3 2 7 12 A 3% Lot consolidation
info: This parcel is
contiguous with
two other parcels
and has two
owners. The total 3
parcels equate to

1.8 acres. School
yard for learning
center. Site is
within the SoBECA
Urban Plan
redevelopment
area.

PURCILLY GAY

WHEELER Y
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-71
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
169 418-171-01
754 Saint
Clair St 92626 B G C2 MUOD SoBECA 20 60 0.27 Residential 3 2 8 13 A 25% Lot consolidation
info: This parcel is
contiguous with
two other parcels
and has two
owners. The total 3
parcels equate to

1.8 acres. Existing
learning center use.

Site is anticipated
to redevelop with
adjacent parcels as
shown in this table.
766 ST CLAIR
LLC
Y
150 418-191-04
766 Saint
Clair St 92626 G C2 MUOD SoBECA 20 60 0.67 Commercial 9 6 17 32 A 34% Gym with large
surface parking lot.

Site is within the
SoBECA Urban Plan
redevelopment
area.

Y
151 418-202-01 845 Baker St 92626 G C1 MUOD SoBECA 20 60 0.87 Commercial 12 8 21 41 A 25% Small strip mall
with large surface
parking lot. Site is
within the SoBECA
Urban Plan
redevelopment
area.

Y
152 418-202-02 841 Baker St 92626 D G C1 MUOD SoBECA 20 60 0.33 Commercial 4 3 8 15 A 36% Lot consolidation
info: This parcel is
contiguous with
other parcel, a total
of 0.9 acres and is
under the same
ownership.

Nightclub with large
surface parking lot.

Site is within the
SoBECA Urban Plan
redevelopment
area.

BAKER STREET

PROPERTIES
LLC
Y
153 418-202-03 841 Baker St 92626 D G C1 MUOD SoBECA 20 60 0.60 Commercial 8 5 15 28 A 27% Lot consolidation
info: Nightclub with
large surface
parking lot. Site is
within the SoBECA
Urban Plan
redevelopment
area.

BAKER STREET

PROPERTIES
LLC
Y
154 418-202-04 801 Baker St 92626 G C1 MUOD SoBECA 20 60 0.86 Commercial 12 8 21 41 A 33% Strip mall with large
surface parking lot.

Site is within the
SoBECA Urban Plan
Y
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-72
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
redevelopment
area.
155 418-202-05
2969
Century Pl 92626 E LI C1 MUOD SoBECA 20 60 0.09 Commercial 1 0 3 4 A 10% Lot consolidation
info: This site is
made up of 2
parcels that are
contiguous, under
common ownership
and equate to 0.76
acres. Surface
parking lot. Site is
within the SoBECA
Urban Plan
redevelopment
area.

ECHAN

BARBARA
TRUST
Y
156 418-202-06
2969
Century Pl 92626 E LI MG MUOD SoBECA 20 60 0.68 Industrial 9 6 17 32 A 37% Lot consolidation
info: This site is
made up of 2
parcels that are
contiguous, under
common ownership
and equate to 0.76
acres. Gym with
large surface
parking lot. Site is
within the SoBECA
Urban Plan
redevelopment
area.

ECHAN

BARBARA
TRUST
Y
157 418-202-07
2959
Century Pl 92626 LI MG MUOD SoBECA 20 60 0.50 Industrial 7 4 13 24 A 37% Electrical
equipment
manufacture/distri
butor. Site is within
the SoBECA Urban
Plan
redevelopment
area.

Y
158 418-202-10
2942
Century Pl 92626 LI MG MUOD SoBECA 20 60 0.87 Industrial 12 8 21 41 A 30% Coworking office
with large surface
parking. Site is
within the SoBECA
Urban Plan
redevelopment
area.

Y
159 418-202-11
2952
Century Pl 92626 LI MG MUOD SoBECA 20 60 0.90 Industrial 12 8 23 43 A 35% Warehouse with
large yard. Site is
within the SoBECA
Urban Plan
redevelopment
area.

Y
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-73
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
160 418-202-12
2972
Century Pl 92626 LI MG MUOD SoBECA 20 60 0.94 Industrial 13 9 23 45 A 35% Auto repair shop
with surface
parking. Site is
within the SoBECA
Urban Plan
redevelopment
area.

Y
161 418-202-13
2972
Century Pl 92627 LI MG MUOD SoBECA 20 60 0.91 Industrial 12 8 23 43 A 37% Warehouse with
large yard. Site is
within the SoBECA
Urban Plan
redevelopment
area.

Y
162 418-202-14 765 Baker St 92627 G C2 MUOD SoBECA 20 60 0.67 Commercial 9 6 17 32 A 46% Existing auto repair
shop use. Site is
within the SoBECA
Urban Plan
redevelopment
area.

Y
163 418-101-05
1425 Baker
St 92627 G C1 MUOD
Harbor
Blvd 20 50 1.90 Commercial 22 15 39 76 C 24%
Existing auto dealer
with large surface
parking.

Y
165 424-202-01
745 W 19th
St 92628 G C1 MUOD 19 West 20 50 0.63 Residential 7 5 13 25 C 29% Strip mall with
surface parking lot
adjacent to major
transportation
corridor (19th St.).

Site has the
potential to
redevelop for
mixed-use.

Y
166 410-481-05
3201 Park
Center Dr 92628 H CAC TC
North Costa
Mesa
Specific
Plan/MUOD
North
Costa
Mesa 20 90 6.27 Commercial 55 37 94 186 A 17%
Lot consolidation
info: This site is
made up of two
parcels under
common ownership
and contiguous.

Pacific Arts Center
property. See
analysis in
Appendix B for
additional
information on
potential to
redevelop.

THE IRVINE

COMPANY LLC
Y
167 410-491-07
601 Anton
Blvd 92626 H CAC TC
North Costa
Mesa
Specific
Plan/MUOD
North
Costa
Mesa 20 90 12.07 Commercial 104 69 176 349 A 25%
Lot consolidation
info: This site is
made up of two
parcels under
common ownership
and contiguous.

THE IRVINE

COMPANY LLC
Y
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-74
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
Pacific Arts Center
property. See
analysis in
Appendix B for
additional
information on
potential to
redevelop.
168 410-501-25
545 Anton
Blvd 92626 UCC PDC
North Costa
Mesa
Specific
Plan/MUOD
North
Costa
Mesa 20 90 2.57 Commercial 74 55 56 185 A 20%
Small commercial
out parcel uses.

Surface parking lot.

Property owner has
indicated interest in
redeveloping the
site for residential
uses.

Y
170 426-053-01
2250
Newport
Blvd 92627 CR R2-HD
Newport
Blvd Specific
Plan/MUOD
Newport
Blvd 20 30 0.97 Hotel/Motel 9 4 10 23 D 89% 0.730
Existing 42-room
motel on
approximately 0.97
acre developed at a
relatively low
intensity of
approximately 0.45
FAR. 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.

N
171 439-312-12 1400 Bristol Street 92626 GC C1 MUOD SoBECA 20 60 3.50 Hotel/Motel 67 50 51 168 D 35% 0.170 Entitled Project
Homekey motel
conversion to 76
supportive lower
income units and 2
additional units.

Known as Avon
River Apartments.

N
172 424-081-19
732 W 17th
St 92627 LI MG MUOD
Mesa
West Bluff 20 40 1.81 Industrial 17 0 41 58 B 53% 0.49
Development
interest provided in N
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-75
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
writing by property
owner. Building age
- 1985; Existing
industrial use; auto
related uses.
173 418-181-09 2755 Bristol 92626 GC CL MUOD
Newport
Blvd 20 30 1.69 Commercial 6 0 34 40 C 34% 0.71
Development
interest provided in
writing by property
owner. Commercial
office use / general
office building with
surface parking lot
N
174 422-291-07
2045
Placentia 92627 LI MG MUOD
Mesa
West Bluff 20 40 0.92 Industrial 3 0 26 29 B 34% 0.7
Development
interest provided in
writing by property
owner. General
industrial use.

N
175 418-102-10
1485 Dale
Way 92626 LI MG MUOD
Harbor
Blvd 20 50 4.46 Industrial 17 48 113 178 C 53% 4.64
Development
interest provided in
writing by property
owner. Industrial /
bus dealership,
auto related uses,
sales, leasing,
service, and
training use.

N
176 425-443-17
1770
Newport
Blvd 92627 V GC C2 MUOD
Newport
Blvd 20 30 1.12 Commercial 3 6 17 26 C 35% 2.58
Development
interest provided in
writing by property
owner. Parcels are
contiguous and
have potential for
lot consolidation.

Commercial retail /
shopping center
use. The broader
property includes
Sites 176-179 for
1770–1784
Newport Blvd
includes retail /
shopping center /
storefront property
and a vacant
parking garage,
6,840 SF.

Prince Capital N
177 425-443-18
1778
Newport
Blvd 92627 V GC C2 MUOD
Newport
Blvd 20 30 0.01 Commercial 0 0 0 0 C N/A N/A
Development
interest provided in
writing by property
owner. Parcels are
contiguous and
Prince Capital N
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-76
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
have potential for
lot consolidation.

Commercial retail /
shopping center
use. The broader
property includes
Sites 176-179 for
1770–1784
Newport Blvd
includes retail /
shopping center /
storefront property
and a vacant
parking garage,
6,840 SF.
178 425-443-19
1780
Newport
Blvd 92627 V GC C2 MUOD
Newport
Blvd 20 30 0.06 Commercial 0 0 1 1 C N/A N/A
Development
interest provided in
writing by property
owner. Parcels are
contiguous and
have potential for
lot consolidation.

Commercial retail /
shopping center
use. The broader
property includes
Sites 176-179 for
1770–1784
Newport Blvd
includes retail /
shopping center /
storefront property
and a vacant
parking garage,
6,840 SF.

Prince Capital N
179 425-443-20
1784
Newport
Blvd 92627 V GC C2 MUOD
Newport
Blvd 20 30 0.07 Commercial 0 0 1 1 C N/A N/A
Development
interest provided in
writing by property
owner. Parcels are
contiguous and
have potential for
lot consolidation.

Commercial retail /
shopping center
use. The broader
property includes
Sites 176-179 for
1770–1784
Newport Blvd
includes retail /
shopping center /
Prince Capital N
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-77
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
storefront property
and a vacant
parking garage,
6,840 SF.
180 418-102-11 NA 92626 LI MG MUOD
Harbor
Blvd 20 50 0.45 Industrial 0 4 14 18 C N/A 0.18
This parcel is
directly adjacent
and contiguous Site
175 known as 1485
Dale
Way. Development
interest provided in
writing by property
owner. Industrial /
bus dealership,
auto related uses,
sales, leasing,
service, and
training use.

N
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-78

9. Summary of RHNA Progress by Permitted Units and Affordability Level The following table summarizes building permits issued toward the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) during the 6th Cycle projection period through the 2025 reporting year, consistent with the City’s Annual Progress Report (APR) Table B. As discussed above, the City credits units toward its RHNA progress based on the issuance of a building permit, consistent with HCD’s own methodology for tracking Housing Element implementation.

Period Very Low
Income Low Income Moderate Income
Above Moderate
Income Total Units
Projection Period (6/30/21-
10/14/21) 3 12 8 6 29
2021 (10/15/21-12/31/21) - 7 1 6 14
2022 104 37 10 5 156
2023 7 61 13 10 91
2024 24 45 20 34 123
2025 136 33 27 34 230
Total Units to Date 274 195 79 95 643
Source: City of Costa Mesa Annual Progress Reports (APR), Table A2, 2021–2025; California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) Housing Open Data Portal, APR Table A2.

10. Permitted Units by Project — 6th Cycle Projection Period Through 2025 Table B-9 provides a project-level breakdown of the units that make up the City's 643-unit RHNA credit, including each project's location, affordability level, and permitting status. Each row represents one property, identified by its Assessor's Parcel Number (APN).

Appendix B: Sites Analysis

B-79
Costa Mesa Housing Element
Table B-9: RHNA Credit – Permitted Units by Project 2021-2025 Permit
Date
Range
Project Address (APN) Unit Type /
Tenure VLI Low Mod Above Mod
Total
Units Affordability Mechanism Status
12/22/22-
03/31/25 2274 Newport Blvd (APN 426-053-15) 5+ / Renter 126 - - 1 127 40 Deed Restricted (Extremely Low) - LIHTC;
40 Deed Restricted (Very Low) - LIHTC; 46
Deed Restricted (Very Low) - HKEY; 1 N/A
(Above Mod) - LIHTC
Building Permit Issued
09/05/2025 1400 Bristol St (APN 439-312-11) 5+ / Renter 76 - - - 76 76 Deed Restricted - HKEY Building Permit Issued 06/16/22-
06/16/22 530 W Wilson St (APN 422-163-21) ADU / Renter 13 - - - 13 13 Non-Deed Restricted
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Building Permit Issued
12/21/22-
01/30/25
1993 Church St; 1993 Church St, Unit 107 (APN
426-262-08) ADU / Renter - 5 - - 5
5 Non-Deed Restricted
4 units (permitted 2022–2023): SCAG
Affordability Study and consistent with ADU
affordability projections. 1 unit (permitted
2025): Affordability determined via applicant
questionnaire and HCD’s affordability
calculator, based on anticipated rent and
bedroom count (2025 applications).

Building Permit Issued
06/23/22-
06/23/22
2573 Elden Ave, Unit A; 2573 Elden Ave, Unit B;
2573 Elden Ave, Unit C; 2573 Elden Ave, Unit D
(APN 439-171-21)
SFD / Owner - - - 4 4 4 N/A (Above Mod) Building Permit Issued 09/23/22-
02/14/23
2235 Orange Ave; 2235 Orange Avenue (APN
426-062-13)

ADU, SFD /
Owner, Renter - 4 - - 4
4 Non-Deed Restricted
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Building Permit Issued
06/30/23-
06/30/23
1008 West Wilson Street; 2255 Canyon Dr; 2255
Canyon Drive (APN 422-051-07)

ADU, SFD /
Owner, Renter - 2 - 2 4
2 Non-Deed Restricted; 2 N/A (Above Mod)
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Building Permit Issued
07/02/24-
07/02/24
1978 Meyer Pl, Unit A; 1978 Meyer Pl, Unit B;
1978 Meyer Pl, Unit C; 1978 Meyer Pl, Unit D
(APN 422-142-37)
SFD / Owner - - - 4 4 Building Permit Issued
07/02/24-
07/02/24
1979 Anaheim Ave, Unit A; 1979 Anaheim Ave,
Unit B; 1979 Anaheim Ave, Unit C; 1979
Anaheim Ave, Unit D (APN 422-142-07)
SFD / Owner - - - 4 4 4 N/A (Above Mod) Building Permit Issued 08/07/24-
12/12/25
604 Bay St; 604 W Bay St, Unit B; 604 W Bay St,
Unit C (APN 422-132-19) ADU / Renter 2 - 2 - 4
4 Non-Deed Restricted
2 units (permitted 2024): Affordability
determined via a City-administered survey of
ADU owners’ intended rental price (2024
applications). 2 units (permitted 2025):

Affordability determined via applicant
questionnaire and HCD’s affordability
calculator, based on anticipated rent and
bedroom count (2025 applications).

Building Permit Issued
11/05/24-
11/05/24
547 Bernard St; 549 Bernard St; 551 Bernard St;
553 Bernard St (APN 422-103-29) SFD / Owner - - - 4 4 4 N/A (Above Mod) Building Permit Issued 03/19/25-
03/19/25
376 Hamilton St; 376 Hamilton St, Unit B101;
376 Hamilton St, Unit B103 (APN 419-172-40)

ADU, SFA /
Renter - 2 - 2 4
2 N/A (Above Mod); 2 Non-Deed Restricted
Affordability determined via applicant
questionnaire and HCD’s affordability
calculator, based on anticipated rent and
bedroom count (2025 applications)
Building Permit Issued
03/19/25-
03/19/25
374 Hamilton St; 374 Hamilton St, Unit B101;
374 Hamilton St, Unit B103 (APN 419-172-39)

ADU, SFA /
Renter - 2 - 2 4
2 Non-Deed Restricted; 2 N/A (Above Mod)
Affordability determined via applicant
questionnaire and HCD’s affordability
calculator, based on anticipated rent and
bedroom count (2025 applications)
Building Permit Issued
05/20/25-
05/21/25
1018 W Wilson St; 1018 Wilson St, Unit A; 1022
W Wilson St, Unit B; 1022 Wilson St (APN 422-
051-05)

ADU, SFD /
Owner, Renter - - 2 2 4 2 N/A (Above Mod); 2 Non-Deed Restricted Building Permit Issued 07/14/25-
07/14/25
314 E 16th St, Unit A; 314 E 16th St, Unit B; 314
E 16th St, Unit C; 314 E 16th St, Unit D (APN
425-211-20)

ADU, SFA /
Renter 1 - 1 2 4
2 Non-Deed Restricted; 2 N/A (Above Mod)
Affordability determined via applicant
questionnaire and HCD’s affordability
calculator, based on anticipated rent and
bedroom count (2025 applications)
Building Permit Issued
10/02/25-
10/02/25
776 W Wilson St, Unit E; 776 W Wilson St, Unit
F; 776 W Wilson St, Unit G; 776 W Wilson St,
Unit H (APN 422-372-14)
ADU / Renter - 4 - - 4
4 Non-Deed Restricted
Affordability determined via applicant
questionnaire and HCD’s affordability
calculator, based on anticipated rent and
bedroom count (2025 applications)
Building Permit Issued
11/20/25-
11/20/25
1765 Santa Ana Ave, Unit N104; 1765 Santa
Ana Ave, Unit N105; 1765 Santa Ana Ave, Unit
P100; 1765 Santa Ana Ave, Unit P99 (APN 425-
462-31)
ADU / Renter - 4 - - 4
4 Non-Deed Restricted
Affordability determined via applicant
questionnaire and HCD’s affordability
calculator, based on anticipated rent and
bedroom count (2025 applications)
Building Permit Issued
09/14/22-
07/10/23
984 El Camino Dr; 984 El Camino Drive, Unit F
(APN 141-665-25) ADU / Renter - 1 2 - 3
3 Non-Deed Restricted
Affordability based on actual rents
Constructed - Certificate of
Occupancy Issued
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-80
Costa Mesa Housing Element
Table B-9: RHNA Credit – Permitted Units by Project 2021-2025 Permit
Date
Range
Project Address (APN) Unit Type /
Tenure VLI Low Mod Above Mod
Total
Units Affordability Mechanism Status
05/11/23-
08/23/24
738 Center St; 738 Center St, Unit A; 738 Center
St, Unit C (APN 424-202-12)
2 to 4, ADU /
Renter - 3 - - 3
3 Non-Deed Restricted
1 unit (permitted 2023): SCAG Affordability
Study and consistent with ADU affordability
projections. 2 units (permitted 2024):

Affordability determined via a Cityadministered survey of ADU owners’ intended rental price (2024 applications).

Building Permit Issued
07/18/23-
10/27/24
729 Center St; 729 Center St, Unit B; 729 Center
St, Unit C (APN 424-204-04) ADU / Renter 1 2 - - 3
3 Non-Deed Restricted
1 unit (permitted 2023): SCAG Affordability
Study and consistent with ADU affordability
projections. 2 units (permitted 2024):

Affordability determined via a Cityadministered survey of ADU owners’ intended rental price (2024 applications).

Building Permit Issued
09/28/23-
02/04/25
2195 Maple St; 2195 Maple St, Unit B101; 2195
Maple St, Unit B201 (APN 422-201-02) ADU / Renter - 3 - - 3 3 Non-Deed Restricted
1 unit (permitted 2023): SCAG Affordability
Study and consistent with ADU affordability
projections. 2 units (permitted 2025):

Affordability determined via applicant
questionnaire and HCD’s affordability
calculator, based on anticipated rent and
bedroom count (2025 applications).

Building Permit Issued
02/11/25-
02/11/25
241 Ogle St, Unit A; 241 Ogle St, Unit B; 241
Ogle St, Unit C (APN 425-202-10)

ADU, SFD /
Owner, Renter - - 1 2 3 2 N/A (Above Mod); 1 Non-Deed Restricted Building Permit Issued 09/17/25-
09/17/25
220 Costa Mesa St, Unit A103; 220 Costa Mesa
St, Unit B104; 220 Costa Mesa St, Unit B105
(APN 426-272-19)
ADU / Renter - - - 3 3 3 N/A (Above Mod) Building Permit Issued 09/19/25-
09/19/25
758 W 20th St, Unit B105; 758 W 20th St, Unit
B107; 758 W 20th St, Unit B109 (APN 422-281-
19)
ADU / Renter - - 3 - 3 3 Non-Deed Restricted Building Permit Issued 07/27/21-
07/27/21
281 E 20th Street; 281 E 20th Street, Unit B
(APN 426-284-07)

ADU, SFD /
Owner, Renter - 1 - 1 2
1 Non-Deed Restricted; 1 N/A (Above Mod)
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Building Permit Issued
08/05/21-
12/03/21 257 Flower Street (APN 117-213-26) SFD / Owner - - - 2 2 2 N/A (Above Mod) Constructed - Certificate of Occupancy Issued 09/08/21-
12/03/21 2458 Norse Avenue (APN 119-102-46) SFD / Owner - - - 2 2 2 N/A (Above Mod) Constructed - Certificate of Occupancy Issued 09/28/21-
09/28/21
1951 Rosemary Place; 1951 Rosemary Place,
Unit B (APN 426-032-40)

ADU, SFD /
Owner, Renter - - 1 1 2 1 N/A (Above Mod); 1 Non-Deed Restricted Building Permit Issued 09/30/21-
11/16/21 246 Cecil Place (APN 426-073-16) SFD / Owner - - - 2 2 2 N/A (Above Mod) Constructed - Certificate of Occupancy Issued 11/05/21-
11/05/21
320 Colleen Place; 320 Colleen Place, Unit B
(APN 426-041-32)

ADU, SFD /
Owner, Renter - 1 - 1 2
1 Non-Deed Restricted; 1 N/A (Above Mod)
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Building Permit Issued
11/19/21-
12/14/21 473 Ogle Street (APN 425-152-17) SFD / Owner - - - 2 2 2 N/A (Above Mod) Building Permit Issued 11/22/21-
11/22/21
2014 Maple Avenue, Unit 108; 2014 Maple
Avenue, Unit 109 (APN 422-092-25) ADU / Renter - 2 - - 2 2 Non-Deed Restricted
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Building Permit Issued
03/22/22-
03/22/22 560 Hamilton St (APN 422-021-26) ADU / Renter 1 1 - - 2 2 Non-Deed Restricted
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Building Permit Issued
04/07/22-
10/25/22 355 Princeton Dr (APN 141-384-15) ADU / Renter - 2 - - 2 2 Non-Deed Restricted
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Building Permit Issued
07/21/22-
07/21/22 2186 Pacific Ave (APN 422-041-13) ADU / Renter - 2 - - 2 2 Non-Deed Restricted
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Building Permit Issued
07/21/22-
07/21/22 2039 Pomona Ave (APN 422-251-01) ADU / Renter 2 - - - 2 2 Non-Deed Restricted
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Building Permit Issued
11/22/22-
11/22/22 968 Mission Dr (APN 141-662-19) ADU / Renter - 2 - - 2 2 Non-Deed Restricted
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Building Permit Issued
12/01/22-
12/01/22 600 Hamilton St (APN 422-211-20) ADU / Renter 1 1 - - 2 2 Non-Deed Restricted
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Building Permit Issued
12/19/22-
07/05/23 1814 Pitcairn Dr (APN 139-341-15) ADU / Renter - 1 1 - 2 2 Non-Deed Restricted Building Permit Issued Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-81
Costa Mesa Housing Element
Table B-9: RHNA Credit – Permitted Units by Project 2021-2025 Permit
Date
Range
Project Address (APN) Unit Type /
Tenure VLI Low Mod Above Mod
Total
Units Affordability Mechanism Status
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
01/12/23-
01/12/23 159 Albert Pl (APN 426-063-03) ADU / Renter - 2 - - 2 2 Non-Deed Restricted
Affordability based on actual rents
Constructed - Certificate of
Occupancy Issued
01/18/2023 677 Victoria St (APN 422-211-07) ADU / Renter - 2 - - 2 2 Non-Deed Restricted
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Building Permit Issued
01/18/23-
01/18/23 641 Cove St (APN 422-231-02) ADU / Renter - 2 - - 2 2 Non-Deed Restricted
Affordability based on actual rents Constructed - Certificate of Occupancy Issued
01/18/2023 673 Victoria St (APN 422-211-08) ADU / Renter - 2 - - 2 2 Non-Deed Restricted
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Building Permit Issued
01/24/23-
01/24/23
2004 Meyer Pl; 2004 Meyer Place (APN 938-
190-02) ADU / Renter - 1 1 - 2
2 Non-Deed Restricted
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Building Permit Issued
01/25/23-
01/25/23 219 Broadway (APN 425-402-19) ADU / Renter - 1 - 1 2 1 Non-Deed Restricted; 1 N/A (Above Mod)
Affordability based on actual rents
Constructed - Certificate of
Occupancy Issued
02/08/23-
02/08/23
2109 Federal Ave; 2109 Federal Avenue, Unit B
(APN 422-453-12) ADU / Renter - - 2 - 2 2 Non-Deed Restricted Constructed - Certificate of Occupancy Issued 02/23/23-
08/27/23 734 Center St (APN 424-202-11) ADU / Renter 1 1 - - 2 2 Non-Deed Restricted
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Building Permit Issued
04/06/2023 723 Wilson St (APN 422-401-02) ADU / Renter 1 1 - - 2 2 Non-Deed Restricted
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Building Permit Issued
04/24/23-
07/06/23
3125 Yellowstone Dr; 3125 Yellowstone Drive
(APN 141-073-01) SFD / Owner - - - 2 2 2 N/A (Above Mod) Building Permit Issued 05/05/23-
05/05/23
2083 Wallace Ave; 2083 Wallace Avenue, Unit E
(APN 422-281-06) ADU / Renter - 2 - - 2
2 Non-Deed Restricted
Affordability based on actual rents Constructed - Certificate of Occupancy Issued
05/05/23-
05/05/23
2077 Wallace Ave; 2077 Wallace Avenue, Unit E
(APN 422-281-07) ADU / Renter - 2 - - 2
2 Non-Deed Restricted
Affordability based on actual rents
Constructed - Certificate of
Occupancy Issued
05/24/23-
05/24/23 2167 Miner Street (APN 422-202-14) 2 to 4 / Owner - - - 2 2 2 N/A (Above Mod) Building Permit Issued 06/08/2023 120 Albert Pl (APN 426-054-16) ADU / Renter - 2 - - 2 2 Non-Deed Restricted
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Building Permit Issued
06/15/23-
06/15/23 161 Cecil Pl (APN 426-062-06) SFD / Owner - - - 2 2 2 N/A (Above Mod) Building Permit Issued 07/20/23-
07/20/23
2298 Orange Av; 2298 Orange Avenue, Unit D
(APN 426-074-03) ADU / Renter - 2 - - 2
2 Non-Deed Restricted
Affordability based on actual rents
Constructed - Certificate of
Occupancy Issued
08/24/23-
08/24/23 185 Mesa Dr (APN 439-221-27) ADU / Renter - 2 - - 2 2 Non-Deed Restricted
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Building Permit Issued
09/13/23-
09/13/23 1769 Anaheim Ave (APN 424-263-25) ADU / Renter 2 - - - 2 2 Non-Deed Restricted
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Building Permit Issued
04/22/24-
04/22/24
331 Avocado St, Unit G; 331 Avocado St, Unit I
(APN 419-071-10) ADU / Renter - 2 - - 2
2 Non-Deed Restricted
Affordability determined via a Cityadministered survey of ADU owners’ intended rental price (2024 applications)
Building Permit Issued
04/29/24-
04/29/24
1637 Irvine Ave, Unit A; 1637 Irvine Ave, Unit B
(APN 425-152-11) ADU / Renter - 2 - - 2
2 Non-Deed Restricted
Affordability determined via a Cityadministered survey of ADU owners’ intended rental price (2024 applications)
Building Permit Issued
05/22/24-
05/22/24
2036 Pomona Ave, Unit C; 2036 Pomona Ave,
Unit D (APN 422-221-14) ADU / Renter - 2 - - 2
2 Non-Deed Restricted
Affordability determined via a Cityadministered survey of ADU owners’ intended rental price (2024 applications)
Building Permit Issued
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-82
Costa Mesa Housing Element
Table B-9: RHNA Credit – Permitted Units by Project 2021-2025 Permit
Date
Range
Project Address (APN) Unit Type /
Tenure VLI Low Mod Above Mod
Total
Units Affordability Mechanism Status
05/29/24-
05/29/24
2158 Charle Dr, Unit C; 2158 Charle Dr, Unit D
(APN 422-203-34) ADU / Renter - 2 - - 2
2 Non-Deed Restricted
Affordability determined via a Cityadministered survey of ADU owners’ intended rental price (2024 applications)
Building Permit Issued
06/11/24-
06/11/24
278 Broadway, Unit A; 278 Broadway, Unit B
(APN 117-213-09) SFD / Owner - - - 2 2 2 N/A (Above Mod) Building Permit Issued 06/14/2024 379 E 20th St (APN 426-304-07) ADU / Renter - - 2 - 2 2 Non-Deed Restricted Building Permit Issued 07/08/24-
07/08/24 316 22nd St; 318 22nd St (APN 426-041-09) SFD / Owner - - - 2 2 2 N/A (Above Mod) Building Permit Issued 07/22/24-
07/22/24
243 E 20th St, Unit D; 243 E 20th St, Unit E (APN
426-273-13) ADU / Renter - 2 - - 2
2 Non-Deed Restricted
Affordability determined via a Cityadministered survey of ADU owners’ intended rental price (2024 applications)
Building Permit Issued
07/22/24-
07/22/24
853 Oak St; 853 Oak St, Unit B (APN 422-503-
01)

ADU, SFD /
Owner, Renter - - 1 1 2 1 N/A (Above Mod); 1 Non-Deed Restricted Building Permit Issued 07/29/24-
06/25/25 1989 Orange Ave (APN 426-032-54) ADU / Renter - 2 - - 2 2 Non-Deed Restricted
1 unit (permitted 2024): Affordability
determined via a City-administered survey of
ADU owners’ intended rental price (2024
applications). 1 unit (permitted 2025):

Affordability determined via applicant
questionnaire and HCD’s affordability
calculator, based on anticipated rent and
bedroom count (2025 applications).

Building Permit Issued
08/20/24-
08/20/24
244 22nd St; 244 22nd St, Unit B (APN 426-071-
18)

ADU, SFD /
Owner, Renter - 1 - 1 2
1 Non-Deed Restricted; 1 N/A (Above Mod)
Affordability determined via a Cityadministered survey of ADU owners’ intended rental price (2024 applications)
Building Permit Issued
08/22/24-
08/22/24
2078 thurin St, Unit B3; 2078 thurin St, Unit D4
(APN 419-021-31) ADU / Renter - 2 - - 2
2 Non-Deed Restricted
Affordability determined via a Cityadministered survey of ADU owners’ intended rental price (2024 applications)
Building Permit Issued
09/11/24-
09/11/24
288 Knox St, Unit B105; 288 Knox St, Unit B107
(APN 425-163-08) ADU / Renter - 2 - - 2
2 Non-Deed Restricted
Affordability determined via a Cityadministered survey of ADU owners’ intended rental price (2024 applications)
Building Permit Issued
09/20/24-
09/20/24
994 Valencia St, Unit 101; 994 Valencia St, Unit
108 (APN 141-664-31) ADU / Renter 1 - - 1 2
1 N/A (Above Mod); 1 Non-Deed Restricted
Affordability determined via a Cityadministered survey of ADU owners’ intended rental price (2024 applications)
Building Permit Issued
09/25/24-
09/25/24
135 Broadway, Unit D; 135 Broadway, Unit E
(APN 425-451-22) ADU / Renter - 2 - - 2
2 Non-Deed Restricted
Affordability determined via a Cityadministered survey of ADU owners’ intended rental price (2024 applications)
Building Permit Issued
10/23/24-
10/23/24
2016 Wallace Ave, Unit G; 2016 Wallace Ave,
Unit H (APN 422-252-18) ADU / Renter 1 - 1 - 2
2 Non-Deed Restricted
Affordability determined via a Cityadministered survey of ADU owners’ intended rental price (2024 applications)
Building Permit Issued
10/31/24-
10/31/24
287 E 16th Pl, Unit 10; 287 E 16th Pl, Unit 9
(APN 425-221-08) ADU / Renter 2 - - - 2
2 Non-Deed Restricted
Affordability determined via a Cityadministered survey of ADU owners’ intended rental price (2024 applications)
Building Permit Issued
03/30/25-
03/30/25
555 W Paularino Ave, Unit O101; 555 W
Paularino Ave, Unit O102 (APN 418-211-01) ADU / Renter - - 2 - 2 2 Non-Deed Restricted Building Permit Issued 04/07/25-
04/07/25
716 Center St, Unit B; 716 Center St, Unit C
(APN 424-202-07) ADU / Renter - 2 - - 2
2 Non-Deed Restricted
Affordability determined via applicant
questionnaire and HCD’s affordability
calculator, based on anticipated rent and
bedroom count (2025 applications)
Building Permit Issued
05/01/25-
05/01/25
988 Valencia St, Unit 5; 988 Valencia St, Unit 6
(APN 141-664-30) ADU / Renter - - - 2 2 2 N/A (Above Mod) Building Permit Issued 07/08/25-
07/08/25
111 Cecil Pl, Unit C; 111 Cecil Pl, Unit D (APN
426-052-03) ADU / Renter - - 2 - 2 2 Non-Deed Restricted Building Permit Issued 07/24/25-
07/24/25
2417 Elden Ave, Unit H; 2417 Elden Ave, Unit I
(APN 439-281-49) ADU / Renter - - 2 - 2 2 Non-Deed Restricted Building Permit Issued 09/16/25-
09/16/25
988 El Camino Dr, Unit A105; 988 El Camino Dr,
Unit B106 (APN 141-665-26) ADU / Renter - - - 2 2 2 N/A (Above Mod) Building Permit Issued 12/12/25-
12/12/25
186 Del Mar Ave, Unit B; 186 Del Mar Ave, Unit
C (APN 439-221-48) ADU / Renter - 2 - - 2
2 Non-Deed Restricted
Affordability determined via applicant
questionnaire and HCD’s affordability
Building Permit Issued
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-83
Costa Mesa Housing Element
Table B-9: RHNA Credit – Permitted Units by Project 2021-2025 Permit
Date
Range
Project Address (APN) Unit Type /
Tenure VLI Low Mod Above Mod
Total
Units Affordability Mechanism Status
calculator, based on anticipated rent and
bedroom count (2025 applications)
07/06/2021 900 W 20th Street (APN 422-494-41) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Building Permit Issued
07/07/2021 2994 Croftdon Street, Unit B (APN 141-233-02) ADU / Renter - - 1 - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted Building Permit Issued 07/07/2021 1850 Paros Circle (APN 139-421-13) ADU / Renter - - 1 - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted Building Permit Issued 07/12/2021 230 Sherwood Place, Unit B (APN 426-202-35) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Building Permit Issued
07/16/2021 257 Knox Place (APN 425-163-18) ADU / Renter - - 1 - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted Building Permit Issued 07/20/2021 2175 Tustin Avenue, Unit C (APN 426-171-07) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Building Permit Issued
07/20/2021 2545 Westminster Avenue, Unit B (APN 439-
191-10) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1
1 Non-Deed Restricted
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Building Permit Issued
08/11/2021 118 Magnolia Street, Unit B (APN 425-451-30) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Building Permit Issued
08/11/2021 382 Ramona Way, Unit B (APN 425-311-45) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Building Permit Issued
08/12/2021 700 W 20th Street, Unit D (APN 422-251-08) ADU / Renter 1 - - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Building Permit Issued
08/13/2021 482 E 20th Street, Unit A (APN 426-252-39) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Building Permit Issued
08/31/2021 2049 Monrovia Avenue, Unit B (APN 422-492-
08) ADU / Renter - - 1 - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted Building Permit Issued 09/08/2021 536 Caleigh Lane (APN 422-091-07) SFA / Owner - - - 1 1 1 N/A (Above Mod) Building Permit Issued 09/20/2021 324 Costa Mesa Street, Unit B (APN 426-292-
15) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1
1 Non-Deed Restricted
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Building Permit Issued
09/22/2021 227 Mesa Drive, Unit B (APN 439-213-26) ADU / Renter - - 1 - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted Building Permit Issued 09/27/2021 330 Ogle Street, Unit B (APN 425-213-11) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Building Permit Issued
09/28/2021 379 E 19th Street, Unit B (APN 117-294-14) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Building Permit Issued
09/28/2021 861 Joann Street, Unit B (APN 422-362-05) ADU / Renter - - 1 - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted Building Permit Issued 10/05/2021 1939 Continental Avenue, Unit B (APN 422-513- 11) ADU / Renter 1 - - - 1
1 Non-Deed Restricted
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Building Permit Issued
10/13/2021 1984 Orange Avenue (APN 426-273-25) ADU / Renter - - 1 - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted Building Permit Issued 10/14/2021 2510 Carnegie Avenue (APN 141-424-02) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Building Permit Issued
10/14/2021 974 Linden Place (APN 422-483-10) ADU / Renter 1 - - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Building Permit Issued
10/18/2021 2687 Elden Avenue, Unit B (APN 439-081-22) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Building Permit Issued
11/05/2021 3078 Roanoke Lane, Unit B (APN 141-512-10) ADU / Renter - - 1 - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted Building Permit Issued 11/23/2021 466 E 18th Street, Unit B (APN 117-332-27) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted SCAG Affordability
Study and consistent with ADU affordability
projections
Building Permit Issued
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-84
Costa Mesa Housing Element
Table B-9: RHNA Credit – Permitted Units by Project 2021-2025 Permit
Date
Range
Project Address (APN) Unit Type /
Tenure VLI Low Mod Above Mod
Total
Units Affordability Mechanism Status
12/07/2021 2845 Ellesmere Avenue, Unit B (APN 139-335-
06) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1
1 Non-Deed Restricted
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Building Permit Issued
12/20/2021 363 Rochester Street, Unit A (APN 425-021-10) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Building Permit Issued
01/05/2022 274 Cecil Pl (APN 426-083-17) ADU / Renter 1 - - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Building Permit Issued
01/06/2022 1965 Tustin Ave (APN 426-303-12) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Constructed - Certificate of
Occupancy Issued
01/28/2022 2245 Raleigh Ave (APN 422-402-01) ADU / Renter 1 - - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Constructed - Certificate of
Occupancy Issued
02/15/2022 1833 Pomona Ave (APN 424-174-08) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Building Permit Issued
02/16/2022 1929 Arnold Ave (APN 422-242-07) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Building Permit Issued
02/23/2022 933 Dogwood St (APN 422-522-07) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Constructed - Certificate of
Occupancy Issued
02/24/2022 1388 Watson Ave (APN 141-031-03) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Building Permit Issued
03/16/2022 319 E 16th Pl (APN 425-211-06) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Constructed - Certificate of
Occupancy Issued
03/17/2022 3109 Lincoln Way (APN 141-652-47) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Building Permit Issued
03/25/2022 166 Magnolia St (APN 425-232-02) ADU / Renter - - 1 - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted Constructed - Certificate of Occupancy Issued
04/14/2022 271 Monte Vista Ave (APN 439-333-05) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
Affordability based on actual rents
Constructed - Certificate of
Occupancy Issued
04/19/2022 811 Saint Clair St (APN 141-545-08) ADU / Renter - - 1 - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted Building Permit Issued 04/19/2022 2020 Continental Ave (APN 422-503-21) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Building Permit Issued
04/20/2022 2064 Monrovia Ave (APN 422-505-30) ADU / Renter 1 - - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Building Permit Issued
05/04/2022 2531 Fairway Dr (APN 439-181-48) ADU / Renter 1 - - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
Affordability based on actual rents
Constructed - Certificate of
Occupancy Issued
05/06/2022 1396 Galway Ln (APN 141-161-01) ADU / Renter - - 1 - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted Building Permit Issued 05/09/2022 2373 Santa Ana Ave (APN 119-134-17) ADU / Renter - - 1 - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted Building Permit Issued 05/20/2022 376 E 16th Pl (APN 425-192-14) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Building Permit Issued
05/23/2022 218 E 18th St (APN 425-401-05) ADU / Renter - - 1 - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted Building Permit Issued 05/23/2022 1654 Tustin Ave (APN 425-143-46) ADU / Renter - - 1 - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted Building Permit Issued 06/28/2022 2526 Carnegie Ave (APN 141-424-04) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Building Permit Issued
07/07/2022 1646 Samar Pl (APN 139-281-21) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Building Permit Issued
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-85
Costa Mesa Housing Element
Table B-9: RHNA Credit – Permitted Units by Project 2021-2025 Permit
Date
Range
Project Address (APN) Unit Type /
Tenure VLI Low Mod Above Mod
Total
Units Affordability Mechanism Status
07/12/2022 321 Ramona Pl (APN 425-321-06) ADU / Renter - - 1 - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted Building Permit Issued 07/14/2022 830 Sonora Rd (APN 141-542-07) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Building Permit Issued
07/18/2022 834 Saint Clair St (APN 141-546-07) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Building Permit Issued
08/01/2022 1589 Orange Ave (APN 425-341-22) ADU / Renter - - 1 - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted Building Permit Issued 08/02/2022 323 Alva Ln (APN 426-294-05) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Building Permit Issued
08/10/2022 1910 Federal Ave (APN 422-511-17) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Building Permit Issued
09/13/2022 1040 Spinnaker Run (APN 424-511-11) ADU / Renter 1 - - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Building Permit Issued
09/22/2022 1789 Nantucket Pl (APN 424-521-09) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Building Permit Issued
09/29/2022 2813 Drake Ave (APN 141-302-04) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Building Permit Issued
10/13/2022 2934 Maui Pl (APN 139-252-13) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Building Permit Issued
11/08/2022 1934 Whittier Ave (APN 422-532-05) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Building Permit Issued
11/14/2022 223 Wellesley Ln (APN 141-395-33) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Building Permit Issued
11/18/2022 571 Park Dr (APN 424-271-28) ADU / Renter 1 - - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Building Permit Issued
12/05/2022 707 Center St (APN 424-204-09) ADU / Renter 1 - - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Building Permit Issued
12/06/2022 2023 Paloma Dr (APN 426-251-33) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Building Permit Issued
12/16/2022 385 Walnut St (APN 426-302-08) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted Constructed - Certificate of Occupancy Issued
12/16/2022 408 E 18th St (APN 117-332-39) ADU / Renter - - 1 - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted Building Permit Issued 12/19/2022 881 Capital St (APN 422-392-04) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Building Permit Issued
01/09/2023 326 Hamilton St (APN 419-021-15) ADU / Renter - - 1 - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted Building Permit Issued 01/23/2023 787 Joann Street, Unit B (APN 422-372-03) ADU / Renter 1 - - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted Constructed - Certificate of Occupancy Issued
01/24/2023 2521 Westminster Ave (APN 439-191-05) ADU / Renter 1 - - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Building Permit Issued
02/15/2023 306 Colleen Pl (APN 426-041-35) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Building Permit Issued
02/27/2023 2089 Orange Ave (APN 426-193-12) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Building Permit Issued
03/01/2023 354 La Perle Pl (APN 425-311-21) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted Building Permit Issued Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-86
Costa Mesa Housing Element
Table B-9: RHNA Credit – Permitted Units by Project 2021-2025 Permit
Date
Range
Project Address (APN) Unit Type /
Tenure VLI Low Mod Above Mod
Total
Units Affordability Mechanism Status
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
03/16/2023 486 Shady Dr (APN 117-372-52) ADU / Renter - - 1 - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted Building Permit Issued 03/20/2023 1992 Orange Ave (APN 426-273-04) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Building Permit Issued
03/21/2023 259 21st St (APN 426-215-03) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Building Permit Issued
05/01/2023 264 Walnut St (APN 426-283-21) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Building Permit Issued
05/01/2023 382 Costa Mesa St (APN 426-302-15) SFD / Owner - - - 1 1 1 N/A (Above Mod) Building Permit Issued 05/03/2023 366 Ralcam Place, Unit B (APN 419-172-17) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Building Permit Issued
05/03/2023 3222 Colorado Place, Unit B (APN 139-086-06) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted Constructed - Certificate of Occupancy Issued
05/04/2023 1954 Fullerton Ave (APN 426-032-20) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Building Permit Issued
05/04/2023 490 Walnut Pl (APN 426-323-10) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Building Permit Issued
06/12/2023 2020 Monrovia Ave (APN 422-505-21) ADU / Renter 1 - - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Building Permit Issued
06/13/2023 644 Seal St (APN 422-231-16) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Building Permit Issued
06/15/2023 3122 Country Club Dr (APN 139-123-12) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Building Permit Issued
06/15/2023 660 Beach St (APN 422-241-12) ADU / Renter - - 1 - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted Building Permit Issued 06/20/2023 209 Flower Street, Unit C (APN 425-403-20) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted Constructed - Certificate of Occupancy Issued
06/20/2023 480 Broadway (APN 117-342-24) ADU / Renter - - 1 - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted Building Permit Issued 07/06/2023 478 Esther St (APN 426-324-15) ADU / Renter - - 1 - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted Building Permit Issued 07/06/2023 385 E 19th St (APN 117-294-13) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Building Permit Issued
07/17/2023 2215 Republic Ave (APN 422-383-07) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Building Permit Issued
07/31/2023 1629 White Oak St (APN 139-214-01) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Building Permit Issued
08/03/2023 305 Flower St (APN 117-253-22) ADU / Renter - - 1 - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted Building Permit Issued 08/16/2023 2041 Tustin Ave (APN 426-232-07) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Building Permit Issued
08/23/2023 3097 Molokai Pl (APN 139-154-15) ADU / Renter - - 1 - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted Building Permit Issued 08/30/2023 338 E 19th St (APN 426-291-11) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Building Permit Issued
09/12/2023 1924 Church St (APN 426-263-05) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Building Permit Issued
09/27/2023 362 Rochester St (APN 425-022-03) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted Building Permit Issued Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-87
Costa Mesa Housing Element
Table B-9: RHNA Credit – Permitted Units by Project 2021-2025 Permit
Date
Range
Project Address (APN) Unit Type /
Tenure VLI Low Mod Above Mod
Total
Units Affordability Mechanism Status
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
10/18/2023 470 Shady Dr (APN 117-372-35) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Building Permit Issued
11/02/2023 277 Costa Mesa St (APN 426-281-06) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Building Permit Issued
11/13/2023 754 Joann St (APN 422-371-22) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Building Permit Issued
11/15/2023 1940 Wallace Ave (APN 422-262-14) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Building Permit Issued
12/07/2023 854 Oak St (APN 422-502-02) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Building Permit Issued
12/07/2023 2518 Carnegie Ave (APN 141-424-03) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Building Permit Issued
12/07/2023 3253 Oregon Ave (APN 139-054-03) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Building Permit Issued
12/11/2023 274 Brentwood St (APN 439-333-14) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Building Permit Issued
12/11/2023 270 E 15th St (APN 425-161-05) ADU / Renter - - 1 - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted Building Permit Issued 12/20/2023 153 Del Mar Ave (APN 439-161-62) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
SCAG Affordability Study and consistent with
ADU affordability projections
Building Permit Issued
01/11/2024 840 St Clair St, Unit B (APN 141-546-09) ADU / Renter 1 - - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
Affordability determined via a Cityadministered survey of ADU owners’ intended rental price (2024 applications)
Building Permit Issued
01/30/2024 2784 Bluebird Cir (APN 139-621-07) SFD / Owner - - - 1 1 1 N/A (Above Mod) Building Permit Issued 03/07/2024 331 Costa Mesa St (APN 426-291-06) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
Affordability determined via a Cityadministered survey of ADU owners’ intended rental price (2024 applications)
Building Permit Issued
03/08/2024 459 E 18th St, Unit B (APN 117-372-19) ADU / Renter 1 - - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
Affordability determined via a Cityadministered survey of ADU owners’ intended rental price (2024 applications)
Building Permit Issued
03/14/2024 1115 Valley Cir, Unit B (APN 422-031-13) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
Affordability determined via a Cityadministered survey of ADU owners’ intended rental price (2024 applications)
Building Permit Issued
03/21/2024 2064 Continental Ave (APN 422-503-30) ADU / Renter 1 - - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
Affordability determined via a Cityadministered survey of ADU owners’ intended rental price (2024 applications)
Building Permit Issued
03/26/2024 2900 Redwood Ave (APN 139-294-25) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
Affordability determined via a Cityadministered survey of ADU owners’ intended rental price (2024 applications)
Building Permit Issued
04/08/2024 2116 Wallace Ave, Unit B (APN 422-462-07) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
Affordability determined via a Cityadministered survey of ADU owners’ intended rental price (2024 applications)
Building Permit Issued
04/10/2024 2822 Ellesmere Ave, Unit B (APN 139-334-08) ADU / Renter - - 1 - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted Building Permit Issued 04/22/2024 1589 Santa Ana Ave, Unit B (APN 425-164-11) ADU / Renter - - 1 - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted Building Permit Issued 04/23/2024 228 Costa Mesa St (APN 426-272-17) SFD / Owner - - - 1 1 1 N/A (Above Mod) Building Permit Issued 05/03/2024 482 Costa Mesa St (APN 426-322-07) SFD / Owner - - - 1 1 1 N/A (Above Mod) Building Permit Issued Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-88
Costa Mesa Housing Element
Table B-9: RHNA Credit – Permitted Units by Project 2021-2025 Permit
Date
Range
Project Address (APN) Unit Type /
Tenure VLI Low Mod Above Mod
Total
Units Affordability Mechanism Status
05/13/2024 1030 Secretariat Cir, Unit B (APN 412-371-46) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
Affordability determined via a Cityadministered survey of ADU owners’ intended rental price (2024 applications)
Building Permit Issued
05/21/2024 2147 Iris Pl (APN 426-151-34) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
Affordability determined via a Cityadministered survey of ADU owners’ intended rental price (2024 applications)
Building Permit Issued
05/23/2024 1184 Dorset Ln (APN 141-141-07) ADU / Renter - - 1 - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted Building Permit Issued 05/23/2024 1787 Panay Cir (APN 139-122-47) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
Affordability determined via a Cityadministered survey of ADU owners’ intended rental price (2024 applications)
Building Permit Issued
05/28/2024 840 Sonora Rd (APN 141-542-10) ADU / Renter 1 - - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
Affordability determined via a Cityadministered survey of ADU owners’ intended rental price (2024 applications)
Building Permit Issued
06/04/2024 2570 Fordham Dr (APN 141-384-02) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
Affordability determined via a Cityadministered survey of ADU owners’ intended rental price (2024 applications)
Building Permit Issued
06/06/2024 268 E 19th St (APN 426-281-16) SFD / Owner - - - 1 1 1 N/A (Above Mod) Building Permit Issued 06/12/2024 695 Joann St, Unit C (APN 422-152-01) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
Affordability determined via a Cityadministered survey of ADU owners’ intended rental price (2024 applications)
Building Permit Issued
06/25/2024 1592 Redlands Pl (APN 425-311-65) SFD / Owner - - - 1 1 1 N/A (Above Mod) Building Permit Issued 06/25/2024 1594 Redlands Pl (APN 425-311-69) SFD / Owner - - - 1 1 1 N/A (Above Mod) Building Permit Issued 06/26/2024 1104 Victoria St, Unit D (APN 422-041-41) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
Affordability determined via a Cityadministered survey of ADU owners’ intended rental price (2024 applications)
Building Permit Issued
06/26/2024 1106 Victoria St, Unit D (APN 422-041-42) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
Affordability determined via a Cityadministered survey of ADU owners’ intended rental price (2024 applications)
Building Permit Issued
07/03/2024 2155 Raleigh Ave (APN 422-403-11) ADU / Renter 1 - - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
Affordability determined via a Cityadministered survey of ADU owners’ intended rental price (2024 applications)
Building Permit Issued
07/10/2024 526 Pierpont Dr, Unit B (APN 418-033-16) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
Affordability determined via a Cityadministered survey of ADU owners’ intended rental price (2024 applications)
Building Permit Issued
07/15/2024 1382 Garlingford St, Unit B (APN 141-022-04) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
Affordability determined via a Cityadministered survey of ADU owners’ intended rental price (2024 applications)
Building Permit Issued
07/15/2024 471 Magnolia St, Unit B (APN 117-332-15) ADU / Renter - - 1 - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted Building Permit Issued 07/16/2024 270 Albert Pl B (APN 426-084-18) ADU / Renter - - 1 - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted Building Permit Issued 07/16/2024 1901 Tustin Ave, Unit B (APN 426-301-12) ADU / Renter - - 1 - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted Building Permit Issued 07/17/2024 2157 Rural Ln, Unit B (APN 426-121-29) ADU / Renter - - 1 - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted Building Permit Issued 07/23/2024 2033 National Ave (APN 422-494-34) SFD / Owner - - - 1 1 1 N/A (Above Mod) Building Permit Issued 07/24/2024 806 Towne St, Unit B (APN 424-181-20) ADU / Renter 1 - - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
Affordability determined via a Cityadministered survey of ADU owners’ intended rental price (2024 applications)
Building Permit Issued
08/08/2024 2858 Serang Pl (APN 139-321-05) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
Affordability determined via a Cityadministered survey of ADU owners’ intended rental price (2024 applications)
Building Permit Issued
08/20/2024 276 E 18th St, Unit B (APN 117-211-06) ADU / Renter 1 - - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
Affordability determined via a Cityadministered survey of ADU owners’ intended rental price (2024 applications)
Building Permit Issued
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-89
Costa Mesa Housing Element
Table B-9: RHNA Credit – Permitted Units by Project 2021-2025 Permit
Date
Range
Project Address (APN) Unit Type /
Tenure VLI Low Mod Above Mod
Total
Units Affordability Mechanism Status
08/20/2024 2957 Andros St (APN 139-223-32) ADU / Renter 1 - - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
Affordability determined via a Cityadministered survey of ADU owners’ intended rental price (2024 applications)
Building Permit Issued
09/10/2024 2134 Orange Ave, Unit D (APN 426-141-41) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
Affordability determined via a Cityadministered survey of ADU owners’ intended rental price (2024 applications)
Building Permit Issued
09/16/2024 212 E 19th St, Unit B (APN 426-271-21) ADU / Renter - - 1 - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted Building Permit Issued 09/16/2024 929 Dahlia Ave, Unit B (APN 412-183-38) ADU / Renter 1 - - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
Affordability determined via a Cityadministered survey of ADU owners’ intended rental price (2024 applications)
Building Permit Issued
09/17/2024 913 20th St (APN 422-494-48) ADU / Renter - - - 1 1 1 N/A (Above Mod) Building Permit Issued 09/19/2024 2021 Balearic Dr, Unit B (APN 139-454-05) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
Affordability determined via a Cityadministered survey of ADU owners’ intended rental price (2024 applications)
Building Permit Issued
09/20/2024 275 Walnut St (APN 426-282-07) SFD / Owner - - - 1 1 1 N/A (Above Mod) Building Permit Issued 09/25/2024 2513 Fordham Dr, Unit B (APN 141-424-28) ADU / Renter 1 - - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
Affordability determined via a Cityadministered survey of ADU owners’ intended rental price (2024 applications)
Building Permit Issued
09/25/2024 948 Serra Way, Unit B (APN 141-552-04) ADU / Renter 1 - - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
Affordability determined via a Cityadministered survey of ADU owners’ intended rental price (2024 applications)
Building Permit Issued
09/30/2024 458 E 18th St, Unit B (APN 117-332-29) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
Affordability determined via a Cityadministered survey of ADU owners’ intended rental price (2024 applications)
Building Permit Issued
10/07/2024 1969 Federal Ave, Unit B (APN 422-512-05) ADU / Renter 1 - - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
Affordability determined via a Cityadministered survey of ADU owners’ intended rental price (2024 applications)
Building Permit Issued
10/07/2024 2533 Greenbriar Ln (APN 141-373-22) ADU / Renter 1 - - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
Affordability determined via a Cityadministered survey of ADU owners’ intended rental price (2024 applications)
Building Permit Issued
10/08/2024 3249 Nebraska Ln (APN 139-064-08) ADU / Renter 1 - - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
Affordability determined via a Cityadministered survey of ADU owners’ intended rental price (2024 applications)
Building Permit Issued
10/10/2024 2263 Rutgers Dr, Unit B (APN 419-054-10) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
Affordability determined via a Cityadministered survey of ADU owners’ intended rental price (2024 applications)
Building Permit Issued
10/15/2024 2035 Pomona Ave, Unit 103 (APN 422-251-02) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
Affordability determined via a Cityadministered survey of ADU owners’ intended rental price (2024 applications)
Building Permit Issued
10/15/2024 131 Albert Pl (APN 426-053-04) ADU / Renter - - 1 - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted Building Permit Issued 10/21/2024 820 St Clair St (APN 141-546-03) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
Affordability determined via a Cityadministered survey of ADU owners’ intended rental price (2024 applications)
Building Permit Issued
10/31/2024 165 Tulip Ln (APN 426-132-06) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
Affordability determined via a Cityadministered survey of ADU owners’ intended rental price (2024 applications)
Building Permit Issued
11/04/2024 178 Virginia Pl, Unit C (APN 426-062-17) ADU / Renter - - 1 - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted Building Permit Issued 11/07/2024 2161 Raleigh Ave, Unit B (APN 422-403-09) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
Affordability determined via a Cityadministered survey of ADU owners’ intended rental price (2024 applications)
Building Permit Issued
11/07/2024 481 Flower St, Unit B (APN 117-342-17) ADU / Renter - - - 1 1 1 N/A (Above Mod) Building Permit Issued Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-90
Costa Mesa Housing Element
Table B-9: RHNA Credit – Permitted Units by Project 2021-2025 Permit
Date
Range
Project Address (APN) Unit Type /
Tenure VLI Low Mod Above Mod
Total
Units Affordability Mechanism Status
11/13/2024 840 Governor St (APN 422-432-29) ADU / Renter 1 - - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
Affordability determined via a Cityadministered survey of ADU owners’ intended rental price (2024 applications)
Building Permit Issued
11/14/2024 2103 Monrovia Ave, Unit B (APN 422-451-11) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
Affordability determined via a Cityadministered survey of ADU owners’ intended rental price (2024 applications)
Building Permit Issued
11/15/2024 212 Broadway, Unit B (APN 425-403-04) SFD / Renter - - - 1 1 1 N/A (Above Mod) Building Permit Issued 11/21/2024 2074 President Pl, Unit B (APN 422-494-19) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
Affordability determined via a Cityadministered survey of ADU owners’ intended rental price (2024 applications)
Building Permit Issued
11/21/2024 2141 Aster Pl (APN 426-151-22) ADU / Renter - - 1 - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted Building Permit Issued 12/03/2024 1822 Pomona Ave, Unit B (APN 424-241-40) ADU / Renter - - 1 - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted Building Permit Issued 12/04/2024 136 Magnolia St (APN 425-451-26) ADU / Renter - - 1 - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted Building Permit Issued 12/05/2024 2158 Myran Dr (APN tpn-021-01) SFD / Owner - - - 1 1 1 N/A (Above Mod) Building Permit Issued 12/05/2024 498 Broadway, Unit B (APN 117-342-21) ADU / Renter - - 1 - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted Building Permit Issued 12/05/2024 2156 Myran Dr (APN 422-203-10) SFD / Owner - - - 1 1 1 N/A (Above Mod) Building Permit Issued 12/09/2024 1787 Hummingbird Dr, Unit B (APN 139-622-07) ADU / Renter 1 - - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
Affordability determined via a Cityadministered survey of ADU owners’ intended rental price (2024 applications)
Building Permit Issued
12/10/2024 2011 Baltra Pl, Unit B (APN 139-453-01) ADU / Renter 1 - - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
Affordability determined via a Cityadministered survey of ADU owners’ intended rental price (2024 applications)
Building Permit Issued
12/16/2024 1336 Garlingford St (APN 141-022-15) ADU / Renter - - 1 - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted Building Permit Issued 12/23/2024 3065 Ceylon Rd (APN 139-164-06) SFD / Owner - - - 1 1 1 N/A (Above Mod) Building Permit Issued 12/30/2024 2314 College Dr, Unit B (APN 141-484-19) ADU / Renter 1 - - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
Affordability determined via a Cityadministered survey of ADU owners’ intended rental price (2024 applications)
Building Permit Issued
12/31/2024 247 Knox St (APN 425-332-13) SFD / Owner - - - 1 1 1 N/A (Above Mod) Building Permit Issued 01/08/2025 2113 Thurin St, Unit B (APN 419-172-32) ADU / Renter - - 1 - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted Building Permit Issued 01/10/2025 899 Darrell St (APN 422-353-14) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
Affordability determined via applicant
questionnaire and HCD’s affordability
calculator, based on anticipated rent and
bedroom count (2025 applications)
Building Permit Issued
01/13/2025 1948 Meyer Pl, Unit A102 (APN 422-142-30) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
Affordability determined via applicant
questionnaire and HCD’s affordability
calculator, based on anticipated rent and
bedroom count (2025 applications)
Building Permit Issued
01/21/2025 959 W Paularino Ave, Unit B (APN 418-081-11) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
Affordability determined via applicant
questionnaire and HCD’s affordability
calculator, based on anticipated rent and
bedroom count (2025 applications)
Building Permit Issued
01/27/2025 214 Fairway Pl (APN 439-213-12) SFD / Owner - - - 1 1 1 N/A (Above Mod) Building Permit Issued 01/30/2025 3146 Bray Ln, Unit B (APN 141-631-24) ADU / Renter - - 1 - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted Building Permit Issued 02/03/2025 381 Hamilton St, Unit B101 (APN 419-181-19) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
Affordability determined via applicant
questionnaire and HCD’s affordability
calculator, based on anticipated rent and
bedroom count (2025 applications)
Building Permit Issued
02/03/2025 2837 Europa Dr, Unit B (APN 139-455-20) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
Affordability determined via applicant
questionnaire and HCD’s affordability
calculator, based on anticipated rent and
bedroom count (2025 applications)
Building Permit Issued
02/27/2025 440 Cabrillo St (APN 117-322-09) SFD / Owner - - - 1 1 1 N/A (Above Mod) Building Permit Issued Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-91
Costa Mesa Housing Element
Table B-9: RHNA Credit – Permitted Units by Project 2021-2025 Permit
Date
Range
Project Address (APN) Unit Type /
Tenure VLI Low Mod Above Mod
Total
Units Affordability Mechanism Status
03/05/2025 2205 Miner St, Unit B (APN 422-192-13) ADU / Renter - - - 1 1 1 N/A (Above Mod) Building Permit Issued 03/12/2025 1959 Orange Ave, Unit B (APN 426-032-60) ADU / Renter 1 - - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
Affordability determined via applicant
questionnaire and HCD’s affordability
calculator, based on anticipated rent and
bedroom count (2025 applications)
Building Permit Issued
03/19/2025 2273 Pomona Ave, Unit C (APN 422-372-32) ADU / Renter - - 1 - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted Building Permit Issued 03/30/2025 2148 Rural Pl (APN 426-121-32) ADU / Renter - - 1 - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted Building Permit Issued 04/03/2025 1040 El Camino Dr (APN 141-665-13) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
Affordability determined via applicant
questionnaire and HCD’s affordability
calculator, based on anticipated rent and
bedroom count (2025 applications)
Building Permit Issued
04/04/2025 2264 Federal Ave, Unit B (APN 422-364-07) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
Affordability determined via applicant
questionnaire and HCD’s affordability
calculator, based on anticipated rent and
bedroom count (2025 applications)
Building Permit Issued
04/09/2025 1034 Linden Pl, Unit B (APN 422-473-16) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
Affordability determined via applicant
questionnaire and HCD’s affordability
calculator, based on anticipated rent and
bedroom count (2025 applications)
Building Permit Issued
04/15/2025 266 Santo Tomas Ave, Unit 3 (APN 439-202-06) ADU / Renter 1 - - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
Affordability determined via applicant
questionnaire and HCD’s affordability
calculator, based on anticipated rent and
bedroom count (2025 applications)
Building Permit Issued
05/01/2025 470 Flower St, Unit B (APN 117-341-15) ADU / Renter - - - 1 1 1 N/A (Above Mod) Building Permit Issued 05/02/2025 317 Rochester St, Unit B (APN 425-013-19) ADU / Renter - - 1 - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted Building Permit Issued 05/13/2025 2782 Mendoza Dr, Unit B (APN 141-627-04) ADU / Renter 1 - - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
Affordability determined via applicant
questionnaire and HCD’s affordability
calculator, based on anticipated rent and
bedroom count (2025 applications)
Building Permit Issued
05/13/2025 1849 Kentucky Pl (APN 139-041-15) SFD / Owner - - - 1 1 1 N/A (Above Mod) Building Permit Issued 05/19/2025 969 Grove Pl, Unit B (APN 422-481-31) ADU / Renter 1 - - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
Affordability determined via applicant
questionnaire and HCD’s affordability
calculator, based on anticipated rent and
bedroom count (2025 applications)
Building Permit Issued
06/13/2025 363 Flower St, Unit B (APN 117-293-18) ADU / Renter - - 1 - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted Building Permit Issued 06/17/2025 1918 Santa Ana Ave (APN 426-291-02) SFD / Owner - - - 1 1 1 N/A (Above Mod) Building Permit Issued 06/25/2025 152 19th St (APN 426-031-28) ADU / Renter - - 1 - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted Building Permit Issued 06/26/2025 243 22Nd St, Unit B (APN 426-144-11) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
Affordability determined via applicant
questionnaire and HCD’s affordability
calculator, based on anticipated rent and
bedroom count (2025 applications)
Building Permit Issued
06/30/2025 2235 Meyer Pl, Unit B (APN 422-182-05) ADU / Renter 1 - - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
Affordability determined via applicant
questionnaire and HCD’s affordability
calculator, based on anticipated rent and
bedroom count (2025 applications)
Building Permit Issued
07/09/2025 2969 Bimini Pl, Unit B (APN 139-223-05) ADU / Renter 1 - - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
Affordability determined via applicant
questionnaire and HCD’s affordability
calculator, based on anticipated rent and
bedroom count (2025 applications)
Building Permit Issued
07/11/2025 2099 Continental Ave, Unit B (APN 422-452-10) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
Affordability determined via applicant
questionnaire and HCD’s affordability
calculator, based on anticipated rent and
bedroom count (2025 applications)
Building Permit Issued
07/20/2025 1130 Austin St, Unit B (APN 141-603-10) ADU / Renter 1 - - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
Affordability determined via applicant
questionnaire and HCD’s affordability
calculator, based on anticipated rent and
bedroom count (2025 applications)
Building Permit Issued
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-92
Costa Mesa Housing Element
Table B-9: RHNA Credit – Permitted Units by Project 2021-2025 Permit
Date
Range
Project Address (APN) Unit Type /
Tenure VLI Low Mod Above Mod
Total
Units Affordability Mechanism Status
07/29/2025 2190 Pacific Ave, Unit B (APN 422-041-11) ADU / Renter - - - 1 1 1 N/A (Above Mod) Building Permit Issued 08/06/2025 169 18th St (APN 425-415-20) ADU / Renter 1 - - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
Affordability determined via applicant
questionnaire and HCD’s affordability
calculator, based on anticipated rent and
bedroom count (2025 applications)
Building Permit Issued
08/07/2025 1690 Minorca Pl (APN 139-322-04) SFD / Owner - - - 1 1 1 N/A (Above Mod) Building Permit Issued 08/08/2025 2765 Mendoza Dr, Unit B (APN 141-682-02) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
Affordability determined via applicant
questionnaire and HCD’s affordability
calculator, based on anticipated rent and
bedroom count (2025 applications)
Building Permit Issued
08/12/2025 2034 President Pl, Unit B (APN 422-494-11) ADU / Renter - - 1 - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted Building Permit Issued 08/14/2025 1652 Corsica Pl, Unit B (APN 139-185-06) ADU / Renter 1 - - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
Affordability determined via applicant
questionnaire and HCD’s affordability
calculator, based on anticipated rent and
bedroom count (2025 applications)
Building Permit Issued
08/21/2025 485 18th St (APN 117-372-14) SFD / Owner - - - 1 1 1 N/A (Above Mod) Building Permit Issued 08/22/2025 389 Princeton Dr, Unit B (APN 141-373-36) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
Affordability determined via applicant
questionnaire and HCD’s affordability
calculator, based on anticipated rent and
bedroom count (2025 applications)
Building Permit Issued
09/03/2025 1798 Kenwood Pl, Unit C (APN 424-263-18) ADU / Renter - - 1 - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted Building Permit Issued 09/15/2025 362 Hamilton St, Unit B (APN 419-172-36) ADU / Renter - - 1 - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted Building Permit Issued 09/16/2025 183 Rochester St, Unit B (APN 425-414-13) ADU / Renter - - - 1 1 1 N/A (Above Mod) Building Permit Issued 09/19/2025 1956 Killdeer Cir (APN 139-473-08) ADU / Renter 1 - - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
Affordability determined via applicant
questionnaire and HCD’s affordability
calculator, based on anticipated rent and
bedroom count (2025 applications)
Building Permit Issued
10/02/2025 2210 Raleigh Ave, Unit B (APN 422-401-12) ADU / Renter - - 1 - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted Building Permit Issued 10/15/2025 3057 Killybrooke Ln (APN 141-033-28) ADU / Renter - - 1 - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted Building Permit Issued 10/15/2025 219 Santa Isabel Ave (APN 119-092-23) ADU / Renter - - - 1 1 1 N/A (Above Mod) Building Permit Issued 10/15/2025 2102 Santa Ana Ave, Unit E (APN 426-161-01) ADU / Renter - 1 - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
Affordability determined via applicant
questionnaire and HCD’s affordability
calculator, based on anticipated rent and
bedroom count (2025 applications)
Building Permit Issued
10/16/2025 267 23rd St (APN 426-084-05) SFD / Owner - - - 1 1 1 N/A (Above Mod) Building Permit Issued 10/27/2025 2552 Westminster Ave (APN 439-192-12) SFD / Owner - - - 1 1 1 N/A (Above Mod) Building Permit Issued 10/29/2025 1412 Shamrock Ln, Unit B (APN 418-143-01) ADU / Renter - - 1 - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted Building Permit Issued 11/04/2025 2558 Westminster Ave (APN 439-192-13) SFD / Owner - - - 1 1 1 N/A (Above Mod) Building Permit Issued 11/10/2025 418 Ogle Cir, Unit B (APN 425-143-18) ADU / Renter 1 - - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
Affordability determined via applicant
questionnaire and HCD’s affordability
calculator, based on anticipated rent and
bedroom count (2025 applications)
Building Permit Issued
11/12/2025 317 Robin Hood Ln, Unit B (APN 426-221-14) ADU / Renter - - - 1 1 1 N/A (Above Mod) Building Permit Issued 11/12/2025 186 Costa Mesa St, Unit B (APN 426-032-09) ADU / Renter - - - 1 1 1 N/A (Above Mod) Building Permit Issued 11/19/2025 2133 Orange Ave, Unit 2 (APN 426-131-15) ADU / Renter 1 - - - 1 1 Non-Deed Restricted
Affordability determined via applicant
questionnaire and HCD’s affordability
calculator, based on anticipated rent and
bedroom count (2025 applications)
Building Permit Issued
12/16/2025 1818 Viola Pl, Unit B (APN 424-241-15) ADU / Renter - - - 1 1 1 N/A (Above Mod) Building Permit Issued TOTAL 274 195 79 95 643
Summary of Community
Outreach
Element Update
Appendix C
Element Update
Appendix C: Summary of Community Engagement C-1
Summary of Community Engagement
Section 65583 of the Government Code states that, "The local government shall make diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element, and the program shall describe this effort." Meaningful community participation is also required in connection with the City's Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH). A summary of citizen participation is provided below.

As part of the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update process, the City of Costa Mesa has conducted extensive public outreach activities beginning in fall 2020. These recent outreach efforts included Virtual Townhall Meetings, District Specific Workshops, Stakeholder Meetings, City Council and Planning Commission Study Sessions, Online Community Survey, digital media and engagement, and noticed Public Hearings. Project materials, including recordings from townhall and public meetings, notices, and draft public review documents are available on the City’s website: www.costamesaca.gov/housing-element-update.

Outreach for the 6th Cycle Housing Element to the Costa Mesa community includes the following actions:
• Virtual Townhall Meeting #1 – The City conducted a virtual townhall meeting on November 18, 2020 for community members to come and learn about the Housing Element update process and provide initial feedback and guidance. The townhall was hosted in both Spanish and English.

Advertising for the townhall included handouts and flyers, posts on the City’s website, doorknob hangers, social media posts, text and email blasts, and outreach to local community organizations and faith-based organizations. A total of 78 participants attended the Townhall. • Subject Matter Expert Meetings – Between February 9, 2020, and February 11, 2021, the City held meetings with various groups of professionals throughout the community to solicit topic-specific input as it relates to the Housing Element. These subject matter expert groups included Developers, Housing Advocates, and Homeless Assistance Providers. • District Specific Meetings – On February 17th and 18th, 2021, the City held two district specific meetings to receive area-specific input from each Council District. The meetings allowed residents and local stakeholders from Council Districts 1-6 to provide recommendations on areas that can/cannot accommodate housing in their district, as well as provide insight on their districtspecific needs and considerations as they relate to the Housing Element. Both meetings included a Spanish language breakout room for those who wished to participate in Spanish. • Targeted Focus Group Meetings – Throughout the Housing Element Update period, the City focused outreach on sections of the community through Targeted Focus Meetings who are underrepresented in the planning process or who may not typically participate in community building processes. This included meetings with both English and Spanish-speaking faith-based community, organizations that provide services for those experiencing homelessness, the Costa Mesa Housing Coalition, the Costa Mesa Mobile Home Park Advisory committee, affordable and market-rate housing developers, and interested property owners and landowners. • Online Community Survey – From November 19, 2020, to February 24, 2021, the City launched an online community survey to gather feedback and input regarding the Housing Element Update.

There was a total of 465 survey respondents who participated. The survey was available in Spanish Appendix C: Summary of Community Engagement C-2
and English. Participants were asked to consider existing housing and community needs and provide recommendations on the locations and types of housing that would best assist the City. • Planning Commission Study Session – On March 1, 2021, the City held a Planning Commission Study Session to provide information regarding the status of the Housing Element. The study session informed the Planning Commission on the community outreach efforts to date, summarized housing and community demographics findings, and also provided an introduction to the sites analysis in order to meet the City’s RHNA allocation. • City Council Study Session – On March 23, 2021, the City held a City Council Study Session to provide information regarding the status of the Housing Element. The study session informed the City Council on the community outreach efforts to date, summarized housing and community demographics findings, and also provided an overview of the potential areas of the City that could be appropriate to include in the City’s housing strategy. • City Council and Planning Commission Joint Study Session – On April 27, 2021, the City held a joint study session with the City Council and Planning Commission. The intent of the study session was to provide and update and request feedback on the Housing Element Update’s progress, including the Community Profile, opportunities and constraints to housing, and potential housing opportunities to meet the RHNA allocation.
• Virtual Townhall Meeting #2 – The City conducted a second virtual townhall meeting on September 2, 2021, to provide information about the Public Review Draft and information on how the community can provide feedback. The townhall was hosted in both Spanish and English.

Advertising for the townhall included city-wide mailer, posts on the City’s website, social media posts, text and email blasts, and outreach to local community organizations and faith-based organizations. A total of 69 participants attended the English Townhall and 7 participants attended the Spanish Townhall.
• City Council and Planning Commission Joint Study Session – On September 13, 2021, the City held a joint study session with the City Council and Planning Commission. The intent of the study session was to provide an update on the Public Review Draft and request feedback prior to submission of the Draft Housing Element to the State Department of Housing and Community Development.

This Appendix contains all public comments regarding the Housing Element received by the City at scheduled public meetings in 2020 and 2021. As required by Government Code Section 65585(b)(2), all written comments regarding the Housing Element made by the public have been provided to each member of the City Council.
2026 Housing Element Amendment
The 2026 Housing Element Amendment builds upon the City’s broader Neighborhoods Where We All Belong community visioning and outreach process, which was initiated to implement Housing Element programs, rezone Housing Element Opportunity Sites, prepare objective design standards, and create new housing opportunities consistent with Measure K and state housing law.

Appendix C: Summary of Community Engagement C-3
C.1 Virtual Townhall Meeting #1
The section contains all townhall materials, handouts, flyers, PowerPoint presentation, as well as all available public comments provided during the meeting. Public comments were received verbally and in written form through the Zoom chat. A video recording of the virtual townhall is available at www.costamesaca.gov/housing-element-update.

C.2 Online Community Survey
This section contains an outline of the survey questions, summary of survey comments, and total survey results. The survey was made available on the City’s webpage and survey results were presented to the City Council.

C.3 Subject Matter Expert Meetings
This section contains notes and meeting materials provided during the meetings. These include virtual sticknotes and online polling exercises.

C.4 District Specific Meetings
The section contains all district specific meetings materials, flyers, PowerPoint presentation, participant activities, as well as all available public comments provided during the meetings. Public comments were received verbally and in written form through the Zoom chat. A video recording of each meeting is available at www.costamesaca.gov/housing-element-update.

C.5 Targeted Focus Meeting Notes
The section contains a summary of the targeted focus meetings held with: English and Spanish-speaking faith-based community, organizations that provide services for those experiencing homelessness, the Costa Mesa Housing Coalition, the Costa Mesa Mobile Home Park Advisory committee, affordable and marketrate housing developers, and interested property owners and landowners.

C.6 Planning Commission Study Session
The section contains all study session materials, PowerPoint presentation, and all available public comments provided during the March 1, 2021, study session. Public comments were received verbally and in written form through the Zoom chat.

Agenda: https://www.costamesaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/46937/637502847448170000 Video Recording: https://costamesa.granicus.com/player/clip/3670?view_id=10&redirect=true Appendix C: Summary of Community Engagement C-4
C.7 City Council Study Session
The section contains all study session materials, PowerPoint presentation, and all available public comments provided during the March 23, 2021, study session. Public comments were received verbally and in written form through the Zoom chat.

Agenda: https://www.costamesaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/47187/637516952381070000 Minutes: https://www.costamesaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/47746/637552180849270000 Video Recording: https://costamesa.granicus.com/player/clip/3697?view_id=10&redirect=true C.8 City Council/Planning Commission Study Session
The section contains all study session materials, PowerPoint presentation, and all available public comments provided during the April 27, 2021, study session. Public comments were received verbally and in written form through the Zoom chat.

Agenda: https://www.costamesaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/47682/637551264967530000 Minutes: https://www.costamesaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/48002/637571885573630000 Video Recording: https://costamesa.granicus.com/player/clip/3710?view_id=10&redirect=true C.9 Virtual Townhall Meeting #2
The section contains all townhall materials, handouts, flyers, PowerPoint presentation, as well as all available public comments provided during the meeting. Public comments were received verbally and in written form through the Zoom chat. A video recording of the virtual townhall is available at www.costamesaca.gov/housing-element-update.

C.10 City Council/Planning Commission Study Session
The section contains all study session materials, PowerPoint presentation, and all available public comments provided during the September 13, 2021, study session. Public comments were received verbally and in written form through the Zoom chat.

Agenda: https://costamesa.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=PA&ID=892974&GUID=2EC89CD4-EDE7-461F8127-922507F6D3D6 Public Comments: https://costamesa.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=E3&ID=892974&GUID=2EC89CD4-EDE7- 461F-8127-922507F6D3D6
Appendix C: Summary of Community Engagement C-5
C.11 Rezone - Round 1 Community Visioning: July 2025
to October 2025
The first round of community visioning for Neighborhoods Where We All Belong (NWWAB) was conducted between July and October 2025. NWWAB is the City’s comprehensive initiative to implement Housing Element programs, comply with State housing law, and plan for future housing opportunities in Costa Mesa.

The first round of outreach was intended to introduce the community visioning process, explain its purpose and objectives, establish communication channels, encourage meaningful public participation, and satisfy community engagement requirements associated with Measure K and the Housing Element.

Round 1 utilized a variety of outreach methods, including a citywide open house, community workshops, focused stakeholder discussions, pop-up events, a walking tour, and an online survey. More than 545 participants engaged in the process, generating 354 written comments, 460 prioritization responses, 135 mapped locations on community maps, 342 online prioritization responses, and 21 walking tour and design activity responses.

Community feedback emphasized the need for a diverse range of housing opportunities, including affordable homeownership and mixed-use development, to serve households of different sizes, ages, and income levels. Participants also identified several key considerations for future development, including high-quality design, parking, infrastructure capacity, traffic, neighborhood compatibility, open space, landscaping, tree canopy, multimodal transportation, walkability, access to gathering spaces, and transparency throughout the planning process.

To ensure broad community participation, the City also conducted geographically focused outreach activities in the Harbor Boulevard/Newport Boulevard corridor, Westside Costa Mesa, and North Costa Mesa/SoBECA areas. Additional engagement included pop-up events at local businesses and community events, including the Hispanic Heritage Celebration and ArtVenture, as well as a Fair Housing Workshop.

In recognition of the City’s inclusive outreach efforts, the Orange Section of the American Planning Association awarded the City of Costa Mesa the Opportunity and Empowerment Award of Merit in May 2026 for the first round of NWWAB community visioning and outreach.

A summary of the first round is available online: https://www.costamesaneighborhoods.com/resources A recording of the NWWAB welcome video is available in English here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-rT-7xxL2U
A recording of the NWWAB welcome video is available in Spanish here: Vecindarios Donde Todos Pertenecemos
NWWAB Westside Walking Tour and Workshop materials: Round1-Westside — Costa Mesa Neighborhoods Where We All Belong
Appendix C: Summary of Community Engagement C-6
NWWAB North Costa Mesa and SoBECA Workshop materials:
https://www.costamesaneighborhoods.com/round1-harbornewport-2 NWWAB Newport and Harbor Boulevards Workshop materials:
https://www.costamesaneighborhoods.com/round1-harbornewport C.12 Rezone - Round 2 Community Visioning: March
2026
The second round of community visioning and outreach occurred in March 2026, building upon the input received during Round 1. This phase of outreach focused on informing the community that zoning updates for Housing Element sites were being expedited to maintain compliance with State housing law and presenting preliminary technical concepts for public review. These concepts included proposed zoning regulations, the Mixed-Use Overlay District (MUOD), and the introduction of Objective Design Standards (ODS).

A primary objective of Round 2 was to demonstrate how community input from Round 1 had been considered and incorporated into the development of the preliminary technical documents. The City conducted three public workshops on March 2, March 5, and March 7, 2026, including both in-person and virtual participation opportunities. In addition, two focused discussions regarding the MUOD were held with community organizations, property owners, and development stakeholders.

Round 2 outreach materials included informational boards, zoning regulation exhibits, workshop presentations, and interactive input activities. Materials were provided in both English and Spanish, and the virtual workshop was recorded and made available on the project website.

Round 2 solicited community feedback on specific zoning and design topics, including permitted uses within the MUOD, requirements for commercial space in mixed-use developments, open space standards, building and site design, parking regulations, and proposed Objective Design Standards. Participants provided input on a range of potential permitted uses, including retail, personal services, restaurants, arts and entertainment venues, family and social services, indoor recreation, medical services, office and workplace uses, and hotels and motels.

A summary of the second round of community outreach is available online here: Resources — Costa Mesa Neighborhoods Where We All Belong
A Let’s Talk Costa Mesa interview about the second round of outreach is available online here:
https://youtube.com/shorts/OCH9XEuqrzg?si=dWojNUnWVft4OsAp A recording of the virtual workshop in English is available online here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2el_mez9g9o
A recording of the virtual workshop in Spanish is available online here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xinhpyLfgQE
Appendix C: Summary of Community Engagement C-7
Materials from the Round 2 Workshop at Norma Hertzog Community Center are available here:
https://www.costamesaneighborhoods.com/round2-workshop1 Materials from the Round 2 Workship at the Costa Mesa Senior Center are available here:
https://www.costamesaneighborhoods.com/round2-workshop3 C.13 Public Meetings and Hearings Related to Rezoning
and the Housing Element
In addition to community workshops and pop-up events, the City held public study sessions and hearings related to the Housing Element, rezoning, and zoning amendments. These included Planning Commission and City Council meetings beginning in late 2025 and continuing into 2026. Specifically, on November 4, 2025; November 10, 2025; December 8, 2025; January 26, 2026; February 9, 2026; February 23, 2026; March 17, 2026; and April 7, 2026. These public hearings were focused on informing decision makers and the public of the need to shift direction to expedite the rezoning of the Housing Element sites for state compliance. In addition, these public hearings introduced the new impacts of changing state legislation, including Senate Bill (SB) 131 and the California Court of Appeal decision in New Commune DTLA LLC v. City of Redondo Beach, and how they affect the proposed zoning regulations for Housing Elements sites.

Furthermore, and as a result of the impacts from new state legislation, the City received requests from property owners to add sites and remove several sites from the Housing Element Inventory. Additional public hearings were held to discuss these requests and ultimately amend the City’s Sixth Cyle Housing Element sites inventory.

The March 17, 2026 and April 7, 2026 City Council meetings included specific actions related to the Sixth Cycle Housing Element, including adding two Housing Element Opportunity Sites, removing 17 Housing Element Opportunity Sites, rezoning Housing Element Opportunity Sites through the MUOD, implementing Housing Element programs via revisions to the City’s Zoning Ordinance and a specific plan.

The following meeting agendas include items related to the rezoning of Housing Element sites:
• November 4, 2026 City Council update on community engagement:
https://costamesa.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7717330&GUID=AB220AB9-B3EC4DAE-A1CE-D1620DCE9C58 • November 10, 2026 Planning Commission update on community engagement:
https://costamesa.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7725804&GUID=F6AACD62-DC13- 4F57-AE23-CA4A99B0D519
• December 8, 2025 Planning Commission Study Session on the approach to rezoning:
https://costamesa.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7773717&GUID=27C0C59C-E645-40FE9970-1CF616A43895 • January 26, 2026 Planning Commission overview of the proposed rezoning 6th Cycle Housing Element sites and related amendments:
https://costamesa.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7826361&GUID=F156048D-17ED4207-AD1F-00C34ADD4BC9 Appendix C: Summary of Community Engagement C-8
• February 9, 2026 Planning Commission recommendation of approval of the rezoning and related amendments:
https://costamesa.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7869925&GUID=46ADE2E0-93B1- 4307-BB85-FCF45BA3A0C2
• February 23, 2026 Planning Commission recommendation of amending the 6th Cycle Housing Element to add and remove sites:
https://costamesa.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7922544&GUID=692D0434-F1D3- 4FC7-A9F2-21B75AC2D44B
• March 17, 2026 City Council amendment of the 6th Cycle Housing Element to add and remove sites: https://costamesa.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7949568&GUID=2DF17F34-C15C4BEA-8151-5AA7F42D7753 • March 17, 2026 City Council first reading to rezone the remaining Housing Element sites and related amendments:
https://costamesa.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7949569&GUID=A43BC48B-BB4A4B37-9245-5F818392F704 • April 7, 2026 City Council second reading of the rezoning of Housing Element sites and related amendments:
https://costamesa.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7969847&GUID=67D7ED02-CEB9- 4795-9C70-1915758F32C9
C.14 HE Amendment - Outreach to Property Owners
Following recent changes to State housing law, including Senate Bill 131 and the California Court of Appeal decision in New Commune DTLA LLC v. City of Redondo Beach, the City initiated targeted outreach to property owners whose properties were included in the City's Sixth Cycle Housing Element Sites Inventory. The outreach informed property owners of the legislation and court decisions and their potential implications for Housing Element sites.

The correspondence explained that, pursuant to the court's decision, Housing Element sites intended to satisfy the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) must allow residential development at a minimum density of 20 dwelling units per acre and require that at least 50 percent of new development on each site be residential. These requirements are also consistent with the court's findings in Martinez v. City of Clovis (2023).

Following distribution of the notices, City staff conducted extensive follow-up outreach, including telephone calls, emails, and in-person and virtual meetings with affected property owners. Discussions focused on the implications of recent State legislation and court decisions, site suitability, redevelopment potential, and future development opportunities. The City also met with property owners interested in having their properties considered for inclusion in the Housing Element Sites Inventory.

This outreach resulted in several written requests from property owners seeking either removal from or addition to the Housing Element Sites Inventory. These requests informed, in part, the amendments to the Sixth Cycle Housing Element adopted by the City Council on March 17, 2026.

Appendix C: Summary of Community Engagement C-9
As a result of the March 17, 2026 City Council actions, the City initiated a "no net loss" analysis and entered the 180-day period required under State law to amend the Housing Element and identify adequate sites to maintain capacity to accommodate the City's RHNA allocation. As part of this effort, the City conducted additional outreach to property owners whose sites were being considered for inclusion in the amended Housing Element Sites Inventory. The purpose of this outreach was to notify property owners that their properties were under consideration and to provide an opportunity to share information regarding site availability, redevelopment interest, existing uses, ownership considerations, development constraints, and future plans.

Following the March 17, 2026 City Council actions, City staff continued to receive inquiries from property owners and conducted additional meetings regarding the Housing Element Sites Inventory. During this period, one property owner requested removal of a site located at 3333 Susan Street from the inventory, while several other property owners requested that their properties be added. Between March 17 and June 8, 2026, the City received five additional written requests from property owners seeking inclusion in the Housing Element Sites Inventory.

On May 15, 2026, the City conducted a second round of outreach to property owners with sites currently included in, or proposed for inclusion in, the Housing Element Sites Inventory. Outreach methods included mailed notices, telephone calls, emails, and in-person and virtual meetings. The outreach explained the purpose of the Housing Element Amendment, the relationship between the Sites Inventory and the City's RHNA obligations, and the potential implications of identifying a property as a Housing Element site.

Property owners were also encouraged to participate in the Round 3 community outreach activities and review the revised Housing Element during the public review period from June 8 through June 15, 2026.

Property owner outreach provided valuable information regarding site feasibility, redevelopment potential, and ownership considerations. Feedback received through this process informed the refinement of the amended Sites Inventory, including decisions regarding site additions, removals, and further evaluation.

This outreach helped ensure that the amended Sites Inventory reflects realistic development assumptions and current property owner interests.

Outreach Methods: Mailed notices, telephone calls, emails, and in-person and virtual meetings.

Outreach Period: December 2025 through June 2026.

Summary of Feedback: Feedback varied among property owners. Some sought additional information regarding the implications of recent State legislation and court decisions on future development opportunities. Others expressed concerns that changes in State law and court interpretations altered the assumptions under which their properties were originally included in the Housing Element Sites Inventory, particularly where residential development is now required rather than permitted as an additional development option. These property owners subsequently requested removal from the Sites Inventory.

Conversely, several property owners viewed the updated regulatory framework and streamlined approval Appendix C: Summary of Community Engagement C-10
processes as an opportunity to facilitate residential or mixed-use redevelopment and submitted requests to have their properties added to the Sites Inventory.

Effect on the Sites Inventory: Feedback received through the outreach process directly informed revisions to the Housing Element Sites Inventory. Consistent with direction provided by the Planning Commission and City Council during hearings between December 2025 and March 2026, the City considered property owner requests for inclusion or removal from the Sites Inventory when preparing the amended Housing Element. The resulting Sites Inventory reflects both current State law requirements and property owner input regarding redevelopment interest and site availability.

C.15 HE Amendment – Open House: June 3, 2026
The City held an in-person public Open House on June 3, 2026, to provide information about the additional Housing Element sites, MUOD, objective design standards, other related Zoning Code updates, and receive community input. The workshop provided an opportunity for residents, property owners, business owners, community organizations, and other interested parties to learn about the purpose of the amendment, the City’s RHNA obligation, proposed changes to the sites inventory, and the relationship between the amendment and prior Housing Element implementation efforts. The Open House included a presentation followed by opportunities for public questions and comments. Topics discussed included the revised sites inventory, proposed densities, development regulations, RHNA capacity and buffer, affordable housing opportunities, AFFH, zoning, development standards and environmental review. Participants were invited to provide feedback on the proposed approach and identify any questions or concerns related to the Housing Element Amendment. The workshop also helped ensure that the community had an opportunity to review and comment on the amendment before formal adoption hearings.

Open House Workshop materials: https://www.costamesaneighborhoods.com/round3-openhouse Summary of Feedback: Comments emphasized that population growth, job opportunities, and new housing development can support one another when planned together. Several participants expressed concern regarding traffic and not having a minimum parking requirement for development on Housing Element sites and other MUOD sites. Others expressed a desire to focus on walkability, bike-friendly design, and public transit. Participants encouraged housing that is affordable to young families, older adults, and residents who need access to nearby schools, daily services, and amenities. Comments also noted the importance of considering public service and facility impacts as future housing is planned, particularly in areas expected to accommodate more units, such as north of the I-405.

C.16 HE Amendment – Focus Group Meetings
The City conducted two focused stakeholder discussions on June 10, 2026 to gather feedback from key community partners, affordable housing providers, developers, and interested groups. These focused discussions were intended to supplement broader public outreach by providing opportunities for more indepth discussion with stakeholders who may have direct experience with housing development, affordable Appendix C: Summary of Community Engagement C-11
housing, fair housing, addressing homelessness, tenant issues, business interests, neighborhood concerns, or providing community services.

Summary of Feedback: Participants discussed expanding incentives for affordable and workforce housing, citing growing affordability challenges and displacement of long-time residents, particularly seniors and families. They recommended providing more visual aids to help community members understand proposed regulations and proposed projects.

Stakeholders from the development community emphasized the need to improve permit review efficiency, including increasing staff capacity, and providing earlier opportunities for affordable housing applicants to receive clarification during the multi-department review process.

Participants also encouraged the City to advocate for more community amenities such as “third spaces” for gatherings, schools, and parks in areas planned for higher-density housing, including the Westside and areas north of the I-405. They noted that walkable community amenities and other benefits may help offset concerns about parking and traffic.

Comments also focused on affordability, with stakeholders encouraging the City to work with developers and housing organizations to support housing that is affordable to a range of income levels. Discussions included opportunities to establish a preference for current and former Costa Mesa residents on affordable housing interest or waiting lists. Participants also asked for greater clarity on how “affordable” is defined, how faith-based organization may be part housing solutions, how the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance relates to the Housing Element update, and how incentives could help offset development costs while encouraging affordable housing production throughout the community.

C.17 Mailers and Public Notices
To support public awareness of the 2026 Housing Element amendments and public comment period, the City distributed bilingual postcards to all residential units in the City, letters to the existing and proposed Housing Element site property owners, posted an ad in the Daily Pilot, published multiple articles in the City Hall Snapshot online newsletter, emailed the NWWAB and Housing Element interest lists, and shared several promotional videos on the City’s YouTube and social media accounts. Post cards about the Neighborhoods Where We All Belong effort were mailed to all residential postal customer addresses in the City in July 2025, February 2026, and May 2026. The post card sent in May 2026 specifically called out the Housing Element public review period.

Appendix C: Summary of Community Engagement C-12
Appendix C: Summary of Community Engagement C-13
Appendix C: Summary of Community Engagement C-14
Appendix C: Summary of Community Engagement C-15
C. 18 Planning Commission
The section contains all materials, PowerPoint presentation, and all available public comments provided during the August 17, 2026 session. Public comments were received verbally and in written form through the Zoom chat.

Agenda: https://costamesa.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=A&ID=1436219&GUID=7764137B-AF15-4922- 8FC5-93FCC2FD99EB
Video Recording: https://costamesa.granicus.com/player/clip/4423?view_id=14&redirect=true C. 19 City Council
To be updated Summer/Fall 2026.

Appendix C: Summary of Community Engagement C-16
C.20 Public Comments
The section contains all public comments submitted throughout the Housing Element Update and during the Public Review Period. Comments were submitted through the Public Review Period feedback form and by email to City Staff. Public comments provided during the Townhall Meeting, Subject Matter Expert Meeting, District Meetings, Planning Commission and City Council Study Sessions, and Public Hearings are provided in the sections above.

November 2022 Public Review Comments
Prior to resubmittal of the Housing Element to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (State HCD), the City of Costa Mesa provided the document to the public, including those who requested to be updated on its progress, for the required seven days before resubmitting to State HCD. The City posted the revised document on the City’s website on November 8, 2022. The City received public comments from four individuals regarding the document and considered their content in preparation of this draft document resubmittal. Three of those comments were provided to City Council prior to the public hearing on November 15th, 2022 and one was received after the deadline. All letters are included within this section for reference.

As stated in the comment letters, many of the comments received had been previously considered in prior drafts of the Housing Element. The City worked with the community, decision-makers, and HCD in response to these questions and others in preparing the draft document June 2026 Public Review Comments
Assembly Bill 215 Compliance
The City complied with the public review requirements of Assembly Bill 215 (AB 215, Chapter 342, Statutes of 2021). In May 2026, the City mailed a post card advertising the Housing Element public review and comment period to over 41,000 residential addresses in the community. The draft Housing Element Amendment was posted on the City’s website on June 8, 2026 and was open for public review and comment through June 15, 2026. Members of the public were also able to review the draft Housing Element sites inventory at the June 3, 2026 community Open House prior to the public comment period.

Additionally, the City emailed a link to the draft amendment to individuals and organizations that had previously requested notices related to the City’s Housing Element, as well as to an interest list specific to implementing Measure K and other Housing Element programs. The City also published an article with the link to the draft Housing Element in the City Hall Snapshot, an online newsletter that is emailed to approximately 10,000 accounts. The public was provided with advance notice and an opportunity to review and comment on the draft amendment during the 7-day public comment period.

The City received nine Housing Element-specific public comment letters from residents and stakeholders during the public review period. These comments were reviewed and considered, and revisions were incorporated into the draft, as applicable, prior to submittal to HCD.

Appendix C: Summary of Community Engagement C-17
August 2026 Public Review Comments
Following a 7-day public review period held from June 8–15, 2026, the City submitted the draft amendment to HCD for review. HCD subsequently provided preliminary comments requesting additional clarifying information regarding the sites inventory and overall RHNA approach. The City incorporated those revisions and reposted the amendment for an additional 7-day public review period from August 12–19, 2026.

During this period, the City received written comments, as well as in-person testimony and comments at the August 17, 2026 Planning Commission hearing. Comments addressed a range of topics, including the distribution and density of housing sites, requests to remove specific properties from the sites inventory (which the City incorporated), requests to add additional properties to the inventory (most of which are not designated Measure K sites and therefore could not be incorporated into the Housing Element at this time, though the City will continue those conversations), and technical corrections to zoning and density references within the document. The Planning Commission held a hearing on August 17, 2026, and recommended City Council adoption of the Housing Element, as revised to incorporate applicable public comments and HCD review comments.

Submitted On Name Email Comment
06/12/2026 20:26:49 Carol
Since my main focus is senior housing it does not seem to me that a designated area is in place for just seniors. I hope I am missing this information from the over view. I would love to see a senior village were shopping, services, recreation and reflects area.
06/15/2026 16:02:25 Alejandro @unitedwayoc.org
United to End Homelessness writes today to comment on the Revisions to the Housing Element Update. We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments regarding the proposed revisions to the City’s Housing Element.

Orange County continues to face an unprecedented housing affordability and homelessness crisis. The shortage of housing options at all income levels, particularly affordable and permanent supportive housing, continues to place increasing pressure on working families, seniors, young adults, and individuals experiencing or at risk of homelessness. Costa Mesa plays a critical role in addressing this regional challenge. As you may know, housing affordability is a persistently growing challenge throughout Orange County as home and rent prices continue to climb. Due to these rising costs, more than 1 in 3 households (34%) fall below the Real Cost Measure.

Because of this, we encourage the city to adopt a Housing Element that meaningfully expands on housing opportunities for current and future residents.

Specifically, we support efforts that:
•Increase housing capacity through implementable rezoning strategies; •Encourage the development of multifamily and mixed-use housing near jobs, transportation, and services;
•Expand opportunities for affordable and permanent supportive housing development; and
•Provide clear implementation timelines and accountability measures to ensure housing goals are achieved.

The lack of affordable housing is cited as the primary reason for homelessness, adding more affordable housing will prevent community members from experiencing homelessness.

Thank you for your support of these developments. I want to encourage you to continue to support initiatives that will increase the opportunities for people to end their homelessness. We are grateful to you for your willingness to improve the lives of those in-need in our community.

C-18
From: Jennifer
To: HALLIGAN, MICHELLE
Cc: Neighborhoods
Subject: Not informed! Re: Costa Mesa Open House Neighborhoods Date: Thursday, June 4, 2026 4:48:20 PM
Dearest Michelle,
Great seeing you last night at Senior Citizen Center.

I’ve walked most homes on Center St.

Not one resident knew about the high rises on 19th street. Nor did El Toro Bravo or Smart n Final managers .

Are you aware of this?
I’m on your email… confusing..
please sent postcards … you’ve got so much you need to target even door to door w mailers… not by text or email.

I created this doc and placed your email. Please please please communicate more hands on in person and snail mail mailer. Knock knock …
Residents are horrified.

Sincerely,
Jennifer
"To know God and Make Him known. Be filled with love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness and self-control in the power and might of the Fruit of the Holy Spirit" Bible -My purpose statement
On Tue, Jun 2, 2026 at 5:58 PM HALLIGAN, MICHELLE
<[email protected]> wrote:

Please join us at the Neighborhoods Where We All Belong Open House on Wednesday, June 3rd, from 6 to 8 PM, at the Costa Mesa Senior Center, 695 W. 19th Street. We will discuss the draft updates to the Zoning Code, new objective design standards, draft amendments to specific plans and some General Plan elements for consistency with Housing Element implementation, as well as draft additional Housing Element sites. The City is preparing to update the Housing Element sites inventory to achieve adequate capacity and make other updates to reflect implementation progress. This is part of the City’s effort to obtain certification from the California Department of Housing and Community Development. You can fill out a comment card at the event, use the project website comment form, or email comments on the draft documents to [email protected].

Neighborhoods Where We All Belong website: https://www.costamesaneighborhoods.com/ Please note that the chapters of the Housing Element that are proposed to have targeted C-19
revisions will be posted to the City’s website and the Neighborhoods Where We All Belong website on June 8, 2026. The official Housing Element public comment period is June 8 to June 15, 2026. Please provide your comments on the proposed technical update to the Housing Element by emailing [email protected] or through the project website comment form during that timeframe. A copy of the draft technical update to the Housing Element will be available on the 2nd floor of City Hall June 8 to June 15, 2026.

Comments can also be provided by leaving them with the receptionist on the 2nd floor of City Hall during regular business hours.

City of Costa Mesa Housing Element webpage:
https://www.costamesaca.gov/government/departments-and-divisions/economic-anddevelopment-services/planning/housing-element-update CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.

C-20
From: Betsy
To: Neighborhoods
Subject: Comments
Date: Friday, June 12, 2026 6:40:56 PM
Michelle, et al,
These comments address both the Housing Element & the Zoning Code revisions.

I have come to understand that Neighborhoods Where We All Belong is designed to meet multiple objectives which has made it challenging to follow. That said, I support the changes that seem to be emerging, namely:

1.We are executing a process that is simultaneously updating our (state mandated) housing element and addressing changes needed in our city codes and overlay districts

2.Developers will finally have the guidance and incentives they need to take advantage of potential housing sites identified in Measure K;

3.Zoning codes are being revised to encourage more walking, biking and open space and less reliance on cars. The MUOD overlay is well-designed to serve us.

4.We are embracing thoughtfully designed projects that allow for more density to try to address housing scarcity that is crushing young professionals and older people who want to live here.

Housing is expensive here because there isn’t enough of it. Unless we build more, people we need to staff our businesses and public institutions will go somewhere else.

Unless we accommodate retirees, they will take their spending power and civic contributions somewhere else.

We need new construction that adds to our stock of affordable multi-family housing.

AND, as another strategy for affordable housing, it is important that revised building codes and approval processes make it easier for building owners to maintain and upgrade their properties.

I thank and appreciate city staff for including residents in their exhaustive efforts to revise our obsolete codes and encourage new housing and mixed use development.

Warm Regards,
Betsy
Betsy
@gmail.com
" Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live--it is asking others to." Oscar Wilde ..."The Scouts are today's counterculture: Trustworthy, loyal, helpful, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent."
C-21
June 15, 2026
VIA EMAIL ONLY– [email protected]
City of Costa Mesa
Economic and Development Services Department
Attn: Michelle Halligan, Senior Planner
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, California 92626
Re: Draft Measure K Rezoning and Housing Element Update Dear Ms. Halligan:

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the following draft documents listed below (collectively, the “Planning Documents”) associated with the rezoning under Measure K and update of the Housing Element (the “Project”):

1. Article 11. Mixed-Use Overlay District Chapter V. Development Standards Title 13.

Planning, Zoning, and Development (May 18, 2026 Draft);

2. Zoning Code Amendments Chapter I, Article 2 (Definitions) Chapter II (Zoning Districts Established) Chapter III (Planning Applications) Chapter IV (Citywide Land Use Matrix) Chapter IX, Article 4 (Density Bonuses and Other Incentives) Chapter V, Article 2 (Residential Common Interest Developments) Chapter V, Article 9 (General Site Improvement Standards) Chapter VI, Article 1 (Residential Districts) Chapter VII (Landscaping Standards) (May 18, 2026 Draft);

3. Citywide Multifamily Residential and Mixed-Use Objective Design Standards Adopted by Reference in Zoning Code (May 18, 2026 Draft); C-22

4. General Plan Amendments (Land Use Element, Circulation Element, Noise Element, Community Design Element, and Open Space and Recreation Element);

5. Specific Plan Amendments (North Costa Mesa Specific Plan, Newport Boulevard Specific Plan (SP-96-01 Revised 2026), and One Metro West Specific Plan, Draft 8, Amended 2026)

6. Housing Element Amendments (May 2026 Draft)
A draft Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) is being prepared in connection with the Project, but has not yet been released. Accordingly, these comments are based on the information currently available and are not exhaustive. We expressly reserve the right to supplement or revise these comments as additional information, including the EIR and supporting technical studies, becomes available. Nothing herein shall be construed as a waiver of any rights under CEQA or other applicable laws.

Project Overview: The Project applies to parcels located throughout Costa Mesa (the “Planning Area”), originally there were 1,079 parcels totaling 1,353.4 acres of the approximately 10,143 acres in the Planning Area. The majority of the identified parcels contain existing development, including residential, commercial, and industrial land uses. At full buildout in 2056, the Project would have originally allowed for an additional 21,522 additional dwelling units and 10.6 million square feet of commercial and industrial space.

This does not include up to 4,000 additional dwelling units and 35,000 square feet of commercial space anticipated under the Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan. The Project has now changed in scope, as several property owners requested that their parcels be removed from the list of sites in the Housing Element, and others have been added.

According to the California Department of Finance, Costa Mesa’s 2025 population is estimated at 110,321 residents. The City of Costa Mesa (the “City”) projects modest growth of about 2.2 percent—roughly 2,500 people—between 2020 and 2040, increasing from 111,200 to 116,400 residents. The City’s current housing stock is estimated at 44,610 units, with an average household size of 2.7 persons (below the Orange County average of 3.0).

The vacancy rate remains low at 4.8%, and most housing units are more than 30 years old.

Many sites within the Project area are already zoned for residential uses, including SingleFamily, Multi-Family Residential, and Planned Development Residential. The Project originally proposed to sunset the Mesa West Residential Ownership Urban Plan and revise zoning under the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan, 19 West Urban Plan, SoBECA Urban Plan, Mesa West Urban Plan (collectively, the “Urban Plans”), and the Harbor Mixed-Use C-23
Overlay (“Overlay”). The existing Mixed-Use Overlay District (“MUOD”), defined in Section 13-20(s) of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code, would be amended to apply to residential-only or mixed-use (residential and commercial) Non-Housing Element sites, as well as Housing Element sites with restrictions. The Residential Incentive Overlay, which applies to parcels along Harbor and Newport Boulevards, and the East 17th Street Specific Plan was to be excluded from the Project.

The affected Urban Plans and Overlay would be consolidated into the MUOD and replaced through amendments to the General Plan and Zoning Code. Additionally, the North Costa Mesa and Newport Boulevard Specific Plans would be amended to apply the MUOD to Measure K sites within those areas; however, a comprehensive update of these Specific Plans will not occur at this time.

Revisions to comply with Housing Element Programs include:

A. Update the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan (Program 3C): Amend the zoning of the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan to allow residential development at an allowable density of up to ninety (90) dwelling units per acre (du/ac) on select properties identified in the Housing Element. Existing unit caps within the plan would be removed.

B. Update the Urban Plans and the Overlay (Program 3D): Amend the zoning of the existing Urban Plans and Overlay to permit the residential development capacity identified in the Housing Element. Maximum residential densities of the Urban Plans/Overlays would be:
19 West Urban Plan 50 du/ac
SoBECA Urban Plan 60 du/ac
Mesa West Bluff Urban Plan 40 du/ac
Harbor Mixed-Use Overlay 50 du/ac
C. Candidate Sites Used in Previous Housing Elements (Program 3N): Apply the amended Mixed-Use Overlay District (MUOD) to all nonvacant sites included in prior Housing Elements and all vacant sites included in two or more consecutive planning periods.

These sites would allow by-right housing development for projects meeting State Housing Law requirements (Gov’t Code Section 65583.2(c)).

D. Non-Housing Element Sites (Program 3G). Apply the amended MUOD to all NonHousing Element or “Measure K” sites, giving property owners the option to develop (i) residential or mixed-use under the provisions of the MUOD, or (ii) commercial or C-24
industrial uses as currently permitted by the underlying base zone. The Initial Study dated November 2025 prepared by Dudek for the City (“Initial Study”) states “Therefore, the project implements Housing Element Program 3G, Address Citywide Vote Requirement in Relation to Housing Element Compliance by engaging in a community planning and visioning process for proposed General Plan amendments, rezones, and revisions to Measure K sites, which includes Housing Element and nonHousing Element sites.” The MOUD will apply to Housing Element sites, but special provisions will apply. The development standards by maximum density are as follows:

Minimum
Density1
Maximum
Density2
Maximum
Building
Height
Maximum
Commercial
Intensity
(FAR)
Minimum
Setbacks
(Front/Side/Rear)
Maximum
Lot
Coverage
Minimum
Open
Space
20 du/ac
40 du/ac 48 ft.

Per
underlying
General
Plan Land
Use
10 ft./5 ft./10 ft. 60%
100 sq.
ft./unit
50 du/ac 60 ft. 10 ft./5 ft./10 ft. 60%
60 du/ac 72 ft. 8 ft./5 ft./10 ft. 60%
90 du/ac 108 ft. 5 ft./5 ft./5 ft. 70%
Additional provisions:
• At least 50% of a Housing Element site within the MUOD must be housing at a minimum density of 20 du/ac.
• Housing Element sites outside the MUOD must be 100% housing. • No zoning changes for Non-Measure K and Non-Housing Element sites.

E. Other Zoning Code Amendments (Programs 2E, 2F, 2H, 2J, 2M, 3F, 3S, 4E, and 4G):

Implement revised development standards, guidelines, and policies to ensure internal consistency. Updates include, but not necessarily limited to:
1 Based on the 2021-2029 adopted Housing Element Sites Inventory (Table B-6) 2 Only applicable to Lower-Income Housing Element Sites and inclusive of Accessory Dwelling Units.

C-25
• Larger units for large-family households
• Housing for persons with disabilities
• Farmworker, transitional, and supportive housing
• Parking standards for residential development
• Motel conversions, efficiency units, co-living housing types • Conditional Use Permit findings, design review, and master plans • Low-barrier navigation centers and emergency shelter parking • Objective design standards for residential and mixed-use development F. General Plan Amendments: Update the Land Use Element for consistency with Housing Element provisions (density, FAR, height, and trip generation). These amendments aim to clarify, consolidate, and streamline regulations across Urban Plans, Overlays, and Specific Plans.

1. General Comments:
a. Transparency is lacking. The Planning Documents are designed to work together, but method of presentation is cumbersome for the public (most of whom have full time jobs and family life to attend to) to review over the period of just a few short weeks. This doesn’t satisfy the need for transparency and frankly seems as though the City is trying to overwhelm the public with too much information. There was no town hall, which would have acted as an education session to build the public’s knowledge, and therefore increase resident’s ability to make reasonable informed decisions and comment on this matter. This approach does not reflect an inclusive planning process and undermines informed community input. (Smart Growth Principle: Inclusive Planning Structure and Process)
b. As noted above, the Planning Documents are presented separately from the draft EIR.

Therefore, none of the Planning Documents include, or adequately reference, essential technical studies and analyses— such as the EIR, including traffic analysis, and comprehensive fiscal analysis—that may result in substantial revisions to the Project description and development standards. In the absence of this information, it is not possible to meaningfully evaluate the Planning Documents or fully assess the potential impacts of the Project. For these reasons, we expressly reserve the right to review and provide additional comments on future revisions of the Planning Documents and on any associated environmental or technical documents as they become available.

C-26
c. Where is the community vision? Measure K was intended to produce a shared vision for Costa Mesa’s future through public input. To date, that vision has not been clearly presented. Instead, what we are seeing appears driven primarily by the need to satisfy state Housing and Community Development (HCD) requirements and RHNA numbers. The result feels less like thoughtful city planning and more like solving a numbers puzzle, rather than reflecting what residents actually want for their community. The Planning Documents do not implement Housing Element Program 3G, because the public was cut out of actively participating in the visioning of these changes, as that was done largely behind closed doors. (Smart Growth Principle:

Inclusive Planning Structure and Process)
d. Impact on homeownership vs. rentals. Once buildings exceed four stories, they are overwhelmingly developed as rental properties rather than ownership housing. This trend shifts wealth-building opportunities away from residents and toward property owners—often large, out-of-state investment entities. Costa Mesa already has a significant imbalance, with rentals outpacing ownership roughly 60/40. The City should be considering how to incentivize more ownership housing, not deepen the imbalance. (Smart Growth Principle: Social Equity and Community Building) e. Fiscal impacts of apartments vs. ownership housing. Apartment buildings tend to remain under long-term ownership, meaning their property tax contributions grow slowly over time. In contrast, ownership housing typically turns over more frequently, increasing assessed values and strengthening the City’s tax base. Expanding apartments without considering this dynamic may limit long-term fiscal benefits to the City. (Smart Growth Principle: Economic Benefits)
f. Development realities and building scale. Given high land and construction costs, developers design projects to maximize returns. Even if the City permits buildings just over four stories, financial pressures often push developers toward larger six- to nine-story projects. These are typically high-rent developments—similar to those seen in Irvine—with rents ranging from approximately $2,000 to $5,000 per month. This raises an important question: how does this type of development improve affordability or help residents save toward homeownership? (Smart Growth Principle:

Mix of Uses and Housing Choices)
g. Need for stronger affordable housing requirements. Increasing density alone does not guarantee affordability. Developers are unlikely to include affordable units without clear regulatory requirements. Cities such as Irvine and Santa Ana have adopted stronger inclusionary policies to address this. Costa Mesa should update its C-27
Affordable Housing Ordinance in tandem with upzoning to ensure that new development delivers a meaningful number of affordable units rather than primarily luxury housing. (Smart Growth Principle: Mix of Uses and Housing Choices) h. Parks, infrastructure, and service impacts. Higher density brings increased demand for parks, roads, and public safety services. Without expanding park space, existing parks will face greater strain and higher maintenance costs. If additional tax revenue does not keep pace with these needs, funding will have to be diverted from other areas of the City’s budget. (Smart Growth Principle: Promote Health and Healthy Communities)
i. Need for updated financial analysis. During the 2016 General Plan update, financial analysis indicated that development exceeding four stories south of the 405 freeway could negatively impact the City’s budget. A current, comprehensive financial analysis is needed to understand the full implications of the proposed changes before moving forward. (Smart Growth Principle: (a) Inclusive Planning Structure and Process, (b) Economic Benefits)
j. Environmental and quality-of-life concerns. More rigorous analysis is needed, including updated traffic, parking, and air quality studies. The draft Environmental Impact Report for the Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan already identifies air quality impacts that cannot be fully mitigated. Taller buildings can also affect natural airflow, potentially worsening air quality. These impacts should be carefully evaluated, including potential long-term health considerations. (Smart Growth Principle: Promote Health and Healthy Communities)
k. Long-term development outlook. While rezoning does not mean immediate buildout, it sets the stage for future development patterns. Projects will be built gradually, influenced by economic conditions such as land costs, construction costs, interest rates, and rental markets. Although development may slow during periods of economic uncertainty, it will resume—and likely at larger scales than seen historically. (Smart Growth Principle: Inclusive Planning Structure and Process) C-28

2. Article 11. Mixed-Use Overlay District Chapter V. Development Standards Title 13.

Planning, Zoning, and Development (May 18, 2026 Draft). We note that this revisions to the City’s development standards are new and have not been reviewed by the City’s Planning Commission, and therefore are subject to their consideration and suggested revisions. We expressly reserve the right to supplement, amend, refine, or expand these comments as additional information becomes available, including, but not limited to documents, technical studies, memoranda, correspondence, hearing testimony, staff reports, or other materials added to the administrative record after the date of this letter.

Nothing in this letter should be construed as a waiver of objection, claim, argument, or remedy under any other applicable law:
a. 13-83.11.1. (a) Applicability. The applicable properties are allegedly show on the City’s Zoning Map, but no zoning map, draft or otherwise, is included for review and context. Please provide a copy of this important document for public review. b. Table 13-83.11.7. (Development Standards for MUOD Projects). This table shows the Maximum Residential Density and the Maximum Residential Density on pages 12 and 23, but does not align with the allowable densities in the Newport Boulevard Specific Plan (see Table 1 of that specific plan (unnumbered page)). Please clarify or correct.

3. Zoning Code Amendments Chapter I, Article 2 (Definitions) Chapter II (Zoning Districts Established) Chapter III (Planning Applications) Chapter IV (Citywide Land Use Matrix) Chapter IX, Article 4 (Density Bonuses and Other Incentives) Chapter V, Article 2 (Residential Common Interest Developments) Chapter V, Article 9 (General Site Improvement Standards) Chapter VI, Article 1 (Residential Districts) Chapter VII (Landscaping Standards) (May 18, 2026 Draft):
a. The total maximum anticipated additional dwelling units, and maximum square feet of commercial and industrial space, exclusive of the numbers of additional dwelling units and commercial space anticipated under the Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan, is required to fully comprehend the mechanics of these zoning changes.

The total maximum anticipated additional dwelling units and maximum square feet of commercial and industrial space must be provided. b. In Chapter I, In General, Article 2, Definitions, beginning on page 10, the changes to the definition of “Open Space,” “Open Space, common”, “Open Space, private,” and “Open Space, publicly accessible” do not cover the issue of practical concerns about how such spaces will be managed and how potential conflicts between public access C-29
and residents’ quality of life will be addressed. How do you keep the public from becoming a nuisance when the public open space is not clearly delineated, such as a stoop at an entrance to a condo or apartment building? We approached Staff with this issue at the June 3rd Open House and Staff indicated that the problem would largely fall to property owners to resolve. This appears to be an issue that the City is creating, but expects the landowner to resolve, which could likely invite litigation against the City. We request that a land use attorney review this change for risk assessment.
c. It appears that the 2006 Mesa West Residential Ownership Urban Plan has not been sunsetted, but is now called the Mesa West Residential Ownership Incentive Program (“MWROIP”), as described in Chapter V, Development Standards, Article 2, Residential Common Interest Developments Section 13-41.5, beginning on page 14.

Is there are reason that the MWROIP is now being included in the Development Standards? Should an explanation of the MWROIP be included in the General Plan’s Land Use Element? Please clarify.
d. We note that not all the zoning code changes required by the Housing Element programs have been included (see Introductory Paragraph E above). Will these be included at a later date? We expressly reserve the right to supplement, amend, refine, or expand these comments as additional information becomes available, including, but not limited to documents, technical studies, memoranda, correspondence, hearing testimony, staff reports, or other materials added to the administrative record after the date of this letter. Nothing in this letter should be construed as a waiver of objection, claim, argument, or remedy under any other applicable law:

4. Citywide Multifamily Residential and Mixed-Use Objective Design Standards Adopted by Reference in Zoning Code (May 18, 2026 Draft). a. In multiple places this document refers to “the City’s zoning map,” yet no map in included in any of the Planning Documents. Given that the City is rezoning many parcels as part of the Project, a revised zoning map is a critical document in the review process. The revised zoning map must be included for the public to review and the comment period for the Planning Documents must be extended.

C-30

5. General Plan Amendments (Land Use Element, Circulation Element, Noise Element, Community Design Element, and Open Space and Recreation Element). a. Land Use Element.
i. This ten-year-old document needs to be reviewed and revised to be current. For example, The Triangle shopping center has changed its name back to Triangle Square, and the Los Angeles Times site was renamed “The Press.” ii. Table LU-6: Land Use Density and Intensity Summary does not align with the maximum allowable density of 90 du/ac in the Mixed-Use Overlay as seen in other documents, including the revised Housing Element. Please clarify or correct.
iii. Language about the Mesa West Residential Ownership Urban Plan has been marked for deletion, however, there is no language about the Mesa West Residential Ownership Incentive Plan replacing or modifying it. Please clarify or correct.
b. Circulation Element.
i. This ten-year-old document needs to be reviewed and revised to be current. For example, Figure C-3: Conceptual Bicycle Master Plan, on page C-16, has not been updated to reflect the map that was adopted as part of the Active Transportation Plan in 2018. In addition, the document needs to be reviewed for additions made as part of adopting the Pedestrian Master Plan.
ii. On page C-24, in “Sidewalks and Sidewalk Zones,” reference to areas in Costa Mesa, such as the Westside, SoBECA, South Coast Plaza, etc. have been removed. These references identify certain parts of the city, not the sunsetted overlays or urban plans, and should remain for context of what is considered areas of heavy pedestrian activity. Please correct.
iii. We note the City has no plan for mitigating traffic circulation issues created by the upzoning of properties and the resulting increase in population. If mitigation plans are contained in the yet to be released EIR, we expressly reserve the right to supplement, amend, refine, or expand these comments as additional information becomes available, including, but not limited to documents, technical studies, C-31
memoranda, correspondence, hearing testimony, staff reports, or other materials added to the administrative record after the date of this letter. c. Noise Element.
i. On Page N-11, there is reference to a heliport on the former Los Angeles Times building. We believe this has been removed. Please correct or clarify. ii. We note that there is no mention of noise related to the State of California’s Emergency Operation Center (“EOC”) currently under construction on the former Fairview Developmental Center site. Both the construction and operation of the EOC will add to the noise levels near that site. Language should be added to the Noise Element addressing the additional noise levels there. iii. The 405 freeway has been widened since this document was written in 2016. Due to increased traffic on that highway, noise levels have increased. The document should be revised to reflect those increased noise levels. d. Community Design Element. This ten-year-old document needs to be reviewed and revised to be current. For example, Whittier Law School shut down in approximately 2017, and is now Sofia University. Figure CD-5: Destinations and Landmarks on page CD-15 needs to be updated to reflect the absence of Whittier Law School and KMart. We note that the proposed redevelopment area at or near the corner of Baker and Fairview is part of the Mesa del Mar District. At the June 3rd Open House Staff mistakenly referred to this area as being with SoBECA, which it never has been. e. Open Space and Recreation Element. This ten-year-old document needs to be reviewed and revised to be current. For example, Perez Park has been added on the Eastside and should be added to parks inventory wherever appropriate.

6. Specific Plan Amendments (North Costa Mesa Specific Plan, Newport Boulevard Specific Plan (SP-96-01 Revised 2026), and One Metro West Specific Plan, Draft 8, Amended 2026); Residential Incentive Overlay.
a. North Costa Mesa Specific Plan. Several parcels in the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan area are being upzoned through the MUOD to not exceed 90 du/ac, including, but not limited to, Segerstrom Subarea 2 and Sakioka 2. This revision impacts building heights and open space/parks/recreation needs for this area. This document needs to be reviewed and revised to align with new zoning. In addition, the C-32
document indicates that Costa Mesa residents receive a discount on parking at certain times. We have never known this to be the case. Please clarify or correct. b. Newport Boulevard Specific Plan (SP-96-01 Revised 2026). i. Missing Figures and Tables need to be supplied. Without that information, it is impossible to sensibly comment on this document.
ii. Table 1 indicates that the Maximum Residential Density is 90 du/ac. This does not align with Article 11, Mixed Use Overlay District, Chapter V, Development Standards, Title 13 Planning Zoning and Development (May 18, 2026 Draft).

Please clarify or correct.
iii. Table 3 (Newport Blvd. Traffic Comparisons) is outdated and needs to be revised. iv. Document needs to have page numbers inserted.
c. One Metro Wet Specific Plan, Draft 8. Given that this project has already been approved and received a General Plan Amendment, including rezoning, does the developer have any interest in using the MUOD for development and design standards? So much of that is already spelled out in its Specific Plan. It doesn’t seem to be in the City’s best interest to give the developer what amounts to a free General Plan Amendment at this late stage of development.
d. Residential Incentive Overlay. While it appears it was not the original intent to revise this overlay, it appears from the map presented at the June 3rd Open House that (i) the height limitation of four stories, and (ii) the density limitation of 40 du/ac both may have changed. This information, and the impacts on the upzoning needs to be disclosed to the public. Please clarify or correct.

7. Housing Element Amendments (May 2026 Draft). Giving the public one week to review and comment on these documents is not transparent, and certainly not fair, given that Staff has been working on them for months now. We request the deadline for comments be extended so that more of the community can have an opportunity to review and provide comments.

In addition, the blacklining of the document is difficult to understand. What version of the document was this blacklined against? The March 2026 version or a later version? C-33
a. Change in Project Scope. The Project has now changed in scope, as several property owners requested that their parcels be removed from the list of sites in the Housing Element, and others have been added. A new total of the additional parcels, the acreage of those parcels and acreage of the Planning Area needs to be provided in Appendix B Sites Analysis.
b. Chapter 3, Housing Constraints, Resources, and Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing:
i. State Density Bonus Law. On page 3-12 the following sentence appears: “The City is currently revising the existing ordinance and expects to adopt revisions in December 2026.” If this is going to impact the density of Housing Element Parcels, that information should be determined now, before the draft EIR for the Project is released. Please clarify or correct. ii. Maximum Building Heights. On page 3-15 it states that “As of March 2026, the City modified its maximum building heights up to 108 feet for residential projects on Housing Element sites, depending on the maximum residential density allowed.” On the Density Map displayed at the June 3rd Open House, there were many Housing Element sites that did not have maximum densities indicated. We note that Appendix B, Sites Analysis indicates there are 32 replacement sites with a maximum density of 90 du/ac. Please provide locations, and proposed densities and height limits for all Housing Element sites. iii. Parking Standards. Also on page 3-15 it states “The City had included Program 2M committing to reviewing and revising the City’s Zoning Code for off-street parking for multifamily projects. In April 2026, the City reduced the residential parking minimums for multi-family units and adopted a standard of no minimum parking requirement for residential uses on Housing Element sites within the Mixed-Use Overlay District (all Housing Element sites are within this overlay).

On Month 2026, the City amended the overlay to remove parking minimums on non-Housing Element sites.” While this revision to parking is with the hope of reducing construction costs, it will have an impact on surrounding neighborhoods, some of which are already impacted by overflow parking from adjacent streets.

Please identify how the City intends to mitigate the impacts of overflow parking.
iv. On page 3-69 of Chapter 3, Section 2 Analysis of Federal, State, and Local Data and Local Knowledge it states that “The City is also taking steps beyond the C-34
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.” Since the City intends to rezone the remaining Measure K to allow up to 90 du/ac, are the impacts of that included in the upcoming EIR or will another EIR be drafted in Fall 2026? Please clarify and expand on this information. c. Chapter 4, Housing Plan.
i. Mesa West Residential Ownership Overlay. On page 4-18 it states that this overlay will be removed. However, this is contradicted by what is described in Chapter V, Development Standards, Article 2, Residential Common Interest Developments Section 13-41.5, beginning on page 14. It seems this overlay is being replaced by the MWROIP. Please correct or clarify. d. Appendix B, Sites Analysis.
i. Table B-6 has been revised to add clarity to the location of the parcels and their allowable densities. It would be helpful for the public to know which of these parcels are new to the Housing Element. In addition, the total acreage of the Housing Element parcels and total maximum du/ac would be helpful. Please add this information.

8. Structure of Documents. Combining all the Zoning Code Amendments into one document, with page numbering starting and restarting, made the review of those changes difficult. We suggest breaking this document out into appropriate chapters and sections.

We appreciate the separation of Housing Element chapters on the Housing Element page, but it would have been better to direct the public there, than to the merged documents on the Measure K rezoning webpage.

9. Further Considerations. We are gravely concerned that the overriding purpose of the Planning Documents is simply to satisfy State requirements. The Planning Document reflect a narrow focus on meeting housing mandates, rather than advancing a wellC-35 considered vision for a vibrant, inclusive, and livable community that residents will want to call home.

Public input throughout the Planning Documents is minimal at best. Nowhere in the documents are the desires of the residents for a better community that were expressed at the outreach meetings, including these requests from the first outreach meeting, which we lifted from the City’s website:

Housing Options: “Walkability is essential, and housing is a determinant of health!” “Corner stores, trees, and fair planning (not all housing in one area) are essential.” Spaces For Community Gatherings: Prioritize high-quality housing and mixed-use development for couples, young professionals, seniors, and families . Increase affordable opportunities for ownership and affordable housing overall. Expand housing resources for vulnerable communities.

Multi-Modal Mobility and Safer Streets: Prioritize pedestrian-oriented design with protected sidewalks. Improve connections across Costa Mesa with bike lanes, bus stops, and frequent transit service.

Open Spaces and Landscaping: Encourage private and shared open spaces. Provide landscaping and tree cover for shade and softening the built environment. Foster community gathering spaces (“third places”), such as restaurants, retail, and parks near new housing.

An Eclectic Costa Mesa: Maintain the unique, eclectic, and culturally rich feel of Costa Mesa’s neighborhoods.

Transparency: Provide more technical information to the public. Stay aligned with shared community values.

Housing Design Considerations: Consider setbacks, height, parking, traffic, landscaping, parks, and infrastructure in new developments • Consider larger setbacks for new residential/mixed-use adjacent to existing residential projects Most troubling of all is the continued failure to provide adequate open space. For years, the public has consistently advocated for sufficient parkland on this site. Instead, the City is compounding the problem by proposing open space that does not meet minimum General Plan requirements and relying on the concept of park in-lieu fees as a substitute.

C-36
This approach should be abandoned. The amount of parkland provided on-site should, at a minimum, meet the standards already established in the General Plan.

Finally, the most important question remains unanswered: How does this Project advance the City of Costa Mesa’s long-term vision? How does it fit into the City’s plans for the next 20 years—or the next 40 years? It is impossible to assemble the larger puzzle when essential pieces—public input, environmental review, financial analysis, infrastructure planning, and a coherent community vision—are still missing.

Conclusion.

The Planning Documents represent a significant shift in Costa Mesa’s development framework. However, critical components—including environmental review, infrastructure planning, fiscal analysis, and a clearly articulated community vision—remain incomplete or unavailable.

Without these elements, it is not possible for the public to fully evaluate how the Project will shape the City’s future over the coming decades.

We respectfully request that the City:
• Extend the public comment period
• Release the draft EIR and supporting technical studies • Provide complete and consistent documentation, including updated maps • Clearly articulate how the Project aligns with a long-term vision for Costa Mesa C-37
C-38
From: Betsy
To: Neighborhoods
Subject: Comments
Date: Friday, June 12, 2026 6:40:56 PM
Michelle, et al,
These comments address both the Housing Element & the Zoning Code revisions.

I have come to understand that Neighborhoods Where We All Belong is designed to meet multiple objectives which has made it challenging to follow. That said, I support the changes that seem to be emerging, namely:

1.We are executing a process that is simultaneously updating our (state mandated) housing element and addressing changes needed in our city codes and overlay districts

2.Developers will finally have the guidance and incentives they need to take advantage of potential housing sites identified in Measure K;

3.Zoning codes are being revised to encourage more walking, biking and open space and less reliance on cars. The MUOD overlay is well-designed to serve us.

4.We are embracing thoughtfully designed projects that allow for more density to try to address housing scarcity that is crushing young professionals and older people who want to live here.

Housing is expensive here because there isn’t enough of it. Unless we build more, people we need to staff our businesses and public institutions will go somewhere else.

Unless we accommodate retirees, they will take their spending power and civic contributions somewhere else.

We need new construction that adds to our stock of affordable multi-family housing.

AND, as another strategy for affordable housing, it is important that revised building codes and approval processes make it easier for building owners to maintain and upgrade their properties.

I thank and appreciate city staff for including residents in their exhaustive efforts to revise our obsolete codes and encourage new housing and mixed use development.

Warm Regards,
Betsy
Betsy
@gmail.com
" Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live--it is asking others to." Oscar Wilde ..."The Scouts are today's counterculture: Trustworthy, loyal, helpful, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent."
C-39
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.

C-40
From: Russell
To: Taylor
Cc: HALLIGAN, MICHELLE; Jenna ; Neighborhoods
Subject: Re: Confirmation, see you on Wednesday! Focused Discussion Costa Mesa Neighborhoods Where We All Belong Round Three
Date: Wednesday, June 10, 2026 9:25:27 PM
Attachments: image.png
Hey thanks for the great meeting today!
Since I sent in my comments on Monday I've thought of a few other things that I think are worth bringing up. The draft ODS didn't seem to have anything on:
- Corner buildings (e.g., on some or all prominent street corners, should there be any additional design 'asks'?)
- Height transitions to existing shorter neighbors (except for the 10 ft setback above the third floor)
- Bicycle parking: design, locations, access, quantity, short- vs. long-term (and I don't think we have these in the base zoning either)
The book I mentioned and heartily recommend is Soft City, by David Sim. It does a great job in making the case that cities can be "dense" while also comfortable, beautiful, and "soft." It might be a good one to consult when thinking about how we communicate the changes we're planning for to the community.

Russell
On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 11:34 AM Taylor < >
wrote:

Good morning,
Thank you for RSVPing to Wednesday's Costa Mesa’s Neighborhoods Where We All Belong Round 3 Focused Discussions. We appreciate your willingness to share your insights and help shape local housing.

Below are the key details for the discussion. The discussion will include a presentation on the effort’s objectives, a summary of round one and two outreach, and a review of the draft Mixed Use Overlay District, Objective Design Standards, Zoning Amendments, and Housing Element updates. In addition, there is dedicated time for Q&A and discussion.

Focused Discussion Details
Wednesday, June 10, 2026
10:00 am to 11:30 am
City Hall 1st Floor Conference Room
77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Parking:

A parking lot is available at City Hall. Enter City Hall through the main entrance. Check in at C-41
From: Amy
To: Neighborhoods
Cc: @sakioka.com; @SakiokaCompany.com
Subject: Comment on Draft Mixed Use Ordinance Maps
Date: Monday, June 15, 2026 8:12:53 PM
I think to be consistent with the general plan, Sakioka Lot 2 and so-called Lots 2 and 3 in Metro Center all in the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan, should show maximum densities of 90 units to the acre. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Amy
T: + | M:
@gibsondunn.com
This message may contain confidential and privileged information for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, disclosure, distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If it has been sent to you in error, please reply to advise the sender of the error and then immediately delete this message.

Please see our website at https://www.gibsondunn.com/ for information regarding the firm and/or our privacy policy.

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.

C-42
From: Frances
To: Neighborhoods
Subject: Overcrowding Concern
Date: Monday, June 15, 2026 10:03:08 PM
Hello,
My name is Frances , and I live on in Costa Mesa. I just looked at the housing element and I think the map permitstoo much housing on Harbor and Placencia near our already overcrowded neighborhood. The housing needs to be distributed evenly. It should cover all parts of Costa Mesa.

With Gratitude,
Frances
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.

C-43
C-44
C-45
From: Daniela
To: Neighborhoods
Subject: Over crowded concern - URGENT
Date: Monday, June 15, 2026 10:03:54 PM
To whom it may concern:

My name is Daniela and I live on in Costa Mesa. I just looked at the housing element and I think the map permits too much housing on Harbor and Placencia near our already overcrowded neighborhood. The housing needs to be distributed evenly. It should cover all parts of Costa Mesa.

Not to mention they come and park on our street on Maple from the surrounding apt complex which leaves no parking for the SFR homeowners.

Blessings,
Daniela
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.

C-46
From:

To: Neighborhoods
Subject: Overcrowding already crowded housing
Date: Monday, June 15, 2026 9:38:43 PM
Hello,
My name is Erik and I live on in Costa Mesa. I just looked at the housing element and I think the map permits too much housing on Harbor and Placencia near our already overcrowded neighborhood. The housing needs to be distributed evenly. It should cover all parts of Costa Mesa.

We already have numerous cars that speed through Maple street to get to Victoria or Wilson street and adding more housing will exacerbate this issue and cause even more close calls of children nearly getting hit by speeding drivers close to Ketchum-Libolt Park.

Thank you,
Erik
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.

C-47

RECEIVED
JUN -82026
"Not Here!" PROTECT OUR west-side

COSTA MESA COMMUNITY
We Oppose Expansion of Measure K Housing Sites Afong
Center Street and the 700 Block Area & CM Senior
Community Center
Dear Costa Mesa Planning Commissioners, City Council Members, City of Costa Mesa and Califomia State,
We, the residents, homeowners, families, business owners and seniors of Westside Costa Mesa, strongly oppose any current orfuture expansion of Measure K housing sm designations along Center Street, West 19th Street, Pomona Avenue, Wallaoe Avenue, and surmunding residential neighborhoods.

We urge the City of Costa Mesa to reject any future expansion of Measure K housing site &a*iHua[iunb and remove tjiese trgeted parcels from consideration for high-density housing and any housing redeveJopment.Our position is clear:

NO 4-5 story apartment buildings
NO tiigh-density housing or @ny housing pmjects adjacent to existing residential nu;HliLuiliuitiJa.

NO loss of neighborhood-servmg businesses, shopping centers, senior serviws, or community gathering places.

NO destruction of established family and senior commumties.

The cunem housing site designmions place valuable mmmunity resouroes at risk, induding neighborhood-serving shopping centers, local businesses, and servioes relied upon daily by residents. Potential redevelopmed threatens the future of the Senior Center, Smart & Final shopping center, EI Toro Tortillefia, and other businesses that serve our community. We reject attempts to transform our estat*Th@d neighborhood into a dense urban corridor dominated by large,-scale apartment oonstruaUon.

Residents already experienoe parking shortages, blocked dnveways, delivery oongestion, traffic mnflids, and overcrowded streets. Additional high-density to any housing development only intensifies existing challenges and permanently alter the character of our neighborhood TARGETED and RED MARKED for reconstruction and zoning Equally important, 4-5 story buiidings do not beiong next to existing homes. These projeds would tower over residential properties, reduoe privacy, increase noise, create shadowing impads, and fundamentally C-48
change the quality of life enjoyed by individuals, businesses, families and seniors who have lived here for da>des.Westside Costa Mesa is not vacam land wamng for development. * Reject any expansion of Measure K housing site designations in our neighborhood a Remove these parcels from oonsideration for high-density housing redevelopmem. * Rejed 4-5 story housing to any projeds adjacent to existing residential mmmunities. a Preserve neighborhood-serving businesses and shopping centers induding Job loss of employees
a Proted the privacy, safety, and quality of life of current residents a Preserve the character and Itvability of Mesa Wlstside Costa Mesa.from overcrowding The residents who already live here matter.

Proted our homes.

Proted our neighborhoods.

Proted our seniors.

Proted our families and individuals
Proted our loml businesses.

Proted our Westside Costa Mesa Community
date: sSlxiyA>2bL (tN/z-t
Costa Mesa Resident, Owners, Businesses, and ooncerned citizens of Costa Mesa Sign and send to:
'Costa Mesa Pbnning COm$, COSta Mega City Hall, 77 Fair DriVe, CO8ta Mesa, CA 92626 Phone: (714) 75e a- -
Email: [email protected]
"CaHfomla ()epartfnOnt Of HOusmg and Commun$ Dtgv(lupnivul 2020 W. EI Cam!no Avenue, Sacramento, CA 95833
C-49
C-50
C-51
C-52
C-53
C-54
C-55
C-56
C-57
C-58
C-59
C-60
C-61
C-62
C-63
C-64
C-65
C-66
C-67
C-68
C-69
Submitted
On Name Email Comment
08/17/2026
18:36:31
Robert
Solomon
r
Our company owns two properties designated as housing element sites. They are located at 1650 Sunflower, and 3539 Howard Way. Under the draft MUOD, there is a 30% open space requirement. We believe this will make residential development uneconomical. This open space requirement should be substantially reduced.

In addition, we are very concerned that if our properties are designated as housing element sites, the existing industrial uses become legal non-conforming. We do not know if housing will work on our properties today or in the future. Our properties are surrounded by other industrial and office properties.

Right now, the existing legal non-conforming ordinance provides that we would lose our grandfathered right if the use is discontinued for 6 consecutive months. If one of our tenant's vacates, it may take more than 6 months to re-lease our properties. As such we think the legal non-conforming discontinuance should be changed to 12 months.

Without the above changes, we would request that our properties be removed as housing element sites.

Thank you for the consideration.

Robert Solomon
C-70
Anna Williams
Associate Attorney
August 19, 2026
City of Costa Mesa
Economic and Development Services Department
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, California 92626
neighborlioods@,costamesaca.gov

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Re: Comments on the Revised Public Review Draft of the Housing Element To Whom it May Concern:

On behalf of our client, the Sakioka family, the owners of property in the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan ("Sakioka"), we are writing to submit limited clean-up and consistency comments on the City of Costa Mesa's (the "City") revised public review draft of the Housing Element dated August 12, 2026. In reviewing the latest draft, we spotted some antiquated zoning and general plan references that should be corrected before tlie City re-adopts tlie Housing Element.

1. As indicated in this week's Planning Commission staff report, (a) property within the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan was previously rezoned to peri'nit residential density of 90 du/acre and (b) the City's Mixed-Use Overlay District provides alternative residential development standards. The following should be updated to reflect the same:
a. Note 5 to Table 3-2. We recoi'nu'nend adding the following text (bolded and underlined):
"(5): The maximum density for 1901 Newport Boulevard is 40 dwelling units per acre. See North Costa Mesa Specific Plan for exceptions. Property may also be separately developed under the Mixed-Use Overlay and higher densities may apply on housing element sites. No residential development is pen'nitted within the 23.4-acre project site generally addressed as 1375 Sunflower Ave. and 3370 Harbor Blvd." b. Note 2 to Table 3-7. We recommend adding the following text (bolded and underlined):
"(2) Soutli Coast Metro Center (Area 6) lias a site- specific FAR of O.79. Sakioka Lot 2 (Area 8) has a maximum site- specific FAR of 1.0. Property may also be separately developed under the Mixed-Use Overlay and higher densities may apply on housing element sites."

2. The MUOD regulations the City Council adopted earlier tliis year provide that the maximum height permitted when developing under the MUOD is either 108' or the maximum building height in an applicable specific plan, whichever is liigher. Tliis sliould be reflected in the "maximum building height" discussion 011 page 3-11 of the Housing Element. We recoini'nend the following text edits (bolded and underlined): "As of March 2026, the City modified its maximum building Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
333 South Grand Avenue i Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 i T: 213.229.7000 F: 213.229.7520 i gibsondunn.com C-71
Michelle Halligan

Page 2 ends

heights up to 108 feet (or the maximum building height in an applicable specific plan, whichever is higher) for residential projects on Housing Element sites, depending on the maximum residential density allowed."

3. Table 3-8 contains an errant reference to a Collector Street on Sakioka Lot 2. That Collector Street does not appear in the City's Circulation Element. Reference to this Collector Street should be removed from the Table so the Housing Element is consistent with the City's Circulation Element.

The maximum height provided for Area 8 under the Specific Plan is also 120 (not 180) feet.

4. Appendix B. Sites Analysis.
a. Discussion of Sakioka Lot 2 is inconsistent witli current zoning. We recommend making tlie following corrective edits (bolded and underlined):
"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 90 units to the acre 660 residential u-ffls, 863,000 Square feet of office or rctail u:ic and a Floor Area Ratio of 1.0.

The property is also located in the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan Mixed-Use Overlay District.

The site is currently under a development agreement (DA) that was recently extended for ten years until May of 2031. Tlie City has had continued discussions with the property owners who have indicated there is the potential for future housing development on tlie site in strategic areas. This development would occur pursuant to the new densities identified within the Housing Element, which may lead to tlie 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 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.

Furtheri'nore, 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 tlie very low, low, moderate, and above moderate-income categories. The property owner has expressed interest in communications with tlie City in developing for residential uses witliin 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 tlie site over the planning period."
b. Table B-8. Requires the following corrections:

C-72
Michelle Halligan

Page 3 ends

i. Sakioka Lot 2 (APN 410-441-17). Add MUOD under "Overlay or Specific Plan Designation." This property falls under both the MUOD and the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan.
ii. APN 410-501-25. Add MUOD under "Overlay or Specific Plan Designation." This property falls under both the MUOD and the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan.

This property is also associated witli a second APN, which appears to have been inadvertently omitted from the updated sites inventory, as it appeared in prior housing elements. That missing APN is 410-501-36; that assessor parcel is also under the MUOD and North Costa Mesa Specific Plan and has a maximum density of 90 du/ac.
iii. APN 410-501-31. Add MUOD under "Overlay or Specific Plan Designation." This property falls under both the MUOD and the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan.

We appreciate the City's ongoing willingness to discuss and consider these comments and support the City's ongoing efforts to facilitate liousing and mixed-use development.

Sincerely,
(2,,QA..=
Anna Williams
AW
cc: Amy Forbes
Mark Sakioka
C-73

LEGAL ADVOCACY UNIT
Los Angeles, CA 90017
www.disabilityrightsca.org
August 19, 2026

VIA EMAIL
Mayor John Stephens and Costa Mesa City Council
c/o City Clerk
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
[email protected]
Housing Element Comment Portal Email
[email protected]
RE: Public Comment on August 12, 2026 Revised Housing Element Draft To Mayor Stephens and the Honorable Members of the City Council:

Disability Rights California (DRC), the Public Interest Law Project (PILP), and the Law Office of Autumn Elliott submit this public comment regarding the City of Costa Mesa’s August 12, 2026, draft 2021-2029 Housing Element. DRC, which submits these comments on behalf of its constituents and itself, is the nonprofit agency designated under state and federal law to protect and advocate for the rights of people with disabilities C-74

Page 2 of 18 ends

in California.
1 PILP is a California legal services support center that provides technical assistance, training, research, litigation, and advocacy support to public interest law programs and community based organizations on law and policy issues related to housing, public benefits, anti-displacement, community preservation, and civil rights. In addition to the comment provided in this letter, we join the public comment submitted by Christopher Brancart of the Brancart & Brancart firm.

The proposed amendments to the City’s Housing Element do not substantially comply with Housing Element Law, as discussed in greater detail below. Further, adoption of the proposed amendments—specifically the proposed amendments to Programs 2N (Reasonable
Accommodation), 2O (Definition of Single Housekeeping Unit), and 2P (Group Homes)—would be an action materially inconsistent with the City’s duty to affirmativley further fair housing pursuant to Government Code section 8899.50. Contrary to the proposed revisions in the draft Housing Element, which erroneously indicate that Programs 2N, 2O, and 2P have been completed with the April 7, 2026, adoption of Ordinances 2026-03 and 2026-04, these programs remain unfulfilled according to their own terms and objectives. As further discussed below, these Ordinances adopted in April do not ensure compliance with fair housing law or the duty to affirmatively further fair housing, but rather continue to violate the duties and protections of these laws by imposing restrictions and requirements on supportive shared housing for people with disabilities not imposed on other types of residential housing. Even worse, some of the revisions in Ordinances 2026-03 and 2026-04 exacerbate these issues and invite further discrimination against people with disabilities who live in, or wish to live in, supportive shared housing for people with disabilities in the City. 1 Disability Rights California provides services pursuant to the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 15001, PL 106-402; the Protection and Advocacy for Mentally Ill Individuals Act, 42 U.S.C. § 10801, PL 106- 310; the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794e, PL 106-402; the Assistive Technology Act, 29 U.S.C. § 3011,3012, PL 105-394; the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1320b-20, PL 106-170; the Children’s Health Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. § 300d-53, PL 106-310; and the Help America Vote Act of 2002, 42 U.S.C. § 15461-62, PL 107-252; as well as under California Welfare and Institutions Code §§ 4900 et seq.

C-75

Page 3 of 18 ends

I. The City’s Zoning Code Reasonable Accommodation Ordinance Continues to Violate State and Federal Fair Housing Law.

Program 2N of the City’s adopted Sixth Cycle Housing Element2requires the City to “review and adopt revisions to its Reasonable Accommodation process to be consistent with State and federal fair housing requirements” (Adopted Housing Element, 4-11.) The required amendments to the reasonable accommodation ordinance must “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.” (Adopted Housing Element, 4-12.) The City’s August 2026 Draft Housing Element proposes amendments to Program 2N that, if adopted, would read: “In April 2026, the City approved revisions to its Reasonable Accommodation process to be consistent with State and federal fair housing requirements.” This proposed update is inaccurate because the April 2026 revisions to the reasonable accommodation ordinance did not render it consistent with state and federal fair housing requirements. The reasonable accommodation ordinance, as amended April 2026, continues to violate applicable fair housing laws and fails to promote access to housing for people with disabilites. Rather than making the false claim that Program 2N has been successfully implemented, the City should commit to implementing it fully by making further amendments to the reasonable accommodation ordinance to correct the deficiencies discussed below.

The City’s Reasonable Accommodation procedure in its Zoning Code, which is Section 13-200.62 of its Municipal Code, includes a number of requirements that run afoul of California and federal fair housing law.

Although the City approved Ordinance No. 2026-03 to amend Section 13- 200.62 in April, this amendement merely removed one subsection that 2 References to the adopted Sixth Cycle Housing Element are to the March 2023 Housing Element available on HCD’s website at https://hcdpowerbi.blob.core.windows.net/housing-elements/CostaMesa6th-Adopted-031023.pdf.

C-76

Page 4 of 18 ends

included unlawful criteria and left Section 13-200.62 replete with provisions that contravene fair housing law.

There remain many ways that Section 13-200.62 does not conform with California and federal fair housing law. As an initial example, Section 13- 200.62 (f) provides a list of findings “all of which are required for approval” of a reasonable accommodation request, but includes required Findings (3), (5), and (7)
3 that improperly impose the burden of proof on the person or entity seeking the accommodation to establish an absence of the factors listed therein. As written, Findings (3), (5), and (7) require affirmative findings that there is no undue financial or administrative burden, no direct threat, and no fundamental alteration for the approval of a reasonable accommodation request. In other words, they require that the City affirmatively finds that those factors are not present. This has the effect of putting the burden on the person or entity making the request to establish the absence of an undue burden or fundamental alteration. That is contrary to fair housing law, which makes it the City’s burden to establish that there is an undue burden, direct threat, or fundamental alteration before denying a reasonable accommodation request. Section 13-200.62 (f) cannot be remedied without restructuring as it combines Findings (1) and (2) that are properly the burden of the person or entity seeking approval of the reasonable accommodation with Findings (3), (5), and (7) that are the City’s burden to establish if there is a legitimate reason the accommodation cannot be provided. These two types of findings must be bifurcated by restructuring the ordinance. Although DRC previously provided public comment before the adoption of this revised Ordinance in April of this year, the City did not make changes to address this issue.

The language of Section 13-200.62 fails to adequately reflect the law governing the findings that the City must establish to deny an otherwise valid reasonable accommodation request. For example, any decision by the City to deny a reasonable accommodation on the basis that it would be 3 As referenced herein, Finding (7) means subdivision (f)(7) of the required Findings for approval of a reasonable accommodation according to the update to Costa Mesa’s Municipal Code pursuant to Ordinance 2026-03. Before the adoption of this Ordinance, current Finding (7) was previously Finding (8), as prior Finding (7) was removed by the City with its April revision of Section 13-200.62.

C-77

Page 5 of 18 ends

an undue burden or fundamental alteration must be made “after considering all resources available for use in the funding and operation of the service, program, or activity, and must be accompanied by a written statement of the reasons for reaching that conclusion.” 28. C.F.R. §35.150(a)(3); see also 2 Cal. Code Regs., § 12179 (d) (standards for denial based on undue burden and fundamental alteration). The City’s reasonable accommodation ordinance, however, requires no such finding by the City and instead places the burden on the requestor to prove the absence of an undue burden or fundamental alteration. As another example, both federal and state law require that any denial of a reasonable accommodation request based on a direct threat finding must also find that the threat cannot be mitigated by reasonable accommodation. 28 C.F.R. §35.139; 2 Cal. Code, Regs. § 12179 (b)(3). In contrast, the City’s reasonable accommodation ordinance requires denial of a reasonable accommodation request if the accommodation would result in a direct threat, without consideration of additional accommodations that would mitigate the threat. Costa Mesa Mun. Code, § 13-200.62 (f)(5). Again, despite previous public comments and technical assistance from state Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) describing these issues and recommending revisions, the City has not made changes.

Letter from Melinda Coy to Carrie Tai re: City of Costa Mesa – Request for Reasonable Accommodation, 115 E. Wilson Street – Letter of Technical Assistance (June 8, 2026) (HCD 6/8/2026 TA Letter), 10.

Section 13-200.62(f) also allows and, in some cases, requires denial of reasonable accommodations for reasons that are not permitted by federal and state fair housing laws. Again, the examples provided here were previously submitted in public comment before the adoption of Ordinance 2026-03, but the City did not address these issues. For example, Finding (4) requires a finding that the “requested accommodation is consistent with surrounding uses in scale and intensity of use.” This provision allows the City to deny a reasonable accommodation on grounds that the proposed development or use is different from the existing uses on surrounding sites, even if the proposed development or use would not constitute a direct threat, undue burden, or fundamental alteration. Additionally, the language C-78

Page 6 of 18 ends

affords the planning director significant discretion to deny a requested accommodation based on their subjective view that the proposed development or use is inconsistent with surrounding uses even though a denial on that basis would violate state and federal fair housing laws. As noted by HCD in its June 8, 2026, letter of technical assistance to the City, provisions like finding (4) “create constraints on housing for persons with disabilities that are contrary to the intent of Housing Element Program 2N.” HCD 6/8/2026 TA Letter, 9.

Similarly, Finding (6) improperly imposes a requirement in some instances for “a finding that the requested accommodation is necessary to make facilities of a similar nature or operation economically viable in light of the particularities of the relevant market and market participants generally.” As noted by HCD in its June 8, 2026, technical assistance letter, this required finding involves “considerations beyond the individual request and the residence it involves, in violation of state law.” HCD 6/8/2026 TA Letter, 10.

Evaluation of a reasonable accommodation request involves an individualized inquiry, and consideration of the economic circumstances of other “market participants” is not appropriate. Finding (6) will be operationally difficult for staff or the applicants to make this determination given lack of information. Moreover, providing a feasibility study or market study about other housing does not fall within the burden of someone making a reasonable accommodation request. Making such a study a condition of approving a disability-related accommodation is therefore a discriminatory housing practice. In order to comport with fair housing law, this should likewise not be listed as a required finding.

Following the amendment to the ordinance earlier this year that deleted prior Finding (7)4, the language of Finding (2) should also be revised. It currently states that “[t]he requested accommodation is necessary to provide one or more individuals with a disability an equal opportunity to use 4 As referenced herein, “prior Finding (7)” means the previous Finding required by subdivision (f)(7) before the April 7, 2026, adoption of Ordinance 2026-03 that removed this subdivision from the City’s Zoning Code. Prior Finding (7) required that “the existing supply of facilities of a similar nature and operation in the community is sufficient to provide individuals with a disability an equal opportunity to live in a residential setting.”
C-79

Page 7 of 18 ends

and enjoy a dwelling.” To ensure that City staff interpret Finding (2) consistent with fair housing laws, by focusing on the housing at issue in the request rather than “facilities of a similar nature and operation” elsewhere, Finding (2) should be revised to refer to an equal opportunity to use and enjoy “their dwelling,” “the dwelling at issue in the accommodation request,” or something similar.

Additional examples of unlawful criteria that remain in the City’s Reasonable Accommodation procedure include Sections 13-200.62(e) and (g), and which DRC previously provided public comment before the April adoption of Ordinance 2026-03, regarding “considerations” that overlap with the required “findings” in Section 13-200.62(f) in a way that impedes consistency with fair housing law. Like Section 13-200.62(f), these sections fail to make clear which elements are the burden of the person making the reasonable accommodation request to establish and which are the City’s burden. Many of them are also improper considerations. For example, the current ordinance permits consideration of “whether granting the request would be consistent with the City's General Plan.” But by definition, any reasonable accommodation request pertaining to zoning will be inconsistent with the zoning scheme. “Requiring public entities to make exceptions to their rules and zoning policies is exactly what the FHAA does.” Anderson v. City of Blue Ash, 798 F.3d 338, 363 (6th Cir. 2015); City of Edmonds v. Washington State Bldg. Code Council, 18 F.3d 802, 806 (9th Cir. 1994) (FHA imposes an affirmative duty to reasonably accommodate disabled persons). The question is not whether a requested disability accommodation is inconsistent with the City’s General Plan or “the degree of deviation” from it, but whether granting it would fundamentally alter the General Plan. See also HCD 6/8/2026 TA Letter, 10 (noting that this provision “are subjective, potentially prejudicial, and can serve as constraints, violating Housing Element Law”).

The ordinance also allows consideration of whether “the requested accommodation would fundamentally alter the character of the neighborhood” and whether “the accommodation would result in a substantial increase in traffic or insufficient parking.” Costa Mesa Mun.

C-80

Page 8 of 18 ends

Code, § 13-200.62(g)(1), (2). As noted by HCD in its June 8, 2026, technical assistance letter, these provisions “are subjective, potentially prejudicial, and can serve as constraints, violating Housing Element Law.” HCD 6/8/2026 TA Letter, 10. The ordinance also allows denial on grounds that the reasonable accommodation would “create an institutionalized environment due to the number of and distance between facilities that are similar in nature or operation,” effectively allowing denial of reasonable accommodations based on the planning director’s subjective view that the City already has “enough” of a particular type of housing for people with disabilities. Costa Mesa Mun. Code § 13-200.62(g)(4). The City may not use vague or undefined conditions as a basis for denial of a reasonable accommodation request. The City must amend or eliminate these and other subsections (e) and (g) of Costa Mesa’s reasonable accommodation ordinance before the ordinance will comply with federal and state fair housing laws.

Other portions of Section 13-200.62 as currently written also run afoul of federal and state fair housing law. Again, DRC had previously provided this public comment before the adoption of Ordinance 2026-03. For example, Section 13-200.62(b) loads burdensome and irrelevant requirements onto people or entities making reasonable accommodation requests. A lay homeowner who needs an accommodation due to disability should be able to comply with application requirements without having to hire an attorney or other expert to help them understand what they need to do. The City should limit the application to information that is necessary for the City to evaluate whether the person or entity making the request has met their burden, such as the location of the dwelling at issue, the existence of the disability, the nature of the accommodation that is being requested, and the connection between the disability and the requested accommodation. The current provisions in Section 13-200.62(b) that require people or entities making reasonable accommodation requests to provide “[a]ny other information that the director reasonably determines is necessary for evaluating the request for reasonable accommodation” ((b)(3)) and “[a]ny other information that the hearing officer reasonably concludes is necessary to determine whether the findings required by subsection (e) of C-81

Page 9 of 18 ends

this section can be made” ((b)(7)) are particularly problematic because they are not limited to the information necessary to establish that a person or entity is entitled to a reasonable accommodation.

As another example, and also previously provided in public comment by DRC, Section 13-200.62(d) provides that appeals of reasonable accommodation requests will be handled through the same procedures as “any other discretionary permit.” However, the appeals process pertaining to reasonable accommodation requests needs to be navigable and manageable by lay people with disabilities. This provision should be repealed and replaced with new language that requires a prompt, clear statement of the reasons for any denial, establishes a simple procedure for requesting an appeal, provides a reasonable deadline for making requests for an appeal, and eliminates the need for individuals or entities to pay for the City’s review of their reasonable accommodation determination.

Most importantly, the section of the reasonable accommodation ordinance addressing appeals must exempt them from the review procedures that govern general zoning matters in order to respect the privacy of people’s disabilities and disability-related needs during any review process.

Hearings regarding reasonable accommodations requests should not be made by legislative bodies, and no public notice should be made regarding reasonable accommodation reviews. We have already seen that public hearings create an opening for members of the public to express animus against people with disabilities, which imposes an improper barrier to people seeking such accommodations. For example, as the City is aware, DRC previously represented Jane Doe, in the matter Insight Psychology and Addiction, Inc, et al. v. City of Costa Mesa, regarding Costa Mesa’s zoning disrimination against supportive shared housing for people with mental health disabilities. At the hearings regarding Insight’s reasonable accommodation request, a member of the public told the Planning Commission that a person who is “mentally disabled does not belong in a neighborhood next door to me or any of us in this room,” and another member of the public testified to the City Council that the “mentally ill cannot associate with our children, neighbors.” Hearing those types of C-82

Page 10 of 18 ends

prejudicial comments was traumatic for our client Ms. Doe, who spoke about her own experiences with mental illness and the ways that staying at Insight’s housing had helped her, at a hearing on Insight’s reasonable accommodation request. Not only is the City not obligated to provide the public with a forum to intimidate and humiliate people like Ms. Doe, but the City cannot put people like her through such an ordeal as a condition of having their accommodation request reviewed. Nor can such animus play any part in the City’s review of an accommodation request. For similar reasons, the ordinance should also make clear that only the person or entity making the request can appeal a decision regarding a reasonable accommodation, in contrast to the current language which permits virtually anyone – including neighbors with an animus against people with disabilities – to appeal.

In short, these examples provide a nonexhaustive list of many of the ways that the amendment to Section 13-200.62 that the City approved by way of Ordinance No. 2026-03 is inadequate to render its Reasonable Accommodation process consistent with California and federal fair housing law. The City moved forward with this inadequate amendment and failed to further amend Section 13-200.62 despite repeated public comment from Disability Rights California, and others in the community, which articulated many of the ways that its reasonable accommodation zoning ordinance violates California and federal fair housing law.

We urge the City to abandon its proposed amendment to Program 2N of its Housing Element and instead take action to ensure that its Zoning Code reasonable accommodation procedures comply with state and federal fair housing requirements.

II. The City’s Definition of “Single Housekeeping Unit” Perpetuates and Exacerbates Limitations on Shared Housing Opportunities for People with Disabilities to Live Together in Supportive Settings.

Program 2O of the City’s Sixth Cycle Housing Element provides for adoption of revisions to its definition of “Single Houskeeping Unit” in its C-83

Page 11 of 18 ends

Zoning Code “to provide greater flexibility in consideration of accommodating a variety of household situations for related and unrelated individuals living together.” Adopted Housing Element, 4-12. The City’s proposed amendments to Program 2O, if adopted, would read: “In April 2026, the City adopted revisions to its zoning code per the objectives below.” This proposed revision is inaccurate because the City’s amendment to this definition of Single Housekeeping Unit in April of this year continues to impose unworkable and invasive criteria that are difficult for the City to assess and enforce in an objective and equitable manner, which ultimately invites discriminatory enforcement and limits shared housing opportunities for people with disabilities.

When the City adopted Ordinance 2026-03 it further exacerbated existing problems with the definition by removing objective standards and instead set forth invasive criteria that the City cannot practically review and enforce in a nondiscriminatory, equitable manner, and without invading the privacy of households.

The City’s definition of Single Housekeeping Unit is an incredibly invasive intrusion into the privacy of Costa Mesa families and homes. The government should not be monitoring whether the members of a private household are eating dinner together, keeping joint bank accounts, or having regular conversations with one another, or keeping tabs on who has taken responsibility for keeping the living room or the kitchen clean and tidy. The depth of the privacy invasion contemplated by the single housekeeping unit definition suggests that the City intends to reserve investigation and enforcement of the definition against disfavored classes of people who historically and routinely still experience discrimination, such as people with disabilities.

The definition of “Single Housekeeping Unit” also invites discriminatory enforcement in other ways. The requirement that “residential activities” be conducted on a “not-for-profit” basis would also exclude people with a variety of disability-related needs, such as the need to pay someone to assist them with activities of daily living. See Letter from Paul McDougall C-84

Page 12 of 18 ends

to Lori Ann Farrell Harrison re: Group Home Ordinances – Letter of Technical Assistance (Nov. 29, 2023), 6 (noting that “problematic policies include requiring all residents to share a common lease or deed, excluding for-profit group homes and overly scrutinizing living arrangements (e.g., not allowing for locks on rooms or having separate entrances).”). The meal-sharing requirement discriminates against people who have religious or medical dietary needs that require separate meals and food preparation. The entire definition take in whole discriminates against seniors and people with disabilities who need to rent out a room or rooms (whether as homeowner or tenant) in order to remain living independently in the community, or who cannot take on shared responsibilities, expenses, or activities due to a physical or mental impairment or to participation in disability-related public benefit programs that prohibit or penalize such sharing.

Although DRC and others have previously provided public comment on these problems with this definition prior to the adoption of Ordinance 2026- 03, the City nevertheless moved forward with this problematic definition.

The discrimination that the definition of “Single Houskeeping Unit” invites is significant to the availability of shared housing for people with disabilities within the City because only housing that meets this definition is permitted as of right in every residential district according to the City’s Land Use Matrix under Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-30. Thus, it is incorrect that the April 2026 revisions to the “Single Housekeeping Unit” definition would provide greater flexibility in consideration of accommodating a variety of household situations for related and unrelated individuals living together. For these reasons, we urge the City to discard its proposed revision to Program 2O in the draft Housing Element and instead fully implement Program 2O by amending it as discussed above.

C-85

Page 13 of 18 ends

III. The City’s Zoning Code “Goup Home” Regulation Ordinances Continue and Worsen Discrimination Against People With
Disabilities.

Program 2P of the City’s Sixth Cycle Housing Element requires adoption of revisions in its Zoning Code regarding regulations of “group homes,” which are defined under the City’s code to apply exclusively to people with disabilities living in supportive shared housing.
5 Program 2P requires the
City review and adopt revisions to its zoning code applicable to group homes to affirmatively further fair housing and comply with fair housing laws.” Adopted Housing Element, 4-12. To that end, the City must “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.” Ibid. The City now proposes to amend Program 2P to read: “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.” This proposed update is false and should be withdrawn because the Ordinances 2026-03 and 2026-04, adopted in April 2026, did not remedy the City’s group home regulations’ violations of applicable fair housing laws, and the City continues to subject group homes to requirements that it does not apply to other uses.

The City’s Zoning Code continues discriminatory regulation of supportive shared housing for people with disabilities, even after the adoption of Ordinances 2026-03 and 2026-04. Both before and after the revisions of these ordinances, the City’s “group home” regulations only permit supportive shared housing for people with disabilities in residential use zones with conditional or special use permits and impose significantly burdensome permitting requirements and restrictions under Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-322(a), including separation requirements of 5 Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-6 defines shared housing for people with disabilities as a “group home” meaning “[a] facility that is being used as a supportive living environment for persons who are considered handicapped under state and federal law” and “shall not include the following: (1) residential care facilities; (2) any group home that operates as a single housekeeping unit; (3) any group home without an operator.”
C-86

Page 14 of 18 ends

650 feet between “group homes” or sober living homes. As noted in HCD’s technical assistance letter of November 29, 2023:

These spacing requirements have a particularly severe impact on group homes, severely limiting where they can locate, causing group homes to close, and preventing others from opening. Yet the City has not shown that these spacing requirements are necessary or that there are health, safety, or similar justifications for the spacing requirements, or that if these were actual issues, that the City could not address them through less restrictive and discriminatory policies.

HCD TA 11/29/2023 TA Letter, 8. Significantly, Ordinances 2026-03 and 2026-04 revised the definition of “group home” to effectively require shared housing for people with disabilities to have “an operator” and require an operator’s permit. But it is both illegal discrimination and an insult to people with disabilities to assume that disabled people cannot live together in the community without someone governing the behavior of the residents as residents, setting rules for them, or otherwise supervising them. Rather than fixing the problems with the group home regulations, which already limit in a discriminatory way where people with a disability-related need to share housing can live, Ordinance 2026-03 exacerbates the problem.

The current group home regulations also provide for a discriminatory review process. The April revision to the notice requirement in Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-311(b) in Ordinance 2026-03 does not eliminate its discriminatory nature. Calling the notice a “courtesy” written notice does nothing to lessen the problem that the notice allows neighbors to express discriminatory animus against people with disabilities as part of the group home special use permit process. As City planner Anna McGill acknowledged at the February 9, 2026, Planning Commission hearing regarding this proposed language, no other ministerial permit process has such a notice requirement. It is discriminatory against people with disabilities to impose this notice requirement for group homes. As noted by HCD in its November 29, 2023, technical assistance letter, such notice C-87

Page 15 of 18 ends

requirements “burden group homes with additional, unjustified costs, while perpetuating fears and stereotypes about persons with disabilities.” HCD 11/29/2023 TA Letter, 9. The City’s regulations of “group homes” in its Zoning Code continue to single out supportive shared housing for people with disabilities for this treatment.

These revisions to the “group home” definition and regulations in Ordinances 2026-03 and 2026-04 adopted in April worsen discrimination against people with disabilities rather than ensure compliance with fair housing law. The City chose to make these revisions despite public comment from Disability Rights California and others warning that these would compound the existing problems with how the City’s regulation of “group homes” contravene the duty to affirmatively further fair housing and fair housing law. These issues with the City’s “group home” regulations still exist after the City’s revision to its Zoning Code in April. Accordingly, it is untrue that Program 2P has been revised to affirmatively further fair housing and comply with fair housing laws to promote objectivity and greater approval certainty similar to other residential uses. Instead, the City’s Zoning Code regulation of supportive shared housing for people with disabilities continues to treat this housing differently and less favorably than othe residential uses, and worsened these problems. Rather than amending Program 2P as proposed, the City should fully implement Program 2P by amending its group home regulations to remove discriminatory barriers to the siting and operation of group homes within the City.

IV. The proposed revisions to Programs 2N, 2O, and 2P do not substantially comply with Housing Element Law.

Government Code 65583 (c)(3) requires Housing Elements to:

Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental and nongovernmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing, including housing for all income levels and housing for persons with disabilities. The program shall C-88

Page 16 of 18 ends

remove constraints to, and provide reasonable accommodations for housing designed for, intended for occupancy by, or with supportive services for, persons with disabilities. . . .

The Adopted Housing Element included Programs 2N, 2O, and 2P to fulfill this obligation, but the City failed to implement them by their December 2024 deadline. See Adopted Housing Element, 4-11 to 4-12. Now the City proposes amendments that not only include false information about the programs’ implementation status but also would eliminate any stated steps to bring the City’s Reasonable Accommodation ordinance, Single Housekeeping Unit definition, and “group home” regulations into compliance with applicable law. Rather than committing to removing constraints to housing for people with disabilities, the proposed amendments evince the City’s intent to allow those constraints to persist for the remainder of the planning period.

Additionally, Government Code section 65583(a)(5) requires "an analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing . . . for persons with disabilities." The August 12, 2026, Draft Housing Element's constraints section includes discussion of the Reasonable Accommodation ordinance and the definition of Single Housekeeping Unit. Draft, at 3-36 to 3-37. However, it does not include any updated analysis of the changes that the City enacted in April 2026, nor does it analyze the City's treatment of group homes as a constraint to the siting, operation, and maintenance housing for people with disabilities. Accordingly, the Draft does not substantially comply with Government Code section 65583(a)(5). See also HCD 11/29/2023 TA Letter (identifying constraints).

Adoption of the proposed revisions would not substantially comply with Housing Element Law.

C-89

Page 17 of 18 ends

V. The proposed amendments are materially inconsistent with the City’s duty to affirmatively further fair housing.

Government Code section 8899.50 requires the City to affirmatively further fair housing, which subdivision (a)(1) of this Section provides:
means taking meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics. Specifically, affirmatively furthering fair housing means taking meaningful actions that, taken together, address significant disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity, replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity, and fostering and maintaining compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws.

The City must also “take no action that is materially inconsistent with its obligation to affirmatively further fair housing.” Gov. Code, § 8899.50 (b).

The City’s existing Reasonable Accommodation ordinance, definition of Single Housekeeping Unit, and “group home” regulations all create barriers to the siting and operation of housing for people with disabilities, constraining housing choice and fostering segregation. See California Department of Housing And Community Development, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements (April 2021 Update), 38 (“Common Zoning Barriers for Persons with Disabilities”); see also HCD 6/8/2026 TA Letter, 16 (City’s current reasonable accommodation process violates AFFH law). Amending the Housing Element to make false statements about the implementation status of Programs 2N, 2O, and 2P and to eliminate language regarding the City’s commitment to fully implement these programs would, therefore, be an action inconsistent with the City’s duty to affirmatively further fair housing.

C-90

Page 18 of 18 ends

VI. Conclusion
We strongly urge the City to reject the proposed revisions to its Housing Element and direct City staff to continue working on the implementation of Program 2N, 2O, and 2P so that the City’s regulations do not discriminate against people with disabilities.

We appreciate your time and attention to our comments.

Sincerely,
Alexandra M. Robertson
Litigation Counsel
Disability Rights California
Charlotte Lanvers
Litigation Director
Disability Rights California
Autumn M. Elliott
Law Office of Autumn Elliott
Melissa A. Morris
Staff Attorney
Public Interest Law Project
C-91
From: Rob <r @blt-enterprises.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2026 10:34 AM
To: HALLIGAN, MICHELLE <[email protected]> Cc: Eric < @blt-enterprises.com>; Lukas @blt-enterprises.com>; [email protected]; PC Public Comments <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Draft Mixed-Use Overlay City of Costa Mesa Hi Michelle,
Thank you for all of your hard work to date on the Housing Element and MUOUD. I attended the Planning Commission hearing via Zoom last night and was very impressed by the amount of work you and the rest of the staff have put into this process.

As you may recall, our company owns two properties that are proposed to be designated as new Housing Element opportunity sites: 1650 Sunflower and 3539 Howard Way. Since we last spoke, we have come to understand that designation of these properties as Housing Element sites would result in the loss of our existing base zoning. We did not fully appreciate that consequence until reviewing the staff report and attending last night’s hearing.

Both properties are currently leased to light industrial/distribution users, and the surrounding area is predominantly developed with light industrial and office uses. While we recognize that residential redevelopment could potentially be attractive at some point in the future, we are not currently in a position to determine whether such a redevelopment would be economically viable, particularly given current interest rates, construction costs, and the character of the surrounding uses. In addition, certain development standards in the draft MUOUD, including the 30% minimum common open space requirement, would materially affect the feasibility of residential development on these properties.

For these reasons, we respectfully request that 1650 Sunflower and 3539 Howard Way not be designated as Housing Element opportunity sites. This request is not intended to foreclose the possibility of residential redevelopment in the future. Rather, given the existing uses of the properties and the uncertainty surrounding the feasibility of residential redevelopment, we are not comfortable giving up our existing base zoning rights at this time.

I submitted the same request through the comment section of the website and also emailed you and the Planning Commission yesterday, but I am not certain that those comments were received.

Please confirm receipt of this email and let me know whether there are any additional steps we should take to have these two properties removed from the proposed list of Housing Element opportunity sites.

Thank you,
Rob Solomon
.................................................
..........................................
8/19/26, 9:58 PM Mail - Aliah Werth - Outlook
https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAkALgAAAAAAHYQDEapmEc2byACqAC%2FEWg0AAKv%2FP7umVEy9Koq%2BPJY5yQAC%2BFdiEwAA?nativeVersion=1.2026.730.100 2/5 C-92
Robert
President and Chief Legal Officer
BLT Enterprises
Santa Monica, CA 90404 | @blt-enterprises.com
Think green. Print responsibly.

NOTICE: The information contained in this electronic e-mail and any accompanying attachment(s) is intended only for the use of the intended recipient and may be confidential and/or privileged. If any reader of this communication is not the intended recipient, unauthorized use, disclosure or copying is strictly prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by return e-mail, and delete the original message and all copies from your system.

Thank you
From: HALLIGAN, MICHELLE <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2026 2:06 PM
To: Rob @blt-enterprises.com>
Subject: RE: Draft Mixed-Use Overlay City of Costa Mesa Hi Rob, If you have time, please give me a call or send a Teams invite.

Michelle Halligan
Senior Planner
City of Costa Mesa | Economic and Development Services Department (soon to be the Community Development Department)
77 Fair Drive 2
nd Floor| Costa Mesa | CA 92626 | (714) 754-5608
“The City of Costa Mesa serves our residents, businesses and visitors while promoting a safe, inclusive, and vibrant community.” Please consider the environment before printing this email. Thank you.

From: Rob @blt-enterprises.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2026 4:55 PM
To: HALLIGAN, MICHELLE <[email protected]> 8/19/26, 9:58 PM Mail - Aliah Werth - Outlook
https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAkALgAAAAAAHYQDEapmEc2byACqAC%2FEWg0AAKv%2FP7umVEy9Koq%2BPJY5yQAC%2BFdiEwAA?nativeVersion=1.2026.730.100 3/5 C-93
From: Aaron Klemm
To: Neighborhoods
Subject: Housing Element comment
Date: Tuesday, August 18, 2026 3:51:47 PM
I tried to submit using the online form but could not review my submission. This email should replace the poorly formatted comment submitted on the website.

I am requesting that the city, its Planning Commission and City Council upzone to the maximum extent possible going above the 20% buffer to legalize housing and usher in zoned capacity for housing abundance. The city should do that by increasing both the quantity and quality of upzonings — and critically, to disperse them rather than concentrate them in one type of neighborhood.

The map tells the truth that the words will not.

As I reviewed the agenda packet, one acronym came to mind: POSIWID — the Purpose of a System is What it Does. The language in the public outreach sections is aspirational: familyfriendly, affordable, affirmatively furthering fair housing. The actual Housing Element site map tells a different story.

This Housing Element concentrates new housing on what urbanists call car sewers — what traffic engineers more politely call arterial roads. These corridors carry high traffic speeds, noise, air pollution, and a pedestrian environment hostile to the people we are claiming to house. Meanwhile, single-family neighborhoods are exempted from any additional density whatsoever.

Concentrating density exclusively on arterial corridors is bad urbanism, and bad urbanism is self-defeating. When new residents are placed in environments defined by traffic noise, exhaust, and streets that no one wants to walk on, the lived experience of that housing becomes the argument opponents use against the next cycle of projects. Every poorly sited housing project is a gift to the people who will stand at this microphone next cycle and say:
look what density does to a neighborhood. The city has an opportunity to break that cycle — to demonstrate that housing abundance and good urbanism are the same project, not competing ones. Upzoning only where it is politically convenient makes every future housing project in this city more difficult.

I understand that this concentration reflects the best the Commission and Council believed they could achieve under existing precedents. But those precedents are in direct conflict with state law and conflict with the city's stated values.

The reckoning is coming regardless.

C-94
Future RHNA cycles will require upzoning the neighborhoods that are currently exempted.

When that moment arrives, the political backlash will be significantly worse because they believed the city when it told them that all new housing can be put on these arterial corridors.

The concentration you choose today becomes the ammunition opponents use tomorrow.

A better framework comes from Strong Towns: no neighborhood should be subject to radical change, and no neighborhood should be exempt from change. Their recommendation is blanket incremental upzoning — every neighborhood moves up one step in density, using byright ministerial approvals. No dramatic transformations. No exemptions. Shared, proportional, predictable change.

The Permit Streamlining Act — and why a much simpler zoning code is not optional.

Broader and more dispersed upzoning is not only the right planning decision, housing abundance is dependent on city staff being able to do their jobs within the law. The Permit Streamlining Act, codified at Government Code §§65920–65964.5 and significantly strengthened in the 2025 legislative session, imposes mandatory deadlines on housing application processing that the city cannot waive. Once a development application is submitted, the city has 30 calendar days to determine whether it is complete. Failure to make a complete, written determination within 30 days triggers automatic deemed-complete status. For post-entitlement permits, the deadlines are even tighter — 15 days to determine completeness and 30 to 60 days to approve or deny, depending on the number of units.

Failure to meet those timelines renders the permit automatically deemed approved. ca In the book, Humanizing Rules there is a saying. "If one person violates a rule, you have a people problem. If everyone violates the rule you have a rule problem." Costa Mesa has a zoning rule problem. Staff are tasked with an impossible task. Costa Mesa's zoning code is a document that has been amended, layered, and patched over decades into something that genuinely defies efficient administration. The moves by Dudek to simplify it are welcome and probably not enough unless the city staff are able to consistently meet the deadlines in the Permit Streamlining Act. When a planner must cross-reference multiple overlapping use tables, special conditions, specific plans and discretionary findings just to confirm a project's basic eligibility, meeting a 30-day completeness determination is not a matter of effort or competence — it is a matter of whether the code itself is legible. Staff are being asked to run a sprint in a maze. The Permit Streamlining Act's automatic approval consequences mean that a zoning code too complex to administer quickly is not just an inconvenience — it is a legal liability.

The city should do whatever it takes to legally to invalidate the poorly written Measure K and the partial repeal through Measure Y. They conflict with state law and will help usher in multiple periods of Builder's Remedy conditions over each cycle. Measure Y and K are government impediments to housing. Removing them will allow staff to practice good city C-95
planning and expand the geography of where housing can be permitted. By-right ministerial approvals — the same mechanism that makes SB 9, SHRA, and ADU permits function — succeed precisely because they give staff a clear, objective checklist rather than a discretionary gauntlet. The legislature has made clear that it expects housing applications to move through a defined, time-limited process with objective criteria and published application requirements. A zoning code built around that model protects staff, protects the city from automatic approval liability, and produces better and faster housing outcomes. Massive simplification is not a concession to developers. It is professional competence codified. Digital Democracy
The choice before you.

Costa Mesa can upzone broadly, live the values stated in its own outreach materials, and exercise meaningful control over how its neighborhoods evolve.

Or it can follow Huntington Beach's path — kowtowing to NIMBYs, defiant, expensive, and ultimately losing — and arrive at the same destination while paying $50,000 per month in fines and surrendering local land use authority entirely.

I will be direct: I am increasingly sympathetic to the argument that opponents of housing should simply get what they want — good and hard. A frequent builder's remedy condition means any housing project meeting basic affordability thresholds cannot be denied regardless of local preferences or specific neighborhood and must be approved ministerially. That is the alternative to a compliant housing element. It is not a threat. It is the statute.

The more constructive path is housing abundance. It means residents exercising their private property rights with less government interference. City planners can competently practice their profession. It means increased property tax revenue from redeveloped parcels. It means our children being able to afford to live in the city where they grew up.

I urge the City to be bolder, tell the public the truth, upzone as broadly and as equitably as state law requires — and give staff a zoning code simple enough to administer it.

Thank you.

Aaron Klemm
Westside Costa Mesa — resident since 2010
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any C-96
suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.

C-97
Anna Williams
Associate Attorney
T:

August 19, 2026
City of Costa Mesa
Economic and Development Services Department
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, California 92626
neighborlioods@,costamesaca.gov

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Re: Comments on the Revised Public Review Draft of the Housing Element To Whom it May Concern:

On behalf of our client, the Sakioka family, the owners of property in the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan ("Sakioka"), we are writing to submit limited clean-up and consistency comments on the City of Costa Mesa's (the "City") revised public review draft of the Housing Element dated August 12, 2026. In reviewing the latest draft, we spotted some antiquated zoning and general plan references that should be corrected before tlie City re-adopts tlie Housing Element.

1. As indicated in this week's Planning Commission staff report, (a) property within the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan was previously rezoned to peri'nit residential density of 90 du/acre and (b) the City's Mixed-Use Overlay District provides alternative residential development standards. The following should be updated to reflect the same:
a. Note 5 to Table 3-2. We recoi'nu'nend adding the following text (bolded and underlined):
"(5): The maximum density for 1901 Newport Boulevard is 40 dwelling units per acre. See North Costa Mesa Specific Plan for exceptions. Property may also be separately developed under the Mixed-Use Overlay and higher densities may apply on housing element sites. No residential development is pen'nitted within the 23.4-acre project site generally addressed as 1375 Sunflower Ave. and 3370 Harbor Blvd." b. Note 2 to Table 3-7. We recommend adding the following text (bolded and underlined):
"(2) Soutli Coast Metro Center (Area 6) lias a site- specific FAR of O.79. Sakioka Lot 2 (Area 8) has a maximum site- specific FAR of 1.0. Property may also be separately developed under the Mixed-Use Overlay and higher densities may apply on housing element sites."

2. The MUOD regulations the City Council adopted earlier tliis year provide that the maximum height permitted when developing under the MUOD is either 108' or the maximum building height in an applicable specific plan, whichever is liigher. Tliis sliould be reflected in the "maximum building height" discussion 011 page 3-11 of the Housing Element. We recoini'nend the following text edits (bolded and underlined): "As of March 2026, the City modified its maximum building Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
333 South Grand Avenue i Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 i T: 213.229.7000 F: 213.229.7520 i gibsondunn.com C-98
Michelle Halligan

Page 2 ends

heights up to 108 feet (or the maximum building height in an applicable specific plan, whichever is higher) for residential projects on Housing Element sites, depending on the maximum residential density allowed."

3. Table 3-8 contains an errant reference to a Collector Street on Sakioka Lot 2. That Collector Street does not appear in the City's Circulation Element. Reference to this Collector Street should be removed from the Table so the Housing Element is consistent with the City's Circulation Element.

The maximum height provided for Area 8 under the Specific Plan is also 120 (not 180) feet.

4. Appendix B. Sites Analysis.
a. Discussion of Sakioka Lot 2 is inconsistent witli current zoning. We recommend making tlie following corrective edits (bolded and underlined):
"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 90 units to the acre 660 residential u-ffls, 863,000 Square feet of office or rctail u:ic and a Floor Area Ratio of 1.0.

The property is also located in the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan Mixed-Use Overlay District.

The site is currently under a development agreement (DA) that was recently extended for ten years until May of 2031. Tlie City has had continued discussions with the property owners who have indicated there is the potential for future housing development on tlie site in strategic areas. This development would occur pursuant to the new densities identified within the Housing Element, which may lead to tlie 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 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.

Furtheri'nore, 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 tlie very low, low, moderate, and above moderate-income categories. The property owner has expressed interest in communications with tlie City in developing for residential uses witliin 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 tlie site over the planning period."
b. Table B-8. Requires the following corrections:

C-99
Michelle Halligan

Page 3 ends

i. Sakioka Lot 2 (APN 410-441-17). Add MUOD under "Overlay or Specific Plan Designation." This property falls under both the MUOD and the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan.
ii. APN 410-501-25. Add MUOD under "Overlay or Specific Plan Designation." This property falls under both the MUOD and the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan.

This property is also associated witli a second APN, which appears to have been inadvertently omitted from the updated sites inventory, as it appeared in prior housing elements. That missing APN is 410-501-36; that assessor parcel is also under the MUOD and North Costa Mesa Specific Plan and has a maximum density of 90 du/ac.
iii. APN 410-501-31. Add MUOD under "Overlay or Specific Plan Designation." This property falls under both the MUOD and the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan.

We appreciate the City's ongoing willingness to discuss and consider these comments and support the City's ongoing efforts to facilitate liousing and mixed-use development.

Sincerely,
(2,,QA..=
Anna Williams
AW
cc: Amy Forbes
Mark Sakioka
C-100
Please consider the environment before printing this email. Thank you.

Hi Michelle,
Please pass these comments on to the Planning Commission, City Council, and the Mayor:

Mayor Stephens, Council Members, and Planning Commissioners, My name is Austin Mattison, and I am a resident of West Costa Mesa. While I agree that Costa Mesa must address housing needs—and I support thoughtful redevelopment—I am deeply concerned about the current "Neighborhoods Where We All Belong" proposal. As written, this plan disproportionately places the city's housing burden onto West Costa Mesa. This directly contradicts the core intentions of the State's Housing Element guidelines, which mandate that high-density rezoning be concentrated near major transit corridors and transportation centers, not tucked away into established, independent neighborhoods. By forcing it here, the proposal risks undermining the exact qualities that make our community one of the most unique, livable areas in Orange County.

But this is not another NIBMY email; we need more affordable housing. The problem only focuses on compliance, meanwhile ignoring aspects that will create huge future livability issues.

The City's vision heavily promotes mixed-use development as a tool to create walkable neighborhoods.

However, the economic reality is very different. Because residential development yields the highest returns, developers naturally prioritize housing over retail. Consequently, projects advertised as "live-work" often deliver little to no meaningful commercial space. I see this firsthand as a resident of the Lighthouse development, where not a single one of the 40+ units is occupied by a commercial business today.

West Costa Mesa already possesses authentic walkability along 19th Street and Placentia Avenue, where residents can easily walk to grocery stores, coffee shops, restaurants, and entertainment venues. These organic, local businesses cannot simply be engineered later through design guidelines or ground-floor retail mandates.

In fact, replacing these commercial properties with high-density residential projects will reduce walkability by forcing residents to drive farther for daily necessities.

Furthermore, this plan seriously underestimates the importance of "third places"—the informal gathering spaces that build community, culture, and social connection. West Costa Mesa’s character was built by artists, musicians, entrepreneurs, and small businesses, not by luxury apartment projects.

Local institutions like the Quonset Hut Village on 17th Street, The Wayfarer, the Tiki Bar, Wilson Coffee, MoonGoat, Eagle & Pig, and Trenta are not accidental. They exist because West Costa Mesa has historically offered older commercial buildings, industrial spaces, and modest strip centers that remain affordable enough for independent businesses to survive and grow. This is the exact environment where legendary Costa Mesa brands like Volcom and RVCA got their start.

The economics of the proposed rezoning place these invaluable community assets at immense risk. When investors can replace aging commercial properties with high-density luxury apartments, culture and creativity cannot compete with those financial returns. Over time, the artist villages, local music venues, and independent markets will disappear, replaced by high-return projects that contribute nothing to our culture.

Housing units alone do not create community; third places do. If every aging shopping center and industrial building becomes housing, we may meet state housing targets while simultaneously destroying the very ingredients that make Costa Mesa a desirable place to live.

If the City moves forward with these zoning changes, I respectfully ask that four revisions be considered:

1. Provide stronger protections for existing neighborhood-serving retail centers that offer daily necessities.

Don't create food deserts and more car trips.

2. Require meaningful, economically viable commercial space within mixed-use developments, rather than allowing token retail components that remain permanently vacant.

3. Identify and protect cultural, artistic, and entertainment uses that contribute directly to Costa Mesa's identity.

4. Evaluate the cumulative impacts of commercial and industrial land conversion on neighborhood livability, walkability, entrepreneurship, and culture—not just housing production.

Cities must evolve, but housing alone does not make a great city. The question before you should not just be how many units we can build, but what kind of city will remain once they are built. Once our unique character, local businesses, and authentic culture are lost, they cannot be rebuilt. If this plan goes forward unaltered, it will strip away the soul of our neighborhood and leave us looking no different than the endless housing of 8/20/26, 9:00 AM Mail - Aliah Werth - Outlook
https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAkALgAAAAAAHYQDEapmEc2byACqAC%2FEWg0AAKv%2FP7umVEy9Koq%2BPJY5yQAC%2BVHmHwA… 2/3 C-101
Yorba Linda or the sterile blandness of Aliso Viejo. Costa Mesa is better than that, and we can do better than this plan. I urge you to revise this proposal to protect our neighborhood-serving retail and creative spaces before they are gone for good.

Thank you for your consideration,
Austin Mattison
West Costa Mesa Resident
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
8/20/26, 9:00 AM Mail - Aliah Werth - Outlook
https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAkALgAAAAAAHYQDEapmEc2byACqAC%2FEWg0AAKv%2FP7umVEy9Koq%2BPJY5yQAC%2BVHmHwA… 3/3 C-102
McCray CAIP Partnership, LP
1930 Placentia Avenue, Suite A4
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
_____________________________________________________________________________________ 1 August 15, 2026
Michelle Halligan
Senior Planner
Planning & Community Development
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive, 2nd Floor
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
RE: Additional Parcels to be added to HCD State Housing Element:
2925 College Avenue, Costa Mesa – APN #s: 418-102-08
2949 College Avenue, Costa Mesa – APN # 418-102-09
Dear Michelle:

I am requesting to have our 2 parcels added to the HCD Housing Element proposed site plan.

Although these parcels are not in Measure K, we respectfully request they be included, as the site is adjacent to our other site at Dale Way, which is included in the Housing Element.

Additionally, the site is across the street from Seapoint Villas and Pinecreek Apartments, both which are existing apartment complexes, so the location is compatible with existing and proposed use. Considering the city of Costa Mesa’s situation with the State HCD, these would be beneficial for adding additional housing sites.

My letter dated 6/12/26 included both APNs but both addresses were not spelled out completely, so I believe this site would be an excellent candidate for additional housing.

Therefore, I request that both parcels be included in the HCD State Housing Element:
o 418-102-08
o 418-102-09
I am sending this to be presented to the Planning Commission before the Special Planning Commission meeting scheduled for Monday, August 27, 2026.

The same reasoning in the previous letter is still relevant. I appreciate your attention to this matter.

Thank you,
Anne McCray
McCray Properties, LLC
General Partner
McCray Dale Way Partnership, LP
McCray CAIP Partnership, LP
C-103

BRANCART & BRANCART

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Christopher Brancart P.O. BOX 686 Telephone
Elizabeth Brancart PESCADERO, CA 94060 Facsimile
www.brancart.com
______________
Street Address
8205 Pescadero Road
Loma Mar, California 94021
August 19, 2026
Via Email and Facsimile
Hon. John Stephens, Mayor
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Fax: (714) 754-5028
[email protected]
Brenda Green, City Clerk
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Fax: (714) 754-5028
[email protected]
Carrie Tai, Director
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Fax: (714) 754-4856
[email protected]
Housing Element Comment Portal
[email protected]
Re: Comment Opposing Adoption of City’s August 12, 2026 Revised Housing Element Draft
Dear Gentlepersons:

Pursuant to the City’s public notice, I submit the following comment on behalf of group homes and their residents, owners, and operators. I also support and join the public comment letter submitted by Disability Rights California (DRC) regarding the August 12, 2026, Draft Housing Element. This comment objects to the revisions set forth in the City’s Housing Element under Chapter 4, C-104
City of Costa Mesa
August 19, 2026

Page 2 ends
← All documents from this meeting