Costa Mesa City Council
October 20, 2026

L a n d U s e E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | L U - 1
Chapter 2
Land Use Element
Introduction
The Land Use Element is the keystone element of the Costa Mesa General Plan. This Element unifies the other elements by providing an overall policy context for future physical change. Goals and policies define the community’s desired balance among social, environmental, and economic considerations, while maintaining those characteristics of the community that reinforce quality neighborhoods and viable business districts.

As Costa Mesa implements this General Plan, the City aspires to keep Costa Mesa an eclectic community with welcoming public spaces; attractive, walkable residential neighborhoods; exceptional parks and community services; and, a diverse economy that meets the needs of local residents while also attracting investment from regional and international markets.

Looking southeast over Costa Mesa’s Westside District.

GP-XX-XX, Adopted XX, XX, 2026
Updated September 16, 2026 – General Plan Amendments:

GP 18-02, October 2, 2018 PGPA-24-01, July 15, 2025
GP 18-03, November 13, 2018 PGPA-24-02, August 5, 2025
GP 20-01, July 12, 2021 PCTY-25-0003, September, 15, 2026 L a n d U s e E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | L U - 2
Purpose
The Land Use Element shapes new physical development in the City and its sphere of influence and provides strategies to preserve, protect, and enhance established neighborhoods and districts consistent with the community’s vision. Through implementation of the Land Use Element, the City seeks to accomplish the following:
 Target new development opportunities at key locations while ensuring compatibility with established neighborhoods
 Increase homeownership opportunities in the City
 Establish and maintain an orderly pattern of development in the City  Establish a land use classification system that implements land use policies  Identify acceptable land uses and their general locations  Promote consistency with standards for residential density and non-residential building intensity for existing and future development
 Accommodate a diversity of businesses to provide a solid tax base and ample employment opportunities, to attract visitor/tourist spending, and to hedge against periodic downturns in business sectors
 Provide open space, park areas, and public spaces where residents can enjoy passive and active recreational pursuits
 Ensure that new development is economically and environmentally sustainable The Land Use Element serves as the long-range planning guide for development in the City by indicating the location and extent of development to be allowed, in conjunction with any future housing opportunities identified within a sites inventory of the Housing Element. More than any other element, the Land Use Element will have a major impact on the form and character of Costa Mesa over the next 20 years. The Land Use Element applies to all properties within the corporate City limits, as well as properties within Costa Mesa’s sphere of influence, as established by the Orange County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). Together, these areas comprise the “planning area.” Figure LU-1: Planning Area illustrates the planning area boundaries in Chapter 1, Introduction.

L a n d U s e E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | L U - 3
Figure LU-1: Planning Area
L a n d U s e E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | L U - 4
Land Use Context-2015
The City has implemented strategic efforts over the years to provide a sustainable balance of residential, commercial, industrial, and public and institutional uses. Land use planning ensures that compatible and complementary uses are arranged in patterns that achieve efficiencies for projected growth, mobility, and commerce. This Land Use section describes the general location, type, and intensity of development throughout Costa Mesa in baseline year 2015.

Planning Context
Development History
Costa Mesa’s incorporated city limits encompass approximately 10,143 acres, or approximately 15.8 square miles. The City lies on an elevated mesa landform less than one mile from the Pacific Ocean. The Spanish name Costa Mesa means coastal tableland. Like throughout much of Southern California, the earliest settlers were Native Americans who fished and farmed. Spanish land grants in the 1800s brought Europeans into the area, with additional growth facilitated by extension of the railroad and, later, discovery of oil. Until the 1950s, agriculture remained the most important economic component of Orange County, and Costa Mesa was home to thousands of acres of sweet potato, corn, tomato, and strawberry crops. Remnants of this agricultural heritage remains through 2015 on properties north of Interstate 405, amid the urban development of South Coast Plaza and the Segerstrom Center for the Arts.

During World War II, the U.S. military established a number of bases in Orange County, including the Santa Ana Army Air Base in Costa Mesa (now the Orange County Fairgrounds). In the years following World War II, the surge in population and demand for affordable housing soared as returning veterans with new families looked to buy homes. The accelerated demand for suburban homes resulted in the conversion of thousands of agricultural land to large single-family housing tracts. Today, single family homes remain the predominant use in Costa Mesa.

From the 1970s through 1990s, Costa Mesa experienced significant growth in retail and office development, with development of regional shopping malls and high-rise office buildings north of I-405.

Investment in the industrial district south of West 19th Street included a substantial presence of surfing
and similar action sports businesses, several of which have grown to be multi-million dollar international brands.

Established Land Uses (2015)
Costa Mesa is 99 percent built out, with the largest vacant parcels located in the North Costa Mesa area.

The two largest available properties are; the 31-acre Segerstrom Home Ranch and the 33-acre Sakioka Lot 2 site: both are currently in agriculture production, as of 2015, and lie north of I-405. The North Costa Mesa Specific Plan regulates land uses on these properties.

L a n d U s e E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | L U - 5
Residential
As of 2015, approximately 46.2 percent of land in the planning area consisted of residential neighborhoods. Single-family neighborhoods cover approximately 30 percent of the land in the City.

There are a greater number of multi-family units (28,413 units) than single-family units (14,210 units).

Costa Mesa contains a number of distinct residential neighborhoods, including:
1) Eastside 5) North Costa Mesa/Mesa Del Mar/Halecrest Hall of Fame 2) Westside 6) Bristol/Paularino
3) Mesa Verde 7) South Coast/Wimbledon Village
4) College Park
Opportunity for new large-scale, single-family development is limited due to the built-out nature of the City’s residential areas and limited acreage of vacant land. The accelerated demand for suburban homes experienced in the mid-1950s and 1960s resulted in the conversion of thousands of agricultural acres to large single-family housing tracts. Single-family residential construction primarily consists of infill development, particularly in Eastside and Westside Costa Mesa. From 2012 to 2016, new small lot subdivisions have been approved in multi-family zones in Eastside Costa Mesa. Medium- and High-Density Residential land uses account for 17 percent of the net acreage. Medium-Density Residential areas are distributed throughout the City. High-Density neighborhoods are clustered around Orange Coast College, along Mesa Verde Drive East, along Adams Avenue, around Vanguard University, in the northeast portion of the South Coast Metro area, in Downtown, and in the southeast portion of the City. In addition, the Housing Element identifies where future housing opportunities are appropriate throughout the City.

These sites are identified in the sites inventory of the Housing Element.

Mesa Verde residential neighborhood with a mixture of single-family and multi-family units, as well as parks and schools.

L a n d U s e E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | L U - 6
Because many residential units were constructed prior to City incorporation, particularly on the Eastside, existing residential densities in the Medium- and High-Density land use designations may exceed the currently allowed number of dwelling units per acre.

Commercial Uses
Costa Mesa contains seven commercial corridors: 1) South Coast Corridor 2) Bristol Street Corridor, 3) Harbor Boulevard Corridor, 4) East 17th Street Corridor, 5) North Newport Boulevard Corridor, 6) South Newport Boulevard Corridor, and 7) West 19th Street Corridor. Established commercial land uses encompass 9.6 percent of the land area, or 770 acres.

South Coast Plaza, located along the Bristol Street Corridor, contains the largest single concentration of retail uses in the City and accounts for 30 percent of the commercial square footage; the adjacent Town Center area accounts for nearly 20 percent of the area planned for office space throughout the City.

The Harbor Boulevard commercial corridor accounts for almost one-third of the City’s commercial land.

Businesses along the boulevard account for 40 percent of the City’s total retail sales, indicating that Harbor Boulevard’s trade area is of a regional scale. The major factor for this is the concentration of auto dealerships on Harbor Boulevard.

The 92-acre East 17th Street commercial corridor contains a variety of commercial uses, including retail, service, and office. The area generally serves local residences and businesses.

Major retail centers other than South Coast Plaza include the CAMP, the LAB Anti-Mall, South Coast Collection (SOCO), Metro Pointe, and The Triangle. Each offers its own unique mix of shopping and dining experiences, as well as entertainment for the residents of Costa Mesa and Orange County at large.

Costa Mesa Downtown and The Triangle consists of a mixture of neighborhood and community-serving commercial uses.

L a n d U s e E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | L U - 7
Industrial Uses
Established industrial land uses encompass approximately 10.5 percent of land and are primarily concentrated in three major districts: The Westside District, the Airport Industrial/Business Park District, and the Harbor Gateway District.

The Westside District is the City’s oldest industrial area; it covers approximately 312 acres and represents

82.5 percent of land area designated for Light Industrial. The remaining 17.5 percent of Light Industrial uses are located in areas along Baker Street. Light Industrial uses consist of small manufacturing and service industries, as well as larger industrial operations.

The Westside District contains several large manufacturing firms and a high percentage of smaller industrial operations, frequently in multi-tenant structures. The Southwest District is one of Costa Mesa’s major employment centers, providing about one-fourth of all local manufacturing-related jobs.

The 390-acre Airport Industrial Area is a component of the much larger Irvine Business and Industrial Complex, which extends into the cities of Irvine and Tustin. This area is characterized by large parcels and wide landscaped building setbacks. Several firms have located their main or regional headquarters in the area and are often the single tenants in large structures.

Industrial space directly adjacent to John Wayne Airport provides opportunities to airport-related industries. Some of these properties include hangars with access to the runway.

The 323-acre Harbor Gateway District is an Industrial/Business Park located within the north part of Costa Mesa, northeast of I-405 and the Santa Ana River. This district is a part of a larger industrial area extending northward into the city of Santa Ana. The primary users of this industrial area are large single-tenant manufacturing firms and corporate offices. Included within this district is a 14.5-acre portion of the Home Ranch area property and the unique “lifestyle” South Coast Collection (SOCO) shopping center. SOCO includes over 300,000 square feet of design showrooms, creative studios, specialty retail and food stores, The Airport Industrial/ Business Park District includes a concentration of industrial, office, and commercial uses.

L a n d U s e E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | L U - 8
a weekly farmers’ market, and outdoor gathering spaces. The OC Mix, located in SOCO, is a marketplace for gourmet foods, coffee, wine, and over 30 owner-operated retail and specialty shops under one roof.

Public/Institutional, Golf Course, and Fairground Uses
The Public/Institutional designation applies to publicly and privately owned properties that provide recreation, open space, health, and educational opportunities, as well as uses that provide a service to the public.

A major land acquisition by the State in 1950 was responsible for the public ownership of the Costa Mesa Golf Course and Country Club and Fairview Park. In 1950, 750 acres were acquired for a State institution.

In 2015, the Fairview Developmental Center occupied 114 acres of the original 750-acre site. Acquisitions by the City and County have expanded this area to include the County’s Talbert Regional Park adjacent to the Santa Ana River and the City’s adjoining Canyon Park. See Table LU-1: Public and Institutional Land Acquisitions, for various public and institution uses government land acquisitions.

A total of 1,263.4 acres are designated Public/Institutional. When combined with the Costa Mesa Golf Course and Orange County Fair & Event Center, these uses constitute 25 percent of the planning area.

This high percentage of land area designated for public and institutional use primarily reflects past and current use by various governmental agencies: The Santa Ana Army Air Base during World War II, the original 750-acre land acquisition by the State of California, and land acquisitions by the City and Orange County.

The golf course designation includes the Mesa Verde and Santa Ana Country Clubs (both private) and the City-owned Costa Mesa Golf Course and Country Club. The Fairgrounds property includes the 150-acre Orange County Fair & Event Center, which is owned by the 32nd District Agricultural Association, a State special-purpose district in the Division of Fairs and Expositions of the California Department of Food and Agriculture formed in 1949. Its board is appointed by the Governor of California.

Orange Coast College, founded in 1947, includes over 80 academic program areas and over 50 career and technical programs.

L a n d U s e E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | L U - 9
Table LU-1: Public and Institutional Land Acquisitions
Government Land
Acquisition Public and Institutional Uses
Santa Ana Army Air Base Orange Coast College, Costa Mesa High School, Davis Middle School, Presidio Elementary School, TeWinkle
Park, the National Guard Armory, Orange County
Fairgrounds, Jack R. Hammett Sports Complex, Civic
Center Park, City Hall, and Vanguard University
750-acre land (1950) Costa Mesa Golf Course and Country Club and Fairview Park, Fairview Developmental Center
City and County expansion Talbert Regional Park and Canyon Park Table LU-2: Established Land Uses (2015), summarizes the existing land uses in Costa Mesa that were surveyed in 2015, including number of acres, residential units, building square feet, hotel and motel rooms, and estimated employees.

Orange Coast College Vision 2020 Facilities Master Plan Costa Mesa is home to Orange Coast College, which is one of three colleges in the Coast Community College District. Orange Coast College is located at 2701 Fairview Road in the central portion of Costa Mesa. The District has been involved in preparing the Orange Coast College Vision 2020 Facilities Master Plan, which involves construction of new academic, administrative, residential, and parking facilities on the campus. In November 2015, the Coast Community College District Board of Trustees approved the Final Orange Coast College Vision 2020 Facilities Master Plan Program EIR.

The proposed Master Plan involves following improvements:
 Renovation of two existing buildings, totaling approximately 54,000 assignable square feet (ASF) and demolition of approximately 200,900 ASF.
 A new planetarium and an 818-bed student housing project would be added to the campus; the proposed project would also involve improvements to the pedestrian circulation network in and around campus, and the enhancement of open-space areas through landscape and pedestrian plaza improvements.
 Reconfiguration of existing parking lots and vehicular entryways, and the addition of a parking structure in the Adams Avenue parking lot on campus.

L a n d U s e E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | L U - 1 0
Table LU-2: Established Land Uses (2015)
Land Use
Net
Acres1
% of
Acres
Residential
Units Population Building Square
Feet
Lodging
Rooms
Employees
Single-Family 2,314 28.8 14,210 39,508 -- -- --
Multi-Family 1,402 17.4 28,413 71,032 -- -- 100
Office 332 4.1 -- 7,224,000 -- 24,000
Commercial 770 9.6 -- 11,403,000 -- 23,400
Lodging:

Motel/Hotel 60 0.8 -- -- Motel: 2,272
Hotel: 1,877 1,400
Industrial 841 10.5 -- 13,087,000 -- 27,300
Public Facilities/
Institutional 491 6.1 -- -- -- 6,200
Schools/Colleges 525 6.5 -- -- -- 4,300
Golf 553 6.9 -- -- -- 100
Parks/Recreation 592 7.4 -- -- -- --2
Agriculture 72 0.9 -- -- -- 200
Other4 70 0.9 -- 555,000 -- 300
Vacant Lands 20 0.3 -- -- -- --
Total 8,042 100.0% 42,623 110,540 32,269,000 4,149 87,3003 Sources: City of Costa Mesa, Stantec, and MIG, 2015.

Note:

1. Net acres includes all private property land areas for the entire Planning Area, excluding all public right-of-way.

2. Park employment is counted under Public Facilities

3. Employees is calculated using building square footage and employment generation rates by land use category. Center for Demographic Research, California State University, Fullerton identifies 87,097 jobs for 2015 based on 2014 projections.

4. Other land uses refers to religious institutions, utilities, railroad properties, and other classifications that are not classified under the existing land use categories.

L a n d U s e E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | L U - 1 1
Table LU-3: Land Use Designations (2015)
Land Use Designations Residential
Density Floor-Area Ratio Acres Developed
Acres
Undeveloped
Net
Acres
% of
Acres
Residential*
Low-Density Residential <8 du/ac
N/A
2,087.4 0.8 2,088.2 25.9%
Medium-Density Residential <12 du/ac 858.1 1.1 859.1 10.7% High-Density Residential1,2 <20 du/ac 866.12 2.912 869.03 10.8% Non-Residential*
Commercial-Residential <17.4 du/ac

0.20/High Traffic

0.30/Moderate Traffic

0.40/Low Traffic

47.9 0.0 47.9 0.6%
Neighborhood Commercial <20 du/ac

0.15/High Traffic

0.25/Moderate Traffic

0.35/Low Traffic

0.75/Very Low Traffic

40.3 0.2 40.5 0.5%
General Commercial <20 du/ac

0.20/High Traffic

0.30/Moderate Traffic

0.40/Low Traffic

0.75/Very Low Traffic
599.82 8.5 608.32 7.5%
Commercial Center3, <20 du/ac

0.25/High Traffic

0.35/Moderate Traffic

0.45/Low Traffic

0.75/Very Low Traffic
117.18 0.3 117.48 1.5%
Urban Center Commercial3 20 to 80 du/ac N/A5 59.74 66.6 126.34 1.6% Cultural Arts Center4 Varies4 1.774 57.3 0.0 57.3 0.7%
Regional Commercial <20 du/ac 0.652/0.894 147.9 0.0 147.9 1.8% Industrial Park <20 du/ac

0.20/High Traffic

0.30/Moderate Traffic

0.40/Low Traffic

0.75/Very Low Traffic
630.13 2.4 632.53 7,9%
Light Industrial6 <20 du/ac

0.15/High Traffic

0.25/Moderate Traffic

0.35/Low Traffic

0.75/Very Low Traffic
374.2 4.0 378.1 4.7%
Public and Institutional -- 0.25 1,263.2 0.3 1,263.4 15.7 Golf Course -- <0.01 553.7 0.0 553.7 6.9%
Fairgrounds -- <0.10 150.0 0.0 150.0 1.9%
Multi-Use Center 15 to 25 du/ac 0.25 102.6 0.0 102.6 1.3% Totals 7,955.6 87.1 8,042.4 100%
Notes: * Residential density may exceed those identified within Table LU-3 to accommodate the density of sites identified as housing opportunity sites within the sites inventory of the Housing Element.

1. Within the Medium and High Density Residential designation, existing residential units legally built in excess of the dwelling units per acre standard may be rebuilt at the same higher density subject to other zoning code standards. The allowable density or number of units to be redeveloped would be limited to the 1990 General Plan density with a 25% incentive bonus for Medium-Density or a 50% incentive bonus for High Density or the existing number of units, whichever is less.

2. See High Density Residential text regarding areas in North Costa Mesa where the density allowance exceeds 20 units per acre. Site Specific Density of 20.4 du/acre approved for 1.86-acre 38 unit project at 1957 Newport Blvd. and 390 Ford Road.

3. See Commercial Center, Regional Commercial, and Urban Center Commercial text for site specific density and FAR.

4. See text for Mixed-Use Development and Cultural Arts Center provisions for additional discussion.

5. Varies, depends on development agreement for site.

PGPA-24-02, Adopted August 5, 2025
L a n d U s e E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | L U - 1 2
Jobs/Housing Relationship
The variety and distribution of land uses in Costa Mesa enable people to live near their jobs, to shop within a reasonable distance from their homes or work, to use the City’s parks and recreational facilities, and to carry out other daily activities conveniently. Information from the 2010 Census indicates that 32 percent of residents work in the City. Fifty-one percent work within 20 minutes of their homes. The City recognizes the importance of providing both job and housing opportunities to reduce vehicle trips and overall, create a higher quality of life.

Table LU-4: Housing, Population, and Employment, presents historical data for Costa Mesa’s population, number of housing units, and employment opportunities, and includes projections to the year 2040. The table is based upon OCP-2015 Projections and data from the U.S Census.

Table LU-4: Housing, Population, and Employment
Year 20001 20102 20153 20203 20404
Housing 40,406 40,104 42,496 43,484 54,503
Population 108,724 109,960 111,276 113,900 116,400
Employment 88,294 88,416 87,097 89,600 93,200
Sources: 1. 2000 U.S. Census; 2. 2010 U.S. Census and SCAG 2016-2040 Regional Growth Forecast by Jurisdiction Report.; 3. Center for Demographic Research, California State University, Fullerton, 2014 and SCAG 2016-2040 Regional Growth Forecast by Jurisdiction Report.; 4. Center for Demographic Research, California State University, Fullerton, 2022 and SCAG 2016-2040 Regional Growth Forecast by Jurisdiction Report.

L a n d U s e E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | L U - 1 3
Key Land Use Issues
Residential Neighborhood Compatibility
Early subdivisions in Costa Mesa established patterns that markedly affect the design of current developments. Prior to the City’s incorporation, residential development—particularly in the Eastside and Westside neighborhoods—consisted of subdivisions with long, narrow lots. As residential development occurred, construction on these narrow, deep lots often took the form of subdivisions usually consisting of a row of detached or attached residential units on one side of the parcel and the driveway access for the residential units on the opposite side.

In 2013, the Small Lot Ordinance was adopted to promote affordable ownership housing by providing more flexible development standards and maintenance mechanisms for underutilized multi-family residential lots within the densities allowed by the General Plan. The Small Lot Ordinance allowed new homeownership opportunities in the form of detached single-family residential development on small lots with a maximum of 15 dwelling units.

Promotion of Home Ownership
According to the 2010 Census data, Costa Mesa’s renter-occupied units consisted of 58 percent of the total occupied units, whereas owner-occupied units consisted of 42 percent of the total occupied units, a difference of nearly 16 percent. Most owner-occupied units consist of single-family homes and condominiums, and the majority of renter-occupied residences consist of apartments. The City strives to improve the balance of owner-occupied and renter-occupied units to create more stability in terms of property maintenance and residents’ social investment in their neighborhoods and the community.

Revitalization of Commercial Districts
Although most of the issues experienced with small parcels and narrow, deep parcels are related to residential development, several commercial districts face similar constraints. While large retail developments like the Triangle have resulted from lot consolidation, smaller commercial lots along Newport Boulevard and 19th Street, for example, pose challenges for new businesses due to substandard parking facilities. Along the east side of Newport Boulevard, many small parcels retain the original residential structures that have been converted to commercial use. Additionally, along Newport Boulevard, north of 19th Street, commercial uses have more limited exposure and visibility due to the oneway traffic flow and wide separation from land uses to the west. Newport Boulevard’s one-way traffic flow, diversity of ownership patterns, and eclectic mix of uses contribute to its lack of unity and identity, which in turn makes it difficult to attract new development proposals and/or businesses. The City will need to continue to monitor activity on Newport Boulevard, Harbor Boulevard, and other commercial districts with similar challenging circumstances to determine if additional adjustments to land use policy and zoning regulations are needed to incentivize reinvestment.

L a n d U s e E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | L U - 1 4
Colocation of Residential and Employment Uses
The Westside has long supported an intertwined mix of industrial, commercial, and residential uses.

Industrial uses have predominated in this southwest corner of the City, including many that once supported the marine industry. The City’s Mixed-Use Overlay creates opportunities to accommodate residential uses in mixed-use settings to improve the jobs-housing balance across other parts of the city.

Allowing a mix of uses can attract reinvestment in existing non-residential structures and investment in new developments. Well-designed projects can allow a range of uses, including residential uses, in a primarily commercial or industrial area. Furthermore, facilitating mixed-use development can help meet growing demand for a variety of new housing opportunities, including types beyond single-family detached units and small lot subdivisions.

Costa Mesa values the opportunities to support the colocation of residential and employment uses, enterprising industry and entrepreneurs, and balanced and complete neighborhoods through a mix of uses. Land use regulations need to be crafted in a way that furthers economic development and business support while allowing residential development in the right locations.

Mixed-Use Overlay
The Mixed-Use Overlay land use designation creates options for housing on select commercial and industrial sites, while preserving existing neighborhoods. The sub-areas within the Mixed-Use Overlay have varying characteristics and are regulated by the zoning provisions of the Mixed-Use Overlay District (MUOD). The MUOD provisions for each MUOD sub-area aims to facilitate development that is representative of the individuality of each identified sub-area. Through the Mixed-Use Overlay, the City encourages mixed-use urban environments that include purposeful combinations of entertainment, retail, office, hospitality, and residential uses. Mixed-use development creates a productive use of space that adds vitality to urban areas and conserves land resources by allowing for shared parking and public spaces.

Airport Considerations
Both the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County have concern for the safety of air navigation around John Wayne Airport. Under Part 77 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR), the FAA requires notice of proposed construction in excess of certain heights which may affect the safety of aircraft operations. The authority of the FAA in these matters extends only as far as issuing a notice of hazard to air navigation; the FAA does not have jurisdiction to prohibit construction. The issuance of a hazard notice, however, may adversely affect the ability of a developer to obtain financing and insurance. The FAA standard that is of most concern in Costa Mesa is the horizontal surface around John Wayne Airport. This surface is 206 feet above mean sea level and extends nearly two miles from the airport.

L a n d U s e E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | L U - 1 5
The South Coast Plaza Town Center Master Plan (the area east of Bristol Street and north of the I-405) was approved subject to the condition that building height be limited to that specified by FAR Part 77 unless evidence is presented that the structure will not pose a hazard to air navigation nor interfere with instrument guidance systems. Evidence may be in the form of an FAA determination of no hazard. A number of Town Center structures and proposed mid-rise and high-rise residential buildings have received City approval although they encroach beyond the established horizontal surface elevation. In all cases obstruction lighting was required and, in some cases, minor adjustments to seldom-used flight patterns were necessitated, but the safety of aircraft operations in the airport vicinity has not been compromised.

The horizontal surface established by the FAA places restrictions on future development proposals similar in scale to the Town Center buildings. These developments will also be required to provide mitigation for potential hazards to air safety. The California Public Utilities Code provides for creation of countywide commissions to work towards achieving compatible land uses in the vicinity of airports. Commissions are required to formulate comprehensive land use plans which may include acceptable uses, height restrictions, and other building standards, such as noise insulation. The Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County (ALUC) has established a planning area surrounding John Wayne Airport which sets forth standards for acceptable land uses and provides for review of development plans for properties within its planning area. The Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP), adopted by the Airport Land Use Commission, specifies acceptable uses proximate to the airport. These are defined as uses that will not subject people to adverse noise impacts, will not concentrate people in areas with high potential for aircraft accidents, and will not adversely affect navigable airspace or aircraft operations.

The AELUP for Heliports establishes regulations and restrictions for the siting of heliports and helipads/helistops. The purpose of the AELUP for Heliports is to protect the public from the adverse effects of aircraft noise by ensuring that heliports/helipads are sited in areas of compatible land use. A heliport is a small airport suitable only for use by helicopters, typically containing one or more helipads.

A helipad or helistop is a designated area, including any buildings or facilities, intended to be used for the landing and takeoff of helicopters. Helipads/helistops may or may not be located within heliports.

Refueling and overnight maintenance of helicopters are permitted on heliports but prohibited on helipads/helistops.

The City will ensure that each applicant seeking a conditional use permit or similar approval for the construction or operation of a heliport or helistop complies fully with the State permit procedure provided by law and with all conditions of approval imposed or recommended by the FAA, by the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County (ALUC), and by Caltrans/Division of Aeronautics. This requirement shall be in addition to all other City development requirements.

The City will also ensure that development proposals including the construction or alteration of a structure more than 200 feet above ground level, reference North American Vertical Datum 1988 (NAV88), must fully comply with procedures provided by Federal and State law, including with the referral requirements L a n d U s e E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | L U - 1 6
of the ALUC, and filing a Notice of Construction and Alteration (Form7460-I). This requirement shall be in addition to all other City development requirements.

Land Availability
As of 2015, of the 8,042 net acres in the City of Costa Mesa, only 87.1 acres—or 1.1 percent—were either vacant or support agricultural production. The agricultural uses are temporary, as the lands are entitled for development by the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan. Thus, new development will take the form of infill development, particularly on underutilized sites. The primary challenge for land use planning will be to determine the best use and development approach for remaining infill properties. A second challenge will be to guide re-use of aging commercial properties for long-term community and property owner benefit.

Sustainable Development Practices
Costa Mesa residents recognize the relationship between the use of resources to fuel a vibrant community (energy, water, air, and land) and unsustainable energy consumption can have long-term environmental consequences. Both the federal and State governments have established laws aimed at environmental protection and enhancement, and many of these regulations are being implemented through development practices that are far more sustainable than practices of a generation ago. The Orange County region historically has had an imbalance of land uses (availability of high paying jobs, but shortfall of affordable housing1) and roadway infrastructure primarily dedicated to the automobile.

These historical development patterns and practices have adversely affected Costa Mesa in terms of traffic congestion, high housing costs, increased air pollution, and disproportional impacts on the young, elderly, and disabled. While many laws require the City to adopt new ways of planning and conducting day-to-day operations—such as the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) and Executive Order S3-052 —the City has broad latitude to establish local procedures and practices for addressing sustainability. 1 The New Economy and Jobs/Housing Balance in Southern California. Southern California Association of Governments, April 2001.
2 The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) and Executive Order S-3-05 set a target to reduce California’s greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by year 2020 and by 80 percent below the 1990 levels by year 2050.

L a n d U s e E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | L U - 1 7
Land Use Plan
The Land Use Policy Map (Figure LU-3) presents a pictorial representation of the land use and development policies set forth in this element. The colored land use designations indicate the type and nature of development allowed on all properties within the City of Costa Mesa and its sphere of influence.

The map shows 15 land use designations, specific plans, and two overlays that largely reflect longestablished land use patterns and development intensities, with the overlays indicating where targeted efforts are planned to encourage reuse and revitalization. The City will use the land use designation descriptions and the trip budget limitations, if applicable, described below—together with the Land Use Element Goals, Objectives, and Policies—to evaluate proposed development and land use projects.

General Plan users are advised to refer to all components when evaluating proposed development and improvement projects.

Density/Intensity and Trip Budgets
Density and intensity are quantitative measures used to describe how much development may occur on a property. The City will use both density/intensity and the trip budget metric to determine the carrying capacity of each individual property or group of properties.

Density
The term density applies to residential uses and refers to the development and population capacity of residential land. Density is described in terms of dwelling units per acre of land (du/ac).

Floor-area Ratio
For nonresidential land use categories, the term intensity is used. Development intensity refers to the amount of development on a parcel of land or lot based on building characteristics such as building height, bulk, floor-area ratio, and/or percent of lot coverage. The development intensity standard used for most non-residential development is floor-area ratio (FAR), which is the ratio of the total gross floor area of all buildings on a lot to the total area of the lot. For example, a 21,780-square-foot building on a 43,560- square-foot lot (one acre) yields an FAR of 0.50. A 0.50 FAR allows a single-story building, which covers half the lot, or a two-story building with reduced lot coverage. Figure LU-2 illustrates an example of density and FAR.

L a n d U s e E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | L U - 1 8
The determination of development density or intensity at which a proposed project can occur is a function of: 1) General Plan policies intended to maximize public safety, achieve high-quality site planning and design, retain significant natural resources, and ensure compatibility between uses; and 2) development standards contained in the Zoning Code, public works standards, and other regulations.

Trip Budgets
Building intensity can also be measured by the traffic impacts generated by a particular development.

Because of the potential for significant traffic generation from major site developments, trip budgets are established to regulate development in terms of both building intensities and trip generation. Proposed development intensity with traffic generation allows the allocation of development based on current and planned roadway improvements and capacity.

The trip budget is expressed in terms of morning (A.M.) and afternoon (P.M.) peak-hour traffic volumes.

The trip budget for each of the major land use designations is based upon the land use trip rates and FAR standard used in the Costa Mesa Traffic Model.

The allowable FAR and trip budget are applied on a project-planning rather than parcel-specific basis. This approach allows for consideration of multi-phased or multi-lot projects as a whole development rather than individual pieces of the whole. Graduated FAR standards divide nonresidential uses into four broad Figure LU-2: Density and Floor-area Ratio
L a n d U s e E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | L U - 1 9
categories based upon traffic generation characteristics, as shown in Table LU-5: Nonresidential Maximum Floor-area Ratios.

Trip Budget Transfers
The trip budgets established at the Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ)3 level in the Costa Mesa Traffic Model can be combined or transferred between TAZs in a specified area of the City and under certain conditions to account for large planned developments which contain multiple TAZs. Likewise, trips can be combined or transferred between individual parcels within single TAZs. Combinations and/or transfers shall only be allowed for projects which meet the following conditions:
 The combination and/or transfer of trips shall only be allowed in the area of the City that is north of I-405 and east of Harbor Boulevard, and shall be limited to parcels within a one-mile radius of each other.
 Trip budget transfers shall be evaluated in the review and approval of a planned development or master plan projects. Sufficient conditions of approval shall be applied to the master plan or development plan to ensure long-range control over subsequent phases of development.  The combination and/or transfer of trips shall not result in any greater impacts on the surrounding circulation system than would occur if each Traffic Analysis Zone was developed independently.  For the combination and/or transfer of trips between TAZs, such combination and/or transfer of trips shall not exceed the total trip budget of all parcels involved if each were developed independently according to the floor-area ratio and trip generation rates provided herein.  The combination and/or transfer of trips shall not allow development intensities which result in abrupt changes in scale or intensity within the project or between the project and surrounding land uses.
 Approval of the master plan or development plan shall be conditioned to ensure compliance with the above criteria and to preclude future over-development on portions of the project or properties from which trips were transferred.
 Trip budget transfers shall be recorded against the properties. 3 Traffic analysis zones (TAZs) are the basic geographic unit for inventorying demographic data and land use within a study area.

L a n d U s e E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | L U - 2 0
Table LU-5: Nonresidential Maximum Floor-Area Ratios
Land Use
Traffic Generation Characteristics
Very Low4 Low3 Moderate2 High1
Commercial Residential NA 0.40 0.30 0.20
Neighborhood Commercial 0.75 0.35 0.25 0.15
General Commercial 0.75 0.40 0.30 0.20
Commercial Center 0.75 0.45 0.35 0.25
Regional Commercial5 -- -- 0.652/0.89 --
Urban Center Commercial5 -- 0.60 0.50 --
Light Industry 0.75 0.35 0.25 0.15
Industrial Park 0.75 0.40 0.30 0.20
Public/Semi-Public 0.25 and 0.01 for golf courses
Fairgrounds 0.10
Notes:

1. For commercial designations, high traffic uses generate more than 75 daily trip ends per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. For industrial designations, high traffic uses generate more than 15 daily trip ends per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area.

2. For commercial designations, moderate traffic uses generate between 20 and 75 daily trip ends per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. For industrial designations, moderate traffic uses generate between 8 and 15 daily trip ends per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area.

3. For commercial designations, low traffic uses generate between three and 20 daily trip ends per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. For industrial designations, low traffic uses generate between three and eight daily trip ends per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area.

4. For commercial and industrial designations, very low traffic uses generate less than three daily trip ends per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area.

5. Maximum FAR standards in the Regional Commercial and Urban Center Commercial designations shall be further limited by the maximum A.M. peak hour and P.M. peak hour trip budget as established in the General Plan, North Costa Mesa Specific Plan and One Metro West Specific Plan, as applicable.

6. Site-specific FAR standards are separately established for the Home Ranch site, LA Times site and One Metro West Specific Plan.

7. This table does not specify FAR standards as allowed in the Mixed-Use Overlay or Housing Element Sites Inventory.

Land Use Designations
The Land Use Policy Map (Figure LU-3) graphically represents General Plan goals and policies. The following land use designations correspond to the categories shown on the Land Use Policy Map. See Table LU-6: Land Use Density and Intensity Summary, for a summary of the land use residential densities and commercial intensities. The Land Use Element contains 15 land use designations, specific plans, and two overlays as follows.

Residential Designations
Costa Mesa's residential designations are divided into Low-Density, Medium-Density, and High-Density Residential.

L a n d U s e E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | L U - 2 1
Low-Density Residential
Low-Density Residential areas are intended to accommodate detached single-family residences. Other housing types include attached housing that provide a greater portion of recreation or open space than typically found in multi-family developments and clustered housing which affords the retention of significant open space. Low-Density Residential areas are intended to accommodate outdoor living activities (front yards and backyards) in open space adjacent to dwellings. To avoid land use conflicts, these areas should be located away from or protected from the more intense nonresidential areas and major travel corridors.

L a n d U s e E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | L U - 2 2
Figure LU-3: Land Use Policy Map
General Plan Amendments:

GP 18-02, Adopted Oct. 2, 2018
GP 18-03, Adopted Nov. 13, 2018
GP 20-01, Adopted Jul. 20, 2021
PGPA-24-01, Adopted July 15, 2025
PGPA-24-02, Adopted August 5, 2025
GP-XX-XX, Adopted XX, XX, 2026
L a n d U s e E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | L U - 2 3
This page intentionally left blank.

L a n d U s e E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | L U - 2 4
Table LU-6: Land Use Density and Intensity Summary
Land Use Designations
Maximum Density Maximum Intensity
Maximum
Units
Dwelling Units
per Acre (du/ac)
Persons per
Acre (p/ac)
Floor-Area Ratio
(FAR)
Employees per
Acre (e/ac)
Residential*
Low-Density Residential -- 8 du/ac 26 p/ac -- --
Medium-Density Residential -- 12 du/ac 38 p/ac -- --
High-Density Residential8,9 -- 20 du/ac 50 p/ac -- --
Non-Residential or Multi-Use*
Commercial-Residential -- 12 to 17.4 du/ac 40 p/ac 0.20 to 0.40 FAR 27 e/ac Neighborhood Commercial -- -- 50 p/ac 0.15 to 0.75 FAR 27 e/ac General Commercial -- -- 50 p/ac 0.20 to 0.75 FAR 27 e/ac Commercial Center3,4 -- -- 50 p/ac 0.25 to 0.75 FAR 27 e/ac Urban Center Commercial2 660
20 du/ac
80 du/ac 50 to 210 p/ac 0.48 to 0.79 FAR 27 e/ac
Cultural Arts Center2 535 -- 25 p/ac 1.77 FAR 275 e/ac
Regional Commercial5,6 -- 50 p/ac 0.652 to 0.89 FAR 53 p/ac Industrial Park -- -- 50 p/ac 0.20 to 0.75 FAR 58 e/ac
Light Industrial -- -- 50 p/ac 0.15 to 0.75 FAR 58 e/ac Public and Institutional -- -- -- 0.25 FAR 44 e/ac
Golf Course -- -- -- 0.01 FAR --
Fairgrounds -- -- -- 0.10 FAR 14 e/ac
Fairview Developmental
Center Specific Plan 2,300 24 du/ac 63 p/ac 0.40 FAR 0.77 e/ac Overlays
Residential Incentive Overlay -- 30 du/acre 82 p/acre N/A N/A Mixed-Use Overlay 90 du/acre 1.00/1.25 FAR1
Notes: * The maximum density may exceed those identified within Table LU-6 to accommodate the density of sites identified within the sites inventory of the Housing Element. FAR may also be modified to realize the site capacity identified within the sites inventory.

1. Increase in FAR from 1.00 to 1.25 may be allowed in the Mixed-Use Overlay, as applicable.

2. Refer to the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan for detailed density/intensity and trip budgets for specific sites.

3. The Home Ranch site has a site-specific FAR of 0.64 for office development; residential development is not permitted due to the site-specific FAR.

4. For the LA Times site, 0.54 FAR applies to commercial development and 0.64 applies to office development.

5. Residential development is not permitted due to the site-specific FARs.

6. South Coast Plaza, west of Bear Street has a 0.89 FAR and east of Bear Street has a 0.652 FAR.

7. The 38-unit residential project at 1957 Newport Blvd. and 390 Ford Road has a Site Specific Density of 20.4 du/acre.

8. The One Metro West Specific Plan has a site-specific FAR of 2.22 and density of 80 dwelling units per acre. Refer to Specific Plan text for further information.

L a n d U s e E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | L U - 2 5
Costa Mesa contains seven distinct residential neighborhoods: 1) Eastside, 2) Westside, 3) Mesa Verde, 4) College Park, 5) North Costa Mesa/Mesa Del Mar/Halecrest Hall of Fame, 6) Bristol/Paularino, and 7) South Coast/Wimbledon Village. These existing, stable single-family neighborhoods should be preserved and maintained. The establishment of attached or clustered housing through the planned development concept can be allowed in appropriate Low-Density Residential areas as a means to encourage the consolidation of parcels or to make more efficient use of larger parcels.

Nonresidential uses that complement and serve the surrounding residential neighborhood are also appropriate within this designation. These uses typically include schools, parks, religious institutions, libraries, and other public facilities.

Medium-Density Residential
The Medium-Density Residential designation is intended to support single-and multi-family developments with a density of up to 12 units to the acre. The 12 units to the acre standard can be exceeded for legal, nonconforming Medium-Density Residential lots between 6,000 and 7,260 square feet in size that existed as of March 16, 1992, or any sites identified as a housing opportunity site in the sites inventory of the Housing Element.

The 12 dwelling units per acre standard is exceeded by approximately 53 percent of the existing MediumDensity development. Existing nonconforming units that are voluntarily demolished may be rebuilt to the same existing density, subject to other standards of the zoning code and the following: The allowable density or number of units to be redeveloped is limited to the General Plan density plus a 25 percent density incentive bonus or the existing number of units, whichever is less. Because of the location and intensity of development, Medium-Density Residential areas are also appropriate for quasi-residential uses such as convalescent hospitals and private residential care. Schools, religious institutions, parks, libraries, and related public facilities are also appropriate.

Complementary commercial uses within this designation may be allowed in planned development projects, provided the commercial uses will have FARs that are the same as the Neighborhood Commercial land use designation.

High-Density Residential
Areas designated as High-Density Residential are intended for residential development with a density of up to 20 units to the acre with some exceptions, as described in this section, or any sites identified as a housing opportunity site in the sites inventory of the Housing Element. Density bonuses shall be granted by the City when a project is designed to provide housing for individuals and families with specialized requirements (e.g., senior citizens, disabled, very-low, low-income, and moderate income households with needs not sufficiently accommodated by conventional housing) or provide other facilities or land as required by State law. The City may also grant additional incentives or concessions pursuant to State law.

L a n d U s e E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | L U - 2 6
Sakioka Lot1, a 41-acre parcel located in the Town Center area of the City adjacent to Anton Boulevard (Area 7 of the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan).

The two-acre property at 580 Anton Boulevard in the Lakes Area (Area 5 of the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan) has a site-specific density of 125 units/acre. This equates to a maximum of 250 units on the site, with an approximate building height of 26 stories. Additionally, a resident-serving commercial/retail use component is permitted, provided that minimal traffic-generation characteristics of this retail component can be demonstrated in review and approval of a master plan. Additional development standards for this planned development are contained in the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan and the Mixed-Use Overlay.

A three-acre property at 3350 Avenue of the Arts is located north of Anton Boulevard along the east side of Avenue of the Arts in The Lakes area (Area 5 of the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan). The following standards have been established: (1) A site-specific density of a maximum 44 units/acre for a mixed-use development comprised of a boutique hotel and high-rise residential building and (2) a maximum nonresidential mixed-use FAR of 2.12, which includes the hotel use and ancillary commercial uses.

However, subject to comparable traffic generation characteristics, the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan contains provisions allowing development flexibility related to the maximum overall development of dwelling units, hotel rooms, and resident-serving retail/commercial uses. Additional development standards for this planned development, including maximum allowable building height and mix of dwelling units and hotel rooms, are contained in the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan.

In 2014, a site-specific density of 58 units/acre and site-specific building height of five and six stories were established for a 4.17-acre site at 125 East Baker Street. The project featured a five-story, 240-unit apartment building and six-story parking structure.

In 2015, a 224-unit apartment building on a 4.15-acre property at 2277 Harbor Boulevard was approved.

The approved project involved: (1) Change of the land use designation from General Commercial to High Density Residential; (2) site-specific base density of 40 du/acre with a development incentive for an additional 58 dwelling units, for an overall site-specific density of 54 du/acre; (3) site-specific building height for a five-level parking structure. Rezone R-14-04 from C1 (Local Business District) to PDR-HD (Planned Development Residential – High Density) was also approved. Based on a Settlement Agreement executed on June 21, 2018, the project was modified to maximum 200 units including nine very lowincome units subject to a fifty-five year restrictive covenant.

In 2021, the City Council approved the One Metro West project which is a mixed-use development on a

15.23-acre property located at 1683 Sunflower Avenue. The approval included the following entitlements:
general plan amendment (GP-20-01), rezone (R-20-01), specific plan (SP-20-01), master plan (PA-19-19), and Tentative Tract Map No. 19015 (T-19-01). The land use plan for One Metro West depicts the following:
three multi-family residential structures with 1,057 multi-family residential units and associated amenities including parking structures within a base building height of seven stories; one 25,000 square foot creative L a n d U s e E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | L U - 2 7
office building; 6,000 square feet of supporting special retail uses; a 1.5 acre open space; two off-site improvements that relate to the trail connection to the Santa Ana River Trail and improvements to the south side of Sunflower Avenue north of the South Coast Collection retail center.

In the High-Density Residential designation, existing non-conforming developments that are voluntarily destroyed may be rebuilt to the original density subject to other standards of the zoning code and any applicable state law.

High-density areas should be located in proximity to transportation routes, especially those served by public transit, and also within convenient distances to shopping and employment centers. Although proximity to the above uses and transportation routes often results in a residential development being subject to adverse impacts, High-Density Residential development can be less susceptible to impacts than lower densities if visual and acoustical shielding techniques are incorporated into the project.

In addition to the above locational preferences, viable high-density development is also dependent upon site characteristics. A site should be of appropriate size and dimension before the higher densities within this designation are allowed.

Because of their location and intensity of development, High-Density Residential areas are also appropriate for quasi-residential uses (e.g., convalescent hospitals). Schools, religious institutions, parks, libraries, and related public facilities are also appropriate.

Complementary commercial uses within this designation may be allowed in planned development projects, provided that the commercial uses will have FARs that are the same as the Neighborhood Commercial land use designation.

Mixed-use development projects are intended to provide additional housing opportunities in the City by combining residential and nonresidential uses in an integrated development. Additionally, this type of development is intended to revitalize areas of the City (such as the Westside).. The mix of uses can occur in either a vertical or horizontal design. Product types may include live/work units and commercial/residential units where the residential uses are located above or adjacent to the nonresidential component. Nonresidential uses may include office, retail, business services, personal service, public spaces and uses, and other community amenities.

Major high-density neighborhoods are clustered around Orange Coast College, along Mesa Verde Drive East, between Adams and Harbor, around Vanguard University, in the northeast portion of the South Coast Metro area, in the Downtown Redevelopment area, and in the southeast portion of the City.

Commercial Designations
Seven commercial land use designations are established. These designations vary in location and intensity to accommodate the full range of commercial activity present and desired in Costa Mesa. Development intensity potential is measured using FAR in relation to the amount of traffic expected (see Table LU-7, L a n d U s e E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | L U - 2 8
Commercial Floor-Area Ratio). The density, FAR, height, and trip generation standards apply for commercial development projects but these standards may be modified to realize the residential site capacity, or density, for a residential development on a housing opportunity site identified within the sites inventory of the Housing Element.

Commercial-Residential
The Commercial-Residential designation is intended to be applied to a limited area on the eastside of Newport Boulevard between East 19th Street and Mesa Drive. It is the intent of this land use designation to allow a complementary mix of commercial and residential uses along Newport Boulevard. It is anticipated that individual parcels will be developed as either a commercial or residential use. A mix of both commercial and residential uses may also be allowed for qualifying sites under the Mixed Use Overlay.

Residential development is encouraged, although it will be necessary to ensure adequate comptaibility between the residential and non-residential uses.

Institutional uses are also appropriate in this designation, provided that land use compatibility and traffic issues have been addressed. Institutional uses would require discretionary approval.

Table LU-7: Commercial Floor-Area Ratio
Land Use
Traffic FAR
Very Low Low Moderate High
Commercial-Residential -- 0.40 0.30 0.20
Neighborhood Commercial 2 0.75 0.35 0.25 0.15
General Commercial 2 0.75 0.40 0.30 0.20
Commercial Center 1,2,3 0.75 0.45 0.35 0.30
Regional Commercial 0.652/0.890 FAR
Refer to Regional Commercial discussion
Urban Center Commercial

0.50 FAR for Retail, 0.60 FAR for Office, 0.79 FAR for
S.C. Metro Center. Refer to Urban Center Commercial
discussion and the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan for
additional discussion.

Cultural Arts Center

1.77 FAR. Refer to Cultural Arts Center discussion and
the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan for additional
discussion.

Notes:

1. Refer to Commercial Center discussion for site-specific FARs on certain properties.

2. With application of the Mixed-Use Overlay , the FAR may range from 1.0 to 1.25. Refer to appropriate MUOD provisions in the Zoning Code.

3. Los Angeles Times Site has a 0.54 (commercial) to 0.64 (office) FAR.

L a n d U s e E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | L U - 2 9
Neighborhood Commercial
The Neighborhood Commercial designation is intended to serve convenience shopping and service needs of local residents. Appropriate uses include markets, drug stores, retail shops, financial institutions, service establishments, and support office uses. Restaurants, hotels, and motels may be appropriate if properly located, designed, and operated to avoid adverse impacts to surrounding uses. Since Neighborhood Commercial uses are intended to serve nearby residential neighborhoods, the uses permitted should be among the least intense of the commercial uses.

General Commercial
The General Commercial designation is intended to permit a wide range of commercial uses that serve both local and regional needs. These areas should have exposure and access to major transportation routes since significant traffic can be generated. General Commercial areas should be insulated from the most sensitive land uses either through buffers of less-sensitive uses or on-site design features. The most intense commercial uses should be encouraged to locate on sites of adequate size to avoid compatibility issues with surrounding uses. Appropriate uses include those found in the Neighborhood Commercial designation, plus smaller retail stores, theaters, restaurants, hotels and motels, and automobile sales and service establishments.

Institutional uses are also appropriate in the General Commercial designation, provided that land use compatibility and traffic issues have been addressed.

Commercial Center
The Commercial Center designation is intended for large areas with a concentration of diverse or intense commercial uses serving local and regional needs. Appropriate uses include a wide variety and scale of retail stores, professional offices, restaurants, hotels, and theaters. Intense service uses, such as automobile repair and service, should be discouraged.

Development within this designation is intended for a variety of intensities. Because of the large service area, direct access to major transportation corridors is essential.

Mixed-use development projects are intended to provide additional housing opportunities in the City (such as the Westside) by combining residential and nonresidential uses in an integrated development.

Additionally, this type of development is intended to revitalize areas of the City without exceeding the capacity of the General Plan transportation system. Product types for mixed-use developments may include live/work units and commercial/residential units where the residential uses are located above or adjacent to the nonresidential component. Nonresidential uses may include office, retail, business services, personal service, public spaces and uses, and other community amenities.

Institutional uses are also appropriate in this commercial designation, provided that land use compatibility and traffic issues have been addressed.

L a n d U s e E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | L U - 3 0
A site-specific FAR of 0.70 and a site-specific density of 40 units/acre was established for the property located at 1901 Newport Boulevard, a 7.79-acre site located on the northwest corner of West 19th Street and Newport Boulevard. The General Plan amendment recognized the existing development intensity of the 1901 Newport Plaza commercial building (127,500 square feet) and allowed additional development of 145 multi-family units with a site-specific building height allowed for a five-level parking structure.

Additional opportunities may be achieved through the Mixed-Use Overlay.

Segerstrom Home Ranch
The Segerstrom Home Ranch is a 93.34-acre located at 3315 Fairview Road. It has a base land use designation of Commercial Center, is a part of the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan, and is within the MixedUse Overlay. In conjunction with approval of Home Ranch Alternative A, a site-specific FAR of 0.41 was established for the 17.2-acre IKEA site. (IKEA is a large retail/warehouse use.) This property is located at the southeast corner of South Coast Drive and Harbor Boulevard. A maximum allowable FAR of 0.40 for office uses was established for the 14.5-acre Industrial Park parcel located to the north of South Coast Drive.

In 2016, a specific-site FAR allowed a maximum of 0.64 FAR on the 44-acre subarea of Segerstrom Home Ranch located south of South Coast Drive. Maximum building height varies from two stories to five stories/75 feet within this subarea. The Planned Development Commercial zoning may allow mixed-use development (i.e., housing as a complementary use). The established trip budgets for this subarea of Home Ranch is 1,860 A.M. and 1,788 P.M. See Table LU-8 and Figure LU-4: Segerstrom Home Ranch.

The North Costa Mesa Specific Plan provides additional FAR, building height, and trip budget information for Segerstrom Home Ranch (Area 1). Additional residential or mixed-use development potential can be achieved through the Mixed-Use Overlay.

L a n d U s e E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | L U - 3 1
* Building intensity shall not exceed maximum
allowable development set forth by the trip budget
in the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan, unless
modifications are needed to accommodate the
residential site capacity identified within the sites
inventory of the Housing Element.
* Building intensity shall not exceed maximum
allowable development set forth by the trip budget
in the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan, unless
reductions are needed to accommodate the site
capacity identified within the sites inventory of the
Housing Element.

Figure LU-4:

Segerstrom Home Ranch
Figure LU-4:

Segerstrom Home Ranch
L a n d U s e E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | L U - 3 2
Table LU-8: Segerstrom Home Ranch
Categories Baseline
(2015) Segerstrom Home Ranch
Floor-Area Ratio
(FAR) N/A

0.64 Maximum trip budget for this subarea of Segerstrom Home Ranch is 1,860 A.M. and 1,788 P.M.

Building intensity shall not exceed maximum allowable
development set forth by the trip budget in the North
Costa Mesa Specific Plan, except as allowed for
development applications utilizing the Mixed-Use
Overlay.

Building Square
Feet N/A 1,200,000
Los Angeles Times Site
The Los Angeles Times Site is a 24-acre site located at 1375 West Sunflower Avenue, near the intersection of Harbor Boulevard and South Coast Drive. The intent is to create opportunities for either office or commercial retail development at a strategic location. Office development is allowed at a maximum 0.64 FAR (up to 655,000 square feet office). Commercial/retail development is allowed at a maximum FAR of

0.54 (up to 553,000 square feet). Maximum allowable building height is five stories/75 feet. The Planned Development Commercial zoning may allow mixed-use development (i.e., housing as a complementary use). The maximum trip budget established for the Los Angeles Times site is 1,015 A.M. and 976 P.M. peak hour trips. See Table LU-9 and Figure LU-5: Los Angeles Times Site. Additional mixed-use or residential development opportunity can be achieved on this site through the Mixed-Use Overlay.

Table LU-9: Los Angeles Times Site
Categories Baseline
(2015) Los Angeles Times Site
Floor-Area Ratio
(FAR) N/A

0.64 FAR for office development

0.54 FAR for commercial/retail
Maximum trip budget is 1,015 A.M. and 976 P.M.

Building intensity shall not exceed maximum allowable
development set forth by the trip budget, unless
otherwise permitted by the Mixed-Use Overlay.

Building Square
Feet 374,000 655,000 sf for office development
553,000 sf for commercial/retail
L a n d U s e E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | L U - 3 3
Figure LU-5:

Los Angeles Times Site
L a n d U s e E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | L U - 3 4
Regional Commercial
The Regional Commercial designation is intended to apply to large concentrated shopping centers of regional scale and importance. The intended uses within this designation include major department stores, specialty retail outlets, restaurants, offices, hotels, and other complementary uses.

Application of the Regional Commercial designation is limited to the existing South Coast Plaza sites. This includes the original 97-acre site between Bristol and Bear Street and the additional 18-acre site located west of Bear Street. This designation and locational criteria recognizes the evolution of South Coast Plaza as a regionally significant retail trade center served by major regional transportation facilities and services.

The Costa Mesa General Plan assigns a trip budget for the original South Coast Plaza site of 1,166 A.M. peak hour trips and 5,036 P.M. peak hour trips. The trip budget for the site west of Bear Street is 293 A.M. peak hour trips and 1,264 P.M. peak hour trips.

Table LU-10: Trip Budget for Regional Commercial
Area
Maximum
Square
Footage
Floor
Area
Ratio
A.M. Peak
Hour Trip
Budget
P.M. Peak Hour
Trip Budget
South Coast Plaza
West of Bear Street 690,350 0.890 293 1,264
South Coast Plaza
East of Bear Street 2,750,000 0.652 1,166 5,036
Metro Pointe 592,287 0.48 729 965
Urban Center Commercial
The Urban Center Commercial designation is intended to allow high-intensity mixed-use commercial development within a limited area. Developments within this designation may range from one- and twostory office and retail buildings to mid- and high-rise buildings. of four to approximately 25 stories, or as otherwise allowed in the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan or Mixed-Use Overlay. Appropriate uses include offices, retail shops, restaurants, residential, and hotels. Additional opportunities for mixed-use and residential development may be provided through the Mixed-Use Overlay.

For mixed-use projects that include separate or distinct components, the nonresidential FAR standard and the residential density standard shall apply to each of the respective components, not the entire project site. For mixed-use projects that do not include distinct elements or include mixed-use buildings, the overall level of intensity shall be governed by the allowable nonresidential FAR and the maximum number of residential units identified in this designation for a specific project site. Developments shall also comply with the established trip budget standards and comply with the most restrictive standard.

L a n d U s e E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | L U - 3 5
The Urban Center Commercial designation includes the following major developments:
 Automobile Club of Southern California
 Metro Pointe
 South Coast Metro Center/Experian
 Sakioka Lot 2 (as of 2015, unbuilt)
All of these four properties had development agreements with the City of Costa Mesa that vested maximum development square footages, floor area ratios, trip budgets, and allowed uses. A summary of their vested development potential is provided below. Additionally, these properties are also within the Mixed-Use Overlay and could be developed according to the potential vested in development agreements/North Costa Mesa Specific Plan or through the Mixed-Use Overlay.

L a n d U s e E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | L U - 3 6
Figure LU-6:

Sakioka Lot 2
28 or 90 DU/AC
* Building intensity shall not exceed maximum
allowable development set forth by the trip budget
in the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan, unless
modifications are needed to accommodate the site
capacity identified within the sites inventory of
the Housing Element.
660 minimum
(20 du/ac)
L a n d U s e E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | L U - 3 7
Automobile Club of Southern California Processing Center This 39.2-acre site consists of two parcels and is located on the southwest corner of Sunflower Avenue and Fairview Road. The primary site contains 29.5 acres and is located west of Fairview Road, between South Coast Drive and Sunflower Avenue. The second parcel contains approximately 9.7 acres and is located across the adjacent flood control channel to the west, just north of South Coast Drive. As of 2000, the site was developed with 717,000 square feet of office and support service uses. An additional 250,000 square feet of development is allowed pursuant to a development agreement for a total of 967,000 square feet; the resultant maximum FAR is 0.56. Future construction will be developed in phases during the 30- year term of the agreement. The sites are also within the Mixed-Use Overlay, which provides additional opportunities for mixed-use or residential development.

Metro Pointe
Metro Pointe includes two office building sites located north of South Coast Drive at its intersection with Greenbrook Drive and approximately 28.5 acres of land located south of South Coast Drive along the San Diego Freeway. A development agreement approved in 1994 addresses the site south of South Coast Drive. The development agreement vests the property owner with the ability to construct 592,287 square feet of office and commercial uses with a resultant floor area ratio of 0.48. This property is also located in the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan area and within the Mixed-Use Overlay. Additional residential and mixed-use development potential is provided in the Mixed-Use Overlay.

South Coast Metro Center/Experian
The 44.72-acre South Coast Metro Center/Experian sites are located south of Anton Boulevard and east of Avenue of the Arts. Upon completion, the site will include nearly 1,546,180 square feet of office and commercial development. A site-specific FAR of 0.79 was established for the combined South Coast Metro Center and Experian sites.

In 2006, a site-specific residential density increase for a 4.86-acre site portion of this development was approved as an optional development scenario for this property. The maximum density allowed is 100 units/acre with integrated ancillary retail uses. This equates to a maximum density of 100 units/acre, or a total of 484 high-rise units. The residential development option results in a corresponding decrease in the maximum allowable FAR and building square footages for non-residential buildings in order to be similar to the A.M. and P.M. trip budgets established for the South Coast Metro Center/Experian sites with strictly nonresidential development. In 2014, an alternative development option for 393 apartment units was approved. This scenario also results in decrease in trip budget. The North Costa Mesa Specific Plan provides further detail for these properties. Certain parcels within the South Coast Metro Center/Experian plan area include sites identified as a housing opportunity site within the sites inventory of the Housing Element. For these sites, the FAR, residential units, trip generation, and heights may be modified to realize the residential site capacity, or density, identified within the sites inventory of the Housing Element.

Additional residential and mixed-use development potential is provided through the Mixed-Use Overlay.

L a n d U s e E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | L U - 3 8
Sakioka Lot 2
The 33-acre Sakioka Lot 2 is located south and east of Anton Boulevard. This site is undeveloped except for farmhouses and farm operation facilities. Pursuant to a development agreement, the maximum allowable building square footage is of 863,000 square feet. A maximum 1.0 FAR shall be applied for nonresidential development. See Figure LU-6: Sakioka Lot 2.

The maximum residential density shall be 28 dwelling units per acre for the residential component of a mixed-use development (see “Mixed-Use” discussion in the Specific Plan) or a maximum of 80 dwelling units per acre if an independent parcel is developed as residential community including affordable housing (see “Affordable Housing/Density Bonus discussion in the Specific Plan).

Future development on Sakioka Lot 2 is subject to the trip budget limitation, applicable development standards of the PDC zone, and consistency with the both the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan and the General Plan. However, this site is identified as a housing opportunity site in the sites inventory of the Housing Element and the density, FAR, heights and trip budgets may be modified accordingly to achieve the site capacity identified within the sites inventory. Additional residential and mixed-use development potential is provided in the Mixed-Use Overlay.

Cultural Arts Center
The Cultural Arts Center designation is applied to the 57.3 acres, including private streets, that comprise South Coast Plaza Town Center. This area is generally bounded by Sunflower Avenue to the north, Bristol Street to the west, Avenue of the Arts to the east, and the San Diego Freeway to the south. This designation is limited to this geographical area, and it is not intended to be applied to other locations in the City.

The Cultural Arts Center designation allows intensely developed mixed commercial and cultural uses within a limited area. The intended uses within this designation include mid- to high-rise offices, hotels, restaurants, retail, and cultural uses (theater, art museum or academy, etc.), as well as mid- to high-rise residential units in limited areas that are defined in the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan. Additional residential and mixed-use development opportunities are established in the Mixed-Use Overlay. This area serves as the cultural center of the community and provides a focus to the arts-related uses, with the complement of nearby employment and shopping opportunities.

The overall allowable FAR standard for this designation is 1.77. Included in this FAR calculation is the land dedicated or reserved in 2000 for the Avenue of the Arts off-ramp and associated flood control channel improvements. The 1.77 FAR may be exceeded on individual parcels within South Coast Plaza Town Center, provided that over the entire 54-acre site the 1.77 FAR is not exceeded. Further delineation of the allocation within South Coast Plaza Town Center of the FAR and trip budget is provided in the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan. FAR for Mixed-Use Overlay projects is regulated by the applicable Mixed-Use Overlay District.

L a n d U s e E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | L U - 3 9
In 2006, a high-rise residential development option for each of the three sub-areas in South Coast Plaza Town Center was approved.

Industrial Designations
Two industrial land use designations apply to over 1,000 acres. These designations accommodate a variety of industrial and compatible office uses, as well as limited and supportive commercial uses. Development intensity potential is measured using FAR in relation to the amount of traffic expected, as shown in Table LU-11: Industrial Floor-Area Ratio.

Table LU-11: Industrial Floor-Area Ratio

Note:

1. With an application of the Mixed-Use Overlay District, the FAR may range from 1.0 to 1.25..

Light Industry
The Light Industry designation applies to areas intended for a variety of light and general industrial uses.

Uses are limited to small manufacturing and service industries, as well as larger industrial operations that can demonstrate design features or restricted operations that limit disruptions to surrounding uses.

Although the uses within Light Industry areas are intended to be less intense than those allowed in Industrial Parks, the frequent lack of a physical separation between Light Industry areas and residential development necessitates design features that limit disturbances between uses. Access to industrial areas should be provided in a manner that directs industrial traffic away from more sensitive uses.

Development within this designation may be characterized by a combination of one- and two-story buildings. Because of the location of Light Industry areas and their proximity to residential uses, taller buildings should be restricted to areas that will not disrupt the surrounding residential uses.

Certain commercial uses may be allowed, provided that the commercial use is determined to be complementary to the industrial area. Commercial recreational uses may also be appropriate under the same condition.

Institutional uses may also be appropriate, provided that land use compatibility and traffic issues have been addressed. Institutional uses would require discretionary review.

Combinations of residential, institutional, and commercial uses may also be allowed.

Mixed-use development projects in overlay zones are intended to provide additional housing opportunities in the City (such as the Westside) by combining residential and nonresidential uses in an Industrial Use1
Traffic FAR
Very Low Low Moderate High
Light Industry 0.75 0.35 0.25 0.15
Industrial Park 0.75 0.40 0.30 0.20
L a n d U s e E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | L U - 4 0
integrated development. Additionally, this type of development is intended to revitalize areas of the City without exceeding the capacity of the General Plan transportation system.

Industrial Park
The Industrial Park designation is intended to apply to large districts that contain a variety of industrial and compatible office and support commercial uses. Industrial parks are characterized by large parcels and landscaped setbacks that create a campus-like environment. Industrial parks must have proximity to freeways and other major transportation routes to provide the accessibility they require. An internal circulation system consisting of lesser highways is also necessary to accommodate the vehicle demands created.

Industrial parks have major physical separations from areas designated for other uses to maintain their distinctiveness and avoid potential land use incompatibilities.

Commercial uses may be allowed, provided that the use is determined to be complementary to the industrial area. Institutional uses may also be appropriate, provided that land use compatibility and traffic issues have been addressed.

Proposed industrial development must be analyzed for potential significant impacts to air quality, aesthetics, land use, and other environmental issues.

Combinations of residential, institutional, and commercial uses may also be allowed.

Institutional and Open Space
Costa Mesa has thousands of acres of land set aside for public, semi-public, and open space type uses, all identified by one of these three land use designations: Public/Institutional, Golf Course, and Fairgrounds.

Public/Institutional
The Public/Institutional designation applies to both publicly and privately owned land that provides recreation, open space, health, and educational opportunities, as well as uses that provide a service to the public. Since this designation includes many different types of land uses, the Land Use Plan is labeled to identify the individual uses.

Areas included in this designation are park sites, health care facilities, educational institutions, religious facilities, fairgrounds, State Regional Emergency Operations Center, and public facilities. Since many of the uses are recreational and open space in nature, levels of building intensity are minimal.

Golf Course
Three golf courses are located within the City's planning area. Two of these, the Costa Mesa Golf Course and Mesa Verde Country Club, lie within City limits. Santa Ana Country Club is in the unincorporated area east of Newport Boulevard. Because of the large area devoted to open space, the building intensity for this designation is 0.01 FAR.

L a n d U s e E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | L U - 4 1
Fairgrounds
The Fairgrounds land use designation is applicable to only one property known as the Orange County Fair & Event Center (OCFEC) in the City of Costa Mesa. The Fairgrounds is a 150-acre site located at 88 Fair Drive. This designation is intended to:
 Ensure continued development of the property as an integrated complex that is composed of recreational, agriculture-related educational institutions, open space, farmland, equestrian, and commercial uses; and
 Promote the continued and sustained use of the property for the annual Orange County Fair in recognition of its value as a regionally significant resource in the City of Costa Mesa.

Home to the annual Orange County Fair since 1949, the site is bounded by Arlington Drive (north boundary), Fair Drive (south), Fairview Road (west), and Newport Boulevard (east). Regional access is primarily provided to the site by State Route 55 at the interchanges of Fair Drive/Del Mar Avenue and 22nd Street/Victoria Street. Access from Interstate 405, which is approximately one-mile north of the Fairgrounds, is provided via interchanges at Bristol Street, Fairview Road, and Harbor Boulevard. See Figure LU-7.

L a n d U s e E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | L U - 4 2
Figure LU-7: Fairgrounds
L a n d U s e E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | L U - 4 3
The site was formerly a portion of the Santa Ana Army Air Base, and in 1949 the California 32nd District Agricultural Association (DAA) acquired the property from the federal government. Since that time, the annual Orange County Fair has occurred at this location. Through the years the 32nd DAA has expanded
the use of the property into a year-round exhibition, conference, equestrian, activity, and event center; these uses collectively the OCFEC.

The 32nd
DAA Fair Board adopted the current OCFEC Master Plan in 2003. Given that the 32nd DAA is a State entity for administration of the Orange County Fair, Costa Mesa has limited land use and permitting authority over the property while it is controlled by the State.

In the future, if the State no longer controls the property, any proposed new development or change of use shall be subject to review for consistency with the City’s General Plan and zoning regulations. The new property owner/operator may continue to operate the Fairgrounds as it existed at the time of sale as a legal nonconforming use and development. The property’s legal nonconforming status will remain in effect until such time as the property owner submits and receives approval of a master plan by Costa Mesa.

The Fairgrounds site contains approximately 400,000 square feet of buildings, including:
 Pacific Amphitheater
 Arlington Theater
 Grandstand Arena
 Equestrian center
 Exhibit and administration buildings
 Concession and restaurant buildings
 Memorial Gardens
 Centennial Farms
 Livestock barns
The Fairgrounds designation recognizes the existing fairground and event center uses associated with this site. The General Plan traffic model does not take into account the trip generation from the annual OC Fair or weeknight/weekend special event uses (i.e., Orange County Marketplace) because peak vehicle trips to the site occur outside normal business timeframes. However, further development of the Fairgrounds will need to be balanced with the development capacity of the City’s transportation system and with the protection of surrounding neighborhoods.

Permitted uses include ancillary office uses, exposition/conference uses, equestrian uses, agricultural/livestock activities, restaurants, temporary specialty retail sales (including vehicle sales), outdoor marketplace, emergency operational uses, and concerts/live entertainment uses.

Complementary uses to the fairground and event center uses may include botanical gardens, animal L a n d U s e E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | L U - 4 4
exhibits, museum, art/historical artifacts gallery, and performance art theaters that are supportive of the fairground uses.

Uses that are not supportive of fairground and event center uses are expressly prohibited. Prohibited uses include, but are not limited to, casinos/gambling venues, shopping centers, hotel/motels, residential uses, self-storage facilities, hospitals, and medical uses. In addition, exclusive use or dedicated athletic sports facilities and educational uses that are unrelated to the OCFEC are prohibited.

As a State-owned property, the Fairgrounds is not normally subject to the City’s Noise Ordinance.

However, pursuant to a 1990 Court Order (Case Nos. 42 07 28 and 55 65 08), exterior noise standards comparable to the City’s noise regulations have been applied to the property. Noise sensitive uses include neighboring residences, Davis Intermediate School, and Costa Mesa High School. The court-ordered noise restrictions apply to the operation of the Pacific Amphitheater. Development within the Fairgrounds designation is intended for buildings ranging from one- to four-story structures. The maximum allowable FAR for this designation shall be 0.10.

Land Use Overlays
The City has adopted land use overlays that are intended to encourage reuse and revitalization of underutilized properties. The incentives provided expand land uses, provide development flexibility, stimulate economic growth, and create integrated areas complementary to the surrounding environs.

Refer to Figure LU-3 for the location of the Overlay .

Mixed-Use Overlay
The Mixed-Use Overlay is intended to provide additional housing opportunities in a mixed-use setting, blending residential uses into areas of the City that are served by various shopping, convenience, employment, and community-serving uses; while preserving established residential neighborhoods. The sub-areas within the Mixed-Use Overlay have varying characteristics and are regulated by the zoning provisions of the Mixed-Use Overlay District (MUOD). The MUOD provisions for each MUOD sub-area aims to facilitate development that is representative of the individuality of each identified sub-area.

L a n d U s e E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | L U - 4 5
Residential Incentive Overlay
The Residential Incentive Overlay allows the maximum 30 du/acre unit residential density option at strategic locations along Harbor Boulevard and Newport Boulevard. The Residential Incentive Overlay expands development opportunities on commercial properties not developed to their full potential or supporting outdated buildings and underperforming uses.

Maximum building height is three stories, provided privacy concerns of adjacent established residential neighborhoods are adequately addressed through the setback of upper stories or other design approaches. Housing within the Residential Incentive Overlay is limited to a maximum density of 30 units per acre. See Table LU-12: Residential Incentive Overlay and Figures LU-8 and LU-9.

Table LU-12: Residential Incentive Overlay
Categories Baseline
(2015)
Residential Incentive
Overlay
Density (DU/AC) N/A 30
Units
Harbor Boulevard 84 361
Newport Boulevard 237 117
Total Units 321 478
L a n d U s e E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | L U - 4 6
REVISED Nov. 13, 2018:

General Plan Amendments:
* GP 18-03, Adopted Nov. 13, 2018
Figure LU-8:

L a n d U s e E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | L U - 4 7
General Plan Amendments:
* GP 18-03, Adopted Nov. 13, 2018
* PGPA-24-01, Adopted July 15, 2025
Density 30 du/acre
Residential Units 117
Figure LU-9
L a n d U s e E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | L U - 4 8
Specific Plans
While the General Plan establishes broad parameters of development on a long-term horizon, a specific plan is designed to identify particular land uses and development standards relating to a specific area, site or development proposal. California Government Code, Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 3, Article 8, Sections 65450 through 65457 allows cities and counties to prepare specific plans to develop policies, programs, regulations, and guidelines to implement the jurisdiction’s adopted general plan. As prescribed by law, specific plans include text and diagrams that generally describe the following:
 The distribution, location, and extent of all land uses;  The standards and criteria by which new development will proceed;  The proposed distribution, location, extend, and intensity of major components of public infrastructure, such as transportation and utility systems; and  A program of implementation measures, such as financing options, policies, regulations, and public works projects.

The City’s adopted specific plans – East 17th Street Specific Plan, Newport Boulevard Specific Plan, North Costa Mesa Specific Plan, and One Metro West Specific Plan – will serve the best interests of the City by establishing detailed controls on the nature of future development and facilitate the processing of subsequent development plans within the area governed by the Specific Plan. In some cases, City adopted specific plans may utilize the land use designations of this Element and specific details relating to the land use designations can be found in the applicable adopted document.

Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan
On January 5, 1959, the Fairview Developmental Center opened as a State hospital originally occupying 750 acres. Fairview Developmental Center had an initial bed capacity of 2,622 and was intended to house some 4,125 residents. The population at the facilities peaked in 1967 and has been declining since. In 2015, the current population was 275 persons, and the downward trend is expected to continue due to the restructuring of the State of California's approach to providing institutionalized care for the developmentally disabled. The State has been focusing on residential care options (as opposed to institutional care) for these disabled individuals.

A large portion of the original land was transferred in 1979 to the City of Costa Mesa and now encompasses Fairview Park and the golf course. In 1985, the City granted a General Plan amendment and rezone of 54 acres of surplus land immediately to the north of the hospital facilities for high-density residential uses. In 1987 and 2005, other parcels were converted to residential uses. These areas are planned developments with one-story, single-family residences, a two-story, small-lot residential subdivision, and two-story apartment buildings (Harbor Village Apartments).

In February 2016, the State of California Department of Development Services initiated the process for closure of Fairview Developmental Center. In June 2022, the State Legislature through Senate Bill (SB) 188 L a n d U s e E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | L U - 4 9
approved Government Code Section 14670.31, which provides a framework for the reuse of the FDC property. The legislation codifies a partnership between the Department of General Services (DGS), the Department of Developmental Services (DDS), and the City of Costa Mesa, with defined roles for each entity. The City’s role was to develop a Specific Plan, conduct necessary studies, and manage a communitybased planning process. The Legislature’s intent for the redevelopment of the FDC site is to prioritize affordable housing to the greatest extent feasible, including a minimum of 200 units of permanent supportive housing, open space, and housing for individuals with developmental disabilities, and a City created Specific Plan for the FDC site that implements the provisions of Government Code Section 14670.31.

The Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan consists of 95 acres of the prior Fairview Developmental Center state hospital site and was prepared in conformance with State requirements outlined in Government Code Section 65450 et seq. The Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan was adopted through City Council Ordinance No. 2026-08 and it establishes land use designations, site specific zoning regulations, permitted uses, development and design standards, and mobility and infrastructure improvements. Future redevelopment proposed within the Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan must be consistent with the plan, and it provides a future developer, City staff, the public and decision makers with information on the overall intent for the area, design standards to facilitate implementation, and future changes thereto. Figure LU-3 identifies the specific plan area, whereas Table LU-6 identifies the specific plans residential and non-residential development intensities.

L a n d U s e E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | L U - 5 0
General Plan and Zoning Ordinance
Consistency
The relationship between the General Plan land use designations and zoning districts is shown in Table LU-13: General Plan and Zoning Consistency. This table indicates how properties will be zoned to be consistent with the General Plan Land Use Plan. The Zoning Ordinance has the following Zoning Districts:
 Single-Family Residential (R1)
 Multiple-Family Residential, Medium Density (R2-MD)
 Multiple-Family Residential, High Density (R2-HD)
 Multiple-Family Residential (R3)
 Administrative and Professional (AP)
 Commercial Limited (CL)
 Local Business (C1)
 General Business (C2)
 Shopping Center (C1-S1)
 Town Center (TC)
 Off-Street Parking (P)
 Institutional and Recreational (I & R)
 Institutional and Recreational - School (I & R-S1)
 General Industrial (MG)
 Industrial Park (MP)
 Planned Development Residential (PDR)
 Planned Development Commercial (PDC)
 Planned Development Industrial (PDI)
 Mixed-Use Overlay District (MUOD)
 Residential Incentive Overlay District (RI)
L a n d U s e E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | L U - 5 1
Table LU-13: General Plan and Zoning Consistency
Land Use Plan Designations Consistent Zoning Classification Low Density R1, PDR-LD, I&R, I&R-S
Medium Density R1, R2-MD, PDR-MD, I&R, I&R-S,
High Density R2-MD, R2-HD, R3, PDR-HD, PDR-NCM, I&R, I&R-S, RI Commercial-Residential AP, CL, C1, PDC, R2-MD, R2-HD, PDR-MD, PDR-HD, RI Neighborhood Commercial CL, C1, AP
General Commercial CL, C1, C2, C1-S, PDC, AP, RI
Commercial Center C1, C2, C1-S, PDC, AP
Regional Commercial PDC
Urban Center Commercial PDC
Cultural Arts Center TC
Industrial Park MG, PDI, CL
Light Industrial MP, PDI, CL
Public and Institutional I&R, I&R-S
Golf Course I&R
Fairgrounds I&R
Fairview R2-MD, R2-HD, R3, I&R
Mixed-Use Overlay
MUOD
 Mesa West Bluffs Sub-Area
 19 West Sub-Area
 Newport Boulevard Sub-Area
 Harbor Boulevard Sub-Area
 SoBECA Sub-Area
 North Costa Mesa Sub-Area
Off-Street Parking (P) zoning classification is consistent with any land use plan designation, with the exception of Low Density.

L a n d U s e E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | L U - 5 2
Housing and Employment Projections
Providing a land use arrangement that encourages a correlation of employment and housing opportunities is a local and regional responsibility. Providing sufficient commercial land to support residential development is primarily a local responsibility, although commercial uses serving regional needs are provided as well. Sufficient land must also be established to meet the recreational needs of the local community, although regional needs are often accommodated by land within individual cities. Table LU-14: General Plan Land Use 2035, identifies the projected future growth and implications of the Land Use Plan.

Table LU-14: General Plan Land Use 2035
Land Use Designations Net
Acres
Residential
Dwelling Units
Non-Residential
Square Feet
2015
Existing
2035
Future*
2015
Existing
2035
Future
Residential
Single-Family1 2,088.2 14,210 14,811 -- --
Multi-Family2 1,718.2 28,413 37,291 -- --
Non-Residential
Commercial-Residential 47.9 -- -- 543,000 455,200
Neighborhood Commercial 40.5 -- -- 338,000 472,100
General Commercial 616.3 -- 2,254 7,065,300 8,556,100
Commercial Center 117.5 -- 2,215 733,000 1,075,800
Urban Center Commercial 126.3 -- 1,735 4,550,700 5,581,200 Cultural Arts Center 57.3 -- 851 2,673,300 4,869,800
Regional Commercial 147.9 -- 1,959 2,723,700 3,260,800
Industrial Park 632.6 -- 3,626 8,684,500 9,895,000
Light Industrial 378.1 -- 1,668 4,402,500 2,838,000
Public and Institutional 1,278.4 -- -- 1,989,000 3,970,700 Golf Course 553.7 -- -- 84,200 84,200
Fairgrounds 150.0 -- -- 454,450 1,020,400
Fairview Developmental
Center Specific Plan3 95 -- 2,300 -- 35,000
Totals 8,044.5 42,623 68,690 33,916,000 42,553,000
Notes: * The residential dwelling units added to the Land Use Designations for 2035 reflect the site capacity identified within the sites inventory of the Housing Element. The total unit counts are not intended to reflect a maximum build-out scenario.

1. Includes Low-Density Residential General Plan land use designation.

2. Includes Medium-Density, High-Density, and Commercial-Residential, Overlays General Plan land use designations.

3. The Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan has a buildout horizon of 15-20 years from adoption.

General Plan
Amendment:

PGPA-24-02, Adopted
August 5, 2025
L a n d U s e E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | L U - 5 3
Goals, Objectives, and Policies
Maintaining and enhancing the great quality of life in Costa Mesa is the foundation of this General Plan.

The City will look towards focusing future change within targeted growth areas. Some of these areas already have a mix of commercial, office, hotel, and residential uses, and are located along roadways that will be enhanced with “Complete Streets” features (see Circulation Element), improved landscaping, and expanded public spaces (such as parks and plazas). In turn, the City will also protect and enhance neighborhoods throughout Costa Mesa to ensure these largely residential areas continue to provide value to residents and the community as whole.

Foremost, attention will be given to protecting the character and quality of residential neighborhoods, including those features that distinguish an area, such as building scale, historical structures, wellmaintained rental housing, mature vegetation, and attractive streetscapes.

Goal LU-1: A Balanced Community with a Mix of Land
Uses to Meet Resident and Business Needs
Objective LU-1A. Establish and maintain a balance of land uses throughout the community to preserve the residential character of the City at a level no greater than can be supported by the infrastructure.

Policy LU-1.1 Provide for the development of a mix and balance of housing opportunities, commercial goods and services, and employment opportunities in consideration of the needs of the business and residential segments of the community.

Policy LU-1.2 Balance economic gains from new development while preserving the character and densities of residential neighborhoods.

Policy LU-1.3 Strongly encourage the development of residential uses and owner-occupied housing (single-family detached residences, condominiums, townhouses) where feasible to improve the balance between rental and ownership housing opportunities.

Policy LU-1.4 Promote housing and employment opportunities within planned development areas to the extent feasible.

Policy LU-1.5 Maintain a land use structure that strives to balance jobs and housing with available infrastructure and public and human services.

Policy LU-1.6 Promote sustainable development patterns that consider negative economic and health impacts on existing residents and businesses.

Policy LU-1.7 Balance housing, retail and employment opportunities by facilitating the development of residential and mixed-uses within the Mixed-Use Overlay.

L a n d U s e E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | L U - 5 4
Goal LU-2: Preserve and Protect Residential
Neighborhoods
Objective LU-2A. Promote land use patterns and development that contribute to community and neighborhood identity.

Policy LU-2.1 In the event of damage or destruction, allow any legal conforming use in existence at the time of adoption of the General Plan that is located in a nonconforming development to be rebuilt to its original building intensity, as long as any such rebuilding would not increase the development's nonconformity, and the damage or destruction was in no way brought about by intentional acts of any owner of such use or property.

Policy LU-2.2 Pursue maximum use of utility company funds and resources in undergrounding existing overhead lines, and encourage undergrounding of utilities in the public right-of-way for residential development consisting of five units or more, to the extent feasible and practical.

Policy LU-2.3 Develop standards, policies, and other methods to encourage the grouping of individual parcels to eliminate obsolete subdivision patterns and to provide improved living environments while being consistent with the neighborhood character of the surrounding community.

Policy LU-2.4 Do not allow "rounding up" when calculating the number of permitted residential units, except for lots existing as of March 16, 1992, zoned R2-MD that have less than 7,260 square feet in area, and no less than 6,000 square feet, where density calculation fractions of 1.65 or greater may be rounded up to two units.

Policy LU-2.5 Allow creation of parcels without street frontage if sufficient easements are provided for planned developments or common-interest developments consistent with the neighborhood character. This policy does not apply to small lot subdivisions.

Policy LU-2.6 Encourage increased private market investment in declining or deteriorating neighborhoods, prioritizing neighborhoods located within designated environmental justice area boundaries.

Policy LU-2.7 Permit the construction of buildings over two stories or 30 feet only when it can be shown that the construction of such structures will not adversely impact surrounding developments and deprive existing land uses of adequate light, air, privacy, and solar access.

Policy LU-2.8 Limit building height to four stories above grade south of the I-405 Freeway, except for residential and mixed-use development in the Mixed-Use Overlay and special purpose housing such as elderly, affordable, or student housing, unless otherwise approved by a General Plan amendment. (A four-story/five-level parking structure with roof deck parking on the fifth level is considered a four- L a n d U s e E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | L U - 5 5
story structure.) The height limitation may be increased further to realize the residential site capacity, or density, of housing opportunity sites identified within the sites inventory of the Housing Element.

Policy LU-2.9 Require appropriate building setbacks, structure orientation, and placement windows to consider the privacy of adjacent residential structures within the same project and on adjacent properties.

Policy LU-2.10 Promote lot consolidation of residential properties to the extent feasible and practical, including the creation of larger single-family residential lots that exceed the minimum 6,000-square-foot requirement in neighborhoods where the prevailing residential subdivision pattern features larger-sized residential lots.

Policy LU-2.11 Ensure adequate noise attenuation in urban design, such as walls for sound attenuation, development of landscaped greenbelts, provision of landscape berms, etc.

Policy LU-2.12 Concentrate new housing in the Mixed-Use Overlay where infrastructure and services can support higher densities.

Goal LU-3: Development that Maintains Neighborhood
Integrity and Character
Objective LU-3A. Establish policies, standards, and procedures to minimize blighting influences, and maintain the integrity of stable neighborhoods.

Policy LU-3.1 Protect existing stabilized residential neighborhoods, including mobile home parks (and manufactured housing parks), from the encroachment of incompatible or potentially disruptive land uses and/or activities.

Policy LU-3.2 Actively enforce existing regulations regarding derelict or abandoned vehicles, outdoor storage, and substandard or illegal buildings, and establish regulations to abate weed-filled yards when any of the above are deemed to constitute a health, safety, or fire hazard.

Policy LU-3.3 Continue code enforcement as a high priority with regard to the regulation of property maintenance standards citywide.

Policy LU-3.4 Ensure that residential densities can be supported by the infrastructure and are compatible with existing residential neighborhoods in the surrounding area.

Policy LU-3.5 Provide opportunities for the development of well-planned and designed projects which, through vertical or horizontal integration, provide for the development of compatible residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, or public uses within a single project or neighborhood.

L a n d U s e E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | L U - 5 6
Policy LU-3.6 Facilitate revitalization of aging commercial centers by working with property owners, developers, local businesses, and other community organizations to coordinate efforts.

Policy LU-3.7 Promote development/design flexibility that encourages older or poorly maintained high-density residential uses to be rehabilitated.

Policy LU-3.8 Ensure that new development reflects existing design standards, qualities, and features that are in context with nearby development and surrounding residential neighborhoods.

Policy LU-3.9 Locate high-intensity developments or high-traffic-generating uses away from low-density residential in order to buffer the more sensitive land uses from the potentially adverse impacts of the more intense development or uses.

Policy LU-3.10 Minimize effects of new development on the privacy and character of surrounding neighborhoods.

Policy LU-3.11 Promote small-lot residential development on long, narrow, single parcels or combined residential lots.

Policy LU-3.12 Ensure that new development reflects existing design standards, qualities, and features that are in context with nearby development.

Policy LU-3.13 Prohibit construction of buildings which would present a hazard to air navigation, as determined by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

Policy LU-3.14 Certain development proposals which may include the construction or alteration of structures more than 200 feet above ground level may require filing with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) pursuant to federal and State law. If a filing requirement is determined to be necessary in accordance with the procedures provided by State/federal agencies, the filing of a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration (FAA Form 7460-1) shall be required prior to review and consideration of the proposed development.” Land Use Element (page LU-18) refers to the threshold stated above. It shall be amended to refer to Filing FAA Form 7460-1 Notice of Construction and Alteration, and not to Form 7480-1.

Policy LU-3.15 The City will ensure that development proposals, including the construction or operation of a heliport or helistop comply fully with permit procedures under State law, including referral of the project to the ALUC by the applicant, and with all conditions of approval imposed or recommended by the Federal Aviation Administration, ALUC, and Caltrans, including the filing of Form 7480-1 (Notice of Landing Area Proposed) with the FAA. This requirement shall be in addition to all other City development requirements.

Policy LU-3.16 The City shall refer certain projects to the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County, as required by Section 21676 of the California Public Utilities L a n d U s e E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | L U - 5 7
Code to determine consistency of the project(s) with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport.

Policy LU 3.17 New residential developments within the 60 dB CNEL noise contour of the airport shall provide designated outdoor signage informing the public of the presence of operating aircraft.

Goal LU-4: New Development that Is Sensitive to Costa
Mesa’s Environmental Resources
Objective LU-4A. Encourage new development and redevelopment that protects and improves the quality of Costa Mesa’s natural environment and resources.

Policy LU-4.1 Ensure that appropriate watershed protection activities are applied to all new development and significant redevelopment projects that are subject to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Stormwater Permit during the planning, project review, and permitting processes.

Policy LU-4.2 Avoid conversion of areas particularly susceptible to erosion and sediment loss (e.g., steep slopes) and/or establish development guidelines that identifies these areas and protects them from erosion and sediment loss.

Policy LU-4.3 Preserve or restore areas that provide water quality benefits and/or are necessary to maintain riparian and aquatic biota.

Policy LU-4.4 Promote site development that limits impact on and protects the natural integrity of topography, drainage systems, and water bodies, and protect the integrity of the bluff crest.

Policy LU-4.5 Promote integration of stormwater quality protection into construction and postconstruction activities, as required by the NPDES Stormwater Permit and the City’s Local Implementation Plan.

Policy LU-4.6 Incorporate the principles of sustainability into land use planning, infrastructure, and development processes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions consistent with State goals.

L a n d U s e E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | L U - 5 8
Goal LU-5: Adequate Community Services,
Transportation System, and Infrastructure to Meet
Growth
Objective LU-5A. Ensure availability of adequate community facilities and provision of the highest level of public services possible, taking into consideration budgetary constraints and effects on the surrounding area.

Policy LU-5.1 Pursue annexation of certain areas within the City's Sphere of Influence to provide land use regulation and city services within its jurisdiction.

Policy LU-5.2 Strongly encourage protection and preservation of existing but underutilized school sites for future recreational, social, or educational uses.

Policy LU-5.3 As appropriate and timely, consider the establishment of development impact fee program(s) to fund additional fire and police personnel, library facilities, and related equipment to meet the demands of additional growth in the City.

Policy LU-5.4 Require appropriate site and environmental analysis for future fire and police station site locations or for the relocation or closure of existing fire and police facilities.

Policy LU.5.5 Ensure that new development pays its fair share of impact fees such as park fees and traffic impact fees. This can also include impact fees related to community services (police protection services and fire emergency response services) or library facilities, once adopted and applicable.

Policy LU-5.6 Promote development of revenue-generating land uses to help defray the costs of high quality public services.

Policy LU-5.7 Encourage new development that is organized around compact, walkable, mixeduse neighborhoods and districts to conserve open space resources, minimize infrastructure costs, and reduce reliance on the automobile.

Policy LU-5.8 Include an evaluation of impacts on utility systems and infrastructure in EIRs for all major general plan amendment, rezone, and development applications.

Policy LU-5.9 Phase or restrict future development in the City to that which can be accommodated by infrastructure at the time of completion of each phase of a multi-phased project.

Policy LU-5.10 Building densities/intensities for proposed new development projects shall not exceed the trip budget for applicable land use classifications, as identified in the Land Use Element. Building intensities for proposed new development projects shall not exceed the applicable floor area standards, except for the following conditions:

L a n d U s e E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | L U - 5 9
(a) Limited deviations from the graduated floor-area ratio standards for the commercial and industrial land use designations may be approved through a discretionary review process. No deviation shall exceed a 0.05 increase in the FAR in the moderate traffic category, and no deviation shall be allowed in the very low, low, and high traffic categories. Deviations from the FAR standards shall not cause the daily trip generation for the property to be exceeded when compared to the existing daily trip generation for the site without the proposed project or maximum allowable traffic generation for the Moderate Traffic FAR category, whichever is greater.
(b) Additions to existing nonconforming nonresidential developments may be allowed if the additions do not affect the overall traffic generation characteristics of the development and if the additions do not substantially affect the existing height and bulk of the development. Additions to nonresidential developments shall be limited to those land uses with traffic generation rates based on variables other than building area square footage.

Examples of such additions include, but are not limited to: 1) Hotels/motels:

Increases in the size of hotel rooms or lobbies where no increase in the total number of rooms is proposed, and 2) theaters: Increases to “back-stage” support areas or lobbies where no increase in the total number of seats is proposed.
(c) In the above conditions, the new development shall be compatible with surrounding land uses.
(d) Additional criteria for approving deviations from the FAR standards may be established by policy of the City Council.
(e) The General Plan does not specify trip generation standards as allowed in the Mixed-Use Overlay.

Policy LU-5.11 Development plans shall be required for all phased development and approvals and shall be approved by the Planning and Transportation Services Divisions prior to the issuance of building permits.

Policy LU-5.12 Development plans shall include an overall buildout plan, which can demonstrate the ability of the circulation system to support the proposed level of development.

Policy LU-5.13 The City shall continue its annual preparation of the Development Phasing and Performance Monitoring Program. The annual review will specifically address major intersection operations in any mixed-use overlay area.

L a n d U s e E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | L U - 6 0
Goal LU-6: Economically Viable and Productive Land
Uses that Increase the City’s Tax Base
Objective LU-6A: Ensure the long-term productivity and viability of the community's economic base.

Policy LU-6.1 Encourage a mix of land uses that maintain and improve the City’s long-term fiscal health.

Policy LU-6.2 Continue to promote and support the vitality of commercial uses to meet the needs of local residents and that support regional-serving commercial centers.

Policy LU-6.3 Continue to prioritize commercial and industrial park use of properties within the Airport Industrial Area.

Policy LU-6.4 Support the continued presence of incubator businesses in the action sports industry and jobs-producing businesses in the Westside.

Policy LU-6.5 Encourage revitalization of existing, older commercial and industrial areas in the Westside with new mixed-use development consisting of ownership housing stock and live/work units.

Policy LU-6.6 Continue to encourage and retain land uses that generate sustainable sales and property tax revenues, including regional commercial destinations and automobile dealerships.

Policy LU-6.7 Encourage new and retain existing businesses that provide local shopping and services.

Policy LU-6.8 Provide efficient and timely review of development proposals while maintaining quality customer service standards for the business, development, and residential community.

Policy LU-6.9 Support the retention and growth of Class A office tenants, including corporate headquarters for the action sports industry, biotech, and high technology companies within the City.

Objective LU-6B: Encourage and facilitate activities that expand the City’s revenue base.

Policy LU-6.10 Encourage a broad range of business uses that provide employment at all income levels and that make a positive contribution to the City’s tax base.

Policy LU-6.11 Provide opportunities for mixed-use, office, manufacturing, and retail development that respond to market and community needs in terms of size, location, and cost.

Policy LU-6.12 Track retail trends and tailor regulations to respond to market changes, maximize revenue, and maintain the appropriate business mix.

L a n d U s e E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | L U - 6 1
Policy LU-6.13 Encourage new development along major corridors that are pedestrian oriented and includes a mixture of retail/service, residential, and office uses.

Policy LU-6.14 Improve ease and accessibility to information to capture opportunities for businesses to establish in Costa Mesa and bring high-skill and professional jobs and new revenue sources into the community.

Policy LU-6.15 Promote unique and specialized commercial and industrial districts within the City which allow for incubation of new or growing businesses and industries.

Policy LU-6.16 Examine options for the development of new infrastructure for new technologies and businesses that use those technologies.

Objective LU-6C: Retain and expand the City’s diverse employment base, including office, retail/service, restaurants, high-tech, action sports, boutique and prototype manufacturing, and industrial businesses.

Policy LU-6.17 Engage in activities that promote Costa Mesa as a great place to live, work, and develop a business.

Policy LU-6.18 Continue to work with surrounding cities to strengthen regional economic development.

Policy LU-6.19 Provide flexibility and support for development of residential, office, small retail centers, and similar uses that would serve local residents and would also benefit from the high visibility along major corridors outside of significant commercial or industrial nodes.

Goal LU-7: A Sound Local Sustainable Economy that
Attracts Investment, Creates Educational Opportunities, and Generates Employment Opportunities
Policy LU-7.1 Endeavor to create mixture of employment opportunities for all economic levels of residents and businesses.

Policy LU-7.2 Support linkages between local educational institutions and local industries and businesses. Foster training, collaboration with employers, and new innovative programs that increase job opportunities for residents and students attending school locally.

Policy LU-7.3 Foster and provide useful and efficient partnerships to implement economic opportunities with private, non-profit, or other public agencies.

Policy LU-7.4 Cultivate an entrepreneurial and academic environment that fosters innovation through non-traditional housing developments, flexible office spaces, experiential development, and ensuring the diversity of retail/service throughout the urban districts.

L a n d U s e E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | L U - 6 2
Policy LU-7.5 Support and provide flexibility for development projects and businesses which produce, care, and maintain material goods or fixed assets meant to support the production of market goods, especially for niche industries within the City of Costa Mesa.

Policy LU-7.6 Seek out opportunities to attract primary businesses within stable industries and support industries that already exist within the City.

Policy LU-7.7 Explore economic and employment opportunities to retain and strengthen the unique industry niches along Bristol and Paularino, in the Westside, on East 17th Street, and throughout North Costa Mesa.

Policy LU-7.8 Support the development of pedestrian plazas and gathering places, and institutional spaces, as well as the more efficient use of existing spaces, to support economic growth and branding of existing industries within the City.

Goal LU-8: Promote a range of multiple uses at the
Fairview Developmental Center site
Policy LU-8.1 In anticipation of the potential closure or repurposing of the Fairview Development Center site, the City will work with appropriate State agencies or private entity (if the property is sold) to plan for a complementary mix of residential, institutional, public facilities, open spaces, and recreational uses.

Goal LU-9: Ensure that Fairgrounds uses are consistent
with the General Plan designation
Policy LU-9.1 Discourage changes in the allowable uses specified in the Fairgrounds General Plan land use designation for the Orange County Fair & Event Center property.

Ensure that amendments to this General Plan designation are approved by the electorate.

Goal LU-10: Promote the growth of tourism
Objective LU-10A: Promote structural improvements of visitor-oriented land uses.

Policy LU-10.1 Engage with property owners, developers, and business owners to encourage the revitalization of the hotel/motels.

Policy LU-10.2 Provide incentives to motel development projects seeking to improve existing motel facilities by increasing the hotel rating. These projects may include:
(a) Updating building mechanical, electrical, or plumbing to comply with current building standards
L a n d U s e E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | L U - 6 3
(b) Updating physical improvements to the site
(c) Adding hotel amenities to the site
(d) Updating or improving the landscaping on the site
(e) Updating or improving the façade of the building(s) Objective LU-10B: Promote growth of visitor-oriented land uses.

Policy LU-10.3 Motel and hotel land uses should be encouraged to be located near major transportation corridors and close to key tourist/visitor draws, other recreation venues, the airport, regional, and general local shopping centers.

Policy LU-10.4 Consider the interest of quality of stay for visitors when evaluating projects near visitor-oriented land uses by requiring on-site amenities and upscale guest services.

Objective LU-10C: Promote uses and events that make visitor-oriented business more economically viable.

Policy LU-10.5 Celebrate and promote the arts, culture, and industries of Costa Mesa through special events, civic gatherings, and City marketing and tourism promotion efforts.

Policy LU-10.6 Promote the development of small-scale manufacturing uses or other uses that generate multiple secondary and tertiary markets that support business travel tourism-related uses.

Policy LU-10.7 Maintain and enhance the City’s status and image as a centrally located destination and cultural center in Orange County.

C i r c u l a t i o n E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | C - 1
Chapter 3:

Circulation Element
Introduction
Costa Mesa’s transportation system consists of a comprehensive network of sidewalks, bicycle routes, trails, bus transit facilities, local streets, major roadways, and freeways. This integrated system supports connectivity among the major activity areas and residential neighborhoods, and brings people to and through the City. Although the established street system moves many people every day to local and regional destinations, the system—not unlike most road systems in Southern California established long ago—has been designed primarily for automobiles. This Circulation Element changes the paradigm for transportation planning by giving equal attention to planning and building systems that accommodate all mobility means, including on foot, by bicycle, and via transit.

This element includes goals, objectives, and policies that the City will use to make decisions regarding transportation improvements that significantly Bicyclists traveling along 17th Street
GP-XX-XX, Adopted XX, XX, 2026
Updated March 4, 2025 – General Plan Amendments:
* PGPA-23-0001, March 7, 2024
C i r c u l a t i o n E l e m e n t
C - 2 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
expand bicycle and pedestrian travel capabilities, manage the established roadway system efficiently and effectively, enhance transit facilities, and implement “complete street” strategies that ensure all users and mobility options are addressed in future street improvements.

Purpose
Costa Mesa will pursue strategies and programs that not only address relieving vehicular congestion but also create local conditions that emphasize active transportation. With its mild climate and flat terrain, Costa Mesa should be a place where people can easily bike and walk. The transportation system described in this element is a balanced multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users of streets, roads, and highways for safe and convenient travel. Those users include children, cyclists of all ages, pedestrians, persons with disabilities, motorists, movers of commercial goods, transit riders, and seniors. The City’s aim is to balance the ability of this varied circulation network to accommodate planned growth in a manner that minimizes delay, creates efficiencies, and supports the community’s environmental and economic goals.

The Circulation Element establishes policies governing the system of roadways, intersections, bike paths, pedestrian ways, and other components of the circulations system, which collectively provide for the movement of persons and goods throughout Costa Mesa. Most significantly, the element:
 Applies “Complete Streets” strategies for street improvements  Defines active transportation improvements that will create improved conditions for walking and cycling
 Coordinates land use planning and transportation improvements to effectively manage and improve the established roadway system  Identifies linkages and connectivity among all transportation modes.

C i r c u l a t i o n E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | C - 3
Baseline Conditions-2015
Established Roadways
Regional Transportation
Costa Mesa is centrally located in Orange County near the Pacific Coast and is well served by the regional freeway system consisting of:
 San Diego Freeway (I-405), which traverses east-west across the northern portion of the City
 Corona del Mar Freeway (SR-73), which begins at I-405 between Fairview Road and Bear Street and extends southeast, where it becomes the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor
 Costa Mesa Freeway (SR-55), which enters at the northeast corner of the City and extends southwest, transitioning into Newport Boulevard south of 19th Street
These freeways provide regional access throughout Orange County and points beyond, which is convenient but also can be severely congested during weekday and weekend peak-hour periods, placing additional burden on parallel streets.

Street System
North/south arterial roadways serving the City include Harbor Boulevard, Fairview Road, Bear Street, and Bristol Street, all of which are six-lane facilities; and Placentia Avenue and Red Hill Avenue, both of which are fourlane facilities. East-west arterial roadways serving the City include Anton Boulevard and Adams Avenue, which are six-lane facilities; Sunflower Avenue, which is a six-lane facility east of Bear Street and a four-lane facility west of Bear Street; and South Coast Drive, Baker Street, Fair Drive, Victoria Street, West 19th Street, and East 17th Street, all four-lane facilities.

C i r c u l a t i o n E l e m e n t
C - 4 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
East-west access to Costa Mesa is constrained by the Santa Ana River on the west and on the east by John Wayne Airport and Upper Newport Bay. The Santa Ana River runs along the entire western City boundary, with crossings only at Adams Avenue, Victoria Street, and MacArthur Boulevard. Besides I405, these roadways represent the only locations where Costa Mesa residents can travel to Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley. Although a crossing had one time been planned via West 19th Street, the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) amended its Master Plan of Arterial Highways1 in 2014 to remove this connection. To the east, the airport and Upper Newport Bay entirely constrain surface street connections extending east, except via Pacific Coast Highway to the south, Bristol Street parallel to SR-73, and MacArthur Boulevard north of I-405.

The circulation system layout is notable for its two grid patterns. Streets east of and including Newport Boulevard were constructed at approximately 45 degree angles from the traditional north/south streets in north Orange County. This results in odd-angled intersections along Newport Boulevard; west of Newport Boulevard, the streets are generally in a more traditional grid pattern.
1 Cities throughout Orange County must ensure that their own circulation master plans are consistent with OCTA’s Master Plan of Arterial Highways to remain eligible for M2 funds, as described later in this element.

Looking north on Bristol
Street from the pedestrian
bridge connecting South Coast
Plaza and the Segerstrom
Center for the Arts
C i r c u l a t i o n E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | C - 5
Long-Term Regional Transportation Projects
I-405 Improvement Project
In 2015, I-405 through Orange County carried as many as 370,000 vehicles per day, making it one of the busiest roadways in the nation. OCTA, in cooperation with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), plans to widen the 16-mile length of I-405 between I-605 and SR-73 to handle forecasted vehicle volumes and to address ongoing congestion challenges.

Project improvements include widening the freeway to include a general purpose lane and an express lane, improved overcrossings at Fairview Road and Santa Ana River, and a new bridge that will connect I-405 and SR-73.

Several freeway ramps will be reconstructed; adjacent roads will be configured to accommodate the widening; and new sound walls will be built where necessary.

State Route 55 (SR-55) Freeway Extension Alternatives
One of the keystone projects for alleviating congestion are the planned improvements for SR-55/Newport Boulevard. In 2015, close to 100,000 vehicles passed through the terminus of the Costa Mesa Freeway at 19th Street every day. OCTA has examined several alternatives of a freeway extension of SR-55 to address congestion resulting from the terminus of SR-55 at 19th Street in Costa Mesa. Alternatives include transportation systems management and traffic synchronization, construction of a single lane elevated structure at 17th Street, and a cut-and-cover tunnel that would run below SR-55/Newport Boulevard from 19th Street to Industrial Way. The cutand-cover strategy offers the most benefits to Costa Mesa; in addition to The San Diego Freeway
(I-405) in Orange County
C i r c u l a t i o n E l e m e n t
C - 6 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
completely removing freeway traffic from the local road network, it would allow the City to repurpose Newport Boulevard, including possibly using excess right-of-way for enhancing the downtown experience by adding landscaping and facilities that support other modes of transportation.

This General Plan assumes that the cut-and-cover approach, which the City supports, will not occur within the year 2035 planning horizon due to the significant costs and planning required.

Key Issues
Freeway Congestion
Interstate 405, between I-605 and SR-73, is one of the most congested freeways in Southern California during commute hours. In addition to particularly heavy traffic volumes, I-405 suffers from a lack of alternative routes plus closely spaced on- and off-ramps that interfere with smoothly flowing vehicle movements. The congestion impacts Costa Mesa by pushing non-local trips onto City streets and hindering easy access to commercial areas.

Traffic congestion at the terminus of SR-55 is caused by local and regional commuters. Through trips to Newport Beach and other coastal areas use capacity that would better serve local residents and businesses; these trips also clog intersections that affect east-west travel within the City.

Local Traffic Conditions
Residents cite congestion on local streets as a key concern. Due to the City’s geographic location, accessibility from freeways, proximity to Orange County beaches, and popular attractions and destinations, many local streets experience frequent heavy traffic loads.

Need for a Comprehensive Bicycle System
While Costa Mesa has long had several Class I bicycle paths such as the Santa Ana River Trail, Banning Channel Trail, Victoria Street path, and the Joann Street Bike Trail, connectivity has been limited. Gaps in the bicycle network create challenges for cross-town travel and easy access to major activity areas and residential neighborhoods. While Costa Mesa’s weather and terrain make for great biking, the lack of efficient and safe bike routes and supporting bike C i r c u l a t i o n E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | C - 7
infrastructure have made it difficult for bicycling to be a good alternative mode of travel.

Accommodating Pedestrians
Many residential neighborhoods in Costa Mesa are near shopping areas, schools, and parks. Pedestrian access improvements including attractive streetscape and landscape features, lighting, decorative crosswalks, enhanced traffic signal timing, and other amenities will attract higher use of pedestrian facilities.

Neighborhood Cut-Through Traffic
Three major freeways and several regional arterials provide access to the City and adjacent jurisdictions. As a result, some neighborhood streets are affected by cut-through traffic, resulting in higher than normal traffic volumes at higher speeds. Additionally, due to limited vehicle access routes over the Santa Ana River, a significant number of vehicles converge along Adams Avenue and Victoria Street to get to Huntington Beach. Many neighborhood streets in proximity to these streets are affected by cut-through traffic, especially by vehicles attempting quicker routes via Costa Mesa streets.

Mobile technologies such as smart phone apps that alert motorists of congested streets and suggest alternative routes through residential neighborhoods compound the issue.

C i r c u l a t i o n E l e m e n t
C - 8 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
Circulation Plan
Efficient movement within and through Costa Mesa and the region will be facilitated by developing and maintaining a well-designed and integrated multimodal transportation network for all users. Easy and convenient access to transit, pedestrian, and bicycle options within the City are essential to an efficient network.

Streets are the backbone of Costa Mesa’s circulation system. They lend identity to our neighborhoods and have always served as a determining force in the shape, form, and function of the City. Streets should be considered as places with many functions beyond moving people and goods, such as connecting neighborhoods, providing social spaces, and serving as statements of civic pride.

Master Plan of Streets and Highways (MPSH)
The City of Costa Mesa MPSH defines the existing and future roadway system in the City. One of the objectives of the MPSH is to maintain consistency with the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH). OCTA administers the MPAH, including the review and approval of amendments requested by local agencies. In order for Costa Mesa to receive funding from Orange County M2 funds for planned local road network improvements, the City’s MPSH must be consistent with the County’s MPAH.

Roadway Classifications
Roadway classifications are designated on the MPSH as a general guideline for arterial highway right-of-way requirements. Additional right-of-way beyond the typical sections may be required for any classification when an arterial highway coincides with an adopted route for an additional public facility (e.g., special transit facilities, bikeways, wider landscaped parkways, wider sidewalks, or riding and hiking trails), or a scenic highway. Figure C-1 shows typical cross-sections for the arterial roadway designations on the MPSH, and Table C-1 lists the daily number of vehicles that can be accommodated by each type of arterial roadway.

C i r c u l a t i o n E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | C - 9
Figure C-1: Roadway Typical Cross Sections
Major Arterial
Primary Arterial
84’
100’
8’ 12’ 11’ 12’ 4’ 10’ 12’ 11’ 12’ 8’
7’ 12’ 11’ 4’ 10’ 11’ 12’ 7’
60’
74’
56’
6’ 12’ 11’ 10’ 11’
68’
12’ 6’
Secondary Arterial
Collector 60’
10’ 10’
40’
8’ 12’ 12’ 8’
Notes: 1. Additional right-of-way may be required at intersections for accommodating turn lanes.

2. Additional right-of-way may be required along streets that are planned to included future bicycle facilities, consistent with the Conceptual Bicycle Master Plan (Figure C-3).

C i r c u l a t i o n E l e m e n t
C - 1 0 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
Table C-1: Master Plan of Streets and Highways
Arterials Lanes
Typical
Right-of-Way
Daily Vehicle
Trips
Accommodated
Major Six-lane divided (median) 100 Feet 56,000-68,000
Primary Four-lane divided (median) 74 Feet 38,000-45,000 Secondary Four-lane undivided (no median) 68 Feet 25,000-30,000 Divided
Collector
Two-lane divided (continuous
two-way left-turn lane) 68 Feet 22,000
Collector Two-lane undivided (no median) 60 Feet 12,500 Major Arterial
A Major Arterial highway is a six-lane divided (raised or painted median) roadway. A Major Arterial may be designed with emphasis for automobile, goods movement, and/or transit. Major Arterials carry a large volume of regional through traffic not handled by the freeway system.

Primary Arterial
A Primary Arterial highway is a four-lane divided (raised or painted median) roadway. A Primary Arterial may be designed with emphasis for automobile, goods movement, transit, and/or bicycle. A Primary Arterial's function is similar to that of a Major Arterial. The principal difference between the two classifications is capacity.

Secondary Arterial
A Secondary Arterial highway is a four-lane undivided (no median) roadway. A Secondary Arterial may be designed with emphasis for automobile and/or bicycle. A Secondary Arterial serves as a connector, distributing traffic between local streets and Major and Primary Arterials. Although some Secondary Arterials serve as through routes, most provide direct access to surrounding land uses.

Divided Collector Arterial
A Divided Collector Arterial is a modified Secondary Arterial with a reallocation of pavement width to emphasize bicycle and pedestrian use. It provides one bicycle lane per direction on bicycle corridors and one through vehicle lane per direction. The two directions of travel are divided by a continuous two-way left-turn lane.

C i r c u l a t i o n E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | C - 1 1
Collector Arterial
A Collector Arterial is a two-lane undivided (no median), unrestricted access roadway. Collector Arterials differ from local collector streets in their ability to handle through traffic movements between two arterials.

Roadway Plan
The Costa Mesa MPSH is shown in Figure C-2. Prior traffic studies and the General Plan analysis evaluated a number of potential modifications that are now either included in the MPSH or could be considered based on coordination with OCTA. Those modifications are discussed below.

Santa Ana River Crossings
A cooperative study was carried out by the cities of Costa Mesa, Newport Beach, Fountain Valley, and Huntington Beach and OCTA to support OCTA’s amendment to the Orange County MPAH to downgrade the Gisler Avenue/Garfield Avenue crossing of the Santa Ana River to a “Right-of-Way Reserve” status and to delete the West 19th Street crossing of the Santa Ana River from the MPAH. To maintain consistency with the amended MPAH, the cities of Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley, and Huntington Beach have subsequently changed the designation of the Gisler Avenue/Garfield Avenue crossing to “Right-of-Way Reserve” status in their respective General Plan Circulation Element roadway systems, including the Costa Mesa MPSH presented here. The City of Huntington Beach has subsequently deleted the West 19th Street crossing from its General Plan circulation system. With this deletion, there is no possible connection for a vehicular bridge from Costa Mesa towards Huntington Beach. The Costa Mesa General Plan traffic study concluded that the future traffic demand in Costa Mesa can be adequately served without the West 19th Street crossing. Therefore, the West 19th Street crossing over the Santa Ana River has been deleted from the Costa Mesa MPSH.

C i r c u l a t i o n E l e m e n t
C - 1 2 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
Figure C-2: Master Plan of Streets and Highways
Map prepared by Stantec, Inc.

C i r c u l a t i o n E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | C - 1 3
West 19th Street Downgrade
West 19th Street west of Placentia Avenue could be downgraded from a Primary Arterial to a Divided Collector Arterial on the MPSH, a downgrade that is supported by the results of the General Plan traffic study. This roadway is designated as a Primary Arterial on the Orange County MPAH. To maintain consistency with the MPAH, the City of Costa Mesa will initiate an MPAH amendment process with OCTA to downgrade this roadway to a Divided Collector Arterial.

West 17th Street Downgrade
West 17th Street west of Placentia Avenue could be downgraded from a Secondary Arterial to a Divided Collector Arterial on the MPSH, a downgrade that is supported by the results of the General Plan traffic study. This roadway is designated as a Secondary Arterial on the Orange County MPAH.

To maintain consistency with the MPAH, the City of Costa Mesa will initiate an MPAH amendment process with OCTA to downgrade this roadway to a Divided Collector Arterial on the MPAH.

East 22nd Street Downgrade
East 22nd Street between northbound Newport Boulevard and Orange Avenue has been downgraded from a Secondary Arterial to a Collector Arterial on the MPSH. This downgrade is supported by earlier studies as well as the General Plan traffic study, and the Orange County MPAH has been amended by OCTA to incorporate this downgrade.

Baker Street Downgrade
Baker Street between Mesa Verde Drive East and Royal Palm Drive could be downgraded from a Secondary Arterial to a Collector Arterial on the MPSH, a downgrade that is supported by the results of the General Plan traffic study.

This roadway is designated as a Secondary Arterial on the Orange County MPAH. To maintain consistency with the MPAH, Costa Mesa will initiate an MPAH amendment process with OCTA to downgrade this roadway to a Collector Arterial on the MPAH.

Bluff Road Deletion
The previous Costa Mesa MPSH included Bluff Road between Victoria Street and West 19th Street as a Major Arterial. The General Plan traffic study concluded that the future traffic demand in Costa Mesa can be adequately C i r c u l a t i o n E l e m e n t
C - 1 4 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
served without this roadway. Therefore, Bluff Road between Victoria Street and West 19th Street could be deleted from the MPSH. To maintain consistency with the MPAH, Costa Mesa will initiate an MPAH amendment process with OCTA to delete this roadway from the MPAH.

Balanced Approach to Complete Streets
The California Complete Streets Act (2008) places the planning, designing, and building of “Complete Streets” into the larger planning framework of the General Plan by requiring jurisdictions to plan for multimodal transportation networks. Complete Streets are designed and operated to enable safe access for all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, the disabled, motorists, seniors, users of public transportation, and movers of commercial goods. These networks allow people to effectively travel to key destinations within their community and the larger region. In addition, all transportation projects should be evaluated as to their ability to improve safety, access, and mobility for all travelers and to recognize pedestrian, bicycle, and transit modes as integral elements of their transportation system.

Costa Mesa has already begun the work of reviewing the existing street network and looking for opportunities to improve alternative modes of transportation through the construction of bike paths, such as the Joann Street Bicycle Trail. The goals, objectives, and policies in this element continue the work of making enhancements to the transportation network to accommodate all modes of mobility.

Active Transportation
“Active transportation” refers to non-motorized travel modes such as walking, biking, or skateboarding. Because everyone uses a mode of active transportation at some point in a trip, such as walking to a bus stop or from a parking lot to work or school, active transportation is a critical component of a Complete Streets network. The Active Transportation Plan—divided in this element into a bicycle component and pedestrian component—responds to direct comments from residents for more active transportation facilities and increased connectivity throughout Costa Mesa and regional destinations.

C i r c u l a t i o n E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | C - 1 5
Bicycle Master Plan
A transportation system that incorporates a well-designed bicycle network results in fewer motorized vehicle trips and miles of vehicle travel (and related pollutant emissions) while providing an option for healthful physical activity.

Costa Mesa is committed to improving the bicycle experience with implementation of the comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan. The Conceptual Bicycle Master Plan is shown in Figure C-3. Following a detailed analysis and public review of the proposed facilities, a final Bicycle Master Plan will be incorporated into the Circulation Element. New bicycle facilities and amenities will be added to complement the established bicycle network.

Costa Mesa follows Caltrans’ standards and recognizes four classes of bicycle facilities: Class I – Bike Paths or Bike Trails, Class II - Bike Lanes, Class III - Bike Routes (On-Street), and Class IV - Protected Bike Lanes. Figures C-4 and C-5 illustrate typical cross sections for each bicycle classification.

Class I: Off-Street Paved Bike Paths
This class provides a pathway exclusive to bicycles and other active transportation modes, with no motor vehicle use of the roadway. Costa Mesa has extensive Class I bike routes within and adjacent to the City boundaries.

Examples of Class I trails include Joann Street Bicycle Trail, Harbor Boulevard Bicycle Trail, Victoria Street Bicycle Trail, Fairview Channel Trail, Santa Ana River Trail, Greenville-Banning Channel Bikeway, and Back Bay Trail.

Class II: On-Street Striped and Signed Bicycle Lanes
Most of the functional bicycle trips in Costa Mesa are on Class II bicycle lanes on many of the arterial and collector streets in the City. The lanes are striped and signed for exclusive use of bicycles and are located adjacent to curb. The lanes use existing rights-of-way and share roadways with motor vehicles.

Class II can be found along Placentia Avenue, Newport Boulevard, Santa Ana Avenue, Fairview Road, and South Coast Drive.

Class III: On-Street Shared-Lane Signed Bicycle Routes
Similar to Class II bicycle lanes, Class III routes are multimodal but generally are located on low-traffic residential streets; they are identified as bikeways through signage only. On these routes, several short-distance “Bicycle Boulevards” are planned to connect the eastside and westside Class II bike lanes.

C i r c u l a t i o n E l e m e n t
C - 1 6 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
Map prepared by Stantec, Inc.

Figure C-3: Conceptual Bicycle Master Plan
C i r c u l a t i o n E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | C - 1 7
Figure C-4: Bike Cross Sections
Class I and Class II
Class I: Off-Street Paved Bike Paths
Class II: On-Street Striped and Signed Bicycle Lanes
C i r c u l a t i o n E l e m e n t
C - 1 8 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
Class IV: Protected Bike Lanes (Cycle Tracks), an On-Street and Separated Bike Lane Class III: On-Street Shared-Lane Signed Bicycle Routes
Figure C-5: Bike Cross Sections
Class III and Class IV
C i r c u l a t i o n E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | C - 1 9
Bicycle Boulevards are achieved mostly through signage, pavement markings, landscaping, and other vehicular traffic-calming measures to optimize bicycle travel. They never require widening of streets or removal of curb parking.

Santa Ana Avenue between 22nd Street and 21st Street is a Class III bicycle facility.

Class IV: Protected Bike Lanes (Cycle Tracks) - On-Street and Separated Bike Lanes
A cycle track is marked out by a separate bike lane, or multidirectional bike lane, that protects it from other traffic—vehicular, transit, and pedestrian—by a physical barrier such as a curb, planters, or parked cars. Cycle tracks can be configured either for one-way travel (with a lane on each side of the street) or for two-way travel (with each lane on one side of the street). The lane is for exclusive use by bicycles.

Physical separation can also be vertical, with the bike lane raised above ground (i.e., bicycle freeway). When cycle tracks are built, they tend to attract even more bicycle riders, as they are perceived to be safer. In this manner, cycle tracks can increase cycling as a share of the overall mode of travel and address roadway safety by minimizing collisions between vehicles and cyclists.

No Class IV facilities are currently located in Costa Mesa.

Framework Bicycle Facilities
The Conceptual Bicycle Master Plan builds upon long-established bicycle assets in Costa Mesa, including the Santa Ana River Bicycle Trail, GreenvilleBanning Channel Bikeway, Joann Street Bicycle Trail, and Victoria Street Bicycle Trail.

Santa Ana River Bicycle Trail and Banning Channel Bikeway The Santa Ana River Trail is a dedicated bike path along the banks of the Santa Ana River. As a segment of the OC Loop, the Santa Ana River Trail provides bicycle access to Orange County beaches, as well as to Fairview Park, Talbert Nature Preserve, and Talbert Regional Park. A bridge over the Santa Ana River near Fairview Park and Talbert Nature Preserve provides pedestrian and bicycle access to both sides of the Santa Ana River Trail and the Banning Channel Bikeway.

C i r c u l a t i o n E l e m e n t
C - 2 0 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
The Greenville-Banning Channel Bikeway is located on the eastern bank of the Santa Ana River and merges into the Santa Ana River Trail just south of Adams Avenue.

Joann Street Bike Trail
The Joann Street Bike Trail is a Class I bike path located along the southern edge of the Costa Mesa Golf Course and the western side of Harbor Boulevard. The trail connects Placentia Avenue and Tanager Drive.

Victoria Street Bike Trail
The Victoria Street Bike Trail is a Class I bike path located along the northern side of Victoria Street, between Canyon Drive and Placentia Avenue.

Bicycle Infrastructure to Increase Bicycling
This Circulation Element recognizes that a complete bicycle network must include infrastructure improvements and amenities for bicyclists that add comfort and convenience for commuters and recreational bicyclists.

Recommendations to implement Safe Routes to School programs, provide bike lockers, require new developments to provide adequate bicycle parking, and implement a bicycle sharing system will all contribute to the infrastructure needed to complete Costa Mesa’s planned comprehensive bicycle network.

The Joann Street Bicycle Trail
along the southern boundary
of the Costa Mesa Golf Course.

C i r c u l a t i o n E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | C - 2 1
Bicycle Parking Facilities
Safe and convenient bike parking is an essential component of a comprehensive bicycle network. Bike racks are required to be provided in most new development projects. However, larger bicycle parking facilities should be located at schools and colleges, major activity centers and venues, parks and community centers, office complexes, and major shopping centers.

Examples of bicycle parking facilities can include:
 Bike racks, lockers, and shelters. A bicycle rack is a device to which bicycles can be securely attached for parking purposes. A bike rack may be attached to the ground or some stationary object such as a building. A bicycle locker is a box in which a single bicycle can be placed and locked in. They are usually provided at places where numerous cyclists need bike parking for extended times, yet where the bikes might otherwise get damaged or stolen. Bicycle shelters typically include bike racks that are covered by a permanent structure to protect against the elements.
 Secure bicycle parking areas. Secure bicycle parking areas are enclosures for storing bicycles. They are commonly located in larger residential complexes or at colleges. They typically include 24-hour controlled access to limit bicycle theft and vandalism.  Attended bicycle stations. Bike stations provide indoor bike parking served by an attendant. Stations can include various services, including valet parking, day-use lockers, self-repair stations, bike rentals, professional bike repair, classes, and events.

Bicycle Boulevards
Bicycle boulevards are low-traffic streets that have been optimized for use by cyclists. A variety of traffic-calming elements and signage are used to reduce car volumes and speeds, thus fostering a safe bicycling environment. Bicycle boulevards often include features that allow cyclists to travel farther without stop controls or intersection treatments that allow cyclists to continue through intersections, while cars are forced to turn. Bike boulevards often make use of “sharrows”— shared-lane markings—that communicate the presence of bicyclists to drivers.

Bike racks: from the
simple to the artistic
to the whimsical. They
all serve the same
intended purpose.

C i r c u l a t i o n E l e m e n t
C - 2 2 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
Colored Bicycle Lanes and Boxes
Bike boxes, painted at intersections, allow cyclists to move in front of the travel lane in order to be more visible to cars and avoid turning conflicts.

Bicycle lanes are another technique to provide dedicated space in the street for cyclists and to increase driver awareness to the presence of cyclists.

Increasingly, cities are using colored pavement treatments to designate bike lanes, either by coloring the beginning of the lane or the entire lane.

Bicycle Programs
Developing a healthy bicycling environment and culture is an important part of supporting good bicycle access. Building a strong and lasting bicycling constituency requires a multifaceted approach that provides required infrastructure and makes cyclists feel they are part of a broad and growing community.

Safety Campaigns
Bicycle safety campaigns and programs are critical to creating a bicyclefriendly culture. Safe travels by bicyclists can be actively integrated into traffic safety programs such as training law enforcement officers on bicyclists’ rights and responsibilities, promoting efficient reporting mechanisms for behaviors that endanger bicyclists, employing traffic safety officers to educate, and correcting bicyclists’ traffic violations.

Celebrating Bicycling
Programs and activities can stimulate community spirit toward cycling, such as events that celebrate those who ride or allow families to ride safely together.

Common events include organized and supported rides, where local streets Example of a painted bicycle
box at an intersection
C i r c u l a t i o n E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | C - 2 3
are closed to cars and cyclists are free to ride; bike commute month (or week), where local companies can compete for the highest cycling rates; or events that showcase numerous types of cycling. All these events can help to build a cycling culture.

Accommodating Pedestrians
Walkability, access, and connections are essential components of a circulation system that accommodates pedestrians. Walkability includes design features such as wide sidewalks, safe street crossings, treatments that encourage cautious driving, and comfortable and safe walking environments.

Comfortable sidewalks, well-designed pedestrian crossings, pathways, and pedestrian shortcuts allow people to get from one destination point to another with ease.

The City supports the integration of pedestrian-oriented improvements and amenities within the circulation system to improve walkability. Figure C-6 identifies the primary pedestrian areas in Costa Mesa that will receive focused attention.

An example of a cyclovía in
Southern California
C i r c u l a t i o n E l e m e n t
C - 2 4 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
Sidewalks and Sidewalk Zones
Sidewalks are not merely places for pedestrians to move about. As public spaces, sidewalks serve as the front steps to the City, activating streets socially and economically. Safe, accessible, and well-maintained sidewalks can enhance general public health and create vibrant social settings. In areas with heavy pedestrian activity, sidewalks should have several zones that accommodate pedestrians. The zones should include a frontage zone, pedestrian-through zone, street furniture zone, and enhancement/buffer zone. Figure C-7: Sidewalk Zones, provides an example.

Example of pedestrianfriendly streets with wide
sidewalks, street furniture,
and lighting that illuminates
the sidewalk
C i r c u l a t i o n E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | C - 2 5
Figure C-6: Pedestrian Opportunity Zones
C i r c u l a t i o n E l e m e n t
C - 2 6 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
Figure C-7: Sidewalk Zones
Frontage Zone
The frontage zone is that section of the
sidewalk that functions as an extension of
the building, whether through entryways and
doors or sidewalk cafes and sandwich
boards. The frontage zone consists of both
the structure and the façade of the building
fronting the street, as well as the space
immediately adjacent to the building.

Pedestrian through Zone
The pedestrian through zone is the primary
accessible pathway that runs parallel to the
street. The through zone ensures that
pedestrians have a safe and adequate place
to walk and should be five to seven feet wide
in residential settings and eight to 12 feet
wide in downtown or commercial areas.

Street Furniture Zone
The street furniture zone is defined as the
section of the sidewalk between the curb
and the pedestrian through zone in which
street furniture and amenities, such as
lighting, benches, newspaper kiosks, utility
poles, tree wells, and bicycle parking are
provided.

Enhancement/Buffer Zone
The enhancement/buffer zone is the space
immediately next to the sidewalk that may
consist of a variety of different elements.

These include curb extensions, parklets,
stormwater management features (e.g,
bioswales), parking, bike racks, bike share
stations, and curbside bike lanes or cycle
tracks.

C i r c u l a t i o n E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | C - 2 7
Crosswalks and Markings
Properly designed, marked, and signed crossings improve motorist courtesy toward pedestrians. The City supports the provision of marked crosswalks at protected (signalized or stop-controlled) intersections if their presence minimizes pedestrian-auto conflicts. The City has prioritized improving intersections near schools to create pedestrian-friendly environments under the suggested Safe Routes to School program. Figure C-6: Pedestrian Opportunity Zones, identifies areas where the City will pursue street enhancements to create pedestrian-friendly environments. Table C-2: Street and Intersection for Pedestrian Safety, outlines the types of design improvements that create safer streets and intersections for pedestrians.

Table C-2: Street and Intersection
Improvements for Pedestrian Safety
Design Improvements Supplemental Design Improvements
 Traffic Signal
 Stop Sign
 High-Visibility Crosswalks
 Mid-Block Crosswalks
 Pedestrian Refuge Islands
 Advance Stop and Yield Lines
 Flashing Lights and Beacons
 Special Intersection Paving
 Raised Crosswalk and Intersections
 RRFB and HAWKs
HAWK – High Intensity Activated Crosswalk is a pedestrian hybrid beacon that is used at busy crosswalks. The beacon is activated to solid red followed by flashing red when the pedestrian button is pushed.

RRFB – Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons are used at mid-block pedestrian crossings to increase driver awareness of potential pedestrian conflicts. They use irregular flash patterns when activated by pedestrians to get driver attention.

Costa Mesa has approved several projects under its Capital Improvement Programs that invest in all neighborhoods with proven methods to enhance pedestrian safety, including:
 Implementation of traffic-calming devices
 Illuminated crosswalks
 New landscaped parkways and medians to both address pedestrianorientation and provide effective visual cue to slow traffic  Completion of sidewalks and curbs
C i r c u l a t i o n E l e m e n t
C - 2 8 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
 Extensive traffic signal synchronization
Transit Services
Transit services—which includes buses, trains, commuter shuttles, paratransit, and emerging forms of multi-passenger transport—offer a mobility alternative for residents, employees, students, and visitors who either do not have access to, or prefer not to use, a car. OCTA provides local bus and paratransit services within Orange County, with several routes in Costa Mesa.

One of the primary goals of this element is to make transit use a more viable option for both work and non-work trips. Accomplishing this goal will require an improved transit system capable of providing faster and more frequent trips while maintaining safe, clean, and dependable service. As OCTA and the City continue to enhance public transit, the City will also prioritize these activities, particularly when it comes to improvements and investments made in street design and land uses that take into account transit transportation.

Figure C-8 identifies Transit Corridors in Costa Mesa that will receive focused transit improvement attention. Transit Corridors feature improvements such as enhanced signal coordination, transit amenities, bicycle accommodations, and an improved pedestrian experience.

Limited-Stop Bus Service: Bravo!
A limited-stop bus service route is a service that stops less frequently than local service. OCTA operates Bravo!, a limited-stop bus route (Route 543) along Harbor Boulevard, with buses making stops every 10 to 15 minutes.

Bravo! extends from the Fullerton Transportation Center through Anaheim, Garden Grove and Santa Ana, ending at MacArthur Boulevard at the Costa Mesa city limit.

C i r c u l a t i o n E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | C - 2 9
Figure C-8: Transit Corridors
Source: Stantec, Inc.

C i r c u l a t i o n E l e m e n t
C - 3 0 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
Paratransit
Through OCTA’s Senior Mobility Program and ACCESS, the City supports discounted bus fares to seniors and flexible paratransit shuttles. ACCESS is OCTA's shared-ride service for people who are unable to use the regular fixedroute bus service because of functional limitations caused by a disability.

OCTA's Senior Mobility Program is designed to fill the gap between local fixedroute buses and ADA paratransit by providing local transportation services to seniors.

Improving Vehicular Travel
Traffic congestion impacts many of Costa Mesa’s roadways. This results in driver frustration, added pollution from idling vehicles, and residents constrained as they try to get to work, school, and other local destinations.

Costa Mesa is committed to improving local traffic conditions both to address the harmful effects of congestion and to support of the Orange County Congestion Management Plan (CMP) goals of:

1. Achieving regional mobility and air quality objectives

2. Providing a mechanism for coordinating land use and development decisions that support the regional economy

3. Determining gas tax fund eligibility
In 2013, Senate Bill 743, a law that introduced Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as the replacement to Level of Service (LOS) as the primary metric of C i r c u l a t i o n E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | C - 3 1
transportation system performance. The law requires that the new metric be used when analyzing the impacts of a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and will go into effect in 2017 when new CEQA guidelines are adopted.

While the law specifies that VMT will be the baseline metric for future CEQA analysis, it allows the local agencies to continue using LOS for purposes of long-term transportation planning. Consistent with current State law, Costa Mesa continues to use LOS as the performance metric for land use and circulation planning, although the City supports policies that would reduce VMTs primarily through the implementation of a transportation demand management and the active transportation and transit strategies. Overall, the City’s goal is to prevent the deterioration of LOS at key intersections within the City. The City will pursue a broad array of projects that will help maintain and improve of LOS for vehicular travel.

Concurrent with the project-specific transportation system LOS improvements, the City will:
 Complete and annually maintain a needs assessment for traffic service levels and traffic safety
 Develop and annually update a priority list of improvement projects  Regularly assess peak-hour traffic volumes at critical intersections  Minimize circulation improvements that will necessitate the taking of developed private property
 Pursue programs that reduce vehicle speeds and cut-through traffic on local streets
 Develop a program to regularly evaluate traffic collision data Transportation Demand Management
Transportation Demand Management, or TDM, is a general term for strategies that promote the efficient use of transportation systems without adding physical capacity (additional lanes or widening) on the roadway system. TDM strategies can help address a variety of traffic problems and provide secondary economic, social, and environmental benefits. When all are considered, TDM strategies are often the most cost-effective way to improve transportation. Examples of TDM include:

C i r c u l a t i o n E l e m e n t
C - 3 2 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
 Telecommuting
 Bike/Transit Integration
 Carpool/Vanpool
 Pedestrian Facility Improvements
 Transit Improvements/Transit Pass Subsidy
 Encouraging Walking and Cycling
 Parking Management and Pricing
 Bicycle Parking/Facilities
 Alternative Work Schedules
 Flexible Work Hours
To implement these strategies and support regional air quality objectives, the City has adopted a Transportation Demand Management Ordinance. The City will continue to work with major employers to implement TDM strategies.

Neighborhood Traffic Management
Managing traffic in neighborhoods that are most affected by congestion and cars traveling at unsafe speeds requires the multiple-prong approach that Costa Mesa has practiced for many years, such as installing traffic-calming infrastructure, reclassifying minor streets, and deploying Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS). The added strategy of implementing Complete Streets plans will augment past and ongoing efforts to protect residential neighborhoods from the ill effects of cut-through traffic.

C i r c u l a t i o n E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | C - 3 3
Goals, Objectives, and Policies
The following goals, objectives, and policies work in concert with those in the Land Use Element.

Goal C-1: Implement “Complete Streets”
Policies on Roadways in Costa Mesa
Plan, develop, and implement a comprehensive transportation system that serves all users and modes of travel.

Objective C‐1A: Create a transportation network that meets the mobility needs of all Costa Mesa residents, businesses, and visitors.

Policy C-1.1: Update the City’s engineering standards for public and private streets to provide for safe, comfortable, and
attractive access and travel for pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and transit users of all ages, abilities, and modes of travel.

Policy C-1.2: Allow for flexible use of public rights-of-way to accommodate all users of the street system while
maintaining safety standards.

Policy C-1.3: Complete and annually maintain a needs assessment for traffic safety and traffic service levels. Develop and
annually update a priority list of improvement projects, with priorities based on: 1) correcting identified hazards; 2) accommodating multimodal trips; 3) improving and/or
maintaining peak-hour traffic volumes at critical
intersections; 4) improving efficiency of existing
infrastructure utilization; and 5) intergovernmental
coordination.

Policy C-1.4: Pursue downgrade of arterials that no longer have the demand requiring their buildout to planned capacity.

Policy C-1.5: Implement road diets on street segments with excess capacity to enhance bicycle and pedestrian facilities. For C i r c u l a t i o n E l e m e n t
C - 3 4 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
roadways with excess vehicle capacity, consider the
reduction of travel lanes and use the reclaimed space for active modes of transportation including pedestrian and bicycle.

Policy C-1.6: Encourage the conversion of excess on-street parking spaces for expanded sidewalk gathering places or
landscaping.

Policy C-1.7: Encourage community participation in City processes and programs focused on improving mobility and
transportation facilities. Outreach should facilitate
participation of underserved populations.

Policy C-1.8: Pursue downgrade of 17th Street from 6-lane Major Arterial to 4-lane Primary Arterial between Orange Ave
and Tustin Avenue, through Master Plan of Arterial
Highways (MPAH) Amendment process with the Orange
County Transportation Authority.

Objective C‐1B: Preserve the character of our residential neighborhoods.

Policy C-1.9: Implement traffic calming measures that discourage speeding and cut-through traffic on residential streets.

Identify opportunities to update signal timing and phases with high collision frequencies.

Policy C-1.10: Encourage non-motorized transportation in residential areas by providing sidewalks, implementing pedestrian
and bicycle friendly design of local streets, and
incorporating street trees in new projects wherever
feasible. Provide additional consideration in implementing such enhancements within designated environmental
justice area boundaries.

Policy C-1.11: Reduce or eliminate intrusion of traffic related to nonresidential development on local streets in residential neighborhoods.

Policy C-1.12: With an emphasis on safety, prioritize intersection improvements which improve through traffic flow on
Major, Primary, and Secondary Arterials, and reduce
impacts on local neighborhood streets.

C i r c u l a t i o n E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | C - 3 5
Policy C-1.13: Promote engineering improvements such as physical measures constructed to improve safety, lower speeds,
and otherwise reduce the impacts of motor vehicles.

Policy C-1.14: Design and Implement transportation projects to meet local and regional system capacity needs in accordance
with the Master Plan of Streets and Highways.

Policy C-1.15: Implement neighborhood approved traffic-calming measures in residential neighborhoods and appropriate
commercial areas, such as street narrowing, curb
extensions, roundabouts, landscaped medians, and radar
speed feedback signs. Additional consideration should be given to working with neighborhoods located within
designated environmental justice area boundaries to
identify and implement appropriate measures.

Policy C-1.16: Establish priority-ranking system to evaluate trafficcalming requests for implementation throughout the City.

Policy C-1.17: At regular intervals, conduct a study to re-evaluate speeds along the city’s roadways, and pursue programs that
reduce vehicle speeds and cut-through traffic on local
streets in accordance with the most recent version of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD).

Policy C-1.18: Leverage the tools discussed in the Pedestrian Master Plan Infrastructure Toolbox (e.g. sidewalk connectivity, curb ramps, and crosswalks) to continue to develop a
pedestrian network that is safe and accessible by users of all ages and abilities.

Policy C-1.19: Develop a network of walking paths in different commercial areas and neighborhoods to encourage
community members to walk. The walking paths could be
artistic and each path could have its own wayfinding signs and stylistic flair to create a sense of place.

C i r c u l a t i o n E l e m e n t
C - 3 6 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
Goal C-2: Effectively Manage and Improve
the Roadway System
Develop and maintain a robust and efficient multimodal circulation network.

Objective C‐2A: Implement policies that encourage and
accommodate all users while maintaining the safety and
efficiency of the circulation system.

Policy C-2.1: Establish a citywide crosswalk policy to address installation, maintenance, removal, and enhancements of crosswalks at intersections and mid-block locations.

Crosswalk locations and treatment will be based on
criteria including, but not limited to safety, traffic volume, and concentration of pedestrian activity. Potential
enhancements may include leading pedestrian intervals at signalized intersections, bulb-outs, and median refuges to reduce crossing distances.

Policy C-2.2: Avoid creation of frequent driveways for new development access in active pedestrian areas that create conflict points between pedestrians and vehicles.

Policy C-2.3: Encourage commercial property owners to use shared driveway access and interconnected roads within blocks, where feasible. Require driveway access closures or
consolidations, or both when a site is remodeled or
redeveloped.

Policy C-2.4: Collaborate with law enforcement and public safety organizations to coordinate policies and programs that
would reduce injuries and deaths on the roadways.

Policy C-2.5: Designate routes for truck traffic to minimize potential conflicts between trucks and cars, pedestrians, bicycles, transit, and vehicle access and circulation. Establish by ordinance a truck map that depicts allowable truck routes within the City.

Policy C-2.6: Periodically review and update traffic signal timing at all signalized intersections to improve safety, maintain traffic signal coordination and to accommodate bicycle and
pedestrian needs.

C i r c u l a t i o n E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | C - 3 7
Policy C-2.7: Develop new traffic level of services criteria in accordance with SB 743 to meet the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Policy C-2.8: Continue the use of the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology to address local traffic level of service and impacts, with Level of Service “D” as the threshold for meeting the City’s significance criteria.

Objective C‐2B: Construct street improvements and apply congestion management tools to improve safety and obtain efficient performance of the transportation system.

Policy C-2.9: Incorporate the street system improvements identified in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) into the Capital Improvement Program.

Policy C-2.10: Continue to deploy intelligent transportation systems (ITS) strategies—such as adaptive signal controls, fiber optic communication equipment, closed circuit television cameras, real-time transit information, and real- time
parking availability information—to enhance safety,
reduce traffic delays, lower greenhouse gas emissions,
improve travel times for pedestrians, cyclist, and
motorists.

Policy C-2.11: Investigate all operational measures, including the use of one-way streets, to improve safety, improve traffic
circulation, and to minimize congestion for all travel
modes.

Policy C-2.12: Investigate and utilize state-of-the-art transportation system management technology and industry practices to
address recurring and non-recurring traffic events (i.e., special events, incident/emergency management).

Policy C-2.13: Continue to evaluate and pursue design and operational improvements (medians, driveway closures, signal
synchronization or phasing, prohibited or regulated rightturn-on-red movements in pedestrian opportunity zones including safe routes to school and near transit stops, parking restrictions or setbacks; ADA Accessibility, etc.) to improve the safety and efficiency of intersections.

C i r c u l a t i o n E l e m e n t
C - 3 8 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
Goal C-3: Enhance Regional Mobility and
Coordination
Encourage development of a regional transportation network that addresses regional mobility needs for all modes of travel.

Objective C‐3A: Promote development of transportation projects along regional corridors.

Policy C-3.1: Maintain compliance with Orange County Congestion Management Plan (CMP) requirements, including
consistency with CMP level of service standards, adoption of a seven-year capital improvement program, analysis of impacts of land use decisions on the CMP highway
system, and adoption and implementation of deficiency
plans when intersections do not meet adopted
performance standards.

Policy C-3.2: Support the goals and objectives of the Orange County Long Range Transportation Plan, including expansion of
transportation system choices, improvement of
transportation system performance, and sustainability of transportation infrastructure.

Policy C-3.3: Support the goals and objectives of the SCAG Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
(RTP/SCS), including expansion of transportation system choices, improvement of transportation system
performance, and sustainability of transportation
infrastructure.

Policy C-3.4: Coordinate signal timing on all major arterials with a local signal synchronization program consistent with the
Orange County Traffic Signal Synchronization Master Plan (TSSMP).

Policy C-3.5: Ensure Costa Mesa’s input, participation, and discretionary review of applicable region-wide
transportation system policies, programs, and
construction.

Policy C-3.6: Develop short-term and long-term improvements to the SR-55 corridor in coordination with Caltrans and OCTA to address safety and regional mobility needs.

C i r c u l a t i o n E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | C - 3 9
Policy C-3.7: Promote the City’s preferred alternative of undergrounding the SR-55 freeway south of 19th Street
within the City limits.

Policy C-3.8: Collaborate with Caltrans, OCTA, and other local agencies to re-envision the future of Newport Boulevard in the
area between and adjacent to 17th Street and 19th Street as a destination that improves safety and facilitates
placemaking and pedestrian and bicycle activities by
implementing enhanced pedestrian and bicycle
infrastructure that provides for connectivity, especially in the east-west direction.

Objective C‐3B: Coordinate and partner with local and regional agencies to promote projects and polices that improve safety and regional mobility.

Policy C-3.9: Coordinate with adjacent jurisdictions to maintain or improve mobility within the City to achieve a standard
Level of Service no worse than “D” at all intersections under State or joint control. Intersection Level of Service analyses for General Plan conditions for locations under State or joint control will be updated periodically and presented to the City Council.

Policy C-3.10: Consult with Caltrans and OCTA regarding the I-405 widening project to minimize adverse impacts to Costa
Mesa’s neighborhoods, businesses, and streets.

Policy C-3.11: Coordinate with OCTA and other jurisdictions to remove Gisler Avenue Bridge over the Santa Ana River from the
City’s Master Plan of Streets and Highways and County’s Master Plan of Arterial Highways.

Policy C-3.12: Collaborate with Caltrans and neighboring jurisdiction to improve signal timing and coordination along major
arterials across jurisdictional boundaries.

Policy C-3.13: Work closely with the State of California and other government agencies to control traffic–related impacts of uses on State- or other agency-owned land (i.e., Orange County Fairgrounds, Orange Coast College, etc.).

Policy C-3.14: Coordinate with other responsible agencies the planning, funding, prioritization, and implementation of bicycle, C i r c u l a t i o n E l e m e n t
C - 4 0 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
pedestrian, and transit programs and supporting
infrastructure.

Goal C-4: Promote Transportation
Demand Management, Transit, and
Efficiency
Utilize Transportation Demand Management strategies to manage demand and maximize available capacity.

Objective C‐4A: Encourage greater utilization of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies to reduce dependence on
single‐occupancy vehicles.

Policy C-4.1: Support South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) trip reduction programs, including park and
ride lots, transit subsidies, carpool and vanpool programs, flexible working hours, bicycle facilities, and other traffic reduction strategies.

Policy C-4.2: Support local and multi-jurisdictional car-sharing and bike-sharing programs.

Policy C-4.3: Consider implementing park-once approaches for multiuse areas and regional destinations areas.

Policy C-4.4: Embrace innovative parking solutions that reduce the required spaced needed for parking, such as automated
parking lifts and elevators.

Policy C-4.5: Encourage and provide incentives for commercial, office, and industrial development to provide preferred parking for carpools, vanpools, electric vehicles, and flex cars.

Policy C-4.6: Encourage and support programs that increase vehicle occupancy, including the provision of traveler
information, shuttles, preferential parking for
carpools/vanpools, transit pass subsidies, and other
methods.

C i r c u l a t i o n E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | C - 4 1
Policy C-4.7: Promote the combination of TDM measures as much more effective than any single measure.

Policy C-4.8: Require discussion of transportation system management (TSM) and TDM measures in all EIRs prepared for major
projects.

Policy C-4.9: Encourage the integration of compatible land uses and housing into major development projects to reduce
vehicle use.

Policy C-4.10: Allow the application of transportation management rideshare programs, integration of complementary land
uses, and other methods to reduce project related
average daily and peak hour vehicle trips to achieve
consistency with allocated trip budgets.

Objective C‐4B: Promote regional and local transit services as an alternative to automobile travel.

Policy C-4.11: Ensure that roadways designated as transit routes can accommodate transit vehicle circulation and safe and
convenient pedestrian access to and from transit stops.

Policy C-4.12: Review all capital improvement projects to ensure improvements located on existing and planned transit
routes include modification of street, curb, and sidewalk configurations to allow for easier and more efficient
transit operations and improved passenger safety and
access.

Policy C-4.13: Provide transit stop amenities that facilitate access to and from transit stops and transfer locations. These may
include pedestrian pathways approaching stops, highquality benches and shelters, traveler information systems (real-time transit arrival information), and bike storage and bicycle connections. Bus stops should
C i r c u l a t i o n E l e m e n t
C - 4 2 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
accommodate timed transfers between buses and other
transit services where necessary.

Policy C-4.14: Encourage new development along major transit corridors to provide safe and efficient access to transit stops and public sidewalks.

Policy C-4.15: Support and participate with OCTA ACCESS Service in providing transportation assistance to senior citizens and the disabled.

Policy C-4.16: Consult with OCTA for transit services, such as changes to bus routes, bus stops, and hours of operation.

Additionally, coordinate with OCTA for changes to transit services provided for seniors, the disabled, and transit dependent populations.

Policy C-4.17: Consult with the Newport-Mesa Unified School District to maintain school bus services provided for local
schoolchildren.

Policy C-4.18: Coordinate with OCTA to improve transit services in the City, including strategies such as bus rapid transit, express services, community circulators, and other strategies.

Policy C-4.19: Encourage new local transit programs in coordination with OCTA, consisting of shuttle services to local and
regional destinations.

Policy C-4.20: Coordinate with OCTA to construct bus turnouts at appropriate locations, with attractive shelters designed for safe and comfortable use.

Policy C-4.21: Require discussion of transit service needs and site design amenities for transit ridership in EIR for major projects.

C i r c u l a t i o n E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | C - 4 3
Goal C-5: Ensure Coordination between
the Land Use and Circulation Systems
Facilitate close coordination between development of land use and circulation system.

Objective C‐5A: Coordinate land use policies and development activities that support a sustainable transportation system.

Policy C-5.1: Ensure that new development projects are consistent with the vehicular trip budgets, where adopted.

Policy C-5.2: Require that large developments and redevelopments provide short-term and long-term vehicular traffic impact studies.

Policy C-5.3: Encourage permitted General Plan land uses which generate high traffic volumes to be located near major
transit and transportation corridors to minimize vehicle use, congestion, and delay.

Policy C-5.4: Maintain balance between land use and circulation systems by phasing new developments to levels that can
be accommodated by roadways existing or planned to
exist at the time of completion of each phase of the
project.

Policy C-5.5: Promote development of mixed-use projects to reduce number of vehicle trips.

Policy C-5.6: Coordinate the design and improvement of pedestrian and bicycle ways in major residential, shopping and
employment centers, parks, schools, other public
facilities, public transportation facilities, and bicycle networks with adjacent cities.

Policy C-5.7: Require dedication of right-of-way, in an equitable manner, for development that increases the intensity of land use.

Policy C-5.8: Minimize circulation improvements that will necessitate the taking of private property on existing developed
properties.

C i r c u l a t i o n E l e m e n t
C - 4 4 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
Policy C-5.9: Require that circulation necessary to provide or attain the minimum traffic level of service standard at an
intersection to which a development project contributes measurable traffic be completed within three years of
issuance of the first building permit for such development project, unless additional right-of-way or coordination with other government agencies is required to complete
the improvement. Improvements may be required sooner
if, because of extraordinary traffic generation
characteristics of the project or extraordinary impacts to the surrounding circulation system, such improvements
are necessary to prevent significant adverse impacts.

Policy C-5.10: Allow for construction of circulation improvements for a phased development project to be constructed
commensurate with the project construction, based upon
the findings of a traffic study approved by the City of Costa Mesa.

Policy C-5.11: Maintain balance between land use and circulation systems by phasing new development to levels that can
be accommodated by roadways existing or planned to
exist at the time of completion of each phase of the
project.

Policy C-5.12: Support consistency with the Orange County Sustainable Communities Strategy (OC SCS) and SCAG RTP/SCS by
providing an integrated land use and transportation plan to meet mandated emissions reduction targets consistent with SB 375.

Objective C‐5B: Establish strategies and processes that allow large developments to analyze and mitigate traffic impacts
and infrastructure needs.

Policy C-5.13: Require that new development projects improve access to and accommodations for multimodal transportation,
provide pedestrian access that serves the intensity of use and compliments the existing pedestrian network, and
whenever feasible incorporate pedestrian improvements
in to the public right-of-way as a part of conditions of approval.

Policy C-5.14: Require developers of new building and
redevelopment/reuse projects as part of the project
development review process that are located along bus
C i r c u l a t i o n E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | C - 4 5
routes to pay a designated fair share of the cost of
providing improved bus stop facilities and related street furniture or, where appropriate, dedicate land for
improved bus stop facilities.

Policy C-5.15: Consider the needs of the transportation and infrastructure system early for large developments and
coordinate with developers to design projects that
minimize traffic impacts and infrastructure demands, and implement complete streets wherever feasible.

Alternatively, address transportation and infrastructure system impacts through the implementation of
development agreements.

Goal C-6: Fund and Evaluate the City’s
Transportation Network
Explore opportunities to secure funding for enhancing the circulation system.

Objective C‐6A: Pursue funding sources to maintain and enhance the transportation and infrastructure system.

Policy C-6.1: Evaluate traffic collision data regularly, and identify top collision locations for pedestrians, bicycles, transit, and automobiles in Costa Mesa. Develop appropriate
countermeasures and pursue funding from all available
sources to implement them.

Policy C-6.2: Continue to develop and maintain long-range capital improvement programs consistent with the General Plan
and M2 eligibility requirements.

Policy C-6.3: Develop an annual list of Active Transportation projects to be proposed as part of the City’s Capital Improvement
Program (CIP), including identification and additional
consideration of such projects within designated
environmental justice area boundaries
C i r c u l a t i o n E l e m e n t
C - 4 6 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
Policy C-6.4: Coordinate with OCTA to fund, develop, and maintain a Master Plan of Streets and Highways consistent with the Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH).

Policy C-6.5: Require a locally collected and administered traffic mitigation fee program to guarantee that new
development pays for its fair share toward improvements resulting in reductions in air pollutant and GHG emissions and traffic impacts generated by the development.

Policy C-6.6: Actively pursue local, State, and federal funding to implement, maintain, and evaluate the transportation and infrastructure system.

Policy C-6.7: Supplement funding from annual fees or assessments on existing and new development with grants and other
nonlocal sources.

Policy C-6.8: Develop strategies to implement an infrastructure and transportation system to be consistent with State policies on resiliency and sustainability.

Policy C-6.9: Amend the General Plan, if necessary, to be responsive to evolving funding requirements and to comply with State
and federal regulations affecting the goals and policies of the Circulation Element.

Policy C-6.10: Coordinate with OCTA and Caltrans to seek funding and implementation solutions to improve Newport Boulevard
at the terminus of the State Route 55 freeway to increase safety and relieve congestion from regional traffic.

Policy C-6.11: Review the City’s transportation impact fee program on a regular basis, and adjust fees as needed to ensure that funding is available for planned transportation
improvements that will benefit all travel modes.

Policy C-6.12: Prioritize funding and timing for implementing transportation improvements. Consider prioritizing
multimodal projects that provide the most benefit to all users.

Policy C-6.13: Require that every new development project pay its share of costs associated with the mitigation of project
generated impacts.

C i r c u l a t i o n E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | C - 4 7
Policy C-6.14: Measure M2 sales tax revenues shall not be used to replace private developer funding which has been
committed for any project.

Policy C-6.15: The City’s seven-year capital improvement program shall be adopted and maintained in conformance with the
provisions of Measure M2 for the purpose of maintaining the established level of service standard.

Policy C-6.16: Maintain a traffic impact fee for circulation system improvements to the Master Plan of Streets and
Highways; review and update fees on a regular basis.

Objective C‐6B: Evaluate the transportation system to ensure that it meets the City’s circulation goals.

Policy C-6.17: Provide an annual Capital Improvement Program General Plan consistency report.

Policy C-6.18: Provide annual public review of implementation status reports of goals, policies, and objectives stated in the Circulation Element.

Policy C-6.19: Adopt and seek out methods and processes that provide appropriate and accurate data for evaluating the
performance of the transportation and infrastructure
system.

Goal C-7: Promote a Friendly Active
Transportation System in Costa Mesa
Create a bicycle and pedestrian friendly environment throughout Costa Mesa for all types of users and all trip purposes in accordance with the five “Es:” Education, Encouragement, Enforcement, Engineering, and Evaluation.

Objective C‐7A: Expand, enhance, and protect the existing bicycle and pedestrian network to provide a
comprehensive, system of Class I, Class II, Class
III, and Class IV facilities to increase
connectivity between homes, jobs, schools
transit, and recreational resources in Costa
Mesa.

C i r c u l a t i o n E l e m e n t
C - 4 8 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
Bikeways and Pedestrian Paths
Policy C-7.1: Develop an extensive bicycle and pedestrian backbone network through the use of standard
and appropriate innovative treatments.

Policy C-7.2: Plan and install new bicycle lanes on Major Arterials, where feasible and appropriate.

Policy C-7.3: Plan and install shared lane markings
(“sharrows”) and signage on appropriate
existing and planned bicycle routes where
bicycle lane implementation is demonstrated to
be infeasible.

Policy C-7.4: Where feasible, Class I shared-use paths should be a priority for future developments.

Policy C-7.5: Plan and install new shared-use paths in utility corridors and/or along flood control channels,
and extend existing bicycle and shared-use
paths.

Policy C-7.6: Plan and complete north/south multi-purpose and bicycle routes through the City to augment
the east/west route.

Policy C-7.9: Encourage reallocation of roadway rights-ofway where appropriate to accommodate shared-use path and bicycle facilities, while
preserving and respecting the character of each
adjacent neighborhood.

Policy C-7.10: Support bicycle improvement projects that close gaps in the regional bicycle network either
by implementing specific projects
recommended in the Plan or through other
treatments.

Policy C-7.11: Encourage bicycle projects that connect local facilities and neighborhoods to major bicycle
corridors.

Policy C-7.12: Work cooperatively with adjoining jurisdictions and local/regional agencies to coordinate
bicycle planning, and implementation activities.

Where required, develop consistent active
C i r c u l a t i o n E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | C - 4 9
transportation plans and policies with regional
and adjacent agencies.

Policy C-7.13: Prioritize safe access to major regional trails such as the OC Loop/Santa Ana River Trail and
the Newport Back Bay Trail System. Where
feasible, plan and provide a continuous lowstress Class I and/or Class IV facility from east to west across the city between these facilities.

Policy C-7.14: Explore favorable opportunities to remove parking to accommodate bicycle lanes.

Policy C-7.15: Identify favorable opportunities to retain parallel parking adjacent to sidewalks to
maintain pedestrian safety.

Policy C-7.16: Consider every street in Costa Mesa as a street that cyclists could use.

Policy C-7.17: Link on-road and off-road bicycle and
pedestrian facilities within Costa Mesa to
existing and planned facilities in adjacent and
regional jurisdictions.

Policy C-7.18: Low-stress design techniques should be
considered where necessary to attract a wide
variety of users.

Policy C-7.19: Establish designated safe routes to schools for biking and walking.

Policy C-7.20: Designate walkable areas in the City.

Bike and Pedestrian Facilities
Objective C‐7B: Provide end‐of‐trip facilities that support the bicycle network.

Policy C-7.21: Provide bike parking and bike-related amenities at public facilities and along public rights-ofway.

Policy C-7.22: Pursue public-private partnerships to furnish local businesses with secure bike parking and
other related amenities.

Policy C-7.23: Develop and adopt bicycle parking equipment standards for bicycle parking to be installed
C i r c u l a t i o n E l e m e n t
C - 5 0 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
within the public right-of-way and post on the
City website.

Policy C-7.24: Work with local schools and colleges to provide ample and secure bike parking and other
related amenities for students and employees.

Policy C-7.25: Work with OCTA to maximize bicycle amenities, such as bus stop solar lighting and bicycle
lockers, at high-volume transit stops.

Policy C-7.26: Prioritize the installation of bicycle-scale and/or pedestrian-scale lighting.

Policy C-7.27: Encourage and incentivize providing attended bicycle parking services, such as a bicycle valet,
at major City events, OC Fair, Farmers’ Markets,
holiday festivals, and other community events.

Policy C-7.28: Prioritize schools with the highest auto traffic volume during peak hours and insufficient
parking for staff and parents. Plan and install
bicycle facilities adjacent those schools.

Policy C-7.29: Provide bike parking and bike-related amenities at public facilities and along public right-of-way.
“First and Last Mile” Programs
Objective C‐7C: Encourage sustainable modes of
transportation to fill gaps between the first
and last miles of trips (walking, biking, ride
sharing, transit, taxi and car‐sharing).

Policy C-7.30: Identify citywide infrastructure needed to create the interconnected multi-trail system.

Policy C-7.31: Improve the safety, quality, and aesthetics of high-use pedestrian corridors.

Policy C-7.32: Development and implement a bicycle sharing system.

Policy C-7.33: Proposed new mode split goals:
 50 percent motor vehicles
 10 percent transit
 10 percent bicycles
C i r c u l a t i o n E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | C - 5 1
 20 percent walking
 10 percent carpools, taxi, transportation
network company services, and car sharing
Policy C-7.34: Establish a goal for all trips of less than three miles to be 30 percent by bicycle, and establish
a goal of less than 1 mile to be 30 percent by
walking.

Policy C-7.35: Consider implementing a small-scale
transportation system to encourage mode shift
to popular destinations as defined by users.

Goal C-8: Create a Safer Place to Walk and
Ride a Bicycle
Provide a safe, convenient, and attractive bicycling and pedestrian environment. Apply design standards, enforcement of traffic laws, maintenance practices, and safety awareness campaigns to encourage and increate the use of bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

Design and Way-finding
Objective C‐8A: Develop bicycle and pedestrian facilities with approved uniform design standards, and
implementation of way‐finding signage
providing information on various destinations.

Policy C-8.1: Require that all facilities be designed in accordance with the latest federal, state, and
local standards.

Policy C-8.2: Provide and maintain bicycle and pedestrian signal detectors, informational signage, and
lighting, along City bikeways.

Policy C-8.3: Develop, install and maintain a bicycle and pedestrian way-finding signage program to
indicate route turns, the presence of
intersecting bikeways, streets and distances to
nearby local and major destinations.

Policy C-8.4: Develop a list of acceptable plant materials for shared use paths that will not damage, create
C i r c u l a t i o n E l e m e n t
C - 5 2 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
hazards or security problems for bicyclists.

Incorporate canopy trees and native, droughttolerant landscaping as a standard Class I facility and shared use path feature. Address areas
where the pedestrian infrastructure is disrupted
by street trees, such as buckled sidewalk and
sidewalk obstruction. Encourage the use of
sustainable drainage designs, such as bioswales.

Policy C-8.5: Utilize Complete Streets elements as
demonstrated in most recent versions of
National Association of City Transportation
Officials (NACTO) Urban Street Design Guide
and Bikeway Design Guide.

Policy C-8.6: Crosswalks will include high visibility crossing treatments. Where feasible implement
enhanced crossing treatments to reduce
pedestrian-automobile collisions at multi-lane
crossings including median refuge islands, and
Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacons.

Policy C-8.8: Paint direction arrows on all bike lanes and bike paths to reduce the risk of collisions.

Safety Enforcement and Reporting
Objective C‐8B: Continue and expand enforcement activities that enhance safety of bicyclists on bike paths
and roadways.

Policy C-8.9: Enforce laws that reduce
bicycle/pedestrian/motor vehicle incidents and
conflicts.

Policy C-8.9: Train police officers on bicyclists’ rights and responsibilities and bicycle/pedestrian/vehicle
collision evaluation.

Policy C-8.11: Utilize the City’s bicycle-mounted patrol officer program to educate and enforce pedestrian and
bicycle user violations not necessarily to punish,
but to correct.

C i r c u l a t i o n E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | C - 5 3
Policy C-8.12: Promote efficient reporting mechanisms for behaviors that endanger cyclists and
pedestrians.

Policy C-8.13: Develop a partnership with the school
community to establish and update suggested
routes to schools for biking and walking and
expand student and school participation in Walk
and Bike to School Week events within Newport
Mesa Unified School District.

Safe Roadway Conditions
Objective C‐8C: Maintain bicycle and pedestrian facilities that are clear of debris and provide safe conditions
for all users.

Policy C-8.14: Establish routine maintenance
schedule/standards for bicycle and pedestrian
facilities such as sweeping, litter removal,
landscaping, repainting of striping, signage, and
signal actuation devices.

Policy C-8.15: Encourage and empower citizens to report maintenance issues that impact bicyclist and
pedestrian safety including, but not limited to,
potholes, sidewalk lifting, and overgrown
vegetation.

Policy C-8.16: Establish procedures for responding to citizen reports in a timely manner.

Policy C-8.17: Where feasible, reduce or eliminate conflict points such as driveways that cross the
sidewalk.

Policy C-8-.18 Study the potential to establish “transition zones” (an area which is communicated to
motorists that the roadway environment is
changing and their travel speeds or behavior
should change as well) between major
commercial and employment centers, and
residential areas to better support pedestrian
safety and access.

Policy C-8-19 Prohibit the addition of new channelized right turns and remove existing channelized right
C i r c u l a t i o n E l e m e n t
C - 5 4 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
turn lanes where feasible, to improve safety for
pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists.

Safety Education
Objective C‐8D: Increase education of bicycle and pedestrian safety through programs and training of school
children and the public.

Policy C-8.20: Create, fund, and implement bicycle-safety curricula and provide to the public, tourists,
various ethnic groups, diverse ages and
disadvantaged communities.

Policy C-8.21: Provide multilingual bicycle-safety maps and brochures (print and electronic versions) in
languages that are widely used in Costa Mesa.

Policy C-8.22: Encourage schools to develop and provide bicycle-safety curricula for use in elementary,
middle, and high schools, such as the Bicycle
Rodeo events.

Policy C-8.23: Support marketing and public awareness
campaigns aimed at improving bicycle and
pedestrian safety.

Policy C-8.24: Provide a user education program developed and promoted to encourage proper trail use
and etiquette.

Policy C-8.25: Work with local bicycle advocacy organizations to develop, promote and support a series of
bicycle education classes. Include information
on bicycle safety, maintenance, and security.

Policy C-8.26: Develop and distribute education material regarding bicycle and pedestrian responsibilities
and laws.

Safety Data
Objective C‐8E: Monitor and analyze bicycle and pedestrian safety.

Policy C-8.27: Request bicycle and pedestrian collision reports from local law enforcement periodically and
consider improvements to address problem
areas.

C i r c u l a t i o n E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | C - 5 5
Policy C-8.28: Establish an expedited process to report maintenance and safety concerns, e.g.
pavement markings (sharrows, missing bike
lane lines), ramps, curb cut-outs, broken
walk/bike signal buttons, signage, minor
maintenance of bike lanes/paths (street/path
sweeping, minor surface patching, inoperable
traffic signal bicycle detection).

Policy C-8.29: Conduct Roadside Safety Audits (RSAs) on a regular basis to provide periodic snapshots of
roadway safety, including bicycle, pedestrian,
equestrian, skateboard, and other nonmotorized modes of travel.

Goal C-9: Integrate Active Transportation
Elements into Circulation System and
Land Use Planning
Provide bikeway and walkway facilities that are integrated with other transportation systems and land use planning decisions.

Land Use Planning Decisions and Active Transportation
Objective C‐9A: Consider bicycle and pedestrian facilities during land use planning process.

Policy C-9.1: Incorporate the Costa Mesa Active
Transportation and Pedestrian Master Plan into
the City’s General Plan.

Policy C-9.2: Ensure that all current and proposed land use planning is consistent with the Costa Mesa
Active Transportation and Pedestrian Master
Plan.

Policy C-9.3: Require new developments provide adequate bicycle parking and pedestrian access.

Policy C-9.4: Collaborate with property owners to increase bicycle parking over time.

C i r c u l a t i o n E l e m e n t
C - 5 6 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
Policy C-9.5: Encourage the integration of compatible land uses and housing into major development
projects to reduce vehicle use.

Policy C-9.6: Provide a fully integrated network of modern active transportation facilities to and from
major activity centers and residential centers.

Policy C-9.7: Identify areas where an increase in the need for active transportation can reasonably be
anticipated due to housing/business growth.

Policy C-9.8: Make commercial and recreational areas more enjoyable for pedestrians by implementing
measures such as providing shade, planting
trees, eliminating visible parking lots and vacant
land minimizing long stretches of blank building
façade, and orienting new development toward
the street where feasible.

Policy C-9.9: Develop creative, artistic, and functional bicycle parking solutions, and install them throughout
the City as a standard.

Policy C-9.9(a): Support the incorporation of bicycle and pedestrian facilities into capital improvement
projects, where appropriate to maximize
leveraging of funds.

Active Transportation in Developments
Objective C‐9B: Integrate bicycle and pedestrian facility improvements during planning, design and
implementation of transportation projects.

Policy C-9.10: Promote the preservation of bicycle access within all roadway rights-of-way, as well as the
development of innovative, safety-enhanced
on-street facilities, such as bicycle boulevards
and cycle tracks.

Policy C-9.11: Establish bike boulevards on streets with low traffic volumes and slow speeds to encourage
bicycling.

Policy C-9.12: Proactively seek new opportunities for
acquisition of abandoned rights-of-way and
C i r c u l a t i o n E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | C - 5 7
other lands for the development of new multiuse pathways that integrate with the planned network.

Policy C-9.13: Improve the safety of all road users through the implementation of neighborhood trafficcalming treatments.

Policy C-9.14 Detours through or around construction zones should be designed for safety and convenience,
and with adequate signage and minimum
impacts for cyclists and pedestrians.

Policy C-9.15: Provide opportunity for public input prior to the removal of an existing bicycle or pedestrian
facility or the approval of any development or
street improvement that would preclude these
planned facilities.

Policy C-9-16: Along commercial corridors, identify
opportunities to reduce surface parking and
driveways along the pedestrian infrastructure
network. Whenever possible, have storefronts
face the street to encourage pedestrian safety
and access.

Goal C-10: Promote an Active
Transportation Culture
Develop educational and promotional programs to increase bicycle and pedestrian usage that respects and accommodates all users to foster a more balanced transportation system.

An Active Transportation Culture
Objective C‐10A: Encourage more people to walk and bicycle by supporting programs that foster community
support for bicycling and walking, and raise
public awareness about active transportation.

C i r c u l a t i o n E l e m e n t
C - 5 8 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
Policy C-10.1: Support marketing and public awareness
campaigns through a variety of media aimed at
promoting bicycling and walking as a safe,
healthy, cost-effective, environmentally friendly
transportation choice.

Policy C-10.2: Support programs aimed at increasing bicycle and walk trips by providing incentives,
recognition, or services that make bicycling and
walking a more convenient transportation
mode.

Policy C-10.3: Build partnerships with local businesses and community groups to host regular bike and
walk tours and other biking and walking-related
activities that promote biking and walking.

Policy C-10.4: Promote bicycling and walking at Citysponsored and public events, such as Earth Day, Bike to Work Day/Month, farmers’ markets,
public health fairs, art walks, craft fairs, and
civic events.

Policy C-10.5: Encourage and promote bicycle related
businesses within Costa Mesa including, but not
limited to, involvement of civic clubs and
organizations.

Policy C-10.6: Promote active transportation events in Costa Mesa to raise awareness and encourage
bicycling, including, but not limited to, bicycle
and pedestrian safety education, Open Street
events, bike to work/school, senior walks,
historic walks.

Policy C-10.7: Encourage major employment centers and
employers to promote commuting by bicycle
including the use of flex-time work schedules to
support non-rush bicycle commuting. Build a
coalition with City, businesses, schools, and
residents to promote active transportation.

Policy C-10.8: Encourage participation in bicycle and
pedestrian promotion activities by education
facilities, arts programs, active transportation
clubs, and entertainment providers.

C i r c u l a t i o n E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | C - 5 9
Policy C-10.9: Plan and install tactical urbanism
demonstrations and/or quick-build projects
along corridors or at areas with high pedestrian
and/or bicycle activity to showcase potential
new traffic calming and pedestrian
infrastructure treatments to improve safety and
the pedestrian environment.

Policy C-10.10: Achieve “Silver Level Bicycle Friendly
Community” by League of American Bicyclists
by 2028.

Policy C-10.10: Achieve “Walk Friendly Community” status from WalkFriendly.org by 2028.

Policy C-10.11: Achieve “HEAL City” designation by 2030.

Goal C-11: Promote the Positive Air
Quality, Health, and Economic Benefits of
Active Transportation
Encourage active transportation by promoting air quality, health, and economic benefits, and by pursuing multiple sources of funding for active transportation programs and facilities.

Improving the Environment with Active Transportation
Objective C‐11A: Improve air quality and public health and reduce ambient noise by promoting Active
Transportation programs.

Policy C-11.1: Determine baseline emissions levels, then track and communicate changes in emissions as
modes of transportation trips shift to encourage
more walking and biking.

Policy C-11.2: Improve the quality of life in Costa Mesa by reducing neighborhood traffic and noise.

Policy C-11.3: Increase pedestrian and bicycle trips, thereby reducing vehicle trips and vehicle miles
Traveled.

C i r c u l a t i o n E l e m e n t
C - 6 0 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
Policy C-11.4: Coordinate with appropriate federal, state, and county health agencies on active transportation
programs to achieve health benefits.

Economic and Other Incentives
Objective C‐11B: Provide economic incentives for expanding and enhancing bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

Policy C-11.5: Incentivize the business community to support pedestrians and bicycle users in tangible ways.

Policy C-11.6: Partner with the business and school
communities to create a marketing strategy to
encourage individual businesses to market
Costa Mesa as a bicycle-friendly City.

Policy C-11.7: Encourage developers to include features, amenities and programs that are proven to
increase walking and/or bicycling.

Policy C-11.8: Offer incentives for businesses whose
employees walk or bike to work.

Policy C-11.9: Encourage the Chamber of Commerce and the business community to promote active
transportation in commercial areas to stimulate
economic vitality.

Goal C-12: Monitor, Evaluate, and Pursue
Funding for Implementation of the Bicycle
and Pedestrian Master Plan
Objective 12A: Continuously monitor and evaluate Costa
Mesa’s implementation progress on the Bicycle
and Pedestrian Master Plan policies, programs,
and projects.

Policy C-12.1: Establish a monitoring program to measure the effectiveness and benefits of the Costa Mesa
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.

Policy C-12.2: Track citywide trends in active transportation through the use of Census data, bicycle and
pedestrian counts, travel surveys, and online
C i r c u l a t i o n E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | C - 6 1
surveys as part of annual reviews of the General
Plan.

Policy C-12.3: Ensure that Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan programs and projects are implemented in an
equitable manner geographically,
socioeconomically, and serving disadvantaged
communities, with additional consideration on
implementation of such programs and projects
within designated environmental justice areas
boundaries.

Fund the Plans
Objective C‐12B: Pursue grants and other sources of funding for bicycle and pedestrian projects.

Policy C-12.4: Strategize use of resources on developing effective and efficient grant application and
program administration.

Policy C-12.5: Pursue multiple sources of funding and support efforts to maintain or increase federal, state
and local funding for the implementation of the
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.

Policy C-12.6: Consider designating a portion of development traffic impact fees to fund bicycle and
pedestrian facilities.

Policy C-12.7 Develop a program to regularly collect and share citywide pedestrian and bicycle count
data, and add as a requirement for all traffic
studies/impact analysis conducted within the
City’s jurisdiction.

C o m m u n i t y D e s i g n E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | C D - 1
Chapter 9:

Community Design Element
Introduction
Costa Mesa understands the value of promoting and creating a cohesive community and unique civic identity. Costa Mesa supports and nurtures smaller communities and areas within the City that seek to establish and retain their unique sense of place. This is accomplished by establishing a policy framework for design standards and guidelines the City will use to review development applications, as well as standards the City will set for the public realm. These policy directives will ensure that continued investment in our community will enhance vitality, context, form, and function.

In Costa Mesa, the public realm is characterized by streetscapes (trees, medians, parkways, benches, lights, signage, etc.). The private realm refers to building architecture, site planning, private landscaping, and business signage.

The positive identity, functionality, and aesthetic of the City and its Outdoor areas at the South Coast Collection (SOCO) and the OC Mix GP-XX-XX, Adopted XX, XX, 2026
C o m m u n i t y D e s i g n E l e m e n t
C D - 2 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
constituent communities are elevated by interweaving the design of the public and private realms.

Purpose
The Community Design Element promotes quality design for every aspect of a community, such as buildings, structures, paths, corridors, areas, nodes, landmarks, natural features, and significant landscaping. It ensures each development in the private or public realm enhances the sense of place for the City, area, and the site itself. The goals, objectives, and policies in this element aim to express the City’s parameters for quality design and development. While this element does not dictate specific design guidelines, it does provide policies to ensure projects meet the community’s expectations for quality design and development.

Relationship to Other General Plan Elements
The policies of the Community Design Element relate primarily to the policies in the Land Use and Open Space and Recreation Elements. Foremost, this element establishes the three-dimensional built form projection of land use objectives.

Baseline Conditions-2015
The main elements of Costa Mesa’s physical environment include major paths and corridors; areas; entries, internal, and activity nodes; destination and landmarks; and edges. These elements contribute to the urban form and character of the City. They identify how visitors observe information about the City and understand their physical surroundings.

Paths and Corridors
Paths are passages (streets and sidewalks) that people use to get from one place to another. A path provides for vehicular and pedestrian movement within the community. Costa Mesa has three major types of paths: Primary Paths, Secondary Paths, and Corridors. Primary Paths are the circulation C o m m u n i t y D e s i g n E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | C D - 3
passages that carry large volumes of traffic and typically cross community boundaries. Secondary Paths carry reduced traffic volumes and often originate or terminate within the City limits. Corridors are paths or sections of paths that have a concentration of a special use or activity. Figure CD-1 identifies the location of Primary and Secondary Paths. The specific corridors are discussed below and presented in Figure CD-2.

Harbor Boulevard Corridor
Harbor Boulevard, which extends from Costa Mesa to the City of Anaheim, serves as a primary commercial corridor, with a mix of vehicle-oriented uses, auto dealerships, neighborhood commercial centers, entertainment uses, and residences. The Land Use Element provides for the south end of the Harbor Boulevard corridor to transition to a mix of uses.

East 17th Street Corridor
The East 17th Street corridor, while auto oriented, has a distinctive neighborhood feel. This corridor is characterized by small businesses and multi-tenant retail centers, restaurants, and offices that largely serve local residents.

North Newport Boulevard Corridor
This section of Newport Boulevard parallels SR-55 from I-405 south to where SR-55 ends at 19th Street. Prior to construction of SR-55, Newport Boulevard was the primary corridor leading through Costa Mesa into Newport Beach, and its historic character as a tourist-oriented travel route is evident in the motels and auto-oriented uses lining the corridor. While residential uses have been developed as infill with extension of SR-55, the predominant character is that of a commercial corridor.

South Newport Boulevard Corridor
Newport Boulevard continues south from 19th Street to 15th Street into Newport Beach. This section of Newport Boulevard has a strong pedestrian scale and commercial character, with retail frontage on the east side of Newport Boulevard directly abutting the sidewalk and the larger shopping centers on the west side of Newport Boulevard providing extensive infrastructure for the accommodation and movement of pedestrians on and off, and through the sites. Despite the breadth of Newport Boulevard and the volume this arterial supports, the collection of businesses creates a strong concentration of active uses.

C o m m u n i t y D e s i g n E l e m e n t
C D - 4 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
Figure CD-1: Paths
C o m m u n i t y D e s i g n E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | C D - 5
Figure CD-2: Corridors
C o m m u n i t y D e s i g n E l e m e n t
C D - 6 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
Bristol Street Corridor
Bristol Street stretches between the Sunflower Avenue and SR-55. Located in this corridor are two unique shopping and entertainment centers: The CAMP and the LAB, which the developer/operator has defined as “anti-mall” venues.

These unique centers provide small retail and restaurant spaces for start-up and edgy businesses, together with indoor-outdoor social areas. The CAMP has a central green gathering area surrounded by shopping, dining, and styling businesses. The operators regularly host art, film, and music events.

Anton Boulevard Corridor
Anton Boulevard extends from Sunflower Avenue to Bristol Street, with an entrance to South Coast Plaza. This corridor is a fusion of luxury apartments and hotels, combined with professional headquarters and multi-tenant office spaces in mid-rise settings. This includes the Experian Headquarters, Metro Center at South Coast Office complex, Plaza Tower, the Enclave Apartments, the Westin South Coast Plaza, and Costa Mesa Marriott Hotel. To the north of this corridor, the 3400 Avenue of the Arts apartment complex and Wyndham Hotel are within walking distance to these major regional shopping and business destinations. The Noguchi Garden (a 1.6-acre public art project) sits to the south of the corridor. A new, 250-unit luxury apartment complex is under construction within this corridor that will provide additional housing.

John Wayne Airport Industrial Corridor
This corridor runs through the industrial area that abuts John Wayne Airport.

While this area contains multiple secondary businesses that support the airport, the center of this corridor supports a much wider collection of industrial and offices uses. The scale is predominantly vehicular. Major uses include educational and religious institutions, wholesale and specialty service for automobiles, small, light industrial spaces for startup businesses, boutique manufacturing, and supporting services.

Placentia Industrial Corridor
This is the major industrial corridor within the Westside area of the City, which encompasses Placentia Avenue south of Victoria Street and north of West 16th Street. This corridor historically was an enclave for yacht manufacturing. While this industry and automobile service still have a presence, new tenants along the corridor are that of action sports development and manufacturing. Development of live/work units for the C o m m u n i t y D e s i g n E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | C D - 7
creatives who find this edgy environment and its proximity to industry suitable for their business and lifestyles has added new vibrancy. While this location will remain an industrial center, the boutique manufacturing, entrepreneurial environment, and action sports industry niches make it a unique corridor.

Fairview Park Corridor
As Placentia Avenue continues north of Victoria Street, this industrial corridor transitions into a residential one. The corridor provides access to several residential communities, as well as access to Estancia High School, Fairview Park, and Estancia Park, which is home of the oldest building in Costa Mesa, the Diego Sepulveda Adobe. Along this stretch of Placentia Avenue, residential and institutional uses represent the only development types from Victoria Street to Adams Avenue.

West 19th Street Corridor
This corridor supports a diverse mix of uses that include destination locations (public parks, amenities, and the Senior Center) and an array of local services to meet the needs of residential communities around this corridor. West 19th Street includes an eclectic collection of commercial uses which predominantly address the corridor at a pedestrian scale. Mixed-use development would continue the character and vision of this central commercial corridor, which will continue to transition.

Civic Center Corridor
Fair Drive from Newport Boulevard to Fairview Road and Fairview Road from Fair Drive to Adams Avenue accommodate one of the densest collections of civic, institutional, and educational uses in Orange County. Within a mere 1.5 miles, you find Orange Coast Community College, Costa Mesa High School, the Orange County Fair & Event Center, Vanguard University, Civic Center Park, the Jack R. Hammett Sports Complex, and the Civic Center. This corridor provides a collection of uses of great civic pride that benefit students who attend one of the many educational facilities along the corridor.

South Coast Corridor
This corridor spans from the South Coast Plaza on the east to the South Coast Collection on the west. It links two major commercial destinations and provides access to Metro Pointe at South Coast Plaza. This location has C o m m u n i t y D e s i g n E l e m e n t
C D - 8 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
opportunity for further growth and development, as it abuts several of the few remaining large, vacant lots in Costa Mesa.

Santa Ana Residential Corridor
Santa Ana Avenue is a residential corridor that runs through the Eastside Area; development along this corridor consists largely of low- and medium-density housing, with a few traditional single-family subdivisions taking direct access.

The grid-like and elongated spatial layout of the Eastside Area makes Santa Ana Avenue a major path of travel for various modes of transportation heading north or south. This residential corridor remains residential all the way into Newport Beach.

Areas
Areas are those areas of Costa Mesa that have an identifiable character due to building architecture, neighborhood design, streetscape, and land use. An area is an integral part of a larger urban area, with common characteristics that make it unique from other areas of the community. Distinguishing features may include building type, use, activity, and/or topography. Figure CD-3: Areas illustrates these areas’ fuzzy boundaries. Specific descriptions of these areas are provided below.

Eastside
The area contains a mix of single-family and multifamily homes on large lots.

Many neighborhoods have experienced substantial private redevelopment, with the original homes replaced by larger homes. In other areas, developers have purchased properties, torn down the original residence(s), and built townhomes or small-lot developments. The Land Use Element discusses issues associated with this area related to the typical narrow, deep lots and lot consolidation.

Westside
This area is characterized by a mix of residential, commercial, and industrial uses. The Westside Area is also the origin and home for the action sports industry which incubated and matured within Costa Mesa. This area includes a variety of traditional housing, as well as non-traditional live/work developments that support the edgy creatives who desire to live in this confluence of production, design, and manufacturing uses.

C o m m u n i t y D e s i g n E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | C D - 9
Figure CD-3: Districts
C o m m u n i t y D e s i g n E l e m e n t
C D - 1 0 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
Mesa Verde
Mesa Verde has an eclectic mix of residential densities and housing types.

Homes closer to the Mesa Verde Golf Course are much larger and at lower residential densities than those closer to Harbor Boulevard and I-405. The commercial uses along Adams Avenue and Harbor Boulevard provide the personal service uses and retail and food spaces for residents living in this area.

College Park
The homes within this area are a mix of residential densities and architectural types. The majority of the units are higher residential density complexes located along Newport Boulevard, Wilson Street, and Victoria Street. This area also includes College Park, an older single-family residential tract.

Mesa del Mar
This area contains mostly single-family residential tracts, with higher residential densities near arterial roadways. Pockets of commercial uses have been developed along Baker Street.

SoBECA
This area consists of programmatic spaces that allow for experiential shopping and dining activities at the LAB and the CAMP. It is a unique area in transition, with a variety of residential housing options encircling multiple destination locations, including microbreweries, nightclubs, “anti-malls”, hotels, and artisanal restaurants.

North Costa Mesa
This area is the major economic heart of the City. South Coast Plaza and other commercial and office establishments provide shopping, entertainment, hospitality, and high-rise office space that serve local, regional, national, and international markets. Key developments include Plaza Tower, Center Tower, South Coast Metro Center, South Coast Metro Pointe, South Coast Repertory, and the Segerstrom Center for the Arts. This area is Costa Mesa’s primary commercial and cultural center. The residential areas in this area include mostly single-family residential neighborhoods, with some multi-family developments as well.

C o m m u n i t y D e s i g n E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | C D - 1 1
Theatre Arts Area
This well-defined area exhibits a collection of the finest theatrical venues in Orange County. This rare clustering of art venues consists of the South Coast Repertory Theater, as well as the Segerstrom Center for the Arts, which consist of five venues: Renee and Henry Segerstrom Concert Hall, Samueli Theater, Segerstrom Hall, Judy Morr Theater, and the Arts Plaza. The Theater Arts Area provides access to art with art installations throughout the area, including the Noguchi Garden and the Orange County Museum of Art.

Supporting uses include several professional office towers such as the Center Tower and Plaza Tower, the two tallest buildings in Costa Mesa.

Downtown/Triangle
The Triangle is located at one of the busiest intersections in Costa Mesa, where Newport Boulevard and Harbor Boulevard intersect. The Triangle is an activity hub intended to draw both local and regional visitors. It sits in the heart of Costa Mesa’s downtown, which runs along Newport Boulevard and 19th Street. This area includes a variety of pedestrian scale retail spaces, fine restaurants, a movie theatre, and nightclubs.

Harbor Gateway
This area is characterized by large-sized industrial and office buildings, including the Automobile Club and Whittier Law School. It is vehicular in scale and has an office park character, with ample landscaping and large multi-story building complexes. In 2015, Vans acquired an office building in this area to become the corporate headquarters of one of the nation’s top lifestyle retailers.

South Coast Plaza is located in
the North Costa Mesa district.

C o m m u n i t y D e s i g n E l e m e n t
C D - 1 2 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
Airport Industrial/Business Park
John Wayne Airport is located in unincorporated Orange County, just east of Costa Mesa. Given the presence of the airport and abutting freeways, this location provides industrial and office space with excellent access and circulation. Land uses within this area are industrial, office, and commercial in nature, housed in low-scale buildings due to the presence of the airport.

Civic Center Area
This area is the primary cultural, educational, and civic center area of Costa Mesa. The OC Fair & Event Center, which includes the OC Fairgrounds, Pacific Amphitheatre, OC Marketplace, and Centennial Farm in addition to the Civic Center and Orange Coast College, represents major institutional uses that encompass significant open spaces and active recreation area. Vanguard University, adjacent to the Civic Center, includes private open spaces on the campus.

Nodes
A “node” is an important point where people gather and/or where paths converge, thus providing higher-than-typical levels of activity. Costa Mesa has three classifications of nodes:
1) Entry nodes, which function as focal points of identity between Costa Mesa and adjacent cities
Whittier Law School is located
in the North Industrial/Business
Park district at the southwest
corner of Sunflower Avenue and
Harbor Boulevard.

C o m m u n i t y D e s i g n E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | C D - 1 3
2) Internal nodes, which identify locations of two major converging paths and destinations
3) Activity nodes, which are focal points of highest activity, provide immediate access to destination locations, and/or have a concentration of specialty uses
All of these nodes are identified and displayed on Figure CD-4: Nodes.

Destinations and Landmarks
A “destination” is a particular use which generates special purpose trips and increases regional attraction. A destination can be a successful retail cluster or rare specialty use. Destination locations are shown on Figure CD-5:

Destinations and Landmarks.

A “landmark” is a physical element that provides a point of reference or serves as a community identity marker. A landmark can be a structure, space, or natural feature that helps identify a particular area in the City. Most landmarks are also main destination locations within the City as well.

C o m m u n i t y D e s i g n E l e m e n t
C D - 1 4 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
Figure CD-4: Nodes
C o m m u n i t y D e s i g n E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | C D - 1 5
Figure CD-5: Destinations and Landmarks
C o m m u n i t y D e s i g n E l e m e n t
C D - 1 6 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
Almost all important landmarks in Costa Mesa are also destination locations (see Table CD-1: Landmarks).

Table CD-1: Landmarks
Landmark Name
Sign, Covered Pedestrian Bridge,
Carousel South Coast Plaza
Unique and Identifiable Architecture
Segerstrom Center for the Arts:

Segerstrom Hall, Renée and Henry
Segerstrom Concert Hall, Samueli
Theater, Judy Morr Theater, Arts Plaza
Unique and Identifiable Architecture South Coast Repertory Tallest Building in Costa Mesa The Center Tower
Unique and Identifiable Architecture The Plaza Tower
Artistic Common Space Noguchi Garden
The Sign and Mall Design The LAB and The CAMP
The Freeway Sign and Mall Design South Coast Collection (SOCO) Diego Sepulveda Adobe Estancia Park
Clock Tower, Logo Orange Coast College
Ferris Wheel, Centennial Farms, Sign OC Fair and Event Center Tower Vanguard University
City Hall Civic Center
The Dome and Spire The Triangle
Natural Wetlands, Pedestrian Bridge,
Goat Hill Train Station Fairview Park
Edges
Edges are linear elements that serve as a visual or physical boundary, barrier, or transition between areas and that define the boundaries of a place.

Elements such as freeways, flood channels, natural features and landforms may be considered edges (See Figure CD-6: Edges). Edges within or abutting Costa Mesa include:
 Santa Ana River
 San Diego Freeway (I-405)
C o m m u n i t y D e s i g n E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | C D - 1 7
Figure CD-6: Edges
C o m m u n i t y D e s i g n E l e m e n t
C D - 1 8 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
 Corona Del Mar Freeway (SR-73)
 Costa Mesa Freeway (SR-55)
 John Wayne Airport (Unincorporated Orange County)
 Mesa Landforms (Costa Mesa and Newport Beach)
Public Realm Focus
The public realm focuses on the physical features and design that occurs on public rights-of-way, including public streets, sidewalks, medians, parks, and other public spaces. These spaces provide efficient and aesthetically pleasing paths and corridors, create context for existing areas, soften existing edges, provide access to destinations and landmarks, and enrich all nodes throughout the City. The City has adopted streetscape and median development standards designed to build a public realm that is aesthetically pleasing and creates efficient paths throughout the City. This also includes the development and maintenance of welcoming signs at entry nodes and wayfinding signs at internal and activity nodes.

Monument sign on Newport
Blvd at 19th Street greets
residents and visitors to Costa
Mesa.

C o m m u n i t y D e s i g n E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | C D - 1 9
Design Strengths and Opportunities
Design Strengths
 Along the City’s western boundary and looking south toward the Pacific Ocean, the coastline creates a distinctive visual background.

Views of the Pacific coast enhance the visual quality of areas within the viewshed.
 Talbert Regional Park and its extensive natural areas provide an important visual reminder of the local landscape prior to urbanization and create a soft western edge of the City.
 Fairview Park works together with Talbert Regional Park to soften the urban landscape. The park’s trails and recreational facilities are a community strength.
 Neighborhood parks and the golf courses provide open spaces and recreational opportunities.
 South Coast Plaza, The Triangle, and the OC Fair & Event Center are major visual landmarks.
 The Segerstrom Center for the Arts and South Coast Repertory provide focal points for the local performing arts community and serve as a major culture and arts hub for all of Orange County.  The Santa Ana River’s strength is a potential enhanced water resource. It offers recreation along the multiuse trail that extends along the western edge of the City.

Fairview Park includes
expansive open spaces
accessible by trails.

C o m m u n i t y D e s i g n E l e m e n t
C D - 2 0 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
Design Opportunities
 Streetscape enhancements in the public realm can contribute significantly to improving and maintaining the visual quality of major arterial and secondary arterial streets through implementation of the City’s Streetscape and Median Development Guidelines. The Guidelines include a comprehensive street tree palette and development standards.
 Improve the design of signs along major corridors and the public realm by adopting sign design guidelines and putting in place incentives for the removal of nonconforming signs.
 Continue to add new gateway treatments at City entry nodes.  Continue to implement adopted specific plans, urban plans, design guidelines, and other policy documents that contribute to the design quality of new development.
 Consider preparation of design guidelines for new developments along major corridors and the public realm to ensure that such development contribute to the overall enhancement of Costa Mesa’s image.

South Coast Metro includes a
collection of high-rise office
towers and the Segerstrom
Center for the Arts venues.

C o m m u n i t y D e s i g n E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | C D - 2 1
Key Issues
Lack of Visual Interest
Overall, Costa Mesa lacks a strong visual image in terms of definition as a distinct place. Some of the areas lack a clear identity that distinguishes them from other areas in the City. Areas should be unified through design approaches. Paths are challenged by sign clutter, blank walls, and absence of streetscape amenities. Commercial paths should have a unified identity that promotes a positive image of the City. More emphasis should be given to enhancing the image of neighborhoods that lack sufficient visual interest in building elevations, massing, landscaping, and lighting. Natural viewsheds are not optimized.

Residential Transition and Neighborhood Character
Within the Eastside Residential Area, the transition of properties from singlestory homes on large lots (with architectural styles dating to the 1950s and ‘60s) to two-story houses, as well as townhome developments, has changed the character of many neighborhoods. Some long-time residents have remarked that residential densities, building architecture, and massing that define the overall character of the area should be preserved.

Lack of Corridor Continuity
Harbor Boulevard lacks continuity of visual quality and has multiple identities.

The commercial path is fragmented and contains a mix of land uses with no identifiable character. Even though new landscape medians have been installed, in several areas in the City, landscaping remains substandard along many stretches. Along many of the City’s commercial corridors, inconsistent sign styles, colors, and sizes create visual obstructions and clutter.

Entry Nodes
The multiple entry nodes to Costa Mesa do not effectively announce arrival into Costa Mesa. The City’s signage needs a conceptual redesign and evaluation of the most effective approach to entrance signage into the City.

Entry nodes in need of signage enhancement include Newport Boulevard/15th Street, Bristol Street/Sunflower Avenue, and East 17th Street/Irvine Avenue.

Industrial Properties
Industrial uses, particularly on the west side of the City, occupy prominent locations with proximity to the coast. Some industrial uses are adequately C o m m u n i t y D e s i g n E l e m e n t
C D - 2 2 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
maintained or participate in valued industrial niches like the Westside’s action sports industry. These businesses require this proximity to effectively conduct business. Screening and rehabilitation should be implemented in a strategic manor so as to not negatively impact this area’s successful industrial niches and continue to support the maturing trend of creative enhancement to industrial areas.

C o m m u n i t y D e s i g n E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | C D - 2 3
Goals, Objectives, and Policies
Physical elements such as landscaping, architecture, signs, streets, and open spaces collectively form Costa Mesa’s visual environment and character.

Through the implementation of these goals, objectives, and policies, the City aims to gradually improve the visual environment and character of Costa Mesa to achieve the high level of quality desired.

Goal CD-1: Vehicular and Pedestrian
Corridors
Strengthen the image of the City as experienced from sidewalks and roadways.

Objective CD-1A Contribute to City beautification by enhancing the visual environment of Costa Mesa’s vehicular and
pedestrian paths and corridors.

Policy CD-1.1 Implement the City of Costa Mesa Streetscape and Median Development Guidelines in all new
streetscape corridor and parkway projects.

Coordinate with new development adjacent to public
rights-of-ways to integrate landscape features and
design elements consistent with the streetscape
standards and recommendations.

Policy CD-1.2 Coordinate street furniture elements (benches, bus shelters, newspaper racks, trash receptacles, kiosks,
etc.) whenever possible. Develop design standards
and guidelines for the street furniture within and
adjacent to public rights-of-way to complement the
specific recommendations provided for streets in the
City of Costa Mesa Streetscape and Median
Development Guidelines.

Policy CD-1.3 Promote treatments for walls and fences and utility cabinets along public rights-of-way that contribute to
an attractive street and sidewalk environment.

Require that new walls and fences complement the
style and character of the local area and adjacent
buildings. Newly constructed or reconstructed walls
and fences adjacent to sidewalks and roadways
C o m m u n i t y D e s i g n E l e m e n t
C D - 2 4 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
should incorporate architectural treatments such as
pilasters, masonry, or wrought iron, and should
integrate tiered plantings to soften their appearance.

Policy CD-1.4 Promote a consistent landscape character along City streets to reinforce the unique qualities of each
corridor and area, including the development of
landscaped medians. Support implementation of the
recommended street tree palette for each City street,
as identified in the City of Costa Mesa Streetscape
and Median Development Guidelines.

Policy CD-1.5 Encourage electric and communication lines to be placed underground and electrical substations and
telephone facilities to be screened to minimize visual
impacts from sidewalks, streets, and adjacent
properties. Support utility undergrounding through
conditions of project approval, preparation of
undergrounding plans, and the formation of
assessment districts.

Objective CD-1B. Encourage clear connections between areas within the City.

Policy CD-1.6 Promote linkages between separate areas using bike trails, pedestrian paths, common medians or parkway
landscaping, and other location-appropriate physical
improvements. Through conditions of approval, public
improvement projects, and other measures, support
development of new connections and the
enhancement of existing connections between areas.

Goal CD-2: Cohesive and Identifiable Areas
Enhance the existing character and strengthen the identity of Costa Mesa’s areas.

Objective CD-2A Encourage future development and redevelopment to reinforce area scale, identity, and urban form.

Policy CD-2.1 Consider urban design guidelines for each identified area in Costa Mesa that recognizes, maintains, and
C o m m u n i t y D e s i g n E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | C D - 2 5
enhances the character and identity of each area;
integrate existing specific plans’ policies and design
guidelines as applicable.

Policy CD-2.2 Support and seek land uses and development that correspond or enrich our existing areas.

Goal CD-3: High Quality and Visually
Interesting Nodes
Heighten the design quality and visual interest of nodes within Costa Mesa.

Objective CD-3A. Create a sense of arrival to Costa Mesa, and develop prominent community focal points at key nodes
within the City.

Districts should include
identifiable and consistent
design themes through
architecture, landscaping, and
signage.

C o m m u n i t y D e s i g n E l e m e n t
C D - 2 6 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
Policy CD-3.1 Introduce entry monument signs at key gateway locations, as identified in Figure CD-4. Utilize the
standard design specifications for entry signs included in the City of Costa Mesa Streetscape and Median
Development Guidelines.

Policy CD-3.2 Reinforce a sense of arrival into the City by promoting architecturally significant development and significant landscape plantings at key nodes. Undertake a
visioning process to develop specific design guidelines that articulate the desired character for each node
within Costa Mesa.

Policy CD-3.3 Design and development of entry and internal wayfinding signage to be located throughout the City
in areas that correspond to the existing nodes and
areas.

Goal CD-4: Identifiable and Protected City
Landmarks.

Objective CD-4A. Promote the maintenance, use, and improvement of landmarks to enhance the visual image and identity
of Costa Mesa.

Policy CD-4.1 Support efforts to introduce new monuments and landmarks, and preserve, maintain, and improve the
condition of Costa Mesa landmarks.

Goal CD-5: Edges
Utilize Costa Mesa’s edges as opportunities to enhance the City’s image along its boundaries.

Objective CD-5A. Develop and implement programs that preserve and enhance City edges.

Policy CD-5.1 Preserve and optimize natural views and open spaces in Costa Mesa.

Policy CD-5.2 Control the visual impacts of new development on natural views of the coast and the wetlands.

C o m m u n i t y D e s i g n E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | C D - 2 7
Policy CD-5.3 Develop open space corridors and trails along the edges of Costa Mesa where feasible and connect
these trails to existing and potential future trails
throughout the City.

Policy CD-5.4 Continue to preserve natural open space, including restoration of the natural areas of Talbert Regional
Park.

Policy CD-5.5 Continue protection of Fairview Park as an open space and recreation area.

Policy CD-5.6 Continue to work with Caltrans to improve the design quality of freeway edges.

Goal CD-6: Image
Enhance opportunities for new development and redevelopment to contribute to a positive visual image for the City of Costa Mesa that is consistent with the area image.

Objective CD-6A. Establish development policies and design guidelines that create an aesthetically pleasing and functional
environment.

Policy CD-6.1 Encourage the inclusion of public art and attractive, functional architecture into new development that
will have the effect of promoting Costa Mesa as the
“City of the Arts”.

Policy CD-6.2 Encourage the use of creative and well-designed signs that establish a distinctive image for the City.

Policy CD-6.3 Continue to work with Code Enforcement to ensure continued maintenance of properties and compliance
with adopted development standards.

Policy CD-6.4 Promote urban greening and expansion of the tree canopy throughout the City to create more physical
comfort and encourage walking, with consideration
on greening within designated environmental justice
areas boundaries.

C o m m u n i t y D e s i g n E l e m e n t
C D - 2 8 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
Goal CD-7: Quality Residential
Promote and protect the unique identity of Costa Mesa’s residential neighborhoods.

Objective CD-7A Encourage excellence in architectural design.

Policy CD-7.1 Ensure that new and remodeled structures are designed in architectural styles that reflect the City’s eclectic quality, yet are compatible in scale and
character with existing buildings and the natural
surroundings within residential neighborhoods.

Continue to update and maintain the Costa Mesa
Residential Guidelines.

Policy CD-7.2 Preserve the character and scale of Costa Mesa’s established residential neighborhoods where
possible; when new residential development is
proposed, encourage that the new structures are
consistent with the prevailing character of existing
development in the immediate vicinity, and that new
development does not have a substantial adverse
impact on adjacent areas.

Objective CD-7B. Encourage the use of native plant palettes in the creation of landscaping plans used to establish a
sense of place in neighborhood identification efforts.

Policy CD-7.3 Ensure that California native plants are used to support the local ecology and save water. Develop
landscaping guidelines that reflect the local
community.

Goal CD-8: Quality Commercial
Development
Achieve a high level of design quality for commercial development.

Objective CD-8A. Encourage a high level of architectural and site design quality.

Policy CD-8.1 Require that new and remodeled commercial development be designed to reflect architectural
diversity, yet be compatible with the scale and
character of the area.

C o m m u n i t y D e s i g n E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | C D - 2 9
Policy CD-8.2 Use distinctive commercial architectural styles to reinforce a positive sense of place. Commercial
architectural design elements and materials must be
of high quality and style as well as suitable for longterm maintenance. Consistent architectural design should be considered in choosing materials, finishes,
decorative details, color, accent features and include
the following elements and materials appropriate for
their context (see Table CD-3: Elements and
Materials):

Table CD-3: Elements and Materials
Design Elements Design Materials
 Simple, multi-planed pitched
roofs
 Open rafters/tails with large
overhangs
 Appearance of “thick” walls
 Courtyards, arcades, and intimate
spaces
 Tile details
 Deep-set window and door
openings
 Offset wall planes
 Fountains and other unique
details
 Building masses with the
incorporation of one and two
story architecture
 Sequencing of enclosed
space/arches
 Stucco, smooth, sand or light
lace finish
 Wood, as an exposed structural
material
 Clay or concrete roof tiles
 Native fieldstone
 Wood window casements
 Wood, as an accent material
 Brick, as an accent material
 Wrought iron (rust proof;
anodized aluminum)
 Tile, as an accent material
 Slumpstone garden walls
C o m m u n i t y D e s i g n E l e m e n t
C D - 3 0 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n

Policy CD-8.3 Encourage the use of entrance patios, courtyards, plazas, arcades, fountains, porches, tower elements,
covered walks, and other features in commercial
areas. Promote pedestrian amenities.

Policy CD-8.4 Ensure that common areas, walkways, driveways, and parking spaces be landscaped consistent with
landscaping standards contained in the Planning,
Zoning, and Development Code. Utilize landscaping to
provide project amenities for new and remodeled
commercial uses, and to screen parking and
equipment areas. Landscaped areas generally should
incorporate planting utilizing a three-tiered system: 1) grasses and ground covers, 2) shrubs and vines, and 3)
trees.

Policy CD-8.5 Ensure that site access, parking, and circulation for commercial uses are designed in a logical, safe
manner. Parking should not dominate the site in areas
adjacent to street, and should be well landscaped
with a clear hierarchy of circulation. Wherever
possible, parking lots should be divided into a series
of connected smaller lots utilizing walkways and
raised landscape strips. Parking lots should also
include landscaping that accents the importance of
driveways from the street, frames the major
circulation aisles, and highlights pedestrian pathways. spaces should
ian amenities,
r dining areas.

C o m m u n i t y D e s i g n E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | C D - 3 1
Policy CD-8.6 Require that areas for outside equipment, trash receptacles, storage, and loading areas be located in
the least conspicuous part of the site. Utility and
mechanical equipment (e.g. electric and gas meters,
electrical panels, and junction boxes) should be
concealed from view from public streets, neighboring
properties, and nearby higher buildings. Trash
enclosures should be architecturally compatible with
the project. Landscaping should be incorporated into
the design of trash enclosures to deter graffiti.

Policy CD-8.7 Encourage decorative paving treatments to be incorporated throughout commercial developments,
including driveway entries, pedestrian walkways,
plazas, and other areas. The design, materials, and
colors of decorative paving treatments (e.g., stamped
concrete, stone, brick or granite pavers, exposed
aggregate, or colored concrete) should complement
the architectural style of the primary buildings and
make a positive contribution to the aesthetic and
function of the site.

Policy CD-8.8 Require that exterior lighting on commercial properties be consistent with the architectural style of the commercial building. On each commercial site, all
lighting fixtures should be from the same family of
fixtures with respect to design, materials, color,
fixture, and color of light. Lighting sources should be shielded, diffused or indirect to avoid spillover on
adjacent properties, nighttime sky light pollution, and glare to pedestrians and motorists. To minimize the
total number of freestanding light standards, wallmounted and pathway lights should be utilized to the greatest extent possible.

Objective CD-8B Preserve the scale and character of established neighborhoods near commercial uses.

Policy CD-8.9 Ensure that new commercial development utilize site planning and design features that optimize
compatibility with adjacent residential
neighborhoods. The following guidance should be
considered:

C o m m u n i t y D e s i g n E l e m e n t
C D - 3 2 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
 When adjacent residential and nonresidential uses
can mutually benefit from connection, appropriate
linkages (e.g., walkways, common landscape areas,
and building orientation) are encouraged. Successful
interaction between commercial and residential uses
may be achieved through adequate setbacks,
landscape buffers, screening, decorative masonry
walls, berms, building orientation, and limitations of
commercial activities.
 Loading areas, access and circulation driveways, trash and storage areas, and rooftop equipment should be
located as far as possible from adjacent residences.
 Building orientation and landscaping of commercial
buildings should minimize direct lines of sight into
adjacent residential private open space.

Goal CD-9: Mixed Use
Promote development of mixed-use projects that seamlessly integrate multiple uses both functionally and aesthetically.

Objective CD-9A Design mixed use development projects to achieve a high quality character.

Policy CD-9.1 Require that mixed-use development projects be designed to mitigate potential conflicts between uses.

Consider noise, lighting, and security.

Policy CD-9.2 Provide adequate parking, open space and
recreational facilities to serve residents in mixed-use development projects. Design parking and other areas
to acknowledge different users (residents versus
shoppers) and to be compatible with the architectural
character of the building(s).

Objective CD-9B Provide for the development of projects that integrate housing with commercial uses and other
compatible uses.

Policy CD-9.3 Encourage mixed-use development along the east side of Newport Boulevard between Mesa Drive and
C o m m u n i t y D e s i g n E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | C D - 3 3
Walnut Street. Establish incentives for the
development of projects in planned development
zones that integrate housing with retail and office
uses.

Policy CD-9.4 Encourage the development of mixed-use urban villages along specified areas of West 17th Street, West 19th
Street, and Superior Avenue that integrates residential with office, retail, business services, personal services, public spaces and uses, and other community amenities in a single building (vertical mixed-use development) or in proximity on the same site (horizontal mixed-use
development).

Policy CD-9.5 Promote new types of urban housing that could be targetmarketed to people seeking alternative housing choices in proximity to a major commercial area.

Policy CD-9.6 Support efforts to mix compatible uses and activities.

Encourage the siting of community-oriented services,
businesses, and amenities in and near mixed-use
neighborhoods, including schools, libraries, open space, and parks.

Goal CD-10: Industrial and Business Parks
Promote quality design approaches for the redevelopment of existing industrial buildings, encourage the design to incorporate or provide flexibility for the needs of emerging types of industrial uses, and strive to match design with overall character of nodes, corridors, or areas if applicable.

Objective CD-10A Require that industrial and business park projects meet high-quality design standards.

Policy CD-10.1 Require that industrial projects be designed to convey visual interest and a positive image. Architectural
qualities and design elements encouraged for
industrial uses are:
 Building modulation indentations and
architectural details
 Building entry accentuation
 Screening of equipment and storage areas
C o m m u n i t y D e s i g n E l e m e n t
C D - 3 4 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
 Landscaping to soften building exteriors and to
serve as a buffer between uses
Policy CD-10.2 Encourage that the design of industrial buildings considers the visual and physical relationship to
adjacent uses. An industrial structure which
dominates its surrounding environment by its relative
size shall generally be discouraged.

Policy CD-10.3 Encourage adaptive reuse of existing industrial structures which results in rehabilitated buildings with distinctive and attractive architecture.

Policy CD-10.4 Promote the use of materials and colors that produce diversity and visual interest in industrial buildings. The use of various siding materials (i.e., masonry, concrete texturing, cement, or plaster) can produce effects of
texture and relief that provide architectural interest.

Policy CD-10.5 Require that landscaping be used to define areas such as entrances to industrial buildings and parking lots;
define the edges of developments; provide transition
between neighboring properties; and provide
screening for outdoor storage, loading, and
equipment areas. Landscaping should be in scale with
adjacent buildings and be of an appropriate size at
maturity to accomplish its intended purpose.

Policy CD-10.6 Require that the design of lighting fixtures and their structural support be of a scale and architectural
design compatible with on-site industrial buildings.

Large areas should be illuminated to minimize the
visual impact and amount of spillover light onto
surrounding projects.

Objective CD-10B Ensure that the development of industrial projects are positive additions to the City’s community setting
and do not result in adverse impacts with adjacent
uses.

Policy CD-10.7 Require industrial projects to incorporate landscape setbacks, screening walls, and/or other elements that
mitigate negative impacts with adjacent uses.

C o m m u n i t y D e s i g n E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | C D - 3 5
Policy CD-10.8 Protect transitional areas between industrial and other uses.

Policy CD-10.9 Storage yards, parking areas, and service areas should be screened from public view.

Goal CD-11: Attractive Signs that Reflect
Costa Mesa
Ensure that signs contribute positively to Costa Mesa’s image and overall economic development.

Objective CD-11A Facilitate the installation of signs that contribute to a positive image of the public realm.

Policy CD-11.1 Encourage homeowners' associations and
neighborhoods to maintain housing tract entrance
signs in an attractive condition, and encourage the
placement of such signs at the entrance of major
developments which do not have such identification.

Policy CD-11.2 Encourage the use of common design elements in signs for commercial and industrial centers through
the development of planned sign programs to
improve center identity by publicizing the benefits of
such programs to developers and local business
operators.

Policy CD-11.3 Encourage citywide sign design guidelines that promote creativity and flexibility while upholding
design quality. Design guidelines could include the
design and placement of business signs, public street
graphics, street signs, locational and directional signs, traffic signs, etc.

Policy CD-11.4 Introduce distinctive entry signage within the Costa Mesa Streetscape and Median Development
Guidelines which effectively announces arrival to
unique areas and neighborhoods.

Policy CD-11.5 Develop and design signage that helps with wayfinding throughout the City so visitors and residents C o m m u n i t y D e s i g n E l e m e n t
C D - 3 6 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
can easily access destination locations and identify
landmarks.

Goal CD-12: Public Safety through Design
Use design approaches to enhance public safety.

Objective CD-12A Incorporate public safety considerations into community design.

Policy CD-12.1 Decrease the opportunity for criminal activity by addressing high-risk circumstances (e.g., dark alleys,
enclosed stairwells, and dark entrances). Involve the
Police and Fire Departments in reviewing and making
design recommendations during the project review
process.

Policy CD-12.2 Continue to implement and refine development standards and/or guidelines based on Crime
Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) for
new development and redevelopment with emphasis
on site and building design to minimize vulnerability
to criminal activity.

Policy CD-12.3 Continue to provide CPTED training to City staff and local planning and design professionals to optimize
public safety through community design.

N o i s e E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | N - 1
Chapter 7:

Noise Element
Introduction
Costa Mesa residents enjoy the diversity of their neighborhoods. With the pleasant, ocean-influenced climate, they find many reasons to spend time outdoors. While some level of noise is part of the urban environment—with noise conditions varying depending upon the type and density of development—residents desire to keep Costa Mesa a relatively quiet place.

This Noise Element establishes goals focused on creating a local noise environment that contributes to positive community health and minimizes exposure of residents to adverse noise conditions.

Federal and State statutes define noise to be an environmental pollutant that can affect the quality of life and human health by causing annoyance and disrupting everyday activities. Many laws are in place to protect individuals from excessive noise at their workplaces and in their homes. In Costa Mesa, significant noise sources include I-405, SR-73 and SR-55, major arterials such as Harbor Boulevard and 17th Street, the Orange County Fairgrounds and 17th Street and Superior Avenue
GP-XX-XX, Adopted XX, XX, 2026
N o i s e E l e m e n t
N - 2 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
Pacific Amphitheater, John Wayne Airport, and the activities of local industrial businesses. While the City does not have jurisdiction to control how most of these noise sources affects the community, it can direct land use policy and work with responsible agencies to minimize noise impacts on residents.

Purpose
The purpose of the Noise Element is to identify noise sources in Costa Mesa and define strategies for reducing the negative impact of noise on the community. The Noise Element identifies baseline and projected noise levels so that this information can guide future land use decisions in a manner that limit noises and its effect on the community.

Legal Requirement
State Law (Section 65302[f] of the California Government Code) requires that general plans include a Noise Element that identifies and appraises noise problems in the community. The Noise Element follows the revised State guidelines in Section 46050.1 of the Health and Safety Code that require the Element analyze and quantify—to the extent practical—baseline and projected noise levels for the following sources:
 Highways and freeways
 Primary arterials and major local streets
 Passenger and freight on-line railroad operations and ground rapid transit systems
 Commercial, general aviation, heliport, helistop, military airport operations, aircraft overflights, jet engine test stands, and all other ground facilities and maintenance functions related to airport operation
 Local industrial plants, including, but not limited to, railroad classification yards
 Other ground stationary noise sources identified by local agencies as contributing to the community noise environment
State law is fairly specific as to how local noise conditions are presented. The 24-hour noise environment typically is expressed in terms of noise contour maps, which display average noise levels over a 24-hour period. They resemble topographic maps, which illustrate varying ground elevations. The N o i s e E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | N - 3
noise contour maps indicate an aggregation of noise from all sources, and state the noise levels in terms of Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) or Day-Night Average Level (Ldn); these terms are described below. The noise contours establish a guide for establishing a pattern of land uses in the Land Use Element to minimize exposure of residents to excessive noise. State law specifies that the Noise Element is to include implementation measures to address existing and foreseeable noise problems and, importantly, to serve as a guideline for compliance with the State’s noise insulation standards.

Noise Metrics
Noise—in its most simplistic terms—is defined as unwanted sound. While sound can be defined easily using scientific standards, noise has qualities that require more complex treatment. Sound is measured and expressed by decibels (dB), with an adjustment referred to as the A-weighted measure (dBA) to correct for the relative frequency response of the human ear.

Decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale, representing points on a sharply rising curve. For example, a sound level of 10 decibels is 10 times more intense than one decibel, 20 decibels represent a noise 100 times more intense, and 30 decibels reflects a condition 1,000 times more intense. A sound as soft as human breathing is about 10 times greater than a zero decibel level.

The decibel system of measuring sound gives a rough connection between the physical intensity of sound and its perceived loudness to the human ear. A 10-decibel increase is perceived by the human ear as only doubling of the loudness. Ambient sounds in the urban environment generally range from 30 dBA (very quiet) to 100 dBA (very loud), as indicated in Table N-1: Typical Sound Levels.

Because people generally are more sensitive to noise intrusions during the evening and night hours, State law requires, for planning purposes, use of such metrics as the CNEL or Ldn. These metrics add an artificial decibel increment to quiet time noise levels in a 24-hour noise descriptor to account for increased sensitivity during late hours. The CNEL descriptor requires that an artificial increment of five dBA be added to the actual noise level for the hours from 7:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M., and 10 dBA for the 10:00 P.M.to 7:00 A.M.

N o i s e E l e m e n t
N - 4 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
period. The Ldn descriptor uses the same methodology, except that no artificial increment is added to the hours between 7:00 A.M. and 10:00 P.M.

Table N-1: Typical Sound Levels
Common Outdoor Activities
Noise
Level
(dBA) Common Indoor Activities
Threshold of pain 140
Near jet engine 130
Jet fly-over at 1,000 feet 110 Rock band
Loud auto horn 100
Gas lawnmower at 3 feet 90
Diesel truck at 50 feet at 50 mph 80 Food blender at 3 feet Noisy urban area during daytime 70 Vacuum cleaner at 10 feet Heavy traffic at 300 feet 60 Normal speech at 3 feet
Quiet urban area during daytime 50 Large business office Quiet urban area during nighttime 40 Theater, large conference room (background)
Quiet suburban area during nighttime 30 Library
Quiet rural area during nighttime 20 Bedroom at night, concert hall (background)
10 Broadcast/recording studio
Lowest threshold of human hearing 0 Lowest threshold of human hearing Both descriptors yield roughly the same 24-hour level, with the CNEL being only slightly more restrictive (that is, higher).

The discussion of noise requires the use of a number of technical terms.

Some of the key noise-related terms used in this element include:
 Decibel (dB). A decibel is a unit of measurement which indicates the relative amplitude of a sound. The zero on the decibel scale is based on the lowest sound level that the healthy, unimpaired human ear can detect. Sound levels in decibels are calculated on a logarithmic N o i s e E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | N - 5
basis. Each 10 decibel increase in sound level is perceived as approximately a doubling of loudness over a fairly wide range of intensities.
 A-weighted sound level (dBA). The A-weighted sound level is the most common method to characterize sound in California. This scale gives greater weight to the frequencies of sound to which the human ear is most sensitive. All sound levels in this chapter are A-weighted, unless reported otherwise.
 Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). CNEL is the energy average of the A-weighted sound levels occurring during a 24-hour period, with 10 dB added to the A-weighted sound levels occurring between 10:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. and five dB added to the Aweighted sound levels occurring between 7:00 P.M. and 10:00 P.M.  Energy-equivalent sound/noise level (Leq). Leq describes the average level that has the same acoustical energy as the summation of all the time-varying events. This descriptor is useful because sound levels can vary markedly over a short period of time. The most common averaging period for Leq is hourly, but it can be of any duration.  Day/night average sound level (Ldn). Ldn is a measure over a 24-hour period at a given location, with a 10 dB added to the A-weighted sound levels occurring between 10:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M.

Noise Standards
While primary responsibility for control of noise rests with State and local governments, the United States Noise Control Act of 1972 and the Quiet Community Act of 1978 recognized the role of the federal government in addressing major commercial noise sources to provide uniform treatment of such sources. The federal government specifically preempts local control of noise emissions from aircraft, railroad, and interstate highways.

The State of California’s noise insulation standards are codified in the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Building Standards Administrative Code, Part 2, California Building Code. These noise standards apply to new construction for providing suitable interior noise environments. The regulations specify that acoustical studies must be prepared when noise- N o i s e E l e m e n t
N - 6 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
sensitive structures, such as residential buildings, schools, or hospitals, are located near major transportation noise sources, and where such noise sources create an exterior noise level of 60 dBA CNEL or higher. Acoustical studies that accompany building plans must demonstrate that structures have been designed to limit interior noise in habitable rooms to acceptable noise levels. For new residential buildings, schools, and hospitals, the acceptable interior noise limit for new construction is 45 dBA CNEL.

Costa Mesa has a comprehensive Noise Ordinance within the Municipal Code (Chapter XIII-Noise Control) that sets standards for noise levels citywide and provides the means to enforce the reduction of offensive noises. The noise standards in Table N-2: Residential Exterior and Interior Standards, apply to both indoor and outdoor residential areas. Between the hours of 11:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M., the noise standards are five dBA more stringent for exterior areas and 10 dBA more stringent for indoor areas.

Table N-2: Residential Exterior and Interior
Standards
Exterior Noise Standards Interior Noise Standards
55 dBA: 7:00 A.M. to 11:00 P.M.
50 dBA: 11:00 P.M.to 7:00 A.M.
55 dBA: 7:00 A.M. to 11:00 P.M.
45 dBA: 11:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M.

Note: These represent the basic standards applicable for time periods exceeding 15 minutes each hour. Higher levels may be generated for specified shorter time periods.

Source: Costa Mesa Zoning Code, Chapter XIII
Noise Conditions and Compatibility Standards
Two types of noise sources are considered in the community noise inventory:
mobile sources and stationary sources. Mobile noise sources refer to cars, trucks, motorcycles, buses, aircraft, and trains. Stationary sources include industrial and construction activities (including truck loading), playgrounds, outdoor sports facilities, landscape maintenance equipment, construction activities, and the typical sounds heard in a residential neighborhood (power tools, barking dogs, etc.).

N o i s e E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | N - 7
Table N-3: Noise and Land Use Compatibility Matrix presents the guidelines promulgated by federal and State agencies, modified to meet local conditions and Costa Mesa’s needs. This table represents the primary tool the City will use to ensure integrated planning compatibility between land uses and outdoor noise.

Costa Mesa’s noise environment is dominated by vehicular traffic and aircraft operations at John Wayne Airport. To provide a description of the baseline 2015 noise environment in Costa Mesa, noise contours were obtained from the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission and quantified for highway and local street traffic.

Vehicular Noise
Traffic noise levels can be reliably predicted using formulas that take into account traffic volume, speed, and the percentage of trucks. Baseline 2015 noise contours were calculated for all the City’s primary and major arterials, as well as the three freeways (I-405, SR-55, SR-73) that traverse the City. In addition, a number of secondary and commuter streets were modeled. Noise generation for each roadway segment was calculated, and the distance to the 60, 65, and 70 dBA CNEL contours was determined (A noise contour is a line behind which the noise level does not exceed a certain value. For instance, the 60 dBA CNEL contour indicates that the CNEL between the street and the contour line is equal to, or greater than 60 dB; the CNEL beyond the contour line—away from the street—is less than 60 dB).

N o i s e E l e m e n t
N - 8 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
Table N-3: Noise and Land Use Compatibility Matrix
Land Use Category
Community Noise Exposure
Ldn or CNEL, dBA
Normally
Acceptable
Conditionally
Acceptable
Normally
Unacceptable
Clearly
Unacceptable
Residential: Low-Density 50-60 60-70 70-75 >75
Residential: Multiple Family 50-65 65-70 70-75 >75
Mixed use 50-65 65-70 70-75 >75
Transient Lodging-Motel, Hotels 50-65 65-70 70-80 >80
Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals,
Nursing Homes 50-60 60-65 65-80 >80
Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheaters NA 50-70 NA >80 Sports Arenas, Outdoor Spectator Sports NA 50-75 NA >80 Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks 50-67.5 NA 67.5-75 >75
Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water
Recreation, Cemeteries 50-70 NA 70-80 >80
Office Buildings, Business Commercial and
Professional 50-67.5 67.5-77.5 77.5-85
>85 unless
appropriately
insulated
Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities,
Agriculture 50-70 70-80 80-85 NA
Normally Acceptable. Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements.

Conditionally Acceptable. New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design.

Conventional construction but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice.

Normally Unacceptable. New Construction or development should be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design.

Clearly Unacceptable. New construction or development should generally not be undertaken.

NA: Not Applicable.

Source: Modified from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Guidelines and State of California Standards.

C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | N - 9
Aircraft Noise
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has established guidelines in the California State Noise Standard to control residential area noise levels produced by aircraft operations that use the State’s airports.

Under these guidelines, residential noise sensitive areas exposed to an average CNEL of greater than the 65 dBA define the noise impact area.

John Wayne Airport
John Wayne Airport, operated by the County of Orange, abuts industrial and commercial properties at the northeast corner of Costa Mesa. A small portion of Costa Mesa lies within the 65 dBA CNEL contour of John Wayne Airport.

The northeast corner of Costa Mesa is impacted by noise from the airport.

However, the majority of this area is developed with industrial uses.

Approximately 107 dwelling units within the City’s sphere of influence lie within the 65 dBA CNEL noise impact area south of the runway.

Noise contours resulting from operations at John Wayne Airport, indicated on Figure N-1, John Wayne Airport Noise Contours, are those on file with the County of Orange Office of Noise Abatement and the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC).

The 2008 Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) adopted by the Airport Land Use Commission specifies acceptable uses proximate to the airport. These are defined as uses that will not subject people to adverse noise impacts. John Wayne Airport, primarily through the General Aviation Noise Ordinance (GANO), has ongoing programs of noise reduction that include limits on the number of commercial airline flights, noise abatement arrival and departure procedures, admonishment of noisy operators (including private aircraft), curfew, and take-off weight limitations.

The Orange County Board of Supervisors approved a master plan for the airport in February, 1985. Settlement of lawsuits concerning airport expansion were reached in December 1985 between the County, City of Newport Beach, and two community organizations. In 2003, the settlement agreement was amended which extended the agreement until 2015, allowed an increase in passengers served from 8.4 million annual passengers to 10.8 million annual passengers, allowed an increase in regular Class A flights to 85 average daily departures, and allowed facility improvements.

N o i s e E l e m e n t
N - 1 0 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
Figure N-1: Noise Monitoring Locations
N o i s e E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | N - 1 1
In 2014, the Board of Supervisors authorized an increase in operational capacity and extended the terms of the settlement agreement through December 31, 2030, with no change to curfew until December 31, 2035.

Additionally, beginning on January 1, 2021, the approval allows a gradual increase in passenger count from 8.4 million average passengers to 11.8 million average passengers and 95 average daily departures. Further, on January 1, 2026, the number passengers would again be allowed to increase, up to 12.5 million average passengers, depending upon the actual service levels in the preceding five years.

Despite the increase in air traffic from John Wayne Airport, the ultimate CNEL noise contours are considerably less than the noise contour contained in the 2008 AELUP due to updated technology creating quieter fleets of commercial aircrafts.

Helicopter Services
The City of Costa Mesa contracts with Huntington Beach for police helicopter services on a case-by-case basis. Depending on altitude and speed, noise levels generated by the craft under normal conditions range from 61 to 65 dBA. As of 2015, four heliports were located in Costa Mesa at the following locations:
 Costa Mesa Police Department, 99 Fair Drive
 Former Los Angeles Times building, 1375 West Sunflower Avenue  South Coast Metro Center, 555 Anton Boulevard
 Tridair Helicopter, 3000 Airway Avenue
The AELUP for Heliports establishes regulations and restrictions for the siting of heliports/helipads. The purpose of the AELUP for Heliports is to protect the public from the adverse effects of aircraft noise by ensuring that heliports/helipads are sited in areas of compatible land use. The City regulates the siting of helipads through a conditional use permit. The City requires an analysis to identify potential noise impacts and the City may regulate the hours of operation and arrival, departure/arrival routes, and type of helicopters which may use the heliport in order to minimize impacts to sensitive land uses. Heliports and helistops must comply with the all conditions of approval imposed or recommended by the Federal Aviation Administration, Orange County ALUC, and Caltrans/Division of Aeronautics.

N o i s e E l e m e n t
N - 1 2 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
OC Fair & Event Center
The OC Fair & Event Center (OCFEC) has existed at its location across from the Civic Center for over 65 years and has become a year-round exhibition, conference, and event center. The primary function of the OCFEC is to host the annual summer fair, which includes rides, exhibits, theater, the centennial farm area, equestrian center, and amphitheater for concerts. Over 1.3 million people attend the fair during its summer run.

Several noise sources exist within the fairgrounds property. A majority of the on-site stationary noise is due to the weekly Orange County Market Place, Farmers Market, Centennial Farm, and Food Truck Fare Wednesday, as well as annual events such as the OC Home and Garden Show, Orange County Fair, and concerts at the Pacific Amphitheater. Parking lot activity during various fairground events also generates noise.

In 1980, a stricter, modified Noise Ordinance for fairground operations was established in an agreement between the 32nd
District Agricultural Association
and the City of Costa Mesa (“1980 Settlement Agreement”). Table N-4, Orange County Fairgrounds Modified Noise Ordinance, applies to the activities within the Orange County Fairgrounds, with the exception of the events at the Pacific Amphitheater.

Table N-4: Orange County Fairgrounds
Modified Noise Ordinance1
Land Use
Noise Level Not to Be
Exceeded
Maximum Allowable
Duration of Exceedance
Residential
50 dBA
55 dBA
60 dBA
65 dBA
70 dBA
30 min/hour
15 min/hour
5 min/hour
1 min/hour
Not for any period of time
Noise Zone Noise Level (CNEL) Time Period
1 and 2 Family Residential
60 dBA
50 dBA
7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.
11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.

Multiple Dwelling
Residential, Public Space,
Commercial
60 dBA
55 dBA
7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.
11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.

N o i s e E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | N - 1 3
Note: 1. Does not apply to events at Pacific Amphitheater Source: City of Costa Mesa Inter Office Memorandum, August 24, 2010.

Orange County Fair
The Orange County Fair operates for four weeks annually during the summer months. Noise sources during the fair events include a public address system, carnival rides, and several sound reinforcement systems used for concerts and carnival rides. Noise levels in the activity areas of a typical fair are in the range of 65 to75 dBA.

Pacific Amphitheater
The 8,200-seat Pacific Amphitheater is owned and managed by the OC Fair & Event Center and provides year-round events. Prior to 1990, noise levels generated by concert events at Pacific Amphitheater exceeded the Costa Mesa Noise Ordinance, impacting surrounding residential neighborhoods. In 1990, a permanent injunction (“1990 Order”) was entered against the former operators of the Amphitheater and the order set the current noise level established in Table N-5. The order specifically stated that the City’s Noise Ordinance does not apply to the Pacific Amphitheatre. The amphitheater closed in 1997, but reopened in 2003 and remains subject to the noise restrictions of the 1990 Order outlined in Table N-5.

Table N-5: Pacific Amphitheater Court Order
Current Noise Restriction (1990 Order)
Maximum Noise Level Time Period Days of the Week
55 dBA 7:00 A.M. - 10:30 P.M. Sunday-Thursday
50 dBA 10:30 P.M.- 7:00 A.M. Sunday-Thursday
55 dBA 7:00 A.M. - 11:00 P.M. Friday-Saturday
50 dBA 11:00 P.M.- 7:00 A.M. Friday-Saturday
Source: City of Costa Mesa Inter Office Memorandum, August 24, 2010.

Stationary Noise Sources
Stationary noise sources in Costa Mesa include restaurants, bars, entertainment establishments, mixed-use structures, mechanical equipment, outdoor industrial and commercial activities, and use of recreational facilities.

N o i s e E l e m e n t
N - 1 4 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
Delivery trucks, air compressors, generators, outdoor loudspeakers, and gas venting cause the primary noise sources associated with these facilities.

Other significant stationary noise sources include construction activity, street sweepers, and gas-powered leaf blowers. Residential land uses and areas identified as noise-sensitive must be protected from excessive noise from stationary sources including commercial and industrial centers. These impacts are best controlled through effective land use planning and the application of the Noise Ordinance.

Ambient Noise
To describe the ambient or background noise level throughout the City, several noise measurement samples were taken in 2015. Noise sensitive land uses include schools, residences, churches, hospitals, and similar facilities.

The locations included a mix of public schools, preschools (childcare centers), hospitals, convalescent homes and a senior housing development. The locations shown in Figure N-1: Noise Monitoring Locations, were distributed throughout the City to provide an overall understanding of the noise environment.

The noise measurement locations also functioned as noise-sensitive indicators. These noise-sensitive indicators are uses, such as schools and hospitals, that have a lower tolerance for noise than do industrial and commercial activities or normal residential uses. Noise levels measured at these locations are reported in Table N-6: Field Noise Measurements.

N o i s e E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | N - 1 5
Table N-6: Field Noise Measurements – 2015 Ambient Noise Levels Site Time Leq Lmax Lmin Location
1 7:12 A.M. 67.8 84.5 57.8 Northeast corner of Anton and Avenue of the Arts 2 7:45 A.M. 77.6 102.1 55.3 Southeast corner of Bear and Paularino 3 8:12 A.M. 71.5 88.5 57.6 Northeast corner of Harbor and Adams 4 8:37 A.M. 70.2 84.3 56.2 Northwest corner of Fairview and Fair 5 9:12 A.M. 66.2 82.3 55.1 Southwest corner of South Coast and Susan 6 11:07 P.M. 68.4 80.7 45.5 Northwest corner of Mesa Verde and Adams 7 11:35 P.M. 52.5 65.2 39.1 East corner of Santa Ana and 22nd 8 7:02 A.M. 67.8 84.9 46.4 North corner of Del Mar and Orange 9 7:33 A.M. 61.5 75.1 45.5 East corner of Santa Ana and Cabrillo 10 7:55 A.M. 73.1 86.9 57.1 Northeast corner of Harbor and 19th 11 8:21 A.M. 73.8 89.4 60.5 Northeast corner of Harbor and Victoria 12 8:47 A.M. 69.4 82.5 54.3 Northeast corner of 17th and Pomona 13 9:11 A.M. 63.1 82.0 42.3 Northeast corner of 17th and Whittier 14 9:43 A.M. 74.1 93.9 53.9 Northeast corner of Placentia & 20th 15 10:24 A.M. 69.3 85.5 56.2 South corner of Red Hill and Paularino Note: This table displays the short-term noise measurements results that were conducted to identify the ambient noise in the City. An American National Standards Institute (ANSI Section SI4 1979, Type 1) Larson Davis model LxT sound level meter was used to monitor noise levels. The noise meter was programmed to record noise levels in A-weighted form. The microphone height was set at five feet.

Fifteen 15-minute daytime noise measurements were taken on Tuesday August 4, 2015, through Thursday August 6, 2015.

Source: MIG, 2015.

N o i s e E l e m e n t
N - 1 6 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
Citywide Noise Environment
Existing Noise Environment (2015)
Figure N-2: Existing Noise Contours - 2015, illustrates the existing (2015) CNEL noise contours along many of the City's major roadways in the City. CNEL contours are found by calculating distances to the 55, 60, 65, and 70 CNEL contours. Figure N-2 also depicts John Wayne Airport’s CNEL noise contours prepared in 2013.

Future Noise Environment (2035)
The noise environment in Costa Mesa is not expected to change as a result of implementation of the General Plan. Vehicular traffic noise—the dominant source citywide—is not anticipated to change substantially along local streets or major through routes, including I-405, SR-73 and SR-55, major arterials.

Aircraft noise from John Wayne Airport, noise from events at the OC Fairground & Event Center, and non-transportation noise similarly are not anticipated to increase in the community.

The projected noise exposure contours for year 2035 are indicated in Figure N-3: Future Noise Contours - 2035. The future noise contours should be considered as a guide to identifying potential land use/noise compatibility issues and will be used to determine the requirement for project specific noise studies and mitigation. Future noise CNEL for John Wayne Airport are also shown in Figure N-3, which reflect the airport’s 1985 Master Plan future noise conditions.

In comparison to the 2015 noise contours presented in Figure N-2, future noise levels will increase only modestly.

N o i s e E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | N - 1 7
N-2: Existing Noise Contours - 2015
N o i s e E l e m e n t
N - 1 8 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
N-3: Future Noise Contours - 2035
N o i s e E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | N - 1 9
Key Noise Issues
The key noise issues in Costa Mesa are:

John Wayne Airport
John Wayne Airport, a very busy airport, has some of the most restrictions related to noise in the United States. Noise from operations at John Wayne Airport affects primarily industrial and commercial properties in northeast Costa Mesa (Figures N-2 and N-3). Departures from the airport were amended in 2011 under STREL, which directed departure flights away from residences and over Newport Bay. STREL is the name provided by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to describe the Area Navigation (RNAV) departure procedure implemented in 2011, and replaced the flight departure pattern called DUUKE ONE/TWO.

The County’s General Aviation Noise Ordinance regulates the hours of operation and the maximum permitted noise levels associated with general aviation projects. General aviation flights are allowed, as long as aircraft comply with the General Aviation Noise Ordinance. The County has installed 10 noise-monitoring stations along the main designated departure and arrival flight routes; no noise monitoring station was located in Costa Mesa as of 2015.

The FAA, under its Next Generation Air Transportation System program, also known as Southern California Metroplex project, seeks to optimize flight patterns departing out of the airport; it may affect the flight paths over Costa Mesa over the long term.

Construction Noise
Construction noise could occur in almost any part of the City. However, Section 13-279 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code limits construction activity as follows:

Allowable Hours Applicable Days
7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. Mondays through Fridays
9:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. Saturdays
Construction is prohibited all hours on Sundays and on the following specified federal holidays: New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas Day.

N o i s e E l e m e n t
N - 2 0 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
Helicopter Noise
Because of the nature of their operations, police helicopter noise may impact any location in the City at any time between 10:00 A.M. and 3:00 A.M.

Overflights are usually brief, lasting only a few seconds. Noise exposure of several minutes may occur when circling a crime scene. Although helicopter noise levels are not extremely high in either case, they may be sufficient to cause sleep interruption during nighttime hours. The FAA does not have minimum altitude requirements for helicopters when weather, safety, and other air traffic permit.

Roadway Traffic Noise
Roadway traffic noise has the greatest impact on the noise environment of Costa Mesa’s residential properties. Between 55 and 60 dBA CNEL contours are common along collector streets; freeways and major streets expose adjacent areas to levels of 65 dBA CNEL or greater.

Figures N-2 and N-3 show baseline 2015 and projected 2035 noise contours along many of the City's major and primary arterials and the three freeways that traverse the City. Noise contours for selected secondary and commuter streets are also included. The figures display the average daily traffic volume noise levels at 100 feet from the roadway centerline and the distance from the roadway centerline to the 70, 65 and 60 dBA CNEL contours. The improvements on the I-405, SR-55, and SR-73 would produce noise impacts on immediately adjacent Costa Mesa properties.

Noise/Land Use Compatibility Conflicts
A great proportion of mixed-use developments, typically multi-family residential or live/work units atop a leasable commercial space or loft studio, are located in the Westside. The Mixed-Use Overlay encompasses almost all of the Westside of Costa Mesa. In addition, the SoBECA Urban Plan allows for mixed-use development. Residents in Westside neighborhoods have expressed some concern regarding the operational ambient noise emanating from industrial activities from truck traffic, heavy machinery, materials processing, and general worker activity. In addition, the commercial spaces below the residential portions of buildings could also generate noise.

As new residential uses are introduced in a mixed-use setting, noise impacts should be considered.

Proper design should be implemented in combination with high quality building materials to attenuate the impact of noise. Noise-reduction building design approaches may include double-pane windows, wall and ceiling N o i s e E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | N - 2 1
insulation, and limitation on commercial operations to minimize interaction between noise-generating business activities such as deliveries and loading.

Noise Plan
Typical Noise Attenuation Techniques
Noise impacts can be mitigated in three ways: 1) by reducing the sound level of the noise generator, 2) by increasing the distance between the source and receiver, and 3) by insulating the receiver. Noise reduction can be accomplished by placement of walls, landscaped berms, or a combination of the two between the noise source and the receiver.

Generally, effective noise shielding requires a solid barrier with a mass of at least four pounds per square-foot of surface area, which is large enough to block the line of sight between source and receiver. Variations may be appropriate in individual cases based on distance, nature and orientation of buildings behind the barrier, and a number of other factors. Garages or other buildings may be used to shield dwelling units and outdoor living areas from traffic noise. In addition to site design techniques, noise insulation can be accomplished through proper design of buildings. Nearby noise generators should be recognized in determining the location of doors, windows and vent openings. Sound-rated windows (extra thick or multi-paned) and wall insulation are also effective.

However, none of these noise mitigation measures can realize their full potential unless care is taken in actual construction: doors and windows fitted properly, openings sealed, joints caulked, plumbing adequately insulated from structural members, and sound-rated doors and windows will have little effect if left open. This may require installation of air conditioning for adequate ventilation.

Noise impacts can be reduced by insulating noise-sensitive uses, such as residences, schools, libraries, hospitals, nursing homes, and some types of commercial activities. Perhaps a more efficient approach involves limiting the level of noise generation at the source. State and federal statutes have largely preempted local control over vehicular noise emissions, but commercial and N o i s e E l e m e n t
N - 2 2 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
industrial operations and certain residential activities provide opportunities for the City to assist in noise abatement.

Although vehicular noise emissions standards are established at the State and federal levels, Costa Mesa can play a significant part in reducing traffic noise by controlling traffic volume and congestion. Traffic noise is greatest at intersections due to acceleration, deceleration, and gear shifting. Measures such as signal synchronization can help to reduce this problem. Likewise, reduction of congestion aids in reduction of noise. This can be accomplished through the application of traffic engineering techniques such as channelization of turning movements, parking restrictions, separation of modes (bus, auto, bicycle, pedestrian), and restrictions on truck traffic. Noise reduction through reduction of traffic volumes can also be accomplished with incentive programs for use of public transit facilities and high-occupancy vehicles, staggering of work hours, and land use controls. Vehicle trips can be turned into pedestrian trips with integration of housing and employment into the same project or area, construction of high-density, affordable housing in proximity to employment, shopping, public transit facilities, and other techniques.

N o i s e E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | N - 2 3
Goals, Objectives, and Policies
Goal N-1: Noise Hazards and Conditions
The City of Costa Mesa aims to protect residents, local workers, and property from injury, damage, or destruction from noise hazards and to work toward improved noise abatement.

Objective N-1A: Control noise levels within the City for the protection of residential areas, park areas, and other sensitive land uses from excessive and unhealthful noise.

Policy N-1.1: Enforce the maximum acceptable exterior noise levels for residential areas at 65 CNEL.

Policy N-1.2: Give full consideration to the existing and projected noise environment when considering alterations to the City's
circulation system and Master Plan of Highways.

Policy N-1.3: Encourage Caltrans to construct noise attenuation barriers along I-405, SR-55, and SR-73 where these
freeways adjoin residential and other noise-sensitive
areas.

Policy N-1.4: Ensure that appropriate site design measures are incorporated into residential developments, when
required by an acoustical study, to obtain appropriate
exterior and interior noise levels.

When necessary, require field testing at the time of
project completion to demonstrate compliance.

Policy N-1.5: Apply the standards contained in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations as applicable to the construction of all new dwelling units.

Policy N-1.6: Discourage sensitive land uses from locating within the 65 CNEL noise contour of John Wayne Airport. Should it be
deemed by the City as appropriate and/or necessary for a sensitive land use to locate in the 65 CNEL noise contour, ensure that appropriate interior noise levels are met and that minimal outdoor activities are allowed.

N o i s e E l e m e n t
N - 2 4 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
Policy N-1.7: Support alternative methods for the reduction of noise impacts at John Wayne Airport while continuing to
maintain safety and existing limitations on aircraft daily departures.

Policy N-1.8: Monitor the noise levels at OC Fair and Event Center and the Pacific Amphitheater, and continue to monitor the
status of legally binding noise levels on the OC Fair and the Event Center and the Pacific Amphitheater.

Goal N-2: Noise and Land Use
Compatibility
Integrate the known impacts of excessive noise on aspects of land use planning and siting of residential and non-residential projects.

Objective N-2A: Plan for the reduction in noise impacts on sensitive receptors and land uses.

Policy N-2.1: Require the use of sound walls, berms, interior noise insulation, double-paned windows, and other noise
mitigation measures, as appropriate, in the design of new residential or other new noise sensitive land uses that are adjacent to arterials, freeways, or adjacent to industrial or commercial uses.

Policy N-2.2: Require, as a part of the environmental review process, that full consideration be given to the existing and
projected noise environment.

Policy N-2.3: Consider alternative noise level standards for mixed-use projects that take into consideration the interaction of industrial operation noise impacts and planned mixed-use developments planned.

Policy N-2.4: Require that all proposed projects are compatible with adopted noise/land use compatibility criteria
Policy N-2.5: Enforce applicable interior and exterior noise standards.

Policy N-2.6: Allow a higher exterior noise level standard for infill projects in existing residential areas adjacent to major arterials if it can be shown that there are no feasible N o i s e E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | N - 2 5
mechanisms to meet the exterior noise levels. The interior standard of 45 dBA CNEL shall be enforced for any new
residential project.

Policy N-2.7: Encourage effective site planning in mixed-use areas that provides the optimal distance between source of
excessive sound and residents.

Policy N-2.8: Require new mixed-use developments to site loading areas, parking lots, driveways, trash enclosures,
mechanical equipment, and other noise sources away
from the residential portion of the development and
adjacent established residential development.

Policy N-2.9: Limit hours and/or require attenuation of commercial/entertainment operations adjacent to
residential and other noise sensitive uses in order to
minimize excessive noise to these receptors.

N o i s e E l e m e n t
N - 2 6 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
This page intentionally left blank.

O p e n S p a c e a n d R e c r e a t i o n E l e m e n t C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | O S R - 1
Chapter 10:

Open Space and Recreation
Element
Introduction
Open spaces, recreation programs, and cultural arts contribute significantly to the quality of life in Costa Mesa. With its high-quality park facilities and comprehensive community service programs, Costa Mesa offers many opportunities for residents and visitors to practice healthy living and engage in community-building activities.

Parks and community-serving facilities enhance the quality of life for residents and are important components of complete and sustainable neighborhoods.

Accessible parks provide places to play, exercise, spend time with friends and neighbors, or just relax and reflect. This Open Space and Recreation Element provides the policy framework to ensure that open space and recreation TeWinkle Park
GP-XX-XX, Adopted XX, XX, 2026
O p e n S p a c e a n d R e c r e a t i o n E l e m e n t O S R - 2 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
resources in the City are preserved and maintained. Open space in Costa Mesa includes neighborhood and community parks, County-owned regional recreation facilities, institutional land uses, and golf courses.

Purpose
The purpose of the Open Space and Recreation Element is to sustain the network of open space and recreation resources for today’s residents and future generations. The goals, policies, and objectives contained in this element aim to protect, maintain, and enhance open spaces for all purposes and to meet recreation needs. This also describes how Costa Mesa can promote the City’s identity as a “City of the Arts”.

Recreational Sites and Facilities
Costa Mesa’s inventory of open space and recreation resources includes a diversity of facilities, ranging from highly developed, active recreation sites to low-activity, passive open spaces. The existing network of open space and recreation facilities is illustrated in Figure OSR-1, Recreational Sites and Facilities, and inventoried in Table OSR-1, Parks and Open Space Inventory.

Table OSR-1: Parks and Open Space Inventory
Facility Name Acreage
Neighborhood and Community Parks 415.19
Regional Nature Preserve (Talbert Regional Park) 244
Institutional Uses 1 871.94
OC Fair & Event Center 150.04
Open Space Easements 6.19
Golf Courses2 379.70
Total 2,067.06
Notes: 1) Includes schools, colleges, public facilities, Civic Center, Santa Ana River right-of-way, Fairview Developmental Center, and other public and institutional uses.
2) Includes acres of golf courses within the City of Costa Mesa only.

Acreages do not include Santa Ana Country Club and Newport Beach Golf Course.

O p e n S p a c e a n d R e c r e a t i o n E l e m e n t C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | O S R - 3
Figure OSR-1: Recreational Sites and Facilities
O p e n S p a c e a n d R e c r e a t i o n E l e m e n t O S R - 4 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
Neighborhood and Community Parks
The neighborhood and community park system represents the foundation of Costa Mesa’s open space and recreation network. Approximately 415 acres of developed neighborhood and community parks provide places for residents and visitors to enjoy themselves. As shown in Table OSR-2, Neighborhood and Community Parks Inventory, Costa Mesa has 25 neighborhood parks and seven community parks. These parks are shown on Figure OSR-1. The largest City-owned park is Fairview Park, encompassing approximately 210 acres. The smallest park is 0.18-acre Shalimar Park. Parks within the City are classified based on size. The classification system is as follows.  Neighborhood Parks. Neighborhood parks are 10 acres or smaller in size and are intended to serve the daily recreational needs of residents in the immediate park vicinity. Primary uses include passive and active open space, tot lots, and picnic facilities. Community gardens are also included under this classification.
 Community Parks. Community parks are 10 acres or larger in size and are intended to provide a wide variety of recreation amenities, including lighted athletic fields and courts and other wide-serving recreational uses.

Fairview Park
Fairview Park is the largest park in the City encompassing approximately 210 acres. This passive open space consists of bluffs, vernal pools, trails, native plant communities, and wildlife. Park visitors can also enjoy special events that occur at the park, as well as take a train ride on the Goat Hill Junction Model Railroad.

In 1998, the City Council approved the Fairview Park Master Plan. Pursuant to the Master Plan, a series of improvements to wetland and riparian habitats were accomplished consisting of enhancement of 17 acres of riparian habitat, rehabilitation of ponds and streams, and installation of a new irrigation system. In 2013, the City restored six acres of wetland ponds, five acres of native grasslands, three acres of native oak trees, and nine acres of coastal sage scrub habitat.

O p e n S p a c e a n d R e c r e a t i o n E l e m e n t C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | O S R - 5
In April 2013, the Costa Mesa City Council voted to reconvene the Fairview Park Citizens Advisory Committee (FPAC) to examine several issues regarding the park, and to evaluate the Fairview Park Master Plan relative to the City’s needs. Based on those needs, the FPAC will recommend the addition, reduction, elimination, and modification of park uses and master-planned elements. As part of the citywide Open Space Master Plan of Parks and Recreation initiated in 2015, the community will be engaged in further discussion of improvement plans for Fairview Park.

Costa Mesa Community Gardens
Community gardens provide opportunities for Costa Mesa residents to nurture their physical and social health. As of 2015, the City managed two community gardens. The Del Mar Community Garden has 60 plots, each measuring 15 feet by 15 feet. Hamilton Community Garden has 42 plots with the same dimensions. The City rents garden plots to residents to grow vegetables, flowers, fruits, and plants for personal consumption. Both community gardens are immensely popular and have long waiting lists for new urban farmers to participate.

Fairview Park encompasses
over 200 acres of open space
and passive park areas
consisting of bluffs, vernal pools,
trails, native plant communities,
and wildlife. Park visitors also
can enjoy community events, fly
model aircrafts, or take a train
ride at Goat Hill Junction
Railroad Station.

O p e n S p a c e a n d R e c r e a t i o n E l e m e n t O S R - 6 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
Table OSR-2: Neighborhood and Community Parks Inventory Name Acres
Baseball Softball Soccer Field Utility Field Basketball Playground Tennis Courts Handball Volleyball Par Course Neighborhood Parks
Brentwood Park 2.60 1 1
Civic Center Park 2.50
Del Mar Com. Garden 0.77
Hamilton Com. Garden 0.45
Del Mesa Park 2.47 1 1 1 1
Estancia Park 9.03
Gisler Park 4.59 1 1
Harper Park 1.06 1
Heller Park 2.61 1 1
Jordan Park 2.48 1
Ketchum-Libolt Park 0.34
Lindbergh Park 2.00 1
Marina View Park 2.29 1 1
Mesa Verde Park 2.73 1
Moon Park 1.67 1
Paularino Park 2.23 1 1
Pinkley Park 2.57 1 1
Shalimar Park 0.18 1
Shiffer Park 7.09 1 1 2 2 2 1
Smallwood Park 3.39 1 1 1 1
Suburbia Park 0.53
Tanager Park 7.41 1 1 1 2 1
Vista Park 5.92 1 1
Wilson Park 3.61 1 1
Wimbledon Park 3.29 1 1 1 1
O p e n S p a c e a n d R e c r e a t i o n E l e m e n t C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | O S R - 7
Table OSR-2: Neighborhood and Community Parks Inventory Name Acres
Baseball Softball Soccer Field Utility Field Basketball Playground Tennis Courts Handball Volleyball Par Course Neighborhood Park 73.81 0 1 0 9 5 19 0 2 10 3
Community Parks
Balearic Park 10.06 2 1 2 2 2
Canyon Park 35.96 1
Jack R. Hammett
Sports Complex 18.50 6
Fairview Park 210.04 1
Lions Park 12.82 1 6
TeWinkle Park 43.67 1 2 1 1 12 1 1
Wakeham Park 10.33 1 1 1 1 1 1
Community Park 341.38 1 2 9 4 3 6 12 8 2 2
Grand Total 415.19 1 3 9 13 8 25 12 10 12 5
Parks and Recreation Commission
The Parks and Recreation Commission acts in an advisory capacity to the City Council with respect to:
 Park and recreation facility locations
 Park site planning and facility design
 Development, operation, maintenance, and redevelopment of facilities
 Fiscal policy recommendations regarding development priorities, grants, and fees
The Parks and Recreation Commission also advises the City Council on matters pertaining to the provision of quality recreational services and activities O p e n S p a c e a n d R e c r e a t i o n E l e m e n t O S R - 8 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
programs, as well as park and recreation matters referred to the Commission by the City Council or brought to the Commission's attention by stakeholders.

Other Recreational Facilities
Institutional Uses
Costa Mesa is home to many public schools, a community college, and a private university—as well as the OC Fair & Event Center—that have open space and recreational facilities. While not all facilities are available for public recreational use, the inventory of institutional uses is considerable. These facilities contribute substantially to the citywide open space and recreation inventory, and can augment open space provided by the neighborhood and community park system. Although not a party to the use-agreements between schools and sports leagues, the City does provide support to community organizations seeking joint-use agreements and improvements to school sites. Table OSR-3, School Recreational Facilities, identifies institutional facilities located within the City, operated by the Newport-Mesa Unified School District (NMUSD).

As of 2015, the Newport-Mesa Unified School District facilities included 32 utility fields and 18 baseball/softball diamonds. The City utilizes NMUSD elementary and middle school facilities for after-school programs, and all elementary, middle, and high school athletic fields, with the exception of Jim Scott Stadium, for youth and adult sports programming.

Youth Sports. Children
participating in a Pop Warner
Football game.

O p e n S p a c e a n d R e c r e a t i o n E l e m e n t C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | O S R - 9
Table OSR-3: School Recreational Facilities
School Name Acres
Baseball Softball Soccer Turf Area Basketball Multi-Use Courts Track Play Equipment Handball Volleyball Tennis Swimming Pool Adams Elementary School 10.36  
Back Bay High School 6.25    
California Elementary School 9.81  2     
College Park Elementary School 7.98       2
Costa Mesa High School 67.30 4  3      8 
Davis School 16.64   
Early College High School 10.00
Estancia High School 39.98 2        8 
Harper Preschool 2.00 2    
Kaiser Elementary School 17.76 2 3    
Killybrooke School 10.01    
Paularino Elementary School 9.07    
Pomona Elementary School 7.52    
Everett Rea Elementary 13.91
Sonora Elementary School 10.56    
TeWinkle Intermediate School 20.00 3 2 3  4  
Victoria Elementary School 7.37    
Waldorf School of Orange County 10.15      
Whittier Elementary School 9.11     
Wilson Elementary School: 8.93  
Woodland Elementary School 8.88     
Total 303.59
Source: City of Costa Mesa and Newport-Mesa Unified School District Note: 1) All schools identified in this table are included in the Joint Use Agreement (JUA) between NewportMesa Unified School District (UNMD) and the City of Costa Mesa. The JUA pertains to athletic facility use, maintenance, and program oversight, and is updated periodically. Some schools are subject to third-party agreements.

O p e n S p a c e a n d R e c r e a t i o n E l e m e n t O S R - 1 0 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
Surplus School Sites
Student enrollment throughout the Newport-Mesa Unified School District fluctuates over time, and NMUSD makes long-range projections for facility needs. In the past, NMUSD has closed elementary schools due to low enrollment, with the facilities available for many uses.

OC Fair & Event Center
In the late 1940s, the State of California obtained the current fairgrounds property, formerly occupied by the Santa Ana Army Air Base, and used the fairgrounds for over 60 years. In 2010, the County of Orange acquired the site from the State, with the core objective to preserve and promote the fairground and event uses. The OC Fair & Event Center is a major entertainment, recreational, cultural, and educational asset to Orange County. In addition to the OC Fair, which occurs every summer, over 100 events occur every year supporting cultural and nonprofit organizations, and attracting over 4.1 million visitors annually.

The 150-acre property includes these components:
 Centennial Farm. An approximately 3.5-acre outdoor agricultural and livestock area on the southwest corner of the property. This working farm includes livestock barns and fruit and vegetable gardens, and showcases educational programs for school-aged children.

Centennial Farm is a three-acre
working farm at the OC Fair &
Event Center created to educate
youth about agriculture and its
importance to daily life.

O p e n S p a c e a n d R e c r e a t i o n E l e m e n t C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | O S R - 1 1
 Equestrian Center. Approximately 14.5 acres, the equestrian center facility provides year-round, privately operated horse boarding and training. The area includes riding arenas, hot walkers, turnout pens, storage lockers, and ample parking.
 Grandstand Arena. The Grandstand, per the Master Plan, is anticipated to expand to hold 10,000 seats. The area is used for rodeos, circuses, motorcycles races, and other outdoor events.  Orange County Market Place. A weekly outdoor swap meet held on the property's southeast corner attracts people from throughout the region.
 Pacific Amphitheatre. An outdoor arena that seats up to 8,500 patrons, this venue hosts entertainers of local, national and international renown.
 Showroom Buildings. Buildings totaling 148,000 square feet are rented for various shows, with the possibility of expanding to 275,000 square feet per the Master Plan.
 Festival Fields (Multipurpose Area). The Festival Fields consist of an outdoor theater, camping, and Kid’s Carnival.
 Mall Areas. Three areas adjacent to the outdoor area are used primarily as show areas for automobiles, outdoor social events, and other similar uses.

Golf Courses
Located adjacent to the Fairview Park is the Costa Mesa Country Club, a municipal golf course with two 18-hole golf courses, a pro shop, coffee shop, banquet facility, and driving range. The Mesa Verde Country Club golf course is a private facility that includes an 18-hole golf course, tennis and pool complex, and club house. Additionally, the private Santa Ana Country Club and Newport Beach Golf Course, both located outside City limits but within the City’s sphere of influence, offer additional recreation opportunities.

Dog Park
Bark Park is a two-acre fenced off-leash dog park located at TeWinkle Park, adjacent to the Costa Mesa Tennis Center. The park has a separate area for small, elderly, and disabled dogs. Dog park amenities include trees, benches, water dispensers for dogs, dog waste bags, and a restroom. Bark Park is administered through the non-profit Costa Mesa Bark Park Foundation.

O p e n S p a c e a n d R e c r e a t i o n E l e m e n t O S R - 1 2 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
Costa Mesa Tennis Center
The Costa Mesa Tennis Center is located in TeWinkle Park at 880 Junipero Drive. This special use facility includes twelve lighted courts, fifty-five parking spaces, landscaped walkways, and a pro-shop with professional tennis staff.

The Costa Mesa Tennis Center offers lessons, tournaments, leagues, open play, and monthly classes and activities to participants of all ages.

Costa Mesa Skate Park
Built in 2005, the Costa Mesa Skate Park is open daily to skate boarders and inline skaters of all ages. The 15,000 square foot facility is free to the public, although all participants are required to wear their own helmet and pads. This specialty facility is located inside of TeWinkle Park. It features street elements, a kidney-shaped pool, and a bowl. Finally, the facility also hosts the City’s Parks and Community Services Department skateboarding classes.

Park Level of Service
Level of Service is a method used to calculate the level of service standards for parks and recreation to determine if it meets the City’s needs and expectations.

With a changing population, the City must continually assess how park facilities satisfy the needs of a changing demographic. Park standards determine how many parkland acres the City should develop based on population levels, locations of parks, and existing parks. The City’s goal is to attain and maintain a park standard of 4.26 acres of parkland for every 1,000 Costa Mesa Country Club is a
public golf course with 36 holes
of golf, a practice facility and
driving range, and a banquet
facility.

O p e n S p a c e a n d R e c r e a t i o n E l e m e n t C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | O S R - 1 3
residents. Pursuant to State law (State Government Code Section 66477), the City may collect up to 3.0 acres of parkland or in-lieu fees from new residential subdivisions for every 1,000 residents. Accordingly, the City adopted a Local Park Ordinance to implement its park and recreational land dedication requirements (Title 13, Chapter XI, Article 5 – Park and Recreation Dedications). However, to reach the goal of 4.26 acres per 1,000 residents, the City must pursue alternative funding sources for the additional park acreage and/or park improvements that exceed the State standard.

Alternative funding sources include general fund revenues, development impact fees, federal and State grants, user group contributions, and school district joint-use contributions. Other methods for supplementing the City’s park system include encouraging the development of private open space and recreational amenities (beyond public park requirements) within large residential projects, and pursuing the joint use (or ultimate use) of utility district lands, such as those owned by County of Orange Flood Control District, for parks and open space.

As of 2015, the City had an estimated population of 111,276 residents. Based on the City’s park standard goal of 4.26 acres for every 1,000 persons, approximately 474 acres of parkland are required to meet the City’s goal.

Assuming a build-out population of 134,984 residents, 575 acres would be required to achieve the goal.

This total does not include private open space and recreation facilities, golf courses, the OC Fair & Event Center, or joint use of facilities at school sites.

The City’s policies and implementation actions emphasize the need to pursue all means to expand and maximize benefits of the parks and recreation system.

Neighborhood and Community Park Accessibility
Figure OSR-2, Park Access, utilizes the street network system to identify areas within a one-quarter-mile and one-half-mile walking distance to park pedestrian-access points (service area). The figure identifies areas within neighborhoods that do not have ready access to City parks and thus helps assist in the strategic approach to identify and prioritize locations for parkland to meet the community goals and objectives.

O p e n S p a c e a n d R e c r e a t i o n E l e m e n t O S R - 1 4 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
Figure OSR-2: Park Access
O p e n S p a c e a n d R e c r e a t i o n E l e m e n t C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | O S R - 1 5
Park Level of Service and Accessibility by Planning Area An estimate of population to park ratios has been conducted by “Planning Areas” to evaluate deficiencies in the City’s allocation of parkland. Table OSR4, 2015 Park /Population Ratios, indicates these estimated ratios. Planning Area 2 exceeds the park-to-population standard of parkland, but includes some areas that lacks park accessibility. Planning Area 3 is the area with the most deficient neighborhood parkland with a ratio of 0.62 acres of parkland, for every 1,000 persons. Figure OSR-3 identifies the Planning Areas.

Table OSR-4: 2015 Park /Population
Ratios
Planning
Area Population1 Existing Park Land (2015)
Estimated Park/
Population Ratio
1 23,244 54.43 2.34/1,000
2 24,122 248.39 10.30/1,000
3 22,874 14.09 0.62/1,000
4 26,574 75.10 2.83/1,000
5 8,176 13.62 1.67/1,000
6 5,534 9.56 1.73/1,000
Total 110,524 415.19 3.76/1,000
Notes: 1) Population based on U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 5- Year Estimates for 2014 by Census Tract and by Table LU-2: Established Land Uses (2015).

Planning Area 1
Planning Area 1 is unique in a number of ways. First, it is the location of major public open space features, including Canyon Community Park and the Talbert Regional Park and it is in close proximity to Fairview Community Park.

However, these facilities are located along the easternmost boundary of the planning area, creating an uneven distribution of neighborhood park service.

Secondly, the area is the most densely populated and highly developed in the City, leaving very limited opportunities for sites to fulfill this service deficiency. There are several park priority areas within the Westside neighborhood, just south of Victoria Street.

O p e n S p a c e a n d R e c r e a t i o n E l e m e n t O S R - 1 6 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
Figure OSR-3: Planning Areas and Underserved Park Areas O p e n S p a c e a n d R e c r e a t i o n E l e m e n t C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | O S R - 1 7
Planning Area 2
Planning Area 2 is well served and exceeds the park-to-population standard for neighborhood and community. Nearly 250 acres of parkland are provided in this Planning Area. However, the Mesa Verde neighborhood around Gisler Avenue still lacks park accessibility as it is located more than a one-half mile from a park. The Westside neighborhood north of Victoria Street is also identified as being farther than one-half mile walking distance from a park.

Planning Area 3
Planning Area 3 is similar to Area 1 in that it is an older neighborhood which is nearly fully developed without an adequate neighborhood park system. One advantage that the Eastside neighborhood has is the availability of operating school sites and surplus school sites to augment the local park network.

Regarding park access, the neighborhood area east of Downtown and along 19th Street is identified as being located beyond a one-half-mile walking distance from a park. This planning area is deficient by both park-topopulation standards and accessibility standards.

Planning Area 4
Planning Area 4, although it does not meet the park-to-population standard for parks, it is generally well served by City parks. The acquisition of the Jack R. Hammett Sports Complex helped improve the park deficiency within the entire Planning Area. However, the Halecrest and College Park neighborhoods lie beyond the desired one-half mile.

Planning Area 5
Planning Area 5 is identified as park deficient. Several residential complexes are served by private on-site recreation facilities and open space easements.

However, with the development of the Sakioka Farms residential site, this area is expected to have the potential for new residential development that could include new public (or private) park space.

Planning Area 6
Planning Area 6, which consists of the Bristol and Paularino neighborhoods, is identified as park deficient in terms of the park-to-population standard. Park accessibility is generally good to Shiffer Park and Del Mesa Park by surrounding residential neighborhoods. Large residential complexes that are not within a one-half-mile walking distance to a public park generally have O p e n S p a c e a n d R e c r e a t i o n E l e m e n t O S R - 1 8 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
private park facilities dedicated to their residents. New residential development associated with the Mixed-Use Overlay will also increase the current population in this Planning Area and the need for additional public parks.

Key Park System Issues
Limited Availability of Park Sites
Costa Mesa is a mature, well-developed city with very little land available for new parkland. Few vacant parcels exist, and those that do may not be useful in terms of size, location, or other factors. The few remaining large vacant lands are located north of I-405 and planned for urban-intensity development, as outlined in the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan. As part of any master planning process, the City has the ability to require provision of public open space for parks and similar purposes.

The other major potential site for parkland is the Fairview Development Center, which the State may choose to downsize or relocate, thus making these public lands possibly available for transfer to the City. Any new parks the City acquires within established neighborhoods will be small infill parks.

Several contiguous sites will need to be acquired to provide an active sports park facility to meet the community’s recreational needs.

Further, the demands on capital funds are highly competitive, potentially creating further limitations for acquisition of new City parkland.

Balance of Passive and Active Recreation
As the population in the City continues to changes, the demand for parks and open spaces will increase and change based on the population’s composition.

In response, the City may find it necessary to repurpose current parks and open spaces to accommodate residents’ needs. As a result, preserving the established uses of parks and open spaces and balancing between passive and active recreation use may become a challenge. However, a balance between passive and active open space opportunities will continue to be a key consideration.

O p e n S p a c e a n d R e c r e a t i o n E l e m e n t C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | O S R - 1 9
Demand for Sports Field
Organized sports programs have created a demand for more baseball, softball, and soccer fields. Many neighborhood parks provide space for organized sports but typically have insufficient parking, lighting, and facilities to meet this demand. Sports parks within neighborhoods require a balancing act for the City to meet the needs of private athletic organizations and neighborhood residents. Residents often express concerns regarding parking spillover into neighborhoods, lighting, noise, and the general unavailability of facilities to residents.

Adequate Space for Community Gardens
Costa Mesa owns and operates two community garden sites in the City. As of 2015, long waiting lists to lease garden parcels to community members prevented many residents from having garden plots. As the population and popularity of gardening continues to grow, the demand for community gardens will grow as well.

Park Level of Service
As of 2015, Costa Mesa had 3.66 acres of parkland per 1,000 persons (based on population of 111,276 and 415.19 park acres), well under the 4.26 acres per 1,000 persons this element identifies as the minimum parkland ratio. With the planned population growth identified in the Land Use Element, demand per the standard will increase to 575 park acres per 1,000 persons, again below the threshold identified in this element. The City of Costa Mesa will have to acquire additional park acres to meet the citywide goal of 4.26 acres per 1,000 persons.

Park Accessibility
Several residential neighborhoods in Costa Mesa are more than one-quarter and one-half-mile pedestrian walking distance to public neighborhood and community parks. These neighborhoods include the Westside residential area generally along Victoria Street and Placentia Avenue, the Eastside residential area along 19th and 20th Streets, the residential area northeast of the Mesa Verde Country Club, and the Halecrest residential neighborhood. The Halecrest area does include a private park, Halecrest Park, which requires a membership to access the recreation facilities. These areas should be considered priorities areas for future parks. Other small underserved areas O p e n S p a c e a n d R e c r e a t i o n E l e m e n t O S R - 2 0 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
should also be considered as well. Additionally, large apartment and condominium complexes provide private recreational facilities for their residents and are maintained under management groups or homeowner associations.

Recreational Facilities and
Programs
Community Facilities
The City operates and maintains four community centers: Balearic Community Center, Downtown Recreation Center, Neighborhood Community Center, and Costa Mesa Senior Center. Each facility provides recreational activities and room rentals.
 Balearic Community Center. Located at 1975 Balearic Drive, the facility comprises two rental rooms that can accommodate up to 100 people. Year round, these rooms are used for the City's Day Camp Program, Recreation on Campus for Kids (ROCK) program, and Early Childhood Program. Adjacent to the center is Balearic Park, which features a fenced playground with play equipment, playground, basketball courts, and a large athletic field.
 Downtown Recreation Center. Located at 1860 Anaheim Avenue, this center includes an indoor gymnasium, gymnastics room, a 25-yard outdoor pool, and a designated room and office for the Childs-Pace day-care program. The facility offers a multipurpose room equipped with a kitchen, and provides open gym time for youth and adult basketball. During the summer, the multipurpose room is also used as a ROCKS program site.
 Neighborhood Community Center. Located at 1845 Park Avenue, this 24,000-square-foot facility consists of a large multipurpose hall, stage, dance floor, and full-service kitchen. Three smaller meeting and conference rooms are available for meetings and classes. In 2015, the City approved a $34.5 million plan to build a new library building to house the new Donald Dungan Library, renovate the existing Donald O p e n S p a c e a n d R e c r e a t i o n E l e m e n t C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | O S R - 2 1
Dungan library to serve as the new Neighborhood Community Center (NCC), demolish the old NCC, and propose parking and landscape developments in several phases. A community-driven process has guided design and service plans.
 Costa Mesa Senior Center. Located at 695 West 19th Street, the senior center provides a day facility for Costa Mesa’s older residents to gather and participate in social, recreational, and personal development programs. The facility also provides seniors access to free transportation for medical-related appointments and other transportation needs.

Community Services Programs
Community Services programs encompass the diverse recreational and social services activities provided by the City to residents. These programs can be classified in one of the following categories:
 Recreational and Physical Activities
 Action Sports
 Cultural and Performing Arts
 Youth Programs
 Human Services
 Older Adult Programs and Services
The City provides a diverse selection of recreational and sports activities, programs, and services that utilize the extensive network of parks and recreation facilities. A number of nonprofit organizations within the community also provide programs and services, including the Newport-Mesa Family YMCA, Costa Mesa United, and youth sports organizations such as AYSO, Little League Baseball, and Pop Warner Football. The City facilitates the use of its recreational facilities and outdoor school grounds by these groups.

Youth Programs
The City offers a variety of recreation programs for local youth, including gymnastics, basketball, soccer, tee-ball, skateboarding, martial arts, and horseback riding. The programs aim to provide children and teenagers with effective tools to learn and grow through well-planned curriculum, activities, O p e n S p a c e a n d R e c r e a t i o n E l e m e n t O S R - 2 2 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
field trips, and socialization. Youth and teen programs include the Costa Mesa Day Camp, Early Childhood Program, Recreation on Campus for Kids (R.O.C.K.S), Recreation Leadership Training Program, and Teen Camp.

Human Services
Human services programs provide social and financial aid to community members, and can enhance quality of life, promote civic involvement and volunteerism, foster partnerships with private organizations, and create a sense of belonging. The City coordinates with a variety of human services providers such as the Orange County Rescue Mission and the Orange County Interfaith Shelter to assist residents and their families.

Older Adult Programs and Services
Residents over age 50 represent a growing demographic in Costa Mesa. As a result, the City’s services and programs need to address the growing demands of residents who are 50+ by providing social events, expressive arts, nutrition, fitness, and educational and recreational classes that focus on health and wellness. Older residents who face mobility, economic, and medical care challenges can find support and referrals through the programs, services, and classes held at the Costa Mesa Senior Center. The Costa Mesa Senior Center also organizes activities, trips, and special events throughout the year.

Costa Mesa’s Community
Services Department provides
a wide range of programs and
activities for youth and teens.

O p e n S p a c e a n d R e c r e a t i o n E l e m e n t C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | O S R - 2 3
Key Recreational Facilities and Programs
Issue
Adequate Community Services to Serve Changing
Community
Historically, the City has provided high levels of recreation, community, youth and family, and older adult services that meet changing community needs.

Maintaining and improving this level of service may be challenging given limited funding resources and demographic changes.

Open Space
Open space land, as defined by California Government Code Section 65560, is any parcel or area of land or water that is essentially unimproved and devoted to an open-space use, including open space for the:
 Preservation of natural resources
 Managed production of resources
 Outdoor recreation
 Public health and safety
Preservation of open space resources, including habitat areas, wildlife, and water resources are addressed in the Conservation Element.

Costa Mesa Open Spaces
Canyon Park
Canyon Park’s name refers to its location within a canyon just north of 19th Street. This approximately 36-acre natural open space park includes meandering trails which connect to several surrounding neighborhoods, a small playground and picnic green-space, and Talbert Regional Park.

Talbert Regional Park
The County of Orange preserves and maintains the 211-acre Talbert Regional Park, which encompasses the Talbert Nature Preserve. This open space is located in the southwest portion of the City, north and south of Victoria Street O p e n S p a c e a n d R e c r e a t i o n E l e m e n t O S R - 2 4 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
along the Santa Ana River lowlands, and provides passive recreation opportunities, including walking, picnicking, and hiking. The trail system allows for observation of natural resources and links to other parks along the Santa Ana River. Group use within the habitat areas is permitted by guided walks, and individual use is facilitated by interpretive signage. When combined, Canyon Park, Fairview Park, and Talbert Regional Park provide almost 490 acres of restored and enhanced natural open space.

Santa Ana River
The Santa Ana River forms the western boundary of Costa Mesa. Although not included in the open space inventory, the Santa Ana River Trail provides a major recreation and circulation element that extends from the Pacific Ocean to the Inland Empire. The bikeway has been designated by Congress as a “National Recreational Trail.” OC Parks owns and manages the nearly one mile of the mouth of the Santa Ana River, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers controls the river area above the mouth.

Open Spaces Adjacent to Costa Mesa
Newport Banning Ranch
Newport Banning Ranch is an approximately 401-acre site partially located in unincorporated Orange County and partially within the City of Newport Santa Ana River Open Space
includes trails and access to
Costa Mesa’s Fairview Park and
Talbert Regional Park.

O p e n S p a c e a n d R e c r e a t i o n E l e m e n t C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | O S R - 2 5
Beach, adjacent to Costa Mesa. Plans for the property include approximately 174 acres of permanent open space to be reserved and protected for lowland and upland habitat, a nature center, vernal pool interpretive area, and a diverse system of public interpretive trails connecting to the Talbert Nature Preserve and Santa Ana River Trail in Costa Mesa.

Upper Newport Bay
Upper Newport Bay is located just east of Costa Mesa in the City of Newport Beach. It is the largest of only a few remaining natural estuaries in Southern California. An estuary is a coastal wetland where saltwater from the ocean mixes with nutrient-rich fresh water from inland sources to provide a fertile feeding area for birds, fish, and other animals. The Upper Bay is a recreational and educational resource for the area, with a multipurpose trail and many wildlife viewing stations.

Open Space Conservation Efforts
Orange Coast River Park, Inc. is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit independent organization originally founded as a committee by the Friends of Harbors, Beaches, and Parks (FHBP). Orange Coast River Park’s mission is to facilitate coordination among stakeholders, agencies, landowners, and the public to create a 1,000-acre Open Space Master Plan at the mouth of the Santa Ana River between the Mesa Verde residential community in Costa Mesa and the Pacific Ocean. The organization’s major goals are to “restore the historic ecological staircase, extend a seamless passageway to the coast from inland, and create access for residents and visitors to an oasis of tranquility.” Key Open Space Issues
Open Space Preservation and Management
Open space lands within Fairview Park, Canyon Park, and Talbert Regional Park need to be managed to prevent impacts to sensitive habitat and wildlife.

Wetlands, vernal pools, and other sensitive habitats need to be protected from human activity and accidental and intended damage. Invasive plant and wildlife species and hazardous material from pesticides, pollution, trash, and other toxic materials need to be controlled and/or restricted to prevent O p e n S p a c e a n d R e c r e a t i o n E l e m e n t O S R - 2 6 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
severe damage to these resources. Unauthorized trails by bicyclists and hikers can also damage sensitive habitat areas. Public agencies need to continue to provide and enforce management and educational strategies to protect, preserve, and steward these limited resources.

Open Space Acquisition
As a built-out community, Costa Mesa will face challenges acquiring new open space land due to high land costs and the limited availability of land.

Open Space Access
Open spaces in Costa Mesa are primarily located along the Santa Ana River.

Adjoining residential neighborhoods can easily access the Santa Ana River Trail and Banning Channel Bikeway. Eastside Costa Mesa neighborhoods may encounter difficulties in accessing these open spaces through the City’s established bikeway system. Talbert Regional Park is primarily accessed by surrounding residential neighborhoods; it can also be accessed through trail connections and access points. Careful consideration must be given to increase access to open spaces while protecting sensitive habitat.

Cultural Arts Resources
Costa Mesa's motto is "City of the Arts.” Over the past decades, regionally and nationally recognized organizations have established the City as their home, and they continue to grow. The Segerstrom Center for the Arts, South Coast Repertory Theater, Arts Plaza, and Noguchi Sculpture Gardens are some of the significant cultural resources based in Costa Mesa. The Costa Mesa Playhouse also thrives in the City, along with a wide array of art galleries and a contemporary music scene.

Costa Mesa Theater and Arts District Plan
The 57.3-acre Costa Mesa Theater and Arts District includes high-rise office buildings, internationally recognized cultural facilities, hotels, restaurants, and high-end commercial uses. Located along the Avenue of the Arts and with ready access to I-405, the district attracts visitors from throughout Southern California and beyond. To guide the coordinated development of the district, in 2004 the City the Costa Mesa Theater & Arts District Plan was established.

O p e n S p a c e a n d R e c r e a t i o n E l e m e n t C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | O S R - 2 7
Cultural Arts Committee
The Cultural Arts Committee coordinates with the City Council to support cultural arts programs and increase awareness of the arts to Costa Mesa residents. The Committee’s overarching goal is to establish programs, organize events, and distribute information that promote arts and culture.

Programs and events organized by the Committee include the Artist Showcase, Arts in the Park, Art Walk, and Youth Art Gallery.

Key Cultural Arts Issue
Limited Public Access to to Public Art
Public art refers to works of art in any media located in a public setting, with the purpose of beautifying public spaces and buildings, drawing attention to the message the artwork may communicate, and educating the public. Public art can increase the intrinsic and monetary values of the places it graces; and it can express a civic and corporate pride. Many of Costa Mesa’s public art pieces are located at the Segerstrom Center of the Arts, which has limited public access.

Segerstrom Hall and the
Renee & Henry Segerstrom
Concert Hall located within the
Segerstrom Center for the Arts.

O p e n S p a c e a n d R e c r e a t i o n E l e m e n t O S R - 2 8 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
Public art located at the main
entrance of the Segerstrom Hall.

O p e n S p a c e a n d R e c r e a t i o n E l e m e n t C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | O S R - 2 9
Goals, Objectives, and Policies
These goals, objectives, and policies guide policy decisions regarding open space and recreation in Costa Mesa, and allow for the continued expansion, improvement, and maintenance of community facilities and services for the enjoyment of current and future residents. Additional opportunities include integrating public art throughout the community to highlight predominant themes in Costa Mesa’s history.

Goal OSR-1: Balanced and Accessible
System of Parks and Open Spaces
Provide a high-quality environment through the development of recreation resources and preservation of open space that meets community needs in Costa Mesa.

Objective OSR-1A: Maintain and preserve existing parks, and strive to provide additional parks, public spaces, and recreation facilities that meet the community’s evolving needs.

Adequate Neighborhood and Community Park Recreational Facilities Policy OSR-1.1: Maintain a system of Neighborhood and Community Parks that provide a variety of active and passive
recreational opportunities throughout the City.

Policy OSR-1.2: Provide parks and recreation facilities appropriate for the individual neighborhoods in which they are located
and reflective of the needs and interests of the
population they serve.

Acquisition of New Parkland
Policy OSR-1.3: Pursue the acquisition and development of pocket and neighborhood parks within park-deficient areas, as
identified in Figure OSR-3: Planning Areas and
Underserved Park Areas.

O p e n S p a c e a n d R e c r e a t i o n E l e m e n t O S R - 3 0 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
Policy OSR-1.4: Prioritize the acquisition of land for parks in underserved neighborhoods, with consideration placed
on designated environmental justice communities.

Policy OSR-1.5: Maximize public space by requiring plazas and public gathering spaces in private developments that can serve multiple uses, including recreation and social needs.

Policy OSR-1.6: Provide maximum visibility and accessibility for future public parks by locating facilities in close proximity to public streets.

Policy OSR-1.7: Adjust and update development fee programs to accumulate funds for the acquisition and improvement of parks and recreation facilities commensurate with
identified need and population growth.

Balance of Passive and Active Recreation
Policy OSR-1.8: Require that parks and recreation facilities reflect new trends and population changes, and are developed
with facilities appropriate to all ages, including athletic fields, active play areas, passive open space, tot lots, and picnic areas.

Policy OSR-1.9: Conduct a sports facility study to review current outdoor facility locations and resources and a
demographic study for future facility requirements as
they relate to planned growth within the City.

Policy OSR-1.10: Pursue urban agriculture opportunities in both private developments and public spaces, including urban farms
and community gardens, and home gardens to meet
demand and need by the community, and explore
opportunities to promote and incentivize farmer’s
markets, especially those that are readily accessible to designated environmental justice communities
Policy OSR-1.11: Coordinate with local organizations to promote urban greening and urban gardening programs, including the
planning, operations, and maintenance of community
O p e n S p a c e a n d R e c r e a t i o n E l e m e n t C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | O S R - 3 1
gardens, and to educate the public on the benefits of
healthy foods.

Park Maintenance and Retrofit
Policy OSR-1.12: Perform regular maintenance of facilities to ensure proper working order of all recreation facilities and
equipment.

Policy OSR-1.13: Retrofit parks and recreation facilities to provide disability access as required by law.

Policy OSR-1.14: Design and reform parks to reflect the latest recreational features that respond to demographic
changes and community needs.

Policy OSR-1.15: Consult with law enforcement agencies, surrounding cities, community policing groups, and OC Parks to create a safe and healthy environment at Talbert Regional Park, Fairview Park, and along the Santa Ana River.

Long-Term Planning of Institutional Uses
Policy OSR-1.16: Continue to pursue opportunities to create joint-use community space at facilities owned by private
organizations such as private schools, faith-based groups, service clubs, and hospitals.

Policy OSR-1.17: Continue to coordinate with the Newport-Mesa Unified School District to supplement City park facilities through joint-use agreements.

Policy OSR-1.18: Consult with Orange County Fairgrounds in implementing OC Fair & Event Center Master Plan.

Level of Service and Access
Policy OSR-1.19: Provide a minimum of 4.26 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents.

Policy OSR-1.20: Update the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan every 10 years, as feasible.

Policy OSR-1.21: Enhance pedestrian, bicycle, and transit linkages to meet the needs of residents and to provide better access to parks, recreation, and public spaces.

O p e n S p a c e a n d R e c r e a t i o n E l e m e n t O S R - 3 2 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
Policy OSR-1.22: Provide opportunities for public access to all open space areas, except where sensitive resources may be
threatened or damaged, public health and safety may be
compromised, or access would interfere with the
managed production of resources.

GOAL OSR-2: Community Services
Programs Meeting Community Needs
Enhancing the community through the delivery of innovative recreational programs, quality parks and facilities and services that promote social, physical, and emotional well-being. High-quality community services programs demonstrate the City’s commitment to providing opportunities for recreational, physical, and educational activities for residents of all ages.

Objective OSR-2A: Provide activities, classes, and a variety of programs to meet the year-round recreational needs of
all residents: children, adult, seniors, and persons with special needs.

High-quality Community Services
Policy OSR-2.1: Provide high-quality community services programs that are flexible and responsive to the community’s
changing needs.

Policy OSR-2.2: Plan and conduct citywide special events that bring residents together to create an enhanced quality of life and promote economic development.

Policy OSR-2.3: Continue to consult with nonprofit sports organizations and recreational groups to support their offering of
diverse recreational programs that complement and
supplement those offered by the City.

Policy OSR-2.4: Update existing facilities for senior citizens, youth, adults, and overall community use, with consideration
given to areas that are underserved and/or within
designated environmental justice area boundaries.

O p e n S p a c e a n d R e c r e a t i o n E l e m e n t C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | O S R - 3 3
Policy OSR-2.5: Encourage recreational, cultural, and community services programs and activities that are of local interest and inclusive and affordable to all residents.

Policy OSR-2.6: Support efforts to connect residents to local and regional cultural, recreational, and educational assets.

Community Services to Support Community Needs
Policy OSR-2.7: Monitor and research the ever-changing community services needs of the community, and develop action
plans to address those needs through partnerships with
service agencies.

Policy OSR-2.8: Continue to provide rental opportunities at community facilities and parks for residents, nonprofit groups, and businesses to meet their recreational and professional
needs.

Policy OSR-2.9: Continue broad-based public outreach activities that inform residents of all available community services
programs, and obtain input from the community
regarding program and service needs.

Policy OSR-2.10: Encourage resident input and utilize demographic data, partnerships, volunteers, and existing resources to identify the needs of community.

Policy OSR-2.11: Identify innovative funding and development opportunities to support and sustain a responsive
community services network.

Policy OSR-2.12: Continue and expand the development of community partnerships to offer both standard and innovative
services to meet residents’ needs.

Policy OSR-2.13: Develop and implement community services programs and activities that meet the needs of specialized populations through the development of community
partnerships.

O p e n S p a c e a n d R e c r e a t i o n E l e m e n t O S R - 3 4 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
Policy OSR-2.14: Provide support for volunteer groups that conduct special activities open to the entire community.

GOAL OSR-3: Conserved Open Space
Costa Mesa is committed to open space conservation to ensure that the network of parklands, trails, hillsides, and undeveloped natural areas remain viable for supporting biological communities and providing sanctuary for future generations. This commitment includes expanding public access to open space, where appropriate, and acquiring additional lands where feasible.

Objective OSR-3A: Preserve the City’s open space lands and provide additional community and neighborhood
parkland in underserved areas.

Open Space Preservation and Stewardship
Policy OSR-3.1: Preserve open space areas along The Santa Ana River, large open space parks, and along the mesa formations to protect natural habitat and to maintain the integrity of the natural environment.

Policy OSR-3.2: Encourage the preservation of coastal views from City and County parkland and public streets within Costa Mesa.

Policy OSR-3.3: Identify current open space areas for protection, management, and potential enhancement to maintain
and, if possible, increase its value as wildlife habitat.

Management and Maintenance of Open Space
Policy OSR-3.4: Encourage the long-term maintenance and management of open space lands through open space easements,
development rights transfers or acquisition, zoning
regulations, and other incentives.

Policy OSR-3.5: Encourage the greening and beautifying of the Santa Ana River.

Policy OSR-3.6: Encourage opportunities for recreation, history, education, interpretive materials, and art associated with the Santa Ana River open spaces.

O p e n S p a c e a n d R e c r e a t i o n E l e m e n t C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | O S R - 3 5
Policy OSR-3.7: Promote water quality strategies to improve water quality along the Santa Ana River.

Coordination and Organization Development
Policy OSR-3.8: Consult with State and regional agencies and the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC),
regarding open space planning efforts.

Policy OSR-3.9: Consult with the Orange Coast River Park, Inc. and surrounding cities and other government agencies in
maintaining and rehabilitating open space lands along the Santa Ana River.

Policy OSR-3.10: Consult with OC Parks over the enhancements and management of Talbert Regional Park without adversely
impacting surrounding residential neighborhoods.

GOAL OSR-4: Extensive Arts and Culture
Programs and Services
Provide comprehensive and multifaceted arts and culture programs and services that provide education and entertainment to the community and a broader audience.

Objective OSR-4A: Support performing and visual arts programs, facilities, and activities that stimulate the minds and intellectual thinking of community members to increase awareness
of the City’s motto, “The City of the Arts.”
Cultural Arts Venues
Policy OSR-4.1: Continue to support the mission of the Segerstrom Center for the Arts and associate venues and facilities.

Policy OSR-4.2: Support the development and operations of an arts museum at the Segerstrom Center for the Arts.

Policy OSR-4.3: Encourage additional indoor and outdoor facility spaces citywide to display public art and host arts and culture special events.

Leader in the Arts
Policy OSR-4.4: Expand the City's role as a supporter of the arts.

O p e n S p a c e a n d R e c r e a t i o n E l e m e n t O S R - 3 6 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
Policy OSR-4.5: Encourage financial support of the arts by supporting non-profit groups and foundations.

Policy OSR-4.6: Consider preparation of an arts and culture master plan for the City.

Policy OSR-4.7: Consult with local agencies and surrounding cities to address the creation and implementation of arts-friendly policies.

Policy OSR-4.8: Enhance Costa Mesa’s position as a leader in the arts in Southern California and its recognition nationally as a city devoted to arts institutions of superior quality.

Policy OSR-4.9: Engage community members in arts activities, and utilize the arts to provide educational and cultural awareness
opportunities.

Policy OSR-4.10: Continue the City’s commitment to its arts in cooperation with the private sector.

Policy OSR-4.11: Provide opportunities for local artists to create and display their work.

Arts Programs and Events
Policy OSR-4.12: Support arts activities, programs, events, and facilities for patrons to enjoy and share experiences, and that enhance the City’s economic vitality.

Policy OSR-4.13: Designate Community Services Department staff with the responsibility for expanding and implementing activities related to recreational arts programming.

Policy OSR-4.14: Pursue cooperative educational cultural programs enlisting the aid of public and private institutions.

Arts in Public Places and in Private Development
Policy OSR-4.15: Continue to review adopting an Arts in Public Places Program.

Policy OSR-4.16: Pursue the placement of public art in prominent locations, particularly along major travel corridors to enliven and beautify the public realm.

Policy OSR-4.17: Develop incentives or programs that encourage art in new developments.

City of Costa Mesa
Housing Element
2021-2029
ADOPTED FEBRUARY 2022
AMENDMENT ADOPTED SEPTEMBER 1, 2026
Costa Mesa Housing Element – 2021-2029 i
Table of Contents

CHAPTER 1: INTRO DUCTIO N
A. Role of the Housing Element......................................................................................................... 1-1 B. State Policy and Authorization....................................................................................................... 1-1

1. Background..................................................................................................................................................................... 1-1

2. State Requirements....................................................................................................................................................... 1-1

3. Regional Housing Needs Assessment ......................................................................................................................... 1-3

4. Relationship to O ther General Plan Elements .......................................................................................................... 1-4

5. Public Participation........................................................................................................................................................ 1-4

6. Data Sources.................................................................................................................................................................1-12

7. Housing Element Organization..................................................................................................................................1-12

CHAPTER 2: CO MMUNITY PRO FILE
A. Population Characteristics ............................................................................................................ 2-1

1. Population Growth ........................................................................................................................................................ 2-1

2. Age Characteristics........................................................................................................................................................ 2-2

3. Race/Ethnicity Characteristics..................................................................................................................................... 2-3 B. Economic Characteristics ............................................................................................................. 2-5

1. Employment and Wage Scale ...................................................................................................................................... 2-5

2. Regional Affordable Housing Rates ............................................................................................................................ 2-7 C. Household Characteristics ............................................................................................................ 2-9

1. Household Type and Size ............................................................................................................................................. 2-9

2. Household Income ......................................................................................................................................................2-11 D. Housing Problems and Housing Needs .......................................................................................... 2-13

1. Overcrowding...............................................................................................................................................................2-14

2. Overpayment (Cost Burden) for Housing In Relation to Income .........................................................................2-16 E. Special Needs Groups ................................................................................................................ 2-18

1. Seniors...........................................................................................................................................................................2-19

2. Persons with Physical and Developmental Disabilities..........................................................................................2-20

3. Large Households ........................................................................................................................................................2-22

4. Single-Parent Households ..........................................................................................................................................2-24

5. Farmworkers ................................................................................................................................................................2-24

6. Extr emely Low-income Households and Poverty Status.......................................................................................2-25

7. Persons Experiencing Homelessness........................................................................................................................2-27

8. Students ........................................................................................................................................................................2-29 F. Housing Stock Characteristics...................................................................................................... 2-29

1. Housing Growth ...........................................................................................................................................................2-29

2. Housing Type ................................................................................................................................................................2-30

3. Housing Availability and Tenure................................................................................................................................2-30

4. Housing Age and Condition ........................................................................................................................................2-32

5. Housing Costs and Affordability ................................................................................................................................2-34 G. Community Profile Summary ....................................................................................................... 2-39 CHAPTER 3: HO USING CO NSTRAINTS, RESO URCES, AND FAIR HO USING A. Nongovernmental Constraints....................................................................................................... 3-1

1. Land Costs and Construction Costs ............................................................................................................................ 3-1

2. Available Financing........................................................................................................................................................ 3-2

3. Economic Constraints ................................................................................................................................................... 3-4 Costa Mesa Housing Element – 2021-2029 ii

4. Applicant Requests to Develop Below the Maximum Density ............................................................................... 3-4 B. Governmental Constraints............................................................................................................ 3-5

1. Land Use Controls.......................................................................................................................................................... 3-5

2. State Density Bonus Law .............................................................................................................................................. 3-7 Compliance with State Law................................................................................................................................................ 3-7

3. Residential Development Standards .......................................................................................................................... 3-7 Yard Requirements.............................................................................................................................................................. 3-9 Site Coverage and FAR........................................................................................................................................................ 3-9 Open Space ........................................................................................................................................................................3-10 Maximum Building Heights..............................................................................................................................................3-10 Parking Standards..............................................................................................................................................................3-10

4. Variety of Housing Types Permitted .........................................................................................................................3-12 Single-Family Dwelling......................................................................................................................................................3-15 Multi-Family Dwelling .......................................................................................................................................................3-15 Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) .......................................................................................................................................3-15 Common Interest Development .....................................................................................................................................3-15 Small Lot Subdivision, Residential...................................................................................................................................3-15 Manufactured Housing.....................................................................................................................................................3-15 Boarding House .................................................................................................................................................................3-16 Residential Care Facility ...................................................................................................................................................3-16 Group Homes.....................................................................................................................................................................3-16 Transitional Housing .........................................................................................................................................................3-17 Supportive Housing...........................................................................................................................................................3-18 Referral Facility ..................................................................................................................................................................3-18 Single Room Occupancy Residential Hotel (SRO).........................................................................................................3-18 Emergency Shelter ............................................................................................................................................................3-18 Farmworker Housing ........................................................................................................................................................3-21 Low Barrier Navigation Centers......................................................................................................................................3-21

5. Planned Development ................................................................................................................................................3-22 Minor Additions to an Existing PD ..................................................................................................................................3-23 Site Design Concept..........................................................................................................................................................3-23

6. Growth Management Measures...............................................................................................................................3-24 Measure Y...........................................................................................................................................................................3-24 Measure K...........................................................................................................................................................................3-25

7. Specific Plans................................................................................................................................................................3-25 East 17th Street Specific Plan ...........................................................................................................................................3-25 Newport Boulevard Specific Plan....................................................................................................................................3-26 North Costa Mesa Specific Plan ......................................................................................................................................3-26 Costa Mesa Theater and Arts District Plan ....................................................................................................................3-28

8. Housing for Persons with Disabilities .......................................................................................................................3-29 Reasonable Accommodation...........................................................................................................................................3-29 Definition of Family ...........................................................................................................................................................3-31

9. Development Fees.......................................................................................................................................................3-32

10. On-/Off-Site Improvements......................................................................................................................................3-36 Subdivision Improvements ..............................................................................................................................................3-36

11. Building Codes and Enforcement ..............................................................................................................................3-37

12. Local Processing and Permit Procedures..................................................................................................................3-37

13. Applicable Residential Entitlement Approval Findings ..........................................................................................3-40 Conditional Use Permits...................................................................................................................................................3-40 Master Plan Findings.........................................................................................................................................................3-40 C. Infrastructure Constraints .......................................................................................................... 3-41 Costa Mesa Housing Element – 2021-2029 iii

1. Water Supply ................................................................................................................................................................3-41

2. Water Production........................................................................................................................................................3-41

3. Water Quality ...............................................................................................................................................................3-42

4. Wastewater ..................................................................................................................................................................3-42

5. Fire and Emergency Services.....................................................................................................................................3-43 Fire Administration Division ............................................................................................................................................3-43 Operations Division...........................................................................................................................................................3-43 Community Risk Reduction Division ...............................................................................................................................3-43

6. Police Services..............................................................................................................................................................3-44 Administration Division ....................................................................................................................................................3-44 Field Operations Division .................................................................................................................................................3-45 Support Services Division.................................................................................................................................................3-45 D. Environmental Constraints ......................................................................................................... 3-45

1. Geologic and Seismic Hazards...................................................................................................................................3-46

2. Mineral Resources.......................................................................................................................................................3-46

3. Seismic Hazards ...........................................................................................................................................................3-46

4. Flood Hazards...............................................................................................................................................................3-47

5. Dam Inundation ...........................................................................................................................................................3-49

6. Sea Level Rise ...............................................................................................................................................................3-49

7. Fire Hazards..................................................................................................................................................................3-49 E. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH).................................................................................. 3-51

1. Needs Assessment.......................................................................................................................................................3-51 Analysis of Impediments Outreach FY 2019-2024.......................................................................................................3-51 Fair Housing Issues............................................................................................................................................................3-52 Fair Housing Laws..............................................................................................................................................................3-52 Lending Patterns................................................................................................................................................................3-53 Hate Crimes........................................................................................................................................................................3-55 Fair Housing Enforcement and Outr each Capacity ......................................................................................................3-55

2. Analysis of Federal, State, and Local Data and Local Knowledge ........................................................................3-57 Summary of Local Data.....................................................................................................................................................3-57 Integration and Segregation Patterns and Trends .......................................................................................................3-62 Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP) ................................................................................3-69 Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Affluence ..............................................................................................3-73 Disparities in Access to Opportunity ..............................................................................................................................3-75 California Tax Cr edit Allocation Committee (TCAC) Opportunity Area Maps..........................................................3-80 Opportunity Areas – Education.......................................................................................................................................3-85 Opportunity Indicators.....................................................................................................................................................3-87 Access to Transit................................................................................................................................................................3-88 Environmental Justice.......................................................................................................................................................3-89

3. Discussion of Disproportionate Housing Needs .....................................................................................................3-92 Existing Needs....................................................................................................................................................................3-92 Future Growth Need.......................................................................................................................................................3-106

4. Displacement Risk ......................................................................................................................................................3-106 Urban Displacement .......................................................................................................................................................3-106 SB 330................................................................................................................................................................................3-112

5. Summary of Fair Housing Analysis..........................................................................................................................3-113

6. Assessment of Contributing factors to Fair Housing in Costa Mesa ..................................................................3-114 Regionally Identified Contributing Factors..................................................................................................................3-114 Locally Identified Contributing Factors........................................................................................................................3-115

7. Analysis of Sites Pursuant to AB 686 ......................................................................................................................3-115

8. Analysis of Fair Housing Priorities and Goals ........................................................................................................3-138 Costa Mesa Housing Element – 2021-2029 iv
F. Housing Resources.................................................................................................................. 3-144

1. Regional Housing Needs Allocation ........................................................................................................................3-144 Future Housing Needs....................................................................................................................................................3-145 Residential Sites Inventory.............................................................................................................................................3-145 Adequacy of Sites for RHNA ..........................................................................................................................................3-145 Summary of Sites Inventory and RHNA Obligations ..................................................................................................3-151 G. Financial Resources ................................................................................................................. 3-151

1. Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher, CDBG and HOME Funds.............................................................................3-151 Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) ........................................................................................................3-151 HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME)......................................................................................................3-152

2. Opportunities for Energy Conservation .................................................................................................................3-152 Energy Use and Providers..............................................................................................................................................3-152 Energy Conservation.......................................................................................................................................................3-153

CHAPTER 4: HO USING PLAN
Regional Housing Needs Assessment ................................................................................................................................... 4-1 A. Guiding Principles ....................................................................................................................... 4-1 B. Housing Goals ............................................................................................................................ 4-3 C. Housing Policies and Programs ...................................................................................................... 4-3 POLICIES HOU-1 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 4-3 HOUSING GOAL 1 IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS ................................................................................................................. 4-4 POLICIES HOU-2 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 4-5 HOUSING GOAL 2 IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS ................................................................................................................. 4-5 POLICIES HOU-3 .....................................................................................................................................................................4-12 HOUSING GOAL 3 IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS ...............................................................................................................4-13 POLICIES HOU-4 .....................................................................................................................................................................4-25 HOUSING GOAL 4 IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS ...............................................................................................................4-26 D. Summary of Quantified Objectives ............................................................................................... 4-39

APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: REVIEW OF PAST PERFORMANCE
APPENDIX B: SITES ANALYSIS
APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
APPENDIX D: GLOSSARY OF HOUSING TERMS
Costa Mesa Housing Element – 2021-2029 v
Costa Mesa Housing Element – 2021-2029 vi
Introduction
Chapter 1
Chapter 1: Introduction 1-1
A. Role of the Housing Element
The Housing Element is one of the seven State mandated elements included in the City of Costa Mesa’s General Plan. The purpose of the Housing Element is to identify a high-level strategy and blueprint for addressing the City’s existing and projected housing needs over the eight-year planning cycle. It contains a detailed work program of the City’s housing goals, policies, quantified objectives, and actions or programs for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing for a sustainable future.

Each eight-year planning cycle, the City is allocated a specific number of housing units called the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) determined by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). The RHNA quantifies future housing growth within a City. Through research and analysis, the Housing Element identifies potential candidate housing sites and establishes the City’s official housing policies and programs to accommodate the City’s RHNA allocation. As part of the Housing Element, focus areas and corridors are identified where future housing may be appropriate. Candidate housing sites within those areas are identified in order to show that the City has or will have sufficient land with the appropriate zoning to facilitate the development of housing by the private market in sufficient quantity to meet its RHNA allocation. The Housing Element is not a document that lays out specifically where future housing must go nor does it mandate housing construction. The Housing Element is an important tool for the City of Costa Mesa to plan for and accommodate current and future housing growth within the community, over the eight-year planning cycle (2021-2029).

B. State Policy and Authorization

1. Background
As a mandated element of the Costa Mesa General Plan, the Housing Element must meet all requirements of existing state laws. Goals, programs and policies, and quantified objectives developed within the Housing Element are consistent with state law and are implemented within a designated timeline to ensure the City accomplishes the identified actions as well as maintains compliance with state law. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) reviews each Housing Element for substantial compliance with state law. HCD’s review is required before a local government can adopt its Housing Element as part of its overall General Plan.

2. State Requirements
California State Housing Element Law (California Government Code Article 10.6) establishes the requirements for the Housing Element. California Government Code Section 65588 requires that local governments review and revise the Housing Element of their comprehensive General Plans no less than once every eight years.

The California Legislature identifies overall housing goals for the State to ensure every resident has access to housing and a suitable living environment; Section 65580 of the California Government Code states the following Housing Element goals:

Chapter 1: Introduction 1-2
a. The availability of housing is of vital statewide importance, and the early attainment of decent housing and a suitable living environment for every Californian, including farmworkers, is a priority of the highest order.
b. The early attainment of this goal requires cooperative participation of government and the private sector in an effort to expand housing opportunities and accommodate the housing needs of Californians in all economic levels. c. The provisions of housing affordable to low- and moderate-income households requires the cooperation of all levels of the government. d. Local and State governments have a responsibility to use the powers vested in them to facilitate the improvement and development of housing to make adequate provision for housing needs of all economic segments of the community. The Legislature recognizes that in carrying out this responsibility, each local government also has the responsibility to consider economic, environmental, and fiscal factors and community goals set forth in the general plan and to cooperate with other local governments and the state in addressing regional housing needs.

Table 1-1 summarizes State Housing Element requirements and identifies location in this document where these requirements are addressed.

Table 1-1: Housing Element Requirements
Housing Element Requirement(s) Gov. Code Section
Reference in Housing Element
Analysis of employment trends. Section 65583.a Chapter 2.B.1 Projection and quantification of existing and projected housing needs for all income groups. Section 65583.a Chapter 3.F Analysis and documentation of the City’s housing characteristics, including cost for housing compared to ability to pay, overcrowding, and housing condition.

Section 65583.a Chapter 2.C, D, F
An inventory of land suitable for residential development including vacant sites and sites having redevelopment potential.Section 65583.a Chapter 3.F.1 Analysis of existing and potential governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement or development of housing for all income levels.

Section 65583.a Chapter 3.B
Analysis of existing and potential nongovernmental (private sector) constraints upon maintenance, improvement or development of housing for all income levels.

Section 65583.a Chapter 3.B
Analysis concerning the needs of the homeless. Section 65583.a Chapter 2.E.8 Analysis of special housing needs: handicapped, elderly, large families, farm workers, and female-headed
households.

Section 65583.a Chapter 2.E
Analysis of opportunities for energy conservation with respect to residential development. Section 65583.a Chapter 3.G.2 Identification of Publicly-Assisted Housing Developments. Section 65583.a Chapter 3.E.3 Identification of Units at Risk of Conversion to Market Rate Housing. Section 65583.a Chapter 3.E.3
Identification of the City’s goal relative to the Section 65583.a Chapter 4 Chapter 1: Introduction 1-3
Table 1-1: Housing Element Requirements
Housing Element Requirement(s) Gov. Code Section
Reference in Housing Element
maintenance, improvement, and development of housing.

Analysis of quantified objectives and policies relative to the maintenance, improvement, and development of
housing.

Section 65583.b Chapter 4
Identification of adequate sites that will be made available through appropriate action with required public services and facilities for a variety of housing types for all income levels.

Section 65583.c(1) Appendix B
Identification of strategies to assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of low and moderate-income households.Section 65583.c(2) Chapter 3.E.1, 2, 3 Description of the Public Participation Program in the formulation of Housing Element Goals, Policies, and Programs.

Section 65583.d Appendix C
Description of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment
(RHNA) prepared by the Southern California Association of Governments.

Section 65583.e Chapter 3.F
Analysis of Fair Housing, including Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing. Section 8899.50 Chapter 3.E
Review of the effectiveness of the past Element, including the City’s accomplishments during the previous planning period.

Section 65583.f Appendix A
Source: State of California, Department of Housing and Community Development.

Costa Mesa’s current Housing Element was adopted in January 2014 for the 5th cycle for the 2014 - 2021 planning period. The 6th Cycle Housing Element will plan for the 2021-2029 planning period. Multiple amendments have been made to Housing Element law since the adoption of the City’s 5th Cycle Housing Element; such amendments and subsequent housing laws change the required analysis, reporting and policies contained in the Housing Element. The contents of this updated Housing Element comply with these amendments to state housing law and all other federal, state and local requirements.

3. Regional Housing Needs Assessment
California’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) is the basis for determining future housing need, by income category, within the state and is based on growth in population, households, and employment.

The statewide RHNA is determined under the administration of the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The quantified housing need is then allocated among the state’s 18 Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs). For the City of Costa Mesa’s case, this agency is the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG).

In accordance with Section 65583 of the California Government Code, SCAG then delegates a “fair share” of housing need to its member jurisdictions. The City of Costa Mesa’s RHNA allocation is divided amongst four income categories, which are benchmarked on the County of Orange’s median income for a family of four.

Chapter 1: Introduction 1-4
Table 1-2 below identifies the four income categories by which the City’s RHNA allocation is divided. For the 2021-2029 planning period the City of Costa Mesa is allocated a total of 11,760 units as shown below.

Table 1-2: RHNA Income Categories
Income Category
Percent of Median Family Income (MFI) Costa Mesa’s RHNA Allocation for the 2021-2029 Planning Period
Very Low Income 0-50% MFI 2,919 units
Low Income 51-80% MFI 1,794 units
Moderate Income 81-120% MFI 2,088 units
Above Moderate Income >120% MFI 4,959 units
Total 11,760 units

4. Relationship to Other General Plan Elements
The goals, policies, actions, and programs within the Housing Element relate directly to, and are consistent with, all other elements in the City’s General Plan. The City’s Housing Element identifies programs and resources required for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing to meet the existing and projected needs of its population.

The Housing Element works in tandem with development policies contained in the Land Use Element, most recently amended in 2018. The Land Use Element establishes the location, type, intensity and distribution of land uses throughout the City, and defines the land use build-out potential. By designating residential development, the Land Use Element places an upper limit on the densities and types of housing units constructed in the City. The Land Use Element also identifies lands designated for a range of other uses, including employment creating uses, open space, and public uses. The presence and potential for jobs affects the current and future demand for housing at the various income levels in the City.

The City’s Transportation Element also affects the implementation of the Housing Element. The Transportation chapter establishes policies for a balanced circulation system in the City. Costa Mesa’s Circulation Element establishes policies governing the system of roadways, intersections, bike paths, pedestrian ways, and other components of the circulations system, which collectively provide for the movement of persons and goods throughout the City. Consequently, the Housing Element must include policies and incentives that consider the types of infrastructure essential for residential housing units in addition to mitigating the effects of growth in the City.

The Housing Element has been reviewed for consistency with the City’s other Community Plan Chapters, and the policies and programs in this Element are consistent with the policy direction contained in other parts of the General Plan. As portions of the General Plan are amended in the future, the Housing Element will be reviewed to ensure that internal consistency is maintained.

5. Public Participation
Public participation is a vital component of the Housing Element update process. Public engagement creates opportunities for community members to provide their input and feedback, information which then directs the Housing Element’s goals, policies and programs. Section 65583 of the Government Code requires local governments to make diligent and continued efforts to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community. Meaningful community participation ensures that a variety of stakeholders and community members are offered a platform to engage in the City’s planning process.

Chapter 1: Introduction 1-5
The City of Costa Mesa engaged in an extensive community outreach process as part of the development of the 6th Cycle Housing Element. The outreach plan focused on reaching as many segments of the population as possible through a series of citywide meetings, district-specific meetings, focused group meetings, and meetings with topical experts in the area of housing. These efforts were complemented by a series of online presentations, handouts, and community surveys.

Outreach for the 6th Cycle Housing Element to the community are outlined in detail in Appendix C: Summary of Community Outreach, and includes the following actions:
• Housing Element Update webpage with all housing materials available in English and Spanish, located at : www.costamesaca.gov/housing-element-update • Virtual Townhall Meetings
• District Specific Meetings
• Stakeholder Meetings
• Online Community Survey
• City Council and Planning Commission Study Sessions
As required by Government Code Section 65585(b)(2), all written comments regarding the Housing Element made by the public have previously been provided to each member of the City Council. 2026 Housing Element Amendments:

This Housing Element reflects a targeted update to specific chapters and appendices, prepared in response to the City Council's March 2026 hearing, at which several sites were removed from the sites inventory at property owners' request. To maintain compliance with State Housing Element Law following these site removals, the City has revised specific sections to reflect updated site inventory data, realistic capacity assumptions, and related findings. Other sections of the Housing Element not directly affected by these changes have not been revised as part of this targeted update. A comprehensive Housing Element update will be prepared during the 7th Cycle planning period.

On October 10, 2025, the California Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District), in New Commune DTLA LLC v. City of Redondo Beach, concluded that a residential overlay on Housing Element sites cannot satisfy a jurisdiction’s RHNA if the underlying zoning allows development without residential uses. In December 2025, the City notified property owners of sites included in the Housing Element inventory of the draft rezoning of Housing Element sites via an overlay within the context of the Court decision. The City fielded questions and requests from property owners, some seeking more information, some to have their sites removed from the inventory, and others wanting to have their properties added.

On February 9, 2026, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on amendments to the Zoning Code, Zoning Map, and North Costa Mesa Specific Plan to implement Housing Element programs and rezone Housing Element sites. As part of its action, the Planning Commission directed staff to honor recent requests from property owners seeking to be added to or removed from the Housing Element sites inventory, and to exclude a specific property from the proposed Mixed-Use Overlay District (MOUD) that would apply to Housing Element sites. On March 17, 2026, the City Council approved an amendment to the Housing Element to remove 17 sites and add 2 sites to the inventory, as well as amendments to the Zoning Code, Chapter 1: Introduction 1-6
Zoning Map. North Costa Mesa Specific Plan, and the rezoning of the remaining Housing Element sites via the MUOD. This amendment to the Housing Element resulted in a temporary loss of adequate capacity to meet the RHNA.

Following the March 2026 amendment of the Housing Element, the City identified additional sites for the inventory to achieve adequate RHNA capacity, including a buffer.

A. Neighborhoods Where We All Belong Community Visioning Public outreach is an important component of the Housing Element implementation effort. The City conducted an inclusive, accessible, and transparent community engagement process to encourage meaningful public input. Feedback collected through various outreach methods directly informed planning decisions and implementation strategies.

Beginning in 2025, the City launched the “Neighborhoods Where We All Belong” community visioning process to implement the Housing Element and Measure K. This name was intentionally selected to reflect the City’s intent to facilitate housing and neighborhood development to meet diverse local needs. It avoids technical language in order to be more approachable to a wide audience. The community visioning and outreach plan for Neighborhoods Where We All Belong was strategically designed to maximize opportunities for public participation. In addition to a variety of events and activities in English and Spanish, the community was also able to provide input throughout the process via email, an online comment form, and the project website.

Different techniques were employed to reach community members, including bilingual post cards, YouTube videos, City Hall Snapshot (email newsletter) articles, social media posts, press releases, newspaper ads, posters, signs, emails to the interest list, and announcements at public hearings. The City employed a variety of outreach methods to ensure broad and equitable participation. When possible, engagement activities were scheduled at different times of day, days of the week, and in multiple locations and formats to accommodate diverse schedules and preferences. Community visioning and outreach activities included public open houses, workshops, walking tours, pop-up events at local businesses and community events, in-person and online surveying, focused stakeholder discussions, an online workshop, and formal public hearings and study sessions.

As part of NWWAB community visioning, the City conducted three rounds of community engagement activities. The first round of outreach focused on informing the public about the purpose of the rezoning, gathering input on future housing opportunities, what the community would like to see in new neighborhoods and residential developments. The second round of outreach was more focused on specific design features and uses. Through a variety of outreach activities, including a building blocks exercise, the City sought feedback on topics such as building form, design, density and intensity, mixed-use development, land use compatibility, open space, parking, mobility, and infrastructure. The third round of outreach was conducted to encourage the public to review and comment on draft Zoning Code updates and new objective design standards crafted to encourage and facilitate housing and mixed-use development.

Input received through NWWAB community visioning helped inform the City’s understanding of community priorities and concerns related to future housing development. These comments were considered as Chapter 1: Introduction 1-7
part of the City’s ongoing Housing Element implementation and provided broader context for the 2026 Housing Element Amendments.

In April 2026, the Orange Section of the California Chapter of the American Planning Association awarded the City with the Opportunity and Empowerment Award of Merit for the Neighborhoods Where We All Belong Community Visioning (Round One).

B. Outreach Specific to the Second Housing Element Amendment In the third round of Neighborhoods Where We All Belong community outreach, the City conducted a comprehensive and multi-layered process to inform the 2026 Housing Element Amendment and associated rezoning efforts. This process included a community Open House, public comment period on the draft Housing Element, two focus group discussions, and study sessions and formal hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council from late 2025 through 2026. In parallel, the City carried out targeted outreach to property owners whose sites were under consideration for inclusion in the updated inventory, gathering critical information on site availability, redevelopment potential, and development constraints to ensure that the amended inventory reflects realistic capacity assumptions and current conditions.

The June 3, 2026, community Open House provided an accessible forum for residents, businesses, and local organizations to learn about the amendment, Housing Element law, proposed Housing Element sites, and offer input on proposed changes.

Stakeholder focused discussions which took place on June 10, 2026, enabled more in-depth feedback from community partners on key housing issues. Together, these efforts ensured a transparent, inclusive process that integrated technical analysis with community and stakeholder input to refine the amended Housing Element and its implementation strategies.

C. Assembly Bill 215 Compliance
The City complied with the public review requirements of Assembly Bill 215 (AB 215, Chapter 342, Statutes of 2021). The draft 2026 Housing Element Amendment was posted on the City’s website on June 8, 2026 and was open for public review and comment until June 15, 2026.

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. The public was provided with an opportunity to review and comment on the draft amendment during the public comment period. Additionally, members of the public were able to review the draft Housing Element sites at the June 3, 2026 public community open house prior to the public comment period.

Community visioning and outreach for the 6th Cycle Housing Element, and a summary of all public comments regarding the Housing Element received by the City during the update process, are outlined in detail in Appendix C.

D. August 2026 Amendments
Following receipt of HCD's preliminary comments on the draft 2026 Housing Element Amendment, the City made additional revisions to provide additional clarifying edits. The revised draft was posted for an additional 7-day public review and comment period, consistent with the requirements of AB 215.

Chapter 1: Introduction 1-8
In response to comments received during this public review period, the City made further revisions to the draft amendment. Concurrently, on August 17, 2026, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to review the revised draft Housing Element Amendment and receive public testimony. A copy of public comments received during the Planning Commission hearing and the 7-day public review is provided in Appedix C.

E. Summary of Public Comments and Key Themes
During the 2026 Housing Element Amendment outreach process and public comment period, the City received feedback on a range of housing-related topics, including housing affordability, housing distribution, development review timelines, infrastructure and community amenities, traffic, and coordination with local housing and service organizations. Comments were received through the Open House community event, focused discussions, and written comments submitted during the public comment period.

Overall, comments reflected support for expanding housing opportunities across the community, including housing for young families, seniors, the local workforce, and households at a range of income levels. Comments emphasized that future housing growth should be paired with affordability, access to daily services and amenities, schools, infrastructure planning, and consideration of traffic impacts, particularly in areas planned for higher-density housing such as north of I-405.

Comments also encouraged the City to continue improving the development review and permitting processes by increasing staff capacity, reducing bottlenecks, improving transparency, and providing opportunities for applicants to request clarification during review. Several comments also asked the City to better explain the role of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance in the Housing Element update and to consider additional incentives that support the production of affordable housing while helping offset development costs.

Lastly, comments included site-specific requests from property owners requesting that certain properties either be added to or removed from the Housing Element sites inventory. These requests were reviewed by the City as part of the overall sites inventory analysis, including consideration of Housing Element requirements, Measure K/MUOD applicability, realistic development potential, parcel characteristics, existing uses, and the City’s need to maintain adequate capacity to meet its RHNA obligation with an appropriate buffer.

The following table summarizes the general themes raised during outreach and the public comment period, along with how public comments and feedback were incorporated into the 2026 amendment.

Public Comment
Theme
Summary of Feedback Received Housing Element Response to Feedback Housing growth,
neighborhood
compatibility, and
quality of life
Comments raised questions about how
new development could affect sunlight,
parking, neighborhood character,
building scale, and day-to-day resident
experience. Comments also discussed
how different densities may result in
different housing types, including
Programs 2B, 3D, 3I, and 3J. These programs
collectively address comments related to
growth, design and compatibility. Together,
they support the City’s broader rezoning
efforts through the MUOD, adoption of
objective design standards, and updates to
development review procedures.

Chapter 1: Introduction 1-9
Public Comment
Theme
Summary of Feedback Received Housing Element Response to Feedback townhomes, stacked townhomes,
mixed-use housing, and larger
multifamily projects. Overall,
comments emphasized that increased
housing capacity should be paired with
thoughtful design, clear standards, and
attention to neighborhood context.

Through these programs, the City is
implementing Measure K by increasing
residential capacity in appropriate areas of
the City, establishing location-specific
densities and height standards, and creating
clear objective standards for future
multifamily and mixed-use development.

The City is also in the process of adopting
objective design standards that will apply
citywide to multifamily residential projects.

These standards address design elements
related to building form, site planning,
pedestrian orientation, open space, sunlight
access and compatibility with surrounding
residential and commercial areas.

Inclusionary
Program
Comments expressed support for
increasing affordable housing
opportunities and asked questions
about the City’s inclusionary housing
program. Some comments expressed
interest in prioritizing on-site
affordable units, reducing the
threshold at which inclusionary
requirements apply, and providing
additional incentives for affordable
housing production.

Programs 2A and 2I were updated in
relation to the City’s Density Bonus and
Inclusionary Ordinance. The City adopted its
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance in 2024 to
increase the production of affordable
housing as new residential development
occurs. The City will continue to implement
the ordinance and evaluate its effectiveness
over time, including opportunities to
prioritize on-site affordable units and assess
whether adjustments are needed.

Additionally, the City continues to
encourage the use of State Density Bonus
Law as an additional mechanism to obtain
and prioritize affordable housing as part of
development.

Anti-displacement,
preservation, and
housing stability
Comments emphasized that new
housing production should be paired
with anti-displacement strategies,
particularly in Westside neighborhoods
and areas where lower-income
residents may be more vulnerable to
housing instability.

The City will continue to support
preservation and rehabilitation of existing
housing through Programs 1A, 1B, 1C and
4A including implementation of
rehabilitation programs, CDBG-funded
programs, fair housing services, tenant
assistance and preservation monitoring.

Chapter 1: Introduction 1-10
Public Comment
Theme
Summary of Feedback Received Housing Element Response to Feedback ADUs and faithbased housing
opportunities
Comments encouraged the City to
continue supporting ADU production
and to provide more resources or
assistance to property owners
interested in building ADUs. Comments
also expressed interest in learning
more about SB 4 and how churches,
faith-based organizations, and other
eligible institutions may be able to
provide housing on their properties.

The City has exceeded the ADU projections
identified in the 2021 Housing Element and
continues to see interest in ADU production.

The City will continue to support ADUs
through Program 3M pre-approved ADU
plans, website resources and technical
assistance. The City will also continue
implementing Program 3k to provide
information and technical assistance related
to housing opportunities on faith-based and
institutional sites, including applicable state
housing laws such as SB 4. In June, 2026, the
City held stakeholders meeting with faith
based organizations regarding SB 4 and is
currently developing an SB 4 informational
handout for faith based organizations and
the wider public.

Public education
and plain-language
housing
information
Comments encouraged the City to
provide more education, technical
assistance, and plain-language
materials on housing laws and
programs, including SB 4, Measure K,
the Housing Element, zoning updates,
objective design standards, ADUs, and
affordable housing requirements.

The City continues to implement Program
4A that includes actions related to providing
public information through the City website,
community meetings, public notices, and
other outreach materials. The City is also
developing supplemental materials
including checklists and handouts regarding
specific city-programs such as ADUs, Faithbased site, etc., Permit
streamlining,
transparency, and
interdepartmental
coordination
Comments noted that the permit
process can be slow and difficult to
navigate, especially for affordable
housing projects. Comments supported
tools that help applicants understand
where a project is in the review
process, who is reviewing it, and what
steps remain.

The City recently completed Programs 2B
and 2K to streamline housing review and
reducing constraints to housing production.

Community
amenities, open
Comments expressed interest in more
community gathering places, such as
community centers, YMCA-type
Program 2B reflects the City’s efforts on
adopting objective design standards and the
MUOD which includes requirements and
incentives related to private open space,
Chapter 1: Introduction 1-11
Public Comment
Theme
Summary of Feedback Received Housing Element Response to Feedback space, and “third
places”
facilities, civic spaces, parks, plazas, and
other amenities.
common open space, and publicly
accessible open space. These standards are
intended to support usable outdoor areas,
pedestrian-oriented design, and
opportunities for plazas, courtyards, and
other gathering spaces as new development
occurs.

General support for
expanded housing
opportunities
Comments generally supported making
it easier to build housing of all types and
income levels, including affordable
housing, workforce housing, for-sale
housing, ADUs, and housing on faithbased sites.

The City is implementing several Housing
Element programs and zoning updates to
expand housing opportunities, including the
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance,
streamlined review, citywide objective
design standards, support for faith-based
housing sites, Housing Element rezones,
and additional rezoning beyond the City’s
RHNA obligation.

Together, the 2026 Housing Element
Amendment, MUOD, and related zoning
updates increase residential capacity,
support a broader range of housing types,
and provide capacity for approximately
22,000 units citywide.

Site-specific
requests to add or
remove properties
from the sites
inventory
Comments included requests from
specific property owners and
interested parties to either add specific
properties to the Housing Element sites
inventory or remove properties from
consideration. Requests to add sites
generally reflected interest in future
residential or mixed-use development
opportunities.

The City responded to these requests by
removing sites where property owners
requested removal and adding specific sites
where property owners or developers
expressed interest in residential
development and site conditions
demonstrated realistic development
opportunity. These changes help reflect
property owner intent, development
interest, and the realistic potential for
additional residential development during
the planning period.

6. Data Sources
Chapter 1: Introduction 1-12
The data used for the completion of this Housing Element comes from a variety of sources. These include, but are not limited to:
• 2000 and 2010 Census
• American Community Survey
• Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing (AI) • Point-in-Time Homeless Census by the Regional Task Force on the Homeless, 2020 • Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) lending data
• California Department of Economic Development
• California Employment Development Division Occupational Wage data, 2020 • Department of Housing and Urban Development, Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), 2013-2017
The data sources represent the best data available at the time this Housing Element Update was prepared.

The original source documents contain the assumptions and methods used to compile the data.

7. Housing Element Organization
This Housing Element represents the City’s policy program for the 2021-2029 6th Planning Period. The Housing Element is comprised of the following Chapters:

Chapter 1: Introduction contains as summary of the content, organization, and statutory considerations of the Housing Element;
Chapter 2: Community Profile contains an analysis of the City’s population, household and employment base, and the characteristics of the housing stock;
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing examines governmental and non-governmental constraints on production, maintenance, and affordability of housing and provides a summary of housing resources, including sites identification and funding and financial considerations; Chapter 4: Policy Plan addresses Costa Mesa’s identified housing needs, including housing goals, policies, and programs.

Appendices provides various appendices with supplementary background resources including:
• Appendix A – Review of Past Performance of 5th Cycle Programs • Appendix B – Sites Analysis
• Appendix C – Summary of Outreach
• Appendix D – Glossary of Housing Terms
Community Profile
Element Update
Chapter 2
Element Update
Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-1
Community Profile
This Community Profile for the City of Costa Mesa provides an overview of the City’s housing and population conditions. The Community Profile serves as the foundation for the 2021-2029 Housing Element’s policies.

It describes and assesses the factors and characteristics that contribute to the supply and demand for housing in Costa Mesa. Specifically, the Community Profile describes the community’s population, employment, economics, and household characteristics. Special needs groups and housing stock characteristics are also described. The Community Profile provides baseline analysis to inform the goals, programs, and policies, included in the Housing Element.

The data used for this Community Profile has been collected using the most current available data from the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), 2010 U.S. Census, 2010-2018 U.S. Census American Community Survey (ACS), the California Department of Finance, the California Employment Development Department, the California Department of Education and other relevant available real estate and market data.

A. Population Characteristics
Population characteristics directly impact the current and future housing demand in a community. The type and extent of housing needs is often influenced by population growth, age composition of the community and the mix of race/ethnicity. These factors also determine the ability of the local population to afford housing costs. The following section describes and analyzes various population characteristics and local trends that affect housing needs.

1. Population Growth
Table 2-1 compares Costa Mesa’s forecasted population growth from 2010 to 2040 to the surrounding cities. The U.S. Census reported a population of 109,960 in 2010. Costa Mesa’s population represents 3.7 percent of the total Orange County population.

Table 2-1 estimates a 2010-2040 population growth of 5.8 percent, or 6,440 persons. Population growth estimates for Orange County anticipated an increase of 8.7 percent between 2010 to 2020. A 5.8 percent growth is projected for Orange County between 2020 and 2040. Costa Mesa’s estimated future population growth rate during that time period is lower than surrounding cities. For example, Irvine’s population is estimated to increase 10.5% through 2040 and Newport Beach’s population is estimated to increase 3.8% over that same period. This is compared to 2.2% growth in Costa Mesa between 2020 and 2040.

Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-2

2. Age Characteristics
Age composition of a community is a consideration when evaluating housing need – housing demand within the local real estate market may be influenced by the unique preferences of certain age groups. For example, young adults and seniors may favor apartments, low to moderate-cost condominiums, and smaller or more affordable single-family units. Young adults and seniors tend to have comparatively lower or fixed incomes and may have a smaller family size. In comparison, the middle-aged demographic typically represents the largest portion of local home buyers.

As these age cohorts move through different stages of life, housing needs and preferences will likely change. Creating a well-balanced community that provides for the individual housing needs of its residents will consider the changing housing needs of the current and projected future population.

Figure 2-1: Age Distribution in Costa Mesa, 2010-2018

Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2010, 2015, and 2018.

Under 5 years 5 to 19 years 20 to 34 years 35 to 49 years 50 to 64 years 65 years + 2010 6.90% 17.30% 28.00% 23.60% 15.70% 8.50%
2015 6.70% 17.20% 28.00% 21.60% 17.30% 9.50%
2018 5.70% 17.00% 27.40% 22.00% 17.20% 10.70%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%
Table 2-1: Population Growth Forecast, 2010-2040
Jurisdictions
Population Percent Change
2010
Actual
2012
Projected
2020
Projected
2035
Projected
2040
Projected
2010-2020 2020-2040
Newport Beach 85,186 86,300 89,300 92,300 92,700 4.8% 3.8% Costa Mesa 109,960 111,200 113,900 116,500 116,400 3.6% 2.2% Irvine 212,375 227,100 296,300 326,700 327,300 39.5% 10.5% Santa Ana 324,528 329,200 340,600 343,400 343,100 5% 0.7% Huntington
Beach 189,992 193,200 203,800 207,300 207,100 7.3% 1.6% Orange County 3,010,232 3,072,000 3,271,000 3,431,000 3,461,000 8.7% 5.8% Sources: Bureau of the Census (2010) and SCAG 2016-2040 Regional Growth Forecast by Jurisdiction Report.

Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-3
Figure 2-1 shows age distribution of Costa Mesa residents from 2010 to 2018. Young adults 20 to 34 years were estimated to represent the largest age group in Costa Mesa in 2018 (27.4 percent). Children aged 5 years and under were estimated to represent 5.7 percent of the City’s population in 2018. Seniors aged 65 years and over experienced the largest percent change of all age groups between 2010 and 2018 (a 2.2% increase).

These data shown in Figure 2-1 indicate a slight aging trend in the City of Costa Mesa, with some decreases in the population aged 34 years and under and a larger increase for persons aged over 50 years. The population aged 65 and over experienced the most growth. An aging population may result in changing needs for different housing types, amenities, and accessibility to local services.

Table 2-2 displays estimated age characteristics in 2018 for Costa Mesa, Orange County, and adjacent cities.

Persons aged 25 to 44 represent the largest population age group in Costa Mesa. Teenagers aged 15 to 17 represent the smallest age group in Costa Mesa (3.2 percent of the total population). Just under 11 percent of Costa Mesa’s population are persons aged 65 years or older.

Table 2-2: Age Distribution by Jurisdiction, 2018
Jurisdiction Under 5 5 to 14 15 to 17 18 to 24 25 to 44 45 to 64 65 years + Newport Beach 3.9% 10% 3.5% 6.3% 23.4% 30.2% 22.7%
Costa Mesa 5.7% 11.4% 3.2% 9.6% 35.2% 24.3% 10.7%
Irvine 6.4% 12.4% 3.6% 13% 30.8% 23.9% 9.9%
Santa Ana 7.5% 15.2% 4.4% 11.3% 30.9% 22.1% 8.6%
Huntington Beach 5.2% 10.9% 3.5% 7.6% 27% 29% 16.9%
Orange County 6.0% 12.5% 4% 9.5% 27.4% 26.6% 13.9%
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2018

3. Race/Ethnicity Characteristics
Different racial and ethnic groups often represent a variety of household characteristics, income levels, and cultural backgrounds which may influence housing needs, housing choices, and housing types. Various cultures may also influence preferences for specific types of housing that need to be considered in future housing needs of a community.

Figure 2-2 and Table 2-3 compare racial and ethnic composition between Costa Mesa, adjacent communities, and Orange County. The White population represents the largest racial group (71.6 in Costa Mesa). The smallest racial groups, each representing less than 1 percent of the City and County populations, are the American Indian/Alaska Natives and the Native Hawaiian/other Pacific Islanders. The Asian population in Costa Mesa represents 8.4 percent of the total population, compared to 20.1 percent of the total Orange County population. Persons identifying as of Hispanic or Latino origin represent 36.1 percent of entire Costa Mesa’s population, compared to 34.1 percent in Orange County. Persons identifying as being of Hispanic or Latino origin may be from any race. This is not additive to the racial composition information shown in Figure 2-2.

Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-4
Figure 2-2: Percentage of Racial and Ethnic Composition, 2018 Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2018.

Table 2-3: Racial and Ethnic Composition, 2018
Jurisdiction White Black
American
Indian and
Alaska
Native
Asian
Native
Hawaiian or
Other Pacific
Islander
Some
Other
Race
Two or
More
Races
Persons of
Hispanic or
Latino
Origin (of
any race)
Newport Beach 85.3% 0.8% 0.3% 8.3% 0.2% 2.1% 3.1% 9%
Costa Mesa 71.6% 1.9% 0.4% 8.4% 0.7% 13% 4% 36.1%
Irvine 47.6% 1.9% 0.2% 42.3% 0.2% 2.8% 5.2% 10.3%
Santa Ana 44.2% 1.1% 0.6% 11.8% 0.2% 40.1% 1.9% 76.8%
Huntington
Beach 72.4% 1.4% 0.6% 12.1% 0.4% 7.7% 5.4% 20.0%
Orange County 61.7% 1.7% 0.5% 20.1% 0.3% 11.7% 4.1% 34.1% Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2018.

Demographic analysis includes evaluating demographic changes over time. The U.S. Census and ACS report little change in racial and ethnic composition in Costa Mesa between 2010 and 2018, as displayed in Table 2-4. The greatest percent change was an increase of about 2 percent of the Hispanic and Latino population, regardless of race. The population of persons who identify as two or more races rose by 1.6 percent. The White population experienced the greatest percent decrease between 2010 and 2015 at 5.6 percent. In 2018 the White population increased by 5 percent. Those identifying as Some Other Race increased by 4 percent in 2015 and then decrease by 5.2 percentage points in 2018.

White
Black or
African
American
American
Indian and
Alaska
Native
Asian
Native
Hawaiian
and Other
Pacific
Islander
Some
Other Race
Two or
More
Races
Hispanic or
Latino
Costa Mesa 71.6% 1.9% 0.4% 8.4% 0.7% 13.0% 4.0% 36.1%
Orange County 61.7% 1.7% 0.5% 20.1% 0.3% 11.7% 4.1% 34.1% 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-5
Table 2-4: Racial and Ethnic Composition, 2010-2018
Race/Ethnicity 2010 2015 2018
Percent
Change 2010
to 2015
Percent
Change 2015
to 2018
White 72.3% 66.7% 71.6% -5.6% 4.9%
Black 1.2% 1.6% 1.9% 0.4% 0.3%
American Indian and
Alaska Native 0.4% 0.3% 0.4% -0.1% 0.1%
Asian 9% 9% 8.4% 0% -0.6%
Native Hawaiian or
Other Pacific Islander 0.6% 0.5% 0.7% -0.1% 0.2%
Some Other Race 14.1% 18.2% 13% 4.1% -5.2%
Two or More Races 2.4% 3.6% 4% 1.2% 0.4%
Hispanic or Latino 34.2% 35.7% 36.1% 1.5% 0.4%
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2010, 2015, and 2018.

B. Economic Characteristics
Economic characteristics of a community provide valuable insight into a community’s ability to access the housing market. Different job types, income levels and the number of workers in a household could also affect housing affordability and choice. Therefore, a healthy balance between jobs and housing is important when evaluating the economic characteristics of a community.

1. Employment and Wage Scale
The SCAG Growth Forecast Report estimates employment growth for the City of Costa Mesa and nearby cities, as summarized in Table 2-5. From 2012 to 2040, Orange County forecasts a net gain of 373,000 new jobs – a 23.2 percent increase over 28 years. Santa Ana and Newport Beach are estimated to experience the smallest percent growth of approximately 7 percent. Irvine has the fastest growing job market with an estimated increase of almost 40 percent, or 95,600 new jobs. In contrast, Costa Mesa has a forecasted employment growth of 9.9 percent through 2040.

Table 2-6 shows how employment has changed amongst different sectors for Costa Mesa residents between 2010 and 2018. In 2010, the majority of the working population in the City was employed in education services, health care, and social assistance. In 2018, the majority of employed persons were estimated to be in the professional, scientific, management, and administrative services sector. This sector is estimated to have increased by 2.7 percent between 2010 and 2018. Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining represents the sector with the lowest rates of employment for all cities in Orange County.

Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-6
Table 2-5: Employment Growth Trends, 2012-2040
Jurisdiction 2012 2020 2035 2040
%
Change
2012-
2020
%
Change
2020-
2040
# Change
2012-
2040
Total %
Change
Newport
Beach 76,000 77,900 78,900 79,100 2.5% 1.5% 3,100 4.1%
Costa Mesa 84,600 89,600 92,700 93,200 5.9% 4.0% 8,600 10.2% Irvine 224,400 280,600 314,000 320,000 25.0% 14.0% 95,600 42.6% Santa Ana 154,800 160,600 165,200 166,000 3.7% 3.4% 11,200 7.2% Huntington
Beach 75,800 82,900 86,400 87,000 9.4% 4.9% 11,200 14.8% Orange
County
1,526,000 1,730,000 1,870,000 1,899,000 13.4% 9.8% 373,000 24.4% Source: SCAG 2016-2040 Regional Growth Forecast by Jurisdiction Report.

Table 2-6: Employment in Costa Mesa by Sector, 2018
Industry Sector
2010 2018 Percent
Change
2010-2018
# of people
employed
% of City
Employment
# of people
employed
% of City
Employment
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and
hunting, and mining 231 0.4% 557 0.9% 0.5%
Construction 3,831 6.4% 3,783 5.9% -0.5%
Manufacturing 5,768 9.6% 5,869 9.2% -0.4%
Wholesale trade 2,562 4.3% 2,005 3.2% -1.1%
Retail trade 6,643 11.1% 7,224 11.3% 0.2%
Transportation and warehousing,
and utilities 1,493 2.5% 1,850 2.9% 0.4%
Information 1,385 2.3% 1,216 1.9% -0.4%
Finance and insurance, and real
estate and rental leasing 6,076 10.2% 5,713 9% -1.2%
Professional, scientific,
management, and administrative
services
9,150 15.3% 11,436 17.9% 2.7%
Education services, health care,
and social assistance 10,210 17.1% 10,360 16.3% -0.8%
Arts, entertainment, recreation,
accommodation, and food
services
7,828 13.1% 8,623 13.5% 0.5%
Other services (except public
administration) 3,582 6% 3,698 5.8% -0.2%
Public Administration 1,126 1.9% 1,406 2.2% 0.3%
Total 59,885 100.0% 63,740 100.0% 6.4%
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2010 and 2018.

Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-7
The unemployment rate is essential to understand the current and projected housing needs and affordability. According to the 2018 ACS survey data in Table 2-7, Costa Mesa was estimated to have an unemployment rate of 4.8 percent, or 4,445 individuals unemployed in the City. This percentage is slightly less than Orange County’s rate of 5.1 percent.

Table 2-7: Unemployment Rate, 2018
Jurisdiction Unemployment Rate*
Newport Beach 3.4%
Costa Mesa 4.8%
Irvine 4.9%
Santa Ana 5.6%
Huntington Beach 4.3%
Orange County 5.1%
*Population 16 years and over
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2018.

Table 2-7 shows approximately 4.8 percent of the population in Costa Mesa was estimated to be without work in 2018 and would therefore be more likely to need affordable housing options.

2. Regional Affordable Housing Rates
Income levels can determine affordability and choice of housing types offered in Costa Mesa. According to SCAG’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), housing needs are defined by the following four income categories:
• Very Low Income (less than 50 percent of the Orange County’s median family income) • Low Income (50-80 percent of Orange County’s median family income) • Moderate Income (81-120 percent of Orange County’s median family income) • Above Moderate Income (120 percent and above of Orange County’s median family income) Included in the very low-income category is the extremely low-income group. Extremely low incomes are less than 30 percent of the County’s median family income. Orange County’s 2020 median family income, based on an assumed family of four, is $103,000. Table 2-8 provides a summary of median salary by occupation in Costa Mesa in 2018.

Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-8
Table 2-8: Median Salary by Occupation in Costa Mesa, 2018 Occupation Salary
Management $84,842
Legal $154,293
Computer and Mathematical $73,170
Architecture and Engineering $93,000
Healthcare Practitioners and Technical $84,833
Business and Financial Operations $66,708
Life, Physical and Social Sciences $75,833
Construction and Extraction $31,719
Education, Training and Library $52,786
Installation, Maintenance and Repair $42,193
Community and Social Service $63,750
Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports and Media $62,693
Office and Administration Support $47,958
Protective Services $31,979
Healthcare Support $28,243
Sales $57,677
Production $41,490
Transportation $31,950
Material Moving $27,401
Building, Grounds Cleaning, and Maintenance $25,534
Farming, Fishing and Forestry $31,090
Food Preparation and Serving Related $26,465
Personal Care and Service $34,167
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2018.

Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-9
C. Household Characteristics
A household is defined by the U.S. Census as all persons who occupy a housing unit. This may include single persons living alone, families related through marriage, blood or adoption, domestic partnerships and unrelated individuals living together. Not all housing is considered a housing unit including, nursing facilities, residential care facilities, dormitories, and other group living; the persons living with them also do not constitute a household.

Information on household characteristics assists in understanding growth and determining the housing needs of a community. Income and affordability are best measured at the household level. The special needs of certain groups, such as large families, single parent households, or low, very low, and extremely low-income households must also be assessed to identify potential housing needs. For example, if a city has a predominately aging population of homeowners who may have fixed incomes, the City may consider implementing a home rehabilitation or maintenance assistance program to assist in deferred maintenance due to lack of disposable income.

1. Household Type and Size
The City of Costa Mesa had an estimated 41,019 households in 2018. Married-couple families are the largest household type in Costa Mesa, representing 42.8 percent of the City’s population (Table 2-9). The percentage is lower by comparison to nearby cities. Just under 55 percent of all Orange County residents live in married-couple households. Households of this type typically occupy single family residences with multiple bedrooms. Non-family households are the second largest household type in Costa Mesa, representing 40.2 percent of all households. When combined with senior householders over the age of 65 and living alone, (as shown in Figure 2-3), it represents 46.8 percent of all households. Persons aged 65 or older tend to occupy apartments or smaller age-centric living.

Table 2-9: Household Characteristics by Jurisdiction, 2018 Jurisdiction
Married-couple Family
Households

Female Household, No
Spouse Present

Non-Family
Household1

Total Households
2010 2018 2010 2018 2010 2018 2010 2018
Newport Beach 44.8% 50.1% 5.7% 4.9% 46.7% 42.5% 37,803 37,870 Costa Mesa 42.7% 42.8% 10.5% 10.2% 40.4% 40.2% 40,104 41,019 Irvine 52.8% 54.2% 9.3% 8.8% 34.0% 33.2% 71,680 95,371
Santa Ana 53.7% 54.3% 16.3% 18.0% 19.5% 18.7% 74,381 76,521 Huntington
Beach 48.7% 48.9% 10.0% 10.8% 36.4% 35.1% 75,220 76,821 Orange County 54.2% 54.7% 11.4% 11.8% 29.0% 28.2% 984,503 1,032,373

1. A nonfamily household consists of a householder living alone (a one-person household) or where the householder shares the home exclusively with people to whom he/she is not related.

Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2018.

Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-10
Figure 2-3: Costa Mesa Household Characteristics, 2010 and 2018 Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2010 and 2018.

Table 2-10 summarizes changes in household types between 2010 and 2018. Over this time period, households in Costa Mesa increased by 915. The changes in household types have remained generally constant for all housing types. The two largest percent changes between 2010 and 2018 were a 0.3% decrease for female households and a 0.3% increase for male households.

Table 2-10: Changes in Household Types, 2010-2018
Household Types 2010 Percent 2015 Percent 2018 Percent
Married-couple
Family Households 17,127 42.7% 17,039 41.7% 17,568 42.8% Female Household,
No Spouse Present 4,196 10.5% 4,746 11.6% 4,191 10.2%
Male Household, No
Spouse Present 2,564 6.4% 2,371 5.8% 2,751 6.7%
Nonfamily
Household 16,217 40.4% 16,752 41% 16,509 40.2%
Total Households 40,104 100% 40,908 100% 41,019 100%
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2010, 2015, 2018.

Table 2-11: Average Household Size
Jurisdiction
Average Persons per
Household
Newport Beach 2.3
Costa Mesa 2.7
Irvine 2.7
Santa Ana 4.3
Huntington Beach 2.6
Orange County 3.0
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2018.

Married-Couple
Households
Female Households,
No Spouse Present
Male Households,
No Spouse Present
NonFamily
Households
Householder Age 65
or above
2018 42.8% 10.2% 6.7% 40.2% 6.6%
2010 42.7% 10.5% 6.4% 40.4% 4.7%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-11
The average household size in Costa Mesa is estimated to be 2.7 persons per household, as shown in Table 2-11. This is less than Orange County’s average household size of 3.0 persons per household. Of Costa Mesa’s adjacent communities, the smallest average household size is in Newport Beach (2.3 persons per household), and the largest household size is in Santa Ana (4.3 persons per household).

2. Household Income
Household income is directly connected to housing affordability and housing choice. As household income increases, it is more likely that the household can afford market rate housing units, larger units, and/or pursue ownership opportunities. As household income decreases, households may spend a disproportionate amount of their income on housing. State and federal guidance suggests that households paying more than 30 percent of their income for housing are considered overpaying. Household income and overpayment influences a household’s housing cost burden and may influence increased incidences of overcrowding and substandard living conditions in the area. A high housing cost burden may also influence a household’s available income for reinvestment in the local economy, education, and other similar investments.

The data for Table 2-12 comes from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)’s 2020 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) estimates which are based on 2013-2017 American Community Survey (ACS) data and area median family income (AMFI). A total of 52.8 percent of the Costa Mesa population qualify for the moderate-income category. About 29 percent qualify for very low or extremely low income - this is about 11,842 Costa Mesa households that make less than $42,699 annually.

Table 2-12: Households by Income Category, 2020
Income Category (% of Orange County’s AMFI) No. of Households Percent Extremely Low (30% AMFI or less) 6,610 16.3%
Very Low (31 to 50% AMFI) 5,220 12.9%
Low (51 to 80% AMFI) 7,325 18.1%
Moderate or Above (over 80% AMFI) 21,405 52.8%
Total 40,555 100%
Source: Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), 2013- 2017.

The median household income in Costa Mesa is $6,191 lower than Orange County’s median household income. Figure 2-4 compares Costa Mesa’s median household income to that of Orange County and the City’s neighboring communities. This figure shows that Costa Mesa households have a lower median household income comparatively.

Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-12
Figure 2-4: Median Household Income by City, 2018
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2018.

Table 2-13 presents the median income for Costa Mesa and its adjacent cities in comparison to the regional median for Orange County in 2018. Costa Mesa households have a median income 7.2 percent below the regional median. The City’s median household income is higher than that of Santa Ana at $61,774. Aside from Costa Mesa and Santa Ana, the other nearby cities have a median income above the regional median.

Newport Beach has a significantly higher median household income at $122,709 annually, approximately and 64.5 percent higher than the Costa Mesa’s median household income.

Table 2-13: Median Household Income, 2018
Jurisdiction Median Income
Percent
Above/Below
Regional Median
Newport Beach $122,709 43.7%%
Costa Mesa $79,207 -7.2%
Irvine $100,969 18.2%
Santa Ana $61,774 -27.7%
Huntington Beach $91,318 6.9%
Orange County $85,398 --
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2018.

$122,709
$79,207
$100,969
$61,774
$91,318
$85,398
$0
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
$140,000
Newport Beach Costa Mesa Irvine Santa Ana Huntington Beach Income Orange County
Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-13
Figure 2-5: Costa Mesa Income Breakdown by Income Category Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2018.

D. Housing Problems and Housing Needs
The 2020 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) provides detailed information on housing needs by income level for different types of households in Costa Mesa. The most recent available CHAS data for Costa Mesa was published in August 2020 and is based on 2013-2017 American Community Survey (ACS) data (Table 2-14). Housing problems considered by CHAS include:
• Units with physical defects (lacking complete kitchen or bathroom); • Overcrowded conditions (housing units with more than one person per room – excluding bathrooms and kitchens);
• Housing cost burdens, including utilities, exceeding 30 percent of gross income; and • Severe housing cost burdens, including utilities, exceeding 50 percent of gross income.

The types of housing problems in Costa Mesa vary according to household income, housing type, and tenure. Renters make up the greatest percentage of households at about 60 percent. Renters experiencing at least one of the four housing problems listed above represent 33.4 percent of all households and about 55 percent of all renters. Households who do not have any of the four housing problems are similar for both owners and renters (25.7 percent and 26.6 percent, respectively). For the City as a whole, 46.5 percent of households have at least one of the four housing problems.

The severe housing problems category relates to the livability of a residence and critically affects the quality of life of the occupants. These are important to analyze as it may reveal an aging housing stock, as well as a need for affordable housing. Severe housing problems include incomplete kitchen facilities, incomplete plumbing facilities, more than 1.5 persons per room (rate of severe overcrowding), and a cost burden greater than 50 percent of a household’s annual income. Table 2-14 shows that at 70.6 percent or the Less than $25,000
14%
$25,000 to
$34,999
7%
$35,000 to
$49,999
10%
$50,000 to
$74,999
16%
$75,000 to
$99,999
14%
$100,000 to
$149,999
19%
$150,000 or more
20%
Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-14
majority of Costa Mesa households do not have any of the four severe housing problems. However, 28.2 percent of households do experience at least one of these problems. Renters with at least one severe housing problem represent 21.5 percent of all Costa Mesa households. Owners with at least one severe housing problem represent 6.7 percent of all households.

Table 2-14: Housing Assistance Needs of Lower Income Households, 2013-2017 Housing Problem
Overview*
Owner
% of total
HH
Renter
% of
total HH
Total
% of
total
HH
Household has at least
1 of 4 Housing
Problems
5,330 13.1% 13,540 33.4% 18,870 46.5%
Household has none of
4 Housing Problems 10,425 25.7% 10,785 26.6% 21,210 52.3% Cost Burden not
available, no other
problems
95 0.2% 380 0.9% 475 1.2%
Total 15,850 39.0% 24,705 60.9% 40,555 100.0%
Severe Housing
Problem Overview**
Owner % of total
HH
Renter % of
total HH
Total
% of
total
HH
Household has at least
1 of 4 Severe Housing
Problems
2,720 6.7% 8,715 21.5% 11,435 28.2%
Household has none of
4 Severe Housing
Problems
13,040 32.2% 15,610 38.5% 28,650 70.6%
Cost Burden not
available, no other
problems
95 0.2% 380 0.9% 475 1.2%
Total 15,855 39.1% 24,705 60.9% 40,560 100.0%
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) 2013-2017.
* The four housing problems are: incomplete kitchen facilities, incomplete plumbing facilities, more than 1 person per room, and cost burden greater than 30%.
** The four severe housing problems are: incomplete kitchen facilities, incomplete plumbing facilities, more than 1.5 persons per room, and cost burden greater than 50%.

1. Overcrowding
“Overcrowding” is generally defined as a housing unit occupied by more than one person per room in a house (including living room and dining rooms, but excluding hallways, kitchen, and bathrooms). An overcrowded household results from either a lack of affordable housing and/or a lack of housing units of adequate size. The combination of lower incomes and high housing costs can result in households living in overcrowded housing conditions. Additionally, overcrowding can indicate that a community does not have an adequate supply of affordable housing, especially for larger families.

Overcrowded and severely overcrowded households can contribute to neighborhood deterioration. This can be due to more intensive use leading to excessive wear and tear, and/or the potential cumulative Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-15
overburdening of community infrastructure and service capacity. Generally, overcrowding in neighborhoods could contribute to overall decline in social cohesion and environmental quality. Such decline may spread geographically and impact the quality of life, the economic value of property, and the vitality of commerce within a city.

Table 2-15 summarizes the overcrowding condition in Costa Mesa. Data from the 2018 ACS reports an estimated 6 percent overcrowded housing units and 3 percent severely overcrowded housing units. About 1 percent of owner-occupied housing units are overcrowded and just under 8 percent of renter-occupied housing units are overcrowded. Renters living in overcrowded housing units represent 5.1 percent of all occupied housing units and renters living in severely overcrowded housing units represent 2.8 percent of all occupied housing units.

Table 2-15: Overcrowding by Tenure, 2018
Tenure
Overcrowded Housing Units
(1.0 to 1.50 persons/room)
Severely Overcrowded Housing
Units (>1.51 persons/room)
Total Overcrowded Occupied
Housing Units
Count
Percent of
Total Occupied
Housing Units
Count
Percent of
Total Occupied
Housing Units
Count
Percent of
Total Occupied
Housing Units
Owner
Occupied 361 0.9% 74 0.2% 435 1.1%
Renter
Occupied 2,082 5.1% 1,169 2.8% 3,251 7.9%
Total 2,443 6% 1,243 3% 3,686 9%
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2018.

Costa Mesa has one of the largest estimated percentages of renters living in overcrowded housing units compared to nearby cities and Orange County (Table 2-16). With 88 percent of renter-occupied housing units overcrowded, Costa Mesa is slightly less than Newport Beach; however, Newport Beach reports 505 overcrowded renter-occupied units while Costa Mesa reports 3,251. Santa Ana has the lowest percentage of renters living in overcrowded units, but at 27 percent it has the highest rate of owner-occupied housing units experiencing overcrowding (15 percent more than Costa Mesa). Overcrowding in Costa Mesa is 12 percent below the regional percentage for owners and 12 percent above the regional percentage for renters. In comparison, Costa Mesa has one of the lowest rates of overcrowding in owner-occupied housing units (12 percent) behind Newport Beach. Table 2-17 shows the combination of renter occupied and owner occupied indicating that the City of Costa Mesa has the second highest rate of overcrowding in this area of Orange County (9 percent) which is 0.1 percent above the regional total.

Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-16
Table 2-16: Overcrowded Housing Units by Tenure, 2018
Jurisdiction
Owner Occupied Overcrowded Units
(>1.0 persons/room)
Renter Occupied Overcrowded Units
(>1.0 persons/room)
Count
Percent of Total
Overcrowded
Units
Count
Percent of Total
Overcrowded
Units
Newport Beach 65 11% 505 89%
Costa Mesa 435 12% 3,251 88%
Irvine 958 16% 4,921 84%
Santa Ana 6,470 27% 17,375 73%
Huntington Beach 557 20% 2,291 80%
Orange County 21,800 24% 69,713 76%
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2018.

Table 2-17: Overcrowded Housing Units
Jurisdiction
Total Overcrowded
Units
Percent of
Jurisdiction’s Total
Housing Units
Newport Beach 570 1.5%
Costa Mesa 3,686 9%
Irvine 5,879 6.2%
Santa Ana 23,845 31.2%
Huntington Beach 2,848 3.7%
Orange County 91,513 8.9%
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2018.

2. Overpayment (Cost Burden) for Housing In Relation to Income Overpayment is an important consideration when evaluating housing need and affordability. State and federal guidance suggests that households paying more than 30 percent of their income for housing are considered overpaying. Overpayment for housing can cause an imbalance for overall household budgets.

Table 2-18 and Table 2-19 provides a summary of housing overpayment in Costa Mesa and a comparative analysis between homeowners and renters. In general, renters are more prone to overpayment than homeowners due to lower incomes that do not allow them to qualify for purchasing a home with a fixed mortgage payment or at an affordable price. In Costa Mesa, 48.8 percent of renters are estimated to spend more than 30 percent of their income on housing. In comparison, 31.8 percent of homeowners spend that same amount. For renters, as their household income rises so does their ability to afford rent. Renters who earn an Area Median Family Income (AMFI) of 30 percent or less have much greater cost burdens than homeowners with the same income; 17.5 percent of renters spend 30 percent or more of their income and

16.3 percent spend over 50 percent. By comparison, homeowners who also earn an AMFI of 30 percent or less, 7.3 percent spend 30 percent of more of their income on housing and 6.2 percent spend over 50 percent. Table 2-18 also shows that homeowners who earn a low to moderate income are the most likely to experience a cost burden of 30 percent or more.

Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-17
Table 2-18: Summary of Housing Overpayment for Homeowners Income by Cost
Burden*

Cost Burden >
30%
% of Owner
HH
Cost Burden >
50%
% of Owner
HH
Household Income is
less-than or = 30% 1,165 7.3% 990 6.2%
Household Income
>30% to less-than or
= 50% AMFI
770 4.9% 505 3.2%
Household Income
>50% to less-than or
= 80% AMFI
1,230 7.8% 540 3.4%
Household Income
>80% to less-than or
= 100% AMFI
670 4.2% 185 1.2%
Household Income
>100% AMFI 1,200 7.6% 115 0.7%
Total 5,035 31.8% 2,335 14.7%
• * Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is "select monthly owner costs", which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes.

Note: AMFI = Area Median Family Income, this is the median family income calculated by HUD for each jurisdiction, to determine Fair Market Rents (FMRs) and income limits for HUD programs. AMFI will not necessarily be the same as other calculations of median incomes (such as a simple Census number), due to a series of adjustments that are made.

Source: Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) 2013-2017.

Table 2-19: Summary of Housing Overpayment for Renters
Income by Cost
Burden
Cost Burden >
30%
% of Renter
HH
Cost Burden >
50%
% of Renter
HH
Household Income is
less-than or = 30% 4,325 17.5% 4,020 16.3%
Household Income
>30% to less-than or =
50% AMFI
3,390 13.7% 1,790 7.2%
Household Income
>50% to less-than or =
80% AMFI
3,100 12.5% 605 2.4%
Household Income
>80% to less-than or =
100% AMFI
725 2.9% 15 0.1%
Household Income
>100% AMFI 505 2.0% 10 0.0%
Total 12,045 48.8% 6,440 26.1%
Source: Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) 2013-2017.

Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-18
E. Special Needs Groups
State law recognizes certain households may have more difficulty in finding adequate and affordable housing due to special circumstances. Special needs populations include seniors, persons with disabilities, female-headed households, large households, and farm workers. Based on the analysis included within this section the City of Costa Mesa has developed Program 2C which describes how the City will expend available CDBG funds to support residents with special housing needs.

Special circumstances may be related to one’s employment and income, family characteristics, disability and household characteristics, or other factors. Consequently, certain Costa Mesa residents may experience higher incidences of housing overpayment (cost burden), overcrowding, or other housing problems. The special needs groups analyzed in the Housing Element include the elderly, persons with disabilities (including persons with developmental disabilities), individuals experiencing homelessness, single parents, large households, and farmworkers (Table 2-20). These groups may also overlap, for example some elderly people may have a disability of some type. The majority of these special needs groups could be assisted by an increase in affordable housing.

The following sections provide a detailed discussion of the housing needs facing each particular group in Costa Mesa as well as programs and services available to address their housing needs.

Table 2-20: Special Needs Groups in Costa Mesa
Special Needs Groups
# of People or
Households
Percent of Total
Households
Percent of Total
Population
Senior Population 12,138 people -- 10.7%
Senior Headed Households 9,757 people -- 8.6%
Seniors Living Alone 3,075
households 7.5% --
Persons with Disabilities 9,224 people -- 8.1%
Large Households (5 or more
persons per household)
3,926
households 9.6% --
Single-Parent Households 3,787
households 9.2% --
Single-Parent, Female Headed
Households with Children (under 18
years)
2,304
households 5.7% --
People Living in Poverty1 14,554 people -- 12.9%
Farmworkers 557 people -- 0.5%
Migrant Farmworkers 340 people -- --
Seasonal Farmworkers 666 people -- --
Permanent Farmworkers 1,106 people -- --
Persons Experiencing Homelessness 193 people -- 0.2%

1. The Census Bureau uses a set of money income thresholds that vary by family size and composition to determine who is in poverty. If a family's total income is less than the family's threshold, then that family and every individual in it is considered in poverty.

Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2018; Orange County Point in Time County /Homeless Count, 2019.

Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-19

1. Seniors
The senior population is generally defined as those over 65 years of age. Seniors have a high likelihood of limited and fixed incomes, higher health care costs, greater mobility challenges and self-care limitations, transit dependency, and commonly live alone. Specific housing needs of the senior population include affordable housing, supportive housing, co-living, multi-generational settings such as Accessory Dwelling Units and other housing options that include a planned service component.

Table 2-21 shows that Costa Mesa has a lower senior population compared to some nearby cities and Orange County, in general. Seniors over the age of 65 comprise 10.7 percent of the Costa Mesa population.

Costa Mesa seniors represent a greater population percentage than those in Irvine (9.9 percent) and Santa Ana (8.6 percent). Newport Beach has the largest senior population of the area compared at 22.7 percent (12 percent more than Costa Mesa). The senior population of the County of Orange (13.9 percent) is 3.2 percent greater than that of Costa Mesa.

Table 2-21: Persons Age 65 and Over in Costa Mesa
Jurisdiction
Population
Count
Percent
Newport Beach 19,574 22.7%
Costa Mesa 12,138 10.7%
Irvine 26,228 9.9%
Santa Ana 28,621 8.6%
Huntington
Beach 34,002 16.9%
Orange County 440,488 13.9%
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2018.

Table 2-22 illustrates the tenure of senior households in the City of Costa Mesa. The majority of senior households are owner-occupied with 58.8 percent of all senior households.

Table 2-22: Senior Households by Tenure
Tenure
Senior
Households
Percent of Total
Senior
Households
Owner Occupied 5,143 58.8%
Renter Occupied 3,611 41.2%
Total 8,754 100.0%
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2019.

Federal housing data defines the household type as ‘elderly family’ if it consists of two persons with either or both age 62 or over. Table 2-23 summarizes the income and tenure of elderly family households in Costa Mesa. Of elderly households in Costa Mesa, 24.5 percent earn less than 30 percent of the surrounding area income, 39.4 percent earn less than 50 percent of the surrounding area.

Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-20
Table 2-23: Elderly Households by Income and Tenure
Income Category, relative to
surrounding area
Owner Renter Total
Percent of
Total Elderly
Households
Extremely Low (30% HAMFI or less) 905 955 1,860 24.5%
Very Low (30% to 50% HAMFI) 840 290 1,130 14.9%
Low (50% to 80% HAMFI) 1,090 555 1,645 21.7%
Moderate (80% to 100% HAMFI) 465 195 660 8.7%
Above Moderate (100% HAMFI or more) 1,720 580 2,300 30.3% Total 5,020 2,575 7,595 --
Source: HUD CHAS, 2012-2016, (Reported by the Southern California Association of Governments Per-Certified Local Housing Data for 2021).

In addition to overpayment problems faced by seniors due to their relatively fixed incomes, seniors may be faced with various disabilities. In 2018, the American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimate reported 4,064 Costa Mesa seniors with a disability. Among these disabilities, the most common were ambulatory disabilities, independent living disabilities and hearing disabilities. Based on this analysis, the City has developed Program 2D to identify opportunities for Senior Housing developments within Costa Mesa.

Actions include outreach and collaboration with the senior housing development community to understand needs and opportunities.

2. Persons with Physical and Developmental Disabilities Physical and developmental disabilities may hinder access to traditionally designed housing units. Physical, mental, and/or developmental disabilities may deprive a person from earning an income, restrict one’s mobility, or make self-care difficult. Some residents may also have disabilities that require living in a supportive or institutional setting. Thus, persons with disabilities generally have special housing needs that must be provided with the City’s housing stock.

No current comparisons of disability with income, household size, or race/ethnicity are available. However, it is reasonable to assume that a substantial portion of persons with disabilities would have annual incomes within Federal and State income limits, especially households not in the labor force. Furthermore, lower income persons with disabilities are likely to require housing assistance and services. Housing needs for disabled persons are further compounded by costly design issues and location factors such as proximity to transit, medical services, and retail. For example, special needs households with wheelchair-bound or semiambulatory individuals may require ramps, holding bars, special bathroom designs, wider doorways, lower cabinets, elevators, and other interior and exterior design features.

The 2018 ACS identifies six disability types: hearing disability, vision disability, cognitive disability, ambulatory disability, self-care disability, and independent living disability. The Census and the ACS provides clarifying questions to determine persons with disabilities and to differentiate between disabilities. The ACS defines a disability as a report of one of the six disabilities identified by the following questions:

Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-21
• Hearing Disability: Is this person deaf or does he/she have serious difficulty hearing? • Visual Disability: Is this person blind or do they have serious difficulty seeing even when wearing glasses?
• Cognitive Difficulty: Because of a physical, mental, or emotional condition, does this person have serious difficulty concentrating, remembering, or making decisions? • Ambulatory Difficulty: Does this person have serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs? • Independent Living Difficulty: Because of a physical, mental, or emotional condition, does this person have difficulty doing errands alone such as visiting a doctor’s office or shopping? Table 2-24: Disability Status in Costa Mesa
Disability Type
Under 18
with a
Disability
18 to 64
with a
Disability
65 years
and Over
with a
Disability
Total
Percent of
Population
with
Disability
Percent of
Total
Population
Population with a
Hearing Difficulty 93 904 1,592 2,589 28.1% 2.3%
Population with a
Vision Difficulty 112 894 905 1,911 20.7% 1.7%
Population with a
Cognitive Difficulty 371 2,159 1,489 4,019 43.6% 3.6%
Population with an
Ambulatory Difficulty 48 1,670 2,571 4,289 46.5% 3.8%
Population with a Selfcare Difficulty 96 591 1,069 1,756 19% 1.6% Population with an
Independent Living
Difficulty
-- 1,403 1,993 3,396 36.8% 3%
Total 535 4,625 4,064 9,224* 100%* 8.2%*
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2018. *This number may include persons reporting having one or more disabilities. Percentages include persons reporting having more than one disability and are not additive.

State law requires that the Housing Element discuss the housing needs of persons with developmental disabilities. As defined by federal law, “developmental disability” means a severe, chronic disability of an individual that:
• Is attributed to a mental or physical impairment or combination of mental and physical impairments;
• Is manifested before the individual attains age 22;
• Is likely to continue indefinitely;
• Results in substantial functional limitations in three or more of the following areas of major life activity: a) self-care; b) receptive and expressive language; c) learning; d) mobility; e) self-direction; f) capacity for independent living; or g) economic self- sufficiency; and • Reflects the individual’s need for a combination and sequence of special, interdisciplinary, generic services, individualized supports, or other forms of assistance that are of lifelong or extended duration and are individually planned and coordinated.

Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-22
Per Section 4512 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, a "developmental disability" means a disability that originates before an individual attains the age of 18, continues, or can be expected to continue, indefinitely, and constitutes a substantial disability for that individual. A developmental disability includes intellectual disability, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, and autism. This term also includes disabling conditions found to be closely related to intellectual disability or to require treatment like that required for individuals with intellectual disability. This term does not include other handicapping conditions that are solely physical in nature.

According to the Regional Center of Orange County’s (RCOC) Total Annual Expenditures and Authorized Services for Fiscal Year 2019-2020, a total of 25,163 individuals living in Orange County received services.

RCOC represents the fifth largest regional center in California and has over 300 service coordinators.

Diagnosis reported by the individuals who received services include 37.6 percent with an intellectual disability, 31 percent with Autism, 2.5 percent with Cerebral Palsy, 1 percent with Epilepsy, 3.9 percent with a Category 5 disability, and 24.1 percent reported “Other”. Of those who received services, 31.6 percent reported their race as White, 16 percent reported Asian, 16.1 percent reported Other Ethnicity or Race/Multi-Cultural, and 2 percent reporter Black/African American. Approximately 34 percent of those who received services also reported their ethnicity as Hispanic or Latino. Ages of the 25,163 individuals includes 21.1 percent 2 years or younger, 39.9 percent 3 to 21 years, and 39 percent over the age of 22.

The majority of those who received services lived at the home of a parent or guardian (82.3 percent), but

6.8 percent live in a Community Care Facility and 5.6 percent live in Independent Living or Supported Living.

People with developmental disabilities may live and work independently within a conventional housing environment. Individuals with more severe developmental disabilities may require a supervised group living environment. The most severely affected individuals may require an environment where medical attention and physical therapy services are provided. Because developmental disabilities exist before adulthood, the first issue in supportive housing for persons with developmental disabilities is the transition from the person’s living situation as a child to an appropriate level of independence as an adult.

There are several housing types and assistance programs appropriate for people living with a development disability: rent subsidized homes, licensed single-family homes, Section 8 vouchers, special programs for home purchase, HUD housing, and SB 962 (veterans) homes. The design of housing-accessibility modifications, the proximity to services and transit, and the availability of housing opportunities represent some of the types of considerations that are important in serving the needs of this group. Incorporating ‘barrier-free’ design in all new, multi-family housing (as required by California and Federal Fair Housing laws) is especially important to provide the widest range of choices for residents with disabilities. Special consideration should also be given to the affordability of housing as people with disabilities may be living on a fixed income.

3. Large Households
Large households are defined as those consisting of five or more members. These households comprise a special need group because many communities have a limited supply of adequately sized and affordable housing units. To save for other basic necessities such as food, clothing, and medical care, it is common for lower income large households to reside in smaller units with a low number of bedrooms, which may result in overcrowding and can contribute to fast rates of deterioration.

Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-23
Securing housing large enough to accommodate all members of a household is generally more challenging for renters as multi-family rental units are generally physically smaller with limited bedrooms than singlefamily ownership units. While apartment complexes offering two and three bedrooms are common, apartments with four or more bedrooms are rare; housing units with 4 or more bedrooms account for approximately 15 percent of housing units in the City. Therefore, it is more likely that large households will experience overcrowding in comparison to smaller households. Additionally, single-family homes with higher bedroom counts, whether rental or ownership units, are rarely affordable to lower income households in the region.

According to the 2018 ACS 5-year estimates, there is a much greater amount of large renter households than large owner-occupied households (Table 2-25). Approximately, 63 percent of large households are renter households, of which 56 percent are 5-person households. As Table 2-25 also shows a reverse relation between household size and overcrowding; as the total number of large households decreases, the household size increases. Therefore, 58.3 percent of large households are 5-person households compared to 17.1 percent 7-person households.

Table 2- 25: Large Households by Tenure in Costa Mesa
Household Size
Owner Renter Total
Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
5-Person Household 944 62.1% 1,441 56% 2,385 58.3%
6-person household 278 18.3% 728 28.3% 1,006 24.6%
7-or-more person
Households 298 19.6% 402 15.6% 700 17.1%
Total 1,520 37.2% 2,571 62.8% 4,091 100%
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2018 Table 2-26 provides comparisons of large households between Costa Mesa and its neighboring cities. At ten percent, Costa Mesa has a lower total number of large households than Orange County (14.2 percent). Of the neighboring cities, Santa Ana has the greatest number of large households (25 percent more than Costa Mesa). In comparison, Costa Mesa has approximately 5 percent more large households than Newport Beach. While lower than the County percentage as a whole, ten percent of the total households containing five or more persons is a large portion of the Costa Mesa community. In response, Program 2E describes actions the City will take to encourage the development of additional housing options for large-family households.

Table 2-26: Percent of Large Households by Jurisdiction 5-Person
Households
6-Person
Households
7-or-More Person
Households
Total Large
Households
Newport Beach 3.6% 1.3% 0.3% 5.1%
Costa Mesa 5.8% 2.5% 1.7% 10.0%
Irvine 5.3% 1.9% 0.6% 7.8%
Santa Ana 14.2% 9.4% 11.4% 35.0%
Huntington Beach 5.3% 1.6% 0.9% 7.8%
Orange County 7.9% 3.5% 2.8% 14.2%
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2018.

Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-24

4. Single-Parent Households
Single-parent households often require special consideration and assistance due to their greater need for affordable and accessible day care, health care, and other supportive services. Many female-headed households with children are susceptible to having lower incomes than similar two-parent households.

Table 2-27 shows a breakdown of single parent households and poverty status. Of the single parent households in Costa Mesa, the majority are estimated to be female households with no spouse present (60.7 percent) and 39.3 percent are estimated to be male households with no spouse present. With 3,110 single parent households, Costa Mesa is only 0.2 percentage points over Orange County’s percentage. Over a quarter of these Costa Mesa single-parent households live under the poverty line (27.4 percent).

Table 2-27: Single Parent Households in Costa Mesa
Jurisdiction
Single Parent-Male,
No Spouse Present
Single Parent-Female,
No Spouse Present
Single Parent
Households Living in
Poverty
Single Parent
Households
Percent of
Total
Households
Count
% of
Single
Parent
HH
Count
% of
Single
Parent
HH
Count
% of
Single
Parent
HH
Count Percent
Costa Mesa 1,223 39.3% 1,887 60.7% 851 27.4% 3,110 7.6% Orange County 22,456 29.5% 53,659 70.5% 22,999 30.2% 76,115 7.4% Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2018.

5. Farmworkers
Farmworkers are traditionally defined as persons whose primary incomes are earned through permanent or seasonal agricultural labor. Permanent farm laborers work in the fields, processing plants, or support activities on a generally year-round basis. When workload increases during harvest periods, the labor force is supplemented by seasonal workers, often supplied by a labor contractor. For some crops, farms may hire migrant workers, defined as those whose travel prevents them from returning to their primary residence every evening. Farm workers have special housing needs because they earn lower incomes than many other workers and move throughout the year from one harvest location to the next.

The United States Department of Agriculture, National Agriculture Statistics provides data on hired farm labor across the United States. The data is compiled at both a State and County level. Within Orange County, a total of 99 farms reportedly hired 1,772 workers in 2017. Permanent workers, those who work 150 days or more, represent the largest category of workers with 1,106 workers (62 percent). A total of 666 workers (38 percent) are considered seasonal and work less than 150 days. Orange County reported 340 migrant workers (19 percent) with full time hired labor in 2017. In addition, the County reported 176 unpaid workers.

The median annual salary for the agriculture, forestry, fishing, hunting, and mining industry in Costa Mesa is $31,023, which is 36 percent of the Orange County median income and is considered as a very-low income (2018).

Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-25

6. Extremely Low-Income Households and Poverty Status
Extremely low-income households are those which earn less than 30 percent of the AMFI. The 2013-2017 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) indicates that there are approximately 6,610 extremely low-income households in Costa Mesa. Table 2-8 identifies occupations with salaries that could qualify as extremely low-income, these include: healthcare support; material moving; building, grounds cleaning, and maintenance; food preparation and serving related.

Extremely low-income households represent approximately 16.3 percent of all Costa Mesa households. Of these households, 76.5 percent are renters and 23.5 percent are homeowners. Extremely low-income renter households represent about 20.5 percent of Costa Mesa renter households, and extremely lowincome owner households represent about 9.8 percent of Costa Mesa owner households.

Table 2-28 illustrates the tendencies for extremely low-income households to experience housing problems and cost burdens. The housing problems identified by CHAS include the following:
• Units with physical defects (lacking complete kitchen or bathroom); • Overcrowded conditions (housing units with more than one person per room); • Housing cost burdens, including utilities, exceeding 30 percent of gross income; or • Severe housing cost burdens, including utilities, exceeding 50 percent of gross income.

As the table shows, over double the percent of renters experience housing problems and cost burdens than homeowner. Cost burdens over 50 percent are more common than over 30 percent for both extremely low-income renter and owner households. In total, 13.8 percent of all Costa Mesa households earn an extremely low-income and experience at least one housing problem and 12.4 percent spend over half of their income on housing.

Table 2-28: Housing Needs of Extremely Low-Income Households Housing Problems
Renter Households Owner Households Total Households
Count
% of Renter
HH
Count
% of Owner
HH
Count
% of Total
HH
Household has at least
1 of 4 housing problem 4,400 17.8% 1,210 7.6% 5,610 13.8% Cost burden > 30% 4,325 17.5% 1,165 7.3% 5,495 13.5%
Cost Burden > 50% 4,020 16.3% 990 6.2% 5,015 12.4%
Source: Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) 2013-2017.

Figure 2-6 compares poverty levels by race and ethnicity in order to identify disparities amongst people in Costa Mesa. Residents who report Some Other Race have the highest percentage of poverty in the City (24.7 percent). About 20 percent of people living under the poverty line are of Hispanic or Latino origin.

Combined, the Black and American Indian/Alaska Native populations account for 28.2 percent of those below the poverty level, despite representing a total of just 2.3 percent of the entire population. Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander community members have the lowest percentage of poverty, but only represent 0.7 percent of the total City population. The White population is the largest racial group in the City and is estimated to have one of the lower poverty percentages at 11.5 percent.

Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-26
Figure 2-6: Percent below Poverty Level, by Race and Hispanic or Latino Origin Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2018.

Projected Need
To calculate the future needs of extremely low-income households, the City assumes 50 percent of its very low-income RHNA are extremely low-income households. The City was allocated a very low-income RHNA of 2,919 units; as such, the extremely low-income unit need is projected to be 1,459 units.

To address the unique needs of extremely low-income households, the City has included programs in the Housing Plan that seek to provide a variety of housing types that may provide services for extremely lowincome households facing other challenges, as well as facilitate the development of new affordable units.

Programs that directly address the needs of extremely low-income households include:
• Program 2J: Transitional and Supportive Housing will amend the land use matrix to comply with SB 2, create an inventory of sites appropriate for the development of transitional and supportive housing units, and collaborate with organizations on addressing the needs of persons experiencing homelessness and extremely low-income residents.
• Program 2L: Development of Housing for Extremely Low- and Lower-Income Households will facilitate the development of housing for extremely low- and lower-income households by subsidizing up to 100 percent of the of the City’s application processing fees for qualifying developments where all units are affordable to 80% AMI or lower (when funding is available), and promote the benefits of this program to the development community.

11.5%

15.5%

12.7%

10.4%

3.6%

24.7%

7.1%

19.5%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%
White Black or
African
American
American
Indian and
Alaska
Native
Asian Native
Hawaiian
and Other
Pacific
Islander
Some other
race
Two or
more races
Hispanic or
Latino
Origin
Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-27

7. Persons Experiencing Homelessness
Throughout the Southern California region, homelessness has become an increasingly important issue.

Factors contributing to the rise in homelessness include increased unemployment and underemployment, limited affordable housing available to lower and moderate-income persons (especially extremely lowincome households), reductions in public subsidies to lower income persons, and legislative impacts pertaining to the behavioral health system of care and correctional reform mandates.

State law mandates that cities address the special needs of persons experiencing homelessness within their jurisdictional boundaries. “Homelessness” as defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has recently been updated to include the following descriptions:
• People who are living in a place not meant for human habitation, in emergency shelter, in transitional housing, or are exiting an institution where they temporarily resided. The only significant change from existing practice is that people will be considered homeless if they are exiting an institution where they resided for up to 90 days (previously 30 days) and were in shelter or a place not meant for human habitation immediately prior to entering that institution. • People who are losing their sleeping quarters, which may include a motel or hotel or a doubled-up situation, within 14 days and lack resources or support networks to remain in housing. HUD had previously allowed people who were being displaced within 7 days to be considered homeless. The proposed regulation also describes specific documentation requirements for this category. • Families with children or unaccompanied youth who are unstably housed and likely to continue in that state. This category applies to families with children or unaccompanied youth who have not had a lease or ownership interest in a housing unit in the last 60 or more days, have had two or more moves in the last 60 days, and who are likely to continue to be unstably housed because of disability or multiple barriers to employment.
• People who are fleeing or attempting to flee domestic violence, have no other residence, and lack the resources or support networks to obtain other permanent housing. This category is similar to the current practice regarding people who are fleeing domestic violence.

This definition does not include persons living in substandard housing (unless it has been officially condemned); persons living in overcrowded housing (for example, doubled up with others); persons being discharged from mental health facilities (unless the person was homeless when entering and is considered to be homeless at discharge); or persons who may be at risk of homelessness (for example, living temporarily with family or friends.)
The Point in Time Count is required to be conducted every two years by the local Continuum of Care (CoC) jurisdiction led by the County of Orange Health Care Agency in accordance with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) guidelines to provide information on where individuals experiencing homelessness are located in the county. On January 22, 2019, 1,167 volunteers across Orange County counted 6,860 individuals experiencing homelessness; of those, 2,899 were sheltered and 3,961 were unsheltered. The 2021 Point in Time count was deferred to the COVID-19 pandemic and is anticipated to occur in January 2022. The 2019 Point In Time Count individual city results are shown in Table 2-29.

Costa Mesa reported a total of 193 individuals experiencing homelessness (187 unsheltered and 6 sheltered); this represents 2.8 percent of the total homeless population for Orange County. This percentage is greater than that of the neighboring cities of Newport Beach and Irvine as both counted under 2 percent.

Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-28
Santa Ana reported the largest population of people experiencing homelessness as a quarter of the total number for Orange County reside there (23 percent more than Costa Mesa).

Table 2-29: Homeless Count by Jurisdiction – January 22, 2019 Jurisdiction Unsheltered Sheltered Total % of County
Newport Beach 64 0 64 0.9%
Costa Mesa 187 6 193 2.8%
Irvine 127 3 130 1.9%
Santa Ana 830 939 1,769 25.8%
Huntington Beach 289 60 349 5.1%
Orange County 3,961 2,899 6,860 100%
Source: Orange County Point in Time Count, Everyone Counts Report 2019.

In analyzing homelessness from a fair housing and areas of historic concentration standpoint, the City determined that while people experiencing homelessness may seek refuge throughout the City, historically the majority of people were in and around the Downtown Recreation Center/Lions Park area. This is partially due to services available in the area, access to transit, and public spaces which were more easily habitable. In response, the City of Costa Mesa opened an emergency Bridge Shelter at a temporary location in April 2019 with 50 beds, while constructing a permanent shelter location with 72 beds which opened in April 2021. These facilities were successful in providing additional resources and being able to house individuals and families experiencing homelessness with the goal of transitioning them to more permanent supportive housing. The Downtown Recreation and Lions Park areas saw an almost immediate trend of fewer people sleeping in these public spaces and the areas of concentration largely disappeared. There are no current known identified areas with significant concentrations of people experiencing homelessness within the City.

The Bridge Shelter assists persons experiencing homeless with temporary housing along with a variety of programs including:
• Collaborative Case Management
• Housing Related Support Services (including Coordinated Entry System housing assignments, Housing Search Assistance, linking clients to rental assistance programs and other general housing services)
• Legal Services
• Basic Needs (including food, clothing, and housing/emergency services) • Social Services
• Transportation
The permanent Bridge Shelter publishes bi-weekly reports in which they regularly assist approximately 60 to 110+ persons over a two-week span. Section 2.B.4 (Emergency Shelter) provides a more detailed description of the City’s efforts related to the Bridge Shelter facility.

Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-29

8. Students
The need for student housing is another factor that affects housing demand. Student housing often only produces a temporary housing need based on the duration of the educational institution. The impact upon housing demand is important in areas that surround universities and colleges. Costa Mesa is home to a number of private and public universities and colleges. Located in Costa Mesa are Vanguard University (2,200 students), California Southern University (online), and Orange Coast Community College (24,000 students). Orange Coast Community College is primarily a commuter school serving students local to the south Orange County area. During pre-pandemic conditions when classes were fully in person, OCC had approximately 20,000 students, 39.1% of which were full-time. As OCC had very little on-campus housing, the majority of students commuted into campus. While data is not readily available, it is a fair assumption that the majority of these students live at home with family and do not require separate housing. OCC has recently built on-campus housing which may house up to 800 students.

Typically, students are low-income and may therefore require affordable housing options, especially within easy commuting distance from campuses. To reduce living cost, students may seek shared housing situations to decrease expenses, which may lead to overcrowding. Affordable housing may also influence choices students make after graduating, which may affect the region’s economy. College graduates provide a specialized pool of skilled labor that contributes to the region’s economy; however, the lack of affordable housing may lead to their departure from the region.

F. Housing Stock Characteristics
Characteristics of the housing stock (growth, type, availability and tenure, age and condition, housing costs, and affordability) may affect the housing needs for the community. This section details the Costa Mesa housing stock characteristics to identify how well the current housing stock meets the needs of its current and future residents.

1. Housing Growth
According to the American Community Survey (ACS), between 2010 and 2018 the Costa Mesa housing stock grew by 0.6 percent, or 1,233 units, as shown in Table 2-30. This is the smallest percent increase for the area. The City of Irvine experienced the largest housing surge of the area during this time with an addition of 25,250 more units (an increase of 30.4 percent more than Costa Mesa). Orange County as a whole saw an increase of 4.6 percent of its total housing stock.

Table 2-30: Housing Unit Growth Trends, 2010-2018
Jurisdiction 2010 2015 2018
Percent Change
2010 to 2015
Percent Change
2015 to 2018
Newport Beach 43,503 43,690 44,801 0.4% 2.5%
Costa Mesa 42,867 43,030 43,100 0.4% 0.2%
Irvine 76,184 91,938 101,434 20.7% 10.3%
Santa Ana 77,796 77,192 78,597 -0.8% 1.8%
Huntington Beach 79,166 78,252 81,396 -1.2% 4.0%
Orange County 1,042,254 1,064,642 1,091,376 2.1% 2.5%
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2010, 2015, and 2018.

Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-30

2. Housing Type
Table 2-31 is a breakdown of housing units in the City by type in comparison to Orange County. Costa Mesa is estimated to be predominantly made up of multi-family housing (50.3 percent). The City has an estimated

37.7 percent single-family detached housing and 9.6 percent attached single-family units. This differs from the rest of the region as Orange County reports an estimated 50.7 percent single-family detached units and

34.3 percent multi-family housing. The percentage of mobile homes in Costa Mesa is estimated to be comparable to that of Orange County (2.4 percent and 2.8 percent, respectively). Single-family attached units are less prevalent in Costa Mesa (9.6 percent) than County as a whole (12.2 percent).

Table 2-31: Total Housing Units by Type
Jurisdiction
Single- Family
Detached
Single-Family Attached Multi-Family Mobile Homes*
Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Costa Mesa 16,236 37.7% 4,119 9.6% 21,692 50.3% 1,053 2.4% Orange County 553,164 50.7% 133,326 12.2% 374,176 34.3% 30,710 2.8% *Includes mobile homes, boats, RVs, vans, etc.

Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2018.

3. Housing Availability and Tenure
Housing tenure and vacancy rates generally influence the supply and cost of housing. Housing tenure defines if a unit is owner-occupied or renter-occupied, and it relates to the availability of housing product types and length of tenure. The tenure characteristics in a community can indicate aspects of the housing market such as affordability, household stability, and availability of unit types, among others. Tenure distribution may correlate with household income, composition, and age of the householder.

In 2018, owner-occupied housing units accounted for 40.4 percent of the housing stock and 59.6 percent were rental occupied units (Table 2-32). At 88.7 percent, the large majority of single-family units are owneroccupied. Multi-family housing units are conversely predominantly occupied by renters (77.1 percent).

Mobile homes in Costa Mesa are estimated to be occupied by mostly owners than renters (4.6 percent and

0.8 percent, respectively).

Table 2-32: Occupied Housing Units by Type and Tenure
Tenure
SingleFamily
Detached
Single-Family
Attached
Multi-Family
Mobile
Homes
Total
Occupied
Units
Owner
Occupied 76.1% 12.6% 6.6% 4.6% 40.4%
Renter
Occupied 14.1% 7.9% 77.1% 0.8% 59.6%
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2018.

Table 2-33 compares estimated average household sizes and tenure amongst cities surrounding Costa Mesa. Aside from Santa Ana, all of the cities included below have household sizes that are below that of Orange County and fairly similar amongst owner-occupied households. The average household size for Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-31
Santa Ana is estimated to be nearly double that of the other cities for both renters and owners and is an average of about 1.6 persons per household more than Costa Mesa. Figure 2-7 illustrates vacancy rates by city and shows that Costa Mesa has the second lowest vacancy rate in the area (4.8 percent). Orange County’s vacancy rate is 0.6 percent above that of Costa Mesa.

Table 2-33: Average Household Size by Tenure, 2018
Jurisdiction
Owner Occupied
Household Size
Renter Occupied
Household Size
Average
Household Size
Newport Beach 2.46 2.02 2.27
Costa Mesa 2.8 2.66 2.71
Irvine 2.81 2.61 2.7
Santa Ana 4.28 4.32 4.3
Huntington Beach 2.58 2.62 2.6
Orange County 2.99 3.06 3.02
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2018.

Vacancy rates may reveal the degree of housing choice available. High vacancy rates generally indicate low demand and/or high supply conditions in the housing market. Low vacancy rates typically indicate high demand and/or low supply conditions in the housing market. Too low of a vacancy rate can force prices up making it more difficult for lower and moderate-income households to find housing. Vacancy rates between two to three percent are usually considered healthy for housing that is owned, and rates of five to six percent are usually considered healthy for rental housing. Costa Mesa’s vacancy rate indicates a healthy demand for housing within the City and a potential lack of available housing units at all income categories.

Figure 2-7: Vacancy Rates by Jurisdiction, 2018
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2018.

15.5%

4.8%

6.0%

2.6%

5.6% 5.4%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
Newport Beach Costa Mesa Irvine Santa Ana Huntington
Beach
Orange County
Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-32
Based on 2018 ACS estimates, the most common reason for vacancies in Costa Mesa is due to units being up for rent (37.8 percent), as shown in Table 2-34. Another 566 units (31.5 percent) are vacant in the City because they are for seasonal, recreational, or occasional use. Homes that have been sold and are not yet occupied represent the lowest vacancy type (4.1 percent).

Table 2-34: Vacant Housing Units by Type in Costa Mesa
Type of Housing Estimate Percent
For rent 786 37.8%
Rented, not occupied 191 9.2%
For sale only 115 5.5%
Sold, not occupied 86 4.1%
For seasonal, recreational, or occasional use 656 31.5% Other vacant 247 11.9%
Total 2,081 100%
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2018.

4. Housing Age and Condition
Housing age can be an important indicator of housing condition within a community. For example, housing that is over 30 years old may be in need of rehabilitation, such as a new roof, seismic retrofit, foundation, plumbing, etc. Many federal and state programs use housing age as one factor to determine housing rehabilitation needs.

Figure 2-8 shows the City of Costa Mesa’s housing stock was mostly built prior to 1990 and is therefore more likely in need of certain renovations. Almost a quarter of the housing stock was built around the time the City was incorporated in 1953. About 2.6 percent of housing stock was built after 2010. In comparison to neighboring cities, the Cities of Costa Mesa, Huntington Beach, and Santa Ana experienced their peak unit growths between 1950 and 1979. Newport Beach experienced a growth similar to Costa Mesa until 1990 when Newport Beach housing unit growth picked up again. Unlike Costa Mesa, the City of Irvine experienced a housing boom in 1970 through 2009, and it continued building units at a greater rate than the other cities past 2014.

Much of Costa Mesa’s housing stock is greater than 30 years old. Many of these houses may have experienced some level of housing renovations since initial construction, but in general an aging housing stock may indicate the potential for substandard housing conditions or a housing stock in need of rehabilitation or maintenance. The City tracks code enforcement cases due to substandard housing conditions and has established a quantified target objective in Chapter 4 for housing rehabilitation goals over the next 8 years.

Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-33
Figure 2-8: Age distribution of Housing Stock
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2018.

Table 2-35 provides estimations on the number of units with substandard living conditions (lacking complete plumbing or kitchen facilities or having no telephone service available). In total, 2.4 percent of Costa Mesa units are considered substandard.

Table 2-35: Costa Mesa Units with Substandard Housing Conditions Housing Condition Estimate
Percent of Total
Housing Units
Lacking complete plumbing facilities 79 0.2%
Lacking complete kitchen facilities 325 0.8%
No telephone service available 613 1.5%
Total 1,017 2.4%
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2018.

Additionally, proactively surveying the City’s housing conditions is a primary component of the City’s Code Enforcement efforts. The City’s Community Improvement Division (Code Enforcement) employs approximately one-dozen full-time code enforcement officers that regularly survey the City’s residential neighborhood housing conditions relating to rehabilitation and replacement. According to the Community Improvement Division Manager, rarely does any of the City’s housing stock reach a condition that requires replacement (less than approximately one property per year). However, City staff confirmed, based on the 2021-2022 Annual Action Plan there are approximately 88 units in need of rehabilitation annually. This estimate was compiled based on a combination of code enforcement data (based on a review of total Built
1939 or
earlier
Built
1940 to
1949
Built
1950 to
1959
Built
1960 to
1969
Built
1970 to
1979
Built
1980 to
1989
Built
1990 to
1999
Built
2000 to
2009
Built
2010 to
2013
Built
2014 or
later
Huntington Beach 1.5% 0.9% 5.1% 36.5% 29.5% 12.6% 6.6% 4.8% 1.0% 1.4% Irvine 0.4% 0.2% 0.8% 3.4% 20.4% 17.2% 16.4% 23.7% 10.0% 7.4% Newport Beach 4.3% 3.7% 11.7% 19.0% 22.3% 11.2% 14.2% 10.8% 1.6% 1.1% Santa Ana 7.3% 6.2% 20.1% 22.2% 24.5% 10.4% 5.2% 3.1% 0.6% 0.5% Costa Mesa 1.5% 2.7% 19.2% 25.4% 24.1% 12.9% 6.4% 5.2% 1.2% 1.4% 0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Huntington Beach Irvine Newport Beach Santa Ana Costa Mesa Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-34
project cases) and data from the City’s Street Outreach Team and Housing and Community Development Team and represents approximately 1.6% of the total dwelling units within the City.

With the exception of relatively new housing communities recently developed in the City, the City’s Community Improvement Division indicates that the City’s residential areas require varying levels of proactive housing condition monitoring, with generally the older residential areas in the City being more prone to substandard housing conditions. These substandard housing conditions include but are not limited to, illegal and unsightly outdoor storage, common areas littered with trash and debris, vegetation overgrowth, and poor overall residential structure maintenance. According to City records, residential properties located in Shalimar neighborhood, Coolidge Avenue/Fillmore Way neighborhood, Mission Drive/Mendoza Drive neighborhood, and the neighborhood located on Wilson Street between Placentia Avenue and Harbor Boulevard require greater attention. For these and other neighborhoods, the City hosts “Community Clean-up Days” where community members and residents are organized to assist in neighborhood clean-up efforts. These efforts include City staff assistance, large dumpster rentals and donations from community businesses and non-profit community groups to support clean-up and rehabilitation efforts. They are held on a weekend day and publicized several weeks in advance by City newsletters and direct communication to community stakeholders. City-sponsored residential neighborhood clean-up events occur multiple times per year.

Also, in monitoring the City’s housing stock in regard to the need for housing rehabilitation or replacement, both the City’s Code Enforcement team and the City’s Building Inspection team proactively and reactively engage in surveying the City’s housing conditions as they perform their regular inspections. Housing and building code enforcement not only helps to ensure the habitability of specific properties, but also helps to keep surrounding homes and neighborhoods safe. For a home that shows clear signs of neglect, for example, the City will reach out to the tenant and owner and connect these individuals to resources such as local and regional grants and/or loans, or community service groups that are available to provide rehabilitation assistance. These proactive inspections of the City’s housing stock lead to earlier detection of substandard housing conditions and ultimately improve local neighborhoods overall.

5. Housing Costs and Affordability
Housing costs reflect the supply and demand of housing in a community. This section summarizes the cost and affordability of the Costa Mesa housing stock.

The median home value in Costa Mesa is estimated to be $707,600, as shown in Table 2-36. This is $54,700 above the median home value for Orange County and comparable to the home values in Irvine and Huntington Beach. The City of Santa Ana has the lowest home value at $455,300 and the City of Newport Beach has the greatest median home value at $1,787,300.

Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-35
Table 2-36: Median Home Value by Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction Median Home Value
Newport Beach $1,787,300
Costa Mesa $707,600
Irvine $797,100
Santa Ana $455,300
Huntington Beach $728,200
Orange County $652,900
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2018.

Table 2-37 outlines the average monthly price of rent by number of bedrooms in Costa Mesa and how it has changed between 2017 and 2020. This data is provided by the Zillow Rent Index Report for Costa Mesa and shows that all units experienced increases in rates in the last three years; for example, one-bedroom rentals rose by 5.1 percent. The price per square foot saw a much greater increase for the three types of units, with 17.9 percent being the greatest increase for 3- or more bedroom units. This may indicate a higher demand and a need to plan for housing for large families within Costa Mesa.

Table 2-37: Average Monthly Rental Rates, 2017-2020
Unit Type January 2017 January 2018 January 2019 January 2020 % Change
2017-2020
1 Bedroom $2,055 $2,077 $2,091 $2,159 5.1%
2 bedrooms $2,553 $2,582 $2,579 $2,649 3.8%
3 Bedrooms $3,027 $3,044 $3,097 $3,160 4.4%
Price per Square Foot
Unit Type January 2017 January 2018 January 2019 January 2020 % Change 2017-2020
1 Bedroom $2.48 $2.57 $2.97 $2.83 14.1%
2 bedrooms $2.20 $2.25 $2.32 $2.36 7.3%
3+ Bedrooms $1.95 $2.15 $2.25 $2.30 17.9%
Source: Zillow Rent Index Report, January 2017-2020, accessed August 17, 2020.

Housing affordability can be inferred by comparing the cost of renting or owning a home in the City with the maximum affordable housing costs for households at different income levels. Taken together, this information can generally show who can afford what size and type of housing and indicate the type of households most likely to experience overcrowding and overpayment.

The Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) conducts annual household income surveys nationwide to determine a household’s eligibility for federal housing assistance. Based on this survey, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) developed income limits, based on the Area Median Family Income (AMFI), which can be used to determine the maximum price that could be affordable to households in the upper range of their respective income category.

Households in the lower end of each category can afford less by comparison than those at the upper end.

The maximum affordable home and rental prices for residents in Orange County are shown in Table 2-38 and Table 2-39.

Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-36
The data shows the maximum amount that a household can pay for housing each month without incurring a cost burden (overpayment). This amount can be compared to current housing asking prices (Table 2-36) and market rental rates (Table 2-37) to determine what types of housing opportunities a household can afford.

Extremely Low-Income Households
Extremely low-income households earn less than 30 percent of the County AMFI – up to $26,950 for a oneperson household and up to $41,550 for a five-person household in 2020. Extremely low-income households cannot afford market-rate rental or ownership housing in Costa Mesa without assuming a substantial cost burden. An extremely low-income household at the maximum income limit can afford to pay approximately $1,039 in monthly rent, depending on household size.

Very Low-Income Households
Very low-income households earn between 31 percent and 50 percent of the County AMFI – up to $44,850 for a one-person household and up to $69,200 for a five-person household in 2020. A very low-income household cannot afford market-rate rental or ownership housing in Costa Mesa without assuming a substantial cost burden. A very low-income household at the maximum income limit can afford to pay approximately $1,121 to $1,730 in monthly rent, depending on household size. Given the high cost of housing in Costa Mesa, persons or households of very low-income could not afford to rent or purchase a home in the City.

Low-Income Households
Low-income households earn between 51 percent and 80 percent of the County’s AMFI - up to $71,750 for a one-person household and up to $110,650 for a five-person household in 2020. The affordable home price for a low-income household at the maximum income limit ranges from $308,500 to $454,000. Based on the asking prices of homes for sale in 2020 (Table 2-36), ownership housing would not be affordable to low-income households. A one-person low-income household could afford to pay up to $1,794 in rent per month and a five-person low-income household could afford to pay as much as $2,766. Low-income households in Costa Mesa would not be able to afford to rent apartment units.

Moderate Income Households
Persons and households of moderate income earn between 81 percent and 120 percent of the County’s AMFI – up to $133,500, depending on household size in 2020. The maximum affordable home price for a moderate-income household is $377,000 for a one-person household and $558,600 for a five-person family. Moderate income households in Costa Mesa would not be able to purchase a home in the City. In comparison to neighboring cities, at this affordable range, moderate income households would only be able to purchase a home in Santa Ana. The maximum affordable rent payment for moderate income households is between $2,163 and $3,338 per month. Appropriately sized market-rate rental housing is generally affordable to households in this income group.

Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-37
Table 2-37: Affordable Housing Costs in Orange County, 2020 Annual Income Mortgage Utilities^1
Tax and
Insurance
Total
Affordable
Monthly
Housing Cost
Affordable
Purchase
Price
Extremely Low-income (30% of AMFI)
1-Person $26,950 $455 $118 $101 $674 $99,990
2-Person $30,800 $504 $151 $116 $770 $110,500
3-Person $34,650 $539 $197 $130 $866 $118,000
4-Person $38,450 $574 $243 $144 $961 $125,800
5-Person $41,550 $594 $289 $156 $1,039 $130,200
Very Low-Income (50% of AMFI)
1-Person $44,850 $835 $118 $168 $1,121 $183,000
2-Person $51,250 $938 $151 $192 $1,281 $205,500
3-Person $57,650 $1,028 $197 $216 $1,441 $225,400
4-Person $64,050 $1,118 $243 $240 $1,601 $245,000
5-Person $69,200 $1,182 $289 $260 $1,730 $259,000
Low-income (80% AMFI)
1-Person $71,750 $1,407 $118 $269 $1,794 $308,500
2-Person $82,000 $1,592 $151 $308 $2,050 $349,100
3-Person $92,250 $1,763 $197 $346 $2,306 $386,500
4-Person $102,450 $1,934 $243 $384 $2,561 $424,000
5-Person $110,650 $2,062 $289 $415 $2,766 $452,000
Moderate Income (120% AMFI)
1-Person $86,500 $1,720 $118 $324 $2,163 $377,000
2-Person $98,900 $1,951 $151 $371 $2,473 $427,800
3-Person $111,250 $2,167 $197 $417 $2,781 $475,000
4-Person $123,600 $2,384 $243 $464 $3,090 $522,700
5-Person $133,500 $2,548 $289 $501 $3,338 $558,600
Source: Orange County Housing Authority, 2020 Utility Allowance Schedule and California Department of Housing and Community Development, 2020 Income Limits and Kimley Horn and Associates Assumptions: 2020 HCD income limits; 30% gross household income as affordable housing cost; 15% of monthly affordable cost for taxes and insurance; 10% down payment; and 4.5% interest rate for a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage loan. Utilities based on Orange County Utility Allowance.

1. Utilities includes basic electric, water, sewer/trash, refrigerator, and stove.

Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-38
Table 2-38: Affordable Monthly Housing Cost for Renters, 2020 Annual Income Rent Utilities^1
Total Affordable
Monthly
Housing Cost
Extremely Low-income (30% of AMFI)
1-Person $26,950 $556 $118.00 $674
2-Person $30,800 $619 $151.00 $770
3-Person $34,650 $669 $197.00 $866
4-Person $38,450 $718 $243.00 $961
5-Person $41,550 $750 $289.00 $1,039
Very Low-income (50% of AMFI)
1-Person $44,850 $1,003 $118.00 $1,121
2-Person $51,250 $1,130 $151.00 $1,281
3-Person $57,650 $1,244 $197.00 $1,441
4-Person $64,050 $1,358 $243.00 $1,601
5-Person $69,200 $1,441 $289.00 $1,730
Low-income (80% AMFI)
1-Person $71,750 $1,676 $118.00 $1,794
2-Person $82,000 $1,899 $151.00 $2,050
3-Person $92,250 $2,109 $197.00 $2,306
4-Person $102,450 $2,318 $243.00 $2,561
5-Person $110,650 $2,477 $289.00 $2,766
Moderate Income (120% AMFI)
1-Person $86,500 $2,045 $118.00 $2,163
2-Person $98,900 $2,322 $151.00 $2,473
3-Person $111,250 $2,584 $197.00 $2,781
4-Person $123,600 $2,847 $243.00 $3,090
5-Person $133,500 $3,049 $289.00 $3,338
Source: Orange County Housing Authority, 2020 Utility Allowance Schedule and California Department of Housing and Community Development, 2020 Income Limits and Kimley Horn and Associates Assumptions: 2020 HCD income limits; 30% gross household income as affordable housing cost; 15% of monthly affordable cost for taxes and insurance; 10% down payment; and 4.5% interest rate for a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage loan. Utilities based on Orange County Utility Allowance.

1. Utilities includes basic electric, water, sewer/trash, refrigerator, and stove.

This analysis shows that the moderate- and lower-income households in Costa Mesa generally cannot afford to own a home in Costa Mesa based on for sale housing costs. Lower income households generally cannot afford to rent or own in Costa Mesa based on for sale housing costs and rental prices. Long term, this trend may result in increased instances of overcrowding, an increased number of households with a high housing cost burden, and residents moving out of Costa Mesa for ownership opportunities.

Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-39
G. Community Profile Summary
The Community Profile provides an analysis of the Costa Mesa population and housing stock for policy considerations within this Housing Element. The Costa Mesa community’s housing needs are directly correlated to the demographic composition of the population and the conditions of existing housing within the City. The data analyzed in this Community Profile sets the baseline for the Housing Element goals, policies, and programs which are uniquely adapted to fit the needs of Costa Mesa.

The City will need to consider the following findings, but not limited to, based on the data presented in this Community Profile:
• The Costa Mesa population is showing aging trends – housing goals should consider the needs of seniors who may have less flexible income, need accessibility accommodations, or may seek assisted living options. The City has established Housing Program 2D to address this finding. • Over a quarter of the Costa Mesa population identifies as Hispanic or Latino – housing needs should account for possible cultural needs such as larger or multigenerational housing units. Additionally, housing information should be made available in Spanish to assist in the location of appropriate housing within the community. The City has established Housing Programs 2E and 4A to address this finding.
• Approximately 47 percent of the Costa Mesa population earn a lower income, indicating that production of and access to affordable housing including affordable rental options and entry level home ownership facilitation should be considered. The City has established Housing Programs 2B, 4A, 4B, and 4C to address this finding.
• Approximately 48.8 percent of renters and 31.8 percent of homeowners are estimated to spend more than 30 percent of their income on housing, indicating a high housing cost burden overall with a higher proportion of renters compared to owners experiencing overpayment. The City has established Housing Programs 2B, 4A, 4B, and 4C to address this finding. • Based on for sale and rental housing prices, a moderate-income household cannot afford to own a home in Costa Mesa, while lower income households cannot afford to own or rent in Costa Mesa without experiencing overpayment. The City has established Housing Programs 2B, 4A, 4B, and 4C to address this finding.
• The majority of housing units in Costa Mesa were built over 30 years ago – households in older homes may benefit from assistance in renovating their homes and ensuring safe living environments with access to all utilities. The City has established Housing Programs 1A and 1B to address this finding.
• Costa Mesa has a relatively low vacancy rate, indicating high demand for housing and low availability of housing units within the City. The City has established Housing Programs 2B and 3A to address this finding.
• 46.5 percent of Costa Mesa households have at least one of the four identified housing problems, which include:
o Units with physical defects (lacking complete kitchen or bathroom); o Overcrowded conditions (housing units with more than one person per room – excluding bathrooms and kitchens);
Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-40
o Housing cost burdens, including utilities, exceeding 30 percent of gross income; and o Severe housing cost burdens, including utilities, exceeding 50 percent of gross income.

The City has established Housing Programs 1A, 1B, and 4A to address this finding.

The Housing Element’s Chapter 4: Housing Plan provides goals, policies, and programs for the City of Costa Mesa based on the findings of this analysis. Policies established in the Housing Plan implement the goals and programs of the Housing Element and are reviewed on yearly-basis to identify progress and success.

Housing Constraints,
Resources, and Fair Housing
Chapter 3
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-1 Housing Constraints
A variety of factors could affect the number, type, and affordability of housing and housing development in a community. Governmental housing constraints are often specific to the requirements and regulations local governments enforce. Governmental constraints in Costa Mesa may include land use controls, residential development standards, development and permitting fees, and permitting processes, amongst other constraints. Nongovernmental and market constraints are directly related to the conditions of the local and regional construction and the development market. Nongovernmental constraints in Costa Mesa may include the cost of land, construction costs, including materials and labor, availability of financing, and the local economic conditions. These factors could incentivize or create barriers for the maintenance and addition of housing in Costa Mesa, and predominantly affordable housing. The focus of this section is recognizing the existing constraints. The following sections will analyze the extent of each constraint on housing development.

A. Nongovernmental Constraints
Nongovernmental constraints are those associate with external market costs and rely predominantly on the economy and cost of land and construction. The availability and cost of land, labor costs, as well as financing, may pose barriers for housing developers and can often deter the development of housing, specifically affordable housing. The following sections highlights the primary market factors that affect the production of housing in Costa Mesa.

1. Land Costs and Construction Costs
Construction costs vary widely according to the type of development, with multi-family housing generally less expensive to construct than single-family homes due to square footage. However, there is wide variation within each construction type, depending on the size of the unit and the number and quality of amenities provided. An indicator of construction costs is Building Valuation Data compiled by the International Code Council (ICC). The ICC updates the estimated cost of construction at six-month intervals and provides estimates for the average cost of labor and materials for typical Type V-A wood-frame housing. Estimates are based on “good-quality” construction, providing for materials and fixtures well above the minimum required by state and local building codes. In August 2020, the ICC estimated that the average per square-foot cost for good-quality housing was approximately $118.57 for multi-family housing, $131.24 for single-family homes, and $148.44 for residential care/assisted living facilities. Construction costs for custom homes and units with extra amenities, run even higher. Construction costs are also dependent upon materials used and building height, as well as regulations set by the City’s adopted Building Code. For example, according to the ICC, an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) or converting a garage using a Type V-B wood framed unit would costs about $123.68 per square foot. Although construction costs are a significant portion of the overall development cost, they are typically consistent throughout the region and, especially when considering land costs, are not considered a major constraint to housing production in Costa Mesa.

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-2 Land costs can also pose a significant constraint to the development of affordable and middle-income housing and represents a significant cost component in residential development. Land costs may vary depending on whether the site is vacant or has an existing use that must be removed. Similarly, site constraints such as environmental issues (e.g., steep slopes, soil stability, seismic hazards, flooding, and contamination) can also be factored into the cost of land. A September 2020 web search for vacant lots for sale in the City of Costa Mesa returned three lots for sale ranging in size from 0.23 acres at $749,000 to

1.03 acres at $2,000,000. Based on current prices of for sale lots, the vacant lots cost an estimated average price per square foot of $68, or about 2.9 million dollars per acre.

Costa Mesa has the lowest cost of land in comparison to the neighboring cities of Santa Ana, Huntington Beach, and Irvine, based on an October 2020 Zillow search for vacant lots. The cost of land in these cities range from $73 per square to $304 per square foot. However, the cost of land in Costa Mesa is still very expensive and though it is consistent with neighboring jurisdictions and the region, it may create a constraint to the development of housing, specifically affordable housing. The City cannot control the cost of land in Costa Mesa or the region, however Chapter 4 of this Housing Element outlines programs and policies to work with developers and interested parties to increase affordable housing options in the City.

2. Available Financing
The availability of financing in a community depends on a number of factors, including the type of lending institutions active in a community, lending practices, rates and fees charged, laws and regulations governing financial institutions, and equal access to such loans. Additionally, availability of financing affects a person’s ability to purchase or improve a home. Under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA), lending institutions are required to disclose information on the disposition of loan applications and the income, gender, and race of loan applicants. The primary concern in a review of lending activity is to determine whether home financing is available to all residents of a community, regardless of income, sex, race, or ethnicity. The data presented in this section include the disposition of loan applications submitted to financial institutions for home purchase, home improvement, and refinancing in the Anaheim-Santa AnaIrvine MSA.

Table 3-1 below displays the disposition of loan applications for the Anaheim-Santa Ana-Irvine MSA, per the 2016 Home Mortgage Discloser Act report. According to the data, applicants in the 120% MSA/MD median income or more had the highest rates of loans approved. Of that income category, applicants who reported White had the highest percentage of approval and the number of applications. Applicants in the less than 50% of the MSA/MD median income categories were showed higher percentages of denied loans than loans originated. According to the data, applicants who reported white were, on average, more likely to be approved for a loan than another race or ethnicity.

Given the relatively high rates of approval for home purchase, improvement, and refinance loans, home financing is generally available and not considered to be a significant constraint to the provision and maintenance of housing in Costa Mesa.

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-3 Table 3-1: Disposition of Loan Applications by Race/Ethnicity– Anaheim-Santa Ana-Irvine MSA Applications by Race/Ethnicity Percent
Approved
Percent
Denied
Percent
Other
Total
(Count)
LESS THAN 50% OF MSA/MD MEDIAN
American Indian and Alaska Native 26.2% 52.3% 23.1% 65
Asian 33.9% 42.5% 26.7% 1,382
Black or African American 41.6% 33.7% 25.8% 89
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 25.0% 44.2% 30.8% 52 White 45.6% 31.2% 26.1% 5,240
Hispanic or Latino 37.9% 38.2% 26.8% 1,566
50-79% OF MSA/MD MEDIAN
American Indian and Alaska Native 38.1% 34.0% 29.9% 97
Asian 53.3% 25.3% 29.4% 3,153
Black or African American 43.4% 19.1% 41.4% 152
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 49.4% 39.8% 16.9% 83 White 54.5% 23.3% 27.6% 8,677
Hispanic or Latino 47.6% 27.7% 29.3% 3,245
80-99% OF MSA/MD MEDIAN
American Indian and Alaska Native 51.4% 25.7% 31.4% 35
Asian 59.5% 19.2% 29.3% 1,495
Black or African American 52.9% 22.1% 30.9% 68
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 43.5% 13.0% 43.5% 23 White 61.9% 17.2% 26.1% 3,873
Hispanic or Latino 54.0% 21.4% 29.1% 1,347
100-119% OF MSA/MD MEDIAN
American Indian and Alaska Native 48.9% 22.7% 29.5% 88
Asian 62.3% 15.6% 28.8% 4,820
Black or African American 55.6% 20.1% 28.6% 234
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 49.4% 27.6% 31.0% 87 White 66.2% 13.8% 25.1% 12,607
Hispanic or Latino 60.8% 16.4% 26.8% 3,398
120% OR MORE OF MSA/MD MEDIAN
American Indian and Alaska Native 59.2% 13.0% 32.0% 169 Asian 62.8% 12.9% 29.0% 17,800
Black or African American 57.7% 17.3% 27.2% 624
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 64.2% 11.4% 26.8% 254 White 68.3% 11.3% 24.9% 49,811
Hispanic or Latino 64.6% 13.3% 26.7% 6,095
Source: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Disposition of loan applications, by Ethnicity/Race of applicant, 2019.

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-4

3. Economic Constraints
Market forces on the economy and the trickle-down effects on the construction industry can act as a barrier to housing construction and especially to affordable housing construction. It is estimated that housing price and development costs will continue to increase in the City and the region. Moving into 2020, the economy was growing, California was seeing a 1.6 percent growth in jobs from 2019 and experiencing all-time lows for unemployment rates. COVID-19 had stalled much of the economy in early 2020, however, as the California economy regains momentum, housing stock and prices in the Costa Mesa community remain stable. A housing market analysis by Redfin reports the number of homes sold in August 2020 experienced a 16.1% growth in year-over-year trends and over doubled since the low in May 2020. The same report shows that the median sale price of homes in Costa Mesa is the largest it has been in five years, except for a peak in February 2021; the median number of days on the market was 41 in August 2020 in contrast to

86.5 in at the start of the year.

A 2020 California Association of Realtors (CAR) report found that homes on the market in Orange County experienced a 10.2 percent year to year increase and cost an average of $915,000 in September 2020; over $250,000 higher than the Southern California median home price in the same month ($656,750). According to the CAR First Time Buyer Housing Affordability Index, the median value of a home in Orange County is $730,150 with monthly payments (including taxes and insurance) of $3,690, requiring an average qualifying income of $110,700.

Costa Mesa’s home value index ($881,064), which includes single-family residences and condos, has been on a steady increase since Spring 2012, according to Zillow data from September 2020. According to Zillow, this value is seasonally adjusted to remove outliers and only includes the middle price-tier of homes. Costa Mesa home values have gone up 4.9 percent over the past year and Zillow predicts they will rise 4.8 percent within the next year. Orange County by comparison has a median home value index of $775,797, which is $105,267 less than Costa Mesa. Due to the high costs and increasing values, the cost of land and home prices in Costa Mesa may be considered a constraint to the development of and access to housing, particularly affordable housing.

4. Applicant Requests to Develop Below the Maximum Density The City does not typically receive request to develop below the maximum density permitted for residential projects. Based on review of past projects and discussions with the development community, the existing development standards have not proved to be a constraint to meeting the maximum density.

Programs 3B and 3C within the Housing Plan call for revisions to the development standards associated with the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan and the City’s Urban Plans and Overlays, including the maximum density permitted. These densities are higher than what is currently permitted within Costa Mesa (with the exception of some areas in the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan where densities have exceeded 90 du/ac for specific projects). Until those zoning changes are made to permit the higher densities identified in the housing element, the City will not be able to evaluate potential requests to develop below the maximum density. The City has committed to working with the community, including the local development community, to create development standards which promote development consistent with the identified densities.

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-5 B. Governmental Constraints
In addition to market constraints, local policies and regulations also affect the price and availability of housing and the provision of affordable housing. For example, State and Federal regulations affect the availability of land for housing and the cost of housing production, making it difficult to meet the demand for affordable housing and limiting supply in a region. Regulations related to environmental protection, building codes, and other related topics have significant, often adverse, impacts on housing cost and availability.

While the City of Costa Mesa has no control over State and Federal Laws that affect housing, local laws including land use controls, site improvement requirements, fees and exactions, permit processing procedures, and other factors can constrain the maintenance, development, and improvement of housing as well as, create barriers to housing development.

1. Land Use Controls
Cities in California are required by Law to prepare a comprehensive, long term General Plan to guide future development. The Land Use Element of the General Plan establishes permitted land uses and development density throughout the City of Costa Mesa. These land uses provide for a wide variety of housing types throughout the City, while also ensuring compatibility between neighboring uses. The following lists the land uses that permit residential developments and the maximum allowable density:
 Low-Density Residential: 8 dwelling units per acre
 Medium-Density Residential: 12 dwelling units per acre  High-Density Residential: 20 dwelling units per acre
 Commercial-Residential: 12 to 17.4 dwelling units per acre  Urban Center Commercial: 20 dwelling units per acre / 80 dwelling units per acre  Multi-Use Center: 6 dwelling units per acre / 40 dwelling units per acre Overlay Districts
Overlay districts are created in order to incentivize particular development types in an area and/or to implement a Master Plan’s strategies and goals. Overlay districts are applied to the Zoning Map and provide a development option in addition to the underlying zoning regulations as they often require stricter and/or more specific standards. An overlay district could also be created to administer the goals of a Master Plan.

The overlay districts in Costa Mesa are detailed below.

Residential Incentive Overlay
The Residential Incentive Overlay District is intended to create opportunities for residential development at strategic locations along Harbor Boulevard and Newport Boulevard. The designation allows for development of new higher-density residential uses in areas where limited residential with lower densities are currently allowed. Small-lot single-family subdivisions are also appropriate in the designated areas. The Residential Incentive Overlay also expands development opportunities on residential and commercial Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-6 properties which are not currently developed to their full potential or supporting outdated buildings and underperforming uses.

The following are required for developments in the Residential Incentive Overlay District:

Residential Incentive Development Plan Screening Application – To provide initial feedback to developers, all residential and development projects proposed in this district must submit a screening application for review and approval by the City Council.

Master Plan – All developments proposed in this district require approval of a master plan by the Planning Commission. The master plan must be consistent with the General Plan and meet the intent and purpose of the overlay district. The project must include adequate resident-serving amenities in the common open space areas and private open space area; this may include patios, balconies, roof terraces, walkways, and landscaped areas. The project must be consistent with the compatibility standards for residential development in that it provides adequate protection for residents from excessive noise, odors, vibration, light and glare, and toxic emanations. The residences must have adequate separation and screening from adjacent commercial uses through site planning considerations, structural features, landscaping, and perimeter walls.

Development Standards – This overlay designation allows for developments that meet the following:
 Minimum Lot Area: 0.5 acres
 Maximum Height: 4 stories (not including permitted roof top terraces)  Maximum Density: 40 units per acre
 Minimum Open Space: 40% of total site area
 Common Open Space: 50% of required open space. Recreational facilities for children are required for residential projects with 12 or more units.  Front Setback: 20 feet
 Side Setback: 20 feet (30 feet minimum for 4-story developments abutting R2-MD zones)  Rear Setback: 20 feet (30 feet minimum for 4-story developments abutting R2-MD zones) Mixed-Use Overlay District
The City included Program 3D, “Update the City’s Urban Plans and Overlays,” to update the City’s urban plans and overlays to permit and facilitate additional residential development. Urban plans are documents that were intended to provide guidance for projects within various areas of the Mixed-Use Overlay District.

Following guidance from the City Council, staff reviewed each urban plan determined that many standards were ambiguous and all of the urban plans established a complicated review process that was potentially a governmental constraint to housing development. Instead of updating the urban plans, the City will codify their development potential and standards, as appropriate, into the Zoning Code and then rescind the plans. Additionally, to implement rezoning for Housing Element sites, in March 2026, the City Council amended the MUOD to establish specific provisions applicable to sites within the Housing Element inventory, excluding the Fairview Developmental Center. The new MUOD section establishes development Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-7 criteria for Housing Element Opportunity Sites to encourage and facilitate residential development, subject to the following:
 Densities up to the specific site density identified in the Housing Element (40, 50, and 90 units per acre);  Minimum of 50 percent residential use;
 Basic objective design standards such as height and minimum setbacks that can accommodate the Housing Element-identified densities; and
 Ministerial review and approval procedures consistent with State law.

In late 2026, the City will rescind the urban plans and amend the Mixed-Use Overlay District to establish objective standards applicable to Measure K properties that are not within the Housing Element. Those property owners will be able to opt into utilizing the MUOD. This will increase the overall residential development capacity in Costa Mesa.

2. State Density Bonus Law
Density bonuses are another way to increase the number of dwelling units allowed in a residentially zoned area. The City of Costa Mesa does not have its own Density Bonus Ordinance but defers to the Government Code Section 65915. However, the City’s Zoning Code identifies the purpose of a density bonus as providing incentives for the production of affordable housing, senior housing, and childcare facilities in compliance with State Government section 65915.

Compliance with State Law
Until 2021, under Government Code Section 65915, known as the Density Bonus Law, the maximum bonus was 35%. California state law AB 2345 states that all jurisdictions in California are required to process projects proposing up to 50% additional density, as long as those projects provide the additional Below Market Rate units (units affordable to low and very low-income households) in the original proposed project, unless the locality already allows a bonus above 35%. The City’s Density Bonus program allows a maximum of 35% density increase; however, AB 2345 requires an allowance of up to 50% density bonus when the base BMR is proposed. The City included Program 2I, to review and update the City’s Density Bonus Ordinance. The City is currently revising the existing ordinance and expects to adopt revisions in December 2026.

3. Residential Development Standards
The City of Costa Mesa established four residential districts to provide a range of housing types. These standards and regulations are intended to create the highest quality residential development, minimize land use conflicts, encourage the maintenance of residential neighborhoods, and implement the goals of the City’s General Plan. In addition to residential districts, Costa Mesa also includes three types of mixeduse designations to bring together residential and commercial developments.  Single-Family Residential District (R1) – Single-Family Residential is intended to promote the development of single-family detached units on lots measuring at least 6,000 square feet. The maximum density is 7.26 dwelling units per gross acre.

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-8  Multiple-Family Residential District, Medium Density (R2-MD) – Medium Density Multiple-Family Residential is intended to promote the development of multi-family properties on lots measuring a minimum of 12,000 square feet. The maximum density is 3,630 square feet per dwelling unit / 12 dwelling units per gross acre.
 Multiple-Family Residential District, High Density (R2-HD) – High Density Multiple-Family Residential is intended to promote the development of multi-family properties with a minimum of 12,000 square feet. The maximum density is 3,000 square feet per dwelling unit / 14.25 dwelling units per gross acre.
 Multiple-Family Residential District (R3) – Multiple-Family Residential is intended to promote the development of multi — family properties with a minimum of 12,000 square feet. The maximum density is 2,178 square feet per dwelling unit / 20 dwelling units per gross acre.  Town Center District (TC) – Town Center is intended to allow intensely developed mixed commercial and residential uses within a limited geographical area located between Sunflower Avenue, I-405, Bristol Street, and Avenue of the Arts. Developments can range from one- to twostory office and retail buildings to mid- and high-rise buildings, including residential.  Planned Development Commercial (PDC) – Planned Development Commercial is intended for retail shops, offices, and service establishments, including but not limited to, hotels, restaurants, theaters, museums, financial institutions, and health clubs. These uses are intended to serve adjacent residential area and the entire community and region. Complementary residential uses may also be included in the planned development.
 Institutional and Recreational Multi-Use District – Institutional and Recreational Multi-Use is only applicable to the Fairview Developmental Center and is intended to allow the integration of a variety of land uses and intensities at a low to moderate density and intensity.

As mentioned above, the City of Costa Mesa’s Zoning Code establishes standards which regulate development throughout the City. The development standards include minimum requirements for lot size, width, building setbacks, and open space. Table 3-2 provides the development standards applicable to each zoning district in Costa Mesa that permit residential development.

Table 3-2: Development Standards in Costa Mesa - Dimensions Zone
Dimensions Min. Yard Setbacks (ft) Construction Standards Min. Lot Size
(square feet)
Min. Lot
Width (feet)
Front
(feet)
Side
(feet) Rear (feet) Max. Height*
Min. Open
Space
(square feet)
Max. Density
Residential Districts
R1 6,000 sq.ft.

Interior Lot:
50 ft.

Corner Lot:
60 ft.
20 ft. 5 ft. (3)
2-story: 20 ft.
1-story:
10 ft.
27 feet 40% 1 DU (1) per
6,000 sq.ft.

R2-MD 12,000 sq.ft. 100 ft. 20 ft. 5 ft. (3)
2-story: 20 ft.
1-story:
10 ft.
27 feet 40% 1 DU per
3,630 sq.ft.(2)
R2-HD 12,000 sq.ft. 100 ft. 20 ft. 5 ft. (3)
2-story: 20 ft.
1-story:
10 ft.
27 feet 40% 1 DU per
3,000 sq.ft.

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-9 Yard Requirements
Yards provide light and air, pedestrian and vehicular circulation, emergency access, and general aesthetic improvements. The Costa Mesa Zoning Code establishes setback requirements in order to maintain yard area. Minimum setback requirements are consistent in residential districts, 5 feet, but they differ depending on type of development in mixed-use districts. While it is possible that setback requirements may pose a constraint on reaching maximum permitted density in some cases, there is enough flexibility in the current ordinances that setback requirements do not constitute a significant constraint on residential development.

Site Coverage and FAR
The City of Costa Mesa establishes site coverage requirements in order to maintain bulk, mass, and intensity of use. Site coverage is not used towards planning residential districts in Costa Mesa as open space and setback requirements ensure structures are located within an area of a lot to avoid massing and excessive density. Site coverage is considered in mixed-use developments when combined with commercial uses.

Table 3-2: Development Standards in Costa Mesa - Dimensions Zone
Dimensions Min. Yard Setbacks (ft) Construction Standards Min. Lot Size
(square feet)
Min. Lot
Width (feet)
Front
(feet)
Side
(feet) Rear (feet) Max. Height*
Min. Open
Space
(square feet)
Max. Density
R3 12,000 sq.ft. 100 ft. 20 ft. 5 ft. (3)
2-story: 20 ft.
1-story:
10 ft.
27 feet 40% 1 DU per
2,178 sq.ft.

Planned Development Standards
PDR-LD 5,500 sq.ft. 40 ft. 5 ft. (7) 0-10ft.
(8) 5 ft. 27 ft. 45% (6) 8 DUs per
acre
PDR-MD 5,500 sq.ft. - 5 ft. 0-10ft.
(8) 5 ft. 27 ft. 45% 12 DUs per
acre
PDR-HD 3,000 sq.ft. - 5 ft. 0-10ft.
(8) 5 ft. 27 ft. 42% 20 DUs per
acre (4)
PDRNCM 3,000 sq.ft. - - - - - 42% 35 DUs per
acre
PDC N/A - - - - - - 20 DUs per
acre (5)

PDI N/A - - - - - - N/A
Note:
(1): Dwelling Unit
(2): 1 unit per DU for legal lots existing as of March 16, 1992, that are less than 7,260 sq.ft. in area but not less than 6,000 sq.ft. in area. (3) Accessory structures that do not exceed 6.5 feet in height in the R1 zone or 15 feet in height in other residential zones may have a zeroside setback. Property line abutting a public street: 10 feet. Property line abutting an alley: 5 feet. (4): See North Costa Mesa Specific Plan for exceptions. The maximum density for 125 East Baker Street is 58 dwelling units per acre (C0- 13-02). The maximum density for 2277 Harbor Boulevard is 54 dwelling units per acre (C0-14-02). (5): The maximum density for 1901 Newport Boulevard is 40 dwelling units per acre. See North Costa Mesa Specific Plan for exceptions. No residential development is permitted within the 23.4-acre project site generally addressed as 1375 Sunflower Ave. and 3370 Harbor Blvd. (6): See section 13-60 required open space criteria for planned development residential. (7): For individual DUs.
(8): feet on one side; 10 feet combination of both sides.

Source: City of Costa Mesa Zoning Code 2022
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-10 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) refers to the gross floor area allowed on a site divided by the total gross area of the site. FAR requirements limit the usable floor area to limit the bulk of a building in comparison to the land, other buildings, and public facilities in the area.

Open Space
Open space is used in conjunction with site coverage to control intensity of use and provide for an area that is intended to add light and air. Open space may include, but is not limited to, lawns, decorative planting, walkways, active and passive recreational area, playgrounds, fountains, swimming pools, and wooded areas. Also included are unenclosed patios, water courses, and surfaces covered by no more than 5 feet in depth by projections which are at least 8 feet above ground. Driveways, parking lots, surfaces designed for vehicular access, upper floor decks, balconies, and areas under projections which are less than 8 feet above ground are not considered open space.

Maximum Building Heights
A structure’s height is defined by the Zoning Code as the distance from the grade to the highest point on the roof, including roof-top mechanical equipment and screening. A standard 27 feet maximum height is established for two-story residential developments in Costa Mesa in order to maintain compatibility with existing and proposed developments, however a planned development is permitted to be developed up to four stories. The City’s General Plan and Zoning Code permit up to four stories south of the 405 Freeway through planned development and in many of the City’s overlay areas where higher densities are allowed, as well as additional height north of the 405 Freeway in the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan area. Per the City’s development standards shown in Table 3-2, a 2-story 14,400 square-foot multi-family development on a 12,000 square-foot lot could develop up to 14 potential 1,000 square-foot units, all while meeting the City’s setback, open space, and height requirements. The City’s 27-foot height limit for all residential developments does not pose a constraint to meeting the City’s established densities and is not considered a constraint to the development of housing. 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.

Parking Standards
The City of Costa Mesa mandates parking requirements be applied to all developments in the City. Table 3- 3 provides the required parking for all housing types. The Zoning Code further identifies the number of parking spaces that must be covered and those that can remain uncovered. These requirements ensure that there is adequate parking provided for residents and for guests in both single-family and multi-family residences. 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). In late 2026, the City will amend the overlay to remove parking minimums on nonHousing Element sites.

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-11 Table 3-3: Parking Requirements for Residential Uses
Unit Type Number of Spaces
Required
Residential Development in the
Mixed-Use Overlay District
All residences
No minimum
requirement
Single-Family Detached with 4
Bedrooms or Less
Without garage access from alley 4
With garage access from alley 3
Single-Family Detached with 5
Bedrooms of More
Without garage access from alley 5
With garage access from alley 4
Multi-Family Residential
Bachelor/Studio to 1 bedroom 1.25
2 Bedrooms or more 2. 25
Source: City of Costa Mesa Zoning Code
The cost associated with garage parking construction can be viewed as a constraint to affordable housing development, especially for multi-family housing. Affordable housing projects that qualify for a density bonus may also request application for additional incentives which can be provided in the form of reduction of parking requirements. While off-street parking requirements can affect planned residential density, particularly for small lots and in-fill areas, this potential constraint is mitigated by the flexible standards shown above.

Furthermore, in comparison to neighboring jurisdictions (Table 3-4) the City of Costa Mesa has reduced parking requirements. Where Costa Mesa differs in single-family parking requirements is in its count of open/driveway parking spaces. The City of Costa Mesa specifically requires 2 spaces in a garage and 2 spaces on a driveway for a single-family detached residence with 4 bedrooms or less; the other cities only provide requirements for the number of vehicles that must be included in a garage. In addition, the other cities require guest parking as a percentage of the total number of units or required spaces, while Costa Mesa requires a set number per unit except for residential development in the Mixed-Use Overlay District, where there is no minimum parking requirement.

Table 3-4: Parking Standards of Neighboring Communities Unit Type Number of Spaces Required
City of Newport Beach
Accessory Dwelling Unit 1 parking space, with exceptions (1) Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit No additional parking required Single-Unit Dwellings – Attached 2 per unit in a garage Single-Unit Dwellings – Detached and less than
4,000 sq. ft. of floor area 2 per unit in a garage
Single-Unit Dwellings – Detached and 4,000 sq. ft. of
floor area 3 per unit in a garage
Single-Unit Dwellings – Balboa Island 2 per unit in a garage Multi-Unit Dwellings – 3 units
2 per unit covered, plus guest parking
1-2 units, no guest parking required
3 units, 1 guest parking space
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-12 Table 3-4: Parking Standards of Neighboring Communities Unit Type Number of Spaces Required
City of Newport Beach
Multi-Unit Dwellings – 4 units or more 2 per unit covered, plus 0.5 space per unit for guest parking Two-Unit Dwellings 2 per unit; 1 in a garage and 1 covered or in a garage Live/Work Units 2 per unit in a garage, plus 2 for guest/customer parking Senior Housing – Market Rate 1.2 per unit
Senior Housing – Affordable 1 per unit
City of Irvine
Single Family 1-3 bedrooms 2 spaces
4+ bedrooms 3 spaces + visitor parking (2)
Attached Ownership
Studio 1 space + visitor parking (2)
1 bedroom 1.5 spaces + visitor parking (2)
2 bedroom 2 spaces + visitor parking (2)
Attached Rental
Studio 1 space + visitor parking (2)
1 bedroom 1.4 spaces + visitor parking (2)
2 bedroom 1.6 spaces + visitor parking (2)
3 bedroom 2 spaces + visitor parking (2)
City of Fountain Valley
Single-family, detached: up to 4 bedrooms 2 stalls in a garage Single-family, detached: 5+ bedrooms or homes
larger than 4,000 sq. ft. 3 stalls in a garage
Single-family, detached Same as single-family, detached Mobile home park 2 covered for unit, plus 0.2 visitor stall/unit provided independent of the unit
Accessory dwelling unit
No parking required beyond that which is required for the primary residence. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65852.2, replacement parking cannot be required if an existing garage is converted to an ADU.

Multi-family: duplex,
condos, other attached
dwellings
1 bedroom or less 1 covered stall + 0.5 uncovered + 25% of total required spaces for visitor parking
2 bedrooms 1 covered stall + 1 uncovered + 25% of total required spaces for visitor parking
3 bedrooms 2 covered stall + 0.5 uncovered + 25% of total required spaces for visitor parking
More than 3 bedrooms 2 covered stall + 0.5/room over 3 uncovered + 25% of total required spaces for visitor parking
Note:

1. Parking is waived for ADUs if the property is within ½ mile walking distance to transit (including ferry); within an architecturally or historically significant district; on-street parking permits are required and not provided to the occupant of the ADU; or within one block of a car-share vehicle pick-up/drop-off location

2. Visitor parking: 0.7 space/unit if project has resident garages or 0.4 spaces/unit if the project has resident carports.

Source: City of Newport Beach, Irvine, and Fountain Valley Municipal Codes Program 2M included in Chapter 4: Housing Plan has been completed.

4. Variety of Housing Types Permitted
California Housing Element Law mandates jurisdictions must make sites available through zoning and development standards to promote the development of a variety of housing types for all socioeconomic levels of the populations. Housing types include single-family homes, multi-family housing, accessory Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-13 dwelling units, factory-built homes, mobile-homes, employee and agricultural work housing, transitional and supportive housing, single-room occupancy (SROs), and housing for persons with disabilities. Table 3- 5 shows the various housing types permitted throughout the City of Costa Mesa.

Table 3-5: Housing Types Permitted in Costa Mesa (March 2026) Housing
Types
Zones
Residential Commercial Industrial Planned Development Institutional & Rec.

R1
R2-MD
R2-HD
R3 C1 C2
C1-S
TC
MG
MP
PDR-LD
PDR-MD
PDR-HD

PDR-NCM
PDC
PDI
I&R

I&R-MLT
Single-Family P P P P - - - - - - P P P P P P - P
Multi-Family - P P P - - - P - - P P P P P P - P
Accessory
Dwelling Unit

P P P P - - - P - - P P P P P P - P
Common
Interest
Development
- P P P - - - P - - P P P P P P - P
Small Lot
Subdivision,
Residential
- P P P - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mobile Home
Park - C C C - - - - - - C C C C C C - -
Boarding
House, Small
(1)
- P P P - - - - - - P P P P P P - -
Boarding
House, Large
(1)
- C C C - - - - - - - C C C C C - -
Residential
Care Facility,
6 or Fewer
Persons

P P P P - - - - - - P P P P P P P P
Residential
Care Facility,
7 or More
- C C C - - - - - - - C C C C C C -
Group
Homes, 6 or
Fewer
Persons

S S S S - - - - - - S S S S S S P P
Group
Homes, 7 or
More

S C C C - - - - - - - C C C C C P -
Sober Living
Homes, 6 or

S S S S - - - - - - S S S S S S P -
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-14 Table 3-5: Housing Types Permitted in Costa Mesa (March 2026) Housing
Types
Zones
Residential Commercial Industrial Planned Development Institutional & Rec.

R1
R2-MD
R2-HD
R3 C1 C2
C1-S
TC
MG
MP
PDR-LD
PDR-MD
PDR-HD

PDR-NCM
PDC
PDI
I&R

I&R-MLT
Fewer
Persons
Sober Living
Homes, 7 or
More
- C C C - - - - - - - C C C C C P -
Referral
Facility - C C C - C - - - - - C C - - - - -
Single Room
Occupancy
Residential
Hotel (SRO)
- - - - C C - - - - - - - - - - - -
Employee
Housing, 6 or
fewer

P P P P - - - - - - P P P P P P - -
Supportive
Housing
P3 P2,3 P2,3 P2,
3 - - - P2,3 - - P2,3 P2,3 P2,3 P2,3 P2,3 P2,3 - -
Transitional
Housing
P3 P3 P3 P3 - - - P3 - - P3 P3 P3 P3 P3 P3 - -
Emergency
Shelters - - - - - - - - - C - - - - - P - -
Low Barrier
Navigation
Centers
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA P4 NA NA NA NA NA NA P4 P4 NA NA
Source: City of Costa Mesa Municipal Code Table 13-30 Citywide Land Use Matrix, amended March 2026 Notes:
(1) Small boardinghouses shall locate at least six hundred fifty (650) feet from any other small boardinghouse. Large boardinghouses shall be located at least one thousand (1,000) feet away from any other boardinghouse. (2) Supportive housing, as defined in Government Code Section 65650, shall be permitted by-right in all zones where multifamily and mixed uses are permitted by-right, provided it is consistent with Government Code Sections 65650 – 65656. (3) Pursuant to Government Code Section 65583(c)(3), transitional and supportive Housing shall be considered a residential use of property and shall be subject only to those restrictions that apply to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zoning district. (4) Low barrier navigation centers shall be permitted by-right provided they are consistent with the requirements in Government Code Sections 65660-65668.

P – Permitted
C – Conditional Use Permit
S – Special Use Permit
(-) – Prohibited
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-15 Single-Family Dwelling
The Costa Mesa Zoning Code defines a Single-Family Dwelling as a building of permanent character which is designed or used for residential occupancy by one family. A single mobile home on a foundation system on a single lot is a single-family dwelling. A single-family dwelling may be attached or detached from another single-family dwelling, including but not limited to an accessory dwelling unit. Single Family dwelling units are permitted in the R1, R2-MD, R2-HD, and R3 residential zones, as well as the PDR-LD, PDRMD, PDR-HD, PDR-NCM, PDC, PDI, and I&R-MLT zones.

Multi-Family Dwelling
A Multi-Family Dwelling is a building of a permanent character which is designed or used for residential occupancy or two or more families. This housing designation may include, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and apartments. The building is typically owned by a single person or agency and rented out to tenants.

Each dwelling unit within the structure is occupied by a single housekeeping unit. Multifamily dwelling units are permitted in the R2-MD, R2-HD, and R3 residential zones, the TC commercial zone, and the PDR-LD, PDR-MD, PDR-HD, PDR-NCM, PDC, and PDI zones, and the I&R-MLT Institution zone. Multifamily dwelling units are also permitted in the City’s two overlay zones – the Mixed-Use Overlay and the Residential Incentive Overlay.

Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)
An ADU is a second dwelling unit established in conjunction with and subordinate to the single-family dwelling unit existing on the property. The ADU may be a studio with no bedroom or contain any number of bedrooms and it may be attached to the single-family dwelling unit or detached and located on the same lot. An ADU may also be referred to as an “accessory apartment”, “granny unit”, “granny flat”, or “in-law apartment”. Refer to Costa Mesa City Ordinance 2021-03 for ADU-specific development standards.

Accessory dwelling units are permitted in all zones where single-family residential units are also permitted.

Common Interest Development
The City Zoning Code defines Common Interest Developments as containing 2 or more common interest units, which may include, but is not limited to, a community apartment project, rights of exclusive occupancy, a stock cooperative, and/or exclusive occupancy. Common interest developments are permitted in all zones where multifamily developments and units are permitted.

Small Lot Subdivision, Residential
A Small Lot Subdivision refers to a residential development that contains a maximum of 15 detached or townhome style units with no common walls where each unit is independently constructed on an individual parcel. In a small lot subdivision, the land is subdivided into fee simple parcels containing each unit and each individual lot is provided with either a direct access to a public street/alley or an easement access through a recorded subdivision map. Small Lot subdivision projects are permitted in the R2-MD, R2-HD, and R3 residential zones.

Manufactured Housing
Manufactured housing includes detached housing that is built to the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974, including structures known as manufactured homes and Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-16 mobile homes. A factory-built structure is considered a single-family home and shall be reviewed under the same standards as a site-built structure if it is manufactured under the authority of 42 U.S.C. section 5401 - National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act. Mobile homes are permitted conditionally in the R2-MD, R2-HD, R3 residential zones and PDR-LD, PDR-MD, PDR-HD, PDR-NCM, PDC, and PDI zones.

Boarding House
A Boarding House is a residence or dwelling, other than a hotel, wherein rooms are rented under 2 or more separate written or oral rental agreements, leases, or subleases. The property owner, agent, or rental manager may or may not reside on the property. A small boarding house rents 2 or less rooms, while a large boarding house rents out 3 to 6 rooms. The City of Costa Mesa prohibits boarding houses that rent more than 6 rooms. Small boarding house developments are permitted in all zones where manufactured/mobile homes are permitted, and large boarding house developments are conditionally permit in these zones.

Residential Care Facility
In Costa Mesa, a Residential Care Facility must be licensed by the State to provide care, services, or treatment to persons living in supportive community residential setting. Residential care facilities may include, but may not be limited to: intermediate care facilities for the developmentally disabled; community care facilities; residential care facilities for the elderly; residential care facilities for the chronically ill; alcoholism and drug abuse facilities; pediatric day health and respite care facilities; residential health care facilities, including congregate living health facilities; family care home, foster home, group home for the mentally disordered or otherwise handicapped persons or dependent and neglected children. Residential care facilities are permitted in all residential, planned development, and institutional zones.

Group Homes
A Group Home is a facility that is being used as a supportive living environment for persons who are considered handicapped under state or federal law. A group home operated by a single operator or service provider (whether State licensed or unlicensed) constitutes a single facility, whether the facility occupies one or more dwelling units. Group homes are allowed in all residential zoning districts through a conditional or special use permit. Small group homes are permitted with a special use permit in residential and planned development zones, and they are permitted as a primary use in institutional zones subject to consistency with an adopted Master Plan. Large group homes are conditionally permitted in residential and planned development zones and are permitted as a primary use in the institutional zones subject to consistency with an adopted Master Plan.

Although there are several different housing types outlined in the Zoning Code including group homes, the City’s Zoning Code does not exclude group homes or more specifically housing for disabled people from any residential zones in the City. On the contrary, disabled individuals can live in any residential property in the City. The city’s code provisions regarding group homes have been upheld by numerous courts in both state and federal court and have been found to be intended to and actually protective of persons with disabilities. Group homes are intended to be integrated into residential communities for the benefit of Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-17 both the disabled and the non-disabled. The City’s code protects the disabled from being forced to live in multiple adjoining properties clustered together -- institutionalized settings -- in crammed quarters, subject to eviction without warning and left vulnerable and homeless in a City far from their actual homes. It also preserves the very character of residential neighborhoods which make them desirable places to live, by preventing unreasonably increased traffic, noise, parking difficulties, and drug-related activity when residents relapse during the recovery process. The recovery community, including industry associations like Sober Living Network and the National Alliance for Recovery Residences, acknowledged these issues, and recommend that group recovery homes – including sober living homes – adopt model operational standards to ensure proper care of their residents. Costa Mesa’s code does exactly that, regulating operators, not disabled individuals, and ensuring the disabled safe and appropriate residential environments. Numerous group homes for the disabled, including sober living homes have been approved and operate throughout the City. There is no shortage of options for those seeking to live in a recovery home in low or high density areas of the City. Further, the City does not regulate state licensed homes of six or fewer residents, as that is preempted by state law.

Based on California Health and Human Services (CHHS) data shown below, Costa Mesa has more Certified & Licensed group home facilities (in number and per capita) than the surrounding Orange County jurisdictions. Under the current regulations, there are significant portions of the City that can accommodate additional facilities. Per capita estimates are shown below (based on 2021 US Census population estimates).
 Costa Mesa: 55 Certified and Licensed Facilities (1 per 2,013 residents)  Newport Beach: 35 Certified and Licensed Facilities (1 per 2,422 residents)  Huntington Beach: 42 Certified and Licensed Facilities (1 per 2,777 residents)  Fountain Valley: 16 Certified and Licensed Facilities (1 per 3,530 residents)  Irvine: 5 Certified and Licensed Facilities (1 per 61,806 residents)  Santa Ana: 28 Certified and Licensed Facilities (1 per 11,051 residents) Notwithstanding, the City has included Program 2P in the Housing Element to review and consider revisions to its zoning code and application procedures applicable to group homes to promote objectivity and greater approval certainty.

Transitional Housing
. The City originally included Program 2J to address transitional housing. As of March 2026, the City has adopted municipal code revisions to ensure consistency with State law and has completed Program 2J. Specifically, the revisions clarify that transitional and supportive housing are permitted as residential uses and are subject only to the same restrictions that apply to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone, consistent with Government Code section 65583(a)(5). Supportive Housing
Supportive Housing includes housing with no limit on length of stay, that is occupied by the target population, and that is linked to onsite or offsite services that assist the supportive housing resident in retaining the housing, improving his or her health status, and maximizing their ability to live and, when possible, work in the community. Supportive housing that is provided in single family dwelling, multi-family Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-18 dwelling units, residential care facilities, or boarding house uses, shall be permitted, conditionally permitted, or prohibited in the same manner as the other single-family dwelling, multi-family dwelling units, residential care facilities, or boarding house uses. The City originally included Program 2J to address transitional and supportive housing. As of April 2026, the City has adopted municipal code revisions to ensure consistency with State law and has completed Program 2J. Specifically, the revisions clarify that supportive housing is permitted by-right in zones where multi-family and mixed-use development is permitted, including non-residential zones where multifamily uses area permitted consistent with Government Code Section 65651(a).

Currently, the city permits supportive housing consistent with the development standards and regulations of the type of unit it is proposed as; for example, if a supportive housing project is proposed as a singlefamily unit (SFU), it is subject to the same provisions of the identified zone for a single family unit. The City has identified Program 2J to update the zoning code to acknowledge supportive housing distinctively in the City’s land use matrix, consistent with state law.

Referral Facility
A Referral Facility or a group home may include one or more person who resides there pursuant to a court order or directive from an agency in the criminal justice system. Referral facilities are conditionally permitted in the R2-MD, R2-HD, and R3 residential zones, the PDR-MD, PDR-HD Planned Development zones and the C2 commercial zone.

Single Room Occupancy Residential Hotel (SRO)
An SRO is permitted in certain commercial zones and contains units designed for long-term occupancy by a single person. Double occupancy may be permitted. SROs are conditionally permitted in the C1 and C2 commercial zones.

Emergency Shelter
An emergency shelter provides temporary housing and food for individuals in need or disaster victims. The shelters may be operated by a public or non-profit organization. Emergency shelters are permitted by-right in the PDI Zone. Emergency shelters are also permitted in the MP Zone with approval of a Conditional Use Permit. All emergency shelters are subject to the following development standards (City-owned emergency shelters are exempt from certain provisions):
 The maximum length of stay may not exceed 120 days in a 365-day period.  Each emergency shelter may have a maximum of 30 beds.  Off-site parking must be provided at a parking rate of 1 parking space per 4 beds or one 1 space per employee, whichever is higher. In comparison to the Cities of Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, and Irvine, Costa Mesa’s emergency shelter parking requirements are lowest and therefore not considered a constraint.
 Stays at an emergency shelter facility shall be limited to the hours of 5:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. the following day.
 Nonoperational and unregistered vehicles may not be kept on site.