Layla Zulfa
California Governor Gavin Newsom’s administration has escalated its aggressive stance against municipalities perceived as obstructing the state’s housing goals, filing lawsuits against five cities in July, including Costa Mesa, for failing to adequately update their housing plans and meet mandated housing quotas. This legal offensive, a significant escalation of Newsom’s long-standing threats, underscores a deepening rift between state mandates and local control, as communities grapple with the complex challenges of affordability, density, and infrastructure. The legal battles are not one-sided, however, with pro-housing advocates also engaging in litigation, arguing that the state itself has sometimes faltered in enforcing its own reforms.
The lawsuit against Costa Mesa, a mid-sized city in Orange County, stems from its failure to meet state-imposed deadlines for planning its allocation of new housing, a crucial component of California’s ambitious efforts to address its severe housing crisis. This crisis, characterized by skyrocketing rents and a persistent shortage of affordable units, has displaced residents and hindered economic growth across the state for years. State officials contend that these mandates are essential to ensure equitable development and provide housing for all income levels, particularly low- and very-low-income households, who are disproportionately affected by the housing crunch.
Despite facing state legal action, Costa Mesa’s City Council recently approved a long-delayed development plan for a significant parcel of state-owned land. However, this approval has itself become a point of contention, as the revised plan significantly scales back the number of housing units initially envisioned, falling short of both original proposals and the city’s own planning staff’s assessment of what is financially feasible for developers. This situation highlights the intricate balancing act local governments must perform, attempting to satisfy state mandates while responding to local concerns about infrastructure, traffic, and the character of their communities.
The legal strategy employed by California is not unique. Massachusetts, for example, has also utilized litigation to enforce housing reforms. Attorney General Andrea Campbell initiated lawsuits against nine towns for non-compliance with the state’s MBTA Communities law, a mandate that requires zoning for multi-family housing near public transit. This law, a cornerstone of Massachusetts’ housing strategy, was subsequently upheld by the state’s highest court, signaling a strong judicial backing for such state-level interventions.
In California, the push for housing reform has also spurred legal action from pro-housing advocacy groups. These organizations have sued Governor Newsom himself, asserting that he overstepped his authority by permitting Los Angeles-area cities to suspend a duplex law in wildfire-prone areas. This counter-litigation underscores the multifaceted nature of the housing debate, where different stakeholders employ legal avenues to advance their respective interests and interpretations of housing policy.
A Compromised Vision: Costa Mesa’s Development Plan Falls Short
The Costa Mesa property in question, spanning 110 acres on the former grounds of a state-run care facility, was once envisioned by city planning staff as capable of accommodating up to 4,000 housing units. However, the City Council ultimately approved a plan for only 2,300 units. This reduction, according to council members, was driven by concerns over potential overcrowding and increased traffic congestion in the surrounding neighborhoods. The approved plan allocates 25 acres for open space and up to 35,000 square feet for commercial development. Of the 2,300 residential units, 920 are designated for low- and very-low-income residents, a critical component for meeting state affordability targets.
Crucially, the 2,300-unit figure falls significantly short of the 3,450 units that city planning staff had previously identified as "financially feasible" for developers to construct on the site. This discrepancy raises concerns that the reduced unit count may necessitate further revisions to Costa Mesa’s housing element to comply with state-mandated housing production goals. The financial feasibility assessment is typically based on market conditions, construction costs, and the potential revenue generated by a development. A lower unit count can impact the overall profitability of a project, potentially deterring developers or requiring subsidies that may not be readily available.
The State’s Legal Hammer: Mandates and Consequences
The lawsuit filed by the state in July targeted not only Costa Mesa but also Calexico, Half Moon Bay, Ridgecrest, and Turlock. Governor Newsom, in a statement accompanying the legal action, articulated the administration’s resolve. "California can’t solve the housing crisis while some cities sit on their hands and dare us to do something about it," Newsom stated. "They had every chance to follow the law and plan for their fair share of housing. They chose not to, so now they’ll answer for it in court. Housing law applies statewide, and no city gets a pass."
Costa Mesa, with an approximate population of 110,000, is the largest of the five municipalities sued. California’s housing element law requires each city to develop a plan for a specific quota of new homes, categorized by income level, over a designated period. For Costa Mesa, this quota mandates the planning for 11,760 units between 2021 and 2029, including 2,919 units for very-low-income households and 1,794 units for low-income households.
According to the state’s legal petition, Costa Mesa’s housing element was originally due on October 15, 2021. Despite subsequent submissions and revisions, none of the city’s drafts have satisfied state regulators. The state is now seeking a court order to compel the city to adopt a compliant plan within 120 days, and is also pursuing penalties. Failure to meet these housing deadlines carries significant risks for cities, including the potential loss of local zoning control. This can lead to the "builder’s remedy," a mechanism that allows developers to bypass local zoning regulations for qualifying affordable housing projects, effectively stripping cities of their authority over land use decisions for such developments.
City officials in Costa Mesa have contested the state’s lawsuit, arguing that they have actively pursued new housing development initiatives, even in the absence of a fully certified housing element. They maintain that their development efforts demonstrate a commitment to addressing housing needs, and that the state’s legal action is an overreach.
A Community Divided: Density, Equity, and Infrastructure Concerns
The debate surrounding the Costa Mesa development plan predates the City Council’s vote and has exposed deep divisions within the community. At a planning commission hearing in August, numerous residents voiced their objections, citing concerns about increased density, the potential concentration of low-income housing in specific areas, and the strain on local infrastructure, particularly traffic.
One particularly contentious issue involved the potential impact on a municipal golf course. Proposals had suggested that a portion of the golf course might be utilized for a secondary access road to the development. Residents expressed strong opposition, with one individual lamenting the potential loss of "59 years of community history" and objecting to a 60-foot road cutting through the greens. The City Council ultimately opted to preserve the golf course intact for now, prioritizing negotiations for the use of a nearby existing street for access.
Conversely, a segment of the community strongly supported the housing development, emphasizing the urgent need for affordable housing options. One resident shared a personal anecdote about her nanny, who has struggled to find affordable housing in the area, even in the most modest units. A City Council member characterized the housing plan as a "quality-of-life issue," not only for those seeking housing but also for existing residents who may benefit from a more diverse and inclusive community. This sentiment reflects a broader understanding that the housing crisis impacts all segments of society, and that solutions require addressing the needs of both low-income residents and the broader community’s well-being.
The Costa Mesa situation encapsulates the broader challenges facing California and other states grappling with housing shortages. The tension between state-mandated housing production and local autonomy, coupled with the complex interplay of resident concerns, financial feasibility, and equity considerations, creates a volatile environment for policy implementation. As legal battles continue and development plans are scrutinized, the path forward for addressing California’s housing crisis remains a subject of intense debate and action. The state’s willingness to use litigation, and the counter-litigation it provokes, suggests a prolonged and potentially transformative period in the ongoing effort to reshape California’s housing landscape. The long-term implications of these legal skirmishes will undoubtedly shape the future of housing development and affordability across the Golden State.
