Home

Redevelopment Feasibility Study prepared for the City of Costa Mesa Redevelopment Agency
prepared by
Urban Futures, Inc.
3111 N. Tustin Avenueold-cars-costa-mesa
Suite, 230
Orange, CA 92865
October 2001
Z:\00Pln Active\CostaMesa\003\FEAS_Fnl.wpd October 1, 2001_jlm

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
THE ASSIGNMENT ………………………………………………. S-1
KEYPOINTS …………………………………………………… S-1
No. 1: Boundaries of a Probable Redevelopment Area …………………. S-1
Blight………………………………………………. S-1
Urbanization …………………………………………. S-3
Necessity …………………………………………… S-3
No. 2: Financial Feasibility of Redevelopment Plan Adoption/Amendment ……. S-3
No. 3: Amending the Existing Redevelopment Plan …………………… S-5
RECOMMENDATIONS…………………………………………….. S-5
No. 1: Boundaries ………………………………………….. S-5
No. 2: Amend the Existing Redevelopment Plan ……………………… S-6
No.3: Timing……………………………………………… S-6
REDEVELOPMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
PREPARED FOR THE COSTA MESA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
INTRODUCTION …………………………………………………… 1
Definitions…………………………………………………… 1
Purpose and Outline of the Feasibility Study …………………………… 3
DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA AND
PROBABLE REDEVELOPMENT AREA …………………………………… 5
ASSIGNMENT AND CAVEATS …………………………………………. 8
TheFieldSurvey………………………………………………. 8
OtherDataSources ……………………………………………. 8
Appropriate Use of Feasibility Study …………………………………. 9
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS RELATING TO
MAKING LAND SUBJECT TO REDEVELOPMENT ………………………….. 10
Opportunities ……………………………………………….. 10
MattersofLaw ………………………………………………. 10
Blight………………………………………………… 10
FiscalConsultations ……………………………………… 12
Affordable Housing ………………………………………. 12
Urbanization …………………………………………… 12
Eminent Domain ………………………………………… 13
ConflictofInterest……………………………………….. 13
METHODOLOGY USED IN THE FEASIBILITY STUDY ……………………….. 15
STUDYAREALANDUSESANDBLIGHTCHARACTERISTICS …………………. 16
Mixed Land Uses in the Study Area ………………………………… 16
Z:\00Pln Active\CostaMesa\003\FEAS_Fnl.wpd i October 1, 2001_jlm

BlightCharacteristicsintheStudyArea……………………………… 16
Existence of Blight Throughout the Probable Redevelopment Area …………… 16
AgeofStructures ……………………………………….. 20
Residential Overcrowding ………………………………….. 21
Parcels of Inadequate Size or Irregular Form …………………….. 26
Vacant or Underutilized Lots ………………………………… 27
CrimeandPublicSafety…………………………………… 27
Economic Indicators ……………………………………… 27
InfrastructureDeficiencies …………………………………. 29
ReviewofWestsideSpecificPlan…………………………….. 29
Neighborhood Perceptions …………………………………. 30
th
Existence of Blight in Planning Area 1: West 19 Street Commercial Corridor …… 30
Existence of Blight in Planning Area 2: North Placentia Industrial Corridor ……… 33
th
Existence of Blight in Planning Area 3: West 18 Street Residential
Neighborhood ………………………………………………. 34
Existence of Blight in Planning Area 4: Wallace-Pomona Residential
Neighborhood ………………………………………………. 35
Existence of Blight in Planning Area 5: Industrial Core …………………… 36
Existence of Blight in Planning Area 6: Monrovia Corridor …………………. 37
Existence of Blight in Planning Area 7: Whittier Corridor ………………….. 39
Existence of Blight in Planning Area 8: Transition Zone ………………….. 39
Existence of Blight in Planning Area 9: North Placentia Neighborhood ………… 40
Existence of Blight in Planning Area 10: Canyon-Victoria Neighborhood ………. 41
Existence of Blight in Planning Area 11: Joann-Miller Neighborhood …………. 42
Existence of Blight in Planning Area 12: Coolidge-Fillmore Neighborhood ……… 43
Existence of Blight in Planning Area 13: Mission-Mendoza Neighborhood ……… 44
Existence of Blight in Planning Area 14: Baker Street Neighborhood …………. 45
Existence of Blight in Planning Area 15: Victoria-Hamilton Neighborhood ……… 46
Existence of Blight in Planning Area 16: Anaheim-Charle Neighborhood ………. 47
AMENDING EXISTING PLAN’S CONTROLLING
FISCALANDTIMELIMITATIONS ………………………………………. 49
BlightRemainingintheExistingProjectArea …………………………. 51
RECOMMENDED METHODOLOGY TO BE USED TO DETERMINE
EVIDENCEOFBLIGHTFORPLANADOPTION…………………………….. 53
PRELIMINARY TAX INCREMENT ANALYSIS ………………………………. 54
Tax Increment Financing ………………………………………… 54
TaxIncrementProjections ………………………………………. 54
DeterminingVariousProjectedGrowthRates…………………….. 54
Scenario 1: Two Percent Projected Growth Rate ………………….. 55
Scenario 2: Three Percent Projected Growth Rate …………………. 55
Discussion of Projected Tax Allocations by Scenario ……………….. 56
Other Methods of Financing Available to the Agency …………………….. 57
REDEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS OPPORTUNITY ANALYSIS ………………….. 58
Limitations on Agency Assistance to Certain Sales Tax Generators ………….. 58
Relationship to General Plan Goals, Policies and Other Plans ……………… 58
Z:\00Pln Active\CostaMesa\003\FEAS_Fnl.wpd ii October 1, 2001_jlm

Types of Programs and Projects Appropriate for Agency Funding ……………. 58
Additional Considerations ……………………………………….. 60
CONCLUSION ……………………………………………………. 62
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No. Page
S1 Probable Redevelopment Area ………………………………….. S-2
1 Planning Areas (Study Area) and Existing Project Area Map ………………… 6
2 Probable Redevelopment Area and Existing Project Area Map ………………. 7
3a Planning Areas Existing Land Use Map ……………………………… 17
3b Planning Areas Existing Land Use Map ……………………………… 18
4 General Plan Land Use Map …………………………………….. 19
5 1990 Census Block Groups — Median Age of Housing Units ……………… 22
6 Sample Irregular Parcels ……………………………………….. 28
7 Low/Mod and Rental Rehab Areas …………………………………. 32
LIST OF TABLES
Table No.
S1 Defensibility Matrix ………………………………………….. S-4
1 ParcelsContainingStructuresbyYearStructuresBuilt …………………… 20
2 PersonsPerUnit……………………………………………… 23
3 Persons Per Housing Unit by Occupancy Status ……………………….. 24
4 Occupancy Status by Persons in Unit ………………………………. 24
5 PersonsPerRoom……………………………………………. 25
6 Occupancy Status by Persons per Room …………………………….. 26
7 Possible Existing Plan Fiscal and Time Limits Amendment Actions …………… 50
8 Summary of Blight Conditions Remaining Within the Project Area …………… 52
9 Projected Tax Increment Generation (By Scenario) ……………………… 56
APPENDICES
Appendix A Defensibility Matrix — Numerical Assessment
Appendix B Photographic Survey — Study Area
Appendix C Photographic Survey — Existing Project Area
Appendix D Tax Increment Projections
Z:\00Pln Active\CostaMesa\003\FEAS_Fnl.wpd iii October 1, 2001_jlm

SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
THE ASSIGNMENT
The Costa Mesa Redevelopment Agency (the “Agency”) retained Urban Futures Inc. (UFI)
1
to prepare a Redevelopment Feasibility Study to evaluate the potential for: i) including some or
allof16PlanningAreasidentifiedbyAgencystaffwithinaredevelopmentprojectarea,achievable
either by an amendment of its existing Redevelopment Plan, or through adoption of a new
redevelopment plan; and, ii) modifying certain time and fiscal limitations contained within the
existing Redevelopment Plan. All redevelopment plan and/or amendment actions are to be
implemented pursuant to authority promulgated within the California Community Redevelopment
Law (CCRL).
KEY POINTS
The following key points are derived from information contained within the body of the
Feasibility Study. Please note that all caveats and conditions set forth in the Feasibility Study are
germane to the discussion below.
No. 1: Boundaries of a Probable Redevelopment Area
Ofthetotalareaincludedwithinthe16PlanningAreas,the Feasibility Study concludes that
there are approximately 872 acres of land which would likely qualify for inclusion within a new or
expanded redevelopment project area; this area has been defined as the”Probable Redevelopment
Area”. The Probable Redevelopment Area, shown in Figure S1, was selected because, in UFI’s
professional judgement, most parcels within its borders met the three criteria necessary for
inclusion within a redevelopment project area pursuant to the CCRL: blight, urbanization, and
necessity. Though discussed extensively in the body of the Feasibility Study, these three criteria
are discussed briefly below.
Blight
Fundamental to the establishment of a redevelopment project area under authority of the
CCRL is the required presence of blight as defined in CCRL Sections 33030 and 33031. Section
33031 requires that are development agency proposing to create are development project area find,
among other prerequisites, that conditions of physical and economic blight are”…so prevalent and
so substantial…that it constitutes a serious physical and economic burden on the community which
cannot reasonable be expected to be reversed or alleviated by private enterprise or governmental
action, or both, without redevelopment.”
The Feasibility Study concludes that there are clear indications of substantial and prevalent
blight throughout the Probable Redevelopment Area that would likely be found to represent, upon
further analysis and data collection, a serious physical and economic burden on the community,
and that these conditions have not been, and probably cannot be, alleviated by private enterprise
1
Please refer to the “Definitions” section of the Feasibility Study for the meaning of capitalized words in this Summary.
Z:\00Pln Active\CostaMesa\003\FEAS_Fnl.wpd S – 1 October 1, 2001_jlm

Figure S1 Probable Redevelopment Area
Z:\00Pln Active\CostaMesa\003\FEAS_Fnl.wpd S – 2 October 1, 2001_jlm

or governmental action,or both,without redevelopment. The”Defensibility Matrix,”shown on Table
S1, provides a summary assessment of the blight conditions, as defined, that UFI staff found to
exist in each of the16PlanningAreasdescribedabove,and the”weighting,”or the degree of blight,
attributable to each respective Planning Area. InUFI’s professional opinion,those Planning Areas
(or portions thereof) determined to be “defensible” or “highly defensible” would probably be found
to be appropriate for inclusion in are development project area if theAgency elected to proceed with
eithert here development plan adoption or amendment process. Please note,however,UFIdidnot
consider Planning Areas 7 and 10 in their entirety to be defensible; those portions of Planning
Areas 7 and 10 which would be defensible are labeled as 7a and 10a.
Urbanization
The second criteria it is necessary to meet for establishing a redevelopment project area
relates to the assessment of total urbanized land within the project area. The CCRL requires that
a project area be “predominantly urbanized” — that no more than 20 percent of a project area be
vacant land. The Feasibility Study concludes that the Probable Redevelopment Area is highly
urbanized and that the urbanization requirement will not be an issue if the Agency elects to move
ahead with the redevelopment plan adoption/amendment process.
Necessity
The third criteria it is necessary to meet provides that non-blighted parcels may be included
in a project area because they are necessary for effective redevelopment, and therefore, not all
parcels included in a redevelopment project area must be blighted. This Feasibility Study
concludes that those parcels that are in fact not blighted, but nevertheless have been
recommended for inclusion within the Probable Redevelopment Area, are necessary for effective
redevelopment, e.g., are necessary for effective planning and development. A reason for the
inclusion of non-blighted parcels may also fall within the realm of the principle of externality.
No. 2: Financial Feasibility of Redevelopment Plan Adoption/Amendment
The Feasibility Study concludes that adoption of the entire Probable Redevelopment Area
could generate between $141.2 million (assuming a two percent per year average annual growth
rate in assessed values) and $248.9 million (assuming a three percent per year average annual
growth rate in assessed values) to the Agency over 45 years. Of these amounts, between $29.2
million and $52.0 million would be diverted from the City’s General Fund; however, a portion of
these funds could be passed back to the City’s General Fund, at the direction of the City Council.
TheCostaMesacommunityisprojectedtorealizea netincrease intotalcommunitydevelopment
revenues of between $112.0 million and $196.9 million over the same 45-year period. Based on
these amounts, UFI concludes that a redevelopment plan adoption/amendment should be
financially feasible.
Appendix “D” contains tax increment projections at two and three percent annual increases
which demonstrate the possible fiscal implications of creating the Probable Redevelopment Area.
Z:\00Pln Active\CostaMesa\003\FEAS_Fnl.wpd S – 3 October 1, 2001_jlm

Table S1 Defensibility Matrix
Z:\00Pln Active\CostaMesa\003\FEAS_Fnl.wpd S – 4 October 1, 2001_jlm

No. 3: Amending the Existing Redevelopment Plan
There are two issues addressed in the Feasibility Study with reference to amending the
existing Redevelopment Plan: i) should the existing Redevelopment Plan itself be modified, and
ii) if the Agency elects to proceed with creating the Probable Redevelopment Area, should it do so
through adoption of a new redevelopment project area or as an amendment to the existing
Redevelopment Plan.
TheCCRLrequiresthatredevelopmentagenciesadoptingredevelopmentplansincorporate
certain fiscal and time limitations affecting i) amount of bonded indebtedness, ii) time limit to
2
establish indebtedness, iii) effective life of the Plan, and iv) eminent domain provisions. Each of
these limitations may be increased by appropriate amendment of the redevelopment plan if the
limits are below the ceilings promulgated within the CCRL. Under current CCRL provisions the
Agency could, through amendment of its existing Redevelopment Plan, increase its time limit to
incur indebtedness for an additional ten-year period and reinstate the Plan’s eminent domain
authority for an eleven year period, assuming 2002 as the year of amendment adoption.
The Agency can add new territory to its existing Project Area or it can adopt a new
redevelopment plan, thereby creating a new redevelopment project area. Amending the existing
Redevelopment Plan to add territory to the existing Project Area would also allow the Agency to
execute the additional amendment actions described above as part of the same amendment
process. In addition, an amendment to the existing Plan to add territory would also permit the
Agency to move tax increments between the existing Project Area and the added territory,
regardless of which area generated the funds. However, an amendment to the existing Plan would
require notification of the proceedings be given to all persons owning property, residing and/or
doing business in the existing Project Area as well as the Probable Redevelopment Area.
RECOMMENDATIONS
No. 1: Boundaries
The decision whether or not portions of a community should be made subject to
redevelopment under authority of the CCRL is driven by both policy and technical considerations.
Only the City Council can determine whether it wishes to use redevelopment as a tool for economic
development of a community which it perceives to be suffering from physical or economic
dislocations. UFI can make no recommendation regarding the City Council’s policy-making
decisions. However,the issue of whether”physical and economic dislocations”rises to the status
of blight, as defined in the CCRL, is essentially technical in nature, one which UFI can address.
If the Agency elects to expand the use of redevelopment as an economic development tool,
UFI recommends that it include all properties within the Probable Redevelopment Area, shown in
Figure S1 of this summary, in a redevelopment survey area (as defined in CCRL Section 33310).
The reasons for this are that, in UFI’s professional opinion, properties within the Probable
Redevelopment Area are: i) substantially blighted, ii) urbanized, and iii) necessary for effective
redevelopment.
2
Plans adopted prior to 1994 were also required to establish a tax increment ceiling amount, which amount could only
be increased by amendment of the redevelopment plan. This requirement was repealed in 1993 by the state legislature,
and became effective January 1, 1994.
Z:\00Pln Active\CostaMesa\003\FEAS_Fnl.wpd S – 5 October 1, 2001_jlm

No. 2: Amend the Existing Redevelopment Plan
If the Agency elects to make properties within the Probable Redevelopment Area subject
to redevelopment, it may do so by creating a new redevelopment project area or amending the
existing Project Area. UFI recommends that the Agency amend the existing Redevelopment Plan
for the existing Project Area, for the reasons discussed under Key Point No. 3 above, rather than
adopt a new redevelopment plan to create a new and separate redevelopment project area.
No. 3: Timing
If the Agency elects to pursue an expanded redevelopment program, UFI recommends that
it act as early as possible to complete the approximately 18- to 24-month-long process, thereby
realizing the greatest gains for the community as quickly as possible.
Z:\00Pln Active\CostaMesa\003\FEAS_Fnl.wpd S – 6 October 1, 2001_jlm

REDEVELOPMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
PREPARED FOR THE COSTA MESA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
INTRODUCTION
The City of Costa Mesa Redevelopment Agency is currently studying the possible extension
of its authority to certain parts of the City of Costa Mesa not presently included within a
redevelopment project area to help ameliorate certain deleterious conditions that exist in those
areas, and to help promote and facilitate economic development in those same areas. The Agency
has retained Urban Futures,Inc. (UFI), redevelopment consultants, to prepare this redevelopment
feasibility study as part of that evaluation process.
The audience for this feasibility study is Agency and City decision makers, the business
community within the City, and property owners and residents of areas of the City being studied for
possible inclusion within a redevelopment project area.
Definitions
The following bold terms will have the following meanings unless the context in which they
are used clearly requires otherwise.
Agency means the Costa Mesa Redevelopment Agency activated by City Ordinance Nos.
72-2 and 72-3 on January 17, 1972.
Agency Board means the Board of Directors of the Agency. The members of theAgency
Board are also members of the City Council
Base Year Value means the total assessed value of property within the Project Area in the
year in which the redevelopment plan is approved.
Blight means those conditions and characterizations as defined in CCRL Sections 33030
and 33031.
CCRL means the California Community Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code,
Sections 33000, et seq.).
City means the City of Costa Mesa, California.
City Council means the City Council of the City and the legislative body of the Agency as
that term is used in CCRL Section 33007. The members of the City Council are also members of
the Agency Board.
Deterioration or Physical Deterioration means the cumulative and deleterious effects of
wear and tear on a structure. Such deterioration may be the result of use, or excessive use, of a
structure over time, or of the effects of the elements on a structure, which use or effects have not
been rectified through a program of ongoing and adequate maintenance.
Z:\00Pln Active\CostaMesa\003\FEAS_Fnl.wpd 1 October 1, 2001_jlm

External Obsolescence means the diminished utility of a structure due to negative
influences emanating from outside the structure, and which condition is usually incurable on the
part of the land owner, landlord, or tenant.
Feasibility Study or Study means this study.
Functional Obsolescence means a loss in value resulting from defects in design, or
changes that, over time have made some aspect of a structure, such as its materials or design,
obsolete by current standards.
Functional Inutility means the impairment of the functional capacity of a property or
building according to market tastes and standards.
Functional Utility means that the design and engineering of a building are considered to
be appropriate in terms of perceived needs at a given time.
Low/Mod Area(s) means area(s) in the City identified as containing a specified number of
low or moderate income persons, families and identified in Map 2 of the Consolidated Plan (see
also “Rental Rehab Area(s)” below) and shown on Figure 7 of this Feasibility Study.
LMI Fund means the Lowand Moderate Income Fund of the Agency established pursuant
to CCRL Section 33334.3 as it presently exists and as it may be increased by future Agency
actions.
Metro scan means First American Real Estate Solutions software program allowing access
to records of the Orange County Assessor. First American Real Estate Solutions provides the
following caveat: “Information compiled from various sources. Real Estate Solutions makes no
representations or warranties as to the accuracy or completeness contained in [any] report.”
Obsolete means no longer useful or functioning (see also definitions of functional and
external obsolescence).
Planning Area or Planning Areas means one, or more than one, of sixteen separate
geographicpartsoftheStudyArea identifiedbyAgencystaffforpurposesofthisFeasibilityStudy
and shown on Figure 1.
Probable Redevelopment Area means that portion of the Study Area which UFI currently
believeswouldbefoundtobe,baseduponsubsequentdetailedresearchandanalysis,appropriate
forinclusioninaredevelopmentprojectareaeitherbycreationofanewredevelopmentprojectarea
or by amendment into the Project Area (shown on Figures S1 and 2).
Project or existing Project means the Downtown Costa Mesa Redevelopment Project,
created by adoption of City Ordinance No. 73-44, on December 24, 1973, and amended to add
territorybyadoptionofCityOrdinanceNos.77-27,77-36and80-22,adoptedJuly5,1977,August
8, 1977, and November 1, 1980, respectively, and which Project is the Agency’s only
redevelopmentproject.TheProjectwassubsequentlyamendedin1986and1994;however,these
amendments did not add territory to the Project.
Z:\00Pln Active\CostaMesa\003\FEAS_Fnl.wpd 2 October 1, 2001_jlm

Project Area or existing Project Area means the geographic area of the City included
within the Existing Project, consisting of approximately 200 acres.
Property Maintenance Issue(s) means any condition(s) defined under Title 20, Property
Maintenance Regulations, City of Costa Mesa, Code Enforcement Division.
Redevelopment Plan or Plan means the redevelopment plan prepared for the Project.
Redevelopment means the implementation of a redevelopment plan by the Agency
pursuant to appropriate provisions of the CCRL.
Rental Rehab Area(s) means areas in the City targeted for City (e.g., CDBG) or Agency
fundstoassistpropertyownersintherehabilitationof these rental units. These areas are identified
in Map 2 of the Consolidated Plan and shown on Figure 7 herein. See also “Low/Mod Area(s)”
above.
StudyArea meanstheapproximately954-acreportionoftheCitywhichhasbeenselected
by the Agency Board for examination and study to determine if all or some portion of it would be
eligibleforinclusioninaredevelopmentprojectareaandwhichconsistsofsixteenPlanningAreas.
SubstandardBuilding or Substandard meansanydeleteriousconditionin,on,oraround
a building or a portion thereof, including but not necessarily limited to, conditions as defined in
Chapter 10, Substandard Buildings, of the Uniform Housing Code.
Supplemental Information means information provided to UFI during the course of the
Feasibility Study’s preparation by the City’s Police Department and Code Enforcement Section
describingthegeneralnatureofproblemsineachoftherespectivePlanningAreasthatareknown
to Department staff.
Utility means the ability of a property, or improvements to the property, to satisfy a human
want, need, or desire. The influence of utility on value depends on the characteristics of the
property. Sizeutility,designutility,locationutility,andotherspecificformsofutilitycansignificantly
influence property value.
Westside means that portion of the City encompassing some or all of Planning Areas 1
through 11 and 15 and 16 for which relatively specific information is readily available.
Westside Specific Plan means the City of Costa Mesa Westside Specific Plan, October
2000.
UFI means Urban Futures, Inc. redevelopment consultants retained by the Agency to
complete the Feasibility Study.
Purpose and Outline of the Feasibility Study
ThepurposeofthisFeasibilityStudy is to determine whether some or all of the Study Area,
in UFI’s professional opinion, would likely meet the various tests found in the CCRL for possible
inclusionwithinaredevelopmentprojectareaifadditional,moreinclusiveandexhaustive,research
and analysis were subsequently completed by the Agency during the redevelopment plan
Z:\00Pln Active\CostaMesa\003\FEAS_Fnl.wpd 3 October 1, 2001_jlm

adoption/amendmentprocess. Asapartofthistask,UFIistorecommend whether those portions
of the Planning Areas which would likely meet such tests would be better served by inclusion in
their own redevelopment project area or be amended into the Project Area. A third, and final,
purpose of the Feasibility Study is to evaluate the advisability of amending certain time and fiscal
limitationscurrentlyintheRedevelopmentPlanwhichwouldaffectthe: i)amountoftaxincrement
to be collected by the Agency from the Project, ii) time to incur indebtedness allowable under the
Redevelopment Plan, iii) amount of bonded indebtedness to be outstanding at any one time from
the Project, iv) length of Redevelopment Plan effectiveness, and v) time to reinstate eminent
domain authority pursuant to the Redevelopment Plan.
ThisFeasibilityStudyisdividedintothefollowingsections: i)DescriptionofStudyAreaand
ProbableRedevelopmentArea;ii)AssignmentandCaveats,whichdescribesUFI’sassignmentand
the limitations of the Feasibility Study inherent in that assignment; iii) General Considerations
Relating to Making Land Subject to Redevelopment, a brief narrative of the opportunities inherent
intheredevelopmentprocessandthelegalrestraintsonacity’sabilitytoestablisharedevelopment
project area; iv) Methodology Used in the Feasibility Study, a description of how the field study and
other components of this Feasibility Study were completed; v) Study Area Land Uses and Blight
Characteristics,whichprovidesadescriptionofthelandusesandindicationsofblight(physicaland
economic) found in the Planning Areas; vi) Amending the Existing Plan’s Controlling Fiscal and
TimeLimitations,whichdescribespossibleactionsrelatingtotheexistingRedevelopmentPlanand
blight remaining in the existing Project Area; vii) Recommended Methodology to Determine Blight,
which describes a recommended “plan of attack” and substantiates the presence of blight in
sufficient detail for redevelopment plan adoption/amendment activities pursuant to the CCRL; viii)
Preliminary Tax Increment Analysis, which discusses use of tax increment financing and related
fiscalimpactstotheAgency’sgeneralredevelopmentfund,andlow-andmoderate-incomehousing
fund (the “LMI Fund”) and the City’s General Fund; ix) Redevelopment Programs Opportunity
Analysis, which discusses certain limitations on Agency assistance to certain projects, and types
of programs appropriate for Agency funding; and x) Conclusion.
Z:\00Pln Active\CostaMesa\003\FEAS_Fnl.wpd 4 October 1, 2001_jlm

DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA AND
PROBABLE REDEVELOPMENT AREA
As shown in Figure 1, the Study Area consists of sixteen (16) Planning Areas. With the
exception of Planning Areas 12, 13 and 14, which Planning Areas are all clustered along the
east/west running Baker Street, the Study Area (Planning Areas 1 through 11, and 15 and 16) is
located within the Westside. The Westside area identified in the Westside Specific Plan contains
approximately 1,788 acres; all Planning Areas within the Westside area contain some 954 acres.
3
In addition, the Westside contains a portion of the existing Project Area.
As described in more detail below, UFI staff reviewed the entire Study Area to determine,
in its professional opinion, which portions of the Study Area would be: i) either defensible or highly
defensible, ii) possibly defensible, or iii) not defensible with reference to inclusion in a
redevelopmentprojectarea. Figure2dividestheStudyAreaintothreecategories: areasinblue
being either highly defensible or defensible; areas in green being possibly defensible; and areas
in salmon pink not being defensible. Please note that the Probable Redevelopment Area, as it is
showninFigureS1oftheprecedingSummaryincludestheareascoloredblueandgreenasshown
in Figure 2. Please note also that Planning Areas 6, 7 and 10 (see Figure 1) include a meaningful
amountofareascoloredsalmonpink(notdefensible);forthisreason,UFIidentifiedPlanningAreas
7a and 10a in Table S1 to accommodate the smaller, more defensible portions of Planning Areas
7 and 10 (Planning Area 6 was deemed to be defensible regardless).
3
Although not a part of the Study Area, UFI included the existing Project Area in its field survey and compiled available
information relating to it, in order to make recommendations relating to the extension of certain fiscal and time limitations
which bear upon the existing Project Area in the Redevelopment Plan.
Z:\00Pln Active\CostaMesa\003\FEAS_Fnl.wpd 5 October 1, 2001_jlm

Figure 1 Planning Areas (Study Area) and Existing Project Area Map
Z:\00Pln Active\CostaMesa\003\FEAS_Fnl.wpd 6 October 1, 2001_jlm

Figure 2 Probable Redevelopment Area and Existing Project Area Map
Z:\00Pln Active\CostaMesa\003\FEAS_Fnl.wpd 7 October 1, 2001_jlm

ASSIGNMENT AND CAVEATS
UFI’s assignment includes: i) a review of the existing data base provided by or through
Agency staff to determine such evidence of blight as code violations, infrastructure deficiencies,
hazardous wastes, overcrowding, high crime rates, overall trends of assessed real estate values,
retailsalesandrealpropertysalestrends,leaseandoccupancyrates; ii) a block-level field analysis
to determine if it were likely that additional and more detailed (parcel-level) field work would find
sufficient “blight” (as defined in the CCRL) to actually qualify one or more of the Planning Areas
for inclusion in a redevelopment project area, iii) provide “urbanization” computations, as
appropriate and necessary; iv) recommend a Probable Redevelopment Area, v) analyze the
projectedfiscalimpactontheAgency,theCityandaffectedtaxingentitiesofmakingtheProbable
Redevelopment Area subject to tax increment diversions pursuant to CCRL Section 33670, vi)
assist in structuring and participate in a community outreach program, vii) prepare a draft and final
Feasibility Study and present the final Feasibility Study to the Agency Board and the community.
UFI has completed this Feasibility Study based upon the parameters outlined in our
assignment. The caveats outlined below establish the parameters of this Feasibility Study based
upon the nature and limitations of the assignment.
Theresearch,fieldwork,analysis,anddatatabulationintendedtoprovidealegislativebody
with sufficient information to make the findings required in the CCRL prior to the adoption of an
ordinancecreatingaredevelopmentprojectareainvolvesahigherlevelofdetailandanalyticalrigor
thanthatcontractedforinpreparationofthisFeasibilityStudy. WhilethisFeasibilityStudysatisfies
UFI’s contractual obligations with respect to the specific scope of work, the Agency Board should
notrelyonthisFeasibilityStudy,oranyinformationcontainedwithinit,tomakeadeterminationas
towhetheranyparticularparcel, or group of parcels, would qualify for inclusion in a redevelopment
project area. This Feasibility Study cannot be used by the Agency Board as the legal basis for
adopting a redevelopment plan and establishing a redevelopment project area.
The Field Survey
The field survey conducted as a part of this Feasibility Study is not intended to provide
assurance of compliance with the requirements of the CCRL, but rather to provide the Agency
Board with an indication of the approximate amount and location of land which, subject to further
andmorerigorousreviewandanalysisincluding,withoutlimitation,aparcel-levelfieldsurveywhich
isseparateanddistinctfromtheblock-levelfieldsurveyconductedforthisFeasibilityStudy,could
qualify for inclusion in a redevelopment project area.
Other Data Sources
All data sources provided by Agency staff for UFI review have been published prior to the
Agency’sidentificationofthePlanningAreas. Consequently,virtuallynodatainthesedatasources
was identified by “Planning Area,” but rather such data was provided in a Citywide format or by
specificgeographicdesignationwhichrelatedonlycoincidentallytothegeographiesofthePlanning
Areas. Consequently, UFI’s conclusions based upon these data sources necessarily must be
general in nature, and cannot be expected to be inclusive of all conditions which might be found
as a part of the more intensive analysis which would be provided if the Agency elected to actually
proceed with plan adoption or amendment activities.
Z:\00Pln Active\CostaMesa\003\FEAS_Fnl.wpd 8 October 1, 2001_jlm

Itshouldbepointedout,however,thattheCityrecentlyinitiatedtheWestsideSpecificPlan
for a portion of the City generally bordered by Fairview Park and the Costa Mesa Golf Club to the
north, the Santa Ana River to the west, the City of Newport Beach to the south and Newport and
Harbor Boulevards to the east. Although the Westside includes land which is not included in the
StudyArea,allofPlanningAreas1through11,PlanningAreas15and16,andmostoftheexisting
Project Area are contained within the Westside. While the Westside Specific Plan itself was not
adopted and is not currently being implemented, UFI has made use of much of the research and
background data collected in the preparation of the Westside Specific Plan. As appropriate, this
information is used in this Feasibility Study for the Planning Areas identified above as well as that
portion of the existing Project Area contained within the boundaries of the Westside.
Appropriate Use of Feasibility Study
The City Council may rely upon the information contained within this Feasibility Study to
provide evidence to support its adoption of a resolution creating a redevelopment survey area to
includeallthatlandwithintheboundariesoftheProbableRedevelopmentAreapursuanttoCCRL
requirements,ifitelectstoadoptsucharesolution. Atitsdiscretion,theCityCouncilmayelectto
include additional areas of the City within a redevelopment survey area.
Z:\00Pln Active\CostaMesa\003\FEAS_Fnl.wpd 9 October 1, 2001_jlm

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS RELATING TO
MAKING LAND SUBJECT TO REDEVELOPMENT
Opportunities

Redevelopmentplansareadoptedandredevelopmentprojectareascreatedfortheprimary
purposeofalleviatingdeterioratingphysicalandeconomicconditionsinportionsofthesponsoring
community. This primary purpose is accomplished, in general, by generating additional revenues
forthesponsoringcommunitythroughitsredevelopmentagency.Onceaprojectareaisestablished
the community, through its redevelopment agency, can implement a series of projects designed
principally to eliminate blight and, at a minimum, increase, improve and/or preserve low- and
moderate-income housing within the community. Pursuant to CCRL Section 33445, a redevelop-
mentagency,withtheconsentofthelegislativebody,mayalsopayallorapartofthevalueofland
andpayforthecostofconstructingpublicstructures,facilitiesandotherimprovements,otherthan
new city hall facilities, that will assist in the elimination of blighting influences in the project area.
Project implementation will typically be the catalyst for increases in the assessed value of
land and/or increases in the number of jobs in the community, with spinoff benefits to the Agency
4
and City being increases in property, sales, income and business taxes. The theory behind
redevelopment is that, but for Agency participation, these projects would not have occurred in the
projectarea,ortheywouldhaveoccurredmuchmoreslowly,andtherefore,theadditionalrevenues
would not have been generated, or they would have been generated too slowly to help facilitate
developmentofneededprojects. Thevarioustaxingentitieswouldnotnecessarilybeunwillingto
cooperate in the creation of a project area because over time a greater percentage of increased
propertytaxrevenueswillaccruetothemuponterminationoftheredevelopmentagency’sauthority
to collect tax increment.
Currentlawdoesnotplacealimitonthesizeofaredevelopmentprojectarea. Infurthering
its efforts to maximize its long-term fiscal growth for the purpose of affecting a better community,
the Agency may want to establish as large a project area as is legally and practically feasible.
Within the limits of the law, the larger the project area, the greater the Agency’s ability to affect
positive change within the community over the effective life of the plan.
Matters of Law
Blight
As discussed above, redevelopment activities in California are governed primarily by the
CCRL. New redevelopment plans must be approved by City Ordinance that, in part, contain
findingsthattheareaproposedforinclusionwithintheredevelopmentprojectareais”blighted”and
that the extent of the blight “…constitutes a serious physical and economic burden on the
communitywhichcannotreasonablybe expected to be reversed or alleviated by private enterprise
or governmental action, or both, without redevelopment.” (CCRL Section 33030(b)(1))
4
These increased taxes are generated directly by the increases in assessed values and higher sales taxes generated
at retail establishments which have been induced to expand and indirectly because new job holders are able to increase
their spending in the community.
Z:\00Pln Active\CostaMesa\003\FEAS_Fnl.wpd 10 October 1, 2001_jlm

CCRL Sections 33030 and 33031 provide the legal definition of blight to which redevelop-
ment agencies must adhere. The CCRL now requires that a project area contain one or more
conditionsof economicandphysical blight,asdefined.Inaddition,aprojectareamaybeonethat
ischaracterizedbytheexistenceofinadequatepublicimprovements,parkingfacilities,orutilities.
AppropriatesubsectionsofCCRLSection33030andallofCCRLSection33031arequoted
below.Subsection(c)ofCCRLSection33030describeshowinadequatepublicimprovements can
characterize blight in a community. Please note, however, that subsequent to changes in the law
approvedbythelegislaturein1993,deficientpublicinfrastructureorpublicimprovements alone are
not sufficient to make an area subject to redevelopment.
33030
(c) Ablightedareaalsomaybeonethatcontainstheconditionsdescribedinsubdivision(b)andis,
in addition,characterizedbytheexistenceofinadequatepublicimprovements,parkingfacilities,or
utilities.
33031
(a) Thissubdivisiondescribesphysicalconditionsthatcauseblight:
(1) Buildingsinwhichitisunsafeorunhealthyforpersonstoliveorwork. Theseconditions
can be caused by serious building code violations, dilapidation or deterioration, defective
designorphysicalconstruction,faultyorinadequateutilities,orothersimilarfactors.
(2) Factors that prevent or substantially hinder the economically viable use or capacity of
buildings orlots. Thisconditioncanbecausedbyasubstandarddesign,inadequatesize
givenpresentstandardsandmarketconditions,lackofparking,orothersimilarfactors.
(3) Adjacent or nearby uses that are incompatible with each other and which prevent the
economicdevelopmentofthoseparcelsorotherportionsoftheprojectarea.
(4) The existence of subdivided lots of irregular form and shape and inadequate size for
properusefulnessanddevelopmentthatareinmultipleownership.
(b) Thissubdivisiondescribeseconomicconditionsthatcauseblight:
(1) Depreciated or stagnant property values or impaired investments, including, but not
necessarilylimitedto,thosepropertiescontaininghazardouswastesthatrequiretheuseof
agencyauthorityasspecifiedinArticle12.5(commendingwithSection33459).
(2) Abnormally high business vacancies, abnormally low lease rates, high turnover rates,
abandonedbuildings,orexcessivevacantlotswithinanareadevelopedforurbanuseand
servedbyutilities.
(3) A lack of necessary commercial facilities that are normally found in neighborhoods,
includinggrocerystores,drugstores,andbanksandotherlendinginstitutions.
(4) Residentialovercrowdingoranexcessofbars,liquorstores,orotherbusinessesthat
caterexclusivelytoadults,thathasledtoproblemsofpublicsafetyandwelfare.
(5) Ahighcrimeratethatconstitutesaseriousthreattothepublicsafetyandwelfare.
The discussion in the balance of this Feasibility Study describes specific conditions in the
StudyAreawhichprovideevidencethatoneormoreoftheconditionslistedabovewouldbefound
to be prevalent and substantial within the Probable Redevelopment Area upon a more detailed
analysis.
Z:\00Pln Active\CostaMesa\003\FEAS_Fnl.wpd 11 October 1, 2001_jlm

Fiscal Consultations
EnactmentofAssemblyBill1290in1993replacedtheexistingfiscal”negotiation”process
withamandatorytaxincrementpass-throughformula.Insimplestterms,applicationoftheformula
causes agencies to now be more prudent about what areas they propose for inclusion within a
projectarea,becausewithinthestrictesttermsofthelaw,theonlywayforataxingentitytomitigate
a potentially intolerable, redevelopment-related fiscal burden (whether real or perceived) is to
challengethevalidityofthenewlyadoptedredevelopment plan in court. Agencies may, however,
work with one or more affected taxing entities to develop “joint-venture” projects, whereby the
agency and taxing entity(s) realize a mutual benefit from an agency-sponsored project as a means
of further mitigating fiscal burden.
Affordable Housing
TheCCRLprovidesthatredevelopmentagenciesuseaminimumof20percentofgrosstax
increment to increase, improve and preserve the community’s supply of very low-, low- and
5
moderate-income housing. Also, agencies must comply with replacement and inclusionary
housing requirements established in CCRL Section 33413. Agencies are required to replace
housing units and bedrooms destroyed, or that are taken out of the low- or moderate-income
market, as part of a redevelopment project that is subject to a written agreement with the
redevelopment agency with an equal or greater number of units and bedrooms within four years
of their destruction or removal from the low- or moderate-income market.
Agenciesarealsoresponsiblefor including acertainpercentageofalldwellingunits,either
developed by the agency or by others, in the component of housing units made available at a cost
affordable to persons and families of low- or moderate-incomes. Project areas that include
significant amounts of residentially zoned property available for development have, in many
instances,seenrapiddevelopmentofnewhousingstock. Whilethisactivitygeneratessignificant
increasesinpropertytax(and,indirectly,salestax)revenues,newjobs,andawholehostofother
positive economic impacts, it can also spell trouble for agencies that find themselves with
replacement or inclusionary housing deficits for which they have not made adequate provision.
Urbanization
An important part of establishing a redevelopment project area is the assessment of total
urbanization within the project area pursuant to CCRL Section 33320.1. This section of the CCRL
provides that “predominately urbanized” means that not less than 80 percent of the land in a
redevelopment project area either i) has been or is developed for urban uses, ii) is characterized
by the existence of subdivided lots of irregular form, shape and inadequate size for proper
usefulnessofdevelopmentthatareinmultipleownerships,oriii)isanintegralpartofoneormore
areasdevelopedforurbanusesthataresurroundedorsubstantiallysurroundedbyparcelswhich
have been, or are developed for urban uses.
Aparcel-specificanalysismustbeundertakenasapartoftheredevelopmentplanamend-
ment/adoptionprocessinordertodeterminetheexactpercentageofurbanizationwithinthesurvey
area. Thisfactnotwithstanding,itisreasonabletoconcludethattheurbanizationrequirementwill
probably not be an issue to the Agency because of the built out nature of the Study Area.
5
Agencies may also assist market rate housing; however, funding for these activities must come from the Agency’s
general project fund, not the LMI fund.
Z:\00Pln Active\CostaMesa\003\FEAS_Fnl.wpd 12 October 1, 2001_jlm

Eminent Domain
CCRL Section 33342 provides that “[r]edevelopment plans may provide for the agency to
acquirebygift,purchase,lease,orcondemnationallorpartoftherealpropertyintheprojectarea.”
Historically, many redevelopment agencies (including the Agency) have used this power of
condemnation as a last resort in their efforts to assemble parcels for redevelopment. Use of the
power of eminent domain is one of the only activities of an Agency Board which requires a two
thirds majority (effectively four out of five votes).
CCRL Section 33333.4(a)(2) provides a time limit of not to exceed twelve years from the
dateofplanadoptionforthe”commencementofeminentdomainproceedingstoacquireproperty
within the project area.” The twelve year time limit expired for the existing Project in December,
1998.
IftheCityCouncilelectstomaketerritorywithintheProbableRedevelopmentAreasubject
to redevelopment and/or to reinstate its authority for the use of eminent domain for the existing
Project Area, and to do so pursuant to an amendment to the existing Plan, it could either: i)
reinstate the Agency’s power of eminent domain in the existing Plan and adopt that power in the
Probable Redevelopment Area for all parcels in both the existing Project and the Probable
Redevelopment Area, ii) reinstate and adopt the Agency’s eminent domain authority for selected
landusesintheexistingProjectandtheProbableRedevelopmentArea(suchselectionwouldneed
to be carefully crafted), or iii) elect not to provide the Agency with any eminent domain authority
whatsoever.
Thedeterminationastowhichpathtotakedependsinlargemeasureonthetypesofactivity
that the City Council determines to be most appropriate for the Agency to pursue in continuing to
implement the Plan or the amended Plan, whichever is to be the case. Typically, infrastructure
projectsdonotrequirethattheAgencyhavethepowerofeminentdomain(theCityalwaysretains
that power for public projects whose ownership will ultimately be public). If, on the other hand, the
City Council anticipates the Agency will become involved in private developer transactions (so-
called public/private partnerships) the Agency would be well served to secure its independent
powersofeminentdomainsincetheCitytypicallycannotuseitspowerofeminentdomainforsuch
public projects whose ownership will ultimately be private.
It is probably impossible for the City Council to determine the Agency’s eminent domain
policy at the Feasibility Study stage for reasons set forth above; therefore, no recommendation
regarding its inclusion in a redevelopment plan is being provided by UFI.
Conflict of Interest
ThePoliticalReformActof1974,CaliforniaGovernmentCode,Section87100,prohibitsany
publicofficialfrommakingorparticipating in any governmental decision in which she/he knows or
has reason to know she/he has a financial interest. All members of the Agency Board, the City
Council, the City’s Planning Commission and the Project Area Committee (if one is formed) are
considered “public officials” for the purpose of applying this rule.
In summary, three questions must be answered:
1) Is there a foreseeable financial effect on the official’s property from the decision?
Z:\00Pln Active\CostaMesa\003\FEAS_Fnl.wpd 13 October 1, 2001_jlm

2) If so, is that effect “material?”
3) If so, is that material effect distinguishable from the effect on the public generally,
or a significant segment of the public?
These three questions frame the conflict of interest analysis and must be evaluated by
Agency legal counsel prior to official designation of a limited survey area. Similarly, with respect
to the City’s Planning Commission and PAC, if one is formed, each of these issues must be
resolved prior to these bodies taking official actions as a part of the redevelopment
plan/amendment adoption process.
In the event there is an unavoidable conflict on the part of an elected or appointed official,
that official should abstain from participating in all redevelopment plan adoption/amendment
matters.
Z:\00Pln Active\CostaMesa\003\FEAS_Fnl.wpd 14 October 1, 2001_jlm

METHODOLOGY USED IN THE FEASIBILITY STUDY
MeetingsanddiscussionswithCityandAgencyofficialsandstaff,andcommunityoutreach
efforts contributed significantly to the analysis, conclusions and recommendations contained within
thisFeasibilityStudy. Asappropriateandnecessary,inputreceivedfromparticipantsatFeasibility
Study-related meetings and workshops and during other times was supplemented by UFI’s review
ofCityandAgencydatafilesandotherdocumentsthatprovideinformationaboutthephysicaland
economic conditions within the Study Area and the larger community (however, please see
discussion under “Caveats” above).
AspartoftheFeasibilityStudy,UFIstaffconducteda”block-level”fieldsurveyduringJune
and July, 2001. The purpose of the field survey was two-fold: first, to characterize, at a block
level, the types and extent of physical and economic blight existing within the Study Area, and
second to identify any portions of the Study Area which, in the opinion of UFI, did not exhibit a
preponderance of blight, and which therefore should not be included within the Probable
RedevelopmentArea. WhilethisanalysismaybeconsideredconclusiveofUFI’srecommendations
regarding land to exclude from further consideration, it should be considered only a preliminary
analysisofthoseindividualparcelswhichshouldbefurtherstudiediftheAgencyelectstoproceed
with the inclusion of additional land for redevelopment.
6
The field survey was conducted by a team of two professionals who drove each Planning
Area over a period of five weekdays. Each side of every street in each Planning Area was
individually evaluated with respect to physical conditions, as appropriate, and conditions noted.
The field team took over 500 photographs of physical conditions in the Planning Areas and the
existing Project Area; most of these photographs are included in Appendices B and C.
As will be described in the Study Area Blight Characteristics section below (and shown on
Figure 2), some portions of the Study Area were not deemed sufficiently blighted to warrant
inclusion in a redevelopment project area at this time because: i) blight was not found to be
sufficiently “prevalent” or “substantial”; and ii) their inclusion was not thought to be necessary for
effective redevelopment of the balance of parcels to be made subject to redevelopment. These
areas were excluded from the Probable Redevelopment Area. On the other hand, other portions
oftheStudyArea,whilenotobviouslyorsubstantiallyblighted,havebeenincludedintheProbable
RedevelopmentAreabecause: i)furtherresearchmayuncoverblightingcharacteristicsnotreadily
apparent at the level of analysis completed for this Feasibility Study and/or the impact of blight in
surroundingPlanningAreasmaybesosubstantialthatinclusionofthenon-blightedareasmaybe
justified and necessary, and ii) a compelling case could be made that they would be necessary for
the effective redevelopment of the balance of the Planning Area to be made subject to
redevelopment.
6
The field survey was conducted by Urban Futures, Inc., under the general direction of Mr. Jon Huffman, Executive Vice
President of Urban Futures, Inc. Mr. Huffman was assisted by Mr. Benjamin Pongetti, Planner. Mr. Huffman holds a
Bachelor of Architecture Degree from the University of Oregon, a Masters of Landscape Architecture Degree from the
California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, and a Certificate in Real Estate Appraisal from California State
University, Fullerton. Mr Huffman has personally participated in over 50 field surveys and managed more than 100
redevelopment plan adoptions. Mr. Pongetti holds a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Geography (emphasis in Environmental
Analysis) and Certificates in Real Estate Appraisal and Microsoft Access Data Base Design from California State
University, Fullerton.
Z:\00Pln Active\CostaMesa\003\FEAS_Fnl.wpd 15 October 1, 2001_jlm

STUDY AREA LAND USES AND BLIGHT CHARACTERISTICS
Mixed Land Uses in the Study Area
7
As shown on Figures 3a and 3b the Study Area consists of mixed land use types, but is
dominated by residential (substantially multifamily) and industrial uses. Residential uses tend to
th
be predominate east of Placentia Avenue and north of West 18 Street, with the exception of the
th
parcels generally located near the intersection of West 17 Street and Placentia Avenue, which
parcels consist of industrial and commercial uses, and the parcels located on the east side of
th
PlacentiaAvenuebetweenWest19 StreetandHamiltonStreet,whichparcelsarealsobeingused
principallyforcommercialandindustrialuses. Industrialusespredominateinthelowerandsouth-
west portions of the Westside, generally east and west of Monrovia Avenue, and along block
segments of north/south running Placentia Avenue.
Commercial uses are scattered throughout the Study Area, with concentrations located
th
along West 19 Street, generally between Monrovia Avenue to the west and Anaheim Avenue to
th th
the east, and along Superior Avenue between West 15 Street and West 17 Street, at the lower
southeast corner of the Study Area.
Planning Areas 12, 13 and 14 were observed to consist only of residential use parcels.
Figure 4 shows existing General Plan land use designations for the Study Area.
Blight Characteristics in the Study Area
If the Agency elects to proceed with a redevelopment plan adoption or amendment, its
evidence of blight should be based upon a parcel-level field analysis, as well as additional analysis
to be included in two documents commonly referred to as the “Preliminary Report” and the “Report
toCouncil.” ThediscussionbelowisreservedtoUFI’sopinionastotheextentandnatureofblight
(both physical and economic) which would likely be found in the Probable Redevelopment Area
were an intensive parcel- level analysis completed, and would be included in a Preliminary Report
and Report to Council were the Agency to elect to complete redevelopment plan adoption/amend-
ment activities.
Existence of Blight Throughout the Probable Redevelopment Area
As stated in the “Caveats” section above, virtually no existing documentation aggregates
statistical information by Planning Area; rather, existing documents tend to aggregate such
informationCitywide,byCensusTract(however,suchinformationcurrentlytendstobedatedand
oflimiteduse),orbysomeothersub-Citygeographical unit (such as the “Westside”). At such time
as information is to be gathered for incorporation into the Preliminary Report and the Report to
Council, more Planning Area-specific data will need to be provided and/or generated.
7
The contracted UFI scope of work did not provide for a parcel specific existing land use field survey; the existing land
use information contained on Figures 3a and 3b was obtained by UFI from Metroscan and reflects information current
as of August, 3, 2001. Information obtained from Metroscan is not guaranteed to be, and may not be, always consistent
with actual existing land uses.
Z:\00Pln Active\CostaMesa\003\FEAS_Fnl.wpd 16 October 1, 2001_jlm

Figure 3a Planning Areas Existing Land Use Map
Z:\00Pln Active\CostaMesa\003\FEAS_Fnl.wpd 17 October 1, 2001_jlm

Figure 3b Planning Areas Existing Land Use Map
Z:\00Pln Active\CostaMesa\003\FEAS_Fnl.wpd 18 October 1, 2001_jlm

Figure 4 General Plan Land Use Map
Z:\00Pln Active\CostaMesa\003\FEAS_Fnl.wpd 19 October 1, 2001_jlm

Age of Structures
Although age, per se, is not a blighting condition, the effects of age, when coupled with
deficient or less than routine maintenance, can lead to structural deterioration. In fact, both the
Housing Element of the City’s General Plan and the City of Costa Mesa Consolidated Plan state
that “[h]ousing conditions are described, based on the age of the units, with the assumption that
diligentmaintenancehasnotoccurred. Sincebuildingcodeschangewithtimeandtechnology,the
older housing units are more likely to be in marginal condition (as a side note, and with some
importance to the issue of highest and best use of land, these units are also more likely to exist as
legally non-conforming uses). As a general rule, housing units require maintenance after 20-30
8 9
years.” Usingthissametimeframeforcommercialandindustrialaswellasresidentialstructures
in 2001 would generate a cohort of structures built during or before at least 1970 which “require
10
maintenance.”
Table1belowidentifiesparcelsintheStudyAreawhichcontainstructuresidentifiedbythe
year the structure was built (from 1901 to 1990, the last year data from Metroscan is available).
TABLE1
PARCELSCONTAININGSTRUCTURESBYYEARSTRUCTURESBUILT1
YEAR NUMBEROF AVGNO.UNITS
STRUCTUREBUILT PARCELS BUILTPERYEAR %OFTOTAL
1901-1940 32 0.80 0.24%
1941-1950 127 12.70 3.87%
1951-1955 275 55.00 16.77%
1956-1960 374 74.80 22.81%
1961-1965 467 93.40 28.48%
1966-1970 60 12.00 3.66%
1971-1975 93 18.60 5.67%
1976-1980 209 41.80 12.75%
1981-1985 90 18.00 5.49%
1986-1990 4 0.80 0.24%
1 SourceisMetroscan,interpolatedbyUFI.
8
Housing Element to the General Plan, Page 38 and Consolidated Plan, Page 11.
9
While the Housing Element and Consolidated Plan describe only “housing conditions” rather than conditions for all types
of structures, UFI agrees with the authors’ analysis and asserts that the same reasoning can be applied to commercial
and industrial structures with the only caveats being that: i) older commercial structures might exhibit some marginally
better maintenance because the structure itself can be part of the merchant’s endeavor to attract customers; and ii) older
industrial structures might also exhibit some marginally better maintenance sufficient to increase worker efficiency and
reduce work injuries. However, changing building codes and technology issues still affect commercial and industrial as
well as residential structures.
10
It is not clear what is meant by “maintenance” in this quotation. Clearly some forms of maintenance are required
almost upon completion of construction, while others are required after, say, five years (painting exterior wood for
instance). UFI has assumed that these documents refer to “major” maintenance, the absence of which would be “physical
deterioration” as defined in this Feasibility Study.
Z:\00Pln Active\CostaMesa\003\FEAS_Fnl.wpd 20 October 1, 2001_jlm

Of the 1,731 parcels identified in Table 1 above, 1,335 (77 percent) contained structures
11
constructed during or before 1970.
Figure 5 shows a correlation between the information provided in Table 1 and information
12
derived from the 1990 Census. A review of Figure 5 shows that the median age of residential
th
structures in all Planning Areas north of W. 19 Street and east of Placentia Avenue (except
PlanningArea10andsmallsliversofPlanningAreas3,5,13,14,and16)isatleast30years(built
th
during or before 1970). South and west of the 19 Street/Placentia Avenue intersection a large
portion of Planning Area 6 and a sliver of Planning Area 5 exhibits similar age characteristics.
An additional correlation between age of structure and blighting characteristics is the use
13
of hazardous materials such as asbestos or lead-based paints in structures built prior to 1978.
According to the Consolidated Plan, in 1999 there were estimated to be some 10,999 low- and
moderate-income residential units (both rental and owner-occupied) with lead-based paint hazards.
14
During that same year there were a total of 40,611 residential units Citywide. Over one quarter
of all residential units Citywide are estimated to include lead-based paint hazards. Hazardous
wastes are considered a cause of blight pursuant to CCRL Section 33031(b)(1). Since the Study
AreaincludesmanyoftheolderportionsoftheCity,itisreasonabletoassumethatthepercentage
of total residential units in the Study Area which contain “lead-based paint hazards” is even higher
than 25 percent.
Residential Overcrowding
ResidentialovercrowdinghasbeenanissueinatleasttheWestsideforsometime. While
theWestsideaccountsfor27percentoftheCity’spopulation,itaccountsforonly25percentofits
households. There are 2.79 persons per household in the Westside as opposed to 2.53 persons
per household in the City as a whole. Nearly 16 percent of households in the Westside have five
or more members; by comparison, only ten percent of households Citywide have five or more
15
members. The 1990 Census revealed that virtually all of Planning Areas 4, 11, 13, and 15 and
much of Planning Areas 1, 3, 9, and 10 had the highest population per acre counts in the City
16
(counts of between 30 and 71.1 persons per acre). In fact, many of the Planning Areas consist
11
Metroscan identified a total of 2,543 parcels in the Study Area. The “Age of Structure” data field for the 811 parcels
not identified in Table 1 was blank. This could mean either that such parcels actually were unimproved or that Metroscan
did not pick up existing improvements for some reason endemic to the Metroscan software program. For instance, UFI
has experienced that Metroscan appears not to pick up condominium projects in its “Age of Structure” data field.
12
Note, however, that age of structures from the census is for residential structures only.
13
Prior to the 1978 government ban on the use of such materials in construction, many of homes built in the United
States were built using lead-based paint and asbestos-containing materials. According to the Environmental Protection
Agency, the ingestion of lead-based paint by children can cause sever health problems including damage to the brain and
nervous system, behavior and learning problems (such as hyperactivity), slow growth, hearing problems, and headaches.
When breathed in, asbestos-containing materials can become lodged within the lungs and cause respiratory problems
including emphysema and pneumonia.
14
Consolidated Plan, Tables 7 and 10, found on Pages 7 and 13.
15
Westside Specific Plan, Page 27. As a part of the planning efforts for the Westside Specific Plan, a number of
workshops were held to elicit public comment. Participants commented that “[n]eighborhood schools are overcrowded.”
(Page 17). While testimonials cannot be considered conclusive, overcrowded schools are often an indication of an
overcrowded neighborhood.
16
Source, 1990 Census; pertinent 2000 Census data was not yet available.
Z:\00Pln Active\CostaMesa\003\FEAS_Fnl.wpd 21 October 1, 2001_jlm

Figure 5 1990 Census Block Groups — Median Age of Housing Units
Z:\00Pln Active\CostaMesa\003\FEAS_Fnl.wpd 22 October 1, 2001_jlm

ofmultifamilyresidentialuses,ofwhichasubstantialnumberareduplexes,triplexesandfourplexes
on separately owned parcels. During the field survey, UFI noted that a large percentage of these
multifamily residential uses exhibited indicators of residential overcrowding such as a lack of
parking, infrastructure and landscaping deteriorated by high vehicle and pedestrian traffic, and
instances of outdoor storage indicating limited interior space.
17
To confirm these indicators, UFI compiled 1990 census data and compared them to the
18
following geographies, i) Planning Area Census Block Groups, ii) City of Costa Mesa, and iii)
County of Orange. Tables 2 through 6 detail the data collected and are discussed below.
Table 2 shows the total number of persons in each unit for the three geographies.
Householdswithsixpersonsorwithsevenormorepersonswereroughlytwiceascommoninthe
Planning Area compared to the City as a whole and slightly higher than the County as a whole.
UnitswithfiveorfewerpersonsinthePlanningAreawereroughlyon par with the City and County.
This correlates with information provided from the Westside Specific Plan described above.
TABLE2
PERSONSPERUNIT
PLANNINGAREABLOCK
COSTAMESA,CA ORANGECOUNTY,CA
GROUPS
#OF %OF #OF %OF #OF %OF
HOUSEHOLDS TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS TOTAL
1person 3,253 24.07% 10,201 27.23% 171,119 20.69%
2persons 4,286 31.71% 13,388 35.73% 266,598 32.23%
3persons 2,240 16.57% 6,097 16.27% 144,942 17.52%
4persons 1,574 11.64% 4,065 10.85% 125,433 15.17%
5persons 859 6.35% 1,804 4.81% 58,515 7.08%
6persons 553 4.09% 892 2.38% 27,042 3.27%
7ormore 752 5.56% 1,020 2.72% 33,417 4.04%
Source:U.S.BureauoftheCensus,1990CensusofPopulationandHousing.
Table3belowshowstheaveragepersonsperhousingunitby occupancy status (i.e., renter
or owner). Owner-occupied units in the Planning Area were typically less crowded than similar
units in the City and County as a whole, while renter occupied units in the Planning Area were
typically more crowded than such units in the City and County.
17
Pertinent 2000 Census data is not yet available.
18
The following 1990 Census Block Groups are either partially or wholly contained within the Planning Areas and may
overlap the boundaries of the Planning Areas: BG1 and BG 2 of Tract 636.01, BG 1 through BG 6 of Tract 636.02, BG
3, BG 4, BG 6, BG 7, BG 8, and BG 9 of Tract 637, BG 2 through BG 4 of Tract 638.03, BG 2 of Tract 638.08, BG1 of
Tract 639.03, BG 1 through BG 3 of Tract 639.04.
Z:\00Pln Active\CostaMesa\003\FEAS_Fnl.wpd 23 October 1, 2001_jlm

TABLE3
PERSONSPERHOUSINGUNITBYOCCUPANCYSTATUS
PLANNINGAREA ORANGE
BLOCKGROUPS COSTAMESA,CA COUNTY,CA
PERSONSPER PERSONSPER PERSONSPER
OCCUPIEDHOUSING OCCUPIEDHOUSING OCCUPIEDHOUSING
UNIT UNIT UNIT
Owneroccupied 2.49 2.60 2.86
Renteroccupied 3.13 2.45 2.89
Source:U.S.BureauoftheCensus,1990CensusofPopulationandHousing.
Table 4 below confirms this result, especially in those renter occupied units that house over
five people. In these cases the Planning Areas were roughly two times more likely to have rental
units with five or more people living in them. Further analysis of Table 4 shows that of the 791
renterhouseholdswithintheCitythathadoversevenoccupants,620or78.4percentwerelocated
within the Planning Area Block Groups. Similarly, of the 580 renter households that had six
persons, 422 or 72.8 percent were located within the Planning Area Block Groups.
TABLE4
OCCUPANCYSTATUSBYPERSONSINUNIT
PLANNINGAREABLOCK
COSTAMESA,CA ORANGECOUNTY,CA
GROUPS
#of %ofTotal #of %ofTotal #of %ofTotal
Households Households Households
OWNEROCCUPIED
1person 1,072 7.93% 3,092 8.25% 87,973 10.64%
2persons 1,743 12.89% 5,687 15.18% 169,607 20.51%
3persons 874 6.47% 2,737 7.31% 89,746 10.85%
4persons 611 4.52% 2,127 5.68% 83,928 10.15%
5persons 269 1.99% 867 2.31% 36,725 4.44%
6persons 131 0.97% 312 0.83% 14,704 1.78%
7ormore 132 0.98% 229 0.61% 14,099 1.70%
RENTEROCCUPIED
1person 2,181 16.14% 7,109 18.97% 83,146 10.05%
2persons 2,543 18.81% 7,701 20.55% 96,991 11.73%
3persons 1,366 10.11% 3,360 8.97% 55,196 6.67%
4persons 963 7.12% 1,938 5.17% 41,505 5.02%
5persons 590 4.36% 937 2.50% 21,790 2.63%
6persons 422 3.12% 580 1.55% 12,338 1.49%
7ormore 620 4.59% 791 2.11% 19,318 2.34%
Source:U.S.BureauoftheCensus,1990CensusofPopulationandHousing.
Z:\00Pln Active\CostaMesa\003\FEAS_Fnl.wpd 24 October 1, 2001_jlm

TheCaliforniaDepartmentofHousingandCommunityDevelopmentdefinesovercrowding
19
as 1.01 or more person per room. Therefore as shown on Table 5 below, the Planning Area
CensusBlockGroupshad2,383persons(or17.6percentofthetotalpersonsinthePlanningArea
Census Block Groups) living in overcrowded conditions. By comparison the City as a whole had
9.9 percent of persons living in overcrowded conditions, while the County had 11.2 percent of
persons living in overcrowded conditions. As shown on Table 6, the issue of overcrowding is
particularlyproblematicintherenteroccupiedhousingunitswithinthePlanningAreaCensusBlock
Groups; 15.79 percent of total rental units were overcrowded while only 1.85 percent of owner-
occupied housing units were overcrowded. As a point of comparison, Citywide, 8.57 percent of
renter occupied housing units were overcrowded, while only 1.31 percent of owner-occupied
housing units were overcrowded. Similar conditions hold true for the County population.
To look at this data in another way, the total renter population in the Planning Area Census
Block Groups was 8,685 persons; of these, 2,134 persons (equaling 24.6 percent) were living in
overcrowded conditions. There were an additional 4,832 persons in the Planning Area Census
Block Groups living in owner-occupied housing units; only 249 (equaling 5.2 percent) of this total
are living in overcrowded conditions.
Insummary,thePlanningAreaCensusBlockGroupscontained2,383personsofthe3,698
personsestimatedtobelivinginovercrowdedconditionsintheCity. Thisequatestoanestimated
64.4percentofpersonslivinginovercrowdedconditionsinanareathatcoversapproximatelynine
20
percent of the City’s total area.
TABLE5
PERSONSPERROOM
PLANNINGAREABLOCK
PERSONSPER COSTAMESA,CA ORANGECOUNTY,CA
GROUPS
ROOM
#ofPersons %ofTotal #ofPersons %ofTotal #ofPersons %ofTotal
0.50orless 6,720 49.72% 22,324 59.58% 491,440 59.42%
0.51to1.00 4,414 32.66% 11,445 30.55% 243,135 29.40%
1.01to1.50 811 6.00% 1,404 3.75% 37,709 4.56%
1.51to2.00 689 5.10% 1,175 3.14% 27,737 3.35%
2.01ormore 883 6.53% 1,119 2.99% 27,045 3.27%
Source:U.S.BureauoftheCensus,1990CensusofPopulationandHousing.
19
Source: Application for Funding, Community Development Block Grant Program, For Fiscal Year July 1, 2001 through
June 30, 2002, State of California, Department of Housing and Community Development, January 2001, p. 22.
20
The Planning Areas contain approximately 954 acres of land, while the City contains approximately 10,100 acres of
land. However, the Planning Area Block Groups substantially overlap the Planning Areas’ boundaries, and therefore,
include additional persons and acreage not actually within the individual Planning Areas.
Z:\00Pln Active\CostaMesa\003\FEAS_Fnl.wpd 25 October 1, 2001_jlm

TABLE6
OCCUPANCYSTATUSBYPERSONSPERROOM
PLANNINGAREABLOCK
COSTAMESA,CA ORANGECOUNTY,CA
GROUPS
#ofPersons %ofTotal #ofPersons %ofTotal #ofPersons %ofTotal
OWNEROCCUPIED
0.50orless 3,303 24.44% 10,963 29.26% 345,547 41.78%
0.51to1.00 1,280 9.47% 3,601 9.61% 124,376 15.04%
1.01to1.50 131 0.97% 299 0.80% 14,661 1.77%
1.51to2.00 78 0.58% 141 0.38% 7,793 0.94%
2.01ormore 40 0.30% 47 0.13% 4,405 0.53%
RENTEROCCUPIED
0.50orless 3,417 25.28% 11,361 30.32% 145,893 17.64%
0.51to1.00 3,134 23.19% 7,844 20.94% 118,759 14.36%
1.01to1.50 680 5.03% 1,105 2.95% 23,048 2.79%
1.51to2.00 611 4.52% 1,034 2.76% 19,944 2.41%
2.01ormore 843 6.24% 1,072 2.86% 22,640 2.74%
Source:U.S.BureauoftheCensus1990CensusofPopulationandHousing.
A final condition of residential overcrowding can be gleaned from residential vacancy rates.
In 1999 the vacancy rate for multifamily dwellings (from studio to 3-bedroom, 2-bathroom
apartments) was an incredibly low 0.7 percent. The vacancy rate for single family dwellings was
21
also “below one percent.” These very low vacancy rates reasonably lead to the conclusion that
the City as a whole, and by extrapolation, the Study Area, may suffer from some amount of
residential overcrowding.
Parcels of Inadequate Size or Irregular Form
One of the conditions of blight described in CCRL Section 33031(a)(4) is the existence of
parcelsofinadequatesizeorirregularfrom. PriortotheCity’sincorporationin1953,muchofCosta
Mesa south of Wilson Street (encompassing all of the Study Area except Planning Areas 12, 13,
and14,and portions of Planning Areas 9, 10 and 11) was subdivided, and re-subdivided, into lots
withawidthof60to 66 feet and depths of up to 300 feet. Construction on these long, narrow lots
is constrained, in part, because: i) the narrowness constrains driveway and parking location, ii)
multiple driveways leading into multifamily apartments are problematic, and iii) excess need for
driveways to access the rears of property reduces the amount of useable open space per parcel.
TheCityhasofficiallyencouragedlotconsolidationsincetheadoptionoftheVictoriaStreetSpecific
Plan in March 1976. However, according to the General Plan, this encouragement has not been
21
Consolidated Plan, p.9.
Z:\00Pln Active\CostaMesa\003\FEAS_Fnl.wpd 26 October 1, 2001_jlm

completely successful and “[o]ther techniques must be found to encourage combination of such
22 23
parcels.” Figure 6 highlights some of irregular parcels within the Planning Areas.
Vacant or Underutilized Lots
In 1999, there were some 80 acres of vacant land and 144 acres of “underutilized” land
24
Citywide. Pleasenotethatthereferencedsource,defines”underutilizedland”onPage8as”land
notbeingusedtoitshighestandbestusepotential.” CCRLSection33031(a)(2)refersto”factors
that prevent or substantially hinder the economically viable use or capacity of buildings or lots.”
Underutilizationoflandisaresultoftheexistenceofsuch”factors”. Thefactthatunderutilizedland
25
isnotusedtoitshighestandbestuse describesthefactthattheunderutilizedparcelis”hindered”
initseconomicallyviableuse. Totheextentsuchvacantorunderutilizedparcelsarelocatedwithin
the Study Area, they would constitute a blighting characteristic.
Crime and Public Safety
AccordingtotheCostaMesaPoliceDepartment, “the primary public safety problems in the
26
Westside are related to alcohol consumption and transients.”
Economic Indicators
PercapitaincomeforindividualsresidingintheWestsideequals$16,800whilethatforthe
City as a whole is $23,000; household median income in the Westside is $47,000 while that of the
27
City as a whole is $59,800. According to the Housing Element “[g]enerally, the City of Costa
Mesa has an even distribution of the HUD income groups, while the County and State have lower
proportions of the Very Low- and Low-Income groups. For example, 53.7 percent of the
householdsinCostaMesaareclassifiedasVeryLow-andLow-Income,comparedto50.0percent
fortheStatein1999. Also,theproportionofVeryLow-andLow-Incomegroupshasincreasedover
28
thelastnineyearsinCostaMesa.” Itisimportanttonotethatthereisno necessary relationship
betweenlowerincomesandtheincidenceofblightinaneighborhood,butrather,thathouseholds
with lower incomes tend to expend higher percentages of their income on basic needs with fewer
funds available for long term maintenance of their properties. The issue, therefore, is not about
personal incomes, but rather about identifying a potential blight indicator for future examination.
For this reason, it is highly unlikely that a discussion of household incomes per se would be
included in the Preliminary Report.
22
General Plan, pp. 368 and 369.
23
Note that parcels in Planning Area 10 may have been re-subdivided subsequent to the date the base map used to
generate Figure 6. In all Planning Areas, further review of ownerships and actual use of identified parcels will be
necessary.
24
Consolidated Plan, Table 9 (p.11).
25
It is important to note that underutilization is only one of several factors providing evidence that a parcel(s) of land is
not being used to its highest and best use potential.
26
Westside Specific Plan, p. 26. See also Supplemental Information provided by the Police Department, which is
included in subsequent sections of this Study.
27
Westside Specific Plan, p. 28.
28
Housing Element, p. 23.
Z:\00Pln Active\CostaMesa\003\FEAS_Fnl.wpd 27 October 1, 2001_jlm

Figure 6 Sample Irregular Parcels
Z:\00Pln Active\CostaMesa\003\FEAS_Fnl.wpd 28 October 1, 2001_jlm

IncreasesinsinglefamilyresidentialvaluesintheWestsidehashistoricallylaggedboththe
City as a whole and the County. For instance, median home price in the County was $203,000 in
December 1993, in May, 1999 the County median home price was $241,000, a 19 percent
increase. During approximately this same time period, median home prices in the City as a whole
wentfrom$229,400(in1994)to$269,800(in1998),an18percentincrease. However,withinthe
Westside “average” prices per home went from $172,900 (in 1994) to $190,000 (in 1998), only a
29
9.9 percent increase.
This discrepancy in residential property values holds true for multifamily dwellings as well.
Between 1994 and 1998 the average multifamily unit (either condominium or townhouse) outside
the Westside increased from $162,600 to $166,500, an increase of 2.4 percent; however, in the
Westside,forthesametimeperiod,suchunitsincreasedfrom$155,900to$158,400,anincrease
30
ofonly1.6percent. “In addition, the average unit size was similar as was the average year built.”
The similarities are important inasmuch as it is always better to compare “like to like.”
Unfortunately,theWestsideSpecificPlandidnotprovideanyinformationonrentalratesfor
residential properties, nor did it provide information on either rental or sales rates for retail or
industrial properties.
Infrastructure Deficiencies
AccordingtotheWestsideSpecificPlan,”pondingduringandafterstorms,streetdeterior-
ation, and missing sidewalks are elements that have been cited by the community as indications
31
of deficient infrastructure.”
Table54oftheConsolidatedPlan(page57)listsninespecificandthreeCitywideproposed
“InfrastructureImprovements”tobecompleted. Eightoftheninespecificimprovementsareeither
totallyorprimarilylocatedwithintheStudyArea;moreover, all ofthe”Citywide”improvementsare
totally located within the Study Area. Total cost for these improvements equals in excess of an
estimated $60 million.
Review of Westside Specific Plan
The Westside community consists of residential and business properties and was one of
the earliest areas in the City to develop. The area is characterized by a “…considerable diversity
ofpeople,landuses,jobopportunities,andhousingchoices.” DuringpreparationoftheWestside
Specific Plan, the Westside community’s strengths were identified to be, i) small town ambiance,
ii) concerned and involved citizens, iii) community diversity, and iii) access to recreational
opportunities. The Westside Specific Plan development process also helped the community to
identify pressing problems affecting the Westside community. Broadly stated, problems needing
th
to be addressed include, i) the area’s lack of economic vitality, ii) deterioration of the 19 Street
th
corridor, iii) incompatible mix of land uses, particularly in the area south of 19 Street, iv) lack of
code enforcement, v) deteriorating streets, and vi) blighted appearance of the streetscapes.
The Westside Specific Plan identified creation of a redevelopment project area as a key
29
It should be pointed out that, on average, the homes in the Westside are slightly older and about 300 square feet
smaller than the City average. (Westside Specific Plan, p. 29).
30
Westside Specific Plan, p. 30.
31
Westside Specific Plan, p. 18.
Z:\00Pln Active\CostaMesa\003\FEAS_Fnl.wpd 29 October 1, 2001_jlm

component of two of its three alternative revitalization strategies: “moderate intervention” and
“majorintervention”. UltimatelytheWestsideSpecificPlanrecommendedanoverallrevitalization
strategy that contained a mix of alternative minimal, and moderate intervention revitalization
strategies,andredevelopmentremainedanintegralpartoftherecommendedoverallrevitalization
strategy. As stated in Section 6 of the Westside Specific Plan, Recommended Revitalization
Strategies,”…anumberoftherecommendedrevitalizationstrategiesmaynecessitatetheformation
ofaRedevelopmentProjectAreatoprovideadditionalincentivesandmechanismstospurprivate
reinvestment in the Westside.”
Botox Reviews in Laguna Beach CA
Aswithhouseholdincomes,neighborhood”perceptions”havenottraditionallybeenincluded
in the Preliminary Report or the Report to Council. However, such perceptions could lead to
productiveavenuesofresearchinpreparationforsuchreports. Fifteenofthe32″issues”identified
in the Westside Specific Plan as being of concern to the community, are identified in the blight
definitions found in CCRL Section 33031. The most directly relevant of these issues are: i)
“incompatiblemixofindustrial,residential,andcommerciallanduses, particularly in the area south
th
of19 Street”;ii)”needforasupermarketandotherlocal-servinguses…”(p33);andiii)”[t]oomany
32
bars and establishments selling liquor.”
th
Existence of Blight in Planning Area 1: West 19 Street Commercial Corridor
PlanningArea1,approximately52acresinsize,appearstobe,forallintentsandpurposes,
fullybuiltoutanddemonstratesa high intensity of urban land uses. Existing commercial land uses
generally consist of older community and neighborhood commercial centers appearing generally
33
tobeoflow-costtoaveragequalityconstruction. Communitycenterswilltypicallyincludeajunior
department store, supermarket, or discount store as the “anchor” to a variety of speciality shops,
professional or financial outlets and recreational facilities. Neighborhood centers will typically
include smaller food, drugs and sundries stores, fast food restaurants, and personal/convenience
outlets, e.g., laundromats, dry cleaning, shoe repair, hair styling, and other such uses. The
Planning Area also includes a number of free standing retail stores, restaurants and bars, as well
asserviceoutletsprovidinglawnmowerrepair,etc.;these also appear generally to be of low-cost
to average quality construction. Existing residential uses are mostly multifamily and include the
Bethel Towers senior housing facility, which is the only high-rise in this part of the City. Existing
th
public uses include a Department of Motor Vehicles building located in the vicinity of West 19
Street and Anaheim Avenue, and a senior center facility located at the southeast corner of West
th
19 Street and Pomona Avenue; both of these structures and the Bethel Towers appear well
maintained and to be of good quality construction.
AsshowninAppendixB, photographs1.1through1.12,manyof the properties in Planning
Area No. 1 appear to be affected by conditions of deferred maintenance, deterioration, obso-
lescence(functionalandexternal),lackofparking,obsoletedesign,someconversionofresidential
unitstonon-residentialusesandpropertymaintenanceissues. Inadditiontotheseparcel-specific
issues, the Planning Area also exhibits land use incompatibilities (for instance, the multi-story
Bethel Towers is directly adjacent to low-rise residential structures), lack of, or inappropriately
32
Westside Specific Plan, pp. 32 and 33.
33
Based upon Quality of Construction Indicators obtained from Marshall Valuation Service, Marshall & Swift, L.P., March
2001. Hereinafter, all opinions of commercial and industrial quality of construction are based upon the Quality of
Construction Indicators published by the Marshall Valuation Service.
Z:\00Pln Active\CostaMesa\003\FEAS_Fnl.wpd 30 October 1, 2001_jlm

located,parking,vehicularcongestion,andinconsistentprovisionofpublicimprovementssuchas
curbs,guttersandsidewalks. Someoftheexistingpublicimprovementsareindisrepairand/orare
undersized.
Overall,PlanningAreaNo.1appears to be visually cluttered and lacking any real sense of
urban planning or design organization and consistency. Signage in most of the shopping centers
and free standing retail and service businesses is frequently obsolete and unattractive; there
appears to be no signage design guidelines or standards in effect for the area. Collectively,
building facades, which are a major part of the “streetscape,” help to create an image of visual
clutteranddesignincohesiveness,andaregenerallyunattractive. Typically,aretailcenter’smajor
advantage is its single design scheme and integrated, on-site parking; however, such centers in
Planning Area No. 1 do not exhibit these qualities. Additionally, there appears to be no design or
planning cohesiveness from block to block. Parking lots are generally devoid of trees and other
landscaping amenities and, therefore, most parking lots are a sun-drenched sea of asphalt and
cars.
th
Many of the parcels located along West 19 Street are too small and of insufficient depth
to individually support modern retail and commercial development. Development built to modern
standards and user preferences would require the aggregation of parcels to create larger
development sites.
On the other hand, as shown in photographs 1.13, 1.15 and 1.16, there are some newer,
wellmaintainedstructures(suchastheBethelTowersandMesaBreezecomplex),indicatingthat
there is demand for higher quality development in the Planning Area.
According to information obtained from the State of California Department of Toxic
SubstancesControl(“DepartmentofToxics”),thisPlanningAreacontainsthreehazardouswastes
and/or substances sites (“hazardous sites”), generally located on properties in the vicinity of the
intersection of Placentia Avenue and 19th Street.
As shown on Figure 7, all of Planning Area 1 is located within the Low/Mod Area and a
substantial part is located within the Rental Rehab Area.
Supplemental Information: Planning Area 1
34
Police: Graffiti, transients, prevalence of bars & liquor stores.
Code Enforcement: Parking problems, deteriorated or stagnant property values,
outdated commercial areas.
Based upon the results of the field analysis and additional research, UFI is of the opinion
thatPlanningAreaNo.1appearstomeetminimalblight requirements contained within the CCRL
and should be included within the Probable Redevelopment Area.
34
Additional information, photographs and descriptions of parcel-specific code violation issues and other information is
on file at UFI and City offices, Code Enforcement and Police Services Divisions.
Z:\00Pln Active\CostaMesa\003\FEAS_Fnl.wpd 31 October 1, 2001_jlm

Figure 7 Low/Mod and Rental Rehab Areas
Z:\00Pln Active\CostaMesa\003\FEAS_Fnl.wpd 32 October 1, 2001_jlm

Existence of Blight in Planning Area 2: North Placentia Industrial Corridor
th
PlanningArea2beginsoneparcelnorthofWest19 Streetandcontinuesalongbothsides
of the north/south-running Placentia Avenue northward to Victoria Street. This Planning Area is
approximately60acresinsize,appearstobebuiltoutanddemonstratesahighintensityofurban
land uses. As shown on Figures 3a, existing land uses in Planning Area 2 are predominantly
industrial;however,somecommercialusesareclusteredoneithersideofPlacentiaAvenue,north
andsouthofHamiltonStreet,andatseveralotherlocationsalongPlacentiaAvenue. ThePlanning
AreaalsocontainsmultifamilyresidentialbuildingslocatedoneithersideofPlacentiaAvenuenorth
35
of Hamilton Street, which appear to be of fair construction quality.
While not all properties in this Planning Area are suffering from obsolescence and
deterioration(see,forexample,AppendixB,photograph2.1),asshowninphotographs2.2through
2.25,evidencesuggeststhatthepreponderanceofpropertiesinthePlanningAreaareaffectedby
varying degrees of deferred maintenance, deterioration, obsolescence (functional and external),
property maintenance issues, and a lack of parking and docking facilities. In addition to these
parcel-specific issues, some properties in the Planning Area are affected by land use incompati-
bility, design obsolescence, vehicular congestion, and functional inutility. The interfacing of
disparate land uses can create numerous negative physical and economic impacts; generally
speaking,physicalproblemsaremorediscernablethaneconomic. Nevertheless,thehighestand
bestusesoflandaregenerallythosethatareconsistentwith,andsimilarto,surroundinguses. For
example, “…a single family residential use is usually not appropriate in an industrial neighbor-
36
hood.” SomestreetsexhibitsubstantialdeteriorationandthePlanningAreaisvisuallycluttered,
lackingasenseofurbanplanningordesigncohesion. Signageonmanyoftheindustrialbuildings
is frequently obsolete and unattractive; there appears to be no signage design guidelines or
standards in effect for the area.
Buildings in this Planning Area appear generally to be in the range of low cost to good
qualityconstruction. Generallyspeaking,buildingfacadedesignsappeartobeincohesive with one
another and do not work well together to create a positive sense of place. Overhead utility lines
are invasive and pervasive along the Placentia Avenue streetscape and in the alleyways behind
the properties fronting Placentia Avenue. In many instances buildings appear to be obsolete with
respect to current design standards and utility; there appears to be a lack of urban planning and
building design cohesiveness from one block to another. Landscape amenities, including street
trees, planting beds, and land use buffer areas, either in the public way or on private property, is
minimal. When parking lots are available, they were frequently observed to be over-parked, and
generally devoid of trees and other urban landscape assets; because there are too few areas to
park cars and dock trucks in the Planning Area, Placentia Avenue setbacks and property
easements are used extensively for parking. Parking cars in the immediate front of buildings is
prevalent;sidewalkswereseentodoubleasparkingareasforcarsin numerous incidents. There
is evidence, based in part on the number of vacant buildings, and “for sale” and “for lease” signs
observed along Placentia Avenue, that economic blighting conditions would be found to be
prevalent and substantial in Planning Area 2 if a parcel-specific analysis were undertaken.
35
Based upon basic descriptions contained in the Marshall & Swift Residential Cost Handbook, Marshall & Swift, L.P.,
2000. Hereinafter, all opinions related to quality of residential construction are based upon basic descriptions contained
in the Marshall & Swift Residential Cost Handbook.
36
The Appraisal of Real Estate, The Appraisal Institute, 1992, p.289.
Z:\00Pln Active\CostaMesa\003\FEAS_Fnl.wpd 33 October 1, 2001_jlm

AccordingtotheDepartmentofToxics,onehazardoussiteislocatedinthisPlanningArea,
generally located on the west side of Placentia Avenue between 19th and 20th Streets.
AsshowninFigure7,theeasternhalfofPlanningArea2islocatedwithintheLow/Modand
Rental Rehab Areas.
Supplemental Information: Planning Area 2
Police: junkyards on west side of Placentia Avenue.
Based upon the results of our field analysis and additional research, UFI is of the opinion
thatPlanningAreaNo.2appearstomeetminimalblight requirements contained within the CCRL
and should be included within the Probable Redevelopment Area.
th
Existence of Blight in Planning Area 3: West 18 Street Residential Neighborhood
PlanningArea3,consistingofapproximately78acres,isforallintentsandpurposes,built
out and demonstrates a high intensity of urban land uses. As shown on Figure 3a, existing land
uses in Planning Area 3 are almost entirely residential, including single family detached units,
appearinggenerallytobeoflowtoaverageconstructionquality,(substantiallyinthatportionofthe
th
Planning Area north of West 18 Street) and multifamily units (including apartments, duplex, triplex
andfourplexunittypes). Asshownin Appendix B, photographs 3.1 through 3.33, the condition of
houses and multifamily units in this Planning Area varies greatly. Some of the single and multi-
family units, appearing generally to be of fair construction quality, exhibit a high degree of mainte-
nance (see photographs 3.30 through 3.33) while others appear to be deteriorated, showing little
maintenance or upkeep. As evidenced in photographs 3.3, 3.5 and 3.14 there appears to be a
significant number of garage conversions and other kinds of “remodeling” construction that should
beevaluatedbyCityCodeEnforcement and/or Building Safety officials to determine if appropriate
City building permits and other approvals were acquired by homeowners.
North of Center Street, single family residential units abut commercial uses, with the only
separation of land uses being an alley (see photograph 3.8). In this area, the condition of the
commercial buildings abutting the residential units is generally poor. The area behind these
buildings is also used for parking, even though the area is not marked for parking. The Planning
Area exhibits a substantial amount of “density mixing,” with single family detached units being
replaced with multifamily units. This kind of density mix can impact the quality of life for people
living in the single family detached units because there is an increase in traffic on local streets,
increases in ambient noise levels, and in some instances, increases in criminal activity (see
supplemental police information below). The age of homes and the demographics in the
neighborhoods within this Planning Area seem to encourage and camouflage certain conflicting
uses as shown in photograph 3.12, which gives evidence of a homeowner operating a recycling
businessfromthebackyard. Generally,propertymaintenanceissuesappeartobepervasiveinthis
Planning Area.

Certainly in an area as large as Planning Area 3, not all properties are suffering from
deterioration(see,forexample,photographs3.30through3.33);however,evidenceobtainedfrom
the field survey suggests that blighting conditions are substantial, and that those properties which
are not themselves in a state of deterioration or non-compliance with building codes, are in fact
negatively affected by properties that are in such a state. Many of the properties in this Planning
Area appear to be affected by varying degrees of deferred maintenance, deterioration,
Z:\00Pln Active\CostaMesa\003\FEAS_Fnl.wpd 34 October 1, 2001_jlm

obsolescence (functional and external), and lack of parking. Some parcels in the Planning Area
areaffectedbylanduseincompatibility,obsolete design,andfunctionalinutility. Inmanylocations
streetsshowalackofconsistentandeffectivemaintenanceandaredeteriorated;incertainplaces
there are no sidewalks or curbs.
AsshowninFigure7,allofPlanningArea3islocatedwithintheLow/ModArea,andavery
large portion of the Planning Area is also located within the Rental Rehab Area.
Supplemental Information: Planning Area 3
Police: graffiti, parking, crime.
Code Enforcement: trash/litter, abandoned vehicles, inadequate property
maintenance, substandard housing , landscape deficiencies.
Based upon the results of our field analysis and additional research, UFI is of the opinion
thatPlanningArea3meetsminimalblightrequirementscontainedwithintheCCRLand shouldbe
included within the Probable Redevelopment Area.
Existence of Blight in Planning Area 4: Wallace-Pomona Residential Neighborhood
PlanningArea4,approximately62acresinsize,consistsprimarilyofmultifamilyresidential
usesincludingapartments,fourplexes,triplexes,duplexes,andsomesinglefamilyresidentialunits
located primarily east of Pomona Avenue, but which are interspersed within the multifamily units.
Theolderunitsappeartypicallytobeoflowtofairconstructionquality,whilethenewerunitsappear
to be of fair to good construction quality. There is also a large school site at the southwest corner
of Pomona Avenue and Hamilton Street (the Pomona Street School). Land use intensification of
parcels which had originally been subdivided for single family uses has led to relatively dense
development on small, narrow lots. For instance, many of the older multifamily units are situated
37
on lots with approximate 60′ widths and 290′ depths. This configuration results in problematic
internal circulation, parcel ingress/egress difficulties, and allows only limited on-site parking for
residents. In Appendix B, photographs 4.1 through 4.5 exemplify the access and circulation
difficulties affecting these units on this type of parcel configuration, while photographs 4.6 and 4.7
show on-site parking deficiencies which cause spillover onto streets and frequently exacerbate
streetparkingproblems. Thesheernumberofcarspresentintheseareasduringweekdayworking
hours indicates residential overcrowding as a blighting condition. Although this area is primarily
residential,thepervasivemixofmulti-andsinglefamilyunittypesgivestheareaanadversemixed
character, asensethattherehasbeenlittleornoeffectiveurbanplanning,andthatthereisalack
of site and building design cohesiveness.
ThewesternedgeofthisPlanningAreaisanalleybetweenPlacentiaAvenueandWallace
Avenue. Just west of this boundary in Planning Area 2 is a mix of industrial and commercial uses,
whichwereobservedduringthefieldsurveytobenoiseandodorgenerators. Thecloseproximity
oftheseusestotheresidentialunitsinPlanningArea4resultsinalandusecompatibilityproblem,
and may pose potential hazards to those residents occupying the units nearest to the alley.
Photograph 4.8 shows a view looking south down Sterling Avenue, which is a narrow, alley-like
public way used to access the residential units located on both sides of the street.
37
A ratio of almost 5 to 1 (depth vs width) is considered an inefficient use of land.
Z:\00Pln Active\CostaMesa\003\FEAS_Fnl.wpd 35 October 1, 2001_jlm

As shown in photograph 4.9 there are a number of newer multifamily units that appear very
wellmaintainedwhencomparedtootherpropertiesinthePlanningArea. Sitelayoutandbuilding
designsuggestthattheseunitsaresituatedonwhatwasonceagroupofsmallerparcelsthatwere
assembled to make a larger and more appropriately configured site. Among other amenities,
tenants here probably enjoy superior parking facilities, and fewer access and internal circulation
problems than tenants living in those units described above.
As shown in photographs 4.1, 4.2, 4.5, and 4.10 through 4.17, many of the properties in
Planning Area 4 appear to be affected by conditions of deferred maintenance and other property
maintenance issues, deterioration, obsolescence (functional and external), a lack of parking
facilities,landuseincompatibility,obsoletedesignsolutions,andvehicularcongestion(mentioned
above). There is also evidence of substandard buildings and of missing curbs and sidewalks;
similarly, it is evident that streets are in a state of disrepair and in need of repair in portions of this
Planning Area.
As shown in Figure 7, Planning Area 4 is located entirely within both the Low/Mod and
Rental Rehab Area.
Supplemental Information: Planning Area No. 4
Police: graffiti, parking, crime.
Code Enforcement: trash/debris, parking deficiencies, graffiti, substandard
housing.
Based upon the results of our field analysis and additional research, UFI is of the opinion
thatPlanningArea4meetsminimalblightrequirementscontainedwithintheCCRLand shouldbe
included within the Probable Redevelopment Area.
Existence of Blight in Planning Area 5: Industrial Core
Planning Area 5, the largest of the 16 Planning Areas with approximately 209 acres,
consists primarily of industrial land uses, with intermittent commercial uses, and less frequently
residential uses, appearing in most blocks. As shown in Figure 3a, industrial uses transition to
predominantly commercial and residential uses in the blocks east of Superior Avenue.
During the field survey, it was noted that there were numerous examples of older, single
familyresidentialunits,appearingtobeoflowqualityconstruction,that were currently being used
for commercial or industrial endeavors (see Appendix B, photographs 5.1 through 5.4). This
shifting of uses is an indicator of functional obsolescence and inutility, and often results in parking,
accessandinternalsitecirculationproblems. InthisPlanningArealotsizesareoftensmallerthan
would currently be allowed for in a new industrial park, resulting in numerous small industrial
developments that exhibit varying degrees of deferred maintenance and other property main-
tenance issues, obsolescence, deterioration, a lack of parking and docking facilities (see photo-
graphs 5.3 and 5.5 through 5.23), and site ingress/egress and internal circulation problems (see
photographs 5.3, 5.7, 5.12, 5.18, and 5.24 through 5.27).
The field team noted many inoperable vehicles located on the auto-related industrial
properties (see photographs 5.2, 5.12 and 5.27 through 5.32), as well as on residential properties
being used for commercial or industrial purposes. Poor site conditions and other property
Z:\00Pln Active\CostaMesa\003\FEAS_Fnl.wpd 36 October 1, 2001_jlm

maintenance issues, including the presence of trash, debris, and extensive outdoor storage were
alsoobservedwithinthePlanningArea(seephotographs5.2, 5.8,5.13,5.16,5.27,5.29,5.30and
5.34 through 5.39), as well as conditions of land use incompatibility between the industrial and
remnant residential uses (see photographs 5.2 and 5.40 through 5.47).
The presence of vacant buildings and underutilized parcels, like those shown in
photographs 5.33 and 5.48 through 5.52, could provide evidence of potential economic blighting
conditions in this Planning Area. Many properties here lack the landscaping and design
cohesivenessthatcanbefoundinnewerindustrialdevelopments. Numerousindustrialstructures
inthisPlanning Area appear to be Class D or Class S construction class, having been largely built
with corrugated metal (see photographs 5.3, 5.15, 5.29, 5.38, 5.39 and 5.53 through 5.56). This
building material tends to deteriorate more quickly than more substantial building materials
including concrete, brick, steel or a combination of these building materials. Additionally, corru-
gated metal buildings are generally less energy efficient, therefore more difficult to heat and cool;
these buildings generally appeared to be of low-cost construction. The Planning Area contains a
“mixedbag”ofbuildingtypesandconstructionqualitywhichconditionscouldnegativelyaffectthe
desirability and utility of specific properties and larger areas of the community.
Please see photographs 5.24 through 5.27, 5.34 through 5.36, 5.49, 5.50, 5.53, and 5.56
through 5.71 for additional indications of the potential for substantial and prevalent physical and
economic blight likely to be found in the Planning Area at such time as a parcel by parcel field
survey may be undertaken.
As shown in photograph 5.72, one well designed, and appearing to be of good-quality
construction, large industrial complex has been developed at the southwest corner of Pomona

th
Avenueand17 Street;otherwelldesignedandmaintaineddevelopmentscanalsobefoundin the

Planning Area (see photographs 5.73 through 5.75).
According to information obtained from the Department of Toxics, this Planning Area
contains three hazardous sites, generally located in the Superior Avenue area.
As shown on Figure 7, Planning Area 5 is located within the Low/Mod Area.
Supplemental Information: Planning Area 5
Police: abandoned vehicles, graffiti.
Based upon the results of our field analysis and additional research, UFI is of the opinion
thatthoseportionsofPlanningArea5showninblueonFigure2,meetminimalblightrequirements
contained within the CCRL and should be included within the Probable Redevelopment Area.
Whilenotdemonstratingon-siteblightingconditions,thatportionofPlanningArea5highlightedin
green on Figure 2, might also be included within the Probable Redevelopment Area for purposes
of effective redevelopment of the larger Planning Area.
Existence of Blight in Planning Area 6: Monrovia Corridor
Planning Area 6, totaling approximately 117 acres is, for all intents and purposes, built out
and demonstrates a high intensity urban land use development pattern. As shown on Figure 3a,
existing land uses consist of an eclectic mix of industrial, commercial, single and multifamily
residential (including the greatest number of mobile homes found within the Study Area), and
Z:\00Pln Active\CostaMesa\003\FEAS_Fnl.wpd 37 October 1, 2001_jlm

vacant land. In addition to the presence of four large mobile home parks, this Planning Area
containsasignificantnumberofresidentialunits,particularlyapartments. SimilartootherPlanning
Areas,olderresidentialunitsappeargenerallytobeoflowtofairqualityconstruction,whilenewer
units exhibit what appears to be fair to good construction quality.
As shown in Appendix B, photographs 6.1 through 6.35, many of the buildings and
propertieslocatedinthisPlanningAreademonstratevaryingdegreesofdeferredmaintenanceand
other property maintenance issues, and deterioration. Additionally, there are numerous incidents
ofshiftinguses,i.e.,theconversionofsinglefamilyunitsintocommercialorindustrialuses. Also,
thefollowingblightingindicatorswerefoundtobepresent:buildings that appear to be substandard
and obsolete, and/or affected by functional inutility, parking facility deficiencies (particularly in
residential areas which is evidence of residential overcrowding), a consistent pattern of incom-
patible land uses, presence of inoperable vehicles, inadequate and obsolete signage, irregularly
shaped and sized parcels, vacant buildings and lots, deteriorating streets (see photographs 6.4,
6.11, 6.15, 6.19, 6.27 and 6.35), circulation problems, a general lack of design cohesiveness and
landscapinginboththepublicandprivaterealms,andalackofcurbsandsidewalksinsomeblocks
(see photographs 6.17, 6.18, 6.20 and 6.30). In several locations within this Planning Area,
possibleenvironmentalproblemswerenotedwithrespecttopossiblesoilcontamination,noiseand
odors.
SimilartotheconditionsfoundintheotherPlanningAreas,itisnotsurprisingorunexpected
to find parcels or groups of parcels in this Planning Area that are not blighted (see, for example,
photographs 6.3, 6.7 through 6.9, 6.13, 6.14, 6.22 and 6.29). In Planning Area 6 a good example
ofthisphenomenonisthepresenceofmobilehomeparksthatappeartobewellmaintained,newer
and well maintained condominium and apartment complexes, and some newer industrial and
storage facilities. This fact notwithstanding, evidence obtained during the course of this Study’s
preparationsuggeststhat,similartootherPlanningAreaslocatedintheStudyArea,conditionsof
blightaresubstantialinPlanningArea6,andthatthosepropertieslocatedinthisPlanningAreathat
are not blighted can in fact be negatively affected by properties that are blighted, or can be
negatively impacted by a lack of adequate public infrastructure and the presence of certain social
problems, including but not necessarily limited to the occurrence of vandalism.
AsshowninFigure7,thisentirePlanningAreahasbeenincludedwithintheLow/ModArea.
The median year of residential unit construction located in Planning Area 6 block groups is 1967
and1973,whichindicatesthepresenceofcertainpotentialenvironmentalhazardsincludinglead-
based paints, formaldehyde and asbestos, which were components sometimes used in building
materials during the years that many of the structures in this area were constructed. Therefore, it
is reasonable to conclude that some of these buildings may contain these materials.
Supplemental Information: Planning Area 6
Police: graffiti, abandoned vehicles.
Code Enforcement: poor general maintenance, inoperative vehicles, shopping
carts, trash/debris, incompatible industrial /residential mix,
sub-standard housing.
Based upon the results of our field analysis and additional research, UFI is of the opinion
thatthoseportionsofPlanningArea6showninblueonFigure2,meetminimalblightrequirements
contained within the CCRL and should be included within the Probable Redevelopment Area.
Z:\00Pln Active\CostaMesa\003\FEAS_Fnl.wpd 38 October 1, 2001_jlm

Existence of Blight in Planning Area 7: Whittier Corridor
Planning Area 7, which consists of approximately 33 acres, is for all intents and purposes
built-out, and demonstrates a high intensity of urban land uses, although it appears less so than
all other Planning Areas. As shown on Figure 3a, existing land uses consist substantially of
industrial, commercial and vacant. As shown in Appendix B, photographs 7.1 through 7.3, a
substantial portion of this Planning Area contains newer industrial and business parks such as the
th
Mesa West Business Park; it also includes a new self storage complex north of 17 Street (see
photograph 7.4). Another attribute of some of the properties located at the western edge of this
Planning Area are distant views of the Pacific Ocean.
th
The areas north and south of 18 Street contain mixed and sometimes incompatible uses
(seephotograph7.1). ThemultifamilyresidentialcomplexlocatedatthecornerofWhittierAvenue
th
andWest18 Streetisnewer,butthedetachedsinglefamilyresidentialunitslocatedoneitherside
th
of 18 Street are considerably older, and as shown in photograph 7.5, the houses show varying
degrees of deferred maintenance and other property maintenance issues, and deterioration.
Because of the age of these houses, the presence of certain potential environmental hazards
includinglead-basedpaints,formaldehyde,andasbestos,whichwerecomponentssometimesused
in building materials during the years that many of the structures in this area were constructed,
could be a problem for residents. This entire Planning Area is located within the City’s designated
Low/Mod Area.
TherearelargeareasofpavementalongWhittierBoulevardthataredeterioratingandwhich
need to be repaired (see photographs 7.4 and 7.6). The condition of all infrastructure in this and
other Planning Areas should be further evaluated to determine whether carrying capacities and
service conditions are adequate.
Supplemental Information: Planning Area 7
Police: graffiti, abandoned vehicles.
Code Enforcement: poor general maintenance, inoperative vehicles, shopping
carts, trash/debris, incompatible industrial /residential mix,
substandard housing.
Based upon the results of our field analysis and additional research, UFI is of the opinion
thatthoseportionsofPlanningArea7showninblueonFigure2meetminimalblightrequirements
contained within the CCRL and should be included within the Probable Redevelopment Area.
Existence of Blight in Planning Area 8: Transition Zone
PlanningArea8,whichconsistsofapproximatelyfiveacres,isforallintentsandpurposes
built-out, and demonstrates a high intensity of urban land uses. The Planning Area was originally
developed for single family residential uses, and as shown on Figure 3a, single family residential
remains the predominant use; construction quality of these units appears generally to be fair.
However, during the field survey it was observed that a number of the houses are “shifting” to
commercialuses(seeAppendixB,photographs8.1and8.2). Thesesamephotographsshowthat
some of these shifting uses are using portable or handmade signs (see also photograph 8.3) for
business advertising and promotion purposes in violation of the City sign ordinance; this is also a
situationthatcontributestovisualclutterandconfusioninthePlanningArea. Manyofthehouses
Z:\00Pln Active\CostaMesa\003\FEAS_Fnl.wpd 39 October 1, 2001_jlm

are older and demonstrate varying degrees of obsolescence, deterioration and disrepair; some
have converted garages (see photographs 8.2 and 8.3), and some have asphalt or gravel
th
driveways. Allofthepropertieshaveaccessdirectlyoffof19 Street,whichduetotrafficvolumes
th
can be difficult, and in some instances the homes are located directly across 19 Street from
commercial and industrial land uses, which uses are generally incompatible with single family
residential. Consistent with the name of this Planning Area, the Transition Zone, this row of
th
residential properties actually appears to act as a land use buffer between 19 Street and the
th
predominantly industrial and commercial uses located south of 19 Street, and the single family
residential uses located directly to the north of these properties.
th
Portions of this Planning Area lack sidewalks and in some areas 19 Street is in a state of
disrepairanddeterioration(forexample,seephotograph8.4). AsshowninFigure7,PlanningArea
8 is located in the Low/Mod Area.
Supplemental Information: Planning Area 8
Police: transients, graffiti, crime.
Code Enforcement: Poor general maintenance, inoperative vehicles, shopping
carts, trash/debris, incompatible industrial /residential mix,
sub-standard housing.
Based upon the results of our field analysis and additional research, UFI is of the opinion
thatPlanningArea8meetsminimalblightrequirementscontainedwithintheCCRLand shouldbe
included within the Probable Redevelopment Area.
Existence of Blight in Planning Area 9: North Placentia Neighborhood
Planning Area 9, which consists of approximately 40 acres, is for all intents and purposes
built-out, and demonstrates a high intensity of urban land uses. Similar to most other residential
Planning Areas included within the Study Area, and as shown in Appendix B, photographs 9.1
through9.16and9.23, many of the properties in Planning Area 9 are affected by varying degrees
ofdeferredmaintenanceandotherpropertymaintenanceissues,deterioration,obsolescence,and
lack of parking. Generally speaking the Planning Area does not appear to suffer from land use
incompatibilitiesgenerallyassociatedwitharesidential/industrialinterface,butthemixofresidential
densities and lot sizes, which includes many deep and narrow lots (see earlier Planning Areas
discussions; see photographs 9.3, 9.4, 9.8, 9.9, 9.12 and 9.22), causes parking and access
problems (photographs 9.24 through 9.26), as well as other problems usually associated with
overcrowdedareas,includingloiteringandvandalism(seephotographs9.14,9.17,9.18and9.21).
Older units appear to be generally of low to fair quality construction, while newer units appear
typically to be of fair to average quality of construction; some may be of good quality construction
(as shown by photographs 9.19 and 9.20).
Certainpublicimprovements,suchascurbsandsidewalks,aresometimesmissing;streets
areinastateofdisrepairanddeteriorationinsomepartsofthisPlanningArea. ThisPlanningArea
containsparcelsthathavebeenpreviouslyurbanizedandthatareanintegralpartofanurbanarea,
but are now underutilized, which can be a condition indicative of economic disinvestment.
AsshowninFigure7,PlanningArea9islocatedwithinboththeLow/ModandRentalRehab
Areas.
Z:\00Pln Active\CostaMesa\003\FEAS_Fnl.wpd 40 October 1, 2001_jlm
Supplemental Information: Planning Area 9
Police: parking deficiencies, graffiti-prone area, high crime rate (vagrancy/persons
and property).
Code Enforcement: trash/debris, deteriorated alleys, lack of general
maintenance, abandoned vehicles, inadequate parking,
abandoned shopping carts.
Based upon the results of our field analysis and additional research, UFI is of the opinion
thatPlanningArea9meetsminimalblightrequirementscontainedwithintheCCRLand shouldbe
included within the Probable Redevelopment Area.
Existence of Blight in Planning Area 10: Canyon-Victoria Neighborhood
Totaling approximately 109 acres, Planning Area 10 is the third largest of the 16 Planning
Areas. As shown in Figure 3a, Planning Area 10 is composed of mixed density residential uses
(single family detached, multifamily apartments, condominiums, duplex and fourplex units) north
ofVictoriaStreet;residential,commercialandindustriallandusesarepredominantsouthofVictoria
Street. The Planning Area also contains a number of randomly located vacant and/or previously
urbanized parcels. The north and west edges of Planning Area 10 abut County and/or City
parkland which is undevelopable. During the field survey it was noted that distant views of the
Pacific Ocean can be seen from some properties located on the west side of Pacific Avenue.
Generally,asshowninAppendixB,photographs10.1through10.6,theareawestofPacific
Avenueappearstobetransitioningentirelytonewcondominiumsandapartments,whichasshown
on Figure 4 is consistent with the City’s current General Plan Land Use Element which allows
higherdensityresidentialinthisPlanningArea.Thesebuildingsappeartobeofgoodtoverygood
construction quality. A similar transition appears to be occurring east of Pacific Avenue (see
photographs 10.7 through 10.9), however the transition is not as extensive; as shown in
photographs10.10through10.15,therearesinglefamilydetachedandmultifamilyunitsontheeast
sideofPacificAvenuethatexhibitvaryingdegreesofdeterioration,deferredmaintenanceandother
property maintenance issues. Other properties in this area are older, but appear to be maintained
better.
While many properties in Planning Area 10 located both east and west of Pacific Avenue
have been substantially improved without assistance from the Agency, as shown in photographs
10.16 through 10.28, there remain pockets of residential properties and public rights-of-way (see
photographs10.12,10.20,10.25,10.28 and 10.29) that demonstrate conditions that are indicative
of blight including, deferred maintenance and other property maintenance issues, deterioration,
substandard buildings, lack of parking facilities, inoperable vehicles, obsolescence, functional
inutility, and impaired investments. These areas were found to be generally located north and
southofWilson Street, east and west of the northern portion of Canyon Drive, both east and west
sides of American Avenue, and on the west side of State Avenue. Housing units in these areas
appear generally to be of low to average construction quality.
Photographs10.12,10.13and10.30showthatPacificAvenueitselfislackingcurbs,gutters
and sidewalks in some locations; these parts of Pacific Avenue and other roads in this Planning
Area, including American Avenue and State Street, are in need of repair (see photographs 10.25
Z:\00Pln Active\CostaMesa\003\FEAS_Fnl.wpd 41 October 1, 2001_jlm

and 10.29).
As shown in photographs 10.31 through 10.34, residential areas located in the part of
Planning Area 10 south of Victoria Street, including the West Bluff Village Condominiums and the
Victoria Manor Apartments, are generally newer and well maintained. Because of an unbuffered
interfacebetweenresidentialandindustriallandusesinsomepartsofthisarea(seephotographs
10.35 and 10.36) it is probable that land use incompatibility may be an issue affecting certain
properties.
AsshownonFigure7PlanningArea10is not located within either the Low/Mod or Rental
Rehab Areas.
Supplemental Information: Planning Area 10
Police: parking deficiencies, graffiti-prone area, transients.
Code Enforcement: Inoperable and abandoned vehicles, lack of general main-
tenance.

Based upon the results of our field analysis and additional research, UFI is of the opinion
thatthoseportionsofPlanningArea10coloredblueonFigure2,meetminimalblightrequirements
contained within the CCRL and should be included within the Probable Redevelopment Area.
Existence of Blight in Planning Area 11: Joann-Miller Neighborhood
Planning Area 11, which consists of approximately 31 acres, is for all intents and purposes
built-out, and demonstrates a high intensity of urban land uses. The Planning Area consists of
multifamilyresidential,includingcondominiums,apartmentsandtriplexesthatappeargenerallyto
beoflowtoaveragequalityofconstruction,andcommercialuses,includinganEnterprisecarrental
outlet, the Costa Mesa Motor Inn and a Taco Bell fast food store, all fronting Harbor Boulevard at
the eastern edge of the Planning Area. As shown in Appendix B, photographs 11.1 and 11.2,
commercial buildings located in this Planning Area appear to be of average quality construction,
and maintained at levels similar to many commercial buildings located along other portions of
HarborBoulevardthroughoutCostaMesa. However,theconditionofresidentialpropertieslocated
directly behind these commercial parcels gives rise to concerns that external obsolescence could
be a factor affecting the real estate market value, and the marketability and income producing
potential of these particular commercial properties.
As shown in photographs 11.3 through 11.11, residential uses located on the north side of
WilsonStreetdemonstrateconditionsthatareindicativeofblightsuchasthe presence of inopera-
tive vehicles, obsolescence, deleterious site conditions and other property maintenance issues,
substandard buildings, crime indicators including graffiti, bars on doors and windows, signs of
residential overcrowding, usually evidenced by extensive street parking, loitering and outdoor
storage,andthepresenceofcommercialvehiclesparkedinresidentparkingareas(seephotograph
11.9). During the field survey it was also observed that several automobiles were in the process
of being repaired in resident parking lots.
As shown in photographs 11.12 through 11.14, apartment and condominium complexes
located on the south side of Wilson Street are newer and appear to be generally well maintained.
However,theconditionofresidentialpropertieslocatedacrossWilsonStreetgivesrisetoconcerns
Z:\00Pln Active\CostaMesa\003\FEAS_Fnl.wpd 42 October 1, 2001_jlm

that external obsolescence could be a factor affecting the market value, marketability and income
producing potential of these properties, and the quality of life of affected residents.
Planning Area streets, sidewalks and curbs are in a state of deterioration in some blocks;
alleyways, private driveways and parking lots, particularly in many of the multifamily complexes
located on the north side of Wilson Street, are in poor condition and in need of repair.
Figure 7 shows that all of Planning Area 11 has been included within the Low/Mod and
Rental Rehab Areas.
Supplemental Information: Planning Area 11
Police: parkingdeficiencies,graffiti-pronearea,vagrancy,highcrimerate(persons
and property)
Code Enforcement: trash/debris, deteriorated alleys, lack of general main-
tenance, substandard housing, abandoned vehicles,
inadequate parking.
Based upon the results of our field analysis and additional research, UFI is of the opinion
that those portions of Planning Area 11 shown in blue on Figure 2, meet minimal blight require-
ments contained within the CCRL and should be included within the Probable Redevelopment
Area. While not demonstrating on-site blighting conditions, that portion of Planning Area 11
highlightedingreenonFigure2,mightalsobeincludedwithintheProbable Redevelopment Area
for purposes of effective redevelopment of the larger Planning Area.
Existence of Blight in Planning Area 12: Coolidge-Fillmore Neighborhood
Planning Area 12, approximately 12 acres in size, is built out, and demonstrates a high
intensity urban land use development pattern. As shown on Figure 3b, existing land uses in
Planning Area 12 consist entirely of multifamily residential triplex units. Photographs 12.1 through
12.9 present a snapshot of the prevalent condition of the triplex units in this Planning Area. The
physical condition of units does not appear to vary to any great degree, with most of the units
showing some degree of maintenance deficiency. While structures appear to be free of any major
visible structural defects, there are visible signs of deferred maintenance such as peeling paint,
stucco cracks, roof deterioration, dry rot, inoperable vehicles, and residential overcrowding,
generally evidenced by parking deficiencies both on and off site, excessive wear and tear, and
outdoor storage; graffiti was also visible in some locations. Withrespecttodesignandconstruction
quality,mostoftheunitsarenondescriptandappeartobeoflowtofairqualityconstruction. Inthis
Planning Area existing landscape features, and condition of the same, indicates a program of
minimal investment for landscape improvements and maintenance.
The condition of visible infrastructure is generally good. Curbs, gutters and sidewalks
appeartobepresentinallblocks,howevertheconditionofalleywaysbehindunitsisgenerallynot
38
as good; numerous pot holes and pavement deficiencies were observed. The presence of
overhead utility lines is also very noticeable in alleyways.
38
In the Coolidge Avenue/Fillmore Way Neighborhood Improvement Plan, residents and owners identified “alley
resurfacing” as a major community concern (p.10).
Z:\00Pln Active\CostaMesa\003\FEAS_Fnl.wpd 43 October 1, 2001_jlm

As indicated on Figure 7, Planning Area 12 is located within the Rental Rehab Area.
Supplemental Information: Planning Area 12
Police: graffiti, gangs, abandoned shopping carts, enforcement of vending truck
39
regulations.
Code Enforcement: trash/debris, poor property maintenance, abandoned shop-
ping carts, parking problems.
Based upon the results of our field analysis and additional research, UFI is of the opinion
that Planning Area 12 meets minimal blight requirements contained within the CCRL and should
be included within the Probable Redevelopment Area.
Existence of Blight in Planning Area 13: Mission-Mendoza Neighborhood
Planning Area 13 is approximately 27 acres in size, is built out, and demonstrates a high
intensityofurbanlanduses. AsshownonFigure3b,existinglandusesinPlanningArea13consist
entirely of multifamily residential fourplex units, with the exception of an occasional sixplex. In
AppendixB,photographs13.1through13.17showtheprevalentconditionofthemultifamilyunits
inthisPlanning Area. Similar to Planning Area 12 described above, the condition of units does not
appear to vary to any great degree, with most of the units showing some degree of maintenance
deficiency and other property maintenance issues, and deterioration (it was noted that the units
located between Mendoza, El Camino, and Mission Drives and the westernmost edge of the
Planning Area appeared to be very well maintained when compared to other units in the Planning
Area). While most structures appear to be free of any major visible structural defects, there are
manyvisiblesignsofdeferredmaintenancesuchaspeelingpaint,stuccocracks,roofdeterioration,
dryrot,inoperablevehiclesandotherpropertymaintenanceissues,andresidentialovercrowding,
generally evidenced by parking deficiencies both on and off site. It is evident that vandalism is
occurring in the area and that ongoing criminal activity is a concern of residents. Graffiti, and razor
wire atop concrete block walls, both indicators of the presence of vandalism, were also visible in
some locations.
With respect to design and construction quality, most of the units are nondescript, and
appear to be of low to fair quality construction. Due to the age and the degree of deferred main-
tenance of structures, obsolescence is probably a condition affecting their value. In this Planning
Area existing landscape features, and condition of the same, indicates a program of minimal
investment for landscape improvements and maintenance.
Curbs,guttersandsidewalksarepresentinallblocks,andtheirconditionisgenerallygood.
However the condition of roadway surfaces and alleyways located behind units is not as good;
potholes and pavement deficiencies were observed in numerous locations. The presence of
overhead utility lines is also very noticeable in alleyways.
AsindicatedonFigure7,PlanningArea13islocatedwithintheRentalRehabandLow/Mod
Areas.
39
In the Coolidge Avenue/Fillmore Way Neighborhood Improvement Plan, residents and owners identified the
“elimination of gang and drug activities” as a top community concern (p. 10).
Z:\00Pln Active\CostaMesa\003\FEAS_Fnl.wpd 44 October 1, 2001_jlm

Supplemental Information: Planning Area 13
Police: enforcement of vending truck regulations, graffiti, gangs, abandoned
shopping carts.
Code Enforcement: trash/debris, inoperative vehicles, parking problems, pot
holes, poor property maintenance, abandoned shopping
carts, poor landscaping.
Based upon the results of our field analysis and additional research, UFI is of the opinion
that Planning Area 13 meets minimal blight requirements contained within the CCRL and should
be included within the Probable Redevelopment Area.
Existence of Blight in Planning Area 14: Baker Street Neighborhood
PlanningArea14isapproximatelynineacresinsize,isbuiltout,anddemonstratesahigh
intensityurbanlanduses. As shown on Figure 3b, existing land uses in Planning Area 14 consist
almost entirely of multifamily residential apartments and triplex units with the apparent exception
of one single family detached unit. Photographs 14.1 through 14.16 in Appendix B show the
prevalentconditionofthemultifamilyunitsinthisPlanningArea. SimilartoPlanningAreas12and
13 described above, the condition of units does not appear to vary to any great degree, with most
of the units showing some degree of maintenance deficiency and other property maintenance
issues, and deterioration (it was noted that the single family detached unit located approximately
midway along the Planning Area, and the multifamily units located directly adjacent to this unit —
see photograph 14.16 — showed a high degree of maintenance when compared to other units in
the Planning Area).
While most structures appear to be free of any major visible structural defects, there are
many visible signs of deferred maintenance (most notably in the rear of the buildings, off the
alleyways) such as peeling paint, stucco cracks, roof deterioration, dry rot, inoperable vehicles,
trash and debris in the alleyway, and residential overcrowding, generally evidenced by parking
deficiencies both on and off site, and loitering that was observed in the alleyway at the time of the
field survey. It is evident that vandalism, most notably graffiti, has occurred in the Planning Area
andthatongoingvandalismisaconcernofbusinesseslocateddirectlysouthofthe Planning Area;
razor wire has been set atop the concrete block wall separating residential from industrial and
commercial land uses.
During the field survey land use incompatibility was noted as a problem along the entire
interface between Planning Area 14 residential uses, and the industrial land uses located directly
to the south of the alleyway that serves Planning Area 14 garage access and garbage pick-up.
Many parts of the concrete block and wire wall separating the residential and industrial land uses
are in a serious state of deterioration (see photographs 14.3 through 14.5); the wall is not an
effectivebufferbetweenthetwoconflictinglandusetypes. Atthetimeofthefieldsurvey,business
activities observed to be occurring on the industrial parcels that front Logan Avenue included
upholstery repair, metal fabrication, tool grinding, auto-related uses, neon sign construction, and
otherindustrialactivities. Alloftheseactivitieshavethepotentialtocreateenvironmentalproblems
for Planning Area 14 residents such as noise, dust and diminished air quality, visual clutter, and
possiblesafetyhazardsforchildrenthatmaynotalwaysbedeterredbythedeterioratedblockand
wire wall separating the respective land use types.
Z:\00Pln Active\CostaMesa\003\FEAS_Fnl.wpd 45 October 1, 2001_jlm

SimilartoPlanning Areas 12 and 13, most of the units are nondescript and appear to be of
low quality construction. Due to the age and the degree of deferred maintenance of structures,
obsolescence is probably a condition affecting their value. In this Planning Area, with few
exceptions,existinglandscapefeatures,andconditionofthesame,indicatesaprogramofminimal
investment for landscape related improvements and maintenance.
Curbs, gutters and sidewalks are present along all blocks, and their condition is generally
good. There is however no sidewalk present at some locations along McClintock Way, at the
easternedgeofthePlanningArea. Theconditionofalleywaysurfaceslocatedbehindunitsisnot
asgood;potholesandpavementdeficiencieswereobservedinnumerouslocations. The presence
of overhead utility lines is also very noticeable in the alleyway.
As indicated on Figure 7, Planning Area 14 is located within the Rental Rehab and
Low/Mod Areas.
Supplemental Information: Planning Area 14
Police: parking deficiencies, graffiti-prone areas, traffic/circulation deficiencies.
Code Enforcement: inadequate parking, potholes in alleys, trash, litter,
inadequate Building maintenance, abandoned shopping
carts,minimallandscapeandpoormaintenanceofthesame,
inoperable vehicles, residential backs to industrial.
Based upon the results of our field analysis and additional research, UFI is of the opinion
that Planning Area 14 meets minimal blight requirements contained within the CCRL and should
be included within the Probable Redevelopment Area.
Existence of Blight in Planning Area 15: Victoria-Hamilton Neighborhood
Planning Area 15 is another of the Planning Areas that consists primarily of multifamily
residentialuses,includingmultifamilyapartments,triplexes,andsinglefamilydetachedresidences.
Commercial uses, which include automobile related uses and a restaurant, are located along
HarborBoulevardattheeasternedgeofthePlanningArea,betweenHamiltonandVictoriaStreets.
PagePrivateSchoolandthePortMesaChapelofCostaMesaarelocatednearthewesternedge
of the Planning Area, along Hamilton Street.
Similar to Planning Areas 4 and 9, the intensity of current land uses on deep, narrow
parcels,whichhadoriginallybeensubdividedforsinglefamilyuses,hasledtomuchhigherdensity
residential development on these lots. As previously stated in discussions about Planning Areas
4 and 9, many of the older multifamily units are situated on lots with approximate 60′ widths, and
40
290′ depths. This parcel configuration results in ingress, egress and on-site circulation and
parking problems, and does not permit maximum site development potential. Photographs 15.1
and 15.2 in Appendix B demonstrate the probability of access, parking and internal circulation
problems inherent to these parcel configurations.
Inadditiontotheproblemsjustdescribed,photographs15.2through15.10demonstratethe
kinds of conditions that many of the properties in Planning Area 15 are affected by, including
40
A ratio of almost 5 to 1 (depth vs width) is considered an inefficient use of land.
Z:\00Pln Active\CostaMesa\003\FEAS_Fnl.wpd 46 October 1, 2001_jlm

varying degrees of deferred maintenance and other property maintenance issues, deterioration,
obsolescence, functional inutility, and disinvestment. Furthermore, residential properties located
directlyadjacenttothecommercialpropertiesfrontingHarborBoulevardatthewesternedgeofthe
Planning Area may be affected by land use incompatibility (see photographs 15.11 and 15.12).
As previously stated in other parts of this document, not all properties included within a
redevelopmentprojectareahavetobeblighted. Asshowninphotographs15.13and15.14,there
are a number of properties located within this Planning Area that do not demonstrate conditions of
blight.Thesedevelopmentsaretypicallylocatedonlargerparcelsthathavebeencreatedfromthe
assembly of two or more of the smaller parcels described earlier, and, therefore, offer better
access, superior parking and other site amenities. However, the values of those properties, and
the quality of life experienced by residents of those units may be adversely affected by blighting
conditions found in adjacent or nearby properties.

Curbs, gutters and sidewalks appear to be adequate throughout this Planning Area.
With respect to design and quality of construction, many of the units are nondescript, and
appear to be of low or fair quality construction; most of the newer residential units appear to be of
fair to average construction quality. Due to the age and the degree of deferred maintenance of
some structures in this Planning Area, functional obsolescence is probably a condition affecting
their value.
Planning Area 15 is located within the Low/Mod Area.
Supplemental Information: Planning Area 15
Police: graffiti, crime.
Based upon the results of our field analysis and additional research, UFI is of the opinion
that Planning Area 15 meets minimal blight requirements contained within the CCRL and should
be included within Probable Redevelopment Area.
Existence of Blight in Planning Area 16: Anaheim-Charle Neighborhood
PlanningArea16,whichisapproximately70acresinsize,consistsentirelyofsinglefamily
detachedandmultifamilyresidentialuseswhichappeartobeoflowtoaveragequalityconstruction;
multifamily density types include apartments, duplex and some triplex units.
SimilartoPlanningAreas4,9and15,theintensityofcurrentdevelopmentpatternsonmany
deep,narrowparcels,whichhadoriginallybeensubdividedforsinglefamilyuses,hasledtomuch
higher density residential uses on these lots. As previously stated in discussions about Planning
Areas 4, 9 and 15, many of the older, multifamily units are situated on lots with approximate 60′ lot
41
widths, and 290′ lot depths. This parcel configuration results in ingress, egress and on-site
circulationandparkingproblems, and does not permit maximum site development potential when
compared to other possible parcel configurations. Appendix B, photographs 16.1 through 16.4,
exemplify access, parking and internal circulation problems inherent to these type of parcel
configurations and development intensities.
41
A ratio of almost 5 to 1 (depth vs width) is considered an inefficient use of land.
Z:\00Pln Active\CostaMesa\003\FEAS_Fnl.wpd 47 October 1, 2001_jlm

Many of the units in this Planning Area show some degree of maintenance deficiency and
other property maintenance issues, and deterioration (it was noted that many of the single and
multifamilyunitsgenerallylocatedintheblockssouthofHamiltonandnorthofYorkshire,andwest
of Maple and east of the REA Community Center, showed a consistently higher degree of
maintenance when compared to other units in the Planning Area). While most structures appear
to be free of any major visible structural defects, photographs 16.1 through 16.22 give evidence of
visiblesignsofdeferredmaintenanceand/ordeteriorationsuchaspeelingpaint,stuccocracks,roof
deterioration,dryrot,obsolescenceanddisinvestment,includingsubstandardbuildingsevidenced
by garage conversions (see photograph 16.15), and residential overcrowding, generally evidenced
by inadequate or over utilized parking facilities both on and off site.
Asshowninphotographs16.17and16.21,thereareanumberofpropertieslocated within
thisPlanningAreathatdonotdemonstrateconditions of blight, in addition to those Planning Area
blocksdescribedabove.Thesedevelopmentsaretypicallylocatedonlargerparcelsthathavebeen
created from the assembly of two or more of the smaller parcels described earlier, and, therefore,
offerbetteraccess,superiorparkingandothersite amenities. However, as discussed in previous
sections of this Feasibility Study, the values of those properties, and the quality of life experienced
byresidentslivinginthoseunitsmaybeadverselyaffectedbyblightingconditionsfoundinadjacent
or nearby properties.
Photographs16.23and16.24showseveralvacantparcelsavailableforinfilldevelopment
that are found in this Planning Area.
Photographs 16.18 and 16.23 through 16.25 show parts of this Planning Area that lack
sidewalks; numerous streets and alleyways in this Planning Area are in a deteriorated state and
in need of repair.
As shown in Figure 7, all of Planning Area 16 is located within the Low/Mod Area; that
portion located south of Bay Street is located within both Low/Mod and Rental Rehab Areas.
Supplemental Information: Planning Area 16
Police: graffiti, crime.
Based upon the results of our field analysis and additional research, UFI is of the opinion
that those portions of Planning Area 16 shown in blue on Figure 2, meet minimal blight
requirements contained within the CCRL and should be included within the Probable
RedevelopmentArea. Whilenotdemonstratingon-siteblightingconditions,thatportionofPlanning
Area 16 highlighted in green on Figure 2, might also be included within the Probable Redevelop-
ment Area for purposes of effective redevelopment of the larger Planning Area.
Z:\00Pln Active\CostaMesa\003\FEAS_Fnl.wpd 48 October 1, 2001_jlm

AMENDING EXISTING PLAN’S CONTROLLING
FISCAL AND TIME LIMITATIONS
Asstatedearlierinthisdocument,theCCRLrequiresthatredevelopmentagenciesadopting
redevelopment plans incorporate certain fiscal and time limitations affecting i) amount of bonded
indebtedness, ii) time limit to establish indebtedness, iii) effective life of Plan, and iv) eminent
42
domainprovisions. Eachoftheselimitationsmaybeincreasedbyappropriateamendmentofthe
redevelopment plan if the limits are below the ceilings promulgated within the CCRL.
Table 7 presents an analysis of the existing Plan’s time and fiscal limitations and how these
existing limitations might be amended to benefit the Agency. A review of the information contained
in this table shows that existing time and fiscal limitations contained in the Plan are in some cases
lessthatthose permitted under current CCRL provisions. While conducting the other Amendment
actionsoutlinedinthisStudy,theAgencymaywanttoconsideramendingthePlan’stimerestriction
43
to incur indebtedness for a period of time up to an additional ten-year period, and reinstate the
Plan’s eminent domain authority, which authority expired in December 1998, for an additional
44
eleven years. This authority can be structured in any way the Agency deems necessary and
appropriate. For example, the Agency could choose to prohibit the use of eminent domain to take
45
properties on which any persons reside.
The tax increment column in Table 7 shows that the Agency has a tax increment limit of
46
approximately$137,100,000; sincethedateofadoptionofthePlan,theAgencyhascollectedless
47
than $45,000,000 from the Project. The Agency’s 1999-2004 Implementation Plan projects that
48
theAgencywillcollectanadditionalestimated$9,599,879intaxincrementandinterest fromthe
Projectduringthe1999-2004planningperiod. Basedupontheamountoftaxincrementcollected
to date, the amount projected for collection during 1999-2004 and the duration of time that the
Agency can collect tax increment (see Table 7), the present limits appear adequate, and it is not
recommended that the Agency seek an increase in the amount of tax increment that it can collect
fromtheexisting Project Area. The Agency does not have a bonded indebtedness ceiling amount,
49
and therefore, consideration of an increase is not necessary.
42
Plans adopted prior to 1994 were also required to establish a tax increment ceiling amount, which amount could only
be increased by amendment of the redevelopment plan. This requirement was repealed in 1993 by the state legislature,
and became effective January 1, 1994.
43
Agencies must be in debt to receive tax increment.
44
State law allows redevelopment agencies to exercise eminent domain for a 12-year period; however, the existing
Redevelopment Plan is scheduled to terminate in eleven years.
45
If the Agency establishes an eminent domain authority to take properties on which any persons reside it may have
to establish a Project Area Committee as part of the amendment process.
46
See Footnote 2 of Table 7.
47
Adopted by the Agency in August 2000.
48
Costa Mesa Downtown Redevelopment Project Area — 1999-2004 Implementation Plan, p. 8.
49
Time and fiscal caps in effect for the Plan would not affect the Probable Redevelopment Area.
Z:\00Pln Active\CostaMesa\003\FEAS_Fnl.wpd 49 October 1, 2001_jlm

TABL E 7
POSSIBL E E XISTINGPL AN FISCAL AND TIME L IMITS AME ND ME NT ACTIONS
PLAN D EBTREPAYMENT
TIME TO INCUR
EFFECTIVENESS (w/UseofTax TAXINCREMENT BOND D EBT EMINENTD OMAIN
D EBT
(D uration) Increment)
20yearsplus10years 15yearsbeyondPlan Nolimitrequired StatedLimitrequired-no
Post-1994Projects 30years 12yearsmax
withamendment effectiveness (timelimitcontrolled) maximum
20yearsfrom adoptionor StatedLimitrequired-no
Pre-1994Projects 1/1/04whicheverislater 40yearsfrom adoptionor 10yearsbeyondPlan StatedLimitrequired-no maximum (forprojects 12yearsmax
plus10yearswith 1/1/09whicheverislater effectiveness maximum after10/1/76)
amendment
PROJE CT Possible Possible Possible Possible Possible PossibleAmend-
1 Existing Amendment Existing Amendment Existing Amendment Existing Amendment Existing Amendment Existing mentto
(dateadopted) to to to to to
D OW NTOW N 4
2004 2013 2013 N/A 2023 N/A E xpired 11years
(D ecember1973)
AdditionNo.1 $137.12
2004 2013 2013 N/A 2023 N/A N/R 3 N/A N/A E xpired 11years
(July 1977) mil
AdditionNo.2
2004 2013 2013 N/A 2023 N/A E xpired 11years
(August1977)
AdditionNo.35
2004 2013 2013 N/A 2023 N/A E xpired 11years
(November1980)
1 ThePlanwasamendedperAB1290requirementsinNovember1994;however,noterritory wasadded.
2 Approximate;roundedtothenearest$100,000;inadditiontothetax incrementallocatedtothe1985-86fiscalyear.
3 NotRecommended.
4 Assumes2002asyearofadoption;eachsubsequentyearwillreducelengthofeminentdomainauthority extensionby oneyear.
5 ThePlanwassubsequently amendedinD ecember1986andNovember1994,howevernoterritory wasaddedby eitheramendment.
50

Section 33456.6 of the CCRL requires that when an agency proposes to amend a redevelopment
plan that utilizes tax increment financing to increase certain existing fiscal and/or time limitations,
including increasing the time limit to incur indebtedness, that it must follow the same procedures
asprovidedforintheCCRLfortheadoptionofanewredevelopmentplan. Whilethissectiondoes
not explicitly state that an agency must conduct a new blight analysis as part of this amendment
50
process ithasbeenUFI’sexperiencethatmostagencyattorneyswillrecommendthatanagency
conductsomelevelofblightanalysistore-establishevidencethatblightremainswithinthesubject
projectareaand,therefore,theneedtoincreasecertaintimeand/orfiscallimitationsisnecessary
in order to further blight reduction efforts.
Blight Remaining in the Existing Project Area
A block level field analysis of conditions within the existing Project Area suggests that
conditionsofblightremaintherein,andthattheAgencyshouldbeabletomakethenexusbetween
the potential Amendment actions, discussed in previous sections, and its ongoing objective to
eliminate blight.
With the exception of Agency-sponsored projects and programs, including the Demonstra-
tionBlock,theCourtyards,TriangleSquare,ParcelA,andvariouspublicfacilitiesandinfrastructure
th th
projects including the realignment of 17 and 18 Streets at their respective intersections with
Newport Boulevard, and Lions Park expansion (see the Agency’s Downtown Redevelopment
Project Area Implementation Plan, 1999—2004, Section V, for additional discussion of Agency
accomplishmentsduringthelifeoftheProject),andprivatedevelopment/redevelopmentactivities
withintheProjectArea,includingconstructionofBordersBooksandMusicatthesoutheastcorner
th
of Superior Avenue and East 19 Street, conditions of blight in the existing Project Area remain
substantiallyunmitigatedandappeartobethesameorworseaswhendocumentedbytheAgency
at the time the Project Area was adopted and subsequently amended to add territory. However,
as showninAppendixC,photographs1through16,30,34,40through42,44,58,66and81,not
all properties within the existing Project Area are blighted (please refer to discussion contained in
otherpartsofthisStudyaboutthepervasivenatureofblightandproblemsassociatedwithexternal
obsolescence).
Conditions of blight are described in the Agency’s various Reports to the City Council
requiredbyCCRLSection33352forthePlan’sadoptionandeachsubsequentamendmenttothe
Plan. These reports are on file in the office of the Agency Secretary and are incorporated herein
bythisreference. Table8providesadescriptivesummaryofblightconditionsremainingwithinthe
ProjectArea. AppendixBcontainsaphotosummaryofblightingconditionscurrentlyfoundwithin
the Project Area.
50
If an agency proposes to increase an existing tax increment limit on a pre-1994 plan, different requirements apply.
Z:\00Pln Active\CostaMesa\003\FEAS_Fnl.wpd 51 October 1, 2001_jlm

TABLE8
SUMMARYOFBLIGHTCONDITIONSREMAININGWITHINTHEPROJECTAREA
PHYSICAL ECONOMIC
CCRLSection33031(a) CCRLSection33031(b)
! Deterioration,Dislocation,orDisuseofBuildings, ! DepreciatedorStagnantPropertyValues
BuildingCodeViolations(Unsafe/UnhealthyBuildings) ! HighVacancies
! SubstandardDesign ! InadequatePublicImprovements
! LackofParking ! ResidentialOvercrowding
! IncompatibleLandUses ! HighCrimeRate
! IrregularlyShapedParcelsandInadequatelySized
Parcels(MultipleOwnership)
! OtherSimilarFactorsthatEffectUseorCapacityof
Buildings/Lots(PoorSiteConditions,ShiftingofUses,
PoorCirculation)
! InadequatePublicImprovements
Source: UrbanFutures,Inc. 2001;fieldsurveyandrecordsreview.
Supplemental Information: Existing Project Area
Code Enforcement: Parking deficiencies, deteriorated structures, trash/debris,
abandoned shopping carts.
Z:\00Pln Active\CostaMesa\003\FEAS_Fnl.wpd 52 October 1, 2001_jlm

RECOMMENDED METHODOLOGY TO BE USED TO DETERMINE
EVIDENCE OF BLIGHT FOR PLAN ADOPTION
As has been discussed earlier, CCRL Section 33320.1 stipulates that a project area is “a
predominantly urbanized area of a community which is a blighted area….“ [Italics added.]
Therefore,inorderfortheCitytoadoptanOrdinancedeclaringanareaa“projectarea,”itmustfind
blight, as defined.
The methodology used to establish blight is extremely important and must be vigorous
enough to withstand scrutiny by affected agencies and individuals which, if they are not satisfied
withtheprocessandconclusionsdrawnfromtherecordofproceedings,maychallengetheresults
in a court of law. Consequently, it is extremely important that the Agency use an appropriate
methodology in establishing blight.
Should the Agency elect to make parcels in the Probable Redevelopment Area subject to
redevelopment, UFI recommends that it employ the following, or a similar methodology to conduct
a parcel level of detail blight analysis:
! FieldSurvey: CompleteaparcellevelofdetailsurveyoftheentireProbableRede-
velopmentAreatodocumentthosefactorsofinadequateinfrastructure,physicaland
economic blight found in CCRL Sections 33030(c) and 33031(a). This field survey
is perhaps the most important component of the blight analysis and must be
completed carefully and accurately.
! Literature Search: Complete a more thorough examination of existing data sources
as appropriate. In this regard, note that plan adoption/amendment activities will
requiredraftinganenvironmentalimpactreportwhichwillgeneratesubstantialnew
information.
! Photographs: Update the photographic essay attached to this Feasibility Study as
appropriate.
! Interviews with local real estate brokers: Interview local real estate brokers and
others knowledgeable about local real estate trends to determine number of and
reason for high levels of business vacancies, lease rates, sales prices and other
economic conditions that cause blight, documenting such factors as required in
CCRL Section 33031(b).
! Other Interviews: Conduct other interviews with property and business owners as
deemed appropriate to provide background information relating to the
characterization and degree of blight.
! Retaintheservicesofadjunctprofessionals,e.g.,realestateeconomist,asmaybe
necessary and appropriate to help substantiate deleterious existing conditions.
Z:\00Pln Active\CostaMesa\003\FEAS_Fnl.wpd 53 October 1, 2001_jlm

PRELIMINARY TAX INCREMENT ANALYSIS
Tax Increment Financing
Authority for the use of tax increment financing comes from Article XVI, Section 16 of the
California Constitution, which was adopted as a Constitutional Amendment by the voters of
California in 1952, to authorize the use of property tax increments for paying the indebtedness of
redevelopment agencies. The authority found in the Article has been implemented by the State
Legislature in Section 33670 et seq. of the CCRL. Simply stated, tax increment financing involves
theestablishment,normallyatthetimeofredevelopmentplanadoptionoramendment,ofa”frozen
base” of ad valorem taxes assessed against those properties located within the redevelopment
projectarea. Increasedpropertytaxrevenuesabovethefrozenbase(taxincrements)areshared
by redevelopment agencies and all other taxing entities pursuant to a state-mandated tax sharing
51
formula(CCRLSection33607.5). Redevelopmentagencieswillthenusetheirsharetoimplement
thetypesofprogramsandprojectsdescribedbelow(RedevelopmentProgramsandOpportunities
Analysis).
Tax Increment Projections
PresentedasAppendixDofthisFeasibilityStudyaretwotaxincrementprojections(TIPs)
52
basedupontheestimatedtotalAssessedValue(AV) ofthepropertiesrecommendedforinclusion
within the Probable Redevelopment Area
Determining Various Projected Growth Rates
Projections of assessed value growth rates which extend more than a few years into the
future are necessarily “inexact.” Macro-economic conditions such as national or regional
recessions or periods of heightened economic prosperity, changes in the global economy which
affect local business conditions, industry-group obsolescence or expansion, or even extreme
weather conditions can dramatically affect future assessed value growth. Micro-economic
conditionssuchasalargeemployer’sdecisiontorelocateoutsidethecommunity,a local rezoning,
infrastructure construction (or lack thereof), or the perception that an area is improving or
deteriorating can incrementally affect future growth.
Given the fact that 45-year projections are inexact, the most effective use of such
projections is to: i) compare different projected assessed values based upon different growth
assumptions;andii)determinean”orderofmagnitude”projectedassessedvaluetohelpcompare
the future “benefit” with the current “cost” of establishing a redevelopment project area. It is
anticipatedthattheAgencywillutilizetheTIPsforbothpurposes. Consequently,UFIhasprovided
TIPs for the Probable Redevelopment Area (colored blue on Figure S1) with two different growth
assumptions which are described below.
51
It should be noted that taxing entities have a legal right to challenge an agency’s redevelopment plan adoption
proceedings if they can substantiate that the Agency’s actions are contrary to the intent and purposes of the CCRL.
52
Estimated base year valuation based on information provided by Metroscan and analyzed by UFI. If the Agency were
to elect to complete plan adoption/amendment activities, the actual designated base year valuation would be provided
by the County Assessor’s Office.
Z:\00Pln Active\CostaMesa\003\FEAS_Fnl.wpd 54 October 1, 2001_jlm

Scenario 1: Two Percent Projected Growth Rate
Scenario 1 (see Appendix D) assumes an average of two percent per year increase over
a term of 45 years. UFI believes that a two percent average annual increase in assessed valu-
ationsisrelativelyconservativebecauseitassumesthat inflationary and deflationary effects on real
property over the 45 year term that the Agency could collect tax increments results in a net effect
which directly models a projected growth rate in real property assessed values which could be
53
expectedtooccurunderProposition13. Suchagrowthratewill”value”propertyimprovements,
sales, or new construction activities in exactly the same proportion as it values decreases in
assessments brought about by recessions, demolitions and, in the case of most investment
properties, reductions in unsecured property values or loss of business income.
Scenario 2: Three Percent Projected Growth Rate
Scenario 2 (see Appendix D) assumes an average of three percent per year increase over
a term of 45 years. UFI believes that a three percent average annual increase in assessed
valuationsisaprobable(andachievable)projectedgrowthrateduetothefollowingconsiderations:
i)theCity’slocationinSouthernCaliforniawhichhasbeenknownforarobust,diversifiedeconomy
and mild weather; and ii) the fact of inclusion in a redevelopment project area. The first
consideration is self explanatory; Southern California since 1976 has seen overall assessed value
growth rates exceed two percent per year and, regardless of possible future recessions, is likely
to see continued overall average annual growth rates for the next 45 years which exceed two
percent per year. Projected average growth rates which exceed this two percent “benchmark” by
a wide mark would be difficult to justify, but a three percent average annual growth rate should be
sustainable based upon general market conditions.
However, “general market conditions” do not always accrue to parcels of land which are
otherwiseappropriateforinclusioninaredevelopmentprojectarea. Theveryfactthatparcelsare
“blighted” as that term is defined in the CCRL would lead one to speculate that such parcels might
not enjoy growth rates commensurate with the balance of parcels in Southern California. In fact,
it is precisely because such parcels have suffered economic dislocations in the past that they are
candidates for redevelopment. As has been discussed previously, the whole intent of
redevelopment is to encourage development in portions of the community which have resisted
improvement in the past due to the deleterious and pernicious effects of blight. The focused use
ofredevelopmentfundsintheseareascanprovidethefoundationforeffectiveprivatedevelopment
whichwouldnot have occurred if, as examples, the storm drain system had remained inadequate,
roads had not been repaired in a timely manner, public parking had remained inadequate or
inaccessible, or properties had remained deficient. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the
useoftaxincrementsinwellthoughtoutandappropriatewayswouldstimulateprivatedevelopment
which, in turn, would increase property values and, upon sale or new construction, increase
assessedvaluesandpropertytaxessuchthattaxincrementswouldincreaseinamountswhichare
more than the “benchmark” two percent average annual increase.
53
Proposition 13, passed by the voters in 1977, provides, in part, that assessors may increase assessed values on any
given parcel by up to two percent per year if no other events which would otherwise affect the assessed value of that
parcel occurred during the year.
Z:\00Pln Active\CostaMesa\003\FEAS_Fnl.wpd 55 October 1, 2001_jlm

Based upon the above considerations, UFI believes that three percent average annual
growth rate would be sustainable over time and must be considered as a probable growth rate
scenario.
Discussion of Projected Tax Allocations by Scenario
Table 9 below summarizes the total amount of tax increments projected to be generated
within the Probable Redevelopment Area over 45 years, assuming each of the two percent and
three percent TIPs. A review of this table shows that regardless of the scenario, inclusion of the
Probable Redevelopment Area within a redevelopment project area is projected to provide
substantial tax increments over the 45-year period during which the redevelopment agency could
receive tax increments.
Scenario 1 in Table 9 shows that the Agency is projected to receive $141.2 million in tax
increments with a two percent average annual assessed value growth rate. Subtracting from this
54
sum the amount which would be diverted from the City’s general fund ($29.2 million ) provides a
net gain to the Costa Mesa community of some $112.1 million over the 45-year period the Agency
could collect tax increment from the Probable Redevelopment Area.
Scenario 2 would generate a total of $248.9 million in tax increments to the Agency based
on a three percent average annual assessed value growth rate. Subtracting from this sum the
54
amount which would be diverted from the City’s general fund ($52.0 million ) provides a net gain
to the Costa Mesa community of $196.9 million over the 45-year period the Agency could collect
tax increment from the Probable Redevelopment Area.
In summary, the Costa Mesa community is projected to receive between approximately
$112 and $197 million in net new funds over a 45-year period of time from the Probable
Redevelopment Area.
TABLE9
PROJECTEDTAXINCREMENTGENERATION(BYSCENARIO)
Summarizes(inmillions)AppendixD*
SCENARIO1: 2%AVG. SCENARIO2: 3% AVG. DIFFERENCESBETWEEN
AREA ANNUALINCREASE ANNUALINCREASE SCENARIOS1AND2
TaxIncrementtoAgency $141.2 $248.9 $107.7
FundsDivertedfrom City’sGeneralFund $29.2 $52.0 $22.8
NETGAINTOCOMMUNITY $112.0 $196.9 $84.9
* Errorsinnumbersduetorounding.
Source: UrbanFutures,Inc.,October2001.
54
This amount could be smaller if the City elected to receive a pass-through amount pursuant to CCRL Section
33607.5(b).
Z:\00Pln Active\CostaMesa\003\FEAS_Fnl.wpd 56 October 1, 2001_jlm

Other Methods of Financing Available to the Agency
WhiletheAgency’s primary source of income would be from tax increments, there are other
forms of income available to the Agency listed below:
! Interest Income
! Agency Bonds
! Gas Tax
! Loans from Private Institutions
! Proceeds from the Sale or Lease of Property
! Financial Assistance from the County, the State of California and/or
the Federal Government
! Any Other Legally Available Source
The City may, in accordance with current CCRL, make advances and expend money as
necessary to assist the Agency in implementing its redevelopment project. Any such assistance
shall be on terms established by an agreement between the City and the Agency.
Redevelopment agencies are permitted by law to issue tax-exempt bonds in an amount
sufficientto finance all or any part of the Plan’s implementation. Tax exempt bonds could be issued
to finance mortgages, to establish a revolving loan fund, or to establish any other kind of housing
assistance program. Loans could utilize deferred interest to keep monthly costs down; Mortgage
Revenue Bond money could also be used for housing construction. In addition, tax increment
secured bonds or notes could be used for both single family and multi-family rehabilitation pro-
grams. Assessmentdistrictbondscanbeusedforthefinancingofinfrastructure,landscape,under
grounding of utilities and lighting improvements.
Z:\00Pln Active\CostaMesa\003\FEAS_Fnl.wpd 57 October 1, 2001_jlm

REDEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS OPPORTUNITY ANALYSIS
Limitations on Agency Assistance to Certain Sales Tax Generators
TheCCRLdirectsthataprimaryresponsibilityofredevelopmentagenciesbethestimulation
of economic development through programs designed to assist industry and create new jobs;
however, the CCRL de-emphasizes the importance of economic development through direct
subsidyoflargecommercialprojectsassistedfortheprimarypurposeofgeneratingincreasedsales
tax dollars for the community. In general, redevelopment agencies are prohibited from providing
any form of direct assistance to “…a development that will be or is on a parcel of land of five acres
or more which has not previously been developed for urban use and that will, when developed,
generate sales or use tax … unless the principle permitted use of the development is office, hotel,
manufacturing or industrial….” Similarly, an agency may not directly assist “An automobile
dealershipwhichwillbeorisonaparceloflandwhichhasnotpreviouslybeendevelopedforurban
use….” Finally, the CCRL severely limits an agency’s ability to assist construction, rehabilitation
or replacement of city halls with tax increment funds.
Relationship to General Plan Goals, Policies and Other Plans
The City’s General Plan outlines numerous goals and policies designed to facilitate the
successful, long-term development of the City. As previously stated in this Feasibility Study, the
Agencycaneffectivelyassistintheoverallimprovementofthecommunity. Subsequenttoadopting
a redevelopment plan the Agency can begin implementation of those programs and procedures
identified in the following sections of this Feasibility Study, which will allow the Agency to directly
facilitate the attainment of the General Plan goals as well as development regulations contained
in other City regulatory documents and procedures.
Ashas been described in the various community meetings, the redevelopment plan per se
is not a plan which identifies any specific desired land use controls or other outcomes.
RedevelopmentisprimarilyafinancingtoolwhichallowstheCityCouncil,asadvisedbycommunity
groups and individual constituents and within the confines of the CCRL (as described below), to
implement whatever vision, plan, or program they adopt.
Types of Programs and Projects Appropriate for Agency Funding
Redevelopment is essentially a facilitative and economic assistance program, one which
should encourage, assist and guide effective redevelopment and development of the Community
to enhance its long-term future in coordination with the General Plan, and other policy and
regulatorytools. Tothisend,theAgencymay,atitselectionandwithinfinancialconstraints,adopt
one or more of the following programs or projects for implementation within the Probable
Redevelopment Area.
Projects within the parameters of the following four (4) general categories:
! Projects and/or programs designed to upgrade existing or develop
new community facilities and public improvements;
! Projects and/or programs designed to enhance commercial and
industrial development facilitating an increase in jobs and the City’s
sales and property tax base;
Z:\00Pln Active\CostaMesa\003\FEAS_Fnl.wpd 58 October 1, 2001_jlm

! Projects and/or programs designed to provide affordable, and low
andmoderateincomehousingfacilitiesandopportunities, utilizing a
minimum of 20 percent of redevelopment agency tax increment
revenues;theAgencymayalsoassistmarketratehousingprojects;
and
! Projectsand/orprogramsdirectlyrelatedtoandsupportingtheother
three categories and contributing toward the overall improvement of
the community.
The Agency could outline and conduct a “Key Site Analysis” for the primary purpose of
identifying those sites within the Probable Redevelopment Area that demonstrate, based upon
criteriatobedevelopedinconjunctionwithCity/Agencystaff,“stakeholders”andotherappropriate
persons, significant opportunity for economic growth in the near-, mid- and long-terms.
The Agency will continue to have at its disposal a variety of resources including:
! Certificates of Participation
! County Funds
! Developer Advances
! Disposition & Development Agreements
! Owner Participation Agreements
! Federal Funds
! Ground Leases
! Housing (General)
! Industrial Revenue Bonds
! Joint Development Projects
! Land Assembly
! Land Banking
! Land Write-Downs
! Non-Profit Corporations
! Public Works and Public Facilities
! Sale of Property for Private or Public Development
! Sales Tax Bonds and Notes
! Site Preparation
! Special Assessment Districts
! State Funds
! Tax Allocation Bonds
! Tax Increment
! Technical Assistance
Agency expenditures constitute debt which is repaid from tax increments and are used to
remedy blight and in other ways upgrade the project area. Tax increment financing can be used
to fund, but is not limited to, the following activities:
! Lease Revenue Bonds
! Purchase of Property
! Site Preparation and Clearance
! Relocation
! Land Write-Down
Z:\00Pln Active\CostaMesa\003\FEAS_Fnl.wpd 59 October 1, 2001_jlm

! Off-Site and On-Site Improvements
! Construction of Parking, Parks, and Public Facilities and Buildings
! Feasibility and Other Planning Studies
! Market Studies
! Surveys
! Appraisals
! Architectural and Engineering Costs
! Land Assembly
! Site Grading
! Street, Sewers, Water and Drainage, and Utilities
! Recreation Areas, Community Facilities and Public Buildings
! Acquire Land or Building Sites for Low/Moderate Income Housing
! Construct Housing for Low/Moderate Income Persons and Families
! Provide Direct Subsidies to Persons and Families for Low/Moderate Income
Housing
! Rehabilitate Buildings and Structures for Low/Moderate Income Persons and
Families
! Tax Allocation Bonds
! Minimum20percentHousingSetAsideforIncreasingandImprovingLow/Moderate
Income Housing
! Facade and Landscape Easements
! Loans to Low/Moderate Income Housing Developers
The Agency Board will have to determine which financing mechanisms best suit Agency
needs in the Probable Redevelopment Area, how those mechanisms can be utilized to finance
necessary Agency activities, and to then execute finance programs.
AnestimateofactualPlanimplementationcostsmustbepreparedonceaspecificdescrip-
tion of projects and programs has been prepared by the Agency. Several broad categories of
projects and programs which the Agency may wish to consider as the “core” of its redevelopment
program. During Plan preparation more specific projects and programs will be identified, costed
and subsequently included as individual line items under each principal category. Actual
implementation of any project(s) or program(s) will depend on the availability of Agency funds and
Agency priorities.
As stated above, these programs and projects would not likely occur in the Probable
Redevelopment Area without Agency assistance. Public works projects (infrastructure improve-
ments and community facilities) in many instances cannot be funded without redevelopment
participation, because City government simply does not have sufficient resources to fund all the
public works required by a City the geographic size of Costa Mesa. Economic development and
“affordable”housingprojects(i.e.,thosethattypicallydemandprivatesectorfinancialinvolvement)
are not likely to occur in the Probable Redevelopment Area given the amount of blight identified
therein. Therefore, but for Agency participation in such projects, it is not likely they would proceed
and the benefits (such as increased jobs and housing opportunities, incremental taxes and blight
eradication) would not accrue to the community.
Additional Considerations
• Realistically,thenextavailablebaseyearroll for tax increment collection purposes
is fiscal year 2002-03 (if the Agency is prepared to adopt the Plan by mid-July
Z:\00Pln Active\CostaMesa\003\FEAS_Fnl.wpd 60 October 1, 2001_jlm

55
2003) ; establishing 2002-03 as the base year would ensure that the Agency can
begin collecting tax increment and implementing its targeted redevelopment
projects and programs at the earliest possible date.
• Completing the plan adoption process in the shortest time frame possible would
ensure that the Agency can benefit as early as possible from the increase in
property values caused by new development, reconstruction or sale of land within
the Probable Project Area.
55
If the Agency were to begin the Plan amendment/adoption process immediately, and is not required to form and
operate a Project Area Committee, it might be possible to realize 2001-02 as a Project base year; however, given the
present date, and the effort yet to be given to this Study, this time frame will be problematic.
Z:\00Pln Active\CostaMesa\003\FEAS_Fnl.wpd 61 October 1, 2001_jlm

CONCLUSION
While it is beyond the scope of the current assignment to provide conclusive evidence of
blight, urbanization, and necessity, the depth and extent of the evidence marshaled above must
driveeventhemostcasualreadertoconcludethatthereare,intheProbableRedevelopmentArea,
substantial and pervasive indications of blight, urbanization and necessity which, when fully
explored are more likely than not to result in a compelling evidentiary record, defensible and
complete, of blight, urbanization, and necessity. Problems exist in the Probable Redevelopment
Area: a deteriorating housing stock, poor site conditions, obsolescence, incompatible land uses,
inadequately sized and shaped parcels. In all the Planning Areas (except portions of Planning
Areas6,7,and10)theseproblemsexistthroughoutandovertime;thereisnocompellingevidence
unearthed to date to show it reasonable to expect private enterprise or governmental action, or
both, to alleviate or reverse these conditions without redevelopment.
And would redevelopment, in concert with private enterprise and government action be
successful? Methodsofalleviatingblightareoutsidethepurviewofredevelopmentplanadoption;
theyresidewiththePlanningCommissionasitimplementsitsgeneralplanwithinaredevelopment
project area, with the City’s Code Enforcement, Police Services and Building and Safety
Departmentsastheyenforcetheirregulationswithinaredevelopmentprojectarea,and,finally,with
theCity’sRedevelopmentAgencyasitimplementsitsfive-yeargoalsandobjectivessetforthinits
Implementation Plan. However, the tools for alleviating blight are absolutely within the purview of
redevelopmentplanadoption;theyaretherighttoacquireprivatepropertyforassemblyandresale
to redevelopers and the increase, focus, and distribution of large amounts of funds. In these two
areas redevelopment, as anticipated in this Feasibility Study, should be resoundingly successful
over its 30-year period.
WeretheCityCounciltomaketheProbableRedevelopmentAreasubjecttoredevelopment
as anticipated herein it would be able to purchase private land, either through negotiation or, as a
lastresortandcircumscribedbyalltheprotectionsaffordedbyStateandFederallaw,throughthe
use of eminent domain; and finance redevelopment over the effective life of the project with
upwards of a quarter billion dollars.
However advantageous redevelopment would be addressing the deleterious conditions
described herein, it is first necessary for the City Council to make the Probable Redevelopment
Area subject to redevelopment. Such an action is not easy, nor quickly accomplished; under
authority of the CCRL, it could take between 18 and 24 months to complete. The Agency should
factor these long lead times into its deliberations regarding redevelopment in the Probable
Redevelopment Area.
AsdescribedinthisFeasibilityStudy,redevelopmentislocal,flexible,dependable. Within
theconfinesoftheCCRL,theAgencywilldeterminehowfundsarespentwithoutrecoursetoformal
Stateoversightotherthanannualreportingrequirements. Fortunately,forthemattersathand,the
CCRLitselfismoreexpansivethanrestrictive;otherthanspecificprohibitionsandwhileremaining
within the intent of the CCRL, actions are limited only by funding actually available, the imagination
andinventivenessoftheAgencyanditsstaff. RedevelopmenthistoryhasshownthattheAgency
can depend upon tax increment funds, delivered to the Agency year after year, by formula, and
derived from property taxes, one of the most stable sources of local government income.
Z:\00Pln Active\CostaMesa\003\FEAS_Fnl.wpd 62 October 1, 2001_jlm

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A
DEFENSIBILITY MATRIX —
NUMERICAL ASSESSMENT

On the numerical Defensibility Matrix (the “Matrix”) that follows, the far left hand column of the
Matrix identifies each of the blight indices as described in CCRL Sections 33030 and 33031.
Section 33030(c) provides that a blighted area may, in addition to containing the conditions
described in Sections 33031(a) and (b), be characterized by inadequate public improvements,
parking facilities, or utilities. Section 33030(a) describes physical conditions of blight; Section
33030(b) describes economic conditions of blight. The numbers (0 through 4) contained in each
PlanningAreacolumn(1through16)indicatethedegree(0means“noindication,”4means“high
indication”)ofeachblightingfactor(rows33030(c)through33031(b)(5). ForeachPlanningArea
the weighting factors were totaled. Totals equaling 20 or less are determined to be insufficiently
defensible by current legal standards, because these Planning Areas contain no more than one
blightingfactorfromeachSection33031(a)and33031(b);totalsequaling21to30aredetermined
to be defensible because these Planning Areas contain at least one blighting factor from Section
33031(a) and 33031(b), but more than one factor identified in either of these Sections; totals
equaling 31 or higher are determined to be highly defensible because they contain numerous
blighting factors contained in each of Sections 33031(a) and 33031(b).

APPENDIX B
PHOTOGRAPHIC SURVEY —
STUDY AREA

APPENDIX C
PHOTOGRAPHIC SURVEY —
EXISTING PROJECT AREA

APPENDIX D
TAX INCREMENT PROJECTIONS

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>