Costa Mesa Under 🔥Fire🔥: Housing Compliance or a Bigger Fight Over Sober Living Homes?
- Cynthia McDonald
- 33 minutes ago
- 8 min read
On July 16, 2026, the State of California (State), through the Attorney General and the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), filed a lawsuit against the City of Costa Mesa for failing to comply with state housing law requirements.
The lawsuit aims to enforce state housing law, ensure Costa Mesa meets its housing obligations, and set a precedent for local government accountability in addressing California's housing crisis.
The State’s Petition for a Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief alleges that:
1. Costa Mesa failed to adopt a compliant Sixth Cycle (2021-2029) housing element by the October 15, 2021 deadline.
2. The City submitted multiple drafts to HCD, each found lacking in compliance due to incomplete rezoning and other deficiencies.
3. As of the filing date, Costa Mesa had not completed required rezoning or achieved substantial compliance, despite repeated notices and meetings with HCD.
The State seeks a Writ of Mandate ordering Costa Mesa to adopt a compliant housing element and complete rezoning within 120 days. The State also requests a court declaration that Costa Mesa is not in compliance with the Housing Element Law.
Additional relief sought includes penalties, costs, suspension of nonresidential permitting, mandatory approval of certain residential developments, and any other appropriate remedies.
Are the allegations true? Let’s take a look at the details of the allegations:
1. Failure to Adopt a Compliant Housing Element
Costa Mesa did not adopt a legally compliant Sixth Cycle (2021-2029) housing element by the required deadline of October 15, 2021.
Multiple draft housing elements submitted by the City were reviewed by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and found to be noncompliant due to missing or inadequate provisions.
Fact: The City submitted a version of the Housing Element Update on October 6, 2021, just a nine days before the deadline. However, the HCD determined that Housing Element Update was noncompliant and requested further revisions. It was not until January 20, 2023 that the HCD issued a letter to the City stating that “The revised draft element addresses most statutory requirements; however, revisions will be necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law (Article 10.6 of the Gov. Code) . . .”
That letter continued with instructions on two specific actions the HCD required of the City to bring the Housing Element into compliance:
“1. Identify actions that will be taken to make sites available during the planning period with appropriate zoning and development standards and with services and facilities to accommodate that portion of the city’s or county’s share of the regional housing need for each income level that could not be accommodated on sites identified in the inventory... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(1).)”
and
“2. Promote and affirmatively further fair housing opportunities and promote housing throughout the community or communities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, and other characteristics... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(5).)”
Item 2 is of particular importance because it focuses on the action the City needs to take with respect to its sober living home ordinance, the ordinance that is the subject of a civil lawsuit brought against the City by sober living home operator, The Ohio House, which the State had joined (the “Ohio House Case”).
Attorney General Rob Bonta issued a Legal Alert on June 3, 2026 (the “Legal Alert”) specifically cited Costa Mesa and the Ohio House Case. That Legal Alert can be found here.
The Legal Alert further described the risks for localities that rely on the partial decisions rendered by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (the “Ninth Circuit Court”) in the Ohio House Case, including exposure to liability under California laws, and jeopardizing housing element certifications. It also offered guidance to localities, including that they should not rely on the Ohio House decision to justify restrictive group home policies. The Ninth Circuit Court’s Opinion can be found here.
The Legal Alert also offered analysis of the Ohio House Case decisions, including the fact that the Ninth Circuit Court upheld Costa Mesa’s group home regulations under federal law and some aspects of California’s Fair Housing and Employment Act (FEHA), but did not address all relevant state laws or the full scope of FEHA. Bonta’s Legal Alert states that the decision was limited by procedural issues and did not consider the broader protections and requirements under California law.
2. Incomplete Rezoning Actions
The City failed to complete all rezoning actions required by its adopted housing element, which is necessary to accommodate its assigned Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) for all income levels.
HCD repeatedly notified the City that rezoning was incomplete and that compliance could not be achieved until these actions were finalized.
Fact: The City did not timely complete all the rezoning actions. This is likely due to the fact that the City only had one year to complete the actions because it did not submit a compliant Housing Element until after the deadline. Had it submitted it timely, the City would have had three years to complete the programs in the Housing Element. On June 24, 2026, the City submitted a revised Housing Element to the HCD showing that of the 47 programs in the Housing Element, 34 had been completed or partially completed.
With respect to rezoning, Program 3B, (Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan), Program 3D (update of City’s urban plans), Program 3D (rezoning under Measure K), Program 3I (rezoning of 17th Street Corridor Area), and Program 3J (rezoning of Newport Boulevard Specific Plan Area) are not complete. Until those programs are deemed complete, the City has not satisfied the HCD’s requirements and it will not have compliant Housing Element.
3. Noncompliance Despite Repeated Notices and Opportunities
HCD issued several findings letters and a formal notice of violation, and offered meetings to help the City address deficiencies, but the City did not resolve the outstanding issues.
As of the date of the lawsuit, the City remained out of compliance, with required rezoning and other corrective actions still unfulfilled.
Fact: The HCD sent at least eight letters notifying the City it required additional changes to the Housing Element in order to resolve outstanding issues. There were probably even more emails between the City and HCD. However, at least one of the letters did not reach the right person at the City, and several were addressed to former high-level Staff members, including City Manager Lori Ann Farrell Harrison, who had been fired. The HCD has not found the City’s Housing Element to be compliant as of today.
4. Legal Consequences Sought by the State
The State seeks a court order compelling Costa Mesa to adopt a compliant housing element and complete rezoning within 120 days.
Additional requested remedies include a declaration of noncompliance, penalties, suspension of nonresidential permitting, and mandatory approval of certain residential developments.
Fact: The State is giving the City 120 days to complete the outstanding programs in the Housing Element. The most recent version of the Housing Element (available on the City’s website here) indicates the remaining programs are either ongoing or will be completed by December 2026.
The State does have the right to the requested remedies, should the City be found in violation of Housing Element law. The State has already expressed that same thought to the City of Huntington Beach, and the four other cities it sued at the same time as Costa Mesa.
What do we think? While the City has slow-walked Housing Element compliance, this lawsuit really isn’t about all the programs in the Housing Element coming to completion. The City delayed the filing of the Housing Element in October 2021 so it could hide the fact that the Housing Element contained Program 3G, the program to remove voter approval of the Housing Element, which became Measure K in 2022. Meanwhile, as City Staff focused (at the direction of Mayor John Stephens) on processing cannabis storefront applications, things like the Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan and the Measure K rezoning lingered in the background waiting for Staff’s attention.
But the State didn’t start writing nastygrams to the City until after the December 4, 2024 Ninth Circuit Court’s decision. In that decision, the Ninth Circuit Court combined rulings on a partial summary judgment and a jury trial, and affirmed those rulings in favor of the City. The decision was that the City’s regulations were not discriminatory against the disabled, therefore giving Costa Mesa the right to enforce our ordinance that requires a separation between sober living homes of 650 feet. As noted previously, the State had joined the Ohio House case. Our feeling is that the State did not like the Ninth Circuit Court’s decision, and has now decided to take the matter into its own hands.
The Ohio House case, and its related cases, have remained on the City Council’s Closed Session Agenda for some time, despite the favorable ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court. We have heard, but we have no direct knowledge, that one or more of the sober living home operators, or their lobbyists or attorneys, have been contacting the HCD weekly, encouraging the State to file a new suit against the City. We also have heard that the City has been repeatedly told by the State that a lawsuit would be filed if better attempts to produce a compliant Housing Element weren’t made. So this lawsuit was only a matter of time. While Mayor Stephens characterized the State’s suit as “misleading,” it may be the City that is misleading the citizens into thinking this is all about rezoning.
And now a second lawsuit has been filed by Disability Rights California, one of the parties that also joined the Ohio House Case. That second lawsuit alleges that the City has maintained discriminatory zoning and housing policies that unfairly restrict disability-related shared housing, particularly sober living homes. According to that complaint, the City failed to make required policy changes despite prior commitments, and state housing officials have found its ordinances remain out of compliance with California housing and fair housing laws. Other legal claims include violations of state anti-discrimination and fair housing laws, failure to advance fair housing opportunities, and failure to implement commitments made in the City's Housing Element. The plaintiff seeks a court order requiring the City to stop enforcing the challenged ordinances, revise discriminatory provisions, comply with fair housing obligations, and process accommodation requests in accordance with state law.
What Should Residents Make of These Lawsuits? There is little dispute that Costa Mesa has struggled to achieve Housing Element compliance. The City did not receive HCD certification by the statutory deadline, and numerous Housing Element programs and rezoning efforts remain incomplete. Those facts form the basis of the State's lawsuit.
But the controversy extends beyond the City's progress on rezoning and Housing Element implementation. The ongoing disputes over Costa Mesa's regulation of sober living homes and other disability-related shared housing are also involved.
Particularly significant is the litigation involving Ohio House and other sober living operators. In December 2024, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals largely upheld Costa Mesa's group home regulations against federal fair housing challenges. Following that decision, the California Attorney General and HCD issued guidance cautioning local governments against relying too heavily on the ruling when interpreting their obligations under California housing and fair housing laws. The State's guidance emphasized that California law may provide broader protections than those addressed in the Ninth Circuit's decision.
Against that backdrop, it is prudent to question whether the State's concerns are focused solely on Housing Element compliance or whether they also reflect broader disagreements regarding Costa Mesa's regulation of sober living homes. The State has not explicitly stated that the lawsuits were filed because of the Ohio House decision. Nevertheless, the timing of subsequent enforcement actions and the filing of a separate lawsuit by Disability Rights California have fueled that discussion.
In the second lawsuit, Disability Rights California alleges that Costa Mesa's zoning and housing policies continue to discriminate against people with disabilities by restricting sober living homes and other forms of shared housing. The complaint contends that the City has failed to implement commitments contained in its Housing Element and has not adequately complied with California fair housing requirements. Among other remedies, Disability Rights California seeks court orders requiring the City to modify its ordinances and cease enforcement of provisions it considers discriminatory.
Ultimately, both lawsuits present significant legal and financial challenges for Costa Mesa. Whether the courts ultimately agree with the State and Disability Rights California remains to be seen. What is clear is that continued litigation will require substantial public resources, and residents may ultimately bear the costs associated with defending these actions and implementing any court-ordered changes.
And will there be more lawsuits filed? Only time will tell.