For several years, California Governor Gavin Newsom has maintained a consistent and increasingly aggressive posture toward local governments regarding the state’s chronic housing shortage. His message to city halls across the Golden State has been clear: update housing blueprints to accommodate growth or face the legal consequences. What once began as verbal warnings and political rhetoric has transitioned into a period of active litigation, as the state executive moves to enforce compliance through the court system.
These were never idle threats. Newsom’s administration has demonstrated a willingness to follow through on its promises of legal action, with the most recent wave of litigation arriving in July. Among the primary targets of this legal offensive was Costa Mesa, a prominent municipality in Orange County. The city found itself named in a lawsuit alongside four other municipalities, accused of failing to meet critical deadlines for planning their required share of state-mandated housing. These mandates specifically include the necessity for units dedicated to low- and moderate-income residents, a demographic often priced out of the coastal California market.
Despite the looming shadow of the state’s lawsuit, the Costa Mesa City Council recently moved forward with a vote to approve a long-delayed development plan situated on state-owned land. However, the approval has not necessarily signaled an end to the friction between the city and Sacramento. While the project is moving forward, the version of the plan sanctioned by the council falls significantly short of the housing goals originally envisioned for the site. The newly approved roadmap calls for thousands of fewer residential units than initially proposed, raising concerns about whether the city will ultimately satisfy state regulators or if the legal battle will continue to intensify.
The tension in California is reflective of a broader national trend where state governments are increasingly using the power of the judiciary to force local housing reforms. This legal tug-of-law is not limited to the West Coast. In Massachusetts, Attorney General Andrea Campbell initiated legal proceedings against nine towns for their refusal to comply with the state’s MBTA Communities law. That mandate, which requires multi-family housing zoning near transit hubs, was recently upheld by the state’s highest court, setting a precedent for state-level intervention in local zoning matters.
In California, the legal environment is even more complex, as litigation is now cutting both ways. While the state sues cities for being "NIMBY" (Not In My Backyard), pro-housing advocacy groups have turned their sights on the Governor himself. These organizations have filed suit against Newsom, arguing that his administration overstepped its authority by allowing certain cities in the Los Angeles area to suspend a state duplex law in designated wildfire zones. The advocates argue that instead of allowing these exemptions, the state should be strictly enforcing the law to maximize density. This puts the Governor in a unique position: defending his enforcement record against activists who claim he is not being aggressive enough, even as he sues cities that claim he is being too demanding.
A Plan Thousands of Units Smaller
The focal point of the current dispute in Costa Mesa is a 110-acre property that formerly served as the grounds for a state-run care facility. Given the size and location of the site, it was long considered a "crown jewel" for potential housing density in a region where vacant land is nearly non-existent.
During the planning phases, city staff and housing experts indicated that the site possessed the capacity to accommodate as many as 4,000 residential units. Such a development would have gone a long way toward meeting the city’s regional housing needs. However, when the plan finally reached the City Council for a vote, the version that received approval was significantly more modest. The council authorized a plan for just 2,300 units—a reduction of nearly 43% from the original high-end estimates.
In trimming the project’s scope, council members cited familiar concerns that often plague high-density developments in established suburban areas. Chief among these were fears of overcrowding and the potential for a dramatic increase in traffic congestion on already burdened local streets. To balance the development, the approved plan includes 25 acres of dedicated open space and approximately 35,000 square feet of commercial and retail space. Of the 2,300 units authorized, 920 are earmarked specifically for low- and very-low-income residents, representing a significant commitment to affordable housing, albeit at a lower total volume than many had hoped.
The reduction in units has created a secondary concern: financial viability. City planning staff had previously warned that a minimum of 3,450 units was likely necessary to make the project "financially feasible" for a private developer to undertake. Without enough market-rate units to offset the costs of infrastructure and affordable housing components, there are fears that the project may struggle to attract a builder. Furthermore, staff cautioned that the lower unit count might leave the city in a deficit regarding its state-mandated targets, potentially forcing Costa Mesa to revise its "housing element" yet again to find those missing units elsewhere in the city.
Why the State Sued
The lawsuit against Costa Mesa was part of a coordinated effort by the Newsom administration to signal that the era of non-compliance is over. In addition to the Orange County city, the state filed petitions against Calexico, Half Moon Bay, Ridgecrest, and Turlock. While each city has its own unique local challenges, the state’s grievance is the same: a failure to adopt a legally compliant housing plan in a timely manner.
"California can’t solve the housing crisis while some cities sit on their hands and dare us to do something about it," Governor Newsom stated in a sharp rebuke issued in July. "They had every chance to follow the law and plan for their fair share of housing. They chose not to, so now they’ll answer for it in court. Housing law applies statewide, and no city gets a pass."
Of the five cities targeted in this latest round of litigation, Costa Mesa is the largest, with a population of approximately 110,000 residents. Its size and economic importance in Orange County make it a high-profile test case for the state’s enforcement powers.
Under California’s housing element law, the state’s Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) assigns every municipality a specific quota of new homes that must be planned for over an eight-year cycle. This is known as the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). For the current 2021–2029 cycle, Costa Mesa has been tasked with planning for 11,760 new units. The mandate is further broken down by income level, requiring the city to zone for 2,919 units for very-low-income households and 1,794 for low-income households.
The state’s legal petition notes that Costa Mesa’s housing element was officially due on October 15, 2021. In the years since that deadline passed, the city has submitted multiple drafts to state regulators, but none have been certified as meeting the state’s rigorous standards for feasibility and density. The lawsuit asks a court to compel the city to produce a compliant plan within 120 days and seeks various penalties.
Perhaps the most significant threat facing the city is the loss of local control. Cities that fail to maintain a certified housing element risk falling under the "builder’s remedy." This legal provision allows developers to bypass local zoning rules and height limits for any project that includes a certain percentage of affordable housing, provided the city’s housing plan is out of compliance. Effectively, it strips the City Council of its ability to say "no" to projects that residents might find objectionable. City officials, however, continue to dispute the necessity of the lawsuit, arguing that they have been acting in good faith and have continued to approve new housing developments even without a formally certified state plan.
Residents Split Over Density and Equity
The debate over the state-owned land and the broader housing mandates has deeply divided the local community. Long before the council’s recent vote, public hearings were marked by intense testimony from residents who are wary of how rapid growth will change the character of their neighborhoods.
At a planning commission hearing in August, the room was filled with residents voicing concerns about the concentration of low-income units in one specific area and the "canyon effect" of high-density buildings. Traffic remained the most visceral point of contention, with neighbors worried that thousands of new residents would lead to gridlock on the arterial roads surrounding the former care facility site.
A unique point of local friction involved a nearby municipal golf course. Early versions of the development plan suggested that a secondary access road might need to be cut through a portion of the course to handle the increased traffic flow. This proposal met with fierce resistance from local golfers and preservationists. One resident described the course as "59 years of community history," arguing that the loss of even a small amount of acreage would be a blow to the city’s recreational identity. In a nod to these concerns, the City Council ultimately decided to keep the golf course intact, opting instead to attempt to negotiate the use of an alternative nearby street for site access.
However, the opposition was met with equally passionate support from other community members who see the housing crisis as an existential threat to the city’s future. These residents highlighted the immense pressure of housing costs, which have made it nearly impossible for service workers, teachers, and young families to live in Costa Mesa. One resident shared a personal anecdote about her nanny, who she said has never been able to afford a home in the area, even in the city’s existing "affordable" complexes.
For supporters of the plan, the issue is about more than just numbers or zoning; it is about equity and the long-term health of the community. One council member echoed this sentiment during the deliberations, describing the housing plan as a "quality-of-life issue" that affects both those looking for a place to live and existing residents who rely on a local workforce that is increasingly being pushed further away.
As the 120-day window requested by the state looms, Costa Mesa remains at a crossroads. The approval of the 2,300-unit plan is a step toward development, but whether it will be enough to satisfy the Governor’s office—or the financial requirements of the building industry—remains to be seen. For now, the city remains a primary theater in California’s ongoing war over where, how, and for whom new housing should be built.
