Costa Mesa First (FPPC 1332564), P.O. Box 2282, Costa Mesa, CA 92628 [email protected]
costamesa1st.com
(714) 549-5884
In the following Section (Next Steps) it states:
“Concurrently, staff will move ahead with exploring the creation of a Citizen Advisory Committee to discuss Measure Y.”
Program 3G in Chapter 4 indicates that a community visioning process will take three years to complete.
When will it begin? What is the status of the LEAP funds? Looking at the 2022-2023 City Budget, we do not see a line item for those funds. Were they spent? If so, on what, and what was achieved? Will the Citizen Advisory Committee be convened? Commissioner Erath asked about the status of the Citizen Advisory Committee at the April 2021 meeting, and the City Attorney responded “No, we have not formally proceeded to create the Citizen Advisory Committee, although we are in that process.” The City Council’s Housing Ad Hoc Committee was a group that met mostly out of the public’s eye and no minutes of its private meetings were kept. There is no evidence of a broad sampling of community and stakeholder input on the subject of Measure Y or any other subject of meetings. Therefore, the Housing Ad Hoc Committee cannot be considered a replacement for the Measure Y Citizen Advisory Committee that would take input from any member of the public, nonprofit organization, or any other stakeholders specifically on the subject of Measure Y. That Committee needs to be convened as soon as possible. In addition, this needs to be a program in Chapter 4 of the HE.
The following are specific comments and questions about the current draft of the HE documents:
Chapter 4, Program 2A: The City needs to state its commitment to the adoption of an inclusionary housing ordinance (“IHO”). In prior cycles, very few affordable units have been built, and the State has mandated that the City demonstrate it is planning for more affordable units. To simply “consider adoption of an inclusionary housing ordinance” is unacceptable. The City has already hired a consultant to evaluate and make recommendations regarding the structure of an IHO. There is no reason to spend those funds only to kill the IHO.
Chapter 4, Program 3B: Fairview Developmental Center (“FDC”) is a large parcel that, when developed, could greatly affect adjacent neighborhoods. We understand that the City is contemplating the adoption of a specific plan that would include mixed-use and mixed income development. We believe a more substantial plan needs to be developed to minimize impacts while maximizing economic benefits, and that plan could be established in the three years the City anticipates it would take to rezone the property. While the State has required that affordable housing and open space be prioritized, it is critical that the City engage residents and stakeholders in a broad and valid community visioning process similar to what the County of Sonoma did in connection with the redevelopment of the Sonoma Developmental Center. Engaging the public through a citizens and stakeholder advisory/visioning committee that meets in public versus an ad hoc Council committee is preferred. Transparency in the visioning effort and the creation of the specific plan is essential.
Ms. Jennifer Le
Director of Economic and
Development Services
City of Costa Mesa
November 14, 2022
Costa Mesa First (FPPC 1332564), P.O. Box 2282, Costa Mesa, CA 92628 [email protected]
costamesa1st.com
(714) 549-5884
Chapter 4, Programs 3C and 3D: It is not clear whether the City intends to increase the allowable density on all the parcels located within the Specific Plans, Urban Plans and Overlays, or it if it intends to increase the allowable density only on the sites identified on the Sites Inventory. In the case of (1) the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan, the City intends to increase the density of all parcels within that Specific Plan to 90 du/ac, (2) the SoBECA Urban Plan, the City intends to increase the density of the entire urban plan area to 60 du/ac, and (3) the Harbor Mixed Use Overlay, the City intends to increase the density of the entire overlay to 50 du/ac. Please clarify whether these are the only areas where the density on all parcels will be increased. Also, with respect to the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan, what is contemplated by amending the boundary of that Specific Plan? Will it include the One Metro West project? Will any of the other Specific Plans, Urban Plans or Overlays have their boundaries increased? In addition, please explain why the 19 West and SoBECA Urban Plans development standards will be updated to facilitate “allowable” densities but the Mesa West Bluff Urban Plan and Harbor Mixed Use Overlay will have their development standards updated to facilitate “maximum” densities. Is there a difference, and if so, what is it?
Chapter 4, Program 3G: Why is it “not clear how the City-wide vote requirement affects the associated rezones and revisions to existing specific plans, urban plans and overlays included as program actions within the Housing Element”? It is the responsibility of the City to follow its own laws. Specifically, Section 13-200.102(j) of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code states “If Costa Mesa itself initiates the change, it shall be deemed the proponent for the purposes of this article.” Instead of looking to circumvent Measure Y, the City should put the zoning changes and revisions to the specific plans, urban plans, and overlays to a vote of the Costa Mesa electorate. Item 6 of the table in Program 3G states that the City will request an opinion from the State Attorney General’s Office as to the City’s options should there be a continued shortfall of sites after a Ballot Measure vote. Does this refer to Measure K or some other ballot measure? How many measures does the City intend to put on the ballot trying to get around the citizens’ right to vote? Also, what is meant by providing the City Council “greater discretion” in approving housing? What is limiting the City Council from using its discretion now? The City should be upholding its laws, not seeking advice on how to circumvent them. All of this contradicts the concept of creating a Citizen Advisory Committee tasked with discussing Measure Y and advising the City Council on needed improvements to the ordinance.
Chapter 4, Programs 3I and 3J: Why is there mention of the potential of a 17th Street Corridor Area when there have been no sites identified in the Adequate Sites Inventory? The same is true of parcels along Newport Boulevard. We view this as politicization of the HE. It is the same as the horse- swapping of parcels that took place at the City Council meeting on August 2 when East 17th Street was removed from the Measure K map, and other corridors were substituted due to the political sensitivity of Eastside Costa Mesa. We also note that the Objective for this program is to promote “quality residential development”, but the word “quality” is not used to describe the housing promoted by Programs 3C and 3D. Does the City not want quality residential development throughout the City? Ms. Jennifer Le
Director of Economic and
Development Services
City of Costa Mesa
November 14, 2022
Costa Mesa First (FPPC 1332564), P.O. Box 2282, Costa Mesa, CA 92628 [email protected]
costamesa1st.com
(714) 549-5884
Chapter 4, Program 3Q: Please identify the “several candidate housing sites” that the City feels could be consolidated to facilitate the development of housing.
Appendix B, Section 2: We believe the reference to Table B-5 in the second line of this Section should be Table B-6.
Thank you for your consideration and we look forward to your answers to our questions.
Very truly yours,
Richard J. Huffman, II
Treasurer
Cynthia McDonald
Assistant Treasurer
cc: Lori Ann Farrell Harrison, City Manager
Mayor John Stephens
City Council Members Manuel Chavez, Loren Gameros, Jeffrey Harlan, Don Harper, Andrea Marr, and Arlis Reynolds
Costa Mesa First’s mission is to educate Costa Mesans about planning policies in Costa Mesa so they make knowledgeable choices when voting. We encourage residents to choose walkable, bikeable and inclusive neighborhoods, and the land use and transportation policies and investments needed to make Costa Mesa flourish. Our primary objective is to require Costa Mesa’s leaders to put the residents of Costa Mesa first. 1 TERAN, STACY
From: Zeenat Hassan <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 4:22 PM
To: CITY CLERK; STEPHENS, JOHN; MARR, ANDREA; HARPER, DON; GAMEROS, LOREN; CHAVEZ, MANUEL; REYNOLDS, ARLIS; HARLAN, JEFFREY
Cc: Autumn Elliott; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject:
DRC comments on public hearing Item #3 - Housing Element Update Attachments: 2022.11.15 DRC comment on PH item #3 - 6th cycle HE update.pdf Good afternoon,
For tomorrow’s City Council meeting, please see attached DRC’s public comments on public hearing item #3: Costa Mesa’s 6
th Cycle Housing Element Update.
Thank you,
Zeenat Hassan (she/her)
Staff Attorney 2, Civil Rights Practice Group
Disability Rights California
1000 Broadway, Suite 395
Oakland, CA 94607
Direct: (510) 267-1225 | Fax: (510) 267-1201
Intake Line: (800) 776-5746 | TTY: (800) 719-5798
Website: www.disabilityrightsca.org | www.disabilityrightsca.org/espanol
The information in this transmittal (including attachments, if any) is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the recipient(s) listed above. Any review, use, disclosure, distribution or copying of this transmittal is prohibited except by or on behalf of the intended recipient. If you have received this transmittal in error, please notify me immediately by reply email and destroy all copies of the transmittal. Any inadvertent disclosure does not waive the attorney-client privilege.
The information in this transmittal (including attachments, if any) is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the recipient(s) listed above. Any review, use, disclosure, distribution or copying of this transmittal is prohibited except by or on behalf of the intended recipient. If you have received this transmittal in error, please notify me immediately by reply 2 email and destroy all copies of the transmittal. Any inadvertent disclosure does not waive the attorney-client privilege. Thank you
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
LEGAL ADVOCACY UNIT
350 S. Bixel St., Ste. 290
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Tel: (213) 213-8000
Fax: (213) 213-8001
TTY: (800) 719-5798
Intake Line: (800) 776-5746
www.disabilityrightsca.org
November 15, 2022
Sent via email only
City Council
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
[email protected]
Re: PUBLIC HEARING ITEM #3 – CITY OF COSTA MESA 2021-2029 (6TH CYCLE) HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
To Mayor John Stephens and the Honorable Members of the City Council :
Disability Rights California (DRC) urges the City Council not to approve the revised Housing Element presented at today’s public hearing because it continues to disregard HCD’s instruction to conduct an analysis of how the City’s zoning code and specific ordinances create barriers to housing for people with disabilities. DRC is a non-profit agency established under federal law to protect, advocate for, and advance the human, legal, and service rights of Californians with disabilities. 1 Housing justice is a core component of DRC’s work, as people with disabilities face significant barriers to accessing and maintaining stable housing. These barriers
1 Disability Rights California provides services pursuant to the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 15001, PL 106-402; the Protection and Advocacy for Mentally Ill Individuals Act, 42 U.S.C. § 10801, PL 106- 310; the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794e, PL 106-402; the Assistive Technology Act, 29 U.S.C. § 3011,3012, PL 105-394; the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1320b-20, PL 106-170; the Children’s Health Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. § 300d-53, PL 106-310; and the Help America Vote Act of 2002, 42 U.S.C. § 15461-62, PL 107-252; as well as under California Welfare and Institutions Code §§ 4900 et seq.
DRC’s comment letter on public hearing item #3 – Housing Element update include discriminatory zoning codes and land use policies. We share the concerns raised by HCD about the City’s discriminatory ordinances and urge the City to commit in its Housing Element to taking corrective actions.
The City’s Housing Element still leaves out the impacts of its ordinances on people with disabilities.
The City’s Housing Element continues to disregard issues raised by HCD in its reviews of prior drafts of the Housing Element. This comment letter focuses on three of these issues that affect the disability community:
1) The City’s reasonable accommodation process violates fair housing laws by considering inappropriate factors;
2) The City’s definition of “single housekeeping unit” discriminate s against people with disabilities; and
3) The City’s zoning code imposes discriminatory barriers on housing for people with disabilities.
In its December 3, 2021 letter to the City, HCD explained that the City’s Housing Element must include an analysis of how the City’s reasonable accommodation process, definition of “single housekeeping unit,” and zoning code act as constraints on housing for people with disabilities. HCD further instructed the City to develop programs to remove each constraint.
The City revised its Housing Element but refused to complete the analysis required by HCD, despite receiving public comments from D RC and other stakeholders that explained exactly how the City’s ordinances created barriers to housing for people with disabilities and how to remove those barriers. HCD reviewed the City’s revised Housing Element and sent a second letter on April 5, 2022 notifying the City that it still needed to conduct an analysis of how its ordinances act as constraints on housing for people with disabilities.
The Housing Element presented to the City Council today indicates that the City disagrees with HCD’s assessment of its Housing Element and is disinclined to make changes to its ordinances. The “analysis” of each constraint concludes that the ordinances do not conflict with fair housing law, and each program commits only to “reviewing” the ordinance —not to changing it. This approach undermines the purpose of the Housing
DRC’s comment letter on public hearing item #3 – Housing Element update Element: to plan for the housing needs of all segments of a community, including people with disabilities. The City’s refusal to acknowledge and address the harmful impacts of its ordinances sends a message to people with disabilities that they are not welcome in Costa Mesa. We urge the City to fulfill its duty to the community by revising the Housing Element to include an analysis of constraints to housing for people with disabilities and a plan with concrete steps to address those constraints.
The City must commit to revising its reasonable accommodation ordinance to bring it into compliance with fair housing laws.
As noted by HCD in its December 3, 2021 letter, the City’s reasonable accommodation process “contains several additional factors that the City may consider in its review of an application […] that may act as constraints.” HCD instructed the City to include in its Housing Element “specific analysis of any potential constraint, including considering public comments and add or modify programs as appropriate.” The City failed to do this in its revised Housing Element, prompting HCD to note in its April 5, 2022 letter: “[The revised Housing Element] does not appear to agree the procedure contains constraints but commits (Program 2N) to review and revise the ordinance to comply with state and federal fair housing laws, which casts uncertainty on what will be revised. As a result, Program 2N should be revised to provide certainty and specific commitment to revise the ordinance and ensure a process that promotes housing access for persons with disabilities.”
The Housing Element presented at today’s public hearing continues to cast uncertainty on what, if anything, will be revised. The City received public comments from DRC and others on how its reasonable accommodation process creates barriers to housing for people with disabilities. The Housing Element makes no mention of any of those comments and omits any consideration of the constraints discussed in those comments. The City’s analysis finds no fault with the ordinance and instead adopts Program 2N: “The City will review and consider revisions to its Reasonable Accommodation process to be consistent with State and federal fair housing requirements.” The City commits to a review of the ordinance within 24 months of final adoption of the Housing Element Update.
Program 2N is insufficient to remove the constraints caused by the City’s reasonable accommodation ordinance. Two years is a long time to wait for
DRC’s comment letter on public hearing item #3 – Housing Element update a review that could be done now using the public comments submitted to the City (and that should have been done already per the directions from HCD). Further, there is no commitment to change the parts of the ordinance that create constraints on housing. Given the City’s apparent position that its ordinance does not conflict with fair housing laws, we have no confidence that the City will make any changes when it eventually gets around to analyzing the ordinance in 24 months. The City should revise its Housing Element to include a thorough analysis of its reasonable accommodation ordinance—one that engages with the public comments submitted by stakeholders—and revise Program 2N to include commitments to changing the specific components of the ordinance that violate fair housing laws and create barriers to housing for people with disabilities.
The City must amend its definition of “single-housekeeping unit” to avoid discrimination against people with disabilities.
HCD’s December 3, 2021 letter notes that the City’s definition of single- housekeeping unit includes “multiple restrictions that may act as constraints on housing for persons with disabilities. ” These restrictions include the requirement to establish ties and familiarity, sharing expenses and responsibilities, and stable membership. HCD directed the City to include in its revised Housing Element a specific analysis of any potential constraint, including the consideration of public comments. The City declined to do so, prompting HCD to find in its April 5, 2022 letter: “ [The revised Housing Element] concludes the definition of family and single housekeeping unit do not touch on whether members are with a disabi lity and is not intended to discriminate against persons with disabilities.
However, the element provides no analysis to support this conclusion and should include a program to address the constraint.”
As with its handling of the reasonable accommodation ordinance, the Housing Element presented at today’s hearing declines to conduct any real analysis, refuses to consider and respond to public comments submitted, and concludes that the City’s ordinance does not violate fair housing laws. The City merely proposes Program 2O to “review and consider revisions to its zoning code” within 24 months of final adoption of the Housing Element Update.
As with Program 2N, Program 2O provides nothing about what, if anything, the City will revise. The City gives itself two years to begin an analysis that
DRC’s comment letter on public hearing item #3 – Housing Element update should already be done in the Housing Element, and it makes no commitment to changing the issues raised by fair housing advocat es. This approach suggests an unwillingness by the City to amend its ordinances to better meet the housing needs of its disabled residents. We urge the City to revise its Housing Element to include a meaningful analysis of how its definition of single-housekeeping unit impacts people with disabilities— including consideration of public comments already submitted on this issue—and revise 2O to include specific commitments on the changes the City will make to its ordinance.
The City’s zoning code discriminates against people with disabilities by restricting their ability to live in residential zones.
In its December 3, 2021 letter, HCD noted that the City’s zoning code “appears to isolate and regulate various types of housing for persons with disabilities based on the number of people and other factors. […] The element should include specific analysis of these and any other constraints, including their enforcement and considering public comments, for impacts on housing for persons with disabilities and add or modify programs as appropriate.” As with the reasonable accommodation ordinance and the definition of single-housekeeping unit, the City declined to heed HCD’s directions, prompting HCD to state in its April 5, 2022 letter:
“The element includes various conclusions and statements about the City’s zoning code and group homes, but it still must analyze the exclusion of these housing types from some residential zones and use permit and other requirements, including enforcement as constraints on hou sing for people with disabilities and add or modify programs as appropriate.”
As with the reasonable accommodation process and the definition of single-housekeeping unit discussed above, the Housing Element presented at today’s hearing continues to lack the requisite analysis of how the City’s zoning code acts as a constraint on housing for people with disabilities—despite receiving public comments from DRC and others on how these constraints operate. The City has instead adopted Program 2P which, like Programs 2N and 2O, promises to review the zoning code within 24 months of final adoption of the Housing Element Update. Like Programs 2N and 2O, Program 2P provides no information about what, if anything, the City will amend in its zoning code. The Housing E lement makes clear that the City does not believe its zoning code discriminates against people with disabilities. Yet, the Housing Element is devoid of any analysis that explains the basis for that conclusion, and it does not
DRC’s comment letter on public hearing item #3 – Housing Element update respond to the public comments submitted on this issue. The City’s analysis seems to be that because a substantial number of one type of housing for people with disabilities exists (licensed facilities), the City’s zoning code cannot possibly discriminate against people with disabilitie s.
That analysis completely ignores the impact that its zoning code has on a different type of housing for people with disabilities: supportive or transitional housing in a shared home that does not require a license from the state. The City’s assertion that group homes are permitted in residential zones is disingenuous because that permission is predicated on obtaining a special use permit or a conditional use permit. Those permits are difficult to obtain, even when requested as a reasonable accommodation, because the City’s handling of those requests conflicts with fair housing laws. We urge the City to revise its Housing Element to include a thorough analysis of how its zoning code impacts different types of housing for people with disabilities, particularly group homes. The City’s analysis should engage with, and respond to, public comments submitted to the City about this exact issue. Moreover, the City should revise Program 2P to include specific commitments on what the City will change in its zoning code to remove barriers to housing for people with disabilities.
Conclusion
Throughout the Housing Element, the City makes statements about housing for people with disabilities that are disingenuous. For example, t he City’s assertion that people with disabilities “can live in any residential property in the City” (page 3-21) is patently untrue. People with disabilities cannot live in any of the dozens of shared homes that the City has ordered to close for violating its (discriminatory) zoning code regarding “group homes.” Similarly, the City’s statement that “there are no current fair housing lawsuits within Costa Mesa” (page 3-60) is equally untrue. In context, we assume that what the City meant to say is that the City has not initiated any fair housing lawsuits through its partnership with the Fair Housing Foundation. But, as written, this statement is a lie. Costa Mesa is currently the subject of a fair housing lawsuit centered on precisely the same issues the City refuses to address in its Housing Element: Its reasonable accommodation process, its definition of single -housekeeping unit, and its zoning code as a whole discriminate against people with disabilities. We know this for a fact because Disability Rights California is representing one of the plaintiffs in that fair housing lawsuit.
DRC’s comment letter on public hearing item #3 – Housing Element update The City’s refusal to acknowledge that its local ordinances create barriers to housing for people with disabilities—and its refusal to then address those barriers—hollows out the City’s commitment to serving all segments of its community. We hope that the City will use the Housing Element Update as an opportunity to plan for the elimination of biases against the disability community that are baked into its zoning code and explore ways to make Costa Mesa a more accessible, welcoming place to live for its disabled residents.
Sincerely,
Zeenat Hassan
Staff Attorney II
Autumn Elliott
Litigation Counsel
CC: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]