1870 Harbor Blvd., Ste 105, Costa Mesa CA 92627 ⚫ Office: (714) 885 -9090 ⚫ Email: [email protected] ⚫ EIN: 95-1792321
May 16, 2023
The Honorable John Stephens
Costa Mesa City Council
Costa Mesa Planning Commission
77 Fair Drive
Cosa Mesa, CA 92626
Dear Mayor Stephens, Councilmembers, and Planning Commissioners,
On behalf of the Costa Mesa Chamber of Commerce, I request that you postpone any action at the” Joint Study Session Regarding Inclusionary Zoning” scheduled for May 16, 2023. We respectfully request that you table any discussion regarding Inclusionary Zoning, and instead initiate a collaborative approach to meeting the housing needs in our entire community, including affordable/workforce housing.
The Chamber is extremely concerned about the housing crisis, not only in Costa Mesa, but throughout our region.
Housing availability and production are a priority for our organization. Employers throughout Costa Mesa, whether they be small family-owned businesses or large publicly traded companies, depend on housing availability and affordability. Housing options for all income levels is a backbone to a healthy economy and employment opportunities for Costa Mesa residents and families.
Because of the seriousness of this issue, the Chamber respectfully recommends the City initiate a deliberative and collaborative process regarding future housing policy, beginning with stakeholder awareness and engagements. Like other community stakeholders who will bring insight to this discussion, we only learned of the Joint Study Session when the agenda was posted online.
We are concerned that by scheduling a meeting and providing direction to staff on Inclusionary Zoning or any affordable housing that does not begin with community outreach and stakeholder engagement will only magnify and not help to alleviate the housing challenges in Costa Mesa. While we appreciate the City Council’s and Planning Commission’s willingness to prioritize the housing issue, we are mindful that many well-intended policies have only made our state’s housing crisis worse.
We are confident that by working together on a thoughtful housing strategy here in Costa Mesa, positive results can be achieved. Therefore, we request you table any discussions regarding Inclusionary Zoning at your May 16, 2023 meeting.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
David Haithcock
President and CEO
May
16th,
2023
Re:
Inclusionary
Housing
Ordinance
Study
Session
To
the
City
Council,
Planning
Commission,
Planning
Department,
and
KM
Associates,
These
are
my
initial
thoughts
on
the
Inclusionary
Housing
Ordinance
(IHO)
based
on
the
excellent
May
16th
staff
report
and
joint
CC/PC
study
session.
No
hard
feelings
if
we're
not
on
the
same
page.
I
think
we
will
ultimately
come
up
with
something
good
together.
Thank
you
for
all
your
helpful
comments
at
the
study
session.
It
is
great
that
we
have
leadership
in
this
city
that
is
so
committed
to
such
a
good
cause.
I
was
surprised
that
the
presentation
gave
us
the
how
of
inclusionary
zoning
but
not
the
why
,
which
is
a
much
more
important
question.
"We
need
affordable
housing"
is
not
a
good
enough
answer
to
this
question.
Of
course
that's
true,
but
as
far
as
my
(limited)
research
has
shown
me,
the
verdict
is
decidedly
out
as
to
whether
this
is
an
effective
tool
in
making
cities
generally
more
affordable.
I
found
this
article
persuasive:
https://www.mercatus.org/research/policy-briefs/inclusionary-zoning-hurts-more-it-helps .
(To
remain
balanced,
I
also
just
read
Shane
Phillip’s
The
Affordable
City
,
which
has
great
ideas
and
is
worth
reading).
It
seems
to
me
that
the
internal
goal
of
making
Costa
Mesa
more
affordable
to
more
people
and
the
externally-imposed
goal
of
meeting
our
RHNA
at
all
affordability
levels
are
two
different
challenges
with
the
latter
being
a
potential
constraint
to
the
former.
When
push
comes
to
shove,
I
think
that
pursuing
broader
affordability
is
more
important
than
chasing
unrealistic
quotas
for
below
market
rate
(BMR)
units.
Based
on
the
data
in
our
Housing
Element…●
About
half
of
Costa
Mesa's
households
are
low
income
or
lower
(≈
20,000
households).●
About
40%
of
our
RHNA
is
for
low-income
units
or
lower
(≈
4,700
units).●
This
means
that
even
if
we
were
able
to
build
all
required
units
in
this
cycle
(best
case
scenario)
and
therefore
were
able
to
generate
all
4,700
units
that
are
restricted
to
low-income
households
and
lower,
then
we
will
have
provided
units
for
less
than
a
quarter
of
our
city's
low-income
households,
leaving
3/4
of
them
on
waiting
lists.
This
leads
to
the
questions:●
At
what
cost
do
we
get
these
underwhelming
results?
(Less
overall
supply
of
new
housing?
Administrative
costs
and
staff
time?).●
Who
pays
this
cost?
(At
least
in
part,
it's
the
residents
of
the
new
market-rate
units
that
are
subsidizing
their
low-income
neighbors).
Rather
than
put
too
much
hope
in
an
IHO,
I
believe
that
we
should:●
Spend
our
resources
on:○
Ensuring
that
we
have
straightforward
design
standards
so
that
new
development
comes
in
beautifully
and
by-right
everywhere
.
This
includes
wraps
and
podiums
along
our
corridors,
missing
middle
housing
in
our
residential
neighborhoods,
and
everything
in
between.
We
should
control
form
and
character
rather
than
density.○
Continuously
working
towards
an
excellent,
high-quality
public
realm
(streets
and
open
spaces)
throughout
the
city.
Streets
and
open
spaces
need
to
be
nice
enough
for
developers
to
want
to
front
their
buildings
on
them.○
Improving
the
safety,
comfort,
and
convenience
of
"alternative"
mobility
options
to
reduce
car-dependency.●
Only
when
we
are
fully
committed
to
the
goals
above
should
we
unleash
supply
by
reducing
the
primary
barriers
to
the
production
of
housing
:○
Increase
density
limits
wherever
we
can
(control
form
-
height,
footprint,
etc.
-
instead).○
Eliminating
minimum
parking
requirements.○
Revise
our
development
fees,
and
scale
them
down
to
be
project-size
appropriate.●
Increasing
housing
supply
is
one
thing
we
can
do
to
increase
affordability
(supply
and
demand,
price
filtering),
but
we
should
also
spend
our
resources
on:○
Housing
stability.
This
can
include
displacement
policy
and
local
rent
stabilization
policy
(the
statewide
anti-rent
gouging
law
AB-1482
sunsets
in
2030
for
example).○
Housing
subsidy.
Affordable
housing
development
;
transitional
&
supportive
housing,
etc.
But
because
we
need
to
at
least
make
an
attempt
to
do
our
state-imposed
homework
in
creating
BMR
units,
I
understand
that
maybe
we
do
need
to
have
an
IHO.
Here
are
my
tentative
thoughts
on
what
that
could
look
like:
●
Not
apply
(not
even
in-lieu
fees)
to
projects
with
fewer
than
40 units
or
those
that
are
subject
to
Measure
Y.
I
don't
have
any
ideas
at
the
moment
for
what
to
do
about
the
threshold
problem.●
Not
apply
(not
even
in-lieu
fees)
to
for-sale
units.
This
works
against
our
goals
of
increasing
home
ownership
opportunities
in
Costa
Mesa,
and
the
affordability
gap
is
just
too
great
.●
For
projects
subject
to
our
IHO,
it
should
be
something
like:○
5%
very
low
income
(or
in-lieu
fee),
or○
10%
low
income
(or
in-lieu
fee)●
We
should
rely
heavily
on
incentives
to
provide
BMR
units
(and
other
things!),
such
as: ○
Permit
streamlining○
Fee
reduction○
Density
bonus.
This
would
be
our
own
"sweeter
deal"
and
be
available
to
applicants
that
opt
out
of
State
DB.
This
would
have
the
benefit
of
being
able
to
maintain
design
contro
l
(concessions
and
waivers
-
from
local
design
standards
-
are
available
to
the
recipients
of
density
bonuses).●
Require
99 year
covenants,
with
a
high
buyout
option.
This
is
free
affordable
housing
with
no
downside:
no
developer's
pro
forma
extends
55 years
into
the
future
anyway.
Again,
these
are
just
my
initial
thoughts.
Please
feel
free
to
reach
out
to
talk
about
any
of
these
things.
Thanks
for
reading!
Russell
Toler
Costa
Mesa
Planning
Commission