Public Comments — Costa Mesa City Council, January 16, 2024

1 3972 Barranca Pkwy., Suite J 301
Irvine, California 92606
PH: 949.757.1450
Direct: 949.842.4275
E-mail: [email protected]

January 15, 2024

Re: Closed Session Item #4, 1963 Wallace Ave., Costa Mesa; Orange County Superior Court, Case No.: 30-2020-01133479-CU-PT-CJC

Dear Mayor and Council Members,

I am legal counsel for property owner, D’Alessio Investments LLC (“DIL”) in the currently pending cases by the City of Costa Mesa against DIL. In the City’s case related to the Wallace property, the City demanded receiver and attorney Eric Beatty take control from the owner to rehabilitate the property back to “last approved plans” per the Code Enforcement Officer’s Notice of Violation. Nonetheless, the Receiver took possession of the Wallace low-income residences and kicked out every tenant. After over 2 years of taking control of the property, the shocking “rehabilitation” plan Beatty proposed, without the property owner’s input, was to simply demolish all the buildings.

Last year, since March 29, 2023, I have repeatedly asked Beatty to meet to discuss DIL's plans to rehabilitate the apartment complex, which includes deed restricted, low-income units.

Although Beatty met at least once with the City, to date, he inexplicably refuses to meet with the property owner. Beatty plays a cat and mouse game of: 1) continuously requesting more information; 2) upon receipt of the information, he sits on his hands; and 3) then he deflects by arguing the information is inaccurate. Then he then repeats this pattern. He has rebuffed over 20 requests to meet.

Beatty had stated that DIL could meet with the City separately to discuss DIL’s rehabilitation plans. But when the Owner's representative asked the City’s planning staff to meet, Beatty changed his mind and improperly directed the City to not meet while scolding the representative and myself for daring to ask. The City’s staff should be allowed to review and discuss the plans. In fact, it will be the long-term residents who suffer the irreparable harm if the City does not consider and review DIL’s plans, which will cause less destruction, waste and provide affordable housing quicker and more efficiently than merely scorching the earth as proposed by Beatty. Attached for the council members’ review is my declaration in support of DIL’s Opposition to Beatty’s Demolition Plan and Fifth Report, with exhibits including numerous emails showing DIL’s attempts to work with the City and Receiver for viable rehabilitation plans. I apologize that I was unable to appear today as I am in flight from the east coast during this time.

Very truly yours,

2 Enclosures: Declaration of Catherine Rowlett, Esq. in Support of D’Alessio Investments LLC’s Objections to Receiver’s Demolition Plan and Fifth Report, with Exhibits

ROWLETT DEC. RE RESPONDENT D’ALESSIO INVESTMENTS, LLC’S OBJECTIONS TO RECEIVER’S 5TH PLAN AND 5TH REPORT
-1-
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

Attorney for Respondent D’Alessio Investments, LLC

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF ORANGE—CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER

CITY OF COSTA MESA, a California Municipal
Corporation;

Petitioner,

D’ALESSIO INVESTMENTS, LLC, a Nevada
Limited Liability Company; JPMORGAN
CHASE BANK, N.A.; and DOES 1 to 25,

Respondents.

Case No.: 30-2020-01133479

[Assigned for all purposes to the Hon. Judge
David Hoffer, Dept C16]

DECLARATION OF CATHERINE

ROWLETT IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT
D’ALESSIO INVESTMENTS, LLC’S
OBJECTIONS TO RECEIVER’S 5
TH
REPORT AND “REHABILITATION” PLAN

[Filed concurrently with Declarations of Dennis
D’Alessio and Steve Sheldon]

Petition Filed: February 19, 2020

Daniel A. Nassie, State Bar No. 148947
Catherine J. Rowlett, State Bar No. 180200
NASSIE LAW, A Professional Corporation
3972 Barranca Pkwy, Suite J 301
Irvine, California 92606
Tel.: (949) 757-1450
[email protected]
[email protected]

ROWLETT DEC. RE RESPONDENT D’ALESSIO INVESTMENTS, LLC’S OBJECTIONS TO RECEIVER’S 5TH PLAN AND 5TH REPORT
-2-
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
I, Catherine Rowlett, declare and state as follows:

1. I am over the age of 18, and I am not a party to the within action. I am a partner at Nassie Law, counsel for Respondent D’Alessio Investments, LLC (“Respondent”). If called upon to testify, I could and would testify to the following facts from my personal knowledge.

2. Since at least March 29, 2023, I have repeatedly asked Mr. Beatty to meet to discuss DIL’s plans and options and planning for rehabilitation. He refused to meet with DIL. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of emails wherein I asked to be involved in his meetings and discussions with the City regarding plans.

3. Mr. Beatty refused to have DIL involved with his meeting with them. However, he stated that DIL could meet with the City separately to discuss its rehabilitation plans. Id., Ex. 1.

4. Alisha Patterson at Rutan & Tucker, was retained by DIL and she also emailed the Receiver and cc’d me and the City, requesting to meet to discuss rehabilitation ideas and DIL’s proposed plans under the new ADU and SB 330 laws. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of emails such emails.

5. Receiver Beatty and the City allegedly met to discuss DIL’s ADU plans but would not include DIL the Property owner and its counsel in these discussions. I do not know whether DIL’s ADU plan was ever submitted to CM’s Planning Department for true consideration. No one from CM’s Department has ever discussed DIL’s plans with me.

6. On October 16, 2023, the City sent the Receiver a letter and copied me. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of the letter. It informed Mr. Beatty that he had allowed “trespassing to transient activity” to occur on the Property:

7. The City demanded “full reimbursement in the amount of $14,832.73 for the public funds expended to respond to the calls for service.” Id.

ROWLETT DEC. RE RESPONDENT D’ALESSIO INVESTMENTS, LLC’S OBJECTIONS TO RECEIVER’S 5TH PLAN AND 5TH REPORT
-3-
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and was executed on November 19, 2023 in Irvine, California.

EXHIBIT 1
TO

DECLARATION OF CATHERINE ROWLETT IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT D’ALESSIO INVESTMENTS, LLC’S OBJECTIONS TO RECEIVER’S 5TH REPORT AND “REHABILITATION” PLAN
1 Catherine Rowlett
From: Eric Beatty <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 5, 2023 6:16 PM
To: Catherine Rowlett; Veronica R. Donovan
Cc: John Sorich; Dennis D'Alessio; Amanda A. Pope; Catherine L. Livings; Lois Moy; Julie Niblack
Subject: RE: Wallace Property (CM v. D'Alessio Investment LLC) Global settlement discussions/meeting [PIB-LEGAL_DMS.FID409002]
Counsel,

The meeting in question was requested by me and for my benefit in reporting to the Court concerning Mr. D’Alessio’s plans. Neither the parties nor their counsel will be in attendance.

If you and Mr. D’Alessio wish to request a meeting with the City to discuss the plans in question, I encourage you to make the request to the City directly.

Eric Beatty
Attorney and Court-Appointed Receiver
123 East Ninth Street, Suite 210
Upland, California 91786
Telephone: (909) 243-7944
Facsimile: (909) 243-7949

****************CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE****************
This email and any files transmitted with it may contain information that is subject to the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product doctrine, or is otherwise confidential. This communication is intended to be reviewed and used only by the individual or organization named above for the purpose of consulting with or conducting business with this office. If you are not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of the intended recipient, or believe that you may have received this communication in error, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, or copying of this email and its attachments, if any, or the information contained herein, is prohibited. If you received this email in error, please advise the sender immediately via reply email and delete this email from your system.

From: Catherine Rowlett <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 5, 2023 5:14 PM
To: Eric Beatty <[email protected]>; Veronica R. Donovan <[email protected]> Cc: John Sorich <[email protected]>; Dennis D'Alessio <[email protected]>; Amanda A. Pope <aap@jones- mayer.com>; Catherine L. Livings <[email protected]>; Lois Moy <[email protected]>; Julie Niblack <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Wallace Property (CM v. D'Alessio Investment LLC) Global settlement discussions/meeting [PIB- LEGAL_DMS.FID409002]

The landowner has a paramount right to be present. The city is already represented and present at the meeting. It is inherently unjust to conduct a meeting without the property owner. Please let us know the time. Thank you.

Kind Regards,

2 Catherine Rowlett,
NASSIE | ROWLETT LAW
3972 Barranca Pkwy, Suite J 301
Irvine, California 92606
Direct: (949) 842-4275 |

IRS Circular 230 Disclosure
To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any matters addressed herein.

-------- Original message --------
From: Eric Beatty <[email protected]>
Date: 4/5/23 4:58 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: Catherine Rowlett <[email protected]>, "Veronica R. Donovan" <[email protected]> Cc: John Sorich <[email protected]>, Dennis D'Alessio <[email protected]>, "Amanda A. Pope" <[email protected]>, "Catherine L. Livings" <[email protected]>, Lois Moy <[email protected]>, Julie Niblack <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Wallace Property (CM v. D'Alessio Investment LLC) Global settlement discussions/meeting [PIB- LEGAL_DMS.FID409002]

All,

I will be meeting with a representative of the Planning Department tomorrow to review and discuss the plans provided to the parties by Mr. D’Alessio.

I have concluded it is in the best interests of all parties to not invite them or their counsel to attend the meeting.

I will, of course, report to the Court and the parties in due course concerning the information I receive from the meeting.

Eric Beatty
Attorney and Court-Appointed Receiver
123 East Ninth Street, Suite 210
Upland, California 91786
Telephone: (909) 243-7944
Facsimile: (909) 243-7949

From: Catherine Rowlett <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 5, 2023 4:49 PM
To: Veronica R. Donovan <[email protected]>
3 Cc: John Sorich <[email protected]>; Dennis D'Alessio <[email protected]>; Amanda A. Pope <aap@jones- mayer.com>; Catherine L. Livings <[email protected]>; Lois Moy <[email protected]>; Julie Niblack <[email protected]>; Eric Beatty <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Wallace Property (CM v. D'Alessio Investment LLC) Global settlement discussions/meeting [PIB- LEGAL_DMS.FID409002]

My client and I would like to be present at that meeting, as well. When is it?

Kind Regards,

Catherine Rowlett, Esq.

NASSIE | ROWLETT LAW
3972 Barranca Pkwy, Suite J 301
Irvine, California 92606
Direct: (949) 842-4275 |

-------- Original message --------
From: "Veronica R. Donovan" <[email protected]>
Date: 4/4/23 2:05 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: Catherine Rowlett <[email protected]>
Cc: John Sorich <[email protected]>, Dennis D'Alessio <[email protected]>, "Amanda A. Pope" <[email protected]>, "Catherine L. Livings" <[email protected]>, Lois Moy <[email protected]>, Julie Niblack <[email protected]>, Eric Beatty <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Wallace Property (CM v. D'Alessio Investment LLC) Global settlement discussions/meeting [PIB- LEGAL_DMS.FID409002]

Hi Catherine,

It’s my understanding that Mr. Beatty will be meeting with a Planner at the City to go over Mr. D’Alessio’s proposal. I will not be at that meeting. I do not believe there is a need for another call before Mr. Beatty’s meeting with the Planner, unless Mr. Beatty needs additional information from Mr. D’Alessio. However, we did go over Mr. D’Alessio’s proposal very thoroughly during our call last week.

Veronica R. Donovan
Associate Attorney

JONES MAYER
3777 N. Harbor Blvd.

Fullerton, CA 92835
Telephone: (714) 446-1400
4 On Apr 3, 2023, at 2:18 PM, Catherine Rowlett <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi, All,
Following up on the email below.

From: Catherine Rowlett
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2023 5:06 PM
To: 'John Sorich' <[email protected]>; 'Dennis D'Alessio' <[email protected]>; 'Veronica R.

Donovan' <[email protected]>
Cc: 'Amanda A. Pope' <[email protected]>; 'Catherine L. Livings' <[email protected]>; 'Lois Moy' <[email protected]>; 'Julie Niblack' <[email protected]>; 'Eric Beatty' <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Wallace Property (CM v. D'Alessio Investment LLC) Global settlement discussions/meeting [PIB-LEGAL_DMS.FID409002]

We should have this call prior to any meeting between the City and the Receiver. Eric, let us know when you intend to head over to meet with the city so we can all coordinate schedules to chat ahead of time.

Thanks.

From: Catherine Rowlett
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2023 5:05 PM
To: 'John Sorich' <[email protected]>; Dennis D'Alessio <[email protected]>; Veronica R.

Donovan <[email protected]>
Cc: Amanda A. Pope <[email protected]>; Catherine L. Livings <[email protected]>; Lois Moy <[email protected]>; Julie Niblack <[email protected]>; Eric Beatty <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Wallace Property (CM v. D'Alessio Investment LLC) Global settlement discussions/meeting [PIB-LEGAL_DMS.FID409002]

Hello, All,
Thanks all for the call yesterday and I apologize for the delay. I understand that the call abruptly ended and further discussions are needed to explain the layouts, ordinances and plans. When are the parties available to continue talks?

From: John Sorich <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2023 10:40 AM
To: Catherine Rowlett <[email protected]>; Dennis D'Alessio <[email protected]>; Veronica R. Donovan <[email protected]>
Cc: Amanda A. Pope <[email protected]>; Catherine L. Livings <[email protected]>; Lois Moy <[email protected]>; Julie Niblack <[email protected]>; Eric Beatty <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Wallace Property (CM v. D'Alessio Investment LLC) Global settlement discussions/meeting [PIB-LEGAL_DMS.FID409002]

OK, Catherine, understood. Thanks.

John

John Sorich
695 Town Center Drive, 16th Floor, Costa Mesa CA 92626
+1 714.361.9595

EXHIBIT 2
TO

DECLARATION OF CATHERINE ROWLETT IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT D’ALESSIO INVESTMENTS, LLC’S OBJECTIONS TO RECEIVER’S 5TH REPORT AND “REHABILITATION” PLAN
1 Catherine Rowlett
From: Patterson, Alisha <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2023 9:49 AM
To: Eric Beatty; Amanda A. Pope
Cc: '[email protected]'; Catherine L. Livings; 'John Sorich'; Catherine Rowlett
Subject: RE: 1963 Wallace Avenue, Costa Mesa [PIB-LEGAL_DMS.FID409002] Attachments: RE: 1963 Wallace Avenue, Costa Mesa [PIB-LEGAL_DMS.FID409002] Eric – Please see my email of September 20 that provided all of the information you requested on September 18. It is attached for ease of reference. Going forward, I hope you will refrain from personal attacks on my character.

We have never met, and you are probably unfamiliar with my background. Mr. D’Alessio hired me because I am a land use and municipal law specialist who can help him navigate the City’s land use regulations and State Housing Laws to explore options for the site. All I am requesting is a telephone call to explore this. Based on my review, I think there are one or more paths forward that will retain the existing structures, provide affordable housing, and settle this protracted litigation once and for all. This would be a win-win for all involved. I hope you will lay down your sword and give us all a chance to discuss.

Amanda – If Eric is not open to a call, I would be happy to have a call with the you.

This electronic transmission, and any documents attached hereto, (a) are protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 USC §§ 2510-2521), (b) may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information, and (c) are for the sole use of the intended recipient named above. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify the sender and delete the electronic message. Any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of the information received in error is strictly prohibited.

From: Eric Beatty <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2023 9:19 AM
To: Patterson, Alisha <[email protected]>; Amanda A. Pope <[email protected]> Cc: '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; Catherine L. Livings <cll@jones- mayer.com>; 'John Sorich' <[email protected]>; Catherine Rowlett <[email protected]>; Eric Beatty <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: 1963 Wallace Avenue, Costa Mesa [PIB-LEGAL_DMS.FID409002]

Alisha,

2 You have not provided the information and documentation which I have requested from you and counsel for DILLC for the last several months.

I attach my email of September 18, 2023 to you concerning this issue.

Unfortunately, I have little choice but to conclude that you and DILLC do not intend to comply with my information and documentation requests.

I encourage you to re-think your course of action. Given the amount of time which has passed and the number of times I have been required, as the Court’s agent, to request that your client cooperate with me in providing me with information and documentation directly relevant to your client’s position and my duties, I am at a loss to understand your purpose in requesting a discussion with me predicating upon “hide the ball” gamesmanship.

Eric Beatty
Attorney and Court-Appointed Receiver
123 East Ninth Street, Suite 210
Upland, California 91786
Telephone: (909) 243-7944
Facsimile: (909) 243-7949

From: Patterson, Alisha <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2023 9:04 AM
To: Amanda A. Pope <[email protected]>; Eric Beatty <[email protected]> Cc: '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; Catherine L. Livings <cll@jones- mayer.com>; 'John Sorich' <[email protected]>; Catherine Rowlett <[email protected]> Subject: RE: 1963 Wallace Avenue, Costa Mesa [PIB-LEGAL_DMS.FID409002]

Good morning Amanda – We provided everything Eric requested, and I have copies of Eric’s reports and rehab plan. If the SB 330 application had the wrong zoning designation, we can update it. Can we schedule a time for a call? I am still open today until 1:30pm, Monday between 8:30am and 1:30pm, Tuesday noon to 1pm or 3:30-6:30pm, Wednesday before noon, Thursday all day, and Friday after 9am.

This electronic transmission, and any documents attached hereto, (a) are protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 USC §§ 2510-2521), (b) may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information, and (c) are for the sole use of the 3 intended recipient named above. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify the sender and delete the electronic message. Any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of the information received in error is strictly prohibited.

From: Amanda A. Pope <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2023 8:51 AM
To: Patterson, Alisha <[email protected]>; 'Eric Beatty' <[email protected]> Cc: '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; Catherine L. Livings <cll@jones- mayer.com>; 'John Sorich' <[email protected]>; Catherine Rowlett <[email protected]> Subject: Re: 1963 Wallace Avenue, Costa Mesa [PIB-LEGAL_DMS.FID409002]

Hi Alisha,

Does Eric have all of the information he was requesting so that our discussion can happen? There have been several emails so I cannot recall if he is waiting on any documents.

Do you have all of the reports he has filed with the court and his rehab plan filed in August?

Also, upon quick review, the zoning designation in the application is incorrect. The property is zoned R2- HD (not R3), which changes calculations.

Please note I have removed attorney Veronica Donovan from these emails. She is going out on leave for a few months.

Thanks,

Amanda A. Pope
Senior Counsel & Director of City Receiverships
Jones Mayer
3777 N. Harbor Blvd. | Fullerton, CA 92835
 (714) 446-1400 | 7 (714) 446-1448 |  [email protected]

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION: This electronic transmission, and any documents attached hereto, may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. The information is intended only for use by the recipient named above. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify the sender and delete the electronic message. Any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of information received in error is strictly prohibited.

From: Patterson, Alisha <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2023 3:19 PM
To: Catherine Rowlett <[email protected]>; Amanda A. Pope <[email protected]>; 'Eric Beatty' <[email protected]>
Cc: '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; Veronica R. Donovan <vrd@jones- mayer.com>; Catherine L. Livings <[email protected]>; 'John Sorich' <[email protected]> Subject: RE: 1963 Wallace Avenue, Costa Mesa [PIB-LEGAL_DMS.FID409002]

Caution: This is an external email and may be malicious. Please take care when clicking links or opening attachments.
4 Amanda and Eric – I have not heard back from you. I am still open Friday between 8:30am and 1:30pm. Do you have any availability for a call? I am happy to have two separate calls if we cannot find a mutual time for the three of us. If tomorrow won’t work, I am open Monday between 8:30am and 1:30pm, Tuesday noon to 1pm or 3:30-6:30pm, Wednesday before noon, Thursday all day, and Friday after 9am.

From: Catherine Rowlett <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 9, 2023 8:06 PM
To: Patterson, Alisha <[email protected]>; 'Amanda A. Pope' <[email protected]>; 'Eric Beatty' <[email protected]>
Cc: '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; 'Veronica R. Donovan' <vrd@jones- mayer.com>; 'Catherine L. Livings' <[email protected]>; 'John Sorich' <[email protected]> Subject: RE: 1963 Wallace Avenue, Costa Mesa [PIB-LEGAL_DMS.FID409002]

Dennis is authorized to participate in such calls along with Rutan. Thank you.

Kind Regards,

Catherine Rowlett, Esq.

NASSIE | ROWLETT LAW
3972 Barranca Pkwy, Suite J 301
Irvine, California 92606
Direct: (949) 842-4275 |

-------- Original message --------
5 From: "Patterson, Alisha" <[email protected]>
Date: 10/10/23 2:59 AM (GMT+01:00)
To: "'Amanda A. Pope'" <[email protected]>, 'Eric Beatty' <[email protected]> Cc: Catherine Rowlett <[email protected]>, "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>, "'Veronica R. Donovan'" <[email protected]>, "'Catherine L. Livings'" <[email protected]>, 'John Sorich' <[email protected]> Subject: RE: 1963 Wallace Avenue, Costa Mesa [PIB-LEGAL_DMS.FID409002]

Amanda and Eric – We did not get a response from Eric, and the dates and times that worked for me and Amanda have now passed. Can we get a date and time locked in this week? I am open any time Wednesday, Thursday between 8:30am and 1:30pm, and Friday between 8:30am and 1:30pm. If Eric is not interested in a call, I would still be open to opening a dialogue with you Amanda about options to preserve the existing structures so D’Alessio can resume offering them as affordable housing.

From: Patterson, Alisha
Sent: Wednesday, October 4, 2023 10:09 AM
To: Amanda A. Pope <[email protected]>; 'Eric Beatty' <[email protected]> Cc: 'Catherine Rowlett' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; Veronica R. Donovan <[email protected]>; Catherine L. Livings <cll@jones- mayer.com>; 'John Sorich' <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: 1963 Wallace Avenue, Costa Mesa [PIB-LEGAL_DMS.FID409002]

Thank you so much Amanda! Tomorrow at noon works for me. I am also available Monday from 11am-noon. Eric – Would either of those time slots work for you?

Alisha Patterson
18575 Jamboree Road, 9th Floor | Irvine, CA 92612
O. (714) 641-5100 | D. (714) 662-4663
[email protected] | www.rutan.com
_____________________________________________________
Privileged And Confidential Communication.
6 This electronic transmission, and any documents attached hereto, (a) are protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 USC §§ 2510-2521), (b) may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information, and (c) are for the sole use of the intended recipient named above. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify the sender and delete the electronic message. Any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of the information received in error is strictly prohibited.

From: Amanda A. Pope <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 4, 2023 9:44 AM
To: Patterson, Alisha <[email protected]>; 'Eric Beatty' <[email protected]> Cc: 'Catherine Rowlett' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; Veronica R. Donovan <[email protected]>; Catherine L. Livings <cll@jones- mayer.com>; 'John Sorich' <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 1963 Wallace Avenue, Costa Mesa [PIB-LEGAL_DMS.FID409002]

Hi Alisha,

The next few days are really tight on time for me. Thursday I could do 12pm. I can't do Friday, but Monday I am available 10am-12:30pm. If that doesn't work for you or Eric, I can provide more times next week.

Thanks,

Amanda A. Pope
Senior Counsel & Director of City Receiverships
Jones Mayer
3777 N. Harbor Blvd. | Fullerton, CA 92835
 (714) 446-1400 | 7 (714) 446-1448 |  [email protected]

From: Patterson, Alisha <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 5:14 PM
To: Amanda A. Pope <[email protected]>; 'Eric Beatty' <[email protected]> Cc: 'Catherine Rowlett' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; Veronica R. Donovan <[email protected]>; Catherine L. Livings <cll@jones- mayer.com>; 'John Sorich' <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: 1963 Wallace Avenue, Costa Mesa [PIB-LEGAL_DMS.FID409002]

Good evening Amanda and Eric – Dennis filled me in on yesterday’s hearing. Before everyone spends time and incurs legal fees briefing the Court’s jurisdiction questions, can we schedule the call to discuss the settlement options D’Alessio Investments previously proposed? Maybe I’m missing something, but it seems like a “win-win” solution to rehabilitate the existing buildings (according to the plans D’Alessio Investments submitted), retain the affordable units on the site, and get low income residents housed on short order. If you disagree, it would be helpful to hear your perspective.

Caution: This is an external email and may be malicious. Please take care when clicking links or opening attachments.
7 My openings for the week are below:
 Tomorrow – noon-3pm
 Thursday – anytime
 Friday – any time before 4:30pm

I hope we can get a call on calendar this week.

From: Amanda A. Pope <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2023 10:34 AM
To: Patterson, Alisha <[email protected]>; 'Eric Beatty' <[email protected]> Cc: 'Catherine Rowlett' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; Veronica R. Donovan <[email protected]>; Catherine L. Livings <cll@jones- mayer.com>; 'John Sorich' <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 1963 Wallace Avenue, Costa Mesa [PIB-LEGAL_DMS.FID409002]

Hi Alisha,

I was out of the office yesterday and just saw your email to me and Eric. I can't speak for the Receiver, but from the City's perspective, let's hold off on a call until after the hearing on the owner's motion to vacate the appointment order. That hearing is on Monday.

Thanks,

Amanda A. Pope
Senior Counsel & Director of City Receiverships
Jones Mayer
3777 N. Harbor Blvd. | Fullerton, CA 92835
 (714) 446-1400 | 7 (714) 446-1448 |  [email protected]

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION: This electronic transmission, and any documents attached hereto, may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. The information is intended only for use by the recipient named above. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify the sender and delete the 8 electronic message. Any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of information received in error is strictly prohibited.

From: Patterson, Alisha <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2023 1:57 PM
To: 'Eric Beatty' <[email protected]>; Amanda A. Pope <[email protected]> Cc: 'Catherine Rowlett' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; Veronica R. Donovan <[email protected]>; Catherine L. Livings <cll@jones- mayer.com>; 'John Sorich' <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: 1963 Wallace Avenue, Costa Mesa [PIB-LEGAL_DMS.FID409002]

Eric and Amanda – I have not heard back from you, so I am following up again. My updated availability is below.

Tuesday – before 10am or noon to 12:30pm
Wednesday – noon to 1:30pm
Thursday – before noon

From: Patterson, Alisha
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2023 4:06 PM
To: 'Eric Beatty' <[email protected]>; 'Amanda A. Pope' <[email protected]> Cc: 'Catherine Rowlett' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; 'Veronica R. Donovan' <[email protected]>; 'Catherine L. Livings' <[email protected]>; 'John Sorich' <[email protected]> Subject: RE: 1963 Wallace Avenue, Costa Mesa [PIB-LEGAL_DMS.FID409002]

Eric and Amanda – I am following up on the email below. Before we all pack up for the weekend, can we get a call on calendar for next week? My availability is below.

Monday – before noon or after 2:30.

Tuesday – before 10am or noon to 1pm
Wednesday – noon to 1:30pm
Thursday – before noon
Caution: This is an external email and may be malicious. Please take care when clicking links or opening attachments.
9 Alisha Patterson
18575 Jamboree Road, 9th Floor | Irvine, CA 92612
O. (714) 641-5100 | D. (714) 662-4663
[email protected] | www.rutan.com
_____________________________________________________
Privileged And Confidential Communication.

From: Patterson, Alisha
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 5:55 PM
To: Eric Beatty <[email protected]>; Amanda A. Pope <[email protected]> Cc: Catherine Rowlett <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Veronica R. Donovan <[email protected]>; Catherine L. Livings <[email protected]>; John Sorich <[email protected]> Subject: RE: 1963 Wallace Avenue, Costa Mesa [PIB-LEGAL_DMS.FID409002]

Good evening Eric – I have attached proof that D’Alessio Investments has preapproval for a $500,000 line of credit. This line of credit is many multiples of what would be needed to finance either the ADU plan or the SB 330 application, which is not likely to exceed $60,000. D’Alessio Investments also has proceeds from the recent sale of two properties that it can use to fund the improvements. In light of D’Alessio Investments resolving the foreclosure threat and providing proof of more-than-ample financing for either of its rehabilitation plans, I ask again that you extend us the courtesy of a call. I am having trouble understanding why Costa Mesa is not embracing an opportunity to preserve naturally affordable housing in the midst of a housing crisis.

From: Eric Beatty <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2023 4:19 PM
10 To: Patterson, Alisha <[email protected]>; Amanda A. Pope <[email protected]> Cc: Catherine Rowlett <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Veronica R. Donovan <[email protected]>; Catherine L. Livings <[email protected]>; John Sorich <[email protected]>; Eric Beatty <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: 1963 Wallace Avenue, Costa Mesa [PIB-LEGAL_DMS.FID409002]

Alisha,

I do not believe it is a productive use of our mutual time for me to continue reiterating the information and documentation I have requested of both you and counsel for D’Alessio Investments, LLC (“DILLC”). As you are aware, my requests are not limited to the issue of the status of the mortgage secured by the 1963 Wallace property.

If you desire to engage in a discussion predicated upon a transparent exchange of information, I am happy to engage you. That, unfortunately, has not been the case in our communications to date.

Again- we can engage in a meaningful exchange of information when I have received the information I have repeatedly requested. To be clear, a generalized “the proceeds will be sufficient” statement such as contained in your September 13, 2023 email is far from responsive.

Eric Beatty
Attorney and Court-Appointed Receiver
123 East Ninth Street, Suite 210
Upland, California 91786
Telephone: (909) 243-7944
Facsimile: (909) 243-7949

From: Patterson, Alisha <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2023 3:54 PM
To: Eric Beatty <[email protected]>; Amanda A. Pope <[email protected]> Cc: Catherine Rowlett <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Veronica R. Donovan <[email protected]>; Catherine L. Livings <[email protected]>; John Sorich <[email protected]> Subject: RE: 1963 Wallace Avenue, Costa Mesa [PIB-LEGAL_DMS.FID409002]

Good afternoon Eric and Amanda – By now, you should have received service of the bank’s withdrawal of its foreclosure motion. I am following up on our request to get a call on calendar to discuss D’Alessio Investment’s proposals. I am currently available tomorrow before 10am, noon to 1pm, or 3-5pm; Wednesday morning; Thursday before 2pm; and Friday before 11am or after 2pm.

Alisha Patterson
18575 Jamboree Road, 9th Floor | Irvine, CA 92612
O. (714) 641-5100 | D. (714) 662-4663
[email protected] | www.rutan.com
11 _____________________________________________________ Privileged And Confidential Communication.

From: John Sorich <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2023 3:50 PM
To: Patterson, Alisha <[email protected]>; Eric Beatty <[email protected]> Cc: Amanda A. Pope <[email protected]>; Catherine Rowlett <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Veronica R. Donovan <[email protected]>; Catherine L. Livings <cll@jones- mayer.com>
Subject: RE: 1963 Wallace Avenue, Costa Mesa [PIB-LEGAL_DMS.FID409002]

FYI, my office will be filing shortly a withdrawal of our motion for leave to foreclose. A copy of the withdrawal will be served on the parties and the receiver.

The bank has no intention of proceeding with foreclosure in the foreseeable future.

John

John Sorich
695 Town Center Drive, 16th Floor, Costa Mesa CA 92626
+1 714.361.9595
www.piblaw.com

Confidentiality:

This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, contact the sender via reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.

From: John Sorich
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 2:56 PM
To: Patterson, Alisha <[email protected]>; Eric Beatty <[email protected]> Cc: Amanda A. Pope <[email protected]>; Catherine Rowlett <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Veronica R. Donovan <[email protected]>; Catherine L. Livings <cll@jones- mayer.com>
Subject: RE: 1963 Wallace Avenue, Costa Mesa (Casa Siena) [PIB-LEGAL_DMS.FID409002]

12 My office will likely be withdrawing its motion for leave to foreclose, once I get the OK to do so.

John

From: Patterson, Alisha <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 2:27 PM
To: Eric Beatty <[email protected]>
Cc: Amanda A. Pope <[email protected]>; Catherine Rowlett <[email protected]>; John Sorich <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Veronica R. Donovan <[email protected]>; Catherine L. Livings <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: 1963 Wallace Avenue, Costa Mesa (Casa Siena)

Good afternoon Eric. (I apologize for addressing my last email to you as “Dennis”!) I am following up with additional information:

D’Alessio Investments, LLC has cured any defaults with JP Morgan Chase and is committed to rehabilitating the structures at 1963 Wallace. John is cc’ed on this email, so he can confirm. The company recently sold two properties.

The proceeds are sufficient to finance either the ADU plan Mr. D’Alessio presented to you and the City months ago or the SB 330 application submitted by The Sheldon Group, a professional land use company specializing in entitlement work.

Mr. D'Alessio has consulted with three contractors: 1) Mark Mitchel a contractor for 35 years; 2) Good Measure Construction from Mission Viejo; and 3) Steve Cider of Ciderquest Design. All agree that both the ADU Plan and the SB 330 plan are feasible, efficient, and in their view, the best uses for the property, particularly given the housing shortage and the State’s mandates to cities to alleviate this. The timeline for the completion of work is just 1-3 months, depending on the plan and the City’s cooperation. Of course, SB330 requires expeditious review and approval of the proposal. Let us know if you need anything else. We would very much like to get a call on calendar to discuss.

From: Eric Beatty <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 8, 2023 12:47 PM
To: Patterson, Alisha <[email protected]>
Cc: Amanda A. Pope <[email protected]>; Catherine Rowlett <[email protected]>; John Sorich Esq. ([email protected]) <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Veronica R. Donovan <[email protected]>; Catherine L. Livings <[email protected]> Subject: Re: 1963 Wallace Avenue, Costa Mesa (Casa Siena) 13 Please forward me the documentation supporting the loan default. being cured and the financing, as previously requested.

Thank you.

Eric P. Beatty
Attorney and Court-Appointed Receiver

On Sep 8, 2023, at 11:53 AM, Patterson, Alisha <[email protected]> wrote:

Dennis – I have answers to the questions you sent Catherine. Long story short, the property is no longer at risk of foreclosure. D’Alessio Investments has secured financing for two different rehabilitation plans that would preserve the existing structures. The work could be done in 60 days. Can we get a call on calendar with Amanda to discuss? I am open all day Monday (except a noon meeting).

Alisha Patterson
18575 Jamboree Road, 9th Floor | Irvine, CA 92612
O. (714) 641-5100 | D. (714) 662-4663
[email protected] | www.rutan.com
<image001.png>

_____________________________________________________
Privileged And Confidential Communication.

From: Eric Beatty <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2023 7:28 PM
To: Patterson, Alisha <[email protected]>
Cc: Amanda A. Pope <[email protected]>; Catherine Rowlett <[email protected]>; John Sorich Esq. ([email protected]) <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Veronica R. Donovan <[email protected]>; Catherine L. Livings <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 1963 Wallace Avenue, Costa Mesa (Casa Siena)

Alisha,

Please advise me when you have the information I requested more than a month ago from D’Alessio more than one month ago. We can discuss a call when you have the requested information.

Eric P. Beatty
Attorney and Court-Appointed Receiver

14 On Sep 7, 2023, at 7:05 PM, Patterson, Alisha <[email protected]> wrote:

Catherine and John – Do you have any objections to me, Amanda, and Eric having a call to discuss whether there’s a path forward that allows D’Alessio investments to retain the structures at 1963 Wallace? Would you like to be on the call?

Eric – I’m not up to speed on what’s going on with the questions you sent Catherine. I’m happy to share the information I have on our call. Are there any times on Monday that would work for you?

Alisha Patterson
18575 Jamboree Road, 9th Floor | Irvine, CA 92612
O. (714) 641-5100 | D. (714) 662-4663
[email protected] | www.rutan.com
<image001.png>

_____________________________________________________
Privileged And Confidential Communication.

From: Eric Beatty <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2023 5:10 PM
To: Patterson, Alisha <[email protected]>; 'Amanda A. Pope' <aap@jones- mayer.com>
Cc: '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; 'Veronica R. Donovan' <[email protected]>; 'Catherine L. Livings' <cll@jones- mayer.com>; Catherine Rowlett <[email protected]>; John Sorich Esq. ([email protected]) <[email protected]>; Eric Beatty <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: 1963 Wallace Avenue, Costa Mesa (Casa Siena)

Alisha,

This confirms my receipt of your request for a telephone conference with me and counsel for the City of Costa Mesa. I have the following questions and concerns which I request be addressed.

1. D’Alessio Investments, LLC (“D’Alessio”) is represented by counsel in the pending litigation. In your email exchange with counsel for the City, you indicate you will not be substituting or associating into the litigation on behalf of D’Alessio. It is concerning to me that D’Alessio’s counsel of record is not included on any of your emails or the requested telephone conference. As the Court’s agent, I am obliged to ensure that the information I provide is directed to the parties and their counsel of record. Is there a particular reason why it 15 would be appropriate for me to have a substantive discussion with you without the participation of D’Alessio’s counsel of record?

2. The pending litigation is not simply a matter between D’Alessio and the City; Respondent JPMorgan Chase Bank is a stakeholder and has a vested interest in the disposition of the 1963 Wallace Avenue property- so much so that it has moved the Court for an order permitting it to foreclose on the deed of trust securing the loan which D’Alessio obtained from it. Is there a compelling reason to exclude JPMorgan Chase Bank from the discussion you are requesting?

3. Our discussion should be a mutual exchange of information. I have asked questions and requested information from D’Alessio which have gone without a response. The most salient questions are set forth in my August 7, 2023 email to Ms. Rowlett, a copy of which is attached.

Thank you for your attention to my concerns and questions discussed above.

Eric Beatty
Attorney and Court-Appointed Receiver
123 East Ninth Street, Suite 210
Upland, California 91786
Telephone: (909) 243-7944
Facsimile: (909) 243-7949

From: Patterson, Alisha <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2023 3:02 PM
To: 'Amanda A. Pope' <[email protected]>; Eric Beatty <[email protected]> Cc: '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; 'Veronica R. Donovan' <[email protected]>; 'Catherine L. Livings' <cll@jones- mayer.com>
Subject: RE: 1963 Wallace Avenue, Costa Mesa (Casa Siena)

Hi Eric – Sorry to be a pest, but I am following up again on whether you have availability for a call tomorrow. If tomorrow won’t work, are you and Amanda available Monday? I am free other than a noon meeting.

Alisha Patterson
18575 Jamboree Road, 9th Floor | Irvine, CA 92612
O. (714) 641-5100 | D. (714) 662-4663
[email protected] | www.rutan.com
<image001.png>

_____________________________________________________
Privileged And Confidential Communication.
16 This electronic transmission, and any documents attached hereto, (a) are protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 USC §§ 2510-2521), (b) may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information, and (c) are for the sole use of the intended recipient named above. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify the sender and delete the electronic message. Any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of the information received in error is strictly prohibited.

From: Patterson, Alisha
Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2023 9:56 AM
To: Amanda A. Pope <[email protected]>; Eric Beatty <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; Veronica R. Donovan <[email protected]>; Catherine L. Livings <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: 1963 Wallace Avenue, Costa Mesa (Casa Siena)

Hi Eric – Do you have availability for a call on 1963 Wallace tomorrow before 11:30am or after 1:30pm?

Alisha Patterson
18575 Jamboree Road, 9th Floor | Irvine, CA 92612
O. (714) 641-5100 | D. (714) 662-4663
[email protected] | www.rutan.com
<image001.png>

_____________________________________________________
Privileged And Confidential Communication.

From: Amanda A. Pope <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 6, 2023 9:48 AM
To: Patterson, Alisha <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]; Veronica R. Donovan <[email protected]>; Catherine L. Livings <[email protected]>; Eric Beatty <[email protected]> Subject: Re: 1963 Wallace Avenue, Costa Mesa (Casa Siena)

That works for me too. I will let you coordinate with Eric for his availability.

Thanks,

Amanda A. Pope
Senior Counsel & Director of City Receiverships
Jones Mayer
3777 N. Harbor Blvd. | Fullerton, CA 92835
 (714) 446-1400 | 7 (714) 446-1448 |  [email protected]

17 PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION: This electronic transmission, and any documents attached hereto, may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. The information is intended only for use by the recipient named above. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify the sender and delete the electronic message. Any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of information received in error is strictly prohibited.

From: Patterson, Alisha <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 6, 2023 9:26 AM
To: Amanda A. Pope <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; Veronica R. Donovan <[email protected]>; Catherine L. Livings <[email protected]>; Eric Beatty <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: 1963 Wallace Avenue, Costa Mesa (Casa Siena)

Thank you Amanda! I’m available anytime Friday other than 11:30am-to 1:30pm.

Alisha Patterson
18575 Jamboree Road, 9th Floor | Irvine, CA 92612
O. (714) 641-5100 | D. (714) 662-4663
[email protected] | www.rutan.com
<image001.png>

_____________________________________________________
Privileged And Confidential Communication.

From: Amanda A. Pope <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 6, 2023 9:15 AM
To: Patterson, Alisha <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]; Veronica R. Donovan <[email protected]>; Catherine L. Livings <[email protected]>; Eric Beatty <[email protected]> Subject: Re: 1963 Wallace Avenue, Costa Mesa (Casa Siena)

Thanks Alisha. I am available for a call anytime Friday if that works for you and Eric.

Thanks,

Caution: This is an external email and may be malicious. Please take care when clicking links or opening attachments.
18 Amanda A. Pope
Senior Counsel & Director of City Receiverships
Jones Mayer
3777 N. Harbor Blvd. | Fullerton, CA 92835
 (714) 446-1400 | 7 (714) 446-1448 |  [email protected]

From: Patterson, Alisha <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 6, 2023 9:06 AM
To: Amanda A. Pope <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; Veronica R. Donovan <[email protected]>; Catherine L. Livings <[email protected]>; Eric Beatty <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: 1963 Wallace Avenue, Costa Mesa (Casa Siena)

Thank you for the response Amanda! I hope your recovery is going smoothly. I am pretty new to this matter and not fully up to speed on the history. D’Alessio Investments has not asked my firm to substitute into the litigation, but Dennis wanted a land use/muni law specialist to advise his company on his options to retain the existing structures on the site for affordable housing. Would it be possible to set up a call with you and Erik to discuss?

Alisha Patterson
18575 Jamboree Road, 9th Floor | Irvine, CA 92612
O. (714) 641-5100 | D. (714) 662-4663
[email protected] | www.rutan.com
<image001.png>

_____________________________________________________
Privileged And Confidential Communication.

From: Amanda A. Pope <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 6, 2023 8:53 AM
To: Patterson, Alisha <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]; Veronica R. Donovan <[email protected]>; Caution: This is an external email and may be malicious. Please take care when clicking links or opening attachments.
19 Catherine L. Livings <[email protected]>; Eric Beatty <[email protected]> Subject: Re: 1963 Wallace Avenue, Costa Mesa (Casa Siena)

Hi Alisha,

I apologize for the delayed response. I was out of the office all last week recovering from surgery and I am still catching up on emails and calls. I am not opposed to having a phone call to explain the receivership case and status (there is actually not a court-approved rehab plan and no applications or permits pending with the City). Mr. Beatty is the court-appointed receiver and he is full possession and control of the property so he is the best representative to speak to about the property itself.

It is our understanding that D'Alessio is still represented by Ms. Rowlett in the receivership case. Please advise if you are substituting in.

Thanks,

Amanda A. Pope
Senior Counsel & Director of City Receiverships
Jones Mayer
3777 N. Harbor Blvd. | Fullerton, CA 92835
 (714) 446-1400 | 7 (714) 446-1448 |  [email protected]

From: Patterson, Alisha <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 5, 2023 4:05 PM
To: Amanda A. Pope <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: 1963 Wallace Avenue, Costa Mesa (Casa Siena)

Good afternoon Mr. Beatty and Ms. Pope – D’Alessio Investments has retained Rutan to advise it on its land use entitlement options for 1963 Wallace Avenue. I tried calling each of you last week and left you voicemails. It is my understanding that you are seeking a court order allowing you to demolish the current naturally-affordable multifamily residences on the property so it can be redeveloped as market rate, lower density homes. It is very important to Mr. D’Alessio that the existing structures be preserved so he can continue to provide affordable housing. Can we please schedule a time to discuss at your earliest convenience to discuss? Caution: This is an external email and may be malicious. Please take care when clicking links or opening attachments.
20 Alisha Patterson
18575 Jamboree Road, 9th Floor | Irvine, CA 92612
O. (714) 641-5100 | D. (714) 662-4663
[email protected] | www.rutan.com
<image001.png>

_____________________________________________________
Privileged And Confidential Communication.

1 Catherine Rowlett
From: Patterson, Alisha <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 5:55 PM
To: 'Eric Beatty'; 'Amanda A. Pope'
Cc: Catherine Rowlett; '[email protected]'; 'Veronica R. Donovan'; 'Catherine L. Livings'; 'John Sorich'
Subject: RE: 1963 Wallace Avenue, Costa Mesa [PIB-LEGAL_DMS.FID409002] Attachments: D'Alessio Investments Preapproval for Line of Credit.pdf Good evening Eric – I have attached proof that D’Alessio Investments has preapproval for a $500,000 line of credit. This line of credit is many multiples of what would be needed to finance either the ADU plan or the SB 330 application, which is not likely to exceed $60,000. D’Alessio Investments also has proceeds from the recent sale of two properties that it can use to fund the improvements. In light of D’Alessio Investments resolving the foreclosure threat and providing proof of more-than-ample financing for either of its rehabilitation plans, I ask again that you extend us the courtesy of a call. I am having trouble understanding why Costa Mesa is not embracing an opportunity to preserve naturally affordable housing in the midst of a housing crisis.

From: Eric Beatty <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2023 4:19 PM
To: Patterson, Alisha <[email protected]>; Amanda A. Pope <[email protected]> Cc: Catherine Rowlett <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Veronica R. Donovan <[email protected]>; Catherine L. Livings <[email protected]>; John Sorich <[email protected]>; Eric Beatty <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: 1963 Wallace Avenue, Costa Mesa [PIB-LEGAL_DMS.FID409002]

Alisha,

2 If you desire to engage in a discussion predicated upon a transparent exchange of information, I am happy to engage you. That, unfortunately, has not been the case in our communications to date.

Eric Beatty
Attorney and Court-Appointed Receiver
123 East Ninth Street, Suite 210
Upland, California 91786
Telephone: (909) 243-7944
Facsimile: (909) 243-7949

3 From: John Sorich <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2023 3:50 PM
To: Patterson, Alisha <[email protected]>; Eric Beatty <[email protected]> Cc: Amanda A. Pope <[email protected]>; Catherine Rowlett <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Veronica R. Donovan <[email protected]>; Catherine L. Livings <cll@jones- mayer.com>
Subject: RE: 1963 Wallace Avenue, Costa Mesa [PIB-LEGAL_DMS.FID409002]

FYI, my office will be filing shortly a withdrawal of our motion for leave to foreclose. A copy of the withdrawal will be served on the parties and the receiver.

The bank has no intention of proceeding with foreclosure in the foreseeable future.

John

John Sorich
695 Town Center Drive, 16th Floor, Costa Mesa CA 92626
+1 714.361.9595
www.piblaw.com

Confidentiality:

My office will likely be withdrawing its motion for leave to foreclose, once I get the OK to do so.

John

Please forward me the documentation supporting the loan default. being cured and the financing, as previously requested.

Thank you.

Eric P. Beatty
Attorney and Court-Appointed Receiver

On Sep 8, 2023, at 11:53 AM, Patterson, Alisha <[email protected]> wrote:
5 Dennis – I have answers to the questions you sent Catherine. Long story short, the property is no longer at risk of foreclosure. D’Alessio Investments has secured financing for two different rehabilitation plans that would preserve the existing structures. The work could be done in 60 days. Can we get a call on calendar with Amanda to discuss? I am open all day Monday (except a noon meeting).

Alisha Patterson
18575 Jamboree Road, 9th Floor | Irvine, CA 92612
O. (714) 641-5100 | D. (714) 662-4663
[email protected] | www.rutan.com
<image001.png>

_____________________________________________________
Privileged And Confidential Communication.

Alisha,

Please advise me when you have the information I requested more than a month ago from D’Alessio more than one month ago. We can discuss a call when you have the requested information.

Eric P. Beatty
Attorney and Court-Appointed Receiver

On Sep 7, 2023, at 7:05 PM, Patterson, Alisha <[email protected]> wrote:

6 Alisha Patterson
18575 Jamboree Road, 9th Floor | Irvine, CA 92612
O. (714) 641-5100 | D. (714) 662-4663
[email protected] | www.rutan.com
<image001.png>

_____________________________________________________
Privileged And Confidential Communication.

Alisha,

This confirms my receipt of your request for a telephone conference with me and counsel for the City of Costa Mesa. I have the following questions and concerns which I request be addressed.

1. D’Alessio Investments, LLC (“D’Alessio”) is represented by counsel in the pending litigation. In your email exchange with counsel for the City, you indicate you will not be substituting or associating into the litigation on behalf of D’Alessio. It is concerning to me that D’Alessio’s counsel of record is not included on any of your emails or the requested telephone conference. As the Court’s agent, I am obliged to ensure that the information I provide is directed to the parties and their counsel of record. Is there a particular reason why it would be appropriate for me to have a substantive discussion with you without the participation of D’Alessio’s counsel of record?

3. Our discussion should be a mutual exchange of information. I have asked questions and requested information from D’Alessio which have gone without a 7 response. The most salient questions are set forth in my August 7, 2023 email to Ms. Rowlett, a copy of which is attached.

Thank you for your attention to my concerns and questions discussed above.

Eric Beatty
Attorney and Court-Appointed Receiver
123 East Ninth Street, Suite 210
Upland, California 91786
Telephone: (909) 243-7944
Facsimile: (909) 243-7949

Alisha Patterson
18575 Jamboree Road, 9th Floor | Irvine, CA 92612
O. (714) 641-5100 | D. (714) 662-4663
[email protected] | www.rutan.com
<image001.png>

_____________________________________________________
Privileged And Confidential Communication.

From: Patterson, Alisha
Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2023 9:56 AM
8 To: Amanda A. Pope <[email protected]>; Eric Beatty <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; Veronica R. Donovan <[email protected]>; Catherine L. Livings <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: 1963 Wallace Avenue, Costa Mesa (Casa Siena)

Hi Eric – Do you have availability for a call on 1963 Wallace tomorrow before 11:30am or after 1:30pm?

Alisha Patterson
18575 Jamboree Road, 9th Floor | Irvine, CA 92612
O. (714) 641-5100 | D. (714) 662-4663
[email protected] | www.rutan.com
<image001.png>

_____________________________________________________
Privileged And Confidential Communication.

That works for me too. I will let you coordinate with Eric for his availability.

Thanks,

Amanda A. Pope
Senior Counsel & Director of City Receiverships
Jones Mayer
3777 N. Harbor Blvd. | Fullerton, CA 92835
 (714) 446-1400 | 7 (714) 446-1448 |  [email protected]

From: Patterson, Alisha <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 6, 2023 9:26 AM
To: Amanda A. Pope <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; Veronica 9 R. Donovan <[email protected]>; Catherine L. Livings <[email protected]>; Eric Beatty <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: 1963 Wallace Avenue, Costa Mesa (Casa Siena)

Thank you Amanda! I’m available anytime Friday other than 11:30am-to 1:30pm.

Alisha Patterson
18575 Jamboree Road, 9th Floor | Irvine, CA 92612
O. (714) 641-5100 | D. (714) 662-4663
[email protected] | www.rutan.com
<image001.png>

_____________________________________________________
Privileged And Confidential Communication.

Thanks Alisha. I am available for a call anytime Friday if that works for you and Eric.

Thanks,

Amanda A. Pope
Senior Counsel & Director of City Receiverships
Jones Mayer
3777 N. Harbor Blvd. | Fullerton, CA 92835
 (714) 446-1400 | 7 (714) 446-1448 |  [email protected]

Caution: This is an external email and may be malicious. Please take care when clicking links or opening attachments.
10 From: Patterson, Alisha <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 6, 2023 9:06 AM
To: Amanda A. Pope <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; Veronica R. Donovan <[email protected]>; Catherine L. Livings <[email protected]>; Eric Beatty <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: 1963 Wallace Avenue, Costa Mesa (Casa Siena)

Alisha Patterson
18575 Jamboree Road, 9th Floor | Irvine, CA 92612
O. (714) 641-5100 | D. (714) 662-4663
[email protected] | www.rutan.com
<image001.png>

_____________________________________________________
Privileged And Confidential Communication.

From: Amanda A. Pope <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 6, 2023 8:53 AM
To: Patterson, Alisha <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]; Veronica R. Donovan <[email protected]>; Catherine L. Livings <[email protected]>; Eric Beatty <[email protected]> Subject: Re: 1963 Wallace Avenue, Costa Mesa (Casa Siena)

Hi Alisha,

Caution: This is an external email and may be malicious. Please take care when clicking links or opening attachments.
11 It is our understanding that D'Alessio is still represented by Ms. Rowlett in the receivership case. Please advise if you are substituting in.

Thanks,

Amanda A. Pope
Senior Counsel & Director of City Receiverships
Jones Mayer
3777 N. Harbor Blvd. | Fullerton, CA 92835
 (714) 446-1400 | 7 (714) 446-1448 |  [email protected]

Alisha Patterson
18575 Jamboree Road, 9th Floor | Irvine, CA 92612
O. (714) 641-5100 | D. (714) 662-4663
[email protected] | www.rutan.com
<image001.png>

_____________________________________________________
Privileged And Confidential Communication.

This electronic transmission, and any documents attached hereto, (a) are protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 USC §§ 2510-2521), (b) may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information, and (c) are for the sole use of the intended recipient Caution: This is an external email and may be malicious. Please take care when clicking links or opening attachments.
12 named above. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify the sender and delete the electronic message. Any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of the information received in error is strictly prohibited.

D'Alessio Investments LLC September 19,2023
Real Estate Loan Approval:
233 19th Street, Newport Beach, Ca 92663
Please be advised that D'Alessio Investments LLC has been approved for a line of credit with Livco Financial Corp. in the amount of $500,000 (Five Hundred Thousand) for real estate loan.

Funding of these loans can take place within ten business days of notification of a cceptance upon review and approval of the preliminary title reports. Should you have any further questions, please contact Lucio Martino at the number referenced below. _______
____________________________
Lucio Martino
Managing Director
DRE # 01126298 NMLS #255236
[email protected]
949.300.6060 2102 Business Center Dr | Irvine, CA 926

EXHIBIT 3
TO

DECLARATION OF CATHERINE ROWLETT IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT D’ALESSIO INVESTMENTS, LLC’S OBJECTIONS TO RECEIVER’S 5TH REPORT AND “REHABILITATION” PLAN
1 Catherine Rowlett
From: Catherine L. Livings <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2023 1:45 PM
To: Eric Beatty ([email protected])
Cc: Catherine Rowlett; [email protected]; April Kadlac ([email protected]); Julie Niblack ([email protected]); Amanda A. Pope
Subject: CM v D'Alessio (1963 Wallace Ave) - Letter re Calls for Service Attachments: 1963 Wallace - letter to Rcvr. re CFS (final).pdf Good Morning,

Please see the aƩached correspondence from Amanda Pope regarding calls for service at the property.

If you have any quesƟons, please contact Amanda directly.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Cathy Livings
Legal Assistant

Jones Mayer | 3777 N. Harbor Blvd. | Fullerton, CA 92835  (714) 446-1400 |  (714) 446-1448 |  [email protected]  Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail

October 16, 2023

By Email Only

Eric Beatty, Esq.

Court-Appointed Receiver
123 E. 9th St, Ste 210
Upland, CA 91786

Re: City of Costa Mesa v. D’Alessio Investments
( 1963 Wallace Ave, Costa Mesa, CA)
Case No. 30-2020-01133479-CU-PT-CJC

Dear Mr. Beatty,

Since July 2022, the City of Costa Mesa Police Department ( “CMPD”) has received and responded to numerous calls for service concer ning 1963 Wallace Avenue ( “Property”). These calls have ranged in type from tr espassing to transient activity. Encl osed with this letter is a breakdown of the calls for service for this Property. Additional patrol checks have been conducted to increase police presence and reduce the number of calls for service; however, the calls for service continue.

As shown in the attached, CMPD has spent many hours and thousands in taxpayer dollars responding to these calls. CMPD an ticipates these calls for service will continue until and unless the Property is fully secured and/or rehabilitated.

Due to the extensive and repeated calls for service and response required, the City of Costa Mesa requests that you, as the Court-Appointed Receiver in possession and control of the Property, provide ongoing on-site security for this Propert y to alleviate the nuisance conditions created by the excessive calls for service or take any ot her steps you deem appr opriate to remedy this situation. In addition, the City requests full reimbursement in the amount of $14,832.73 for the public funds expended to respond to the calls for service as of August 12, 2023 and reserves the right to seek further reimbursement, if necessary.

Eric P. Beatty, Esq.

City of Costa Mesa v. D’Alessio Investments
October 16, 2023

Page 2 ends

Please advise when on-site security has been established. In the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or require any additional information from the City. I can be reached by phone at (714) 446-1400 or via email at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Amanda A. Pope
Attorney for City of Costa Mesa
Enclosure

cc: Catherine Rowlett (Email Copy Only)
John Sorich (Email Copy Only)
Call Time Event ID Rpt # Street Nature # of Personnel Time Approx. Cost 6/3/2022 2022056214 220597 1963 WALLACE CAR FIRE 4 CMF&R 51:31:00 305.76$ 6/15/2022 2022060845 1963 WALLACE TRANSIENT 2 32:53:00 90.42$ 6/16/2022 2022061244 1963 WALLACE P PATROL CHECK 1 19:48 27.40$ 6/17/2022 2022061491 1963 WALLACE P PATROL CHECK 2 11:03 30.14$ 6/29/2022 2022066236 1963 WALLACE P PATROL CHECK 1 10:15 18.20$ 9/21/2022 2022097434 1963 WALLACE SUSPICIOUS CIRC 2 20:16 54.80$ 9/23/2022 2022098062 1963 WALLACE SUSPICIOUS CIRC 2 38:20:00 104.12$ 9/25/2022 2022098855 220153 1963 WALLACE P PATROL CHECK 3 42:34:00 176.73$ 9/28/2022 2022099725 1963 WALLACE P PATROL CHECK 2 26:37:00 73.98$ 9/28/2022 2022099819 220155 1963 WALLACE TRESPASSING 6 3:17 1,619.34$ 10/4/2022 2022101916 1963 WALLACE DISTURBANCE MAL 2 51:18:00 137.74$ 10/20/2022 2022107493 1963 WALLACE TRESPASSING 4 20:02 109.60$ 1/10/2023 2023003069 1963 WALLACE P PATROL CHECK 3 18:02 73.98$ 1/10/2023 2023003105 1963 WALLACE TRESPASSING 6 35:01:00 387.70$ 1/10/2023 2023003135 230004 1963 WALLACE S SUBJECT STOP 2 2:21 495.94$ 1/11/2023 2023003462 1963 WALLACE POLICE PUBLIC A 3 25:47:00 106.86$ 1/11/2023 2023003547 1963 WALLACE TRESPASSING 2 9:49 27.40$ 1/19/2023 2023006191 230009 1963 WALLACE P PATROL CHECK 3 2:46:08 682.26$ 2/1/2023 2023010408 1963 WALLACE P PATROL CHECK 1 2:59 4.11$ 2/21/2023 2023017087 1963 WALLACE POLICE PUBLIC 2 22:56 63.02$ 3/2/2023 2023020263 1963 WALLACE P PATROL CHECK 3 15:26 61.65$ 3/26/2023 2023028723 1963 WALLACE DISTURBANCE 2 49:48:00 137.00$ 3/28/2023 2023029544 1963 WALLACE POLICE PUBLIC 1 3:09 4.11$ 3/28/2023 2023029614 230047 1963 WALLACE TRESPASSING 4+Supv 1:15 536.25$ 3/30/2023 2023030260 230047 1963 WALLACE TRESPASSING 5 1:02 424.70$ 3/31/2023 2023030798 1963 WALLACE TRESPASSING 4 19:41 109.60$ 4/6/2023 2023032606 230051 1963 WALLACE WARRANT ARREST 1+Supv 1:23 255.36$ 4/7/2023 2023032957 230051 1963 WALLACE TRESPASSING 3 39:10:00 160.29$ 4/7/2023 2023033041 1963 WALLACE TRESPASSING 2 10:50 30.14$ 4/8/2023 2023033573 230052 1963 WALLACE SUSPICIOUS CIR C 4+Supv 1:03 450.45$ 4/12/2023 2023034699 1963 WALLACE TRESPASSING 2 31:21:00 84.94$ 4/13/2023 2023035045 1963 WALLACE P PATROL CHECK 1 15:17 20.55$ 4/15/2023 2023036126 1963 WALLACE TEXT TO 911 1 8:49 12.33$ 4/17/2023 2023036501 1963 WALLACE TEXT TO 911 1 2:35 4.11$ 4/19/2023 2023037335 230058 1963 WALLACE WARRANT ARREST 3 1:09 283.59$ 4/20/2023 2023037927 1963 WALLACE PERSON SCREAMI 2 8:35 24.66$ 4/21/2023 2023037966 1963 WALLACE TEXT TO 911 2 8:50 24.66$ 4/21/2023 2023037971 230059 1963 WALLACE TEXT TO 911 3 2:01 497.31$ 4/25/2023 2023039547 1963 WALLACE P PATROL CHECK 1 10:06 13.70$ 4/25/2023 2023039563 1963 WALLACE P PATROL CHECK 3 1:07 275.37$ 4/26/2023 2023039849 1963 WALLACE TRANSIENT 1 13:23 17.81$ 4/27/2023 2023040105 1963 WALLACE SUSPICIOUS CIR C 2+Supv 20:39 63.84$ 4/27/2023 2023040142 1963 WALLACE TRANSIENT 2 16:37 46.58$ 4/28/2023 2023040588 1963 WALLACE P PATROL CHECK 2 19:35 54.80$ 5/1/2023 2023041780 1963 WALLACE P PATROL CHECK 2 8:11 21.92$ 5/3/2023 2023042224 1963 WALLACE P PATROL CHECK 1 5:13 6.85$ 5/3/2023 2023042337 1963 WALLACE S SUBJECT STOP 2 21:55 60.28$ 5/3/2023 2023042370 1963 WALLACE P PATROL CHECK 2 6:09 16.44$ 5/3/2023 2023042431 1963 WALLACE P PATROL CHECK 1 3:09 4.11$ 5/5/2023 2023043145 1963 WALLACE P PATROL CHECK 1 3:50 5.48$ 5/8/2023 2023044047 1963 WALLACE TRANSIENT 3 27:15:00 110.97$ 5/12/2023 2023045684 1963 WALLACE SUSPICIOUS CIR 3 17:05 69.87$ 5/24/2023 2023049809 1963 WALLACE S SUBJECT STOP 1 9:25 12.33$ 5/31/2023 2023052079 1963 WALLACE P PATROL CHECK 2 7:39 21.92$ 5/31/2023 2023052081 1963 WALLACE P PATROL CHECK 1 7:12 9.59$ 6/2/2023 2023052847 230080 1963 WALLACE SUSPICIOUS CIR 4 1:08 372.64$ 6/14/2023 2023057251 1963 WALLACE SUSPICIOUS CIR 2 57:43:00 158.92$ 6/15/2023 2023057444 230087 1963 WALLACE TRESPASSING 3+Supv 2:01 705.16$ 6/15/2023 2023057685 1963 WALLACE DISTURBANCE BO 3 27:18:00 110.97$ Costa Mesa Police Department
1936 WALLACE AVENUE, COSTA MESA
CALLS FOR SERVICE 6/1/2022 TO 8/17/2023
6/15/2023 2023057714 230088 1963 WALLACE SUSPICIOUS CIR 5 1:57:28 801.45$ 6/17/2023 2023058215 1963 WALLACE POLICE PUBLIC 2 10:53 30.14$ 6/22/2023 2023060137 1963 WALLACE TRANSIENT 2 4:33 13.70$ 6/24/2023 2023060930 1963 WALLACE VANDALISM 4 19:47 109.60$ 6/26/2023 2023061587 1963 WALLACE TRESPASSING 3+Supv 20:49 121.38$ 6/27/2023 2023061754 1963 WALLACE P PATROL CHECK 2 52:25:00 142.48$ 6/30/2023 2023063028 1963 WALLACE P PATROL CHECK 1 14:16 19.18$ 7/7/2023 2023066043 1963 WALLACE TRESPASSING 6+Supv+HB1 32:51:00 562.32$ 7/11/2023 2023067344 1963 WALLACE P PATROL CHECK 1 25:10:00 34.25$ 7/12/2023 2023067886 1963 WALLACE TRESPASSING 3 10:53 45.21$ 7/14/2023 2023068368 1963 WALLACE SUSPICIOUS CIR 4 20:56 115.08$ 7/14/2023 2023068520 1963 WALLACE SUSPICIOUS MAL 2 13:35 38.36$ 7/15/2023 2023069021 1963 WALLACE TRESPASSING 2 6:10 16.44$ 7/18/2023 2023070055 1963 WALLACE TRESPASSING 3 21:25 86.31$ 7/19/2023 2023070404 1963 WALLACE S SUBJECT STOP 1 7:44 10.96$ 7/20/2023 2023070856 1963 WALLACE S SUBJECT STOP 1 28:26:00 38.36$ 7/20/2023 2023071074 1963 WALLACE SUSPICIOUS CIR 2 39:21:00 106.86$ 7/21/2023 2023071351 1963 WALLACE P PATROL CHECK 1 2:41 4.11$ 7/22/2023 2023071493 1963 WALLACE P PATROL CHECK 2+Supv 11:54 36.48$ 7/23/2023 2023072106 1963 WALLACE DISTURBANCE BO 1 8:42 12.33$ 7/25/2023 2023072854 230109 1963 WALLACE SUSPICIOUS MAL E 4+Supv 31:10:00 221.65$ 7/26/2023 2023073090 1963 WALLACE P PATROL CHECK 1 6:29 8.22$ 7/27/2023 2023073415 1963 WALLACE S SUBJECT STOP 1 5:06 6.85$ 7/30/2023 2023074710 230112 1963 WALLACE SUSPICIOUS FEM 4 4:16 1,408.36$ 8/7/2023 2023077514 1963 WALLACE TRESPASSING 2 21:03 57.54$ 8/10/2023 2023078657 1963 WALLACE P PATROL CHECK 2 6:15 16.44$ 8/11/2023 2023078958 230118 1963 WALLACE SUSPICIOUS CIR C 5+Supv 1:38:08 834.90$ 8/11/2023 2023079062 1963 WALLACE P PATROL CHECK 1 7:38 10.96$ 8/12/2023 2023079367 1963 WALLACE TRESPASSING 2 19:02 52.06$ TOTAL: 14,832.73$
8/20/2023 2023082407 1963 WALLACE TEXT TO 911
8/24/2023 2023083950 1963 WALLACE SUSPICIOUS CIRCU REFUSED, FEM 8/26/2023 2023084520 1963 WALLACE ASSAULT
8/26/2023 2023084477 1963 WALLACE TRANSIENT
8/29/2023 2023085486 1963 WALLACE SUSPICIOUS CIRCU
9/2/2023 2023086964 1963 WALLACE TRANSIENT
9/5/2023 2023087885 1963 WALLACE SUBJECT STOP
9/10/2023 2023089644 1963 WALLACE DISTURBANCE MALE REFUSED FEM 9/16/2023 2023091803 1963 WALLACE TRESPASSING
9/16/2023 2023091761 1963 WALLACE TRANSIENT
9/21/2023 2023093393 1963 WALLACE TEXT TO 911
9/28/2023 2023096190 1963 WALLACE DISTURBANCE MALE ANON FEM CALLS FOR SERVICE 8/13/2023 TO 10/1/2023

Alisha Patterson
Direct Dial: (714) 662-4663
E-mail: [email protected]

January 16, 2024

VIA E-MAIL
Mayor and Honorable Members of the City
Council for the City of Costa Mesa

Re: Written Public Comment for the January 16, 2024 City Council Meeting Closed Session Agenda Item #4

CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
City of Costa Mesa v. D’Alessio (1963 Wallace Ave.)
Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2020-01133479
To the Mayor and Honorable Members of the City Council:

D’Alessio Investments, LLC (“my client”) recently retained me to provide legal advice on the entitlement and development options for their property located at 1963 Wallace Avenue in the City of Costa Mesa (the “Property”). By way of background, I have been a land use and municipal law specialist with Rutan & Tucker, LLP for more than a decade. I am deeply familiar with the State of California’s housing laws, which as I am sure you are aware, have changed significantly over the past five years. With Nassie Rowlet t, we are also counsel in the above -entitled receivership action.

As discussed in more detail below, my client’s Property has been the subject of the above- referenced receivership action for almost four years. The court-appointed Receiver (Eric P. Beatty, Esq.) has had full physical possession of the Property since November of 2021. Before the Receiver took control of the Property, my client’s tenants were almost exclusively low-, very low-, and extremely -low income households, many of whom ha ve school-aged children. My client charged below -market rent that these families could afford. Because m any of the households received Section 8 subsidies administered by the Orange County Housing Authority and Anaheim Housing Authority, these agencies regularly inspected my client’s Property to confirm habitability.

Approximately seven months after the Receive r took full physical possession of the Property, he terminated all of my client ’s tenants’ leases and forced them to move out. Under the Receiver ’s care, the units have now been vacant for more than a year and a half and have become magnets for trespassing, squatting, vandalism, and arson. The condition of the Property today is far worse than it was under my client’s care. Nevertheless, the existing housing on the Property is salvageable.

Over my client’s objections, the Receiver is currently seeking Court approval to demolish all of the housing on the Property. The forced demolition of this housing violates the letter and intent of the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (Gov. Code § 66300.6), the Housing Element Law (Gov.

Code § 65583.2(g)(3)), the Housing Account ability Act (SB 330) (Gov. Code § 65589.5), the

Mayor and Honorable Members of the City
Council for the City of Costa Mesa
January 16, 2024

Page 2 ends

2499/038089-0002
20141786.2 a01/16/24

State’s Receivership Law (Health & Saf. Code § 17980(c)), the vested rights doctrine, and Policy 3D of the City’s recently-adopted 6th Cycle 2021-2029 Housing Element Update.1 In contrast, my client has pre sented the City with two proposals that would use recently - adopted State housing laws to resolve any alleged discrepancy in the number of units permitted on the Property and rehabilitate and preserve the Property ’s existing housing. My client’s preferred proposal would provide three (3) deed-restricted units that would be offered at rents affordable to qualified low-income households. The Receiver has repeatedly directed the City to disregard my client’s submittals.

It is difficult to imagine that, in the midst of a housing crisis, the City Council would prefer a vacant lot to a solution that would quickly and cost-effectively rehabilitate the Property’s existing housing. The City is under no obligation to support or submit to the Receiver ’s demolition proposal. To the contrary, permitting the Receiver to demolish habitable housing with no plan to replace the units will put the City in legal jeopardy under the current housing laws. We respectfully request the City Council direct its legal counsel to go on record in the receivership action opposing the Receiver’s request for Court-approval to demolish the housing on my client ’s Property and, instead, work with my client to explore options to rehabilitate the existing housing.

Background on the Property
My client ’s Property is a multifamily development on an approximately 0.42 acre site located at 1963 Wallace Avenue in Costa Mesa (APN 422 -271-10). The Property is developed with four buildings — a single family residence built in 1956 (“Building A ”), an apartment building built originally built in 1956 and modified in 1991 (“Building B”), and two duplexes built in 1978 (“Building C” and “Building D”).

1 On the question of whether the Receiver’s proposal to demolish of all of the housing on my client’s Property complies with State housing laws, we have requested technical assistance from the Housing Accountability Unit (“HAU”) of California’s Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”).

Mayor and Honorable Members of the City
Council for the City of Costa Mesa
January 16, 2024

Page 3 ends

2499/038089-0002
20141786.2 a01/16/24

Aerial from Google Maps2

Building A Building B Buildings C & D
Background on the Receivership Action
Since August of 2020, the Property has been subject to a Court -ordered receivership in a civil action titled City of Costa Mesa v. D ’Alessio Investments, LLC, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30 -2020-01133479 (the “Receivership Action ”). Filed February 20, 2020, the Receivership Action has been ongoing for nearly four years. The Receiver was granted full physical possession of the Property on November 17, 2021. Effective May 31, 2022, the Receiver terminated all of my client’s tenants’ leases, and he forced all of the tenants (who were primarily low-income families, many with school -aged children) to leave by the end of June of 2022. The units on the Property have been vacant ever since.

The central dispute in the Receivership Action revolves around how best to reconcile an alleged discrepancy between the number of dwelling units permitted and the number of dwelling units that currently exist on the Pr operty. The City and Receiver contend that the Property is entitled and permitted for only nine (9) dwelling units.3 Before my client purchased the Property,

2 Google Maps identifies the Property as the “Orange Coast Interfaith Shelter.” It was a homeless shelter at one time, but it is not anymore.
3 This is memorialized in the Receiver’s First Report, dated September 28, 2020 and filed with the Court on September 29, 2020. (See pp. 3:11 & 5:9-10.)

Mayor and Honorable Members of the City
Council for the City of Costa Mesa
January 16, 2024

Page 4 ends

2499/038089-0002
20141786.2 a01/16/24

prior owners added eight (8) dwelling units. The envelopes of the buildings have not changed since they were originally constructed. The units were added by dividing some of the existing dwelling units. The City’s public records confirm the prior owners obtained City permits for the additional units, but the City now disputes that the permits it previously issued remain valid.

My client has proposed a sensible, cost -effective solution to resolve this alleged discrepancy. As discussed in more detail later in this letter, my client has submitted (or attempted to submit) two plans that would rehabilitate the existing buildings and provide a path forward to retroactively permit the seventeen units (or at least as many units as are allowed under the City ’s current land use regulations and State housing laws).

The Receiver, in contrast, has “directed the Ci ty to take no action with respect to [my client’s] application”4 and has requested Court-approval to demolish all of the existing housing so the Property can be redeveloped. The Receiver’s request is currently pending. The City has taken the position that, post -demolition, the Property cannot have more than six (6) uni ts if it is redeveloped,5 which is significantly lower than the density permitted by the City ’s General Plan land use designation (see “Maximum Residential Density for the Property” section below).

Displacement of Low-, Very Low-, and Extremely Low-Income Tenants As noted above, effective May 31, 2022, the Receiver terminated all of my client’s tenants’ leases and forced the fifteen households to move out. 6 Of those fifteen households, at least two qualified as low -income, at least ten qualified as very low-income, and at least one qualified as

4 This is memorialized in a letter the Receiver sent to my client’s litigation counsel (Catherine Rowlett) and land use consultant (Steve Sheldon) on or about July 21, 2023. 5 This is memorialized in a letter the City’s legal counsel (Jones Mayer Law) sent to the Receiver on or about January 19, 2022. (See p. 3, Response to Question #15.) 6 In the Receivership Action , the City and Receiver claim the Property had Building Code violations that were threats to health and safety, but there is documentation to the contrary — (1) many of my client’s tenants signed declarations disputing the Receiver’s characterization of th e condition the Property; (2) because many of the tenants relied on Section 8 subsidies, their units needed to pass routine inspections by the Anaheim Housing Authority and the Orange County Housing Authority to confirm habitability ; and (3) the Receiver h ad full physical custody of the Property for at least six months before he forced my client’s tenants to move out, which undermines his contention that their units were not habitable . Ultimately, the Code violations the City and Receiver identified were ea sily fixable and did not require permanent displacement of tenants (e.g., insect infestation in some units, cracked tiles, worn finishes, and water damage). (See Receiver’s First Report, dated September 28, 2020 and filed with the Court on September 29, 2020, pp. 8:19 – 9:16.)

Mayor and Honorable Members of the City
Council for the City of Costa Mesa
January 16, 2024

Page 5 ends

2499/038089-0002
20141786.2 a01/16/24

extremely low -income7 (as determined by HCD). (See Receiver’s Relocation Assistance Plan, dated April 13, 2022 and filed with the Court April 14, 2022 , pp. 2:26 – 3:3 & Exhibit G ].) As shown in the table below, the rent my client was charging was significantly below fair market rent:

Unit
#
Unit Size Tenant’s
Income
Level
Tenant’s
Household
Size
2022 FMR
in Orange
County
Comparable
Rent in
Proximity
Rent
Charged By
My Client
101 2 bd./1 ba. Very Low 5-person $2,324 $2,800 $1,650
102 1 bd./1 ba. Ext. Low 4-person $1,905 $2,200 $1,400
103 2 bd./1.5 ba. Very Low 4-person N/A $2,900 $1,600
104 2 bd./1 ba. Very Low 4-person $2,324 $2,800 $1,725
105 1 bd./1 ba. Very Low 2-person $1,905 $2,200 $1,100
106 1 bd./1 ba. Very Low 2-person $1,905 $2,200 $1,450
107 2 bd./1.5 ba. Unknown 2-person N/A $2,900 $2,300
201 2 bd./1 ba. Very Low 2-person $2,324 $2,800 $1,600
202 3 bd./1 ba. Very Low 5-person $3,227 $3,200 $2,200
204 2 bd./1 ba. Very Low 4-person $2,324 $2,800 $1,800
205 2 bd./1.5 ba. Low 2-person N/A $2,900 $1,600
206 Studio Low 1-person $1,716 $1,800 $500
207 Studio Unknown 2-person $1,716 $1,800 $1,150
208 2 bd./1 ba. Very Low 3-person $2,324 $2,800 $1,700
A Studio Very Low 1-person $1,716 $1,800 $700
Eight of the displaced households had school -aged children. Three had children with special needs. The Property’s seventeen units have been vacant ever since.

Destruction of Housing Through Neglect
Under the Receiver’s stewardship (which began with full physical possession on November 17, 2021), the condition of the Property has deteriorated rapidly and continues to worsen. Over the past year and a half, the vacant buildings have become magnets for trespassing, squatting , vandalism, looting, and arson. See before and after photographs below.

7 Two of the seventeen units were vacant, and two of the fifteen households declined to provide information about their income.

Mayor and Honorable Members of the City
Council for the City of Costa Mesa
January 16, 2024

Page 6 ends

2499/038089-0002
20141786.2 a01/16/24

BEFORE: Property Prior to January 25, 2022
NOTE: These photographs were taken by the Receiver shortly after he took over physical possession of the Property from my client and at leas t four months before the Receiver forced my client’s tenants to vacate their units.

AFTER: Property on November 1, 2023
NOTE: These photographs were taken by my client’s manager/owner approximately two years after the Receiver took full physical possession of the Property and approximately 1.5 years after the Receiver forced my client’s tenants to vacate their units.

The City agrees. On or about October 16, 2023, the City’s legal counsel sent the Receiver a letter expressing con cern about the “numerous calls for service ” to the Property “[s]ince July 2022” ranging in type from “trespassing to transient activity.” Efforts to Negotiate a Resolution to this Matter
After receiving a copy of the City’s October 16, 2023 letter about the deteriorated condition of the Property and high volume of calls for service under the R eceiver’s care, my client and I renewed our efforts to negotiate a sensible, “win-win” resolution of the Receivership Action that would allow the existing structures on the Property to be rehabilitated quickly and cost-effectively.

Mayor and Honorable Members of the City
Council for the City of Costa Mesa
January 16, 2024

Page 7 ends

2499/038089-0002
20141786.2 a01/16/24

On November 9, 2023, the City ’s legal counsel told us they would not discuss my client ’s rehabilitation plans until he provided proof of $2 million in financing to complete the work. 8 My client provided the proof of funds the next day. Since that time, we have made numerous requests to discuss these proposals with the City ’s legal counsel, professional planning s taff, and the Receiver, but have not made any meaningful progress towards resolution. Despite numerous requests, we have no date on calendar for a call or meeting to discuss resolution of this matter.

Meanwhile, the Receiver has maintained his request for Court-approval to demolish all of the existing housing on the Property which is still pending review by the Court. The City’s legal counsel told us the City does not object to the Receiver’s request. To our knowledge, the City has not changed its position that, post -demolition, the Property cannot have more than six (6) units when it is redeveloped, which, as discussed in the next section, is significantly lower than the density permitted by the City ’s General Plan land use designation. As a practical reality, redevelopment of the Property with only six (6) units will virtually guarantee that none of the units will be offered for sale or rental at affordable levels.

Maximum Residential Density for the Property
The Property’s General Plan land use designation is “High Density Residential, ” which currently allows residential development at up to twenty (20) dwelling units per acre. ( Land Use Element, pp. LU-25 [Land Use Map] & LU-27 [Land Use Density & Intensity Summary].) Under this land use designation, the 0.42 acre Property could accommodate up to nine (9) base dwelling units.9 With a fifty percent (50%) density bonus, the Property could accommodate up to fourteen (14) total units (i.e., nine [9] base units and five [5] density bonus units). (Gov. Code § 65915(f)(1)- (2).) With accessory dwelling units (ADUs), the Property could accommodate up to twelve (12) total units (i.e., nine [9] primary dwelling units and three [3] ADUs). (Gov. Code § 65852.2(e)(1)(C).)

8 Although it is not clear how the Receiver arrived at this number, this was the his estimate of how much it would cost to rehabilitate the existing structures. My client obtained quotes from a reputable contractor who indicated the cost of the work for eith er rehabilitation plan would not exceed $75,000.
9 The Property is in the City’s “R2 -HD - Multiple Family Residential, High Density” zoning district (see Zoning Map), which allows development at a lower density — “The maximum density allowed is 3,000 square feet per dwelling unit, which equals 14.52 dwelling units per gross acre.” (Costa Mesa Municipal Code [“CMMC”] § 13-20(c).) To the extent the General Plan and Zoning Code conflict, the General Plan must prevail. ( Gov. Code Gov. Code § 65589.5 (j)(1); see also Gov. Code § 65915(o)(6); see generally Gov. Code § 65860.)

Mayor and Honorable Members of the City
Council for the City of Costa Mesa
January 16, 2024

Page 8 ends

2499/038089-0002
20141786.2 a01/16/24

My Client’s Proposals Would Rehabilitate and Preserve Existing Housing My client has presented the Receiver and the City with two alternate proposals for his Property that would rehabilitate and preserve the existing structures and retain the number of units allowed under the City’s General Plan land use designation and the State’s housing laws.

SB 330 Plan : My client ’s first proposal relies on the State ’s Density Bonus Law (Gov.

Code § 65915). It would preserve fourteen (14) of the Property’s seventeen (17) existing units. Of those fourteen (14) units, nine (9) would be base units (permitted by the General Plan ’s “High Density Residential” land use designation), and five (5) would be density bonus units. To qualify for a fifty percent (50%) density bonus, three (3) of the fourteen (14) units would be low -income units. (Gov. Code § 65915(f)(1).) A licensed contractor indicates th e cost of implementing this plan would not exceed $30,000. My client has provided the City and Receiver with proof of financing for $2 million. My client submitted a preliminary application to the City ’s Planning Department on July 14, 2023. On July 21, 20 23, the Receiver sent my client ’s litigation counsel and land use consultant a letter informing them that he had “directed the City to take no action with respect to the subject unauthorized application.”
ADU Plan: My client ’s second proposal relies on th e State’s ADU Law (Gov. Code § 65852.2). It would preserve twelve (12) of the Property’s seventeen (17) units. Of the twelve (12) units, nine (9) would be primary dwelling units and three (3) would be ADUs. (Gov. Code § 65852.2(e)(1)(C).) A licensed contra ctor indicates the cost of implementing this plan would not exceed $75,000. Again, my client has provided the City and Receiver with proof of financing for $2 million.

The Receiver has consistently declined to consider (or even discuss) either proposal, n or any other plan that would preserve and retain affordable housing. He has directed the City to disregard my client’s submittals and to decline my client’s requests for calls or meetings to explore these options.

Demolition of the Housing Violates Numerous State Housing Laws As noted above, the forced demolition of my client’s dwelling units is not consistent with the letter nor intent of the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (Gov. Code § 66300.6), the Housing Element Law (Gov. Code § 65583.2(g)(3)), the Housing Accountability Act (SB 330) (Gov. Code § 65589.5), the State ’s Receivership Law (Health & Saf. Code § 17980(c)), the vested rights doctrine, and Policy 3D of the City ’s recently -adopted 6 th Cycle 2021 -2029 Housing Element Update.

Mayor and Honorable Members of the City
Council for the City of Costa Mesa
January 16, 2024

Page 9 ends

2499/038089-0002
20141786.2 a01/16/24

• The Housing Crisis Act of 201910 requires agencies to preserve their existing housing stock or, if preservation is not possible, to ensure replacement of demolished units . Specifically, it states “an affected city [which includes Costa Mesa] … shall not approve a housing development project that will require the demolition of one or more residential dwelling units unless the project will create at least as many residential dwelling units as will be demolished .” (Gov. Code § 66300.6(a).) Where, as here, proposal includes demolition of “protected units,”11 the City must make the heightened findings set forth in Government Code Section 66300.6(b). The City has not (and cannot) made these findings here, and the Receiver’s demolition proposal does no t call for replacement of any of the demolished units.
• The State’s Housing Element Law requires replacement of units that are or were occupied by low- or very low income tenants (as is the case here). Specifically, it states “sites that currently have resi dential uses, or within the past five years have had residential uses that have been vacated or demolished, that are or were … occupied by low - or very low income households, shall be subject to a policy requiring the replacement of all those units affordable to the same or lower income level as a condition of any development on the site.” (Gov. Code § 65583.2(g)(3).) Again, the Receiver has documented that at least thirteen (13) of my client’s units were occupied by low -, very low-, and extremely low -income households with in the past five years, but his demolition plan does not call for the replacement of any units.
• Even if the housing on the Property were “substandard” (which my client disputes), the State’s Receivership Law requires that “[t]he owner shall have the choice of repairing or demolishing .” (Health & Saf. Code § 17980 (c)(1).) If the property owner declines to choose or cannot or will not bring the property into compliance, the Receivership Law requires the enforcement agency (in this case, the City) to “give preference to the repair of the building whenever it is economically feasible to do so without having to repair more than 75 percent of the dwelling, as determined by the enforcement agency, and shall give full consideration to the

10 This Act was recently amended through the enactment of AB 1218 (effective January 1, 2024), but substantially similar requirements were previously codified in Section 66300(d) of the California Government Code.
11 The Housing Crisis Act of 2019 defines “protected units” to include “[r] esidential dwelling units that are or were rented by lower or very low income households within the past five years ” (Gov. Code § 66300.5(h)(3).) As discussed above, my clients’ former tenants were almos t exclusively low-, very low-, and extremely low-income households.

Mayor and Honorable Members of the City
Council for the City of Costa Mesa
January 16, 2024

Page 10 ends

2499/038089-0002
20141786.2 a01/16/24

needs for housing as expressed in the local jurisdiction’s housing element.” (Health & Saf. Code § 17980 (c)(2).) Here, the Receiver rejected my client ’s election to repair the housing and have not complied with the State mandate to “give preference” to repair (over demolition).
• The Receiver’s demolition plans are inconsistent with Program 3D of the City ’s 6th Cycle 2021-2029 Housing Element Update . (See Housing Element Update, Chapter 4, Program 3D, pp. 4-16 – 4-17.) My client’s Property is part of the City’s Mesa West Residential Ownership Overlay, which generally calls for development of “new owner-occupied condominium and clustered homes. ” (Overlay, Strategy D1, p. 1.) However, to prevent “displacement of long‐term tenants and to preserve the existing housing stock on the west side, ” Program 3D of the City ’s Housing Element Update calls for removal of the Mesa West Residential Ownership Overlay in its entirety. (See Housing Element Update, Chapter 4, Program 3D, p. 4-16.) The Receiver’s plan is not consistent with Program 3D. He has already displaced long- term tenants, and his plans to demolish the existing housing will do the opposite of “preserve the existing housing stock on the west side.” • As noted above, the City ’s public records confirm the prior owners obtained City permits for the additional uni ts, but the City now disputes that the permits it previously issued remain valid. The City ’s disavowal of its previously issued permits violates the vested rights doctrine . Once a land use entitlement is approved and the rights granted by the entitlement a re exercised (as was the case here), they become “vested” and a municipality ’s power to revoke or extinguish them is limited. ( Bauer v. City of San Diego (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 1281, 1294 - 1297 [“City could not properly deem Bauer ’s grandfathered rights automatically terminated without providing Bauer with an opportunity to be heard ”].) At a minimum, due process requires notice and a hearing to revoke, extinguish, and/or void the rights the City granted through issuance of permits. (Goat Hill Tavern v.

City of Costa Mesa (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1519, 1526 [when a property owner ’s right is “legitimately acquired or is otherwise vested, ” City cannot extinguish that right through “administrative extinction”].) That did not occur here. • Contrary to the intent of the Housing Accountability Act (SB 330), the demolition of my client ’s housing does not give “adequate attention to the economic, environmental, and social costs of decisions that result in … reduction in density of housing projects .” (Gov. Code § 65589.5(a)(1)(D).) Moreover, contrary to SB 330’s streamlined review requirements (e.g., Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(2)(A)(i)), the City (at the direction of the Receiver) have refused to process the housing development application my client submit ted pursuant to SB 330. My client ’s SB 330 application should have been “deemed complete” by operation of law when it

Mayor and Honorable Members of the City
Council for the City of Costa Mesa
January 16, 2024

Page 11 ends

2499/038089-0002
20141786.2 a01/16/24

was submitted on July 14, 2023. (Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(5).) Because the City does not have a certified Housing Element, the City should not be able to deny my client’s application for a housing development project (to rehabilitate and preserve the existing housing) on the basis that it is purportedly inconsistent with the City’s “zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation. ” (Gov. Code § 65589.5(d)(2)(A).)
Need for HCD Technical Assistance
In the midst of a Statewide housing crisis, it is senseless and egregiously wasteful for housing that could quickly, easily, and cost effectively be rehabilitated to sit vacant for over a year and half and ultimately be demolished. At great personal expense, my client has vigorously opposed the City’s and Receiver’s efforts to forcibly redevelop his Property and has presented two proposals that would preserve desperately needed housing through reh abilitation of the existing structures. One of the proposals would result in three, deed restricted units that are affordable to low-income households.

We hope the City Council will agree and direct its legal counsel to work with us on a “win- win” solution that will bring this litigation to an end and further the City ’s housing goals. We would welcome the opportunity to discuss this matter further and provide any information or documentation you need.

Respectfully submitted,

RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP

Alisha Patterson
AP

cc: Kim Barlow, City Attorney
Krista MacNevin Jee, Esq.

Amanda Pope, Esq.

From: Priscilla Rocco
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: A Golf Course is NOT Bio-diverse
Date: Tuesday, January 16, 2024 9:52:05 AM
City Council,
California has more species of plants and animals than any other state - about one-third of all species in the nation. Our soils hold more than a quarter of the world's biodiversity, boasting more than 2,500 different different types of soil. So in 2020, Governor Newsom issued an executive order to restore 30% of land and water by 2030 to protect this biodiversity.

Restoration is being done in collaboration with Native American tribes; federal, state, and local governments; and local communities.

In 2021, President Biden issued his own 30x30 plan that cedes power to local communities and tribal nations, and provides disadvantaged communities the benefits of nature with more access to parks.

Also in 2021, Governor Newsom signed a law replacing a statue of Father Junipero Serra in Sacramento with a Native American elder. Legislative leaders also removed the statue of Columbus saying it was out of place "given the deadly impact his arrival in this hemisphere had on indigenous populations.'
Which brings me to Fairview Park, where your kids can walk in the footsteps of the Acjachemen and Tonga tribes. Seeing the same birds, butterflies, lizards, amphibians, snakes, and fairy shrimp. Hundreds of species, thousands of plants and animals, and multiple ecosystems. The archeological sites constitute a spiritual home for these tribes, but they've been covered by builder's rubble, as have some vernal pools that are home to endangered fairy shrimp. The paths are being torn up by teenagers on e- bikes, and the watershed to the vernal pools is being trampled by men flying planes - allowed by a unanimous vote of the city council. Why are you encouraging vandalism in Fairview park, when it is NOT allowed in any other park in the city?
What would motivate you to destroy the ancestral home of Native Americans: ignore the orders of the President and Governor; and reject the findings of the State and U.S. Departments of Fish and Wildlife, scientists you've hired, committees you've appointed, your own park administrator, and the 800 residents and experts in the local community?! You are on the wrong side of this issue! There are more important things in life than competitive sports and golf courses. You would have learned this if you had attended the last meeting updating the Fairview Park Master Plan. Soon this update will be completed, documenting the damages with a plan for restoration. It's time to listen to the scientists and fund the restoration of this outdoor classroom. Model good behavior. Help get our kids into nature and off their devices. Show them how to be good stewards of Nature.

Priscilla Rocco
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.

January 16, 2025 (Photo of city grading vernal pool watershed)

Greetings City Council,
I am writing regarding council’s May 2, 2023 decision to allow glider planes to fly in Fairview Park. Although the picture above was taken a few years ago, the flyers (Harbor Soaring Society) have been destroying sensitive habitat and the city has approved it like the grading of the watershed was approved. What is in this sensitive habitat? Southern Tarplant, some call it tarweed but its proper name is Southern Tarplant and it is a Keystone Species in Fairview Park.

There are two types of Southern Tarplant in Fairview Park, one that is endangered and one that is not endangered but still rare. Southern Tarplant ONLY grows along the coast in southern California from Point Conception in Santa Barbara county down to Baja California.

This keystone species is a shelter and food source for many creatures. Southern Tarplant hosts a variety of pollinators, reptiles, birds, and mammals. Southern Tarplant seeds are highly nutritious and sought after by squirrels, mice, and many seed-eating songbirds. Attached please see the flyer that explains in detail the incredible benefits that Southern Tarplant is to many of Fairview Park’s creatures and why it is a keystone species.

Allowing this keystone species to be continually degraded and destroyed by the Harbor Soaring Society is not what a good steward would do. The City of Costa Mesa is supposed to be a good steward of Fairview Park’s ecosystems. An undisturbed ecosystem is a huge benefit to the whole community. Why did city council vote to allow the HSS to destroy it? Why did city council ignore what USFW and CDFW say about flying glider planes in Fairview Park? Both agencies have acknowledged the harm flying glider planes in Fairview Park does to the soil as well as the wild creatures in Fairview Park. Why did city council agree with a small special interest group that gave city council misinformation?

Why did city council ignore the experts and the whole community? Why did city council agree with HSS discrediting the city contracted biologist, city staff, and city committee recommending that there should not be any glider flying in Fairview Park? Do you know that there was a petition against flying in Fairview Park which was started the day after city council made its motion on May 2, 2023 to allow glider planes to fly in Fairview Park? Do you know that over 365 people signed it with over 300 people being Costa Mesa residents? Do you know that there are only a handful of Costa Mesa residents that are HSS flyers? Do you know HSS Facebook page has 200 members and half are the spouses of HSS.

Fairview Park Alliance has over 800 members. Is it fair to the whole community to allow a small special interest group to continue destroying sensitive habitat that so many species rely on for their survival? An undisturbed ecosystem also enhances the lives of the entire community.

Unfortunately the flyers have been allowed to fly even when the vernal pools and the watershed are wet. Please see the pictures taken on Jan 5th the day before flying was to take place in Fairview Park. Please notice that there are 2 launch pads being used by HSS (not 1 like the Fairview Park Master Plan states) and HSS is trampling the southern tarplant in between them. HSS is also trampling right into the vernal pools beyond the wire fence. I have shown you all pictures in the past but can supply more if you’d like.

According to city council motion on May 2, 2023, flying should only happen when the pools are deemed dry by city staff. Well, city staff allowed flying on Jan.6th. City staff is clearly afraid to be frank with HSS and city council after being reprimanded by city council on May 2, 2023 for not following city council’s direction. (City staff DID follow city council’s direction but found that flying in Fairview Park was not compatible with the unique natural resources Fairview Park has and did not recommend it to city council. This set city council off – especially Mr.

Chavez.) Does city council really want city staff to allow degradation to Fairview Park? Well, it is happening.

Not often in history can bad decisions be corrected. This is one bad decision that city council can correct. Please stop the glider flying in Fairview Park immediately.

Sincerely,
Kim Hendricks

From: Dan Bistany
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: No School in our Business Area \ PA-22-45
Date: Tuesday, January 16, 2024 10:51:17 AM
Hello, I am writing to voice opposition to putting a school adjacent to our business district.

I believe that this use is not aligned with the intended use of the building and area.

It will most certainly have a material impact on the value of my office space.

It will most certainly have a negative impact on my ability to enter and exit my parking lot, cause safety concerns (kids on the sidewalk), and cause traffic problems (existence of a traffic plan is NOT equal to a functional or working solution!).

This project is to the benefit of the property owner and detriment of the surrounding area.

--
Daniel Bistany
President
Breeze IT, Inc.

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.

From: Justin Nassie
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: City Council meeting tonight for PA-22-45 - Proposed School Next Door Date: Tuesday, January 16, 2024 11:43:27 AM
Mayor of Costa Mesa,
My name is Justin Nassie I’m the owner of the property directly next door on Hyland Avenue in an office condo community called Hyland Plaza. Here are a couple of clearly laid points on why this planning application should be denied:

1. Incompatibility with Zoning Regulations:

The proposed public charter high school, Vista Meridian Global Academy, is intended to be located in an existing industrial office building in an office zone. Granting a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for this school would deviate from the intended use of the office zone. This change could disrupt the character and purpose of the area, leading to potential conflicts with existing businesses and the surrounding community. Maintaining the integrity of the office zone zoning regulations is essential to preserving the intended land use and avoiding potential land-use conflicts.

2. Impact on the Hyland Plaza:

The planning application seeks to establish a public charter high school on the planned site 1620 Sunflower Ave Costa Mesa. This proximity could lead to operational challenges and conflicts. Noise, traffic congestion, and other disturbances associated with the new high school could disrupt existing commercial tenants in the area. This potential disruption to the commercial experience of clients at the nearby businesses should be a significant concern, and granting the CUP may exacerbate these issues.

3. Traffic and Parking Concerns:

The proposed high school is expected to accommodate up to 500 students, along with staff, resulting in a substantial increase in vehicular traffic in the area during school hours. The Minor Conditional Use Permit (MCUP) for small car parking may not adequately address the potential traffic congestion and parking shortages that could arise. This could lead to safety hazards, inconvenience for the neighboring businesses, and traffic congestion on local roads. Given the limited parking provisions and the potential for increased traffic, the application should be denied unless it can adequately address these concerns.

We believe that parents could let their kids off down the street for them to walk in through other commercial properties, including the Hyldan Plaza.

4. Impact on Property Values:

The establishment of a public charter high school in an office zone could have adverse effects on property values in the vicinity. Potential concerns about increased traffic, noise, and changes in the character of the neighborhood may deter prospective buyers or tenants, leading to a decrease in property values. This could result in economic hardship for property owners and could have broader implications for the community's stability.

5. Safety and Security:

With a significant increase in the student population and staff, there may be safety and security concerns, especially if the school is located adjacent to an industrial area. Ensuring the safety of students, staff, and the surrounding community should be a top priority. The application should be denied unless a comprehensive safety and security plan is in place to address potential risks, including those associated with the industrial environment.

6. Adequate Infrastructure:

The proposed school would introduce a substantial number of students and employees to the area, putting a strain on local infrastructure such as utilities, public transportation, and emergency services. The application should be denied unless it demonstrates that the existing infrastructure can support the increased demand and that any necessary improvements will be made to prevent any negative impacts on the community.

Ending: These points highlight the potential negative impacts of granting the CUP for a public charter high school in an office zone near an existing school and the need to carefully consider the compatibility of the proposal with the surrounding area.

Thank you for hearing my thoughts,
--

JUSTIN NASSIE
President
949.892.8944
[email protected]
Brandastic.com
Stay Updated On The Latest Marketing News
Your email is appreciated and understood that any request submitted by Client, shall be subject to a base 30-minute diagnostic fee at a designated rate. This email contains confidential and proprietary information. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email.

From: Wallid Kazi
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Concerns about permitting Vista Charter School at 1620 Sunflower Avenue Date: Tuesday, January 16, 2024 11:41:41 AM
To the Mayor of Costa Mesa:

I am a small business owner at 3525 Hyland Avenue, Costa Mesa, 92626. We are located immediately adjacent to the site being proposed for the Vista Charter School. I would like to strongly oppose and urge the City to NOT approve this permit due to the following reasons:

1. Not enough parking. Their permit plans for an unacceptable percentage of students that will bike or take shuttles. This will result in student driving and seeking to park in our parking lot.

How will the school ensure no students park in our parking lot?

2. Inadequate Traffic Control. With the number of cars dropping off and picking up students, it will create a big problem for us getting into or leaving our offices during those times. How will the school ensure there is not an everyday traffic jam ?

3. Student loitering in our parking lot. There is a big possibility that students will loiter in our parking lot before, during and after school. How will the school ensure this does not happen?

Please note I have been a resident of Costa Mesa (my residence address is 1056 Tulare Drive, Costa Mesa, 92626) and have run my business in Costa Mesa for over 30 years. It would seriously hurt my business operations if this school is permitted. I urge you to not approve this permit. Please note that the City Council members denied this permit in a hearing recently.

Thanks for your consideration.

Wallid Kazi, Ph.D., P.G.

President
Direct 714.662.2757 | Main 714.662.2759
ECM Consultants
www.ECMConsults.com

From: Anna Schlotzhauer
To: CITY CLERK
Cc: Jim W. Bergman
Subject: Proposed School PA-22-45
Date: Tuesday, January 16, 2024 11:59:59 AM
Attachments: IMG_1899.jpg
IMG_1900.jpg
Dear Costa Mesa Mayor and Costa Mesa City Council Members –

I am the co-owner of a ground level commercial unit - 3525 Hyland Avenue, Unit 110 – adjacent to the proposed school location being considered in tonight’s meeting. We purchased this unit at great expense last year and currently have costly remodel plans pending (almost finalized!) before the Costa Mesa planning committee so that we can upgrade the space to serve as our permanent main office. Enclosed please find photographs showing the location of our unit relative to the building in question. We made this purchase relying on this location being in an office business park area.

While there are many reasons I do not believe this is an appropriate location for a school, those arguments have been thoughtfully put forth by other concerned owners in our building. Our plea to you is very specific…Noise. Groups of students congregating or taking breaks or recess at any outdoor location on this property poses a huge noise issue for us. If the kids are at break or lunch on the side of rear of the property they are within 30-40 feet of our office windows. There is a VERY compact parking buffer with only one row of cars between the buildings. This is completely incompatible with our use of our conference room or offices to conduct important calls and meetings. I was advised that this will be a “closed” campus but does this mean there will be no use of any outside areas at any time? As much as I support alternative schools and know they must be resourceful in finding locations (I once had my children at an alternative 130 child school that rented space in a temple – a great location), this choice in location is completely at odds with the needs of the dozens of small business owners who have invested significant time and money in establishing their businesses at 3525 Hyland Avenue.

I urge you all to consider the very real impacts on our ability to conduct business as intended at our properties and vote against the CUP at the proposed location adjacent to 3525 Hyland Avenue.

Thank you so much for your thoughtful consideration,
Anna Schlotzhauer and Jim Bergman
Bergman Consulting, LLC
3525 Hyland Avenue, Unit 110
Costa Mesa, CA 92626

From: Ed Salcedo
To: CITY CLERK
Cc: STEPHENS, JOHN; HARPER, DON
Subject: City Council meeting tonight for PA-22-45 - Proposed School Next Door Date: Tuesday, January 16, 2024 12:34:56 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Hi Mayor Stevens (John) and Council Member Harper (Don),

As you are aware, the Hyland Plaza building is adjacent to the building where Visa Meridian Global Academy is being proposed at this evening’s City Council Meeting. As an owner of several office suites at 3525 Hyland Plaza, which is adjacent to the property where the charter school s being proposed, I am providing you with my concerns that I and other office condominium owners have about placing a high school at 1620 Sunflower Avenue. Although there are several other reasons why I believe the application to place a high school should be denied, below are my primary concerns:

1. Incompatible with the surrounding business area: The proposed public charter high school, Vista Meridian Global Academy, is intended to be located in an office and industrial area.

The school will have a detrimental affect on the business environment currently enjoyed by other businesses in the area as well as adversely impact the quality of life enjoyed by workers, owners, Federal Express and other delivery drivers, and patrons at SOCO shopping center. Maintaining the integrity of the office zone is essential to preserving the intended land use, and the expectations business owners had when they purchased property in the surrounding area.

2. Traffic and Parking Concerns: The proposed high school is expected to accommodate up to 500 students, along with staff, resulting in a substantial increase in vehicular traffic in the area during school hours. Although a condition to approve the school is to require that students be dropped off only, the likelihood that parents will avoid waiting in the cue line to drop off students is high. This will create safety hazards should cars enter nearby parking lots, and drivers pull over at the curb near the school to drop off students. Students will also likely be walking through other parking lots and properties to get to school. Students will also be able to ride their bike (including e-bikes) and walk to school. This will further exacerbate the traffic congestion and safety with added bike and pedestrian traffic during the start and end of the workday. Additionally, the office building’s parking lot was not designed to accommodate the planned in and out cue. As a parent having experienced similar parking constraints at Mater Dei High School, many parents would utilize the adjacent or nearby businesses’ parking lots to drop off their children. This placed an undue burden on local businesses. I believe the parking situation here is worse and will likely increase traffic accidents and adversely impact the traffic flow for many nearby businesses.

3. Impact on Property Values: A public charter high school in an office zone could have adverse effects on property values in the area. Potential concerns about increased vehicle and foot traffic, noise, and changes in the character of the neighborhood may deter prospective buyers or tenants, leading to a decrease in property values. This could result in financial hardships for property owners and could have broader implications for the community's stability.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that you and your fellow council members deny the application to place a charter school at 1620 Sunflower Avenue.

Sincerely,

Ed Salcedo, Jr. (he/him)
President
GCAP Services, Inc.

Office (714) 800-1795
Direct (714) 406-5413
Website www.gcapservices.com

Vista Meridian Global Academy
We Transform the School Experience

Exterior Facade
productivity.
collaborative.
creative .

Open Workspace
Gymnasium
Weight Room
Pickle Ball Court
1/8/24, 2:31 PMVista Meridian Eyes New High School - Orange County Business Journal

Page 1 of 4 ends

HOMEEDUCATION
EDUCATIONOC HOMEPAGE
Vista Meridian Eyes New High
SchoolBY YUIKA YOSHIDA
JANUARY 8, 2024 1
Vista Meridian expected to lease two-story office building at 1620 Sunflower Ave.

Santa Ana charter school Vista Meridian Global Academy is looking to open a new high school at a Costa Mesa ofﬁce park, after it gains approval from city ofﬁcials.

Vista Meridian late last year held meetings with the Costa Mesa Planning Commission to discuss turning a 37,455-square-foot ofﬁce space at 1620 Sunﬂower Ave. into a school for 500 students.

The school said the project, located a few blocks north of the San Diego (405) Freeway, received positive initial responses from the commission’s ofﬁce, but faced opposition during the hearing.

Part of the opposition references an ongoing national debate over charter schools and whether they take money away from district schools.
1/8/24, 2:31 PMVista Meridian Eyes New High School - Orange County Business Journal

Page 2 of 4 ends

Don Wilson, superintendent of Vista Charter Public Schools, clariﬁed that charter schools are free public schools that receive per-pupil-funding from the state. “In California, the money follows the student,” Wilson told the Business Journal.

The school has worked out a long-term lease with the building’s owner Tim Nguyen, founder of Costa Mesa ﬁnancial services software maker MeridianLink Inc. (NYSR: MLNK), which is contingent on receiving the conditional use permit from the city.

Terms of the agreement were undisclosed “out of respect to the owner,” according to Wilson.

The school hopes to gain city approval by Jan. 16, so it can get to work installing necessary upgrades in time to open next fall, top ofﬁcials at the school said.

Premier Location
The charter school plans to set up the high school in an area of Costa Mesa that has seen a high amount of real estate activity as of late.

The two-story ofﬁce building where the school is looking to lease, part of a two-building complex, is directly across the street from high-end shopping center South Coast Collection, or SoCo, which sold for a reported $110 million to Baltimore-based Continental Realty Corp. in November.

Nearby is the development site for One Metro West, a 16-acre mixed-use project set to break ground in late 2024 or the ﬁrst quarter of 2025, according to company ofﬁcials. It would be built at the current site of an industrial building that sits alongside the 405 Freeway that’s leased to Sakura Paper. It was sold late last year by local businessman Joe Wen for a reported $72 million.

The move into Costa Mesa will prove beneﬁcial not only for the school, but also the city, Wilson said.
“I think having a school with 500 families attending will bring a positive economic impact to the surrounding businesses,” Wilson said.

Career Pathways
This will be Vista Charter Public Schools’ ﬁfth school.

Vista Charter Public Schools was founded in 2010 and currently serves students in Los Angeles, Anaheim and Santa Ana.
1/8/24, 2:31 PMVista Meridian Eyes New High School - Orange County Business Journal

Page 3 of 4 ends

Vista Charter Public Schools opened its ﬁrst middle school in Los Angeles before expanding to include elementary and high school levels.
“Our goal has always been providing an education for kids from transitional kindergarten all the way through high school,” Wilson said.

The Santa Ana location for Vista Meridian Global Academy was built to serve pre-kindergarten through eighth grade students, but has also temporarily doubled as a high school for freshman, sophomore and junior students.

This new building in Costa Mesa will allow the charter school to establish an ofﬁcial high school for these students.

The countywide charter petition for Vista Meridian Global Academy was approved by the Orange County Board of Education on June 1, 2022.

Many of Vista Charter Public Schools’ students are economically disadvantaged, according to top ofﬁcials.

The school aims to provide its students with career pathways in ﬁelds that are harder to break into such as cybersecurity and biomedical sciences.

Vista Charter Public Schools partnered with local colleges Santa Ana College and Orange Coast College so students can earn credits toward an associate degree in these ﬁelds while in high school.

Director of counseling, college and careers Catherine Real, who previously served as principal of Vista Meridian Global Academy, also helps facilitate internships for students.

MeridianLink Ties
The building was originally intended to be used by MeridianLink, founded by Nguyen, who owns both buildings in the industrial park.

Nguyen bought the property for $9.4 million back in April 2019, ﬁlings indicate.

Shortly after the purchase, the building sat vacant due to the pandemic, and MeridianLink employees working remotely from home.

The software company has its headquarters at another ofﬁce in the city. 1/8/24, 2:31 PMVista Meridian Eyes New High School - Orange County Business Journal

Page 4 of 4 ends

Vista Charter Public Schools met Nguyen through the philanthropic work he does through eKadence Learning Foundation, which provides schools with systems management software for free.
“He had an empty ofﬁce building that he put signiﬁcant capital into and wanted to give back to the community,” Colin Felch, deputy superintendent of Vista Charter Public Schools, said.

School ofﬁcials say the space is a perfect ﬁt because of the collaborative setting that will prepare students for the “kinds of places they be working at in four to eight years.” Some of the building’s amenities include a cafeteria, multiple gymnasiums and an indoor tennis court.

VISTACHARTERPUBLICSCHOOLS
Wetransformtheschoolexperience2900WestTempleStreetLosAngeles, CA90026 DonWilsonEd.D., SuperintendentT213269-4767|F213269-4762 CollinFelch, Ed.D., DeputySuperintendentwww.vistacharterpublicschools.org KarenAmaya, Assistant Superintendent January5,2024
DearMayorandCityCouncilmembers;
AsyouareawareourCUPapplicationiscomingbeforeyouforconsiderationattheJanuary16,2024CityCouncilmeeting.EarlierI wrotetoyoutointroducemyselfandourschool,VistaMeridianPublicCharterHighSchool.I amsendingthisfollowupcorrespondencetoprovideadditionalinformationaboutourpropertyandtheextensivelanduseandentitlementprocesswewentthroughwithcitystaff toensurethatwewouldbegoodneighborsinthecommunityandmitigatedanyissuesorconcernsaboutourschooloperations.I amalsomakingmyselfavailableagaintomeetwithyoutotouroursiteortoscheduleaphonecallormeetingtoansweranyadditionalquestionsyoumayhaveaboutthisitem.

FirstandforemostI wanttoreiteratethatVistaisafree,publichighschoolavailabletoanyCostaMesastudentwhobelievesourschoolmissionandobjectivesmeettheireducationalneeds.WecurrentlyoperateaschoolinSantaAnaandareinterestedinexpandingintoCostaMesawitha500studentbodyenrollmentatoursitelocatedat1620SunflowerAvenue.OurstudentpopulationinSantaAnaiscurrently94%hispanicandwerecognizethatournewschoolinCostaMesacouldhavesimilardemographics.I’veattachedmypreviouscommunicationwhichhighlightsagainthefocusofouracademicsandourcommitmenttoexcellenceforourstudentsandfamilies.

OurCUPapplicationincludestheconversionofanexisting37,455sf,two-storyofficebuildingtoapubliccharterschoolonanexistingdevelopedsite.Ourproposalincludestheremodelingofanexistingbuildingandminorancillarysiteimprovementstomeetcurrentbuildingcodestandardsforeducationaluse.Nophysicalexpansionofthebuildingfootprintorincreaseinheightisproposed.Thesitehasampleonsiteparkingandavehiclequeuinglanetofacilitatetheproposeduse.Itisimportanttoreiterateherethatthepropertyowner, Mr. TimNguyeniseagertohavethisprojectapproved.Sincethepandemichisbuildinghasbeenvacant,andofficeandcommercialusesarenotindemand.Activatingthispropertywithavibrantschoolusenotonlycreateseconomicvaluetotheowner, buttothisareaofthecitythatisripeforredevelopment.Giventherecentlyapprovedresidentialusesinthearea,andthepositiveoutreachandsupportwereceivedfromtheHarborGateway/SegerstromBusinessPark,SOCO,RoseEquities,aswellastheCostaMesaChamberofCommerce,webelieveourprojectisagoodfitforthiscorridor.

I wanttoassureyouthatweengagedateamofqualifiedprofessionalswhoworkedforoverayearwiththecitytobringforthasolidapplicationthathasbeenrecommendedforapprovalbycitystaff. TheCityindependentlyconductedanextensiveTransportationImpactAnalysisthatevaluatedVista’sonsitedrop-off andpick-upprogram,onsitevehiclequeuingandcirculation,potentialforanyimpactstooffsiteroadwaysandintersections,andVehicleMilesTraveled(VMT).Thereportconcludedthatatfullstudentcapacity, theCity’sstreetsandintersectionswouldcontinuetooperateatanacceptableLevelofService(LOS).Assuch,thereportfoundthatnooffsiteimprovementswereneededtoCitystreetsor

VISTACHARTERPUBLICSCHOOLS
Wetransformtheschoolexperience2900WestTempleStreetLosAngeles, CA90026 DonWilsonEd.D., SuperintendentT213269-4767|F213269-4762 CollinFelch, Ed.D., DeputySuperintendentwww.vistacharterpublicschools.org KarenAmaya, Assistant Superintendent intersections.Additionally, thereportconfirmedthattheprojectwasconsideredtohavealessthansignificantimpactonVMTwithnomitigationmeasuresrequired.Pleasenotethatnoneofourstudentsarepermittedtodrivetocampusandpark.Vistaanticipatesupto40%ofitsstudentswouldutilizeschool-providedtransportationserviceswithothersparticipatinginits“Bike-to-SchoolProgram”duetothesite’sproximitytotheSantaAnaRiverTrail.

AsforconsiderationundertheCaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct(CEQA),citystaff confirmedandrecommendedtheprojectbecategoricallyexemptfromtheprovisionsofCEQApursuanttoCEQAGuidelinesSection15301.Theprojectconsistsonlyoftherepair, maintenance,and/orminoralterationofexistingstructuresinvolvingnegligibleornoexpansionoftheusebeyondthatexistingatthetimeofthisdetermination.Importantly, theprojectisconsistentwiththeIndustrialParklandusedesignationintheGeneralPlanthatstates“Institutionalusesmayalsobeappropriate,providedthatlandusecompatibilityandtrafficissueshavebeenaddressed.Institutionaluseswillrequirediscretionaryapproval.”Theprojectsiteisapproximately2.168acresinsize,islocatedwithinanurbanarea,andcanbeadequatelyservedbyallrequiredutilitiesandpublicservices.TheprojectisconsistentwithallGeneralPlandesignationsandpolicies,andisconsistentwithallapplicablezoningregulationsuponapprovaloftherequestedentitlement.Asdesigned,theprojectwillnothavesignificantenvironmentalimpactsrelatedtotraffic,noise,airquality, andwaterquality. Inaddition,pursuanttoCEQAGuidelinesSection15300.2(c),noneofthesixexceptionstotheuseofacategoricalexemptionapplytotheproject.

Insummary, ourschoolisdedicatedtoprovidingqualityeducationalservicesandbeingagoodnon-profitorganizationinCostaMesa.I amhappytodiscussfurtherandwillmakemyselfavailableatyourconvenience.

Sincerely,
DonWilson,Ed.D.SuperintendentVistaCharterPublicSchools

From: Priscilla Rocco
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: This IHO Screams Redlining!
Date: Tuesday, January 16, 2024 10:32:34 AM
City Council,
Sacramento requires almost 12,000 housing units be built in Costa Mesa.

And 40% of that MUST be low, or very low income units. Affordable housing is the one thing that Costa Mesa residents agree upon. But you said that the only way to accomplish this was to relinquish our power on development to you. So we voted for Measure K, and asked for an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (IHO) to ensure affordable housing would be included in each build above 10 units. But you and the planning commission knew the "outreach" and "visioning" were just so much political theatre. The documents are pro forma to satisfy Sacramento. And the inclusive city we were promised, is a lie!
This IHO is a developer's dream! And it screams REDLINING from every page! Instead of 10-15% affordable units in projects over 10 units, it is down to as little as 5% and THAT ONLY APPLIES to projects OVER 60 UNITS PER ACRE or to PARCELS OF TWO ACRES OR MORE. To skirt this is child's play. Also the IHO does NOT apply to FOR-SALE housing, and the in-lieu fees that developers pay NO LONGER go to a first-time homebuyer's program. The coup de grâce is that developers are also allowed to either pay in-lieu fees, agree to off-site affordable units, or swap land instead of including affordable units in their luxury complexes. Rarely is this affordable housing ever built.

The only plan for affordable housing is restricted to the Fairview Developmental Center, near other low-income neighborhoods with minority residents, next to the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) with its 10-story tower of flashing lights. No luxury homes will be built here. The air pollution is unhealthy and will only worsen when the EOC trucks arrive. And don't expect green space, trees, and parks, because developers can avoid those with in-lieu fees.

If you started out to be public servants, you've ended up the worst kind of politician. You watch from the dias as the working poor beg you for help with housing, but all you hear are the voices of land owners and developers. You've designed a city where the working poor ARE NOT welcome. Well, I guess beggars can't be choosers, right?! The poor should be thankful they're getting any housing at all! So, north of the 405, the parks and tree-lined streets will invite walking and biking. While at the EOC, the concrete tenement will be dominated by a ten-story flashing telecommunications tower dressed in plastic to look like a tree. Our Watts Tower.

January16, 2024ViaEmail
CostaMesaCityCouncil77Fair DriveCostaMesa, [email protected] Dear Membersof theCityCouncil:

I amwritingtoyouinresponsetoNewBusinessItem#2dealingwithanordinancetoimposeaffordablehousingrequirementsonnewdevelopments(referredtohereafter asthe“IHO”). I’vealreadyprovidedmylong-windedandsomewhat pedanticfeedbacktothePlanningCommission(seemyprior letter attached).I amof coursepleasedtoseethat someof mysuggestionsfoundagreement withthePlanningCommission, andI hopeyouwill consider myother suggestions, too.

But I feel compelledat thisstagetowritetoyouabout somebigpictureissuesasyoudiveintothisIHO.Not onlybecausehousingisimportant –myself andothershavereferredtoit asanexistentialissue, andI still believethis–but becausethiscouldbeoneof themost long-lastingandrealigningprogramsyouadopt duringyour timeontheCouncil. Andsincewe, theresidents, will livewithyour decisionfor manyyearstocome, it isimperativeyouget itright.

First, I hopeyouunderstandthegravityof what youareundertaking. I knowthat therecontinuetobedisagreementsabout thedetailsof theprogram–thenumber of inclusionaryunits, theminimumprojectsize, theapplicabilitytohomeownership, etc. –but noneof theseconversationssquarelyaddressthemunicipal burdentheIHOwill impose. Theminimumcovenant lengthproposedfor anaffordableunit is55yearsfromthedateofcompletion. That meansthat theCityof CostaMesawill beonthehooktomonitortheseunitsfor morethanhalf acentury. Andgiventhat thoseclocksstart onarollingbasisasunitsaredeveloped, inhumanterms, thisisanever-endingobligation. That meansthat wewill needtohireandtraineffectivelyanentirenewsubunit of government devotedonlytothistask, inperpetuity. Soat theveryleast, beforeapprovingthisprogram, anaccountingshouldbedoneof howmuchthiswill cost thecityintermsof newhires, administrationandenforcement, bothintheshort termandintheverylongterm.

But maybethat won’t seemlikesuchaproblemif wealsohaveaperpetual revenuesource. Andthankfully, theIHOproposesone: thein-lieufeesgeneratedbytheIHO, or sothereasoninggoes, will inturnpayfor theIHO’sadministration. First, that idearaisesthequestion: doin-lieufeesconsistentlycovertheadministrationof theIHOinother cities?Andsecond, evenif theanswer is“yes”, I wonder if theadvocatesof IHOshavefullyunderstoodthat, inorder for in-lieufeestooffset theongoingcostsofadministeringanIHO, thecitymust commit itself toanunending,perpetualandcontinuousprocessofdevelopmentinordertogeneratethosefees. I havetoadmit that it isextremelystrangetohearproponentsof MeasureY, theoriginal “slowgrowth” ordinance, nowcometoyouandaskyoutodoexactlythis.

Now, personally, I wouldlovetohaveapolicythat activelyencouragedthegradual reimaginingof thecity,parcel byparcel, brickbybrick. Andthefirst thingI wouldwant ustoevolvetowardsis, of course, theprovisionof morehousingonaper capitabasis, whichI amconvincedistheonlywaytobendthecostcurveof housingaffordability. KMAcan, andhas, shownus170+Californiancitieswithinclusionaryhousingordinances. Andexperiencecanshowyou, equally, 170+Californiancitieswithhistoricalrunawayhousingcostsfor everyoneelsewhoisn’t aluckyrecipient of anaffordableunit.

Additionally, whileI’msuresomeof youaredismayedtoseehomeownershipopportunitiesremovedfromtheIHO, I wouldask:dowehaveanyevidencethatinclusionaryhousingasappliedtohomeownershiphasanypositiveeffectonthehomeownershiprate?I thinkit iseasytoassumethat, if youmakehomeownershipfor anyparticular personeasier byprovidingasubsidy, that, inturn, therateofhomeownershipwill improve. But therealityis, it ismuch, mucheasier toconvert anowner-occupiedhomeor condointoarental unit thanviceversa, andmanypolicies(someout of theCity’shands)encourageownerstodoso. So, totheextent that macroeconomicsfavorsthedevelopment of, andconversionof existingownershippropertiesto, rental properties, wemust buildnewhomeownershipopportunitiestoensurethat our homeownershiprateeither remainsstableor improves. AndIHOsdonothing,absolutelynothing, toencouragethedevelopment of homeownershipproperties. It canonlyactasadragonthedevelopment of thoseopportunities.

So, withexperienceover manyjurisdictions, it isbecomingclearer andclearer that inclusionaryhousingisnot inclusionary,but illusionary. It providestheimpressionof progressivepolicywithrespect tohousingwithout producingaprogressive, equitableresult.

Andthat makesmewonder: areIHOsreallya“progressive” policy, at all?I thinktheyusedtobeconsideredassuch; theyare, after all, atop-downpolicytodemandtheprivatesector providefor thelessfortunate, andtheydoadminister akindof roughredistributivejustice. But I hopethat thethinkingevenamongst self-describedprogressivesisevolving. Buriedintheheart of theIHO’slogicisacertaindespair, whichhardlysoundsprogressiveat all:wecan’tdoanythingaboutmarkethousingprices.Housingwillonlygetmoreexpensive.Wehavetoforcetheprovisionofaffordablehousing,evenifwegetonlyalittlebitofit,becauseitisthebestwecando.

I just don’t believethisisthe“thebest wecando”. Minneapolis, whichalsofacedanacutehousingaffordabilitycrisis, hasbuilt enoughhousinginthelast fewyearsthat it actuallydidbendthecost curveforallresidents. And, admittedly, it didsointhepresenceof aninclusionaryhousingordinance, albeit onemuchmoreaggressivethaneventheversionthat youareconsideringfromthePlanningCommission:theyset their ratesat 8%low-incomeor 4%verylow-income, eachfor only20years, for all developmentslarger than20units, or 20%low-incomefor 30yearswithcityfinancialaid. 1 Minneapolisalsodidawaywithminimumparkingrequirementsandsingle-familyzoning. Inother words, theyset their housingpolicytowardsthegoal of steady, constant housingdevelopment. AndInreturn, theygot broadrentalrelief for theentirecity, not just for afewpeople. Thereisnoneedtodespair. Hopeisanoption.

ThePlanningCommissionhasmadegreat improvementstotheIHOfromitsfirst draft circulatedintheSummer. I amdeeplyappreciativeof their insightsandexpertise. I amalsothankful that Staff hasbeenreceptivetofeedbackfromacrossthecommunity, andI thinkit hasdoneanexcellent technical jobofassemblingtheframeworkof theIHO. But morecanbedonetomakethisacornerstoneof atrulyprogressivehousingpolicy. CostaMesaisperfectlypositionedtolead. I hopewedo.

Best,JennTanaka
1 Notethat Minneapolis’sIHOalsocoversownershipunitsand,despitethispolicy,thehomeownershipratehasdroppedoratleastremainedflat. It certainlyisn’t clear that includingfor-ownershipunitsintheIHOhaspositivelyimpactedthisrate.

Attachment: Prior Letter tothePlanningCommission
November 13, 2023ViaEmail
PlanningCommissionof theCityof CostaMesaJennifer Le, Director of EconomicandDevelopment ServicesNancyHuynh, Principal Planner77Fair DriveCostaMesa, [email protected]@[email protected] Dear PlanningCommissioners, Director LeandPrincipal Planner Huynh:

Thankyoufor providingadraft of theCity’sinclusionaryhousingordinance(IHO). I appreciatethat thepublicwill beinvolvedinthisprocessasit isoneof themost important piecesof legislationintheCity’shistory. It hasthepotential tohavelonglastingeffectsonour housingmarket and, hopefully, it will makeameaningful differenceinthelivesof thosestrugglingtoaffordtheir homes.

I haveonlyafewsignificant commentsastheIHOappearstobefairlyreasonableandconservativeasproposed. It isclear that theCity’sStaff hasdoneagoodjobincludingrelevant stakeholdersandtakingadvantageof theexpertiseavailablethroughtheCity’sconsultant, Keyser MarstonAssociates(KMA).However, I thinktherearestill afewareasthat deserveasecond(third?) look.

First, acouplehigh-level thoughts. It ismyviewthat thetopreasonsthat ahousingpolicyissuccessfulare(1) thoughtful tailoringtothejurisdiction’sspecificcontext (economy, demographics, current landuse,etc.) and(2) featuresthat ensurethat thejurisdictionisanattractivedevelopment sitecomparedtoneighboringcitiessharingthesamelabor market.

Withrespect tothefirst factor, I still donot thinkenoughweight isbeinggiventotheblowthat’sbeendealt toCostaMesa’sdevelopment pipelinebyMeasureY. AsI havenotedinearlier letters, MeasureYhasleft fewpropertiesinthehandsof thoseinterestedinredevelopment. Thusmanyinfill projectswillrequirethelandtotransact prior tobuilding. Thisaddssubstantial capital coststoour projects, andthosecapital costswill bemultipliedbypersistentlyhighinterest rates.

Thisissueispotentiallyfurther complicatedbythepossibilitythat cannabisretail sitesmaycompeteforhousingsiteswithintheMeasureKarea, whichI haven’t seenanalyzed. Aswehaveseen, cannabissitecompetitionisfierceandwestill havemanyapplicants. Totheextent cannabisissuccessful inCostaMesa, it presentsalandusethat requirescomparablyminimal improvementscomparedtohousingproductionandpotentiallyhighlong-termrevenues. It wouldbeunfortunatetofindthat someof ourhousingopportunitysiteswouldbemoreprofitableandeasier todevelopascannabissites.

Additionally, I wonder if thesecondfactor —theIHO’scompetitivenesscomparedtoother cities—hasbeenadequatelyanalyzed. Investors, andthusthedeveloperstheyfund, donot haveallegiancetoanyparticular city. Rather, theyaremoreinterestedinthelabormarketsreachablebyanyparcel, assuchmarketswill justifytherentsandprovidesteadyaccesstonewtenants. Providedadeveloper canselect fromparcelswithcomparableaccesstothelabor market, theywill choosetodevelopinthecitywiththebest mixof regulatorycertaintyandincentives.

Thisimpliesthat lessrestrictivejurisdictionswithinthesamelabor market will experiencebetter ratesofdevelopment, andthisseemssupportedbytheinclusionaryhousingliterature. For example, aoften-citedpaper bytheNYUFurmanCenter for Real EstateandUrbanPolicy,TheEffectofInclusionaryZoningonLocalHousingMarkets, foundthat, whencomparingtheperformanceof inclusionaryzoninginseveraljurisdictionsinSanFrancisco, “...thenumber of unitsbuilt increaseswiththepresenceof adensitybonusandminimumproject sizethat triggers[inclusionaryzoning]. Theseresultssuggest thatlessstringentprogramsactuallyproducemoreaffordableunits, aplausibleexplanationif developersavoidjurisdictionswithhighlystringent programs” (emphasismine). Another studyfromtheFurmanCenter lookedat“upzoningwithstrings” inSeattle, WA, anapproachsimilar towhat weareattemptinghere, alsofoundthat inclusionaryzoningencourageddeveloperstorelocateprojectstonearbyparcelsthat didnot requireinclusionaryzoning, evenif thoseparcelswerenot upzoned: “Our quasi-experimental border designfindsstrongevidenceof developersstrategicallysitingprojectsawayfromMHA-zonedplots—despitetheirupzoning—andinsteadtonearbyblocksandparcelsnotsubjecttotheprogram'saffordabilityrequirements” (emphasismine).

Soinother words: althoughcounterintuitive,lower inclusionaryhousingrequirementscanproducemoreinclusionaryunitsoverall, providedthat theinclusionaryhousingrequirementsarelight enoughtomaintaineconomiccompetitivenessfor redevelopment comparedtoparcelsinthesamearea. Thus, ingeneral, moredevelopment witharelativelylowinclusionaryrequirement will producemoreunitsthanlittledevelopment withahighinclusionaryrequirement, especiallyif that highinclusionaryrequirement ismorestringent thanneighboringcities.

Withthat context inmind, I havethefollowingsuggestionsregardingthedraft IHO:

Increasetheminimumproject sizetoat least 25units. Twenty-fiveunitsistheminimumproject sizewherethelowest inclusionaryset aside—4%for VeryLowIncomeHouseholdsinprojectswithabasedensityof lessthan60du/ac—will result intheset-asiderequirement of onewholeInclusionaryUnit.Raisingtheminimumproject sizetothislevel (or higher) will alsosafelyexempt developmentsonsmallerlots, whichmayhavehighdensitiesbut will result infewer unitsandpoorer economiesof scalecomparedtodevelopmentsonbigger lots.

Asanaside, theAgendaReport notesthat, “of the[City’s] housingprojects[greater thantwounitsfrom2014-2021], whichwereeither locatedintheCity’surbanplanareasor alongmajor commercial orindustrial corridors, all weremorethantenunits.” Onewonders, though, if thoseprojectswouldhavebeenbuilt if our IHOhadappliedtothemat the10-unit thresholdat thetimeof entitlement. Haveweaskedthedevelopersof thoseprojectsif theIHOasdraftedwouldhavechangedtheir minds?If it wouldhavebeenafactor, thiswouldbefurther evidencethat weshouldrethinktheminimumproject size.

Lower theinclusionarythresholdsandthinkabout the“regulatorycliff”I ampleasedtoseethat KMAwasrequestedtoreanalyzeitsfindingsregardingthelikelihoodofredevelopment givenour skyhighlandvaluesandprofitable“goingconcern” landuses. However, eveniftheresultingthresholdsare“conservative” under KMA’sanalysis, I wouldencouragetheCitytobeevenmoreconservative. Thisisduetocompetitiveconcernswithour peer citiesthat shareour labor market.For example, HuntingtonBeachonlyrequiresa10%set asidefor lowincomehouseholdsat anydensity,whiledevelopmentsgreater than60du/acinCostaMesawouldrequirean11%set asidefor LowIncomeHouseholds. AndwhilethesethresholdslookattractivecomparedtotherequirementsinSantaAna, it is worthnotingthat SantaAnahasbeenstrugglingtoget itsinclusionaryhousingprogramtoworkasintended.

Additionally, weshouldkeepinmindthat Newport Beach, Tustin, FountainValleyandOrangearenotlistedonthecomparisonchart providedbyStaff. That isbecause, todate, thesejurisdictionsdonothaveaninclusionaryhousingrequirement, thoughadmittedlyseveral areconsideringone.

Inorder toremaincompetitivewithour neighbors, I wouldrecommenddialingbacktheinclusionaryhousingrequirementsfor thehighdensitydevelopments, perhapsfrom11%for LowIncomeHouseholdsor 6%for VeryLowIncomeHouseholdsasproposedto10%for LowIncomeHouseholdsor 5%for VeryLowIncomeHouseholds(or evenless). ThisbringsusmoreinlinewithHuntingtonBeachandoffersacompetitiveadvantagecomparedtoSantaAna.

Bringingdowntherequirementsfor higher densitiesalsoreducestheseverityof the“regulatorycliff”createdbythedistinctionbetween60du/ac+projectsandthoseunder 60du/ac. Asdensitywill bedeterminedonaprojectbasis, theunit differencebetween59du/acand61du/accouldbeminimal,especiallyinsmaller developments. However, asdrafted, theregulatorydragfor thetwoprojectscouldbeverydifferent. It wouldbeworthinvestigatinghowthiswill impact developer behavior.

Consider removingownershiprequirementsentirely. Multifamilyownershipprojectsarealreadystronglydisincentivizedbyinsurancerequirements, theFederal taxcodeandour highconstructioncosts.Therefore, evenwithout inclusionaryrequirements, it isveryunlikelymanycondominiumswill bedevelopedevenwiththebenefit of “free” upzoning. Soif weareseriousabout wantingtomakeadent inour “renter-homeowner ratio”, weshouldbeputtingasfewrestrictionsonthedevelopment of ownershippropertiesaspossible. I wouldalsonotethat, withownershipunitstargetingmoderateincomefamilies, anownershipprogramdoesnot alignwiththeCityCouncil’sexpressedinterest in“deepaffordability”.

Additionally, administeringaffordableownershipunitscanbeveryexpensive(especiallyonacost-per-unitbasis), asit requiresextensivevettingof newbuyersaswell asconstant maintenancetoensurethepropertiesaren’t sublet for profit. It mayalsoleadtostrangeandunintendedoutcomes, suchaspersonswithplentyof resourcesoccupyingaffordableownershipunitsfor verylongperiodsof time. Asalocalexample, theMayor of HuntingtonBeach, TonyStrickland, livesinanaffordableownershipunit that heinheritedthroughmarriage, aresult likelynot intendedbytheprogram.

Consider reducingaffordabilitycovenant duration. I recognizethat thelogicbehindthe55-yearaffordabilitycovenant isthat it alignswiththeStateDensityBonusLaw. However, it wouldbeworthinvestigatingthelikelihoodthat all or most developmentswill avail themselvesof theStateDensityBonusLaw, especiallyinlight of theIHO’sreducedparkingrequirements. Asanydevelopment must complywiththemost restrictiverequirement, theStateDensityBonusLawwill require55-year durationsfor anydevelopmentsthat useit. However, for thosedevelopmentswhereusingtheStateDensityBonusLawisn’t feasible, thelongtail of affordabilityisadisincentiveasit impactslong-termeconomics. Therefore,consider whether theIHO’srequireddurationshouldbeshorter thantheStateDensityBonusLawtoreducetheimpact of theIHOonnon-StateDensityBonusLawdevelopments.

Allowin-lieufeestoalwaysbeavailable, regardlessof project size. AccordingtotheAgendaReport,theIHOwill permit all ownershiphousingprojectstousein-lieufees, but onlyrental housingprojectsfewer than100unitsbepermittedtodoso. I thinkthereisareasonableargument that in-lieufeesshouldbeavailablefor all projects. First of all, 100unitsisasomewhat arbitrarythresholdother thanit feels“bigenough” tosupport on-sitedevelopment, anassumptionthat mayor maynot becorrect dependingonany number of contextual factors. Second, thereisnoreasonwhywecouldnot buildconsiderationforimprovedeconomicswithscaleintothefeescheduleitself. For example, Minneapolisincreasesthein-lieufeeastheproject sizeincreases(proxiedbybuildingheight). AllowingtheinlieufeetoapplytoallprojectsmaygivetheCityvaluabledataabout thevalueof inclusionaryunitsover time.

Itmustbestressedthatthein-lieufeewillbemucheasiertoadjustthantheinclusionarythresholdsorotheraspectsoftheprogram. Sincein-lieufeesareeasytochange, theyareuseful toolsto“dial in” theordinanceandtoadjust it for changingeconomicconditions.

AsalwaysI hopethat thesecommentsarehelpful. AsI saidabove, I believethisisoneof themostimportant ordinancesinCostaMesa’shistory. I knowyouwill giveit thetime, considerationandattentionthat it deserves. AndagainI amdeeplyappreciativethat thepublicwill beapart of that process.

Best,JennTanaka321Broadway, CostaMesa

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

PRESIDENT

BROOKE DOI

SHEA HOMES

1st VICE PRESIDENT

MEGAN ELTRINGHAM

THE NEW HOME COMPANY

TREASURER

DAVE MELLO

LANDSEA HOMES

SECRETARY

JOE OFTILE

WARMINGTON RESIDENTIAL

TRADE CONTRACTOR VP

ALAN BOUDREAU

BOUDREAU PIPELINE

ASSOCIATE MEMBER VP

MARK HIMMELSTEIN

NEWMEYER & DILLION, LLP

MEMBER AT LARGE

PETER VANEK

INTREGAL COMMUNITIES

MEMBER AT LARGE

SEAN MATSLER

COX, CASTLE, & NICHOLSON LLP

IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT

ERIC NELSON

TRUMARK HOMES

SR. VICE PRESIDENT, OC CHAPTER

ADAM WOOD
BIAOC
BUILDING INDUSTRY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC.

ORANGE COUNTY CHAPTER
17192 MURPHY AVE #14445, IRVINE, CA 92623
949-553-9500 I BIAOC.COM

January 16, 2024

Mayor John Stephens
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626

Re: Public Hearing Item 2 – Establish Affordable Housing Requirements

Dear Mayor and Council,

On behalf of the Building Industry Association of Southern California - Orange County Chapter (BIA/OC), I write to share several concerns that justify a delay in adoption.

The Public Staff Report for this item states on page 5, “(w)hile an affor dable housing
ordinance is one tool to address housing affordability, it is not anticipated to produce all of the affordable units that the City is mandated to plan for pursuant to the RHNA allocation.” This is the perfect place to start . Inclusionary Zoning will NOT solve your affordable housing needs but it will create a very real risk of making affordability much worse if done wrong. For ease of reference, this letter will follow the headings created in the Public Staff Report.

An Incentive-Based P rogram
This is a challenging and misleading heading. It is important to understand that there is nothing about mandating the construction of units at a loss that constitutes an incentive-based program. Allowing more housing in Costa Mesa isn’t a favor to home builders, it is a legal requirement under state law and a mandate from residents .

Labeling this effort as an incentive -
based system is an unfortunate
mischaracterization of the policy.

Planning Commission’s Recommendation
Generally, we are very supportive of the work done at Planning Commission. While we have structural concerns with the Inclusionary Policy, on its face, the Commission’s work did much to help mitigate risks so as to best position the city for a future under an Inclusionary plan.

Project Threshold
We strongly support the Planning Commission recommendation outlined by the Staff Report stating that “new housing projects under 60 dwelling units per acre and/or any projects under two- acres (even if over 60 dwelling units per acre) would be exempt from the ordinance’s requirements.” Ideally, this threshold will be credited to projects of all sizes as an incentive to jump-start construction in Costa Mesa after many years of inactivity.

Additionally, it is important to alter the Staff Recommendation to include specific language allowing projects of all sizes to elect between on -site, off-site and in-lieu fees alternatives. This allows home builders, in partnership with the City, the ability to respond to changing market conditions. Although there are plans to regularly revisit this O rdinance, the reality is that change can be hard to come by once language is enshrined. Flexibility built into the execution of this Ordinance is the surest way of preventing project loss in the years and decades to come.

Required Number/Percentage of Affordable Units
Both KMA and the Planning Commission advocate a fixed percentage of low and very low-income requirements on new homes. This can be a challenge as every new unit is extremely site specific and subject to ever-changing market conditions. Therefore, it is always best to create a policy that provides the greatest flexibility at the staff level to allow all levels of affordability to be utilized in the hopes of making projects pencil when they otherwise might not. In a manner, this is an extension of the points raised above.

We recommend increasing flexibility for current and future Staff to maximize production potential.

Affordability bands should be extended to consider options including 120% AMI and 150% AMI.

A workable solution would include a menu of options starting with 5% at 150% AMI, then 3% and 120% AMI, 2% at 80% AMI and/or 1% at 50% AMI. Such options allow home builders the ability to make projects pencil and in a housing crisis, a unit built will always be more important than an unbuilt unit with good intentions.

Exempt Ownership Housing Projects
We strongly support this recommendation from the Planning Commission. There is no denying the economics of for -sale and for -rent housing are wildly different. Inclusionary policies disproportionately impact for -sale home creation. Exempting for -sale projects will support desperately needed ownership opportunity that has been missing, at scale, for too long.

Staff Resources
Approval of an Inclusionary policy “ would create a new housing program that would require additional staff and consultant resources to implement, manage, monitor, and enforce the ordinance.” (Staff Report p.9) It is extremely important to understand the cost and who will pay for this additional level of government. Will administration of this program come out of in- lieu fees? A new Development Impact Fee? The General Fund? Understanding the budget requirements is important to ensure that a program isn’t created simply to fund the existence of a program and little more.

It is also important to create a specific plan for early implementation and staffing, in light of recent changes announced at the City. Project costs, or more likely consultant costs, can escalate quickly.

Next Steps
The Staff Report says, if “the City Council approves the first reading, staff will return at the next meeting for second reading. If approved, the Ordinance becomes effective 30 days after second reading. In addition, KMA will immediately complete an in-lieu fee study which will be presented to the Council for adoption by Resolution, concurrently with the effective date of the Ordinance.”

This is a very problematic timeline. Understanding the fee structure is central to understanding if this policy proposal works. To not discuss the fee until AFTER the ordinance has vested undermines the Council’s ability to creatively draft a policy that works. We have seen this in Santa Ana and in Tustin. Both cities put fee structures in place, at the recommendation of your consultant, that resulted in ZERO projects entering the pipeline while in effect. Utilizing this approach is Costa Mesa puts you on track to continue the non-existent production of Measure Y.

Alternatively, a brief pause should be entertained while Staff, Consultant and the Community meet to determine how an in-lieu fee fits into the larger community development narrative. Only after understanding the failures of your neighbors should a fee structure be integrated into the Inclusionary conversation, and in a manner allowing this Council to craft a comprehensive tool for the City. Advancing an Inclusionary policy today, without this approach in place, is incomplete at best.

Additionally, it is difficult to assess the fee or the Ordinance without a discussion of the design standards required under Measure K. Again, homes are very site specific and not knowing what will be required creates a siloed review of this Inclusionary policy that does not do justice to the holistic requirements the city will demand when housing proposals are finally able to proceed.

Alternatives
An important distinction is worth noting under the Alternatives heading. The Staff Report states, “City Council could also not approve the Ordinance, which may subject the City to litigation and/or other State enforcement actions .” As the old saying goes, it is important to provide “the rest of the story” to this claim. The city is similarly subject to litigation and/or other State enforcement actions if a policy is adopted that prevents housing from being constructed. Such impediments risk Housing Element decertification and other complications . Therefore, it is incumbent upon this Council to strike the delicate balance between these two extreme possibilities in crafting a policy to the benefit of all Costa Mesa.

13-328 Exemptions
Although not in the Staff Report, we have included this section to avoid missing an important opportunity. We suggest adding subsection (h) to Code Section 13-328, allowing for Development Agreements. Such a provision allows staff to constructively work with larger projects that have unique financing structures to create a mutual net benefit for the city outside the constraints of this specific ordinance. This is not an exemption preventing Development Agreement projects from including affordable housing, rather a provision that gives staff the flexibility to ensure innovative projects have the flexibility necessary to thrive.

With much to consider, we again request a delay in the adoption of any Inclusionary policy until the questions above have been addressed. Anything short of a full picture of budget impacts and practical implementation requirements reduces builder confidence and undercuts the incredibly hard work that went into securing the pro-housing Measure K victory.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of the points raised above.

Sincerely,

Adam S. Wood
Senior Vice President
Building Industry Association
of Southern California – Orange County Chapter

PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER
THE 12:00 P.M. DEADLINE
From: GREEN, BRENDA
To: TERAN, STACY
Subject: FW: Proposed Inclusionary Housing Ordinance - comments Date: Tuesday, January 16, 2024 2:34:57 PM
Importance: High

Brenda Green
City Clerk
City of Costa Mesa
714/754-5221
E-mail correspondence with the City of Costa Mesa (and attachments, if any) may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and as such may, therefore, be subject to public disclosure unless otherwise exempt under the act.

From: George Sakioka <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2024 2:31 PM
To: GREEN, BRENDA <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Proposed Inclusionary Housing Ordinance - comments Importance: High

Hi Brenda,
Can you please forward this email to the City Council for tonight’s meeting ASAP.

Thank you!
George

From: George Sakioka
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2024 2:30 PM
To: Nancy Huynh - City of Costa Mesa ([email protected] )
<[email protected]>
Cc: Jennifer Le - City of Costa Mesa ([email protected]) <[email protected]>; Amy R. Forbes - Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher ([email protected]) <[email protected]>; Brenda Green - City of Costa Mesa ([email protected]) <[email protected]>
Subject: Proposed Inclusionary Housing Ordinance - comments Importance: High

Dear Ms. Huynh,

We understand the City Council is considering the new inclusionary housing ordinance at its meeting tonight. We have collaborated with staff and appreciate the support and the effort to meet the City’s affordable housing goals.

We appreciate the inclusion of an option for dedication of land as a means of satisfying the affordability requirement, and the ability to locate an all-affordable project within a master planned community.

We do, however, have one lingering concern about how the ordinance is drafted.

Under Section 13-331, use of those methods is limited to circumstances where there is a determination that it is “economically infeasible“ or it would “impose an extreme hardship“.

Land dedication, and master planning an affordable housing project that supports the entire community, should be allowed as an independent means of satisfying the affordability requirement without having to resort to proving infeasibility or hardship. It makes good planning sense and will only pertain to large projects with the ability to generate a significant number of units. Those developments should be encouraged as they will help the City meet its goals.

We propose the sentence be changed as follows:

13-331. Alternative Compliance Procedures.

“The following are the alternative options to fulfill the requirements of this chapter if onsite production of affordable units is determined by the director or their designee to be economically infeasible and would impose an extreme hardship, or if it is determined to lead to a better planning result and/or additional affordable units. The director or their designee’s determination shall be made based upon evidence of economic hardship
provided by the
applicant.”

Thank you for your consideration,

George M.K. Sakioka

From: Steve Dzida
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Affordable Housing
Date: Tuesday, January 16, 2024 4:54:50 PM
Costa Mesa voters spoke clearly when we passed Measure K. The resolution presently being considered seems to ignore Measure K entirely. ALL new developments should require affordable units. 15% low or 10% very low for projects of 60 or more units; 12% low or 7% very low for projects under 60 units. We are counting on you!

Steve and Maria Dzida
1846 Kinglet Court, Costa Mesa
949/230-7375
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.

From: Cesar C
To: CITY CLERK; STEPHENS, JOHN; MARR, ANDREA; CHAVEZ, MANUEL; HARLAN, JEFFREY; GAMEROS, LOREN;

HARPER, DON
Subject: Item 2 - Public Hearing
Date: Tuesday, January 16, 2024 5:48:33 PM
Attachments: Costa Mesa Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Proposal Jan. 16, 2024.docx Mayor Stephens and Councilmembers,
Please see attached The Kennedy Commission's comment letter on Public Hearing Item 2 on the January 16, 2024 City Council agenda .

Item 2 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 13 (PLANNING, ZONING AND

DEVELOPMENT) OF THE COSTA MESA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH

AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW RESIDENTIAL

DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
The Commission is not supporting the current draft ordinance and affordable housing requirements as it are not enough to support affordable housing needed at the very low and low. In addition, the current proposal does not adequately weigh the benefits it is granting developers to build higher densities on opportunity sites identified for lower income housing and approved by the voters.

The implementation of a strong Inclusionary Housing Ordinance that specifically focuses on extremely low, very low and low is essential to address the housing crisis impacting lower income families in Costa Mesa. An Inclusionary Housing Ordinance will bridge the gaps of systemic inequity by providing safe and affordable housing to working families facing housing and economic insecurity because of the lack of affordable housing options.

We are strongly recommending that the city implement an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to ensure housing is produced equitably and creates balanced housing development to support housing for lower income residents.

The Inclusionary Housing Ordinance needs to require at minimum the following affordable housing requirements in exchange for the development incentives and the opportunity to build higher density developments.

Costa Mesa must increase its inclusionary requirements.

Increase the required set-aside to 15% low and very low or 10% very low-income for
developments of 60+ units per acre.

And
*Increase the required set-aside to 12% low or 7% very low-income for developments of 50-59 units per acre.

We look forward to working with the City of Costa Mesa to encourage effective housing policies that will help create balanced housing development and create much-needed affordable housing in our local communities. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (949) 250-0909 or [email protected] Sincerely,
Cesar Covarrubias
Executive Director
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. 1 January 16, 2024

Mayor Stephens and Councilmembers
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626

Re: Item 2. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 13 (PLANNING, ZONING AND

DEVELOPMENT) OF THE COSTA MESA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH

AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

PROJECTS

Mayor Stephens and Councilmembers

The Kennedy Commission (the Commission) is a broad-based coalition of residents and community organizations that advocates for the production of homes affordable for extremely low-income families earning less than $30,000 annually in Orange County. Formed in 2001, the Commission has been successful in partnering and working with Orange County jurisdictions to create effective housing and land-use policies that have led to the construction of homes affordable to lower-income working families.

We are writing today to urge that the City of Costa Mesa adopt a strong Inclusionary Housing program to incentivize affordable housing opportunities on sites that are identified in the 6th Cycle Housing Element. We have participated in the affordable housing ordinance working group and study sessions. Based on our discussions we strongly believe that the policy needs to ensure that the City will effectively produce affordable housing at the extremely low, very low, and low- income level, these are the units not being created by the market. Moreover, we want to ensure that the city includes an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance as part of their housing programs and priorities to support extremely and very low-income families in Costa Mesa.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING NEED IN COSTA MESA
Residents in Costa Mesa are being impacted by a housing and homeless crisis due to the rent increases and the lack of affordable housing options that are not being built in the city. 2 Many families continue to face economic and housing insecurity due to the high housing cost.

According to the City’s 2021-29 Housing Element data, there are a total of 24,987 renter households in Costa Mesa, with 12,640 or 50.6% of those households spending thirty percent or more of gross income on housing costs.
1 Additionally, 6,465 or 25.9% renter households are
extremely rent burdened and are paying fifty percent or more of gross income on housing costs.

The data also shows that a significant portion of job salaries in Costa Mesa employment industries fall into the lower-income categories.
2 The City should take into account its local
economy and offer healthy and affordable housing options that the current market-rate housing development is not offering.

Low income residents in Orange County would need to earn $51.39 per hour - 3.3 times the state minimum wage - to afford the average monthly asking rent of $2,648 and this does not account for current families that are living paycheck to paycheck.3 The housing policies and programs in Costa Mesa must support the residents living and working in the City.

As rents continue to rise in Orange County, the rental housing market has become unaffordable to lower income families struggling to remain housed. In Costa Mesa, the median income for a two- bedroom apartment ranges from $2,648-$4,581.4 These rents are unrealistic and unattainable for low and extremely low socioeconomic residents. Therefore, we are prioritizing the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance as a way to bridge the gap between the extremely low, very low-, and low- income rents and the higher rents in the housing market.

HOUSING PRODUCTION IN COSTA MESA
In the 2014-2021 Housing Element Planning Period the City of Costa Mesa’s lack of affordable housing policies and programs led to a robust housing production that greatly exceeded the above moderate-income level RHNA, but minimal production of lower income housing that only met a fraction of the city’s lower income housing needs. In addition, the lack of affordable housing policies led to a deficit of affordable housing sites for lower income RHNA in the 5 th cycle since
market rate housing was developed on the opportunity sites.

For the 2014-2021 Housing Element planning period, the city had a total RHNA of two, with one unit at very low-income units, one unit at low-income and 0 units at moderate and above moderate. While the City of Costa Mesa approved 9 deed restricted units at their lower RHNA, these numbers do not reflect the dire needs of the very low and low-income residents in Costa

1 SCAG Pre-Certified Housing Data for the City of Costa Mesa, April 2021 2 Costa Mesa 2021-2029 Draft Housing Element: Community Profile, August 2021 3 Orange County Housing Needs Report 2022, CA Housing Partnership Corp. 4 Rent Cafe
3 Mesa. However, for the above moderate-income units, the city outperformed and exceeded the RHNA by approving 1,192 moderate and above moderate-income RHNA units.

While market rate housing production is clearly happening in Costa Mesa because of incentives and concessions to developers, it is occurring in an imbalanced way that is not producing affordable housing for lower income families. The implementation of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance will continue to offer development opportunities and create affordable housing in exchange for the incentives and concessions being provided for market rate development. The Inclusionary policy will create affordable housing along with market rate housing. Moreover, it will encourage the city to prioritize housing that is affordable for residents living below the poverty line and facing housing and economic uncertainty.

In the current 6th cycle planning period, the city has a RHNA of 2,919 for very low-income households (families making less than $50,000), 1,794 for Low and 7,047 for moderate and above moderate. To date the city has not constructed any affordable housing developments for low-income residents. It is important that while the city creates new housing opportunities that it supports low-income residents through an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance that ensures housing is produced equitably and meets the current and future needs of all Costa Mesa residents. The Commission strongly recommends the city adopt an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance that requires 20% of units of all citywide residential projects be set at the extremely low (7.5%), very low (7.5%), and low-income levels (5%). This ordinance will ensure the city meets their low and very low-income housing needs.

The city must address housing inequity in implementing their 6th Cycle Housing Element to support acutely low, extremely low, and very low-income residents. We recommend the city prioritize an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to bridge the gaps within the housing market and provide various resources to low and extremely low socioeconomic income residents. The Inclusionary Housing Ordinance provides a framework for the city and housing developers on methods to address market and housing needs while providing incentives to build and options to meet the affordable housing onsite, off site, with in lieu fees or donation land.

An Inclusionary Housing program will help the city create certainty in development and will ensure that housing opportunity sites are developed with market rate and affordable housing in a balanced manner. The Inclusionary Housing Ordinance will also help the city not face no net loss as a result of losing affordable housing opportunity sites to market rate developments.

INCLUSIONARY HOUSING PROGRAMS
Inclusionary housing programs have a long history of success in addressing housing needs that are not addressed by market rate development. Traditional planning that provides greater development opportunities through specific plans, rezoning, and general plan amendments has 4 incentivized market rate development, but not produced affordable housing. A city must have an affordable housing program that produces balanced housing development. Amongst the cities in Orange County, there are thirteen cities that have adopted an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and have seen progress towards balanced and equitable housing development in their cities.

While most cities have exceeded their above moderate and moderate housing production in OC, only the cities with a strong affordable housing policy have created balanced housing developments that are meeting their low and very low-income housing needs along with market rate. Inclusionary Housing programs have proven effective in cities like Santa Ana and Irvine, where they are creating equitable progress towards meeting their RHNA for market-rate and low/very low-income housing. The inclusionary program is the same for vacant or non-vacant sites. Since most cities in Orange County are built out, most opportunity sites identified are non- vacant sites.

In Santa Ana, the Housing Opportunities Ordinance has been impactful in the development of affordable housing. Santa Ana’s program requires developments to contribute: a minimum of 15% of units that are affordable for low-income households, or a minimum of 10% are for very low-income households, or a minimum of 5% are for extremely low-income households.5 As a result of the program, in the 5th Cycle (2014-21) the City of Santa Ana greatly exceeded its RHNA targets in a balanced manner. It approved over 4,900 new housing units, the majority, 3,274 of the units were approved as market-rate above moderate and 1,568 units at the low and very low-income levels.

Another positive example of an effective Inclusionary Housing Ordinance is the City of Irvine. The program requires 15% of units to be affordable at 5% moderate, 5% low and 5% very low. As a result of the program, in the 5th Cycle (2014-21) the City of Irvine greatly exceeded its RHNA targets, but also produced significant affordable housing in the lower categories. It approved over 31,009 new housing units, the majority, 29,823 of the units were approved as market-rate moderate and above moderate units and 1,186 units at the low and very low- income levels.

Because of the city’s desire to address deeper affordable housing levels the city is proposing new changes to the program as part of their 6th Cycle Housing Element implementation. The city is proposing to increase the inclusionary requirement from the 15% to 20% (9% very low, 6% low, and 5% moderate)
6 5 Santa Ana RHNA Progress 2014-2020
6 Irvine RHNA Progress 2014-2020
5 These cities have included the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance as part of their policies and programs, and it has not impacted their creation of market rate housing developments in the city.

Instead, the cities continue to incentivize market rate housing and also include housing units for acutely, extremely, very, and low-income families.

The inclusionary housing programs also offer an in-lieu fee option. With the usage of an in-lieu fee in both cities, the money deposited into the Inclusionary Housing Fund increase has been used to supply housing affordable to low, very low, and extremely low-income households in cities.

The fee is calculated based on the true cost to develop affordable housing units and other financial and market factors and lowers other development costs such as predevelopment.

Currently, Santa Ana’s in-lieu fee is: 5-9 units is $6 per square foot, and 10-14 is $9 per square foot, 15-19 is $12 per square foot, 20+ is $15 per square foot. In comparison, Irvine’s Inclusionary Housing program requires 15% (5% very low, 5% low, and 5% moderate) as affordable units and has an in-lieu fee of $16,600 per unit. As part of their 6th Cycle Housing Element the city is committing to increase the Inclusionary Housing to 20% (9% very low, 6% low, and 5% moderate).

Inclusionary rental and ownership homes have an affordability period up to 60 years from the time a home was built. Inclusionary Housing Program homes that are sold must be purchased by an eligible buyer and the price of the home must fall within an affordable price limit calculated by the City. The prices are calculated for affordability and are not driven by property values or other market conditions. This provides longstanding solutions to address housing needs. Inclusionary Housing Ordinances is an additional tool for cities that can be used with other housing programs and policies to create long term affordability and increase affordable housing options.

Costa Mesa must focus on creating balanced housing development that addresses affordable housing production not met by the market. Merely increasing production is not the answer to addressing the affordable housing crisis. As we have seen from past performance, the market is simply creating units that are not affordable to most Costa Mesa residents struggling to find affordable housing options. The focus should be on affordable housing and policies that create opportunities for extremely, and very low-income families. We strongly propose the city create equitable-development goals that support the current needs of the community now and for the future, which will not only come with increasing development but focusing on the overall picture of affordability and sustainability. The implementation of an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance will not hinder housing development, as demonstrated cities in OC have policies and programs to increase affordable housing and market rate housing in a balanced way.

We also want to acknowledge Costa Mesa’s Measure Y and its impact on affordable housing developments. One of the City’s largest constraints to affordable housing development is Measure Y , because it prioritizes lower density and less development options. The City’s residents recently passed a measure to exempt certain sites from the Measure Y constraints. These sites are vital to addressing affordable housing needs as they are being identified for affordable housing at lower 6 income. An Inclusionary Housing Ordinance would be a policy to ensure that affordable housing gets built at targeted categories at the extremely low and low income. If these sites do not produce affordable housing, the city will have a no net loss and will have to identify additional sites with the capacity of at least 3o units to the acre to meet its lower income housing needs.

CONCLUSION
The implementation of a strong Inclusionary Housing Ordinance that specifically focuses on extremely low, very low and low is essential to address the housing crisis impacting lower income families in Costa Mesa. An Inclusionary Housing Ordinance will bridge the gaps of systemic inequity by providing safe and affordable housing to working families facing housing and economic insecurity because of the lack of affordable housing options.

The Inclusionary Housing Ordinance needs to require at minimum the following affordable housing requirements in exchange for the developments incentives and the opportunity to build higher density developments.

Costa Mesa must increase its inclusionary requirements.

Increase the required set-aside to 15% low and very low or 10% very low-income for developments of 60+ units per acre.

And
*Increase the required set-aside to 12% low or 7% very low-income for developments of 50-59 units per acre.

7 Cesar Covarrubias
Executive Director

From: Kathy Esfahani
To: STEPHENS, JOHN; HARLAN, JEFFREY; MARR, ANDREA; CHAVEZ, MANUEL; REYNOLDS, ARLIS; GAMEROS, LOREN; HARPER, DON; CITY CLERK
Subject: Opposed to WEAK affordable housing ordinance-STRENGTHEN IT!!! Date: Tuesday, January 16, 2024 4:06:52 PM
Dear City Council Members,
Please don't blow it. You must strengthen the requirements of the proposed affordable housing ordinance.

The current version of the proposed inclusionary ordinance is a terrible disappointment.

It falls short in three crucial respects.

1. It applies only to developments with densities of 60+ units per acre.

This is a shocking betrayal of all those who voted for Measure K.

Limiting the inclusionary requirement to projects of 60+ units per acre means there will be no new affordable housing anywhere except on land north of the 405, in the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan area. All the other new housing that will come to our city because of Measure K –such as in the Harbor Mixed Use Overlay or the 19 West or SoBECA urban plans with densities of 50- 59 units per acre – will be exempt from the inclusionary requirement.

Costa Mesa voters passed Measure K because they wanted affordable housing to be built in our city. With this proposed ordinance, we will get lots of new dense housing throughout Costa Mesa, but very little of it will be affordable housing .

2. The affordable requirement does not apply to developments of under two acres.

So a very dense development on 1.75 acres north of the 405 (where the North CM Specific Plan allows 90 units per acre) would require zero affordable units.

3. When it does apply, it requires very few affordable units – either 10% low income or 5% very low income.

For example, if a development has 120 units on two acres, the developer can satisfy the affordable housing requirement with only 6 very low-income units or 12 low income.

Santa Ana’s “housing opportunity program” requires much more: either 15% low income, 10% very low income, or 5% extremely low-income. And Santa Ana is seeing lots of new residential development – the higher inclusionary requirements are not stopping development next door.

Costa Mesa must increase its inclusionary requirements. * Increase the required set-aside to 15% low or 10% very low-income for developments
of 60+ units per acre.

And
*Increase the required set-aside to 12% low or 7% very low-income for developments of 50-59 units per acre.

Respectfully,
Kathy Esfahani
Costa Mesa resident and Chair of the CM Affordable Housing Coalition 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.

From: Linda Tang
To: STEPHENS, JOHN; HARLAN, JEFFREY; MARR, ANDREA; CHAVEZ, MANUEL; REYNOLDS, ARLIS; GAMEROS, LOREN; HARPER, DON; CITY CLERK
Subject: RE: Reject but Strengthen Proposed Affordable Housing Ordinance Date: Tuesday, January 16, 2024 5:18:09 PM
Dear City Council Members,
I want to express my deep disappointment over the currently proposed Affordable Housing Ordinance. Affordable housing advocates have met with City staff on several occasions and we have voiced the dire need to create an effective tool that would encourage the development of housing that would be affordable lower income households in the city. Unfortunately, the proposed ordinance FAILS to maximize it's potential and value to build more affordable homes in the city.

I am urging the city to please reject the current draft ordinance and instead request City staff to revisit, revise and strengthen the ordinance to be more impactful. In addition, please refer to Ms. Kathy Eshafani's articulate email and recommendations below. These recommendations should be considered and incorporated into strengthening the proposed affordable housing ordinance.

Thank you for your time.
-Linda Tang
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Kathy Esfahani <[email protected]
>
Date: Tue, Jan 16, 2024, 4:09 PM
Subject: Feel free to copy this if you want
To: Linda Tang <[email protected]
>, Dianne Russell <[email protected]>,
Christine Nolf <[email protected]>, Ian Stevenson Trellis E.D. <[email protected]>, Rev. Monica Corsaro <[email protected]>, Cesar Convarubias <[email protected]>, Steve Dzida <[email protected]>, Maria Dzida <[email protected]>
They need to hear from us fast.
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Kathy Esfahani <[email protected]
>
Date: Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 4:06 PM
Subject: Opposed to WEAK affordable housing ordinance-STRENGTHEN IT!!! To: john stephens council <[email protected] >,
<[email protected]>, andrea marr council <[email protected]>, Manny Chavez council <[email protected]>, arlis reynolds council <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Dear City Council Members,
Please don't blow it. You must strengthen the requirements of the proposed affordable housing ordinance.