Public Comments — Costa Mesa City Council, April 2, 2024

From: HAUSER, JANET
To: GREEN, BRENDA; TERAN, STACY
Subject: FW: Costa Mesa Bike Lanes
Date: Monday, April 1, 2024 11:24:37 AM
Please see below.

Janet Hauser
Executive Assistant to Council
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive | Costa Mesa | CA 92626 |
P (714) 754-5107 M (714)949-3693
“The City of Costa Mesa serves our residents, businesses and visitors while promoting a safe, inclusive, and vibrant community.”
City Hall is open to the public 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday and alternating Fridays, except specified holidays. Appointments can be made online at www.costamesaca.gov/appointments.

From: Mae Hubel <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2024 4:20 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL <[email protected]>
Subject: Costa Mesa Bike Lanes

Hi Costa Mesa City Council,

Just wanted to send along some appreciation and personal perspective for the bike lanes I keep seeing pop up around Costa Mesa!

I moved to Costa Mesa last August and have since been having fun building up my repertoire of “bike-friendly” segments around town -- shortcuts through alleys and parking lots and smaller residential streets to connect bike paths and roads with designated bike lanes. I live on Maple Ave, just off 19
th street, and regularly (probably once or twice weekly?) will bike around the back bay loop via Santa Ana Ave bike lane to get to the 22nd St / Irvine Ave path entrance. I weekly will bike to the beach from home, taking a series of alleys and parking lot cut throughs to dodge gnarly intersections (and avoid biking on 19
th between Newport and Placentia). Every once in a while I’ll go to Neat Coffee, which I bike to via the back alley behind the DMV to avoid biking on 19th. I feel lucky to have the biking experience and confidence to explore new routes, as the process often comes with needing to navigate out of some dicey car-dominant roads.

My roommate recently got a bike, but has found it harder to bike around town with as much ease because she doesn’t feel confident navigating larger roads without a designated bike lane. Sidewalks are often the safest alternative, but pose their own difficulties when spotted with people waiting at a bus stop or folks in wheelchairs less mobile to step out of the way of a biker. I have been showing her some of the bike lanes in the area and hopefully she too can build up her bike-friendly repertoire, but it will come with a learning curve for sure. Every new bike lane closes the gap between another “bike-friendly” segment, reducing the need for so many back alley cut-throughs, reducing the learning curve for a less experienced biker.

I love biking. In every city I have lived, I have felt its profound impact of feeling far more connected to the place I am living. I feel I know the streets better than I ever did by car. I notice more about my surroundings—more coffee shops and restaurants I want to try, libraries and parks I want to explore, hubs of people milling around a taco stand I can hop off and join. I will sometimes chat with someone else stopped at a stoplight next to me. I not infrequently swap recommendations with other bikers about the best bike lanes and bike paths within the area to build a safe and approachable route. I just got back from an evening ride in which I literally just biked up and down Placentia Ave because I needed to let off some steam and I knew I could rely on that bike lane to be clearly designated and well lit. Thank you for that bike lane!!! It has provided not only a functional connection between Hamilton St and Fairview Park on a sunny day but also a space to refresh my mental health at the end of a stressful day.

Anyway, I could talk pretty much endlessly about how biking has changed my life but just wanted to pass along my gratitude for putting these bike lanes into play!

Best,
Mae Hubel
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: Aaron Mendoza
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: For General Public Comment
Date: Friday, March 22, 2024 10:55:58 AM
Attachments: Outlook-eppowzlh.png
Obj. 2 Public Comment Presentation (1).pdf
Public Comment (2).pdf
Hello,
I am emailing the City Council on behalf of the Tobacco-Free Orange county program advocating for the benefits of a smoke-free outdoor dining policy including the outdoor areas or bars, clubs, restaurants, and catering businesses within the City of Costa Mesa. Attached are a short letter and visual presentation supporting the need for a smoke-free outdoor dining policy including data collected by us from the residents of Costa Mesa.

Thank you,
Aaron Mendoza
Health Educator | Prevention and Education
Contact Email: [email protected]
Partners4Wellness.org
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.

March 22
Via Email
Costa Mesa City Council
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 926926

Dear Members of the City Council,
As a member of our community, I strongly advocate for smoke-free outdoor dining, which should encompass vaping as well, in all restaurant patios, bars, nightclubs, and catering businesses.

Clean air is a fundamental right for all patrons, workers, and passersby. Outdoor areas of eateries and entertainment venues should be places where everyone can enjoy fresh air without exposure to harmful secondhand smoke or aerosols.

Implementing smoke-free policies not only promotes public health but also enhances the overall dining and social experience. It encourages healthier lifestyles and protects the well-being of all individuals, including children and those with respiratory conditions.

Let's prioritize the health and comfort of our community by expanding current smoking ordinances to support smoke-free outdoor dining policies that include vaping in all relevant establishments. Together, we can create spaces that promote wellness and enjoyment for everyone.

Smoke-Free
Outdoor Dining
Areas
Aaron Mendoza
Health Educator
Tobacco Free Orange County Program www.Partners4Wellness.org Our goal is to pass an ordinance in
the City of Costa Mesa prohibiting
the use of tobacco products in the
outdoor dining areas of; bars,
restaurants, nightclubs,
and mobile-catering businesses.

Our Goal
In Non-Smoking Residences
In Smoking ResidencesIn Restaur
ants and Bars
0 1
2 3
4 5
Those who live around
smokers experience 2 times
more exposure to secondhand
smoke than those who do not
In Smoking Residences
Those who work in restaurants
and bars experience 2 to 5 times
more exposure to secondhand
smoke than those who do not
In Restaurants and Bars
Secondhand Smoke
In Bars and Restaurants
2x
5x
American Lung
Association (2019)
Secondhand Smoke causes harmful
inflammatory and respiratory effects
within 60 minutes of exposure which last
for up to three hours.

Exposure to secondhand smoke, even
for brief periods, can lead to adverse
health effects as there is no safe
threshold for inhaling tobacco smoke.

Health Effects of Secondhand Smoke
More than 7,000 chemicals have
been identified in secondhand
tobacco smoke. At least 69 of
these chemicals are known to
cause cancer, including arsenic,
benzene, beryllium, chromium,
and formaldehyde.

National Cancer
Institute (2022)
Cancer
Heart Disease
Decreased Lung Function
Reproductive Health Issues
Weakened Immune System
Dental and Oral Health Problems
National Cancer
Institute (2022)
Consequences of Long-term Exposure to
Secondhand Smoke
300,000 infants develop respiratory infections
15,000 are hospitalized
430 die of SIDS
1 in 10 infants are harmed by secondhand smoke
Every Year
American Lung
Association (2019)
Support86%
Against14%
Out of 138 surveys, 86% of
Costa Mesa Residents
Supported Banning the
Use of Tobacco Products
in Outdoor Dining Areas
Tobacco Free
Orange County (2022)
Public Opinion Poll Surveys
Results in Costa Mesa
Motivate people to quit smoking
Prevent the initiation of smoking in adults and youth
Protect employees of local businesses
Reduce harm from secondhand and thirdhand smoke
Combat normalization of tobacco use
Make Costa Mesa a healthier place to live
American
Nonsmokers’ Rights
Foundation (2024)
Benefits of a Smoke-Free Outdoor Dining Policy
Do Not Prohibit Smoking64.6%
Prohibit Smoking in ONLY Restaurants26.1%
Prohibit Smoking in Bars and Restaurants9.3%115 out of 482 California
Municipalities
already prohibit
Smoking in Outdoor
Areas of Bars and
Restaurants
Partners for
CDPH (2024)
Aaron Mendoza
Health Educator
[email protected]
Contact Us: [email protected]
Visit our website: www.Partners4Wellness.org
Thank You!
From: HAUSER, JANET
To: GREEN, BRENDA; TERAN, STACY
Subject: FW: affordable Housing Ordinance
Date: Thursday, March 28, 2024 12:38:07 PM

Janet Hauser
Executive Assistant to Council
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
| Costa Mesa | CA 92626 |
P (714) 754-5107 M (714)949-3693
“The City of Costa Mesa serves our residents, businesses and visitors while promoting a safe, inclusive, and vibrant community.”
City Hall is open to the public 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday and alternating Fridays, except specified holidays. Appointments can be made online at www.costamesaca.gov/appointments.

From: Margaret Mooney <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2024 12:37 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL <[email protected]>
Subject: affordable Housing Ordinance

This is to encourage the city
council to adopt a STRONG
affordable housing ordinance.

This ordinance must include
the following requirements:

15% low income units in new
complexes of 40 plus units per
acre, and/or 10% very low
income units in complexes of
40 or more units per acre.

In addition the ordinance must
include a requirement of 6%
lower income or 4% very low
income units in complexes of
39 or fewer units per acre.

I look forward to such an
ordinance being adopted.

Charles Mooney
Costa Mesa resident
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: HAUSER, JANET
To: GREEN, BRENDA; TERAN, STACY
Subject: FW: Affordable Housing Ordinance
Date: Thursday, March 28, 2024 12:18:01 PM
Please see below.

Janet Hauser
Executive Assistant to Council
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
| Costa Mesa | CA 92626 |
P (714) 754-5107 M (714)949-3693
“The City of Costa Mesa serves our residents, businesses and visitors while promoting a safe, inclusive, and vibrant community.”
City Hall is open to the public 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday and alternating Fridays, except specified holidays. Appointments can be made online at www.costamesaca.gov/appointments.

From: Margaret Mooney <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2024 12:14 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL <[email protected]>
Subject: Affordable Housing Ordinance

I am writing to encourage the
city council to adopt a Strong
affordable housing ordinance
to include:

15% lower-income units in
complexes of 40 plus units per
acre. Please include 10% very
low income in complexes of 40
plus units per acre.

I would encourage an
ordinance
of 6% lower-income
units in complexes of 39 or
fewer units per acre or 4% very
low-income units.

This is very important to our
city to lower the incidence of
homelessness and offer clean,
attractive housing to our
residents.

I have been disappointed with
the concerns expressed for the
income or benefits to the
developers.

I suggest we
continue to look for developers
that focus on low income
housing units.

Several years
ago I spoke with Housing and
Development resources
serving this area that can
surely refer us to developers of
low income housing, Please
contact me to assist in efforts
to re-establish those contacts.

Margaret Mooney
Costa Mesa resident
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: Betsy Densmore
To: STEPHENS, JOHN; REYNOLDS, ARLIS; CHAVEZ, MANUEL; Andrea Marr; HARLAN, JEFFREY; GAMEROS, LOREN;

CITY CLERK
Subject: Affordable Housing Ordinance
Date: Friday, March 29, 2024 10:34:33 PM
Hello gentle people,
Right now, we have a housing shortage which affects everyone from seniors to young professionals to the working poor. Folks who grew up here can’t afford an apartment, never mind a house.

Service workers that we need to sustain our businesses are choosing between over-crowded apartments, long, wasteful commutes or moving out of state.

Those fortunate to own one of Costa Mesa’s single family homes need to recognize that in the long run, our vibrant businesses and the value of their homes depends on the city retaining its diverse, mixed-income population.

For this reason, I am glad that the Council
is poised to pass an affordable housing ordinance.

Please make sure this ordinance ensures that lower-income units are required in all new apartment complexes. Mixed income developments are consistent with our values and help us to provide for those with fixed incomes, our service workers and young professionals. I strongly support the recommendation that new apartment complexes designate 15% of their units for lower income individuals and families (meaning their income does not exceed 70% of our Average Median Income).

I also charge developers and the city with taking advantage of new building methods, such as off-site prefab, which reduce the unit cost and time needed to construct apartments. Can we encourage retrofits of older buildings? Are we implementing changes in the building code to promote such innovative building methods?
They are out there!
More housing ASAP will also slow the “greedflation” trend that has pushed Costa Mesa rents up by about 34% in the last few years.

I think Costa Mesa is better run than many cities because its staff and elected officials are mindful of the need to balance diverse interests. Please do your part with this Housing Ordinance.

Thank you for representing us.

I know it’s not easy!
Best Regards,
Betsy

Betsy Densmore
[email protected]
949-500-2381
“If you can convince the lowest white man that he is better than the best black (a.k.a. non-white), he won’t notice that you’re picking his pockets. Hell, give him someone to look down on and he’ll empty his pockets for you.” L. B. Johnson, 1960 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: Christine Nolf
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Advocating for a Strong Affordable Housing Ordinance Date: Saturday, March 30, 2024 10:20:34 PM
Dear Mayor and City Council,
Hello, my name is Christine Nolf. I an a lifelong (49 years) Costa Mesan and I have been a member of the Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition for over a decade, going on two. From the beginning, our work has centered on having an inclusionary housing ordinance for Costa Mesa.

It is very exciting to be at this point of adopting an ordinance.

You may know that I am also a pastor in our city. As a Christian leader, I am bound by the tenets of my faith to lift my voice on behalf of the most vulnerable and marginalized in our community. To be straightforward, the economically poor. Our scriptures are clear that God hears the cries of the oppressed and has set up a system of economic restoration in the face of economies that extract the life out of people.

You have an opportunity to participate in shaping an economy of restoration, one that will lift the burden from families most hard-pressed. I urge you to shape a strong inclusionary ordinance that will benefit the most people possible while incentivizing developers.

Let’s get this ordinance over the finish line with strong affordability and in lieu fees. I will be there cheering you on along with neighbors who will be impacted.

Here is what I am asking for along with many neighbors:
15% lower-income units in new apartment complexes of 40+ units per acre (15% low-income or 10% very-low-income)
6% lower-income units in new apartment complexes of 39 units or less per acre (6% low-income or 4% very-low-income)
Gratefully,
Christine Nolf
CM Resident and Local Pastor
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 Chandler
To: STEPHENS, JOHN; REYNOLDS, ARLIS; CHAVEZ, MANUEL; [email protected]; HARLAN, JEFFREY;

GAMEROS, LOREN
Cc: CITY CLERK
Subject: Affordable Housing Ordinance
Date: Monday, March 25, 2024 9:45:19 AM
Good morning, Council Members.

As you prepare for the upcoming council meeting on Tuesday, April 2nd, I'd like to add my voice in support of a strong ordinance to create affordable homes our community desperately needs. As I'm sure is true of the neighborhood in which you live, many people are unable to afford the home they currently live in, let alone those who have been experiencing a housing disparity. As we continue to see new housing developments and growth within our city, I would like to see the following support all of our city's residents:
15% lower-income units in new apartment complexes of 40+ units per acre (15% low- income or 10% very-low income)
6% of lower-income units in new apartment complexes of 39 or fewer units per acre (6% low-income or 4% low-income)
The “in lieu fee” alternative must be set high enough to:
(1) encourage developers to build affordable units rather than pay fees, or (2) generate sufficient funds to build 100% affordable projects sooner rather than later.

I look forward to joining you on Tuesday, April 2nd.

Justin Chandler
Lead
Pastor
T 714.556.7787
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: Dave Gundlach
To: STEPHENS, JOHN; REYNOLDS, ARLIS; CHAVEZ, MANUEL; [email protected]; HARLAN, JEFFREY; GAMEROS, LOREN; CITY CLERK
Subject: Affordable Housing
Date: Monday, March 25, 2024 3:05:17 PM
Dear Council Members,
Thanks for all you do for our city! I know it can often be a thankless job, but we appreciate you!
I'm writing regarding your upcoming April 2 council meeting, and I just wanted to add my voice to encourage you to adopt the Affordable Housing Ordinance with at least 15% lower-income units.

Thank you for your consideration,
Dave Gundlach
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.

Dear Councilmember,

I am a Costa Mesa resident and writing to ask you to adopt a strong affordable housing ordinance to meet the housing crisis. Please adopt the following requirements:

· 15% lower-income units in new apartment complexes of 40+ units per acre (15% low-income or 10% very-low-income)

§ 6% lower-income units in new apartment complexes of 39 units or less per acre (6% low- income or 4% very-low-income.

Thank you for your attention,
Nombre

Promotores de Salud de OC:

Ana Lidia Tutila ED
Juana Maria Trejo CD

From: Curt Rollison
To: STEPHENS, JOHN; REYNOLDS, ARLIS; CHAVEZ, MANUEL; [email protected]; HARLAN, JEFFREY; GAMEROS, LOREN; CITY CLERK
Subject: I strongly support affordable housing!
Date: Sunday, March 31, 2024 8:57:35 PM
Dear Costa Mesa City Council,
As a Costa Mesa homeowner and resident of District 2, I urge the council to adopt a strong affordable housing ordinance to meaningfully address the affordability crisis in our city.

I ask that the council adopt the following lower-income requirements... 15% lower-income units in new apartment complexes of 40+ units per acre (15% low- income or 10% very-low-income)
6% lower-income units in new apartment complexes of 39 units or less per acre (6% low-income or 4% very-low-income)
Thank you for your service and careful consideration.

See you Tuesday night at the council meeting,
Curt Rollison
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: Jessica Rollison
To: STEPHENS, JOHN; REYNOLDS, ARLIS; CHAVEZ, MANUEL; [email protected]; HARLAN, JEFFREY; GAMEROS, LOREN; CITY CLERK
Cc: Curt Rollison
Subject: Keep Costa Mesa CostAMAZING with more affordable housing! Date: Sunday, March 31, 2024 9:11:15 PM
Esteemed City Council members,
I have been a resident of Costa Mesa for the past decade. My husband and I have raised our two young daughters here, and we purchased our first home in the Mesa North/Paularino neighborhood almost three years ago. We love this city so much, it's no surprise that our daughters' initials are "C" and "M"!
Costa Mesa has a strong sense of community, character, and culture, and we wouldn't want to see any of those things squelched by a housing market that continues to drive people out.

I'm asking you to help keep this city vibrant, inclusive, and wonderful by adopting a STRONG affordable housing ordinance at the city council meeting this Tuesday.

Specifically, I would like to see this council adopt an ordinance that includes:
15% lower-income units in new apartment complexes of 40+ units per acre (15% low- income OR 10% very-low-income)
6% lower-income units in new apartment complexes of 39 units or less per acre (6% low- income OR 4% very-low-income)
This is our opportunity to address the housing crisis in our city and to have a lasting impact on future generations of Costa Mesans.

Thank you for considering this vital opportunity, and thank you for all that you do to serve the city I know you love as much as I do!
With gratitude,
Jessica Rollison
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: Jim Kiech
To: STEPHENS, JOHN; REYNOLDS, ARLIS; CHAVEZ, MANUEL; MARR, ANDREA; HARLAN, JEFFREY; GAMEROS, LOREN; HARPER, DON; CITY CLERK
Subject: Low income units
Date: Thursday, March 28, 2024 11:19:27 PM
Please define the tenant rent for low and very low income housing. Is it a percentage of the HUD prescribed rents for this area, or some other criteria.

I can not attend the meeting, but as a Costa Mesa landlord I would like to know this information.

Please return this information by email.

Thank you, Jim Kiech
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: Kathy Esfahani
To: STEPHENS, JOHN; REYNOLDS, ARLIS; CHAVEZ, MANUEL; Andrea Marr; HARLAN, JEFFREY; GAMEROS, LOREN;

CITY CLERK
Subject: OPEN LETTER TO MAYOR JOHN STEPHENS -- Keep Your Promise! Date: Monday, March 25, 2024 5:41:20 PM

OPEN LETTER TO MAYOR JOHN STEPHENS

Keep your promise on affordable housing, Mr. Mayor!

We are individuals and organizations who are deeply concerned about the affordable housing crisis in Costa Mesa. Nearly 11,000 Costa Mesa households are burdened with unaffordable housing costs. These lower-income families are in dire need of affordable housing.

The Costa Mesa City Council must adopt a strong inclusionary housing ordinance to meet this crisis. We urge you, Mr. Mayor, to lead the way in adopting the following inclusionary requirements:

· 15% lower-income units in new apartment complexes of 40+ units per acre. (15% low-income or 10% very-low-income)

· 6% lower-income units in new apartment complexes of 39 or less units per acre. (6% low-income or 4% very-low-income)

Also, the “in lieu fee” alternative must be set high enough to (1) encourage developers to build affordable units rather than pay the fees, or (2) generate sufficient funds to build 100% affordable projects sooner rather than later.

Mr. Mayor, you promised CM voters that Measure K would bring affordable housing to our town.

DON’T RENEGE ON THAT PROMISE!

Adopt a strong inclusionary ordinance! We care, and we are watching.

Respectfully,

Christine Brooks Nolf, CM resident and local Pastor
Ian Stevenson, CM resident
Steve and Maria Dzida, CM residents
Rev. Monica Corsaro, Pastor of Fairview Community Church Robert Sterling, NMUSD teacher, AVID College Prep Program, Save Our Youth, Board Member Ivan Calderon, small business owner (Taco Mesa)
Elizabeth Densmore, CM resident and small business owner Rev. Dr. Sarah Halverson-Cano, CM resident and Pastor of Irvine United Congregational Church
Rev. Sian Wiltshire, Pastor of Orange Coast Unitarian Universalist Church Kim Claytor, CM resident and President at Newport-Mesa Federation of Teachers Jean Forbath, founder of Share Our Selves (SOS), CM resident Nadia Flores, CM resident
Mary Ann O’Connell, CM resident and small business owner Cynthia McDonald, CM resident and officer of Costa Mesa First Rick Huffman, CM resident and Treasurer of Costa Mesa First Kyle Paine, CM resident
Flo Martin, CM resident
Jayne Kaycer, CM resident, former Dean of Students at Chapman Law School (ret.) Dianne Russell, CM resident and former member of CM Planning Commission Kathy and Bahram Esfahani, CM residents
Jay Humphrey, CM resident and former Vice-Mayor
Cesar Covarrubias, Executive Director of the Kennedy Commission Linda Tang, CM affordable housing advocate
Christine Cameron, CM resident and public high school teacher (ret.) Mary Cappellini, Executive Director, Save Our Youth
Libby Cowan, former mayor of Costa Mesa, and Rebecca Chadwick Rev. Matt Hembrick, Pastor of Costa Mesa United Methodist Church Caleb Aparicio, LGBTQI+ Project Coordinator, Student Equity Department Office, OCC Christian Parra- CM resident and Pastor of Iglesia Harbor Diana Mueller- CM resident
Chris Kretzu, Costa Mesa pastor, South Hills Church
Ashley Anderson, NMUSD trustee representing Westside CM Justin Chandler, CM resident and Pastor or Harbor Trinity Church 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: Kathy Esfahani
To: STEPHENS, JOHN; HARLAN, JEFFREY; MARR, ANDREA; CHAVEZ, MANUEL; REYNOLDS, ARLIS; GAMEROS, LOREN; HARPER, DON; CITY CLERK
Subject: public comment on Affordable Housing Ordinance second reading Date: Monday, April 1, 2024 3:42:30 AM
Attachments: CMAHC letter to cc re April 2 vote on IZo.docx Please see the attached letter from the Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition regarding Public Hearing Item #1.

Thank you,
Kathy Esfahani, on behalf of the CMAHC
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.

April 1, 2024

Mayor Stephens and Members of the City Council
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA

RE: Require 15% Lower Income Units at 40+ Units/Acre

Dear Mayor Stephens and Council Members:

Your looming decision on the Affordable Housing Ordinance – what percentage of lower income units to require at what density and with how big of an in lieu fee alternative – is the most consequential choice you will ever make to advance affordable housing in Costa Mesa.

Please make the choice count.

We urge you to strengthen the proposed ordinance in two ways:
(1) Apply the higher affordability requirements to developments of 40+ units/acre. (2) Increase the affordability requirements to 15% low income or 10% very low income at 40+ units/acre.

There are many reasons to apply the higher affordability requirements to projects of 40+ U/A. This one should hit close to home: Those of you who campaigned for Measure K promised that the new developments allowed by this initiative would include affordable housing. But the current proposal would provide the barest minimum of affordable housing along all the commercial “corridors” south of the 405 where voters expected such housing to be built.

Measure K will allow all these corridors south of the 405 to be rezoned for high density housing at between 40- 55 U/A. But under the current proposal, the smallest affordable requirement (6% low/4% very low) will apply to all these properties.

Do you remember your campaign promises that Measure K would allow outdated, failing commercial centers along Harbor and Newport Blvds to be transformed into vibrant, new mixed- use developments that include affordable units? It won’t happen under the current proposal.

Instead, between 94-96% of the new units built along these corridors will be market rate housing. Producing lots of new market rate apartments will do next to nothing to address our city’s affordable housing crisis.

Nearly h
alf of Costa Mesa’s residents (47%) are lower income. Thousands of Costa Mesa families need very-low income affordable units. It is imperative that you strengthen the proposed ordinance so that it actually addresses our housing crisis by producing more units of affordable housing. Requiring 15% low or 10% very low income at 40+ U/A will do that.

Similarly, the in lieu fees must be raised to reflect this increased requirement. If you set the in lieu fees too low for developments of 40+ U/A, developers will pay the low fee rather than build units, and it will take far too long to amass the funds needed to build 100% affordable projects.

Santa Ana’s in lieu fee is now $15/sq ft.
1 It would be absurd to set Costa Mesa’s below that.

Moreover, Irvine’s in lieu fee is $29,000 per unit (approx. $29/sq ft). Our city’s in lieu fee should be somewhere between the fees set by these two neighboring cities, both of which are highly successful at producing both market rate and affordable units.

Develope
rs are telling you to minimize the percentage of lower income units required (and the in lieu fee alternative) or risk losing their development projects to other cities. But they are bluffing to protect their profit margins. Development has not stalled in Santa Ana or Irvine, despite each city’s robust inclusionary requirements.

Why would the Segerstrom family be willing to redevelop South Coast Village into a new mixed use development subject to Santa Ana’s 15% affordable housing requirement (or its $15/sq. foot in lieu fee) but balk at a similar requirement imposed across the street, on the Costa Mesa side of Sunflower?

1 A note regarding Santa Ana’s in lieu fee: In September 2020, the in lieu fee was modified from $15 to $5/sq. ft in response to Covid 19 impacts and a change in City Council. “Pipeline projects” immediately took advantage of the in lieu fee reduction to $5/sq ft, evading the earlier $15/sq ft requirement. In December 2021, however, the City Council approved the readjustment of the in lieu fee from $5 sq ft to $15 sq ft.

To date, the $15/sq ft fee has not impacted housing development in Santa Ana. In fact, the Santa Ana Housing Element shows that the city has over 6,914 new housing units planned in its pipeline of projects (2021- Present). Some of these projects will incorporate affordable housing as part of the development and others plan to pay the $15 sf ft. in lieu fee. These projects are in various stages of development post-2021 and will be coming forward with affordable housing agreements in the next few years. (See table C-2 Pipeline Projects [page C9-C10] in Sanat Ana Housing Element link: Housing_Element_-Complete-9.16.22_C ompressed.pdf (storage.googleapis.com) [go to page 185 ].

We urge you to put the interests of Costa Mesa’s lower income residents first. Help create the affordable housing they need by strengthening the proposed Affordable Housing Ordinance to 15% low or 10% very low at 40 U/A.

Respectfully,

Kathy Esfahani
Kathy Esfahani,
On behalf of the Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition

From: Dianne Russell
To: STEPHENS, JOHN; REYNOLDS, ARLIS; CHAVEZ, MANUEL; HARLAN, JEFFREY; GAMEROS, LOREN; CITY CLERK;

MARR, ANDREA
Subject: PH 1
Date: Sunday, March 31, 2024 12:07:55 PM
Dear Mayor Stephens and Council Members,
I am deeply concerned about the affordable housing crisis in Costa Mesa and want to support the Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalitions efforts. Nearly 11,000 Costa Mesa households are burdened with unaffordable housing costs. These lower-income families are in dire need of affordable housing.

The failed trickle down economic theories of the Reagan-Bush years did not work then and they will not work now. We cannot build our way out of the housing crisis. Changing zoning makes land more valuable. We need to recoup some of that value for the community benefit of affordable housing for lower income people who live or work in the city.

The Costa Mesa City Council must adopt a strong inclusionary housing ordinance to meet this crisis. We urge you, our City Council, to lead the way in adopting the following inclusionary requirements:

▪ 15% lower-income units in new apartment complexes of 40+ units per acre. (15% low-income or 10% very-low-income)

▪ 6% lower-income units in new apartment complexes of 39 or less units per acre. (6% low-income or 4% very-low-income)
Also, the “in lieu fee” alternative must be set high enough to (1) encourage developers to build affordable units rather than pay the fees, or (2) generate sufficient funds to build 100% affordable projects sooner rather than later.

Keep your promises on affordable housing,
There was a promise to voters that Measure K would bring affordable housing to our town.

DON’T RENEGE ON THAT PROMISE!
Adopt a strong inclusionary ordinance! The community cares, and we are watching.

Signed,
Dianne Russell
From: Lynell Brooks
To: HARLAN, JEFFREY; GAMEROS, LOREN; CHAVEZ, MANUEL; [email protected]; REYNOLDS, ARLIS; CITY CLERK; STEPHENS, JOHN
Subject: Strong, affordable, housing ordinance
Date: Monday, April 1, 2024 9:55:33 AM
Dear Costa Mesa City Council,
I am joining with many other concerned citizens of CM to ask you to vote for an ordinance of at least 15% lower-income units in new apartment complexes of 40+ units per acre (15% low-income or 10%
very low-income).

Plus 6% lower-income units in new apartment complexes of 39 units or less per acre (6% low-income or 4% very-low-income).

Thank you,
Lynell Brooks
Mesa Verde Resident
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: Jude and Sara L
To: STEPHENS, JOHN; REYNOLDS, ARLIS; CHAVEZ, MANUEL; [email protected]; HARLAN, JEFFREY; CITY CLERK; GAMEROS, LOREN
Subject: Support for Affordable Housing in Costa Mesa
Date: Sunday, March 31, 2024 3:45:10 PM
Hi,
I'm writing to ask that you adopt a strong affordable housing ordinance to meet the housing crisis.

Please adopt the following requirements:
15% lower-income units in new apartment complexes of 40+ units per acre (15% low-income or 10% very low-income) AND
6% lower-income units in new apartment complexes of 39 units or less per acre (6% low- income or 4% very low income).

Thank you,
Sara Mooney
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: Roy Rodas
Subject: Urgent Support for Strong Affordable Housing Ordinance in Costa Mesa Date: Saturday, March 30, 2024 8:01:05 AM
Dear Costa Mesa City Council Members,
I hope this message finds you well and in good spirits as we approach Easter Sunday. As a concerned resident and community member, I am reaching out to express my strong support for the adoption of a robust affordable housing ordinance aimed at addressing our city’s housing crisis.

The reality of housing affordability in Costa Mesa is reaching a critical point, and it is imperative that we act decisively to ensure that all our residents have access to safe, affordable housing. To this end, I urge the City Council to adopt the following requirements in the new ordinance:
- For new apartment complexes of 40 units or more per acre, a minimum of 15% of the units should be designated for lower-income households, with an alternative option of 10% for very-low-income households.
- For new developments of 39 units or less per acre, the ordinance should require 6% of units to be allocated for lower-income households or 4% for very-low-income households.

These measures are crucial for promoting inclusivity and diversity in our community, ensuring that Costa Mesa remains a vibrant, welcoming city for everyone, regardless of their economic status. By adopting these requirements, we can take a significant step toward mitigating the housing crisis and building a stronger, more resilient community.

Thank you for considering this urgent appeal. I trust in your commitment to the well-being of all Costa Mesa residents and look forward to seeing our city lead the way in affordable housing solutions.

Warm regards,
Roy Rodas
Lead Pastor
Faro Costa Mesa
Website | Facebook | Instagram | Twitter
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:

To: STEPHENS, JOHN; REYNOLDS, ARLIS; CHAVEZ, MANUEL; MARR, ANDREA; HARLAN, JEFFREY; GAMEROS, LOREN; HARPER, DON; CITY CLERK
Subject: Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
Date: Monday, April 1, 2024 12:37:46 PM
Hello,
I understand that there will be a first reading of our Inclusionary Housing Ordinance at the Council meeting tonight. I am writing to ask that you ensure that the ordinance is both strong and robust enough to meet the affordable housing needs of our City.

Just last week I heard a report that Orange County, Calif has been ranked as THE MOST EXPENSIVE county in the NATION for rent!!!! Highest in the
whole nation! No wonder people cannot afford to move here or remain here when their rents get raised. This is not just "low income" families or fixed income seniors, but pretty much EVERYONE who is not making a 6- digit income!
I believe that our Inclusionary Housing Ordinance should require NO LESS than 10% lower income apartments in ANY
size development, and that a
minimum of 20% lower income apartments should be required for larger developments (40 units, 50 units - whatever the "larger" designation is).

Even 10% / 20% will barely cut it for our very serious need for affordable housing in this city.

Let's say a developer wants to build a 20-unit building. At a 10% lower income unit requirement, that is JUST TWO UNITS for lower income people!!!!!
The other 18 would be at our exorbitantly high market rate! I am hearing that 15% lower income units is being recommended for larger developments.

That would only be 9 units in a 60-unit apartment, only 15 units in a 100- unit apartment, and just 45 apartments in a 300-unit building.

That is simply NOT ENOUGH!
If Costa Mesa wants to remain the beautiful and diverse community that we are today, we MUST ensure that our students and young professionals, our teachers, public servants and other lower income workers, AND our seniors and veterans can AFFORD to live, shop and play in Costa Mesa!!!
If this housing ordinance was also considering rent controls or maximum rental caps, perhaps a 15% lower income apartment requirement for new

developments would suffice.

But that is not the case.

I also understand that the "lower income" threshold rents are being determined by an average of current salaries and rents in our area, which as we now know - are the HIGHEST in the nation!
So whatever the lower income percentage of units that is set for new construction, it will still likey price out those who need affordable housing the most!!
Our very-low income residents.

My 90 year old father, a disabled veteran with only Social security and disability income, had to move into my home because there was NOTHING safe and affordable anywhere nearby.

Don't even get me started on Senior Living and Assisted Living locations!! Outrageous!
And my sister - a middle-aged woman who can only work part-time - cannot afford to move out of her rent-controlled unit way out in the far northwest corner of the San Fernando Valley and move closer to me to help with our dad! There is nothing even remotely affordable for her in central Orange County.

I humbly request that Council members consider NOTHING LESS THAN 10% affordable units required in all new developments of ANY size, and I strongly recommend that you consider 15% affordable units for developments of 40-100 units, and at least 20% affordable units for any development with 100 units or more.

Thank you for your time and consideration.
24-year resident of Costa Mesa
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: Michael Moses Nolf
To: STEPHENS, JOHN; REYNOLDS, ARLIS; CHAVEZ, MANUEL; [email protected]; HARLAN, JEFFREY;

GAMEROS, LOREN
Cc: CITY CLERK
Subject: Affordable Housing Ordinance
Date: Monday, April 1, 2024 6:39:45 PM
Dear Council,
Please adopt a strong affordable housing ordinance to meet the housing crisis in Costa Mesa.

Please adopt the following requirements:
15% lower-income units in new apartment complexes of 40+ units per acre (15% low- income or 10% very-low-income)
6% lower-income units in new apartment complexes of 39 units or less per acre (6% low-income or 4% very-low-income)
We have so many residents that are getting priced out of their homes and apartments, breaking up our community. These neighbors are important parts of our community and I hope you will treat them as such.

Thank you,
Michael Moses Nolf
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: Stephen Edwards
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: April 2nd City Council Meeting - Item PH-1
Date: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 10:01:11 AM
Attachments: image001.png
Hello,

This email expresses opposition to adopting an Affordable Housing Requirement in the City of Costa Mesa. Such a policy would significantly impact new housing development, especially ownership housing. Brandywine Homes has site control for 3.5 acres of land within a “Measure K Area.” If this requirement were adopted, the impacts would cease the development, and the blighted site, which has the potential for 70+ ownership units, would no longer be feasible. This would again halt new development in the City, just as “Measure Y” did in the past.

We urge the City Council to study the requirement further before adopting.

Thank you!

Stephen J. Edwards
Acquisitions Manager
Mobile: (714) 504-3685
Direct: (949) 264-8842
Fax: (949) 296-2420
[email protected]
| Brandywine-Homes.com

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: Priscilla Rocco
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Make Costa Mesa a Place Where Everyone is Welcome Date: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 11:57:07 AM
City Council,
As you know, an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (IHO) must be adopted or Costa Mesa will be noncompliant on the State's Housing Element. The State is asking that 40% of the development be affordable units. Costa Mesa residents - 47 percent of whom are low income - asked you specifically when you passed Measure K for affordable housing for seniors, veterans, disabled, students, young workers and others struggling to make ends meet. People being evicted due to rent increases come to the council meetings to beg you for help. Yet from your location high on the dais, the only people you hear are developers, landowners, and the cannabis industry.

Weak affordable percentages (with weak in-lieu fees) will leave a legacy where the City will be subject to legal penalties, loss of funds and other things such as the Builder’s Remedy. Even the promise of high-rise apartments along the main thoroughfares is limited now by the 30+ cannabis shops - some areas having eleven within walking distance of homes. Since 90+ percent of our affordable housing will be restricted to the already polluted Fairview Developmental Center next to the further polluting Emergency Operations Center, I fear a lawsuit for redlining will also be a part of your legacy.

Costa Mesa needs a strong IHO. You still have time to correct some of the damage you've done. Require 15% lower-income units in new apartment complexes of 40+ units per acre, or 10% very-low-income. And 6% lower- income units in new apartment complexes of 39 or less units per acre, or 4% very-low-income. Only by requiring more affordable housing at higher densities will we avoid redlining litigation, and keep Costa Mesa the inclusive city it is.

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.

April 2, 2024ViaEmail
CostaMesaCityCouncil77Fair DriveCostaMesa, [email protected] Dear Membersof theCityCouncil:

I understandyoumayfeel somepressuretoadopt an“aggressive” inclusionaryhousingordinance, oneperhapsevenmore“aggressive” thantheoneproposedtonight, onthetheorythat requiringmoreaffordableunitsinnewdevelopmentswill causemoreaffordableunitstobebuilt.

If onlythat weretrue. If it were, not onlywouldI besupportiveof themost aggressiveproposalsthat willbeput forwardtonight, I wouldbesupportiveof requiring30%, or 50%, or even100%of ourdevelopmentstobedeedrestrictedaffordable.

But it isnot true. What istrueisthat propertyownerspotentiallysubject totheproposedinclusionaryhousingordinancehaveachoice: maintainthepropertyas-is, redevelopthepropertythemselves, or selltoadeveloper whowill buildhousing. Andpropertyownersmayhavemanygoodreasonstonot toredevelopor sell. Maintainingrevenuestreamsfromexistingonsitebusinessesmight beone. Maintainingexistingpreferential propertytaxtreatment might beanother. Or theowner might just haveidiosyncraticpersonal preferences.

Our experiencewithMeasureYhasshownusthat not buildingisalwaysanoption. Andour consultant,KMA, andour Staff haverepeatedlyemphasizedthat theriskof gettingnodevelopment duetosettingthebar toohighisareal one. “Nodevelopment”istheworst casescenariofor everysinglehousingadvocateinthecity.

Yes, I tooencourageyoutokeepyour promisetobringaffordablehousingtoCostaMesa. But todoso,youmust buildhousing. It iseasytokeepyour promisesonpaper. Keepingthembyproducingresultstakescourageandleadership.

So, regardingthesecondreadingof theproposedinclusionaryhousingordinance, I want toreiteratemyprior suggestionsfor theCityCouncil’sconsideration. Thesepolicyrequestswereincludedinmyletter tothePlanningCommissiondatedNovember 13, 2023, andI askthat youstill consider themnow. I believethesechangeswill not onlymaximizethenumber of unitsthat canbeproducedunder thispolicy, but thattheywill alsomaximizethenumber of affordableunitsthat will beproduced. Achievingabundant housingproductionistheonly“win-win” scenariothat bothincreasesthenumber of market-rateunits(thusincreasingsupplyandtamingrun-awayrent inflation), andincreasesthenumber of affordableunitsavailabletolowincomeresidents. Sohereiswhat I wouldchangeinhopeswecanget there:
- Increasetheminimumproject sizetoat least 25units. 25unitsisthesmallest project thatwouldproduceonewholeinclusionaryunit usingthesmallest thresholdunder consideration(4%verylowincomeunitsfor developments<60DU/A). Raisingtheminimumproject sizewouldalsoallowthecitytoeliminatethe“slidingscale” of in-lieufees; bysimplyexemptingsmaller projects,thereisnoneedto“rampup” suchfeesandthecitycouldinsteadimposeasimpler, flat feeonlarger developments. - Lower theinclusionarythresholdsfor projects60+DUAto10%lowor 5%verylow. Thesethresholdsaccordwiththethresholdsset withtheStateDensityBonusLaw, andtheywerealsothethresholdsrecommendedbythePlanningCommission. Additionally, lower thresholdswillmaintaincompetitivenesswithcitieswherenearbysitesfor largeprojectsareotherwiseavailable,notably:- SantaAna: 15%low, 10%verylow, 5%extremelylow, or 10%withamixof incomes(5%low/3%verylow/2%extremelylow);- Irvine: 15%withamixof incomes(5%moderate/5%low/5%verylow);- HuntingtonBeach: 10%moderate/low/verylow; and- Newport Beach: noaffordabilityrequirementsyet.If our inclusionaryratesareset toohigh, development mayshift toother citieswithlower rates,andwemayseelittledevelopment activity.- Removetheownershipcomponent, whichfunctionslikeastraight taxontheconstructionof for-purchasehousing. If developersof for-purchasehousingwouldalmost alwaysprefer topayanin-lieufee, thenanIHOappliedtofor-purchasehousingisindistinguishablefromatax.Taxingsuchprojectswill result infewer (or no) for-purchaseprojectsbeingbuilt at anylevel ofaffordability.- Allowin-lieufeestobepaidregardlessof project size. Asexplainedbysomeof thedevelopers, the“breakingpoint” for in-lieufeesdependsonmorethanjust unit count; it alsodependsonother variablessuchaslandcosts, permittingreviewtime, sitepreparation, andconstructioncosts. It isimpossibletoknowor account for inadvanceall of thesevariablesfor anygivenproject. Byallowingin-lieufees(or other avenuesof compliance) tobeusedat all projectsizes, developersof smaller projectswill begivenmultiplewaystocomplyandthecitywillmaximizethenumber of projectsbrought tomarket.

Inaddition, I hadthreeother thoughtsontheagendareport that I wantedtopassalong.

First, I amnot persuadedthat thereisarushtoadopt theproposedIHOfromanHCDcompliancestandpoint. CostaMesa’shousingelement isalreadyout of complianceandcannot befoundincomplianceuntil it completestherezoningsassociatedwithour opportunitysites, whichwill not occur formany, manymonths. Therefore, I wouldencouragetheCityCouncil totakethetimethat it needstodevelopathoughtful andthoroughlyvettedprogrambeforeproceeding.

Second, I appreciatetheStaff’ssuggestionthat thecitycould“phasein” thein-lieufeesover time. I thinkthat isagreat ideaasit wouldgivetheCityCouncil anopportunitytoreviewthefeesandthedevelopment activityeachyear at thebeginningof theprogram. However, I wouldgoastepfurther andaskthat theCityCouncil consider phasingintheinclusionaryrequirementsthemselvesover time(or ascertaindevelopment thresholdsaremet). Doingsowouldallowdevelopment pipelinestore-emerge. Itwouldalsoencouragedevelopment tocometomarket quicklyrather thantosit andwait toseeif theCityCouncil will get nervouswhenlittledevelopment occursandlower itsrequirements. Thisexact scenarioplayedout recentlyinSantaAnawhere, after seeinglittletonodevelopment from2015-2020, theCityCouncil dramaticallydroppeditsin-lieufee. Additionally, if onlythein-lieufeeisphasedinover time,manyof theearlyprojectswill opt topaythelower feerather thanbuildtheaffordableunits, meaningyoumayseeactual affordableunit productionfor several years. Byphasingintheinclusionaryrequirementsside-by-side, producingtheaffordableunitsmayremainroughlyeconomicallyequivalent tothelowerfees.

Andthird, I wouldstronglyencouragetheCityCouncil tointerrogatethevariouscomparablecasestudiesthat havebeenbrought forwardbyStaff, most notablySantaAna, HuntingtonBeachandSanDiego. As notedabove, SantaAnahasbeendramaticallytinkeringwithitsinclusionaryhousingin-lieufeesinresponsetomarket conditions, andwhileit seemstobeattractingverylarge(150unit+) developmentsatitshigher rates, I wouldbecurioustoknow(1) what kindof concessionsarebeinggiventothesedevelopmentstooffset theinclusionaryrequirement, and(2) whether productionfromsmallerdevelopmentshassuffered. RegardingHuntingtonBeach, I tookalookat their programandfoundthat,whileit hasbeengoodat generatingfees, it hasbeenlessgoodat producingon-siteunits. I wouldalsointerrogatewhether HuntingtonBeachresidentshavebeenhappywiththekindof developments–inparticular their sizeanddensity–that endupbeingproducedunder itsordinances. Andfinally, withrespect toSanDiego, myunderstandingisthat inclusionaryunitsdonot havetopaydevelopment impactfeesrelatedtothoseunits, whichtomesoundslikeaverysubstantial concession. Without afullaccountingof theother incentivesthesecitiesprovide, it isdifficult tocomparetherelativeburdenof ourproposedIHOthresholdsandfees.

SooncetheCityCouncil settlesontheIHO’sparticulars, I expect theconversationtoshift inearnest tothedetailsof thezoningweexpect toprovide, whichhavebeenalludedtoas“generatingvalue” but havenever beendescribedspecifically. What exactlywill bethedensityset for eachcorridor?Will webeeliminatingparkingminimumsentirelyfor our MeasureKsites?Will webeexemptingaffordableunitsfromthecalculationof our development impact fees, asSanDiegohasdone?Will webeentertainingpropertytaxabatementsfor deeplyaffordableprojects, suchasHuntingtonBeachhasdone?What aboutheight restrictions, FARanddesigncriteria?Will webegrantingstreamlinedpermitting(assomedevelopershaverequested)? Takingaconservativeapproachtoour IHOwill allowthecitymoreflexibilitywhenweturntotheseconsiderations. But beingaggressivenowwill limit our flexibilitylater, or requireustogiveupconcessionswedidnot anticipateinorder toseethelevel of development wewant.

You, theCityCouncil, arewell positionedtoevaluatethe(well meaning) desiresof theresidentsagainsttherealitiesof regulatorycapacity, privateinvestment andthecity’sresources. Weall want thesamething: abundant, affordablehousinginCostaMesa.

Thankyou,JennTanaka321Broadway, CostaMesa
From: Costa Mesa First
To: STEPHENS, JOHN; REYNOLDS, ARLIS; MARR, ANDREA; CHAVEZ, MANUEL; HARLAN, JEFFREY; GAMEROS, LOREN; HARPER, DON
Cc: CITY CLERK; HUYNH, NANCY
Subject: Public Hearing Item 1 - Second Reading of Affordable Housing Ordinance Date: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 11:04:34 AM
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members:

Costa Mesa’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment was a surprise to many residents when it was assigned in 2019. It was little wonder to those who recognized that the City had been assigned a falsely low number for many years. As stated in the City’s Housing Element, about half of Costa Mesa’s residents are overpaying for housing. This is directly related to the City’s long-standing open door policy to developers of market-rate housing.

The City must now adopt an Affordable Housing Ordinance (AHO) to satisfy Program 2A of the 2021-2029 Housing Element. It is unfortunate that the City did not do so many years ago, as we requested of this City Council and prior City Councils. In fact, Costa Mesa First has long advocated for (1) inclusionary housing and (2) city-wide visioning as part of the benefits of smart growth principles, only to have those requests fall on deaf ears. What a shame it is that the City of Costa Mesa has allowed cities such as Irvine, Santa Ana and Huntington Beach lead the way in providing affordable housing. Thank goodness the State of California’s Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) recognized the good reasoning to require the adoption of an AHO.

We urge you to adopt a strong AHO. As currently drafted, the ordinance is weak and will not accomplish the goal of starting to meet the affordable housing needs of the public.

We request that you strengthen the ordinance by:
• Increasing the unit threshold in new apartment complexes of 40+ du/acre to 15% for low-income and 10% for very-low-income earners. • Increasing the unit threshold in new apartment complexes of 39 or fewer du/acre to 6% for low-income or 4% very-low-income earners. • Increasing the in-lieu fees to be the average of our neighboring cities of Irvine and Santa Ana, but no event should they be lower than the $15 per square foot currently adopted by Santa Ana.

By strengthening the AHO, the City will increase the odds that seniors, veterans, disabled, students, young workers, and others struggling to make ends meet will be able to find housing within their affordability range. The City’s goal should be to encourage building of affordable units in all new apartment projects and, while allowing the payment of in-lieu fees, it should set those fees high enough to discourage the option of avoiding the construction of onsite affordable units.

In addition, strengthening the AHO as requested above will show the HCD that the City is making a good faith effort in providing opportunities for construction of housing for all income levels.

Section 13-328(d) of the draft AHO cites California Government Code Section 65064.

That Section pertains to a condition of approval for a wireless telecommunications facility, so please provide the correct Section reference. In addition, the phrase “that provides affordable housing obligations comparable to this chapter.” is vague. There needs to be a clear definition of what is meant by “comparable.” We suggest that any new development agreement incorporate by reference the provisions contained in this chapter, as amended from time to time.

Immediately after the adoption of the AHO the City needs to identify a program or project for the use of the in-lieu fees that will be deposited into the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. Section 13-333 of the draft AHO is very broad in the use of the funds in that account. It is in the best interests of the citizens of Costa Mesa that the City identify a specific goal and it does not allow the funds to linger in Housing Trust Fund in perpetuity.

The Agenda Report states that the implementation of the AHO by the City will include rezoning of properties along the major corridors. That was something that Measure K was supposed to do, but the City never disclosed what that rezoning would be. We think it is time the City reveal its intentions. While developers have expressed an interest in bringing projects to Costa Mesa, it is important they understand that the citizens of Costa Mesa expect them to include affordable units in those projects. Please do not continue to keep the residents in the dark about the new anticipated zoning for the Measure K sites.

Thank you for your consideration.

Rick Huffman
Treasurer
Cynthia McDonald
Assistant Treasurer
Costa Mesa First
PO Box 2282
Costa Mesa, CA 92628
costamesa1st.com
(714) 549-5884
Costa Mesa First’s mission is to educate Costa Mesans about planning policies in Costa Mesa so they make knowledgeable choices when voting. We encourage residents to choose walkable, bikeable, and inclusive neighborhoods, and the land use and transportation policies and investments needed to make Costa Mesa flourish.

Our primary objective is to require Costa Mesa’s leaders to put the residents of Costa Mesa first.

From: Athena Balistreri
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Public response to City Council Meeting for April 2, 2024 - Agenda item regarding low income housing inclusion ordinance
Date: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 10:44:47 AM
Mayor Stephens and City Council,

My name is Athena Balistreri, I come to you today to speak out on the affordable housing crisis that is affecting our community at large. Today, you all have the ability to create long lasting, positive change for Costa Mesa residents that are facing financial hardship and struggling to keep a place to call home.

My neighbors, my family, my friends are the reason why today I am standing up to encourage you to take a stand for a robust affordable housing ordinance. Specifically, make 15% the total low-income units in new apartment complexes or 10% very low income. This percentage has shown to support new housing development throughout Orange County and will be a benefit to our entire community.

Our community is counting on you to have bold leadership with integrity and compassion.

As someone who works and lives in Costa Mesa I care deeply about the future of Costa Mesa, and that the future is centered on its people and housing. Adopting a strong inclusionary ordinance is not just a matter of policy; it is a message to me, and you, and all Costa Mesa residents who can call our city home, now and in the future through these inclusionary practices.

Sincerely, Athena Balistreri
Costa Mesa resident in the Spice Street/ Mesa Verde neighborhood 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.

January26, 2024
Mr. Mayor, Mayor ProTem, andMembersof theCityCouncil,
Belowisauser-friendlyyet sophisticatedcalculator totest development feasibilitywithaset ofmodifiablevariables. I urgeyoutospendat least acoupleof hourswiththistool betweennowandthesecondreadingof theaffordablehousingordinancesothat eachof youcanhavesomeconfidenceinthenumbersthat youarevotingtolockin. inclusionaryhousing.org/calculator
I triedtoshareall of myevolvingthoughtsonthesubject duringmytimetospeakat PlanningCommissionmeetingsandstudysessions, but wasurgedbystaff tonot expressanyopiniononthesubject outsideof thesemeetingsuntil after wevotedonit.

Nowthat our voteisbehindusandCouncil hasmadeit throughthefirst reading, I wantedtosummarizemythoughtsoncemoreinwriting. Theopinionsbelowaremyownanddonot reflectthoseof thePlanningCommission.

Generally, it’sconsideredgoodpolicytoincentivizethingsyouwant toseemoreof, andtaxthingsyouwant toseelessof. Wetaxalcohol, driving, andtobacco–thingswithnegativeexternalities. Importantly, thesehavemanyusersandmanytransactions. Thereisalot ofmoneymovingaroundandthegovernment cancapturesomeof that moneywithout killingtheindustries. Thetaxreducesthenumber of transactions, but doesn’t bringthenumber tozero.Nor doessocietysuffer asaresult. Thedevelopment of housingisdifferent. Therearefewusers(propertyowners/ developers) andfewtransactions(decisionstosell land/ decisionstobuyandbuild). Developersandtheir investorswill act rationallyandtaketheir businesselsewhereif theycan’t maketheir numbersworkhere, whichismorelikelyif weintroducethisnewtaxand/or set it toohigh. Inthesecaseswewouldbetheonlylosers. If wewant toseemorehousing–torevitalizeneighborhoods, toachievedensitiesthat cansupport transit andwalkablecenters, tostabilizehousingcosts–thenweneedtothinkhardabout thedecisiontoaddthistax(whether we’retalkingabout theproductionof unitsor in-lieufees) tothisindustrythat wearecountingon. Developersalreadytakeonalot of risks, aredealingwithhighinterestrates, aredealingwithveryhighland, material andlabor costs, must payall sortsof fees, anddeal withanunprecedentedamount of redtapefromanumber of agencies. Further cuttingintotheir proformassoundstomelikeabadideaif wewant toseemorehousing.

Advocatesseeandportraydevelopersaspeoplewhoareunfairlymakingoff withalot of thewindfall that resultsfromupzoning, andtheyunderstandablywant tocapturethat windfall forpublicbenefit instead(affordablehousinginthiscase). Everyoneworkingonthissort ofproposedpolicyshouldknowthat thereismoredispensablemarginfor developersthat have achievedaneconomyof scale, becausedevelopersfall alongaspectrum. Withanaggressiveinclusionaryordinancewemight seedeep-pocket developersdeliveringbelow-market-rateunitsintheir largeprojects, but what wewon’t see(inrealityor infuturereportsontheperformanceoftheordinance) areall of theprojectsthat don’t happen–thosebydevelopersfurther downthespectrum. Thesmall- andmedium-sizedprojects–theincremental development that drovetheevolutionof our cityinthefirst place–will bewipedout for thedurationof thistax. Somygeneralopinionremainsthat aninclusionaryordinance–if adopted–shouldapplyonlytofor-rent projectsonlargeupzonedparcelsthat areproposedat 60DUAor more–or somethinglikethat. Theset-asiderequirement canrisefromtherealongsiderisingset-asidefeasibility. Pleaseremember that throughout thecity, statedensitybonuslawwill continuetoexist andlikelyproduceaffordableunitswithout our help. Theproductionof affordableunitsisnot dependent ontheadoptionof aninclusionaryordinance.

Manypeopleseemtofeel that inclusionaryhousingpolicyistheprimary, or only, waythat wecanaddresstheproblemof highhousingcostsinour city. But asI havecontinuallypointedout,evenif wemanagetobuildour entireRHNAduringthiscycle–servingall incomelevels–wewouldthenonlyhaveenoughbelowmarket rateunitstoserveabout aquarter of thelowincomehouseholdsof CostaMesa(thoughsincewecan’t achieveour entireRHNAandsincethewaitlistswon't, andprobablyshouldn’t, prioritizecurrent residents, thenumber of CostaMesahouseholdsservedwouldbemuchlower). Mycontinuingquestionis: at what cost arewewillingtoshoot for this? Thereareother actionsthat thecitycanandshouldtaketohelpaddresstheproblemof highhousingcosts:
- Rent stabilization. Cappingtheamount that landlordscanannuallyraisetherent onatenant (not aunit) isagame-changer for thosewhorent. I amabigfanof thisbecause:1) it doesnot affect landowners' decisiontosell or developers’ decisiontodevelop(meaningit wouldn’t discouragetheproductionof housing), and2) it givesthosewhorent thesamefinancial stabilitythat homeownersenjoythroughfixedinterest ratesandProposition13–levelinganimbalancethat weoftenoverlook. Thecouncil just wiselylockedthisinlocallybyadoptingAB-1482, whichsunsetsstatewideinafewyears. If wewantedtofurther protect renters, wecouldlower theannual allowableincreasethatlandlordsareabletoimposeontenants. - Anti-displacement policies. Thiswouldincludearequirement that developerspayrelocationfeestotheresidentsthat theyaredisplacing. Asthedifferencebetweenthenumber of existingandproposedunitsonapropertygrows, thelessof adeterrent thisisfor developers(andimportantly–viceversa). - Allowmorehousingtobebuilt! Whenmarket rate(“luxury”) unitsarebuilt, peopletendto“moveup,” andvacatetheir older, inferior, andcheaper units, thusmakingroomforthosefor whomtheolder unitsareastepup. Themarket thereforeeffectivelygetsfloodedwithnewunitsof all sorts–not just thenew“luxury” units. Withmoreavailableunitsineachneighborhood, landlordsmust competefor tenantsbyofferingbetter conditionsandloweringrents. Seethisgreat StrongTownspieceonthiseffect, whichexplicitlymentionsinclusionaryzoningpolicy.

Aheadof thePlanningCommission’sfirst meetingonthisordinanceI askedsomehousingexpertsviasocial mediawherethemoneytoproviderequiredaffordableunitscomesfrom. - ShanePhillips, author of TheAffordableCity(worthreading, eventhoughnoneof uswouldagreewitheverythingheproposes), said: “I'dsayit reallyhastoberesidual landvalueinmost cases. If you'reaninvestor whocanearn10%without inclusionaryzoningbut only7%withinclusionaryzoning, if inclusionaryzoningisimposedyou'regoingtoinvest your moneyelsewhere, whether that'sdevelopment inanother cityor somethingelseentirely(e.g., stocks).” Thisisconsistent withhistepidthoughtsoninclusionaryzoninginhisbook(whichdevotesonlyoneout of his54chapterstothisparticularpolicy). Herecommendshavingarelativelylowinclusionaryrequirement toserveonlyasabackstop–incasethe(stateor local) densitybonusprogramisnot workingasdesired. - BenMaritz, anAffordableHousingDeveloper inthePacificNorthwest said: “Thecost isbornebyrenters. Remember that most urbanlandalreadyhasavalueinuseandsothereisafloor toitsprice. Sotheadditional cost hastobeoffset byhigher rent. If rentscan’t beraised, thentheir buildingdoesn’t get built (asinSeattlenow).” I followedupaskingwhether thisholdstruefor commercial or industrial parcelsthat aresignificantlyre- andup-zoned. Hereplied: “Sure. Thoseuseshavevaluetoo. If it’strulyuseless, rawlandthenit'slikelyownedbyaverywell capitalizedowner whoishappytokeepwaitingfor her price.” - BenStevens, aChicago-basedmultifamilydeveloper andauthor of Birthof aBuilding,repliedbycreatinganexplainer videoof howthemathworksfromadeveloper’sperspective. Hemadeit for us–pleasewatch! I alsowantedtosharethisquotefromAndresDuany, thefounder of theNewUrbanism. Thequoteisnot specificallyabout inclusionaryhousingpolicy, but speakstothegreater problemforwhichsuchpolicyisarecurringproposedsolution: "Regardingthepermittingprocess, it isnowsoprotracted, complexandexpensivethat it can’t justifysuchsmall increments–onlyabigproject makesit worthwhile. Thegovernment hasinadvertentlypreventedthebuildingofaffordablehousing, suchthat it cannowonlybedonewithgovernment subsidy. Andsuchsubsidiesareaccessibleonlytoexpertsinnavigatingthroughtheir murk." Weneedtomakeiteasier tobuildhousingof all typesandsizes. A(nearly) one-sizefitsall approachwill inevitablydisproportionatelyaffect thosewithsmaller projects.

CharlesMarohnaddressesthissameprobleminhisnewbook, whichdiscusses“howtheincremental development of citiesusedtomeet our housingneeds, andwhyit nolonger does,”and“whyour citieshavea‘trickleor firehose’ problem, inwhichasmall minorityofneighborhoodsundergorapid, dramatictransformationwhilethemajorityseeonlyatrickleofneededinvestment.” It seemstome, andtomanyopponentsof aggressiveinclusionaryhousingpolicy, isthat suchapolicycanonlymakeincremental growthlessviable, andexacerbatethe“trickleor firehose” problem.

Insummary, myviewisthat wecontinuetopursueour moregeneral goalsfor thecity, whichincludemoreaffordableliving. Tothedegreethat aninclusionaryhousingordinancediscouragesdevelopment, it canget inthewayof thesebroader goals. Thesebroader goalsare/shouldbe:
- Asafe, green, andbeautiful publicrealm- Areductionor eliminationof car-dependency, wheretransit andactivetravel areviablemeansof gettingaroundfor peopleof all agesandabilities- Acityof completeneighborhoods- Easyaccesstoopenspacesandopenspacenetworksfor morepeople- Qualitydevelopment, servingmanydifferent incomelevels, familysizes, andneeds I thinkthat whatever carrotswehaveinmindtomaketheproductionof housingeasier, cheaper,andotherwisemoreenticing, weshouldjust implement acrosstheboardwithout strings–thisincludestheeliminationof parkingrequirementsthat somanyforward-thinkingcitiesaredoing.Andwecansaveour timeandenergytocontrol not density, but qualityof designandneededpublicimprovements. Weonlyhavesomuchleveragewithdevelopers, let’suseit wiselytomoveuscloser toabetter versionof CostaMesafor all–not just alittlecheaper for theluckyfew.

Thanksfor reading,
Russell Toler
From: HAUSER, JANET
To: GREEN, BRENDA; TERAN, STACY
Subject: FW: Buffer between dispensary
Date: Monday, April 1, 2024 12:14:28 PM
Please see below.

From: Sara Brighton <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2024 10:27 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL <[email protected]>
Subject: Buffer between dispensary

Dear City Council,
I just wanted to send a reminder to the council to set buffers between marijuana dispensary. It seems like the council had forgotten to put a buffer in place. We do not need dispensaries next door to each other. Let’s make sure to diversify the businesses in our city. I’d also like to express that we should cap our city to 20-25 weed dispensaries. We definitely do not need more than 25 dispensaries; that is just an over kill of dispensaries in one city.

I feel like it’s been an ongoing issue with these marijuana dispensaries trying to open anywhere they can in our city. Can we just put a pause now on any marijuana shop applications until all the approved dispensary are open? Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,
Sara Brighton
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: HAUSER, JANET
To: GREEN, BRENDA; TERAN, STACY
Subject: FW: Cannabis Ordinance
Date: Monday, April 1, 2024 11:25:33 AM
Please see below.

From: Chris T Lambert <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2024 4:05 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL <[email protected]>
Subject: Cannabis Ordinance

Dear City Council,
I am writing about the upcoming cannabis ordinance changes and want to make sure you are aware of the community sentiment. My friends and neighbors all feel that a cap makes sense and should be 20-30 maximum. I do not want our city to be a pot city. I want a city that has more to its nature than be a destination for cannabis shoppers. Thank you for all your hard work and keep it up.

Thank you,
Chris Lambert
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: HAUSER, JANET
To: GREEN, BRENDA; TERAN, STACY
Subject: FW: Cannabis Stores - LIMIT to 30 Stores and Require Buffering Date: Monday, April 1, 2024 12:53:03 PM
Please see below.

From: Kaylee Steinmeyer <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2024 9:03 AM
To: CITY COUNCIL <[email protected]>; HARPER, DON <[email protected]>; CHAVEZ, MANUEL <[email protected]>; MARR, ANDREA <[email protected]>; HARLAN, JEFFREY <[email protected]>; STEPHENS, JOHN <[email protected]> Subject: Cannabis Stores - LIMIT to 30 Stores and Require Buffering

Honorable Council,
I support limiting the number of cannabis shops to 30 and requiring a buffer between shops. We do not need 60 plus shops in this small area. We are a diverse community and have lots of options for all consumers’ needs. Thirty shops will be sufficient in my opinion. I go through Santa Ana all the time and they only have 20 shops there with a higher population.

The city expanded the parks and school buffer which is an excellent first step to protect our community. Please continue your work to assure a safe Costa Mesa for all residents.

There should be a buffer between residential and these shops of at least 500 feet. I do not know why we need pot shops nestled into residential communities.

Kaylee Steinmeyer
From: HAUSER, JANET
To: GREEN, BRENDA; TERAN, STACY
Subject: FW: Cap on the Number of Marijuana Shops
Date: Monday, April 1, 2024 11:24:59 AM
Please see below.

From: Shawn Hamilton <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2024 3:37 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL <[email protected]>; HARPER, DON <[email protected]>; CHAVEZ, MANUEL <[email protected]>; MARR, ANDREA <[email protected]>; REYNOLDS, ARLIS <[email protected]>; HARLAN, JEFFREY <[email protected]>; STEPHENS, JOHN <[email protected]>
Subject: Cap on the Number of Marijuana Shops

City Staff and Councilmembers,
I was not able to attend the last meeting, but I will make sure to be at the next one discussing these cannabis shops and the new rules. I want to make sure the city knows that I support a cap on the number of shops. I heard thirty was the number but then I heard you changed to thirty-five. I am concerned that you will keep going up when it really should be a lot lower. I see so many already and I am not sure we need more than the nine or ten already open. They are spread out and cover the whole city. The city can survive without any more of these and the shops will serve all the community needs. Please put a buffer between shops and a buffer between residential and these shops. I do not want my children near a marijuana shop. A thousand-foot buffer would solve this problem. I want to cast my vote for limits and buffers and thank you.

-Shawn
From: HAUSER, JANET
To: GREEN, BRENDA; TERAN, STACY
Subject: FW: Limit on Cannabis Stores in Costa Mesa
Date: Monday, April 1, 2024 11:26:31 AM
Please see below.

From: jamie miller <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2024 2:04 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL <[email protected]>
Subject: Limit on Cannabis Stores in Costa Mesa

To City Council-

I raised my children here and I have been a homeowner for over thirty years. I have been through all the struggles with the rehab riviera, illegal pot shops, massage parlors, traffic issues, environmental impacts, and a long list of other obstacles. We as a community have worked hard to solve these problems. I appreciate all your work to get the cannabis issue resolved. It is and should be a free market for business in our city. I do not think that should give carte blanche to open as many shops as possible. We generally restrict gas stations, pawn shops, bars etc... Why not impose a limit? It makes sense and should be supported by the City Council. The cap of 30 with 500-foot buffers between shops and 1,000-foot buffer between schools is great. I like the city direction on making things right on this issue and please keep up the good work.

Sincerely,
Jamie Miller
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or From: HAUSER, JANET
To: GREEN, BRENDA; TERAN, STACY
Subject: FW: Marijuana/Cannabis Shops
Date: Monday, April 1, 2024 11:18:33 AM
Please see below.

From: Nicole Strickland <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 1, 2024 9:33 AM
To: CITY COUNCIL <[email protected]>
Cc: HARPER, DON <[email protected]>; CHAVEZ, MANUEL <[email protected]>; MARR, ANDREA <[email protected]>; REYNOLDS, ARLIS <[email protected]>; HARLAN, JEFFREY <[email protected]>; STEPHENS, JOHN <[email protected]> Subject: Marijuana/Cannabis Shops

Dear City Council,
I am writing to express my feelings on the marijuana/cannabis shops. I know the city council is trying to limit the number of locations. I read that the city wanted to restrict the number to 30 shops. I think they had recommended a buffer between shops and schools as well. I am curious why this was not in place from the beginning of the marijuana program. It would have been a good idea to start the program with these restrictions. I see a lot of shops very close to each other. I think they should be spread out and not by schools at all. If the city is doing a limit, then I think 20 is enough and not the 70 I heard were opening. There could be a distance between shops of 1000-2000 feet to prevent bunching them all up. I do not want them near residential either. I think a 1000-foot restriction from residential is a good idea and thank you.

From: HAUSER, JANET
To: GREEN, BRENDA; TERAN, STACY
Subject: FW: NO MORE! Enough Pot Shops!!
Date: Monday, April 1, 2024 1:11:42 PM
Please see below.

From: Ralph Owen Patterson <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2024 6:48 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL <[email protected]>
Subject: NO MORE! Enough Pot Shops!!

Council,
Enough Pot Shops!! We see them all over the city now and there should be a freeze until we see how this works out. Let’s stop for now and see what revenue they actually generate and what impact they have on our community before we let more open. Keep them away from homes too. Be responsible and be informed.

-Ralph
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: HAUSER, JANET
To: GREEN, BRENDA; TERAN, STACY
Subject: FW: Place Restrictions on Marijuana Shops
Date: Monday, April 1, 2024 12:16:31 PM
Please see below.

From: Bryant L. Gleason <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2024 10:11 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL <[email protected]>
Subject: Place Restrictions on Marijuana Shops

Dear Council,
I am a 20-year resident of Costa Mesa and graduated from a local university. I have a strong connection to my community. I am asking you to help limit the number of cannabis shops in our beloved city. I applaud your efforts to place restrictions on the location and number of shops. I am concerned that you keep walking it back. The cap of 30 seemed to be a lot but then you went to 35!?!? I do not understand why our city needs 35 cannabis stores. Has anyone looked at the data on this? I recall seeing a study by HDL, your consultant, that there should be 1 per 10,000 residents. That leaves us at around 11 shops total so how are we justifying 30? It makes no sense to me and if you’re doing a cap then why not align it with your city retained consultants’ recommendation. Also, thank you for putting buffers in place but why did you remove the buffer between shops?

With Regards,
Bryant Gleason
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 From: Joseph Zappala DC DACBSP
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Areas of concern for April 02, 2024 City Council Meeting Date: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 7:53:31 AM
Attachments: City of Costa Mesa Cannabis signage meeting 03_19_2024.docx Landlord concerns include:

1. Being non-compliant by requiring 250 feet distance from residential

2. Not allowing our cannabis tenant adequate signage, this will lead to business failures.

As landlords we don't want empty buildings and to tenants that cannot afford to pay their rent.

The City needs to do everything in its power to help these dispensaries thrive as opposed to taking their fees and setting them up for failure.

Joseph M. Zappala′ D.C. DACBSP®
Director of Sports Medicine- South West Health Spine & Sport 1122 Bristol St Costa Mesa, CA 92626
949-631-5226
Sports Medicine | Dr. Zappala | United States (drzappala.com) www.swhprofessionalcenter.com
https://www.facebook.com/SportsMedicineChiropractorCostaMesa E-MAIL DISCLAIMER: Please note that the information, and in any accompanying documents, contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure under the law, including the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). The information is intended only for use by the designated recipient. If you are not the intended recipient (or responsible for the delivery of the message to the intended recipient), you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or other use of, or taking of any action. in reliance on this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the message from your system.

Cannabis advertising and signage

Ladies and gentlemen of the City Council, esteemed members of our community, and distinguished guests,

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak today on a matter of significant importance to our city’s future – the marketing and advertising of medical marijuana dispensaries in Costa Mesa.

Business signage defined
A company sign is one of the most essential marketing tools available to a business. It’s a way to let potential customers know who you are, what you do, and where you’re located.

If you have a storefront, your sign should be visible from the street so that potential customers can see it from a distance.

Facts:

The revenue that was received was less than 50% of predicted and budgeted for 2023/2024

a. The cigar lounges smoke shops etc as well as all bars in the city of Costa Mesa all have signs informing the public about what the business does. Cannabis dispensaries are being singled out here and as a landlord with a cannabis tenant, I see this as very troubling for the long term health of the industry in Costa Mesa.

No business can survive long term without adequate signage. b. signage prevents people who don't want cannabis from being confused c. buildings with failed cannabis dispensaries will become an eyesore in the city and detract from the intention of Measure Q These dispensaries have resurrected many dilapidated properties here in our city, closures would have the opposite effect.

Ideas:

A map on the city website of where all the dispensaries are located.

A website dedicated to the dispensaries in Costa Mesa that highlights their locations Large green sign with city logo that states Costa Mesa licensed medical dispensary on all 11 and future approved city locations
The Green Cross is a great alternative to using the word cannabis as it alerts the public just like a red cross alerts the public that the business is an urgent care

From: Sara Brighton
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Buffer between dispensary
Date: Monday, April 1, 2024 10:39:52 PM
Dear City Council,
I just wanted to send a reminder to the council to set buffers between marijuana dispensary. It seems like the council had forgotten to put a buffer in place. We do not need dispensaries next door to each other. Let’s make sure to diversify the businesses in our city. I’d also like to express that we should cap our city to 20-25 weed dispensaries. We definitely do not need more than 25 dispensaries; that is just an over kill of dispensaries in one city.

Cannabis Ordinance – Public Comments – April 2, 2024

1. Change Numeric Limit from Cannabis Business Permit (CBP) to Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
CUP comes first, and that is where the numeric limit should be placed. The CBP should not be limited. In the future, a new operator of a cannabis business must obtain a new CBP. Any limits would interfere with this requirement. ACTION: Change back to CUP from CBP.

2. Make sure future Retail Cannabis Stores can be sold, which requires a new CBP
By changing from CBP, back to CUP for the limits will allow future new business owners to receive a CBP, necessary to buy a store. ACTION: Allow future CBP’s

3. Prevent Legal Non Conforming Status to attach to existing Retail Cannabis Stores
The City Council’s intentions are to have the new restrictions apply only to new future applications. Legal Non Conforming status would harm stores and limit future options.

ACTION: introduce language that prevents legal non conforming status from attaching to existing stores, and applies only to new future Applications

4. Remove the new #5 under 9-495 of Title 9
Why has this language been introduced? Because of the High Seas debacle. The is the city Prosecutor continuing to not understand cannabis and trying to save face.

Really, the City is now going to require an individual who provides a loan to a Cannabis operator to pull a Business License?
ACTION: Please ask Staff to justify this new inserted language. Then remove the language. 9-495. Operating requirements for all cannabis businesses permitted under this chapter. (a) Records and recordkeeping.

5. Each owner and operator of a cannabis business shall disclose to the City the names and addresses of each and every financial interest holder of that business within ten (10) calendar days of that person becoming a financial interest holder of the cannabis business, and thereafter shall notify the City within ten (10) business days if that person or entity ceases to be a financial interest holder. Each financial interest holder shall obtain a business license pursuant to section 9-493 within thirty (30) days of becoming a financial interest holder of that business.

Jim Fitzpatrick
Solutioneer
From: Chris T Lambert
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Cannabis Ordinance
Date: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 8:56:40 AM
Dear City Council,
I am writing about the upcoming cannabis ordinance changes and want to make sure you are aware of the community sentiment. My friends and neighbors all feel that a cap makes sense and should be 20-30 maximum. I do not want our city to be a pot city. I want a city that has more to its nature than be a destination for cannabis shoppers. Thank you for all your hard work and keep it up.

From: Kaylee Steinmeyer
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Cannabis Stores - LIMIT to 30 Stores and Require Buffering Date: Monday, April 1, 2024 6:02:42 PM
Honorable Council,
I support limiting the number of cannabis shops to 30 and requiring a buffer between shops. We do not need 60 plus shops in this small area. We are a diverse community and have lots of options for all consumers’ needs. Thirty shops will be sufficient in my opinion. I go through Santa Ana all the time and they only have 20 shops there with a higher population.

The city expanded the parks and school buffer which is an excellent first step to protect our community. Please continue your work to assure a safe Costa Mesa for all residents.

There should be a buffer between residential and these shops of at least 500 feet. I do not know why we need pot shops nestled into residential communities.

Kaylee Steinmeyer
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: Shawn Hamilton
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Cap on the Number of Marijuana Shops
Date: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 6:38:37 AM
City Staff and Councilmembers,
I was not able to attend the last meeting, but I will make sure to be at the next one discussing these cannabis shops and the new rules. I want to make sure the city knows that I support a cap on the number of shops. I heard thirty was the number but then I heard you changed to thirty-five. I am concerned that you will keep going up when it really should be a lot lower. I see so many already and I am not sure we need more than the nine or ten already open. They are spread out and cover the whole city. The city can survive without any more of these and the shops will serve all the community needs. Please put a buffer between shops and a buffer between residential and these shops. I do not want my children near a marijuana shop. A thousand-foot buffer would solve this problem. I want to cast my vote for limits and buffers and thank you.
-Shawn
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: HAUSER, JANET
To: GREEN, BRENDA; TERAN, STACY
Subject: FW: Concerns Regarding Proposed Amendments to Retail Cannabis Provisions Date: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 8:13:11 AM
Please see below.

From: Alexander Haberbush <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 1, 2024 8:29 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL <[email protected]>
Subject: Concerns Regarding Proposed Amendments to Retail Cannabis Provisions

Dear City Council Members,

I hope this message finds you well. My name is Alexander Haberbush, and I am writing on behalf of my client, John Upton, a resident of East Side Costa Mesa, as well as other concerned members of our community.

We are reaching out to express our opposition to the proposed amendments to the Costa Mesa Municipal Code regarding retail cannabis provisions, specifically the increase in the numeric cap to thirty-five storefronts and the omission of a buffer zone between cannabis retail stores.

We believe that such an increase poses a significant risk to the character and safety of our neighborhoods, potentially leading to overconcentration that our community infrastructure and residential areas are ill-equipped to handle. Furthermore, the absence of a mandatory buffer between cannabis retail establishments overlooks a critical measure to prevent the clustering of these businesses, an issue the council has previously acknowledged by increasing buffers around youth centers and residential areas.

John Upton and many of his neighbors are deeply concerned about the implications of these changes, fearing they will exacerbate existing problems related to traffic, public safety, and the overall quality of life in Eastside Costa Mesa. The prospect of establishments like People’s "CANNABIS SUPERSTORE" only heightens these concerns, particularly given its anticipated impact on local traffic and parking.

We urge the City Council to reconsider these amendments, to introduce a buffer between cannabis retail stores, and to maintain a more reasonable cap on the number of storefronts. Our community's welfare and the preservation of our neighborhood's character depend on thoughtful, balanced regulations that address the needs and concerns of all residents.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. We appreciate your dedication to serving Costa Mesa and look forward to your support in ensuring the responsible regulation of cannabis businesses in our city.

Alexander Haberbush, Esq.

LEX REX INSTITUTE
444 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 1403
Long Beach, CA 90802
Telephone No. (562) 435-9062
http://www.LexRex.org

This message, together with any attachments, is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is legally privileged, confidential, and/or exempt from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message or any attachment, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the original sender at (562) 435-9062 immediately by telephone or by return e-mail and delete this message, along with any and all attachments, from your computer. Further this message, and all attachments, are or may be covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2510, et seq.

Ladies and gentlemen of the city council,
I stand before you today to emphasize the importance of signage for cannabis dispensaries within our community. As we continue to navigate the landscape of legalized cannabis, it's imperative that we address the significance of effective signage for dispensaries to increase awareness and drive customer traffic.

First and foremost, clear and visible signage serves as a fundamental aspect of informing the public about the presence and location of cannabis dispensaries. In a world where information is abundant, but attention spans are limited, signage acts as a beacon guiding individuals to access legal and regulated cannabis products. By providing clear and conspicuous signage, we ensure that community members are well- informed about where they can legally purchase cannabis products, thereby reducing the likelihood of individuals turning to illicit sources.

Moreover, signage plays a crucial role in destigmatizing cannabis use and normalizing its presence within our community. By integrating dispensaries into the visual landscape of our city through tasteful and professional signage, we communicate that cannabis consumption is a legal and accepted part of our society. This normalization fosters open dialogue and education surrounding responsible cannabis use, ultimately contributing to a more informed and empowered community.

Furthermore, effective signage is not only about informing but also about attracting customers to dispensaries. Thoughtfully designed signage can capture the attention of passersby and entice them to explore the offerings of a dispensary. Whether through creative design, engaging messaging, or strategic placement, signage serves as a powerful marketing tool that drives foot traffic and stimulates economic activity within our city. Proper signage will increase foot traffic as well as revenue for the dispensaries and the city of Costa Mesa. If a bar can say bar and a smoke shop can say smoke shop why cant a cannabis store say cannabis or something similar to identify what it is.

In considering the importance of signage for cannabis dispensaries, it's crucial to balance the need for visibility with respect for the sensitivities of our community. We must ensure that signage is tasteful, compliant with regulations, and respectful of neighboring businesses and residents. By fostering open communication and collaboration between dispensaries and the community, we can create signage that enhances rather than detracts from the aesthetic and ambiance of our city.

In conclusion, the significance of signage for cannabis dispensaries cannot be overstated. It serves as a vital tool for increasing awareness, destigmatizing cannabis use, and driving customer traffic. By recognizing the importance of effective signage and working collaboratively with dispensaries, we can create a thriving and inclusive community where legal cannabis access is both safe and accessible to all.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

From: jamie miller
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Limit on Cannabis Stores in Costa Mesa
Date: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 1:28:03 AM
To City Council-
I raised my children here and I have been a homeowner for over thirty years. I have been through all the struggles with the rehab riviera, illegal pot shops, massage parlors, traffic issues, environmental impacts, and a long list of other obstacles. We as a community have worked hard to solve these problems. I appreciate all your work to get the cannabis issue resolved. It is and should be a free market for business in our city. I do not think that should give carte blanche to open as many shops as possible. We generally restrict gas stations, pawn shops, bars etc... Why not impose a limit? It makes sense and should be supported by the City Council. The cap of 30 with 500-foot buffers between shops and 1,000-foot buffer between schools is great. I like the city direction on making things right on this issue and please keep up the good work.

Sincerely,
Jamie Miller
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: Nicole Strickland
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Marijuana/Cannabis Shops
Date: Monday, April 1, 2024 8:01:37 PM
Dear City Council,
I am writing to express my feelings on the marijuana/cannabis shops. I know the city council is trying to limit the number of locations. I read that the city wanted to restrict the number to 30 shops. I think they had recommended a buffer between shops and schools as well. I am curious why this was not in place from the beginning of the marijuana program. It would have been a good idea to start the program with these restrictions. I see a lot of shops very close to each other. I think they should be spread out and not by schools at all. If the city is doing a limit, then I think 20 is enough and not the 70 I heard were opening. There could be a distance between shops of 1000-2000 feet to prevent bunching them all up. I do not want them near residential either. I think a 1000-foot restriction from residential is a good idea and thank you.

Regards,
Nicole Strickland
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: Ralph Owen Patterson
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: NO MORE! Enough Pot Shops!!
Date: Monday, April 1, 2024 5:16:05 PM
Council,
Enough Pot Shops!! We see them all over the city now and there should be a freeze until we see how this works out. Let’s stop for now and see what revenue they actually generate and what impact they have on our community before we let more open. Keep them away from homes too. Be responsible and be informed. -Ralph
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: Bryant L. Gleason
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Place Restrictions on Marijuana Shops
Date: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 11:01:55 AM
Dear Council,
I am a 20-year resident of Costa Mesa and graduated from a local university. I have a strong connection to my community. I am asking you to help limit the number of cannabis shops in our beloved city. I applaud your efforts to place restrictions on the location and number of shops. I am concerned that you keep walking it back. The cap of 30 seemed to be a lot but then you went to 35!?!? I do not understand why our city needs 35 cannabis stores. Has anyone looked at the data on this? I recall seeing a study by HDL, your consultant, that there should be 1 per 10,000 residents. That leaves us at around 11 shops total so how are we justifying 30? It makes no sense to me and if you’re doing a cap then why not align it with your city retained consultants’ recommendation. Also, thank you for putting buffers in place but why did you remove the buffer between shops?
With Regards,
Bryant Gleason
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.

Costa Mesa City CouncilApril 2, 2024

Costa Mesa City Council
April 2, 2024