Public Comments — Costa Mesa City Council, August 6, 2024

August
6,
2024
Costa
Mesa
City
Council
77 Fair
Drive
Costa
Mesa,
CA
92626
Re:

Townhouse
Projects
in
General
Let
me
say
that
townhouses
are
great
as
a
housing
type!
We
all
think
of
them
as
great
“starter
homes.”
They
can
line
streets
with
charming
front
doors
and
stoops,
pack
in
more
families
than
single-family
homes
can,
and
look
and
feel
like
digniﬁed
places
to
live
in.

But
the
townhouse
projects
that
we’re
seeing
now
are
very
diﬀerent
from
traditional
townhouses
in
two
major
ways.

1. Deep
lots
that
had
been
originally
platted
for
agrarian,
commercial,
or
industrial
use
are
becoming
available
for
housing.

Now
you
have
townhouses
that
don’t
face
the
street
,
but
are
within
the
lot,
facing
parts
of
the
site
that
are
not
the
street.

2. To
be
spatially
eﬃcient,
garages–which
traditionally
were
either
not
provided
or
took
vehicular
access
of
a
real,
midblock
alley–are
now
scooted
under
each
townhouse.

The
garages
now
take
up
the
ground
ﬂoor
of
each
unit
and
push
the
living
spaces
up
oﬀ
the
ground.

Why
these
projects
are
so
bad:➔
By
cranking
up
the
density
on
a
site
without
clicking
the
building(s)
up
to
more
eﬃcient
types
(multiple
ﬂats
in
one
or
more
buildings),
you
end
up
with
places
that
look
and
feel
cramped.➔
Since
the
garages
are
part
of
each
unit
(parking
is
never
grouped
in
these
projects),
the
site
will
necessarily
be
crisscrossed
with
driveways,
leaving
little
room
for
respectable
spaces,
if
any,
for
each
interior
townhouse
to
front.

This
results
in
the
interior
townhouses
fronting
awkward
and
narrow
passages
that
are
usually
disconnected
from
each
other
and
from
the
public
right
of
way
.➔
While
these
projects
often
have
the
potential
to
create
"more
city"
(as
they
should)
by
bringing
new
streets
or
paseos
into
or
through
a
large
site
to
enhance
connectivity
and
create
good
new
frontage
opportunities–they
rarely
do.

Instead
of
integrating
into
the
city
and
contributing
to
its
character,
vitality,
and
civic
pride,
they
end
up
eﬀectively
as
private
cul-de-sacs.

The
only
“extension
of
the
public
realm”
into
these
sites
are
networks
of
sterile
driveways
lined
with
garage
doors.
➔
Because
the
majority
of
each
ground
ﬂoor
is
garage,
the
remaining
space
is
mostly
unused.

It
often
masquerades
as
a
“work
space”
for
entitlement
purposes,
but
is
more
often
used
for
storage.

The
result
is
dead
ground
ﬂoors
,
with
no
visible
life
from
the
sidewalk
,
either
inside
or
outside.

Why
we
keep
getting
these
types
of
development:➔
The
International
Residential
Code
(IRC)
is
much
cheaper
to
build
under
than
the
International
Building
Code
(IBC),
but
can
only
be
used
for
houses,
duplexes,
and
townhouses,
while
the
IBC
is
more
expensive
to
build
under
and
must
be
used
for
everything
else
(ﬂats).◆
Solution:

Enable
more
housing
types
to
be
built
under
the
IRC.

North
Carolina
now
allows
tri-
and
quad-plexes
to
be
built
under
the
IRC.

California
is
trying
to
allow
up
to
ten
units
to
be
approved
under
the
IRC.
(State).➔
Developers
know
that
they’ll
get
more
for
this
type
than
for
ﬂats,
especially
when
they
can
be
fee-simple.

California’s
construction
defect
liability
laws
discourage
for-sale
multifamily.◆
Solution:

Revise
state
laws.

Here’s
a
recent
Terner
Report
on
the
topic.
(State).➔
Buildings
over
3 stories
that
are
too
far
from
the
street
need
the
hook
and
ladder
to
be
able
to
reach
them,
requiring
huge
driveways
and
turnarounds
that
eat
up
lots
of
on-site
space.◆
Solution:

We
do
have
to
comply
with
a
statewide
code
that
to
a
degree
may
unintentionally
preclude
good
design,
but
there
is
also
room
to
make
things
work.

Others
make
it
happen–so
can
we.

This
requires
that
developers,
our
planning
staﬀ,
and
the
Fire
Marshal
all
be
willing
to
be
creative
and
ﬂexible
to
achieve
win-win
situations.
(State/City)➔
Buildings
with
multiple
ﬂats
over
3 stories
need
a
second
means
of
egress
a
certain
distance
away
from
the
other.

This
eﬀectively
turns
what
might
be
a
simple
project
into
a
double-loaded
corridor
building,
which
changes
the
whole
design
and
aﬀects
ﬂoor
plate
eﬃciency.◆
Solution:

Assembly
Bill-835
is
paving
the
way
for
single-stair
construction
so
we
can
one
day
build
simple
small
buildings
full
of
ﬂats
the
way
we
used
to,
and
the
way
the
rest
of
the
world
still
does.

We
need
more
building
options
than
townhouses,
garden
apartments,
and
double-loaded
corridors.

This
is
currently
a
statewide
challenge,
but
it
will
be
a
citywide
challenge
once
the
state
code
enables
local
amendments.
(State/City).➔
With
the
low
density
cap
and
high
parking
requirement,
cities
eﬀectively
ensure
that
townhouse
projects
are
the
only
type
of
development
that
will
pencil.
(State).
◆
Solution:

Reducing
parking
requirements
is
a
start.

But
developers
and
lenders
need
to
know
that
there
is
little
parking
demand
,
otherwise
they
will
provide
enough
to
kill
design.

We
need
to
do
our
part
to
make
car-lite
living
in
Costa
Mesa
more
viable.

We
need
to
be
aggressive
about
this
and
clearly
signal
our
intentions
to
the
development
community.

Not
only
does
so
much
parking
degrade
design,
but
it
ensures
that
surrounding
streets
will
be
ﬂooded
with
cars.

Requiring
undergrounding
may
resolve
the
former,
but
it
will
not
resolve
the
latter.

And
it
may
also
kill
projects.

We
need
to
commit
to
a
future
with
lots
of
people
and
not
a
lot
of
cars.

Conclusion
There
are
state
and
local
forces
that
have
converged
and
resulted
in
this
bizarre
new
pattern
of
development
that
is
popping
up
all
over
the
city
(there
are
now
dozens!).

There
are
some
changes
that
we
can
and
should
make
to
discourage
bad
design
without
discouraging
more
housing
,
and
there
are
some
things
that
are
out
of
our
control.

But
townhouse
developers
are
going
to
propose
townhouse
developments.

And
there
is
no
indication
in
any
of
our
policy
documents
that
we
are
not
open
for
business
for
these
designs.

If
we
can
recognize
this
type
of
development,
articulate
the
issues
we
have
with
them,
and
provide
standards
that
enable
the
same,
or
more
amount
of
housing
to
be
built
better
,
then
we
might
see
better
projects
being
proposed.

Those
that
contribute
to
the
character
and
vitality
of
the
city.

P.S.

A
Note
on
Façade
Design
We
can’t
fault
the
architects
for
their
designs
because
it’s
what
we’re
asking
for
in
our
guidelines.

There’s
a
major
disconnect
(I
believe)
between
what
we
say
we
want
(as
much
variety
as
possible)
and
actual
aesthetic
preferences
(simple
regular
boxes
with
big,
regular,
and
deep
windows,
welcoming
frontages,
simple
rooﬂines,
appropriate
transitions
between
the
public
and
private
spaces,
and
quality
materials).

We
really
need
to
update
our
guidelines.

See
Get
Your
House
Right
by
Marianne
Cusato
for
what
I
think
should
help
inform
updates.

From: Evan Carey
To: CITY CLERK
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Costa Mesa City Council - Traffic Calming Devices Petition Date: Tuesday, August 6, 2024 12:19:01 PM
Dear Costa Mesa City Council,
I am supporting a petition called "Install Traffic Calming Devices on Iowa & California Streets in Costa Mesa Now" started by Evan Carey:
https://www.change.org/p/install-traffic-calming-devices-on-iowa-california-streets-in-costa- mesa-now?utm_source=supporter_emails_dm
You have been identified as a decision maker on this petition so I am reaching out to you for a response. What is your opinion about this petition? You can respond by replying to this email.

Thanks for reading,
Evan Carey
503-551-6579
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.

August
5,
2024
Submitted
via
email
to:
[email protected]
City
of
Costa
Mesa
77 Fair
Drive
Costa
Mesa,
CA
92626
RE:

Request
for
Continuation
on
Agenda
Item
2 on
August
6,
2024
Council
Agenda
Dear
Honorable
Mayor
Stephens
and
Council
Members,
The
Coastal
Corridor
Alliance
(CCA),
formerly
Banning
Ranch
Conservancy,
submits
this
letter
after
reviewing
the
August
6,
2024
Costa
Mesa
City
Council
agenda,
speciﬁcally
New
Business,
Item

2. In
short,
CCA
respectfully
requests
an
eight
week
continuation
of
this
item
as
it
reviews
the
potential
impacts
to
the
recently
protected
Randall
Preserve.

The
proposed
Storm
Drain
Master
Drainage
Plan
appears
to
be
releasing
storm
water
directly
onto
the
Preserve.

CCA
was
deeply
involved
in
the
preservation
of
Banning
Ranch,
now
called
the
Randall
Preserve.

We
announced
today
the
hiring
of
a
consulting
ﬁrm,
Dudek,
to
survey
the
habitats,
plants,
and
animals
and
write
a
Resource
Management
Plan
that
informs
a
Public
Access
Plan.

This
Drainage
Plan
has
the
potential
to
change
the
outcome
or
recommendations
of
these
plans,
due
to
possible
impacts
to
future
tidal
wetland
creation
on
the
property.

Please
reach
out
if
you
have
any
questions.

I
can
be
reached
at
(714)
719-2148.

Sincerely,
Terry
M.

Welsh,
MD
President
P.O.

Box
15333
Newport
Beach,
CA
92659
(949)
216-0880
CoastalCorridor.org

MOUNTAINS RECREATION & CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
Los Angeles River Center and Gardens
570 West Avenue Twenty-six, Suite 100
Los Angeles, California 90065
Phone (323) 221-9944 Fax (323) 221-9934

A local public agency exercising joint powers of the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, the Conejo Recreation & Park District, and the Rancho Simi Recreation & Park District pursuant to Section 6500 et seq. of the Government Code.

City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626

RE: Request for Continuation on Agenda Item 2 on August 6, 2024 Council Agenda

Dear Honorable Mayor Stephens and Council Members,

The Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority (MRCA), submits this letter after reviewing the August 6, 2024 Costa Mesa City Council agenda, specifically New Business, Item 2.

MRCA, titleholders of the Randall Preserve, supports CCA’s request for an eight-week continuation of this item as CCA reviews the potential impacts to the recently protected Randall Preserve. The proposed Storm Drain Master Drainage Plan, specifically the work on Lines W7 and W8, can affect the release of storm water directly onto the Preserve.

CCA and MRCA are in the process of generating a Resource Management Plan that informs a Public Access Plan. The Drainage Plan has the potential to change the outcome or recommendations of these plans, due to possible impacts to future tidal wetland creation on the property.

Please reach out if you have any questions. I can be reached at (323) 221-9944 ext. 205

Sincerely,
Isabela Noriega
Project Manager in Park Development
From: Cynthia McDonald
To: REYNOLDS, ARLIS; CHAVEZ, MANUEL; HARLAN, JEFFREY; STEPHENS, JOHN; MARR, ANDREA; GAMEROS, LOREN; HARPER, DON
Cc: CITY CLERK; GREEN, BRENDA
Subject: August 6, 2024 City Council Agenda Public Hearing Item 2 (Ordinance No. 2024-02 Amending Title 13 of CMMC to establish affordable housing requirements for new residential development projects) Date: Friday, August 2, 2024 2:23:57 PM
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members:

With respect to Public Hearing Item No. 2, at the June 18, 2024 City Council meeting there were several comments about the confusion that went on at the April 2, 2024 meeting where an ordinance was initially passed by the City Council. I agree that there was much confusion.

While I appreciate the “exhaustive” discussions that went on between the City Council members, some of the Council Members' statements repeated what was said in prior Council meetings, including study sessions, that is, until the public comment period was closed. It was at that time the confusion ensued because of Council Member Harlan’s substitute motion that “turned this on its head.” When he presented his motion, it did not align with the prior comments by the City Council or the information in the Agenda Report.

Pursuant to the California Brown Act, decisions by governing bodies must be made in front of the public and the public must have the right to weigh in on those decisions. The decisions should not be arbitrary, and the public must receive as much information in advance so we can make educated remarks on the subject matter.

On April 2, the ordinance was changed extensively AFTER the public was allowed to comment. If there are any changes to the ordinance that are not contained in the Agenda report for Tuesday’s meeting, those changes by a City Council member need to be disclosed prior to the public comment period so the public can offer input before the entire Council makes its decision.

Further, if a Council Member goes sideways and decides to write new language to be contained in the ordinance, the public must receive the language at the same time that a majority of the other Council Members receive it (see California Government Code Section 54957.5(a)).

As pointed out by other members of the public, this item is too important to be on the consent calendar and if it goes to a second reading this Tuesday, I hope to see it on the regular agenda at the following meeting of the City Council.

Thank you for your consideration.

Cynthia McDonald
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: Dianne Russell
To: STEPHENS, JOHN; HARLAN, JEFFREY; MARR, ANDREA; CHAVEZ, MANUEL; REYNOLDS, ARLIS; GAMEROS, LOREN; HARPER, DON; CITY CLERK
Subject: PH # 2
Date: Tuesday, August 6, 2024 8:43:16 AM
Dear Mayor Stephens and Council Members,
As a part of the Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition and interested community member I have been advocating for a strong inclusionary housing ordinance for several years. What is needed is an ordinance that encourages the development of affordable housing. There are two steps that you can take tonight:

1. Lower the applicability threshold to 30 units so that more developments across the city will include affordable rental units.

2. Adopt in lieu fees that match the cost of onsite production of the units required by the AHO. Don’t put your thumb on the scale to discourage the building of affordable homes by setting in lieu fees too low.

The consulting team has indicated that these proposals will work for our community. The demand for housing in Costa Mesa is great. We cannot build our way to affordability. The working people of Costa Mesa need housing. We need to maximize the opportunities to include affordable units.

Thank you,
Dianne Russell
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.

August 5, 2024

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

RE: The AHO Threshold should be 30 and In Lieu Fees should be $19.50/Sq. Ft

Dear Mayor Stephens and Council Members:

According to the City’s Housing Element, nearly half of Costa Mesa’s residents are lower income, and most of these residents are paying unaffordable rents. Undoubtedly, Costa Mesa has an affordable housing crisis. What is in doubt, however, is our City Council’s willingness to address this crisis effectively.

At the August 6 City Council meeting, you have one last chance to strengthen the Affordable Housing Ordinance (AHO) to ensure it will produce the affordable housing Costa Mesa needs. Will you do it?

Lower the Threshold to 30 units
The first choice you should make is to lower the threshold for when the AHO applies.

The threshold is currently set at 50 rental units, which means only very large developments will include ANY affordable housing. You should lower the applicability threshold to 30 units so that more developments across the city will include affordable rental units.

You promised voters that Measure K would bring affordable rental housing to Costa Mesa. But if you leave the AHO applicability threshold at 50 units, most of the new apartments that get built along the commercial corridors south of the 405 will not include any affordable units. That’s because many of the opportunity sites along these corridors are big enough only for mid-size apartment complexes of between 30 and 49 units.

These mid-size developments should include affordable units. Measure K voters expect them to! If you lower the threshold to 30 units, we will see affordable units incorporated into the new apartment complexes that will come soon to commercial corridors like Harbor, Placentia, Pomona, Whittier, 18th St., Randolph and Baker.

In Lieu Fees Should Match Onsite Production Requirements The second thing you should do is follow your consultant’s advice and adopt in lieu fees that match the cost of building the affordable units required by the AHO. Your expert has told you the right number is $19.50/sq. ft. for developments with densities of 60+ units per acre, and $13.80 for lesser densities. Those are the in lieu fees you should adopt.

If you adopt lesser fees, you – City Council – will be telling developers not to build affordable units. If it’s cheaper to pay the in lieu fee, that’s what developers will do.

Please don’t put your thumb on the scale to discourage the building of affordable homes in our city.

If you truly care about creating the affordable homes thousands of Costa Mesa’s lower income residents need, prove it! As they say, actions speak louder than words.

Respectfully,

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

From: Rev. Dr. Monica Corsaro
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Affordable Housing Now PH 2
Date: Tuesday, August 6, 2024 3:09:48 PM

Dear City Clerk,

I live and work in Costa Mesa. The high cost of renting apartments here is a crushing burden on our city’s low income residents. I want you to make the Affordable Housing Ordinance stronger so that it will actually produce affordable apartments. In its current form, the ordinance is too weak.

Please do the following at your meeting tonight:

1. Lower the threshold for applying the new ordinance to 30 units so that more new
developments will include affordable housing.

2. Set the in lieu fees at the level that matches onsite production requirements: $19.50 per square foot for projects at 60+ units per acre, and $13.80 per square foot at lower densities.

Respectfully,

Monica!

Rev.Dr. Monica Corsaro
Fairview Community Church
2525 Fairview Road, Costa Mesa, CA 92626
(church) 714.545.4610
(cell) 206.353.2637
www.ocfairviewchurch.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.

From: Rev. Sian Wiltshire
To: STEPHENS, JOHN; HARLAN, JEFFREY; MARR, ANDREA; CHAVEZ, MANUEL; REYNOLDS, ARLIS; GAMEROS, LOREN; HARPER, DON; CITY CLERK; GALLARDO DALY, CECILIA
Subject: Affordable Housing Units
Date: Tuesday, August 6, 2024 2:57:00 PM
Dear Hard-Working City Council Members,
I live and work in Costa Mesa and love this city. But we are losing young people, low- income residents and even the middle class as it's getting too expensive to live here! This is happening all of the country. I invite you to consider taking a stand in this great city of ours that helps our housing crisis and allows for more affordable house. The high cost of renting apartments here is a crushing burden to so many of us. I make a good salary and yet I can only afford to rent and I am always looking for cheaper housing as my rent goes up significantly every year. I want you to make the Affordable Housing Ordinance stronger so that it will actually produce affordable apartments. In its current form, the ordinance is too weak.

Please do the following at your meeting tonight:

1. Lower the threshold for applying the new ordinance to 30 units so that more new
developments will include affordable housing.

2. Set the in lieu fees at the level that matches onsite production requirements: $19.50 per square foot for projects at 60+ units per acre, and $13.80 per square foot at lower densities.

Respectfully,
Rev. Sian Wiltshire
----------------------------------------------------------- Rev. Sian Wiltshire: She, her, hers
Orange Coast Unitarian Universalist Church
Costa Mesa, CA
www.ocuuc.org
714-556-2882, x302
Zoom ID: 393-157-9606
Zoom Link: https://zoom.us/j/3931579606
Please note that I don't check emails on Sundays or Mondays.

From: Steve Dzida
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Affordable Housing
Date: Tuesday, August 6, 2024 5:00:13 PM
Members of the Costa Mesa City Council:

We NEED affordable housing. When you act at your meeting tonight, please do the following:

1. Lower the applicability threshold to 30 units
so that more developments
across the city will include affordable rental units.

2. Adopt in lieu fees that match the cost of onsite production of the units required by the Affordable Housing Ordinance. Don’t put your thumb on the scale to discourage the building of affordable homes by setting in lieu fees too low.

This is the time to take at least a small step toward securing housing for our community at affordable rates!! Please don’t let it pass.

Steve
Steven J. Dzida
1846 Kinglet Court
Costa Mesa, CA 92626

From: Betsy Densmore
To: CITY CLERK; STEPHENS, JOHN; HARLAN, JEFFREY; CHAVEZ, MANUEL; GAMEROS, LOREN; HARPER, DON Subject: Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
Date: Tuesday, August 6, 2024 12:26:01 PM
Hello,
I write as a business owner, a former board member of an affordable housing developer and a resident.

Costa Mesa has a housing shortage which affects everyone from young professionals to the working poor. Service workers that we need to sustain our businesses are choosing between over-crowded apartments, long, wasteful commutes or moving out of state. Folks who grew up here can’t afford an apartment, never mind a house. And folks who have houses(and small businesses) depend on these workers for health care, retail and personal services.

Having a 50 unit threshold for requiring the inclusion of affordable housing does all these constituents a great disservice. Dropping the threshold down to 30 units or less would get us more housing a lot faster by including more, smaller sites. By setting this standard for all developers, we reduce off-line negotiations and back-room deals to get the housing we need. This standard is consistent with regulations in most neighboring cities. Developers understand the need and they know how to accommodate it.

Drop the threshold to back to 30!
Yours for a thriving economy,
Betsy
Betsy Densmore
Co-Owner: Great Mex Grill, LLC
Resident: 1006 Nancy Lane
[email protected]
949-500-2381
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." F.D. Roosevelt
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: patricia uchytil
To: STEPHENS, JOHN; HARLAN, JEFFREY; MARR, ANDREA; CHAVEZ, MANUEL; REYNOLDS, ARLIS; GAMEROS, LOREN; HARPER, DON; CITY CLERK; GALLARDO DALY, CECILIA
Subject: Low Income Housing
Date: Tuesday, August 6, 2024 4:06:12 PM
Dear City Council Members,
I am a Costa Mesa resident. The high cost of renting apartments here is a crushing burden on our city’s low income residents. I want you to make the Affordable Housing Ordinance stronger so that it will actually produce affordable apartments. In its current form, the ordinance is too weak.

Please do the following at your meeting tonight:

1. Lower the threshold for applying the new ordinance to 30 units so that more new developments will include affordable housing.

2. Set the in lieu fees at the level that matches onsite production requirements: $19.50 per square foot for projects at 60+ units per acre, and $13.80 per square foot at lower densities.

Respectfully,
Patty Uchytil
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.

From: Cesar C
To: STEPHENS, JOHN; HARLAN, JEFFREY; MARR, ANDREA; CHAVEZ, MANUEL; REYNOLDS, ARLIS; GAMEROS, LOREN; HARPER, DON; CITY CLERK
Subject: Public Hearing item 2 -- the Affordable Housing Ordinance.

Date: Tuesday, August 6, 2024 3:37:32 PM
Dear Mayor Stephens and Council Members:

At the August 6 City Council meeting, you have one last chance to strengthen the Affordable Housing Ordinance (AHO) to ensure it will produce the affordable housing Costa Mesa needs. We urge you to do so.

Recommendations;
Lower the Threshold on projects to 30 units
The first choice you should make is to lower the threshold for when the AHO applies.

If you adopt lesser fees, you – City Council – will be telling developers not to build affordable units. If it’s cheaper to pay the in lieu fee, that’s what developers will do.

Please don’t put your thumb on the scale to discourage the building of affordable homes in Costa Mesa.

Cesar Covarrubias
Executive Director
The Kennedy Commission
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.

From: Linda Tang
To: STEPHENS, JOHN; HARLAN, JEFFREY; MARR, ANDREA; CHAVEZ, MANUEL; REYNOLDS, ARLIS; GAMEROS, LOREN; HARPER, DON; CITY CLERK; GALLARDO DALY, CECILIA
Subject: RE: The Affordable Housing Ordinance --P.H. #2 Date: Tuesday, August 6, 2024 5:00:26 PM
Dear City Council Members,
As a mother of two young children, I constantly hear stories of other young families struggling to live and work in the same city that their children are attending school at.

This is especially true for lower income working families in Costa Mesa. The high cost of renting apartments in Costa Mesa is a crushing burden on our city’s low income families.

There is now an opportunity to address this issue and the City can create a more effective and impactful Affordable Housing Ordinance so that it will actually produce affordable apartments. In its current form, the ordinance is too weak. As the Council moves forward with the ordinance, I urge you to please implement the following:

1. Lower the threshold for applying the new ordinance to 30 units so that more new
developments will include affordable housing.

2. Set the in lieu fees at the level that matches onsite production requirements: $19.50 per square foot for projects at 60+ units per acre, and $13.80 per square foot at lower densities.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,
Linda
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: S Forbath
To: STEPHENS, JOHN; HARLAN, JEFFREY; MARR, ANDREA; CHAVEZ, MANUEL; REYNOLDS, ARLIS; GAMEROS, LOREN; HARPER, DON; CITY CLERK; GALLARDO DALY, CECILIA
Subject: The Affordable Housing Ordinance --P.H. #2
Date: Tuesday, August 6, 2024 4:22:14 PM
Dear City Council Members,

I am a lifetime Costa Mesa resident. The high cost of renting apartments here is a crushing burden on our city’s low income residents. I ask you to make the Affordable Housing Ordinance stronger so that it will produce actual affordable apartments. In its current form, the ordinance is too weak.

I respectfully request that you do the following at your meeting tonight:

1. Lower the threshold for applying the new ordinance to 30 units so that more new
developments will include affordable housing.

2. Set the in lieu fees at the level that matches onsite production requirements: $19.50 per square foDear City Council Members,
Best regards,
Susie Forbath
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 CouncilAugust 6, 2024

Costa Mesa City Council
August 6, 2024