Public Comments — Costa Mesa City Council, March 17, 2026 (part 2 of 2)

accommodation will impose an undue financial or administrative burden, will result in a direct threat, or will result in a fundamental alteration (i.e., the inverse of the current language regarding findings). It does not work to combine them in the same list as the elements that the person or entity making the request has the burden to establish. The two types of findings must be bifurcated.

Moreover, the current structure of the reasonable accommodation ordinance also makes it difficult for the ordinance to adequately reflect the law governing the findings that the City must establish to deny an otherwise valid reasonable accommodation request. For example, where the ordinance authorizes the City to deny a reasonable accommodation request based on a direct threat finding, it must also state that in such a case the City must find that the threat cannot be mitigated by reasonable accommodation. 28 C.F.R. §35.139. A finding that granting a reasonable accommodation would be an undue burden or fundamental alteration must also be made “after considering all resources available for use in the funding and operation of the service, program, or activity, and must be accompanied by a written statement of the reasons for reaching that conclusion.” 28. C.F.R. §35.150(a)(3). It will be difficult to add such clarifications in a clear way unless the two types of findings under Section 13-200.62(f) are separated and the findings for which the City bears the burden are written in the affirmative.

Section 13-200.62 (f) also includes factors that do not fall within either the burden of the person or entity making the accommodation request or the allowable reasons for the City to deny a request, but instead layer on additional obligations that are not permitted under fair housing law. Finding (4) requires a finding that the “requested accommodation is consistent with surrounding uses in scale and intensity of use.” The City cannot apply different occupancy, use, or development standards to shared housing for people with disabilities as compared to other forms of housing, nor can it require a household of people with disabilities to be limited to fewer people than a single housekeeping unit would be allowed to have. To the extent that a requested accommodation would result in housing that was vastly different from permitted housing uses, City staff could evaluate whether granting the request would constitute a fundamental alteration to a City program or would result in an undue burden or direct threat. But simply having the same number of people that a single housekeeping unit would January 12, 2026

Page 4 of 7 ends

be allowed to have, or failing to meet another occupancy or development standard that was not also applied to single housekeeping units, could never fall within one of those permitted reasons for denying an accommodation request. Consistency with other uses should therefore not be listed as a separate required finding.

Likewise, Finding (6) requires in some instances “a finding that the requested accommodation is necessary to make facilities of a similar nature or operation economically viable in light of the particularities of the relevant market and market participants generally.” For the same reasons that the City is removing Finding (7), which also focuses on “facilities of a similar nature and operation” rather than on the specific housing that is at issue for a particular reasonable accommodation request, the City should remove Finding (6). It is just as true that it will be “operationally difficult for staff or the applicants to make this determination given lack of information” for Finding (6) as for Finding (7). Moreover, providing a feasibility study or market study about other housing does not fall within the burden of someone making a reasonable accommodation request. Making such a study a condition of approving a disability-related accommodation is therefore a discriminatory housing practice. This should likewise not be listed as a required finding.

The deletion of Finding (7) should also be accompanied by a revision to the language of Finding (2), which states that, “[t]he requested accommodation is necessary to provide one or more individuals with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.” To ensure that City staff interpret Finding (2) consistent with fair housing laws, by focusing on the housing at issue in the request rather than “facilities of a similar nature and operation” elsewhere, Finding (2) should be revised to refer to an equal opportunity to use and enjoy “their dwelling,” “the dwelling at issue in the accommodation request,” or something similar.

In order to bring the reasonable accommodation ordinance into compliance with federal and state fair housing law, the City will also need to revise other portions of the ordinance. As reflected in the settlement agreement, we would welcome the opportunity to work with the City during that portion of its review of the reasonable accommodation ordinance and to provide feedback on any draft revisions of those other sections.

January 12, 2026

Page 5 of 7 ends

For those portions of the ordinance as well, it would be most effective for the City to repeal and replace language rather than try to work within the existing structure. For example, Section 13-200.62(b) loads burdensome and irrelevant requirements onto people or entities making reasonable accommodation requests. A lay homeowner who needs an accommodation due to disability should be able to comply with application requirements without having to hire an attorney or other expert to help them understand what they need to do. The City should limit the application to information that is necessary for the City to evaluate whether the person or entity making the request has met their burden, such as the location of the dwelling at issue, the existence of the disability, the nature of the accommodation that is being requested, and the connection between the disability and the requested accommodation. The provisions in Section 13- 200.62(b) that require people or entities making reasonable accommodation requests to provide “[a]ny other information that the director reasonably determines is necessary for evaluating the request for reasonable accommodation” ((b)(3)) and “[a]ny other information that the hearing officer reasonably concludes is necessary to determine whether the findings required by subsection (e) of this section can be made” ((b)(7)) are particularly problematic because they are not limited to the information necessary to establish that a person or entity is entitled to a reasonable accommodation.

Section 13-200.62(d) provides that appeals of reasonable accommodation requests will be handled through the same procedures as “any other discretionary permit.” However, the appeals process pertaining to reasonable accommodation requests needs to be navigable and manageable by lay people with disabilities. This provision should be repealed and replaced with new language that requires a prompt, clear statement of the reasons for any denial, establishes a simple procedure for requesting an appeal, provides a reasonable deadline for making requests for an appeal, and eliminates the need for individuals or entities to pay for the City’s review of their reasonable accommodation determination.

Most importantly, the section of the reasonable accommodation ordinance addressing appeals must exempt them from the review procedures that govern general zoning matters in order to respect the privacy of people’s disabilities and disability-related needs during any review process.

Hearings regarding reasonable accommodations requests should not be January 12, 2026

Page 6 of 7 ends

made by legislative bodies, and no public notice should be made regarding reasonable accommodation reviews. Public hearings create an opening for members of the public to express animus against people with disabilities, which imposes an improper barrier to people seeking such accommodations. For example, at the hearings regarding Insight’s reasonable accommodation request, a member of the public told the Planning Commission that a person who is “mentally disabled does not belong in a neighborhood next door to me or any of us in this room,” and someone testified to the City Council that the “mentally ill cannot associate with our children, neighbors.” As you know, hearing those types of comments was traumatic for our client Ms. Doe, who spoke about her own experiences with mental illness, and the ways that staying at Insight’s housing had helped her, at a hearing on Insight’s reasonable accommodation request. Not only is the City not obligated to provide the public with a forum to intimidate and humiliate people like Ms. Doe, but the City cannot put people like her through such an ordeal as a condition of having their accommodation request reviewed. Nor can such animus play any part in the City’s review of an accommodation request. For similar reasons, the ordinance should also make clear that only the person or entity making the request can appeal a decision regarding a reasonable accommodation, in contrast to the current language which permits virtually anyone – including neighbors with an animus against people with disabilities – to appeal.

Finally, Sections 13-200.62(e) and (g), regarding “considerations,” overlap with the required “findings” in Section 13-200.62(f) in a way that impedes consistency with fair housing law. Like Section 13-200.62(f), these sections fail to make clear which elements are the burden of the person making the reasonable accommodation request to establish and which are the City’s burden. Many of them are also improper considerations. For example, the City cannot take into account “whether granting the request would be consistent with the City's General Plan.” By definition, any reasonable accommodation request pertaining to zoning will be inconsistent with the zoning scheme. “Requiring public entities to make exceptions to their rules and zoning policies is exactly what the FHAA does.” Anderson v. City of Blue Ash, 798 F.3d 338, 363 (6th Cir. 2015); City of Edmonds v.

Washington State Bldg. Code Council, 18 F.3d 802, 806 (9th Cir. 1994) (FHA imposes an affirmative duty to reasonably accommodate disabled persons). The question is not whether a requested disability January 12, 2026

Page 7 of 7 ends

accommodation is inconsistent with the City’s General Plan, but whether granting it would fundamentally alter the General Plan. To take another example, the City cannot take into consideration whether “the accommodation would result in a substantial increase in traffic or insufficient parking” (§ 13-200.62(g)(2)) or “create an institutionalized environment due to the number of and distance between facilities that are similar in nature or operation” (§ 13-200.62(g)(4)) unless it is also doing so with respect to single housekeeping units. Again, the City cannot impose more stringent development or occupancy standards on housing occupied by people with disabilities than on single housekeeping units, nor can it use vague or undefined conditions as a basis for denial of a reasonable accommodation request. These are examples, and not an exhaustive list, of the issues with subsections (e) and (g) of Costa Mesa’s reasonable accommodation ordinance. We would be happy to provide additional comments or to discuss with you and with City staff in more detail our further thoughts on bringing the ordinance into compliance with state and federal fair housing requirements.

We appreciate your time and attention to our comments and look forward to working with you and the City further on these important access issues for Costa Mesa residents with disabilities. Please let us know if you would like to discuss any of these issues further.

Sincerely,

Autumn M. Elliott
Law Office of Autumn Elliott

Jia Min Cheng
Managing Attorney
Disability Rights California

LEGAL ADVOCACY UNIT
888 W. 6th Street, Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90017

Tel: (916) 504-5800
Fax: (916) 504-5801
TTY: (800) 719-5798
Intake Line: (800) 776-5746
www.disabilityrightsca.org
February 23, 2026

VIA EMAIL

Costa Mesa Planning Commission
c/o City Clerk
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
[email protected]

RE: February 23, 2026 Public Hearing Item No. 1

To the Honorable Members of the Costa Mesa Planning Commission:

As counsel in the Insight v. Costa Mesa settlement, we write regarding Item No. 1 on today’s Public Hearing Agenda, a resolution regarding amendments to Costa Mesa’s Sixth Cycle Housing Element (2012-2029).

The action proposed by staff appears to be in response to public comments that were received in relation to the Planning Commission’s review of recommendations pertaining to the Housing Element at the February 9, 2026 Planning Commission meeting.

At the February 9 meeting, we made a public comment urging you to encourage City staff to reach out to us regarding staff recommendations regarding amendments to the City’s reasonable accommodation ordinance.

To date, we have not heard from City staff, and once again urge that you encourage them to discuss the proposed amendments to the reasonable accommodation ordinance with us.

February 23, 2026

Page 2 of 3 ends

As we explained at the February 9 meeting, the City Attorney had told us that the City was considering eliminating finding (f)(7) in the reasonable accommodation ordinance. We responded by letter to say that was a great start, but that there were a number of other problems causing the ordinance to fall short of legal requirements, and we explained a number of in the letter. The City Attorney’s email to us and our letter in response are attached.

We were glad to see some of our suggestions incorporated into staff’s February 9 recommendations, but there are other fixes that the City still needs to make in order to bring the ordinance into compliance with federal and state fair housing and disability access law. To give just one example, findings (f)(3), (5), and (8) require an affirmative finding that there is no undue burden, fundamental alternation, or direct threat. But that ends up putting the burden on the person making the reasonable accommodation request to demonstrate that, when the law prohibits putting that burden on them.

Even more troubling, while some of the proposed revisions look like they may be in response to our comments, they do not end up fixing the problem or even make it worse. One example of that is finding (f)(4) regarding scale and intensity of use. We had explained in our letter that the City can’t be more restrictive of shared housing for people with disabilities than it is for single housekeeping units, but the proposed revisions make that issue worse, rather than better. The proposed revisions before you also include some new language that create additional problems.

The Insight v. Costa Mesa settlement agreement provides that Disability Rights California can sue the City if it does not live up to its promise to bring the reasonable accommodation ordinance into compliance with the law, but it also says that we are more than willing to work collaboratively with City staff to help figure out a way for Costa Mesa to bring its ordinances into compliance with fair housing laws and meet the needs of Costa Mesa so that Costa Mesa does not have to expend more city resources in defending another lawsuit.

The reasonable accommodation ordinance (as well as related ordinances pertaining to shared housing for people with disabilities, including the single housekeeping unit definition) needs more work in order to come into February 23, 2026

Page 3 of 3 ends

compliance with the law. Again, we hope you will direct City staff to continue working on the amendments, and encourage staff to reach out to us to hear more about our serious concerns.

As we noted at the hearing, it is important not to have undue further delay in implementing this aspect of the Housing Element, but it is even more important to get it right.

We appreciate your time and attention to our comments.

Sincerely,

Autumn M. Elliott
Law Office of Autumn Elliott

Jia Min Cheng
Managing Attorney
Disability Rights California

Encl:

December 19, 2025 email from Kim Barlow to DRC and Elliott re Costa Mesa Housing Element Program 2N

January 12, 2026 letter from DRC and Elliott to City Attorney re proposed revisions to reasonable accommodation ordinance
From: Jaden Rosselli
To: CITY COUNCIL; CITY CLERK
Cc: [email protected]; Tarquin Preziosi; Barker, Brandon; Sara-Ann Smith Subject: City Council Public Hearing Items 3 and 4 - Comment Letter and Request to Remove 3333 Susan Street from Housing Sites Inventory
Date: Tuesday, March 17, 2026 11:21:16 AM
Attachments: draw_580d9b96-3805-4d3f-a83f-b09bdd9d86b5.png Drawbridge Comment Letter Public Hearing Nos. 3 and 4.pdf Dear Mayor Stephens and Members of the City Council,

I hope you’re doing well.

On behalf of the ownership of 3333–3337 Susan Street, I’m writing to briefly follow up on our attached letter regarding Public Hearing Items 3 and 4.

In short, we respectfully request that the City Council continue these items to a future date to allow additional time for consideration of our request to remove the property from the Housing Element Sites Inventory. As noted in our letter, we only recently became aware of the implications of recent legal developments and submitted our formal request as quickly as possible thereafter.

Given the significance of the potential zoning changes affecting the property, we believe a short continuance would allow for a more complete and fair evaluation—consistent with how similar requests have been handled.

We appreciate your time and consideration, and we are happy to coordinate with staff or provide any additional information that would be helpful.

Thank you again.

Best regards,

Jaden Rosselli
Jaden Rosselli
Vice President, Investments & Asset Management
3 Embarcadero Center, Suite 2310
San Francisco, CA 94111
Direct: (415) 391-7489
Cell: (707) 321-0978
[email protected]
www.drawbridgerealty.com
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.

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.

DRBG Susan St, LLC
c/o Drawbridge Realty
Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 2310
San Francisco, CA 94111

March 17, 2026

VIA EMAIL [[email protected]]

Mayor John Stephens and Members of the Costa Mesa City Council City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626

Re: Public Hearing Item Nos . 3 and 4; Further Request to Remove 3333 -3337 Susan Street (Housing Element Inventory Site #196) from the Housing Element Sites Inventory in the Resolution to Amend the Sixth Cycle Housing Element

Dear Mayor Stephens and Honorable Members of the City Council:

As you may know, we are the current property owner of 3333- 3337 Susan Street (Housing Element Site No. 196) (the “Property”). We respectfully request that the City Council continue Public Hearing Items 3 and 4 to a future date and direct City staff to revise draft Resolution 2026-XX to remove the Property from the Housing Element Sites Inventory.

We recognize that the City is adapting to evolving State laws and interpretations of those laws under recent court decisions, including New Commune DTLA LLC v. City of Redondo Beach. We were made aware of the potential consequences of New Commune for the Property less than a month ago. We then quickly got up to speed on the matter and submitted our formal written removal request on March 5, 2026. We were told by the City last week that our failure to provide such request prior to February 23, 2026 means that our request cannot be mentioned in the Agenda Report, included in Attachment 4, or reflected in the proposed redlines to the Housing Element Sites Inventory.

Under New Commune, the City’s proposed Mixed Use Overlay District will now mandate that any future development at the Property—a commercial industrial site surrounded by other commercial industrial sites and leased long-term to Anduril Industries—must include a minimum of 50 percent residential at a minimum density of 20 units per acre. This mandate will, of course, fundamentally change the zoning of the Property.

As other property owners have noted, inclusion in the Housing Element Sites Inventory was originally intended to add flexibility to properties rather than mandate residential requirements. Accordingly, we respectfully request that the City Council continue Public Hearing Items 3 and 4 to allow the City the opportunity to accommodate our request, as the City has done for similarly situated property owners.

Sincerely,

DRBG SUSAN ST, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company

By: _______________________________
Name: _______________________________
Title: _______________________________

cc: Anna McGill, Planning Manager
Tarquin Preziosi, Assistant City Attorney

Docusign Envelope ID: 5031D2AA-044A-47C5-9922-684C094D567F Vice President
Jaden Rosselli

March 17, 2026

SENT VIA EMAIL [[email protected] AND [email protected]]

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

Re: Request to Continue Public Hearing Items 3 and 4; Request to Remove 3333 Susan Street from Housing Element Sites Inventory

Dear Mayor Stephens and Members of the Costa Mesa City Council:

On behalf of Anduril Industries, we respectfully request that the City Council continue Public Hearing Items 3 and 4 on the March 17, 2026, City Council Agenda to allow for the removal of 3333 Susan Street (Housing Element Site No. 196, “The Hive”) from the Housing Sites Inventory.

Anduril is the long-term lessee of 3333 Susan Street. Should the City Council move forward with Public Hearing Items 3 and 4 as currently proposed—with the site remaining on the inventory and the Mixed Use Overlay District adopted as to all sites on the inventory—our ability to utilize this site will be severely impacted. In short, we would be precluded from proposing any future projects that do not include residential, despite the site’s underlying commercial industrial zoning.

We understand that Drawbridge Realty, the property owner, previously requested that City staff remove 3333 Susan Street from the inventory. Please continue these two matters to allow time to incorporate their request.

Sincerely,

Matt Grimm
Co-Founder and COO
Anduril Industries

Cc: Tarquin Preziosi, Assistant City Attorney, City of Costa Mesa Anna McGill, Planning Manager, City of Costa Mesa
Jennifer Lynch, Environmental Attorney, Anduril Industries From: Katherine Johansen
To: CITY CLERK
Cc: Katherine Johansen
Subject: Comments on Agenda Item #1 for Council Meeting March 17, 2026 Date: Tuesday, March 17, 2026 11:41:41 AM
March 17, 2026

Honorable Mayor Stevens and Costa Mesa City Council:

Please include this email as part of the public record for the upcoming Costa Mesa City Council meeting on March 17, 2026.

We are a family-owned small landlord that owns and has managed a small rental complex in Costa Mesa since 1987. We respectfully ask the Council to vote no to the proposed rent registry and tenant three-day notice reporting requirements for the following reasons:

1. Three-day notices are issued to residents as a warning that they are violating their lease (whether for nuisance or non-payment of rent). Nearly all three-day notices are cured within that time by the residents. Only a few progress to actual evictions, and given the restrictions of AB 1482, landlords only file when the violation warrants eviction.

2. Creating a bureaucracy to track rental apartments, charging each registrant a fee and requiring reporting of three-day notices is costly to the city and to small landlords, further raising the cost to maintain existing housing. Further, if the goal is to track rental housing in the city (for what purpose remains unclear), the data collected will be inaccurate as it excludes rental condos, houses and townhouses. Any subsequent policies will be made with inaccurate information.

3. City interference with Civil Contracts and Court Eviction Proceedings.

AB 1482 already restricts conditions by which landlords can file evictions (three days that are not cured by the resident), and the courts are charged with administering these cases fairly. The City should not be involved in civil legal disputes between two parties to a contract.
4.
Following Failed Policy in other Cities: Costa Mesa staff referenced rent registries and similar programs from other California cities such as San Francisco, San Jose, Oakland and Santa Ana, all of which impose further restrictions on rental housing that extend beyond those of AB1482, but these cities still have a shortage of housing. In fact, San Francisco has had rent restrictions since 1970 without abating a housing shortage. Rent restrictions do not improve the housing stock and discourage development of new rental housing.

It is for these reasons we oppose any rent registry and eviction monitoring program and respectfully ask the City Council to vote no on this proposal.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments.

Katherine Johansen
Solteros Apartments LP
2205-2215 Canyon Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
714-532-5939
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open From: MUNOZ, SANDY
To: TERAN, STACY; GREEN, BRENDA
Subject: FW: Costa Mesa Housing Professional Urging No Vote on Rental Registry Proposal Date: Tuesday, March 17, 2026 8:20:34 AM
From: Drisana Daniel <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2026 6:28 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL <[email protected]>; STEPHENS, JOHN <[email protected]>; CHAVEZ, MANUEL <[email protected]>; MARR, ANDREA <[email protected]>; BULEY, MIKE <[email protected]>; GAMEROS, LOREN <[email protected]>; PETTIS, JEFF <[email protected]>; REYNOLDS, ARLIS <[email protected]> Subject: Costa Mesa Housing Professional Urging No Vote on Rental Registry Proposal

Dear Mayor and Members of the Costa Mesa City Council,

My name is Drisana Daniel, and I work as an Assistant Property Manager serving rental housing. I am invested in policies that support stable and accessible housing. I am writing to respectfully share my concerns regarding the proposed rental registry and the requirement that housing providers submit copies of 3-Day Notices to the City.

In my day-to-day work, I regularly see situations where a 3-Day Notice serves as an early communication tool, allowing tenants and management to address issues before they escalate. Many of these situations are resolved quickly once the notice brings attention to the matter, and no further action is needed.

Collecting copies of these notices could unintentionally create a misleading impression of eviction activity, as a 3-Day Notice is not an eviction filing but a preliminary step that provides tenants an opportunity to resolve a problem.

There are also important privacy considerations. These documents may contain sensitive personal information, such as financial details or contact information, which are not public court records. Requiring submission of these notices could compromise tenant privacy without improving housing outcomes.

Additionally, creating a rental registry would introduce significant administrative requirements and costs for housing providers. While the intent may be to improve housing oversight, programs like these often divert resources away from maintenance and tenant support. In practice, increased administrative burdens can discourage investment in rental housing, potentially reducing the availability of well- maintained units and affecting residents across the community.

I believe there are more effective approaches to supporting housing stability. Open communication, early issue resolution, tenant education, and mediation programs have been successful in preventing disputes from escalating. For example, initiatives in other cities have provided tenants with clear guidance and resources while maintaining landlord flexibility, resulting in fewer conflicts and more stable housing outcomes.

Costa Mesa has the opportunity to pursue policies that support both tenants and responsible housing providers while maintaining a healthy and stable rental housing supply. I respectfully ask the Council to vote no on the proposed rental registry and 3-Day Notice reporting requirements and instead focus on solutions that strengthen housing stability without creating unnecessary administrative burdens or privacy risks.

Thank you for your time and for your service to the Costa Mesa community.

Sincerely,
Drisana Daniel
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: MUNOZ, SANDY
To: TERAN, STACY; GREEN, BRENDA
Subject: FW: Is Costa Mesa is on the path to Rent Control? Date: Monday, March 16, 2026 4:33:50 PM
From: Susan Hoover <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2026 3:47 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL <[email protected]>
Subject: Is Costa Mesa is on the path to Rent Control?

Honorable Councilmembers:

The proposals to implement Rent Registries and Notification of 3 Day Notices to Pay Rent or Quit will be disastrous for the City of Costa Mesa.

The problems that these proposals create for the city include:

Instituting a Rent Registry Program that will cost the city HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS to administer on an ongoing basis - while the city is facing a budget deficit.

Disclosure of any 3 Day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit will result in an inundation of notices that provide no useful data to the city in their efforts to protect tenants. because:
99%+ of 3 Day Notices result in NO FURTHER LEGAL ACTION 3 Day Notices are NOT PUBLIC FILINGS - creating privacy concerns for the tenants and the city
Public and Non Profit resources ALREADY EXIST to serve as sources of data for evictions - there is no need to reinvent the wheel.

Finally, the cost to implement these programs - accompanied with the burden faced by property owners to support these programs - will only result in an inability to provide for repairs, upgrades, and resources that are intended to improve the lives of the residents.

These proposals DO NOT help anyone, and in fact they create problems for the City, the Tenants, and the Owners.

That is why we are requesting the city council VOTE NO on these policies.

Thank you for your service to the City of Costa Mesa.

Regards,
Susan Hoover
Costa Mesa Property Owner
From: MUNOZ, SANDY
To: TERAN, STACY; GREEN, BRENDA
Subject: FW: No on Rent Registries & 3-Day Notices
Date: Tuesday, March 17, 2026 8:48:01 AM
From: Brad Dougherty <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2026 8:31 AM
To: REYNOLDS, ARLIS <[email protected]>; PETTIS, JEFF <[email protected]>; GAMEROS, LOREN <[email protected]>; BULEY, MIKE <[email protected]>; MARR, ANDREA <[email protected]>; CHAVEZ, MANUEL <[email protected]>; STEPHENS, JOHN
<[email protected]>
Cc: CITY COUNCIL <[email protected]>
Subject: No on Rent Registries & 3-Day Notices

Hello,

I am a 30-year resident of Costa Mesa. I strongly opposed this proposal that would be an absolute waste of money. This City needs to prioritize spending on fighting crime and giving more resources to the Police Department. I live in what used to be a very safe area on the Westside of Costa Mesa. I have lived in the same home since 2002 and, until recently, I was never concerned about this. We now have gangs, burglaries, car thefts, and constant graffiti tagging in my neighborhood.

There has been a significant change in the last 2-3 years. That bathroom in Fairview Park was littered with graffiti recently and I have never seen that. What is the plan to combat this?

We do not need to waste time and money on programs like below. We need the resources to keep our community safe. Good families are moving out of the city and will continue to do so if it isn’t addressed.

The proposals to implement Rent Registries and Notification of 3 Day Notices to Pay Rent or Quit will be disastrous for the City of Costa Mesa.

The problems that these proposals create for the city include:
· Instituting a Rent Registry Program that will cost the city HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS to administer on an ongoing basis - while the city is facing a budget deficit.
· Disclosure of any 3 Day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit will result in an inundation of notices that provide no useful data to the city in their efforts to protect tenants. because:
· 99%+ of 3 Day Notices result in NO FURTHER LEGAL ACTION · 3 Day Notices are NOT PUBLIC FILINGS - creating privacy concerns for the tenants and the city
· Public and Non Profit resources ALREADY EXIST to serve as sources of data for evictions - there is no need to reinvent the wheel.
· Finally, the cost to implement these programs - accompanied with the burden faced by property owners to support these programs - will only result in an inability to provide for repairs, upgrades, and resources that are intended to improve the lives of the residents.

These proposals DO NOT help anyone, and in fact they create problems for the City, the Tenants, and the Owners.

That is why we are requesting the city council VOTE NO on these policies.

Regards,

Brad

From: MUNOZ, SANDY
To: TERAN, STACY; GREEN, BRENDA
Subject: FW: Please Oppose Rental Registry and 3-Day Notice Reporting Proposal Date: Monday, March 16, 2026 4:34:14 PM
From: Jared Salinas <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2026 3:55 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL <[email protected]>
Cc: STEPHENS, JOHN <[email protected]>; CHAVEZ, MANUEL <[email protected]>; MARR, ANDREA <[email protected]>; BULEY, MIKE <[email protected]>; GAMEROS, LOREN <[email protected]>; PETTIS, JEFF <[email protected]>; REYNOLDS, ARLIS <[email protected]>
Subject: Please Oppose Rental Registry and 3-Day Notice Reporting Proposal

Dear Mayor and Members of the Costa Mesa City Council,
My name is Jared Salinas, and I am a property manager. I respectfully urge the Council to oppose the proposed rental registry and mandatory reporting of 3-day notices.

A 3-day notice is not an eviction. In most cases it is simply an early notice that allows tenants time to resolve an issue before any legal action occurs, and the vast majority never result in an eviction filing.

Requiring these notices to be reported would likely create misleading data and add an extra step in a process that is already time consuming and financially costly. This could also be potentially dangerous for tenant privacy due to the sensitive information the notice contains.

Additionally, rental registry programs and fees will create new administrative costs and unnecessary burdens that can ultimately increase housing costs. This would then discourage property owners and managers from investing in rental housing.

I encourage the Council to focus on policies that improve housing stability and housing supply without creating unnecessary bureaucracy.

Thank you for your time and service to the Costa Mesa community.

Sincerely,
Jared Salinas

From: MUNOZ, SANDY
To: GREEN, BRENDA; TERAN, STACY
Subject: FW: Rental Registry
Date: Tuesday, March 17, 2026 9:14:52 AM
From: Michael Ashworth <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2026 9:03 AM
To: CITY COUNCIL <[email protected]>
Subject: Rental Registry

Dear Council Members and Mayor,
The proposals to implement Rent Registries and Notification of 3 Day Notices to Pay Rent or Quit will be disastrous for the City of Costa Mesa.

The problems that these proposals create for the city include:

Instituting a Rent Registry Program that will cost the city HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS to administer on an ongoing basis - while the city is facing a budget deficit.

These proposals DO NOT help anyone, and in fact they create problems for the City, the Tenants, and the Owners.

That is why we are requesting the city council VOTE NO on these policies.

Michael R. Ashworth

From: MUNOZ, SANDY
To: TERAN, STACY; GREEN, BRENDA
Subject: FW: Rental Registry
Date: Tuesday, March 17, 2026 8:20:03 AM
From: Craig Gordon <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2026 6:31 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL <[email protected]>
Subject: Rental Registry

Dear City Council Members,

The proposals to implement Rent Registries and Notification of 3 Day Notices to Pay Rent or Quit will be disastrous for the City of Costa Mesa.

The problems that these proposals create for the city include:

Instituting a Rent Registry Program that will cost the city HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS to administer on an ongoing basis - while the city is facing a budget deficit.

These proposals DO NOT help anyone, and in fact they create problems for the City, the Tenants, and the Owners.

That is why I am requesting the city council VOTE NO on these policies.

Sincerely,

Craig A Gordon
Costa Mesa property owner

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: MUNOZ, SANDY
To: TERAN, STACY; GREEN, BRENDA
Subject: FW: Vote No on Rent Registries and Notification of 3 Day Notices to Pay Rent or Quit Date: Monday, March 16, 2026 4:32:56 PM
From: Mike Jensen <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2026 3:40 PM
Subject: Vote No on Rent Registries and Notification of 3 Day Notices to Pay Rent or Quit

City Council,
The proposals to implement Rent Registries and Notification of 3 Day Notices to Pay Rent or Quit will be disastrous for the City of Costa Mesa.

These proposals DO NOT help anyone, and in fact they create problems for the City, the Tenants, and the Owners.

That is why I am requesting the city council VOTE NO on these policies.

Thanks for your time.

Mike Jensen
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 17, 2026 Sent via email to: [email protected] Mayor John Stephens Mayor Pro Tem Manuel Chavez Councilmember Mike Buley Councilmember Loren Gameros Councilmember Andrea Marr Councilmember Jeff Pettis Councilmember Arlis Reynolds RE: Agenda Item: New Business I - OPPOSE Potential Implementation of Citywide Rental Registry Program and Establishment of Network for Renters Resolutions Honorable Mayor Stephens and Members of the Council, The Manufactured Housing Educational Trust (MHET) represents the owners of mobile home parks communities in the Southern California region of Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. Mobile home parks make up a very small fraction of the housing stock in the city of Costa Mesa. Mobile homes are owner occupied units on rental spaces receiving full service from the owner of the property. Mobile home parks have just cause evictions for non-payment of rent, which are very rare because MHET and park owners offer a rent subsidy program for qualified residents in need. Costa Mesa is to be commended on the various generous programs it has offered and is currently offering the city’s renters including the Tenant Based Rental Assistance, legal aid and extensive resources listed on the City’s website including mediation services, and rental assistance. The services currently available to all renters in the city are extensive and readily available. The implementation of a “Network for Renter Solutions” is unnecessary. There is also an entire section on the website of resources devoted exclusively to mobile home owners. A city committee representing mobile home owners (tenants) and community owners (landlords) exists to facilitate communication and resources. The city’s existing Housing Element outlines in detail the number of renters, household makeup and income, number of bedrooms and rents for Costa Mesa rental units, which is what the proposed Rental Registry would do. The proposal to implement a citywide rental registry is an expensive and unnecessary duplication of work that has already been done and is immediately available in the Costa Mesa Housing Element. A rental registry program is not only a duplication of information, but it would also put unnecessary stress on limited staff resources. Thank you for all you are doing to assist renters. The proposed duplication of programs is not needed. We respectfully urge the council to take no further action to implement an unnecessary and very costly program with questionable benefit. Sincerely, Vickie Talley Executive Director

From: D. Tucci
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Oppose New Business Item 1 - Rent Registry Program and Fees Date: Tuesday, March 17, 2026 7:27:34 AM
Please vote against this proposal.

It will cost the city more than the benefits and also start down the slippery slope to more rent control which never really has the intended outcomes.

Dominic Tucci
Alumnus of College Park and Paularino Elementary, TeWinkle Middle School, Costa Mesa High School and OCC.

Owner of a single 4-plex in 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.

It>y*l Bi'y 11lSs
March 16, 2026

Dear Mayor and Members of the Costa Mesa City Council,
My name is Delmy Cortez, and I am a Costa Mesa resident and property manager. I respectfully urge you to oppose the proposed rental registry and the mandatory reporting of 3 Day Notices. A 3 Day Notice is not an eviction. In most cases, it is simply a notice that gives tenants the opportunity to correct an issue, such as paying rent or resolving a lease violation, before any legal action is taken. In fact, more than 99% of 3 Day Notices never result in an eviction filing, meaning the data collected through this proposal would be largely misleading and would not accurately reflect actual evictions in our community.

Additionally, rent registry programs often require cities to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars each year to operate and enforce them. These additional regulatory burdens ultimately increase housing costs and make it more difficult for property owners to maintain their units and continue investing in rental housing.

Costa Mesa should focus on policies that support housing stability and increase housing supply, rather than creating costly bureaucracy that could harm both tenants and housing providers. $300,000 a year could go a long way and be spend more effectively than on something like this.

For these reasons, I respectfully urge the Council to vote no on the rental registry and 3 Day Notice reporting proposals. Thank you for your time and service to our community.

Sincerely,
Delmy Cortez, Business Manager.
714-788-6048

From: MUNOZ, SANDY
To: TERAN, STACY; GREEN, BRENDA
Subject: FW:

Date: Monday, March 16, 2026 10:15:23 AM
From: Bill shill <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2026 3:29 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL <[email protected]>
Subject:

The proposals to implement Rent Registries and Notification of 3 Day Notices to Pay Rent or Quit will be disastrous for the City of Costa Mesa.

The problems that these proposals create for the city include:

Instituting a Rent Registry Program that will cost the city HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS to administer on an ongoing basis - while the city is facing a budget deficit.

Disclosure of any 3 Day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit will result in an inundation of notices that provide no useful data to the city in their efforts to protect tenants. because:
· 99%+ of 3 Day Notices result in NO FURTHER LEGAL ACTION · 3 Day Notices are NOT PUBLIC FILINGS - creating privacy concerns for the tenants and the city
· Public and Non Profit resources ALREADY EXIST to serve as sources of data for evictions - there is no need to reinvent the wheel.

These proposals DO NOT help anyone, and in fact they create problems for the City, the Tenants, and the Owners.

That is why we are requesting the city council VOTE NO on these policies.
Thanks,

Bill Shillington
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: MUNOZ, SANDY
To: TERAN, STACY; GONZALEZ, GLADYS; GREEN, BRENDA
Subject: FW: Agenda Item-Three-Day Notice Reporting Requirement/RentalRegistrty- Public Comment- Date: Monday, March 16, 2026 8:55:47 AM
Attachments: image001.wmz
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
image006.png
image007.png

Best,

Sandy Muñoz
Executive Assistant to the City Council
O: 714.754.5107 | C: 949.849.1730
77 Fair Drive | Costa Mesa | CA 92626

“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.

PlEAsE COnsiDEr THE EnvirOnMEnT BEFOrE PrinTing THis EMAil. THAnk yOu!

From: Kathy Miller <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2026 3:50 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL <[email protected]>
Cc: AAOC Executive Director David Cordero <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: Agenda Item-Three-Day Notice Reporting Requirement/RentalRegistrty- Public Comment-

Dear Mayor Stephens, and members of the City Council,

Please include this email as part of the public record for the upcoming City Council meeting.

I respectfully ask the Council to vote no on the proposed Three day notice reporting requirement and rental registry.

I am writing as a lifelong resident and property owner in Costa Mesa to respectfully oppose the proposal requiring landlords to submit copies of Three day notices to pay or quit to the city as well as the proposed rental registry requirement.

As someone who has owned and managed rental property in Costa Mesa for nearly 30 years, I have firsthand experience with how these situations actually work. Many rental homes in our city are owned and managed by small local housing providers, like myself who live in this city community and work directly with our tenants.

I understand and appreciate the council’s desire to protect tenants and ensure fairness in housing however, requiring landlords to submit Three Day notices would insert the city into private contractual agreements that are usually resolved quickly without any government involvement

California already has state wide rent control and tenant protection laws in place that provide clear and fair regulations for both tenants and housing providers which I fully comply with and support at this time.

In nearly three decades of managing rental property I have issued approximately 15 to 18 three day notices and only two ever resulted in legal action in the vast majority of cases tenants and landlords work out the issues within a few days.

Rent is typically due on the first of the month, and a three day notice can legally be issued as early as the second day if this proposal moves forward, the City could potentially receive thousands of notices each month. This would create a significant administrative burden while collecting private tenant information that does not need to become part of a government record when no legal case has occurred.

These notices contained personal information about tenants who often resolve the matter quickly that private information should not be required to be shared with the city absent court involvement.

I am also concerned that the rental registry would be redundant and costly. The City already requires business licenses for rental properties which identify rental units creating an additional registry would impose, unnecessary administrative cost without clear benefit other cities that have attempted some more programs have faced, legal challenges and significant financial expense policies that add unnecessary regulation can make it more difficult for small local housing providers to continue offering rental housing in our community.

Good policy should solve real problems not create new ones. I respectfully asked the Council not to move forward with these proposals. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Kathy and David Miller
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
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: MUNOZ, SANDY
To: TERAN, STACY; GREEN, BRENDA
Subject: FW: Costa Mesa City Coucil March 17 Meeting (Rent Registry, etc) Date: Monday, March 16, 2026 10:15:51 AM
From: Mary Frances <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2026 3:27 PM
To: CONSTITUENT SERVICES <[email protected]>; STEPHENS, JOHN <[email protected]>
Cc: joan <[email protected]>; MARY STANLEY <[email protected]> Subject: Costa Mesa City Coucil March 17 Meeting (Rent Registry, etc)

To: Costa Mesa City Council – March 17 Meeting (Rent Registry Discussion)
I am the owner of a condominium in Costa Mesa. It was the first home I struggled to purchased. As a single mom, i was so proud.

In July of 2025, I invested more than $30,000 to renovate and improve the property before renting it in December 2025.

My tenant paid only two months of rent, yet remained in the unit for ten months without paying. During this time, he received free legal assistance, while I have had to spend over $10,000 in legal fees—and those costs are still rising. This does not include the repairs, property taxes, insurance, and other expenses that I continue to pay while the property was tied up in the eviction process.

The eviction process now takes close to ten months, and tenants are well aware of how to use the system to delay it. In my case, the tenant filed discrimination claims—alleging prejudice based on sex, religion, and race, etc —which further prolonged the process. I later discovered this same tenant used similar tactics ten years ago, yet that history did not appear in standard credit or background checks.

My question is: Where is the support for small landlords? Many of us are not corporations—we are individual homeowners who own one additional property, often as a long-term investment or retirement plan.

I urge the City Council to consider the perspective of property owners as you discuss policies such as a rent registry. Many of my friends who once owned a second rental property have already sold their units because the process of screening tenants and managing risk has become too difficult.

This trend is already visible in cities like Santa Monica, where increasing regulations have pushed small property owners to sell. When that happens, the result is fewer rental units available, not more.

If policies continue to prioritize tenants while overlooking the realities faced by small landlords, more owners will simply exit the rental market. I urge the Council to consider the long-term consequences and ensure that housing policies are balanced and fair to both tenants and property owners.

Thank you for your consideration.

Mary Stanley, 345 University, D2, Costa Mesa, Ca 92627

From: MUNOZ, SANDY
To: TERAN, STACY; GREEN, BRENDA
Subject: FW: In opposition to the housing measure before Costa Mesa decision makers March 17 Date: Monday, March 16, 2026 10:13:03 AM
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2026 3:52 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL <[email protected]>
Subject: In opposition to the housing measure before Costa Mesa decision makers March 17

To Costa Mesa City Council

The Costa Mesa City Council proposal to require that all 3-Day Pay Rent or Quit Notices be copied to the city housing department will not benefit tenants

-- whose privacy is of highest importance for their sake and that of their families

Nor will it benefit landlords -- the great majority of whom regularly work with their tenants to mutually resolve tenant issues

Inserting the government into yet another aspect of the housing economy along with additional bureaucratic involvement and expense is NOT the solution for either tenants or landlords

We strongly oppose this measure and expect Costa Mesa decision makers to understand the long term Costa Mesa negative effects this will set in motion and oppose it as well

Thank you

Jeremiah Schnee
President
Bridge Real Estate
https://www.bridgereal-estate.com/

From: MUNOZ, SANDY
To: TERAN, STACY; GREEN, BRENDA
Subject: FW: March 17th Agenda Item/ Rental Registry / *VOTE NO* Date: Monday, March 16, 2026 9:57:40 AM
From: Julia Morton, REALTOR® (949) 933-2906 <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, March 13, 2026 11:37 AM
To: CITY COUNCIL <[email protected]>
Cc: STEPHENS, JOHN <[email protected]>; CHAVEZ, MANUEL <[email protected]>; MARR, ANDREA <[email protected]>; BULEY, MIKE <[email protected]>; GAMEROS, LOREN <[email protected]>; PETTIS, JEFF <[email protected]>; REYNOLDS, ARLIS <[email protected]>
Subject: March 17th Agenda Item/ Rental Registry / *VOTE NO*

Dear Mayor Stephens and Councilmembers:

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposals for a Rent Registry and the mandatory notification of 3-Day Notices to Pay Rent or Quit. These policies will have a detrimental impact on the City of Costa Mesa.

The primary concerns regarding these proposals include:

Fiscal Irresponsibility: Implementing a Rent Registry will cost the city hundreds of thousands of dollars in ongoing administrative expenses at a time when Costa Mesa is already facing a budget deficit.

Ineffective Data Collection: Requiring the disclosure of 3-Day Notices will provide no useful data. Over 99% of these notices result in no further legal action.

Privacy and Redundancy: These notices are not public filings; mandating their disclosure creates significant privacy concerns for tenants. Furthermore, non-profit resources already exist to provide eviction data, making this program a redundant "reinvention of the wheel."
Impact on Property Maintenance: The financial and administrative burden on property owners will inevitably reduce the resources available for necessary repairs and upgrades, ultimately hurting the residents these policies aim to help.

These proposals create unnecessary problems for the City, tenants, and owners alike. I urge the City Council to VOTE NO on these policies.

Respectfully,
Julia Morton, REALTOR®
DRE 02016387
White Sail Realty
Property Manager in Costa Mesa and Santa Ana
Member of Newport Beach Association of Realtors
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: MUNOZ, SANDY
To: TERAN, STACY; GONZALEZ, GLADYS; GREEN, BRENDA
Subject: FW: NO on Rent Registries
Date: Monday, March 16, 2026 9:16:44 AM
From: Melissa Trauger <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2026 7:30 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL <[email protected]>
Subject: NO on Rent Registries

The proposals to implement Rent Registries and Notification of 3 Day Notices to Pay Rent or Quit will be disastrous for the City of Costa Mesa.

The problems that these proposals create for the city include:

Instituting a Rent Registry Program that will cost the city HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS to administer on an ongoing basis - while the city is facing a budget deficit.

These proposals DO NOT help anyone, and in fact they create problems for the City, the Tenants, and the Owners.

That is why we are requesting the city council VOTE NO on these policies.
Sent from my iPhone. Please excuse any typos.

From: MUNOZ, SANDY
To: TERAN, STACY; GONZALEZ, GLADYS; GREEN, BRENDA
Subject: FW: No On residential Registration
Date: Monday, March 16, 2026 9:07:07 AM
From: kristin Cook <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2026 3:31 PM
To: STEPHENS, JOHN <[email protected]>
Cc: CITY COUNCIL <[email protected]>
Subject: No On residential Registration

Dear Mayor and City Counsel,

I am a 2 unit landlord in Costa Mesa. It is already hard enough to offer a great product to tenants. This bill will make it harder or impossible to operate as well as destroy this class of asset. Please do not pass this.

The proposals to implement Rent Registries and Notification of 3 Day Notices to Pay Rent or Quit will be disastrous for the City of Costa Mesa.

These proposals DO NOT help anyone, and in fact they create problems for the City, the Tenants, and the Owners.

That is why we are requesting the city council VOTE NO on these policies.

Kristi Cook
From: MUNOZ, SANDY
To: TERAN, STACY; GONZALEZ, GLADYS; GREEN, BRENDA
Subject: FW: oncerns Regarding Proposed Rent Registry and 3-Day Notice Reporting – Costa Mesa Date: Monday, March 16, 2026 9:54:42 AM
Attachments: img-cbba55b5-9085-43c7-87c6-1541a39f205c
From: Mihaela Vilhauer <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2026 12:57 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL <[email protected]>
Subject: oncerns Regarding Proposed Rent Registry and 3-Day Notice Reporting – Costa Mesa

Dear Mayor and Members of the Costa Mesa City Council,
My name is Mihaela Vilhauer, and I serve as the General Manager for Bridge Real Estate, a property management company that operates multiple rental communities within Costa Mesa and Orange County.

I am writing to respectfully express concern regarding the proposals currently being considered by the City Council related to a citywide rent registry and mandatory reporting of at-fault 3-day notices.

As a housing provider working directly with residents on a daily basis, our goal is always to maintain stable, well-managed communities while keeping housing available and financially sustainable. While we support transparency and responsible housing policies, the proposed measures raise several practical concerns that could have unintended consequences for both housing providers and residents.

1. Administrative Burden Without Clear Benefit
A mandatory rent registry and reporting requirement would introduce significant administrative work for property owners and managers. Many housing providers already comply with extensive state regulations, including the Tenant Protection Act (AB 1482) and other disclosure and documentation requirements. Adding additional reporting layers may increase operational costs without demonstrating a clear benefit to housing stability.

2. Potential Negative Impact on Housing Supply
Policies that significantly increase regulatory burden often discourage investment in rental housing and maintenance of existing units. Smaller housing providers in particular may find the administrative costs and compliance requirements difficult to manage, which can ultimately reduce available rental housing within the city.

3. Reporting of At-Fault Notices May Create Misleading Data At-fault 3-day notices are already governed by established state law and legal procedures.

Requiring landlords to report every notice could create a database that lacks full legal context and may unintentionally misrepresent the circumstances surrounding enforcement of lease obligations.

4. Lessons from Nearby Cities
Nearby jurisdictions that have implemented similar programs have faced substantial administrative costs and operational challenges. It would be important to carefully review those outcomes before adopting a similar structure in Costa Mesa.

Costa Mesa has historically benefited from collaboration between housing providers, residents, and city leadership to maintain stable and well-managed communities. I respectfully encourage the City Council to carefully evaluate the long-term impacts of these proposals and consider alternative approaches that support housing stability without creating additional regulatory burdens that may reduce housing availability.

Thank you for your time and for your continued work on housing policy affecting the Costa Mesa community.

Respectfully,
Best Regards,
Mihaela Vilhauer
General Manager
Bridge Real Estate Inc.

Phone: 949-779-4688
E-mail: [email protected]

From: MUNOZ, SANDY
To: TERAN, STACY; GREEN, BRENDA
Subject: FW: OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSAL TO CONSIDER A RENTAL REGISTRY Date: Monday, March 16, 2026 11:36:23 AM
-----Original Message-----
From: Cita <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2026 10:37 AM
To: CITY COUNCIL <[email protected]>
Subject: OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSAL TO CONSIDER A RENTAL REGISTRY To the Costa Mesa City Council,
I believe the proposals to implement Rent Registries and Notification of 3 Day Notices to Pay Rent or Quit will be disastrous for the City of Costa Mesa.

The problems that these proposals create for the city include:
• Instituting a Rent Registry Program that will cost the city HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS to administer on an ongoing basis - while the city is facing a budget deficit. • Disclosure of any 3 Day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit will result in an inundation of notices that provide no useful data to the city in their efforts to protect tenants. because:
• 99%+ of 3 Day Notices result in NO FURTHER LEGAL ACTION • 3 Day Notices are NOT PUBLIC FILINGS - creating privacy concerns for the tenants and the city • Public and Non Profit resources ALREADY EXIST to serve as sources of data for evictions - there is no need to reinvent the wheel.
• Finally, the cost to implement these programs - accompanied with the burden faced by property owners to support these programs - will only result in an inability to provide for repairs, upgrades, and resources that are intended to improve the lives of the residents.

These proposals DO NOT help anyone, and in fact they create problems for the City, the Tenants, and the Owners.

That is why we are requesting the city council VOTE NO on these policies. Please listen to the citizens of Costa Mesa who strongly oppose this measure.

Sincerely,
Cita Graber
26 year Costa Mesa resident and homeowner
Sent from my iPhone
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: MUNOZ, SANDY
To: TERAN, STACY; GONZALEZ, GLADYS; GREEN, BRENDA
Subject: FW: OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSAL TO CONSIDER A RENTAL REGISTRY Date: Monday, March 16, 2026 8:54:45 AM
Attachments: image001.wmz
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
image006.png
image007.png

Best,

Sandy Muñoz
Executive Assistant to the City Council
O: 714.754.5107 | C: 949.849.1730
77 Fair Drive | Costa Mesa | CA 92626

“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.

PlEAsE COnsiDEr THE EnvirOnMEnT BEFOrE PrinTing THis EMAil. THAnk yOu!

From: DeeDee McCrory <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2026 8:39 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL <[email protected]>
Subject: OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSAL TO CONSIDER A RENTAL REGISTRY

To the Costa Mesa City Council,

I believe the proposals to implement Rent Registries and Notification of 3 Day Notices to Pay Rent or Quit will be disastrous for the City of Costa Mesa.

The problems that these proposals create for the city include:

Instituting a Rent Registry Program that will cost the city HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS to administer on an ongoing basis - while the city is facing a budget deficit.

These proposals DO NOT help anyone, and in fact they create problems for the City, the Tenants, and the Owners.

That is why we are requesting the city council VOTE NO on these policies. Please listen to the citizens of Costa Mesa who strongly oppose this measure.

Sincerely,
DeeDee McCrory
25 year Costa Mesa resident and homeowner

From: MUNOZ, SANDY
To: TERAN, STACY; GONZALEZ, GLADYS; GREEN, BRENDA
Subject: FW: OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSAL TO CONSIDER A RENTAL REGISTRY Date: Monday, March 16, 2026 8:52:21 AM
Attachments: image001.wmz
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
image006.png
image007.png

Best,

Sandy Muñoz
Executive Assistant to the City Council
O: 714.754.5107 | C: 949.849.1730
77 Fair Drive | Costa Mesa | CA 92626

“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.

PlEAsE COnsiDEr THE EnvirOnMEnT BEFOrE PrinTing THis EMAil. THAnk yOu!

From: Molly Rigdon <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2026 8:05 AM
To: CITY COUNCIL <[email protected]>
Subject: OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSAL TO CONSIDER A RENTAL REGISTRY

To the Costa Mesa City Council,

I believe the proposals to implement Rent Registries and Notification of 3 Day Notices to Pay Rent or Quit will be disastrous for the City of Costa Mesa.

The problems that these proposals create for the city include:

Instituting a Rent Registry Program that will cost the
city HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS to administer on
an ongoing basis - while the city is facing a budget deficit.

Disclosure of any 3 Day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit will result in an inundation of notices that provide no useful data to the city in their efforts to protect tenants. because:
· 99%+ of 3 Day Notices result in NO FURTHER LEGAL ACTION
· 3 Day Notices are NOT PUBLIC FILINGS - creating privacy concerns for the tenants and the city
· Public and Non Profit resources ALREADY EXIST to serve as sources of data for evictions - there is no need to reinvent the wheel.

These proposals DO NOT help anyone, and in fact they create problems for the City, the Tenants, and the Owners.

That is why we are requesting the city council VOTE NO on these policies.

Please listen to the citizens of Costa Mesa who strongly oppose this measure.

Sincerely,
Molly Rigdon
24 year Costa Mesa resident and homeowner

Sent from AT&T Yahoo Mail for iPhone
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: MUNOZ, SANDY
To: TERAN, STACY; GREEN, BRENDA
Subject: FW: OPPOSITION: Proposed Rental Registry – Costa Mesa Resident & Housing Provider Date: Monday, March 16, 2026 3:15:02 PM
From: Devin Lucas <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2026 2:42 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL <[email protected]>
Cc: STEPHENS, JOHN <[email protected]>; CHAVEZ, MANUEL <[email protected]>; MARR, ANDREA <[email protected]>; BULEY, MIKE <[email protected]>; GAMEROS, LOREN <[email protected]>; PETTIS, JEFF <[email protected]>; REYNOLDS, ARLIS <[email protected]>
Subject: OPPOSITION: Proposed Rental Registry – Costa Mesa Resident & Housing Provider

Dear Mayor Stephens and Members of the Costa Mesa City Council, I am writing as a Costa Mesa resident, a Costa Mesa rental housing provider, and a real estate professional who works daily in the Costa Mesa housing market. I work directly with housing providers, tenants, buyers, and sellers throughout Costa Mesa, and I also personally provide rental housing within the city.

Historically, rental registries often become the first step toward rent control policies, which research has repeatedly shown can reduce housing supply and drive up housing costs.

For example, a widely cited Stanford study of San Francisco’s rent control expansion found that landlords reduced the supply of rental housing by roughly 15%, which in turn contributed to higher citywide rents over time. (See Rebecca Diamond, Timothy McQuade & Franklin Qian, 2018, The Effects of Rent Control Expansion on Tenants, Landlords, and Inequality: Evidence from San Francisco, NBER Working Paper No. 24181, National Bureau of Economic Research.)
An article published by Brookings summarizes academic research and concludes: “Rent control appears to help affordability in the short run for current tenants, but in the long run decreases affordability, fuels gentrification, and creates negative externalities on surrounding neighborhoods.” (See “What does economic evidence tell us about the effects of rent control?” https://www.brookings.edu/articles/what-does-economic- evidence-tell-us-about-the-effects-of-rent-control/ )
I am concerned that the proposed citywide rental registry and additional reporting requirements will only add further bureaucracy without meaningfully improving housing outcomes for residents, ultimately causing many housing providers to rethink their plans in this city. Costa Mesa already faces significant challenges when it comes to creating and maintaining housing. Anyone who has attempted to build, renovate, or operate rental housing in this city knows how complex and difficult the process has become—even with streamlined ADU regulations, our personal projects and the projects of many clients and colleagues have become overly burdensome and time- consuming, especially when compared to neighboring communities.

From the perspective of those who provide housing, additional regulatory layers have real consequences. Every new program increases compliance costs, administrative burden, and risk. Ultimately, these pressures can discourage housing providers from investing in rental properties, whether through new construction or improvements to existing units. Over time, that dynamic reduces the available housing supply, and pushes these increased compliance costs onto renters, which is the exact opposite of what Costa Mesa needs.

Programs like this often appear simple on the surface, but the experience in neighboring cities tells a different story. Santa Ana’s rental registry, for example, has reportedly cost the city hundreds of thousands of dollars annually above what is collected from property owners, and it has required multiple revisions due to privacy and administrative concerns.

Moreover, Costa Mesa is already subject to statewide rent stabilization under California Assembly Bill 1482 and has adopted additional local tenant protection ordinances that largely duplicate those state protections. Creating yet another regulatory program risks adding bureaucracy without meaningfully improving housing affordability.

In my professional experience working with buyers, sellers, landlords, and tenants across Costa Mesa and neighboring communities, the most effective housing policies are those that encourage investment, maintenance, and the creation of additional housing—not policies that add new layers of bureaucracy and ultimately discourage housing providers from operating in the city.

I respectfully urge the City Council to reject a rental registry program. Such a program is not the best use of the city’s limited resources and will not meaningfully improve housing outcomes for Costa Mesa residents.

Thank you for your time and for your service to our community.

Sincerely,
Devin Lucas
- Costa Mesa Resident
- Costa Mesa Rental Housing Provider
- Real Estate Attorney
- Real Estate Broker

From: MUNOZ, SANDY
To: TERAN, STACY; GONZALEZ, GLADYS; GREEN, BRENDA
Subject: FW: Property values will keep rising…
Date: Monday, March 16, 2026 8:53:16 AM
Attachments: image001.wmz
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
image006.png
image007.png

Best,

Sandy Muñoz
Executive Assistant to the City Council
O: 714.754.5107 | C: 949.849.1730
77 Fair Drive | Costa Mesa | CA 92626

“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.

PlEAsE COnsiDEr THE EnvirOnMEnT BEFOrE PrinTing THis EMAil. THAnk yOu!

From: Thomas Trauger <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2026 7:37 AM
To: CITY COUNCIL <[email protected]>
Subject: Property values will keep rising…

Dear CM city counsel,
I appreciate the time and effort the City Council dedicates to addressing housing affordability.

I wanted to respectfully share a few thoughts on why maintaining a free-market housing framework ultimately serves residents better than implementing rent control policies.

While rent control is often intended to protect tenants from rising housing costs, economic evidence has consistently shown that it creates unintended consequences that worsen housing shortages over time. When rental pricing is restricted, property owners and developers have less incentive to build new housing or maintain existing units. This typically leads to a reduced housing supply, which ironically puts even more pressure on the broader housing market.

Another concern is the distortion it creates between rental prices and property values. Rent may be artificially capped, but property values and purchase prices continue to rise based on market demand. This dynamic can make it even more difficult for families hoping to transition from renting to homeownership in the same community, as they may find themselves locked into below-market rent while home prices continue to accelerate beyond reach.

Rent control can also unintentionally discourage property upkeep and reinvestment in housing.

When revenue potential is capped, landlords may delay renovations or improvements, leading to gradual deterioration of housing quality. Over time, this can reduce the overall standard of rental housing within the city.

Additionally, rent-controlled units can create misallocation of housing. Individuals may remain in units that no longer match their needs simply because the rent is significantly below market rates. This reduces housing mobility and makes it harder for new residents, young families, or workers moving into the area to find available housing.

There is also the administrative burden associated with implementing and enforcing rent control programs. These systems require oversight, staffing, dispute resolution, and ongoing regulatory management, all of which ultimately fall on taxpayers.

A more effective long-term solution may be policies that increase housing supply and encourage development. Streamlining permitting processes, incentivizing new construction, and reducing regulatory barriers can help expand the housing stock and allow the market to naturally stabilize prices over time.

I share these thoughts with respect for the Council’s goals and in the spirit of encouraging solutions that improve affordability while preserving a healthy housing market. Thank you for your service to our community and for considering perspectives from residents and local professionals who care deeply about the long-term vitality of our city.

Thank you,
Tom Trauger
949-422-4151
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: MUNOZ, SANDY
To: TERAN, STACY; GREEN, BRENDA
Subject: FW: Proposal for Rent Registries and Notification of 3 Day Notices to Pay Rent or Quit Date: Monday, March 16, 2026 3:28:48 PM
From: Dolores Gastineau <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, March 16, 2026 3:22 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL <[email protected]>
Subject: Proposal for Rent Registries and Notification of 3 Day Notices to Pay Rent or Quit

To the Costa Mesa City Council,

As a rental property owner in Costa Mesa I oppose the proposals to implement Rent Registries and Notification of 3 Day Notices to Pay Rent or Quit. These new processes will be disastrous for the City of Costa Mesa.

These proposals DO NOT help anyone, and in fact they create problems for the City, the Tenants, and the Owners.

These policies also punish the small property owner that may only have one rental property. Someone who is trying to manage all of the COSTS associated with the property and may not break even, let alone make any extra or wild profit. This would only increase the burden on that single family owner who continues to keep their investment in Costa Mesa.

This proposal may also halt the construction of ADU units on properties as owners may not wish to take on additional burdens just to rent out a small ADU that could help with their bills and retirement. You all are pushing for more housing and this proposal is something that could bring it to an abrupt halt.

That is why I am requesting the city council VOTE NO on these policies.

--
Dolores Gastineau | MBA, ABR, MRP
949.933.9842
www.dgastineau.com
Licensed in TN and CA
TN#379624 CA DRE#01929445
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: MUNOZ, SANDY
To: TERAN, STACY; GONZALEZ, GLADYS; GREEN, BRENDA
Subject: FW: Proposed institution of a rent registry and rent control Date: Monday, March 16, 2026 8:56:24 AM
Attachments: image001.wmz
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
image006.png
image007.png

Best,

Sandy Muñoz
Executive Assistant to the City Council
O: 714.754.5107 | C: 949.849.1730
77 Fair Drive | Costa Mesa | CA 92626

“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.

PlEAsE COnsiDEr THE EnvirOnMEnT BEFOrE PrinTing THis EMAil. THAnk yOu!

From: Bill Seals <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2026 9:58 AM
To: CITY COUNCIL <[email protected]>
Subject: Proposed institution of a rent registry and rent control

Dear City Council members,

The problems that these proposals create for the city include:

Instituting a Rent Registry Program that will cost the city HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS to administer on an ongoing basis - while the city is facing a budget deficit.

These proposals DO NOT help anyone, and in fact they create problems for the City, the Tenants, and the Owners.

That is why we are requesting the city council VOTE NO on these policies.

Sincerely ,
William Seals
Sent from my iPhone
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: MUNOZ, SANDY
To: TERAN, STACY; GREEN, BRENDA
Subject: FW: Rent Registries & Notifications
Date: Monday, March 16, 2026 9:58:07 AM
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2026 11:19 AM
To: CITY COUNCIL <[email protected]>
Subject: Rent Registries & Notifications

Good morning Council Members,
The proposals to implement Rent Registries & Notificatins of 3 Day Notices to Pay Rent or Quit will be disasterous for the City of Costa Mesa. The problems that these proposals create for the city include:

Instituting a Rent Registry Program that will cost the city hundreds of thousands of dollars to administer on an ongoing basis while the city is facing a budget deficit.

Disclosure of any 2 Day Notice to Pay Rent or quit will result in an inundation of notices that provide no useful data to the city in thier efforts to protect tenants because 99%+ of 3 Day Notices result in no further legal action.
3 Day Notices are not public filings, creating privacy concerns for the tenants and the city.

Public and Non-Profit resources already exist to serve as sources of data for evictions.

There is no need to reinvent the wheel
Finally the cost to implement these programs accompanied with the burden faced by property owners to support these programs will only resutl in an inability to provide for repairs, upgrades and resources that are intended to improve the lives of the residents.

These proposals do not help anyone, and in fact they create problems for the City, the tenants and the owners.

This is why wew are requesting the city council vote no on these policies.

Thank you for taking the time to read my email on this subject.

Have a great day.

Michele Graham
Redwing Circle

From: MUNOZ, SANDY
To: TERAN, STACY; GONZALEZ, GLADYS; GREEN, BRENDA
Subject: FW: Rent Registries and Notification of 3 Day Notices to Pay Rent or Quit Date: Monday, March 16, 2026 8:53:37 AM
Attachments: image001.wmz
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
image006.png
image007.png

Best,

Sandy Muñoz
Executive Assistant to the City Council
O: 714.754.5107 | C: 949.849.1730
77 Fair Drive | Costa Mesa | CA 92626

“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.

PlEAsE COnsiDEr THE EnvirOnMEnT BEFOrE PrinTing THis EMAil. THAnk yOu!

From: Kimaleigh Altshuler <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2026 4:23 AM
To: CITY COUNCIL <[email protected]>
Subject: Rent Registries and Notification of 3 Day Notices to Pay Rent or Quit

Dear Costa Mesa City Council,
If you are determined to implement this egregious policy then you should at a minimum offer an exemption for persons owning only one property….I am not the Irvine Company or some other large corporation. My husband and are 50 year residents of Orange County who grew up in the community and attending public schools but have relocated outside the state to care for my father with Alzheimers.

The proposals to implement Rent Registries and Notification of 3 Day Notices to Pay Rent or Quit will be disastrous for the City of Costa Mesa.

The problems that these proposals create for the city include:

Instituting a Rent Registry Program that will cost the city HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS to administer on an ongoing basis - while the city is facing a budget deficit.

These proposals DO NOT help anyone, and in fact they create problems for the City, the Tenants, and the Owners.

That is why we are requesting the city council VOTE NO on these policies.

Sincerely,
Kimaleigh Altshuler
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: MUNOZ, SANDY
To: TERAN, STACY; GREEN, BRENDA
Subject: FW: Rent Registries
Date: Monday, March 16, 2026 10:16:07 AM
From: drew murphy <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2026 3:26 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL <[email protected]>
Subject: Rent Registries

The proposals to implement Rent Registries and Notification of 3 Day Notices to Pay Rent or Quit will be disastrous for the City of Costa Mesa.

The problems that these proposals create for the city include:

Instituting a Rent Registry Program that will cost the city HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS to administer on an ongoing basis - while the city is facing a budget deficit.

Disclosure of any 3 Day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit will result in an inundation of notices that provide no useful data to the city in their efforts to protect tenants. because:
99%+ of 3 Day Notices result in NO FURTHER LEGAL ACTION 3 Day Notices are NOT PUBLIC FILINGS - creating privacy concerns for the tenants and the city Public and Non Profit resources ALREADY EXIST to serve as sources of data for evictions - there is no need to reinvent the wheel.

These proposals DO NOT help anyone, and in fact they create problems for the City, the Tenants, and the Owners.

That is why we are requesting the city council VOTE NO on these policies.

Drew J. Murphy
949.929.7222
[email protected]
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: MUNOZ, SANDY
To: TERAN, STACY; GONZALEZ, GLADYS; GREEN, BRENDA
Subject: FW: Rent Registries
Date: Monday, March 16, 2026 9:08:50 AM
-----Original Message-----
From: Lisa <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2026 12:24 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL <[email protected]>
Subject: Rent Registries
Dear City Council:

I am writing in to express my strong opinion on The City of Costa Mesa implementing Rent Registries and Notification of 3 Day Notices to Pay Rent or Quit. This will be disastrous for our city, small mom & pop landlords (me) and tenants.

The problems that these proposals create for the city include:
—Instituting a Rent Registry Program that will cost the city hundreds of thousands of dollars to administer on an ongoing basis while the city is facing a budget deficit. —Disclosure of any 3 Day Notice to Pay Rent or quit will result in an inundation of notices that provide no useful data to the city in their efforts to protect tenants because:
-99%+ of 3 Day Notices result in No Further Legal Action -3 Day Notices are NOT PUBLIC FILINGS, creating privacy concerns for the tenants and the city -Public and Non Profit resources ALREADY EXIST to serve as sources of data for evictions. —The costs to implement these programs, accompanied with the burden faced by property owners to support these programs will only result in inability to provide for repairs, upgrades and resources that are intended to improve the lives of the residents.

These proposals DO NOT help anyone and in fact create problems for the City, the Tenants and the Owners.

This is why I am requesting the city council vote NO on these policies.

Thank you,
Lisa Anderson
2928 Peppertree Lane
2196 American Ave
825 Jennifer Lane
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: MUNOZ, SANDY
To: TERAN, STACY; GONZALEZ, GLADYS; GREEN, BRENDA
Subject: FW: Rent Registries/Rent Control/Urgent
Date: Monday, March 16, 2026 9:09:11 AM
From: Debi Wilkinson Seals <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2026 9:09 AM
To: CITY COUNCIL <[email protected]>
Subject: Rent Registries/Rent Control/Urgent

Dear City Council Members:

The proposals to implement Rent Registries and Notification of 3 Day Notices to Pay Rent or Quit will be disastrous for the City of Costa Mesa.

The problems that these proposals create for the city include:
· Instituting a Rent Registry Program that will cost the city HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS to administer on an ongoing basis - while the city is facing a budget deficit.
· Disclosure of any 3 Day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit will result in an inundation of notices that provide no useful data to the city in their efforts to protect tenants. because:
· 99%+ of 3 Day Notices result in NO FURTHER LEGAL ACTION · 3 Day Notices are NOT PUBLIC FILINGS - creating privacy concerns for the tenants and the city
· Public and Non Profit resources ALREADY EXIST to serve as sources of data for evictions - there is no need to reinvent the wheel. · Finally, the cost to implement these programs - accompanied with the burden faced by property owners to support these programs - will only result in an inability to provide for repairs, upgrades, and resources that are intended to improve the lives of the residents.

These proposals DO NOT help anyone, and in fact they create problems for the City, the Tenants, and the Owners.

That is why we are requesting the city council VOTE NO on these policies.

Thank you,
Debi
D. Wilkinson
DRE # 00780470 NMLS# 286795
Banker's Preferred Mortgage, Inc.

Preferred Property Brokers
DRE # 00883235 NMLS # 285262
3020 Old Ranch Parkway, Suite 300
Seal Beach, California 90740
949-632-1997 Cell
714-955-6967 Office
714-242-9645 Fax
P Save a tree. Please consider the environment before printing emails.

From: MUNOZ, SANDY
To: TERAN, STACY; GREEN, BRENDA
Subject: FW: Rent Registry
Date: Monday, March 16, 2026 10:08:24 AM
From: natalie fogarty <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2026 4:46 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL <[email protected]>
Subject: Rent Registry

City Council
A rent registry is costly, invasive to both tenants and landlords !
Controls of this manner are for the most part counter
productive in the long run. The CAR form RENT CAP and
JUST CAUSE ADDENDUM for renters and landlords to sign
has information on rent limitations for income units and advises on rent increases and limits and regarding notices to vacate. This is a CAR form that may be useful to read.

Please vote NO on this issue.

Natalie Sutherland - concerned neighbor

Danube "Dani" Marandi
From: MUNOZ, SANDY
To: TERAN, STACY; GREEN, BRENDA
Subject: FW: Rent Registry
Date: Monday, March 16, 2026 10:25:04 AM
From: Danube Marandi <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2026 2:51 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL <[email protected]>
Subject: Rent Registry

The proposals to implement Rent Registries and Notification of 3 Day Notices to Pay Rent or Quit will be disastrous for the City of Costa Mesa.

These proposals DO NOT help anyone, and in fact they create problems for the City, the Tenants, and the Owners.

That is why we are requesting the city council VOTE NO on these policies. --
Broker Associate, CPA, Certified International Property Specialist p: 949.230.4626
e: [email protected]
w:DanubeMarandi.bhhscalifornia.com
Wire Fraud Disclosure: communicating through email is not secure or confidential. Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices California Properties (BHHSCP) will never request that you send funds or nonpublic personal information, such as credit card or debit card numbers or bank account and/or routing numbers, by email. If you receive an email message concerning any From: MUNOZ, SANDY
To: TERAN, STACY; GREEN, BRENDA
Subject: FW: Rent Registry/Fees
Date: Monday, March 16, 2026 12:59:56 PM
From: Helene Adams <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2026 11:57 AM
To: CITY COUNCIL <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Rent Registry/Fees

Dear Mayor and Members of the Costa Mesa City Council,

My name is Helene Yi and I am a Costa Mesa Property Manager I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed rental registry that would require landlords to report rental housing data and pay annual fees directly to the City of Costa Mesa.

While I understand the city’s interest in collecting housing data and supporting tenants, I believe this proposal will create unintended consequences that negatively impact both housing providers and renters in our community.

First, California already has strong statewide tenant protection under the Tenant Protection Act 2019
(AB 1482) This law limits annual rent increases and requires just cause for many evictions.

The additional registration fees placed on rental units will increase the cost of operating rental housing. Property owners already face rising expenses including property taxes, insurance, utilities, maintenance and compliance with existing state and local regulations. Adding another annual fee per unit will further strain housing providers.

Second, the reporting requirements will add administrative burdens for landlords and property manager. Many rental properties in Costa Mesa are owned by small landlords who do not have large management teams.

Requiring detailed reporting on rent, tenant turnover, and other data will increase paperwork and compliance costs without necessarily improving housing availability.

Third, policies like rental registries often become the foundation for additional regulations in the future. Many property owners are concerned that collecting rent data could eventually lead to expanded rent control measures or further restrictions that discourage investment in rental housing.

Finally, increasing regulatory costs and complexity can reduce the supply of rental housing. When operating rental properties become more difficult and expensive, some owners may choose to sell their properties or convert them to other uses, which can reduce the number of available rental homes in Costa Mesa.

I encourage the Council to continue supporting constructive housing policies that increase stability and supply without creating unnecessary bureaucracy.

Thank you for your time and your service to the Costa Mesa community.

Sincerely,
Helene YI

From: MUNOZ, SANDY
To: TERAN, STACY; GREEN, BRENDA
Subject: FW: Rental Registry and 3 Day Notice
Date: Monday, March 16, 2026 11:37:17 AM
From: Josh Martinez <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2026 11:19 AM
To: CITY COUNCIL <[email protected]>; STEPHENS, JOHN <[email protected]>; CHAVEZ, MANUEL <[email protected]>; MARR, ANDREA <[email protected]>; BULEY, MIKE <[email protected]>; GAMEROS, LOREN <[email protected]>; PETTIS, JEFF <[email protected]>; REYNOLDS, ARLIS <[email protected]> Subject: Rental Registry and 3 Day Notice

Good Morning Council Members and Staff
Thanks for taking the time to read my email. I’m reaching out regarding this rental registry and 3 day notice that’s coming up on the agenda tomorrow.

As a resident and renter living in Council member Gameros district near the Lab I am disappointed to hear about this agenda item. I had hoped the city would focus on making rents more affordable but in my perspective this will do just the opposite.

First off as the staff report notes rent registries are expensive. With little hope for making up the expense in the first two years and with little added value for renters like we. New fees and penalties will lead to increased costs on property managers who will have to raise rent to cover the compliance costs. It sounds like the city is going to spend almost a million in 3 years while still in a major budget deficit. Aren’t there better ways we can deploy that money in existing programs to help renters?

Then with respect to 3 day notices. My understanding is that’s not even an eviction its just a state mandate notice that 99% of the time doesn’t even result in eviction. So not sure why we need a city run registry where sensitive information on folks who are disproportionately from marginalized communities will be. Seems targeted and like it could be misused. With all the available state court data and non-profit resources that track actual evictions already I feel it’s redundant and not tracking the important data.

Don’t just make a list and single marginalized people out and require their private information be submitted.

I do applaud the council and staff for wanting to address the cities housing issues. I think this is looking for a solution in the wrong place though and feel like this is counter to achieving affordable rent

Do not vote to raise our rents by supporting this policy and increasing compliance costs. Please look to other ways to better help renters and housing providers. Everyone who votes to make renting more expensive in Costa Mesa deserves to lose their next re- election and I’ll gladly be vocal about it.

From: MUNOZ, SANDY
To: TERAN, STACY; GREEN, BRENDA
Subject: FW: Vote No on Rent Registry
Date: Monday, March 16, 2026 11:35:35 AM
From: Jill Schleifer <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2026 10:11 AM
To: CITY COUNCIL <[email protected]>
Cc: Emma <[email protected]>
Subject: Vote No on Rent Registry

Dear Councilmembers,
A rent registry is completely unnecessary and costly for the city to implement:
99% of all 3-Day Notices to Pay Rent or Quit are resolved without further eviction action.
3-Day Notices are more commonly considered a courtesy reminder, and rarely lead to an actual eviction.

At the point a 3-Day notice is filled, there are still several months worth of legal actions that take place before an actual eviction occurs.

The 3-Day Notice is a required step in the eviction process - but it is not yet a public filing, and as such is not a useful data point.

The fact that a 3-Day Notice is not public helps to protect the privacy of the tenants as well as the owners - and making it a required notice to the city would violate those tenant's privacy rights.

At fault evictions mean that the tenant either didn't pay rent or violated the terms of the lease - this is not a point where the city should be getting involved as it is a private matter and the city could take on unnecessary liability by inserting themselves in the process
If data is the goal of the council, there are already public and non profit resources in the state that can provide that data. There is no need to reinvent the wheel.

Thank you for your consideration.

Jill Schleifer
From: MUNOZ, SANDY
To: TERAN, STACY; GONZALEZ, GLADYS; GREEN, BRENDA
Subject: FW: Waste of money policies
Date: Monday, March 16, 2026 9:06:49 AM
From: Mark Kirsch <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2026 8:09 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL <[email protected]>
Subject: Waste of money policies

The proposals to implement Rent Registries and Notification of 3 Day Notices to Pay Rent or Quit will be disastrous for the City of Costa Mesa.

The problems that these proposals create for the city include:
Instituting a Rent Registry Program that will cost the city HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS to administer on an ongoing basis - while the city is facing a budget deficit.
Disclosure of any 3 Day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit will result in an inundation of notices that provide no useful data to the city in their efforts to protect
99%+ of 3 Day Notices result in NO FURTHER LEGAL ACTION 3 Day Notices are NOT PUBLIC FILINGS - creating privacy concerns for the tenants and the city
Public and Non Profit resources ALREADY EXIST to serve as sources of data for evictions - there is no need to reinvent the wheel.
Finally, the cost to implement these programs - accompanied with the burden faced by property owners to support these programs - will only result in an inability to provide for repairs, upgrades, and resources that are intended to improve the lives of the residents.

Sent from my iPhone
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: Charles Clarke
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Oppose New Business Item 1 - Rent Registry Program and Fees Date: Saturday, March 14, 2026 5:57:06 PM
Sounds like another step closer to LA... Learn from other's mistakes.

Best,
Charles
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: Omar Khalil
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Oppose New Business Item 1 - Rent Registry Program and Fees Date: Friday, March 13, 2026 3:46:07 PM
Dear Costa Mesa City Council Members,
I am writing to respectfully express my opposition to the proposed mandatory rental registry and fee program currently under consideration.

Many housing providers are already operating under significant financial pressure due to rising property taxes, insurance premiums, maintenance costs, utilities, and regulatory compliance requirements. For many small property owners, rental income is not excessive profit but rather a means of covering these growing expenses while maintaining housing for residents.

The proposed program would impose additional administrative requirements, reporting obligations, and registration fees on landlords. While the individual fees may appear modest on paper, the cumulative impact of new compliance systems, reporting obligations, and potential penalties represents a meaningful burden for many housing providers who are already working hard to keep properties maintained and rents as reasonable as possible.

Programs like this can unintentionally create hardship for smaller landlords who do not have large corporate resources or administrative staff to manage additional reporting systems. These increased costs and regulatory requirements may ultimately discourage housing providers from continuing to offer rental housing or from investing in property improvements, which could negatively impact housing availability and affordability.

I believe the City should focus on policies that encourage housing stability, support responsible property owners, and reduce unnecessary administrative burdens. Adding new fees and reporting mandates during a time when both housing providers and tenants are facing economic challenges may not be the most constructive approach.

I respectfully ask the Council to reconsider or vote against the proposed mandatory rental registry and fee program.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Omar Khalil
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: Michelle Gutierrez
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Oppose New Business Item 1 - Rent Registry Program and Fees Date: Monday, March 16, 2026 9:58:42 AM
Attachments: Outlook-photo.png
Outlook-icon.png
Outlook-icon.png
Outlook-icon.png
Outlook-icon.png
Outlook-photo.png
Outlook-icon.png
Outlook-icon.png
Outlook-icon.png
Outlook-icon.png
Outlook-photo.png
Outlook-icon.png
Outlook-icon.png
Outlook-icon.png
Outlook-icon.png
Outlook-photo.png
Outlook-icon.png
Outlook-icon.png
Outlook-icon.png
Outlook-icon.png
Outlook-photo.png
Outlook-icon.png
Outlook-icon.png
Outlook-icon.png
Outlook-icon.png
Outlook-photo.png
Outlook-icon.png
Outlook-icon.png
Outlook-icon.png
Outlook-icon.png
Outlook-photo.png
Outlook-icon.png
Outlook-icon.png
Outlook-icon.png
Outlook-icon.png
Outlook-photo.png
Outlook-icon.png
Outlook-icon.png
Outlook-icon.png
Outlook-icon.png
Outlook-photo.png
Outlook-icon.png
Outlook-icon.png
Outlook-icon.png
Outlook-icon.png
Outlook-photo.png
Outlook-icon.png
Outlook-icon.png
Outlook-icon.png
Outlook-icon.png
Outlook-photo.png
Outlook-icon.png
Outlook-icon.png
Outlook-icon.png
Outlook-icon.png
Outlook-photo.png
Outlook-icon.png
Outlook-icon.png
Outlook-icon.png
Outlook-icon.png

Hello,

I am writing to express concerns about the proposed mandatory rental registry program currently under consideration. Based on the published description, the program would require rental housing providers to register units and report detailed data through a city portal. The proposal also includes ongoing landlord activity such as eviction notices, rent increases, and vacancy details.

These requirements represent a significant increase in administration responsibilities for housing providers. In addition, this program introduces annual registration fees for rental units and establishes fines for noncompliance at $150 and increasing up to $500.

This added cost may create financial pressure, particularly for smaller property owners who operate with limited margins. I would also add that Costa Mesa continues to face a need for expanded housing options, and this registry may create obstacles to advancing that goal.

I believe it is important to fully assess the operational and economic impacts of these requirements before moving forward. Clear evaluation of administrative burden, cost implications, data handling processes, and potential united effects on housing availability may help ensure that any approach adopted is both effective and sustainable.

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this proposal.

Michelle Gutierrez,ARM
VP of Operations, Mesa Management, Inc.
(949) 851-0995 X108
[email protected]
www.mesamanagement.net
1451 Quail Street, Suite 200, Newport Beach, CA 92660

IMPORTANT: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or make copies thereof.

From: DEBBIE RINCON
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Oppose New Business Item 1 - Rent Registry Program and Fees Date: Friday, March 13, 2026 4:40:04 PM
Please vote No on Rent Registry in Costa Mesa. I’m a small multifamily property owner in Costa Mesa. Fees with little to no value add. Really our only recourse for all these fees is adding into overall cost to rent. Doesn’t help tenants and does not help landlords either.

Thanks for your consideration,
Debbie Rincon
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
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: [email protected]
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Oppose New Business Item 1 - Rent Registry Program and Fees Date: Friday, March 13, 2026 4:04:51 PM
This is an example of unnecessary, inefficient govt. There must be better ways to manage a budget than making housing provision less desirable.

Best,
Josh

From: MONICA KHANNA
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Oppose New Business Item 1 - Rent Registry Program and Fees Date: Friday, March 13, 2026 7:11:05 PM
To Whom it May Concern,
I am proud to be a housing provider in the City of Costa Mesa. The Rent Registry Program and Fee will add extra expense and time without any benefit to the existing tenants.

I already comply with these requirements in the City of Santa Ana. That burden over the last several years has caused me to seriously consider selling my units in that city. I have not done so as of yet since the property values have dropped considerably.

Any additional monies and time that I spend on compliance issues just takes away funds and time that I would use to upgrade my properties. That is what tenants appreciate.

Thanks in advance for the oonsideration.

Regards,
Monica Khanna
181 Del Mar, Costa Mesa
321 Cabrillo, Costa Mesa
327 Cabrillo, 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: Patricia Lee
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Oppose New Business Item 1 - Rent Registry Program and Fees Date: Friday, March 13, 2026 3:59:19 PM
Hello,
The City of Costa Mesa has no reason to impose more fees & labor burden on small apartment owners. It makes zero sense. Your rates for trash are already higher than other OC cities.

This is not Santa Monica. Please stop the registry idea. This City is harming small businesses. Thank you.

Yahoo Mail: Search, Organize, Conquer
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: Denis Hebert
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Oppose New Business Item 1 - Rent Registry Program and Fees Date: Saturday, March 14, 2026 7:03:28 AM
Vote No on rental registration.

Housing providers are already heavily regulated and increase fees mean increase rents.

Thank you.

Denis Hebert
real estate broker
Sent from AT&T Yahoo Mail for iPhone
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: Heidi Bell
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Oppose New Business Item 1 - Rent Registry Program and Fees Date: Sunday, March 15, 2026 8:20:25 AM
Vote No on rental registry!
Sent from my iPhone
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: Sergio
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Oppose New Business Item 1 - Rent Registry Program and Fees Date: Friday, March 13, 2026 4:56:30 PM
Dear City Clerk,
The proposals to implement Rent Registries and Notification of 3 Day Notices to Pay Rent or Quit will be disastrous for the city of Costa Mesa.

The problems that these proposals create for the city include:

Instituting a Rent Registry Program that will cost the city HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS to administer on an ongoing basis - while the city is facing a budget deficit.

These proposals DO NOT help anyone, and in fact they create problems for the city, for the tenants, and for the rental property owners.

Respectfully,
Sergio Martin.
______________

PRIVACY NOTICE
This message with any attachments is intended only for use by the addressee.

It may contain information that is private, privileged and/or confidential and legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you are prohibited from using or keeping this message and any information it contains. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and remove the message from your computer(s). Thank you!
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.

From: Gayle Austin
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Oppose New Business Item 1 - Rent Registry Program and Fees Date: Friday, March 13, 2026 5:41:19 PM
Absolutely do not vote for a rental registry program. This is a violation of our rights as a property owner. Thank you Sent from my iPhone
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: Kevin Darnall
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Oppose New Business Item 1 - Rent Registry Program and Fees Date: Friday, March 13, 2026 11:21:25 PM
As a local landlord, I oppose having to provide business related data to the city. Clearly the only reason the city would need such information is to increase regulations on the rental industry. More regulations equals higher costs and higher costs equals higher rent.

Please vote no on this item.

Kevin Darnall
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
Get Outlook for Android
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 Dazo
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Oppose New Business Item 1 - Rent Registry Program and Fees Date: Monday, March 16, 2026 1:05:46 PM
This is with respect to the proposal of Costa Mesa administration to require a mandatory rental registry program.

Our organization, RG Capital Investments LLC, vehemently registers a vote of NO to this proposal.

We vote NO to requirement of government collection of rent data, NO to the mandatory reporting of landlord activity and NO to the imposition of annual registration fees beginning at $150 and increasing to $500

Respectfully yours,

Michael Dazo
RG Capital Investments LLC
[email protected]
Tel. 562.777.7799
Cel. 909.662.2232

From: Jeremy Metz
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Proposed Rental Registry
Date: Monday, March 16, 2026 8:07:04 AM
Attachments: image001.png
March 16, 2026
Mayor and Members of the Costa Mesa City Council,
I am writing as a local housing provider to respectfully express my opposition to the proposed rental registry and associated fees that the Council is considering.

While I understand the intent behind the proposal, the registry would create new administrative and financial burdens for housing providers who are already operating under extensive state regulations. Compliance with additional reporting requirements and fees increases operational costs and diverts resources away from maintaining and improving housing.

California already has significant tenant protection laws and reporting requirements in place.

Creating an additional local registry risks duplicating existing regulations while adding complexity for both housing providers and the City to administer.

Policies that increase regulatory costs can also have unintended consequences. Additional fees and compliance burdens may discourage reinvestment in rental housing and can ultimately contribute to higher housing costs over time.

At a time when housing supply and affordability remain critical challenges, I encourage the Council to focus on policies that support housing stability and investment rather than adding new regulatory layers.

For these reasons, I respectfully urge the Council to reconsider the proposed rental registry and fees.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Respectfully,
Jeremy Metz
Jamboree Management
22982 Mill Creek Dr.

Laguna Hills, CA 92653-1214
Email: [email protected]

Operating Under CA DRE License # 00842342

From: Juny Campos
To: CITY CLERK
Cc: CITY COUNCIL
Subject: Public Comment – March 17 Agenda Item 1 – Rental Registry Date: Monday, March 16, 2026 2:22:07 PM
Mayor Stephens and Council Members,
My name is Juny Campos. I was born and raised in Costa Mesa. I lived here my entire life until I enlisted in the Army at 17. I came back and kept investing here because I believe Costa Mesa is one of the best cities in California and a place worth building in, improving, and protecting.

I currently own several rental units in Costa Mesa. I am also trying to add more housing here.

Last year I completed an ADU in Costa Mesa, and the process took about six months just to get approvals and permits, followed by about eight months to build because of red tape and inspections. Right now I have been trying to add four more ADUs for more than eight months.

My real-world experience is that the problem in Costa Mesa is not a lack of regulation. It is that the City still makes it too slow and too difficult to add housing.

Costa Mesa’s own materials say the proposed rental registry would cover about 16,700 multifamily units. They also say the program would cost about $321,335 per year, with about $213,350 in startup costs, and would likely require about $374,017 from the General Fund in year one under the City’s own assumptions. The same staff report lists the downsides to owners and the City: more administrative burden, more cost, privacy concerns, delays in legal proceedings, legal risk, and reduced rental housing supply.

California HCD says ADU applications must be reviewed for completeness within 15 business days, approved or denied within 60 days once complete, and can even be deemed approved if the city misses the deadline. HCD also told Costa Mesa in 2024 that its ADU ordinance did not comply with state ADU law and required amendments. Before creating a new citywide registration program for existing housing, the City should fix the bottlenecks that delay new housing.

A rental registry is not rent control, but it will be viewed by owners, investors, and lenders as a step in that direction. Santa Ana’s registry exists alongside rent stabilization, and Costa Mesa’s own report acknowledges that registries can be expanded and used to collect notices, rates, and other data that support broader regulation. If the City sends the message that Costa Mesa is moving toward heavier regulation while the permitting process remains slow and frustrating, fewer people will choose to invest in improving older properties or adding new units here.

If the Council wants to improve communication and education, then move forward with the Network for Renters’ Solutions only, without the rental registry. The staff report itself says the City can establish the Network without adopting the registry, and that education and mediation services can continue either way. That is the better path. Focus city resources on faster ADU approvals, more predictable inspections, and measurable permit turnaround times instead of building a new compliance program for housing providers who are already trying to add supply.

I am a lifelong Costa Mesa resident, a local housing provider, and a Costa Mesa voter. I actively support candidates and causes that keep this city livable, investable, and focused on solutions that increase housing instead of discouraging it. Please vote no on the rental registry and focus on housing production, permitting reform, and practical landlord-tenant education instead.

Respectfully,
Juny Campos
Costa Mesa resident and housing provider
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: Jeff Condon
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Rent Registry Program and Fees
Date: Monday, March 16, 2026 1:25:02 PM
Hi
I am a resident of Costa Mesa and disagree with the new Rent Registry Program and Fees.

There is not enough housing in Costa Mesas and this proposal will just add to the burden of small landlord.

Thank you,
Jeff
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: Mat Garcia
To: CITY COUNCIL; CITY CLERK; STEPHENS, JOHN; GAMEROS, LOREN; REYNOLDS, ARLIS; CHAVEZ, MANUEL; PETTIS, JEFF; BULEY, MIKE; MARR, ANDREA
Subject: Please Delay or Vote No on New Business Item #3 - PSA for Fairview Park, West Bluff Restoration Project Date: Tuesday, March 17, 2026 10:32:55 AM
Attachments: image.png
[Please include this email as part of the public record for tonight’s City Council meeting.] Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
I am writing regarding New Business Item #3: PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT

WITH PSOMAS FOR THE FAIRVIEW PARK WEST BLUFF RESTORATION PROJECT While I support thoughtful stewardship of Fairview Park, I have concerns about moving forward with this professional services agreement without greater clarity, transparency, and public vetting. Based on the information provided in the agenda report, I do not believe the Council has been given sufficient detail to fully evaluate the scope, necessity, and prioritization of this project.

In summary, my concerns are as follows:

Bluff erosion is not quantified, and the report does not establish the scale or urgency of the problem.

Project funding is presented inconsistently, and the actual remaining budget is unclear.

The project has not been reviewed by advisory bodies and has not been publicly vetted.

Limited parks funding is being committed without evaluating higher-impact alternatives for residents.

First, the report does not meaningfully quantify the bluff erosion issue. There are no erosion rates, no presentation of past studies or prior geotechnical findings, and no explanation of consequences of bluff erosion if nothing is done. Without a clear understanding of the scale or urgency of the problem, it is difficult to assess whether a nearly $600,000 design contract is warranted at this time.

Second, there appears to be a lack of clarity regarding the available funding. The report references a $2 million allocation, but also states that approximately $1.6 million is currently available. After approval of this PSA, the remaining construction budget appears to be closer to approximately $1.0 million, rather than the roughly $1.45 million suggested. Additionally, the report does not explain prior expenditures or whether these funds are exclusive to this project or shared with other Fairview Park initiatives.

Third, this project has not been meaningfully reviewed through the City’s established advisory processes. I believe the original RFP was approved on the consent calendar more than a year ago, and since then there has been no substantive public discussion.

To my knowledge, neither the Fairview Park Steering Committee nor the Parks and Community Services Commission has reviewed or made recommendations on this project, despite their roles in advising Council on park-related matters. If they have, those recommendations have not been included in the agenda packet.

Additionally, it appears that elements of this project have already been advanced through prior approvals, including the original RFP being placed on the consent calendar and subsequent related contracts being issued. This raises a broader concern that significant commitments may be occurring incrementally, without a clear policy-level discussion by Council or meaningful public input on how these funds should be prioritized.

More broadly, there does not appear to be a clear, consolidated view of Fairview Park spending and project planning. Multiple contracts and efforts are being advanced, yet there is no single, publicly available framework that shows what has been spent, what is currently committed, and what is planned. Council has previously raised concerns about spending in Fairview Park, and without a comprehensive picture, it is difficult to evaluate priorities, understand how these projects are connected, or ensure that limited funds are being allocated effectively. The City has had access to these state funds since 2022, yet there has been no clear, consolidated plan presented to the public showing how these funds are being allocated across Fairview Park projects.

Please
review Item 5 from the Consent Calendar of the City Council Agenda of May 21, 2024:
https://costamesa.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=A&ID=1189331&GUID=E7FFFB60-CAB4-4FCE- BEFB-238D29C556A0. Both consulting group contracts (for a total amount of $650k) have removal of the mounds and restoration of the bluffs as projects within their scope. They also have scope for park projects at other parks. In the photo attached, the contractor performing the soil samples told me that the City desires to use the mound material as material for bluff restoration in order to eliminate the need to do costly soil remediation which they would have to do if they took the soil off the Fairview Park site.

Additionally, the Fairview Park Master Plan update, which is intended to guide long-term decisions in the park, is not yet finalized. It advanced on a narrow 4-3 vote and remains incomplete, despite a consultant contract exceeding $300,000. Proceeding with significant design work before the Master Plan is complete raises concerns about whether implementation decisions are being made in advance of the policy framework intended to guide them. If this project, and other projects can proceed prior to completion of the Park’s Master Plan Update, it begs the question of why the Master Plan Update is required at all.

Given the existence of prior and ongoing contracts for related work in Fairview Park, it is important for Council to have a clear understanding of what work has already been completed, what is currently underway, and how this proposed contract builds on that work. Without that context, it is difficult to fully evaluate whether additional expenditures represent the most effective use of limited public funds.

This is a significant expenditure for a project that has not been publicly vetted, and I think that deserves a closer look.

At a minimum, I respectfully request that the Council seek clarification on the following questions before proceeding:

1. Can staff quantify the bluff erosion issue, including the number of impacted locations, any measured rates of erosion, and whether there are documented slope failures?

2. Are there existing geotechnical or engineering reports that describe the severity of the issue, and if so, why were those not summarized in the agenda report?

3. Is the $2 million referenced in the report exclusive to the West Bluff Restoration Project, or part of a broader Fairview Park funding allocation that may include other projects such as the Mesa Restoration Project?

4. Given that approximately $1.6 million is currently available, what is the actual remaining construction budget after approval of this PSA?

5. What accounts for the difference between the $2 million allocation and the current available balance?

6. Has this project been reviewed by the Fairview Park Steering Committee or the Parks and Community Services Commission?

7. If not, is there a reason this project is moving forward without review by those advisory bodies?

8. Will this project result in any changes to public access, trails, or existing uses within Fairview Park?

9. Are the state grant funds flexible in how they can be used within Fairview Park, or are they restricted specifically to bluff restoration/stabilization? If so, why?

10. Is there any timing requirement or deadline associated with the grant funding that necessitates approval of this contract at this time?
Given the scale of this and related expenditures, approving additional funding without a clear, consolidated understanding of prior spending, current commitments, and overall project scope raises concerns about whether the Council has sufficient information to fully exercise its fiduciary responsibility to ensure that public funds are being used efficiently and in the best interest of the community.

With all this said, please delay or vote no on New Business Item #3 in order to get the above clarifications answered.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Mat Garcia
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.

March 17, 2026

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

RE: Support for “Gap Funding” for Jamboree’s Senior Affordable Housing Project

Dear Mayor Stephens and Members of the Costa Mesa City Council,

The Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition (the Coalition) wholeheartedly supports Jamboree Housing Corporation’s request that the City of Costa Mesa provide $3.25 million in “gap funding” for construction of the Senior Affordable Housing project in the Senior Center parking lot. We are especially pleased these apartments will include 34 units of permanent supportive housing for the City’s most vulnerable seniors. The project’s mix of low-income units and permanent supportive units is exactly what Costa Mesa needs.

According to Costa Mesa’s Housing Element (2021-2029), the City has 12,138 seniors (age 65+) and 41% of these seniors are renters. Costa Mesa’s dearth of affordable rental units hits this special population of senior renters particularly hard because so many of them are lower-income. In fact, nearly 40% of Costa Mesa’s seniors are very low- or extremely low-income, and another 22% are low-income. (H.E. Chap. 2, pp.19-20.) In other words, the vast majority of Costa Mesa seniors—nearly 62%—cannot afford to pay Costa Mesa’s market rate rents.

To pay the rent—and keep from becoming homeless – these seniors must scrimp on food, medicine and other necessities. Affordable housing is the solution for this crisis.

The Coalition applauds the City for supporting Jamboree’s senior affordable housing project with the donation of city-owned land. Now we urge the City to take the next, essential step of providing the gap funding needed to bring the project to fruition.

The Coalition urges the City Council to commit the requested $3.25 million in available housing funds (HOME funds, Affordable Housing Trust Fund funds, One Metro West “community benefit” funds) needed to commence construction of the senior affordable housing project. Jamboree Housing’s proposal is excellent and Costa Mesa’s seniors desperately need this affordable housing.

Respectfully,
Kathy Esfahani
Kathy Esfahani, Chair of the Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition From: Athena Balistreri
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Letter of Support for Costa Mesa Affordable Senior Housing Development Date: Monday, March 16, 2026 7:21:33 PM
Dear City Council,
My name is Athena Balistreri, resident of nearly 15 years in Costa Mesa all in District 1. I want to show my strong support for the affordable senior housing proposed for the Costa Mesa Senior Center’s Parking Lot and I urge the City Council to vote yes on providing the project with vital gap financing. As Orange County continues to struggle with a housing affordability crisis, Costa Mesa seniors on a fixed-income are increasingly at risk of experiencing housing instability. The latest point in time data shows that seniors are one of the fastest growing groups in the County entering into homelessness. No one at any age should experience homelessness, let's support this increasingly vulnerable population. It is exactly the type of development that Costa Mesa should support.

The use of the city's HOME fund should support residents regardless of their age, but especially those with fixed or lower income. Vote yes!
I would like to thank the Council for their past support of this project. I am happy to support the Council as they continue to find cost-effective and innovative pathways to building more affordable housing in Costa Mesa.

Sincerely,
Athena Balistreri
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. www.AAOC.com

March 16, 2026

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

Re: City Council Agenda (3/17/26)
Public Hearing Item 2: Article 24 (Just Cause Residential Tenant Protections) – Oppose New Business Item 1: Citywide Rental Registry – Oppose

Dear Mayor Stephens and Council Members,

The Apartment Association of Orange County (AAOC) is the professional trade association that represents approximately 2,000 rental housing professionals who own, operate, and service more than 125,000 apartment and single-family rental units in Orange and Riverside Counties, including members with properties in Costa Mesa.

We are submitting this letter to express our policy opposition to two items on the March 17, 2026 City Council Agenda – Public Hearing Item 2 and New Business Item 1. While we understand the council’s reasons for exploring options to address these issues, AAOC strongly contends that the evidence shows these particular proposals will not meet your intended goals.

AMENDING THE TENANT PROTECTION ACT

When the city council established the elements of the Tenant Protection Act in 2023, AAOC expressed concerns with some of the provisions in the originally introduced proposal. However, modifications were made that made the ordinance that was ultimately adopted by the city council more effective. That ordinance was aimed at assisting tenants who found themselves in an eviction through no fault of their own.

What is currently being proposed would create protections for tenants who are in violation of the terms of their rental agreements: Specifically, the proposed ordinance would result in assisting tenants who are:

- Delinquent in paying their rent
- Violating the terms of their lease agreement
- Creating nuisances in their rental community
- Engaging in criminal activity
As well as other causes that are completely within the control of the tenant – and lead to negatively affecting other tenants’ ability to enjoy the use of the property as guaranteed by their lease terms.

_________________________________________
1601 E. Orangewood Avenue, Suite 125
Anaheim, CA 92805
(714) 245-9500

www.AAOC.com
Proposing an ordinance that protects tenants whose choices not only compromise the enjoyable use, but potentially also the safety and security of other tenants, creates problematic communities that negatively impact overall quality of life.

UNDERSTANDING THE THREE-DAY NOTICE AND EVICTION PROCESS

Further, the mechanism proposed to do this creates problematic challenges for both the city and the property owner/manager and tenant relationship. It also demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the Three-Day Pay Rent or Quit Notice – and the legal procedures involved in the eviction process.

These can be seen in the following ways:

- The Three-Day Notice to pay rent or quit is a private notice required by California State Law in order to fully execute an eviction.
o More than 99% of Three-Day Notices serve more as a reminder of late payment than anything else.
o Nearly all Three-Day Notices are resolved without any further action being taken by the property owner/ manager.
o Requiring a filing with the city will mean that the city will be provided with a notice for every late rent payment, the vast majority of which are resolved amicably, and provide no real useful insight into the reality of the eviction process in Costa Mesa – simply an inundation of paperwork to the city.

- The Three-Day Notice is not a publicly filed document at the time of its execution, which means that the privacy of tenants in these situations is protected. Making these documents a public filing will expose the privacy of every tenant, including those without legal immigration status, who are escaping domestic violence situations, peace officers whose identities and living arrangements are protected, and victims of crime that are seeking a way out. o Exposing these individuals’ private contracts in a public manner for a document that is not a public filing creates extreme liabilities for both the tenants, the owners/managers, the neighbors in the community, and for the city in having created the breech of privacy.

PROVIDING NOTICE OF RESOURCES AND OBTAINING USEFUL DATA

- If the goal of the council is to provide resources to those individuals who are facing an eviction, then the council should be aware that:
o Once an eviction is filed with the court, the notice provided to the tenant is required to include resources to assist the tenant in their situation including contacts to the Fair Housing Council, Fair Housing Foundation, Legal Aid Society of Orange County, and others.
o The city could work with the courts – or with the Fair Housing Council / Fair Housing Foundation / Legal Aid Society of Orange County – in order to make them aware of additional resources that the city is looking to provide to tenants facing eviction. o Creating additional or competing notices could create confusion and problems for all parties involved in this process.
www.AAOC.com

- If the goal of the council is to gather data to assess the need for resources in Costa Mesa, there are resources that exist already that don’t create additional burdens for city staff, property owners/ managers, or tenants:
o The county court system provides details regarding the cases coming through the county – it is worth connecting with the county to see what kind of communication could exist between the city and the county to extrapolate the information related to evictions. o There are private foundations such as the Kennedy Commission that prepare annual reports related to evictions that the city could use to gather as well as benchmark/ compare and contrast the situations in Costa Mesa to other comparable cities. o Data that already exists should be prioritized over re-creating a system that is not likely to produce comparable or useful data

RENT REGISTRIES – A FAILED POLICY WITHOUT PURPOSE

Recent articles in professional publications for city management have highlighted what a rent registry can provide. However, these articles do so from a national perspective – not from a California perspective, which is the first place a city should start when considering adopting similar registries.

The state of California has defined what a municipality can require in the inclusion of a rent registry.

That information is limited to:

- Property Information
- Property Ownership Information
- Statistics on Tenancy
When the city of Santa Ana implemented its rent registry, it was presented as a self-sustaining program that would assist in monitoring the rents and rent increases in the city – as well as a repository of information about each tenant in the city. The problems, however, ended up being much more of a burden than had been expected.

- Tenants’ privacy rights were violated.
- The compliance level was significantly below expectations. - The funding source to date has still not covered the overall cost of the program. - The system didn’t adequately accommodate different property types. - The city has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on a program that is now an annual expense for the city, as opposed to being a break even or new funding stream for housing.

The experience has been that the program doesn’t meet the promises, let alone the expectations, of the city or tenants. Additionally, it is a significant expense for those who are complying with the program each year – some larger rental owners and operators have shared that it has almost become a full-time job complying with the requirements of the registry.

This additional employee expense for owners and operators results in fewer dollars being available to invest in property upgrades and renovations, preventative maintenance and repairs, and resident amenities. Instead, that money is going to fund an internal city database with information that could have effectively been obtained with a robust internet search of rental rates. www.AAOC.com
This employee expense, however, is not a cost borne just by rental owners and operators – the city will also confront increased employment costs. These rent registries generally require employing additional employees to manage the program – with the entire cost of employing those individuals borne by the city.

Realistically, these rent registries serve no actionable purpose. The city already has the authority to address violations of state rent control laws, and to impose penalties on operators in violation of the city’s existing tenant protection ordinance.

WELL INTENTIONED, BUT COSTLY AND INEFFECTIVE IN EXECUTION

Both of these proposed policies may come from well-intentioned places. However, in both cases, these policies have previously been demonstrated elsewhere to be:

- Extremely cost prohibitive for rental owners/operators and the city - Burdensome in implementation and recordation for both rental owners/operators and the city - Challenging in liability for both rental owners/operators and the city Furthermore, they either duplicate existing resources that could be utilized in a more cost-effective and actionable way – or they fail to provide any additional value to the city in an actionable or applicable manner.

AAOC has long supported good government policies that seek to enhance and improve the community.

However, what is being proposed here fails to meet the standards that will truly benefit Costa Mesa.

This is why AAOC respectfully requests that you do not support or pursue these policies any further.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of our concerns and suggestions.

Sincerely,

David J. Cordero
Executive Director

March 17, 2026 The Honorable John Stephens Mayor, City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 RE: Agenda Item, New Business #1 – Rental Registry Program and Network for Renters’ Solutions Dear Mayor Stephens: On behalf of the Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association (WMA), a statewide trade association representing mobilehome parkowners throughout California, including in the City of Costa Mesa, we respectfully express our opposition to the proposed rental registry program. The staff report outlines significant administrative and financial costs associated with establishing such a program, with the stated goal of tracking no-fault evictions and compliance with state rent caps. While the report references the City of Santa Ana’s program as a model, our direct experience with that program reflects a problematic and uneven rollout. Many property owners remain unaware of registration requirements, resulting in non-compliance. Moreover, we are unaware of any publicly available empirical data from Santa Ana demonstrating that the program has meaningfully improved housing outcomes or provided actionable insights. It is also critical to distinguish mobilehome parks from other rental housing types. The staff report references “3-day notices,” which are not applicable in mobilehome communities. Evictions in mobilehome parks are exceedingly rare, and no-fault evictions are expressly prohibited under state law. Applying a regulatory framework designed for apartments to mobilehome communities is not appropriate and risks creating confusion and unintended consequences. Mobilehome residents are already protected under a comprehensive statutory framework. Section 798 of the California Civil Code, commonly known as the Mobilehome Residency Law (MRL), provides robust protections governing tenancies in mobilehome parks. In addition, the State has established the Mobilehome Residency Law Protection Program (MRLPP), administered by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), which offers residents access to legal assistance and enforcement mechanisms at no cost.

WMA and its members strongly support efforts to assist residents in need. Our industry funds and promotes the Manufactured Housing Educational Trust (MHET) Rental Assistance Program, a parkowner-funded initiative that provides meaningful, ongoing financial assistance to qualifying residents. Additionally, we actively participate in the City of Costa Mesa’s Mobilehome Park Advisory Committee, fostering direct and constructive dialogue between residents, parkowners, and the City. While well-intentioned, rental registry programs impose new costs, administrative burdens, and potential liability on housing providers and local governments alike, without clear evidence of corresponding public benefit. These costs are ultimately borne by housing providers, residents, and taxpayers—many of whom will see no direct benefit from the program. For these reasons, we respectfully urge the City Council to decline the establishment of a rental registry program and instead focus on existing, effective tools and collaborative local solutions. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Julie Paule cc: Mayor Pro Tem Manuel Chavez Council Member Jeff Pettis Council Member Andrea Marr Council Member Loren Gameros Council Member Mike Buley Council Member Arlis Reynolds

California Apartment Association 3349 Michelson Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92612 March 17, 2026 SENT VIA EMAIL TO: [email protected] Mayor John Stephens & Costa Mesa City Council Costa Mesa City Council 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Re: OPPOSE New Business Item 1 - Costa Mesa Proposes Rent Registry and Fee Program Mayor Stephens: The California Apartment Association (CAA) respectfully opposes the establishment of a rent registry program in Costa Mesa. The staﬀ report identiﬁes potential beneﬁts but does not fully address the practical challenges, costs, and limitations observed in other jurisdictions. Before moving forward, CAA urges the City Council to conduct a thorough and independent evaluation of rent registry programs, including their eﬀectiveness, administrative burden, and long-term ﬁscal impacts. Rent Registries Duplicate Commercial and Government Data Eﬀorts The staﬀ report outlines several intended beneﬁts of a rent registry but does not evaluate readily available commercial and government data sources that already provide similar information. These sources include data on rental market trends, eviction ﬁlings, vacancy rates, and general housing conditions. CAA met with City staﬀ on January 15, 2025, to share information on how to access these existing datasets. Leveraging established data sources would allow the City to obtain relevant insights without creating a new administrative program. Additionally, rent registries do not inherently provide inspection or enforcement functions related to housing conditions. In most jurisdictions, these responsibilities are already fulﬁlled through existing systems such as business licensing, code enforcement, and ﬁre safety inspections. Limited Policy Justiﬁcation in the Absence of Rent Control Rent registries are most commonly implemented in conjunction with rent control programs to support regulatory compliance and enforcement. Costa Mesa does not have a local rent control ordinance and the city’s voters have expressed a clear opposition to one. Statewide ballot measures related to expanding local authority to enact rent control (Propositions 10, 21, and 33) were opposed by a majority of the city’s voters by margins of up to 20%. Voters clearly oppose rent control and

the components that comprise them. With consecutive rejections to expand local authority to enact rent control, it is abundantly clear that voters want more eﬀective solutions to housing aﬀordability. Fiscal Considerations and Program Sustainability Experience from other jurisdictions indicates that rent registry programs face challenges in achieving ﬁnancial sustainability and accurate revenue projections. These programs often require ongoing administrative funding and revenues have not fully oﬀset operational costs. For example, public budget documents from the City of Santa Ana indicate that its rent stabilization program has required adjustments to expenditures and funding sources after initial projections did not align with actual revenues. Rent registry revenue was originally forecasted at $3.2 million for FY23-24 and assumed a budget surplus.1 The budget actuals revealed a $1.9 million deﬁcit, and funds were taken from the aﬀordable housing fund. In FY24-25, the rent stabilization program cut its budget by $1.7 million. Santa Ana’s city staﬀ only announced grace period after a poor rollout of their rent control program. The program remains unsustainable as the city faces a ﬁscal cliﬀ of $30 million by 2029. Similarly, the City of Concord has adjusted its rent registry fee structure following implementation to address program costs. Fees were originally between $29 and $47 per qualiﬁed unit. The dramatic increase in rent registry fees was not publicly discussed at the initial rollout of the rent registry program. The subsequent fee increases were unexpected. Concord’s miscalculation resulted in fees increasing by up to 72% on July 1, 2025. These examples highlight the importance of carefully evaluating long-term ﬁscal impacts, including the potential for fee increases or reliance on additional funding sources if revenues fall short of expectations. Program Eﬀectiveness and Measurable Outcomes A key consideration for any new program is whether it delivers measurable public beneﬁts. In several jurisdictions, rent registry programs have primarily focused on administrative functions such as registration and compliance tracking. Santa Ana’s rent registry fees appear to be collected for the sole purpose of administration; not rental assistance or building new housing. The program’s only performance metric is the enrollment of landlords in the rent registry program.2 Absent from the program are any metrics focused on housing of Santa Ana residents. Of the $2.9 million in growing annual expenditures, 92% of funds are spent on administration3. Nearly half of the expenditures are spent on ﬁrms located outside the city with none of those funds being recirculated to Santa Ana’s local economy. 1 City of Santa Ana, Adopted Budget 2024–25 (July 18, 2024), “Fund Summary by Category Report, ” p. 66, https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/santaanaca/2024/08/07-30-Budget-Book-Draft_V6_Hyperlinked_Compressed.pdf. 2 City of Santa Ana, Adopted Budget 2024–25, 690. 3 City of Santa Ana, FY 2024-25 Operating Budget – Expenditures ($842.9M), Summary of Fund 185: Rent Stabilization Fund, OpenBook Budget Portal, accessed March 13, 2026, https://santaana.openbook.questica.com/#/visualization/ab773e94-01e2-4b59-998f-638497d06676 To date, there is limited evidence demonstrating that such programs directly improve housing aﬀordability, increase housing supply, or produce measurable improvements in housing outcomes. If Costa Mesa chooses to explore a registry, it would be important to establish clear performance metrics tied to speciﬁc policy goals. CONCLUSION Given the availability of existing data sources, the absence of a supporting rent control framework, and the ﬁscal and administrative challenges observed in other cities, CAA urges the City Council to proceed with caution. At a minimum, the City should undertake a comprehensive, independent analysis of rent registry programs, including: • Cost and revenue projections under multiple scenarios • Administrative and staﬀing requirements • Measurable policy outcomes and performance metrics • Alternatives that achieve similar objectives with lower cost and complexity CAA appreciates the opportunity to provide input and remains available as a resource as the City evaluates this issue. Respectfully, Victor Cao Senior Vice President, Local Public Aﬀairs

www.AAOC.com

March 16, 2026

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

Re: City Council Agenda (3/17/26)
Public Hearing Item 2: Article 24 (Just Cause Residential Tenant Protections) – Oppose New Business Item 1: Citywide Rental Registry – Oppose

Dear Mayor Stephens and Council Members,

AMENDING THE TENANT PROTECTION ACT

_________________________________________
1601 E. Orangewood Avenue, Suite 125
Anaheim, CA 92805
(714) 245-9500

UNDERSTANDING THE THREE-DAY NOTICE AND EVICTION PROCESS

These can be seen in the following ways:

PROVIDING NOTICE OF RESOURCES AND OBTAINING USEFUL DATA

RENT REGISTRIES – A FAILED POLICY WITHOUT PURPOSE

The state of California has defined what a municipality can require in the inclusion of a rent registry.

That information is limited to:

WELL INTENTIONED, BUT COSTLY AND INEFFECTIVE IN EXECUTION

Both of these proposed policies may come from well-intentioned places. However, in both cases, these policies have previously been demonstrated elsewhere to be:

AAOC has long supported good government policies that seek to enhance and improve the community.

However, what is being proposed here fails to meet the standards that will truly benefit Costa Mesa.

This is why AAOC respectfully requests that you do not support or pursue these policies any further.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of our concerns and suggestions.

Sincerely,

David J. Cordero
Executive Director

From: MUNOZ, SANDY
To: TERAN, STACY; GREEN, BRENDA
Subject: FW: Please Oppose Rental Registry and 3- Day Notice Reporting Proposal Date: Tuesday, March 17, 2026 3:27:24 PM
From: Carmen Filip <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2026 2:29 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL <[email protected]>
Subject: Please Oppose Rental Registry and 3- Day Notice Reporting Proposal

Dear Mayor and Members of the Costa Mesa City Council,

My name is Carmen Filip, and I work as a property manager. I’m writing to respectfully express my opposition to the proposed rental registry and the requirement to report all 3-day notices.

Costa Mesa is already dealing with housing challenges, and adding new layers of regulation on housing providers may create unintended negative impacts. A rental registry would introduce additional reporting obligations, fees, and administrative work, all of which increase operating costs. Over time, these added burdens could discourage investment in rental housing and make it harder to maintain a stable supply.

I am also concerned about the requirement to submit copies of all 3-day notices. These notices are not evictions—they are often a preliminary step that can lead to resolution without any legal action. Requiring their submission raises privacy concerns, as it involves sharing sensitive tenant information, and it may also result in data that does not accurately reflect actual eviction activity.

If the intent is to support tenants through education, mediation, or improved communication, there are more effective ways to achieve those goals without creating a registry or collecting private housing data.

I urge the Council to focus on housing policies that promote stability and availability without adding unnecessary administrative burdens.

Thank you for your time and service to the Costa Mesa community.

Sincerely,
Carmen Filip

March 17, 2065 Mayor John Stephens
Costa

Mesa

City

Council

77 Fair

Drive

Costa

Mesa,

92626
RE: Item 2 Consent Calendar - Support for Extension of Option to Lease Agreement for 70-Unit

Affordable

Senior

and

Supportive

Housing

Project

Honorable Mayor Stephens and Costa Mesa City Council Members, The Kennedy Commission (the Commission) is a broad-based coalition of residents and community organizations

advocating

for

the

production

homes

affordable

for

families

earning

less

than

$30,000

annually

Orange

County.

Since

2001,

have

successfully

partnered

with

jurisdictions

across

the

county

create

housing

and

land-use

policies

that

increase

affordable

housing

opportunities

for

lower-income

working

families.

The Commission is submitting this letter, along with Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition, in strong

support

Jamboree

Housing

Corporation’s

request

that

the

City

Costa

Mesa

provide

$3.25

million

“gap

funding”

for

construction

the

Senior

Affordable

Housing

project

the

Senior

Center

parking

lot.

are

especially

pleased

these

apartments

will

include

34 units

permanent

supportive

housing

for

the

City’s

most

vulnerable

seniors.

The

project’s

mix

low-income

units

and

p
ermanent

supportive

units

exactly

what

Costa

Mesa

needs.

According to Costa Mesa’s Housing Element (2021-2029), the City has 12,138 seniors (age 65+) and

41%

these

seniors

are

renters.

Costa

Mesa’s

dearth

affordable

rental

units

hits

this

special

population

senior

renters

particularly

hard

because

many

them

are

lower-income.

fact,

nearly

40%

Costa

Mesa’s

seniors

are

very

low
-

extremely

low-income
,

and

another

22%

are

low-income.

(H.E.

Chap.

pp.19-20.)

other

words,

the

vast

majority

Costa

Mesa

seniors—
nearly

62%
—cannot

afford

pay

Costa

Mesa’s

market

rate

rents.

To pay the rent—and keep from becoming homeless – these seniors must scrimp on food, medicine and

other

necessities.

Affordable

housing

the

solution

for

this

crisis
.

The Commission applauds the City for supporting Jamboree’s senior affordable housing project

with

the

donation

city-owned

land.

Now

urge

the

City

take

the

next,

essential

step

providing

the

gap

funding

needed

bring

the

project

fruition
.

We urge the City Council to commit the requested $3.25 million in available housing funds (HOME

funds,

Affordable

Housing

Trust

Fund

funds,

One

Metro

West

“community

benefit”

funds)

needed

commence

construction

the

senior

affordable

housing

project.

Jamboree

Housing’s

proposal

excellent

and

Costa

Mesa’s

seniors

desperately

need

this

affordable

housing.

We look forward to continuing to work with the City of Costa Mesa to promote policies and 1 funding opportunities that expand affordable housing opportunities. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (949) 250-0909 or [email protected]. Sincerely, Cesar Covarrubias Executive Director 2

Costa Mesa City CouncilMarch 17, 2026

Costa Mesa City Council
March 17, 2026