Costa Mesa City Council
September 1, 2026

From: Wendy Simao
To: CITY CLERK; ZICH, JON; PLANNING INFO
Subject: 140 E 17th St
Date: Tuesday, September 1, 2026 8:57:15 AM
Hello,
While I can not attend tonight's meeting. I still wanted to give the City an update on what my community has to go thru daily. At 7AM daily M-F the gym opens it's door. For the entire day every day we hear every workout and every scream from the instructor on the microphone. Ì couldn't understand how I kept hearing the bass thru my headphones when they are noise canceling and the gym is across the street from my community. So i did a Google dive and found out the gym is using a low wave bass as it intensifies thier workout.

This low wave frequency is not good for your health. We know the gym is moving in 2 months but it seems the gym gets worse everyday. I've discussed this with my neighbors and they agree. No community on this planet should have to deal with what my community goes thru daily.

I'd also ask that when the gym moves that you give it actual rules. So that this gym is NEVER allowed to bully and harass a community again. According to Costa Mesa you're not allowed to block your for safety door. But this gym does it daily.

If you don't believe you can feel bass just search any video app you use EX: Facebook, Tictok. You really can't even imagine what this gym puts our community thru daily. Every work out they have can be heard all day.

Have a wonderful day,
Wendy
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. =" )
-eA)-€
From: Josef Jonathan
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Eastside Costa Mesa | Drunk Drivers
Date: Sunday, August 30, 2026 3:30:30 PM
PLEASE CIRCULATE TO POLICE CHIEF AND CITY MANAGER AND ALL CITY

COUNCIL MEMBERS, AND ADD TO PUBLIC COMMENT FOR NEXT COUNCIL

MEETING
Hi, there:

I live on Fullerton Ave in Eastside Costa Mesa and, in only the past 12 months, we’ve had three (3!) DUI crashes on this street (Fullerton Ave) just between 19th & 20th. The most recent occurring just this weekend. Fortunately, all 3 thus far haven’t resulted in serious injuries to innocent people.

What steps can the City immediately take to protect us residents? What are the additional traffic safety measures that you can undertake?
It’s often the case that cars are speeding down Fullerton Ave, regardless. So, can you at least start with speed bumps as a traffic calming measure on our street? Thank you,
Josef Jonathan
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.

From: Priscilla Rocco
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Get the Flock out of Costa Mesa, Take 2
Date: Tuesday, September 1, 2026 9:27:12 AM
Council Members,
Elsie Dominguez, a civilian engineer and graduate of the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, filed a federal lawsuit alleging the captain of the ship used his master-key-code to enter her room to rape her while she was unconcious. A U.S. federal judge dismissed her civil lawsuit ruling that as it occurred on a ship, it was a workplace injury/workers compensation claim.

Maria Mendez, a New York City police officer, was given opiate painkellers on duty to keep her compliant while she was repeatedly beaten and raped by multiple officers over a four year period. Her only option was to quit, which meant she didn't qualify for an NYPD disability pension, she ended up with Social Security disability benefits instead for debilitating PTSD.

There is a rape culture in this country, even the President is an adjudicated rapist, and over half the population is female. One in three girls will be sexually abused in her lifetime, and the penalty for abortion is more severe than the penalty for rape. In eight states, a rapist can petitioning for parental custody or visitation rights of the child of that rape.

Trump's pick for the director of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Dr. Erica Schwartz has said, "Abortion surveillance is absolutely a critical component of what the CDC is currently doing." Republican's Project 2025 mandates a nationwide governmental surveillance system like Flock, and the reporting of detailed personal data of every abortion in this country. MAGA Republicans want control over ALL females in this country.

Allowing Flock to continue in Costa Mesa is not only a death sentence for many of our immigrant neighbors - who work in care homes and hospitals - it will be a death sentence for many girls, mothers, sisters, and wives.

Your Old Boy testosterone poisoning has deluded the majority of this council into thinking their loud and defiant ignorance is better than scientists, experts, and all of the constituents who email and speak before you every session. Over 50 percent of this city is female. If Trump decides to target them, even your daughters, wives, sisters and mothers are not safe from Flock. No one is safe, if everyone is under surveillance. Every candidate for this council should pledge to Get the Flock out of Costa Mesa! Priscilla Rocco
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.

From: Beth Sahagen
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Public Comment for Sept 1 City Council Meeting - Del Mesa Park Violations Date: Saturday, August 22, 2026 10:44:33 AM
Dear City Clerk, please submit this comment into the public record for the upcoming City Council meeting regarding general community concerns.

I am a District 3 resident writing anonymously regarding a chronic public nuisance at Del Mesa Park (2080 Manistee Dr). For weeks, different groups of individuals has completely monopolized the park's primary benches and shade structures with bicycles and large amounts of personal property. Furthermore, they are actively smoking inside the park, in direct violation of Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 11- 134.

When residents contact non-emergency police dispatch, we are told nothing can be done. Neighborhood families and tax-paying residents are completely blocked from using these public amenities because these individuals treat the park as private property.

I request that the City Council direct the City Manager, Code Enforcement, and the Park Rangers to immediately enforce the city's smoking bans and public property storage laws at Del Mesa Park to restore access to the community.

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: Alex Brown
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Public comment for the city council meeting
Date: Sunday, August 30, 2026 4:56:27 PM
I pray and hope that this city will never fall into the pit of mismanagement that is OC Animal Care.

Any animal sheltering option is better than that.

Look at a just-published column by Ed Boks, the former Executive Director of the New York City, Los Angeles, and Maricopa County Animal Care & Control Departments, whose work has been published in the LA Times, New York Times, and Newsweek.

Orange County Animal Care: A Case Study in California’s Oversight Vacuum https://animalpolitics.substack.com/p/why-californias-shelter-oversight And look at what Voice of OC revealed:

Does Orange County’s Animal Care Director Live in California? https://voiceofoc.org/2026/07/does-orange-countys-animal-care-director-live-in-california/ The head of Orange County’s embattled animal shelter is facing questions over remote work, with questions about how much time she spends between Texas and California. • OCShelter.com has a collection of recent articles — and a complete list you can download.

Below is just a sample. Advocates have caught the shelter director in flagrant lies many times before. There’s a pattern here.

OC Register, September 25, 2024
County managers failed our animal shelter
https://www.ocregister.com/2024/09/24/county-managers-failed-our-animal-shelter/ [Note: There’s a problem in the OC Register app. If that app is on your device, press and hold the link, copy it, and then paste it into your web browser.] If you’re having trouble with the above link, try this Shareable Link. https://www.ocregister.com/2024/09/24/county-managers-failed-our-animal-shelter/?share=2opwholwe04gnaisaeiw Voice of OC, September 5, 2024
The OC Animal Shelter Director is All Image and No Substance https://voiceofoc.org/2024/09/mavrovouniotis-the-oc-animal-shelter-director-is-all-image-and-no-substance/ The county bureaucracy prefers political spinning over operational knowledge and experience. That’s why they chose Monica Schmidt for OC Animal Care Director. She overstated her animal sheltering qualifications to get the job, and she habitually misleads the community and elected officials.

Voice of OC, November 22, 2023
The OC Animal Shelter Lied About Its Safety Record. It Needed an Excuse to Keep the Kennels Off-Limits and Ditch Its Strategic Plan. https://voiceofoc.org/2023/11/mavrovouniotis-the-oc-animal-shelter-lied-about-its-safety-record-it-needed-an-excuse-to-keep-the-kennels-off-limits-and-ditch-its-strategic-plan/ The county misinformed the public and the Grand Jury. It understated the number of bites that occurred at the animal shelter in 2021-2022. In reality, shelter policies resulted in no safety improvements. False statistics served as a smokescreen for disregarding the Strategic Plan, blocking public access, and lowering animal care standards.

Voice of OC, November 14, 2023
Yamashiro: OC Animal Care Gave Hundreds of Rabbits, Guinea Pigs, and Birds to a Reptile Group. What Happened to Them? https://voiceofoc.org/2023/11/yamashiro-oc-animal-care-gave-hundreds-of-rabbits-guinea-pigs-and-birds-to-a-reptile-group-what-happened-to-them/ Voice of OC, August 7, 2023
Lawther: OC Animal Care is Unable to Keep Track of its Animals https://voiceofoc.org/2023/08/lawther-oc-animal-care-is-unable-to-keep-track-of-its-animals/ OCAC appears to have fabricated the only 2023 animal statistics it has published so far. We effectively know nothing about current animal intakes, outcomes, or kill rates. What we do know is that their data can’t be trusted. It’s time for the Board of Supervisor to act.

OC Register, May 6, 2026
OC pays $450,000 to shelter volunteer who was mauled by a dog https://www.ocregister.com/2026/05/06/oc-pays-450000-to-shelter-volunteer-who-was-mauled-by-a-dog/ 'The events of that day left me scarred both physically and mentally and continue to haunt me to this day,' says the 46-year-old victim Voice of OC, March 17, 2026
The County Animal Shelter has a Data Integrity Problem
https://voiceofoc.org/2026/03/mavrovouniotis-the-county-animal-shelter-has-a-data-integrity-problem/ Numbers don’t add up at OC Animal Care, and it’s not the first time. In shelter statistics, animals inexplicably vanish between reports. The billing calculations are based on faulty data as well. Why do the county and OC cities allow this? Fullerton Observer, March 5, 2026
Companion Animal Protection Society Releases Short Documentary Entitled A CAPS Investigation of OC Animal Care https://fullertonobserver.com/2026/03/05/companion-animal-protection-society-releases-short-documentary-entitled-a-caps-investigation-of-oc-animal-care/ Shelter mismanagement and failure by the county to conform to a strategic plan and audits have resulted in animal suffering.

You can view the 15-minute video here: A CAPS Investigation of OC Animal Care Voice of OC, February 2, 2026
Lamirande: How Negligent are OC Cities in Their Contract with the County Animal Shelter? https://voiceofoc.org/2026/02/lamirande-how-negligent-are-oc-cities-in-their-contract-with-the-county-animal-shelter/ Dear city officials, if you hire people with a track record of dishonesty and incompetence, you’re responsible for the consequences. If you are in favor of good governance and a good shelter you must make two demands: First, get rid of toxic managers. Second, transparently implement the Strategic Plan.

OC Register, August 17, 2025
Owner of Woofy Acres dog rescue charged with 16 counts of animal cruelty https://www.ocregister.com/2025/08/15/owner-of-woofy-acres-dog-rescue-charged-with-multiple-counts-of-animal-cruelty/ Excerpts:

The owner of a Southern California dog rescue has been charged with 37 criminal counts of mistreating the animals, nearly 100 of which were in such bad condition they had to be euthanized.

Woofy Acres first made headlines in early 2024 after Bedford was accused of abandoning 32 dogs — many from Orange County — at a Rowland Heights kennel in Los Angeles County.

Woofy Acres was heavily used by Orange County Animal Care.

Orange County Animal Care has released a total of 149 dogs to Woofy Acres, with the last placement in January 2024. It is unclear whether any dogs from Orange County were among the dogs seized by authorities.

Voice of OC, August 7, 2025
Two Dogs Dead in Transport from OC Animal Care to Idaho https://voiceofoc.org/2025/08/two-dogs-dead-in-transport-from-oc-animal-care-to-idaho/ Excerpt:
“U.S. Department of Transportation statistics show shortnosed breeds of dogs are more likely to die during air transport than dogs with normal-length muzzles, and similar risks are likely during road transportation,” reads a best practices resource document from the AVMA for relocating pets in non-emergency situations. “This is thought to be related to respiratory problems that are exacerbated by stress and difficulty with thermoregulation, so caution should be exercised when transporting these animals during warm weather,” it continues.

When transporting animals on the road, the American Veterinary Medical Association recommends keeping the trips as short as possible.

Voice of OC, February 18, 2025
OC Cities are Badly Served by the County Animal Shelter. Is Reform Possible? https://voiceofoc.org/2025/02/lamirande-oc-cities-are-badly-served-by-the-county-animal-shelter-is-reform-possible/ Residents paid OC Animal Care $5.8 million in license fees. On top of that, OC cities paid $15.7 million out of their budgets. The county bureaucracy collected $8.4 million in admin costs. Supervisors Nguyen and Sarmiento, representing high-paying cities, are pushing for a better shelter. Supervisor Foley is protecting the mismanagement.

Animal Politics with Ed Boks, Substack, January 24, 2025 Vanished Without a Trace: The Mystery of the Disappearing Animals at Orange County Animal Care https://animalpolitics.substack.com/p/vanished-without-a-trace-the-mystery (The author, Ed Boks, is a former Executive Director of the New York City, Los Angeles, and Maricopa County Animal Care & Control Departments. His work has been published in the LA Times, New York Times, Newsweek, Real Clear Policy, Sentient Media, and now on Animal Politics with Ed Boks) Voice of OC, November 22, 2024
Boyer: County Managers Responsible for the Animal Shelter’s Decline are Turning Their Back on the Community https://voiceofoc.org/2024/11/boyer-county-managers-responsible-for-the-animal-shelters-decline-are-turning-their-back-on-the-community/ County managers and the animal shelter director are stalling and delaying. They’re not applying the shelter’s Strategic Plan. They want to throw it away and waste taxpayer money on a “new” plan, to cover up their own failure. They are turning their back on community standards.

Foothills Sentry, October 30, 2024
Failing Furry Friends
https://foothillssentry.com/letters/f/letters-to-the-editor-failing-furry-friends Excerpts:

Dedicated OC animal shelter volunteers are sounding the alarm.

A 2023 report by the OC Grand Jury documented the understaffing in animal care attendants (ACAs), the conscientious frontline staff responsible for the day-to-day care of "hundreds of dogs, cats, kittens, and other animals.” Instead of addressing the problem, [shelter director] Schmidt has resorted to false statements to cover it up.

The volunteers offer a stark breakdown of the staffing numbers. At the time of the Grand Jury report, there were only 21 ACA positions. The county’s own consultants recommended having 52 (two weekly shifts of 26 each). Can 21 staff members do the work of 52? “You’ve been lied to,” warn the volunteers. Schmidt "has done what she does best and told you a story about staffing that simply isn’t true.” Schmidt has a "penchant for making up numbers." The letter urges the Board of Supervisors to investigate further and to "send a clear message to Monica Schmidt that lies will not be tolerated." Her failure to address these critical staffing issues directly impacts the care of the animals.

New revelations surfaced after the volunteers’ letter: It appears that Schmidt grossly inflated her qualifications in her job application. This certainly explains the combination of ignorance and disinformation that are the hallmarks of her management style.

Voice of OC, May 16, 2024
Yamashiro: OC Animal Care – Mismanagement and Public Deception Regarding Small Pets https://voiceofoc.org/2024/05/yamashiro-oc-animal-care-mismanagement-and-public-deception-regarding-small-pets/ OC Animal Care has been involved in transferring small pets to a reptile organization, which subsequently transported them to Arizona. In a related situation, it was reported that small pets from San Diego Humane Society were likely sold in Arizona as snake food. OCAC has not provided clear explanations regarding the fate of these animals, and support from County Supervisors Wagner and Foley has been lacking.

Fullerton Observer, March 12, 2024
More Bad News About Orange County Animal Care
https://fullertonobserver.com/2024/03/12/more-bad-news-about-orange-county-animal-care/ Excerpts:

On September 10 last year, the OC animal shelter handed over rescue dogs Baron, Kate, Enzo, and Nevin to the group Woofy Acres. OC staff were concerned. Jaime Link, OCAC Operations Manager, wrote:
“We recently had a rescue pick-up with the listed representative, Diane (see PID screenshot), and the shelter team reported that her vehicle emitted an odor of animal waste and grime reminiscent of most hoarding houses. She was also behaving erratically and yelling at staff in the lobby. The rescuer has recently been pulling a lot of aggressive dogs (5 today), and I am concerned they may be going into less-than-ideal conditions.” In the nine prior weeks (from July 5 to September 8 last year), the OC animal shelter had already given 21 dogs to Woofy Acres. The shelter gave a total of 128 dogs to Woofy Acres in 2020-2023.

In February, the OC Register reported that Woofy Acres abandoned 32 dogs at a dog boarding facility last year. Some were in the facility for two years. Woofy Acres is delinquent on its bills and state-mandated paperwork. Almost half of the abandoned dogs were given to Woofy Acres by OC Animal Care in 2021. The OC shelter gave many more dogs to Woofy Acres in 2022 and 2023; what happened to them is unknown.

Spokesperson Alexa Pratt told the Register that “the agency was unaware of any problems with Woofy Acres when it released dogs to the rescue, the last ones going in early January.” But Jaime Link’s September 10, 2023 email tells a different story. OC was very aware of problems through the first-hand observations of conscientious staff.

It is unknown what research the shelter did, but it seems it didn’t even try to verify Woofy Acres’s charity status with the state.

Michael Mavrovouniotis, an animal welfare advocate, said, “Mid-level and frontline OCAC staff love the animals and are doing their best to get good outcomes for them. I applaud Jaime Link and the animal care staff, who spoke up. They did the right thing. They showed a better shelter is possible. However, the top managers at the shelter and OC Community Resources don’t show the same concern for the welfare of the animals in their care. They falsely claim that they didn’t know there were any problems.” The shelter just kept handing animals over to Woofy Acres. In the last five months of 2023, the shelter gave 48 dogs to Woofy Acres after Woofy Acres had already abandoned dogs. Of those, 23 dogs were handed over after Jaime Link’s red-flag email describing erratic behavior and signs of hoarding.

Unaccounted animals include Tate, Bonnie, and Gadget, who came from Fullerton. None of these dogs are in the boarding facility. The shelter booked them as successes in its statistics, but the actual fate of the animals is unknown. OC residents concerned about what happened to these dogs can [http://The%20OCAC%20has%20been%20criticized%20for%20not%20tracking%20animals%20in%20its%20statistics,%20giving%20pet%20bunnies,%20hamsters,%20and%20guinea%20pigs%20to%20a%20group%20specializing%20in%20snakes,%20and%20maintaining%20pandemic- era%20policies.%20On%20September%2010%20last%20year,%20the%20OC%20animal%20shelter%20handed%20over%20rescue%20dogs%20Baron,%20Kate,%20Enzo,%20and%20Nevin%20to%20the%20group%20Woofy%20Acres.%20OC%20staff%20were%20concerned.%20Jaime%20Link,%20OCAC%20Operations%20Manager,%20wrote] contact
the Board of Supervisors and their local elected officials to ask for a full accounting.

OC Register, March 5, 2024
Animal rescue abandons dozens of dogs at Rowland Heights kennel Dogs from OC agency among 32 abandoned by group
https://www.ocregister.com/2024/03/04/animal-rescue-abandons-dozens-of-dogs-at-rowland-heights-shelter/ Excerpts:

Especially troubling to animal activists is that Orange County Animal Care has released 128 dogs to Woofy Acres since 2019, according to county records compiled by activist Michael Mavrovouniotis. “The Orange County shelter just takes the view that we don’t care who takes the animals as long as we get them off our books,” He believes Orange County Animal Care should do a better job of screening animal rescues and following up on placements. “It’s part of (Orange County’s) reliance on rescues,” Mavrovouniotis said. “The shelter is not doing enough to make adoptions easier and their safety valve is to push as many animals as possible … to rescues.” OC Register, February 11, 2024
Fewer dogs, more death, at OC Animal Care
https://www.ocregister.com/2024/02/11/fewer-dogs-more-death-at-oc-animal-care/ Column: Comparison of pre- and post-pandemic years show failure of shelter policies, critics charge. But things are changing, shelter asks for support Excerpts:

The “kill rate” for dogs at Orange County’s main animal shelter shot up markedly under its appointment-centric visitation system, where folks couldn’t browse the full furry inventory at their leisure, data suggests.

Rather than throwing the doors all the way open, Orange County stuck largely to pandemic protocol last year, preferring that people peruse pooch photos online, then make appointments to meet those animals in person. […] “Concierge service,” they called it.

Critics countered that the system benefitted shelter managers, not animals or the adopting public. It’s easier to not have all those pesky outside eyeballs on your operations, they charged.

Three hours every day is better, critics said, but all the kennels with adoptable animals should welcome the public every hour they’re open.

Nationally, the number of dogs who were euthanized or who died in care rose as well. But while that jumped 12% nationwide, it rose 54% in Orange County. That, Mavrovouniotis maintains, shows O.C. is doing something wrong. “By any metric I looked at, national trends don’t explain OCAC’s decline,” he said.

Yes, folks, please, absolutely. Foster! Volunteer! Help our unwanted animals be wanted and loved again! Let them sleep on the bed! We may be a bit naïve, but it seems that supporting the shelter, and opening it wider as activists demand, are not necessarily mutually exclusive things. “It’s quite simple, really,” said Boyer. “They need to open up the shelter all the way, all the buildings, so people can walk through and look at all the available dogs. It was working fine before COVID. Why don’t you back to doing what you did?” The numbers, Boyers maintains, understate the full magnitude of the problem. “Because of slow adoptions, the shelter got severely overcrowded in the fall. A lot of dogs weren’t going to make it out alive, but the hangar fire brought in the ASPCA that saved 100+ dogs. “Under the partial re-opening, the public can view only about 65 to 70 dogs. But the shelter has about 100 dogs available for adoption. Visitors should be able to see all of them in their kennels. The shelter shouldn’t be hiding 30 to 35 dogs out of sight.” Fullerton Observer, January 2, 2024
Animal Advocates Call for Independent Investigation of OC Animal Care https://fullertonobserver.com/2024/01/02/animal-advocates-call-for-independent-investigation-of-oc-animal-care/ Excerpts with added web links to supporting documents:

In just 20 months, OC Animal Care (OCAC) gave 273 rodents, 200 rabbits, and other small pets to a reptile group.

On a recent similar case involving animals from San Diego, the Sacramento Bee reports that: “Information clearly indicates (the reptile breeder’s) intention to use these animals as feed instead of finding them adoptive homes.” Snapshots of email correspondence obtained via Public Record requests show that the OC shelter typically offered many small pets at once. The reptile group then took rodents and rabbits in bulk without asking for precise numbers and types of animals. That’s highly unusual.

OC Animal Care made this reptile group its primary destination for small pets.

In the past, [the reptile group] has advertised the availability of “feeder” rodents, including live ones.

An independent outside investigator must be appointed directly by the Board of Supervisors to get a verifiable paper trail for every animal the OC shelter handed over to the reptile group.

OC Register, December 21, 2023
Orange County supervisors shrug at shelter’s animal cruelty https://www.ocregister.com/2023/12/19/orange-county-supervisors-shrug-at-shelters-animal-cruelty Excerpts:

The problems focus on poor management that leads to the unnecessary euthanizing of adoptable pets. The issue cries out for attention from the Board of Supervisors.

One issue, detailed in news reports and columns, is easy to fix. Animal Care continues with COVID-era limitations on public access to kennels and has cut back programs to proactively find homes for homeless pets. That’s unconscionable this long after the lifting of pandemic restrictions.

The Register’s Teri Sforza found such policies have contributed to maddening statistics: a kill rate for adult dogs that “has nearly doubled since 2018, and the amount of time they spend behind bars has jumped 60%.” Local activists have been providing alarming data and anecdotal stories.

OC Register, December 2, 2023
OC Animal Care sought to avoid optics of sending bunnies to local reptile rescue group https://www.ocregister.com/2023/12/01/oc-animal-care-sought-to-avoid-optics-of-sending-bunnies-to-local-reptile-rescue-group/ Foothills Sentry, December 1, 2023
OC Animal Care doesn't
https://foothillssentry.com/letters/f/letters-to-the-editor-oc-animal-care-doesnt If you want to see the printed layout:
https://fbs.advantageinc.com/foothillssentry/122023/4/ Voice of OC, October 25, 2023 Lawther: Animal Shelter Deteriorates as County Bureaucracy Keeps Supervisors in the Dark https://voiceofoc.org/2023/10/lawther-animal-shelter-deteriorates-as-county-bureaucracy-keeps-supervisors-in-the-dark/ OC Community Resources covered up the deterioration of the animal shelter. It put together a false narrative for internal use, but kept it from the public. Meanwhile, the shelter’s kill rate is rising, dogs get very little socialization, and data collection is dismal. Why is the shelter flouting its own Strategic Plan? OC Register, October 14, 2023
Advocates horrified over mysterious fate of small animals https://www.ocregister.com/2023/10/13/advocates-horrified-over-mysterious-fate-of-small-animals/?share=saaeotyscecmamsaw1ie or
https://www.ocregister.com/2023/10/13/advocates-horrified-over-mysterious-fate-of-small-animals/ Voice of OC, October 4, 2023
Lamirande: Volunteer Mauled by Dog at Orange County Animal Care, While Mismanagement Worsens https://voiceofoc.org/2023/10/lamirande-volunteer-mauled-by-dog-at-orange-county-animal-care-while-mismanagement-worsens/ Voice of OC, August 24, 2023
Barba: OC Animal Care Needs to Get Its Facts Straight
https://voiceofoc.org/2023/08/barba-oc-animal-care-needs-to-get-its-facts-straight/ OCAC is making false claims to cover up its poor performance. It can’t even count its animals correctly. Although fewer animals are coming in than pre-pandemic, the shelter has higher kill rates and longer stays. More adopted animals end up returned. OCAC has been failing its Strategic Plan – and hiding it.

Fullerton Observer, August 16, 2023 (This is a multi-section article. Make sure you scroll down!) OC residents raise concerns over OC Animal Care shelter Orange County Tax Payers and Homeless Animals Deserve Better OC Animal Care is continuing to mislead the public
https://fullertonobserver.com/2023/08/16/oc-residents-raise-concerns-over-oc-animal-care-shelter/ Voice of OC, August 10, 2023
OC Officials Dispute Scathing Grand Jury Report on Increased Kill Rates at Animal Shelter https://voiceofoc.org/2023/08/oc-officials-dispute-scathing-grand-jury-report-on-increased-kill-rates-at-animal-shelter/ OC Register, May 11, 2023
OC’s animal shelter still a killing zone
https://www.ocregister.com/2023/05/11/ocs-animal-shelter-still-a-killing-zone/ OC Register, May 10, 2023
Revamp Orange County Animal Care shelter policies, critics tell OC supervisors https://www.ocregister.com/2023/05/10/revamp-orange-county-animal-care-shelter-policies-critics-tell-oc-supervisors/ OC Register, May 7, 2023
More adult dogs dying at OC Animal Care, kennels largely off-limits https://www.ocregister.com/2023/05/07/more-adult-dogs-dying-at-oc-animal-care-kennels-largely-off-limits/?share=tocecdmereiywdporla0 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: Paul Waggoner
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Comments for 9/1/26 City Council Meeting
Date: Friday, August 28, 2026 1:23:58 PM
Attachments: image.png
Dear City Clerk and City Council,
Coastal Corridor Alliance (CCA) respectfully submits our comments on the 9/1/26 City Council Agenda item 5 of the Consent Calendar.

The Fonroche Design and Cost attachment specifies the light color temperature at 3K. We ask that the frequency not exceed 2700, as above 2700 temperatures emit blue light which attracts key pollinators, keeping them from their feeding and function. This is a leading cause of pollinator death and pollination function decline.

Please also ensure that proper hooding is installed to prevent above- fixture light pollution (see below image). Without it, birds and bats are disrupted in their feeding and migration.

Consider enacting a City lighting ordinance that applies to all of Costa Mesa's lighting projects to align with DarkSky International's principles, as seen here: https://darksky.org/resources/guides-and-how-tos/lighting- principles/
Additional resources:

1. A collection or resources by Access
Fixtures: https://www.accessfixtures.com/outdoor-lighting-nocturnal- pollinators-wildlife-friendly/

2. Proper light hooding:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. We are available for questions.

Paul Waggoner
Programs Administrator
Cell: (949) 820-9094
Follow: Website, Subscribe, Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, BlueSky 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.

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

August 19, 2026

VIA EMAIL

Mayor John Stephens and Costa Mesa City Council
c/o City Clerk
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
[email protected]

Housing Element Comment Portal Email
[email protected]

RE: Public Comment on August 12, 2026 Revised Housing Element Draft

To Mayor Stephens and the Honorable Members of the City Council:

Disability Rights California (DRC), the Public Interest Law Project (PILP), and the Law Office of Autumn Elliott submit this public comment regarding the City of Costa Mesa’s August 12, 2026, draft 2021-2029 Housing Element. DRC, which submits these comments on behalf of its constituents and itself, is the nonprofit agency designated under state and federal law to protect and advocate for the rights of people with disabilities

in California.1 PILP is a California legal services support center that provides technical assistance, training, research, litigation, and advocacy support to public interest law programs and community based organizations on law and policy issues related to housing, public benefits, anti-displacement, community preservation, and civil rights. In addition to the comment provided in this letter, we join the public comment submitted by Christopher Brancart of the Brancart & Brancart firm.

The proposed amendments to the City’s Housing Element do not substantially comply with Housing Element Law, as discussed in greater detail below. Further, adoption of the proposed amendments—specifically the proposed amendments to Programs 2N (Reasonable
Accommodation), 2O (Definition of Single Housekeeping Unit), and 2P (Group Homes)—would be an action materially inconsistent with the City’s duty to affirmativley further fair housing pursuant to Government Code section 8899.50. Contrary to the proposed revisions in the draft Housing Element, which erroneously indicate that Programs 2N, 2O, and 2P have been completed with the April 7, 2026, adoption of Ordinances 2026-03 and 2026-04, these programs remain unfulfilled according to their own terms and objectives. As further discussed below, these Ordinances adopted in April do not ensure compliance with fair housing law or the duty to affirmatively further fair housing, but rather continue to violate the duties and protections of these laws by imposing restrictions and requirements on supportive shared housing for people with disabilities not imposed on other types of residential housing. Even worse, some of the revisions in Ordinances 2026-03 and 2026-04 exacerbate these issues and invite further discrimination against people with disabilities who live in, or wish to live in, supportive shared housing for people with disabilities in the City.

1 Disability Rights California provides services pursuant to the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 15001, PL 106-402; the Protection and Advocacy for Mentally Ill Individuals Act, 42 U.S.C. § 10801, PL 106- 310; the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794e, PL 106-402; the Assistive Technology Act, 29 U.S.C. § 3011,3012, PL 105-394; the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1320b-20, PL 106-170; the Children’s Health Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. § 300d-53, PL 106-310; and the Help America Vote Act of 2002, 42 U.S.C. § 15461-62, PL 107-252; as well as under California Welfare and Institutions Code §§ 4900 et seq.

I. The City’s Zoning Code Reasonable Accommodation Ordinance Continues to Violate State and Federal Fair Housing Law.

Program 2N of the City’s adopted Sixth Cycle Housing Element2 requires the City to “review and adopt revisions to its Reasonable Accommodation process to be consistent with State and federal fair housing requirements” (Adopted Housing Element, 4-11.) The required amendments to the reasonable accommodation ordinance must “promote access to housing for persons with disabilities, address potential constraints and establish potential objective standards, and provide guidance and amend as necessary to promote greater certainty on how approval findings will be implemented.” (Adopted Housing Element, 4-12.) The City’s August 2026 Draft Housing Element proposes amendments to Program 2N that, if adopted, would read: “In April 2026, the City approved revisions to its Reasonable Accommodation process to be consistent with State and federal fair housing requirements.” This proposed update is inaccurate because the April 2026 revisions to the reasonable accommodation ordinance did not render it consistent with state and federal fair housing requirements. The reasonable accommodation ordinance, as amended April 2026, continues to violate applicable fair housing laws and fails to promote access to housing for people with disabilites. Rather than making the false claim that Program 2N has been successfully implemented, the City should commit to implementing it fully by making further amendments to the reasonable accommodation ordinance to correct the deficiencies discussed below.

The City’s Reasonable Accommodation procedure in its Zoning Code, which is Section 13-200.62 of its Municipal Code, includes a number of requirements that run afoul of California and federal fair housing law.

Although the City approved Ordinance No. 2026-03 to amend Section 13- 200.62 in April, this amendement merely removed one subsection that

2 References to the adopted Sixth Cycle Housing Element are to the March 2023 Housing Element available on HCD’s website at https://hcdpowerbi.blob.core.windows.net/housing-elements/CostaMesa- 6th-Adopted-031023.pdf.

included unlawful criteria and left Section 13-200.62 replete with provisions that contravene fair housing law.

There remain many ways that Section 13-200.62 does not conform with California and federal fair housing law. As an initial example, Section 13- 200.62 (f) provides a list of findings “all of which are required for approval” of a reasonable accommodation request, but includes required Findings (3), (5), and (7)3 that improperly impose the burden of proof on the person or entity seeking the accommodation to establish an absence of the factors listed therein. As written, Findings (3), (5), and (7) require affirmative findings that there is no undue financial or administrative burden, no direct threat, and no fundamental alteration for the approval of a reasonable accommodation request. In other words, they require that the City affirmatively finds that those factors are not present. This has the effect of putting the burden on the person or entity making the request to establish the absence of an undue burden or fundamental alteration. That is contrary to fair housing law, which makes it the City’s burden to establish that there is an undue burden, direct threat, or fundamental alteration before denying a reasonable accommodation request. Section 13-200.62 (f) cannot be remedied without restructuring as it combines Findings (1) and (2) that are properly the burden of the person or entity seeking approval of the reasonable accommodation with Findings (3), (5), and (7) that are the City’s burden to establish if there is a legitimate reason the accommodation cannot be provided. These two types of findings must be bifurcated by restructuring the ordinance. Although DRC previously provided public comment before the adoption of this revised Ordinance in April of this year, the City did not make changes to address this issue.

The language of Section 13-200.62 fails to adequately reflect the law governing the findings that the City must establish to deny an otherwise valid reasonable accommodation request. For example, any decision by the City to deny a reasonable accommodation on the basis that it would be

3 As referenced herein, Finding (7) means subdivision (f)(7) of the required Findings for approval of a reasonable accommodation according to the update to Costa Mesa’s Municipal Code pursuant to Ordinance 2026-03. Before the adoption of this Ordinance, current Finding (7) was previously Finding (8), as prior Finding (7) was removed by the City with its April revision of Section 13-200.62.

an undue burden or fundamental alteration must 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); see also 2 Cal. Code Regs., § 12179 (d) (standards for denial based on undue burden and fundamental alteration). The City’s reasonable accommodation ordinance, however, requires no such finding by the City and instead places the burden on the requestor to prove the absence of an undue burden or fundamental alteration. As another example, both federal and state law require that any denial of a reasonable accommodation request based on a direct threat finding must also find that the threat cannot be mitigated by reasonable accommodation. 28 C.F.R. §35.139; 2 Cal. Code, Regs. § 12179 (b)(3). In contrast, the City’s reasonable accommodation ordinance requires denial of a reasonable accommodation request if the accommodation would result in a direct threat, without consideration of additional accommodations that would mitigate the threat. Costa Mesa Mun. Code, § 13-200.62 (f)(5). Again, despite previous public comments and technical assistance from state Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) describing these issues and recommending revisions, the City has not made changes.

Letter from Melinda Coy to Carrie Tai re: City of Costa Mesa – Request for Reasonable Accommodation, 115 E. Wilson Street – Letter of Technical Assistance (June 8, 2026) (HCD 6/8/2026 TA Letter), 10.

Section 13-200.62(f) also allows and, in some cases, requires denial of reasonable accommodations for reasons that are not permitted by federal and state fair housing laws. Again, the examples provided here were previously submitted in public comment before the adoption of Ordinance 2026-03, but the City did not address these issues. For example, Finding (4) requires a finding that the “requested accommodation is consistent with surrounding uses in scale and intensity of use.” This provision allows the City to deny a reasonable accommodation on grounds that the proposed development or use is different from the existing uses on surrounding sites, even if the proposed development or use would not constitute a direct threat, undue burden, or fundamental alteration. Additionally, the language

affords the planning director significant discretion to deny a requested accommodation based on their subjective view that the proposed development or use is inconsistent with surrounding uses even though a denial on that basis would violate state and federal fair housing laws. As noted by HCD in its June 8, 2026, letter of technical assistance to the City, provisions like finding (4) “create constraints on housing for persons with disabilities that are contrary to the intent of Housing Element Program 2N.” HCD 6/8/2026 TA Letter, 9.

Similarly, Finding (6) improperly imposes a requirement in some instances for “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.” As noted by HCD in its June 8, 2026, technical assistance letter, this required finding involves “considerations beyond the individual request and the residence it involves, in violation of state law.” HCD 6/8/2026 TA Letter, 10.

Evaluation of a reasonable accommodation request involves an individualized inquiry, and consideration of the economic circumstances of other “market participants” is not appropriate. Finding (6) will be operationally difficult for staff or the applicants to make this determination given lack of information. 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. In order to comport with fair housing law, this should likewise not be listed as a required finding.

Following the amendment to the ordinance earlier this year that deleted prior Finding (7)4, the language of Finding (2) should also be revised. It currently states that “[t]he requested accommodation is necessary to provide one or more individuals with a disability an equal opportunity to use

4 As referenced herein, “prior Finding (7)” means the previous Finding required by subdivision (f)(7) before the April 7, 2026, adoption of Ordinance 2026-03 that removed this subdivision from the City’s Zoning Code. Prior Finding (7) required that “the existing supply of facilities of a similar nature and operation in the community is sufficient to provide individuals with a disability an equal opportunity to live in a residential setting.”

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.

Additional examples of unlawful criteria that remain in the City’s Reasonable Accommodation procedure include Sections 13-200.62(e) and (g), and which DRC previously provided public comment before the April adoption of Ordinance 2026-03, regarding “considerations” that 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 current ordinance permits consideration of “whether granting the request would be consistent with the City's General Plan.” But 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 accommodation is inconsistent with the City’s General Plan or “the degree of deviation” from it, but whether granting it would fundamentally alter the General Plan. See also HCD 6/8/2026 TA Letter, 10 (noting that this provision “are subjective, potentially prejudicial, and can serve as constraints, violating Housing Element Law”).

The ordinance also allows consideration of whether “the requested accommodation would fundamentally alter the character of the neighborhood” and whether “the accommodation would result in a substantial increase in traffic or insufficient parking.” Costa Mesa Mun.

Code, § 13-200.62(g)(1), (2). As noted by HCD in its June 8, 2026, technical assistance letter, these provisions “are subjective, potentially prejudicial, and can serve as constraints, violating Housing Element Law.” HCD 6/8/2026 TA Letter, 10. The ordinance also allows denial on grounds that the reasonable accommodation would “create an institutionalized environment due to the number of and distance between facilities that are similar in nature or operation,” effectively allowing denial of reasonable accommodations based on the planning director’s subjective view that the City already has “enough” of a particular type of housing for people with disabilities. Costa Mesa Mun. Code § 13-200.62(g)(4). The City may not use vague or undefined conditions as a basis for denial of a reasonable accommodation request. The City must amend or eliminate these and other subsections (e) and (g) of Costa Mesa’s reasonable accommodation ordinance before the ordinance will comply with federal and state fair housing laws.

Other portions of Section 13-200.62 as currently written also run afoul of federal and state fair housing law. Again, DRC had previously provided this public comment before the adoption of Ordinance 2026-03. 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 current 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.

As another example, and also previously provided in public comment by DRC, 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 made by legislative bodies, and no public notice should be made regarding reasonable accommodation reviews. We have already seen that 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, as the City is aware, DRC previously represented Jane Doe, in the matter Insight Psychology and Addiction, Inc, et al. v. City of Costa Mesa, regarding Costa Mesa’s zoning disrimination against supportive shared housing for people with mental health disabilities. 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 another member of the public testified to the City Council that the “mentally ill cannot associate with our children, neighbors.” Hearing those types of

prejudicial 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.

In short, these examples provide a nonexhaustive list of many of the ways that the amendment to Section 13-200.62 that the City approved by way of Ordinance No. 2026-03 is inadequate to render its Reasonable Accommodation process consistent with California and federal fair housing law. The City moved forward with this inadequate amendment and failed to further amend Section 13-200.62 despite repeated public comment from Disability Rights California, and others in the community, which articulated many of the ways that its reasonable accommodation zoning ordinance violates California and federal fair housing law.

We urge the City to abandon its proposed amendment to Program 2N of its Housing Element and instead take action to ensure that its Zoning Code reasonable accommodation procedures comply with state and federal fair housing requirements.

II. The City’s Definition of “Single Housekeeping Unit” Perpetuates and Exacerbates Limitations on Shared Housing Opportunities for People with Disabilities to Live Together in Supportive Settings.

Program 2O of the City’s Sixth Cycle Housing Element provides for adoption of revisions to its definition of “Single Houskeeping Unit” in its

Zoning Code “to provide greater flexibility in consideration of accommodating a variety of household situations for related and unrelated individuals living together.” Adopted Housing Element, 4-12. The City’s proposed amendments to Program 2O, if adopted, would read: “In April 2026, the City adopted revisions to its zoning code per the objectives below.” This proposed revision is inaccurate because the City’s amendment to this definition of Single Housekeeping Unit in April of this year continues to impose unworkable and invasive criteria that are difficult for the City to assess and enforce in an objective and equitable manner, which ultimately invites discriminatory enforcement and limits shared housing opportunities for people with disabilities.

When the City adopted Ordinance 2026-03 it further exacerbated existing problems with the definition by removing objective standards and instead set forth invasive criteria that the City cannot practically review and enforce in a nondiscriminatory, equitable manner, and without invading the privacy of households.

The City’s definition of Single Housekeeping Unit is an incredibly invasive intrusion into the privacy of Costa Mesa families and homes. The government should not be monitoring whether the members of a private household are eating dinner together, keeping joint bank accounts, or having regular conversations with one another, or keeping tabs on who has taken responsibility for keeping the living room or the kitchen clean and tidy. The depth of the privacy invasion contemplated by the single housekeeping unit definition suggests that the City intends to reserve investigation and enforcement of the definition against disfavored classes of people who historically and routinely still experience discrimination, such as people with disabilities.

The definition of “Single Housekeeping Unit” also invites discriminatory enforcement in other ways. The requirement that “residential activities” be conducted on a “not-for-profit” basis would also exclude people with a variety of disability-related needs, such as the need to pay someone to assist them with activities of daily living. See Letter from Paul McDougall

to Lori Ann Farrell Harrison re: Group Home Ordinances – Letter of Technical Assistance (Nov. 29, 2023), 6 (noting that “problematic policies include requiring all residents to share a common lease or deed, excluding for-profit group homes and overly scrutinizing living arrangements (e.g., not allowing for locks on rooms or having separate entrances).”). The meal-sharing requirement discriminates against people who have religious or medical dietary needs that require separate meals and food preparation. The entire definition take in whole discriminates against seniors and people with disabilities who need to rent out a room or rooms (whether as homeowner or tenant) in order to remain living independently in the community, or who cannot take on shared responsibilities, expenses, or activities due to a physical or mental impairment or to participation in disability-related public benefit programs that prohibit or penalize such sharing.

Although DRC and others have previously provided public comment on these problems with this definition prior to the adoption of Ordinance 2026- 03, the City nevertheless moved forward with this problematic definition.

The discrimination that the definition of “Single Houskeeping Unit” invites is significant to the availability of shared housing for people with disabilities within the City because only housing that meets this definition is permitted as of right in every residential district according to the City’s Land Use Matrix under Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-30. Thus, it is incorrect that the April 2026 revisions to the “Single Housekeeping Unit” definition would provide greater flexibility in consideration of accommodating a variety of household situations for related and unrelated individuals living together. For these reasons, we urge the City to discard its proposed revision to Program 2O in the draft Housing Element and instead fully implement Program 2O by amending it as discussed above.

III. The City’s Zoning Code “Goup Home” Regulation Ordinances Continue and Worsen Discrimination Against People With
Disabilities.

Program 2P of the City’s Sixth Cycle Housing Element requires adoption of revisions in its Zoning Code regarding regulations of “group homes,” which are defined under the City’s code to apply exclusively to people with disabilities living in supportive shared housing.5 Program 2P requires the City review and adopt revisions to its zoning code applicable to group homes to affirmatively further fair housing and comply with fair housing laws.” Adopted Housing Element, 4-12. To that end, the City must “Review and revise the City’s zoning code and application procedures applicable to group homes to promote objectivity and greater approval certainty similar to other residential uses.” Ibid. The City now proposes to amend Program 2P to read: “In April 2026, the City approved revisions to its Zoning Code applicable to group homes to affirmatively further fair housing and comply with fair housing laws per the objectives below.” This proposed update is false and should be withdrawn because the Ordinances 2026-03 and 2026-04, adopted in April 2026, did not remedy the City’s group home regulations’ violations of applicable fair housing laws, and the City continues to subject group homes to requirements that it does not apply to other uses.

The City’s Zoning Code continues discriminatory regulation of supportive shared housing for people with disabilities, even after the adoption of Ordinances 2026-03 and 2026-04. Both before and after the revisions of these ordinances, the City’s “group home” regulations only permit supportive shared housing for people with disabilities in residential use zones with conditional or special use permits and impose significantly burdensome permitting requirements and restrictions under Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-322(a), including separation requirements of

5 Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-6 defines shared housing for people with disabilities as a “group home” meaning “[a] facility that is being used as a supportive living environment for persons who are considered handicapped under state and federal law” and “shall not include the followin g: (1) residential care facilities; (2) any group home that operates as a single housekeeping unit; (3) any group home without an operator.”

650 feet between “group homes” or sober living homes. As noted in HCD’s technical assistance letter of November 29, 2023:

These spacing requirements have a particularly severe impact on group homes, severely limiting where they can locate, causing group homes to close, and preventing others from opening. Yet the City has not shown that these spacing requirements are necessary or that there are health, safety, or similar justifications for the spacing requirements, or that if these were actual issues, that the City could not address them through less restrictive and discriminatory policies.

HCD TA 11/29/2023 TA Letter, 8. Significantly, Ordinances 2026-03 and 2026-04 revised the definition of “group home” to effectively require shared housing for people with disabilities to have “an operator” and require an operator’s permit. But it is both illegal discrimination and an insult to people with disabilities to assume that disabled people cannot live together in the community without someone governing the behavior of the residents as residents, setting rules for them, or otherwise supervising them. Rather than fixing the problems with the group home regulations, which already limit in a discriminatory way where people with a disability-related need to share housing can live, Ordinance 2026-03 exacerbates the problem.

The current group home regulations also provide for a discriminatory review process. The April revision to the notice requirement in Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-311(b) in Ordinance 2026-03 does not eliminate its discriminatory nature. Calling the notice a “courtesy” written notice does nothing to lessen the problem that the notice allows neighbors to express discriminatory animus against people with disabilities as part of the group home special use permit process. As City planner Anna McGill acknowledged at the February 9, 2026, Planning Commission hearing regarding this proposed language, no other ministerial permit process has such a notice requirement. It is discriminatory against people with disabilities to impose this notice requirement for group homes. As noted by HCD in its November 29, 2023, technical assistance letter, such notice

requirements “burden group homes with additional, unjustified costs, while perpetuating fears and stereotypes about persons with disabilities.” HCD 11/29/2023 TA Letter, 9. The City’s regulations of “group homes” in its Zoning Code continue to single out supportive shared housing for people with disabilities for this treatment.

These revisions to the “group home” definition and regulations in Ordinances 2026-03 and 2026-04 adopted in April worsen discrimination against people with disabilities rather than ensure compliance with fair housing law. The City chose to make these revisions despite public comment from Disability Rights California and others warning that these would compound the existing problems with how the City’s regulation of “group homes” contravene the duty to affirmatively further fair housing and fair housing law. These issues with the City’s “group home” regulations still exist after the City’s revision to its Zoning Code in April. Accordingly, it is untrue that Program 2P has been revised to affirmatively further fair housing and comply with fair housing laws to promote objectivity and greater approval certainty similar to other residential uses. Instead, the City’s Zoning Code regulation of supportive shared housing for people with disabilities continues to treat this housing differently and less favorably than othe residential uses, and worsened these problems. Rather than amending Program 2P as proposed, the City should fully implement Program 2P by amending its group home regulations to remove discriminatory barriers to the siting and operation of group homes within the City.

IV. The proposed revisions to Programs 2N, 2O, and 2P do not substantially comply with Housing Element Law.

Government Code 65583 (c)(3) requires Housing Elements to:

Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental and nongovernmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing, including housing for all income levels and housing for persons with disabilities. The program shall

remove constraints to, and provide reasonable accommodations for housing designed for, intended for occupancy by, or with supportive services for, persons with disabilities. . . .

The Adopted Housing Element included Programs 2N, 2O, and 2P to fulfill this obligation, but the City failed to implement them by their December 2024 deadline. See Adopted Housing Element, 4-11 to 4-12. Now the City proposes amendments that not only include false information about the programs’ implementation status but also would eliminate any stated steps to bring the City’s Reasonable Accommodation ordinance, Single Housekeeping Unit definition, and “group home” regulations into compliance with applicable law. Rather than committing to removing constraints to housing for people with disabilities, the proposed amendments evince the City’s intent to allow those constraints to persist for the remainder of the planning period.

Additionally, Government Code section 65583(a)(5) requires "an analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing . . . for persons with disabilities." The August 12, 2026, Draft Housing Element's constraints section includes discussion of the Reasonable Accommodation ordinance and the definition of Single Housekeeping Unit. Draft, at 3-36 to 3-37. However, it does not include any updated analysis of the changes that the City enacted in April 2026, nor does it analyze the City's treatment of group homes as a constraint to the siting, operation, and maintenance housing for people with disabilities. Accordingly, the Draft does not substantially comply with Government Code section 65583(a)(5). See also HCD 11/29/2023 TA Letter (identifying constraints).

Adoption of the proposed revisions would not substantially comply with Housing Element Law.

V. The proposed amendments are materially inconsistent with the City’s duty to affirmatively further fair housing.

Government Code section 8899.50 requires the City to affirmatively further fair housing, which subdivision (a)(1) of this Section provides:

means taking meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics. Specifically, affirm atively furthering fair housing means taking meaningful actions that, taken together, address significant disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity, replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, tr ansforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity, and fostering and maintaining compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws.

The City must also “take no action that is materially inconsistent with its obligation to affirmatively further fair housing.” Gov. Code, § 8899.50 (b).

The City’s existing Reasonable Accommodation ordinance, definition of Single Housekeeping Unit, and “group home” regulations all create barriers to the siting and operation of housing for people with disabilities, constraining housing choice and fostering segregation. See California Department of Housing And Community Development, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements (April 2021 Update), 38 (“Common Zoning Barriers for Persons with Disabilities”); see also HCD 6/8/2026 TA Letter, 16 (City’s current reasonable accommodation process violates AFFH law). Amending the Housing Element to make false statements about the implementation status of Programs 2N, 2O, and 2P and to eliminate language regarding the City’s commitment to fully implement these programs would, therefore, be an action inconsistent with the City’s duty to affirmatively further fair housing.

VI. Conclusion

We strongly urge the City to reject the proposed revisions to its Housing Element and direct City staff to continue working on the implementation of Program 2N, 2O, and 2P so that the City’s regulations do not discriminate against people with disabilities.

We appreciate your time and attention to our comments.

Sincerely,

Alexandra M. Robertson

Litigation Counsel
Disability Rights California

Charlotte Lanvers
Litigation Director
Disability Rights California

Autumn M. Elliott
Law Office of Autumn Elliott

Melissa A. Morris
Staff Attorney
Public Interest Law Project

From: HALLIGAN, MICHELLE
To: TERAN, STACY
Subject: FW: Form Submission - Comments - Draft Housing Element 2 Date: Wednesday, August 19, 2026 2:32:54 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Michelle Halligan
Senior Planner
City of Costa Mesa | Community Development Department
(formerly Economic and Development Services)
77 Fair Drive

2nd Floor| Costa Mesa | CA 92626 | (714) 754-5608
“The City of Costa Mesa serves our residents, businesses and visitors while promoting a safe, inclusive, and vibrant community.”
PleASe ConSiDer tHe environMent beFore Printing tHiS eMAil. tHAnk you.

Sent via form submission from Costa Mesa Neighborhoods Where We All Belong Name: Aaron Klemm
Email: [email protected]
Comment: I am requesting that the city, its Planning Commission and City Council upzone to the maximum extent possible going above the 20% buffer to legalize housing and usher in zoned capacity for housing abundance. The city should do that by increasing both the quantity and quality of upzonings — and critically, to disperse them rather than concentrate them in one type of neighborhood.

The map tells the truth that the words will not.

As I reviewed the agenda packet, one acronym came to mind: POSIWID — the Purpose of a System is What it Does. The language in the public outreach sections is aspirational: family- friendly, affordable, affirmatively furthering fair housing. The actual Housing Element site map tells a different story.

This Housing Element concentrates new housing on what urbanists call car sewers — what traffic engineers more politely call arterial roads. These corridors carry high traffic speeds, noise, air pollution, and a pedestrian environment hostile to the people we are claiming to house. Meanwhile, single-family neighborhoods are exempted from any additional density whatsoever.

Concentrating density exclusively on arterial corridors is bad urbanism, and bad urbanism is self-defeating. When new residents are placed in environments defined by traffic noise, exhaust, and streets that no one wants to walk on, the lived experience of that housing becomes the argument opponents use against the next cycle of projects. Every poorly sited housing project is a gift to the people who will stand at this microphone next cycle and say:
look what density does to a neighborhood. The city an opportunity tonight to break that cycle — to demonstrate that housing abundance and good urbanism are the same project, not competing ones. Upzoning only where it is politically convenient makes every future housing project in this city more difficult.

I understand that this concentration reflects the best the Commission and Council believed they could achieve under existing precedents. But those precedents are in direct conflict with state law and conflict with the city's stated values. Finally, state law requires that we upzone or lose control of land use planning.

The reckoning is coming regardless.

Future RHNA cycles will require upzoning the neighborhoods currently exempted. When that moment arrives, the political backlash will be significantly worse because they believed the city when it told them that all new housing can be put on these arterial corridors. The concentration you choose today becomes the ammunition opponents use tomorrow.

A better framework comes from Strong Towns: no neighborhood should be subject to radical change, and no neighborhood should be exempt from change. Their recommendation is blanket incremental upzoning — every neighborhood moves up one step in density, using by- right ministerial approvals. No dramatic transformations. No exemptions. Shared, proportional, predictable change.

The Permit Streamlining Act — and why a much simpler zoning code is not optional.

Broader and more dispersed upzoning is not only the right planning decision the ability to usher in housing abundance is dependent on city staff being able to do their jobs within the law. The Permit Streamlining Act, codified at Government Code §§65920–65964.5 and significantly strengthened in the 2025 legislative session, imposes mandatory deadlines on housing application processing that the city cannot waive. Once a development application is submitted, the city has 30 calendar days to determine whether it is complete. Failure to make a complete, written determination within 30 days triggers automatic deemed-complete status.

For post-entitlement permits, the deadlines are even tighter — 15 days to determine completeness and 30 to 60 days to approve or deny, depending on the number of units. Failure to meet those timelines renders the permit automatically deemed approved. ca In the great book, Humanizing Rules there is a saying. "If one person violates a rule, you have a people problem. If everyone violates the rule you have a rule problem." Costa Mesa has a zoning rule problem. Staff are tasked with an impossible task. Costa Mesa's zoning code is a document that has been amended, layered, and patched over decades into something that genuinely defies efficient administration. The moves by Dudek to simplify it are welcome and probably not enough unless the city staff are able to meet the deadlines in the Permit Streamlining Act. When a planner must cross-reference multiple overlapping use tables, special conditions, specific plans and discretionary findings just to confirm a project's basic eligibility, meeting a 30-day completeness determination is not a matter of effort or competence — it is a matter of whether the code itself is legible. Staff are being asked to run a sprint in a maze. The Permit Streamlining Act's automatic approval consequences mean that a zoning code too complex to administer quickly is not just an inconvenience — it is a legal liability.

The city should do whatever it takes legally to invalidate the poorly written Measure K and the partial repeal through Measure Y. They conflict with state law and will help usher in multiple periods of Builder's Remedy conditions. This will allow staff to practice good city planning and expand the geography of where housing can be permitted. By-right ministerial approvals — the same mechanism that makes SB 9, SHRA, and ADU permits function — succeed precisely because they give staff a clear, objective checklist rather than a discretionary gauntlet. The legislature has made clear that it expects housing applications to move through a defined, time-limited process with objective criteria and published application requirements. A zoning code built around that model protects staff, protects the city from automatic approval liability, and produces better and faster housing outcomes. Simplification is not a concession to developers. It is professional competence codified. Digital Democracy The choice before you.

Costa Mesa can upzone broadly, live the values stated in its own outreach materials, and exercise meaningful control over how its neighborhoods evolve.

Or it can follow Huntington Beach's path — kowtowing to NIMBYs, defiant, expensive, and ultimately losing — and arrive at the same destination while paying $50,000 per month in fines and surrendering local land use authority entirely.

I will be direct: I am increasingly sympathetic to the argument that opponents of housing should simply get what they want — good and hard. A permanent builder's remedy condition means any housing project meeting basic affordability thresholds cannot be denied regardless of local preferences or specific neighborhood and must be approved ministerially. That is the alternative to a compliant housing element. It is not a threat. It is the statute.

The more constructive path is housing abundance. It means residents exercising their private property rights with less government interference. City staff that can competently practice their profession. It means increased property tax revenue from redeveloped parcels. It means our children being able to afford to live in the city where they grew up.

I urge the City to be bolder, tell the public the truth, upzone as broadly and as equitably as state law requires — and give staff a zoning code simple enough to administer it.

Thank you.

Aaron Klemm
Westside Costa Mesa — resident since 2010
You are out of free messages until 3:40 PM
tight version. 8/23 hcd feedback 9/1/26 council adoption then hcd. Will upzonings be complete by then? Upzoning complete for uncontested sites complete. New sites Upzoning is to be completed
Good evening Commissioners and Staff.

My name is Aaron Klemm. I have lived in Westside Costa Mesa since 2010.

I am here to request that the Commission upzone to the maximum extent possible. Tonight that means passing the Housing Element resolution. In the study session, I encourage the Commission to increase both the quantity and quality of upzonings — and critically, to disperse them rather than concentrate them in one type of neighborhood.

This Housing Element concentrates new housing on what urbanists call car sewers — what traffic engineers more politely call arterial roads. These corridors carry high traffic speeds, noise, air pollution, and a pedestrian environment hostile to the people we are intending to house. Meanwhile, in this cycle, single-family neighborhoods are exempted from any change whatsoever.

Concentrating density exclusively on arterial corridors is bad urbanism, and is self-defeating.

Every poorly sited housing project is a gift to the people who will stand at this microphone next cycle and say: look what density does to a neighborhood. The Commission has an opportunity tonight to start to break that cycle. Upzoning only where it is politically convenient sets up future councils and commissions for challenges in meeting future housing needs in this city.

Future RHNA cycles will require upzoning the neighborhoods currently exempted. When that moment arrives, the backlash will be worse — because the burden of the current upzonings were not shared proportionately across the city.

A better framework comes from Strong Towns: no neighborhood should be subject to radical change, and no neighborhood should be exempt from change. Blanket incremental upzoning everywhere, by right, shared proportionally.

I will be direct: I am increasingly sympathetic to the argument that opponents of housing should get what they want — good and hard. A permanent builder's remedy condition means any housing project meeting basic affordability thresholds cannot be denied regardless of local preferences or specific neighborhoods. That is the alternative to a compliant housing element.

The more constructive path is citywide housing abundance — residents exercising property rights with less government interference, increased tax revenue from redeveloped parcels, and our children being able to afford to live here.

I urge the Commission to be bolder, tell the public the truth, and upzone as broadly and as equitably as state law requires.

Or we can follow Huntington Beach's path — defiant, expensive, and ultimately losing — and arrive at the same destination while paying $50,000 per month in fines and surrendering local land use authority entirely.

Thank you.

Long version
Good evening Commissioners and Staff.

My name is Aaron Klemm. I have lived in Westside Costa Mesa since 2010.

I am here to request that the Commission upzone to the maximum extent possible.

In the study session, I encourage the Commission to increase both the quantity and quality of upzonings — and critically, to disperse them rather than concentrate them in one type of neighborhood.

The map tells the truth that the words will not.

As I reviewed the agenda packet, one acronym came to mind: POSIWID — the Purpose of a System is What it Does. The language in the public outreach sections is aspirational: family- friendly, affordable, affirmatively furthering fair housing. The actual Housing Element site map tells a different story.

This Housing Element concentrates new housing on what urbanists call car sewers — what traffic engineers more politely call arterial roads. These corridors carry high traffic speeds, noise, air pollution, and a pedestrian environment hostile to the people we are claiming to house. Meanwhile, single-family neighborhoods are exempted from any additional density whatsoever.

Concentrating density exclusively on arterial corridors is not just inequitable — it is bad urbanism, and bad urbanism is self-defeating. When new residents are in environments defined by traffic noise, exhaust, and streets that no one wants to walk on, the experience of that housing becomes the argument opponents use against the next project. Every tower on a six-lane road with no shade, vacant retail, and no safe pedestrian crossing is a gift to the people who will stand at this microphone in the next RHNA cycle and say: look what density does to a neighborhood. The Commission has an opportunity tonight to break that cycle — to demonstrate that housing abundance and good urbanism are the same project, not competing ones. Upzoning only where it is politically convenient poisons the well for future RHNA cycles.

I understand that this concentration reflects the best the Commission and Council believed they could achieve under existing precedents. But those precedents are in direct conflict with state law — and state law requires that we upzone.

The reckoning is coming regardless.

Future RHNA cycles will require upzoning the neighborhoods currently exempted. When that moment arrives, the political backlash will be significantly worse — because residents of the arterial corridors will have borne the full burden of this cycle's housing growth, and they will be right. The concentration you choose today becomes the ammunition opponents use tomorrow.

A better framework comes from Strong Towns: no neighborhood should be subject to radical change, and no neighborhood should be exempt from change. Their recommendation is blanket incremental upzoning — every neighborhood moves up one step in density, using by- right ministerial approvals. No dramatic transformations. No exemptions. Shared, proportional, predictable change.

The choice before you.

Costa Mesa should work to upzone more broadly tonight, live the values stated in its own outreach materials, and exercise meaningful control over how its neighborhoods evolve.

Or it can follow Huntington Beach's path — defiant, expensive, and ultimately losing — and arrive at the same destination while paying $50,000 per month in fines and surrendering local land use authority entirely.

I will be direct: I am increasingly sympathetic to the argument that opponents of housing should simply get what they want — good and hard. A permanent builder's remedy condition means any housing project meeting basic affordability thresholds cannot be denied, regardless of local preferences or specific neighborhood. That is the alternative to a compliant housing element. It is not a threat. It is the statute.

The more constructive path is housing abundance. It means residents exercising their private property rights with less government interference. It means increased property tax revenue from redeveloped parcels. It means our children being able to afford to live in the city where they grew up.

I urge the Commission to be bolder, to tell the public the truth, and to upzone as broadly and as dispersed as state law requires.

Thank you.

Manage Submissions
Does this submission look like spam? Report it here.

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.

BRANCART & BRANCART

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Christopher Brancart P.O. BOX 686 Telephone (650) 879-0141 Elizabeth Brancart PESCADERO, CA 94060 Facsimile (650) 879-1103 www.brancart.com
______________
Street Address
8205 Pescadero Road
Loma Mar, California 94021
August 31, 2026
Via Email and Facsimile
Hon. John Stephens, Mayor
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Fax: (714) 754-5028
[email protected]
Brenda Green, City Clerk
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Fax: (714) 754-5028
[email protected]
Carrie Tai, Director
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Fax: (714) 754-4856
[email protected]
Housing Element Comment Portal
[email protected]
Re: Comment Opposing Adoption of City’s August 12, 2026 Revised Housing Element Draft
City Council Meeting: Tuesday, September 1, 2026
Agenda Item: 2
Dear Gentlepersons:

Pursuant to the City’s public notice, please find attached to this letter my prior comment and opposition, submitted to the City on August 19, 2026, City of Costa Mesa
August 31, 2026

objecting to the City’s Adoption of its August 12, 2026 Revised Housing Element Draft for the reasons set forth therein.

Thank you for your consideration.
/s/ Christopher Brancart
[email protected]
Enclosure

BRANCART & BRANCART

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Christopher Brancart P.O. BOX 686 Telephone (650) 879-0141 Elizabeth Brancart PESCADERO, CA 94060 Facsimile (650) 879-1103 www.brancart.com
______________
Street Address
8205 Pescadero Road
Loma Mar, California 94021
August 19, 2026
Via Email and Facsimile
Hon. John Stephens, Mayor
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Fax: (714) 754-5028
[email protected]
Brenda Green, City Clerk
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Fax: (714) 754-5028
[email protected]
Carrie Tai, Director
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Fax: (714) 754-4856
[email protected]
Housing Element Comment Portal
[email protected]
Re: Comment Opposing Adoption of City’s August 12, 2026 Revised Housing Element Draft
Dear Gentlepersons:

Pursuant to the City’s public notice, I submit the following comment on behalf of group homes and their residents, owners, and operators. I also support and join the public comment letter submitted by Disability Rights California (DRC) regarding the August 12, 2026, Draft Housing Element. This comment objects to the revisions set forth in the City’s Housing Element under Chapter 4, City of Costa Mesa
August 19, 2026

Housing Programs, regarding Program 2N (Reasonable Accommodation), Program 2O (Definition of Single Housekeeping Unit), and Program 2P (Group Homes). The contested revisions appear at pages 4-11 and 4-12. Exhibit 1 attached is a copy of the relevant pages. Programs 2N, 2O, and 2P, and each of them, are revised to state that that program is “completed” based upon the City’s enactment of code amendments in April 2026, viz.:
• Program 2N (Reasonable Accommodation): “In April 2026, the City approved revisions to its Reasonable Accommodation process to be consistent with State and federal fair housing requirements.” • Program 2O (Definition of Single Housekeeping Unit): “[I]n April 2026, the City adopted revisions to its Zoning Code per the objectives . . . to provide greater flexibility in consideration of accommodating a variety of household situations for related and unrelated individuals living together.”
• Program 2P (Group Homes): “In April 2026, the City approved revisions to its Zoning Code applicable to group homes to affirmatively further fair housing and comply with fair housing laws[.]”
The “revisions” referenced in Programs 2N, 2O, and 2P are set forth in Ordinance 2026-03 (Exhibit 2) and Ordinance 2026-04 (Exhibit 3) enacted by the City on April 7, 2026. Copies of Exhibits 2 and 3 are attached to this letter for reference.

Contrary to the assertions in revised Programs 2N, 2O, and 2P, Ordinances 2026-03 and 2026-04 fail to enact revisions to the City’s zoning regulations that “affirmatively further fair housing and comply with fair housing laws” or conform those regulations to “State and federal fair housing requirements.” Accordingly, these assertions are false and fail to “complete” the mandatory Housing Element programs under Programs 2N, 2O, and 2P.
//
//
City of Costa Mesa
August 19, 2026

1. Ordinance 2026-03 fails to conform the City’s reasonable accommodation regulations to state fair housing requirements; accordingly, the proposed revision to Housing Program 2N is false and must be withdrawn.

Ordinance 2026-03 amended the City’s regulations governing reasonable accommodations. CMMC Title 13, Chapter IX, Article 15, Section 13-200.60, et seq. The amendment, however, fails to conform the City’s regulation to state fair housing law for the reasons set forth in DRC’s letter to the City, dated January 12, 2026 (Exhibit 4 attached). DRC identifies several unlawful provisions in the City’s reasonable accommodation regulation that Program 2N aimed to correct.

But those defects are not addressed in Ordinance 2026-03 and, as a result, the proposed revision to Housing Program 2N is inaccurate and cannot be adopted in good faith.

Moreover, there remains a profound unlawful consideration embedded in the City’s reasonable accommodation regulation that Ordinance 2026-03 ignores.

Under Ordinance 2026-03, CMMC 13-200.62(f)(8) and 13-200.62(g)(5) continue to erroneously mandate denial of any reasonable accommodation request if the City decides that it would cause a fundamental alteration in the “City’s zoning program.” That application of fundamental alteration is misleading and incorrect in evaluating a reasonable accommodation request for an exception to a municipal zoning requirement. The proper scope of the analysis is not the “City’s zoning program;” instead, it is the City’s General Plan, Cal. Govt. Code § 65860(a), including the City’s duty to affirmatively further fair housing, Cal. Govt. Code § 8899.50. See also CMMC 13-3(a) (“This Zoning Code is a tool for implementing the goals, objectives and policies of the Costa Mesa General Plan, pursuant to the mandated provisions of the State Planning and Zoning Law (State Government Code section 65000 et seq.).

Under Ordinance 2026-03, CMMC 13-200.62 (f)(8) and 13-200.62(g)(5) continue to invite the City to erroneously find that any exception to the City’s existing zoning regulation is a “fundamental alteration” of the “City’s zoning program.” Which is precisely what the City has done since 2015: It has denied every reasonable accommodation request by every existing Group Home that City of Costa Mesa
August 19, 2026

applied for any reduction to the separation requirement under CMMC 13-323(c).

See Exhibit 5 attached.

Worse still, Ordinance 2026-03 fails to correct the most pernicious provision of the City’s reasonable accommodation regulation, CMMC 13-200.62(g)(4), authorizing the denial of a reasonable accommodation if “the requested accommodation would create an institutionalized environment due to the number of and distance between facilities that are similar in nature or operation.” As amended by Ordinance 2026-03, the City’s reasonable accommodation lacks any definition of “institutionalized environment” or any cogent criteria for determining the existence of an “institutionalized environment.” Instead, the City presumes based on unfounded bias and stereotype about the occupants of every Group Home, defined as “persons who are considered handicapped under state or federal law,” CMMC 13-6, that if any group home were to locate within 650 feet of any other group home, their mere proximity would form a critical mass that creates an “institutionalized environment,” fundamentally altering the capacity of nearby structures to function as dwellings.

Accordingly, the revision asserting that Program 2P is completed is false and cannot be adopted in good faith.

2. Ordinance 2026-03 fails to amend the definition of “single housekeeping unit” to accommodate “a variety of household situations for related and unrelated individuals living together;” accordingly, the proposed revision to Housing Program 2O is false and must be withdrawn.

The City’s definition of Single Housekeeping Unit (SHU) is the pivotal zoning provision that governs housing opportunities throughout Costa Mesa’s residential districts. Among all Residential Uses listed in the City’s Land Use Matrix, CMMC TABLE 13-30, a Single Housekeeping Unit is the only use permitted of right in every residential district. Thus, if the City chooses to classify a residential occupancy as a SHU, then that household may occupy any dwelling in Costa Mesa pursuant to the zoning code. If the City refuses to classify a residential occupancy as a SHU, then that household is prohibited from the City’s residential districts unless specially or conditionally permitted by the City or City of Costa Mesa
August 19, 2026

compelled by state statute.

The City has repeatedly manipulated its SHU definition to exclude shared housing for persons with disabilities since at least 2014 and Ordinance 2026-03 continues that practice. The City last amended its SHU definition in 2014 as part of Ordinance 14-13, the City’s sweeping revision of its zoning code that compelled the closure of existing group homes in R1 (SFR) districts – and prohibited any new group homes there – unless the household qualified for issuance of a special use permit. (This same framework was enacted by the City in 2015 to group homes in the City’s MFR districts, as discussed below.) A fundamental, necessary condition of the City’s discriminatory zoning restrictions enacted under Ordinance 14-13 was the simultaneous adoption of the current SHU definition.

Ordinance 2026-03 continues that unlawful practice. It revises the SHU definition to read:

Single housekeeping unit. The occupants of a dwelling unit have [1] established ties and [2] familiarity with each other, including joint [3] use of and [4] responsibility for common areas, which includes [5] interaction with each other, [6] shared meals, [7] household activities, and [8] expenses and responsibilities; where [9] residency is mutually agreed by all residents, is [10] not transitory in nature and the residential activities of the household are conducted on a [11] not-for-profit basis.

This definition is worse than its predecessor because it strips the SHU definition of any objective, observable condition (i.e., “private, separate entrances, separate food storage and refrigerators”), leaving nothing behind but a series of necessary conditions lacking any objective standards and impossible to apply without invading a household’s constitutionally protected privacy. The upshot is chilling:

If applied as written, there are few if any households that could qualify as SHUs under the definition enacted in Ordinance 2026-03. Worse still, the revised SHU definition commits the City to police the personal relationships among every dwelling’s occupants and to monitor the domestic affairs of every household in Costa Mesa. Accordingly, the revised SHU definition does not complete Program City of Costa Mesa
August 19, 2026

2N; accordingly, the revision cannot be adopted in good faith.

3. Ordinances 2026-03 and 2026-04 fail to enact regulations governing group homes that “affirmatively further fair housing and comply with fair housing laws;” accordingly, the proposed revision to Housing Program 2P is false and must be withdrawn.

Ordinances 2026-03 and 2026-04 fail to implement Program 2P because they fail to make any substantive changes to the City’s prior group home regulations, codified as CMMC Title 13, Chaps. XV and XVI, and CMMC Title 9, Chap. II, Art. 23. As a result, the City’s group home regulations continue to discriminate against housing for disabled persons in violation of Cal. Govt. Code §§ 65008(a), (b), (d), 12955(l), 11135, 8899.50, 65583(c)(1), and 65583(a)(7) and the California Constitution. The revised regulations continue to prohibit any new or existing Group Home in any residential district unless permitted by the City.

They also leave intact at least 35 specific, unique, burdensome restrictions or requirements that apply solely to Group Homes and no other uses or structures.

See Exhibit 6 attached.

The only substantive change enacted by Ordinance 2026-03 is revision of the definition of “operator” and importing that revised definition into the definition of group home or sober living home. That amendment is deeply flawed and will not cure the problems that Program 2P was intended to address. The new operator definition is standardless, circular, and assumes that landlords renting to non-disabled persons do not set rules or engage in placement and behavioral oversight of their tenants – a demonstrably untrue assumption.

To start, the revised Operator definition now reads, “Operator means a company, business or individual, including an in-house manager, who provides residential services . . .” The City provides no definition of “in-house manager.” But the term “house manager” appears in the substantive group home regulations.

If, on the one hand, it is the City’s intent to conflate “in-house manager” in the zoning definition of Operator to mean the same as “house manager” appearing in the City’s substantive group home regulations, see e.g., CMMC 13-311(a)(1)(iv), (viii), 13-311(a)(2), (4); 13-322(a)(2); CMMC 9-374(a), 9-374(b), then sprinkling City of Costa Mesa
August 19, 2026

Operator throughout the group home regulations offers no relief from the discriminatory restrictions or requirements in the City’s current group home regulations. Under that reading, the definition is wholly circular and any exemption conferred on housing for disabled persons based on the absence of a “house manager” is illusory. If, on the other hand, “in-house manager” means something other than “house manager” as found in the City’s substantive group home regulations, then what does that term mean?
But even if this conundrum were resolved by Ordinance 2026-03, that resolution could not fix the fatal flaws in the Operator definition – fatal flaws that the City’s zoning code now imports into the group home definition and substantive regulations. The zoning code definition of Operator:

Is Circular. It states that a property owner or manager is not an Operator if they “do not otherwise meet the definition of operator.” Depends on Meaningless Distinctions. Landlords and property managers of dwellings housing non-disabled persons perform the same functions and activities as an Operator, under the City’s definition. They place persons in dwellings through their selection processes and procedures. They also set rules governing conduct within their properties, which govern residents’ behavior as residents.

Offers an Exclusivity Standard Without Meaningful Parameters. A landlord or property manager is swept up in the definition of Operator unless they “exclusively handle real estate contracting, property management and leasing.” These terms are nowhere defined; however, the rights and responsibilities of landlords or property managers under the Civil Code include placing individuals in a residence, setting occupancy rules, and governing the behavior of residents as residents.

Is Tautological. The definition’s use of “resident” as “resident” and “operator” as “operator” are either tautologies or too confusing to provide any meaningful standards for enforcement.

City of Costa Mesa
August 19, 2026

Introduces the In-House Manager Ambiguity. According to the proposed definition, an operator is any entity or individual, “including an in-house manager.” The meaning and purpose of the “in-house manager” is entirely unclear. An “in-house manager” is an individual, so does the explicit inclusion of this specific kind of individual mean that an “in-house manager” is always an operator?
As a result of these defects, the Operator definition is void for vagueness.

By sprinkling Operator – or its proxy “in-house manager” – throughout the group home definitions and regulations, Ordinance 2026-03 renders them void for vagueness. And this outcome amplifies the void-for-vagueness problem already embedded in the City’s current and proposed definitions of “group home” and “sober living home.” Both definitions incorporate the zoning definition of “single housekeeping unit,” a definition that now lacks any meaningful, objective standard, making it impossible to avoid arbitrary enforcement. Accordingly, Program 2P is not complete and cannot be adopted as such. * * *
Thank you for your consideration.
/s/ Christopher Brancart
[email protected]
McCray CAIP Partnership, LP
1930 Placentia Avenue, Suite A4
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
(714) 540-4058
_____________________________________________________________________________________ 1 August 17, 2026
Michelle Halligan
Senior Planner
Planning & Community Development
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive, 2nd Floor
Costa Mesa, CA 92626

RE: REVISION:
2 nd Request to have Additional Parcels to be added to HCD State Housing Element:

Dear Michelle:

I am submitting this additional information for request to add the following parcels to the HCD State Housing:

 2925 College Avenue, Costa Mesa – APN #s: 418-102-08
 2949 College Avenue, Costa Mesa – APN # 418-102-09

I wanted to point out a trial court sided with Newport Beach and determined that the City’s actions to implement its housing element without voter approval are valid. Therefore, I believe the City of Costa Mesa has the legal basis to add the College Avenue sites to the proposed Housing Element sites without it being in Measure K.

In addition, the College Avenue properties are surrounded by existing apartment complex, including The Grand apartment buildings and Pine Creek Village apartments, so the location is compatible with existing and proposed use.

I am sending this to be presented to the Planning Commission before the Special Planning Commission meeting scheduled for Monday, August 27, 2026.

The same reasoning in the previous letters remains relevant. I appreciate your attention to this matter.

Thank you,

Anne McCray
McCray Properties, LLC
General Partner
McCray Dale Way Partnership, LP
McCray CAIP Partnership, LP