HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 - CC-2 - Additional Documents - 4/19/2016ADDITIONAL WARRANT INFO
CC -2 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS
WARRANT INFORMATION
Payment
Date
Remittance to:
Remittance
Payment
Explanation of payment
Ref.
ID:
Amount
0195882
04/01/16
Pro Forma Advisors LLC —
0000022224
$2,867.20
Is this for the Quarterly payment for Golf
Monitoring Compliance Golf
Course Contract Auditing?
Course
Pro Forma Advisors is assisting the City
with the performance monitoring of
he Costa Mesa Country Club lease
agreement with the City. The
monitoring work is ongoing and
payments are made as work is
completed.
0195941
04/08/16
Environmental Science
0000024040
$7,682.80
What was this for?
Associates — Bristol Autoplex
The preparation of the Initial
Proj.
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
for the Autoplex Project on Bristol
Street. ESA's invoices are being paid by
the developer and not the City.
TO: MEMBERS OF COSTA MESA CITY COUNCIL
FROM: FLO MARTIN,
RE: CIVIC CENTER PARK
understand from information I read online this morning that you will be engaged in
discussion with Vanguard University representatives regarding Civic Center Park.
I refer you to the attached page that includes language from the Draft EIR your Planning
Commission will be submitting to you in the very near future.
We need to preserve Civic Center Park as a pocket park available to the residents
nearby.
Respectfully,
Flo Martin
pg 219
IMPACT 4.14.1) Public Services
The City of Costa Mesa currently does not meet its goal of providing 4.26 acres
of parkland per 1,000 persons. ...Costa Mesa is largely built out, with vacant
parcels scattered throughout the City and equaling only about 20 acres. Given
the paucity of vacant land within the planning area, it could be reasonably
assumed that acquisition and provision of an additional 561 acres of parkland
would not feasible.
Pg 228
Impact 4.15A Recreation
The current inventory of parks and community centers (415 acres) provide 3.66
acres of such parkland for every 1,000 residents (assuming a population of
110,524). The City's goal is to have 4.26 acres of parks and community centers
for every 1,000 residents. At present, 66 acres of parkland are needed to meet
the level of service goal. The build -out population is projected to be
approximately 131,690; thus, 146 acres of new City -owned parkland would be
needed to meet the level of service goal over the long term. The deficiency of
parkland is notable in certain areas of the City, as shown in Figure OSR-2 (Park
Accessibility). These areas are referred to as "Park Priority Areas" because
parks are needed to serve residents in these areas. Two of the Overlays which
are the subject of the General Plan Land Use Amendments are included in a Park
Priority Area: Harbor Boulevard—Mixed Use Overlay and Harbor Boulevard—
Residential Incentive Overlay. As indicated under Existing Conditions above,
Costa Mesa currently is deficient in park and community centers relative to the
goal of 4.26 acres per 1,000 residents, and this deficiency can be expected to
continue with adoption of the General Plan Amendments. While residential
development activity would generate funds for the development of new park
facilities through Quimby fees, and all new development projects would require
payment of Development Impact Fees (a portion of which would fund parkland
acquisition and park maintenance), the degree to which these fees would
actually result in new park facilities where they are needed is not known. (MY
EMPHASIS)To ensure that park -deficient areas are targeted for park
development, the City has added Policy OSP- to the Open Space and Recreation
Element as follows:
Policy OSR-1.C: Pursue the acquisition and development of pocket and
neighborhood parks within park -deficient areas, as identified in Figure OSR-3:
Planning Areas and Underserved Park Areas.
With inclusion of this policy, impact would be less than significant.
ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS - PH -2
Anticipated Process
Community Participation Processes
Two Rounds
• Individual Informational Meetings
Community Meetings
• Multiple community meetings in each round
• Inform Public and gather information to aid in the development of sample maps
and draft maps
• Public Hearings
Hearings will be held to present proposed districts and receive public input
Group Exercise
Workgroups of 8-10 participants per table
• Use table map to identify:
Neighborhoods or communities
Connections
Barriers
Divisions
Points of interest
Review and prioritize sample maps
Report group findings
Questions and answers
General Districting Considerations
• Legal Requirements
• Geography
• Neighborhoods
• Physical Layout
• School Districts and Other Areas
• Political Participation
• Voter Registration
• Voter Turnout
• Ethnic Shares
• Demographic Characteristics
• Population by Ethnicity
• Voting Age Population by Ethnicity
• Citizen Voting Age by Ethnicity
• Socio -Economic Characteristics
• Income
• Home Ownership
• Age of Housing
• Length of Residence
• Public Input
Legal Considerations
Criteria
Federal Requirement
State Law
1 Equal Population
2 Minority Voting Rights
3 Equal Protection
As equal as practical based on data and Criteria
Based on most recent Census Total Population
No Discriminatory Purpose
No Vote Dilution: Narrowly Tailored
Race must not Predominate
a Topography
b Geography
c Cohesiveness, contiguity, integrity, and compactness of territory
d Community of Interest
Geographic Criteria
• Areas that function as neighborhoods or communities that should be kept
together in a single district
• Neighborhoods or communities that share common interests and should
be combined within a district
• Physical features such as streets, utilities or other elements that would act
as natural barriers between districts
• Communities that are dissimilar and should be put into separate districts
• Significant locations orpoints of interest that are of particular importance
or concern to individual communities; explain their significance.
ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS - NB -3
Dianne Rnssell
April 19, 2016
Mayor Steve Mensinger and Members of the City Council
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
RE: Proposed Adoption of Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance
Dear Mayor Mensinger and City Council Members,
I am writing to you to lend support for the proposal that Costa Mesa have an inclusionary housing
ordinance. This will give Costa Mesa a useful tool to address the housing needs of the many
lower income working families in our community.
Having housing that is available to all income levels in our city helps us to have a more vibrant
community. People who work in the city should have the opportunity to live here.
Costa Mesa does not have programs or policies that encourage the development of homes
affordable to lower income working families. While many market rate homes have been built
recently, nothing is being planned for the store clerks, child care workers and office employees
that work here.
As President of The Kennedy Commission board and a member of the Costa Mesa Affordable
Housing Coalition, I refer you to a letter you received dated April 18, 2016 from The Kennedy
Commission. I support this inclusionary housing proposal and I endorse everything in that letter.
I would like to see the City form an ad-hoc committee that works with the Kennedy Commission,
the Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition and other community stakeholders to thoroughly
discuss the development of an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance in the City.
The City should take this important step to ensure Costa Mesa begins to meet the enormous,
unmet affordable housing needs of its low and very low income residents.
Sincerely,
Dianne Russell
ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS - NB -3
Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition
April 19, 2016
Mayor Steve Mensinger and Members of the City Council
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
RE: Proposed Adoption of Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance
Dear Mayor Mensinger and City Council Members:
I am writing on behalf of the Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition to express our strong
support for the pending proposal that our city adopt an inclusionary housing ordinance. We
believe the adoption of an inclusionary housing ordinance will give Costa Mesa a powerful tool
to begin addressing the umnet housing needs of the thousands of lower income working
households in our community.
Costa Mesa does not have any effective programs or policies that facilitate and encourage the
development of homes affordable to lower income working families. For proof, consider the fact
that since 2008, only one low-income home has been constructed in the Cityl and there are
currently no other proposed affordable home developments for lower income families in the
City's development pipeline. This is despite the fact the City has approved many new residential
developments that will produce thousands of market -rate housing units city-wide.
Importantly, as to a majority of these approved residential developments, the City granted to
developers significant development incentives (i.e., changes in land use designations, rezones
and increasing density) which added substantial value to the properties without requesting in
exchange any community benefits such as affordable housing. The City should end the practice
of giving away benefits to developers without requiring community benefits in return. By
adopting an inclusionary housing ordinance, Costa Mesa can join the ranks of the ten other
Orange County cities and the third of all cities and counties statewide that use this proven, fair
and effective tool for creating affordable housing for lower income working families. The need
for such concrete action is undeniable.
The Kennedy Commission letter to you, dated April 18, 2016, provides excellent arguments and
evidence in support of this inclusionary housing proposal and we endorse everything in that
letter. We particularly echo the Kennedy Commission's suggestion the City form an ad-hoc
committee and collaborate with the Kennedy Commission, the Costa Mesa Affordable Housing
Coalition and other community stakeholders to thoroughly discuss the development of an
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance in the City.
'Housing Element For The Costa Mesa General Plan 2013-2021, City of Costa Mesa, p. 10, January 2I, 2014,
Page 1 of 3
The City should take this important step to ensure Costa Mesa begins to meet the enormous,
unmet affordable housing needs of its low and very low income residents.
Sincerely,
/raaoo G-06?4 1
Kathy Esfahani
For The Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition
Page 2 of 3
ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS - N13-4
REDACTED
Subject: FW: No to medical marijuana dispensary in cm
From: Peggy Partnoff [mailto:
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 10:46 AM
To: Mayor <Mayor@costame_s_a_c_a.gov_>
Subject: Fwd: No to medical marijuana dispensary in cm
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Peggy Partnoff
Date: April 19, 2016 at 10:30:53 AM PDT
To:'
Subject: No to medical marijuana dispensary in cm
As your constituent in Costa Mesa I urge you to vote NO on the matter before the council tonight
regarding medical marihuana dispensaries in our city. I firmly believe that a phannacy is the
correct venue for distribution to those who require this medical protocol. I refuse to dishonor my
loved ones who continue to battle with or have lost their lives with cancer to support the
"business" of marihuana. Nor encourage the proliferation of bogus, paid prescriptions obtainable
by anyone from unscrupulous doctors. The "fallout" to the community & the families of those
who abuse marihuana is devastating in terms of burglary, thefts, evictions, homelessness, loss of
employment, lack of positive parenting skills to name a few symptoms to befall our local
community, Thank you for your mindful consideration of this most serious issue.
Respectfully, Peggy Partnoff
Sent from my iPhone
ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS - NB -3
April 18, 2016
Mayor Stephen Mensinger and City Council Members
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
www.kennedycommission.org
17701 Cowan Ave., Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92614
949 250 0909
Fax 949 263 0647
RE: Support Mixed Income Housing for Lower Income Working Families in Costa Mesa
Dear Mayor Mensinger and City Council Members:
The Kennedy Commission (the Commission) is a broad based coalition of residents and
community organizations that advocates for the production of homes affordable for families
earning less than $20,000 annually in Orange County. Formed in 2001, the Commission has been
successful in partnering and working with jurisdictions in Orange County to create effective
policies that has led to the new construction of homes affordable to lower income working
families.
The Commission is writing in strong support for the development and implementation of
an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance in the City of Costa Mesa. We believe an Inclusionary
Housing Ordinance in the City will be an effective tool in helping address the unmet housing
needs for lower income working households in the City. The City does not have any effective
programs or policies that facilitates and encourages the development of homes affordable to
lower income working families. In the City's 2008-2014 Housing Element planning period, only
one low-income home was constructed in the City and there are currently no other proposed
affordable home developments for lower income families in the City's development pipeline.
The City's development of affordable homes for lower income households has failed to keep up
with the City's robust development of new residential market -rate construction. The City has
approved new residential developments that will produce thousands of market -rate housing units
in the City. It is also important to stress that in order for a majority of these residential
developments to move forward in the planning and construction process, many were approved
with development incentives that were requested by developers. The City has provided
significant development incentives (i.e., changes in land use designations, rezones and increasing
density) that created windfalls and additional value on these properties without requesting an
exchange for community benefits such as affordable housing. The City has control and authority
over land use decisions and should end the practice of giving away benefits to developers
without requiring community benefits in return. With the lack of vacant land and funding for the
development of affordable homes, the City should capitalize on this great opportunity by
recapturing the increased value through community benefits. New proposed developments
requesting additional development incentives should only be approved in exchange for
community benefits such as a set-aside of at least 20 percent of homes that are affordable to
lower income families.
Housing Element For The Costa Mesa General Plan 2013-2021, City of Costa Mesa, p. 10, January 21, 2014.
Mayor Stephen Mensinger and City Council Members
April 18, 2016
Page 2 of 3
With the serious lack of affordable homes, it is extremely difficult for lower income working
families to find existing quality affordable homes in the City. The average asking rent in the
City is $1,906 and that is a $111.00 a month or 6.2% increase from the year before. 2.
Unfortunately, housing affordability for lower income working families and the alleviation of
rising rents are not anticipated in the near future. According to a recent housing forecast, Orange
County rents are exFected to increase by at least $149 per month (9 percent increase from 2015)
by the end of 2018. While the term "affordable" is defined as a household that spends less than
30 percent of their household income on housing costs,4 many renters are paying more. In the
City, many renters overpaid and spent approximately 44% of their income towards rent.5 In
addition, a substantial amount of households in the City are lower income households.
Approximately 39 percent of households earned less than $50,000 per year.6
The City's initial discussion to create an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance is a step in the right
direction to meaningfully address the need to increase affordable home opportunities for lower
income working households. As indicated in the City's staff report, other Orange County
jurisdictions (Cities of Irvine, Huntington Beach and Santa Ana) also have implemented an
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and have been very successful. In the City of Irvine alone, over
4,000 affordable units have been produced as a result from the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.7
In the City of Huntington Beach, over 560 affordable units have been produced for lower income
families.$
As the City moves forward with the discussion of creating and implementing an Inclusionary
Housing Ordinance, the Commission recommends the City to:
1. Create an ad-hoc committee and collaborate with the Commission, Costa Mesa
Affordable Housing Coalition and community stakeholders to thoroughly discuss the
development of an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance in the City.
2. Provide an analysis on the number of market -rate homes that have been constructed or
approved to -date and compare it to the number of affordable homes that have been
constructed or approved to -date in the City over the past five years.
' Rent Hikes: $6 to $199, Depending on Where in O.C. You Live, The Orange County Register, November 5, 2015.
O.C. Rents Forecast to Rise 9.4% by 2018, Orange County Register, April 12, 2016.
° Housing Element For The Costa Mesa General Plan 2013-2021, City of Costa Mesa, p. 31, January 21, 2014.
'Lower Rents Might Cost You More: High Cost of Housing Chips Deeply into Low -Wage Earners Pay, The O.C. Register, April 18, 2015.
° Profile of the City of Costa Mesa Local Profiles Report 2015, SCAG, p.10, May 2015.
' City of Irvine 2013-2021 Housing Element, City of Wine, p. C-43.
s City of Huntington Beach 2013-2021 Housing Element, City of Huntington Beach, p. III -6, September 16, 2013.
Mayor Stephen Mensinger and City Council Members
April 18, 2016
Page 3 of 3
The Commission welcomes the discussion of developing a new housing strategy that will create
new housing opportunities for lower income families in the City. Please keep us informed of any
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance updates and if you have any questions, please feel free to
contact me at (949) 250-0909 or cesarc@kennedycommission.org.
Sincerely,
Cesar Covarrubias
Executive Director
cc: Kathy Esfahani, Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition
4/18/2016 Inclusionary Housing Units Must Be Counted Toward State Density Bonus Requirements in California I Legal Alerts I Best Best & Krieger
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING UNITS MUST PEOPLE
E COUNTED TOWARD STATE DENSITY Ethan J. Walsh
.DONUS REQUIREMENTS IN CALIFORNIA Partner
.....,-...._,..,_w,...,.,,,......,.._.._.._„..-..„-......_,_.,.._......,...nm....._®...a.,.,or-...,,..�- ...�......�:.._ (916)551-2825
LEGAL ALERTS
Appellate Court Issues Ruling in Case Involving
Napa County RELATED PRACTICE
JULY 22, 2013
A California appellate court recently held that cities and counties must count affordable
housing units developed pursuant to local inclusionary requirements toward satisfying
density bonus standards set forth in state law. In Latinos Unidos del Valle de Napa y
Solano v. Couno, of'Napa, the First District Court of Appeal overturned a portion of
Napa County's local density bonus ordnance, The court based its ruling on the fact that
the county's density bonus ordinance counted only those twits in excess of the units
required by the county's inclusionary housing ordinance in determining whether a project
would be eligible for a density bonus and other concessions under the State Density
Bonus Law. In light of this decision, cities and counties should review their local density
bonus ordinances to confnn that they are consistent with the court's holding in the
Latinos Unidos case,
In Latinos Unidos, the court found in its July 11 ruling that the county's local density
bonus ordinance violates the State Density Bonus Law. The Density Bonus Law requires
that when a developer agrees to construct a certain percentage of units in a housing
development for low or very low inconne households, or to construct a senior citizen
housing development, the local government must grant the developer certain
development concessions, as well as a density bonus. The density bonus allows the
developer to increase the density of the development by a certain percentage above the
maximum allowable funit under local zoning law. The concessions and density bonus are
offered on a sliding scale, based on the number of affordable units provided andthe level
of affordability,
In 2010, Napa County adopted an inclusionary housing ordinance requiring that up to 20
percent of new dwelling units in a residential development be affordable to moderate
income households, At the same fnne, tine county amended its local density bonus
ordinance to provide that only affordable units in excess of those required by the
county's inclusionary requirement be counted toward the threshold necessary to receive a
Economic Development, Real Estate and
Affordable Housing
Municipal Law
http://www.bbklaw.com/9t=40&an=22324&format=xml 1/2
4/18/2016 Inclusionary Housing Units Must Be Counted Toward State Density Bonus Requirements in California I Legal Alerts I Best Best & Krieger
density bonus. and other concessions pursuant to the Density Bonne Law. The court
found that the county's local ordinance placed a greater burden on developers than is
permissible under state law. Therefore, the court ordered that the requirement be removed
from the county's ordinance.
Cities and counties in California should review their local density boons ordinance to
confirm that they are not setting a higher threshold for density bonus concessions than is
allowed by state law and the Latinos Unidos decision.
For farther details about how the Latinos Uniclos decision may affect your city or
county, please contact Ethan Walsh in the firm's Municipal Law practice group or your
BB&K attorney.
Disclaimer: BB&K legal alerts are not intended as legal advice. Additional facts or
,future developments may affect subjects contained herein. Seek the advice ofan attorney
before acting or relying upon any inforinatibn in this co nrnunique'.
http://www.bbklaw.com/?t=40&an=22324&format=xm1 2/2