HomeMy WebLinkAboutPH-4 - 26-174 - Planning Commission Public Comments - 3/17/2026PARTIDA, ANNA
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
GREEN, BRENDA
Monday, February 9, 2026 10:18 AM
PC Public Comments
FW: NB-1 Comments
Toler Comments NB-1. 202601 l6pdf.pdf
Respectfully,
Brenda Green
City Clerk
City Clerk's Officei (714) 754-5221
77 Fair Drive l Costa Mesa i CA 92626
Z110[7
As City Hall has reopened, we encourage the public to take advantage of our appointment
system. Appointments can be made at www.costamesaca.gov/appointments. Please note
that It is required that all guests check in with our Concierge Staff, located on the 1" Floor Lobby, upon arrival at City
Hall.
From: Russell Toler <russell.toler@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 7, 2026 3:01 PM
To: HARLAN, JEFFREY <Jeffrey.Harlan@costamesaca.gov>; MARTINEZ, DAVID <DAVID.MARTINEZ@costamesaca.gov>;
DICKSON, ROBERT <Robert.Dickson@costamesaca.gov>; VALLARTA, ANGELY <ANGELY.VALLARTA@costamesaca.gov>;
ROJAS, JOHNNY <JOHNNY.ROJAS@costamesaca.gov>; ZICH, JON <JON.ZICH@costamesaca.gov>; KLEPACK, KAREN
<KAREN.KLEPACK@costamesaca.gov>; MARR, ANDREA <ANDREA.MARR@costamesaca.gov>; REYNOLDS, ARLIS
<ARLIS.REYNOLDS@costamesaca.gov>; CHAVEZ, MANUEL <MANUEL.CHAVEZ@costamesaca.gov>; CITY CLERK
<CITYCLERK@costamesaca.gov>; GAMEROS, LOREN <LGAMEROS@costamesaca.gov>; BULEY, MIKE
<Mike.Bu)ey@costamesaca.gov>; STEPHENS, JOHN <JOHN.STEPHENS@costamesaca.gov>; PETTIS, jEFF
<Jeff.Pettis@costamesaca.gov>
Subject: Fwd: NB-1 Comments
Hello commissioners, please see my attached comments on PH-1 (Amendments to the Zoning Code) for Monday's PC meeting. I'd
sent this before the last meeting and it's in my 'sent' box-thought it looks like no one received it.
Thanks!
Russell Toler
CAUTION: This emaii originated from. outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attacbm entq
'unless you recognize the sender and know the content'is safe. Report any suspiciousactiyitiesto$e:
Inforination TechnoiqgyDepartmep
1
ATTACHMENT 10
Chair Harlan and Planning Commissioners,
I wanted to share some thoughts on the City's rezoning project.
1 What matters most is the public realm
People experience the city from the streets, public plazas (if we had any!), and parks.
These spaces together constitute what is often called the public realm. It is from these
areas that the city is seen and felt. People travel the world to visit beautiful cities and
villages overseas-and their vantage points are from the public realm.
There are two major roles that development plays when it comes to the quality of our
public realm: the distribution of uses (the proximity of housing and "amenities," which in
turn affects how far we need to travel for daily needs and therefore what type of
transportation mode we need to accommodate), and the way that development
physically shapes the public realm-how it literally forms the "walls of our outdoor
rooms."
The former is very much worth discussing, though a bigger fish to fry. At the moment I
just want to emphasize the importance of the latter: we need to ensure that new
developmenf appropriately frames our public spaces.
On the surface it may seem like appropriately is an impossibly subjective term. However,
we could all likely take a walking tour of the city and generally agree on which
developments are doing a good job at this and which are not-meaning that we could at
least in theory extract the characteristics that determine success or failure.
Complicating the task or ensuring appropriate relationships between the public realm
and development, however, is that our streets are largely devoted to the accommodation
of fast-moving traffic. In the last several decades, we've allowed (or maybe even
required?) many developers to orient their projects away from such unpleasant spaces
and/or even seal the street off with a wall (see for example, The Enclave, the new
houses on Harbor and Merrimac, and the new houses on Harbor and Hamilton).' While it
is understandable why developers would want to do this, we need to consider the
long-term impact of such a design decision on the beauty, comfort, and even safety of
our public spaces.
What I think we should do:
-} Recognize that the city has an important role to play in this: we should be
ensuring that our streets are desirable to front. Otherwise, what right do we have
to insist that new developments engage with it?
' These are just three of many examples, but are especially egregious in that even the edge units
-those adjacent to the public right oF way-are turned inwards.
-} Adopt some minimum standards to ensure appropriate street edges: frequent
conspicuous entrances and access to them, minimum glazing, setbacks, ground
floor height and elevation, trees in the parkways (not smashed up against
buildings), usability of the setback areas (not just caricatures of nice frontages),
etc.
-+ Communicate our expectations clearly to the development community. If we have
objective standards requiring this without compelling explanations, they will fail
when developers push back.
4 Admit that there may arise some difficult cases, and work on creative solutions
for them.
4 Stop allowing low-intensity development on high-intensity streets.
2. Reduce or eliminate costly parking mandates
Requiring developers to provide 2.25 on-site parking spaces per residential unit is
progress, but still not good enough. Parking is not, as has never been, something that is
appropriate for the government to be requiring of private developers. It can only
exacerbate the problem of car traffic and car-dependency. Developers should be able to
take their own risks and base them on their own analyses of the market demand for
parking to be in our area. The government's role in this very specific topic should rather
be to ensure that driving is not the only feasible way For new residents to move about the
neighborhood.
3. Be careful with townhouse projects
I've been trying to articulate this problem For a while now because 1 ) no one else is, 2)
many people haven't grasped this problem, and 3) I haven't heard any good solutions for
it yet.
We all generally consider townhouses as great "starter homes" that can line streets with
charming front doors and stoops, allow in more families than single-family homes can,
and feel like dignified places to live in.
Historically, the townhouse-as an urban building type-had parking in detached
garages that took access off an alley, if it had any parking at all.
The projects that we're seeing now in Costa Mesa differ from those traditional
townhouses in two ways:
-4 To fit more units on a piece of land, garages are scooted underthe living space,
taking up the majority of the ground floor and therefore deadening the ground
floor environment.
-4 Deep lots that were originally platted for farming, big backyards, or
commercial/industrial uses are being eyed by townhouse developers. Now you
have "interior" townhouses that don't face the street.
Why these projects are so bad:
-4 Since each unit has attached parking, sites are dominated by access drives,
leaving little-to-no room for respectable spaces for interior units to front, and
little-to-no open/green space.
-+ The little spaces that units Front are offen disconnected from each other and from
the public right of way, meaning that the true "extension of the public realm" into
the site is really the garage-door-dominated access drives.
What I think we should do:
+ Building Dept: Enable other housing types to be built under the (less expensive)
IRC. North Carolina recently passed leqislation that allowed tri- and quad-plexes
to be built under the IRC. California is beinq more ambitious and paving the way
for up to ten units to be approved under the IRC.
-+ Building/Fire Dept: is paving the way for single-stair construction so we
can build simple small buildings of flats the way we used to, and the way the rest
of the world still does. L.A. is alreadv movinq forward with this.
4 Planning Dept: If we cap a parcel at low densities, we are going to get these sorts
of townhouse proposals because they make economic sense.
-+ Planning Dept: Reducing parking requirements can help, but developers and
lenders need to know that there is decreasing parking demand in Costa Mesa,
otherwise they will provide enough to preclude good design.
My humble (and likely impractical) proposal is that we recognize the following statement,
base new policy on it, and amend zoning standards in light of it: Townhouse projects that
have a) ample on-site parking and b) interior units can be designed well, but once a
density threshold is passed, the quality of design will be degraded. After this density
threshold is passed, a more efficient building type (e.g., buildings with flats) is necessary
to achieve the quality design that Costa Mesa expects.
4. Our large sites need to be designed better
Several of our opportunity and Measure K sites are larger than "walkable" city blocks2
and/or don't have enough frontage for each new building to front. At a minimum we
2 No sides longer than 400 or 500 feet. Conventional suburban developers may gawk, but look at
the substantial and beautiful buildings that are able to be achieved in the Pearl District of
Portland-where block sides are =225 feet.
should ensure that each new building fronts the existing site frontage or a respectable3
new "public realm" that is extended into the site. The largest sites should be required to
be carved into blocks. Yes-this means new rights of way cutting through, thus creating
"more city." These rights of way need not be dedicated public space, though they would
ideally be publicly accessible.
an example of this done well; an example of this done poorly.
We should have insisted on this with The Enclave, Superior Pointe, and 17 West. Some
have tried to codify this: see Section 4.4 of ABAG's ODDS Handbook (the whole thing is
worth looking at) and Chapter F.40 (Large Site Standards, pages 127-1 34) of
Zoninq Code, though there are a handful more out there.
My thought is that as important as this is, it is very difficult to codify, which leads me to
my final point.
5. Rather than relying on very detailed ODDS, we should focus
on good design guidelines and improve communication
between staff and applicants
Ever since architects and developers started designing ugly buildings several decades
ago, cities have depended on design review boards to ensure better physical outcomes.
These boards have a notorious history of creating an unpredictable building environment
and protracting entitlement processes, all while managing to not achieve their purpose.
Now in California we can only enforce "objective standards," prompting many cities to
pursue design codes that, in theory, will result in predictable and "aesthetically pleasing"
(sorry) new buildings.
If you want to gauge the success or this approach, do an informal survey on which cities
have adopted ODDS and Form-Based Codes, and what development in those places
has since been like (both in terms of review processes and physical outcomes).
But even if this approach were widely successful, the State has continued to undermine
efforts at local control by making waivers and concessions even easier, which take us
backwards once again.
In my limited experience, the problem of ugly buildings/projects is not so much a result of
goofy planning regulations (though that is sometimes the case) but by a general loss of
skill in the professional world. Architects and planners that understand what makes
buildings and the spaces around them beautiful are few and far between. How can a
code compensate for that without being overwhelmingly prescriptive? And how can a
3 "Respectable" is admittedly doing a lot of work here-but what I basically mean is something
designed as a front, and is not primarily for vehicle access.
prescriptive code allow for enough development freedom to make complex projects
work?
I'll resist a tangent on those questions and get to my point: my feeling is that a wise way
forward might be to express what we physically want to see, extract the principles from
such a vision, and then derive design guidelines from them. But the guidelines need a
guide. Someone with a background in architecture and urban design that can work with
applicants on meeting the principles and achieving the spirit of the guidelines.
You're right if you object that such guidelines would not have any teeth and we may
therefore end up with ugly development. But by avoiding onerous faux-technical
checklists and openly discussing clear, reasonable expectations under the guidance o( a
good-faith designer, I believe good physical outcomes are more likely. This would be
especially useful for the type of larger projects mentioned above.
What I think we should do:
4 Establish simple zoning requirements that at least cover the basics (which
obviously include much more than the following points):
+ Require that buildings adjacent to the street must orient towards the street
(currently missing from the draft);
+ Prohibited parking between the street and the building (currently missing
from the drafi); and
+ Not mandate superficial complexity
-4 Establish a design manual that is written and used by an on-call or staff
architecUurban designer:
+ It should emphasize simplicity, regularity, proportions, frontage, the
human scale/experience, the relationship of buildings to public space, and
quality materials;
+ Rather than seeking to prescribe what buildout should look like in each
neighborhood or corridor, it depends on principles so that whatever the
market ends up producing, buildout makes our city better, not worse;
+ It should especially address large sites and the frontage conditions of all
new buildings; and
* It should be heavily informed by great books and resources, such as
your House Riqht, Soft City, A Pattern Lanquaqe, the Charter for the New
Urbanism, and Courtyard Urbanism.
Thanks for reading!
Russell Toler
Correspondence
received
AFTER the 12 NOON
DEADLINE
HALLIGAN, MICHELLE
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
George Sakioka <gmks@sakioka.com>
Monday, February 9, 2026 12:27 PM
HALLIGAN, MICHELLE
HARLAN, JEFFREY; DICKSON, ROBERT; ZICH, JON; KLEPACK, KAREN; ROJAS, JOHNNY;
VALLARTA, ANGELY; MARTINEZ, DAVID; TAI, CARRIE; Mark Sakioka; Forbes, Amy R.;
GREEN, BRENDA
Feb. 9 Planning Commission meeting agenda - Sakioka comments
090616 NCMSP Amendments-SUPPLEMENTAL SR.pdf; Proposed Edits to MUOD and
North Costa Mesa Specific Plan JKS and Sakioka.pdf
Hi Michelle: (cc: CM Planning Commission)
We had our land use consultant review the staff report and we want to get these comments to you ASAP.
We feel these items can be addressed before it goes to City Council and wanted to give you our thoughts
before tonight's meeting.
Let me know if you'd like to discuss further.
Thanks,
George
From: Forbes, Amy R. <AForbes@gibsondunn.com>
Sent: Monday, February 9, 202611:57 AM
To: George Sakioka <gmks@sakioka.com>; Mark Sakioka <mark@sakioka.com>
Subject: Feb. 9 Planning Commission meeting agenda now available
George and Mark,
I have completed my review of the recently released materials pertaining to the rezoning of property to be
consistent with the update Housing Element. The action creates a new Mixed Use Overlay District (MUOD)
that would apply to the sites in the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan identified for new housing.
There are some places where I think further cleanup amendments and other changes to ensure that there is
internal consistency, consistency with the Housing Element, and compliance with state law. Most importantly,
as far as I can tell the specific plan itself is not being updated to include the unit numbers from the General
Plan, and the Specific Plan would still have trip budgets, which would make it impossible for anyone to achieve
the minimum densities as a practical matter. The only way to get the higher densities would be through the
MUOD, but the MUOD has lower height limits than the Specific Plan, so that may not be possible.
I also don't think the strike through text reflects the Specific Plan amendment that was approved by the City
Council in September of 2016 for Sakioka Lot 2. (attached).
Here are my other thoughts
1. Trip Budqets Are Still in Place in the Specific Plan; and the Units are inconsistent with the General
E!U!!. Page 11 of the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan still refers to trip budgets. Based upon the trip
budgets in place, the new residential development contemplated by the general plan cannot be
implemented as a practical matter. The Housing Element provides for 1,200 units on Lot 2....But the
text of the specific plan is not being amended to reflect that. At page 12 of the proposed amendment to
the North Coast Mesa specific plan, there is language that confirms that there will be an override of
conflicting specific plan requirements for any project that meets the mixed-use overlay requirements.
1
But this language does not expressly apply to trip budgets. The language refers to section 1 3-83.58(e)
for the override language. But that section does not mention trip budgets. Moreover, because they are
not changing the units in the Specific Plan text, the only way you can get to the 1,200 units is through
the mixed-use overlay zone. The base entitlement in the Specific Plan needs to be consistent with the
housing element, allowing for 1,200 units on Lot 2 (not the 528 currently in the NCMSP), 305 on Lot 3
in the Metro Center, and 230 on Lot 2. And, the amendment should expressly do away with trip
budgets.
2. Table 1 in the Amended Specific Plan is Confusinq: Sakioka Lot 2 and Lots 2 and 3 in Metro Center
must be approved for 90 units/acre to be consistent with the General Plan. Table 1 is confusing
because it shows Sakioka Lot 2 as being limited to 28 units/acre (see page 15 of the strike through
version of the specific plan; page 109 of that pdf). But, per the 2016 amendment, Lot 2 was changed to
80 /units to the acre, and per housing element, Sakioka Lot 2 and the Metro Center lots should have 90
units/acre to be consistent with the general plan. By only allowing for the increased density in the
overlay zone, the specific plan is creating an inconsistency with the general plan. Table 1 should reflect
that Sakioka Lot 2 can have 90 units to the acre. And it should also reflect that Lots 2 and 3 in the
Metro Center could have 90 units/acre.
3. No shade and shadow study should be required. At page 19 of the strikethrough Specific Plan, page
113 of the pdf) it states: "Any new building proposed at 3 stories or more should require a shade and
shadow impact analysis in relation to surrounding land uses." That requirement is inconsistent with the
new height limits and the need to remove barriers to the creation of housing. It should be deleted.
4. The Heiqht Limits in the Specific Plan are Hiqher than the Proposed Mixed-Use Overlay. The maximum
heights permitted for Sakioka Lot 2 and Lots 2 and 3 are higher in the NCMSP than they are the Mixed-
Use overlay zone. Once again this creates an inconsistency with the General Plan. The specific plan
should be amended to permit the number of units shown in the general plan, with the heights limits that
are already approved in the Specific Plan. By only allowing the extra units in the Mixed-Use overlay,
those extra units can only be built at the lower heights in that zone, and you will not be able to take
advantage of the higher heights in the specific plan.
attach marked pages reflecting my concerns and the edits needed to address them.
Thanks, Amy
This message may contain confidential and privileged information for the soLe use of the intended
recipient. Any review, disclosure, distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is
strictly prohibited. If it has been sent to you in error, please repLy to advise the sender of the error and
then immediately delete this message.
Please see our website at https://www.gibsondunn.com/ forinformation regarding the firm and/or our
privacy policy.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do no.t click links or open attachments
unless you recognize the sender and knog the content js safe, Report any3suspiciousactivities;othei
Jnformation Technolo.gyDepartment.l
2
CITYCOtlNCIL
SUPPLEMENTAL MENIORANDUM
MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 6, 2016 ITEM NUMBER:
SUBJECT:NORTH COSTA MESA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT (SP-16-01) RELATED TO
HOME RANCH SITE, 3350 AVENUE OF THE ARTS AND SAKIOKA LOT 2
DATE:SEPTEMBER 6, 2016
FROM:PLANNING DIVISION/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
PRESENTATIONBY: MINOOASHABI,PRINCIPALPLANNER
FORFURTHERINFORMATIONCONTACT: MINOOASHABI(714)754-5610
minoo.ashabi@costamesaca.gov
Two (2) resolutions are presented to the City Council as part of this action. One
resolution recommends approval of an addendum for Final EIR No. 1054 and
amendment to the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan related to the property located at 3350
Avenue of the Arts. The second resolution would allow for amendment to the North
Costa Mesa Specific Plan related to the Home Ranch Site and Sakioka Lot 2.
-g
MINOO ASHABI, AIA v
Principal Planner
Services Director/Deputy CEO
Attachmentsa 4. Draft City Council Resolutions
CC:Justin McCusker
C.J. Segerstrom & Sons
3315 Fairview Road
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
George Sakioka
14850 Sunflower Avenue
Santa Ana, CA 92707George Sakioka
Judy Wang
Wincome Group
888 Disneyland Dr I Suite 100
Anaheim, CA 92802
Paul Sanford, Rosanna Inc.
3350 Avenue of the Arts
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
A'lTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION N0. 16-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
COSTA MESA ADOPTING AN ADDENDUM TO FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0. 1054 (STATE
CLEARING HOUSE NUMBER 2007011125) AND
AMENDMENT TO NORTH COSTA MESA SPECIFIC PLAN
(SP-16-01) RELATED TO THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT
3350 AVENUE OF THE ARTS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CtTY OF COSTA MESA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS
FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS, the City Council or the City of Costa Mesa adopted the 20al5-2035
General Plan on June 21, 201 6;
WHEREAS, the General Plan is a long-range, comprehensive document that
serves as a guide for the orderly development of Costa Mesa;
WHEREAS, by its very nature, the General Plan needs to be updated and
refined to account for current and future community needs;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Costa Mesa adopted the
North Costa Mesa Specific Plan by Resolution No. 94-67 in July 1994 to provide
additional planning guidelines and standards for several large development areas
located in north Costa Mesa;
WHEREAS, within the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan, General Plan 2015-2035
allowed an increase in the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for Home Ranch site, an increase in
the residential density for Sakioka Lot 2, and development flexibility for 3350 Avenue of
the Arts within the trip budgets adopted by the Land Use and Circulation Elements;
WHEREAS, the amendments promote diversity of development options at 3350
Avenue of The Arts are in conformance with the objectives of the North Costa Mesa
Specific Plan and General Plan, including the following:
North Costa Mesa Specific Plan - Recognize the development potential of
the planning area and the need to sensitively integrate new development
with the surrounding areas, and therefore, promote both resident and
business community confidence in the long-term vision for the plan area.
General Plan Land Use Objective LU-2A: Promote land use patterns and
development that contribute to community and neighborhood identity.
-2-
General Plan Land Use Objective LU-6A: Ensure the long term productivity
and viability of the community's economic base.
* General Plan Land Use Objective LU-4A: Encourage new development and
redevelopment to improve and maintain the quality of the environment.
General Plan Land Use Objective LU-5A: Ensure availability of adequate
community facilities and provision of the highest level of public services
possible, taking into consideration budgetary constraints and effects on
the surrounding area.
WHEREAS, a Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 1054 (State
Ciearinghouse Number 2007011125) was certified on November 20, 2007 for the
Wyndham Boutique Hotel /High-Rise and Final Master Plan PA-06-75 for the project
that included 200 rooms and 120 for-sale condominium units;
WHEREAS, in accordance with Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations
Sections 15162 and 15al64, an addendum to the FEIR No. 1054 was prepared by
BonTerra Psomas in August 2016 analyzing the environmental impacts associated with
the change from residential units to hotel rooms;
WHEREAS, in accordance with Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations
Section 15162 and 15164, the Addendum to the EIR determined that the proposed
modifications to the project which allows for hotel rooms to replace the residential units
does not require preparation of a subsequent EIR because the proposed changes
would not result in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified environmental impacts;
WHEREAS, on August 22, 2016, the Planning Commission held a public hearing
and recommended approval of the amendment to the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan;
WHEREAS, a duly-noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on
September 6, 2016 to allow for public comment on the proposed project and with all
persons having been given the opportunity to be heard both for and against the
proposed project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, based on the evidence in the
record, and the findings contained herein, the City Council adopts the Addendum to the
Final Environmental Impact Report No. 1054 and amendment to North Costa Mesa
Specific Plan (SP-16-01 ) consistent with the provisions of the 2015-2035 General Plan
attached hereto as Exhibit A to this resolution.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 6'h day of September, 2016
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK OF THE
CITY OF COSTA MESA
STEPHEN M. MENSINGER
Mayor, City of Costa Mesa
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ATTORNEY
"l-
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
)ss
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
I, BRENDA GREEN, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk or the City Council of
the City of Costa Mesa, hereby certify that the above Council Resolution Number 16
as considered at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 6th day of
September, 2016, and thereafter passed and adopted as a whole at the regular
meeting of said City Council held on the 6th day of September, 2016, by the foliowing
roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the Seal of the
day of , 2016City of Costa Mesa this
Brenda Green
City Clerk of the City of Costa Mesa
-5-
EXHIBIT A
North Costa Mesa Specific Plan
SP-16-01
REVISED PAGES
REVISED 09-06-2016
The Wyndham Hotel Site: In 2007, Specific Plan Amendment (SP-07-01) was
approved for the 3-acre site. The Specific Plan Amendment includes a development
option that wocild allovi a mixed-cise development consisting of a 200-room boutique
hotel and 1 20-unit high-rise bciilding with approximately 1,740 sq.ft. of retail space and
3,450 sq ft. for a bar/loiinge. This would rescilt in a maximcim nonresidential floor area
ratio (FAR)with a maximum 120dwelling units.
Development Maximum
i, Option hRloOOomt'SHotel
Option 1 200 rooms
388 rooms
Maximcim Allovvable
Non-Residential FAR
2.12 FAR
2.29 FAR
Maximuin Allowable
Number of High-Rise
Rasidential Units
120 units
-O-
The Specific Plan allows development flexibility with regard to the overall mix of hotel
rooms and residential units. This is subject to compliance with the following
conditlonsthrough the final masterplan review process:
The applicant can demonstrate traffic-generation characteristics comparable
to Option 1
For mixed use, Ddevelopment may be allowed up to a combined maximum
of 320 hotel rooms/dwelling cinits, provided that the maximum number of hotel
rooms in the mixed-use development does not exceed 200 rooms
The maximiim FAR may be increased to no greater than 2.12 FAR in direct
relat:ontothereductionoftheresidentialdensityfromand44du/acreand 2.29
FAR for hotel development'
The maximum allowable ncimber of high-rise residential units may be increased
to no greater than 132 units (44 dci/acre) in direct relation to the reduction of
the nonresidential FARfrom 2. 12 FAR.
The 238 existing hotel rooms may be redciced to allow additional residential
units, but any increase inthc numbcrof existing hotel rooms is prohibited.
As shown above, if the property oWner decides not to develop the high-rise residential
option and volcintarily demolishes the hotel instead the maximum allowable
nonresidential sqciare footage would remain at 2 08 FAR with a redevelopment
potential of 60.000 sq.ft.
"l
RESOLUTION NO. 16-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
COSTA MESA ADOPTING AMENDMENT TO NORTH
COSTA MESA SPECIFIC PLAN (SP-16-O'l) RELATED TO
HOME RANCH SITE AND SAKIOKA LOT 2
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS
FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa adopted the 2015-2035
General Plan on June 21, 201 6;
WHEREAS, the General Plan is a long-range, comprehensive document that
serves as a guide for the orderly development of Costa Mesa;
WHEREAS, by its very nature, the General Plan needs to be updated and
refined to account for current and future community needs;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Costa Mesa adopted the
North Costa Mesa Specific Plan by Resolution No. 94-67 in July I 994;
WHEREAS, the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan provides additional planning
guidelines and standards for several large development areas located in north Costa
Mesa;
WHEREAS, by its very nature, the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan needs to be
updated and refined to account for current and future community needs;
WHEREAS, within the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan, General Plan 20j5-2035
allowed an increase in the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for Home Ranch site, an increase in
the residential density For Sakioka Lot 2, and development flexibility for 3350 Avenue of
the Arts within the trip budgets adopted by the Land Use and Circulation Elements;
WHEREAS, Home Ranch site is located in Area 1 (Subarea 3) of the North
Costa Mesa Specific Plan and Sakioka Lot 2 is located in Area 8;
WHEREAS, amendments to North Costa Mesa Specific Plan are required to
reflect increased development flexibility for these planning areas as allowed by 2015-
2035 General Plan;
WHEREAS, the amendments promote diversity of development options on
Home Ranch and Sakioka Lot 2 that are in conformance with the objectives of the
North Costa Mesa Specific Plan and General Plan, including the following:
North Costa Mesa Specific Plan - Recognize the development potential of
the planning area and the need to sensitively integrate new development
with the surrounding areas, and therefore, promote both resident and
business community confidence in the long-term vision for the plan area.
General Plan Land Use Objective LU-2A: Promote land use patterns and
development that contribute to community and neighborhood identity.
General Plan Land Use Objective LU-6A: Ensure the long term productivity
and viability of the community's economic base.
General Plan Land Use Objective LU-4A: Encourage new development and
redevelopment to improve and maintain the quality of the environment.
General Plan Land Use Objective LU-5A: Ensure availability of adequate
community facilities and provision of the highest level of public services
possible, taking into consideration budgetary constraints and effects on
the surrounding area.
WHEREAS, on August 22, 2016, the Planning Commission held a public hearing
and recommended approval of the amendment;
WHEREAS, a duly-noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on
September 6, 2016 to allow for public comment on the proposed project and with all
persons having been given the opportunity to be heard both for and against the
proposed project. The Planning Commission recommended City Council approval of
the proposal;
WHEREAS, the project has been reviewed for compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines, and the City environmental
procedures. The proposal has been found to be less than significant with regard to the
development limitations in the General Plan and North Costa Mesa Specific Plan,
including trip budgets and development intensity. Therefore, the relevant environmental
analysis contained in the following previously-approved environmental documents has
been found to be valid, and no further environmental review is required:
* City of Costa Mesa General Plan Environmental Impact Report, SCH No.
2015111053, June 21, 2016.
@ Segerstrom Home Ranch Environmental Impact Report, SCH No.
2000071050, November 2001.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, based on the evidence in the
record, and the findings contained herein, the City Council adopts amendment to North
Costa Mesa Specific Plan (SP-16-01 A1 ) related to Home Ranch site and Sakioka Lot 2
consistent with the provisions of the 2015-2035 General Plan attached hereto as Exhibit
A to this resolution.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 6'h day of September, 2016
STEPHEN M. MENSINGER
Mayor, City of Costa Mesa
ATTEST:APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY CLERK OF THE
CITY OF COSTA MESA
CITY ATTORNEY
ST ATE OF CALIFORNIA)
)ss
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
1, BRENDA GREEN, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of
the City of Costa Mesa, hereby certify that the above Council Resolution Number 16
as considered at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 6th day of
September, 2016, and thereafter passed and adopted as a whole at the regular
meeting of said City Council held on the 6th day of September, 2016, by the following
roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the Seal of the
City of Costa Mesa this day of , 2016
Brenda Green
City Clerk of the City of Costa Mesa
EXHIBIT A
North Costa Mesa Specific Plan
SP-16-01
REVISED PAGES
REVISED 09-06-2016
-'%1-
3.O SUBAREA ANALYSIS
The plan area is composed of eight unique areas that are analyzed individcially as
well as in consideration of scirrounding land uses.
AREA f -HOME RANCH
Existing Land Uses
A portion of -l:this 93-acre site is in agricultural production. Onsite structures include a
single- family residence. gucsthousc, barn, related farm buildings, and an office biiilding
located on Fairview Road. This sitc is These are all owned by c.,,i. Segerstrom-am
j. The single family home and barn are identified in the General
Plan in the Historical and Cultural Resocirces Element. The Segerstrom family. who
continue to maintain the house, constructed the farmhouse in 1915. The barn was
constructed in 1928. Several farm related structures are located nearthe house.
Sinqle family attached and detached homes, an Emulex industrial park, and a Iarqe IKEA
retail/warehouse facility also now sit on the oriqinal Home Ranch site.
General Plan and Zoning
The portions of this site owned by the Seqerstrom family and IKEA are -is-designated
as C o m m e r ci a I C e n t e r Industrial Park by the General Plan and is zoned PDC
I. The maximum Floor ,/'krca P,atio (F/\R) is a./10, which equals 061,060 squart:i f5ct
of building arca. The General Plan establishes site specific FAR of O.37 for the 19.27
acre IKEA site and a site specific FAR of O.64 for remaininq 43.6 acres located south of
South Coast Drive. The trip budgct is 827 a.m. peak hour trips and 855 p.m. peak hour
In 2001. GP-00-05 was approved for Home Ranch to allow residential, commercial, office.
and indcistrial cises. The overall allowable square footage was increased to 1.351.698
square feet and trip budget adjusted accordingly. In respect to this specific plan, the
Home Ranch area vias expanded to include the 30.5 acres bcated north or South Coast
Drive. See follovving Sub-areas discussion.
In 2003, SP-03-02 tit/aS approved that reallocated a 2.074-acre portion of Sub-area B to
Scib-area A to be used as the IKEA parkinq lot. This reallocation of acreage reduced
extinquished the square footaqe development riqhts attributable to the 2.074 acres,
increasinq the IKEA site to 19.27 acres and reducinq the IKEA site FAR to O.37 andT3he
overall alloviable square footage to 1, ,319E3133: the overall trip budget remained
cinchanged. Table IlA was modified to reflect this change.
In 2016, General Plan 2015-2035 was approved adjustinq the FAR of Sub-Area B
resultinq in an increase in the FAR and a maximum development square footaqe of
1,200,000 SF. Table 4A was modified to reflect this chanqe.
Sub-areas
The Segerstrom Home Ranch is divided into four scib-areas. Table 4A provides a
statistical summary of the maxirmim number of dwelling units floor area ratio. bbiilding
square footage. and the trip budgets for each scib-area. Figure ll illustrates the
boundaries of the sub-areas
13-
To facilitate flexibility for Sub-Areas B and C, bui:Cling square footages and trip
budgets may be transferred, provided that the total building square footage. floor
area ratio. and trip Ixidget for the combined two sub-areas are not exceeded as
delineated in Table 4A. Transfers affecting Sub-Areas A and D are not permfted
Future development in Scib-Area B shall be limited to high quality office, office-
related cises, and corporate office/headquarters with subsidiary support functions
that may include research and design minor assembly. light manufactciring and
storage Retail uses in Sub-Area B shall be limited to those that are ancillary to the
office development
Shown below are the development parameters for each distinct sub area.
Table 4A- Segerstrom Home Ranch Sub-Areas
Land Use Acreage Floor
Area
Rakio/D
hriri*i i
Maximum Units/
Square Footage
Maximum
Stories/Height
A M. Peak
Hocir Trips
P.M.Peak
HocirTrips
A IKEA 19 27 0 37 FAR 308,000 sf 2 StOrieS/45 fee 43 431
B Office and
Office-r-ii _i+ed
uses
C I nc:cistr:al
Park
D IS,l-idium
Density
43 572 0.4G) _64 i
1,_,_200000SF
2-5 stories/36 -
73 Feet
See Fgure Ilb
L5&1
i u860
1a9
1,_788
14.5 0 40 FAR 252,648sf 1-5 stories 45-
60 feet
Sae Figut's l fb
3_763 3__62a
16 0 i2
unitstacre
136 single-family
attached uni(s'
3 stories. 50 feet
Residential
TOT AL:
56 single-fami}z
detached units'
Toial Ma:amum.
192 units
2 siori-is;27 feat
" )
93.34 NA 192 units
sf
+-7J
,2381
Note '
j,%he mix of units is for illustrative purposes only: the preie mix of product types will be de(erm ined
dciri ng master plan review :in noinstance shall the 192-unit maximum and/or the morning and evening
peak hocirtrip budget be exceeded.
2. The 1,200,000 maximum square footaqe is calculated based on the full acreaqe oriqinally in Home Ranch which
includes acreaqe transferred to the State of California for public improvements This full square footaqe intensity
may be used for development in Sub-Area B.
4=3. See partial Assiqnment and Assumption of Development Aqreement recorded on 02/05/2004 as Instrument No.
2004000089554 in official records Oranqe County.
IS-
Land Use Compatibility/Integration
The Segerstrom farmhouse provides a uniqcie opportunity for preservation of a small piece of
the City's agricultural heritage This tiivo-story home and accompanying barn are familiar sights
n the area and stand as a reminder of the farming community that was evident here in the early
1900's. Although the Segerstrom home and barn are designated as Commercial Center on the
General Plan Land Use IVlap, it vvould be in keeping with Policy HCR-1A.5 of the General Plan to
preserve these historical striictbires.
Preservation of these structures in their ccirrent k:ication eeuaccompl:shed by
transferring thc dcvclopmcnt potential of the anca to be pncscrvcd to the n:'maindar of the
Industrial Park area. /\t that time, the General Plan would bc amcndcd to an appropriatc
land use dcsignation (c.g., Public Semi Public) and a k:ind use ncstriction recorded
restrictions which include provisions for the property which rccognizcs the bng term
preservation of these buildings as historical resources. The property covered by the recorded
restrictions is a 1.5-acre site shown in Exhibit l1a and includes the home, barn, and two
related structures. The boundaries of the property may be modified, as approved by the
City's Development Services Director, so lonq as the site continues to include 1.5 acres and
all four historic structures. The barn may be relocated within the site. Ownership of the
property could remain with the Segerstrom family until such time they wished to sell
(he property. At that time. the City, another public agency. or private ' a Ms;
could acquire (he site subject first right of refusal to purchase the sitc.to the recorded
restrictions for preservation of this valuable community resource.
The reten(ion of the farrnhouse resuLs in a site des:gn consideration. Non-residential bui'd:rgs
sl'iould be set back from the Farmhouse si(e so as to not visually encroach into this area. Suffering
coulci Includa walls/fencing. Iandscaping, and or parking areas. Consideration shocild be given
(o physically linking the adjacent development to the farmhouse site wi(h pedestrian paths.
In conjunction with approval of GP 00 05,a historical prcscrvation area was dcntifiad on Home
Ranch, as shown in Exhibit 1l a. The barn is to lx, rclocatcd into the prcscrvation an:'a. Thc
Scgcrstrom Home Ranch dcw.loprncnt agrccmcnt includt,s provisions for the bnd dedication,
building prt,scrvation, and k:ing term managcmcnt of this valuabk, community resource. Mcsa
Consolidated Water Dt,trict has also expressed an interest in obtaining land from the property
owner in order to place an underground rcscrvoir adjaccnt to the pre-scrvation area. ShoukJ this
occur, the anticipated offict:' development could not occur ow,r the reservoir r,itc; it would be
necessary for it to remain as open space. The dcyclopment agreement specifies that
er# potential (sqciare footage and trip budget) of the 1 5-acre site and any future
raacrvoir cite can tx.-transferred to the portion of the Home Ranch site located south
of South Coast Drive and east of the Susan Street.
Mesa Consolidated Water District at one time held a ground lease from the Seqerestrom family for
a small portion of the property in Sub-area B and had expressed an interest in acquiring the site.
The Water District has since removed all of its facilities from the site, terminated the lease. and
abandoned the site. This leaves this site available for development as a part of Sub-area B.
Building Heights
The Genera: Plan specifically limits building heights to a maximum oft'ive storias tand only in
!he project's center) for this see Five stories approximate a 75-foot heght limitation. Exhibit
'llb indicates the various heightlimits for Home Ranch The actual siting offutcire buildings sha
take into account surrounding development in order (o minimize visual impacts. The use
of' low- reflec(ive materials for the building's exteriors ill/:II minimize glare impacts. In Building
Height Area 1 adjacent (o Fairview Road, the Ci(y of Costa Mesa shall also require a
shade/shadow analysis for any building proposed to exceed 30 feet in height in order to
e,nsure tha( building's shade or shadow does not extend beyond the project sita or publ:a rights-
of-iivay
Circulation
The primary project access/egress points shocild be aligned vvith Sbisan Street and the
existing Automobile Clrib entry to the north Access to the farn'ihocise preservation site
should be considered from within this area so as to minimize the number of driveways
on South Coast Drive
Freeway access improvements in the immediate area include the vvidening of tha
Fairview Road off-ramps, both northbocind and southbound, and the construction or the
ne'i'/ South Coast Drive off-ramp. Both are completed.
Final Program Environmental :mpact Report No 1048 for Home Ranch inclcided a
preliminary analysis of a Susan Street e:<it from the nelf'/ Socith Coast Drive-Fairview
Road- Harbor Boulevard collector road inclcided in the 1-405/SR-73 conflcience project.
Prior to approval of this addit:onal exit by CalTrans, additional environmental
documentation would be reqtiired. Tha Susan Street exit m not reqciired for the Home
Ranch project.
A fuh.ire bikevvay lil!aS shown on the Master Plan of Bikeways traversing this ste to South
Coast Drive from the 1-405 bikeway cindercrossing. However. in conjignction with GP-00-
05. this bike trail undercrossing and related linkages Were deleted from the Master Plan
of Bikeways This deletion li'/aS necessitated by the CaFrans,IFHVVA l'reeway
improvements in tha general area.
Parks and Recreation
The Segerstrom family hocise and barn may also be considered as meeting a portion
of the future park needs for any future residential development north of South Coast
Drive. It would not meet any active recreational nseds txit serve rathata as a
ciiltciral/historical center
In conjunction with GP-00-05, the historical reservation area !iVaS established. See
prsvious Land Use Compatibility- Integration discussion.
Fire Protection Services
Future development plans and environmental analyses for this site need to assess
the fciture fire station in the North Harbor area,i.e. bcation and timing of construction.
In conjunction with adoption of GP-00-05, i! was determined that Segerstrom Home
Ranch iArea 1) increased the demand for City fire suppression services in the City's
northwest area* The Segerstrom Home Ranch development agreement includes
provisions for (he necessary land acquisit6n. bui!cling design. and construction costs.
The City of Costa Masa Fire Department is responsible for determining the tining of !and
acquisition and fire station construction. If the fire station is ultimately bcated on
Segerstrom Home Ranch. tha development agreemant allows for transfer of development
rights (bciilding sqeiare footage and trip biidget) to the balance of the Home Ranch
project.
AREA 8- SAKIOKA LOT2
Existing Land Uses
This 33 acre area is designated for planned development, including mixed-use, residential,
and commercial office development and is currently in agricultural production. Two single
fami!y homes are k:icated along Scinflovver Avenue. Lot 2 is ovvned by Roy K Sakioka &
Sons
General P1anandZoning
This site is designat'ed Urban Center Commercial by the General Plan and is zoned PDC.
Development Standards and Trip Budget
The development intensity for planned development (i.e. master plans) on Sakioka Lot 2 is
limited by the following:
The trip budget for this site is 1,062 a m. peak hour trips and 1,407 p m. peak
hour trips. The trip bcidget shall not be exceeded for the aqqreqate
development any master planned dew:'lopmcnt on Sakioka Lot 2.
Planned Development Standards of the PDC zone are appliable to the site.
unless othervvise indicated in the North Costa Mesa Specific Ptan
A maximum 1.O F!oor-Area-Ratio applies to nonresidential development.
Nonresidential development is also subject to the trip budget limitation,
applicable development standards of the PDC zone and consistency with the
General Plan.
The maximum residential density (dwelling cinits per acre) is a maximum of 28
dwelling units per acre for the residential component of a mixed-use
development on a sinqle leqal parcel (See "Mixed-Use" discussion) or a
maximum of 80'X) dwelling units per acre ror an independent residential
community includinq development that afford,:iblcincorporates affordable
housing (See "Affordable Housing / Density Bonus discussion). An
independent residential community development m defined as a development
in which a separate leqal parcel (or parcels) is entirely developed as a
residential use and therefore does not inclcide commercial uses on the same
su leqal parcel.
The maximum building heiqht of 8 stories per Airport Land Use Determination dated
May 26, 2016 and as reflected in 2015-2035 General Plan.
The projected trip generation for land uses proposed for Sakioka Lot 2 will be based on
latest edition of Trip Generation.lnstitute of Transportation Engineers. The methodology will
consider reasonable allowances for trip credits due to internal capture and pass-by trips
Internal capture credit refers to trips for various cises proposed within the parcel that can be
accomplished withobit having to bave the Facility.
For example, an office complex could have restacirants and other ancillary uses which
may not generate new trips - rather serve tenants within the complex Other examples
include conference room and fitness facilities. Pass-by trips refers to trips that are
already on roadway adjacent to the devebpment and use the facilities. Pass-by trip
credits are limited to retail uses.
The credits allowed for internal captcire and pass-by trips will be determined by the
Transportation Services lianager. The net trip generat6n after credits will be comparaj to
the trip budget to determine if the proposed development is iivithin the limits prescribed in
the North Costa llesa Specific Plan
Land Use Compatibility/Integration
Future development of this site is anticipated to include mid- and h5h-rise office buiUings
as well as support commercial. Shade and shadow impacts for bciildings in excess of 2
stories should be considered in relation to surrounding bnd uses. Site design shocild limit
vehicular access to and from Sunflower Avencie.
New commercial and office buildings are encouraged to be located along the Anton frontage
Encroachment into the bciiUing setback on Anton Boulevard for commercial or mixed-use
deve:opments can be consldered based on how iiiiell the projed design accommodates
pedestrmns and if the parking areas and/or structhires are hcated behind the commercial or
mmed-use buiUing(s). Parking areas shall not be allowed to encroach into the street setback,
unless they are tucked under the commercial development. Parking bts/structures should be
locatad primarily along the eastern edge of the site adjacent to the Costa Mesa Freeway
and the new on-ramp Internal pedestrian linkages to Anton Boulevard should be provided.
Mixed-Use
The PDC zoning does permit mixed-iise development including residential and
nonresUential uses as complementary uses. The residential component of a mixed-use
development shall be limited to a maximcim density of 28 dwelling units per acre. This
maximum density only applies to residential uses as complementary uses to commercial
uses within a mmed-use development. It does not apply to an independent residential
communitydcw,lopment-that does not include commercial uses on the same-4ej
p. Total buitding intensity for the entire -site shall not exceed the maximum
allowable development intensity as set forth by the trip budgets. For a mixed use
development, ic overall mix of uses including trips from dwelling cinits. shall be counted
together in determining compliance with the trip budgets. The trip budget shall not be
exceeded.
The Costa Mesa Freeway Sunflower Avenue and llain Street represent significant air
quality and noise sorirces that will impact the siting of residential units and other sensitive
bnd uses. Existing ambient air qciality may exceed state and federal )evels for carbon
monoxide: therefore, significant mitigation measures may be reqbiired. Acceptable interior
and exterior noise bvels for residential uses would need to be ach:eved. An appropriate
interface between the office buildings and residential uses wocild also be reqciired
-20-
Affordable Housing and Density Bonus
If the cntirc all or a portion of the site is developed as an independent residential
community development that incorporates v#h affordable housing, the maximum
density shall be X80 dwelling units per acre involving a maximum number of 660
residential units (including any density bonuses, see Table 8.'Total buikjing intensityfor
the entiresite shall not exceed the maximum allowable development
intensity as set forth by the trip budgets.
The maximum number of dwelling units (including any density bonuses) for Sakioka Lot 2
is 660 units. The maximum base density is 528; in order to be granted a 25% density
bonus (132 dwelling urls), the developer would have to provide affordable housing
pursuant to one of the following three options shown in the following table. All affordable
housing provisions shall be for a minimum of 30 years.
Table 8- Sakioka Lot2 Dersity Bonus Program
North Costa Mesa Specific Plan
MAXIMUM BASE
DENSITY
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CATEGORY'DENSITY BONUS
CRITERIA
528 UNnS
OPTION I
1. ER ( LO'ill INCOME'
REQUIRED PERCENT OF
BASE DENSIT{ TO 8E
ArFORDABLE
l 0 !/,
-+ OF AFFORDABLE UNI t'S 53USITS
OPT10N2
LO'i'/ INCOIIE
REQIIIRED PERCE'ilTOF
BASE D-cNSITY TO BE
AFFORDA8LE
20%
4 0FAFFORDAaLE uNIT3 106 '_.NIT3
OPTION 3
'_D iai & MODEtRATE INCO}.1E
REQulP.ED PEFCEI-I" OF
BASE DENSffY TO BE
AFFORD.-IBLE
lO%LO'i'/& 13ViAi!ODEFlt'JE
#Oh- 'IFFORDABLE UNITS 132 UNITS
25% DENST Y EIONUS 132 11N ITS
TOTAL LT 11T3 660
NOTES,
Very Low, LOI/I/ and Moderate determriaiions are based on HUD definitons and inmme fmits
adjusted for famity sze
The total number of units asscimes that other cttsaa of the P!anned Development Commercial Zone
have been met regarding densUy increases
i3.. Density Bonus as provided herein, or as otherwise provided for by state law (Government Code 65915)
'The maxrmim number of i.inits (660) n an hc!ependent iesrlen(ial comnuiniky is based on a38.25
acres of land and .]80 cines per acre
2i
Building Heights
The maxirncim building height is 4-ml20 feet (approximately -i-28 stories) south of the ne!V
collector street and 60 feet (approximately 4 stories) north of the new collector street.
Commercial or mixed use developments that are allowed to encroach into the street
setback of Anton Boulevard shall be limited to 2 stories/ 30 feet within the street setback.
Buildings above 4-7-3161 AMSL -feet in height viill require approval by the FAA.
Circulation
The Master Plan of Highvvays includes a new collector street that connects Main Street and
Anton Boulevard through this site. A ne!iV 1-405 on-ramp from Anton Boulevard is to the south
of this site. The Master Plan of Bikeways includes a new bikeway on Sunflower Avenue. As
shown on Figurc O, thc various altcrnativt,s for the urban rail alignment travcrsc this property
and a station is also proposed in the vicinity.
Figure 19 provides an overview of the entire plan area and depicts development standards
that can be shown graphically. It should be noted that the information is intended
to be illustrative and is not to be interpreted as the precise locations for future land usesor
structures, or the collector street.
22-
I Table 1- General Plan Designations
North Costa Mesa Specific Plan
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION
TYPICAL USES RESIDENTIAL
DENSITY
FLOOR AREA RATIO COMPATIBLE
ZONING
Low
Density
Residential
Single family detached and attadied units, granny units,
accessory apartments, family day care
Less than or equal to 8 units per
El(Ye.
0.15 high traffic
0.25 moderate traffic
0.35 low traffic
Rl, POR-LD, I &R
Medium
Density
Residential
Single-family attached units, muRiple family units, senior
congregate care facilities, convalescent hospitals, and group
residential homes. Ancillary commercial uses are permitted
the planned development zone.
Less than or equal to 1 2 units
per acre
0.15 high traffic
0.25 moderate traffic
0.35 low traffic
Rl , R2-MD,
PDR-MD,
4, I&R
High
Density
Residential
Multiple family units, senior congregate care facilities,
convalescent hospitals and group residential homes.
AnciJlary commercial uses are permitted in the planned
development zones.
Less than or equal to 20 units per
acre: except the density in the
PDR-NCM zone is 25 to 35 units
per acre. See also The Lakes for
site-specific density.
0.15 high traffiC
0.25 moderate traffic
0.35 high traffic
R2-Ha,R3, PDR-
HD, PDR-NCM,
, I&R
Commercial Center Major shopping, service, and otfice facilities designated
serve city-wide and regional markets.
Less than or equal to 20 ur'jts/acre 0.25 high traffic
0.35 moderate traffic
0.45 low trifflc
0.75 very low traffic
Exwpt that t-bme Ranch has a site-spearic
FAR
0.37 for the IKEA portion of the project and
0.64 for the office portion
C1 , C2, C1-S,
PDC, AP, P, CL
Regional Commercial Regional sale uses including major department stores,
specialty retail outlets, restaurants, offices, and hotels.
Less than or equal to 20
units/acre
0.652 South Coast Plaza (east ofBear Street)
0.89 South Coast Plaza (west of Bear Street)
PDC
Llrban
Center
Intensively developed mixed mmmercial including offloes, retail
shops, restaurants, and hotels. Residential uses are also
Less than or equal to 20 units/acre.
Exceptions: South Coask. Me_tro ,q,
South Coast Metro Center (Area 6) has a
site- specific FAR of C1.79 '
PDC,TC
Commert.ial
perrnineu pursuiin{ (0 11 le iiionn LO5ia IVlesa apeciric rian (;enter l/Vea u) rTaS-a Slit:l 5
'I 00 units per acre;%
!Qiikinkii I n+ 1 rnav hp r in tn QS
SaklOka LOt 2 (Area 8) riaS a
maximum site- specific FAR of 1.0.
-it-uu+az ##} a- 400#J oo oY a"'a a' '
. . - i&- i . . 7. .. . . . . ... .. I . . _ ._ j. ... .. .1. .. .. .. .. . I -l()
I
I
Cultural Arts Center Mixed commencial, restdential, office and cultural uses.1.77 See also the South Coast Plaza Town
Center discussion regarding the FAR.
TC
Industrial Park Wide variety of industrial and compatible office and support
commerciat uses.
Less than or equal to 20
units/acre
0.20 high traffic
0.30 moderate traffic
0.40 low traffic
0.75 very low traffic
MP, POI, CL
I
Public and
Semi-Pubic
Parks, hospRals, schools, religiaus facilities, fairgrounds,
and public facilities.
0.25 l& R. I&R-S, P '
I
Mixed Use Overlav Housino. such as mulWamilv dweliinqs, blendinq residenffal Less than or equal to 90 units/acre I .o____MUOD I
uses into key areas that are served by various shoppinq,--- I I
convenience, employment, and community-servinq uses.I I
I I
Updated Month 2026
15
(5) "Prior Housina Element Site" means any non-vacant Housing Element Site
that was identified in the prior Housinq Element and any vacant Housinq Element
Site that was identified in two or more consecutive prior Housinq Elements. Such
sites are identified in the City's currently adopted Housing Element Sites
Inventory, shown as Table B-6: Sites to Accommodate Costa Mesa 2021-2029
RHNA.
(6) "Protected Unit" means any unit that, within the past five years, was occupied
by a lower-income t'iousehold reqardless Of whether the unit was deed-restricted
or that was subject to an affordability covenant or rent control.
(e) Supersession of Overlay
(1) For Lower-Income Housinq
development standards in accordance with a Streamlined Development Review
process per CMMC Title 13, Chapter (II (Planninq Applications). A project that
does not qualify as a Use by Riqht shall be processed in accordance with a
3
(2) Off-Street Parking Standards
i. Residential Uses. Minimum off-street parkinq requirements for multi-
family dwellinqs on Housinq Element sites are provided in Table 13-
83.58-A. Minimum Off-Street Parkinq Requirements.
ii. Non-Residential Uses. Minimum off-street parkinq requirements for
those permitted non-residential uses on Housinq Element sites shall be
subject to CMMC Title 13, Chapter Vl (Off-Street Parkinq Standards).
Table 13-83.58-A. Off-Street Parkinq Standards for Residential Uses
I * *
Studio or 1-bedroom unit
2 or more bedrooms per unit
I soace oeir unit
2 spaces per. unit
0.25 @ ace er unit
0.25 s ace er unit
(3) Development Standards
i. Minimum and maximum requirements for buildinq heiqht, non-residential
intensity, setbacks, lot coveraqe, and open space are provided in Table
13-83.58-B. Development Standards.
Table 13-83.58-B. Development Standards.
Min. Residential
Density'
20 du/ac
Max. Residential
Densitv2
40 du/ac
50 du/ac
60 du/ac
90 du/ac
Max. Buildinq
60 ft.
72 ft.
108 ft.O( -O( ' ;i i e C
Min. FAR
Max. FAR
Front or side abutting a public Min. 10 ft. and max. 20 fl.
5
Costa Mes.i North Costa Mesa Specific Plan
Existing Genera//"/an andZoning Designations
Figure 3 indicates the General Plan land use designations for the area of the City north of the
1-405, and Figure 4 indicates the accompanying zoning designations. Table l summarizes
the development parameters of the General Plan land use designations, and the compatible
zoning digtrictg.
for commercial, industrial, residential,
cannot be exceeded. The General
in the plan area in the following
of trips shall only be allowed in the area of the
and east of Harbor Boulevard, and shall be limited
of each other.
in the review and approval of a planned
Sufficient conditions of approval shall be
plan to ensure long-range control
trips sl*all not result in any greater impacts
then would occur if each Traffic Analysis
. (Consult with the Planning Division
trips between TAZs, such combination
the total trip budget of all parcels
according to the FAR and trip
11
Costa Mesa North Costa Mesa Specific Plan
5. The combination
in abrupt
surrounding land
or transfer oftrips shall not allow development intensities which result
in scale or intensity within the project or between the project and
6. Approval of the
with the above criteria
properties from which
plan or development plan ehaltbe.eonditieinod to oneure ceimpliaiice
to preclude future ove$velopment on portions of the project or
budgets were transfe,rred'."
7. Trip budget transfers shall recorded against the properties.
Therefore, if a property is underdevel
"excess" trips could be transferred to a
in terms- 6f its trip budget, there.js the possibility that the
parcel to augment its trip budget;
It should be noted that all the Planned Development (PD), Town Cent,4r (TC), and Shopping Center (C1-
S) zones require Planning Commission review and approval of the land use mix and building location.
MIX €EdaoUSe OVla%f DgStrgCt a/7d ri upCs Ls,y hJs'ntgfNed in the HousJ'nq Element
In 2026, this specific plan was amended for consistencyWithaan amendment to the City's Zoning Map,
whichresultedintherezona of:eeveral " inthei ' areatoenc5u andfacilitateresidential
and mixed-use deve l/Vhile base zoni districts remain the same the Mixed-Use Overla District
(MUOD) was applied to several parce:Is in the PDC, 18R, PDR-HD, TC, C1, and PDI zoninq districts within
the plan area. The MUOD is an overlap district and shall only apply to the parcels identified in the City's
Zoninq Map. This specific plari shallr,ontinue to applV to a property unless specifically superseded by a
MUOD pr6ject when a property6wner chooses to exercise provisions of Article 11 (Mixed-Use Overlay
District) of ChapterV (Development Standardsl'ofTitle 13-(Planning and Development) ofthe Costa Mesa
Municipal Code on a qa-alifying properiy. Howeve?, it ihould be noted that projects identified on Lower-
Income Housinq Element Sites shall be' qoverned by Section 13-83.58.e, (Supersession of Overlay) of
Article 14, and the provisions of.'.that Section shall supersede and prevail over any conflicting provisions
omf.lnthlmeuumnderer-lsQlidneqnltblaalseffozoornea,eina6:.umdi.InnglsltebrulatlnoretvlilmeWiteadn:,)ampipnriomVuam, raensdidepnetrima:udeednsuitsiees,anadndcaapla, coittihees,
applicable zoninq provisions, such as other urban pl , overlays, and specific plans, includinq this
specific plan.
lJpdated Month 2026
12
Costa Mesa North Costa Mesa Specific Plan
Building Heights
Existing building heights in the plan area vary from single story single family homes to twenty-
one story office buildings. Generally, the high-rise office buildings are located in the South
Coast Plaza Town Center and South Coast Metro Center areas; the Metro Pointe area has
approval for additional buildings that include two fifteen story buildings. The buildings at South
Ceioat 41aza and Cryatal Ceiurt vary fr'om ono to throo gtoriog in hgight
The General Plan does not establish a general limit on buildj.n<' heights north of the 1-405 but
rather contains two policies that provide guidelines for 'd'etetmining the appropriate building
height. Policy LU-1C.1 permits the construction of bqildings oyer two stories or 30 feet only
when it can be shown that the building height witl not impact surrounding developments.
Policy LU-1C.3 prohibits the construction of buildings that present a hazard to air navigation
at John Wayne Airport as determined by the Federal Aviation Agency.2
Policy LU-1C.3 is particularly relevant to the pl'an area, since the portion of the plan area
generally east of the Metro Pointe property is withiri the imaginary horizontal surface of John
Wayne Airport. Beyond the horizontal surface for another a.,ooo feet is the imaginary conical
surface. See Figure 6. These imaginary surfaces are the.trigger for requiring special studies
and review by the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County and the FAA. It should
be noted that a number of existing buildings in South Coast.Plaza Town Center encroach
within the imaginary horizontal surface;. however, each was determined not to pose a hazard
to the airport's operations and were required to instalt ot>structi6n lighting.
Building heights in North Costa Mesa have"createdJpublic.coritroyersy in the past, especially
in the Home Ranch area whe're high-rise Qevei6pment approvals were overturned by the
voters in 1988. Table 2 specifie's the maximum..building heights for the plan area and shall
continue to apply to a property"unless specifically superseded by a MUOD project when a
property owner choosesto exercise provisions of Article 14 (Mixed-Use Overlay District) of
Chapter V (Development Standards) of Title 13'(Planninq and Development) of the Costa
Me'sa Muna a Code on a a a a. these building height standards recognized
existing patterns and surrounding land . a
It shoufd be noted that Home Ranch has a
the center of the property. Any additional
General Plan amendment. Exhibit 'l 1 b
height limitation of five stories and only in
ht above five stories (75 feet) would require a
the height limitations for Home Ranch.
2SeeAppendixCforfulltextofPoliciesLU-lC.landLU-1C.3. y5
Updated January 2007' Month 2026
19
North Costa Mesa Specific F'lan
AREA 6- SOUTH COASTMETRO CENTER
Existing Land uses
In 2006, this approximate 45-acre area was developed with several office buildings, a
health club, restaurants, and retaii uses. At one time, the entire South Coast Metro
Center was owned by one property owner (Sakioka Farms) and was leased on a long-
term basis to various other parties. In the early 2000s, there was a change of ownership
and operation of the area, and it is now owned and managed by several different parties.
Some parcels are owned tn fee, while others are owned by the Sakioka family and
leased on a long-term basis to others. For planning purposes only, this area has been
broken into rour different sub-areas, as described in the following discussions, and shown
in Table 8A and on Figure 5 6a.
Generai Plan and Zoning
The site is eiesignated Urban Center Commercial by the General Plan and is zoned PDC
In 2000, a site-specific FAR of O,79 was adopted for this area to aliow a maximum square
footage of 1,546180 of non-residential devetopment on the total site area of 44.97 acres
(this is the net acreage of the site after all necessary dedications for public
improvements),
When the 2000 Ge.neral Pian was adopted in 2002, the trip budget for South Coast Metro
Center was established as 1,886 a,m, peak hour trips and 1,994 p.m. peak hour trips for
a strictly non-residential deveiopment project.
In 2007, General Plan Amendmen't (GP-06-02) was approved, and it consisted of a site-
specific high-rise resideritial development option On a 4.86-acre portion of Area e (Sub-
Area I ) at a density of 100 units per acre with 6,000 square feet or integrated ancillary
retail uses. Additionally, for this residential development option, the Area 6 trip budget
was modified to 1,931 a,m. peak hour trips and 1,976 p.m. peak hour trips.
See the following section for a discussion of the four sub-areas and the corresponding
allocation of the floor area ratio, dwelling units, trip budget, and building square footages.
Sub-Areas
The South Coast Metro Center was divided into four sub-areas in conjunction with the
approval of GP-08-02. These four sub-areas are under separate ownership and
management, Provided in Table 6A is a statistical summary of the maximum floor area
ratio, maximum number of residential uriits, and trip budgets for each sub-area. Figure
16a illustrates the boundaries ofthe sub-areas. ,>qva
To facilitate flexibility within a sub-area, building square foot$es may be transferred,
provided that the total building square footage, number of units}ffoor area ratio,
for the affected sub-area are not exceeded as delineated in Table 6A.
-Trartafcrs bctwccn thc sub-areas arc not pcrmittod
Llpdated July 3+ 2000; January :!007 6 0
North Costa Mesa Specific Plan
Sub-Area 'E GP-06-02 amended the 2000 Gerieral Plan to create a site-specific
residential density of -'100 units/acre in the Urban Center Commeirciai land usedesignation for this 4,66-acre su5-area with a maximum of 484 residential units. In this
sub-area, the 484 high-rise residential units and 6,000 square feet of ancillary retaH,
known as Symphony Tower3 may be constructed at the southeast corner of Avenue ofthe Arts and Anton Boulevard in conjunction with the demolition of two existingrestaurants and the relinquishment of a 300-room hotel (200,950 square feet)
entitlement. This would result in a maximum non-residentia( floor area ratio of O.03 witha maximum number of 484 high-rise residential units at 100 units per acre (Option 4 inTable 6A).
Strould the property owner determine not to develop any or only a portion of the high-rise residential option, then the unbuilt residential uses may be converted to a
corresponding non-residential development provided that the maximum allowable non-
residentiai building square footage, floor area ratio, and trip budget are not exceeded
for the Option 2 development scenario shown in Tabie 6A. The Option 2 developmentscenario represents the maximum amount of non-residential building square footage
allowed for this sub-area, which is 2al6,794 square feet. It is anticipated that thisdevelopment option would be composed of a 300-room- hotel (200,950 square feet) and
15,844 square feet of restaurant uses.
For both Options 4 and 2, Table M indicates the a.m. and p,m. trip budgets, maximum
number of dwelling units, maximum non-residential building Square footage, andassociated maximum floor area rotio.
The maximurri buiiding height is 306 feet above grade level for Option 1 and 180 feetabove grade level for Option 2,
Sub-Area 2: For this 2.57-acre sub-area, the maximum allowable building square
footage is 4,000 square feet with a corresponding maximum allowable floor area ratio of
0.036. Iri 2006, this sub-area was developed with a muiti-tenant retai) buiiding (545
The maximum building height is 180 feet above grade level. Thc a.m- and p.m. peakI iuui Liip LiuJgbt is sliown in Tablc 6i
Sub-Area 3: In 2000, GP-99-06 was approved for this 19.5-acre sub-area with amaximum building square footage of 525,000 in four buildings for Experian information
Solutions (475 Anton Boulevard). The corresponding maximum allowable floor area
ratio is O.62. )n 2006, the Final bui!ding was approved for construction. The maximum
bui!ding height for this sub-area is 180 feet above grade level The a.m. and p.m. peakhour trip budget is shown in Table 6A.
Updated JUIY 3, xooo; January 2007 6i
North Costa Mesa Specific Plan
8ub-Area 4: For this 18.06-acre site the maximum allowable floor area ratio is 1.02
(900,990 square Feet o(a buiidirig area) Iri QOOO, this, sub-area waa built-out with:
Three Office buildings (535, 555, 575 Anton) - 749, 230 square feet
One Health Club (589 Anton) -51;156 square feet
The maximum building height is 180 feet above grade level, ) Thc a.m.
ho.ur trip budget is shown in Table 6A,
o- --=- """""" ' """"""' . " I
'aa'@""'a'-t't-QO""""""b"raa==ia" I%offlh(20@t@.,Qes'7 EJecjfi6f?lan . ,
'Maximum
AllgWatGlb.
N6ii-
Residential
.F'AR
Magimum Nb.n-
Resid'er'itial '
ap:a!lding
Squ_are,
F6qtagsffi
-(Qax.itnyrfi
Allowable '
Number.of
Migh=ni_@e-
Residential,
'Units.
MaXimurp '
4M, Pink."
._t'l6ur Tcip '
Buag@l "
--I
Ni:axjr0pi l
-'P,M. Pea_k 'i
-BM.tudtrgTetjip i.1
.1
Sub-Areal (4.86acres) t
Option "l 0.03'6,000 sq. ft.'484 227 290' l'
Option 2 1 .0 :j6,794 sq. ft. o 182 308
-""" I'S\ Yub-Area2 (2.i7 acres) \ \, ,
kY'j"41}
s-%';;-r
&!'A
!.7Ji
'< 'v
%[]!!I #,
j'a
?Jra
.,t!!
W
,;Rl,:!0.036X 4,00%. ft.%'l '\=l
--- - " % % '% ' % j
..._ _ i . 'S,. ,Sub-Area 3 (19.4%acres) z i.q m Wl%4b,i_am I ffl u (!af!l!
,0.62 52%O sq. ft.-'S 752 'S,, 704!!e
)m
q?m
%8ib.-4
id
f:ffi'a
&!aa'.l
&
!
t
ti
ti M'iiI
""" ! '%, %Rub-Area 4 (18.06 acres)
1 .02 800,386 sq. ft.o 947 968
TOTAL SOUTH COAST METRO CENTER (44.97 acres)
Option 4 0.89"1335,386 sq.ft2.484 1931 1 976a
Option 2 0.79 1546;180 sq.ft.o 1886 1994
1. This maximum may be increased to no more than the Option 2 maximum for this sub-
area in direct relation to the decrease in the maximum number of high-rise residential
units. See text for Sub-Area I for additional information.
2. This maximum may be increased to no more than the Option 2 maximum for the total
' area in direct relation to the decrease in the maximum number of high-rise residential
, units in Sub-area 1.
AP/N
Updated July 3, ,iooo; January 2007
Existing Land Uses
AREA 8- SAK{OKA LOT 2
North Costa Mesa Specific Plan
This 33 acre area is designated for planned development, including mixed-use,
residential, and commercial office development and is currently in agricultural production.
TWO Single family homes are located along Sunflower Avenue. Lot 2 is owned by Roy K.
Sakioka & Sons.
General Plan and Zoning
This site is designated Urban Center Comrnerciat by the General Plan and is zoned PDC.
Devetopment Standards and Trip Budget
The development interisity for planned development (i.e. master plans) on Sakioka Lot 2
is limited by the following:
The for this site !s\l,062 a.m. peak hou(trips and '),407 p.m. peak
hour trip4 The trip budget $all not be exceeded for any master planned
developmJt on Sakioka Lot 2.S
Planned Development 8tandards of the PDC zone are applicable to the site,
unless otherwise indicated in the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan-
A maximum I,O Floor-Area-Ratio applies to nonresidential development.
Nonr@sidendteiavleldoepvmeelonp(tment is as)soofthseubiect, to etheantdripcOX;nlsgteeltlcylimwitltahtitohne,
The maximum residential density (dwelling units per acre) is a maximum o
dwelling units per acre for Lltq- rcsidcntial pumpunviil J a mixed-use
nt (800 "Mixcd*ac" dic%meion) or a maximum of 20 dwelling units
an inclspsnctsnt rps!';lpnfial community inctuding a
indepcndam ibbidc)iiial tvmmunity ia dcfincd as a development in which th
silb ib siiliisly Jevblu%,ffd aS a residential use and therefore duss iiuL il
acommercial uses Qil the Same sit
land uses proposed For Sakioka Lot 2 will be based on
or Transportation Engineers The msthodology
for trip credits due to internal capiure and pass-by
trips for various uses proposed within the parcel !hat
leave the facility.
The projected trip generation
latest edition of Trip Generation
will consider reasonable a
trips. Internal capture credit refers
can be accomplished without having
For example, an office complex could have
may not generate new trips - rather serve tenants
include conference room and fitness facilities,
and other ancillary uses which
the complex. Other examptes
trips refers to trips that are
Updated Jut} 2002, September 2011 73
North Costa Mesa Specific Plan
already on roadway
credits are limited to
t to the development and use the facilities. Pass-by trip
uses.
The creditg allowed for i rnal capture aqd pass-by $rips will be determined by the
Transportation Services Mari . The net trip generation after credits will be compared
to the trip budget to determirie i the proposed development is within the limits prescribed
in the North Costa Mesa i Plan. (-p
'Facintu"re' dSeevceloompmpea'n't' o"f' t'hli's" seitge ias :onnticipated to includCidl - aUnd h""ighir'ise offl'ce buildings
as well as support commercial Shade and shadow impacts for buildings in excess of 2
stories should be considered in relation to surrounding !and uses. Site design should limit
vehicular access to and from Sciriflower Avenue.
NeW cornmerciai and office bui(dings are encouraged to be located along the Anton
frontage. Encroachment into ihe building setback on Anton Boulevard for commercial or
miXeCl-uSe developments Can be COnSidered baged On hOW Well the project desigrl
accommodates pedestrians and if the parking areas and/or strcictures are located behind
the commercial or mixed-use building(s) Parking areas shall not be allowed to encroach
into the street setback, unless they are tucked under the commercial development.
Parking lots/structures shouid be located primarily along the eastern edge of the site
adjacent to the Coata Mesa Freeway and the new on-ramp. Internal pedestrian linkages
to Anton Boulevard stiould be provided.
Mixed-Use
The PDC zoning does permit mixed-use development including residential and
nonresidentiai uses as complementary uses, Thc rcaidcntial componont of a mixed-use-
development shall be limited to El maximum density of 28 dwelling units per acre. Thm-
maximum dcnaity only :ipplicc to rcsidcntial u3Ca d6 complcriit,,iilaiy J6b6 to pu
-uses within a mixecl-usb Jvvt,lupir It dt<s not a(iply to qn inr'lel'; t'-'i i
ctnily tha! does riot include cuiniuvicial uSCQ On tlta beiltib site, Total building
devel63pment, the overall
including trips from dwelling units, sh.Ji be counted together in d$rmining compliance
With the trip budgets. The trip budget not be exceede& '( Q.
The Costa Mesa Freeway, Sunflower Avenue, and Main Street represent significant air
quality and noise sources that will impact the siting of residential units and other sensitive
land uses Existing ambient air quality may exceed state and federal levels for carbon
monoxide; therefore significant mitigation measures may be required. Acceptable interior
and exterior noise levets for residential uses would need to be achieved. An appropriate
interface between the office buildings and residential uses would also be required.
Updated July 2002, September 2011 74
..l/al.,iaayll, ti';' L: t'ii't"il X3j I,' i,i : I ii,' ,t, II" i"C lr"""'n-)"lll'(i"'l'r"1'!4.'i:"-'J"':'ii'-:ii,."aIl"'!'a'al!l"'-ra 5:" L':'
rif[i'/""i':': i' 11-l-L-I-:!":\1!___.i'- y' i'r'l'--iMv'a""'i{j'iriJil""ylii7'i'-!L'i:u"!y'e::j!r
-" Lit - - - --' l-i J l-- I - - - ' - -" f iTi"TTfT--) F- )f;:'i-i'i-r<l:"-: ir-rrrt!-Si -! S
. _ - -J.. * _ 1__ J_ - .; . l___' % L _!l_ l _ _lJ_ __ j I
l i 8____/pi t' I
1 * li g I: i i7 2 i,-Rl !,i
!H""'c-_.__ __ __l -- )! if ha':
i a,r-- i _J-- gI, Z
iri-'-' s<,["i-' I
)l
il
___JI
r"i .il
j,r." f'AJ"!X7';"o [-J' j'J-"':a'o'IIJ) fi " ";J- :U6-- -":'11'3"""
(2- ---- """'-',
!- i 152 i
j y," X( X-,!J"// /"<i j ( k t L 1_ Ixll<" 7II!- ,.,<)
a, ' ___' _l=i-' -.,, - - - i 1,,/7 /- i ,I /" a'o a
'J2>a,X/";_7i/l/.[_,"i/(' ,l,l,oaneas z,- .8:j"L.x--' . @'
i--l,__,If __l ="'% ."s"""-I !=& 6(-ANTONJ3J.-_. -_ _J .___,,, __, _l_! %i,$4 A/ ct
LEGEND
- Bikeway
--------- Freeway Ramp
-'- Future Collector Street
Du's Potential Dwelling Units Locatiort
<> ?mioct Entrv
AREA 8 - SAKIOKA LOT 2
Development Summary
Total Aha - 33 acres
i General Pian: tkban Center Commercial
Zoning: PDC
Maxlmumlnter+alty: o.so'mn-noun l.C7 FAJ
O.60 P)IR - Office
aa.,t.,<'imncrih*ain>Rg!l)flnnf _
- r a 5 -l- - $ a - aa- l
' ?.odogtriati Litikaae I 'm"'ax"i'm"'u"m"'os':';i"""u:aaitsaaapa'ae;'ao;;e-a- N! .- i l# a # # $ € 0 W # % # # - - - --, _t II fl' B % s 0 0) + + 0% - 0 ' - a r' - - ' - ' 0 '
4 jllaT.s m rinnk heiur trms hs
+ Dwelling Unit Orientation I } ,alV # @.- - --l- - -- - - - - - - -. ata -
I l Maximum&iHdmaHelohl: 12stories/180fast(southofthecollectorstreet) f'&
"""""'="- '-'---'-'------ ' - *itoriesieotaet(nonhofttmcolkxtorstreet) "
ate-.yheinroiioripmetiinvaphielotmiiuivntb+ovJiaitaauve 2stodes/30feat-Commercia*uaesthataraliod
and iS not iniendeo 10 tie inleirpiolo) as ihti 911!lad) kmri !or tuluieland uses to ancroach. ,nto th, setback for Anton atm. Fig,, 18
or shidiams. unlna so*pml!led vii SetWt 4.O Devoloprnem Stantlards
Affordable Housing and Density Bonus
If the entire site
housing, the
number of 660
as an
density shall be 20
units (including any
site shall not
residential community with affordable
units per acre involving a maximum
bonuses, see Table 8).' Total
the maximum allowable development
budgets.
units (incti,irlin.y rlcnsity bonuses)-for Sakioka Lot 2
density is 528; in order to be granted a 25% density
developer Would have tO provide affordable housing
optiorig shown in the following table. All affordable
of 30 years,
building intensity for the
intensity as set forth by the b
1hemauXnmits.um"rnhuemmbearxOimfum
bonus (132 dweHing units),
Sl-"'o purgu,arit to 5rie. of the following
housing provisions shall be for a
North Costa Mesa Specific Plan
MAXIMUM BASE
DgNSlTY , ypopoxsuti%acareaonv'
s os74"7;+,tiu:s I
528 11NITS
j
I
I
I
I
OPTION 1
VERY LOW INCOME'
PERCENT OF
DENSffY TO BE
10%
#OFA%RDABLEUNITS83 uNlTS I
OPTION 2
LOW INCOME'
REaUIR[:(&ERCENT OF
BASE osis)q-'r to BE
qpposoosc4
20%
# OF AFFORDAblLE uNITS 106 LINITS I
CIPTION 3
LOW & MODERATE INCOME'
REQulRED PER(,kNT OF
exss DENSIT/ TO 'qe
pppopooeci
I
10aA LOW & 15% MODERATE
#OF AFFORDABLE ukTS 132 UNITE
25% DENSln' B NUS 132 UNITS
" TOTAuUNIS=660
NOTES:
Very Low, Low, and
adjusted for family size.
The total number of units
have been met regarding
Yerate
a!umes
der%ity
determinations are based on HUD definitions and income limits,
that other criteria of the Planned Development Commercial Zone
increases
'The ma:mum number of units (660) in an independent residential community is based on 33 acres of land and 20
units per acre...
Updated January :ioo7, September 2011
78
North Costa Mesa Specific Plar3
Building tleights
The maximum building height is 180 feet (approximately 12 stories) south of the new
collector street and 60 feet (approximately 4 stories) north of the. new collector street.
Commercial or mixed use developments that are allowed to encroach into the street
setback of Anton Boulevard shall be limited to 2 stories/30 feet within the street setback.
Buitdings above 173 feet in height will require approva) by the FAA.
Circulation
The Master P(an of Highways includes a new collector street that connects Main Street
and Anton Boulevard through this site. A new 1-405 on-ramp from Anton Boulevard is to
the south of this site. The Master Plan of Bikeways includes a new bikeway on Sunflower
Avenue. As shown oii Figure 9, the various a!terriatives for the urban rail alignment
traverse this property and a sta(ion is also proposed in the vicinity.
Figure 19 provides an overview of the entire plan area and depicts development
standards that can be shown graphical!y It should be noted that the information is
intended to be illustrative and is not to be interpreted as the precise locations for future
land uses or structures.
Uptlated Januaiy 2007, September 2011
77
HALLIGAN, MICHELLE
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Christopher Brancart <cbrancart@brancart.com>
Monday, February 9, 202612:09 PM
HALLIGAN, MICHELLE; MCGILL, ANNA; TAI, CARRIE; PC Public Comments; CITY CLERK;
PLANNING INFO
Public Comment - PC Mtg 02/09/2026, Item PH-1
sent letter to City PC re Agenda Item PH1.pdf
PLEASE SEE ATTACHED; THANK YOU
Christopher Brancart
Brancart & Brancart
(650) 879-0141 (voice)
(650) 879-1103 (fax)
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed
and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the
reader of this message is not the intended recipient, please call me. Thank you.
(.AUTION: Tis-email originated from outside of the organization.'D6 not click links or open attachm entd
pnless you recognize the sender and know thecontent is safe. R3eortagsuspicious activitiesto thel
iInformation TechnologyDepartmeHt.j
1
Christopher Brancart
Elizabeth Brancart
BRANCART & BRANCART
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
P. 0. BOX 686
PESCADERO, CA 94060
Telephone (650) 879-0141
Facsimile (650) 879-1103
www.brancart.com
Street Address
8205 Pescadero Road
Loma Mar, Califomia 94021
February 9, 2026
Via Email and Facsimile
Michelle Halligan, Sr Planner
Anna McGill, Adv Planning Mgr
Carrie Tai, Director
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Fax: (714) 754-4856
michelle.halligan@costamesaca.gov
anna.mcgill@costamesaca.gov
carrie.tai@costamesaca.gov
Jeffrey Harlan, Chair
Planning Commission
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Fax: (714) 754-5028
pcpubliccomments@costamesaca.gov
cityclerk@costamesaca.gov
planninginfo@costamesaca.gov
Re: Planning Commission Agenda Item PH-1
Meeting: February 9, 2026
Obiections, Issues, and Concerm
Dear Gentlepersons:
I write on behalf of The Ohio House and its residents, along with present
and former Group Home owners, operators, and residents to address several issues
regarding Agenda Item PH-l to be heard, considered and acted upon by the
Planning Commission at a public hearing on Monday, February 9, 2026. Item PH-
1 asks the Planning Commission to approve a resolution recornrnending the
adoption by the City Council of several code amendment purporting to implement
specific housing programs set forth in the City's Sixth Cycle (2021-2029) Housing
Element.
-1-
Planning Commission
February 9, 2026
Page 2
1. Issues Addressed in This Letter
This letter focuses exclusively on code amendments purporting to
implement Housing Programs regarding the regulation of housing for persons with
disability; specifically:
1. Program 20 (Definition of Single Housekeeping Unit): That the City
will "review and revise the definition of 'single housekeeping unit'
within the zoning code to provide greater flexibility in consideration
of accommodating a variety of household situations for related and
unrelated individuals living together."
2.Program 2P (Group Homes): That the City will "review and adopt
revisions to its zoning code applicable to group homes to
affirtnatively further fair housing and comply with fair housing laws
per the [following] objective: 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."
3.Program 2N (Reasonable Accommodation): That the City will
"review and adopt revisions to its Reasonable Accommodation
process to be consistent with State and federal fair housing
requirements."
To implement these programs, the City proposes to amended the following
provisions of the City's zoning code (Title 13), set forth in Exhibit 3 in the
Planning Commission Agenda Report:
4. Exhibit A: Chapter 1, Article 2, Definitions
5. Exhibit D: Chapter IV, Citywide Land Use Matrix
6. Exhibit H: Chapter IX, Article 15, Reasonable Accommodations
7. Exhibit K: Chapter XV, Group Homes; and,
Exhibit L: Chapter XVI, Group Homes in the R2-MD, R2-HD and R3
Residential Zones and the PDR-LD, PDR-MD, PDR-HD, PDR-NCM,
8.
-2-
Plaru'iing Commission
February 9, 2026
Page 3
PDC, and PDI (Planned Development Zones)
and the related Title 9's Group Home Operator's Permit, set forth in Exhibit 5.
These code amendments fail to meet the requirements in Housing Programs
2N, 20, and 2P, but also, if enacted as presently proposed, each amendment
violates three federal laws - the Fair Housing Act, ADA, and Rehabilitation Act -
and several state statutes, including the California Government Code §§ 12955,
65008, 8899.50, and 11135 as well as the California Constitution.
2. The Proposed Amendment of the Definition of Single
Housekeeping Unit fails to implement the requirements of the City's
Housing Program 20 and promise to violate federal and state fair
housing laws.
The definition of Single Housekeeping Unit (SHU) is the pivotal zoning
provisions that governs housing opportunities throughout Costa Mesa's residential
districts. Among all Residential Uses listed in the City's Land Use M atrix,
CMMC TABLE 13-30, a Single Housekeeping Unit is the only use permitted of
right in every residential districts. Thus, if the City chooses to classify an residential
occupancy as a SmJ, 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 compelled by state statute.
The City proposes to implement Housing Plan Program 20 ("Definition of Single
Housekeeping Unit") by amending the current definition of Single Housekeeping Unit as
follows:
-3-
Planning Commission
February 9, 2026
Page 4
far aitlh eadtx otev, oNgmy use of am respansbaNy tr eo a
We urge the Planning Cornrnission to reject the resolution recommending the
adoption of the proposed amended definition of Single Housekeeping Unit (SHU)
because it fails to implement Housing Program 20, invites unlawful and arbitrary
enforcement, and violates state and federal fair housing statutes.
a. The Proposed SHUDefinition Perpetuates The City
Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities
The City last amended its SHU definition in 2014 as part of Ordinance 14-
13, the City's sweeping revision of its zoning code to compel the closure of
existing group homes in Rl (SFR) districts - and to prohibit any new group homes
there - unless the household qualified for issuance of a specially 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. Given its inclusion in
Ordinance 14-13, it should come as no surprise that the City repeatedly has
admitted that the purpose of the current SHU definition was to exclude group
homes from the definition and privilege afforded households classified as SHUs.
-4-
Planning Commission
Febniary 9, 2026
Page 5
To achieve this result, the City includes a facially discriminatory
presumption, a list of subjective, standardless criteria (carried forward in the
proposed amendment), and several of observable indicia "that a household is not
operating as a single housekeeping unit," including more than one rental
agreement, private, separate entrances, separate food storage and refrigerators.
The proposed amendment deletes the facially discriminatory presumption but also
deletes the only objective, observable standards (locks, entrance, refrigerators) in
the pivotal provisions. While those observable indicia were enacted for a
discriminatory purpose, they at least had the virtue of being an objective standard
that could be applied to readily observable conditions (lock, entrance,
refrigerators). Once observable conditions are stripped from the definition, the
proposed amendment devolves into a series of necessary conditions lacking
objective standard 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. Worse still, the proposed definition commits the City
to police persorial relationship among every dwelling's occupants and to
monitor the domestic affair of every household in Costa Mesa.
b. The Text and Terms of the Proposed Single Housekeeping Unit
Definition Offends Common Sense, Valid Zoning Principles, and Fair
Housing Laws
The proposed SHU amendment lacks valid, measurable, discernable,
objective standards to determine whether a household qualifies as a SHU.
Moreover, even if it provided valid standards, its application depends on the City's
observations and determination of the nature and quality of personal relationships
amongst household members and their domestic affair within the privacy of their
dwellings. In sum, the proposed SHU definition is useless in application, invalid
on its face, and unconstitutional in effect.'
' There are several ways to assess the efficacy of a zoning definition. We can disaggregate its
terms into necessary and sufficient conditions. We can evaluate whether its intention (what it
connotes) aligns with its extension (what it denotes). But under any test, the ultimate question is
whether the text provides objective standards that can be consistently applied to observable facts
reflecting conditions that endure over time. Thus, most zoning regulation concern the physical
-5-
Planning Commission
February 9, 2026
Page 6
As drafted, the proposed definition consists of a series of necessary
conditions regarding personal relationships that each occupant must satisfy and
several domestic affairs that each occupant must perform. Each of these
conditions is necessary. In other words, if the City decides that any one occupant
fails to met any one of the following conditions, then the household is disqualified
as a Single Housekeeping Unit:
Single housekeeping unit. The occupants of a dwelling unit have [1]
established ties and [2] familiarity with each other, including joint [31 use
of and [4] responsibility for common areas, which includes [51 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.
A close examination of these necessary conditions demonstrates why the proposed
definition is not only profoundly flawed for purported purpose (implementing
Program 20), but also wholly dependent on the City violating the California
Constitution, fair housing law, and sound zoning principles.
as built environment or readily observable externalities. The proposed amended SHU definition
meets none of these criteria under any framework.
-6-
Planning Commission
February 9, 2026
Page 7
No. Necessary
Cotxdition
Conditiotx 's Application
Objective
Standards
Established
Ties between
each occupant
with each other
occupant.
No, lacks
objective
cnteria
measuring
quality or
quanttty
Familiarity
between each
occupant with
each other
occupant.
No, id.
a. Necessary condition
must exist throughout the
every persons occupancy
at any point in time.
b. To deternnine whether
household's "established
ties" are sufficient, each
one-to-one relationship
amongst occupants must
be evaluated by the City;
thus, in a six member
household, there are 15
unique relationships to
be evaluated. C(n,r)[i.e.,
"n chose 2 7.
Id.
Can City Lawfully
Observe and Verify
Facts to Determine
Condition
Yes, for some households,
but only by proxy, limiting
Establish Ties to
relationships defined by
law (e.g., consanguinity),
and thereby discriminating
against non-traditional
families.
No, this conditions lack
any objective criteria;
moreover, this condition
involves personal
relationships that are
inherently difficult to
observe and assess since
relationships transpire
within sphere of
constitutionally protected
prtvacy
No, this conditions lack
any objective criteria;
moreover, this condition
involves personal
relationships that are
inherently difficult to
observe and assess since
relationships transpire
within sphere of
constitutionally protected
prxvacy
-7-
Planning Commission
February 9, 2026
Page 8
No.Necessary
Condition
Condition 's Application
Objective
Standards
Joint use of.. .
common areas
Joint...
responsibility
for common
areas
Yes, in part,
because -
unlike other
conditions -
common areas
are observable.
No, since use
lacks objective
criteria
measuring
quality or
quanttty
No, Iacks
objective
criteria
measuring
quality or
quantity
Interaction No, id.
w"th each other
Id.
Id.
Id.
Cart Chy Lawfully
Observe and Verify
Facts to Determine
Cotxdition
No. This condition lack an
objective standard;
moreover, it occurs within
the privacy of dwelling.
No. This condition lack an
objective standard;
moreover, it occurs within
the privacy of dwelling.
No, this conditions lack
any objective criteria;
moreover, this condition
involves personal
relationships that are
inherently difficult to
observe and assesS since
relationships transpire
within sphere of
constitutionally protected
pnvacy
-8-
Planning Commission
February 9, 2026
Page 9
No. Necessary
Condition
Shared meals
Shared...
household
activities
Shared...
expenses
Condition 's Application
Objective
Standards
No, id.
No, id.
No, Id.
Id., but measured by
participate rate of each
occupant. (i.e., Assume
five occupant and five
"household activities,"
the City must examine
each occupants
participation rate in a
total of 25 activities.
Cartesian Product (mxn)
Id.,
Yes, with an
administrative subpoena.
Can Ciffl Lawfully
Observe and Verify
Facts to Determine
Condition
No. The scope, frequency,
and participation rate
transpires within the
privacy of dwelling
No. This condition lacks
an objective, reliable
standard. Moreover,
participation of domestic
activities transpires within
the privacy of dwelling.
No, unless the City obtains
an administrative subpoena
to obtain detailed
statements of household
expenses and contributions
by each member of the
household
-9-
Planning Commission
February 9, 2026
Page 10
No.Necessary
Condition
Residency is
mutually
agreed by all
residents
Cotxdition 's Applicatioti
Objective
Standards
No, Id., unless Id.
condition is
intended to
empowers any
occupant at the
time to bar any
prospective
occupant or
oust any
existing
occupant from
a household,
regardless of
that occupant's
age or
mahirity,
consensus of
the other
occupants, or
the basis for
the preclusion
or ouster.
not transitory No., Id.
in nature
No, without a duration of
occupancy specified, this
necessary condition
cannot applied.
Can City Lawfully
Observe and Verify
Facts to Determine
Corxdition
Possibility, but if and only
if the City obtains
confimation from each
occupant who occupied a
dwelling during its
purported status as a SHU.
No, unless the City obtains
an administrative
subpoena, permitting the
City to lawfully review
records or compel
statements that establish
the date each occupant
joined a household. This
information, however, is
meaningless without a
temporal criterion.
-10-
Planning Commission
February 9, 2026
Page 11
No.Necessary
Cotxdition
Condition 's Application
Objective
Standards
11 residential No, Id.
activities of the
household are
(:Onducted on a
not-for-profit
basis
Yes, with an
administrative subpoena,
but if and only if the City
can verify that the
housing provider is
either is incorporated as a
nonprofit or operates at a
loss and that each
occupant, regardless of
age, infirmity, or
capacity pays an equal
share of the housing
expense
Catx City Lawfully
Observe and Verify
Facts to Determitxe
Condition
No, unless the City obtains
an administrative
subpoena, permitting the
City to lawfully obtain
records showing that a
housing provider is a
nonprofit or operates at a
loss and detailed financial
records reflecting
household expenses and
contributions by each
occupant.
Does the proposed SHU definition provide with the City's zoning and code
enforcers (as well as its citizens) with robust, objective standards that can be
reliably applied to readily observable facts reflecting conditions that endure over
the lifetime of a household? The answer is obvious no. Worse, if you assume that
the proposed definition means what it says, and its conditions were uniformly
applied to the wide variety of household that exist in Costa M esa2, very few of
those households could qualify as Single Housekeeping Unit. Worse still, under
the proposed definition, the City is committed to policing the personal relationship
and domestic affairs of its citizens, an undertaking that is as unpopular as it is
unconstitutional.
We urge the Planning Commission to reject the resolution recommending
the adoption of the proposed SHU definition.
3. The proposed amendments to zoning regulations governing group
homes fail to implement the objective of the City's Housing Program 2P,
perpetuate discrimination against disabled persons, and promise to violate
federal and state fair housing laws.
2 Please refer to the City's demographic profile in the City's Sixth Cycle Housing Element.
-11-
Planning Commission
February 9, 2026
Page 12
The City proposes to implement Housing Plan Program 2P ("Group
Homes") by not making any substantive changes to its current group home
regulations, codified as CMMC Title 13, Chaps. XV and XVI, and CMMC Title 9,
Chap. II, Art. 23. See Meeting Packet, Exhibit 3. As a result, the City's group
home regulations continue to discriminate against housing for disabled persons, as
reflected in Exhibit l hereto.
The only substantive change proposed by the City is to import the definition
of "operator" into the definition of group home or sober living home. That
amendment is deeply flawed and will not cure the problems with the City's current
group home regulations. The operator definition is standardless, circular, and
assumes that landlords renting to non-disabled persons do not engage in
placement, rule-setting, and behavioral oversight of their tenants-an
demonstrably untnie assumption.
We urge the Planning Commission to reject the resolution recommending
the adoption of the proposed amendments to the group home regulations because
they are insufficient.
4. The proposed amendments to the City's RA regulations fail to
implement the requirements of the City's Housing Program 2N,
perpetuate discrimination against disabled persons, and promise to
continue violating federal and state fair housing laws.
The City proposes to implement Housing Plan Program 2N ("Reasonable
Accornrnodation") by making modest changes to the existing regulation that fail to
fulfill this Housing Program's intent and continue a policy in violation of federal
and state fair housing laws.
To implement Program 2N, the City must amend the curent regulation to
address each of the issues raised in DRC's letter to the City dated January 12,
2026, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 2. In addition, the City must provide a
cogent definition of "institutionalization" if it intends to apply that criterion as a
basis for denying RA requests.
We urge the Planning Commission to reject the resolution recommending
-12-
Plaru'iing Commission
February 9, 2026
Page 13
adoption of the proposed RA regulation because it is insufficient.
Thank you for your consideration.
/s/ Christopher Brancart
cbrancart(,brancart.com
-13-
Zoninq requlations for unlicensedl residential uses in Costa Meso's multi-family zoninq districts
CMMC Regulations Governing
Residential Uses in City's Multifamily
Districts
Sober Living Home2 Group Home3 Boardinghouse,
Small < 3 renta/
rooms'
Boardinghouse,
Large < 7 rental
rooms
Multi-family
Dwelling5
Use Definitions
Use defined based on disability status of
residents, CMMC 13-06
Yes, CC 96 Yes, CC 5 NO, CC 3 No, CC 3 No CC 4
I Licensed uses are subject to state-mandated zoning entitlements and restrictions. The Costa Mesa Municipal Code (CMMC) defines these uses as Residential
. A residential facility licensed by the state where care, services, or treatment is provided to persons living in a supportive community residential
setting. Residential care facilities include, but may not be limited to, the following: intermediate care facilities for the developmentally disabled (Health & Safety
Code §§ 1267.8, 1267.9);community care facilities (Health & Safety Code § 1500 et seq.); residential care facilities for the elderly (Health &Safety Code El 1569 et
seq.); residential care facilities for the chronically ill (22 C.C.R. E) 87801(a)(5); Health & Safety Code § 1568.02); alcoholism and drug abuse facilities (Health &
Safety Code §§ 11834.02-11834.30); pediatric day health and respite care facilities (Health & Safety Code § 1760 et seq.); residential health care facilities,
including congregate living health facilities (Health & Safety Code % 1265-1271.1, 1250(i), 1250(e), (h)); family care home, foster home, group home for the
mentally disordered or otherwise handicapped persons or dependent and neglected children (Wel. & Inst. Code % 5115-5120)." CMMC 13-06.
2Sober livinq home means a group home for persons who are recovering from a drug and/or alcohol addiction and who are considered handicapped under state
or federal law. Sober living homes shall not include the following: (1) residential care facilities; (2) any sober living home that operates as a single housekeeping
unit." CMMC 13-06.
3. A facility that is being used as a supportive living environment for persons who are considered handicapped under state or federal law. A group
home operated by a single operator or service provider (whether licensed or unlicensed) constitutes a single facility, whether the facility occupies one (1) or
more dwelling units. Group homes shall not include the following: (1) residential care facilities; (2) any group home that operates as a single housekeeping unit."
CMMC 13-06.
4 "Boardinqhouse. A residence or dwelling, other than a hotel, wherein rooms are rented under two (2) or more separate written or oral rental agreements,
leases or subleases or combination thereof, whether or not the owner, agent or rental manager resides within the residence. Boardinghouse, small means two
(2) or fewer rooms being rented. Boardinghouse, large means three (3) to six (6) rooms being rented. Boardinghouses renting more than six (6) rooms are
prohibited." CMMC 13-06.
5 "Dwellinq, multi-family "Dwelling, multi-family" or "multi-family dwelling" is a building or buildings of permanent character placed on one (1) lot which is
designed or used for residential occupancy by two (2) or more families." CMMC 13-06.
6 "CC t' refers to page numbers in the excerpt of the current Costa Mesa Municipal Code [as of 05/09/2021], attached to this Table for reference.
I
CMMC Regulations Governing
Residential Uses in City's Multifamily
Districts
Sober Living Home2 Gmup Home3 Boardinghouse,
Sma// < 3 rental
rooms"
Boardinghouse,
Large < 7 rental
rooms
Multi-family
Dwelling5
Use defined based on nature of the
disability of dwelling's residents, CMMC
13-06
Yes, CC 9 No, CC 5 No, CC 3 No, CC 3 No CC 4
PermittedZoning District
Permitted in Residential Zoning District,
CMMC 13-30, 13-204
No, CC 31 No, CC 31 Yes, CC 31 Yes, if pre-
existing, CC 54;
No, if new, CC 31
Yes, CC 31
Permitted in Multifamily Zoning Districts
(R2-MD, R2-HD, R3), CMMC 13-30
No, CC 31 No, CC 31 Yes, CC 31 Yes, if pre-
existing, CC 54;
No, if new, CC 31
Yes, CC 31
Permitted in Planned Development
Residential Districts (PDR-LD, PDR-MD,
PDR-HD, PRD-NCM, PDC, PDI), CMMC 13-
30, 13-204
No, CC 31 No, CC 31 Yes, CC 31 Yes, if pre-
existing, CC 54;
No, if new, CC 31
Yes, CC 31
Permitted in Institutional & Recreational
(I&R) Zoning District [intended for
"recreation, open space, health, public
services," 13-20(i), CC 17]
Yes, CC 31 Yes, CC 31 No, CC 31 No, CC 31 No, CC 31
Specially or Conditionally Permitted in
Institutional & Recreational (I&R) Zoning
District [intended for "recreation, open
space, health, public services," 13-20(i),
CC 17]
NA, CC 31 NA, CC 31 No, CC 31 No, CC 31 No, CC 31
Nonconforming use Status
Existing uses required to apply for
Special or Conditional Use Permit to
Yes, CC 67, 59 Yes, CC 67, 59 No, CC 54 No, CC 54 NA,CC31
2
CMMC Regulations Governing
Residential Uses in City's Multifamily
Districts
Sober Living Home2 Group Home3 Boardinghouse,
Smo// < 3 rento/
rooms"
Boardinghouse,
Large < 7 rental
rooms
Multi-family
Dwelling5
continue existing use, 13-324, 13-
207.1 versus 13-204 13-30
Separation Requirement
Separation requirement imposed on
existing uses, 13-322, 13-323, 13-324
versus 13-30, 13-204, 13-207.1
Yes: At least 650
feet between
dwelling and any
group home, sober
living home or
state-licensed drug
and alcohol
treatment facility.
CC 66-67
Yes: At least 650
feet between
dwelling and any
group home, sober
living home or state-
licensed drug and
alcohol treatment
facility. CC 66-67
No, CC 54 No, CC 54 NA, 13-30
Separation requirement imposed on new
uses, 13-322, 13-323, 13-324 versus 13-30
fn 7
Yes: At least 650
feet between
dwelling and any
group home, sober
living home, or
state-licensed drug
and alcohol
treatment facility.
CC 66-67
Yes: At least 650
feet between
dwelling and any
group home, sober
living home, or state-
licensed drug and
alcohol treatment
facility. CC 66-67
Yes: Small
boardinghouses
shall locate at
least six
hundred fifty
(650) feet from
any other small
boardinghouse.
CC 49
Yes: Large
boardinghouses
shall be located
at least one
thousand (1,000)
feet away from
any other
boardinghouse.
CC 49
NA, 13-30
Dwelling Operatls Permit Required
Owner or operator of dwelling must
obtain an "Operator's Permit," CMMC 13-
323, 9-372, or meet same conditions for
Yes, CC 67, 69
[CUP]; Yes, CC 66,
61-63 [SUP]
Yes, CC 67, 69 [CUP];
Yes, CC 66, 61-63
[SUP]
No No No
3
CMMC Regulations Governing
Residential Uses in City's Multifamily
Districts
Sober Living Home2 Group Home3 Boardinghouse,
Sma// < 3 rento/
roomsa
Boardinghouse,
Large < 7 renta/
rooms
Multi-family
Dwelling5
Operator's Permit under SUP
requirements, 13-322, 13-311
Owner or operator of dwelling must
obtain an "operator"s permit" as a
condition to qualify for a conditional use
permit, CMMC 13-323, 9-372, or meet
same conditions for Operator"s Permit to
qualify for SUP, 13-322, 13-311
Yes, CC 67, 69
[CUP]; Yes, CC 66,
61-63 [SUP]
Yes, CC 67, 69 [CUP];
Yes, CC 66, 61-63
[SUP]
No No No
PermitApplication Requirements
Permit Application: Required to list
applicant/operator's every general
partner and every owner with controlling
interest in corporation. CMMC 13-311(a)
+ 9-374(a) versus CMMC 13-29(a) + City
Form 09/2019
Yes, CC 61, 69;
[CUP]; Yes, CC 66,
61-63 [SUP]
Yes, CC 61, 69; [CUP];
Yes, CC 66, 61-63
[SUP]
No, CC 22 No, CC 22 No, CC 22
Permit Application: Required to provide
permit history or operation of similar use
at any time anywhere in the United
States. CMMC 13-311(a) + 9-374(a)
versus CMMC 13-29(a) + City Form
09/2019
Yes, CC 61, 69;
[CUP]; Yes, CC 66,
61-63 [SUP]
Yes, CC 61, 69; [CUP];
Yes, CC 66, 61-63
[SUP]
No CC 22 No, CC 22 No, CC 22
Permit Application: Required to provide
copy of rules governing conduct of
residents occupying dwelling. CMMC 13-
311(a) + 9-374(a) versus CMMC 13-29(a)
+ City Form 09/2019
Yes, CC 61, 69;
[CUP]; Yes, CC 66,
61-63 [SUP]
Yes, CC 61, 69; [CUP];
Yes, CC 66, 61-63
[SUP]
No CC 22 No, CC 22 No, CC 22
4
CMMC Regulations Governing
Residential Uses in City's Multifamily
Districts
Sober Living Home2 Group Home3 Boardinghouse,
Sma// < 3 rental
rooms"
Boardinghouse,
Large < 7 rento/
rooms
Multi-family
Dwelling5
Permit Application: Required to identify
the name, address, telephone, CDL of
onsite dwelling manager. CMMC 13-
311(a) + 9-374(a) versus CMMC 13-29(a)
' + City Form 09/2019
Yes, CC 61, 69;
[CUP]; Yes, CC 66,
61-63 [SUP]
Yes, CC 61, 69; [CUP];
Yes, CC 66, 61-63
[SUP]
No, CC 22 No, CC 22 No, CC 22
Permit Application: Required to provide
document reflecting criteria for
acceptance of resident in dwelling.
CMMC 13-311(a) + 9-374(a) versus CMMC
13-29(a) + City Form 09/2019
Yes, CC 61, 69;
[CUP]; Yes, CC 66,
61-63 [SUP]
Yes, CC 61, 69; [CUP];
Yes, CC 66, 61-63
[SUP]
No, CC 22 No, CC 22 No, CC 22
Permit Application: Required to provide
blank copies of all forms that residents of
dwelling are required to complete.
CMMC 13-311(a) + 9-374(a) versus CMMC
13-29(a) + City Form 09/2019
Yes, CC 61, 69;
[CUP]; Yes, CC 66,
61-63 [SUP]
Yes, CC 61, 69; [CUP];
Yes, CC 66, 61-63
[SUP]
No, CC 22 No, CC 22 No, CC 22
Permit Notice Requirements, July 2017
(17-05) - October20l8 (18-06) time
period
Public notice of hearing on application for
special use permit, CMMC 13-311(b)
versus CMMC 13-29(c) [07/2017-
09/2018]
Notice to be mailed
to the owner of
record and
occupants of all
properties within
five hundred
(500) feet of the
location of the
group home.
Notice to be mailed
to the owner of
record and
occupants of all
properties within
five hundred
(500) feet of the
location of the group
home.
Notices of the
hearing shall be
mailed to all
property
owners within
a five hundred-
foot radius of
the project site
Notices of the
hearing shall be
mailed to all
property owners
within a five
hundred-foot
radius of the
project site
Notices of the
hearing shall
be mailed to
all property
owners within
a five
hundred-foot
radius of the
project site
Occupancy limit on number of
residents per dwelling
5
CMMC Regulations Governing
Residential Uses in City's Multifamily
Districts
Sober Living Home2 Group Home3 Boardinghouse,
Smo// < 3 rental
rooms"
Boardinghouse,
Large < 7 rental
rooms
Multi-family
Dwelling5
Occupancy limitation City Housing
Element
City Housing Element State Housing
Law/UHC
State Housing
Law/UHC
State Housing
Law/UHC
On-Site Manager Requirements
Dwelling must have a 24/7 onsite
manager. CMMC 13-311(a)(4) + CMMC 9-
274(b)(1) versus State Housing Law
Yes, CC 62, 70 Yes, CC 62, 70 NO, State
Housing Law
No, State
Housing Law
No, State
Housing Law
Vehicle Restrictions
Each dwelling resident limited to one
vehicle that must be used as resident's
primary form of transportation, 13-
311(a)(5) + CMMC 9-274(b)(2)
Yes, CC 62, 70 Yes, CC 62, 70 No No No
Resident Parking Restrictions
Each dwelling resident must park her
vehicle on dwelling premises or within
500 feet of dwelling, 13-311(a)(5) +
CMMC 9-274(b)(2) versus CMMC Title 10,
Ch X (Stopping, Standing and Parking)
Yes, CC 62, 70 Yes, CC 62, 70 No No No
riii;p*;xa* rzyai;aiziuvizx*p
GVIIAIIIII ICqullCll%lllJ
Landlord/operator must notify resident's
emergency contact, OCHA QC Links
Referral Line, and Costa Mesa"s Network
for Homeless Solutions before an evicting
resident, CMMC 13-311(a)(10) + 9-
374(b)(6)
Yes, CC 62, 70 Yes, CC 62, 70 No No No
Landlord/operator must provide
transportation to alternative housing to
any resident evicted from dwelling,
CMMC 13-311(a)(11) + 9-374(b)(7)
Yes, CC 62, 70 Yes, CC 62, 70 No No No
6
CMMC Regulations Governing
Residential Uses in City's Multifamily
Districts
Sober Living Home2 Group Home3 Boardinghouse,
Smo// < 3 rento/
rooms"
Boardinghouse,
Large < 7 rental
rooms
Multi-family
Dwelling5
Landlord/operator must maintain eviction
records for one year resident"s eviction
from dwelling, CMMC 13-311(a)(12) + 9-
374(b)(8)
Yes, CC 62, 70 Yes, CC 62, 70 No No No
Regulation of Residents within
Dwelling
Each resident of dwelling must actively
participate in a legitimate self-
improvement program (e.g., 12-step
programl CMMC 13-311(a)(14)(i) + 9-
374(b)(10)(i)
Yes, CC 63, 71 No No No No
Landlord/operator must maintain records
showing that resident is actively
participating in a legitimate self-
improvement program (e.g., 12-step
program), CMMC 13-311(a)(14)(i) + 9-
374(b)(10)(i)
Yes, CC 63, 71 No No No No
Landlord/operator must promulgate a
rule warning that if a resident refuse to
actively participating in a legitimate self-
improvement program (e.g., 12-step
program), then the resident may be
evicted. CMMC 13-311(a)(14)(i) + 9-
374(b)(10)(i)
Yes, CC 63, 71 No No No No
Landlord/Operator must prohibit
residents from use of any non-
prescription drugs. CMMC 13-
311(a%l4)(ii) + 9-374(b)(10)(ii)
Yes, CC 63, 71 No No No No
CMMC Regulations Governing
Residential Uses in City's Muftifamily
Districts
Sober Living Home2 Gmup Home3 Boardinghouse,
Sma// < 3 rental
rooms=
Boardinghouse,
Large < 7 rental
rooms
Multi-family
Dwelling5
Landlord/operator must evict any
resident caught using any non-
prescription drug. CMMC 13-
311(a%l4)(ii) + 9-374(b)(l0%ii)
Yes, CC 63, 71 No No No No
Landlord/operator must promulgate a
good neighbor policy directing residents
"to be considerate of neighbors, including
refraining from engaging in excessively
loud, profane or obnoxious behavior that
would unduly interfere with a neighbor's
use and enjoyment of their dwelling
unit." CMMC 13-311(a)(14)(vi) + 9-
a;a(b)(io)(v)
Yes, CC 63, 71 No No No No
Landlord/operator must promulgate
written protocol for onsite manager to
follow in response to a neighbor's
complaint. CMMC protocol for 13-
311(a)(14)(vi) + 9-374(b)(10)(v)
Yes, CC 63, 71 No No No No
Owner, Landlord, Operator, and
Employee Qualification Requirements
Owner, landlord, or operator of a
dwelling is barred from obtaining a
Special or Condition Use Permit for that
dwelling if she was terminated from a job
for sexual harassment, embezzlement, or
illegally furnishing alcohol within two
years of applying to the City for that
zoning permit. CMMC 13-311(b)(2i 9-
374(e)(2) versus 13-29(g)(2)
Yes, CC 63, 71 Yes, CC 63, 71 No, CC 25 No, CC 25 No, CC 25
8
CMMC Regulations Governing
Residential Uses in City's Multifamily
Districts
Sober Living Home2 Gmup Home3 Boardinghouse,
Smo// < 3 rental
rOOmSa
Boardinghouse,
Large < 7 rental
rooms
Multi-family
Dwelling5
Owner, landlord, or operator of a
dwelling is barred from obtaining a
Special or Condition Use Permit for that
dwelling if she employs any person who
was terminated from a job alcohol for
sexual harassment, embezzlement, or
illegally furnishing alcohol within two
years of applying to the City for that
zoning permit. CMMC 13-311(b)(2i 9-
374(e)(2) VerSuS 13-29(g)(2)
Yes, CC 63, 71 Yes, CC 63, 71 No, CC 25 No, CC 25 No, CC 25
Owner, landlord, or operator of a
dwelling is barred from obtaining a
Special or Condition Use Permit for that
dwelling if she was convicted or pleaded
nolo contendere to any PC 290 sex
offense or PC 667.5 felony within 10 years
of applying to the City for that zoning
permit. CMMC 13-311(b)(2), 9-374(e)(2)
versus 13-29(g)(2)
Yes, CC 63-64, 71-72 Yes, CC 63-64, 71-72 No, CC 25 No, CC 25 No, CC 25
Owner, landlord, or operator of a
dwelling barred from obtaining a Special
or Condition Use Permit for that dwelling
i if she employs any person who was
convicted or pleaded nolo contendere to
any PC 290 sex offense or PC 667.5 felony
within 10 years of applying to the City for
that zoning permit. CMMC 13-311(b)(2),
9-374(e)(2) versus 13-29(g)(2)
Yes, CC 63-64, 71-72 Yes, CC 63-64, 71-72 No, CC 25 No, CC 25 No, CC 25
CMMC Regulations Governing
Residential Uses in City's Multifamily
Districts
Sober Living Home2 Group Home3 Boardinghouse,
Sma// < 3 rento/
rooms"
Boardinghouse,
Large < 7 rental
rooms
Multi-family
Dwelling5
Owner, landlord, or operator of a
dwelling barred from obtaining a Special
or Condition Use Permit for that dwelling
if he was convicted or pleaded nolo
contendere to any PC 290 sex offense or
PC 667.5 felony within 10 years of
applying to the City for that zoning
permit. CMMC 13-311(b)(2), 9-374(e)(2)
versus 13-29(g)(2)
Yes, CC 63-64, 71-72 Yes, CC 63-64, 71-72 No, CC 25 No, CC 25 No, CC 25
Owner, landlord, or operator of a
dwelling barred from obtaining a Special
or Condition Use Permit for that dwelling
if she employs any person who was
convicted or pleaded nolo contrendere to
any PC 451 arson offense or furnishing
any controlled substance within 7 years of
applying to the City for that zoning
permit. CMMC 13-311(b)(21 9-374(e)(2)
versus 13-29(g)(2)
Yes, CC 63-64, 71-72 Yes, CC 63-64, 71-72 No, CC 25 No, CC 25 No, CC 25
Owner, landlord, or operator of a
dwelling barred from obtaining a Special
or Condition Use Permit for that dwelling
if she is in recovery from abuse of drugs
or alcohol and has been abstained for less
than one year before applying to the City
for that zoning permit. CMMC 13-
311(b%6), 9-374(e)(2) versus 13-29(g%2)
Yes, CC 64, 72 No No, CC 25 No, CC 25 No, CC 25
Disability
Rights
California
California's protection & advocacy system
January 12, 2026
VIA EMAIL
Kimberly Hall Barlow
Jones Mayer
3777 N. Harbor Blvd.
Fullerton, CA 92835
khb@jones-mayer.com
LEGAL ADVOCACY UNIT
'l 831 K Street
Sacramento, CA 95811
Tel: (916) 504-5800
Fax: (916) 504-5801
TTY: (800) 7'l9-5798
Intake Line: (800) 77 €3i-5748
www.disabilityrightsca.org
RE: Costa Mesa's Proposed Revisions to RA Ordinance
Dear Ms. Barlow:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on Costa Mesa's
proposed revisions to the City's reasonable accommodation ordinance
pursuant to the settlement agreement in the Insight v. Costa Mesa case.
In your December 19, 2025 email to us, you said that Costa Mesa was
proposing to delete subsection (7) of Section 1 3-200.62(f) of the City's
reasonable accommodation ordinance. You explained that the deletion is
proposed because "it is operationally difficult for staff or the applicants to
make this determination given lack of information and the difficulties in
ensuring that any facilities adequately allow individual(s) with said
disability(ies) to live in a residential setting. Furthermore, this subsection is
unnecessary given the other provisions of the Reasonable Accommodation
Ordinance." We support the deletion of subsection (7) from Section 13-
200.62, which requires a finding 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."
IT 2
-24-
January 12, 2026
Page 2 of 7
The deletion of subsection (7) is an important first step in bringing Costa
Mesa's reasonable accommodation ordinance into compliance with state
and federal fair housing requirements. However, in order to bring the entire
reasonable accommodation regulation into compliance, Costa Mesa will
need to make additional changes. Given the structure of the current
ordinance, it will be difficult to do that by simply editing or rewording the
text. Instead, we propose that the City repeal sections of the ordinance in
their entirety and replace them with new ones.
To begin with, Section 13-200.62 (f) has problems that cannot be remedied
without restructuring. That section is a list of findings "all of which are
required for approval" of a reasonable accommodation request. But the list
combines factors that the person or entity requesting the accommodation
must establish in order to be entitled to an accommodation, i.e., the topics
of Findings (1 ) and (2), with factors that are the City's burden to establish if
it is going to deny the accommodation, i.e., the topics of Findings (3), (5),
and (8). These two types of topics need to be separated to clearly delineate
who - the person or entity making the request, or the City - bears the
burden of proof.
As written, Findings (3), (5), and (8) 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 find 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 a(teration. 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. Fair housing law does not permit the
City to make the establishment of the absence of those factors a
requirement.
Undue burden, direct threat, and fundamental alteration can properly be in
the reasonable accommodation ordinance, but the regulation needs to be
structured in a way that makes clear that if the person or entity making the
request establishes the factors addressed in Findings (1 ) and (2), the City
must grant the accommodation unless it finds that granting the
-25-
January 12, 2026
Page 3 of 7
accommodation will impose an undue financial or administrative burden,
will result in a direct threat, or will result in a fundamental alteration (i.e., the
inverse of the current language regarding findings). It does not work to
combine them in the same list as the elements that the person or entity
making the request has the burden to establish. The two types of findings
must be bifurcated.
Moreover, the current structure of the reasonable accommodation
ordinance also makes it difficult for the ordinance to adequately reflect the
law governing the findings that the City must establish to deny an otherwise
valid reasonable accommodation request. For example, where the
ordinance authorizes the City to deny a reasonable accommodation
request based on a direct threat finding, it must also state that in such a
case the City must find that the threat cannot be mitigated by reasonable
accommodation. 28 C.F.R. §35.139. A finding that granting a reasonable
accommodation would be an undue burden or fundamental alteration must
also be made "after considering all resources available for use in the
funding and operation or the service, program, or activity, and must be
accompanied by a written statement of the reasons for reaching that
conclusion." 28. C.F.R. §35.150(a)(3). It will be difficult to add such
clarifications in a clear way unless the two types of findings under Section
1 3-200.62(f) are separated and the findings for which the City bears the
burden are written in the affirmative.
Section 13-200.62 (f) also includes factors that do not fall within either the
burden of the person or entity making the accommodation request or the
allowable reasons for the City to deny a request, but instead layer on
additional obligations that are not permitted under fair housing law. Finding
(4) requires a finding that the "requested accommodation is consistent with
surrounding uses in scale and intensity of use." The City cannot apply
different occupancy, use, or development standards to shared housing for
people with disabilities as compared to other forms of housing, nor can it
require a household of people with disabilities to be limited to fewer people
than a single housekeeping unit would be allowed to have. To the extent
that a requested accommodation would result in housing that was vastly
different from permitted housing uses, City staff could evaluate whether
granting the request would constitute a fundamental alteration to a City
program or would result in an undue burden or direct threat. But simply
having the same number of people that a single housekeeping unit would
-26-
January 12, 2026
Page 4 of 7
be allowed to have, or failing to meet another occupancy or development
standard that was not also applied to single housekeeping units, could
never fall within one of those permitted reasons for denying an
accommodation request. Consistency with other uses should therefore not
be listed as a separate required finding.
Likewise, Finding (6) requires in some instances "a finding that the
requested accommodation is necessary to make facilities of a similar
nature or operation economically viable in light of the particularities of the
relevant market and market participants generally." For the same reasons
that the City is removing Finding (7), which also focuses on "facilities of a
similar nature and operation" rather than on the specific housing that is at
issue for a particular reasonable accommodation request, the City should
remove Finding (6). It is just as true that it will be "operationally difficult for
staff or the applicants to make this determination given lack of information"
for Finding (6) as for Finding (7). Moreover, providing a feasibility study or
market study about other housing does not fall within the burden of
someone making a reasonable accommodation request. Making such a
study a condition of approving a disability-related accommodation is
therefore a discriminatory housing practice. This should likewise not be
listed as a required finding.
The deletion of Finding (7) should also be accompanied by a revision to the
language of Finding (2), which states that, "[t]he requested accommodation
is necessary to provide one or more individuals with a disability an equal
opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling." To ensure that City staff interpret
Finding (2) consistent with fair housing laws, by focusing on the housing at
issue in the request rather than "facilities of a similar nature and operation"
elsewhere, Finding (2) should be revised to refer to an equal opportunity to
use and enjoy "their dwelling," "the dwelling at issue in the accommodation
request," or something similar.
In order to bring the reasonable accommodation ordinance into compliance
with federal and state fair housing law, the City will also need to revise
other portions of the ordinance. As reflected in the settlement agreement,
we would welcome the opportunity to work with the City during that portion
of its review of the reasonable accommodation ordinance and to provide
feedback on any draft revisions of those other sections.
-27-
January 12, 2026
Page 5 of 7
For those portions of the ordinance as well, it would be most effective for
the City to repeal and replace language rather than try to work within the
existing structure. For example, Section 1 3-200.62(b) loads burdensome
and irrelevant requirements onto people or entities making reasonable
accommodation requests. A lay homeowner who needs an accommodation
due to disability should be able to comply with application requirements
without having to hire an attorney or other expert to help them understand
what they need to do. The City should limit the application to information
that is necessary for the City to evaluate whether the person or entity
making the request has met their burden, such as the location of the
dwelling at issue, the existence of the disability, the nature of the
accommodation that is being requested, and the connection between the
disability and the requested accommodation. The provisions in Section 13-
200.62(b) that require people or entities making reasonable
accommodation requests to provide "[a]ny other information that the
director reasonably determines is necessary for evaluating the request for
reasonable accommodation" ((b)(3)) and "[a]ny other information that the
hearing officer reasonably concludes is necessary to determine whether
the findings required by subsection (e) of this section can be made" ((b)(7))
are particularly problematic because they are not limited to the information
necessary to establish that a person or entity is entitled to a reasonable
accommodation.
Section 1 3-200.62(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
-28-
January 12, 2026
Page 6 of 7
made by legislative bodies, and no public notice should be made regarding
reasonable accommodation reviews. Public hearings create an opening for
members of the public to express animus against people with disabilities,
which imposes an improper barrier to people seeking such
accommodations. For example, at the hearings regarding Insight's
reasonable accommodation request, a member of the public told the
Planning Commission that a person who is "mentally disabled does not
belong in a neighborhood next door to me or any of us in this room," and
someone testified to the City Council that the "mentally ill cannot associate
with our children, neighbors." As you know, hearing those types of
comments was traumatic for our client Ms. Doe, who spoke about her own
experiences with mental illness, and the ways that staying at Insight's
housing had helped her, at a hearing on Insight's reasonable
accommodation request. Not onfy is the City not obligated to provide the
public with a forum to intimidate and humiliate people like Ms. Doe, but the
City cannot put people like her through such an ordeal as a condition of
having their accommodation request reviewed. Nor can such animus play
any part in the City's review of an accommodation request. For similar
reasons, the ordinance should also make clear that only the person or
entity making the request can appeal a decision regarding a reasonable
accommodation, in contrast to the current language which permits virtually
anyone - including neighbors with an animus against people with
disabilities - to appeal.
Finally, Sections 13-200.62(e) and (g), regarding "considerations," overlap
with the required "findings" in Section 1 3-200.62(f) in a way that impedes
consistency with fair housing law. Like Section 1 3-200.62(f), these sections
fail to make clear which elements are the burden of the person making the
reasonable accommodation request to establish and which are the City's
burden. Many of them are also improper considerations. For example, the
City cannot take into account "whether granting the request would be
consistent with the City's General Plan." By definition, any reasonable
accommodation request pertaining to zoning will be inconsistent with the
zoning scheme. "Requiring public entities to make exceptions to their rules
and zoning policies is exactly what the FHAA does." Anderson v. City of
Blue Ash, 798 F.3d 338, 363 (6th Cir. 201 5); 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
-29-
January 12, 2026
Page 7 of 7
accommodation is inconsistent with the City's General Plan, but whether
granting it would fundamentally alter the General Plan. To take another
example, the City cannot take into consideration whether "the
accommodation would result in a substantial increase in traffic or
insufficient parking" (§ 13-200.62(g)(2)) or "create an institutionalized
environment due to the number of and distance between facilities that are
similar in nature or operation" (§ 1 3-200.62(g)(4)) unless it is also doing so
with respect to single housekeeping units. Again, the City cannot impose
more stringent development or occupancy standards on housing occupied
by people with disabilities than on single housekeeping units, nor can it use
vague or undefined conditions as a basis for denial of a reasonable
accommodation request. These are examples, and not an exhaustive list,
of the issues with subsections (e) and (g) of Costa Mesa's reasonable
accommodation ordinance. We would be happy to provide additional
comments or to discuss with you and with City staff in more detail our
further thoughts on bringing the ordinance into compliance with state and
federal fair housing requirements.
We appreciate your time and attention to our comments and look forward to
working with you and the City further on these important access issues for
Costa Mesa residents with disabilities. Please let us know if you would like
to discuss any of these issues further.
Sincerely,
Autumn M. Elliott
Law Office of Autumn Elliott
Jia Min Cheng
Managing Attorney
Disability Rights California
-30-
HALLIGAN, MICHELLE
From:
Sent:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
TAl, CARRIE
Monday, February 9, 2026 9:38 AM
PARTIDA, ANNA; MCGILL, ANNA; DACEY, MELINDA; HALLIGAN, MICHELLE; Tarquin
Preziosi
CJ Segerstrom 8i Sons: February 9 PC Agenda Item PH-1
CJ Segerstrom & Sons Letter to Planning Commission 020726(1 9234784.5).pdf
bcc: Plannrng Commission
Chair Harlan and Members ofthe Planning Commission,
Please find attached a letter from c...i. Segerstrom & Sons pertaining to the public hearing agenda item on
tonight's Planning Commission agenda. C.J. Segerstrom & Sons is requesting thattheir properties be
excluded from the rezoning item, in concert with a request to remove their properties from the housing
element sites inventory (which will be considered at a future meeting). The reason for these requests relates
to how cities must apply overlays given the findings of a recent case law.
Carrie Tai, AICP
Director
City of Costa Mesa l Economic and Development Services Department
(714) 754-5270
77 Fair Drive l Costa Mesa l CA 92626
"The City of Costa Mesa serves our residents, businesses and visitors while promoting a safe, inclusive, and vibrant
community."
WgJCjW
PLEASE CONSIDER THE ENVIRONMENT BEFORE PRINTING THIS EMAIL. THANK you.
d from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attac'ents unless you recognize the sender aq4
la;'iowtqecontentissafe.R an aciousactivitiestotheInformationTechnolo Departmentg
1
Ill COX CASTLE
Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP
3121 Michelson Drive, Suite 200 C
Irvine, California 92612-5678
P: 949.260.4600 F: 949.260.4699
Tim Paone
949.260.4655
tpaone@coxcastle.com
February 7, 2026
Jeffrey Harlan, Chair
Jon Zich, Vice Chair
Karen Klepack, Commissioner
Johnny Rojas, Commissioner
Angely Andrade Vallarta, Commissioner
David Martinez, Commissioner
Robert Dickson, Commissioner
c/o Carrie Tai
Director of Economic and Development Services
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Sent by Email to: Carrie.Tai@costamesaca.gov
Re: C.J. Sezerstrom & Sons Properties in Zoning Ordinance
Chair Harlan and Members of the Planning Commission:
This letter serves as the adamant objection by C.J. Segerstrom & Sons ("aS") to the adoption in
its current form of the proposed Zoning Code Amendment which is Item Number PH-I on your
February 9 meeting agenda. As an overriding theme of this objection, we ask that you keep in
mind that the purpose of the statewide RHNA-driven Housing Element update process is to
heavily incentivize residential development, not to compel it.
In a letter to the City Council from our office on January 30, 2026, CJS requested that the City
take "all actions necessary" to remove from the City's Housing Element the identification of
fourteen properties owned by CJS (the "CJS Properties") as "Housing Element sites" with mixed-
use overlays. All Planning Commissioners were copied on that letter. Today, we are asking the
Planning Commission to recommend to the City Council that the CJS Properties be expressly
exempted from the proposed zoning amendment's MUOD requirements.
The basis for this request is straightforward: In 2022, CJS was assured by the City that the mixed-
use overlays in the subsequently adopted Housing Element would not jeopardize existing zoning
designations on the CJS Properties, leaving CJS the option to pursue residential uses if, when, and
to the extent consistent with CJS's business planning. As noted in our letter to the City Council,
www.coxcastle.com Los Angeles i Orange County i San Francisco
Chair Harlan and Members of the Planning Commission
c/o Carrie Tai
February 7, 2026
Page 2
through no fault of the City, changing circumstances have lessened that assurance. The ongoing
proliferation of new housing laws and uncertainty created by court rulings have delivered the
reality of "unintended consequences." If adopted as now written, the zoning code amendment
before your Commission will effectively reverse the commitment made by the City to CJS in 2022.
HCD's methodology for the preparation of an inventory of properties suitable and available for
residential development includes factors related to ownership, existing uses, encumbrances,
applicable development agreements, the landowner's intent (or not) to pursue residential
development, and much more. In hindsight, the cooperation of CJS in allowing the City to place
the CJS Properties in mixed-use overlay districts based upon the good faith assurance that
residential development would not be required may have limited the perceived need for a
thorough evaluation of these factors. What understandably was not foreseen by the City was
that the courts would upset HCD"s statewide practice of accepting Housing Element mixed-use
overlays which allowed, but did not require, residential development.
By effectively requiring some residential in the City's MUOD Housing Element sites, the zoning
amendment before you appears to be an understandable strategic reaction to a court decision
that did not involve the City. This change in course, however, negates the good faith assurance
that the City had given aS and, in our view, is not a strategy that should be applied to the CJS
Properties. If needed to protect CJS"s critical commercial interests, we will provide appropriate
clarification directly to HCD to demonstrate that the CJS Properties are not appropriate Housing
Element sites.
There is, however, a better approach. A simple modification of the proposed zoning amendment
would resolve our concern with that amendment. A similar provision already is included for
another property. Article 11, Section 13-83.58(b)(3) of the proposed zoning amendment (see
Exhibit E of the Staff Report) now states:
"Exception. The provisions of this Section shall not apply to residential projects or mixed-use
projects having residential units located within the boundaries of the Fairview Development
Center Specific Plan."
CJS requests the Commission to include in its recommendation to the City Council that the
following language be added to the proposed zoning amendment as Section 13-83.58(b)(4):
"Exception. The provisions of this Section shall not apply to residential, mixed-use, or other
projects located within the boundaries of any of the following properties identified in Table B-6 of
the Housing Element:
Chair Harlan and Members of the Planning Commission
c/o Carrie Tai
February 7, 2026
Page 3
HE Site jVo.CJS Site 10
141 Town Center
205 Town Center
145 South CoastPlaza
146 South CoastPlaza
147 South Coast Plaza
203 US Post Office
204 US Post Office
HE Site No.CJS Site 10
134 HarborAssociates
136 HarborAssociates
137 Home Ranch
138 Home Ranch
198 Home Ranch
1 39 Town Center
140 Town Center
This narrowly tailored exemption would honor the representations made to CJS and, when
combined with the requested removal of the CJS properties from the list of Housing Element
sites, would avoid adverse consequences to long-standing, actively operated commercia[
properties which greatly benefit the community and the City.
CJS appreciates the Commission's consideration of this request and respectfully urges the
Commission to recommend this amendment to the City Council. Please reach out to either me or
Justin McCusker if you have any questions.
Thank you.
COX, CASTLE & NICHOLSON LLP
By: Tim Paone
Partner
CC:Costa Mesa City Council
Costa Mesa City Manager Cecilia Gallardo-Daly
Ill COX CASTLE
Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP
3121 Michelson Drive, Suite 200 C
Irvine, California 92612-5678
P: 949.260.4600 F: 949.260.4699
Tim Paone
949.260.4655
tpaone@coxcastle.com
January 30, 2026
Mayor John Stephens
Mayor Pro Tem Manuel Chavez
Council Member Jeff Pettis
Council Member Andrea Marr
Council Member Loren Gameros
Council Member Mike Buley
Council Member Arlis Reynolds
c/o Carrie Tai
Director of Economic and Development Services
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Sent by Email to: Carrie.Tai@costamesaca.@ov
Re: CJS Properties in Housinz Element
Mayor Stephens and Members of the City Council:
As you know, c.i. Segerstrom & Sons ("CJS") has deep roots in the City of Costa Mesa. The City
and CJS not only have significantly benefited from each other"s continued success, but also have
a demonstrated history of cooperation to further that success. It was with that cooperative spirit
that CJS agreed to the City's request that fourteen properties owned by CJS (the "CJS Properties")
be identified "Housing Element sites" with mixed-use overlays as part of the City's Housing
Element update process. CJS's cooperation relied on the City's assurance that these overlays
would not jeopardize existing zoning designations, but instead would give CJS the option to
pu-rsue reside-ntial-us-es -i-f-and-wh-enconsis-fe-nt-with aS's-b-usi-ness-p-l-anning. Sta-nding alon-e, th-e
Housing Element as adopted by the City Council in 2022 reflected that assurance.
Through no fault of the City, however, changing circumstances have lessened that assurance.
Since 2022, new State housing laws have continued to proliferate, with the prospect of more to
come. Both the City and the State's Department of Housing and Community Development
("HCD") have had to adapt not only to evolving State housing laws, but also to court decisions
interpreting those laws, often with unexpected results. Concurrently, the City has been working
to reconcile the various implications of Measure Y, Measure K, the "Neighborhoods Where We
www.coxcastle.com Los Angeles i Orange County i San Francisco
Mayor Stephens and Council Members
January 30, 2026
Page 2
All Belong" program, planning for the Fairview Developmental Center, and HCD"s rezoning
requirements. As a result, the risk of "unintended consequences" has become significant.
Unlike many landowners, CJS is neither in a hurry to develop its properties nor, at this time,
focused upon residential development of the CJS Properties. To the contrary, the common
reputational and economic interests of aS and the City are to a significant degree tied to CJS's
thoughtfully planned and highly successful commercial development. While these shared
interests do not preclude residential development in the future, CJS is not ready to commit the
CJS Properties to residential development at this time, whether directly or inadvertently.
As we have communicated since before the holidays, it has become clear that sooner or later CJS
will need to request the removal of the CJS Properties from the Housing Element. Therefore, CJS
is formally requesting the City to take all actions necessary to remove the CJS Properties from
the Housing Element.
HE Site No.CJS Site 10
141 Town Center
205 Town Center
145 South Coast Plaza
146 South Coast PLaza
147 South Coast PLaza
203 US Post Office
204 US Post Office
HE Site No.CJS Site 10
134 Harbor Associates
136 Harbor Associates
137 Home Ranch
138 Home Ranch
198 Home Ranch
139 Town Center
140 Town Center
Please reach out to either me or Justin McCusker if you have any questions or if there are further
steps which aS must take to facilitate the near-term removal of the CJS Properties from the City's
updated Housing Element.
Thank you.
COX, CASTLE & NICHOLSON LLP
By: Tim Paone
Partner
CC:Costa Mesa City Manager Cecilia Gallardo-Daly
Costa Mesa Planning Commissioners
www.coxcastle.com Los Angeles | Orange County | San Francisco
Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP
3121 Michelson Drive, Suite 200 C
Irvine, California 92612-5678
P: 949.260.4600 F: 949.260.4699
Tim Paone
949.260.4655
tpaone@coxcastle.com
January 30, 2026
Mayor John Stephens
Mayor Pro Tem Manuel Chavez
Council Member Jeff Pettis
Council Member Andrea Marr
Council Member Loren Gameros
Council Member Mike Buley
Council Member Arlis Reynolds
c/o Carrie Tai
Director of Economic and Development Services
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Sent by Email to: Carrie.Tai@costamesaca.gov
Re: CJS Properties in Housing Element
Mayor Stephens and Members of the City Council:
As you know, C.J. Segerstrom & Sons (“CJS”) has deep roots in the City of Costa Mesa. The City
and CJS not only have significantly benefited from each other’s continued success, but also have
a demonstrated history of cooperation to further that success. It was with that cooperative spirit
that CJS agreed to the City’s request that fourteen properties owned by CJS (the “CJS Properties”)
be identified “Housing Element sites” with mixed-use overlays as part of the City’s Housing
Element update process. CJS’s cooperation relied on the City’s assurance that these overlays
would not jeopardize existing zoning designations, but instead would give CJS the option to
pursue residential uses if and when consistent with CJS’s business planning. Standing alone, the
Housing Element as adopted by the City Council in 2022 reflected that assurance.
Through no fault of the City, however, changing circumstances have lessened that assurance.
Since 2022, new State housing laws have continued to proliferate, with the prospect of more to
come. Both the City and the State’s Department of Housing and Community Development
(“HCD”) have had to adapt not only to evolving State housing laws, but also to court decisions
interpreting those laws, often with unexpected results. Concurrently, the City has been working
to reconcile the various implications of Measure Y, Measure K, the “Neighborhoods Where We
Mayor Stephens and Council Members
January 30, 2026
Page 2
All Belong” program, planning for the Fairview Developmental Center, and HCD’s rezoning
requirements. As a result, the risk of “unintended consequences” has become significant.
Unlike many landowners, CJS is neither in a hurry to develop its properties nor, at this time,
focused upon residential development of the CJS Properties. To the contrary, the common
reputational and economic interests of CJS and the City are to a significant degree tied to CJS’s
thoughtfully planned and highly successful commercial development. While these shared
interests do not preclude residential development in the future, CJS is not ready to commit the
CJS Properties to residential development at this time, whether directly or inadvertently.
As we have communicated since before the holidays, it has become clear that sooner or later CJS
will need to request the removal of the CJS Properties from the Housing Element. Therefore, CJS
is formally requesting the City to take all actions necessary to remove the CJS Properties from
the Housing Element.
Please reach out to either me or Justin McCusker if you have any questions or if there are further
steps which CJS must take to facilitate the near-term removal of the CJS Properties from the City’s
updated Housing Element.
Thank you.
COX, CASTLE & NICHOLSON LLP
By: Tim Paone
Partner
cc: Costa Mesa City Manager Cecilia Gallardo-Daly
Costa Mesa Planning Commissioners
HE Site No. CJS Site ID
134 Harbor Associates
136 Harbor Associates
137 Home Ranch
138 Home Ranch
198 Home Ranch
139 Town Center
140 Town Center
HE Site No. CJS Site ID
141 Town Center
205 Town Center
145 South Coast Plaza
146 South Coast Plaza
147 South Coast Plaza
203 US Post Office
204 US Post Office
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
February 9, 2026
Via Email and Facsimile
Michelle Halligan, Sr Planner
Anna McGill, Adv Planning Mgr
Carrie Tai, Director
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Fax: (714) 754-4856
michelle.halligan@costamesaca.gov
anna.mcgill@costamesaca.gov
carrie.tai@costamesaca.gov
Jeffrey Harlan, Chair
Planning Commission
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Fax: (714) 754-5028
pcpubliccomments@costamesaca.gov
cityclerk@costamesaca.gov
planninginfo@costamesaca.gov
Re:Planning Commission Agenda Item PH-1
Meeting: February 9, 2026
Objections, Issues, and Concerns
Dear Gentlepersons:
I write on behalf of The Ohio House and its residents, along with present
and former Group Home owners, operators, and residents to address several issues
regarding Agenda Item PH-1 to be heard, considered and acted upon by the
Planning Commission at a public hearing on Monday, February 9, 2026. Item PH-
1 asks the Planning Commission to approve a resolution recommending the
adoption by the City Council of several code amendment purporting to implement
specific housing programs set forth in the City’s Sixth Cycle (2021-2029) Housing
Element.
-1-
Planning Commission
February 9, 2026
Page 2
1. Issues Addressed in This Letter
This letter focuses exclusively on code amendments purporting to
implement Housing Programs regarding the regulation of housing for persons with
disability; specifically:
1. Program 2O (Definition of Single Housekeeping Unit): That the City
will “review and revise the definition of ‘single housekeeping unit’
within the zoning code to provide greater flexibility in consideration
of accommodating a variety of household situations for related and
unrelated individuals living together.”
2. Program 2P (Group Homes): That the City will “review and adopt
revisions to its zoning code applicable to group homes to
affirmatively further fair housing and comply with fair housing laws
per the [following] objective: 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.”
3. Program 2N (Reasonable Accommodation): That the City will
“review and adopt revisions to its Reasonable Accommodation
process to be consistent with State and federal fair housing
requirements.”
To implement these programs, the City proposes to amended the following
provisions of the City’s zoning code (Title 13), set forth in Exhibit 3 in the
Planning Commission Agenda Report:
4. Exhibit A: Chapter 1, Article 2, Definitions
5. Exhibit D: Chapter IV, Citywide Land Use Matrix
6. Exhibit H: Chapter IX, Article 15, Reasonable Accommodations
7. Exhibit K: Chapter XV, Group Homes; and,
8. Exhibit L: Chapter XVI, Group Homes in the R2-MD, R2-HD and R3
Residential Zones and the PDR-LD, PDR-MD, PDR-HD, PDR-NCM,
-2-
Planning Commission
February 9, 2026
Page 3
PDC, and PDI (Planned Development Zones)
and the related Title 9's Group Home Operator’s Permit, set forth in Exhibit 5.
These code amendments fail to meet the requirements in Housing Programs
2N, 2O, and 2P, but also, if enacted as presently proposed, each amendment
violates three federal laws – the Fair Housing Act, ADA, and Rehabilitation Act –
and several state statutes, including the California Government Code §§ 12955,
65008, 8899.50, and 11135 as well as the California Constitution.
2. The Proposed Amendment of the Definition of Single
Housekeeping Unit fails to implement the requirements of the City’s
Housing Program 2O and promise to violate federal and state fair
housing laws.
The definition of Single Housekeeping Unit (SHU) is the pivotal zoning
provisions 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 districts. Thus, if the City chooses to classify an 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 compelled by state statute.
The City proposes to implement Housing Plan Program 2O (“Definition of Single
Housekeeping Unit”) by amending the current definition of Single Housekeeping Unit as
follows:
-3-
Planning Commission
February 9, 2026
Page 4
We urge the Planning Commission to reject the resolution recommending the
adoption of the proposed amended definition of Single Housekeeping Unit (SHU)
because it fails to implement Housing Program 2O, invites unlawful and arbitrary
enforcement, and violates state and federal fair housing statutes.
a. The Proposed SHU Definition Perpetuates The City
Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities
The City last amended its SHU definition in 2014 as part of Ordinance 14-
13, the City’s sweeping revision of its zoning code to compel the closure of
existing group homes in R1 (SFR) districts – and to prohibit any new group homes
there – unless the household qualified for issuance of a specially 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. Given its inclusion in
Ordinance 14-13, it should come as no surprise that the City repeatedly has
admitted that the purpose of the current SHU definition was to exclude group
homes from the definition and privilege afforded households classified as SHUs.
-4-
Planning Commission
February 9, 2026
Page 5
To achieve this result, the City includes a facially discriminatory
presumption, a list of subjective, standardless criteria (carried forward in the
proposed amendment), and several of observable indicia “that a household is not
operating as a single housekeeping unit,” including more than one rental
agreement, private, separate entrances, separate food storage and refrigerators.
The proposed amendment deletes the facially discriminatory presumption but also
deletes the only objective, observable standards (locks, entrance, refrigerators) in
the pivotal provisions. While those observable indicia were enacted for a
discriminatory purpose, they at least had the virtue of being an objective standard
that could be applied to readily observable conditions (lock, entrance,
refrigerators). Once observable conditions are stripped from the definition, the
proposed amendment devolves into a series of necessary conditions lacking
objective standard 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. Worse still, the proposed definition commits the City
to police personal relationship among every dwelling’s occupants and to
monitor the domestic affair of every household in Costa Mesa.
b. The Text and Terms of the Proposed Single Housekeeping Unit
Definition Offends Common Sense, Valid Zoning Principles, and Fair
Housing Laws
The proposed SHU amendment lacks valid, measurable, discernable,
objective standards to determine whether a household qualifies as a SHU.
Moreover, even if it provided valid standards, its application depends on the City’s
observations and determination of the nature and quality of personal relationships
amongst household members and their domestic affair within the privacy of their
dwellings. In sum, the proposed SHU definition is useless in application, invalid
on its face, and unconstitutional in effect.1
1 There are several ways to assess the efficacy of a zoning definition. We can disaggregate its
terms into necessary and sufficient conditions. We can evaluate whether its intention (what it
connotes) aligns with its extension (what it denotes). But under any test, the ultimate question is
whether the text provides objective standards that can be consistently applied to observable facts
reflecting conditions that endure over time. Thus, most zoning regulation concern the physical
-5-
Planning Commission
February 9, 2026
Page 6
As drafted, the proposed definition consists of a series of necessary
conditions regarding personal relationships that each occupant must satisfy and
several domestic affairs that each occupant must perform. Each of these
conditions is necessary. In other words, if the City decides that any one occupant
fails to met any one of the following conditions, then the household is disqualified
as a Single Housekeeping Unit:
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.
A close examination of these necessary conditions demonstrates why the proposed
definition is not only profoundly flawed for purported purpose (implementing
Program 2O), but also wholly dependent on the City violating the California
Constitution, fair housing law, and sound zoning principles.
as built environment or readily observable externalities. The proposed amended SHU definition
meets none of these criteria under any framework.
-6-
Planning Commission
February 9, 2026
Page 7
No. Necessary
Condition
Condition’s
Objective
Standards
Application Can City Lawfully
Observe and Verify
Facts to Determine
Condition
01 Established
Ties between
each occupant
with each other
occupant.
No, lacks
objective
criteria
measuring
quality or
quantity
a. Necessary condition
must exist throughout the
every persons occupancy
at any point in time.
b. To determine whether
household’s “established
ties” are sufficient, each
one-to-one relationship
amongst occupants must
be evaluated by the City;
thus, in a six member
household, there are 15
unique relationships to
be evaluated. C(n,r)[i.e.,
“n chose 2"].
Yes, for some households,
but only by proxy, limiting
Establish Ties to
relationships defined by
law (e.g., consanguinity),
and thereby discriminating
against non-traditional
families.
No, this conditions lack
any objective criteria;
moreover, this condition
involves personal
relationships that are
inherently difficult to
observe and assess since
relationships transpire
within sphere of
constitutionally protected
privacy
02 Familiarity
between each
occupant with
each other
occupant.
No, id. Id.No, this conditions lack
any objective criteria;
moreover, this condition
involves personal
relationships that are
inherently difficult to
observe and assess since
relationships transpire
within sphere of
constitutionally protected
privacy
-7-
Planning Commission
February 9, 2026
Page 8
No. Necessary
Condition
Condition’s
Objective
Standards
Application Can City Lawfully
Observe and Verify
Facts to Determine
Condition
03 Joint use of . . .
common areas
Yes, in part,
because -
unlike other
conditions -
common areas
are observable.
No, since use
lacks objective
criteria
measuring
quality or
quantity
Id.No. This condition lack an
objective standard;
moreover, it occurs within
the privacy of dwelling.
04 Joint . . .
responsibility
for common
areas
No, lacks
objective
criteria
measuring
quality or
quantity
Id.No. This condition lack an
objective standard;
moreover, it occurs within
the privacy of dwelling.
05 Interaction
with each other
No, id. Id.No, this conditions lack
any objective criteria;
moreover, this condition
involves personal
relationships that are
inherently difficult to
observe and assess since
relationships transpire
within sphere of
constitutionally protected
privacy
-8-
Planning Commission
February 9, 2026
Page 9
No. Necessary
Condition
Condition’s
Objective
Standards
Application Can City Lawfully
Observe and Verify
Facts to Determine
Condition
06 Shared meals No, id. Id., but measured by
participate rate of each
occupant. (i.e., Assume
five occupant and five
"household activities,"
the City must examine
each occupants
participation rate in a
total of 25 activities.
Cartesian Product (mxn)
No. The scope, frequency,
and participation rate
transpires within the
privacy of dwelling
07 Shared . . .
household
activities
No, id. Id.,
No. This condition lacks
an objective, reliable
standard. Moreover,
participation of domestic
activities transpires within
the privacy of dwelling.
08 Shared . . .
expenses
No, Id. Yes, with an
administrative subpoena.
No, unless the City obtains
an administrative subpoena
to obtain detailed
statements of household
expenses and contributions
by each member of the
household
-9-
Planning Commission
February 9, 2026
Page 10
No. Necessary
Condition
Condition’s
Objective
Standards
Application Can City Lawfully
Observe and Verify
Facts to Determine
Condition
09 Residency is
mutually
agreed by all
residents
No, Id., unless
condition is
intended to
empowers any
occupant at the
time to bar any
prospective
occupant or
oust any
existing
occupant from
a household,
regardless of
that occupant's
age or
maturity,
consensus of
the other
occupants, or
the basis for
the preclusion
or ouster.
Id.Possibility, but if and only
if the City obtains
confirmation from each
occupant who occupied a
dwelling during its
purported status as a SHU.
10 not transitory
in nature
No., Id. No, without a duration of
occupancy specified, this
necessary condition
cannot applied.
No, unless the City obtains
an administrative
subpoena, permitting the
City to lawfully review
records or compel
statements that establish
the date each occupant
joined a household. This
information, however, is
meaningless without a
temporal criterion.
-10-
Planning Commission
February 9, 2026
Page 11
No. Necessary
Condition
Condition’s
Objective
Standards
Application Can City Lawfully
Observe and Verify
Facts to Determine
Condition
11 residential
activities of the
household are
conducted on a
not-for-profit
basis
No, Id. Yes, with an
administrative subpoena,
but if and only if the City
can verify that the
housing provider is
either is incorporated as a
nonprofit or operates at a
loss and that each
occupant, regardless of
age, infirmity, or
capacity pays an equal
share of the housing
expense
No, unless the City obtains
an administrative
subpoena, permitting the
City to lawfully obtain
records showing that a
housing provider is a
nonprofit or operates at a
loss and detailed financial
records reflecting
household expenses and
contributions by each
occupant.
Does the proposed SHU definition provide with the City’s zoning and code
enforcers (as well as its citizens) with robust, objective standards that can be
reliably applied to readily observable facts reflecting conditions that endure over
the lifetime of a household? The answer is obvious no. Worse, if you assume that
the proposed definition means what it says, and its conditions were uniformly
applied to the wide variety of household that exist in Costa Mesa2, very few of
those households could qualify as Single Housekeeping Unit. Worse still, under
the proposed definition, the City is committed to policing the personal relationship
and domestic affairs of its citizens, an undertaking that is as unpopular as it is
unconstitutional.
We urge the Planning Commission to reject the resolution recommending
the adoption of the proposed SHU definition.
3. The proposed amendments to zoning regulations governing group
homes fail to implement the objective of the City’s Housing Program 2P,
perpetuate discrimination against disabled persons, and promise to violate
federal and state fair housing laws.
2 Please refer to the City’s demographic profile in the City’s Sixth Cycle Housing Element.
-11-
Planning Commission
February 9, 2026
Page 12
The City proposes to implement Housing Plan Program 2P (“Group
Homes”) by not making any substantive changes to its current group home
regulations, codified as CMMC Title 13, Chaps. XV and XVI, and CMMC Title 9,
Chap. II, Art. 23. See Meeting Packet, Exhibit 3. As a result, the City’s group
home regulations continue to discriminate against housing for disabled persons, as
reflected in Exhibit 1 hereto.
The only substantive change proposed by the City is to import the definition
of “operator” into the definition of group home or sober living home. That
amendment is deeply flawed and will not cure the problems with the City’s current
group home regulations. The operator definition is standardless, circular, and
assumes that landlords renting to non-disabled persons do not engage in
placement, rule-setting, and behavioral oversight of their tenants—an
demonstrably untrue assumption.
We urge the Planning Commission to reject the resolution recommending
the adoption of the proposed amendments to the group home regulations because
they are insufficient.
4. The proposed amendments to the City’s RA regulations fail to
implement the requirements of the City’s Housing Program 2N,
perpetuate discrimination against disabled persons, and promise to
continue violating federal and state fair housing laws.
The City proposes to implement Housing Plan Program 2N (“Reasonable
Accommodation”) by making modest changes to the existing regulation that fail to
fulfill this Housing Program’s intent and continue a policy in violation of federal
and state fair housing laws.
To implement Program 2N, the City must amend the current regulation to
address each of the issues raised in DRC’s letter to the City dated January 12,
2026, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 2. In addition, the City must provide a
cogent definition of “institutionalization” if it intends to apply that criterion as a
basis for denying RA requests.
We urge the Planning Commission to reject the resolution recommending
-12-
Planning Commission
February 9, 2026
Page 13
adoption of the proposed RA regulation because it is insufficient.
Thank you for your consideration.
/s/ Christopher Brancart
cbrancart@brancart.com
-13-
1
Zon
i
n
g
r
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
un
l
i
c
e
n
s
e
d
1 re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
u
s
e
s
i
n
C
o
s
t
a
M
e
s
a
’s
m
u
l
t
i
-fa
m
i
l
y
z
o
n
i
n
g
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
CM
M
C
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
G
o
v
e
r
n
i
n
g
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
U
s
e
s
i
n
C
i
t
y
’
s
M
u
l
t
i
f
a
m
i
l
y
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
So
b
e
r
L
i
v
i
n
g
H
o
m
e
2
Gr
o
u
p
H
o
m
e
3
Bo
a
r
d
i
n
g
h
o
u
s
e
,
Sm
a
l
l
<
3
r
e
n
t
a
l
ro
o
m
s
4
Bo
a
r
d
i
n
g
h
o
u
s
e
,
La
r
g
e
<
7
r
e
n
t
a
l
ro
o
m
s
Mu
l
t
i
-fa
m
i
l
y
Dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
5
Us
e
D
e
f
i
n
i
t
i
o
n
s
Us
e
d
e
f
i
n
e
d
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
d
i
s
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
s
t
a
t
u
s
o
f
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
,
C
M
M
C
1
3
-06
Ye
s
,
C
C
9
6
Ye
s
,
C
C
5
No
,
C
C
3
No
,
C
C
3
No
C
C
4
1 Li
c
e
n
s
e
d
u
s
e
s
a
r
e
s
u
b
j
e
c
t
t
o
s
t
a
t
e
-ma
n
d
a
t
e
d
z
o
n
i
n
g
e
n
t
i
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
s
.
T
h
e
C
o
s
t
a
M
e
s
a
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
C
o
d
e
(
C
M
M
C
)
d
e
f
in
e
s
th
e
s
e
u
s
e
s
a
s
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
ca
r
e
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
.
A
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
l
i
c
e
n
s
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
s
t
a
t
e
w
h
e
r
e
c
a
r
e
,
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
o
r
t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
i
s
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
t
o
p
e
r
s
o
n
s
l
i
v
i
n
g
i
n
a
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
v
e
co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
se
t
t
i
n
g
.
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
c
a
r
e
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
,
b
u
t
m
a
y
n
o
t
b
e
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
t
o
,
t
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
:
i
n
t
e
r
m
e
d
i
a
t
e
c
a
r
e
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
l
l
y
d
i
s
a
b
l
e
d
(
H
e
a
l
t
h
&
S
a
f
e
t
y
Co
d
e
§
§
1
2
6
7
.
8
,
1
2
6
7
.
9
)
;
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
c
a
r
e
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
(
H
e
a
l
t
h
&
S
a
f
e
t
y
C
o
d
e
§
1
5
0
0
e
t
s
e
q
.
)
;
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
c
a
r
e
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
el
d
e
r
l
y
(
H
e
a
l
t
h
&
S
a
f
e
t
y
C
o
d
e
§
1
5
6
9
e
t
se
q
.
)
;
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
c
a
r
e
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
c
h
r
o
n
i
c
a
l
l
y
i
l
l
(
2
2
C
.
C
.
R
.
§
8
7
8
0
1
(
a
)
(
5
)
;
H
e
a
l
t
h
&
S
a
f
e
t
y
C
o
d
e
§
1
5
6
8
.
0
2
)
;
a
l
c
o
h
o
l
i
s
m
a
n
d
d
r
u
g
a
b
u
s
e
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
(
H
e
al
t
h
&
Sa
f
e
t
y
C
o
d
e
§
§
1
1
8
3
4
.
0
2
—11
8
3
4
.
3
0
)
;
p
e
d
i
a
t
r
i
c
d
a
y
h
e
a
l
t
h
a
n
d
r
e
s
p
i
t
e
c
a
r
e
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
(
H
e
a
l
t
h
&
S
a
f
e
t
y
C
o
d
e
§
1
7
6
0
e
t
s
e
q
.
)
;
r
es
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
h
e
a
l
t
h
c
a
r
e
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
,
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
c
o
n
g
r
e
g
a
t
e
l
i
v
i
n
g
h
e
a
l
t
h
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
(
H
e
a
l
t
h
&
S
a
f
e
t
y
C
o
d
e
§
§
1
2
6
5
—12
7
1
.
1
,
1
2
5
0
(
i
)
,
1
2
5
0
(
e
)
,
(
h
)
)
;
f
a
m
i
l
y
c
a
r
e
h
o
m
e
,
f
o
s
t
e
r
h
o
m
e
,
g
r
o
u
p
h
o
m
e
f
o
r
t
h
e
me
n
t
a
l
l
y
d
i
s
o
r
d
e
r
e
d
o
r
o
t
h
e
r
w
i
s
e
h
a
n
d
i
c
a
p
p
e
d
p
e
r
s
o
n
s
o
r
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
a
n
d
n
e
g
l
e
c
t
e
d
c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
(
W
e
l
.
&
I
n
s
t
.
C
o
d
e
§
§
5
1
1
5
—51
2
0
)
.
”
C
M
M
C
1
3
-06
.
2So
b
e
r
l
i
v
i
n
g
h
o
m
e
me
a
n
s
a
g
r
o
u
p
h
o
m
e
f
o
r
p
e
r
s
o
n
s
w
h
o
a
r
e
r
e
c
o
v
e
r
i
n
g
f
r
o
m
a
d
r
u
g
a
n
d
/
o
r
a
l
c
o
h
o
l
a
d
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
w
h
o
a
r
e
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
h
a
n
d
i
c
a
p
p
e
d
u
n
d
er
s
t
a
t
e
or
f
e
d
e
r
a
l
l
a
w
.
S
o
b
e
r
l
i
v
i
n
g
h
o
m
e
s
s
h
a
l
l
n
o
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
t
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
:
(
1
)
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
c
a
r
e
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
;
(
2
)
a
n
y
s
o
b
e
r
l
i
v
i
n
g
h
o
m
e
t
h
a
t
o
p
e
r
a
t
e
s
a
s
a
s
i
n
g
l
e
h
o
u
s
e
k
e
e
p
i
n
g
un
i
t
.
”
C
M
M
C
1
3
-06
.
3Gr
o
u
p
h
o
m
e
.
A fa
c
i
l
i
t
y
t
h
a
t
i
s
b
e
i
n
g
u
s
e
d
a
s
a
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
v
e
l
i
v
i
n
g
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
f
o
r
p
e
r
s
o
n
s
w
h
o
a
r
e
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
h
a
n
d
i
c
a
p
p
e
d
u
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
t
e
o
r
f
e
d
e
ra
l
l
a
w
.
A
g
r
o
u
p
ho
m
e
o
p
e
r
a
t
e
d
b
y
a
s
i
n
g
l
e
o
p
e
r
a
t
o
r
o
r
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
r
(
w
h
e
t
h
e
r
l
i
c
e
n
s
e
d
o
r
u
n
l
i
c
e
n
s
e
d
)
c
o
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
s
a
s
i
n
g
l
e
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
,
w
h
e
t
h
e
r
t
h
e
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
o
c
c
u
p
i
e
s
o
n
e
(
1
)
o
r
mo
r
e
d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
u
n
i
t
s
.
G
r
o
u
p
h
o
m
e
s
s
h
a
l
l
n
o
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
t
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
:
(
1
)
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
c
a
r
e
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
;
(
2
)
a
n
y
g
r
o
u
p
h
o
m
e
t
h
a
t
o
p
er
a
t
e
s
a
s
a
s
i
n
g
l
e
h
o
u
s
e
k
e
e
p
i
n
g
u
n
i
t
.
”
CM
M
C
1
3
-06
.
4
“
Bo
a
r
d
i
n
g
h
o
u
s
e
.
A
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
c
e
o
r
d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
,
o
t
h
e
r
t
h
a
n
a
h
o
t
e
l
,
w
h
e
r
e
i
n
r
o
o
m
s
a
r
e
r
e
n
t
e
d
u
n
d
e
r
t
w
o
(
2
)
o
r
m
o
r
e
s
e
p
a
r
a
t
e
w
r
i
t
t
e
n
o
r
o
r
a
l
r
e
n
t
a
l
a
gr
e
e
m
e
n
t
s
,
le
a
s
e
s
o
r
s
u
b
l
e
a
s
e
s
o
r
c
o
m
b
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
t
h
e
r
e
o
f
,
w
h
e
t
h
e
r
o
r
n
o
t
t
h
e
o
w
n
e
r
,
a
g
e
n
t
o
r
r
e
n
t
a
l
m
a
n
a
g
e
r
r
e
s
i
d
e
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
ce
.
B
o
a
r
d
i
n
g
h
o
u
s
e
,
s
m
a
l
l
m
e
a
n
s
t
w
o
(2
)
o
r
f
e
w
e
r
r
o
o
m
s
b
e
i
n
g
r
e
n
t
e
d
.
B
o
a
r
d
i
n
g
h
o
u
s
e
,
l
a
r
g
e
m
e
a
n
s
t
h
r
e
e
(
3
)
t
o
s
i
x
(
6
)
r
o
o
m
s
b
e
i
n
g
r
e
n
t
e
d
.
B
o
a
r
d
i
n
g
h
o
u
s
e
s
r
e
n
t
i
n
g
m
or
e
t
h
a
n
s
i
x
(
6
)
r
o
o
m
s
a
r
e
pr
o
h
i
b
i
t
e
d
.
”
CM
M
C
1
3
-06
.
5
“
Dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
,
m
u
l
t
i
-fa
m
i
l
y
“D
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
,
m
u
l
t
i
-fa
m
i
l
y
”
o
r
“
m
u
l
t
i
-fa
m
i
l
y
d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
”
i
s
a
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
o
r
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
o
f
p
e
r
m
a
n
e
n
t
c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
p
l
a
c
e
d
o
n
o
n
e
(
1
)
l
o
t
w
h
i
c
h
i
s
de
s
i
g
n
e
d
o
r
u
s
e
d
f
o
r
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
o
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
b
y
t
w
o
(
2
)
o
r
m
o
r
e
f
a
m
i
l
i
e
s
.
”
C
M
M
C
1
3
-06
.
6 “C
C
#
”
re
f
e
r
s
t
o
p
a
g
e
n
u
m
b
e
r
s
i
n
t
h
e
e
x
c
e
r
p
t
o
f
t
h
e
cu
r
r
e
n
t
Co
s
t
a
M
e
s
a
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
C
o
d
e
[a
s
o
f
0
5
/
0
9
/
2
0
2
1
]
,
at
t
a
c
h
e
d
t
o
t
h
i
s
T
a
b
l
e
f
o
r
r
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
.
-14-
2
CM
M
C
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
G
o
v
e
r
n
i
n
g
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
U
s
e
s
i
n
C
i
t
y
’
s
M
u
l
t
i
f
a
m
i
l
y
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
So
b
e
r
L
i
v
i
n
g
H
o
m
e
2
Gr
o
u
p
H
o
m
e
3
Bo
a
r
d
i
n
g
h
o
u
s
e
,
Sm
a
l
l
<
3
r
e
n
t
a
l
ro
o
m
s
4
Bo
a
r
d
i
n
g
h
o
u
s
e
,
La
r
g
e
<
7
r
e
n
t
a
l
ro
o
m
s
Mu
l
t
i
-fa
m
i
l
y
Dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
5
Us
e
d
e
f
i
n
e
d
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
n
a
t
u
r
e
o
f
th
e
di
s
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
o
f
d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
’
s
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
,
C
M
M
C
13
-06
Ye
s
,
C
C
9
No
,
C
C
5
No
,
C
C
3
No
,
C
C
3
No
C
C
4
Pe
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
Z
o
n
i
n
g
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
Pe
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
i
n
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
ia
l
Z
o
n
i
n
g
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
,
CM
M
C
1
3
-30
,
1
3
-20
4
No
,
C
C
3
1
No
,
C
C
3
1
Ye
s
,
C
C
3
1
Ye
s
,
i
f
p
r
e
-
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
,
C
C
5
4
;
No
,
i
f
n
e
w
,
C
C
3
1
Ye
s
,
C
C
3
1
Pe
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
i
n
M
u
l
t
i
f
a
m
i
l
y
Z
o
n
i
n
g
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
(R
2
-MD
,
R
2
-HD
,
R
3
)
,
C
M
M
C
1
3
-30
No
,
C
C
3
1
No
,
C
C
3
1
Ye
s
,
C
C
3
1
Ye
s
,
i
f
p
r
e
-
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
,
C
C
5
4
;
No
,
i
f
n
e
w
,
C
C
3
1
Ye
s
,
C
C
3
1
Pe
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
i
n
P
l
a
n
n
e
d
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
(
P
D
R
-LD
,
P
D
R
-MD
,
PD
R
-H
D
,
PR
D
-NC
M
,
P
D
C
,
P
D
I
)
,
C
M
M
C
1
3
-
30
,
1
3
-20
4
No
,
C
C
3
1
No
,
C
C
3
1
Ye
s
,
C
C
3
1
Ye
s
,
i
f
p
r
e
-
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
,
C
C
5
4
;
No
,
i
f
n
e
w
,
C
C
3
1
Ye
s
,
C
C
3
1
Pe
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
i
n
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
a
l
&
R
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
(I
&
R
)
Zo
n
i
n
g
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
[
i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d
f
o
r
“re
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
,
o
p
e
n
s
p
a
c
e
,
h
e
a
l
t
h
,
p
u
b
l
i
c
se
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
”
13
-20
(
i
)
,
C
C
1
7
]
Ye
s
,
C
C
3
1
Ye
s
,
C
C
3
1
No
,
C
C
3
1
No
,
C
C
3
1
No
,
C
C
3
1
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
l
y
o
r
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
y
P
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
i
n
In
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
a
l
&
R
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
(I
&
R
)
Zo
n
i
n
g
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
[
i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d
f
o
r
“re
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
,
o
p
e
n
sp
a
c
e
,
h
e
a
l
t
h
,
p
u
b
l
i
c
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
”
13
-20
(
i
)
,
CC
1
7
]
NA
,
C
C
3
1
NA
,
C
C
3
1
No
,
C
C
3
1
No
,
C
C
3
1
No
,
C
C
3
1
No
n
con
f
o
r
m
i
n
g
U
s
e
S
t
a
t
u
s
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
u
s
e
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
t
o
a
p
p
l
y
f
o
r
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
o
r
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
U
s
e
P
e
r
m
i
t
t
o
Ye
s
,
C
C
6
7
,
5
9
Ye
s
,
C
C
6
7
,
5
9
No
,
C
C
5
4
No
,
C
C
5
4
NA
,
C
C
3
1
-15-
3
CM
M
C
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
G
o
v
e
r
n
i
n
g
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
U
s
e
s
i
n
C
i
t
y
’
s
M
u
l
t
i
f
a
m
i
l
y
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
So
b
e
r
L
i
v
i
n
g
H
o
m
e
2
Gr
o
u
p
H
o
m
e
3
Bo
a
r
d
i
n
g
h
o
u
s
e
,
Sm
a
l
l
<
3
r
e
n
t
a
l
ro
o
m
s
4
Bo
a
r
d
i
n
g
h
o
u
s
e
,
La
r
g
e
<
7
r
e
n
t
a
l
ro
o
m
s
Mu
l
t
i
-fa
m
i
l
y
Dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
5
co
n
t
i
n
u
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
u
s
e
,
1
3
-32
4
,
1
3
-
20
7
.
1
v
e
r
s
u
s
1
3
-20
4
,
1
3
-3
0
Se
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
Se
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
i
m
p
o
s
e
d
o
n
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
u
s
e
s
,
1
3
-32
2
,
1
3
-32
3
,
1
3
-32
4
ve
r
s
u
s
1
3
-30
,
1
3
-20
4
,
1
3
-20
7
.
1
Ye
s
:
A
t
l
e
a
s
t
6
5
0
fe
e
t
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
a
n
d
a
n
y
gr
o
u
p
h
o
m
e
,
s
o
b
e
r
li
v
i
n
g
h
o
m
e
o
r
st
a
t
e
-li
c
e
n
s
e
d
d
r
u
g
an
d
a
l
c
o
h
o
l
tr
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
.
CC
6
6
-67
Ye
s
:
A
t
l
e
a
s
t
6
5
0
fe
e
t
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
a
n
d
a
n
y
gr
o
u
p
h
o
m
e
,
s
o
b
e
r
li
v
i
n
g
h
o
m
e
o
r
s
t
a
t
e
-
li
c
e
n
s
e
d
d
r
u
g
a
n
d
al
c
o
h
o
l
t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
fa
c
i
l
i
t
y
.
C
C
6
6
-67
No
,
C
C
5
4
No
,
C
C
5
4
NA
,
1
3
-30
Se
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
i
m
p
o
s
e
d
o
n
n
e
w
us
e
s
,
1
3
-32
2
,
1
3
-32
3
,
1
3
-32
4
v
e
r
s
u
s
1
3
-30
fn
7
Ye
s
:
A
t
l
e
a
s
t
6
5
0
fe
e
t
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
a
n
d
a
n
y
gr
o
u
p
h
o
m
e
,
s
o
b
e
r
li
v
i
n
g
h
o
m
e
,
or
st
a
t
e
-li
c
e
n
s
e
d
d
r
u
g
an
d
a
l
c
o
h
o
l
tr
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
.
CC
6
6
-67
Ye
s
:
A
t
l
e
a
s
t
6
5
0
fe
e
t
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
a
n
d
a
n
y
gr
o
u
p
h
o
m
e
,
s
o
b
e
r
li
v
i
n
g
h
o
m
e
,
or
s
t
a
t
e
-
li
c
e
n
s
e
d
d
r
u
g
a
n
d
al
c
o
h
o
l
t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
fa
c
i
l
i
t
y
.
C
C
6
6
-67
Ye
s
:
S
m
a
l
l
bo
a
r
d
i
n
g
h
o
u
s
e
s
sh
a
l
l
l
o
c
a
t
e
a
t
le
a
s
t
s
i
x
hu
n
d
r
e
d
f
i
f
t
y
(6
5
0
)
fe
e
t
f
r
o
m
an
y
o
t
h
e
r
s
m
a
l
l
bo
a
r
d
i
n
g
h
o
u
s
e
.
CC
4
9
Ye
s
:
L
a
r
g
e
bo
a
r
d
i
n
g
h
o
u
s
e
s
sh
a
l
l
b
e
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
at
l
e
a
s
t
o
n
e
th
o
u
s
a
n
d
(
1
,
0
0
0
)
fe
e
t
a
w
a
y
f
r
o
m
an
y
o
t
h
e
r
bo
a
r
d
i
n
g
h
o
u
s
e
.
CC
4
9
NA
,
1
3
-30
Dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
O
p
e
r
a
t
o
r
’s
P
e
r
m
i
t
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
Ow
n
e
r
o
r
o
p
e
r
a
t
o
r
o
f
d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
m
u
s
t
ob
t
a
i
n
a
n
“Op
e
r
a
t
o
r
’s
P
e
r
m
i
t
,
”
CM
M
C
1
3
-
32
3
,
9
-37
2
,
o
r
m
e
e
t
s
a
m
e
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
Ye
s
,
C
C
6
7
,
6
9
[C
U
P
]
;
Y
e
s
,
C
C
6
6
,
61
-63
[
S
U
P
]
Ye
s
,
C
C
6
7
,
6
9
[
C
U
P
]
;
Ye
s
,
C
C
6
6
,
6
1
-63
[S
U
P
]
No
No
No
-16-
4
CM
M
C
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
G
o
v
e
r
n
i
n
g
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
U
s
e
s
i
n
C
i
t
y
’
s
M
u
l
t
i
f
a
m
i
l
y
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
So
b
e
r
L
i
v
i
n
g
H
o
m
e
2
Gr
o
u
p
H
o
m
e
3
Bo
a
r
d
i
n
g
h
o
u
s
e
,
Sm
a
l
l
<
3
r
e
n
t
a
l
ro
o
m
s
4
Bo
a
r
d
i
n
g
h
o
u
s
e
,
La
r
g
e
<
7
r
e
n
t
a
l
ro
o
m
s
Mu
l
t
i
-fa
m
i
l
y
Dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
5
Op
e
r
a
t
o
r
’s
P
e
r
m
i
t
u
n
d
e
r
S
U
P
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
,
1
3
-32
2
,
1
3
-31
1
Ow
n
e
r
o
r
o
p
e
r
a
t
o
r
o
f
d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
m
u
s
t
ob
t
a
i
n
a
n
“op
e
r
a
t
o
r
’s
p
e
r
m
i
t
”
as
a
co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
t
o
q
u
a
l
i
f
y
f
o
r
a
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
u
s
e
pe
r
m
i
t
,
C
M
M
C
1
3
-32
3
,
9
-37
2
,
o
r
m
e
e
t
sa
m
e
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
O
p
e
r
a
t
o
r
’s
P
e
r
m
i
t
t
o
qu
a
l
i
f
y
f
o
r
S
U
P
,
1
3
-32
2
,
1
3
-31
1
Ye
s
,
C
C
6
7
,
6
9
[C
U
P
]
;
Y
e
s
,
C
C
6
6
,
61
-63
[
S
U
P
]
Ye
s
,
C
C
6
7
,
6
9
[
C
U
P
]
;
Ye
s
,
C
C
6
6
,
6
1
-63
[S
U
P
]
No
No
No
Pe
r
m
i
t
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
Pe
r
m
i
t
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
:
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
t
o
l
i
s
t
ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
/
o
p
e
r
a
t
o
r
’
s
e
v
e
r
y
g
e
n
e
r
a
l
pa
r
t
n
e
r
a
n
d
e
v
e
r
y
o
w
n
e
r
w
i
t
h
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
l
i
n
g
in
t
e
r
e
s
t
i
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
.
C
M
M
C
1
3
-31
1
(
a
)
+
9
-37
4
(
a
)
v
e
r
s
u
s
C
M
M
C
1
3
-29
(
a
)
+
C
i
t
y
Fo
r
m
0
9
/
2
0
1
9
Ye
s
,
C
C
6
1
,
6
9
;
[C
U
P
]
;
Y
e
s
,
C
C
6
6
,
61
-63
[
S
U
P
]
Ye
s
,
C
C
6
1
,
6
9
;
[
C
U
P
]
;
Ye
s
,
C
C
6
6
,
6
1
-63
[S
U
P
]
No
,
C
C
2
2
No
,
C
C
2
2
No
,
C
C
2
2
Pe
r
m
i
t
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
:
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
t
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
pe
r
m
i
t
h
i
s
t
o
r
y
o
r
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
s
i
m
i
l
a
r
u
s
e
at
a
n
y
t
i
m
e
a
n
y
w
h
e
r
e
i
n
t
h
e
U
n
i
t
e
d
St
a
t
e
s
.
C
M
M
C
1
3
-31
1
(
a
)
+
9
-37
4
(
a
)
ve
r
s
u
s
C
M
M
C
1
3
-29
(
a
)
+
C
i
t
y
F
o
r
m
09
/
2
0
1
9
Ye
s
,
C
C
6
1
,
6
9
;
[C
U
P
]
;
Y
e
s
,
C
C
6
6
,
61
-63
[
S
U
P
]
Ye
s
,
C
C
6
1
,
6
9
;
[
C
U
P
]
;
Ye
s
,
C
C
6
6
,
6
1
-63
[S
U
P
]
No
,
C
C
2
2
No
,
C
C
2
2
No
,
C
C
2
2
Pe
r
m
i
t
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
:
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
t
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
co
p
y
o
f
r
u
l
e
s
g
o
v
e
r
n
i
n
g
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
o
f
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
o
c
c
u
p
y
i
n
g
d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
.
C
M
M
C
1
3
-
31
1
(
a
)
+
9
-37
4
(
a
)
v
e
r
s
u
s
C
M
M
C
1
3
-29
(
a
)
+
C
i
t
y
F
o
r
m
0
9
/
2
0
1
9
Ye
s
,
C
C
6
1
,
6
9
;
[C
U
P
]
;
Y
e
s
,
C
C
6
6
,
61
-63
[
S
U
P
]
Ye
s
,
C
C
6
1
,
6
9
;
[
C
U
P
]
;
Ye
s
,
C
C
6
6
,
6
1
-63
[S
U
P
]
No
,
C
C
2
2
No
,
C
C
2
2
No
,
C
C
2
2
-17-
5
CM
M
C
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
G
o
v
e
r
n
i
n
g
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
U
s
e
s
i
n
C
i
t
y
’
s
M
u
l
t
i
f
a
m
i
l
y
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
So
b
e
r
L
i
v
i
n
g
H
o
m
e
2
Gr
o
u
p
H
o
m
e
3
Bo
a
r
d
i
n
g
h
o
u
s
e
,
Sm
a
l
l
<
3
r
e
n
t
a
l
ro
o
m
s
4
Bo
a
r
d
i
n
g
h
o
u
s
e
,
La
r
g
e
<
7
r
e
n
t
a
l
ro
o
m
s
Mu
l
t
i
-fa
m
i
l
y
Dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
5
Pe
r
m
i
t
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
:
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
t
o
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
y
th
e
n
a
m
e
,
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
,
t
e
l
e
p
h
o
n
e
,
C
D
L
o
f
on
s
i
t
e
d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
m
a
n
a
g
e
r
.
C
M
M
C
1
3
-
31
1
(
a
)
+
9
-37
4
(
a
)
v
e
r
s
u
s
C
M
M
C
1
3
-29
(
a
)
+
C
i
t
y
F
o
r
m
0
9
/
2
0
1
9
Ye
s
,
C
C
6
1
,
6
9
;
[C
U
P
]
;
Y
e
s
,
C
C
6
6
,
61
-63
[
S
U
P
]
Ye
s
,
C
C
6
1
,
6
9
;
[
C
U
P
]
;
Ye
s
,
C
C
6
6
,
6
1
-63
[S
U
P
]
No
,
C
C
2
2
No
,
C
C
2
2
No
,
C
C
2
2
Pe
r
m
i
t
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
:
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
t
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
do
c
u
m
e
n
t
r
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
n
g
c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
f
o
r
ac
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
o
f
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
n
d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
.
CM
M
C
1
3
-31
1
(
a
)
+
9
-37
4
(
a
)
v
e
r
s
u
s
C
M
M
C
13
-29
(
a
)
+
C
i
t
y
F
o
r
m
0
9
/
2
0
1
9
Ye
s
,
C
C
6
1
,
6
9
;
[C
U
P
]
;
Y
e
s
,
C
C
6
6
,
61
-63
[
S
U
P
]
Ye
s
,
C
C
6
1
,
6
9
;
[
C
U
P
]
;
Ye
s
,
C
C
6
6
,
6
1
-63
[S
U
P
]
No
,
C
C
2
2
No
,
C
C
2
2
No
,
C
C
2
2
Pe
r
m
i
t
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
:
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
t
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
bl
a
n
k
c
o
p
i
e
s
o
f
a
l
l
f
o
r
m
s
t
h
a
t
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
o
f
dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
a
r
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
t
o
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
.
CM
M
C
1
3
-31
1
(
a
)
+
9
-37
4
(
a
)
v
e
r
s
u
s
C
M
M
C
13
-29
(
a
)
+
C
i
t
y
F
o
r
m
0
9
/
2
0
1
9
Ye
s
,
C
C
6
1
,
6
9
;
[C
U
P
]
;
Y
e
s
,
C
C
6
6
,
61
-63
[
S
U
P
]
Ye
s
,
C
C
6
1
,
6
9
;
[
C
U
P
]
;
Ye
s
,
C
C
6
6
,
6
1
-63
[S
U
P
]
No
,
C
C
2
2
No
,
C
C
2
2
No
,
C
C
2
2
Pe
r
m
i
t
N
o
t
i
c
e
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
,
Ju
l
y
20
1
7
(1
7
-
05
)
-
Oc
t
o
b
e
r
20
1
8
(
1
8
-06
)
t
i
m
e
pe
r
i
o
d
Pu
b
l
i
c
n
o
t
i
c
e
o
f
h
e
a
r
i
n
g
o
n
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
sp
e
c
i
a
l
u
s
e
p
e
r
m
i
t
,
C
M
M
C
1
3
-31
1
(
b
)
ve
r
s
u
s
C
M
M
C
1
3
-29
(
c
)
[
0
7
/
2
0
1
7
-
09
/
2
0
1
8
]
No
t
i
c
e
t
o
b
e
m
a
i
l
e
d
to
t
h
e
ow
n
e
r
o
f
re
c
o
r
d
a
n
d
oc
c
u
p
a
n
t
s
of
a
l
l
pr
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
fi
v
e
h
u
n
d
r
e
d
(5
0
0
)
fe
e
t
o
f
t
h
e
lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
gr
o
u
p
h
o
m
e
.
No
t
i
c
e
t
o
b
e
m
a
i
l
e
d
to
t
h
e
ow
n
e
r
o
f
re
c
o
r
d
a
n
d
oc
c
u
p
a
n
t
s
of
a
l
l
pr
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
fi
v
e
h
u
n
d
r
e
d
(5
0
0
)
fe
e
t
o
f
t
h
e
lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
g
r
o
u
p
ho
m
e
.
No
t
i
c
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
he
a
r
i
n
g
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
ma
i
l
e
d
t
o
a
l
l
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
ow
n
e
r
s
wi
t
h
i
n
a
f
i
v
e
h
u
n
d
r
e
d
-
fo
o
t
ra
d
i
u
s
o
f
th
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
No
t
i
c
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
he
a
r
i
n
g
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
ma
i
l
e
d
t
o
a
l
l
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
o
w
n
e
r
s
wi
t
h
i
n
a
f
i
v
e
hu
n
d
r
e
d
-fo
o
t
ra
d
i
u
s
o
f
t
h
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
No
t
i
c
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
he
a
r
i
n
g
s
h
a
l
l
be
m
a
i
l
e
d
t
o
al
l
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
ow
n
e
r
s
wi
t
h
i
n
a
f
i
v
e
hu
n
d
r
e
d
-fo
o
t
ra
d
i
u
s
o
f
t
h
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
Oc
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
l
i
m
i
t
o
n
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
p
e
r
d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
-18-
6
CM
M
C
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
G
o
v
e
r
n
i
n
g
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
U
s
e
s
i
n
C
i
t
y
’
s
M
u
l
t
i
f
a
m
i
l
y
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
So
b
e
r
L
i
v
i
n
g
H
o
m
e
2
Gr
o
u
p
H
o
m
e
3
Bo
a
r
d
i
n
g
h
o
u
s
e
,
Sm
a
l
l
<
3
r
e
n
t
a
l
ro
o
m
s
4
Bo
a
r
d
i
n
g
h
o
u
s
e
,
La
r
g
e
<
7
r
e
n
t
a
l
ro
o
m
s
Mu
l
t
i
-fa
m
i
l
y
Dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
5
Oc
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
l
i
m
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
Ci
t
y
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
El
e
m
e
n
t
Ci
t
y
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
St
a
t
e
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
La
w
/
U
H
C
St
a
t
e
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
La
w
/
U
H
C
St
a
t
e
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
La
w
/
U
H
C
On
-Si
t
e
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
Dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
m
u
s
t
h
a
v
e
a
2
4
/
7
o
n
s
i
t
e
ma
n
a
g
e
r
.
C
M
M
C
1
3
-31
1
(
a
)
(
4
)
+
C
M
M
C
9
-
27
4
(
b
)
(
1
)
v
e
r
s
u
s
S
t
a
t
e
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
L
a
w
Ye
s
,
C
C
6
2
,
7
0
Ye
s
,
C
C
6
2
,
7
0
No
,
S
t
a
t
e
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
L
a
w
No
,
S
t
a
t
e
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
L
a
w
No
,
S
t
a
t
e
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
L
a
w
Ve
h
i
c
l
e
R
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
s
Ea
c
h
d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
t
o
o
n
e
ve
h
i
c
l
e
t
h
a
t
m
u
s
t
b
e
u
s
e
d
a
s
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
’s
pr
i
m
a
r
y
f
o
r
m
o
f
t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
,
1
3
-
31
1
(
a
)
(
5
)
+
C
M
M
C
9
-27
4
(
b
)
(
2
)
Ye
s
,
C
C
6
2
,
7
0
Ye
s
,
C
C
6
2
,
7
0
No
No
No
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
R
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
s
Ea
c
h
d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
m
u
s
t
p
a
r
k
h
e
r
ve
h
i
c
l
e
o
n
d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
p
r
e
m
i
s
e
s
o
r
w
i
t
h
i
n
50
0
f
e
e
t
o
f
d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
,
1
3
-31
1
(
a
)
(
5
)
+
CM
M
C
9
-27
4
(
b
)
(
2
)
v
e
r
s
u
s
C
M
M
C
T
i
t
l
e
1
0
,
Ch
X
(
S
t
o
p
p
i
n
g
,
S
t
a
n
d
i
n
g
a
n
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
)
Ye
s
,
C
C
6
2
,
7
0
Ye
s
,
C
C
6
2
,
7
0
No
No
No
Ev
i
c
t
i
o
n
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
La
n
d
l
o
r
d
/
o
p
e
r
a
t
o
r
m
u
s
t
n
o
t
i
f
y
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
’s
em
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
c
o
n
t
a
c
t
,
O
C
H
A
O
C
L
i
n
k
s
Re
f
e
r
r
a
l
L
i
n
e
,
a
n
d
C
o
s
t
a
M
e
s
a
’s
N
e
t
w
o
r
k
fo
r
H
o
m
e
l
e
s
s
S
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
b
e
f
o
r
e
a
n
e
v
i
c
t
i
n
g
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
,
C
M
M
C
1
3
-31
1
(
a
)
(
1
0
)
+
9
-
37
4
(
b
)
(
6
)
Ye
s
,
C
C
6
2
,
7
0
Ye
s
,
C
C
6
2
,
7
0
No
No
No
La
n
d
l
o
r
d
/
o
p
e
r
a
t
o
r
m
u
s
t
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
t
o
an
y
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
e
v
i
c
t
e
d
f
r
o
m
d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
,
CM
M
C
1
3
-31
1
(
a
)
(
1
1
)
+
9
-37
4
(
b
)
(
7
)
Ye
s
,
C
C
6
2
,
7
0
Ye
s
,
C
C
6
2
,
7
0
No
No
No
-19-
7
CM
M
C
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
G
o
v
e
r
n
i
n
g
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
U
s
e
s
i
n
C
i
t
y
’
s
M
u
l
t
i
f
a
m
i
l
y
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
So
b
e
r
L
i
v
i
n
g
H
o
m
e
2
Gr
o
u
p
H
o
m
e
3
Bo
a
r
d
i
n
g
h
o
u
s
e
,
Sm
a
l
l
<
3
r
e
n
t
a
l
ro
o
m
s
4
Bo
a
r
d
i
n
g
h
o
u
s
e
,
La
r
g
e
<
7
r
e
n
t
a
l
ro
o
m
s
Mu
l
t
i
-fa
m
i
l
y
Dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
5
La
n
d
l
o
r
d
/
o
p
e
r
a
t
o
r
m
u
s
t
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
e
v
i
c
t
i
o
n
re
c
o
r
d
s
f
o
r
o
n
e
y
e
a
r
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
’
s
e
v
i
c
t
i
o
n
fr
o
m
d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
,
C
M
M
C
1
3
-31
1
(
a
)
(
1
2
)
+
9
-
37
4
(
b
)
(
8
)
Ye
s
,
C
C
6
2
,
7
0
Ye
s
,
C
C
6
2
,
7
0
No
No
No
Re
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
Dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
Ea
c
h
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
o
f
d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
m
u
s
t
a
c
t
i
v
e
l
y
pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
i
n
a
l
e
g
i
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
e
l
f
-
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
(
e
.
g
.
,
1
2
-st
e
p
pr
o
g
r
a
m
)
,
C
M
M
C
1
3
-31
1
(
a
)
(
1
4
)
(
i
)
+
9
-
37
4
(
b
)
(
1
0
)
(
i
)
Ye
s
,
C
C
6
3
,
7
1
No
No
No
No
La
n
d
l
o
r
d
/
o
p
e
r
a
t
o
r
m
u
s
t
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
r
e
c
o
r
d
s
sh
o
w
i
n
g
t
h
a
t
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
s
a
c
t
i
v
e
l
y
pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
i
n
g
i
n
a
l
e
g
i
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
e
l
f
-
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
(
e
.
g
.
,
1
2
-st
e
p
pr
o
g
r
a
m
)
,
C
M
M
C
1
3
-31
1
(
a
)
(
1
4
)
(
i
)
+
9
-
37
4
(
b
)
(
1
0
)
(
i
)
Ye
s
,
C
C
6
3
,
7
1
No
No
No
No
La
n
d
l
o
r
d
/
o
p
e
r
a
t
o
r
m
u
s
t
p
r
o
m
u
l
g
a
t
e
a
ru
l
e
w
a
r
n
i
n
g
t
h
a
t
i
f
a
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
r
e
f
u
s
e
t
o
ac
t
i
v
e
l
y
p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
i
n
g
i
n
a
l
e
g
i
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
e
l
f
-
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
(
e
.
g
.
,
1
2
-st
e
p
pr
o
g
r
a
m
),
th
e
n
t
h
e
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
m
a
y
b
e
ev
i
c
t
e
d
.
C
M
M
C
1
3
-31
1
(
a
)
(
1
4
)
(
i
)
+
9
-
37
4
(
b
)
(
1
0
)
(
i
)
Ye
s
,
C
C
6
3
,
7
1
No
No
No
No
La
n
d
l
o
r
d
/
O
p
e
r
a
t
o
r
m
u
s
t
p
r
o
h
i
b
i
t
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
f
r
o
m
u
s
e
o
f
a
n
y
n
o
n
-
pr
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
d
r
u
g
s
.
C
M
M
C
1
3
-
31
1
(
a
)
(
1
4
)
(
i
i
)
+
9
-37
4
(
b
)
(
1
0
)
(
i
i
)
Ye
s
,
C
C
6
3
,
7
1
No
No
No
No
-20-
8
CM
M
C
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
G
o
v
e
r
n
i
n
g
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
U
s
e
s
i
n
C
i
t
y
’
s
M
u
l
t
i
f
a
m
i
l
y
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
So
b
e
r
L
i
v
i
n
g
H
o
m
e
2
Gr
o
u
p
H
o
m
e
3
Bo
a
r
d
i
n
g
h
o
u
s
e
,
Sm
a
l
l
<
3
r
e
n
t
a
l
ro
o
m
s
4
Bo
a
r
d
i
n
g
h
o
u
s
e
,
La
r
g
e
<
7
r
e
n
t
a
l
ro
o
m
s
Mu
l
t
i
-fa
m
i
l
y
Dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
5
La
n
d
l
o
r
d
/
o
p
e
r
a
t
o
r
m
u
s
t
e
v
i
c
t
a
n
y
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
c
a
u
g
h
t
u
s
i
n
g
a
n
y
n
o
n
-
pr
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
d
r
u
g
.
C
M
M
C
1
3
-
31
1
(
a
)
(
1
4
)
(
i
i
)
+
9
-37
4
(
b
)
(
1
0
)
(
i
i
)
Ye
s
,
C
C
6
3
,
7
1
No
No
No
No
La
n
d
l
o
r
d
/
o
p
e
r
a
t
o
r
m
u
s
t
p
r
o
m
u
l
g
a
t
e
a
go
o
d
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
p
o
l
i
c
y
d
i
r
e
c
t
i
n
g
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
“to
b
e
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
e
o
f
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
s
,
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
re
f
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
f
r
o
m
e
n
g
a
g
i
n
g
i
n
e
x
c
e
s
s
i
v
e
l
y
lo
u
d
,
p
r
o
f
a
n
e
o
r
o
b
n
o
x
i
o
u
s
b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
t
h
a
t
wo
u
l
d
u
n
d
u
l
y
i
n
t
e
r
f
e
r
e
w
i
t
h
a
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
’
s
us
e
a
n
d
e
n
j
o
y
m
e
n
t
o
f
t
h
e
i
r
d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
un
i
t
.
”
CM
M
C
1
3
-31
1
(
a
)
(
1
4
)
(
v
i
)
+
9
-
37
4
(
b
)
(
1
0
)
(
v
)
Ye
s
,
C
C
6
3
,
7
1
No
No
No
No
La
n
d
l
o
r
d
/
o
p
e
r
a
t
o
r
m
u
s
t
p
r
o
m
u
l
g
a
t
e
wr
i
t
t
e
n
p
r
o
t
o
c
o
l
f
o
r
o
n
s
i
t
e
m
a
n
a
g
e
r
t
o
fo
l
l
o
w
i
n
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
t
o
a
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
’s
co
m
p
l
a
i
n
t
.
C
M
M
C
p
r
o
t
o
c
o
l
f
o
r
1
3
-
31
1
(
a
)
(
1
4
)
(
v
i
)
+
9
-37
4
(
b
)
(
1
0
)
(
v
)
Ye
s
,
C
C
6
3
,
7
1
No
No
No
No
Ow
n
e
r
,
L
a
n
d
l
o
r
d
,
O
p
e
r
a
t
o
r
,
a
n
d
Em
p
l
o
y
e
e
Q
u
a
l
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
Ow
n
e
r
,
l
a
n
d
l
o
r
d
, or
o
p
e
r
a
t
o
r
o
f
a
dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
i
s
ba
r
r
e
d
f
r
o
m
o
b
t
a
i
n
i
n
g
a
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
o
r
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
U
s
e
P
e
r
m
i
t
f
o
r
t
h
a
t
dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
i
f
s
h
e
w
a
s
te
r
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
fr
o
m
a
j
o
b
fo
r
s
e
x
u
a
l
h
a
r
a
s
s
m
e
n
t
,
e
m
b
e
z
z
l
e
m
e
n
t
,
or
il
l
e
g
a
l
l
y
f
u
r
n
i
s
h
i
n
g
a
l
c
o
h
o
l
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
w
o
ye
a
r
s
o
f
a
p
p
l
y
i
n
g
t
o
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
f
o
r
t
h
a
t
zo
n
i
n
g
p
e
r
m
i
t
.
CM
M
C
13
-31
1
(
b
)
(
2
)
,
9
-
37
4
(
e
)
(
2
)
v
e
r
s
u
s
1
3
-29
(
g
)
(
2
)
Ye
s
,
C
C
6
3
,
7
1
Ye
s
,
C
C
6
3
,
7
1
No
,
C
C
2
5
No
,
C
C
2
5
No
,
C
C
2
5
-21-
9
CM
M
C
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
G
o
v
e
r
n
i
n
g
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
U
s
e
s
i
n
C
i
t
y
’
s
M
u
l
t
i
f
a
m
i
l
y
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
So
b
e
r
L
i
v
i
n
g
H
o
m
e
2
Gr
o
u
p
H
o
m
e
3
Bo
a
r
d
i
n
g
h
o
u
s
e
,
Sm
a
l
l
<
3
r
e
n
t
a
l
ro
o
m
s
4
Bo
a
r
d
i
n
g
h
o
u
s
e
,
La
r
g
e
<
7
r
e
n
t
a
l
ro
o
m
s
Mu
l
t
i
-fa
m
i
l
y
Dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
5
Ow
n
e
r
,
l
a
n
d
l
o
r
d
, or
o
p
e
r
a
t
o
r
o
f
a
dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
i
s
ba
r
r
e
d
f
r
o
m
o
b
t
a
i
n
i
n
g
a
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
o
r
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
U
s
e
P
e
r
m
i
t
f
o
r
t
h
a
t
dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
i
f
s
h
e
e
m
p
l
o
y
s
a
n
y
p
e
r
s
o
n
w
h
o
wa
s
te
r
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
fr
o
m
a
j
o
b
a
l
c
o
h
o
l
f
o
r
se
x
u
a
l
h
a
r
a
s
s
m
e
n
t
,
e
m
b
e
z
z
l
e
m
e
n
t
,
or
il
l
e
g
a
l
l
y
f
u
r
n
i
s
h
i
n
g
a
l
c
o
h
o
l
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
w
o
ye
a
r
s
o
f
a
p
p
l
y
i
n
g
t
o
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
f
o
r
t
h
a
t
zo
n
i
n
g
p
e
r
m
i
t
.
CM
M
C
1
3
-31
1
(
b
)
(
2
)
,
9
-
37
4
(
e
)
(
2
)
v
e
r
s
u
s
1
3
-29
(
g
)
(
2
)
Ye
s
,
C
C
6
3
,
7
1
Ye
s
,
C
C
6
3
,
7
1
No
,
C
C
2
5
No
,
C
C
2
5
No
,
C
C
2
5
Ow
n
e
r
,
l
a
n
d
l
o
r
d
, or
o
p
e
r
a
t
o
r
o
f
a
dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
i
s
ba
r
r
e
d
f
r
o
m
o
b
t
a
i
n
i
n
g
a
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
o
r
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
U
s
e
P
e
r
m
i
t
f
o
r
t
h
a
t
dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
i
f
s
h
e
w
a
s
co
n
v
i
c
t
e
d
o
r
p
l
e
a
d
e
d
no
l
o
c
o
n
t
en
d
e
r
e
t
o
a
n
y
P
C
2
9
0
s
e
x
of
f
e
n
s
e
o
r
P
C
6
6
7
.
5
f
e
l
o
n
y
w
i
t
h
i
n
1
0
y
e
a
r
s
of
a
p
p
l
y
i
n
g
t
o
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
f
o
r
t
h
a
t
z
o
n
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
.
C
M
M
C
1
3
-31
1
(
b
)
(
2
)
,
9
-37
4
(
e
)
(
2
)
ve
r
s
u
s
1
3
-29
(
g
)
(
2
)
Ye
s
,
C
C
6
3
-64
,
7
1
-72
Ye
s
,
C
C
6
3
-64
,
7
1
-72
No
,
C
C
2
5
No
,
C
C
2
5
No
,
C
C
2
5
Ow
n
e
r
,
l
a
n
d
l
o
r
d
, or
o
p
e
r
a
t
o
r
o
f
a
dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
b
a
r
r
e
d
f
r
o
m
o
b
t
a
i
n
i
n
g
a
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
or
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
U
s
e
P
e
r
m
i
t
f
o
r
t
h
a
t
d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
if
s
h
e
e
m
p
l
o
y
s
a
n
y
p
e
r
s
o
n
w
h
o
w
a
s
co
n
v
i
c
t
e
d
o
r
p
l
e
a
d
e
d
n
o
l
o
c
o
n
t
en
d
e
r
e
t
o
an
y
P
C
2
9
0
s
e
x
o
f
f
e
n
s
e
o
r
P
C
6
6
7
.
5
f
e
l
o
n
y
wi
t
h
i
n
1
0
y
e
a
r
s
o
f
a
p
p
l
y
i
n
g
t
o
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
f
o
r
th
a
t
z
o
n
i
n
g
p
e
r
m
i
t
.
CM
M
C
1
3
-31
1
(
b
)
(
2
)
,
9-37
4
(
e
)
(
2
)
v
e
r
s
u
s
1
3
-29
(
g
)
(
2
)
Ye
s
,
C
C
6
3
-64
,
7
1
-72
Ye
s
,
C
C
6
3
-64
,
7
1
-72
No
,
C
C
2
5
No
,
C
C
2
5
No
,
C
C
2
5
-22-
10
CM
M
C
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
G
o
v
e
r
n
i
n
g
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
U
s
e
s
i
n
C
i
t
y
’
s
M
u
l
t
i
f
a
m
i
l
y
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
So
b
e
r
L
i
v
i
n
g
H
o
m
e
2
Gr
o
u
p
H
o
m
e
3
Bo
a
r
d
i
n
g
h
o
u
s
e
,
Sm
a
l
l
<
3
r
e
n
t
a
l
ro
o
m
s
4
Bo
a
r
d
i
n
g
h
o
u
s
e
,
La
r
g
e
<
7
r
e
n
t
a
l
ro
o
m
s
Mu
l
t
i
-fa
m
i
l
y
Dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
5
Ow
n
e
r
,
l
a
n
d
l
o
r
d
, or
o
p
e
r
a
t
o
r
o
f
a
dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
b
a
r
r
e
d
f
r
o
m
o
b
t
a
i
n
i
n
g
a
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
or
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
U
s
e
P
e
r
m
i
t
f
o
r
t
h
a
t
d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
if
h
e
w
a
s
co
n
v
i
c
t
e
d
o
r
p
l
e
a
d
e
d
n
o
l
o
co
n
t
en
d
e
r
e
t
o
a
n
y
P
C
2
9
0
s
e
x
o
f
f
e
n
s
e
o
r
PC
6
6
7
.
5
f
e
l
o
n
y
w
i
t
h
i
n
1
0
y
e
a
r
s
o
f
ap
p
l
y
i
n
g
t
o
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
f
o
r
t
h
a
t
z
o
n
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
.
C
M
M
C
1
3
-31
1
(
b
)
(
2
)
,
9
-37
4
(
e
)
(
2
)
ve
r
s
u
s
1
3
-29
(
g
)
(
2
)
Ye
s
,
C
C
6
3
-64
,
7
1
-72
Ye
s
,
C
C
6
3
-64
,
7
1
-72
No
,
C
C
2
5
No
,
C
C
2
5
No
,
C
C
2
5
Ow
n
e
r
,
l
a
n
d
l
o
r
d
, or
o
p
e
r
a
t
o
r
o
f
a
dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
b
a
r
r
e
d
f
r
o
m
o
b
t
a
i
n
i
n
g
a
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
or
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
U
s
e
P
e
r
m
i
t
f
o
r
t
h
a
t
d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
if
s
h
e
e
m
p
l
o
y
s
a
n
y
p
e
r
s
o
n
w
h
o
w
a
s
co
n
v
i
c
t
e
d
o
r
p
l
e
a
d
e
d
n
o
l
o
c
o
n
t
r
e
n
d
e
r
e
t
o
an
y
P
C
4
5
1
a
r
s
o
n
o
f
f
e
n
s
e
o
r
f
u
r
n
i
s
h
i
n
g
an
y
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
l
e
d
s
u
b
s
t
a
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
i
n
7
y
e
a
r
s
o
f
ap
p
l
y
i
n
g
t
o
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
f
o
r
t
h
a
t
z
o
n
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
.
CM
M
C
1
3
-31
1
(
b
)
(
2
)
,
9
-37
4
(
e
)
(
2
)
ve
r
s
u
s
1
3
-29
(
g
)
(
2
)
Ye
s
,
C
C
6
3
-64
,
7
1
-72
Ye
s
,
C
C
6
3
-64
,
7
1
-72
No
,
C
C
2
5
No
,
C
C
2
5
No
,
C
C
2
5
Ow
n
e
r
,
l
a
n
d
l
o
r
d
, or
o
p
e
r
a
t
o
r
o
f
a
dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
b
a
r
r
e
d
f
r
o
m
o
b
t
a
i
n
i
n
g
a
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
or
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
U
s
e
P
e
r
m
i
t
f
o
r
t
h
a
t
d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
if
s
h
e
i
s
i
n
r
e
c
o
v
e
r
y
f
r
o
m
a
b
u
s
e
o
f
d
r
u
g
s
or
a
l
c
o
h
o
l
a
n
d
h
a
s
b
e
e
n
a
b
s
t
a
i
n
e
d
f
o
r
l
e
s
s
th
a
n
o
n
e
y
e
a
r
b
e
f
o
r
e
a
p
p
l
y
i
n
g
t
o
t
h
e
Ci
t
y
fo
r
t
h
a
t
z
o
n
i
n
g
p
e
r
m
i
t
.
CM
M
C
1
3
-
31
1
(
b
)
(
6
)
,
9
-37
4
(
e
)
(
2
)
v
e
r
s
u
s
1
3
-29
(
g
)
(
2
)
Ye
s
,
C
C
6
4
,
7
2
No
No
,
C
C
2
5
No
,
C
C
2
5
No
,
C
C
2
5
-23-
LEGAL ADVOCACY UNIT
1831 K Street
Sacramento, CA 95811
Tel: (916) 504-5800
Fax: (916) 504-5801
TTY: (800) 719-5798
Intake Line: (800) 776-5746
www.disabilityrightsca.org
January 12, 2026
VIA EMAIL
Kimberly Hall Barlow
Jones Mayer
3777 N. Harbor Blvd.
Fullerton, CA 92835
khb@jones-mayer.com
RE: Costa Mesa’s Proposed Revisions to RA Ordinance
Dear Ms. Barlow:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on Costa Mesa’s
proposed revisions to the City’s reasonable accommodation ordinance
pursuant to the settlement agreement in the Insight v. Costa Mesa case.
In your December 19, 2025 email to us, you said that Costa Mesa was
proposing to delete subsection (7) of Section 13-200.62(f) of the City’s
reasonable accommodation ordinance. You explained that the deletion is
proposed because “it is operationally difficult for staff or the applicants to
make this determination given lack of information and the difficulties in
ensuring that any facilities adequately allow individual(s) with said
disability(ies) to live in a residential setting. Furthermore, this subsection is
unnecessary given the other provisions of the Reasonable Accommodation
Ordinance.” We support the deletion of subsection (7) from Section 13-
200.62, which requires a finding 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.”
-24-
January 12, 2026
Page 2 of 7
The deletion of subsection (7) is an important first step in bringing Costa
Mesa’s reasonable accommodation ordinance into compliance with state
and federal fair housing requirements. However, in order to bring the entire
reasonable accommodation regulation into compliance, Costa Mesa will
need to make additional changes. Given the structure of the current
ordinance, it will be difficult to do that by simply editing or rewording the
text. Instead, we propose that the City repeal sections of the ordinance in
their entirety and replace them with new ones.
To begin with, Section 13-200.62 (f) has problems that cannot be remedied
without restructuring. That section is a list of findings “all of which are
required for approval” of a reasonable accommodation request. But the list
combines factors that the person or entity requesting the accommodation
must establish in order to be entitled to an accommodation, i.e., the topics
of Findings (1) and (2), with factors that are the City’s burden to establish if
it is going to deny the accommodation, i.e., the topics of Findings (3), (5),
and (8). These two types of topics need to be separated to clearly delineate
who – the person or entity making the request, or the City – bears the
burden of proof.
As written, Findings (3), (5), and (8) 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 find 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. Fair housing law does not permit the
City to make the establishment of the absence of those factors a
requirement.
Undue burden, direct threat, and fundamental alteration can properly be in
the reasonable accommodation ordinance, but the regulation needs to be
structured in a way that makes clear that if the person or entity making the
request establishes the factors addressed in Findings (1) and (2), the City
must grant the accommodation unless it finds that granting the
-25-
January 12, 2026
Page 3 of 7
accommodation will impose an undue financial or administrative burden,
will result in a direct threat, or will result in a fundamental alteration (i.e., the
inverse of the current language regarding findings). It does not work to
combine them in the same list as the elements that the person or entity
making the request has the burden to establish. The two types of findings
must be bifurcated.
Moreover, the current structure of the reasonable accommodation
ordinance also makes it difficult for the ordinance to adequately reflect the
law governing the findings that the City must establish to deny an otherwise
valid reasonable accommodation request. For example, where the
ordinance authorizes the City to deny a reasonable accommodation
request based on a direct threat finding, it must also state that in such a
case the City must find that the threat cannot be mitigated by reasonable
accommodation. 28 C.F.R. §35.139. A finding that granting a reasonable
accommodation would be an undue burden or fundamental alteration must
also be made “after considering all resources available for use in the
funding and operation of the service, program, or activity, and must be
accompanied by a written statement of the reasons for reaching that
conclusion.” 28. C.F.R. §35.150(a)(3). It will be difficult to add such
clarifications in a clear way unless the two types of findings under Section
13-200.62(f) are separated and the findings for which the City bears the
burden are written in the affirmative.
Section 13-200.62 (f) also includes factors that do not fall within either the
burden of the person or entity making the accommodation request or the
allowable reasons for the City to deny a request, but instead layer on
additional obligations that are not permitted under fair housing law. Finding
(4) requires a finding that the “requested accommodation is consistent with
surrounding uses in scale and intensity of use.” The City cannot apply
different occupancy, use, or development standards to shared housing for
people with disabilities as compared to other forms of housing, nor can it
require a household of people with disabilities to be limited to fewer people
than a single housekeeping unit would be allowed to have. To the extent
that a requested accommodation would result in housing that was vastly
different from permitted housing uses, City staff could evaluate whether
granting the request would constitute a fundamental alteration to a City
program or would result in an undue burden or direct threat. But simply
having the same number of people that a single housekeeping unit would
-26-
January 12, 2026
Page 4 of 7
be allowed to have, or failing to meet another occupancy or development
standard that was not also applied to single housekeeping units, could
never fall within one of those permitted reasons for denying an
accommodation request. Consistency with other uses should therefore not
be listed as a separate required finding.
Likewise, Finding (6) requires in some instances “a finding that the
requested accommodation is necessary to make facilities of a similar
nature or operation economically viable in light of the particularities of the
relevant market and market participants generally.” For the same reasons
that the City is removing Finding (7), which also focuses on “facilities of a
similar nature and operation” rather than on the specific housing that is at
issue for a particular reasonable accommodation request, the City s hould
remove Finding (6). It is just as true that it will be “operationally difficult for
staff or the applicants to make this determination given lack of information”
for Finding (6) as for Finding (7). Moreover, providing a feasibility study or
market study about other housing does not fall within the burden of
someone making a reasonable accommodation request. Making such a
study a condition of approving a disability-related accommodation is
therefore a discriminatory housing practice. This should likewise not be
listed as a required finding.
The deletion of Finding (7) should also be accompanied by a revision to the
language of Finding (2), which states that, “[t]he requested accommodation
is necessary to provide one or more individuals with a disability an equal
opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.” To ensure that City staff interpret
Finding (2) consistent with fair housing laws, by focusing on the housing at
issue in the request rather than “facilities of a similar nature and operation”
elsewhere, Finding (2) should be revised to refer to an equal opportunity to
use and enjoy “their dwelling,” “the dwelling at issue in the accommodation
request,” or something similar.
In order to bring the reasonable accommodation ordinance into compliance
with federal and state fair housing law, the City will also need to revise
other portions of the ordinance. As reflected in the settlement agreement,
we would welcome the opportunity to work with the City during that portion
of its review of the reasonable accommodation ordinance and to provide
feedback on any draft revisions of those other sections.
-27-
January 12, 2026
Page 5 of 7
For those portions of the ordinance as well, it would be most effective for
the City to repeal and replace language rather than try to work within the
existing structure. For example, Section 13-200.62(b) loads burdensome
and irrelevant requirements onto people or entities making reasonable
accommodation requests. A lay homeowner who needs an accommodation
due to disability should be able to comply with application requirements
without having to hire an attorney or other expert to help them understand
what they need to do. The City should limit the application to information
that is necessary for the City to evaluate whether the person or entity
making the request has met their burden, such as the location of the
dwelling at issue, the existence of the disability, the nature of the
accommodation that is being requested, and the connection between the
disability and the requested accommodation. The provisions in Section 13-
200.62(b) that require people or entities making reasonable
accommodation requests to provide “[a]ny other information that the
director reasonably determines is necessary for evaluating the request for
reasonable accommodation” ((b)(3)) and “[a]ny other information that the
hearing officer reasonably concludes is necessary to determine whether
the findings required by subsection (e) of this section can be made” ((b)(7))
are particularly problematic because they are not limited to the information
necessary to establish that a person or entity is entitled to a reasonable
accommodation.
Section 13-200.62(d) provides that appeals of reasonable accommodation
requests will be handled through the same procedures as “any other
discretionary permit.” However, the appeals process pertaining to
reasonable accommodation requests needs to be navigable and
manageable by lay people with disabilities. This provision should be
repealed and replaced with new language that requires a prompt, clear
statement of the reasons for any denial, establishes a simple procedure for
requesting an appeal, provides a reasonable deadline for making requests
for an appeal, and eliminates the need for individuals or entities to pay for
the City’s review of their reasonable accommodation determination.
Most importantly, the section of the reasonable accommodation ordinance
addressing appeals must exempt them from the review procedures that
govern general zoning matters in order to respect the privacy of people’s
disabilities and disability-related needs during any review process.
Hearings regarding reasonable accommodations requests should not be
-28-
January 12, 2026
Page 6 of 7
made by legislative bodies, and no public notice should be made regarding
reasonable accommodation reviews. Public hearings create an opening for
members of the public to express animus against people with disabilities,
which imposes an improper barrier to people seeking such
accommodations. For example, at the hearings regarding Insight’s
reasonable accommodation request, a member of the public told the
Planning Commission that a person who is “mentally disabled does not
belong in a neighborhood next door to me or any of us in this room,” and
someone testified to the City Council that the “mentally ill cannot associate
with our children, neighbors.” As you know, hearing those types of
comments was traumatic for our client Ms. Doe, who spoke about her own
experiences with mental illness, and the ways that staying at Insight’s
housing had helped her, at a hearing on Insight’s reasonable
accommodation request. Not only is the City not obligated to provide the
public with a forum to intimidate and humiliate people like Ms. Doe, but the
City cannot put people like her through such an ordeal as a condition of
having their accommodation request reviewed. Nor can such animus play
any part in the City’s review of an accommodation request. For similar
reasons, the ordinance should also make clear that only the person or
entity making the request can appeal a decision regarding a reasonable
accommodation, in contrast to the current language which permits virtually
anyone – including neighbors with an animus against people with
disabilities – to appeal.
Finally, Sections 13-200.62(e) and (g), regarding “considerations,” overlap
with the required “findings” in Section 13-200.62(f) in a way that impedes
consistency with fair housing law. Like Section 13-200.62(f), these sections
fail to make clear which elements are the burden of the person making the
reasonable accommodation request to establish and which are the City’s
burden. Many of them are also improper considerations. For example, the
City cannot take into account “whether granting the request would be
consistent with the City's General Plan.” By definition, any reasonable
accommodation request pertaining to zoning will be inconsistent with the
zoning scheme. “Requiring public entities to make exceptions to their rules
and zoning policies is exactly what the FHAA does.” Anderson v. City of
Blue Ash, 798 F.3d 338, 363 (6th Cir. 2015); City of Edmonds v.
Washington State Bldg. Code Council, 18 F.3d 802, 806 (9th Cir. 1994)
(FHA imposes an affirmative duty to reasonably accommodate disabled
persons). The question is not whether a requested disability
-29-
January 12, 2026
Page 7 of 7
accommodation is inconsistent with the City’s General Plan, but whether
granting it would fundamentally alter the General Plan. To take another
example, the City cannot take into consideration whether “the
accommodation would result in a substantial increase in traffic or
insufficient parking” (§ 13-200.62(g)(2)) or “create an institutionalized
environment due to the number of and distance between facilities that are
similar in nature or operation” (§ 13-200.62(g)(4)) unless it is also doing so
with respect to single housekeeping units. Again, the City cannot impose
more stringent development or occupancy standards on housing occupied
by people with disabilities than on single housekeeping units, nor can it use
vague or undefined conditions as a basis for denial of a reasonable
accommodation request. These are examples, and not an exhaustive list,
of the issues with subsections (e) and (g) of Costa Mesa’s reasonable
accommodation ordinance. We would be happy to provide additional
comments or to discuss with you and with City staff in more detail our
further thoughts on bringing the ordinance into compliance with state and
federal fair housing requirements.
We appreciate your time and attention to our comments and look forward to
working with you and the City further on these important access issues for
Costa Mesa residents with disabilities. Please let us know if you would like
to discuss any of these issues further.
Sincerely,
Autumn M. Elliott
Law Office of Autumn Elliott
Jia Min Cheng
Managing Attorney
Disability Rights California
-30-