HomeMy WebLinkAbout08 - CC-6 - Second Reading and Adoption of an Ord - 4/20/20211
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: APRIL 20, 2021 ITEM NUMBER: CC-6
SUBJECT: SECOND READING OF AN ORDINANCE FOR AN EXTENSION TO AND
AMENDMENT OF THE SAKIOKA FARMS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
DA-99-02 (DA-20-03), SAKIOKA LOT 2, 14850 SUNFLOWER AVENUE
DATE: APRIL 12, 2021
FROM: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT/PLANNING DIVISION
PRESENTATION BY: KATELYN WALSH, ASSISTANT PLANNER
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: KATELYN WALSH (714) 754-5276
katelyn.walsh@costamesaca.gov
RECOMMENDATION:
Give second reading to Ordinance No. 2021-07 to approve the time extension and
amendment to Development Agreement 99-02 (Development Agreement 20-03).
ANALYSIS:
At its regular meeting of April 6, 2021, the City Council gave first reading to Ordinance No.
2021-07 by a 6-0 vote. The subject Agreement extends the term of the Development
Agreement for an additional 10 years until May 15, 2031, memorializes the updated
General Plan and Specific Plan documents previously approved by the City Council, and
reflects minor revisions related to the payment of project impact fees. The staff report and
video for the April 6, 2021 City Council meeting can be found at the following links:
Staff Report:
http://ftp.costamesaca.gov/costamesaca/council/agenda/2021/2021-04-06/PH-1.pdf
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0rsoZJaHHE
If approved, the Ordinance and amended Development Agreement would become
effective 30 days after the second reading.
2
________________________________ _________________________________
KATELYN WALSH JENNIFER LE
Assistant Planner Director of Economic and Development
Services
________________________________ _________________________________
CAROL MOLINA KIMBERLY HALL BARLOW
Finance Director City Attorney
Attachments: 1. Ordinance No. 2021-07
Attachment A: Development Agreement (DA-20-03)
Property George Sakioka
Owner: Roy K. Sakioka & Sons
14850 Sunflower Avenue
Santa Ana, CA 92707
ORDINANCE NO. 2021-07
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN
AMENDMENT TO AND EXTENSION OF DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT NO. 99-02 (DA-20-03) BETWEEN THE
CITY OF COSTA MESA AND SAKIOKA FARMS AND
ROY K. SAKIOKA & SONS
WHEREAS, on November 15, 1999 the City of Costa Mesa, adopted Ordinance No. 99-
16, an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, California, Approving the
Development Agreement Between the City of Costa Mesa and Sakioka Farms and Roy
K. Sakioka & Sons, two California general partnerships (“Sakioka”); and
WHEREAS, the City and Sakioka, as parties thereto, agree that the Effective Date of the
Development Agreement was May 15, 2001, and that the twenty year term thereof expires
on May 15, 2021; and
WHEREAS, the parties to the Development Agreement desire to extend the term thereof
for an additional ten years, commencing on May 15, 2021 and expiring on May 15, 2031,
as set forth in the First Amendment to Development Agreement for Sakioka Farms
Development Property (“First Amendment to Development Agreement”).
NOW, THEREFORE, THE COSTA MESA CITY COUNCIL DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, California, does hereby find
and declare as follows:
1. A public hearing has been held before the City Council pursuant to
the procedures described in Council Resolution No. 88-53. At the hearing,
the City Council considered testimony presented by the public and the
Planning Commission's recommendation regarding the proposed
extension of and amendment to the Development Agreement between the
City of Costa Mesa and Sakioka Farms and Roy K. Sakioka & Sons, two
California general partnerships (“Sakioka”), set forth in the First Amendment
to the Development Agreement.
2. The amendment to and extension of the Development Agreement between
the City of Costa Mesa and Sakioka is consistent with the objectives,
policies, general land uses and
programs specified in the applicable General Plan. and with the General
Plan as a whole and the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan;
(b) Compatible with the uses authorized in, and the applicable land use
regulations prescribed for, the zoning district in which the real property
is and will be located; and
(c) Is in conformity with and will promote public convenience, general
welfare, and good land use practice.
Attachment 1
3. The Development Agreement as amended between the City of Costa Mesa
and Sakioka will not:
(a) Be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare; and
(b) Adversely affect the orderly development of property or the
preservation of property values.
4. The time extension for the existing Development Agreement will provide an
opportunity for the development of the project and for the public benefits
listed in the Development Agreement to be realized by the City.
5. The City finds that the project is categorically exempt from the provisions of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines
Section 15061 (b) (3) (general rule) of the CEQA Guidelines because the
amendment is merely a time extension for an existing development
agreement and does not change the underlying project. In addition, the
relevant environmental analysis contained in the approved 2015-2035
General Plan EIR (SCH No. 2015111053, June 2016) is still valid and
applicable to the project such that no further environmental review is
required.
Section 2. The City Council hereby approves, adopts and enters into the First
Amendment to the Development Agreement in the form attached hereto and incorporates
it herein by this reference (Attachment A).
Upon execution of the First Amendment to the Development Agreement by all
parties, the City Clerk is directed to record the Development Agreement pursuant to City
of Costa Mesa Development Agreement Procedures and Requirements.
Section 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after
its final passage.
Section 4. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption
of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published or posted in the manner
required by law.
PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS ____ DAY OF _________, 2021
_________________________
John Stephens, Mayor
City of Costa Mesa
ATTEST:
__________________________
Brenda Green, City Clerk
City of Costa Mesa
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________
Kimberly Hall Barlow, City Attorney
City of Costa Mesa
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
CITY OF COSTA MESA )
I, BRENDA GREEN, City Clerk of the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa,
hereby certify that the above and foregoing Ordinance No. 2021-07 was introduced and
considered section by section at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the _____
day of ________, 2021 and thereafter passed and adopted as a whole at a regular
meeting of said City Council held on the _____ day of ________, 2021 by the following
roll call vote:
AYES
NOES
ABSENT
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Seal of the
City of Costa Mesa this _____ day of _________, 2021.
______________________
Brenda Green, City Clerk
City of Costa Mesa
Execution Copy
RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Attn: City Clerk
Space Above This Line Reserved for Recorder’s Use Only
FIRST AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR SAKIOKA FARMS
DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY
This FIRST AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR SAKIOKA
FARMS DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY (“Agreement”) is entered into as of [•], 2021, by and
between the CITY OF COSTA MESA, a general law city (“City”), and ROY K. SAKIOKA &
SONS, a California general partnership (“RKSS”). City and RKSS are collectively referred to
herein as the “Parties” and individually as a “Party.”
RECITALS
A. City, RKSS, and Sakioka Farms, a California general partnership (“Sakioka”)
entered into that certain Development Agreement for Sakioka Farms Development Property dated
as of November 15, 1999 (the “Development Agreement”), recorded on February 3, 2000 as
Instrument No. 20000060847 of the Official Public Records of Orange County, California (the
“Official Records”) which contains certain rights, duties, and obligations relating to the
development of that certain property located in the City of Costa Mesa, County of Orange,
California.
B. Pursuant to that certain Assignment and Assumption of Development Agreement
for Sakioka Farms Development Property dated as of February 17, 2004 (the “DA Assignment”),
recorded on April 2, 2004 as Instrument No. 2004000275186 of the Official Records, Sakioka,
together with ISCINA-SUNFLOWER LLC, a California limited liability company, RTS-
SUNFLOWER, LLC, a California limited liability company, and MARJACK LLC, a California
limited liability company, as successors-in-interest to the Development Agreement, assigned to
RKSS all of their rights and interests under the Development Agreement with respect to that certain
real property described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the
“RKSS Lot 2 Property”), including, but not limited to, all vested entitlement and development
rights applicable to the RKSS Lot 2 Property.
C. Section 8 of the DA Assignment provides that any amendment to the Development
Agreement requiring the approval of the “Developer” thereunder, which (a) pertains solely to the
development of the RKSS Lot 2 Property and (b) does not modify or reduce the intensity or
permissible uses of the real property described on Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated
herein by reference (the “Sunflower Partners Property”), shall only require the approval in
writing of RKSS.
Attachment 1a
Execution Copy
D. The Development Agreement defined the term of the agreement as the period of
time from the Effective Date until the date that is twenty (20) years after the Effective Date, unless
otherwise extended by the Parties. The Effective Date was conditioned on the occurrence of several
conditional events.
E. Pursuant to a letter from the City dated as of December 11, 2019, the City has
confirmed that the Effective Date of the Development Agreement was May 15, 2001, and
accordingly the current term of the Development Agreement expires on May 15, 2021.
F. The Parties now desire to modify the term of the Development Agreement solely
with respect to the RKSS Lot 2 Property, as more particularly set forth herein. Any capitalized
word or term used in this Agreement shall have the definition or meaning ascribed to such word
or term as provided in the Development Agreement, unless the word or term is otherwise expressly
defined in this Agreement, in which event such word or term shall have the definition or meaning
as provided herein.
G. The modifications to the Development Agreement set forth herein pertain solely to
the development of the RKSS Lot 2 Property, and do not otherwise affect the development,
intensity or permissible uses of the Sunflower Partners Property, nor the term of the Development
Agreement with respect to the Sunflower Partners Property.
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above recitals, which are incorporated herein
by this reference, and for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which
are hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows:
1. EFFECTIVE DATE. Section 3.1 of the Development Agreement is hereby deleted in its
entirety and replaced with the following: “This Agreement shall be effective as of May 15,
2001 (the “Effective Date”). However, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this
Agreement, including but not limited to Exhibit B to this Agreement (and consistent with
Section 2.2 (ii) of this Agreement), the “City of Costa Mesa General Plan (2015-2035)” as
adopted June 21, 2016 and the “North Costa Mesa Specific Plan” as adopted on September
6, 2016 shall be the versions of these documents included in the terms "Existing Land Use
Regulations", “Existing Development Approvals”, and “Project” as those terms are utilized
in this Agreement.”
2. TERM. The first sentence of Section 3.2 of the Development Agreement is hereby deleted
in its entirety and replaced with the following: “This Agreement shall be operative
commencing on the Effective Date, and continuing thereafter until May 15, 2031, subject
to earlier termination upon the completion, performance, and discharge of the obligations
hereunder.
3. DEDICATIONS. The Parties hereby acknowledge and agree that as of the date hereof,
RKSS has fulfilled the requirements set forth in Sections 2.1(i), 2.1(ii), 2.1(iii), and 2.1(iv)
of the Development Agreement with respect to the RKSS Lot 2 Property, and that RKSS
shall have no further obligations with respect to the foregoing sections of the Development
Execution Copy
Agreement, and there are no outstanding defaults or any occurrence or omission that but
for the passage of time or the giving of requisite notice (or both) would constitute a default,
under any provision of the Development Agreement.
4. MONETARY DEVELOPMENT EXACTIONS. Notwithstanding any provision of the
Development Agreement to the contrary, the applicable park fees and other development
impact fees to be paid by Developer, subject to credits for dedications and contributions as
set forth in Section 2.2(v), shall be the park fees and other development impact fees adopted
and in place as of September 6, 2016; provided, however, that Section 2.2(vi) of the
Development Agreement shall continue in full force and effect with respect to Traffic
Impact Fees.
5. MISCELLANEOUS.
5.1 This Agreement may be executed by the Parties in counterparts, which counterparts
shall be construed together and have the same effect as if all of the Parties had executed one
original.
5.2 Each person executing this Agreement on behalf of each Party warrants and
represents that he, she, or they have the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of such
Party and warrants and represents that he, she, or they has/have the authority to bind such Party to
the performance of its obligations hereunder.
5.3 The Parties intend hereby to amend the Development Agreement only as set forth
herein, and the Parties hereby agree that, except as expressly amended hereby, all other terms and
conditions of the Development Agreement are hereby confirmed and shall remain in full force and
effect.
[SIGNATURES CONTAINED ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
SIGNATURE PAGE
TO FIRST AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR SAKIOKA
FARMS DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the day
and year set forth below.
CITY OF COSTA MESA
________________________________
John Stephens, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Brenda Green, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________________
Kimberly Hall Barlow, City Attorney
RKSS
ROY K. SAKIOKA & SONS,
a California general partnership
JKS-RKS, LLC, a California limited
liability company, General Partner
By: Sakioka Company, LLC
a Delaware limited liability company
________________________________
George M.K. Sakioka, its Manager
AMS Craig, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company,
General Partner
________________________________
Craig R. Kaihara, Manager
Dated: ____________________
Dated: ____________________
Dated: ____________________
Dated: ____________________
Dated: ____________________
CALIFORNIA ALL PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the
individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the
truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.
State of California
County of _________________________________
On _________________ before me, ________________________________________________,
Date (Insert Name and Title of the Officer)
personally appeared ___________________________________________________________
Name(s) of Signer(s)
____________________________________________________________________________,
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are
subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same
in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument
the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Place Notary Seal and/or Stamp above Signature: ______________________________________
Signature of Notary Public
CALIFORNIA ALL PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of
the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not
the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.
State of California
County of _________________________________
On _________________ before me,
________________________________________________,
Date (Insert Name and Title of the Officer)
personally appeared
___________________________________________________________
Name(s) of Signer(s)
________________________________________________________________________
____,
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s)
is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they
executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their
signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the
person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that
the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Place Notary Seal and/or Stamp above Signature:
_____________________________________
Signature of Notary Public
EXHIBIT A
RKSS Lot 2 Property
THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE CITY OF COSTA MESA,
COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BEING THAT PORTION OF LOT
2, TRACT NO. 10950 AS SHOWN ON A MAP THEREOF FINED IN BOOK 515,
PAGES 1 THROUGH 8 INCLUSIVE OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE
OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, LYING SOUTHWESTERLY OF
THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE:
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWESTERLY OF THAT CERTAIN COURSE
SHOWN ON SAID MAP AS “NORTH 25◌19’40” WEST 752.22 FEET” ALONG THE
SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 2, SAID TERMINUS BEING ON A NON-
TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF
290.468 METERS, A RADIAL LINE OF SAID CURVE TO SAID TERMINUS BEARS
SOUTH 38◌03’27” EAST; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE AND
THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF LOT 3 OF SAID TRACT 20.460 METERS
THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 4◌02’09” TO THE TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING; THENCE NON-TANGENT FROM SAID CURVE SOUTH 35◌35’40”
EAST, 104.306 METERS TO SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF LOT 2; THENCE
CONTINUING SOUTH 35◌35’40” EAST, 72.408 METERS TO THE BEGINNING OF
A CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 51.400 METERS;
THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE 50.048 METERS THROUGH A
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 55◌47’21” TO SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF LOT 2.
LOT 2 OF TRACT NO 10950, IN THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, COUNTY OF
ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 515,
PAGES 1 TO 8 INCLUSIVE OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS; RECORDS OF ORANGE
COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AND AS CORRECTED BY THAT CERTAIN
CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION RECORDED APRIL 23, 1986, AS INSTRUMENT
NO. 86-160488, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION DESCRIBED IN DEED TO THE CITY
OF COSTA MESA RECORDED OCTOBER 11, 1994, AS INSTRUMENT NO. 94-
0604167 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.
ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION DESCRIBED IN DEED
RECORDED APRIL 10, 2000 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 20000182742 OF OFFICIAL
RECORDS.
ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION DESCRIBED IN DEED TO THE
CITY OF COSTA MESA RECORDED MAY 8, 2000, AS INSTRUMENT NO.
20000237233 AND MAY 8, 2000, AS INSTRUMENT NO. 20000237235, BOTH OF
OFFICIAL RECORDS.
EXHIBIT B
Sunflower Partners Property
LOT 1 OF TRACT NO. 10950, IN THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, COUNTY OF
ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 515,
PAGES 1 TO 8 INCLUSIVE OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE
COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, AS CORRECTED BY THAT CERTAIN
CERTIFICATE CORRECTION RECORDED APRIL 23, 1986, AS INSTRUMENT NO.
86-160488 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
THAT PORTION OF PARCEL 2 OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. LL-90-11, IN THE
CITY OF COSTA MESA, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
RECORDED APRIL 16, 1991, AS INSTRUMENT NO. 91-178038 OF OFFICIAL
RECORDS LYING EASTERLY OF THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE LAND
DESCRIBED IN DEED TO JACK TOSHIKI SAKIOKA AND JOHNNY KATSUI
SAKIOKA RECORDED JULY 27, 1956, IN BOOK 3592, PAGE 553 OF OFFICIAL
RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY.
From: Rona Henry <rona.s.henry@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2021 7:58 AM
To: CITY CLERK; STEPHENS, JOHN; MARR, ANDREA; CHAVEZ, MANUEL; GAMEROS, LOREN;
jeff.harlan@costamesaca.gov, HARPER, DON; REYNOLDS, ARLIS
Subject: Sakioka Development Agreement
I write to urge you deny Sakioka Farm's request for a 10-year extension of its expiring 2001
development agreement for Sakioka Lot 2. Instead, grant only a two-year extension.
That two-year extension will allow Costa Mesa to (1) adopt an inclusionary housing ordinance
requiring all new housing developments to include some affordable housing, and (2) rezone
the South Coast Plaza area to allow increased housing density: More apartments there can
help meet our City's critical need for more housing, especially our need for affordable
housing.
Rona Henry
From: Michael Esfahani <esfahanimichael@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2021 3:34 PM
To: STEPHENS, JOHN; MARR, ANDREA; CHAVEZ, MANUEL; GAMEROS, LOREN;
jeff.harlan@costamesaca.gov; HARPER, DON; REYNOLDS, ARLIS; CITY CLERK
Subject: Extend Sakioka development agreement only 2 years, not 10!
Dear Council Members,
I urge you to deny Sakioka Farm's request for a 10-year extension of its expiring 2001 development agreement
for Sakioka Lot 2. Instead, grant only a two-year extension.
That two-year extension will allow Costa Mesa to (1) adopt an inclusionary housing ordinance requiring all new
housing developments to include some affordable housing, and (2) rezone the South Coast Plaza area to allow
increased housing density. More apartments there can help meet our City's critical need for more housing,
especially our need for affordable housing.
We need affordable housing!!! This is a crucial issue for our community.
Thank you.
Michael Esfahani
From: Susie Forbath <stforbath@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2021 4:43 PM
To: GAMEROS, LOREN; jeff.harlan@costamesaca.gov; HARPER, DON; REYNOLDS, ARLIS;
CITY CLERK; STEPHENS, JOHN
Subject: Extend Sakioka development agreement only 2 years
Dear Council Members,
urge you to deny Sakioka Farm's request for a 10-year extension of its expiring 2001
development agreement for Sakioka Lot 2. Instead, grant only a two-year extension.
That two-year extension will allow Costa Mesa to (1) adopt an inclusionary housing
ordinance requiring all new housing developments to include some affordable housing,
and (2) rezone the South Coast Plaza area to allow increased housing density. More
apartments there can help meet our City's critical need for more housing, especially our
need for affordable housing.
We need affordable housing!!! This is a crucial issue for our community.
Thank you.
Susie Forbath
Sent from Susie's Whone
1
From:
Michael Edles <medles@uci.edu>
Sent:
Tuesday, April 20, 2021 8:52 AM
To:
STEPHENS, JOHN; MARR, ANDREA; CHAVEZ, MANUEL, GAMEROS, LOREN;
jeff.harlan@costamesaca.gov; HARPER, DON; REYNOLDS, ARLIS; CITY CLERK
Subject:
Extend Sakioka development agreement only 2 years, not 10!
Dear Council Members,
I urge you to deny Sakioka Farm's request for a 10-year extension of its expiring 2001 development
agreement for Sakioka Lot 2. Instead, grant only a two-year extension.
That two-year extension will allow Costa Mesa to (1) adopt an inclusionary housing ordinance requiring
all new housing developments to include some affordable housing, and (2) rezone the South Coast Plaza
area to allow increased housing density. More apartments there can help meet our City's critical need
for more housing, especially our need for affordable housing.
We need affordable housing!!! This is a crucial issue for our community.
Thank you.
Mike Edles
Costa Mesa Resident
Sent from my iPhone
From:
Kathy Esfahani <kathy.esfahani@gmail.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, April 20, 2021 9:27 AM
To:
CITY CLERK; STEPHENS, JOHN; Arlis Reynolds; Andrea Marr; Manny Chavez; Jeffrey
Harlan; GAMEROS, LOREN; HARPER, DON
Cc:
Cesar Convarubias; Richard Walker
Subject:
public comment on pulled item #6 from 2-20-21 consent calendar
Attachments:
Letter to council re second reading of ord. re Sakioka Lot 2 Dev Agreement.docx
Dear Madam Clerk,
Please include in the record for tonight's city council meeting the attached letter from the Costa Mesa
Affordable Housing Coalition.
The letter regards item #6 on the consent calendar: second reading of the ordinance extending the development
agreement on Sakioka Lot 2.
Thank you,
Kathy Esfahani
Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition
April 19, 2021
Mayor John Stephens and Members of the City Council
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Re: Proposed 10-year Extension of the Sakioka Lot 2 Development Agreement,
Second Reading
Dear Mayor Stephens and Council Members:
As you consider the second reading of the proposed ordinance granting a 10-year extension of the
Sakioka Lot 2 Development Agreement (the Agreement), please know the Costa Mesa Affordable
Housing Coalition remains strongly opposed to this extension. We believe this outdated, 20-year-
old Agreement no longer serves the interests of our community. We say that for two reasons: The
Agreement does not require the developer to set aside any units as affordable for lower income
households, and the Agreement caps the total number of residential units on this 33-acre site at 660
units, vastly below the site's potential to accommodate housing.
Those two deficiencies in the Agreement should be deal breakers. Given Costa Mesa's legal
obligation in the next Housing Element cycle to plan for 11,760 new housing units, 4,713 of which
must be affordable at low- and very -low-income levels, it is difficult to see how anyone could
conclude extending this Agreement is a good idea. If the developer builds under this Agreement,
Costa Mesa will get too few new homes and very likely zero affordable units. The suggestion in
the April 6, 2021 staff report that a density bonus offered in the Agreement could lead to the
inclusion of affordable housing is cold comfort.
We urge Council to reject the proposed 10-year extension of the Agreement and, instead, grant only
a two-year extension. During that two-year extension period, Costa Mesa has time to do two
crucial things: (1) Adopt an inclusionary housing ordinance requiring all new housing developments
to set aside 15% of its units as affordable for lower income households, and (2) rezone the South
Coast Plaza area to allow substantially increased residential density.' After the City adopts an
' South Coast Plaza is the perfect place for greater density. Already, apartment dwellers there enjoy
being able to walk to the area's performing arts venues, restaurants, and shopping. With Sakioka's
33 acres of vacant land near South Coast Plaza upzoned to allow greater density, many more Costa
Mesa residents will be able to enjoy these benefits and, crucially, the City will be closer to meeting
its steep RHNA requirements. Moreover, with affordable housing included in all new residential
development, lower income households will finally also have easy access to Costa Mesa's amazing
arts facilities. That will surely serve the interests of economic justice and fair housing, whose
importance is newly recognized in Housing Element law. Finally, we note efficient bus lines and a
trolley through the area could further reduce car trips related to increased density.
Page 1 of 2
inclusionary housing ordinance and rezones this area, the City can negotiate a new, better
development agreement which allows the developer to build more apartments than currently
permitted in exchange for including affordable housing for lower income households. That will be a
win -win for the developer and the City.
We understand some council members are worried that by rejecting the proposed 10-year extension
and allowing only a two-year extension, the developer may simply walk away from the Agreement,
killing the developer's promised donation of an acre of land for a train station if a rail line to the
airport is actually built during the life of the Agreement — a dubious prospect, at best. Nonetheless,
Costa Mesa's pressing need for affordable housing and, really, just more housing period, far
outweighs any risk the developer will walk away from the Agreement because he got a two-year
extension rather than the 10-year extension he prefers.
In conclusion, we urge the Council to offer only a two-year extension of the Agreement, thereby
gaining the opportunity to negotiate a new development agreement within two years which better
meets Costa Mesa's present and future needs, particularly its need for affordable housing.
Sincerely,
z 54
Kathy Esfahani, on behalf of the Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition
cc: Byron de Arakal and Planning Commission Members
Cesar Covarrubias, Kennedy Commission
Richard Walker, Public Law Center
Page 2 of 2