HomeMy WebLinkAbout13 - PH-1 - Public Comments - 5/4/2021From: Eitel Braunschweig <ebraunschweig@swcarpenters.org>
Sent: Monday, May 3, 2021 3:11 PM
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: One metro west
Hello my name is Eitel Braunschweig I am a 9 year resident of Huntington Beach and also an 8 year member of
the carpenters and I am I. Support of this project Thank you ,
Sent from my iPhone
Disclaimer
The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and
others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or
taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
From: Antonio Raul Velazquez <AVelazquez@swcarpenters.org>
Sent: Monday, May 3, 2021 3:08 PM
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: One Metro West
I am am writing you an email as I reside in Garden Grove. I would like to see this project approved as it would
create good paying jobs, keep money in your city as well. I have fellow union carpenters who reside in your city
and know would like to work on this project as well. I am in support of this project.
Sent from my Wad
Disclaimer
The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and
others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or
taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
From:
Miguel Avitia < miguel.avitia@carpenters.org >
Sent:
Monday, May 3, 2021 2:54 PM
To:
CITY CLERK
Subject:
RE ONE METRO WEST PROJECT
RE: ONE METRO WEST PROJECT
2683 Sunflower Ave, Costa Mesa
To whom it may concern,
This project will provide good union jobs for women & men who have been professionally trained to do this type of
work. It would be nice to the local carpenters that live in Costa Mesa CA to be able to work on this project, close to
home instead of having to drive to another county for work. Please support local hire.
Miguel Avitia
STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY AND DISCLAIMER: This e-mail and files transmitted with it are confidential
and intended solely for the use of individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you receive this e-mail in error please
notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named.
If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender
immediately by e-mail if you have received tis e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the
intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of
this information is strictly prohibited.
The content of this email is confidential and intended for the recipient specified in message only. It is strictly
forbidden to share any part of this message with any third party, without a written consent of the sender. If you
received this message by mistake, please reply to this message and follow with its deletion, so that we can
ensure such a mistake does not occur in the future.
From:
Bill Partnoff <surfcitybilly@gmail.com>
Sent:
Monday, May 3, 2021 11:45 AM
To:
CITY CLERK
Subject:
EIR OMW
To approve the EIR for the proposed OMW development would demonstrate callous disregard for the community of
Costa Mesa. Unavoidable adverse effects will be endured during the almost 7 year massive construction project,
operating 6 days a week. The air quality and environmental impact to the community, especially our schools and
residents within the State Streets, is unreasonable and unhealthy. Is a healthy, green lifestyle only for those proposed
OMW residents?! Imagine biking in the area over the next 7 years! Again are we only focused on the OMW residents?
Traffic gridlock in the area is already a serious problem.. imagine 7 years of commercial excavation and massive
construction... trucks hauling tons of dirt from the area. The impact to the traffic situation from the i405 exits, Harbor
gridlock from the established commercial establishments and residents trips for essential living is unthinkable. Traffic
safety will be compromised... how many accidents . Consider the accessibility of First Responders.. Please demonstrate
that you do you care about our city more than State numbers .. more than a relationship with Rose Equites. The EIR
demonstrates this massive project is NOT appropriate as proposed.
Respectfully submitted,
Bill "SurfcityBilly" Partnoff
Broker
BRIE License# 01202846
(714) 271-2647
https:Hlinkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.surfcitybilly.com&c=E,1,U3OkbHio3VrJNmb_i9BCBELraESV
1C4hyP7hZpAoOhFxzruPDHDvDrIJLOgKSWPS5WxS97lbK0_os09xJFSFeDLyFcgSScuEMFgJrNN4t2gslEahUdaB-EE,&typo=l
https:Hlinkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fSurfcityBilly.com&c=E,1,NyxLlb3E4hca NTVw111W8c-
gsjYGESjudulWlLsb9dZpW61RK25Lz115B86bDjWYiCDgS_Ytf8QPPJEi9frQgeJ6Qp7VuGEwTJh4V2oSiwpYlGZwJWwvd883
&typo=l ... Leading You into the Future of Real Estate
From:
Peggy Partnoff <peggypartnoff@yahoo.com>
Sent:
Monday, May 3, 2021 11:12 AM
To:
CITY CLERK
Subject:
One Metro West and Measure Y
Aa a resident of Costa Mesa, I will, once again, address the high density development
project of One Metro West being proposed to the City Of Costa Mesa currently. This
project has been previously presented to a succession of City Council members of
Costa Mesa. Brent Stoll of Rose Equities is certainly diligent in his relentless attempts to
persuade past and current council members and special interest groups of the
advantages of approving his OMW development in Costa Mesa, even to the point of
circumventing Measure Y and disregarding the Measure Y mandates that his
development triggers.
I encourage the City Council to choose either of the two Alternatives stated in the EIR.
7.4 No Project
7.6 Environmentally Superior Alternative, No Project
The only other acceptable action from the City Council tonight is make preparations for
the placement of the One Metro West project on the upcoming election in November's
ballot in the form of Measure Y for Costa Mesa voters.
Surely a massive commercial development of this magnitude deserves Measure Y.... a
project that presents "significant unavoidable adverse effects" to our environment, air
quality and transportation, (as stated in the EIR). A project with a projected
construction timeline of 6.8 years (plus) for 6 days a week, presenting ongoing and
significant disruptive demolition, commercial construction and it's inherent traffic, health
and safety dangers. Please be mindful of the quality of life issues for the families who
reside very closely to this commercial project (State Streets) and the California
Elementary School and TeWinkle Middle School students exposed to this
construction disruption daily for at least 6.7 years.
Surely, Measure Y was conceived exactly for a development of this scope. The voters
of Costa Mesa deserve their right to a fair election on One Metro West development.
The continued closure of the City Council public hearings has become unacceptable
and does not give full equity to the community to be heard.. repeated hearing
cancellations and re -schedules and zoom formats do not promote transparency and
confidence in our elected/or appointed City leaders,making monumental decisions that
effect us all. Please reflect on the responsibility and privilege you have been given by
the voters and enact MEASURE Y on the ballot.No loopholes, sidesteps or legal
maneuvering, please.
Respectfully,
Peggy Partnoff
3321 Alabama Circle Costa Mesa
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Dear Councilmember Arlis,
Christine Nolf <christine.brooks.nolf@gmail.com>
Monday, May 3, 2021 11:08 AM
REYNOLDS, ARLIS
CITY CLERK
Support for One Metro West
I urge you to approve One Metro West when it comes to City Council for a vote on Tuesday night. I highly
support this project and feel that it sets a great model for other developments in Costa Mesa. Because Costa
Mesa does not yet have an inclusionary housing ordinance, Costa Mesa is incredibly fortunate One Metro West
is voluntarily including 106 lower income units along with its 950 market rate units. As someone who has
advocated for affordable housing for years, this is a very big deal.
Lacking an inclusionary housing ordinance, we have missed out repeatedly on opportunities to gain "housing
balance" -- i.e, some measure of affordable units along with all the market rate units that were built in Costa
Mesa over the years. The inclusionary housing model which One Metro West has adopted will help set us on
the path to achieving that crucial housing balance. In truth, without One Metro West and inclusionary
housing projects like it, Costa Mesa will find it impossible to meet its legal mandate to plan for nearly
5000 lower- income units in the next Housing Element planning period. For that reason, I believe One
Measure West as an inclusionary housing project is categorically exempt from Measure Y as an "affordable
housing required by state law."
Your approval of One Metro West is crucial for another reason, too. By approving a large housing development
which includes 67 very -low- and 39 low-income units, you will demonstrate Costa Mesa is an
inclusive community which welcomes essential workers like nurses, plumbers, and food service staff as well as
those blessed with higher incomes.
Costa Mesa needs this housing. We especially need this affordable housing. Please vote "yes" on One Metro
West.
Thank you for your consideration,
Christine Nolf
Westside resident
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Dear Councilmember Gameros,
Christine Nolf <christine.brooks.nolf@gmail.com>
Monday, May 3, 2021 11:06 AM
GAMEROS, LOREN
CITY CLERK
Support for One Metro West
I urge you to approve One Metro West when it comes to City Council for a vote on Tuesday night. I highly
support this project and feel that it sets a great model for other developments in Costa Mesa. Because Costa
Mesa does not yet have an inclusionary housing ordinance, Costa Mesa is incredibly fortunate One Metro West
is voluntarily including 106 lower income units along with its 950 market rate units. As someone who has
advocated for affordable housing for years, this is a very big deal.
Lacking an inclusionary housing ordinance, we have missed out repeatedly on opportunities to gain "housing
balance" -- i.e, some measure of affordable units along with all the market rate units that were built in Costa
Mesa over the years. The inclusionary housing model which One Metro West has adopted will help set us on
the path to achieving that crucial housing balance. In truth, without One Metro West and inclusionary
housing projects like it, Costa Mesa will find it impossible to meet its legal mandate to plan for nearly
5000 lower- income units in the next Housing Element planning period. For that reason, I believe One
Measure West as an inclusionary housing project is categorically exempt from Measure Y as an "affordable
housing required by state law."
Your approval of One Metro West is crucial for another reason, too. By approving a large housing development
which includes 67 very -low- and 39 low-income units, you will demonstrate Costa Mesa is an
inclusive community which welcomes essential workers like nurses, plumbers, and food service staff as well as
those blessed with higher incomes.
Costa Mesa needs this housing. We especially need this affordable housing. Please vote "yes" on One Metro
West.
Thank you for your consideration,
Christine Nolf
Westside resident
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Dear Councilmember Chavez,
Christine Nolf <christine.brooks.nolf@gmail.com>
Monday, May 3, 2021 11:05 AM
CHAVEZ, MANUEL
CITY CLERK
Support for One Metro West
I urge you to approve One Metro West when it comes to City Council for a vote on Tuesday night. I highly
support this project and feel that it sets a great model for other developments in Costa Mesa. Because Costa
Mesa does not yet have an inclusionary housing ordinance, Costa Mesa is incredibly fortunate One Metro West
is voluntarily including 106 lower income units along with its 950 market rate units. As someone who has
advocated for affordable housing for years, this is a very big deal.
Lacking an inclusionary housing ordinance, we have missed out repeatedly on opportunities to gain "housing
balance" -- i.e, some measure of affordable units along with all the market rate units that were built in Costa
Mesa over the years. The inclusionary housing model which One Metro West has adopted will help set us on
the path to achieving that crucial housing balance. In truth, without One Metro West and inclusionary
housing projects like it, Costa Mesa will find it impossible to meet its legal mandate to plan for nearly
5000 lower- income units in the next Housing Element planning period. For that reason, I believe One
Measure West as an inclusionary housing project is categorically exempt from Measure Y as an "affordable
housing required by state law."
Your approval of One Metro West is crucial for another reason, too. By approving a large housing development
which includes 67 very -low- and 39 low-income units, you will demonstrate Costa Mesa is an
inclusive community which welcomes essential workers like nurses, plumbers, and food service staff as well as
those blessed with higher incomes.
Costa Mesa needs this housing. We especially need this affordable housing. Please vote "yes" on One Metro
West.
Thank you for your consideration,
Christine Nolf
Westside resident
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Dear Mayor Pro Tern, Marr,
Christine Nolf <christine.brooks.nolf@gmail.com>
Monday, May 3, 2021 11:04 AM
MARR, ANDREA
CITY CLERK
Please support One Metro West
I urge you to approve One Metro West when it comes to City Council for a vote on Tuesday night. I highly
support this project and feel that it sets a great model for other developments in Costa Mesa. Kathy wrote such
a great letter, I am just copying and reiterating her points. Because Costa Mesa does not yet have an
inclusionary housing ordinance, Costa Mesa is incredibly fortunate One Metro West is voluntarily including
106 lower income units along with its 950 market rate units. As someone who has advocated for affordable
housing for years, this is a very big deal.
Lacking an inclusionary housing ordinance, we have missed out repeatedly on opportunities to gain "housing
balance" -- i.e, some measure of affordable units along with all the market rate units that were built in Costa
Mesa over the years. The inclusionary housing model which One Metro West has adopted will help set us on
the path to achieving that crucial housing balance. In truth, without One Metro West and inclusionary
housing projects like it, Costa Mesa will find it impossible to meet its legal mandate to plan for nearly
5000 lower- income units in the next Housing Element planning period. For that reason, I believe One
Measure West as an inclusionary housing project is categorically exempt from Measure Y as an "affordable
housing required by state law."
Your approval of One Metro West is crucial for another reason, too. By approving a large housing development
which includes 67 very -low- and 39 low-income units, you will demonstrate Costa Mesa is an
inclusive community which welcomes essential workers like nurses, plumbers, and food service staff as well as
those blessed with higher incomes.
Costa Mesa needs this housing. We especially need this affordable housing. Please vote "yes" on One Metro
West.
Thank you for your consideration,
Christine Nolf
Westside resident
From: Christine Nolf <christine.brooks.nolf@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, May 3, 2021 11:03 AM
To: STEPHENS, JOHN
Cc: CITY CLERK
Subject: Support for One Metro West
Dear Mayor Stephens,
I urge you to approve One Metro West when it comes to City Council for a vote on Tuesday night. I highly
support this project and feel that it sets a great model for other developments in Costa Mesa. Because Costa
Mesa does not yet have an inclusionary housing ordinance, Costa Mesa is incredibly fortunate One Metro West
is voluntarily including 106 lower income units along with its 950 market rate units. As someone who has
advocated for affordable housing for years, this is a very big deal.
Lacking an inclusionary housing ordinance, we have missed out repeatedly on opportunities to gain "housing
balance" -- i.e, some measure of affordable units along with all the market rate units that were built in Costa
Mesa over the years. The inclusionary housing model which One Metro West has adopted will help set us on
the path to achieving that crucial housing balance. In truth, without One Metro West and inclusionary
housing projects like it, Costa Mesa will find it impossible to meet its legal mandate to plan for nearly
5000 lower- income units in the next Housing Element planning period. For that reason, I believe One
Measure West as an inclusionary housing project is categorically exempt from Measure Y as an "affordable
housing required by state law."
Your approval of One Metro West is crucial for another reason, too. By approving a large housing development
which includes 67 very -low- and 39 low-income units, you will demonstrate Costa Mesa is an
inclusive community which welcomes essential workers like nurses, plumbers, and food service staff as well as
those blessed with higher incomes.
Costa Mesa needs this housing. We especially need this affordable housing. Please vote "yes" on One Metro
West.
Thank you for your consideration,
Christine Nolf
Westside resident
From: Ken Rhea <kjrhea@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, May 3, 2021 9:41 AM
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: No One Metro West
Fellow Residents:
I live in District 1, Costa Mesa. My name is Ken Rhea.
I am opposed to One Metro West and I left comments during the most recent go 'round of this badly conceived
idea. I am suspicious that there will be efforts to dilute Measure Y.
I am unhappy with the communication with the public about the project. I only received a detailed
correspondence from Ms. Huynh because I have submitted written comments. If I had been a quiet and
uninformed citizen I would have never been informed of this meeting.
I sent two emails to Mr. Harper asking for his position on the project and have not heard back. I asked to be
directed to a position paper or a simple 'for' or 'against' response to my email. Nothing.
One Metro West is inconsistent with the Council Goals and Priorities (1999).
It will decrease safety in that the addition of more than 1,000 homes, plus office space will greatly add
to the already congested corridor of Harbor Blvd. Going North on Harbor from Fair is nightmarish. Going south
on Harbor from MacArthur is worse. What will happen when residents of One Metro leave for work or return
home? Don't be fooled into believing that the residents will be working where they live. The calculus is wrong
and uninformed. I tried to read the traffic study but it is not written for a lay person to understand nor was an
interpretation offered by the city.
How many police and services will be added to the city to adjust for 3,000 new residents in such a small area?
Those calculations need to be made. Rose Equities amounts are insufficient.
How does One Metro West improve neighborhoods and quality of life? (Goal #2) It will degrade adjacent
neighborhoods and diminish the quality of life. A 7 story structure will allow freeway noise to bounce off of
those high concrete walls and completely obviate the effectiveness of the freeway sound walls.
#3 Address long term obligations. RHNA. Don't be conned. One Metro adds units but at a tremendous cost.
$3000 for a one bedroom apartment? How many of the 1,000 plus units will be affordable. What does the
developer deem affordable? They don't address it using the - what sounds reasonable - rationale that the
economy will change. The units will always be too expensive for low income families, even at their most
affordable.
Let's consider RHNA. What is the city government doing to fight against SCAG's unreasonable requirements?
Is Costa Mesa pairing with our neighbors of Huntington Beach and Newport Beach to mount challenges?
The 'PRESS' business complex wants One Metro. Guess how many hands are in each other's pockets with
the two projects. This does not favor the community, only the developers.
I've run out of time and space but not out of objections.
Best regards,
Kenneth J. Rhea, MFT 14233
(714) 775-0777
Office: 16152 Beach Blvd
Huntington Beach, CA 92647
Mailing: 2973 Harbor Blvd. Suite 292
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
This e-mail may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient or have
received this e-mail by mistake please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your system. Any
unauthorized copying/disclosure of the material in this e-mail is strictly forbidden. This message has been
transmitted over a public network and confidentiality cannot be guaranteed.
From: GREEN, BRENDA
Sent: Monday, May 3, 2021 8:19 AM
To: BENNETT, STACY
Subject: FW: City Council Meeting 5/4/21, Public Hearing #1, One Metro West
Brenda Green
City Clerk
City of Costa Mesa
714/754-5221
Until further notice, Costa Mesa City Hall is closed to the public in keeping with Governor Newsom's direction regarding
COVID-19. The City leadership team is committed to continuing to provide essential city services and will be providing
services to the public online, via telephone and through our website in order to follow the Governor's guidance and
reduce the potential spread of COVID-19. In the interim, please call or email if you have any further questions.
E-mail correspondence with the City of Costa Mesa (and attachments, if any) may be subject to the California Public
Records Act, and as such may, therefore, be subject to public disclosure unless otherwise exempt under the act.
-----Original Message -----
From: Geoff West [mailto:gtwest@earthlink.net]
Sent: Saturday, May 1, 2021 6:35 PM
To: GREEN, BRENDA <brenda.green@costamesaca.gov>
Subject: City Council Meeting 5/4/21, Public Hearing #1, One Metro West
Dear Ms. Green,
The following is my email to the City Council and staff on the subject of Public Hearing #1, the One Metro West
development. Please distribute as appropriate.
Thank you,
Geoff West
Dear Mayor Stephens and City Council Members,
Here is my take on One Metro West. It seems to me that it's an excellent project that brings commercial, retail and
much -needed housing, some of it affordable, to our city at a time when we MUST plan for more housing or suffer the
wrath of the state government.
This project is in the right place - north of the 405, where growing businesses need housing. It is also at the right time -
when our city is required to plan for nearly 12,000 new dwelling units. I'm worried that rabid Measure Y proponents will
create unfounded fears in the minds of the voters and cause this essential project to be quashed at the ballot box.
Measure Y, the well-intentioned citizen -generated attempt to rein -in what was perceived to be out -of -control
development supported and encouraged by a prior city council, appears to have metastasized into a growth -killing
cancer in our community. It was passed by the voters with an overwhelming majority. Clearly, folks were worried about
development run amok.
Now enough time has passed that the real impact of Measure Y has become clear - it is stifling almost all growth in our
city because developers are unwilling to go through the planning process, spending enormous sums on fees and
architects, then - because their project triggered Measure Y
- be required to place it on a ballot for voters to consider to the tune of, according to City Clerk Brenda Green, perhaps
$500,000!
The State is requiring us to plan for 11,760 new housing units during the next 8 years. If we fail to meet the benchmarks
it has established the City is subject to serious financial penalties and, perhaps, lose our ability to manage development
in Costa Mesa. It is time to take a close look at modifying - or abandoning - Measure Y for the good of the future of our
city.
As the discussion moves forward on this project I hope you consider using it as an opportunity to fold in some creative
bike uses. That part of town seems to be a perfect laboratory for implementation of such a plan. We've been to
Vancouver, BC and have seen the creative bicycle paths in the heart of that city - it works very well.
Thanks for considering my viewpoints.
Geoff West
From: GREEN, BRENDA
Sent:
Monday, May 3, 2021 8:18 AM
To:
BENNETT, STACY
Subject:
FW: One Metro West
Brenda Green
City Clerk
City of Costa Mesa
714/754-5221
Until further notice, Costa Mesa City Hall is closed to the public in keeping with Governor Newsom's direction regarding
COVID-19. The City leadership team is committed to continuing to provide essential city services and will be providing
services to the public online, via telephone and through our website in order to follow the Governor's guidance and
reduce the potential spread of COVID-19. In the interim, please call or email if you have any further questions.
E-mail correspondence with the City of Costa Mesa (and attachments, if any) may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and
as such may, therefore, be subject to public disclosure unless otherwise exempt under the act.
From: Tracey Valencia [mailto:t.emmons76@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, May 2, 20219:23 PM
To: GREEN, BRENDA <brenda.green@costamesaca.gov>
Subject: One Metro West
Dear Mayor Stephens and City Council,
As a resident of Costa Mesa since 2006, 1 gladly support the proposed One Metro West community.
One Metro West will be an important piece of our transitioning economy. The residents of the One Metro West will spend $38
million annually directly into Costa Mesa's businesses. The community will be an important source of homes for the nearby
Anduril Headquarters and their 2,000 plus employees. And One Metro West will have over 600 jobs onsite, drawing impactful
traffic away from traditional neighborhoods.
Having new residential homes walking, biking, or short commuting distance to so many other uses makes so much sense as we
grow. I look forward to watching the North of the 405 Neighborhood growth organically into a new place of pride for Costa Mesa.
As Costa Mesa looks to the future, ideas like One Metro West are roundly supported by economists and environmentalist
alike. For these reasons, I am supportive this plan and community.
Sincerely,
Tracey Valencia
674 W 18th Street
Costa Mesa, 92627
From: Kimberly Claytor <kjclaytor@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 2, 2021 1:48 PM
To: STEPHENS, JOHN; MARR, ANDREA; CHAVEZ, MANUEL; GAMEROS, LOREN;
jeff.harlan@costamesaca.gov; HARPER, DON; REYNOLDS, ARLIS; CITY CLERK
Subject: YES on One Metro West!
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
I am writing in support of the new housing development, One Metro West, because it will include 106
affordable housing units. Please vote in favor of affordable housing in Costa Mesa by approving this project.
Keeping my message simple and straightforward.
Sincerely,
Kimberly Claytor
2241 Wallace Ave.
Costa Mesa, CA
92627
From: Sue Bright <grammysbright@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2021 7:26 PM
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Proposed One Metro West Project
Dear Ms. Green,
Please make my comments available to the City Council and make them a part of the
public record regarding this proposal.
My family and I are adamantly opposed to the rezoning of property for a high density
residence at 1683 Sunflower Avenue or any other place in Costa Mesa.
This is a "penny wise, pound foolish" proposal that will do nothing to enhance the well
being of anyone in Costa Mesa, including those people who would conceivably choose to
live at One Metro West. Instead, it will continue the rapid decline of the quality of life
we once experienced here.
Any revenue received in the expansion of the tax base will rapidly disintegrate in the
reality of higher traffic, noise, utility usage, and emergency services and schools.
Councilmembers, YOU are responsible for the security and welfare of the current citizens
of Costa Mesa. Please exercise sound judgment and vote no on this egregious proposal.
Sincerely,
Sue Bright
3274 Michigan Avenue
Costa Mesa, CA
714-356-48
From:
GONZALEZ, ALEXANDER
Sent:
Tuesday, April 27, 2021 10:20 AM
To:
BENNETT, STACY
Cc:
CONSTITUENT SERVICES; GREEN, BRENDA
Subject:
FW: One Metro West Project
From: Paula Houck [mailto:pshouck@ca.rr.com]
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2021 10:26 AM
To: CONSTITUENT SERVICES<constituentservices@costamesaca.gov>
Subject: One Metro West Project
I am strongly opposed to this high -density project. I see no benefit for most residents in our city. There is already too
much traffic congestion in this area thanks to previously approved food businesses. At lunch hours, we can barely exit
the Harbors southboujd exit ramp due to In n' Out burgers.
Please forward this to all council members.
I URGE A NO VOTE ON THIS PROJECT! I I
Paula Houck
1855 Kentucky Place
CM, 92626
From: Dennis Ashendorf <dennis@ashendorf.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 4, 2021 12:43 PM
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: City Council Meeting - 5/4/2021 - Public Hearing 1. - One Metro West
Dear Mayor Stephens and distinguished Council Members,
We all need food and a roof over our heads. What are the solid and robust reasons to oppose housing at One
Metro West? Let's see. A car or two in line at Cane's or in the Target parking lot is small stuff. Not liking a
builder is even more minor. And arguing that noise from new homes on the other side of the 12-lane 405
freeway is intolerable borders on madness. Conclusion: there are no good reasons to oppose One Metro West.
When people argue against new homes but financially benefit from the scarcity of houses, their motives are
self-serving at best, racist at worst. Realizing how many minority families have been frustrated in accumulating
the wealth needed to buy homes, opponents of new dwellings should tread lightly and self -reflect deeply.
A major high-tech company Anduril will soon join us. Its success requires talent that can find jobs elsewhere.
One Metro West will provide high -quality, local housing within walking distance of Anduril, enticing its
employees and benefiting all of us.
One Metro West will help both minorities and local businesses. People need homes. Financially stable
communities provide homes. Does One Metro West meet code? Yes? Done. Please vote to adopt the plan now
following Staff Option 3.
Respectfully,
Dennis Ashendorf
Costa Mesa
From: GREEN, BRENDA
Sent: Tuesday, May 4, 2021 12:11 PM
To: BENNETT, STACY
Subject: FW: One Metro WORST - public comment
Brenda Green
City Clerk
City of Costa Mesa
714/754-5221
Until further notice, Costa Mesa City Hall is closed to the public in keeping with Governor Newsom's direction regarding
COVID-19. The City leadership team is committed to continuing to provide essential city services and will be providing
services to the public online, via telephone and through our website in order to follow the Governor's guidance and
reduce the potential spread of COVID-19. In the interim, please call or email if you have any further questions.
E-mail correspondence with the City of Costa Mesa (and attachments, if any) may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and
as such may, therefore, be subject to public disclosure unless otherwise exempt under the act.
From: Anna Vrska [mailto:avrska7@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 4, 2021 12:08 PM
To: GREEN, BRENDA <brenda.green@costamesaca.gov>
Subject: One Metro WORST - public comment
Good Afternoon,
This project is poorly planned and has a worrisome EIR. It is not well suited for the industrial space it is slated
for and will have horrific traffic impacts.
The applicant's pipe dream of people no longer needing cars and walking/biking to work in Orange County is
just that, a dream. It isn't particularly safe or easy to walk or bike anywhere in that area (except maybe to SoCo).
People will have to drive to grocery stores, pharmacies, work, and everywhere else creating much traffic in an
already traffic impacted area.
A good example of building density on the bike/walk premise are the units by Trader Joe's. At the time they
were going to be a biking and walking haven but that hasn't happened. I shop there all the time and have
NEVER seen anyone walk across the street to do their grocery shopping!
I also worry that the applicant and CM council are attempting to circumvent measure Y. For example, at the
beginning of 2020 the applicant was rushing to get the project ready for the November 2020 ballot, in fact
paying for our staff time to expedite. Then instead of being on the ballot, it vanished to resurface now.
Mr. Glickman has publicly stated (in my presence) that measure Y is illegal, that the CM council will do the
right thing in approving the project and ultimately if that does not happen, he will sue the City. This is really
fantastic from a developer who wants the 'best' for Costa Mesa and who swears that his motives and business
practices are good.
This is a bad project I'm vehemently opposed to, but I believe the community should democratically decide. It
should be on the ballot and the voters of Costa Mesa should decide its fate!
Regards,
Anna Vrska
From: Kristal Baisch <kristal.baisch@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 4, 2021 11:59 AM
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: One Metro West Project on the 5/4/21 meeting agenda
To Costa Mesa City Council Members,
We live and own our own home in the Mesa Verde North neighborhood. We are in a location that will be directly
impacted negatively by the One Metro West (OMW) project. We oppose the OMW project due to what a development
such as this will do to our traffic patterns, property values, quality of life, and congestion.
The area already has enough traffic congestion throughout Harbor Blvd, Sunflower, the 405 South bound/Northbound
onramps/offramps & surrounding region. To add approximately 3000 more people, with three 7 story tall buildings (one
of which is to be 98'-113'tall) that will face the freeway and the Mesa Verde North neighborhood is entirely
unacceptable. The 405 freeway widening project is currently underway with more years to come creating noise & air
pollution and inconvenience. The project calls for the lanes on Sunflower Street to be reduced from 4 lanes to 3 lanes
even though the immediate region's population is being increased.
-OMW project projected to increase the Harbor & Gisler intersection up to 680 more trips a day. This effects quality of
life and ability to get to & from work & overall movement in the area.
The plans for lighting on the facade facing the freeway which could include a flashing sign, will be viewed from a large
region of the Mesa Verde North homes causing disruption and light and sight pollution. The Fountain Valley lighted
flashing billboard was defeated overwhelmingly for good reason with many MV North neighbors and residents coming
together with the FV residents to defeat it. The idea that art will be placed on that towering facade in also concerning to
have to view from the MV North neighborhood and the freeway.
Our property values will go down due to the sight, noise and light pollution of this project, as well as, the traffic
congestion and increase to an area that is congested enough already. There are two Real Estate Brokers actively
involved in opposing the project both which live in Mesa Verde North. One has been a Broker for 20 years and a Realtor
for 30 years. There is a reason 2 seasoned Realtors oppose this project and state it will lower property values affecting
the desirability of many homes in Mesa Verde North.
We have been very happy for years with our location and home. In the years, we've lived here, we've not encountered
decisions being made by planners or elected officials that negatively impact our quality of life & devalue our homes.
Let's not start now. For many decades, the surrounding area and the surrounding developments have been compatible
with the Mesa Verde North neighborhood and other surrounding neighborhoods. Let's keep it that way.
The project currently is a deficit rather than a revenue producer for the city of Costa Mesa so why would a project such
as this, with all its negatives, even be considered in such a location? With its density, it is not the right location for this
project. Removing industrial zoning and replacing with high density residential zoning should cause you to pause as it is
important to maintain industrial zoning particularly in locations where it makes sense to do so & so as to not disturb
existing residential areas with homes priced mostly between $850K-$1M.
The decision should be to say no to the One West project in this location. There is a reason a Retired Architect & Urban
planner living in CM 40 years wrote to you opposing this project stating, "It is my opinion that the density and location of
the proposed development is inconsistent with sound planning practices."
Thank you for considering my points.
Best regards,
Kristal Bates
Sent from my Whone
From: slgenis@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 4, 2021 12:00 PM
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Re: Public Hearing 1, One Metro
The previous message was inadvertently sent mid sentence. This is the corrected version:
Subject: Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2019050014),
General Plan Amendment Gp-20-01, Rezone R-20-01, Specific
Plan Sp-20-01, Master Plan Pa-19-19, Tentative Tract Map
No. 19015, And Development Agreement Da-20-02 For
Development of A Mixed -Use Project (One Metro West)
Located At 1683 Sunflower Avenue
The City of Costa Mesa has released a Final Environmental Impact Report for the One Metro West project Report (SCH
No. 2019050014). While the document includes some valuable information, it fails to address some key issues.
The Response to Comments is largely non -responsive.
Failings include:
• Conclusory statements
• Justifying lack of analysis rather than providing actual analyses
• "Responses" that fail to address the actual comment
• Placing the burden of investigation on the commenters
These include responses to comments on aesthetic matters, noise, land use and air quality. An example would be a
request for a rendering showing a change in views from the Santa Ana River Trail. One is simply told that an analysis is
not necessary because there will be no impact. However, absent analysis, there is no evidence in the record as to how
that conclusion was reached or if it is justified.
A lack of renderings and analysis of the effects on the residential neighborhood south of the 405 is justified on the basis of
other visual insults existing elsewhere. Little to no analysis of impacts on the affected residents is provided. No
renderings are provided as part of the FEIR, though a single, daytime rendering is included in materials later submitted by
the applicant and included as an attachment to the EIR. Nightime renderings must be provided from more than one
representative location in the State streets and points south.
Inconsistencies regarding energy conservation and use of solar panels are not resolved, though the responder does
restate that the project fails to meet LEED standards.
In addition, project phasing has changed. Residents will be present on the site during construction of latte
phases. Though some analysis was provided in a new attachment, there is no analysis of Localized Significance
Thresholds for air emissions and potential effects on the residents. This analysis must be provided in a recirculated EIR,
along with other important analysis including but not limited to aesthetics, construction traffic, and energy.
It is not clear from the revised phasing plan if the proposed public open space would still be in Phase I. This must be
clarified.
Even if the EIR were adequate, the project should not be approved as proposed. This will be a transformative project that
must be considered in the larger context of the future of North Costa Mesa. Approval at this time outside the larger
context could irreversibly prejudice future planning efforts.
Provision must be made for elimination of the south, resident facing lighting after 10 pm weekdays and midnight on Friday
and Saturday, or eliminated altogether.
The City's RHNA allocation stipulates that forty percent of allocated units must be affordable to lower income groups, but
the proposed project provides only ten percent This must be increased to ten percent very low and ten percent low, with a
two for one credit provided for extremely low income units.
Greenhouse gas emissions are identified as a significant unavoidable impact. It thus boggles the mind that the project
does not intend to meet even basic LEED standards. It has not been uncommon for new development in Costa Mesa and
the nearby area to include a condition of a finding that a project would meet LEED standards, even Silver, Gold, or
Platinum. Thus, local conditions do not preclude meeting the standard. No specific reasons have been identified as to
why meeting LEED standards would not be possible for this project.
The Costa Mesa City Council has made a public commitment to sustainability. It is thus disappointing that a precedent
setting project of this magnitude could even be considered without a commitment to meeting LEED standards.
I urge the City Council to vote no on the Project as proposed and recirculate a new more complete, internally consistent
EIR.
One Metro West has a slogan: The Right Place, The Right Time & the Right Project. I oppose this project
and I request you carefully look closely at the negative impact it will have with only the promise to Break
even on revenue for the city.
We are in the middle of a pandemic with no known end, so it certainly is not the right time. Many
people are focused on other matters related to their health and livelihood and are unaware of this large
scale project and the change it will bring to the area and their lives. Besides, the Covid-19 preoccupation
does not allow for anyone to devote the necessary attention to this proposition. It would be a travesty
to proceed with a vote on such a major development in the city of Costa Mesa w/o proper public
accessibility or awareness.
With the project density and it bringing in up to 3000 more people to the area it is not the right project
in this location. The traffic congestion that already exists on Harbor Blvd, Sunflower and the entry and
exit points to the 405 & the surrounding region must be managed and with the project creating up to
680 additional car trips per day at the Gisler and Harbor intersection, this will have a negative impact to
the current residents quality of life. It impacts the ability to get to and from work daily, as well as,
movement in the general area that is required to live here. This makes the project the wrong place. The
density of the project with the number of buildings spanning as tall as 98-103 feet, even projected upon
reading the OMW specific plan to be 108-113 feet will greatly impact the views from the Mesa Verde
North neighborhood creating sight pollution, as well as, light pollution at night. Noise will undoubtedly
carry across the freeway as the sound wall is not tall enough to block the height of the OMW buildings.
The number of homes it will impact far exceeds the number OMW stated in their presentation at the
Planning Commission meeting held on 5/11/20. It is evident by studying their information.
Currently, the 405 construction is underway and will be for years to come. If you add construction of a
development of this size it could take up to 10 years for the One West Metro project to be built. How
much less desirable are the homes going to be if there is all this construction & congestion going on for
years to come?
P �operty values will undoubtedly be negatively impacted in the Mesa Verde North neighborhood by the
massive change made to the skyline, noise, sight & light pollution. There will be many buyers that will
not consider purchasing those homes that will be impacted by the sight, noise and light of the towering
One Metro West structures, yet they would be saleable and desirable to those same buyers today.
Buyers that purchase homes worth up to $850K-$1M, do not want to purchase their home where there
is'light and sight pollution. I have lived in Costa Mesa for more than 2 decades and I've lived in Orange
County over 5 decades. I own my own home and currently live in the Mesa Verde North neighborhood
which will be negatively impacted by the OMW project greatly. I have been selling Real Estate for 30
years and I've been a Real Estate Broker for 20 of those years so I can speak to property values and
Buyer behaviors.
Reviews online to other Rose Equities properties such as Metropolis in Irvine are poor citing issues with
poor construction & materials, design, parking, noise and management problems which should cause a
concern that this particular developer does not have the reputation to deliver what is being promised
and cannot be trusted with such a large project that will have lasting negative consequences to those
that live, work and shop in this area.
<Page 1>
<Page 2>
The idea that the developer can resell these 1057 apartments within 20 years to be converted to
condominiums is even more concerning. A surprising issue that was raised at the Planning Commission
meeting: The applicant is paying for the traffic mitigation solutions, yet there is no guarantee when they
will be done & it appears no parameters have even been place on the developer to be sure they are ever
adhered to or actually implemented. What kind of mitigations are possible anyway given the situation.
Narrowing Sunflower from 4 lanes to 3 lanes? This will cause a lot more issues with traffic and
congestion. The fact that it is now zoned industrial, but will be rezoned to high density
residential/planned development and includes a specific plan which basically changes nearly all the rules
normally applicable to high density residential development elsewhere in Costa Mesa is very concerning.
Why is this being allowed?
I am all for much needed revenue for the city, but with it being stated more than once at the planning
commission meeting that it will be a break even for the city of Costa Mesa, why is this project even
being considered? The voters and residents need to be protected against these types of developments
being approved with such a negative impact. No decisions should ever be made that degrade the
quality of life or take down the property values.
Perhaps it will be concluded that Measure Y will protect us by providing voters to decide as to whether
or not to approve the project. There is only one problem with that. Rose Equities a Beverly Hills
developer has the money to advertise and create confusion whereas those of us working and busy with
our everyday lives aren't able to compete with the misinformation that will undoubtedly be sent out by
the developer about the project. It should never come to that as it is now clear that the project does not
make sense at this time, in this area nor does the massive scale & density of the development make
sense for this area. A retired architect and urban planner, as well as a 40 year resident of CM stated "It
is my opinion that the density and location of the proposed development is inconsistent with sound
planning practices."
I urge you to not approve this project to move forward. Thank you for considering my points.
Say no to this One West project in this location.
Best regards,
Diana Denney
714-546-0900
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Brenda Green
City Clerk
City of Costa Mesa
714/754-5221
GREEN, BRENDA
Tuesday, May 4, 2021 11:40 AM
BENNETT, STACY
FW: I strongly support the building of One Metro West, and have included my letter of
support
A.T.C. Support Letter_ 05.04.21.pdf
Until further notice, Costa Mesa City Hall is closed to the public in keeping with Governor Newsom's direction regarding
COVID-19. The City leadership team is committed to continuing to provide essential city services and will be providing
services to the public online, via telephone and through our website in order to follow the Governor's guidance and
reduce the potential spread of COVID-19. In the interim, please call or email if you have any further questions.
E-mail correspondence with the City of Costa Mesa (and attachments, if any) may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and
as such may, therefore, be subject to public disclosure unless otherwise exempt under the act.
From: Anais Tangie [mailto:anais@atconnections.co]
Sent: Tuesday, May 4, 2021 11:25 AM
To: CITY COUNCIL <CITYCOUNCI L@costa mesaca.gov>; GREEN, BRENDA <brenda.green@costamesaca.gov>
Subject: Fwd: I strongly support the building of One Metro West, and have included my letter of support
Hello!
I received a bounce back from the <cityclerk@costamesca.gov> email, after sending the
email below. Forwarding my letter of support, to be sure it's included.
Thanks in advance.
Forwarded message ---------
From: Anais Tangie <anais@atconnections.co>
Date: Tue, May 4, 2021 at 11:08 AM
Subject: I strongly support the building of One Metro West, and have included my letter of support
To: <cityclerk@costamesca. ov>, MARR, ANDREA <andrea.marr@costamesaca. ov>, CHAVEZ, MANUEL
<manuel.chavez@costamesaca.jZov>,<loren.gameros@costamesaca.gov>, <jeff.harlan@costamesaca.gov>,
<don.harper@costamesaca.gov>, REYNOLDS, ARLIS<arlis.reynolds@costamesaca.gov>,
<john.stephens @costamesaca.gov>
Dear Council Members,
Thank you for listening to renters and residents, for much needed housing for our City.
I've been a Costa Mesa resident for the last 17 years, my brother, sisters, nieces and
nephew live here, and am personally and professionally committed to doing all I can to
see our City thrive.
I strongly support the building of One Metro West, and have included my letter
of support below, and attached.
Our Restaurant Workers and our Restaurant Owners are a high percentage of renters in
our City of Costa Mesa, and are responsible for the culinary arts that draw travelers and
tourists, generate nationwide and global news, and contribute towards tax revenues.
Shouldn't they be able to have a home here, in our City of the Arts? One Metro West
could be just that, with it's 106 affordable homes, and proximity to SOCO and The OC
Mix's many restaurants, and Costa Mesa's Mitchelen Star Chef.
Thank you for your care and consideration as you reach your decision. Let's build
community housing, and connect a neighborhood. Please and thank you.
LETTER OF SUPPORT
Date: May 4th, 2021
Dear City Council Members -
My name is Anais Tangie, and I'm a Costa Mesa community connector and consultant,
committed to supporting equitable housing, building local businesses, enhancing
economic development, and finding strategic solutions in our City, which incorporates
community input.
One Metro West caught my attention in 2017, with their plans to build a housing
community in Costa Mesa. Their seven years of consistent engagement with community
event partnerships, their detailed investment plans in the North of the 405
neighborhood, and their ideal placement in an underutilized industrial area made me
convinced that this project is an ideal housing solution for our City of Costa Mesa.
WHY ONE METRO WEST?:
One Metro West adds necessary housing to Costa Mesa, and their 1.5 acre park gives
green space to the neighborhood. Their redesign of Sunflower sidewalks and streets
protects the pedestrian and cyclist, and connects tangible transportation solutions. Their
addition of housing next door to SOCO and The OC Mix invigorates our small businesses
and Owners. The investment of $68 Million dollars into our economy, is just what our
Costa Mesa community needs now, factoring in the costs of COVID.
The City Housing Element strategy has a state mandate to add 11,760 housing units.
One Metro West plans to build over 1,000 homes, is a strategic addition of an
apartment community, and a well thought out model for Costa Mesa to positively
reinforce, and to approve. As a local business with eight years of daily commitment to
growing the North of the 405 corner of Costa Mesa, I'm thrilled to support this housing
community, to solidify this cornerstone of the business district. This apartment
community builds homes for our creatives, recent graduates, small business owners,
and a high percentage of restaurant owners and workers who rent, my family included.
This gives local employees and entrepreneurs a place to live, enabling us to easily enjoy
z
all that Costa Mesa has to offer. Thank you for listening to local residents, and business
owners, we appreciate the attention towards much needed housing.
Sincerely,
Anais Tangie
Director and Connector
A.T. Connections / (949) 274-3214
Why Build One Metro West?
1. Builds housing North of the 405, and invests in the Costa Mesa
community:
a. A 1.5 acre public park and community room
b. Approximately $5 million of bike and pedestrian improvements on Sunflower
and the Santa Ana River Trail
c. Approximately $6.5 million in economic recovery, community infrastructure
and public safety funds.
d. Continual investment in the neighborhood, with a significant amount of the
fees over time.
2. Provides monetary benefit to the Costa Mesa community:
a. The city's capital budget is approximately $17 million per year. The value of One
Metro West's community benefits package is approximately $68 million dollars or 3.9 x
Costa Mesa's capital budget. These investments come at a critical time, post COVID, and
push the city forward almost 4 years. Without One Metro West , these improvements
might take decades to replicate.
3. Builds from a land planning, economic and environmental perspective:
a. 2,300 new jobs coming to The Press will demand upwards of 1,900 units of
housing. Even with over 1,000 units, more housing is needed.
4. Constructs in accordance with BEE Standards and CALGreen
requirements:
a. The BEE Standards and CALGreen are updated tri-annually with a goal to achieve
zero net energy for residential buildings by 2020 and non residential buildings by 2030.
The proposed project would also provide solar ready hookups to meet the 2030 zero net
energy goal. Additionally, One Metro West will have a LEED-equivalent sustainability
designation.
5. Invests in school -aged children projected to live at One Metro West, and
the schools they will attend: Current Newport -Mesa projections, approximately 93
school -aged children. Students will be zoned to attend the following schools:
a. California Elementary School located at 3232 California Avenue, Costa Mesa for K-
6th grade;
b. TeWinkle Middle School located at 3224 California Avenue, Costa Mesa for grades
7-8
C. Estancia High School located at 2323 Placentia Avenue, Costa Mesa for grades 9-
12.
91
6. Gives Costa Mesa residents access to a 1.5-acre open space park:
a. Additionally, One Metro West will provide a number of public art facilities and the
landscaping theme of the open space will extend to the bike/pedestrian connections
along Sunflower Avenue and along the bike path to the Santa Ana River Trail.
7. Creates a community room that will be open to the public:
a. 1,500 square feet, is open to the public and will be managed through an
agreement with the City of Costa Mesa and One Metro West.
8. Invests in traffic solutions on Harbor Boulevard south of the 405 Freeway:
a. Most trip interactions will occur in north Costa Mesa, or along the 405 Freeway.
Few project trips are destined south of the 405 Freeway. By way of example, the
intersection of Gisler/Harbor will show only 1% approximate change than current
conditions, during AM/PM peak hours. There is a very distinct traffic pattern coming into
Costa Mesa in the morning and leaving at night. As noted, few cars venture south of the
405 Freeway during AM/PM peak hours. And those which do will mostly be moving
opposite of the existing traffic patterns.
9. Adjusts traffic patterns at Wimbledon, to lessen traffic impacts:
a. New traffic in and around Wimbledon will be mostly driven by the re -development
of The Press, including 2,300 new employees. One Metro West will pull AM/PM peak
traffic from The Press away from Wimbledon.
10. Offers office space for business owners, employers and employees:
a. Work at home offices and areas;
b. The fastest fiber optic cable;
C. A business office for small office needs; and
d. Conference rooms to support Work from Home employees.
In addition, we have designed a 1.5-acre open space, walking paths with
greenery, and a connection to the Santa Ana River Trail for residents to get fresh
air and ample exercise all while practicing social distancing.
11. Provides Affordable Units to Costa Mesa renters:
a. 67 "Very Low" units
b. 39 "Low" units for a total of 106 units
4
CONNECTIONS
LETTER OF SUPPORT
Date: May 4th, 2021
Dear Ms. Minoo Ashabi -
My name is Anais Tangie, and I'm a Costa Mesa community connector and consultant,
committed to supporting equitable housing, building local businesses, enhancing
economic development, and finding strategic solutions in our City, which incorporates
community input.
One Metro West caught my attention in 2017, with their plans to build a housing
community in Costa Mesa. Their seven years of consistent engagement with community
event partnerships, their detailed investment plans in the North of the 405
neighborhood, and their ideal placement in an underutilized industrial area made me
convinced that this project is an ideal housing solution for our City of Costa Mesa.
WHY ONE METRO WEST?:
One Metro West adds necessary housing to Costa Mesa, and their 1.5 acre park gives
green space to the neighborhood. Their redesign of Sunflower sidewalks and streets
protects the pedestrian and cyclist, and connects tangible transportation solutions. Their
addition of housing next door to SOCO and The OC Mix invigorates our small
businesses and Owners. The investment of $68 Million dollars into our economy, is just
what our Costa Mesa community needs now, factoring in the costs of COVID.
The City Housing Element strategy has a state mandate to add 11,760 housing units.
One Metro West plans to build over 1,000 homes, is a strategic addition of an
apartment community, and a well thought out model for Costa Mesa to positively
reinforce, and to approve. As a local business with eight years of daily commitment to
growing the North of the 405 corner of Costa Mesa, I'm thrilled to support this housing
community, to solidify this cornerstone of the business district. This apartment
community builds homes for our creatives, recent graduates, small business owners,
and a high percentage of restaurant owners and workers who rent, my family included.
This gives local employees and entrepreneurs a place to live, enabling us to easily
enjoy all that Costa Mesa has to offer. Thank you for listening to local residents, and
business owners, we appreciate the attention towards much needed housing.
Sincerely,
Anais Tangle
Director and Connector
A.T. Connections / (949) 274-3214
Anais Tangie, Director and Connector, A.T. Connections, www.atconnections.co
1
CONNECTIONS
Why Build One Metro West?
Builds housing North of the 405, and invests in the Costa Mesa community:
a. A 1.5 acre public park and community room
b. Approximately $5 million of bike and pedestrian improvements on
Sunflower and the Santa Ana River Trail
c. Approximately $6.5 million in economic recovery, community infrastructure
and public safety funds.
d. Continual investment in the neighborhood, with a significant amount of the
fees over time.
2. Provides monetary benefit to the Costa Mesa community:
a. The city's capital budget is approximately $17 million per year. The value
of One Metro West's community benefits package is approximately $68
million dollars or 3.9 x Costa Mesa's capital budget. These investments
come at a critical time, post COVID, and push the city forward almost 4
years. Without One Metro West, these improvements might take decades
to replicate.
3. Builds from a land planning, economic and environmental perspective:
a. 2,300 new jobs coming to The Press will demand upwards of 1,900 units
of housing. Even with over 1,000 units, more housing is needed.
4. Constructs in accordance with BEE Standards and CALGreen
requirements:
a. The BEE Standards and CALGreen are updated tri-annually with a goal to
achieve zero net energy for residential buildings by 2020 and non
residential buildings by 2030. The proposed project would also provide
solar ready hookups to meet the 2030 zero net energy goal. Additionally,
One Metro West will have a LEED-equivalent sustainability designation.
5. Invests in school -aged children projected to live at One Metro West, and
the schools they will attend: Current Newport -Mesa projections, approximately
93 school -aged children. Students will be zoned to attend the following schools:
a. California Elementary School located at 3232 California Avenue, Costa
Mesa for K-6th grade;
b. TeWinkle Middle School located at 3224 California Avenue, Costa Mesa
for grades 7-8
c. Estancia High School located at 2323 Placentia Avenue, Costa Mesa for
grades 9-12.
Anais Tangie, Director and Connector, A.T. Connections, www.atconnections.co
2
CONNECTIONS
6. Gives Costa Mesa residents access to a 1.5-acre open space park:
a. Additionally, One Metro West will provide a number of public art facilities
and the landscaping theme of the open space will extend to the
bike/pedestrian connections along Sunflower Avenue and along the bike
path to the Santa Ana River Trail.
7. Creates a community room that will be open to the public:
a. 1,500 square feet, is open to the public and will be managed through an
agreement with the City of Costa Mesa and One Metro West.
8. Invests in traffic solutions on Harbor Boulevard south of the 405 Freeway:
a. Most trip interactions will occur in north Costa Mesa, or along the 405
Freeway. Few project trips are destined south of the 405 Freeway. By way
of example, the intersection of Gisler/Harbor will show only 1 %
approximate change than current conditions, during AM/PM peak hours.
There is a very distinct traffic pattern coming into Costa Mesa in the
morning and leaving at night. As noted, few cars venture south of the 405
Freeway during AM/PM peak hours. And those which do will mostly be
moving opposite of the existing traffic patterns.
9. Adjusts traffic patterns at Wimbledon, to lessen traffic impacts:
a. New traffic in and around Wimbledon will be mostly driven by the
re -development of The Press, including 2,300 new employees. One Metro
West will pull AM/PM peak traffic from The Press away from Wimbledon.
10.Offers office space for business owners, employers and employees:
a. Work at home offices and areas;
b. The fastest fiber optic cable;
c. A business office for small office needs; and
d. Conference rooms to support Work from Home employees.
In addition, we have designed a 1.5-acre open space, walking paths with
greenery, and a connection to the Santa Ana River Trail for residents to get fresh
air and ample exercise all while practicing social distancing.
11. Provides Affordable Units to Costa Mesa renters:
a. 67 "Very Low" units
b. 39 "Low" units for a total of 106 units
Anais Tangle, Director and Connector, A.T. Connections, www.atconnections.co
April 30th, 2021
Mayor John Stevens &
Costa Mesa City Council
RE: Support for the Proposed One Metro West Community
Dear Mayor Stevens and Councilmembers:
As an executive with an Orange County contractor that is signatory to multiple unions,
that will be performing work on One Metro West, we will be employing hundreds of local
union workers to build this project. We gladly support the proposed One Metro West
community which will continue to build Costa Mesa's global reputation as an innovative
and vibrant city.
The residents of the One Metro West will spend $38 million annually directly into Costa
Mesa's businesses and as well as create over 600 jobs onsite, drawing impactful traffic
away from traditional neighborhoods. The location north of the 405 is an ideal location
for residential. Especially with the adjacent retail, and the walkability to the businesses.
We look forward to serving new One Metro West residents and having that new
business being drawn from within a walking, biking, or short commuting distance
helping us further our hope that we continually are trying to build an organic
neighborhood experience for the community. I'm sure many of our employees will
become future residents.
Costa Mesa has grown as a city and a community by being at the forefront of planning
great neighborhoods, parks, retail, and we are proud to be a part of that shared success
story and look forward to One Metro West being a part of that story as well.
Sincerely,
Largo Concrete
Contact Me At
(714)731-3600
From: Jason Thesing <jasonthesing@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, May 3, 2021 10:01 PM
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: One metro west please read at council meeting.
Hello,
It looks like the beast is Back. I was so glad that Bret stroll went away for awhile. Such a relief. And was
hoping they'd come back with something more reasonable for the residents of Costa Mesa to possibly get
behind, but no they did not change one thing. Not one. So I will vote No! And I'm have confidence that the
voters will join me.
To say the least, I'm very concerned about this One Metro West project. I oppose this project and think it will
be detrimental to the city of Costa Mesa and the local neighborhoods. The Mesa verde neighborhood, which is
one of the premier neighborhoods of Costa Mesa will suffer the brunt of this unnecessary project. The people of
Costa Mesa that I have personally spoken to about this project do not want "stack n pack" high density rental
housing, especially at this time when citys are dying and people are moving away from high density housing.
and we feel like this is getting pushed on us by an out of town "Beverly Hills" developer who has coerced city
officials Into moving forward with this project and has in every way done an "end around" the normal oversight
processes that are in place to protect citizens of Costa Mesa and sideline the community. The last thing we want
to do is rubberstamp this massive project and send it to the next step. I understand this will get a vote of the
people but you guys are our first line of defense for a project of this size and magnitude. Remember You work
for us not the developer.
The main issues I have with the project is the size. To say it is huge is an understatement and I find it hard to
comprehend the size of this thing. From what I understand there will be three high density towers at 6 to
7 story's possibly taller) and a huge 6 story parking structure backing the freeway 300ft from the first house in
Mesa verde. I can't even comprehend putting a project of that size and magnitude in that area where nothing is
over 3 story's. This is not in the South coast area or over by John Wayne airport. This isn't Venice beach,
Marina Del ray, Santa Monica or Las Vegas for that matter. And that's what the renderings look like...
Something you'd see on the Vagas strip. It looks like a Vegas Hotel to me. What are we trying to do here ? If
this project went up, at the currant state it's in, it would be unprecedented! This is not the right area for a project
of this size plain and simple. and now not the time.
Aesthetically this thing will stick out like a sore thumb in the local neighborhoods. It will increase traffic in one
of the most congested areas in Southern California. The local freeways and Harbor Blvd are already jammed
pack most of the time and will put increasing pressure on the Arterial System in Costa Mesa and surrounding
cities. The fact that this project will add roughly an additional 7000 car trips per day is unthinkable and It will
have huge impacts on people's health and well-being. Sitting in traffic and dealing with congestion and
overcrowding is one of the main causes of stress, Domestic issues and health problems for people. What It
comes down to here is a liveability issue and a quality of life issue. I feel the amount of people this project will
add and the traffic that it will bring will have an significant Negative affect and impact on people's well-being
and livelihoods. Furthermore we are already one of the most densely populated cities in orange county and this
will add so many new renters to the city which will account for over 50% of the incoming population to Costa
Mesa in the future, this is really hard to grasp since one of Costa Mesa's policy and directives is to encourage
homeownership.
For these reasons and many others that are too long to list, I recommend that you do not move forward with
this project. The huge size and the bad location make this not feasable. Please keep in mind the people of
Costa Mesa and its families, owners and renters alike who have invested and put down roots in our city and the
impact it will have on them and their future when you Decide on this project. Thank you.
-Jason Thesing
Mesa verde
Sent from my Whone
From: Marilyn Wright <mandbwright@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Monday, May 3, 2021 8:02 PM
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: One Metro West
Dear Mayor Stephens and Council Members,
My husband and I are 100% opposed to this project as proposed. It is much too large, and has too little open space
incorporated into the plan. It will generate too much traffic for the 405/Harbor Blvd. area, will require too many city
services not currently available, and is in an area zoned for commercial property, If the project is to move forward, it
must go to a vote under Measure Y.
It is the wrong project for Costa Mesa. Vote NO on One Metro West.
Marilyn and Bob Wright
3279 Arizona Lane
CM
From: Michelle Bennett <shekayel @aol.com>
Sent: Monday, May 3, 2021 8:02 PM
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Four of us Opposing Metro West....
City of Costa Mesa,
We would like our voices to be heard.
We HIGHLY OPPOSE the One Metro West project.
I speak for 4 of us here... One is a homeowner across the street that I have encouraged to get involved —as he
feels the way we also do ... and has outright owned his home much longer than I have.
I helped him beat addiction and bring up the value and safety of his home, after losing his mother and wife all in
a year ... that perpetuated the addiction.
Alan Weiner in Halecrest community.
I speak for Jim McLaughlin, an owner of 2 properties in the Placentia area —and looking to buy in this area ... as
soon as a long, hard divorce is final and his funds available to do so.
He is positioned to move forward, works 12hr days... and currently renting cheaply from me during his
transition.
Both of these men have a work history of well means and a decent economical mind, like I also have... both
have a real concern and care of our community.
We care about the hard earned money that all current homeowners have wrapped up in our properties.
They both have made their points quite clear ... and one still works very long hours.
Some people are less able to spend the time on matters, such as this... and I personally now have the time to
make it known.
They can be contacted at any time.
I speak LOUDLY, persay... for myself.
I moved here in 2009—and know the Fairgrounds was trying to be taken during the last housing crisis... and
highly DISAGREED back then.
I paid cash for my home, and had more liquid money than most worth far more than myself...because of my
economic sense.
Not just where I live, but across the nation ... I am almost 47 and bought my first house by luck at just 19.
I semi -retired myself by 34 and have bought many houses, college funds, bought transportation for such ... incl
the reason my own mother became an RN nurse at the top of her class at 54—and is STILL on the front lines, in
KY.
She was 15 when she had me —we dumpster dived for food... so, I know what is is like from the lowest to the
highest, as my work took me world-wide incl private jets, etc...
I have a very vast knowledge of how it works....
I paid for my own education every step of the way and am a self-made person, keeping a roof over my own
families heads... along with their own willingness to work.
My contribution with what I had then —not only paid for my home here, but put a roof over many heads during
that crisis... incl more rentals (lowering the rent in small amount of time) and owner financed homes.
The success stories of these moves are one I am beyond thankful for and proud of.
One again, just paid off early —and my last owner financed house will own outright later this year!
I moved here at the insistence of my child's father... intending to be my own self-made temporary -stay at home
mom —to quietly be a mother in a cul-de-sac ... and get involved in my local community.
Isolation and `behind closed doors' things began to happen, and unknown to me then ... I began to deal with a
bonafide sociopathic man that uses women and hides behind them, to appear as he is not.
My goal and intent was severely interrupted for a dark, decade of hell ... in which I could not get local authorities
or the court system to understand what I was going thru.
It is obviously about money —and/or perhaps who you know... and his mother is a court reporter.
I've taken my life to the Feds, at this point .... and I will not stop.
All details are OUT there where they need to be now.
I work with MANY that have family crisis/losses on some level or another, abuse victims and those with
addiction issues, etc...
It SEVERELY touched my own life —when I unknowingly had a child with this man from CA, insisting on the
move here ... that I did not want to make.
It was a huge, horrible set back —and nearly cost me everything I owned and even nearly cost me my life.
I have turned down two movie deals so far, as I am going about using my story ... my way. It WILL make a big
difference for many.
He is now known to undoubtedly be a narcissist and perhaps, even a psychopath —and attempted my life several
times last year ... due to our custody issue with my little girl.
He isolated me, did a real set up (I now believe also drugging me ... along with forcing alcohol) behind closed
doors... along with the help of his mother, a practicing court reporter.
My story has been a long and hard one, incl the local authorities and the court system having it all wrong .... not
protecting me and my child.
My unexplained medical condition, the doctors now believe was caused by me being drugged in the alcohol he
forced.
I proved myself by NOT going on disability or succumbing to Big Pharma—dealing with horrendous pain and
dysfunction... and using alcohol temporarily to help, as he would force me to hold my nose —saying `this will
help'.
I AM currently making a huge difference with the Family Foundation behind me, etc... for cases such as this.
I also now plan to do all I can to help this community, as long as I may own here.
I am a good neighbor that keeps my property up —and work with many to do the same.
I have helped my own neighborhood here much, in this process... with my focus ever on the safety and value of
homes.
I no longer allow those with addiction issues to stay in my home for a clean-up process, as that backfired on
me.... and I truly did not know the level at which CA is inundated with this type.
Including the recent `married to a rock star', Sarah Appice... I finally got out of my house.
It's a real problem. Drugs and mental instability ....
With that all being said... I have a CLEAR picture of areas, incl Costa Mesa ... and a really good economic mind.
I am VERY good at RE and community planning—incl currently developing my own 200 acres, back east...
and directing another man, on his acreage.
I'm about to buy 400 more, this coming year —and use all of it for the good... for programs I am behind, as well.
I feel Costa Mesa has done well with certain programs (like encouraging homeowners to take care of their
plumbing to the main line), with having the Fairgrounds, wonderful small and long term businesses, single
family homes (do not agree with 2nd stories going up all over where folks bought single STORY for a reason)
built in multiple ways, plenty of apartments already, a great industrial area, home for the mall and IKEA, lots
of dealerships, a home for the Chargers (even if not overly into sports)... etc... etc...
We ALREADY have a great mix and have dealt with traffic issues enough, as it is.
This proposed project is NOT a WISE one for our city.
If the city is managed correctly, there is NO NEED to take out our much needed industrial areas for yet more
`housing' —and creating more traffic issues that it brings.
We have a nice little city here and need to keep it as such... a nice place to correctly raise families and keep the
balance.
The city did a great job in cleaning up the `streetwalkers' on Harbor and 405 area these last few years!
Vegas has it RIGHT —make it LEGAL in certain areas (so they pay taxes & have a business license) and TAKE
IT TO THOSE AREAS.
I moved to Vegas in the 90's and know exactly, first hand —how that the outside money and overall `CA
thinking' can RUIN many areas and the housing market, in general.
I watched it happen to us there.
I bought and sold many homes there, as well —but refused to be a part of the demise... and us locals were
saddened by the outside greed coming in the way it did.
The areas in Vegas that stood their ground against the outside money that was out of touch with the local
community needs ... those I was a part of —have held their own and still do quite well —to this day.
I still love and prefer Vegas, as I found it to be more honest... but, its a mixed bag, no matter where you go.
I still have my stronghold well enough, there, still.
I have preferred Costa Mesa for many reasons, while owning in CA —and would like to see this city THRIVE.
I could have owned about anywhere, and was not impressed with `Newport', as a whole ... if for no other reason,
than the snooty nature it is seen as.
I plan to bring more funding in for this city and the local law enforcement, thru my Family Foundation work —
that has been focused elsewhere... several states, where I have long standing relationships with city leaders and
authorities and family/friends, residing there full time.
I did NOT overly care for this area nor wish to stay —because of how I was treated here this last decade, when I
told the TRUTH the whole way...
But, I sucked it up —righted all my wrongs... and now will use my story for change.
Simple law changes are desperately needed.
A wise person once said to me —`blossom where you are planted, Shelly' and since I am HERE —still fighting
for my daughter's life to somehow be saved... I plan to do just that.
I hope to make it an even better place, whether I choose to keep a spot here long term, or not.
It is my hopes that my voice is heard.
****I STRONGLY oppose the One Metro West project.****
We need to leave LA as it is... it is large enough— we do NOT need another LA right here.
We do NOT need a sanctuary city here, either... we must stand for right and wrong.
I see Costa Mesa as a family and business oriented place to live, and would dearly love to see it be honored and
kept that way.
Thank you for your time on this,
Michelle Bennett
702-609-5767
** Please see BELOW— I am forwarding the email sent to me by Eric Davis, who is currently working out of
town.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Eric Davis <davisjr_e@icloud.com>
Date: April 27, 2021 at 2:33:40 PM PDT
To: Shelly Bennett <shekaye 1 @aol.com>
Subject: To whom it may concern
Shelly,
Here is my letter!
My name is Eric Davis Jr.
I moved into a property with a reliable homeowner (owns home outright) and have enjoyed the area of Costa
Mesa... particularly, the Halecrest community (Baker/Fairview) for over 8yrs now.
I'm originally an Orange Co native, born and raised here... and although my work continually takes me to other
states (have landing pads accordingly) —I have, at my heart, a vested interest in what happens in Orange Co...
and particularly the Costa Mesa/Newport areas.
I see these and surrounding areas continually struggle to keep a sense of FAMILY and COMMUNITY going.
Incl offering a home to the Chargers and keeping our Fairgrounds intact, that was in high question during the
last housing crisis ... and keeping our beautiful parks near homes clean, safe and beautiful.
I am looking to have a stronger voice within the community, along with the current local homeowner I am
teamed up with ... & some other like-minded home owners there.
We want to preserve our hard earned investments, and preserve our smaller town feel with good value here ... for
the families that are working and educating themselves well.
Safety to our families on all levels is what is correct to uphold, and this includes current home values.
Folks work hard to buy and maintain them.
In a few months, our hard work is paying off to be able to work more closely with the city —and the county —to
address some issues, incl the homeless.
And help fund it privately.
It is our wish to work WITH our local authorities... help fund them to continue their hard job on the front lines.
We want our court system to have the best chance possible to obtain sure and swift justice —on issues that affect
us all, as well.
My work in the technical field is focused much on this aspect... we are currently doing LARGE things.
I am NOT at ALL for this One Metro West project and I know for a fact, I speak for SEVERAL I have spoken
to ... and we all want to know what we can do about it..???
I PROTEST this.
I am in a position with what I have going on, along with a team we have built, to make huge differences...
To bring in funding to help the area in a completely different way, in a year or less.
We WILL, however, focus first and foremost in areas where the city actually listens to homeowners that can
make a difference... and work WITH them.
If it is all about the greed of a particular city, as THIS project undoubtedly is —we will focus on those that are
less about greed... and more about the families that currently exist.
We have a need for more than just more high rises and parking lots ... & more cars being brought in to further
spill over —to cause issues in exiting neighborhoods, nearby...
Existing homeowners should not be forced to fight for their own parking and/or band together and end up
having to have parking passes to park in front of their own homes.
This is EXACTLY what happens, and current home prices are devalued.
We NEED our industrial areas to remain for what they are used for.
We NEED our family parks and recreation places.
We NEED our Fairgrounds.
We NEED our small businesses existing well around us.
We do NOT NEED more and more housing/cars(exhaust fumes) taking over on a large scale, in this area.
We have what we currently need here —it is of utmost importance to find the balance (perhaps new city
personal is needed to understand economics on all levels?) with exactly what we currently have.
The hookers out on the street issue got a bit cleaned up on the Harbor and 405 area ... thanks to the police of
CM...
We need to keep this FAMILY FRIENDLY idea of Costa Mesa, growing properly.
All my best,
Eric Davis Jr.
May 3, 2021
Mayor John Stephens and Members of the City Council
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
RE: Support Approval for One Metro West
Dear Mayor Stephens and Council Members:
I am writing to urge the City to support the development of One Metro West because it puts
forth a plan that will create much needed workforce housing at all economic segments of the
community. More importantly, One Metro West is displaying commitment and leadership as a
builder/owner in addressing the City's unmet housing needs for lower income households. Last
month, an extension for a development agreement came before the City and that applicant
maintained they were "not amenable" to including affordable housing in the agreement.' While
the City does not have an inclusionary housing ordinance, One Metro West could have followed
the same path of this "not amenable" applicant. Instead, One Metro West has taken the
position of a long-term community partner and has voluntarily included an affordability
component for lower income households.
One Metro West will also help count towards the City's exceptionally high 2021-2029 Regional
Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation of 11,760 units, especially for the lower income
RHNA categories. Of the proposed 1,057 units at One Metro West, there will be a set -aside of
67 very low- and 39 low-income units. Currently, the City has very few readily available land for
residential development and the City has not been very successful in building affordable
housing for lower income working households. From 2014-2020, only 30 permitted units were
issued at low and very low income.' Of those, 9 units are deed restricted at very low and 21
units are non -deed restricted ADUs at very low and low income. There is a dire need for more
affordable housing and One Metro West voluntarily including lower income units should set
the standard for any upcoming residential projects that is being proposed in the City.
We encourage the City to please recognize and engage with community -minded
builder/owners like One Metro West who share our vision in creating a thriving, inclusive and a
more balanced jobs -housing Costa Mesa.
Sincerely,
Li.vt.da T"
'City Council Agenda Report- An Ordinance For An Extension To And Amendment Of The Sakioka Farms Development Agreement DA-99-02
(DA-20-03), Sakioka Lot 2,148SO Sunflower Avenue, City of Costa Mesa, p. 2, April 6, 2021.
z Planning Commission Agenda Report- 2020 Annual Review of the Costa Mesa 2015-2035 General Plan, City of Costa Mesa, p. 5, April 20, 2021.
Page 1 of 1
From: George Atalla <george.atalla@outlook.com>
Sent: Monday, May 3, 2021 6:48 PM
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: One Metro West
Dear Mayor and Members of the Council:
I have been a resident of the City of Costa Mesa for the past 8 years and I am writing in strong support of the
One Metro West project. I urge the Council to encourage its populace to vote in favor of this project.
This area of Costa Mesa, north of the 405, contains great retail and business/office opportunities, and seriously
lacks housing opportunities. I believe the One Metro West development will serve as an ideal complement to
the proposed and existing job centers north of the 405, which would help maintain SoCo as a healthy retail
center and pull traffic away from other areas of Costa Mesa and Orange County at large.
Additionally, this project would not displace existing housing and would help chip away at our local and regional
housing crisis. Please focus on the slew of benefits and encourage public to get behind this project!
Thank You,
George Atalla
2250 Vanguard Way, Apt. G141
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Dear Councilmembers,
Daniel Mooney <dmooney@campaignlawyers.com>
Tuesday, May 4, 2021 9:20 AM
CITY CLERK
BARLOW, KIMBERLY HALL; James Sutton
Costa Mesa Measure Y Letter
Costa Mesa Measure Y letter.pdf
Mr. Sutton requested I email you the attached letter. Please feel free to contact Mr. Sutton with any
questions.
Take care and be safe.
Best regards,
Daniel F. Mooney, Jr.
Business Manager I The Sutton Law Firm
150 Post Street, Suite 405 1 San Francisco, CA 94108
Tel: 415/732-7700 1 Fax: 415/732-7701
dmooney@campaignlawyers.com I www.campai ng lawyers.com
THIS EMAIL IS CONFIDENTIAL AND MAY BE LEGALLY PRIVILEGED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED IT IN ERROR,
PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY AND THEN DELETE IT. ANY TAX ADVICE IS NOT INTENDED TO AND CANNOT
BE USED FOR AVOIDING IRS PENALTIES OR FOR RECOMMENDING ANY TAX -RELATED TRANSACTION OR
MATTER TO A THIRD PARTY
5 NJ
May 4, 2021
VIA EMAIL ONLY, cityclerk(cr�,costamesaca.gov
City Council
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Re: Costa Mesa Measure Y
Dear Councilmembers:
This letter is sent on behalf of People for Housing Orange County, a nonprofit
organization which is dedicated to ending the housing shortage and reducing housing
costs in Orange County and which monitors lawsuits across the state which have
successfully challenged overly -restrictive and illegal housing policies. We would
appreciate this letter being given to the Mayor and all members of the City Council
before tonight's City Council hearing (May 4, 2021), in connection the Council's
consideration of the One Metro West project. We are sending a copy of this letter
directly to City Attorney Kim Barlow.
As detailed below, Measure Y, approved by the City's voters in 2016, is invalid
for a number of reasons, and is particularly problematic as applied to residential projects
that include an affordable housing component. Fortunately, Measure Y does include a
"savings clause," which provides that it does not apply to affordable housing projects
required by state law or to the extent its application would otherwise violate the law.
Accordingly, we urge the City to invoke the savings clause in connection with all projects
that include an affordable housing component, as is clearly necessary in order for the City
to meet its substantial Regional Housing Needs Allocation ("RHNA"). Failing to do so
would not only put the City in violation of state law, but would result in needless
litigation that will likely result in the complete invalidation of Measure Y.
I. BACKGROUND
According to Measure Y's preamble, it was placed on the ballot because "the
[City's] existing land use and development review and approval procedures do not
carefully or accurately consider ... the adverse impacts ... resulting from major changes
in allowable land use" and "[t]he standards by which the [City] evaluates major changes
in allowable land use are ill-defined and inadequate[.]" (Measure Y, Preamble,
150 Post Street, Suite 405 ® San Francisco, CA 94108
Tel:415/732-7700 ® Fax:415/732-7701 a www.campaignlawyers.com
City Council
May 4, 2021
Page 2
sections (e) & (f).) Accordingly, the Measure was intended to "[g]ive the voters of Costa
Mesa the power to determine whether Costa Mesa should allow major changes in
allowable land use"—i.e., the power to decide whether a proposed project "is worth the
added congestion and density it will cause" —as well as to "[e]nsure that all elements of
the land use change approved by the voters are implemented." (Costa Mesa Municipal
Code' section 13-200.101; Measure Y, Finding (g).)
Under Measure Y, each "major change in allowable land use" must be approved
by a vote of the people once it has been approved by the City Council, before it becomes
effective. (Section 13-200.104(a).) A major change in allowable land use means "any
proposed amendment, change, or replacement of the General Plan, or of Costa Mesa's
zoning ordinance ... or any Specific Plan or Overlay Plan or adoption of a new Specific
Plan or Overlay Plan" that does one of the following: "significantly increases[s] traffic,
density or intensity of use above the as -built condition"; "change[s] a public use to a
private use"; or, involves land "designated as utility right-of-way", "granted to Costa
Mesa", "designated for Costa Mesa school property" or "owned, controlled or managed
by Costa Mesa." (Section 13-200.102(f).) A "significant increase" means one or more of
the following when compared to the as -built condition:
1) Generates more than 200 additional Average Daily Trip ends; or
2) Increases an intersection's V/C ratio in one of the following ways:
a. equal to or greater than 0.040 so the LOS would be C or worse;
b. equal to or greater than 0.020 so the LOS would be D or worse; or
c. equal to or greater than 0.010 so the LOS would be E or F or ICU of
0.9 or higher; or
3) any increase in ICU at any Costa Mesa intersection from less than 0.9 to 0.9
or higher; or any change in LOS at any intersection or on any corridor from
better than "D" to "D" or worse.
4) Generates more than forty (40) additional residential dwelling units.
5) Generates more than ten thousand (10,000) additional square feet of retail,
office or other nonresidential floor area.
'All statutory citations are to the Costa Mesa Municipal Code unless otherwise indicated.
City Council
May 4, 2021
Page 3
6) A minor change that, if combined with one or more other minor or major
changes within a half mile approved within the preceding 8 years, would
meet any of the above thresholds. (§ 13-200.102(f).)
The City is required to prepare a written review for every proposed major change
in land use that must include, among other things: a site plan and a full description of the
mitigations necessary or recommended for adoption to minimize neighborhood impacts
and incompatibility. (Section 13-200.105(a).) The City must also prepare a
comprehensive traffic analysis, which must identify recommended mitigation measures to
reduce the traffic impacts to an ICU below 0.90 or LOS D. (Section 13-200.105(b).)
Following the City Council's approval of a major land use change at a public
hearing, it must be approved by the voters at either a regular or special municipal election
before becoming effective. (Section 13-200.104(a).) The ballot material must clearly
disclose the scope and main features of the proposal, the location and the acreage of the
project site, and include project maps. (Section 13-200.104(b).) The description must
compare the traffic impacts, densities, and intensities of the existing conditions and the
proposal. (Id.) After voter approval, "[u]nder no circumstances shall any subsequent
permit or approval authorize, allow or otherwise accommodate higher densities,
intensities of use, or trip generation than the densities, intensities and trip generation
approved by the Costa Mesa City Council and the voters." (Section 13-200.104(e).)
Furthermore, no certificate of occupancy may be issued until all traffic mitigation
measures have been certified as complete by the City Engineer or the applicant has paid
all trip fees and entered into an agreement with the City regarding the implementation of
the mitigation measures. (Section 13-200.104(f).)
Measure Y, however, includes a savings clause providing that: (1) its provisions
"shall not apply to the extent that they would violate state or federal laws"; and (2) it
"shall not apply to affordable housing proposals required by state or federal law."
(Sections 7(d), (e).)
II. DISCUSSION
A. Measure Y Is Invalid on Its Face, Because It Restricts the City's
Administrative Discretion.
Any doubt about Measure Y's invalidity was resolved in 2017, one year after
Measure Y was passed, by the Court of Appeal's decision in The Park at Cross Creek,
LLC v. City of Malibu (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 1196 ("Malibu"). At issue in Malibu was a
City Council
May 4, 2021
Page 4
voter initiative ("Measure R") that required the City to prepare a specific plan, as well as
a report addressing traffic and other issues, for every commercial development over
20,000 square feet for which a discretionary approval was sought. (Id. at 1207.)
Following the city council's approval of the specific plan, the plan was then required to
be submitted to the voters for approval, and the city was forbidden from issuing any
permit or approval inconsistent with the requirements "finally approved by the voters."
(Id. at 1200-1201.)
At the outset, the court explained that "[t]he electorate has the power to initiate
legislative acts, but not administrative or adjudicatory ones." (Id. at 1203 ["it is the
substance, not the form that controls"].) While recognizing that the adoption of a specific
plan is a legislative action subject to initiative or referendum, the Court rejected the
argument that Measure R was therefore a legislative act within the electorate's initiative
power:
It is one thing for voters to challenge a specific plan by
petition and referendum ... but it is another for voters to
pass an initiative to compel a city to submit each
commercial project for voter approval by means of a specific
plan....
There is a difference between, on the one hand, voter
approval of a specific plan and, on the other, requiring a city
council to prepare a specific plan and report, to hold a public
hearing about the specific plan and report, and then requiring
the plan to be submitted to voters for approval. The former is
a legislative act; the latter is an adjudicative one. (Ibid.)
(Id. at 1205, emph. added.) The Court further explained:
Measure R similarly withdraws from Malibu's City Council
the ability to issue discretionary land use entitlements or
permits concerning a development project —unless and until
voters approve a specific plan for that project. [Cite.] In this
respect, Measure R is really about project -by -project
review —which would otherwise be subject to administrative,
not voter, approval— in the guise of a specific plan.
City Council
May 4, 2021
Page 5
(Id. at 1207.) The Court also noted the measure required information regarding any
proposed development project to be submitted to the voters, "underscor[ing] Measure R's
attempt to usurp administrative authority." (Id. ["Measure R not only withdraws
administrative authority but it also adds `layers' to the administrative process."].)
In holding that Measure R was invalid, the Court easily distinguished a measure
held up by the California Supreme Court in De Vita v. County of Napa ("De Vita") (1995)
9 Ca1.4th 763, which amended a county's general plan and required voter approval before
land designated as agricultural could be redesignated, explaining:
Elections Code section 9125 ... already provided that
initiative measures could not be repealed or amended "except
by a vote of the people, unless provision is otherwise made in
the original [initiative] ordinance." Thus, [the measure at
issue in De Vita] merely "formalize[d] the voter approval
requirement implied" by the Elections Code. [Cite.] Measure
R, however, does not merely formalize any existing power of
the electorate. It creates a new power —the requirement of a
specific plan —and subjects it to voter approval. In this
respect, Measure R limits Malibu's governing body from
carrying out its duties pursuant to its police power.... such
a limitation may be an unconstitutional attempt to ... create
a charter -like provision in a city or county that does not
possess one.
(Malibu at 1206, emph. added; see also De Vita at 798-99 [measures "broadly limiting the
power of future legislative bodies to carry out their duties" may be unconstitutional].)
The process set up by Costa Mesa's Measure Y is invalid for exactly the same
reasons that Malibu's Measure R was. Like Measure R, Measure Y does not merely
prescribe a legislative policy, but rather seeks to usurp the City Council's administrative
authority by setting up an additional layer of process that requires individual development
projects to be submitted to the voters. Rather than establish a standard for evaluating
future projects, Measure Y attempts to reserve to the voters the
administrative/adjudicative "power to decide whether" a particular proposed project "is
worth the added congestion and density it will cause." (Measure Y, Finding (g).)
Significantly, while Measure Y (like Measure R) only applies to projects that
require a legislative approval (i.e., a general plan, specific plan, or overlay plan
City Council
May 4, 2021
Page 6
amendment or zone change), Measure Y requires information regarding the proposed
"site -specific development" to be submitted to the voters. (Measure Y, sections 5, 6.)
Indeed, similar to Measure R, Measure Y requires the City to prepare a special report —
including traffic analysis and recommended traffic mitigation measures to assist the
voters in their evaluation of a project. (Measure Y, section 6.) Thus, the voters are
tasked with not only deciding whether to allow a certain type of use in a certain area, but
with conducting project -by -project review.
Moreover, as with Measure R, Measure Y not only prohibits the City from issuing
any discretionary approvals for a covered project, but provides that "[u]nder no
circumstances shall any subsequent permit or approval authorize, allow or otherwise
accommodate higher densities, intensities of use, or trip generation" than that approved
by the voters. (Measure Y, section 5(e); compare Malibu at 1208 ["Even then, in the
event of voter approval, Malibu's administrative functions are curtailed, because under
`no circumstances shall any subsequent permit or approval ... authorize, allow, or
otherwise approve higher square footage, density, or intensities of uses ... than were
finally approved by the voters."'].) In short, like Measure R—and unlike the measure
approved in De Vita —Measure Y "creates a new power" of the electorate that limits the
City Council from "from carrying out its duties pursuant to its police power." (Malibu at
1206.) Indeed, the entire purpose of Measure Y was to add an additional layer to the
City's "existing land use and development review and approval procedures" in order to
give the voters —rather than the Council —the ultimate "power to decide" whether a
proposed project "is worth" any impacts it might create. (Measure Y, Findings (e), (g).)
Measure Y, like Measure R, "thus invalidly annuls or delays executive or administrative
conduct." (Malibu at 1208.) Accordingly, like Measure R, Measure Y is invalid on its
face and cannot lawfully be enforced by the City.
B. Measure Y Is Invalid Because It Conflicts with the City's General Plan Goals
and Policies related to Housing, Traffic, and Growth Management.
A city's general plan serves as "its `constitution' for future development ...
located at the top of `the hierarchy of local government law regulating land use."'
(De Vita v. County of Napa (1995) 9 Cal. 4th 763, 772-773.) Thus, any ordinance that
conflicts with a city's general plan is invalid. (Lesher Communications, Inc. v. City of
Walnut Creek (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 531 ("Lesher"), 544.) In Lesher, the California Supreme
Court held that a "Traffic Control Initiative" designed to limit growth within a city was
void, where such initiative did not explicitly amend the city's more "growth oriented"
general plan, which anticipated that traffic conditions would become worse. (Id. at 536-
38.)
City Council
May 4, 2021
Page 7
Following Lesher, in Building Industry Assn. v. City of Oceanside (1994) 27
Cal.App.4th 744 ("Oceanside"), the Fourth District (Division 1) Court of Appeal
considered the validity of a voter initiative ("Prop A") that restricted the number of
dwelling units that could be built within the city each year. (Id. at 748-49.) The Court
noted that city's general plan included a Public Facilities and Management Element
("PFME") that included growth control policies, but did not impose direct controls on the
number and location of new housing units. (Id. at 766.) Rejecting the trial court's
reasoning that the city had "the power to adopt a more restrictive type of growth control
than that represented by the PFME," the Court held the city "could not do so without
validly amending the existing general plan." (Id. at 766-767 ["According to the
reasoning of Lesher, ... general plans cannot be impliedly amended and a zoning
ordinance cannot be deemed a general plan amendment without a clear indication that the
voters intended to accomplish such an objective when passing the initiative."].)
The Court further noted that the city's housing element included a policy
providing:
Adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic
segments of the community is an issue of the highest priority
in Oceanside to meet the low income household assistance
goals and to protect, encourage and, where feasible, provide
low and moderate income housing opportunities within the
intent of State policy to address local needs...
(Id. at 767.) The court found that Prop A did "not promote this policy and accordingly
must be deemed inconsistent with it." (Id.) Because Prop A was inconsistent with the
city's general plan when it was adopted, it was invalid. (Id. ["Although we are
sympathetic to the goals stated in Prop. A of promoting the quality of life for the citizens
of the City, we are bound by Lesher to find the ordinance invalid under those
standards.").)
Like the measures at issue in Lesher and Oceanside, Measure Y did not purport to
amend the City's General Plan, but merely its municipal code. (See Measure Y, § 1.)
Measure Y is inconsistent with a multiple goals, policies, and objectives set forth in the
City's General Plan, and is thus invalid.
For example, similar to the Oceanside policy quoted above, the City's Housing
Element provides that "[i]t is the goal of the City of Costa Mesa to provide adequate,
suitable sites for all social and economic segments of the community..." (Goal HOU-2.)
City Council
May 4, 2021
Page 8
It goes on to recognize that meeting the City's housing needs and obligations will require
the rezoning of land that is currently designated for other uses, and sets forth several
policies to ensure that the City meets its goal of providing adequate sites "to meet the
housing needs of all segments of the community." (See, e.g., HOU-3.1 ["Encourage the
conversion of existing marginal or vacant motels, commercial, and/or industrial land to
residential .. J.) Measure Y would prevent the City from implementing these policies by
taking away the City Council's ability to rezone property to meet the City's housing
needs, as expressly envisioned by the Housing Element.
In addition, like the general plan at issue in Oceanside, the City's General Plan
contains growth control measures that are inconsistent with the measures prescribed by
Measure Y. Specifically, the City's General Plan includes a Growth Management
Element that provides, in part, that the City will maintain LOS standards by integrating
land use and transportation planning. The Growth Management Element sets forth a
number of policies to meet that objective, including supporting uses and development
that creates synergistic relationships with neighboring uses and supporting "creative and
flexible solutions" that provide for growth without impacting the circulation system. (See
Goal GM-2, Obj. GM-2A, Policies GM-2.4, GM-2.5.) Other provisions of the City's
General Plan also contain goals and policies that guide City decisions regarding new
development and explain how the City is to weigh concerns related to such development,
including potential traffic impacts. (Goal LU-1, Goal LU-5.) Accordingly, the City's
voters could not adopt a "more restrictive type of growth control"—i.e., a measure that
declares the City's existing policies are not restrictive enough, and accordingly creates a
process designed to limit development " without validly amending the existing general
plan." (Oceanside at 766.)
Further, the City's Circulation Element specifies that "Level of Service `D"' is the
"threshold for meeting the City's significance criteria" in evaluating local traffic impacts.
(Policy C-2.8.) Measure Y, however, would inconsistently define a "significant increase"
in traffic to include many circumstances in which traffic facilities continue to operate at
LOS C or better. (See Measure Y, section 3(k) [defining "significant increase" to include
any project that would generate 200+ ADT (regardless of the resulting LOS) or increase
the V/C ratio by 0.040 and result in LOS C].)
In sum, Measure Y conflicts with numerous provisions throughout the City's
General Plan. Thus, even assuming that the voters could have set up a system similar to
that envisioned by Measure Y without violating the California Constitution and/or state
City Council
May 4, 2021
Page 9
law, they would have needed to amend the City's General Plan to do so. Because
Measure Y did not do so, it is invalid.'
C. Measure Y Cannot Be Applied to Prevent the City from Meeting Its Planning_
and Housing Obligations.
Finally, but importantly, assuming for the sake of argument that Measure Y is not
invalid on its face, it cannot be applied against a housing project that is necessary for the
City to meet its housing goals and obligations.
As recently recognized by the California Legislature, "California has a housing
supply and affordability crisis of historic proportions." (Cal. Govt. Code section
65589.5; see also Cal. Govt. Code sections 65009 ["The Legislature finds and declares
that there currently is a housing crisis in California and it is essential to reduce delays and
restraints upon expeditiously completing housing projects"].) In order to alleviate that
crisis, the Legislature has taken a number of steps to ensure that local jurisdictions
accommodate their share of needed housing, including by restricting the ability of local
jurisdictions to exercise their land use authority in ways that reduce the potential housing
supply. Indeed, newly enacted legislation known as the Housing Crisis Act (SB 330)
prohibits cities from changing their General Plan or zoning in any way that would result
in a net loss in residential capacity. (See Cal. Govt. Code section 66300.) That law also
expressly prohibits cities from implementing any ordinance that "[l]imits the number of
land use approvals or permits necessary for the approval and construction of housing that
will be issued" or otherwise "[a]cts as a cap on the number of housing units that can be
approved." (Cal. Govt. Code section 66330(b)(1)(D).)
One of the ways in which the state has restricted local land use authority in
relation to housing is the requirement that cities adopt —and update according to a fixed
'Although Measure Y was not challenged when enacted, a lawsuit challenging its
application to a particular project would be timely, so long as it is brought within 90 days
of the City's final decision applying Measure Y to such a project. (Travis v. County of
Santa Cruz (2004) 33 Cal.4th 757, 762.) As held by the California Supreme Court in
Travis, the fact that an ordinance "could have been facially attacked in an appropriate
action at an earlier time" does not prevent an individual property owner from raising a
facial challenge to the ordinance's validity at such time as the ordinance is applied to his
or her property. (Id. at 768-71 [explaining fairness requires that property owners have a
right to challenge unreasonable limitations on the use of land when enforced against their
property].)
City Council
May 4, 2021
Page 10
schedule —the Housing Element portion of their General Plan, and submit said element to
State Department of Housing and Community Development for review. (Cal. Govt.
Code section 65585.) Among other things, the Housing Element is required to
demonstrate how the city will meet its share of regional housing needs, known as its
Regional Housing Needs Allocation ("RHNA"). (Cal. Govt. Code section 65583;
Housing Element p. 55 [state law "requires that a local jurisdiction accommodate a share
of the region's projected housing needs for the planning period"].) If a City does not
have adequate sites to accommodate its RHNA, it is required to rezone sites in order to
meet its allocation. (See Cal. Govt. Code section 65583(c)(1)(A); see also Cal Govt.
Code section 65913.1 [requiring cities to "zone sufficient vacant land for residential
use"].)
For the 2008-2013 period, the City was allocated a total of 1,682 units, including
353 very low-income and 289 low-income units. As explained in the City's 2013-2021
Housing Element, the City was required to amend its General Plan and North Costa Mesa
Specific Plan in 2011 order to make up a shortfall in the required RHNA supply.
(Housing Element, p. 56.) The City was allocated a RHNA of only two units for the
2014-2021 period, and thus, was able to easily satisfy that allocation. (l lousing Element,
p. 59.) For the planning period from October 2021 through October 2029, however, the
City has been allocated a total of 11,760 units, including 2919 very low income and
1794 low income units.3 In order to meet that number (or even a fraction of that number)
the City will need to amend its General Plan and Zoning Code to significantly increase
the residential capacity in the City. As discussed in the attached analysis from
P1aceWorks, one of the nation's premier planning firms, if the City is unable to approve
housing projects that require a zone change and/or General Plan amendment without
submitting them to the voters, it will be impossible, as a practical matter, for the City to
meet its RHNA obligation.
Since the City is required by law to update its Housing Element, Measure Y
cannot be applied to require any such update to be submitted to the voters. (See De Vita v.
County of Napa (1995) 9 Ca1.4th 763, 793, n. 11 [recognizing the unique state law
requirements applicable to housing elements, and questioning (without deciding) whether
such elements may ever be amended by initiative]; see also BIA of San Diego County v.
City of Encinitas, San Diego Superior Court Case No. 37-201700023267-CU-WM-NC,
December 12, 2018 Order [finding city's growth control initiative was preempted for the
2013-2021 housing element period].) Thus, consistent with its enumerated exceptions,
3See SCAG 6th Cycle Final RHNA Allocation Plan (approved by HCD on 3/22/21).
City Council
May 4, 2021
Page 11
Measure Y must be construed not to apply to required updates to the City's Housing
Element. (Section 7(d), (e).) Likewise, any amendments to the City's Land Use element,
specific plans, and/or zoning code that are enacted to implement the City's Housing
Element (part of its General Plan) and/or meet its RHNA or any other requirement of
State Law cannot be subjected to Measure Y, because doing so would prevent the City
from complying with its obligations under both state Law and its own General Plan. If
applied against housing projects, Measure Y would also violate the Housing Crisis Act by
effectively limiting the amount of housing that can be approved in the City. Accordingly,
given the current housing emergency and the existing shortage of housing within the
City —as underscored by the City's RHNA—Measure Y cannot lawfully be applied to
any housing project within the City.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons above, Measure Y clearly cannot withstand judicial scrutiny,
particularly if applied to housing projects that include an affordable housing component.
The City Council should thus invoke the Measure Y's savings clause in connection with
its consideration of any such housing projects, and direct that such projects need not be
submitted to the voters.
Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
James R. Sutton
cc: City Attorney Kim Barlow, kimberly.barlow@costamesaca.gov
People for Housing Orange County
JRS/dfm
From: GREEN, BRENDA
Sent: Tuesday, May 4, 2021 8:48 AM
To: BENNETT, STACY
Subject: FW: Support Letter for CM 5/4 Hearing - Measure Y & Inclusionary Zoning
Attachments: TechMemo_Cost of Affordable Housing_CostaMesa_20210423.pdf, Ltr of Support CM
Measure Y and Inc Zoning 5.3.21.pdf
Brenda Green
City Clerk
City of Costa Mesa
714/754-5221
Until further notice, Costa Mesa City Hall is closed to the public in keeping with Governor Newsom's direction regarding
COVID-19. The City leadership team is committed to continuing to provide essential city services and will be providing
services to the public online, via telephone and through our website in order to follow the Governor's guidance and
reduce the potential spread of COVID-19. In the interim, please call or email if you have any further questions.
E-mail correspondence with the City of Costa Mesa (and attachments, if any) may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and
as such may, therefore, be subject to public disclosure unless otherwise exempt under the act.
From: Michelle Murphy [mailto:MichelleM@UnitedWayOC.org]
Sent: Monday, May 3, 2021 5:48 PM
To: GREEN, BRENDA <brenda.green@costamesaca.gov>
Subject: Support Letter for CM 5/4 Hearing - Measure Y & Inclusionary Zoning
Good Afternoon Mayor and Members of the Costa Mesa City Council,
Attached please find Orange County United Way's letter in support of inclusionary zoning and applying the Measure Y
"savings clause". I have also attached a technical memorandum from Placeworks, a reputable land use firm, supporting
the viability of an inclusionary zoning framework in Costa Mesa as it lends detailed references on the appropriateness of
this action.
All best,
Michelle Murphy, MSW
Director, Public Affairs
Orange County United Way
18012 Mitchell South, Irvine, CA 92614
Email: MichelleM@UnitedWay0C.org
Phone: 949.263.6110
Orange County United Way
May 3, 2021
Costa Mesa Mayor & City Council
77 Fair Dr.
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
18012 Mitchell South 949.660.7600
Irvine, CA 92614 UnitedWayOC.org
RE: Letter of Support for Inclusionary Zoning, Applying Measure Y Savings Clause
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council,
Orange County United Way is proud to support efforts in Costa Mesa to bring forward an inclusionary
zoning policy that would lead to the production of affordable and supportive homes as part of new
residential developments in the City.
Never before has there been a stronger desire to end homelessness and create housing in Orange
County. In 2018, United Way launched United to End Homelessness, a powerful collaboration among
Orange County's top business, philanthropic, government, faith -based, and non-profit leaders
committing to end homelessness by achieving functional zero, meaning housing and services are
available for every individual who may need them. United to End Homelessness has been an influential
force in the County, advocating for housing as a proven solution to end homelessness.
Housing affordability remains a persistent and growing challenge throughout Orange County for
families, veterans, seniors, and individuals as home and rent prices climb to new heights. Due to these
rising costs, households are having to spend over 30% of their income on housing and a growing
number are spending more than 50% of their income on housing. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic,
affordable housing was already a growing need in Costa Mesa and throughout Orange County. Given
the disproportionate impact the pandemic has had on working class families, affordable homes are
desperately needed now more than ever as we look to rebuild our local economy. Inclusionary zoning
to include affordable housing as part of any new development is a proven policy framework for meeting
this growing need.
However, Costa Mesa's Measure Y, approved by the City's voters in 2016, is particularly problematic
as applied to residential developments that include an affordable housing component. Fortunately,
Measure Y does include a "savings clause," which provides that it does not apply to affordable housing
projects required by state law or to the extent its application would otherwise violate the law.
Accordingly, we see an opportunity for the City to invoke the "savings clause" in connection with all
projects that include an affordable housing component, as is clearly necessary in order for the City to
meet its substantial Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). Failing to do so would not only
jeopardize the City's ability to meet RHNA, but it would render an inclusionary zoning policy ineffective
due to the onerous restrictions and uncertainty that Measure Y creates for housing developers.
WE FIGHT FOR THE EDUCATION, HEALTH, HOUSING AND
FINANCIAL STABILITY OF EVERY PERSON IN ORANGE COUNTY.
Orange County United Way
18012 Mitchell South 949.660.7600
Irvine, CA 92614 UnitedWayOC.org
For these reasons, Orange County United Way strongly supports the application of Measure Y's
"savings clause" to housing developments in Costa Mesa that include affordable and supportive
housing as part of an inclusionary zoning framework. This would provide a clear path forward to
produce more much -needed housing in the City, by alleviating the restraints of Measure Y. For any
questions on our position in support of affordable housing in Costa Mesa as a way to help end housing
insecurity and homelessness, please contact Michelle Murphy, Director of Public Affairs at (949) 263-
6110. We appreciate your time and attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Gr
T
Susan B. Parks
President & CEO
Orange County United Way
WE FIGHT FOR THE EDUCATION, HEALTH, HOUSING AND
FINANCIAL STABILITY OF EVERY PERSON IN ORANGE COUNTY.
'-ACEWORKS
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
DATE April 23, 2021
TO United Way OC I Attn: Sue Park, CEO
FROM Colin Drukker, Principal
SUBJECT Cost of developing affordable housing in and around Costa Mesa
As jurisdictions face the largest RHNA allocation in history, the public and private sectors are both working
furiously to identify suitable land resources, appropriate revisions to development standards, financial
solutions, and construction solutions. This memo speaks to the value of and need for inclusionary housing
projects in any jurisdiction's strategy to develop more affordable housing, particularly in the context of the
area in and around Costa Mesa.
The cost of developing housing continues to escalate due in large part to increasing prices of building
materials, labor, and land. The per -square -foot hard costs for constructing multifamily housing in California
climbed 25 percent over the course of a decade (even after adjusting for inflation), and there is some
evidence that affordable housing projects may cost more to build than market rate housing.' Housing costs
are further exacerbated by the high land values in the City of Costa Mesa, even for land that could be
rezoned for housing. Commercial property is currently selling for $3-5 million per acre, with values only
increasing if residential zoning were applied.
New market rate single family housing is unaffordable to the 80% of Costa Mesa households that earn less
than $1S7,000 per year." The cost of newly constructed and even older rental housing can easily require
household incomes of $95,000 or more, with roughly 60% of Costa Mesa households earning less than this
income."' As part of its Housing Element update, the City must identify land resources for nearly 12,000
units, of which 40 percent (4,713) must be affordable to lower income households that earn a maximum of
$82,400 per year." Such household can afford a maximum monthly rent of $2,060 and a maximum
purchase price of $410,000.
While jurisdictions can lower the cost of housing through increased densities, more flexible development
standards, and reduced fees, the gap between the price of market rate housing and that which is
affordable to lower income households is incredibly large. An analysis of various projects leveraging state
and local funding indicates that the level of subsidy (gap financing) required for a high density multifamily
rental housing project affordable to lower income households ranges from $80,000 to over $200,000 in
southern California.'
Assuming future affordable units would require a similar subsidy to develop, the City's lower income RHNA
allocation would generate the need for $377 to $942 million ($80,000 or $200,000 per unit x 4,713 units)
of up -front zero/low-interest/deferred loans and/or grants to developers over the next four to six years to
realize the construction of very -low and low income housing. The amount needed to fund the lower
income RHNA allocation for the entire SCAG region is upwards of $90 billion.
These numbers are staggering, given what is happening on the ground. Recently two not -for -profit
institutions (the Low Income Investment Fund and Stewards of Affordable Housing), entered into a joint
3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100 1 Santa Ana, California 92707 1 714.966.9220 1 PlaceWorks.com
PLACEWORKS
venture with the National Affordable Housing Trust to raise $1 billion over the next five years to subsidize
and built thousands of affordable housing throughout the nation' (only a portion of this would be spent in
the SCAG Region). This commitment is a tremendous pledge but demonstrates how large the gap is (even
with similar pledges from Google and Facebook), between the amount needed and the amount available.
Finally, upon the sunsetting of redevelopment powers in 2011, jurisdictions lost the ability to directly
create affordable housing through the assemblage of suitable land (through eminent domain) and financial
resources (through tax -increment financing). The construction of new affordable housing became entirely
dependent upon the actions of for -profit and not -for -profit developers, the availability of highly -
competitive state and federal funds, and the desire of property owners to sell their land. The confluence of
all three factors is incredibly rare, contributing to the scarcity and increasing costs of new market rate and
affordable housing.
There are over a dozen for -profit and not -for -profit companies that primarily develop affordable housing
projects that reserve 50 percent or more for lower income households. With 688 affordable units starting
construction in 2019, Jamboree Housing is listed as the top producing company in California, followed by
National Community Renaissance at 552, Related California at 370, Affirmed Housing at 335, and
Community Development Partners at 332.1" These company construct units throughout southern California
(including San Diego, which is not in the SCAG region). While the production of such companies is
impressive, the output pales in comparison to the need indicated by the RHNA allocation.
Accordingly, the solution for more affordable housing must include for -profit housing projects incorporate
that include a lesser, but still substantial amount of affordable housing (commonly referred to as
inclusionary housing projects that reserve 5 to 15 percent of housing at prices affordable to lower income
households°"'). When a housing project comes before a jurisdiction that includes a substantial amount of
affordable housing, all efforts should be made to facilitate their approval. Without such projects,
jurisdictions will fail to make progress on their legal obligation (per state housing law) to facilitate and
accommodate affordable housing for all levels of income.
References and Notes
Raetz, Hayley, et al. The Hard Costs of Construction: Recent Trends in Labor and Materials Costs for Apartment Buildings
in California (UC Berkeley Terner Center for Housing Innovation, March 2020), 2.
" Price range of $835,990 to $937,990 for new single family detached homes for sale as part of the Twenty8 Walk development built
by the Olson Company (prices advertised as of April 23, 2021 on twenty8walk.com). Price range of $734,990 to $899,990 for new
townhomes for sale as part of the Westside Walk development built by Olson Homes (prices advertised as of April 23, 2021 on
westsidewalk.com)- Percentage of households earning less than $157,000 based on U.S. Census Bureau, 2015-2019 American
Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table S1901, INCOME IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS (IN 2019 INFLATION -ADJUSTED DOLLARS), with
78 percent of households earning below the data break of $150,000. Required income to afford lowest price new for sale home based
on Zillovi s affordability calculator with favorable assumptions of $250 monthly debt,10% down payment, 36% debt -to -income ratio,
2.81 percent interest rate, 30-year fixed rate loan, 1.1% property tax, and $800 annual home insurance.
"' New rental price range of $2,353 to $2,904 for 1-bedroom and 2-bedroom units in Baker Block Apartments, which opened in 2017,
and a range of existing (not -new construction) apartments that rent for a range of $1,700 to $2,729 per month for 1-bedroom and 2-
bedroom units (prices advertised as of April 23, 2021 on apartments.com). Percentage of households earning less than $95,000 based
on U.S. Census Bureau, 2015-2019 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table S1901, INCOME IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS (IN
2019 INFLATION -ADJUSTED DOLLARS), with 58 percent of households earning below the data break of $100,000, with the next data
break at $75,000. Required income to afford average price of newly constructed and existing apartments based on a maximum of 30
percent of monthly income.
April 23, 20211 Page 2
Neou
iv Income range based on the 2020 HUD Median Family Income for Orange County of $103,000 as reported by the City of Costa Mesa
on its Housing Element Update website, https://www.costamesaca.gov/city hall/city departments/development-
services/planning/housing element -update (accessed on April 24, 2021).
v Based on an evaluation of various projects leveraging California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (9%) funds and the analysis in the
City of Los Angeles' 2016 Comprehensive Homeless Strategy (Galperin, Ron, Controller. The High Cost of Homeless Housing: Review of
Proposition HHH (City of Los Angeles, October 8, 2019), 4-6).
v' Raetz Capps, K. (2020, October 07). A $1 Billion Bid to Save U.S. Affordable Housing. Retrieved October 09, 2020, from
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-07/a-I-billion bid -to save-u-s affordable -housing.
v" Affordable Housing Finance (May 1, 2020). Top 50 Affordable Housing Developers of 2019. Retrieved April 23, 2021, from
https://www.housingfinance.com/ma nagement-operations/top-50-affordable-housing-developers-of-2019_o.
viii The range of 5 to 15 percent is used based three aspects of state law: 1) 5 percent is the lowest amount of affordable housing that
can be provided for a project to qualify for density bonus law (Section 65915 et al., of the California Government Code); 2) 10 percent
threshold is used based on the percentage of affordable required for projects to qualify for a streamlined ministerial approval process
(Section 65913.4 of the California Government Code, enacted through Senate Bill 35 signed into law in 2017); and 3) 15 percent
threshold for inclusionary housing requirements, above which the State Department of Housing and Community Development can
require an economic feasibility study.
April 23, 20211 Page 3