22 speakers.  20 pro housing, 2 nimbys

My name is Aaron Klemm and I live and vote in District 5. 

I am commenting today to urge the Planning Commission to direct staff to develop an urgency ordinance that complies with the letter and spirit of SB 9, which provides the ultimate in local control by a property owner for use by the owner occupant. 

The urgency ordinance should at a minimum maintain the same development standards not regulated by state law for pre and post lot splits.  For example, these existing standards scale with the lot size such as minimum open space (40%). 

This puts more affordable housing on an equal footing with exclusive luxury redevelopment of existing housing stock in Costa Mesa which can cover 60% of the lot. 

There are additional improvements the City and this Commission could take to improve existing standards. 

For example, the existing ADU urgency ordinance flouted the intent of state law with a 10 foot setback on exterior side lot lines.  This is overly broad and blunt instrument with an ostensible purpose to protect streetscapes. 

A better objective approach to achieve the city’s stated goal of protecting the streetscape.  Language stating that if there is a publicly owned parkway greater than 8’ from curb face to property line the setback is 4’ matching state law and reducing the risk of adverse action from HCD or YIMBY groups. 

It was a pleasure to attend this evening's study session and observe the high degree of well-informed, thoughtful discussion by my representatives.  

​

Since protocol prevents observers from speaking at the end, I am writing again to especially applaud Commissioner's Zich's suggestion that we put more attention creating pathways to home ownership as an alternative to privately developed apartment complexes.  Many developers are not even local so the money they collect in rent leaves town and the tenants are at the mercy of rent increases.that currently consume much too much of their income.  

​

I also appreciated Commissioner Toler and Flo Martin's comments which favored looking for more ways to create additional housing in R-1 zones. Both these ideas are potential strategies for reducing housing instability.

​

Finally, I hope that the idea of starting an Ad Hoc Advisory Committee to address the constraints posed by Measure Y is implemented. As Mayor Stephens said, this seems most pressing if we need another referendum in 2022.

​

Thank you for serving us!  

​

Best Regards,

Betsy

Elizabeth Densmore, Business Manager/Co-owner

Great Mex Grill LLC

www.greatmexgrill.com

greatmexgrill@gmail.com

949-500-2381

This was an information session where the city council, planning commission and public discussed potential ways Costa Mesa might meet its RHNA requirements. All members of council, planning commission, and public participants appeared enthusiastic about creating more affordable housing in Costa Mesa.

​

No decisions made, information session. Specific zoning areas which might be utilized for RHNA zoning include, 17th street East, the Airport Area, and Church properties. 17th Street East and Airport areas currently do not allow residential properties Russel Toller (urban planner) emphasized that the city could create more affordable housing and simultaneously maintain open space in the community. He suggests utilizing Coronado, San Diego and Portland Oregon as sources of inspiration. Displacement and affordability of new housing is a concern of several councilmembers.

​

Nick Chen provided information regarding Housing Element via PowerPoint. Several members of the public also verbalized support for more affordable housing. Council, and planning commission all appear supportive of affordable housing measures.

​

Sites selected avoid the wealthier areas with better schools and focused on freeway and arterial adjacent sites.  Anti-housing guy wanted to put ultra low income and low income housing on the city owned golf course, concentrating development there so difficult to characterize pro or anti with that one.

Costa Mesa's RHNA # is 11,760. 47% city's households are extremely low, very low, and low income. Mentioned AB 2345 & SB 166. Examples of residential density include mix use apartments with 3-4 stories. Went over potential opportunity areas.

City Council Members recognized the need for housing, but they had difficulty grappling with the city's exclusionary ballot box zoning policy called Measure Y that was passed by voters in 2016. This is by far the most racist and exclusionary zoning policy on the books at any OC city, however, the City Attorney was unable to answer direct questions by Council Members about the legality of Measure Y and how a workaround could be found without taking the land use element to the voters for approval in the next general election, which was what the planning staff appeared to indicate would be necessary. 

​

There also may be a problem with the city's compliance with Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing, as the initial site identification is only in industrial/commercial areas on the city's outskirts. This was noted by a speaker in public comments who aggressively called out the city's failure to zone for affordable housing due to policy constraints, including Measure Y.

​

A full staff report of Costa Mesa's current housing element progress and preliminary site identification is linked here: http://ftp.costamesaca.gov/costamesaca/council/agenda/2021/2021-03-23/Item-1.pdf