Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

ALL RIGHT, GOOD EVENING AND ALL RIGHT, GOOD EVENING AND WELCOME TO THE PLANNING WELCOME TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MONDAY, COMMISSION MEETING OF MONDAY, JANUARY 26, 2026. JANUARY 26, 2026. I NOW CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER. I NOW CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER. IT'S NOW TIME FOR THE PLEDGE OF IT'S NOW TIME FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND WE'LL HAVE Thank you, Anna will you please do the voice roll call?

Chair Harlan here vice chair Zik here Commissioner Rojas here Commissioner Kleepak here Commissioner Andrade here Commissioner Dixon is absent Commissioner Martinez here

Okay, we have no announcements or presentations this evening, which takes us to public comments for matters not listed on the agenda. These are items that are within our jurisdiction. I'll open up public comment. If you'd like to participate, please come and speak at either podium, or if you're participating by Zoom or by phone, use the raise hand option for Zoom. And if you're joining by phone, please press star nine. Let me get the podium set up. All right, Ms. Simone, welcome. Happy New Year.

Happy New Year. So my name is Wendy Simone. I'm here about the gym at 148 17th Street. I know you guys did something because they don't open their door now. If they do, it's barely, barely cracked, you know. But the last week and a half, something's happened. I mean, I came in, I was going to be here last meeting, and thank you guys for what you did, but now they're full throttle back to where they were. 5.15 in the morning is what time I got woke up this morning. And it's not quiet inside my house because whenever your body gets exposed to as much base as this gym produces on a daily basis, it does stuff. It causes depression, causes your hair to fall out, causes anxiety, you know. And so now I'm allergic to everything, so I have to sleep with an air purifier next to me. And it's not quiet. you know, and 5.15 in the morning, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, just anything they want. So you guys are like, why don't you go talk to the gym owner, right? Why isn't this lady went and talked to the gym owner? Well, now my neighbors know about the gym owner because they'll tell you if you don't like it, you can move. So is this the way that you let all your businesses talk to your communities? If you don't like the noise pollution that we cause at 530, 515, 450, whatever time we want to start, if you don't like it, you can get out. You can move. You want people moving out of your city because of a business? Do you? Do you? I do want to thank you for whatever you have done because the last six months or six weeks to two months has been very quiet. But whatever you guys had done is now... Nothing. And we all know that this gym is lawless. We've seen their CUP, which is a big pile of junk. And there's no city ordinances. You guys are the ones that make those, right? So there's definitely something that you guys can do for your citizens. You know, a business should not be telling your citizens to move. This business bullies us. Who's the most outspoken person against the gym? Me. It'd be me. I'm the one that's been coming and complaining for a few years now, right? Right? So their little annual event that they have outside with the chicks screaming on the microphone. Do you know what weekend they picked out of the 52 of the year to have it on? It's my birthday weekend. Yeah. So tell me that this gym is not bullying us. You tell me. Tell me how it is. Because you know they are. And you got to do something to stop it. Because business should not tell your citizens to move. And they shouldn't be bullying your citizens and just completely as much noise pollution as they want anytime they want. For hours. Hours. You know. This gym operates all day long. And our community has to deal with it. And there's more people pissed off than just me now. You know, there's a lot more people pissed off than just me now. So if you guys could stop the business and, you know, tell them to stop telling your citizens to move if they don't like the noise pollution that they're causing. And if you have ever had to sleep with a pair of headphones, it's not very comfortable at 530 in the morning. Have a great day.

All right. Thank you. Anybody else in chambers wish to speak? Okay, seeing none. Anna, do we have anybody on Zoom or by phone?

No, we do not, Mr. Chairman.

Okay. I will close public comments. Now it's time for planning commissioner comments and suggestions. And I will start to my left this evening, Commissioner Martinez.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I wanted to announce the vernal pool walk at Fairview Park. The city and Endemic Environmental are going to have a walk around our vernal pools. Please check it out. It's Saturday, January 31st, 9 a.m. at Fairview Park. Please email CMRECinfo at CostaMesaCA.gov if you have any other questions. and make sure to sign up using the rsvp and then i just wanted to quickly ask staff for an update on our pre-approved adu program i know our website mentioned that it would be available in the early part of 2025 i checked december 31st hoping really hoping that we got it in uh with uh in 2025 uh but uh hopefully it can be done in the early part of this year and i'm looking forward to the update thank you thank you uh commissioner andrade yes um

First off, I wanted to do a huge shout out and appreciation to city staff for providing some essential resources and information to a local community aid effort that is taking place in our community in response to the ice rates happening in our community within our district. It's been really empowering and supportive to know that your city, our city, is backing up its residents, whether that's access to legal aid funds if needed, access to free food and just general information. So having it all nicely packaged and branded with the city of Costa Mesa on it has been truly, truly powerful and just a great reminder that Our community deserves to be here, and we thrive with immigrant communities across Costa Mesa. So I invite you all, the audience, everyone that's online as well, watching, please check out on Instagram. This is one time, right?

I encourage you to take out your cell phone.

And check out on Instagram, CM Community Aid. You're gonna find opportunities as local residents to support, volunteer your time, help us bag some beans and rice that are being distributed to families that are currently living under fear of leaving their homes and it's directly impacting their financial stability. Also the safety of our children to get to school. Um, so great opportunities to volunteer and give back to the community that gives so much to us all. Um, there's an opportunity to donate. I know time is limited for many, so if you can donate and give a monthly recurring contribution, that is going to be immensely, immensely powerful. And again, huge appreciation for the city to not only provide those informational resources, but also doing it in bilingual. So for my Latino community here in Costa Mesa, know that this city, the city of Costa Mesa, is supporting you for any type of need, legal resources. And finally, I'll also add an opportunity. The county is currently launching its point in time count. It's a biannual count that the county is responsible for doing to evaluate and assess what is the current status of homelessness across our county. So actually tomorrow, or yes, tomorrow, starting at 6 o'clock in the morning here in Costa Mesa and 7 p.m. in Costa Mesa, we're going to do the community's volunteering as surveyors to go out into the community, provide a hygiene kit for one of our unhoused neighbors, and really collect information. This is a great opportunity to get direct insight and connect with our neighbors that are currently living on our streets in this cold and bitter winter but if you cannot join today there will be opportunity up until the 29th so it's a very easy website is the point in time count everyone yeah the point in time count it's run by the county easy way to volunteer get back if you don't want to go out and survey you could also just set up the stations and break down stations as well so A GREAT AND POWERFUL WAY TO GIVE BACK TO THE UNHOUSED POPULATION HERE IN OUR COMMUNITY. THAT'S ALL.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER KLIPAK.

I'M JUST EXCITED TO BE BACK FOR OUR FIRST MEETING OF THE YEAR AND I'M HAPPY TO SEE SO MANY FOLKS IN THE AUDIENCE AND I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO ALL THE WORK AHEAD OF US THIS YEAR.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER ROJAS.

I HAVE NOTHING. THANK YOU.

OKAY. VICE CHAIR ZICK.

THANK YOU, SIR. HAPPY NEW YEAR, EVERYONE. You know, I find it very difficult to listen to Ms. Samoa every meeting talk about a problem which has such a simple solution that somehow we cannot seem to implement. And it is frustrating to me that I don't see evidence of any effort by the city to solve this problem. The CUP for this business says nothing about noise. It was back in 1992, maybe we didn't care, maybe we weren't that sophisticated. New CUPs for businesses might be like this, have statements about noise in the CUP, and they reference a city ordinance. We have a challenge with the noise ordinance in the city, in that it basically sets an upper limit for volume, the decibel level. Doesn't say anything about frequencies, doesn't refer to booming, bass, doesn't, anything about high-pitched whining, Nothing like that, just volume. And if you've ever experienced high pitch or low point volume issues, you know they can be bothersome. Just closing the back door of this business solves the problem. Somehow, we cannot bring ourselves to reach an agreement with the property owner Close the back door. I don't understand that. I don't understand how we can't modify the CUP in such a way as to require that. I don't understand that. I've not seen any written communication to the property owner asking them for consideration for this simple act. Close the back door of your gym. I don't understand this. So if the city manager or any of the directors in the city are listening and are interested in trying to solve this problem and want to meet with the property owner, I'd be more than happy to go with you. And if you do nothing, you'll hear a speech like this again right after Ms. Samoa tells us about her problems.

ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. WELCOME BACK, EVERYBODY. I HOPE EVERYONE ENJOYED THE HOLIDAY SEASON. TO MS. SAMOW, WHO I'VE SEEN AND HEARD SEVERAL TIMES OVER THE YEARS, I AGREE WITH THE VICE CHAIR. IT SEEMS LIKE THIS SHOULD BE SOLVABLE. BY ALL MEANS, COME TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WHENEVER YOU WANT. GIVE US AN UPDATE. I'M GLAD THINGS HAD IMPROVED AT LEAST FOR A SHORT TIME. BUT I ALSO ENCOURAGE YOU GO TO THE CITY COUNCIL, TALK TO YOUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES, GET THEM INVOLVED, AND YOU WILL HAVE AMPLE OPPORTUNITIES TO WORK WITH STAFF AND THOSE OFFICIALS TO TRY AND SOLVE WHAT I AGREE SHOULD BE A SOLVABLE PROBLEM. THOSE ARE ALL FOR MY COMMENTS. IT TAKES US TO CONSENT CALENDAR. WE HAVE ONE ITEM ON OUR CONSENT CALENDAR. ALL MATTERS LISTED ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE AND WILL BE ACTED UPON IN ONE MOTION. THERE'S NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION UNLESS AN ITEM HAS BEEN PULLED. ANNA, HAS ANYTHING BEEN PULLED TONIGHT? NO, THERE HAS NOT BEEN, MR. CHAIRMAN. OK. DO WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 8, 2025?

MOVE TO APPROVE.

MOVED BY COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ. SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR ZICK. LET'S CALL FOR THE QUESTION.

That motion carries 6-0.

Great. We have two public hearing items tonight. Anna, would you please read the title for public hearing item number one?

Public hearing item number one, conditional use permit PCUP-25-0014 to convert two existing two-story office buildings into a Grace Fellowship Church facility at 3146 and 3152 Red Hill Avenue. Please note we have not received public comments on this item. This is a call for any ex parte communications.

Commissioners, any ex parte communications? Yes.

NO COMMUNICATIONS BUT A VISIT IN THE SITE.

OKAY.

ALL RIGHT.

CAN I TURN OFF YOUR MIC WHILE WE HAVE THAT?

THANK YOU. OKAY. I'LL TURN IT OVER TO MR. RAMONDO FOR THE STAFF PRESENTATION.

Thank you, Chairman. Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Jeffrey Raimondo, Assistant Planner with the Economic and Development Services Department. And the item before you tonight is a conditional use permit application for the Grace Fellowship Church, in which the applicant requests to operate a church facility. The project site consists of two parcels, 3146 and 3152 Red Hill Avenue, which is the site you see boxed in red within the aerial photo you see there, and is located on the south side of Red Hill Avenue, mid-block between Paul Reno Avenue and Baker Street. The site is zoned CL, which stands for Commercial Limited. And adjacent to the rear of the property is an existing business park known as the John Wayne Executive Guild. Adjacent to the sides of the property are existing office buildings and across Red Hill Avenue are existing industrial uses. The existing site consists of two properties at approximately 1.3 acres each in size with a total of 177 service parking spaces. And the site photo on the right reflects a front elevation view capturing the entrances of both buildings, with 3146 Red Hill being the building on the right, and 3152 Red Hill being the building on the left on the photo. As seen, both properties are developed with a standalone two-story office building, and the proposal would involve the Grace Fellowship Church to occupy both buildings to operate a church facility. As part of the proposal, there will be interior remodeling work and a minor addition to both buildings to accommodate the church's needs. And looking at the first floor plan of both buildings, the main sanctuary will be located within the 3146 Red Hill building. The sanctuary is approximately 6,100 square feet in size and will contain non-fixed seating. In that building, there will also be a lobby area, bathrooms, storage rooms, an office, and a mother's room. The 3152 Red Hill building right across would consist of classrooms, storage rooms, a kitchen, an assembly area, and a multi-purpose room. As highlighted in blue, an existing portion of the building would be converted into a covered outdoor play area by removing existing windows, which additional photos of the site will be shown on a later slide. Furthermore, both buildings would involve an addition to accommodate an elevator and equipment room, as highlighted in yellow. Onto the second floor plan, further highlighted in yellow, identifies the new elevator and the new storage room, which would be added for both buildings. On 3146 Redhill, there will be a common area of a coffee bar, administrative offices, multi-purpose rooms, library, bathrooms, kitchen and storage rooms. And on 3152 Redhill Building on the second floor, there's also a common area with a coffee bar, Bible study rooms, assembly rooms, storage rooms, and bathrooms. Now here's a visual act visual example of the proposed elevator and equipment and storage room additions. As seen highlighted in yellow the additions are located near the entry areas for both buildings and would represent a slight bump out on the front elevation. The outdoor play area would be located on the southern corner of the 3152 Red Hill building, and it would involve removing a total of four windows to open up the existing enclosed area. The site photos as shown on the slide highlight the windows that would be removed. So two windows on the southeast and southwest elevations would be removed to create the open area. The Grace Fellowship Church operations would include church services to be provided on Saturdays from 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. and Sundays from 8 a.m. to 12 p.m. The church's intention is to utilize the main sanctuary in 3146 Red Hill for the church services while utilizing the other building to supervise and conduct Bible studies for children. On the weekdays from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m., the buildings would be used for office hours and group gatherings for Bible studies and other religious activities. The church would not have any daycare services or a school to be proposed. Conditions of approval have been implemented to regulate the proposed use in clean conditions such as No, daycare services or schools shall be provided at the site without city approval Outdoor activity areas are only permitted when the activity area does not encroach into required setback parking circulation or interior landscaped areas and Also, no signage shall be installed until a sign permits issued by the city's economic and development services department presented to The municipal code there are three types of public notification have been completed no less than 10 days prior to tonight's hearing Public notice was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 500 foot radius of the project site Public notice was also posted on the street frontage of the project site and the notice was also posted published on the Daily Pilot newspaper When that said staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution to find that the project is category exempt from CEQA and to approve conditional use permit 25-0014, subject to conditions of approval. This concludes my presentation. I'm available to answer any questions you may have, and the applicant, Anthony Massaro, is also in attendance to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Raimondo. Commissioners, any questions of staff? Commissioner Martinez.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, for... Public Works, if we can go to slide three for a visual. The entrance to the site is basically a slip lane or a channelized turn lane. Does this conform to current Public Works regulations regarding site access?

Commissioner Martinez, with respect to what you're seeing there, it may have been per standard back in the day when it was first designed. Currently, I can't speak to how current standards would approach to this, but in all likelihood, when this was first designed back in the day, and I don't know when it was designed, it would have been per standard at the time.

Is this... something that can be updated today to current standards?

Well, staff can go back and reassess, and that could be something within the realm of possibility. The standards have to be reviewed again in terms of the geometry with respect to it, the site distance, and other concerns as well. But that's something that staff can go back and look into.

Okay. If we can go to slide 7. So this is about the covered play area. Is the idea that it's outdoors because we're just removing the windows? And does that involve also, like, fencing because there's landscape right in front of it or Is it just gonna be just open and into?

Landscape Yeah currently applicant ideas to remove those windows to create it an open area covered I Would have to defer to the applicant how he would address the entry to those outdoor areas.

Okay. And slide nine for a visual on condition of approval number four. What are our current zoning code regulations regarding daycares or schools on the CL zone? Essentially what I'm asking is who would city be in this condition of approval based on what's in our zoning code?

Now for daycare services, according to our code, it requires a conditional use permit in the CL zone. Just give me one moment for the schools. And then primary schools would require also a CUP on the CL zone.

So essentially for this condition, without city approval means without a CUP or an updated CUP, and it would come back to the Planning Commission and not staff?

Correct. If the applicant requests for one of those services, they would have to apply for a CUP.

OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Vice Chair Zik?

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Raimondo. I would like to follow up first on Commissioner Martinez's question about this outdoor activity area. And I guess I'm a little curious why we're calling it an outdoor activity area when it is interior to the building. Why are we using that terminology?

Go ahead.

The idea is to call it outdoor due to it not being fully enclosed with the removal of the windows, so that was the approach on staff's direction.

Okay, let me deviate to a slightly different question. If the church wanted to have an outdoor, an activity in the parking lot, a bake sale, carnival, something like that, would they be required to come to the city for an event permit? Or could they just take up parking and create a outdoor carnival if they wanted?

A special event permit would be required to operate something like that.

And as part of that special event permit, they'd have to show you what it was they were intending to do so you could validate that there's adequate parking, that there's safety protocols in place, whatever you think would be reasonable to go along with that event.

That's correct. Okay.

So on this condition of approval number five, what I'm a little unclear about is the way it's worded. And it says that outdoor activity areas are only permitted. And again, we're referring to the interior of the building in an area where we've removed windows. That's the area we're talking about. And it says are only permitted when the activity area does not encroach into the required street setback, parking and circulation, or interior landscaped areas. Well, it seems pretty clear that those conditions are in fact met, that this area does not encroach into the street setback or parking or circulation. So why wouldn't this condition be written to say that this quote unquote outdoor activity area SHALL BE EXCLUSIVE TO THIS INTERIOR AREA OF THE BUILDING WHERE THE WINDOWS WERE REMOVED.

COMMISSIONER ZICK, THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION. THE OUTDOOR ACTIVITY AREAS NOTED IN CONDITION 5 ARE FOR ANY ADDITIONAL, THIS CONDITION WASN'T CRAFTED SPECIFICALLY FOR THE INCLOSED OR COVERED outdoor area for the daycare facilities or the children's care facilities. It's for any additional, and it's noted in the code that way, but I think we can further specify or clarify that in the condition. That's a good catch.

Okay. I think it should be. And if the intent was for this to somehow capture other unanticipated uses, That was the reason for my question about an event permit, because that's exactly what is the purpose of that. So thank you for that, and that is my question.

All right. Commissioner Andrade.

Just a clarifying question on the point on conditions of approval number four. I just want to make sure it's not conflicting with what the applicant submitted on page 43, which is a proposed schedule because it lists child care almost every day. So I just want to make sure that we're not negating approval of it. Or is there an additional paperwork the applicant should consider?

Yeah, in discussion with the applicant, the intent for those services is for, like, when it's Bible studies or any activities, they would use certain areas in the building for care of the children. Like, if adults have a certain activity, then children will be taken care of and supervised. It's not the intent for, I guess, separate daycare operations. It's all related to the church.

And the applicant has clarified the ages that are specified to staff as well as the intent to not have it be an independent operating type of day care. It's supposed to be sort of supplementary to other services provided on the site. To existing activities. Yeah.

Okay. Great. Thank you for that. And then I wanted to ask about what is the current status of the businesses that ARE LABELED AT THESE ADDRESSES. ARE THEY CLOSED DOWN? JUST WANTED TO INQUIRE ABOUT IS THE BUILDING PRETTY MUCH EMPTY AND NO OTHER BUSINESS WAS OPERATING? I JUST WANT TO JUST CHECK ON DISPLACEMENT.

I CURRENTLY DON'T HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE OF EXISTING CONDITIONS OF THE BUILDING. THAT'S SOMETHING STAFF WILL HAVE TO TAKE A LOOK INTO.

the applicant may be better suited to answer that question and what the intent and timeline is to take over the facility.

Yeah. When I drove by, I didn't actually go into the building, but I just saw a whole bunch of businesses named outside in the front of the building. So I just wanted to make sure that, you know, is it empty or, you know, it's an opportunity for them to expand. Whatever. Just wanted to check on displacement. Thanks.

All right, Vice Chair Czajk, do you have another question?

Yeah, that kind of raises a question. So did anybody from staff actually visit the site as part of the processing of this CEP?

Yes, staff has conducted a site visit.

So are you aware of whether or not there's an existing occupancy in these buildings from that visit?

YES. JUST FROM OBSERVANCE FROM THE SIDE.

OKAY. SO YOU'RE SIMPLY JUST NOT SURE WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH THOSE BUSINESSES THAT ARE IN THE BUILDINGS? WHICH IS I GUESS THE WAY THE QUESTION HAD BEEN ASKED. OKAY. THANK YOU.

ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS?

OKAY. I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ASK THE APPLICANT OR THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE TO COME TO THE PODIUM. And please state your name and then the two questions. Have you read the conditions of approval and do you agree to them?

Yes, I'm Anthony Massaro. I'm the architect applicant and I have read the conditions of approval and they are acceptable.

OK. Floor is yours.

I don't have any I think staff did a good job presenting the overall project and so we don't have a specific presentation we are here to answer questions specifically on the outdoor area it was you know maybe a better label would be non-conditioned space because it's merely within the footprint of the building and we're removing the storefront and it creates an unconditioned so the kids can be out there so it's really because there's no place on the site where the kids could be running around. They were talking about little kids. And so an opportunity while the parents are at church and they're watching the kids, they do Bible study, they do worship, and they send them out to play. So it's really an outdoor, well, it's an enclosed, a covered porch activity area. So maybe outdoor maybe isn't the best description. But that was really the intent. And as far as the classrooms and the children, we run into this. I do a lot of entitlements for churches. And we will specify them classroom. And then people see classroom. And I've had conversations with fire department as well. And you see classrooms and you immediately think school. What's interesting is the building code. I know this is planning, but building code has a special provision in the code. So this is in church, which is an A3 occupancy. And specifically within the A3, they go out of their way to mention classrooms that are associated for religious activity are considered part of the A3. They're not an E. So the code makes a distinction. And the real distinction is they're not kids sitting in school for six hours. The parents, basically, the parents come to church and they drop their kids off. And so while the parents are worshiping for an hour and a half, The kids are being trained religiously. And so that's really the essence. So when you see classroom, that always tends to get the, and we've, I had multiple conversations with staff and fire to assure them, no, we're not starting a school. We're not starting a daycare. And then I think we have a representative. If you were asking about the tenants, I think if you want to come up, there would be other specific questions for the architect as other than the tenant question.

Yeah, let's have Vice Chair Zick go ahead while you're up here.

Because you're an architect, I'm curious why you've elected to remove windows to create this interior unconditioned space rather than try to have some sort of opening windows to bring in fresh air and still maintain the possibility of having to be conditioned space.

Right. Well, fortunately for the church, usually they're fighting for area. The nature of this facility and kind of the proportions of the assembly area and the classrooms, they've had the luxury of not needing additional assembly room or additional classrooms. So they were looking for an area that was non-conditioned where the kids could run around. And there's not really room... Interesting, they're getting that area because there's room, extra room in the building, but there's not any extra room to have kids that run around in the site. So the two buildings are adjacent to each other. There's like a 25 foot by 100 foot courtyard maybe. So there's really no place to play. So that's, you know, we talked through it and they felt like that was a good idea. There's a church, I don't know if you've been to, Rock Harbor, that's on Airway. that we did 15 years ago. We did the same thing. The corner of the building, they wanted a covered outdoor porch lobby, so we just literally cut holes in the wall within the footprint of the building, simply because these industrial buildings, there's just not a lot of land to work with.

So will this space be ventilated at all beyond the removal of the windows, or is that the extent of the ventilation for the space?

We haven't worked. We could put fans, but it's four corners open, so it's basically a covered porch that has two sides pretty much wide open. Thank you.

Okay. Any other questions of Mr. Massaro? Commissioner Martinez.

Thank you. Just to stick on this covered playground, I mean, if we can go back to slide seven, just for the visual, is the idea that, I mean, right now there's like landscape in front of all four of these windows, would it be open access? Someone from outdoor could walk in through there? Or would there be landscape that's essentially preventing that from happening? Or is there going to be like a toddler gate that stops children from going out into the courtyard instead of these windows?

Yeah, we've talked about that. We're kind of leaning towards, especially from a security standpoint, possibly some kind of closable gates, but for sure we would have it, especially if there were kids, we're not going to have them go straight into the parking lot. So we haven't worked quite that out on the landscape, but there was a sense of figuring out, you know, between protection of, we either do that with something, a fence, or they think more in terms of a security gate just to lock it to keep somebody from roaming. Because again, it's an open port, so someone could roam in there at night. And so again, using the Rock Harbor Church as an example, that church has been there since 2005, 20 years now. They used to have TVs hanging out there. Nobody ever, in 20 years, no one ever broke in or tried to do anything. But so we have this so we're balancing right now discussing with the church safety versus security and obviously safety with the children is going to come first.

All right. Thank you.

OK. OK. Other questions of the applicants.

I think you want to bring up your colleague. Yeah.

Question about the tenants.

Is that right Commissioner Andrade.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. My name is Sean Sheward. I'm a member of the Grace Fellowship Church and helped negotiate with the current property owner of the Bianchi family how to work with the existing tenants. So Commissioner Andrade's question is germane. In the 3152 building, there's currently three month-to-month tenants. They have all agreed to move out and have found relocation opportunities well prior to our construction. start date, which would probably be in May of this year. There are seven tenants currently in the 3146 building. We and the current landlord work together with all of them on the first floor, all five of them, to either introduce them to real estate brokers and or contribute to relocation funds. They will all be moving out by the end of the first quarter of 26th. We also offered any and all of them, including the two upstairs at 3146, the opportunity to stay for three years on the second floor of 3146. Only the two that are existing there have taken us up on it so far. There may be one tenant downstairs at 3146 who will move up into some vacant space, 3146, again, for a period of up to three years. We work with all the tenants to make sure they found a new home, that they could stay on the property if they wanted to, and that there were some contributions to the relocations for them.

Any other questions?

I have one quick one, Mr. Sheward. What's the current size of the congregation?

I will defer to my colleagues on that. Regular attendance is approximately 700. Regular attendance, he says, is 700 in two services. Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

Please have a seat. We'll now open the public comments. If you'd like to speak on this item, please come to either podium. And if you're joining by Zoom, use the raise hand option or by phone. Please press star nine. Anybody in chambers wish to speak? Seeing none. Anna, anybody on Zoom or phone?

No, there's not, Mr. Chairman.

Okay. I'll close public comment portion of the public hearing. Commissioners, any final questions of staff or the applicant? Okay, may I have a motion?

I move that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution to find that the project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15301 Class I existing facilities and approve conditional use permit PCUP 250014 based on findings of fact and subject to conditions of approval.

Okay, we have a motion by Commissioner Martinez, a second by Commissioner Andrade. Commissioner Martinez, would you like to speak to your motion? Okay, Commissioner Andrade, any comments? All right, let's call for the question. Oh, sorry, Vice Chair Zick.

Commissioner Martinez, were you interested in addressing the language of condition of approval number five?

Can you repeat what your request was? I think that's when I was looking at their site plan.

Well, the first thing I would like is instead of referring to an outdoor activity area, that we refer to a non-conditioned interior activity area. I'd want that change. And that basically would be the extent of the that a non-conditioned interior activity area is permitted, period. No language about parking, street, circulation, none of that because it's irrelevant.

So you would remove all of condition five and add in that new language?

Yeah, it would say a non-conditioned interior plate area is permitted.

And then any other outdoor events would be covered by special event permit regulations?

We could say that we wouldn't need to, but I'd be fine with that.

I don't think we need to say that, and I would agree to your friendly amendment.

Okay, thank you.

Okay. Does the second agree to that? Yes. Okay. Now let's call for the question.

That motion carries 6-0.

Great, that decision is final unless appealed to the city council within seven days. Anna, will you please read the title for public hearing item number two?

Public hearing item number two. Three-year time extension for ZA-22-08, which allowed a major amendment to the Avenue of the Arts Hotel Master Plan PA-16-50 at 3350 Avenue of the Arts. Please note we have not received public comments on this item. This is a call for any expert day communications.

COMMISSIONERS, ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS? COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ?

ON JANUARY 20th, I MET WITH THE APPLICANT ON THE SITE.

OKAY.

COMMISSIONER ANDRADE?

YES, AS WELL. ON FRIDAY, I MET ON THE SITE WITH TWO REPRESENTATIVES.

OKAY. COMMISSIONER FLEEPAK?

I MET ON SITE ON THE 20th AS WELL.

AND COMMISSIONER ROJAS?

I MET WITH THEM ON SITE ON THURSDAY.

OKAY. Mr. Yeager, the floor is yours for staff presentation.

All right, thank you. Good evening, Chair Harlan and Commission. My name is Chris Yeager, Senior Planner with the City of Costa Mesa. The project before you tonight, it is a three-year time extension for the previously approved master plan for the Avenue of the Arts Hotel. THE CURRENTLY APPROVED MASTER PLAN INCLUDES 388 HOTEL ROOMS, 249 PERMANENT PARKING SPACES WITH 78 ADDITIONAL SPACES AVAILABLE THROUGH VALET, A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 115 FEET, AND A 2.10 FAR. THE MOST RECENT APPROVAL FOR THE PROJECT CAME FROM THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR BACK IN NOVEMBER 2023, AND THAT WAS THE ZA2208. Before then, there have been a series of amendments which have gotten the master plan to the point where it is currently approved. Since the project was originally approved as a master plan in front of the Planning Commission, that is why the Planning Commission is requested to review the extension tonight. So the applicants have submitted a letter which was included in the staff report. They are requesting three-year extension on the permit they've cited unforeseen economic circumstances as a reasoning for the extended approval And if this is approved by the Planning Commission tonight, the project would be vested until November 2028 Once building permits are polled it is permanently vested The project is approved it that complies with the general plan it would provide a high quality visitor serving amenity and commercial services to the surrounding area The high quality lodging would attract visitors to the city and this is in proximity to other visitor oriented land uses in the surrounding area including the Orange County Museum of Art and the Segerstrom Center for Arts, and would also conform with the policy which promotes timely processing by not requiring a new application for the already approved project. The project did originally have a EIR, which was adopted, and it did have various addendums processed as well. The extended approval would not have any result That would any new significant environmental effects Other than what's already been studied So there would be no changes to the mitigations or the environmental report as been approved Staff recommends that the Commission adopt a resolution to approve the three-year extension and to also determine that pursuant to sequel guidelines is that the previously certified EIR adequately addresses the environmental impacts proposed on the project. I'm available for questions. The applicant team is also here if you have any questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Yeager. Commissioners, any questions of staff? None? Okay. I will open the public hearing and ask whether the applicant or applicant's representative is present. IF THEY'D LIKE TO COME DOWN TO THE PODIUM. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD AND ALSO HAVE YOU READ THE CONDITIONS APPROVAL AND DO YOU AGREE TO THEM?

YES. THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN HARLIN AND ALL OF THE FELLOW COMMISSIONERS THAT ARE HERE THIS EVENING. MY NAME IS PAUL SANFORD. I have read the conditions and we are more than happy to comply with them. We've had a wonderful sort of experience with the city over the last revisions we made and some of the developments that have happened in the theater arts neighborhood and such with different buildings that have been built, the change from the towers to 580 Anton, which is done lovely. We helped that group build and also Halcyon House and all along with the museum. So we're very happy to be here and happy to comply.

Great. Commissioners, any questions of the applicant? Commissioner Martinez.

Yeah, I just have the one question. And it's, you are asking for a three-year time extension. How confident are you that in three years' time, you won't be back here again asking for another time extension?

That's an excellent question, Commissioner Martinez. We didn't think we'd be here at this point. We all know that we've been through record interest rates. The Hotel California, well, the West Coast Hotel, And travel, what we call leisure travel, has really fallen off tremendously. It's well known throughout. And then we had the tariffs that hit us with uncertain prices. Most of these projects we plan and build two to three years out. And we go through cycles and we didn't anticipate. the tremendously high interest rates and it wasn't even with us willing, were we willing to pay those high interest rates because the loans generally are on five to seven year cycles. There was just no financing available, literally hospitality was shut down. That along with the uncertainty of tariffs, most of our goods are made overseas that are custom done in the luxury properties. We're proud of the fact that Avenue of the Arts was state of the art when we built that project out, the team here. Claire and Mino and that were fantastic and it reset the mode and the ADRs in Costa Mesa and we feel we need to do that again. We need to go to high four. We feel this theater arts district has proven itself. We feel Costa Mesa has proven itself. Irvine Spectrum has nothing to compare with the quality of buildings we have here. Even the new properties, Lido House and such that Artie Olson has built are lovely. They're efficient but they're not the elaborate level of what we're putting in here. So To answer your question, we think we're at the end of the high interest rate period. We're looking forward to money to loosen up. We are very successful developers. An Orange County-only award-winning brand is biting at the bit. So I don't think we could stand to go through this again, Commissioner, with all honesty. But I can't promise anything, but it's looking very good.

OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. SANDFORD.

THANK YOU. IT'S MY PLEASURE. APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.

I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC COMMENTS PORTION. IF ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO COME SPEAK, PLEASE COME TO EITHER PODIUM. I DON'T SEE ANYBODY IN CHAMBERS. ANNA, DO WE HAVE ANYBODY ON ZOOM OR BY PHONE?

NO, WE DO NOT, MR. CHAIRMAN.

OKAY. I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENTS PORTION OF THE MEETING. PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONERS, ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF? Okay. May I have a motion?

I move that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution approving a three-year extension of time for ZA2208 which allowed a major amendment to the Avenue of the Arts Hotel Master Plan PA1650 and determine that pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15168C no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required and the previously certified EIR adequately addresses the environmental impacts of the proposed project.

Second the grace?

Yes. Okay.

Would you like to speak to your motion? Please don't take offense, but I hope to not see you in three years' time.

You stole my line, David.

Yeah, and I would just add to that, you know, this looks like a wonderful project. I wasn't in the commission when this was first approved, but really excited for a beautiful project to come up in our city. And like you said, your commitment to staying here. Thank you.

Any other comments, commissioners? Commissioner Rojas.

I'd just like to thank the applicant for taking the time, explaining it thoroughly. You're very well prepared. I really appreciate this project. I think it's wonderful. I think what you guys are doing is phenomenal. And I look forward to seeing your continued efforts in our city.

Thank you. I've seen this project a few times on this dais. I am very happy that we're at this point. I'm looking forward to some progress. I know this is going to be an important and remarkable addition to South Coast metro area, which obviously is critical for our economic health here in Costa Mesa. And I look forward to the resort hospitality industry coming back soon. It's, again, a critical part of our economy here. AND LIKE I SAID THIS IS AN EXCITING PROJECT FOR US SO I'LL BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION. LET'S CALL FOR THE QUESTION.

THAT MOTION CARRIES 6-0.

THAT DECISION IS FINAL UNLESS IT'S APPEALED TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITHIN SEVEN DAYS. Why don't we take a quick break since Commissioner Andrade seems to have already gotten ahead of us. So five minutes. All right, we are back on the record, and we have old business. Anna, would you please read the title for old business item number one?

Old business item number one, conditional use permit PA-21-34, condition of approval number 31, six month review, 420 Flower Factory. Please note we have not received public comments, or we have received public comments on this item.

All right. I will turn it over to Mr. Armando again. Floor is yours, sir.

Thank you, Chairman. Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Jeffrey Armando, Assistant Planner at the Economic Development Service Department. The item tonight is a six-month review for the existing cannabis business named 420 Flower Factory, located at 2332 Newport Boulevard. For background, on November 28, 2022, the Planning Commission voted to approve conditional use permit PA-21-34 for the operation of a retail cannabis storefront business called 420 Flower Factory. As part of the approval, the Planning Commission had added General Conditional Approval Number 31, which required that after six months of operation, the Planning Commission shall review the CEP at a public hearing. Furthermore, the business was issued their cannabis business permit on April 18, 2025. And on this slide, the photo on the right is a photo of the business viewed at the angle from the front. The project site is located at 2332 Newport Boulevard highlighted in yellow and the aerial you see there which is located on the southeast side of Newport Boulevard mid block between East Wilson Street and 23rd Street. The project site consists of a 2,000 square foot building with nine surface parking stalls and a bike rack. The subject property is Zone C1, which stands for Local Business District, and is surrounded by similarly zoned C1 properties located southwest and northeast from the property along Newport Boulevard. Across the street is the 55 Freeway, and to the rear of the property are R2MD, which stands for Multifamily Residential Medium Density, zoned properties buffered by an existing alleyway. The approval of the CEP includes site-specific conditions such as the vehicle gate in the rear shall remain closed and locked, restricting customers from entering or exiting the property through the alley. One parking stall shall be labeled for employees and vendors only, which the stall was located at the rear of the site. Waste disposal to the exterior trash enclosure shall be limited between the hours of 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. There's also a condition about a parking attendant shall be required to monitor the exterior including the parking lot and Lastly the conditional lease permit shall be reviewed at a public hearing after six months of operation The photos on the right are a couple photos taken by staff with a view of the rear of the property an evaluation of the business and Staff has visited the site and has examined that the rear vehicle gate has remained closed from circulation. It was also observed that there was no parking shortages on site. And also there was a parking attendant that was observed on site monitoring the parking area. In further evaluation, the Costa Mesa Police Department had provided a log of calls for service associated with the property and between the effective date of the cannabis business permit issuance on April 2025 to the end of 2025. It was determined that there was no substantial number of calls for service other than an audible alarm system, which was remedied by the business. There have been no noise complaints since its operations. Also, no code case violations have been logged within the time period. And lastly, staff believes that the business has operated in good faith without issues of neighborhood compatibility or the conditions imposed, and does not believe that any modifications to the conditions of approval are required at this time. This concludes staff's presentation. I'm also available to answer any questions you may have, and Representative for the business, Chris Glew, is also in attendance to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Raimondo.

Commissioners, any questions of staff?

All right, seeing none, I will open the public comments. If you'd like to speak on this item, please approach the podium. If you're on Zoom, use the raise hand option or by phone, please press star nine. If anybody would like to come, applicants more than welcome to, but you're under no obligation.

Good evening, Commissioners. Christopher Glue. I have the pleasure of representing Flower Factory. Staff's done all the heavy lifting on this so far, so I'm just here if you have any questions, comments, concerns, I'd be happy to address.

Okay. Commissioners, any questions?

No?

Okay. Thank you. You're free to go. All right. Anna, do we have anybody on phone or Zoom?

No, we do not, Mr. Chairman.

Okay, I will close the public comment portion. Commissioners, any further questions? Okay, would someone like to make a motion?

Move to receive and file.

I'll second that. Any comments on your motion?

I think just generally, not specific to this application, but on the efficacy of six-month reviews, I don't know if we've had any actionable items at previous six-month reviews that we've had. So I just want to know, are these worth it to have in the future? And maybe that's not a question for staff to like answer and consider, but maybe it's directly for planning commissioners But I just want to throw that out there. Thank you.

Okay vice chair Zik since I've sat through I think all of the CPS for retail cannabis there have been people who have added this as a condition of approval as they did with flower factory and And to your question, I don't think they're effective at all. I think they reflect a certain amount of uncertainty by the people who voted to approve them. thinking that if we saw him again in six months and if there were problems, that we could somehow do something. And boy, we would be challenged to do something if something new popped up that we didn't like but wasn't documented as a condition. So to your question, I don't think they're effective. I'm glad the applicant and his team showed up. I apologize for the inconvenience.

Okay, any other comments? Let's call for the question then.

That motion carries 6-0.

We have our last item tonight, new business item number one. Anna, would you please read the title for that?

New business item number one, overview of the amendments to the zoning code to rezone six cycle 2021 to 2029 housing element sites, implement specific housing element programs to encourage and facilitate housing development per state requirements and amendments to the North Costa Mesa specific plan for consistency with the housing element sites rezoning, PCTY-25-0008. Please note we have not received public comments on this item.

Okay. Give you guys a second to get settled, and Ms. Halligan, whenever you're ready, the floor is yours.

Thank you so much. Good evening, Chair and Commissioners. I'm Michelle Halligan, Senior Planner with the Economic and Development Services Department. I'm joined by Ana McGill, Advanced Planning Manager, Melinda Dacey, Principal Planner, and Kathy Tang-Saez and Elizabeth Dixon from Dudek. Tonight's study session covers implementation of several housing element programs, including the draft rezoning of housing element sites. We'll provide a brief overview, walk through the proposed amendments to the zoning map, the zoning code, and the North Coast of Mesa specific plan, and then take questions. Neighborhoods Where We All Belong is the city's effort to implement the housing element programs, address housing needs, and obtain certification from the California Department of Housing and Community Development, HCD. It also implements Measure K, which after its approval in 2022, allows the city to rezone housing element sites and other measure case sites to create housing opportunities without a citywide vote. In August 2025, HCD clarified that Costa Mesa's housing element only met statutory requirements if the rezoning is completed in a timely manner. They urged the city to expedite the rezoning. And since then, we've been working with HCD to apply a new CEQA or California Environmental Quality Act exemption to the housing element rezonings. This is known as SB 131. As a result of housing element rezonings being exempt from CEQA, Neighborhoods Where We All Belong now has two paths. Path one is the expedited rezoning of housing element sites, a North Coast to Mesa specific plan amendment and some zoning code updates. And path two is on the original schedule, including additional public outreach, objective design standards, studying some other opportunities, an environmental impact report, and the rezoning of non-housing element Measure K sites. With that context, only the draft amendments to the zoning map tonight are for housing element sites. So in Path 1, housing element sites would be rezoned to the Mixed Use Overlay District, or MOOD, Recent case law requires development on housing element sites to include residential uses, so the city worked with HCD to amend the mood accordingly. On these sites, the mood functions as base zoning. It requires at least 50% residential use at a minimum density of 20 units per acre. So if the case law is overturned or if new legislation is adopted or passed, The housing element section could also be amended accordingly to provide some more flexibility. So housing element sites are distributed throughout the city. So details can be really hard to see at this scale. The map legend shows the mood, specific plans, and urban plans. The mood is shown as a dot pattern. And I just wanted to note that sunsetting the urban plans, as we've discussed with the Planning Commission in December, It would actually occur in Path 2 on that original project timeline. So three close-ups illustrate the rezoning. Image A is just an example of the mood dot pattern applied to sites in the North Coast to Mesa specific plan. Image B shows the mood applied near Harbor and Victoria. And image C shows the mood applied along West 19th Street. I'm happy to report that the city is developing a dynamic online mapping tool that will allow the public and property owners and developers to see what development is being proposed and where. And in real time, they'll get access to general plan information, housing element site information, Measure K, and so on. So it's a really exciting opportunity to give the community just more access to information about these sites. The next topic is the draft zoning code amendments. These amendments are intended to implement housing element programs, align the city's zoning code with state law, and remove barriers to housing development. Staff prepared these drafts in collaboration with HCD, and we're continuing our conversation with HCD. Key changes include updating definitions, streamlining planning application processing, removing master plan requirements for mixed use projects, updating the land use matrix, and a new mood section specific to housing element sites. Additional draft amendments reduce residential parking requirements per state law and guidance, update motel conversion termination of tenancy standards, and revise standards for emergency shelters. We've also prepared a draft amendment to the North Coast to Mesa specific plan. So this is a very targeted amendment just for housing element sites within the North Coast to Mesa specific plan. The mood standards would apply to those sites as base zoning, which is consistent with all of the other housing element sites. Two figures and tables would also be updated in the specific plan for consistency. So the next steps include receiving planning commission and public input tonight. We plan to return to the planning commission with these amendments for recommendation on February 9th. And then in March, we'll be conducting our like path to public outreach, where we'll talk more about the Measure K sites and more about broad objective design standards. And also in March, the city council is expected to consider the Path 1 rezoning, And that's just for the rezoning of the housing element sites, the zoning map amendment, and the North Coast and Mesa specific plan amendments that we went over tonight. After that, we will continue with our consultants to work on path two, which includes the draft environmental impact report, draft objective design standards, and prepare additional amendments for later public review. So this concludes staff's presentation. We're available to answer your questions.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MS. HALLIGAN. COMMISSIONERS, QUESTIONS OF STAFF? VICE CHAIR ZICK?

SURE. THANK YOU. LET ME START WITH PAGE 12. THAT MIGHT BE AN EASY PLACE TO START. SLIDE DECK.

OH, SLIDE 12. OKAY. LET'S GO BACK. Is that the correct slide?

Yeah.

Okay, great.

So the draft, the first bullet, draft amendment summary, remove additional parking for bedroom additions. What do you mean by that, and what's the rationale for that?

Thank you, Commissioner Zick. So our current code requires additional parking for single-family development for certain bedroom additions if you're doing more than four bedrooms. but there's a recent state law that no longer allows us to do that. So we're just coming into conformance with state regulation.

Lovely. Okay. Okay. Appreciate that. Um, So the focus right now is the rezoning of housing elements sites. You said that correct?

That is correct.

And the reason why we're doing that rezoning is because HCD requires that as a prerequisite to certification of a, of our housing element update, correct? Yes, that is correct. Okay. Measure K had as its objective removing the citywide vote on projects and would allow council to approve projects without them being on the ballot for citywide vote. So I'm wondering, why would we be looking at rezoning any Measure K site. Why wouldn't we wait until some developer came along and said, you know what, I'd like to do a project on this site, propose it to council, council rubber stamps it or does what they do, and it's approved. Why would we be rezoning a Measure K site?

That's a great question. And it's something we've thought about a lot here, especially as we've been challenged to kind of rethink our approach. One of the things that we can do through this Neighborhoods Where We All Belong effort is an environmental impact report to provide CEQA clearance for a lot of different projects in the future. Or if they want to do something a little bit different from what we studied, they could create an addendum to that EIR and tear off of it. So there's a lot of cost and time savings for developers there in which they can put more time and funding into their projects. We also want to look at a bigger picture. Our development potential we know we've got another arena cycle starting I just attended meetings with the county. We're already talking draft numbers and so Studying this potential rezoning of measure case sites gives us a lot of information that we're going to need to be well prepared So that we are on time and on schedule in our next arena cycle So let me take that answer you gave me

Let me put some different words to it, and you tell me if I got this right. We are not going to be rezoning any Measure K site prior to a developer bringing a project forward for those sites. We might have cleared an EIR. We might have done some other homework, but we're not going to rezone the sites in advance. That's what I heard you say.

Oh, Vice Chair Zick, I'm sorry. I should have been more clear. Yeah. When we do the CEQA work, our goal is to study the potential impacts and then have some sort of an implementation plan. So there would be a rezoning. It might be a true overlay where it's just completely additive, an option that a property owner could choose to use or they could use their underlying zoning. But we would want some sort of a mechanism that allows or encourages new housing.

Okay. All right. And in those plans to rezone, Measure K sites, there would be no, this is a question, there would be no requirement by the landowner to include residential as part of any new development on that site. So if it's currently commercial, retail, industrial, and it's Measure K, and you come along and you rezone it. You're not forcing them to have to build residential if they redevelop their site and want to keep it commercial.

Yeah, Vice Chair, that's correct for Measure K sites. It is a different story for our housing element sites.

Oh, I understand that. Thank you. somewhere in your presentation you had the phrase uh... where you're talking about removing barriers do you recall where that was removing barriers to uh... i believe it was on the slide about why we're doing draft zoning code amendments at this time regulatory barriers okay and this isn't to mean that we're we're removing any protections current property owners you just talking about removing uh... for a for example the the recent decision that said that small lot developments no longer get public hearing no longer give notification even to next door neighbors it's just a ministerial approval uh... till the truck show up you might not even know what's happening uh... that's removing a barrier but that's also removing a protection think for a homeowner you don't mean that kind of action here where things get through the process and the public is somehow cut out that's not a barrier you're talking about removing are you yes that is that is one of the barriers that we're proposing to remove cutting the public out of the process so it is HCD views our entitlement process

Additional noticing requirements additional hearing as potential regulatory barriers for housing projects the more time and entitlement process The more cost it is for developers and so they see removing those barriers as incentives for building housing so that's part of the changes that you'll see in our planning application process for projects that provide housing and Additional streamlining for projects that provide deeper levels of affordable housing Okay

Commissioner Andrade.

A quick question just clarifying question on table on page 4 of the report. It's on title 13 chapter 3 planning applications attachment 2 on that table. Could you maybe give me an example of the kind of projects that would be streamlined in the development review process? Is it exactly what we were just talking with?

Yeah, I'm happy to jump in on that, Commissioner Andrade. So we kind of created two different paths, the streamlined development and then the development review. So development review would be a housing element site that proposes housing, and that would be a planning level review. They would submit to the planning division IT WOULD BE AN ENTITLEMENT BUT IT WOULD BE STAFF LEVEL AND WE'RE VIEWING IT AGAINST OBJECTIVE STANDARDS. THE STREAMLINE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW IS FOR THOSE BY RIGHT HOUSING PROJECTS. THOSE ARE HOUSING ELEMENT SITES THAT PROVIDE AT LEAST 20% LOW INCOME AND SO THEY WOULD SUBMIT DIRECTLY TO THE BUILDING DIVISION AS A MINISTERIAL PERMIT. IT STILL GETS ROUTED TO THE PLANNING DIVISION SO WE CAN CHECK THOSE OBJECTIVE STANDARDS BUT IT'S LIKE AN REVIEW INCENTIVE FOR THOSE PROJECTS THAT PROVIDE 20% LOW.

GOT IT. THANK YOU. IT WAS JUST HELPFUL TO UNDERSTAND WHICH ONES, WHAT TYPE OF PROJECTS. AND HOW DOES THIS ALL WORK WHEN NEW PROPERTY ALONG MEASURE K SITES ARE BECOME AVAILABLE? DOES THAT CHANGE ANYTHING? as to you would qualify as a housing element opportunity or just, you know, part of the general process of.

Yes, so these application processes are for housing element sites. So, you know, in future, if an applicant wanted to be added to our site's inventory, that could be done. It would have its own process and then they would be they would have these applicable review processes. MEASURE CASE SITES THAT ARE NOT HOUSING ELEMENT SITES, THAT'S STILL UP FOR OUTREACH AND DISCUSSION AND DECISION. SO IT COULD BE THAT THOSE MEASURE CASE SITES HAVE A SIMILAR REVIEW PROCESS, HAVE A DIFFERENT REVIEW PROCESS, WE DON'T KNOW YET AND WE HOPE TO ASK SOME OF THOSE QUESTIONS TO THE PUBLIC IN MARCH.

along Harvard Boulevard and Fair, the Mitsubishi retailer looks like it just closed down. I see that that's in housing case. So that would be part of kind of an evaluation where the city would reach out to explore should there, are they interested in changing their?

Yeah, and we're continually having discussions with interested applicants. THERE ARE APPLICANTS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN BECOMING HOUSING ELEMENT SITES, SO WE FIELD THOSE MEETINGS AND DISCUSSIONS QUITE OFTEN AND TALK THROUGH SOME OF THE BENEFITS, THE PROS AND CONS, THE DIFFERENT KIND OF REVIEW PROCESS, SOME OF THE REQUIREMENTS THAT THEY WOULD HAVE SO THEY CAN THINK ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THEY WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THAT REQUEST TO THE CITY.

OKAY. AND SO PIGGYBACKING OFF OF WHAT YOU JUST SHARED, I THINK IT'S AT SOME POINT in the process are we going to hear about that like what is the community's feel right all these business landlords and business owners along the corridor like what is their perception are we going to hear from them like what is their feedback or what are their interests kind of leaning in on i think i would love to hear from the business community i guess perspective like What are your thoughts on all this? Is that somewhere along the process?

Yeah. I mean, for non-housing element sites, yes, we're going to continue to conduct that outreach. For housing element sites, that was obviously done as part of the housing element process. We've, since the Redondo Beach case, reached out to them and are answering questions, having continued conversations about what the case actually might mean for their property. Developers who develop housing are pretty excited about being on the housing element sites inventory because of that streamlined process More certainty and approval than if they weren't on the housing element site, so there's a lot of benefits that might You know make them want to go on the sites inventory, but for the other metric a sites. It's additive right they can continue to Propose a commercial project if they want they can do a mixed-use project they can do a housing project so they're

They have voiced excitement about being a measure case light so that they can have those potential opportunities Commissioner Martinez, thank you Okay, so first I want to start off very general and very broad and then I'll go into the draft proposal that we have tonight so Basically, as I understand it, one of the main reasons we're doing this is for the HCD certification, since we are not currently certified. So I wanted to ask, if this proposal is adopted, do we get HCD certification?

So we are continuing to meet with HCD's technical staff. They have reviewed our mixed-use zoning ordinance overlay. They have also reviewed our in process of reviewing our zoning code amendments So we feel confident that they know exactly what we're proposing that we're addressing their concerns in real time as we're moving forward through this process now You know, it's not over till it's over so I can't give you a for certain answer to that question But we'll definitely feel a lot more confident submitting our certification Knowing that they've been giving us technical guidance and we've been in conversation as this process has been ongoing

Okay. Could I add on to that just very quickly? Going back to the May 2023 letter that we received from HCD which indicated that the city's housing element at that time was in substantial compliance and that the rezone needed to be completed in order for the city's housing element to be eligible for certification. And I think we're really using that letter as the beacon on the approach and then, you you know, subsequently adding on to the increased urgency due to the past deadline, right? So, but having that letter state that very specifically gives us indication that as we progress and finish this approach that that will be the major component remaining for certification.

All right. And then the follow-on to that is the Fairview Developmental Center, which if we don't have that done, we miss our targets for very low income, low income, and moderate income in RENA. So do we not need to have the FDC-specific plan done in order to get HCD certified? Or do we need the FDC-specific plan done in order to get HCD certification?

The FDC site has its own state legislation associated with it. So we're proceeding along the timelines that are outlined there, which is the end of 2026. So if the city council, when we bring it to them hopefully in March, adopts this, we will submit for certification at that point without the FDC site being complete.

OK. So in this proposal, we have a few different development standards for housing element sites. Are these the standards that we will end up applying to our Measure K sites?

Commissioner Martinez, the standards today that are in the new mood section would apply to our housing element sites. But there are things like the updated definitions. Those are citywide. know updates to our land use matrix are citywide the items related to motel conversions and things like that those live citywide with those specific issues when it comes to parking we did have some state law to comply with that was about parking for single-family home room additions that is beyond the housing element sites as well as some parking updates for multifamily housing we worked with HCD and they They wanted us to slightly reduce our open, uncovered parking and guest parking, and that would apply citywide beyond the housing element sites.

Okay. And related specifically to some of the standards for mood sites, would those standards Is that going to be the same or the framework that we base our Measure K standards on?

If you're asking about height and setback and those types of standards, it depends what we hear during outreach. So you might see some similarities. There may be some differences. One of the biggest questions that we're going to ask is really about density and that appropriate level of density that the community is giving us feedback on. Probably going to dictate some of those standards Remember we're still working on objective standards that are going to be applicable citywide So outside of height and setbacks which may differ on the measure case sites than they do on the housing element sites They're still going to be additional objective taste standards that are going to be applicable to any multifamily projects so you know those could include things like personal storage for strollers and things, storage for bicycles, you know, different design standards for window placements or articulation in the building, and that would be across all projects.

Yeah, I think what I'm thinking about is if we have a different set of standards for our Measure K sites and our housing element sites, which are all next to each other and between each other and all of that. So I guess I'm wondering Once we do our neighborhoods where we all belong and the outreach and we see what we want those standards to be for the Measure K sites, would we then also consider coming back to this proposal for our housing element sites and amend those to match the Measure K proposals?

Probably not because we need to meet the know we need to meet the development standards that are appropriate to enable the sorry the development standards have to be able to enable the height uh the density right so like if your density is up to 90 dwellings to the acre it lends itself to a certain height setbacks to be able to actually achieve 90 dwelling acre to the acre on the site i think what you're asking though is there is there going to be some consistency and the answer generally is going to be yes because we're going to have some conversations with the community about different neighborhoods and areas where maybe it's more appropriate to have higher density and maybe where it's more appropriate to have lower density and that will then you know lead into some of those decisions that have already been done on the housing element sites will be done on the measure case sites too depending on neighborhoods and so those development standards will you know will relate to whatever that density that's decided okay does that help yeah

CAN I JUST JUMP IN ALONG THOSE LINES. WHAT IS THE TIME PERIOD BETWEEN WHEN THE FIRST PHASE FINISHES? JUST THE HOUSING ELEMENT STATES INCLUDING THE LIMITED OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS AND THEN THE SECOND PHASE WHICH IS THE MEASURE K SITES. HOW MUCH TIME IN BETWEEN THOSE?

WE ARE GOING OUT WITH ROUND TWO OF OUTREACH AND I WILL LET CATHY TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT WHAT WE WILL SEE IN THAT ROUND OF OUTREACH IN MARCH. THE DISCUSSIONS ARE KIND OF HAPPENING CONCURRENTLY. THE CITY COUNCIL IS GOING TO HOPEFULLY REVIEW THE MIXED USE OVERLAY FOR THE HOUSING SITES IN MARCH. IT WILL BE RIGHT AFTER ALL THE OUTREACH HAS HAPPENED SO THEY CAN AT LEAST START TO SEE THE BOARDS, THE QUESTIONS THAT WE'RE ASKING THE COMMUNITY, SOME OF THAT STUFF BEFORE THEY CONSIDER THE HOUSING ELEMENT SITES SO WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE SOME OVERLAP IN THOSE DECISIONS.

OKAY. JUST AS AN EDITORIAL, I SHARE COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ'S CONCERN ABOUT HAVING SOME CONSISTENCY ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU HAVE A MEASURE K SITE NEXT TO A HOUSING ELEMENT SITE AND THERE MAY BE SOME DIFFERENCES. WHEN WE TALK ABOUT NEIGHBORHOODS, NOBODY'S GOING TO KIND OF UNDERSTAND THAT DISTINCTION. OKAY. SORRY, I DIDN'T MEAN TO INTERRUPT.

PLEASE, IF ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE A QUESTION BASED ON MINE.

If I may, through the chair, did you want our consultant to talk a little bit about some of the questions that are going to be asked during the second round of outreach? Is that of interest?

Why don't we let Commissioner finish and then we'll certainly want to hear from Kathy.

Yeah. Remind at the end for that because I have a list. Okay. So EIR for our Measure K site is It was mentioned that we're still including our housing element sites in that EIR. And I wanted to ask, one, why? And two, would that then make the mitigation measures of the EIR higher because we're including something that has already been exempted?

Thanks, Commissioner. We are using a brand new CEQA exemption. So, you know, we've debated it, we've talked with HCD, we've talked to the city attorney's office, and we've talked to other cities. And we're comfortable moving forward with it, but we think it's a really wise idea to go ahead and get a cumulative look at all of the potential impacts of the housing element rezoning plus the potential of creating this sort of mixed-use overlay on Measure K sites. and that will design mitigation measures that are really appropriate for this cumulative impact. And perhaps they could be greater mitigation measures than we would normally need, but it's appropriate for Costa Mesa to have the information since this is such a large scale project.

Okay. Now specific questions on the proposal. So first, IS A CHANGE IN THE NAME OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT TO MAJOR MODIFICATION. WAS THAT JUST TO HAVE MAJOR MINOR MODIFICATION?

THAT IS CORRECT, COMMISSIONER.

IN THAT CASE MY COMMENT IS I DON'T KNOW IF WE NEED TO ALPHABETIZE THE LIST IN THAT SECTION. I think you already went over this, but I wanted to see if we can get a little bit more specifics. Difference between streamlined development review and development review, since the final review authority are both the same. Would they have different processing time, different fees? If you can go over that maybe again. Sorry.

Yeah, no problem. So streamlined development review is for housing element sites that are by right. So they provide at least 50% housing and they provide at least 20% of those units to low income. Those would submit directly to the building department. There is a plan check review. So it gets routed to planning for review. So no entitlement fee, just a building permit fee. So there's a little bit of a differentiation there on fees. And then Typically, it's a little bit more of a streamlined process because it's not going through a planning division review So no no like staff report no review no director Approval at the end of it. It is just done at staff level through plan check and then Development review and then development review is housing element sites. So They might not provide more than 50% house. Sorry, they provide more than 50% housing, but they might not provide 20% low and then they would get submitted to the planning division. There would be a planning entitlement fee associated with it for the time. It would go through the objective standard review, and then it would be issued by the director, the decision.

OK, so I think that's a very small change, but it's good to have that in there. I think streamlined also included one story residential now. That was, I think, added into streamlined. Very good. That's just small things. Okay. Mood development standards. Let's see if I can find the correct page number.

Starts on 225. Thank you. I'll go to I think 229.

All right, if I can have my first slide. I have a question that requires a visual.

Okay, what slide would that be?

One, it'll be, yes, okay. So here's our housing element. It's a page from our sites analysis. You can see that, let's take 2706 Harbor Boulevard. If you take the sum of the very low, low, moderate, and above moderate units that are proposed at that site, you get 49 units, which is above the number of net units that is in the housing element. If you take that sum and you divide it by the acreage, you get a density that is greater than what is in the density column in our sites analysis. And that is the case for 17 different housing element sites. So my question is, here we're saying that if... in the housing element it's identified at 50 units per acre, then that is the density that is required. If in our housing element we say that they are permitted, that the sum of the units is higher than what the density allows, what do we do? What is... WHAT IS OUR ALLOWANCE? LIKE, WOULD WE ALLOW THEM TO GO TO THE 49 UNITS EVEN THOUGH IT'S GREATER THAN 50 UNITS PER ACRE?

SO WHILE YOU PONDER THAT, LET ME JUST THROW OUT THE IDEAS. IS THE UNDERLYING ASSUMPTION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY ON THESE SITES WITH THE LOW, VERY LOW MODERATE THAT THERE'S A DENSITY BONUS THAT'S GOING TO BE USED?

They just rounded up, probably.

Sorry. If I could just clarify Commissioner Martinez's question. They're above density because you round up on units. That's all. That's why they're only slightly over 50. Because if you're in a partial unit, you round up.

Right.

That's it.

That's why it's over 50.

So that's why you would be permitted to do that because the rules are you round up on residential units. Say more.

Okay. Just wanted to clarify. Could you explain that further? I'm not getting your point.

So the question is, For example, on unique ID 45, when you divide 49 into .97 acres, you get 50.515, which is more than 50. And the question is whether that development would be allowed to be over 50 dwelling units per acre?

If it would be allowed to build the 49 units, because right now, If they wanted to build 49 units, that is greater than 50 units per acre. Correct. Correct. So would they be allowed to do that because it's over the maximum density?

Yes, because at 0.97 acres by 50 dwelling units to the acre, you get 48.5 units and you round up the half unit to make 49. So that's anytime there's a partial unit, you round up.

Okay. So why in our housing element does the number of net units say 48?

OK, so that's really the question. OK, so for staff, I think that's the question. So that is the question. OK, now we get it.

OK, so for all of these sites, it's just been rounding up. I mean, there's 17 different sites where it's the case that the sum of very low, low, moderate, and above moderate does not equal the number of net units. could be rounding down instead of up. But I guess I want to make sure that they will be able to build up to the number of the sum of the number of the of the units.

And on some of those sites it was about realistic capacity. So it looked at potential easements or different areas on the site that can't be builded upon. typically you assume like somewhere between 80 and 90% can be built. So usually your assumption for a housing element shouldn't be at a hundred percent, but those sites would be allowed to build up to the density prescribed in the housing element. And in some cases they might go above using state density bonus law.

Okay. All right, there's one towards the bottom of the site's analysis where instead of being like 50.5 or like 50 point something, the density column said 90. And if you take the density from the sum of the units, it was 92 dwelling units per acre, which might be even higher than what is allowed. So I'd like just to double check on that. I can send the spreadsheet where I did all the math. OK. Second question is on our parking standards that we're proposing. So if you can go to my slide number two. All right. This is a map of Costa Mesa that the underlying one is what was provided to us in the staff report and the very slight orange circles are areas where state law has preempted the imposition of minimum parking requirements based on AB 2097 and subsequent laws. You can see that most sites that are in our housing element are exempt from minimum parking requirements, except for a few north of the 405, some at North Harbor, and one on Placentia. Given that, And given the fact that HCD has seen other parking requirements such as the ones that we're proposing to amend as barriers to housing, why are we proposing parking requirements as part of the mood?

Thank you for that question, Commissioner Martinez. The sites that are within those AB 2097 areas wouldn't be subject to that parking requirement. But at any time, our legislators can change that law. So we are prepared with our standards if that law should change or if the locations of those bus stops moved. So we've got those basic standards in place, and HCD has reviewed them with us, and they found them to be acceptable during our technical assistance process.

OK, well, I find them to be unacceptable. OK, mood setbacks. Why do we have these numbers specifically? Why 10 feet and why 20 feet?

Thanks for the question, Commissioner Martinez. My name is Kathy Ding-Size. I'm the consultant on the project team. So we explored a few strategies for setbacks. The ones that we ended up with ended up being, I think, the most flexible in terms of usage given just the variety of conditions that we have across the city, across different neighborhoods, across different corridors. And 10 feet felt pretty standard across other conditions that we've seen in multifamily and mixed-use projects in the city. I think sometimes we were seeing anywhere from 10 feet all the way up to 20 feet, but for the most part, most projects that have been built in the past maybe 5, 10, 15 years fell within that range. That is not to say, though, that for the non... housing element sites, the Measure K sites, that we could explore another strategy, meaning setbacks that are more tailored to the street that you're on or the neighborhood that you're in. We can explore that, but for the housing element sites, we felt it was most appropriate to keep it as simple as possible, given that housing element sites are sort of sprinkled across many different parts of the city. Okay.

I'd just like to take a moment to add to it that when we did our phase one of outreach, we consistently heard from the public from all different neighborhoods across Costa Mesa that they were really earnestly wanting more tree canopy along their sidewalks and more bike storage and things like that where some of our setbacks are opportunities where that could happen. Because we did look at quite a few ranges in setbacks. But we thought, well, we keep hearing that they want some open spaces, some shared open spaces, and to kind of activate the streets. So anywhere from 10 to 20, we would be giving the development community options.

OK. I will save my comments for after public comment. Height. I guess that'll just be a comment afterwards. Same question, where did these numbers come from?

So for open space, we looked at a few different numbers. The ones that you see before you are also the ones that we're proposing for non-housing element sites, so the rest of the measure case sites as well. And those are based on a couple of things. They're based on what your current code today allows, both in the existing mixed use overlay district, your existing residential incentive overlay district, and also your existing R3 district. So we looked at what, just to compare and contrast what the existing zoning code provisions are for multifamily housing in the city. And the second thing that this is grounded in is community feedback. So as Michelle mentioned, one of the things that we heard from the public is that they want to see more open space, whether that be private. So private to an individual resident and a dwelling unit or common to, uh, to a whole project or building. Um, so we, we tweaked, we did a little back and forth in the math. And again, based on those two things, these were the numbers that felt appropriate for right now.

Okay. Um, those are, THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE QUESTIONS OF STAFF? OKAY. SEEING NONE, I WILL OPEN PUBLIC COMMENTS. IF ANYONE IN CHAMBERS WOULD LIKE TO COME TO A PODIUM TO SPEAK ON THIS, PLEASE MAKE YOUR WAY DOWN HERE NOW. ALL RIGHT. LAST CALL. OKAY. ANNA, DO WE HAVE ANYBODY ON ZOOM OR BY PHONE?

Yes, we do. Jen and Nico, you may provide your public comment.

Hi, my name is Nico. I'm just calling in to check if there's any chance to also make an edit to the accessibility of the city and if the housing elements pursue the higher density will increase the traffic in the area. And so I'm talking about things like Michael making for other sorts of public transportation.

Sorry, I think we were having a little difficulty hearing you, getting a little feedback. You've got some time, so if you'd like to reiterate that, we're happy to hear you. Okay. You know, we will give you time. Hold on, we've got a little technical difficulty, so we'll make sure you're back in the queue.

Cynthia McDonald, you may provide your public comment.

The feedback is on the city's end. It's happened on every meeting recently. So good evening, commissioners. The proposed re-signing amendments raise serious concerns, and the agenda report makes it clear this is only the beginning of major land use changes and dramatic upzoning in Costa Mesa. Beyond tonight's actions, the city is already planning further amendments to the MOOD, the Newport Boulevard specific plan, new citywide design standards, and additional zoning code changes tied to the housing element programs. In short, the other shoe hasn't dropped yet. One of the biggest unanswered questions is whether these future amendments include housing eminent program 3G, which directs the city to explore ways to, quote, minimize the constraints of a citywide vote, effectively weakening the remaining protections of Measure Y. That would allow the city council far more discretion to increase density in existing residential neighborhoods without going back to the voters. After what we experienced with Measure K, residents must stay vigilant. What comes next may be even more misleading, and that other shoe may have a stiletto heel. The initial study admits these changes will likely create significant traffic and air quality impacts. Yet no traffic study is planned and no roadway improvements are proposed. The city's preparing to add 30,000 new residents, actually 10,000 more if you include Fairview Developmental Center. The equivalent of dropping a small city under our boundaries without addressing congestion, pollution, Long term service demands, and we still have no clarity on what's coming to Newport Boulevard developers pay a 1 time fee. But once that money runs out, the city and its taxpayers are left holding the bag for police, higher infrastructure costs that will only grow over time. Residents deserve transparency. The agenda report includes a map of affected parcels, but no property addresses. Unless you're prepared to track down assessor parcel numbers on a county website, you've got no way of knowing if the site next to your home is about to be upzoned. And given the city's pattern of minimal outreach, this may be by design. Finally, many of these projects will be approved by right, meaning no public hearings, no neighbor notification, no discretionary review. The recent small lot ordinance changes already allow up to four units with zero noticing. These proposed amendments eliminate longstanding protections for residents on the west side. The bottom line is this, your neighborhood construction begin next door, and you will not receive a single notice beforehand. Customers are clear information honest communication and meaningful participation in decisions that will define the future of our city we deserve better thank you thank you yeah jenna nico you may provide your public comments

Hi, is the audience better? Yes.

Yes. Thank you.

Cool. Great. I just want to say I'm more of adding new housing to the city of coast the Mesa. I'm just curious if there's any additional plans in terms of increasing the accessibility of the city, either through like bike lanes or other sort of like public infrastructure.

THANKS FOR YOUR QUESTION. THIS IS JUST COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC, SO IT'S NOT RESPONSIVE. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING MORE YOU WANT TO ADD?

NO, THAT'S GOOD.

OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THERE'S NO ONE ELSE, MR. CHAIRMAN.

OKAY. I WILL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT PORTION. COMMISSIONERS, ANY FINAL COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS?

I'll ask that question. Will there be walkability built into the plans?

Commissioner Andrade, when you start to look at the mood, which is the items before us tonight, you're looking at development that is more intense and more walkable. And our housing element sites are in areas where they'll be integrated with offices and commercial uses. And I just think that really lends itself to a more walkable neighborhood. We also talked a little bit about setbacks and how our intent with allowing between 10 and 20 was to have some more tree canopy along our sidewalks as well. So I do think that's what we're envisioning with the new mood.

Fantastic. And that walkability would also, you know, that potential could also lend to bike paths and things of the sort, right?

THAT IS CORRECT. THIS CITY HAS A GREAT ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM AND THEY ARE CONTINUING TO LOOK FOR FUNDING SOURCES TO HELP MAKE THOSE IMPROVEMENTS. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ?

THANK YOU.

COMMENTS?

YES. I JUST WANT TO GO THROUGH THE QUESTIONS I ASKED AND PROVIDE COMMENTS. SO CHANGING ADMINISTRATIVE major modification to match major minor, good idea. I think that makes it kind of clearer. I think cleaning up some of the, I didn't mention this previously, but cleaning up some of the numbering in the land use matrix might be helpful and making sure that we get rid of all of the reserves that are in our proposal. And then regarding the mood, I think we want to have good standards that encourage development that people will be happy with and that people will want to live in and that will, just to put it plainly, look nice. To that end, first on setbacks, I think Honestly, I would be fine with no requirement, just having the vision of what would you want in a setback. If it's a zero-foot setback that's like right on the sidewalk, I think that could encourage walkability. If you have a little bit of a larger one, that may encourage some outdoor dining opportunities. If you have a 100-foot setback, maybe that means that there's a public plaza or some open grassy area out in front of a building that's accessible to the public. So I just encourage perhaps some flexibility with that requirement in both directions to see what a developer may be interested in providing. Also with open space... I think that having public open space is a big goal for our city. So I think we have three categories, which is common to the residents of the site, private to units, and publicly accessible to all people. allowing for either common or private, what the required number of common and private square footage to be public. square footage, it's still open space and now it's just accessible to more people instead of just to a specific group or just one family of people. So to allow that flexibility, maybe it's just calculate this number at least I don't know, 50%. I'm just throwing out a number. It should be public open space. And then you can decide, the developer can decide from there where to go with that. Oh, and also with open space, if it's in a park poor part of the city, I would want more public open space. If it's right next to a park, then yeah, still have the open space. Maybe you don't need as much. OK, with height and density, I want to emphasize my point on wanting consistency with our Measure K sites. Having different regulations for sites that are right next to each other or on sites where you can't even tell the difference that they are different parcels. I'm looking at South Coast Plaza, for example. I don't think it makes that much sense. So I'm really hoping for consistency on these development standards. On parking, I've... expressed my opinion on our minimum parking standards before but most of what's in our housing element is already exempt and for those sites that are not in areas that have already been exempted by state law it's possibly just it's it's unfair to subject them to things that others aren't subjected to in addition to the fact that parking is a barrier to development due to the cost of constructing the parking due to the cost of maintaining the parking and And on our point about walkability, having more parking means that the site and the area could become less walkable and less friendly to human scale activities. Anyone living at a housing element site who decides that this area is walkable and they decide not to have a car would end up paying for a parking spot because Elsewhere in our code, we say that every unit must be provided a parking space, and you are not allowed to separate the cost of parking from the price of rent. It's called unbundled parking. That's one of the items in 1385 of our code that I think we should update. is allowing parking to be priced separately from rent for those people who don't have a car or who have less cars than whatever the number of parking spaces available at the site is. I'll add on that having parking means less space where a person could live instead of just you're storing a car. Let's house a person. So I am extremely opposed to having parking having off street parking requirements for our housing element site and I would encourage us to remove them from our base zoning code as well. Okay. That is all. Thank you.

All right. Thank you.

Any other commissioners comments?

Commissioner vice chair Zick.

Thank you. Well let's see. I know that the team of Consultants and staff are highly professional, highly competent, and have a great command of the subject matter. I have no doubt about that. I also have no doubt that this plan is in response to Sacramento and their desires, and is not in response to what the larger community of Costa Mesa wants. This is about density, density, density. It's not about the things that the community has for years said they want. More parks? We're not talking about it. More ownership? We're not talking about it. You would think for something this big and this impactful to the city, our chambers would be full of residents wanting to give us all their wonderful input about what their city was going to be like once this thing was implemented. They're not here. Why aren't they here? I go up and down my street and ask people, hey, tell me what you know about neighborhoods where we all belong. The blank stares are frightening. It's pretty embarrassing, actually. What in the world does that even mean, neighborhoods where we all belong? What does that even mean? No parking, great. Yeah, ask the community what they think about that. No, we don't care, why? Sacramento doesn't care. That's not the input you're getting from the community. I don't criticize your professionalism and I don't criticize your allegiance to Sacramento and all the laws they pass. What I criticize is that we're doing this. Making it easy for a developer to build? Yeah. Maybe. We'll see what developers actually want to build. You know, there isn't a realtor. If you know a realtor, go ask a realtor. Ask them, when's the last time? No, ask them, has anyone ever asked you, ever, in your entire career, you know, I'd like a house, but can you find me one on a really busy street? Doesn't happen, ever, never. Nobody asks for a house on a busy street. Look at the map where we're putting what we call homes. Apartments, maybe. We're already upside down with rental to ownership. You know that. This plan does nothing but make that worse. This isn't what the community wants. YOU'RE DOING THE BEST YOU CAN. BUT THAT IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH. AND NOT BY A LONG SHOT. I'M SORRY.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. LET ME FIRST SAY APARTMENTS ARE HOMES. MORE THAN 60% OF OUR RESIDENTS LIVE IN APARTMENTS AND I WOULD NOT DENY THAT THAT ROOF OVER THEIR HEAD VERY MUCH CONSTITUTES THEIR HOME. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID, JOHN. NEVERTHELESS, FOR THE PURPOSES OF GIVING STAFF AND THE CONSULTANTS SOME INPUT HERE, I'M GOING TO REITERATE WHAT I SAID EARLIER AND IT WAS PIGGYBACKING OFF OF COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ'S CONCERN ABOUT KIND OF THE the discrepancy between objective design standards for housing element sites and those for the Measure K sites. And I asked about the timing because I fear that there's going to be some, for lack of a better word, clunkiness here, that we're going to have a set of standards for one type of property that may be adjacent to a Measure K site, and we're not going to have some consistency. And so I'm more concerned with the quality of development in our neighborhoods than just absolute production. And I suspect that HCD is solely concerned with the latter. RHNA is about numbers and getting to those numbers. But the way in which we do that should not adversely impact our neighborhoods. SO I'M ADVOCATING FOR SOME CONSISTENCY AND MAYBE ONE STRATEGY IS THAT ONCE WE HAVE OUR HOUSING ELEMENT SITES OBJECTIVE STANDARDS IN PLACE AND THEN MOVE ON TO THE MEASURE K SITES THAT WE GO BACK AFTER MEASURE K IS COMPLETED AND SAY DO THESE APPLY TO THESE SITES? CAN THEY APPLY? I don't think there's going to be that much of a lag time between the two. I don't know that's going to be up to how quickly we execute this, but I think the development community would respond to, I know they respond to some certainty and some flexibility. And so if they know that their Measure K sites are going to be of a maybe different design standards, they may actually opt to wait before anything is developed. So I think best case scenario for us is to try and reduce that time period, that lag between when we actually get our housing element sites finished and then the Measure K sites. So does that make sense? Am I being clear about that? OK, good. I DO WANT TO ASK OF STAFF WHAT CAN WE EXPECT I THINK FOR EVERYBODY, WHAT CAN WE EXPECT FEBRUARY 9TH? YOU'VE GOTTEN SOME INPUT FROM US. WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO COME BACK WITH?

CHAIR HARLIN, WE PLAN TO COME BACK WITH AN UPDATED STAFF REPORT. WE'LL GO AHEAD AND LOOK AT SOME OF THE ITEMS THAT WERE MENTIONED TONIGHT, SOME SORT OF CLEANUP ITEMS. ALPHABETIZATION AND THE LAND USE MATRIX AND OTHER LITTLE THINGS THAT YOU MENTIONED. AND THEN WE ALSO ARE MEETING WITH HCD. SO THERE MIGHT BE SOME MINOR TWEAKS THAT HAPPEN BASED ON THAT CONVERSATION THAT'S COMING UP. BUT WE'LL BE PRESENTING THE DRAFT AGAIN AND ASKING FOR YOUR RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL.

OKAY. THAT'S ALL I NEED TO KNOW.

Yeah, it'll be a recommendation to City Council, definitely for the mixed-use overlay district and potentially the zoning code amendments if they're ready to. If not, we'll return at a subsequent Planning Commission meeting, probably the next one, depending on timing because there's still a couple of things that we're buttoning up on those amendments.

Okay, but the schedule, as I understand it then, is to get to the City Council in March for the housing element sites, including the zoning code update, not just the map? So once that would be approved, then we are basically done with that portion and we submit to HCD for final approval or certification.

Yeah, so we're anticipating first reading on March 17th. Second reading, possibly sometime in April, 30 days for effectiveness, we submit to HCD.

Okay. All right. Those are all my comments. Any others, last chance? Okay. Anyone want to make a motion?

Receive and file.

I'll second that. Do you care to speak to your motion or are you good?

I think I'm good.

Okay. All right. Let's call for the question.

That motion carries 5-1 with Vice Chair Zick voting no.

All right. Departmental Reports, Public Services, Mr. Yang.

YES, MR. CHAIRMAN. GOOD EVENING. FOR THE PUBLIC WORKS REPORT, THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT IS HAPPY TO ANNOUNCE THAT THE CITY HOSTED COMMUNITY BIKE SKILLS WORKSHOP HERE AT THE CITY HALL PARKING LOT LAST SATURDAY ON JANUARY 24TH. IT WAS A GREAT TURNOUT. WE HAD A LOT OF PARENTS AND KIDS COMING BY, LEARNING HOW TO RIDE THEIR BIKES, ALSO LEARNING SAFETY SKILLS, AND ALSO THE PROPER USE OF THEIR BICYCLES. Another point is that for the Fairview South Affair, the construction is ongoing. The city's contractor will begin striping Fairview Road South Affair Drive this week, following the new paving installed thus over the past two weeks. Landscaping and new pedestrian crossings at Valley Forge is planned in the coming months, and with the completion plan being this May. And lastly, the Adams Bike Facility Project. City's contractor will begin construction on Adams Avenue between Harbor Boulevard and Fairview Road next month in February that will enhance pedestrian and bicycle travel and improve roadway lighting. Construction may have short-term impacts narrowing the roadway, so we ask the public to consider alternate routes. So that's it for the Public Works Report, and I defer back to the Chair.

All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Yang. Director Tai, Development Services?

Yes, thank you, Chair Harlan and members of the Planning Commission. Just a quick couple updates. At the last week's City Council meeting, January 20th, the City Council introduced an into first reading amendment to the small lot ordinance, basically making two unit small lot subdivisions in the R2 and R3 equivalent to what is allowed ministerially in the R1 through the SB9. It's a lot of code, but basically it's any two lot subdivision to be ministerial, and that should make it equal at least. So second reading will come up on February 3rd. At the previous city council meeting, the council also did a urban plan screening on a project at 1626 Placentia. AND IT'S 38 LIVE WORK UNITS. I THINK HALF OF THEM ARE LIVE WORK AND THE OTHER HALF ARE FULL RESIDENTIAL. SO THAT WILL BE COMING IN SHORTLY AS AN OFFICIAL APPLICATION AND ONCE IT'S DONE PROCESSING WE'LL COME TO PLANNING COMMISSION. AT THE NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING STAFF WILL BE PRESENTING an update to the climate action and adaptation plan process. And I know that there was an Ohio House appeal scheduled for February 3rd. I think there are some conversations right now on potentially a new date for that, but we'll keep the Planning Commission updated on the disposition of that application. And then lastly, there was a question earlier at the meeting about the pre-approved accessory dwelling unit plans, and I can turn this over to Planning Manager Anna McGill for an update on that. Thank you.

All right. Thank you.

Thank you. So we currently have 13 applications that are in building check PROCESS. THOSE ARE FOR THE PROTOTYPES. THEY ARE STILL IN REVIEW. ONE IS CURRENTLY IN STAFF'S COURT. WE ARE REVIEWING IT AND PROVIDING COMMENTS. THE OTHER 12 APPLICATIONS WE HAVE PROVIDED COMMENTS AND ARE WAITING FOR THEM TO RESUBMIT. I'M REALLY HOPING WE CAN START PUTTING THOSE PROTOTYPES ON THE WEBSITE. SO ONCE THEY ACTUALLY GET THAT BUILDING PERMIT APPROVAL, WE WILL PUT THEM ON THE WEBSITE AND THEN THEY'LL BE AVAILABLE FOR APPLICANTS AND RESIDENTS TO USE. So we'll continue to keep the Planning Commission updated when that's available and start marketing it out to residents. I'm hoping it's soon, but we're sort of at the behest of our applicants and their ability to resubmit, you know, in a timely fashion. So we have been reaching out to them for updates. We're trying to make our resources accessible to them to move it along, but that's where we're at. So hopefully at some point we'll have at least 13 applications that are available.

Thank you, Ms. McGill. City Attorney, Mr. Preziosi, any reports?

Thank you, Chair Harlan. I have no report this evening.

Okay. I will adjourn the meeting, and we will see everyone back here next month.