Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

WELCOME TO THE PLANNING WELCOME TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MONDAY, COMMISSION MEETING OF MONDAY, FEBRUARY 9th, 2026. FEBRUARY 9th, 2026. I NOW CALL THE MEETING TO I NOW CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER. ORDER. IT'S TIME FOR THE PLEDGE OF IT'S TIME FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND COMMISSIONER ALLEGIANCE AND COMMISSIONER KLEPAK WILL BE LEADING US KLEPAK WILL BE LEADING US TONIGHT. TONIGHT. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. ONE NATION. ONE NATION. In case you were wondering, Commissioner Dixon is joining us remotely. So Anna, will you please do the roll call?

Commissioner Dixon. Thank you. I'm attending this meeting remotely due to an emergency circumstance that prevents me from attending in person. I will have audio and video on throughout the meeting and there are no persons over the age of 18 present in the room.

Chair Harlan.

Here.

Vice Chair Zick.

Here.

Commissioner Rojas.

Here.

Commissioner Klipak? Here. Commissioner Andrade? Here. Commissioner Martinez?

Here.

We have no announcements or presentations this evening, which takes us to public comments for matters not listed on the agenda. Public comments will be heard at this time on items that are not listed on the agenda, but are within our jurisdiction. I'll open public comment. If you'd like to speak, please come to either podium or if you're participating by Zoom, use the raise hand option or by phone, please press star nine. Give me one second to get you set up. All right, Ms. Amayo, you have the floor.

Hi, my name is Wendy Samoe. I'm here about the gym at 140 17th Street. So I got woke up at 5.01 this morning. How about y'all? You know, just moving away. But I forgot to send you guys my evidence. So on Friday, they had the door cracked again. It was like 64 degrees. They have the door currently cracked. It was like 65 whenever I got home. So I'm just making sure before the weather gets nice that their walls have... proper insulation in them and they have proper circulation in their gym and that your city's going to do something before it gets nice and they start completely opening that door again. Yeah, that's my big concern is that they're going to completely open the door again. So until we get it on record that They're going to completely shut it. You know, I'll be here. So it has quieted, kind of quieted, but by Friday, they're, oh, you know, ready to go at it. And I guess I had to wake up at 5.01. Maybe somebody had a bad weekend or something. I don't think they're supposed to start at that time. And then on the noise sample that the city did take, there was no like samples outside of the gym, like hours to know our normal, like quiet area. I mean, you got the traffic, you know, but it's not very loud. And then you got the planes, you know, they're every once in a while, you know, but a constant just boom, boom, boom. I mean, people have literally had to move their children away from it, you know, put their room over here. And then the adults, you know, they have the room closer to the gym. because the gym does what it wants. So the first CUP was in 1990-something, but then they had another one which allowed them to have the aerobic workouts, which is what's causing all the base from the gym. And the city did come inside my trailer, my 1964 Terry trailer, which the city of Costa Mesa actually says doesn't have any sound restrictions at all. But they did come in and, you know, do a noise level on the inside of it. So if you guys could, you know, maybe make sure the people inside the gym are safe because of circulation issues is obviously why they're opening this door and having to crack it. I mean, I was born in America. I'm sorry about that. You know, I don't need beans and rice. I just need somebody to help shut the gym up. ON PAPER, THAT WOULD BE NICE. HAVE A GREAT DAY.

THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE IN CHAMBERS WISH TO SPEAK? OKAY. SEEING NONE, ANNA, DO WE HAVE ANYBODY ON ZOOM OR PHONE?

NO, WE DO NOT, MR. CHAIRMAN.

OKAY. I WILL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENTS. Now it's time for planning. Commissioner, comments and suggestions? I will start on my left with Commissioner Martinez.

None tonight, thank you.

Okay. Commissioner Rojas?

No comments, thank you.

Commissioner Klipak?

None for me.

Okay. Commissioner Andrade?

Yes, first, thanks to everyone that is here. I'm glad to hear that we have some community and constituent engagement on this very critical issue that we're addressing today. And along those lines, inviting you all to actually make a quick correction in my last Commission meeting, I shared about an Instagram page where we all can continue to gather connect and support our local constituents. It's actually Costa Mesa mutual aid on Instagram. So highly encourage you all that are looking to engage with the community, meet like-minded folks that are trying to lift the quality of life for everyone here in Costa Mesa. Please check it out. We actually have a meet and greet day where we get to volunteer and connect with others that it's happening on the 18th. So invite you all to check it out and come join us. Thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner Dixon, any comments or suggestions?

Just apologies for missing the last meeting. It was related to the injury that's keeping me away from there tonight, and I look forward to being there at the next meeting. Thank you.

ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ MISSES YOU. HE FEELS LIKE HE'S IN A TIMEOUT OVER HERE ON THE LEFT.

I WISH I WAS THERE.

VICE CHAIR ZICK?

NOTHING TONIGHT.

OKAY. AND NOTHING FROM ME. THAT TAKES US TO CONSENT CALENDAR. WE HAVE ONE ITEM ON OUR CONSENT CALENDAR THIS EVENING. ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE. and will be acted upon in one motion unless an item has been pulled. Anna, do we have anything pulled tonight?

No, we do not, Mr. Chairman.

Okay. Do I have a motion on the minutes of January 26, 2026?

Move to approve.

Motion by Commissioner Martinez. I will second.

Do you have any comments?

Okay. And we have to do a voice roll call?

Chair Harlan?

Yes.

Vice Chair Zick?

Yes.

Commissioner Rojas? Yes. Commissioner Klipak?

Yes.

Commissioner Andrade? Yes. Commissioner Dixon? Yes.

yes commissioner martinez yes that motion carries seven zero great we have one public hearing item tonight it's the only item which means this is you know quickly right um anna will you please read the title for public hearing item number one

Public hearing item number one, introduction of a zoning code amendment 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 a resolution to amend the North Costa Mesa specific plan for consistency with the housing element site re-zoning, PCTY-25-0008 and PSPA-26-0001. Please note we have received public comments on this item.

All right. I will now turn it over to Ms. Halligan to present the item.

Thank you. Good evening, Chair and Commissioners. I'm Michelle Halligan, Senior Planner with the Economic and Development Services Department. I'm joined by Anna McGill and Melinda Dacey, And we're here to present zoning code amendments to rezone housing element opportunity sites, implement several housing element programs, as well as an amendment to the North Coast of Mesa specific plan for consistency. Tonight, we'll provide a little project background, walk through the proposed amendments, amendments to the zoning map, the zoning code, and North Coast of Mesa specific plan, and staff recommendations. Neighborhoods Where We All Belong is the city's effort to implement the housing element programs, address local housing needs, and obtain certification from the State Department of Housing and Community Development, or HCD. It also implements Measure K, which, after being approved in 2022, allows the city to rezone housing element sites, as well as other Measure K sites, to create housing opportunities without a citywide vote. In August 2025, HCD clarified that Costa Mesa's housing element only meets statutory requirements if the rezoning is completed in a timely manner. So they have urged the city to expedite the rezoning of housing element sites. Since then, we've identified a new CEQA, California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA exemption, known as SB 131. Now that housing element sites rezoning can be exempt from CEQA, Neighborhoods where we all belong will have two pathways. Path one is tonight's rezoning of housing element sites, a North Coast and Mesa specific plan amendment for consistency, and other zoning code amendments to encourage and facilitate housing. Path two is the rezoning of non-housing element Measure K sites on the original project schedule, which will include additional public outreach, development standards, studying other opportunities, looking at other zoning code amendments, as well as an environmental impact report. With that context in mind, the draft amendments to the zoning map at this time are specific to housing element sites. In path one, 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 has worked with HCD to amend the mood accordingly. On these sites, the mood functions as base zoning, requiring at least 50% residential use at a minimum density of 20 units per acre. But if new legislation is adopted to override that case law, or if the case is overturned, or if the decision is overturned, excuse me, the housing element section of the mood could be amended to be additive, which was our original intent. Housing limit sites are distributed throughout the city, so details are hard to see at this scale. But you'll see an example from the legend that shows the mixed use overlay district in a dot pattern, as well as our specific plans and our urban plans. Note that the sunsetting of urban plans is expected on the path to schedule, the original project schedule. So here we've zoomed in on the map just to demonstrate the mood and how it appears as a dotted pattern on housing element sites. Note that the city is developing a dynamic online mapping tool that will allow the public to see where and what development is proposed. They can explore zoning, general plan land use, housing element sites, Measure K, and so on. So we're really looking forward to bringing that to you later this spring. Our next topic is the draft zoning code amendments. These amendments are intended to implement housing element programs, align our code with state law, and remove barriers to housing development. Staff prepared these drafts in coordination with HCD. Key changes include updating definitions, streamlining planning application processing, changing the name administrative adjustment to major amendment for clarity, removing master plan requirements for mixed use projects, updating the land use matrix and establishing a new mood section that is specific to housing element sites. Additional draft amendments would reduce residential parking requirements per state law and guidance and update motel conversion termination of tenancy standards and clarify how to determine if a request for an accommodation poses an undue burden and how to assess a direct threat to health and safety related to reasonable accommodations. Let's see, the draft amendments would also revise emergency shelter regulations to comply with state law, to update text for consistency, as well as remove a 500-foot parking requirement for group homes, remove the public hearing item from group homes, and remove regulations that were based on when a group home began operations. We've also prepared draft amendments to the North Coast to Mesa specific plan because there are several housing element sites located within that specific plan. This is a targeted amendment for housing element sites only. We are trying to touch the specific plan as little as possible. The mood standards would apply like base zoning on those housing element sites and consistent with how we're treating all of our other housing element sites. So two figures and tables would be updated for consistency as proposed. With that, staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt a resolution to find that the project is statutorily exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.85A, also known as SB 131, and recommends that the City Council adopt an ordinance amending the listed chapters of Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code, also known as the Zoning Code. Additionally, staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution approving an amendment to the North Coast of Mesa specific plan for consistency with the application of the mixed-use overlay district on housing opportunity sites. This concludes staff's presentation, and we are available to answer your questions.

Thank you very much, Ms. Halligan. Commissioners, any questions of staff? Who wants to take the first step? Okay, Commissioner Martinez.

All right. Thank you. So... I'm just going to go through our proposed amendments, attachment by attachment, and see if we have any responses and see if we can't make this any cleaner. So I'm using red line page numbers, starting with Exhibit B, page 168. Section 13-9 still mentions the redevelopment agency. And while we're here, first of all, I wanted to ask, do we still use the redevelopment agency? I know in various other parts, we remove redevelopment actions from the planning application review process. So should we also remove the redevelopment agency? Or if it's still used, should we amend this?

CHAIR MARTINEZ, THANK YOU FOR THAT. WE WEREN'T LOOKING AT REMOVING ALL OF THE REFERENCES. I'M NOT SURE IF THAT'S SOMETHING WE SHOULD ADD TO THIS PROCESS OR DO IT AS PART OF ONE OF OUR QUARTERLY CODE CLEANUPS LIKE YOU SAW LAST FALL BECAUSE IT WILL BE IN MANY, MANY PARTS OF OUR ZONING CODE. SO I THINK THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING WE COULD ADD TO OUR LIST FOR PLANNERS TO TACKLE IN OUR NEXT CODE CLEANUP.

ALL RIGHT. OTHER THING FOR THE LIST. Okay. Page 213. Where is this?

We're in the mood.

Okay. So section B3 is an exception for the Fairview for the area that will be the Fairview Development Center specific plan. DO WE CURRENTLY HAVE A FAIR VIEW DEVELOPMENT CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN?

A DRAFT WILL BE RELEASED FOR PUBLIC REVIEW IN MARCH. SO WE DON'T HAVE ONE YET. BUT WHAT THIS SECTION IS SAYING IS THAT THE MOOD DOESN'T APPLY TO FDC. IT WILL HAVE ITS OWN SPECIFIC PLAN.

I THINK MY POINT IS FOR THE TIME BETWEEN WHEN THIS IS ADOPTED And when we will officially have an FTC specific plan, what happens in that time?

So we developed the specific plan. It's covered under state legislation. So there isn't a scenario where that developer could proceed that specific plan. The legislation clearly states that a specific plan needs to be created and visioned by the city, that we need to conduct environmental review. So what would happen between these amendments the specific plan the DGS the Department of General Services has opened up its portal they are going through their disposition process right now to find a developer I anticipate that will probably at best take a handful of months and probably before we adopt our specific plan if a developer is chosen they might start coming to the city and start discussing a potential application asking questions about our specific plan process so between the THE TIME THAT THIS WOULD GET APPROVED AND THE SPECIFIC PLAN WOULD GET ADOPTED, THOSE ARE REALLY THE ONLY ACTIONS I SEE REALISTICALLY HAPPENING, IF THAT HELPS.

OKAY. AND THEN STICKING ON FDC, SO WE SAY HERE THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO FDC. BUT THE CASE LAW IS THE REASON WHY WE'RE HAVING THIS PREEMPTION If that's supersession, right? So if case law, maybe state law, is saying that housing element sites need to fit these requirements, why are we able to exempt FDC from this?

Yeah, so that case law speaks specifically to an overlay. That's what the Redondo Beach case speaks to. And the reason is because an overlay is like a second form of zoning. So you have two different zoning that are kind of laying next to each other, right? And a developer can opt into either of them. So what the case law did was say, if you're a housing element site, you must develop housing. So you have to opt into the overlay that allows you to build housing, right, in order to meet the housing element requirements. specific plan doesn't have an overlay it's a specific plan that is its zoning and it is also its general plan so the fdc has to comply with the specific plan and nothing else okay so how about for our other sites that are in the in the housing element but also in the various specific plans that we have Yeah, so those have amendments to them in the specific plan like you'll see with the north coast of Mesa that if they opt into the mood, they have to then, those housing element sites have to build housing to 50% and to 20 dwelling units the acre. Those specific plans are a little different than FDC because FDC is bound by state legislation. We've got state legislation and we have a contract covering the specific plan process and what it entails. OUR OTHER SPECIFIC PLANS DO NOT. THAT'S WHY THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF DIFFERENCE IN HOW THEY GET APPROACHED.

OKAY. LET'S SEE. PAGE 217 IS DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TABLES, AND I WANTED TO SEE IF I COULD GET AN EXPLANATION FOR FOOTNOTE NUMBER 3.

COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT MAXIMUM SETBACKS?

YES. FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC, FOOTNOTE 3 READS, MINIMUM SETBACKS SHALL APPLY TO ALL PORTIONS OF THE BUILDING OR STRUCTURE. MAXIMUM SETBACKS ALONG PUBLIC STREETS SHALL ONLY APPLY TO A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE'S GROUND FLOOR WITH EXCEPTIONS FOR DRIVEWAYS, WALKWAYS AND OPEN SPACE. SO WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR IS EXPLAINING THIS EXCEPTION FOR DRIVEWAYS, WALKWAYS AND OPEN SPACE. and what that means.

Oh, sorry, Commissioner Martinez. I believe they're trying to be clear that the driveway wouldn't be subject to that setback, that that would be able to meet the street.

Okay, so driveways.

Right, that like open space, landscaping, driveways, those aren't considered structures when we're looking at setbacks. But we could make some adjustments perhaps to make that more clear.

Yeah, I think that's trying to say that those things can exist within the setback. But we might need to look at that sentence again to make sure that that's clear. OK. Yeah.

OK. And then right above that, we have our table with open space standards. And could you all just remind me what are Is this, if a developer did not meet these standards, is that the fee process, like a park fee, or is it variance adjustment? What's the process if those aren't exactly met?

It would likely be a state density bonus law request. So these are separate to a park fee. These are objective standards that these projects have to meet that are separate to whatever park fee applies. And they only applied certain areas of the city, so it's not citywide. So there might be some projects that need to meet both and some that only need to meet these requirements in the mood.

Okay. Those are my questions for tonight. Thank you. Okay.

Any other commissioners? Commissioner Andrade. Okay.

Looking at the map that is, I think, attachment 4, 269, and just thinking about the rezoning opportunities of the mood, where in the work that you've done here can we include the goal and maybe expectation that for any developers that is along the main corridors are very walkable corridors to include public green space and helping us expand our tree canopy as being one of, what is it, Arbor City, right? What would be an applicable section so that we can set that expectation in?

Thank you, Commissioner. Part of this longer schedule is to look at additional amendments. So we'd be looking at more objective design standards, and that can include revisiting our landscaping standards. We're also looking at performance and how the buildings perform. There's another opportunity through my understanding is that our Parks and Community Services Department is pursuing a master plan in the near future. And so that might be an area where we could partner with that department as well to help encourage and facilitate the types of open spaces that you're talking about.

So we're talking not just tree lining our city, but also including opportunities for park space. And I'm specifically thinking of the west side, who's very park hungry is the term. So can we build in an expectation or a goal to, out of this process, encourage green space or parks? Say a developer has their land but would find an opportunity for it. Or how can we encourage maybe more of that?

Yeah, we definitely can through our standards. One of the reasons why there's a 20-foot setback is to allow for those things on the street front. Whatever we put in the objective standards is citywide and that's why we felt like that was a more appropriate place for some of those design standards so that they would be applicable to all housing projects. In addition to that we've been talking with the Parks Department who's looking at updating their master plan and again like any requirements that they put in that would be applicable citywide. So it's a little bit the cart before the horse. We're trying to move this on a faster timeline. But we want to make sure that those amendments that we propose and bring back to you as part of this longer process can be applicable to all housing projects, not just these mood projects.

Thank you. And again, I just don't want this to get, if this is the opportunity to insert that or put a footnote somewhere, I just don't want this to get lost while another master plan from another commission takes its toll and, you know, FOLLOW THE USUAL TIMELINES AS THINGS MOVE ALONG AS AN ESSENTIAL OPPORTUNITY. AND THEN THE SAME, WE RECEIVED ONE PUBLIC COMMENT FROM PAST COMMISSIONER TOLLER, AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I THINK ALSO STOOD OUT WITH ME ALONG WITH IN HIS COMMENT WAS ALONG WITH OF COURSE THE GREEN SPACE IS OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC PLAZAS, RIGHT? AGAIN, AS WE THINK OF, I MEAN, HARBOR BOULEVARD CURRENTLY IS A LOT OF THE COMMUNITY IS ON FOOT. THE FEW BUSINESSES THAT ARE AVAILABLE ARE HEAVILY TRAFFICKED BY FOOT. SOME BIKING. SO OPENING UP OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC PLAZAS IN THESE DEVELOPMENTS. SO IS THAT ALSO CAKED IN HERE SOMEWHERE? I JUST KIND OF WANT TO AGAIN ENSURE THAT IT'S CLEARLY OUTLINED AS AN OPPORTUNITY.

YEAH. IT DEFINITELY WILL BE IN THE OBJECTIVE STANDARDS. We are planning to go to the community in early March for our next round of workshops, and you're going to see a lot of questions that look like that. So we want to make sure that we get community input on what the priorities are and what they should look like before we start, like, you know, refining those standards.

Okay, great. Thank you.

Any other questions?

My hand is raised. I'm not sure if that's sufficient, but I had a few questions.

Okay, go ahead, Commissioner Dixon.

I don't know where to hit the button on this. So there's a couple of questions. I received inquiry from a member of the public today asking if their site would be included in these proposed amendments. And that brought to mind a question to staff about what notice post new commune or post the initial outreach from the city Dave Kuntz, To these particular parcels that are identified on the housing element opportunity sites what sort of outreach has there been prior to this effort, and this sort of change in the scope of what the being on that list would would mean. Dave Kuntz, Do these property owners that they've been given an affirmative notice that this was coming down the line, or would it just be the what kind of notice happened, if any.

Yeah, thank you, Commissioner Dixon. I can try to tackle that. Let me know if I'm not exactly answering the question that you're asking. But during the housing element process, those property owners were engaged, and there were discussions about including them on the housing element. At the time, and this happened California-based, so it's not just kind of a thing that the city of Costa Mesa is trying to tackle it. It happened in every city that I can remember working on, and that was that being on the housing element was additive. It was another opportunity to build housing, but particularly in cities that used an overlay, that base zoning would still be applicable, so that would still be an option for them. Since that time, we're obviously trying to understand the Redondo Beach case and the implications of it on housing element sites, and so that direction that California lied we understood has changed a little bit. Because we're going through this process at the same time, We don't have the advantage of maybe seeing some of this play out a little further, potentially it getting challenged at some point down the line or legislation that provides more clarification on this interpretation. And so we have to move forward with what we know today. And so some of the questions that we're now fielding from developers and we've been holding a lot of meetings with them over the last few months, is trying to help them understand the case law, what our interpretation of it is today, how HCD is interpreting it, what it might mean for their sites moving forward. And of course, for some developers, that might mean that there's a little bit of a concern in staying on our housing element. And for those developers, we're working with them on the appropriate steps to remove them. AT THE SAME TIME WE ARE ALSO SPEAKING TO LAND OWNERS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN GOING ON THE HOUSING ELEMENT. AND SO WE'RE CONSTANTLY KIND OF TRYING TO FIELD THOSE REQUESTS. AND SO ANY REQUESTS THAT WE GET IN AS PART OF THIS PROCESS WE'LL BE TAKING TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THEIR CONSIDERATION.

I DID WANT TO ADD THAT IN DECEMBER WE SENT OUT A MAILER TO OUR HOUSING ELEMENT SITE PROPERTY OWNERS AND THEN WE FOLLOWED UP WITH A PUBLIC NOTICE AND WE'VE We actually put out notices in the newspaper when they weren't required, just hoping to capture more eyes on this process, as well as we've been doing frequent e-blasts to our email list, which is over 350 contacts at this point, just trying to raise the profile that way. But yes, we did send out two notices to our housing limit site property owners.

Okay. And just to touch on the comment about the legal case, my understanding from just reviewing the Supreme Court's website today was that the New Commune versus DTLA versus Redondo Beach case, the California Supreme Court denied the petition and the request for depublication in late January. Was staff aware of that? Is that?

Commissioner Dixon, what we've been hearing through other cities throughout the state, since we're all in this situation together, is looking at leadership through the American Planning Association, the California League of Cities, and other groups like that to work with legislators in Sacramento on a potential legislative solution.

Okay.

But to answer your question specifically, I was not aware of that. So thank you for bringing that to our attention. We will look into it. And if there's any maybe implications from that, we'll make sure that we continue to HAVE THOSE DISCUSSIONS WITH OUR HOUSING ELEMENT PROPERTY OWNERS.

THANK YOU. ANOTHER QUESTION WAS, SO WE RECEIVED SOME PUBLIC COMMENT TODAY, AND I'M SURE THAT SOME STAFF WARDED IT TO US, YOU'VE SEEN IT AS WELL, FROM THE OHIO HOUSE, FROM THE FOLKS AT SAGERSTROM COMPANY, THE FOLKS AT SAKIOKA. AND I JUST WANTED TO FIND OUT IF STAFF HAD ANY COMMENTS OR RESPONSES TO THOSE COMMENTS THAT THEY WANTED TO SHARE. And if not, I understand. But if you've had a chance to review those comments and have any sort of high-level responses or any other thing you want to share with the commission, that would be appreciated.

Yeah. Thank you, Commissioner Dixon. So the property owners that are kind of questioning whether or not they want to be on the housing element, we've been meeting with them and having conversations. And so we're putting together a path forward for those sites. And we anticipate that going to the city council on March 17th. The property owners that maybe had some additional questions or potential revisions like in the North Coast of Mesa specific plan we have plans to get together with that team and meet and kind of further discuss some of the amendments that they pointed out and Assess whether they're appropriate to include in this process there were a handful of North Coast of Mesa specific plan amendments that we were anticipating and DOING ON THE NOVEMBER TIMELINE, ON THAT LONGER TIMELINE BECAUSE IT'S A VERY COMPLEX DOCUMENT SO WE'RE TRYING TO DO A VERY MINIMAL SURGICAL REVISIONS TO THAT DOCUMENT. BUT IF THERE ARE AMENDMENTS THAT WARRANT REVISIONS, WE WILL MAKE SURE TO INCLUDE THEM BEFORE WE GO TO CITY COUNCIL. AND IF YOU WANT, YOU COULD, YOU KNOW, THE PLANNING COMMISSION COULD INCLUDE IN THEIR MOTION TO GO BACK AND DO A CONSISTENCY LOOK AND MAKE ANY REVISIONS NEEDED. TO THAT DOCUMENT. AND THEN IN TERMS OF GROUP HOMES, WE'VE BEEN WORKING CLOSELY WITH OUR CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ON THE REVISIONS TO THE GROUP HOMES ORDINANCE. WE'VE ALSO BEEN WORKING REALLY CLOSELY WITH HCD. THEY'VE ALREADY REVIEWED A HANDFUL OF THOSE AMENDMENTS, GAVE US COMMENTS BACK. WE'VE RESPONDED TO THE COMMENTS. WE'VE ALSO SENT IT TO THEM AGAIN FOR THEIR REVIEW. If HCD comes back with any further recommendations and revisions, we will make sure that those get included as appropriate before the city council meeting on the 17th of March.

Thank you. And along those lines of your comment about HCD, and I see that there were some notes about collaborating with HCD, what I'd like to really understand, and I think that the agenda report and the amendments explain it to some degree, but I'd like to better understand, or at least for the public and the rest of the commission. So for instance, on the buy right, development for certain applications and things like that. Is there anything that you have proposed or that is in these amendments that was not something that was required by state law? It's something that we are doing on our own or if we're doing in hopes of pleasing HCD or something along those lines, because I think it's pretty clear from my experience that We want to limit the by right to what is necessary under state law. And so I'm just trying to understand where the line falls on that. Are all of those by right provisions. Mandated by the suite of state laws that have come out or are there any of those that are that we have proposed.

Yeah, that's a great question, Commissioner Dixon. So the majority of the amendments are proposed in line with our housing element implementation that's mandated by state law and to meet any applicable state legislation updates that we need to make. You mentioned the buy right. That is also mandated, and we need to do that for certain housing element sites. I would say the only amendment that I can think of that IS NOT MANDATED IS THE REST OF THE AMENDMENTS TO THAT PLANNING APPLICATION SECTION. SO WE ARE PROPOSING A PLANNING, A STAFF LEVEL REVIEW OF HOUSING ELEMENT PROJECTS, THE ONES THAT DON'T MEET THE BUY RIGHT. WE ARE ONLY REVIEWING THEM AGAINST OBJECTIVE STANDARDS. SO THAT PART IS MANDATED, BUT THAT REVISION GO TO A ZONING ADMINISTRATOR OR PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING BUT JUST BE REVIEWED AT THE STAFF LEVEL IS ONE OF THOSE CHANGES. AND THE REASON FOR THAT IS TO, ONE, STREAMLINE HOUSING PRODUCTION, WHICH IS ONE OF OUR HOUSING ELEMENT PROGRAMS, TWO, TO REDUCE CONFUSION SO THAT OUR DEVELOPERS UNDERSTAND WHAT CLEAR PATH FORWARD THEY HAVE IN THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS AND ALSO TRY NOT TO CONFUSE THE PUBLIC BECAUSE REALLY WHAT WE'RE DOING AT THAT STAGE IS LIKE A, YOU KNOW, CHECKING AGAINST OBJECTIVE STANDARDS. A LOT OF ROOM ON THOSE PARTICULAR PROJECTS FOR DISCRETION.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THOSE ARE MY QUESTIONS FOR RIGHT NOW. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER DIXON. VICE CHAIR ZICK.

THANK YOU. MS. HALLIGAN, WHEN YOU MENTIONED THAT YOU SENT A WRITTEN NOTICE TO ALL THE PROPERTY OWNERS OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE OPPORTUNITY SITES IN, I THINK YOU SAID DECEMBER. DID YOU IDENTIFY TO THEM THAT THEIR PREVIOUS UNDERSTANDING OF THE OVERLAY ZONE BEING ADDITIVE TO THEIR RIGHTS HAS CHANGED?

OKAY. YEAH, THANKS, VICE CHAIR ZICK. I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE ONE IN DECEMBER VERSUS THE ONE IN JANUARY. I KNOW THE ONE IN JANUARY

That they would be able to visit the website and actually review the track changes But I'm not remembering the December one Yeah, but that letter did include that our understanding of the law has changed based on that court case and that would have implement Implications to their sites as housing elements as housing element sites and then obviously invited them to follow the process That is why we are starting to hold in additional meetings with property owners and make sure that they understand what our Understanding of that court cases and how it will impact their site.

So to put a finer point on that By identifying to them that your understanding has changed and it might impact them and could mean a number of things to them. In fact, that doesn't sound too serious or even too scary. Did you communicate to them that specifically it would put on them an obligation to build residential

Yes, that's true. And the findings from the court case. So the minimum density, it did include that. Yeah.

Got it. Okay.

You know, with a caveat that it could potentially be challenged and that might change along the way. And so we'll continue to keep them informed if that happens.

Got it. And so then to be clear, even the small, less sophisticated property owners that find themselves on the housing element update list, they would know specifically that issue without having elaborate consultants to tell them what's going on. It would be really clear to them that there is a residential build obligation being layered onto their land.

Yeah, that's true.

Supplanted, really.

Yeah, and we've been holding a significant amount of telephone calls and meetings to further explain that. The one thing those smaller property owners may not know that maybe some of the larger developers would know is just what potential future plans are for that court case, if it's going to be heard by a different court, if there's going to be a challenge along the way. So typically larger developers have just a better means of tracking those things than the smaller landowners.

Do you have a way of confirming, were those sent certified mail? Do you have a way of confirming that they were actually received?

Yeah, they were sent certified mail. They were, yeah.

Yes, they were. Okay. All right, so then I've got a couple of questions from the staff report. And the first one that I was curious about was this CEQA exemption. Are we somehow saying that CEQA is not important anymore for housing developments? Or are we saying that it's so important that we get housing built that we're willing to bypass any environmental study? What's the rationale?

Vice Chair Zick, so the state of California has created some new laws to encourage and facilitate housing. So we are able to use one of them, SB 131, to exempt our rezoning of housing element sites to help us achieve our housing goals. That being said, we still are working on the environmental impact report and that will continue on the original schedule. So that way we'll still have an analysis that shows us what our potential impacts are and mitigation measures for those potential impacts.

That was really maybe the answer to my second question, which would have been why bother with an EIR at all then?

Well, SB 131 is new. It hasn't been challenged. And this is a really safe, conservative approach for us to make sure that we've done our due diligence and studied the potential impacts. Okay.

And I'll just add for public information so that the public actually has an understanding of what those impacts might be.

Okay. Whether they need to be mitigated or not, that's a different conversation. I was curious about this, and you talked a little bit about it, this, it's not a conflict, but where we have specific plans in place, and then within an area that is covered by a specific plan, we have some housing opportunity sites, and where there's a difference, I was gonna say conflict, difference between the entitlements that somebody enjoys by having an entitled specific plan and what these changes might pose as a potential risk to those. Could you speak to that?

Yeah, so at a high level they're both overlays or kind of seen as overlays. So a developer could choose to opt into either of them so long as they're meeting the requirements for the housing element site, building 50% at a specific density. There's a couple of areas where there may be some inconsistencies, and that's one of the things that we're going to go back and look at before the March 17th meeting. We're going to sit down with one of the property owners that sent a letter today to make sure that we correct those inconsistencies, and we make sure that all the development standards that they had in the North Coast of Mesa specific plan would still apply if they opted into the moon.

So I kind of like the soft language of an inconsistency. If I'm a developer and I say, well, this is not consistent with this, you're going to give me the choice as the developer. I'll go make it consistent, but this is the one I want them both to say.

Well, we're going to make sure the rights that they had in the specific plan would still maintain. So I think one example.

No, that's good. Okay. They don't lose anything. Correct. Yeah, they don't lose anything. Okay. And the Measure K sites that are outside of the housing element sites, are they also going to be exempt from CEQA by SB 131? And is that because they're not part of the housing element update?

Vice Chair Zik, that's correct. They are not housing element opportunity sites. And SB 131 specifically allows us to exempt actions within our housing element program.

So let's say there's a developer who's outside of the housing element, wants to do a development, sees that his site is not exempt from CEQA, and goes, you know what? And he comes to you and says, please, put me on the housing element update list. Is that something you just can do? Go to council and say, hey, we found another site. Property owner wants to be in our housing element update. Of course, his motivation is so he doesn't have to do us EIR.

Okay, so let me answer your question in two different ways. The city is doing a programmatic EIR that will cover the majority of Measure K sites. So when they come to submit a project, they will very likely just need to do a consistency check to show that they're consistent with what we've already studied. We're doing the upfront sequel work for all of those Measure K sites and developers. That's a big advantage to them. And a lot of those developers are sort of waiting for that to be complete. It's a big savings on time and money for them.

Oh, I'm sure it is.

If a developer wants to become a housing element site, there is a process for that. It's a general plan amendment. It would have to be considered by the city council. So we would go through that administrative process if they were to come to us and have interest in being a site.

I can't help but notice when we look at some of the other overlay districts, and when you show them on a map, they're kind of a contiguous area, maybe misshapen, but kind of a shape, a contiguous area. This mixed-use overlay district that is being proposed is really anything but that, and I would say more closely resembles what some have called spot zoning. Do we not really care so much about that area?

effect of spot zoning so vice chair when selecting housing element sites there isn't a requirement in order to have them all be in certain proximity to each other so when you do your housing element rezoning it could have the appearance of spot zoning like you're suggesting but we're really just implementing our state mandate And then I wanted to make it a little bit more clear that our mixed-use overlay district does exist, but when you look at the zoning map, you read it as urban plan. So all of those urban plans are within, are like a version of the mood. So moving forward, we'll be sunsetting those plans and you'll see adaptations of the mood in those areas so they still have the same rates they have today.

Okay.

On page 22, I'm not sure if I'm going to be able to find this real quick. Oh, yeah. In the second or last paragraph, in the middle, you start a sentence by saying, if adopted, I believe this is the second sentence there, says, if adopted, the new section of the mood along with, and then you go on and explain. Does that mean that adopting this is discretionary? Because I'm getting the impression from some of your other answers that this is all have to do. This is state mandated, law mandated. And to Commissioner Dixon's question about what is the difference between what is mandated by law and what you're simply recommending, I'm wondering when it says if adopted, do we have a choice?

So any action requires a Planning Commission recommendation and City Council action, so that's where that language is coming from Obviously HCD has made it pretty clear if the city wants to get certification.

These are the things that need to happen So even if there's a law passed You'd have to come get a discretionary approval.

No really isn't an answer in that circumstance For the sorry, maybe I'm misunderstanding the question the housing element IN ORDER TO AMEND THE HOUSING ELEMENT OR ADOPT A REZONING, IT REQUIRES A PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION AND CITY COUNCIL ACTION.

OKAY.

I WAS CURIOUS ON THIS TOPIC OF STREAMLINING THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. AND THIS MIGHT NOT BE A FAIR EXAMPLE. BUT I CAN THINK OF A VERY LARGE APARTMENT COMPLEX THAT GOT APPROVED. AND THERE HASN'T BEEN A SHOVEL TOUCH THE DIRT SINCE THAT APPROVAL. IT'S BEEN SEVERAL YEARS. SO I'M KIND OF WONDERING ABOUT THIS STREAMLINING THE PROCESS without having a guarantee that what it is that we're wanting to get built actually gets built and we're not just handing away entitlements. So how is it that you're thinking we're gonna streamline the process and at the end of that actually get what you're trying to get, which is housing?

Great question, Commissioner Zick. I mean, you've really hit on the challenge that cities face. We can plan for the housing capacity we can encourage to streamline the process We can set parameters on entitlements to try to encourage a developer to move faster But ultimately at the end of the day we can't force a developer to build so It's more of an encouraging and incentivizing pathway than anything else.

Let me ask you this question. It's not quite germane, but it's certainly related. In the course of a development agreement negotiation for projects that might be subject to that, would it be an option that the city would have as part of that negotiation to dictate shovel in the ground rather than you just get 20 years whether you build it or not?

Yeah, so a development agreement is voluntarily entered into by a city and a developer. They have to ask for it. We cannot force a development agreement. But if they do come to us and ask to enter into a development agreement, which they might do if they have a very big project because they typically need a longer timeline to build.

Like the apartment complex I'm referring to.

Yeah, exactly, like an apartment complex, then the city would have the ability to negotiate certain terms.

I plant that seed with you then, so we don't end up with another one of these large entitled projects that never gets built. On the design reviews, the distinction that you make between the subjective and the objective, can you give me an example of the sort of objective criteria you're talking about. And the reason I'm asking the question is because there's been a lot of residential developments where we've had design reviews in front of us, and staff has indicated the kinds of things that they've been interested in, articulation, massing, this sort of thing. And I'm assuming those are the subjective things you can't ask about or require anymore. So I'm trying to understand what are the objective criteria that you could apply to a project. SO IT DIDN'T APPEAR LIKE THE KINDS OF PROJECTS IN THE PAST YOU HAVEN'T WANTED TO SEE BUILT.

SO VICE CHAIR ZICK, SOME OF THE THINGS YOU MENTIONED, WE ARE OBJECTIVE WHEN WE TALK ABOUT HEIGHTS, MASSING, THINGS LIKE THAT. YOU JUST HAVE TO HAVE THE DESIGN STANDARD BE CLEAR SO THEY UNDERSTAND FOR, YOU KNOW, SO MANY FEET YOU HAVE TO HAVE A MODULATION AND SETBACK, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. OR FOR SO MANY FEET YOU HAVE TO HAVE A WINDOW OR SOME OTHER SORT OF ARTICULATION. So we can build in what you might have thought were subjective, but are actually objective design standards.

Is that your intention?

Yes.

Okay, thank you. On page 24, you talk about the low barrier navigation centers. And I think there's a phrase I picked up that talked about there being another one of these by rights, and it said in appropriate zoning districts. See if I can find where on the page that is, but that was my question. What was meant by appropriate zoning districts? I may have actually found that phrase in the housing element update for program 4E. It may not have actually been in your staff report. But does that ring a bell? It's not an important question if it's not coming to mind. Okay.

Are you asking what zone the low barrier navigation centers would be allowed in by right? Well, let's start with that. That'd be a good question. So on page 192 of the staff report is the track changes where the low barrier navigation center has been added to the land use matrix and it identifies the zones in which the use would be allowed by right. It's essentially the residential zones.

Okay. Thank you. I accept that. Page 25, this, I'm not quite sure how you're gonna be able to answer this question for me, especially given the public comment letter that we received later this afternoon. What I'm concerned about when we're talking about this topic of reasonable accommodation, There's been a tremendous effort by the city over the last number of years to settle down on a a process, a set of rules, a criteria, methodology, all these sort of words together, dealing with this subject of group homes and related types of occupancy. And up until now, or at least for me anyway, up until reading this detail, I've sort of been under the general impression that this is all about how can we rezone 17,042 sites to bring in 50,000 new Costa Mesa residents with high rise, high density, no car type development. AT NO TIME IN MY MIND HAVE WE EVER BEEN TALKING ABOUT REDEFINING TERMS ASSOCIATED WITH GROUP HOMES, AND WHEN I'M STARTING TO READ THAT, I FELT LIKE, WELL, THERE'S A CAN OF WORMS I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD BE TOUCHING WHEN WE SPENT SO MUCH TIME GETTING TO WHERE WE ARE. SO I'M WONDERING WHY WE'RE TOUCHING THAT CAN.

YEAH, THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER ZICK. THAT'S A FAIR QUESTION.

I try to be fair with all my questions.

You do. We also have to implement our housing element. It has 47 programs, and those programs have associated deadlines. So those that have already passed, we have tried to include into this effort. The reasonable accommodations in the group home amendments, the reason why we didn't have them ready for the study session is that we've been working really closely with the city attorney's office on those amendments with all of the background in mind that you've noted. So that's where those revisions have derived from.

And then I'll refer to our legal team if they want to add anything to that does it Okay, and maybe then this is a question that between the two of you you can Address if you want Does it if we're trying to get this thing through? the rezoning through so we can get a housing element certification and And I think the only thing I've ever heard you talk about that's holding up certification is not Program 4E or any of these other programs. It's rezoning these sites. Does it muddy the waters or choke the horse trying to get the whole kit and caboodle through right now when clearly this public comment letter we got, which goes into some excruciating detail,

Well, we have a due diligence to implement our housing element. I understand that. Within the time frames that we've, as a city, agreed to and identified.

So your strategy is you're doing it? Right now, all at once in this entire package?

No, everything that is reasonable, that is past a deadline, that can be included in this package has been. There are some programs that will follow on the November timeline, but This effort is going to implement almost 25 of the housing element program. So it is a big chunk.

I defer to your strategy on this.

If I could just add a brief additional information. I think we've indicated to the Planning Commission multiple times over the course of the last couple months of our ongoing and consistent collaboration and coordination with HCD. Given the timeline that the city has been on, we have passed many of the deadlines for the housing element programs that the city committed to doing in the adopted housing element and as such the time for those programs is also due now. And so yes, there was a letter from HCD in 2023 that said, all you have to do is rezoning. But now fast forward two years, there are now also a whole host of programs that we also need to complete in order to be eligible for certification. And that is why this effort is inclusive of all of those programs. So we just wanted to add that as well. Thank you.

Okay. Reducing minimum parking standards for residential. That, of course, doesn't preclude a developer from providing more parking or whatever amount of parking that they would want, correct? I mean, if they actually want to sell a house, they might decide they'd like to provide the homeowner a place to park a car. It's up to them if they did that, I guess.

Yeah, that's correct.

Okay. I'd recommend they do that, but they know the market. They probably see their cars out there, people drive them. Okay, and then the last question on page 26. You mentioned something about reducing. This is in the second paragraph down. along with ministerial approvals, which I can have a general concern about. But in this one you say, and reducing the courtesy notice requirement from 500 feet down to 100 feet. And I think my question isn't so much why you want to do that. My question is, does that serve the interests of the residents to narrow the circle of notification? I mean, it feels like we're trying to cut them out of a lot of stuff. This would certainly cut some people out of notification.

Yeah, well, one of the efforts with this was to try to be consistent with the other ministerial type permits and approvals that we issue across the city. Many of them don't have a public hearing. They don't have a noticing process. Don't rub it in. I know. That's where a lot of the amendments are from. We issue about 2,500 ministerial permits every day. Excuse me, not every day. Wow. Every year. Every year that don't have any public hearing or noticing requirements at all.

And so the thought of reducing it from 500 feet to 100 feet is, gee, if we could just reduce it to zero, we don't have to notify people of anything.

Well, to try to have some consistency with how we're doing other types of ministerial permits, but understanding that noticing in this case is still important and desired by the city.

So are there other notification situations that have only a 100-foot radius and not a 500-foot radius? I'm trying to understand what we're trying to be consistent with. Yeah. I see we're being consistent with not giving people notice. Are we being consistent with the radius? That's my question.

Well, no, but we don't have any other ministerial applications that have any noticing at all.

Why not reduce it to zero then? And then you're really consistent.

to try to be as consistent as possible with what the city council adopted when the group homes ordinance was approved.

Okay. Do you recognize that was to serve the interests of residents? Okay, I thought you would know that. That's all for now. OK.

I have a handful of questions. And you're going to have to forgive me. Some of these may end up in the category of code cleanup at a later date. I READ THE CODE, SO I COULDN'T HELP BUT NOTICE SOME THINGS. AND MOST OF THESE FOCUS ON CHAPTER 3, THE PLANNING APPLICATIONS SECTION, WHERE YOU'VE MADE SOME GOOD AND IMPORTANT CHANGES. I WILL NOTE THAT THIS IS JUST FOR DISCRETIONARY PLANNING APPLICATIONS. AND TO MY MIND, THE PLANNING APPLICATION PROCESS, WHAT WE PUT IN OUR CODE SHOULD BE A GUIDE FOR BOTH STAFF AS WELL AS THE APPLICANTS. SO I WANT TO START WITH WHAT'S A PROPOSED CHANGE. THIS IS ON PAGE 172. WE'RE CALLING THIS DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STREAMLINED IN CONTRAST TO WHAT'S BELOW. IT'S JUST STANDARD DEVELOPMENT REVIEW. SO THAT SOUNDS GREAT, BUT HOW IS STREAMLINED DEFINED?

Give us just a moment, we have a definition, we're just trying to find it.

Chair Harlan, streamlined development review is the processing of a development plan when authority for approval is vested with the planning division, so at that staff level.

Okay, correct.

You said that on page 165.

So, and then in contrast to development review below?

SO WITH DEVELOPMENT REVIEW THE PLANNER PREPARES A REPORT THAT IS REVIEWED BY LEADERSHIP AND SIGNED OFF BY LEADERSHIP.

BUT THEY ARE BOTH STAFF LEVEL ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS, RIGHT?

THEY ARE BUT THERE'S DIFFERENT AMOUNTS OF WORK EFFORT AND TIMING INVOLVED. THAT'S GOING TO HELP US PROCESS APPLICATIONS FASTER TO ACCOMMODATE HOUSING.

OKAY. SO AGAIN GOING BACK TO AT LEAST FROM MY PERSPECTIVE A GUIDE FOR STAFF AND APPLICANTS IF I'M AN APPLICANT AND I SEE STREAMLINED I HAVE A CERTAIN EXPECTATION OF EXPEDIENCY. AND UNLESS WE DEFINE WHAT THAT IS IT'S JUST GOING TO BE AMBIGUOUS. BUT THAT'S JUST A COMMENT. I WANT TO ASK QUESTIONS. SO UNDER THAT SUBSET THERE'S A WE'RE GIVING A STREAMLINED REVIEW FOR NUMBER ONE, RESIDENTIAL INSTRUCTION OF ONE STORY IN PRETTY MUCH ALL THE RESIDENTIAL ZONES. I UNDERSTAND THAT FOR THE R1 ZONE, BUT HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHY WE WOULD WANT TO EXTENSIVELY ENCOURAGE SINGLE STORY BUILDINGS IN MULTIFAMILY ZONES.

I'M SORRY, CHAIR, WE'RE TRYING TO UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION BECAUSE THEY USED TO GO THROUGH THE TYPICAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS WHICH INCLUDED MORE STAFF TIME, A REPORT, SIGNATURES, BUYOFF, AND INSTEAD WOULD THEY BE STREAMLINED? WE'RE JUST ENCOURAGING AND FACILITATING A VARIETY OF HOUSING TYPES.

OKAY. I DIDN'T WANT TO GET INTO COMMENTS BUT I'M JUST GOING TO FOR CLARITY. SO IN AN R3 ZONE WHERE WE HAVE A DENSITY OF 20 UNITS TO THE ACRE I THINK THAT'S ABOUT RIGHT. A SINGLE STORY BUILDING ARGUABLY WOULD UNDERMINE THE BENEFIT OF THAT DENSITY. So it just seems a little inconsistent to me why we would try to encourage a product type. I have nothing against single story. I live in a single story. But if we are trying to increase housing opportunities, a multifamily site provides the opportunity for, let's just say, more dense housing, usually two stories. So it seems a little backwards to me that we would be providing a streamlined review for that type of product. And by the same token, I'm not quite sure why, what is the difference between two story and one story for streamlining? Because development review, the very first item says residential construction of two or more stories in all zones.

Yeah, this was really to comply with HAA, which defines multifamily as two units or more, which we typically see as like two stories. There's a little bit of cleanup that needs to happen. It's a little clunky in the sort of November timeline where there is a requirement for second stories. REQUIREMENTS AS PART OF THE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES SO WE MIGHT HAVE TO COME BACK AND MAKE SOME TWEAKS AT THAT TIME WHEN WE CAN.

I UNDERSTAND SOME OF THESE WILL BE LATER CODE CLEANUP. I WILL HIGHLIGHT THEM AS MUCH AS I CAN. OKAY. I DON'T WANT TO TAKE UP TOO MUCH TIME BUT MOVING ON TO PAGE 177 UNDER 13-29 TALKS ABOUT PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW PROCESS. SO I FEEL LIKE SOMETHING IS MISSING FROM THIS LIST. WE HAVE ONE AND TWO UNDER APPLICATION, ONE ABOUT FORMS PROVIDED, SECOND REQUIRING THE RECORD OWNER TO SIGN. THERE'S NOTHING ABOUT A PROJECT BEING DEEMED COMPLETE. AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO AT LEAST ESTABLISH THAT FOR CLARITY AND ALSO TO DEFINE WHAT THAT IS. AND THE REASON I BRING IT UP IS BECAUSE IN SUBSECTION C PUBLIC HEARING WE HAVE UPON RECEIPT OF A COMPLETE APPLICATION FOR PLANNING APPLICATION PLANNING DIVISION SHALL FIX A TIME AND PLACE FOR PUBLIC HEARING IF ONE IS REQUIRED. DEEMED COMPLETE SHOULD OCCUR FAR BEFORE THE HEARING IS BEING ESTABLISHED AND TYPICALLY THE PROCESS IS AN APPLICATION SUBMITTAL DEEMED COMPLETE AND THEN STAFF REVIEW FOR CONSISTENCY WITH OUR CODES AND REGULATIONS AND THEN SETTING THE HEARING. SO AGAIN I THINK THERE SHOULD BE SOME DEFINITION HERE. IT MAY NOT BE NECESSARY AT THIS POINT BUT I JUST WANT TO POINT IT OUT SINCE WE ARE DOING THIS CODE REVIEW. AND THEN ON PAGE 180, IT'S THE SUBSECTION ABOUT REVIEW CRITERIA FOR PLANNING APPLICATIONS. NUMBER 8 SEEMS A BIT OUT OF PLACE TO ME BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A PERMIT BY RIGHTS. SO THAT PROBABLY SHOULD BE MOVED TO THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STREAMLINE SECTION. AND ON THAT SAME PAGE 180 SORRY IF I'M GOING TOO FAST BUT I WANT TO LET THE PUBLIC GET TO COMMENTS. WE HAVE RENAMED ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENTS TO MAJOR MODIFICATIONS WHICH MAKES PERFECT SENSE. but we're lumping it in with variance, the findings required for variance. It seems to me that that very first one, special circumstances, that's a pretty high bar to achieve. I understand the reasoning for variances, but I guess my question is whether or not we wanna have the same for major modifications. Are they equivalent in kind of uniqueness? And then I'm gonna conclude with, THE FOLLOWING PAGE 181 UNDER DENSITY BONUS. SO REVIEW CRITERIA FOR DENSITY BONUS. I MEAN GENERALLY SPEAKING DENSITY BONUS IS A MINISTERIAL REVIEW AND APPROVAL. AND SO I'M PERPLEXED BY WHY WE WOULD REQUIRE ANY WRITTEN I UNDERSTAND THE CODE REQUIRES, STATE LAW REQUIRES THE CITY TO PROVIDE FINDINGS IF THERE'S A PROPOSED DENIAL, BUT NOT TO SUPPORT AN APPLICATION. SO GIVE SOME CONSIDERATION TO REMOVING THOSE. I don't think there's much else I really want to go through at this point. And I know some of these are far afield of the substance of what we're talking about tonight. So with that, I'm going to end my comments. One last chance for commissioners. Any more comments? OK. I am going to open the public hearing now and open public comments. So if you'd like to come speak to this item, please approach either podium. And if you're participating by Zoom, use the raise hand option. And if you're joining by phone, please use star 9. And if you give me a second, I'll get the podium set up. OK.

Thank you very much commissioner Harlan honorable members of the Commission Justin McCusker on behalf of CJ Sagerstrom and son South Coast Plaza We submitted a letter into the record today I'm sorry over the weekend with regard to the housing element. That was a follow-up from the January 30th letter that we submitted to City Council with copies to the Planning Commission, highlighting our concerns with regard specifically to Redondo and the use of overlays, getting to the point in the career where I'm finding myself being the oldest memory of the situation. So I started this process working with Jennifer Lee back during the height of COVID back in 2020. We had very clear discussions, which are documented in official communications between the company and the city that when we were requested, and that was how the process began, the city came to us and made a request if we would consider providing properties into the housing element, knowing that the city had a significant task in front of them with regard to the RENA numbers. We did not provide an answer at that time. I said outside of the fact that The world was apparently ending at the time that I would get back to them when I had a chance to talk with ownership about that request. When we did get back to the city, which is also documented in those communications, we set forth criteria in that communication and part of that criteria was very clear in the communications and that was it could only be additive which was confirmed by the city that it would not touch or impact underlying zoning and the underlying zoning would be protected and preserved. When Redondo occurred in the fall of last year, I found out through my own research and following up on it, I approached the city that fall to see what level of concern they had for it and I will say Carrie tie and her staff have been great to afford us time. Much last fall November and December, but we immediately in the wake of redondo brought these concerns to the city and the outgrowth of that is our discussions with city staff and the submission of both of those letters into the record to remove the segregation properties officially from the housing element. based on the uncertainty with regard to Redondo. Just hearing, I think, Commissioner Dixon's comments tonight with regard to the court case probably only amplifies that. I know I only have three minutes, but I would also like to say that my colleague Tim Peone is here from Cox Castle. We did say to the city that we would partner in doing our own due diligence and research and partner with the city in providing that. And Mr. Payone drafted that letter to put into the record with a recommendation on how we might proceed to both protect the city and the Sagerson properties in the housing element. We're here.

All right. Thank you. All right.

Good evening, Cynthia McDonald, Costa Mesa resident. I want to start with the revised code document. It would have been extremely helpful to see a comparison between the previous version and this one. I strongly recommend separating the exhibits into individual documents so the public doesn't have to comb through the entire packet. to find the actual changes that were woven in, especially when the agenda report doesn't clearly describe them. And I have to wonder, was that lack of clarity intentional? Because it certainly makes it harder for the public to understand what's being proposed. Throughout the document, particularly in the definition section, there are lists of requirements or options that are missing the word and or or between the final items. Without that, it's unclear whether something is mandatory or optional. That's a basic clarity issue that should have been caught. I hope the city attorney is reviewing this. In section 13-200.62 , the phrase reasonably necessary is used. Who decides what's reasonably necessary? You either need to define a standard of reasonableness or you designate a person or a body that makes that determination. As it's written, it's completely subjective. You're proposing significant upzoning without having design standards in place. That's backwards. What happens when a developer submits a project before the design standards are complete? Only to find out that the new standards conflict with the project. Right now, the public has no understanding of the vision behind these changes or if there even is one. We don't know if this new density or intensity will look like on the ground. If you want public engagement, which chambers are virtually empty, show people real examples of visual concepts of what you're proposing in specific locations. It would at least give residents something concrete to respond to. And also pretending that there'll be no impacts to traffic, pollution, or the cost of city services doesn't help anyone evaluate these sweeping changes. It's unfair to make residents wait until construction starts to understand their neighborhoods will be affected. And removing noticing requirements and tools like story poles, which are essential for transparency, only further shuts the public out. just because state law allows you to do something doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. And publishing notices in the Daily Pilot is a joke. Practically no one reads it anymore. Meanwhile, the Spotlight Mailer goes to every household and actually gets attention. That was another

Thank you. All right, go ahead.

Okay, thank you. Good evening, my name is Rick Huffman, Costa Mesa resident. Throughout the entire housing element update process, the information provided to the public has been inadequate, inconsistent, and far too obscure. for changes of this scale. Our major corridors are being proposed for high density residential zoning with outreach that would barely be sufficient for a single 200 unit project, let alone wholesale spot zoning that could add 30 to 40,000 new residents. With a single council vote, we could see zoning that allows five to 12 story apartment buildings and condos. This is a monumental shift in the character of our city. The maps being shown, filled with color-coded areas and tiny red boxes, are difficult to interpret even for those of us who are actively trying to understand them. Essential questions remain unanswered. Where are the new parks? Where is the updated traffic circulation plan? Where is the new traffic, transit hub gonna be that might be needed? How will we fund the increased need for police, fire, and social services? And if those plans exist, where are they shown on the same maps and charts as the rezoning proposals? One example illustrates the problem clearly. There is a little red box on the map covering the parcel where the women's club is located. Only recently did the members learn that their property is proposed to be rezoned to 40 units per acre or more, effectively allowing a five-story building. This map has been circulated for years, yet the people directly affected didn't even know This is not real outreach, this is not transparency, and it is certainly not how you build public trust. By the time the average resident becomes aware of these sweeping changes, the decisions will already be made and the opportunities for meaningful input will be gone. Costa Mesa deserves better planning, better communication, and better respect for the people who live here. Thank you.

GO AHEAD. I CURRENTLY HAVE A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION IN FRONT OF THE CITY ON A MEASURE CASE SITE THAT IS NOT A HOUSING ELEMENT SITE AND IT IS NOT SITTING IN ANY SPECIFIC OVERLAY AS WELL. WE'VE CURRENTLY BEEN ADVISED BECAUSE OF THE PROCESS TO WAIT UNTIL THE MEASURE K REZONING PROCESS HAPPENS IN NOVEMBER OF 2026. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT MY COMMENT IS THAT WE ARE A VERY SMALL FAMILY OWNED BUSINESS. WE'RE NOT A WARMINGTON OR LENORE HOMES. SUGGESTION FOR US TO WAIT FOR 12 MONTHS TO WAIT TO DEVELOP THIS PARTICULAR PARCEL WITH A SMALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT IS A RATHER LARGE ASK FOR US. AND I WOULD LIKE TO ASK IF STAFF AND THE COMMISSIONERS CAN CONSIDER A WAY FORWARD FOR THESE MEASURE K NON-HOUSING ELEMENT SITES IN THE MEANTIME WHILE THOSE TWO CONCURRENT PROCESSES ARE GOING ON. THANK YOU.

Go ahead.

Good evening, Chair Harlan, members of the Planning Commission. I'm George Sakioka. I'm here to represent Sakioka Companies. And this afternoon, we submitted a comment letter to the Planning Commission on the staff report from one of our land use consultants to bring to attention some inconsistencies that I think some of the commissioners brought up, for example, THE NORTH COAST MESA SPECIFIC PLAN HAS A HEIGHT ENVELOPE AND THE OVERLAY ZONE HEIGHT ENVELOPE IS ACTUALLY LOWER THAN THAT. YOU CAN'T ESSENTIALLY GET TO WHERE YOU WANT TO GO AS FAR AS INCREASING THE HOUSING STOCK, ET CETERA, TO GET A CERTIFIED HOUSING ELEMENT THROUGH HCB. What we would like to do before it goes to assuming you move this thing forward, and we are supportive of continuing this process because you've been taking some time trying to have a housing element that's complying, is that if you would direct staff to just meet with us for a little bit. I think Ana McGill mentioned it as well, to sit down and work out some of these sort of technical inconsistencies in housekeeping items that we brought up in our email earlier today. But that's pretty much it, and we appreciate your help. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening chair Harlan members of the Commission my name is Tim pay own I'm a land-use partner with Cox Castle and Nicholson in Irvine and I'm the author of the the letters you've received and I wanted to just emphasize a couple points very quickly one the situation that we're we find ourselves in is through no fault of anyone at the city past or present and It's just that the situation got turned upside down by the courts said it's that simple HCD is as your staff mentioned earlier was using the same overlay approach throughout the state so Costa Mesa is far from the only city facing this having said that from the Sagerstrom position, this needs to be addressed sooner rather than later. The further that you get into this process without reconciling this problem and our request to be removed both in the general plan from the list of housing element sites and in the zoning to be exempted and along the way also in terms of the North Coast to Mesa specific plan, any other planning documents to have them be made consistent much as staff mentioned earlier. It's much better to deal with it now than let it get farther where it will just become messier. I think you understand how it evolved and the reasons why Sagerstrom needs to be removed so that they can pursue their own business planning in their own way as they've long been partners with the city and it's a productive mutually beneficial partnership. we we hope you will move toward the exemption that we requested and since the letter the most recent letter came to you over the weekend I'm here to answer any questions that anyone may have I recognize that some commissioners may not have had the opportunity to see it in the short amount of time so here to answer questions if there are any thank you very much thank you

Hello, my name's Andrew. I'm also a Costa Mesa resident. I guess first I just want to extend my empathy to a lot of the people raising, I think, a lot of very understandable concerns over different aspects of things like the codes and technicalities of a lot of things, as well as their own personal concerns and valued agreements and disagreements. I just wanted to show up because I wanted to comment on something that I heard about from the last meeting two weeks ago, I believe. as well as comments that I may anticipate would come again at this meeting. I just wanted to represent some of the interests of my general demographic. I'm 30 years old, and I'm mainly trying to speak for people that I speak to that are younger than me about the fact that I think that the increasing worries, concerns, and real financial stresses of affordability being sort of handled or tackled and hopefully resolved with some meaningful progress towards that through these sorts of measures and these processes. FEEL VERY URGENT TO A LOT OF THEM AND A LOT OF THE CONCERNS THAT I HAD HEARD TWO WEEKS AGO AND FROM OTHER PEOPLE THAT I'VE TALKED TO ABOUT THE TYPES OF HOUSING BEING BUILT, A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT ARE MY AGE, YOUNGER, EVEN SOME THAT ARE OLDER ARE SIMPLY WORRIED ABOUT THEIR OWN HOUSING AFFORDABILITY AND ANYTHING THAT CAN INCREASE SUPPLY AND HOPEFULLY KIND OF MASSAGE INCREASING COST OF LIVING AND RESOLVE AFFORDABILITY PROBLEMS FOR THEM IN WAYS THAT THEY FEEL THAT THEY CAN EITHER CONTINUE TO make a way on their current way of life, renting, eventually build up enough wealth to mortgage a property and become owners, or move from where they currently are, either renting, owning a home, staying in that position and Extending more towards being able to provide for families and stuff like that I had co-workers that were working like three jobs supporting two kids and just having really a difficult time with that and I remember some of the comments about like does Costa Mesa want a higher density proper higher density residences do they want like what does the city want and I just wanted to represent some of those people who are generally not present at these sorts of meetings and whose voices generally go unheard that a lot of them are simply worried about being able to ACCUMULATE AND BUILD ANY AMOUNT OF WHAT FEELS LIKE SUSTAINABLE WEALTH GOING INTO THE FUTURE, HAVE THEIR HOUSING AFFORDABILITY COSTS NOT FEEL SO OVERBEARING ON THEM, AND THAT WHILE I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND A LOT OF CONCERNS THAT COME FROM A LOT OF DIFFERENT SIDES HERE, FROM EXTENDED BY THE COMMISSION, THE PUBLIC, EVERYONE, I hope and have a lot of measured optimism for this. And I just wanted to, once again, broadcast some of the voices and values of people that I think are generally underrepresented at these sorts of meetings. Thanks.

Thank you. Anna, do we have anybody on Zoom?

Autumn, you may provide your public comment.

I'll try it one more time.

Good evening. My name is Autumn Elliott. Last month, Disability Rights California, which is California's nonprofit protection and advocacy system for people with disabilities and I wrote a letter to the city regarding Costa Mesa's reasonable accommodation ordinance. We did that because the city attorney had told us that the city was considering eliminating finding F7 in the reasonable accommodation ordinance. And in the letter, we said that was a great start, but there are still a number of other problems with the ordinance, and we explained what those were. We're glad to see some of our suggestions incorporated into what's before you, but there are still other fixes that the city still needs to make in order to bring the ordinance into compliance with the law. To give just one example, findings F3, 5, and 8 of the reasonable accommodation ordinance require an affirmative finding that there's no undue burden, fundamental alteration, or direct threat, but that ends up putting the burden on the person making the reasonable accommodation request to demonstrate that when the law actually prohibits putting that burden on them. Some of the proposed revisions look like they may be in response to our comments but don't actually end up fixing the problem or in some cases may even make it worse. And there's also some new language we hadn't seen that we think creates additional problems. The Insight versus Costa Mesa Settlement Agreement provides that Disability Rights California can sue the city if it doesn't live up to its promise in the housing element to bring the reasonable accommodation ordinance into compliance with the law. But the settlement agreement also says that Disability Rights California and I are more than willing to work collaboratively with city staff to help figure out a way for Costa Mesa to bring its ordinances into compliance with fair housing laws and meet the needs of Costa Mesa so that it doesn't come to that. The ordinance before you need more work in order to come into compliance with the law and We hope that here you'll direct city staff to continue working on them and really encourage them to reach out to Disability Rights California and to me to hear more about what we have to say about how best to do that. it sounds like staff are still waiting for comments from hcd and it also sounds like it didn't get the careful review by the members of this commission that it deserves which are more reasons to continue working on it it's important not to have more delay but it's even more important to get this right thank you thank you wendy lease you may provide your public comment

Yes, good evening planning commission chair Harlan and members of the planning commission. My name is Wendy lease. I will this year I will celebrate 54 years in our wonderful city. I don't usually comment. But I feel compelled to listen tonight on this very important matter. Well, I appreciate staff's. work and all the details and the requirements that the state has imposed and the burdens that the state has imposed on our city staff and because of the housing element, I would just like to make a few points. One, I don't want to see us streamline things to the point where when you talk about a hundred feet from a neighbor, they, the people that live 200, 300, 400 feet away, all of a sudden they find out that a change is going to affect their quality of life, but they didn't know about it. Whatever we just to fit in with the rest of the, to make it equal with the rest of the notification rules. Please don't, air on the side of expediency, but air on the side in Costa Mesa of transparency and fairness for residents. I've been a homeowner here since 1973. And I just think that there are a lot of people like me, seniors, That would be upset to find out that something is happening kind of behind their back in the city didn't notify them. So please rethink that. I'm not happy about the women's club, not receiving notification. I'm a member of the women's club. I support what the comments that commissioner Dixon and have made. Also, I support my friend Cynthia McDonald and Rick Huffman. and those comments regarding the future of parks and parking and our safety, police and fire. And I don't know if we have to, because of state law, I'm not up to speed on the sober living, but I was there. And I hope you don't really make it easier for sober living homes to come into our town and not have to go through the qualifications and the notifications to the surrounding homeowners. what they're going to be doing. And we've already gone through that. I know that there's been some lawsuits that have changed some things, but overall, please err on the side of transparency to the residents of every street and not have these surprises that something's going to be built and they didn't even know about it. People are busy with their lives and they don't often see those little signs. I've noticed in other cities that rather than the little LEGAL SIGNS, THEY HAVE MORE BIGGER SIGNS LIKE YARD SIGNS THAT ANNOUNCE A PROJECT.

THANK YOU, MS. LEASE. ANYBODY ELSE ON ZOOM OR PHONE?

NO, THERE IS NOT, MR. CHAIRMAN.

OKAY. I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT PORTION OF THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONERS, ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF?

Actually, I had a quick question, and it may be already covered in the Mr. Chair.

Yes, go ahead, Commissioner Dixon.

Regarding the definition of operator, it means a company, business, or individual, including an in-house manager who provides residential services. Was that a requirement under the state law, or is that something that we did individually? I'm just asking because in-house manager is an employee as opposed to, and that may be what you intended, it may be I just wanted to get a little bit of clarity on that.

Commissioner Dixon, can I clarify the question? Are you asking whether the definition of operator was included a certain aspect? Because that's a pre-existing part of the code. So I'm just trying to clarify. Oh, no, no, no.

The addition of including an in-house manager.

Oh, I see. Yes, it's to broaden the definition of operator to include what realistically we have been seeing as part of operations at group homes.

Okay. Thank you. And then just to get a little bit of clarity on the streamlined development and the by right ministerial, I understand completely that there are state law provisions. I'm looking at them in some of the materials. So let's say that in any of the housing element opportunity sites where they have a 20% minimum of affordable, that means Can that be by right? Or are there other provisions that may step in to require review? I just want to get some clarity on that.

Yeah, thank you, Commissioner Dixon. They need to be a housing element site, provide at least 50% housing, meet the minimum density, which is 20 dwelling units to the acre, and provide 20% low.

And so that would be ministerial, and we have no and I understand that these are coming down the road, but we really have no design standards. Getting rid of design review, I realized that residential design guidelines that we've had adopted, I believe, in 2018 or something like that, those were for residential in typically kind of R1 areas.

They would still be subject to the MUOD objective standards and the citywide residential design standards when those are adopted. they would get submitted to the building permit for review and get routed to the planning division so that planning staff can do that check to make sure they're consistent with all of those standards.

Got it. And then, okay. And what about the notification? There will be no notification of any surrounding folks of a potentially 10-story building going up?

Yeah, they would be treated just like any other ministerial permit that gets submitted to the building department. They need to put noticing on the site. And then in addition to that, the city is also developing a GIS mapping tool that we think will be helpful for these projects and other projects where residents can go on the website and get more information about what projects are under review, either by planning or building.

Okay. And then So just, again, for clarity on this process, we're asked to make a recommendation based on the staff report and the questions and the public comment tonight, understanding full well that there's a lot of cleanup that's necessary. And there's some major elements of this which will have impactful, like you're saying, the design standards, that those are still

the process will those be complete by the time this gets to council so the objective design standards that are in the mood the mixed-use overlay district will go to City Council for their consideration on March 17th the citywide objective standards are following that longer November timeframe so any project that submits in between will be subject to the mood, but, um, and whatever, um, you know, objective design standards we have codified in the zoning district and in the zoning code.

Okay.

Yeah. Similar, like, you know, we still have landscaping requirements, um, tree replacement requirements, sidewalk requirements, all of that's still applicable to any project.

Okay. And I noticed, um, I noticed in the, And the North Coast Mesa specific plan was existing that there's a requirement for shade and shadow or it's a recommendation that shade and shadow analysis be done. Where would that play come into play on on these sites, if at all?

Yeah, so that the letter that we received actually recommends removing that requirement and we think that would be an appropriate cleanup as part of this effort. So, if the planning commission makes a recommendation tonight, And you would like staff to work with that developer to make those consistency revisions. We will do that and bring them to the city council.

Okay, and then regarding the sort of the secret questions and how this all plays into the housing element, the different housing loss from the state. Would you just briefly if you can, if it's not. Too much of an ask at this point, if so, let's say that there is 1 of these housing element. Opportunity sites that meets all the objective design standards. And it's 10 stories, for instance, and it's adjacent to a single family or a park or something like that. What opportunity are there? Where would that review come in as far as the potential impacts of that new development? Would it be a standard CEQA? Would it be an administrative? Would it be a ministerial? WOULD IT BE JUST A CATEGORY OF EXEMPTION? WOULD THERE BE ANY SORT OF ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS?

SO IT DEPENDS ON THE TYPE OF PROJECT. IF IT'S A HOUSING ELEMENT PROJECT THAT'S BY RIGHT, IT'S A MINISTERIAL PERMIT AND THOSE ARE NOT SUBJECT TO CEQA SO THERE WOULD BE NO CEQA REVIEW. IF IT'S A HOUSING ELEMENT SITE it doesn't meet the by right or it's a measure case site, they would be submitted and we would do, um, Oh, I'm sorry. Not a housing element site. A measure case site would be reviewed against, um, the programmatic EIR that's coming on the November timeline for consistency. So as long as they're proposing what has been studied, then we can, you know, we can put together the documentation to show that they're consistent.

Okay, and the secret carve-out for the first category you were mentioning, is that that's pursuant to state law, or is that something we're doing to streamline the process?

Oh, that's state law.

That's what I thought. Okay, I just wanted to get that out there and explain that. Okay, thank you very much.

Thank you. Commissioners, any other questions? Okay, I will make the motion this evening. AND THAT IS TO MOVE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION WHICH INCLUDES FINDING THE PROJECT EXEMPT FROM CEQA, RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING CODE WITH THE STATED CHAPTERS IN THE STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDING THE COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION OR AN COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION OR AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE NORTH COAST MESA SPECIFIC THE NORTH COAST MESA SPECIFIC PLAN FOR CONSISTENCY WITH PLAN FOR CONSISTENCY WITH APPLICATION OF THE MIXED USE on housing element opportunity sites. And then two additional recommendations. The first is to amend the zoning code to include the Sagerstrom properties under the exception provision, which is in 13.83.58 and referencing the letter that was submitted dated February 7th, 2026. AND THEN SECONDLY DIRECTING STAFF TO CONDUCT A CONSISTENCY REVIEW FOR THE NORTH COAST MESA SPECIFIC PLAN REGARDING PROPERTY OWNER COMMENTS AND WORKING WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER ON THAT SPECIFIC IS THERE A SECOND FOR THAT MOTION? SECOND BY COMMISSIONER DICKSON. I'LL BE VERY BRIEF. THIS IS AN INELEGANT SOLUTION AT BEST BUT IT'S WHAT WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH AT THE MOMENT. AND DESPITE THE CLUNKINESS OF IT ALL I THINK THERE ARE SOME REAL SUBSTANTIVE IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE GOING TO MOVE TOWARDS THE POLICY OF BASICALLY JUST GENERATING MORE HOUSING, WHICH IS WHAT WE DESPERATELY NEED IN THE CITY. I THINK THIS IS A SOLID RECOMMENDATION FOR CITY COUNCIL. WE KNOW THEY'RE ULTIMATELY GOING TO BE THE FINAL DECISION MAKER HERE, AND IT'S, I THINK, THE BEST THAT WE CAN DO IN THIS INTERIM STEP. COMMISSIONER DIXON, DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO THE SECOND?

YES. THIS IS AN INELEGANT PROCESS TO SAY THE LEAST. THERE'S A LOT THAT I WOULD PREFER WAS NOT HERE. I THINK THAT SOME OF IT IS 100% STATE DRIVEN. I WOULD LIKE TO THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT REMAIN TO BE WORKED UPON BETWEEN NOW AND THE COUNCIL AND I THINK THAT WE ALL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REACH OUT TO COUNCIL MEMBERS AND MAKE OUR VOICES HEARD ON THAT. BUT I THINK THAT THE STRUCTURE OF THIS WITH THE NOTABLE INCLUSION OF THE the request from the Sagerstrom properties to be exempted and also to do the cleanups that were pointed out by other public commenters are very applicable. I do have a significant amount of concern about other property owners being included in this, but again, I think that we need to move this process forward to council and we can address that particular element of the notification and the folks that may have found out that they have a change in zoning which may alter their highest, what they consider the highest and best use for their property. And also, you know, I think one of the things that really stands out in the exception for the Segerstrom properties is the economic impacts. And I know there's a fiscal impact analysis in the staff report, but I really don't think that there's enough being thought about on some of these traditionally commercial properties that have been historically commercial, and the owner may decide that that's the highest and best use, and it may be. I was very encouraged to hear that staff is reaching out to other property owners that are interested in becoming part of this process and having their parcels included in the housing element opportunity sites. Because for some owners, the opportunity for residential is massive. It's something they desire. But I think for the owners that have commercial properties that are historically commercial, and that's really the highest and best use and contributes dramatically to the city's economic vitality. that they have an opportunity to remove those. So that's one of the recommendations I like to include in my motion is that if property owners do come forward and want to be removed from the housing element opportunity sites, that that's a process that the city should endeavor to honor and undertake as expeditiously as possible. But I do think that there are some good things here as far as the way we're moving forward and to get some certification of our housing element. I do think it's a bit sped up, but I think that us PUTTING A HALT ON IT HERE OR SAYING LET'S THINK ABOUT IT SOME MORE IS NOT REALLY GOING TO CHANGE THE PROCESS MUCH. SO I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE MOTION THAT YOU MADE GO FORWARD WITH MY COMMENTS INCLUDED. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, COMMISSIONER DIXON, YOU'RE ASKING FOR A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE A PROCESS THROUGH STAFF FOR PROPERTY OWNERS THAT WANT TO CONSIDER WHETHER OR NOT THEIR PROPERTIES ARE PART OF OUR HOUSING ELEMENT SITES?

YES, AND THAT'S A RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL. Brett KenCairn, I don't think that's something we can write into the code at this point or a friendly amendment to add something to the code, but I think it's something that should be recommended to counsel because. Brett KenCairn, We have a compelling argument about how this is originally presented and the opportunities that were there, which some and now that there's a mandatory residential component. Brett KenCairn, Maybe some of the property owners that were originally approached may decide thing that did not want to be involved may want to be involved, so I just think it's an iterative process. that is dramatically and potentially impacting individual parcel property rights and also the city's economic vitality. So that's – to include that in the recommendation. MR.

Okay. I'll agree to that as part of my motion.

MR.

Thank you.

Excuse me, Chair. Is there an opportunity to extend that exception to current developers that are ready to proceed in non-housing opportunities, right? We heard other constituents here that are ready to move forward on their project.

Let me see if I understand your question.

So we had another constituent here speak on a project that they're looking to move forward in that's part of the Measure K site but not a housing opportunity site?

It's not a Measure K site.

Right. It's not a Measure K site.

It's not a Measure K site and it's not a housing opportunity site. So it's not impacted by. So it would be covered by what the subject that we've talked about tonight.

Got it. May I, through the chair, provide some additional information? Sure. We've received four letters to date for requests, two for sites to be removed from the housing element, and two additional letters for sites to be added to the housing element. We will be taking those to the city council with a recommendation to honor the request of those property owners. So I just wanted to let you know, as part of your recommendation, We are doing that process. We are honoring those requests. They require a general plan amendment because they're amending the housing element, so they need to be brought to city council.

Okay. Thank you for that, Ms. McGill. Commissioners, we've got a motion and a second. Any comments? Commissioner Martinez.

Yes. First, I just want to offer a substitute motion. That includes much of what you, actually all of what you've already described, but has a few items from my comments from last meeting, and I believe a couple of things from the comment letters that weren't already included in your motion. So I would like to move that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution to find the project exempt from CEQA, as noted in the staff report. recommend the City Council adopt an ordinance for the following chapters and with amendments in attachment E so that section 1383.58B3 reads as, the provisions of this section shall not apply to residential mixed use or other projects located within the boundaries of any of the following properties identified in table B6 of the housing element. Unique ID numbers 38, and then the ones identified in the Segerstrom's letter. 38 is the identifier for the Fairview Developmental Center. So we're just adding all of them into one code section. Further, from Mr. Sakayuki's letter in 1383.58 , add trip budgets before ministerial review and add, notwithstanding the foregoing, if a specific plan allows for more relaxed standards or greater heights, projects on lower income housing element sites may utilize these standards or heights. Further, from me and from my comments last meeting, delete everything in 1383.58 H2, accept minimum off-street parking requirements for multifamily dwellings on housing element sites, and add there are no before that phrase. In the setback standards table, replace 10 feet with 5 feet and add additional provision that reads, maximum setbacks may be exceeded if publicly accessible open space is provided in that area. In the open space standards table, Add additional provisions in the usable common residential open space row that reads, may be provided as publicly accessible open space. And another in usable private open space row that reads, may be provided as usable common residential open space or publicly accessible open space. and further direct staff to conduct a consistency review for the North Coast to Mesa specific plan based on public comments and further recommend the City Council review the definitions section and the reasonable accommodation sections based on the public comments that we've received today.

Okay. Is there a second for that substitute motion? I'll second. Okay.

to speak to your motion yes this covers many of the things that the chair's motion has already included it has further amendments to a to further incentivize the development of housing in Costa Mesa including making it easier to build in our in our housing element sites it includes some I think important changes that I brought up last meeting making it the standards a bit more malleable so that a developer can do this and it also adds in some access to publicly accessible open space that we don't currently have right now. The publicly accessible open space that would come from housing element sites are tied only to the commercial a percentage of the commercial that will be on the site. This amendment will allow for open space that would be private to become public and accessible to all people. And it further includes comments and a request to amend the mood from the Sakyoka Company, which was not included in the original motion. Thank you.

DOES THE SECOND WANT TO SPEAK TO?

YEAH, JUST TO ADD ON THAT KIND OF ALIGNS WITH SOME OF THE EARLIER REQUESTS ABOUT INCLUDING OPEN SPACE, MAKING OUR STREETS POPULAR AND ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC.

OKAY. COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ, CAN YOU CLARIFY THE EXACT PROPOSAL FOR THE OPEN SPACE? YOU KIND OF WENT THROUGH THOSE VERY QUICKLY, I UNDERSTAND.

So the open space standards change.

Essentially what I'm proposing is- So just for reference, are you talking page 217 in their staff report?

I am trying to find it. Yes.

Okay.

So this is kind of in the wrong order, but essentially I'm breaking it down from there's private open space, there's common open space within a development, and there's publicly accessible open space.

Mm-hmm.

Anything that is private can become common or public. Anything that is common can become public. So it opens up more space to the public if a developer so chooses.

I guess my question is when you say private to become public, are you referring to like a private balcony space to be public?

Well, the square footage requirement of a balcony could be publicly accessible open space on the ground floor. It could be a plaza. It could be applied as a plaza.

OK.

I'm thinking especially for some of our busier commercial corridors, I don't know how many people would want a balcony on a busy commercial corridor. So might as well allow for some flexibility and use that space, still have that open space, but it can be common or public.

And is that at the applicant's OPTION OR IS THAT A MANDATE? THAT IS THE APPLICANT'S OPTION.

IT MAY BE APPLIED AS, MAY BE PROVIDED AS THESE TYPES OF OPEN SPACE.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. ANNA, CAN YOU CALL A VOICE?

NO QUESTION BUT COMMENT.

OKAY. OF COURSE.

I'll remove any mystery right at the onset. I will not be supporting that motion. I didn't even understand half of the last second changes that were suggested. But that may be neither here nor there because what we're sending up to council is what I affectionately refer to as a half-baked plan. I like sending final work products to counsel, final work products to my boss, as opposed to rough drafts that then they have to figure out. That's a personal preference, obviously. I also want to say at the outset that I completely agree with granting the request from Segerstrom's for removal from the housing element update opportunity site list. I also agree with them through no fault of the city's that they find themselves in a rather problematic position as I suspect there might be many property owners that either know or may discover at some point in their future that they too are going to have a problem. I also would be remiss if I didn't acknowledge a comment from the public because I agree and support affordability anxiety and in particular the desire, and I'm so pleased to hear it, a desire to actually own property and begin building wealth. I know I'm not alone in suggesting that that's an important thing for people to be considering if they want to build wealth in life, and that's to own property. But if somebody wants to rent the rest of their life, that's obviously a personal choice. So I've struggled with what we're trying to accomplish here, and I've struggled with why it appears that we're working so hard to be responsive to the state's HCD and less concerned about being responsive to our own citizens. I'm seeing either overt or incidental effort to cut the public out from as much oversight, input, and review as possible, limiting or eliminating public hearings, public notice, all in the interest of speed and removing barriers. See, the public, they're barriers, apparently, from the state's perspective. They're barriers to housing. Kind of sad commentary. It appears that even council may be cut out of complex projects that will be by right and approved by staff. unelected, competent professionals, but I don't think that's the process. I don't think that's right. We're planning for unit counts that I don't think anybody actually believes will be achievable, much less desirable in our community, and with what I think is a patchwork quilt of spot zoning. This isn't through any fault of staff, and I said at the very onset when Jennifer Lee had first come up with the draft of the Housing Element Update Opportunity Sites. It's an Excel spreadsheet exercise that you must do for the state. How are you gonna accommodate the RHNA allocation of 11,760 units? Simple, identify sites, determine their acreage, lay on top of that, whatever kind of density you need, 40, 50, 60, 90 units an acre, see what the bottom line is. Since been told by staff that we also have to have a buffer. So on top of the 11,760, we're planning for 17,042, which can accommodate 30 to 40,000 new residents in the city, but that's not going far enough. We're gonna take measure K sites and rezone those also. We are desperate for housing. I think we need to clearly differentiate in this document those things which staff is recommending and those things which the state is forcing us to do by virtue of the assembly bills and Senate bills that keep flooding out of Sacramento. We need to know the difference between the pressures and directives that are coming from HCD that are not codified in law. There still may be good ideas that we should be trying to do, but I think we need to know the difference. I think also we need to give more time for our citizens and affected property owners to fully understand how they're being affected by this. You know, the fact that at this late stage, two of the biggest developers in the city, when I say late stage, I mean today Today, two of the biggest developers in our city have come forward and said, nope, nope, this isn't good the way you got it. In fact, we have an adamant objection from the biggest, most sophisticated, most beneficial developers to the city. Fully respect their request, I agree with them 100%. What about the smaller guys, the less sophisticated guys? No, this should be raising alarms and we should be listening to those alarms. If they're surprised and dismayed, Again, what about the less sophisticated property owners? What about property owners adjacent to these sites? You think they know what's going on? No. I've contended that most people, most residents, most citizens of our city are at home, they're living their daily lives, they're raising families, making ends meet, volunteering in the community. They are not here. How come? Do you think they're not interested? It's not what I think. I don't think they realize the extent of the dramatic and draconian lengths to which we're going to get housing built. A lot of these people probably never even heard of CEQA. Casting that aside to get housing. Notices, public hearings, casting that aside. to get housing. We are desperate for housing. I think most people at home assume that we're watching out for their interests, that we're working to improve the city, not make it grow by 50% by virtue of high rise, high density, congested living. They don't think that's what we're up to. That's what we're up to. half of the residents voted against Measure K. And I suspect that many of those who were supportive of it did so because they relied on the so-called facts that the city published in all of its advertising literature, encouraging people to support Measure K, making bold claims like we're gonna preserve residential neighborhoods. Of course, the city had no insight that SB 9 was gonna come along They probably had no intention at that time to remove the public hearing process for small lot subdivisions, but we did. It's ministerial now. We're going to revitalize commercial and industrial corridors. That sounds good. Who'd be against that? But is that the same thing as saying we're going to replace many of those with five-story, six-story, seven-story apartment complexes? It's not the same. Do you think people understood that? Because we didn't tell them that. We're going to create affordable housing. A lot of people were interested in that. That sure sounds good. What does that mean? Is that the deed-restricted taxpayer-subsidized housing? that you have to qualify for based on your income level, which, by the way, you might not qualify for if you've got sort of a reasonable middle income? No, that isn't what I think people were thinking about. They were thinking about, gosh, but my apartment rent is so high. Can we get apartment rents down? I don't know. Maybe if developers build a bunch of apartments, it'll oversupply the market and that'll drive down prices. I don't think developers are, I don't think they're that dumb. They build what they know the market needs, what the market can absorb. Well, we're also going to protect parks and open space. I don't know, did you hear that anywhere tonight? We're not doing that. And above all, we're going to maintain local control. So if you want to support K, do it, because we're going to maintain local control. Practically none of what we're doing here tonight is because of our interest in local control. It's because HCD, HCD, HCD. That's not the city's fault. That's what we're doing, though. And people supported Measure K on that promise, just as many landowners said, yeah, housing element, sure, put me in. I'm good for that. because they relied on what I think was common sense. I think we need to pause, regroup, and reconnect with our own citizens and property owners and truly fashion a plan that makes Costa Mesa better and not bigger. Sending a half-baked plan to council, I think, is irresponsible. Staff has got a lot of work to do between now and then, and what council gets And then end of March is going to be different than what we are presumably, I'm not, but majority will be approving. And what council gets isn't what we're approving. It'll be basically what we're approving, but with all these other changes. Land removed from sites, land added to sites. I would recommend to Mr. Thomas that you contact the city and beg them to get your land added to the housing element update sites of course you're not You're not dumb you know that's what you need to do. I see you're nodding Yeah Gosh, this is so disappointing to me, and it's also disappointing. I'm the only one to say it All right commissioners any final comments

This is on a substitute motion, correct?

Yes, we're on the substitute motion.

Chair Harlan, may I ask a question about the motion so that I understand what it includes? Yes, go ahead. There was some additional comments about the site that's in the North Costa Mesa specific plan, the letter that we received from George Sakioka. My understanding is that he wanted to still be included in the MUOD. but he wanted there to be some consistency check between the development standards. So I just wanted to clarify if your motion was to include or to remove him from the mixed use district?

The only sites that are removed are the ones identified in the letter by the Segerstrom Company. Amendments proposed by the Sakioca Company to the MOOD are what is included in this motion. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you for that clarification.

Commissioner Dixon, did you want to speak on the substitute motion?

No, thanks.

Okay. Anna, will you do a voice vote for the substitute motion?

Chair Harlan?

No.

Vice Chair Zick?

No.

Commissioner Rojas?

Yes.

Commissioner Klipak? No. Commissioner Andrade? Yes. Commissioner Dixon?

No.

Commissioner Martinez?

Yes.

That motion fails 3-4 with Commissioners Klepak, Zick, Harlan, and Dixon voting no.

Okay, we have the original motion. Anna, will you please do the voice roll call?

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. Would you just clarify that? Would you restate that original motion? Because I think maybe my comments might have clouded the fact that it includes the exception as referenced in the letter, specifically the exception language and the inclusion of that in Section 13-83.58 . IT'S THE EXCEPTION OF THOSE SITES. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WAS IN THERE. IT WASN'T A RECOMMENDATION THAT ALL SITES ARE GIVEN THAT OPPORTUNITY AND THAT THAT PARTICULAR EXCEPTION WAS INCLUDED.

RIGHT. SO JUST TO CLARIFY. SO B3 IS THE EXCEPTION PROVISION WHICH AS PROPOSED BY STAFF ONLY INCLUDES FAIR VIEW DEVELOPMENT CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN. THE MOTION ON THE TABLE INCLUDES THE SAGERSTROM PROPERTIES.

CORRECT. OKAY.

All right, are we all clear? Okay, Anna, will you call voice vote?

Chair Harlan?

Yes.

Sorry, just one moment. Chair Harlan?

Yes.

Vice Chair Zik?

Nope.

Commissioner Rojas? Yes. Commissioner Klipak? Yes. Commissioner Andrade?

Yes.

Commissioner Dixon?

Yes.

Commissioner Martinez.

Yes.

That motion carries 6-1 with Commissioner Zik voting no.

All right. That is on to council. We have no old business and no new business this evening. Takes us to departmental reports. Public services. Mr. Yang.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the Planning Commission. For tonight's Public Works Report, I'm happy to announce that the groundbreaking ceremony for Ketchum Libo Park is scheduled for tomorrow, Tuesday, February 10th, at Ketchum Libo Park, which is located at 2150 Maple Street. Festivities will begin around 2 p.m., and we encourage the commissioners to attend. public works is also happy to announce that the construction is proceeding at Brentwood Park with an expected opening around March and Which includes the new playground equipment and also other amenities and lastly public works is pleased to report to the South Coast Drive wall is completed along the South Coast Drive with the construction of the new sidewalk the concrete rail has been which was there for several months has now been removed and the street is now open to all traffic so that completes my report and i defer back to the chair all right thank you very much uh development services director ty uh thank you i have a very quick update and then some very exciting news so uh at last week's city council meeting the city council approved second reading for

be a small lot ordinance for two-unit subdivisions. And so that'll take effect in 30 days, at which point two-unit subdivisions in all zones, all residential zones, including single and multifamily, will be ministerial. At the last city council meeting, the council also received an update and conducted a discussion on the ongoing effort to develop a climate action and adaptation plan. So the council and planning commission should hear more about that later on. during the spring and summer, during policy development. The Ohio House public hearing was rescheduled to April 21st at City Council. And so that's the quick update. But I do have exciting news. As of right now, on the department's website, it is live. There is an active development map And so every member of the public, the Planning Commission, anybody can go on there and click on a map of the whole city, and it will show you on a map-based, a parcel-based level, every planning application, every building permit, every encroachment permit, all business licenses. And it shows things, you know, whether they have licenses or not. So don't stay up all night surfing. But if you do, I wouldn't blame you. I think this is a long time coming. AND I REALLY WANTED TO CREDIT ALL THE HARD WORKING MEMBERS OF THE CITY'S INFO TECHNOLOGY TEAM, AS WELL AS MEMBERS OF OUR PLANNING DIVISION STAFF, OUR PUBLIC WORK STAFF, AND ALSO DAN INLOS, THE CITY'S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATOR FOR MAKING THAT HAPPEN. IT IS CURRENTLY IN BETA PHASE. WE WILL CONTINUE TO MAKE REFINEMENTS TO IT. BUT IN THE MEANTIME, ENJOY YOURSELF, KNOCK YOURSELF OUT.

THANK YOU. THAT IS EXCITING NEWS. AND COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ LOOKS LIKE HE'S TRYING TO CRASH THE SITE ALREADY. City Attorney, Mr. Preziosi, any report?

No report this evening, Chair.

Okay. With that, I will adjourn the meeting.