Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

[music] All right. Good evening. Welcome to the planning commission meeting of Monday, February 9th, 2026. I now call the meeting to order. It's now time for the pledge of allegiance, and Commissioner Kleipek will be leading us tonight. over your heart. I aliance allegiance to the flag of the United States of America to the republic which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

In case you were wondering, Commissioner Dixon is joining us remotely. So, uh, Anna, will you please do the roll roll call? Commissioner Dixon. Thank you. I am 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 Harland here. Vice Chair Zick here. Commissioner Rojos here. Commissioner Kleak here. Commissioner Andrade here. Commissioner Martinez

here. We have no announcements or presentations this evening. Uh, 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 9. Give me one second to get you set up. All right, Miss Mayo, you have the floor.

Hi, my name is Wendy Simone. I'm here about the gym at 1401 17th Street. So, um I got woke up at 501 this morning. How about y'all? You know, just booming away. But, um I forgot to send you guys my evidence. So, on Friday, the door they had the door cracked again. It was like 64 degrees. They have the door currently cracked. It's was like 65 whenever I got home. So, I'm just making sure before the weather gets nice that their walls have proper, you know, 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. Um, 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 I'll be here. Um, so it has quiet it kind of quieted, but on by Friday 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 um 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, there 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 the first CUP was in 19 like 90 something, but then they had another one which allowed them to have the aerobic workouts uh which is what what's causing all the base from the gym. And um 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, um, 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.

Right. 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. Uh, now it's time for planning. Commissioner, comments and suggestions. Uh, I will start on my left with Commissioner Martinez. None tonight. Thank you. Okay. Commissioner Rojos, no comments. Thank you. Commissioner Cleipek, none for me. Okay. Commissioner Andrade.

Um, yes. Uh, well, first, um, 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. Um and along those lines um inviting you all to I do actually make a quick correction in my last um last commission meeting I shared about um an Instagram page where we all can continue to gather, connect and support our local constituents. It's actually S 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 [snorts] a meet and greet day where we get to volunteer and connect with others. Um, that it's happening on the 18th. So, invite you all to check it out and come join us. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh, 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 uh look forward to being there at the next meeting. Okay. 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. [laughter] Uh, Vice Chair Zick, nothing tonight.

Okay. And nothing for me. Uh, 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 uh unless an item has been pulled. Uh 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. Let's uh You have any comments? Okay. Um and we have to do a voice roll call. [clears throat]

Chair Harlland. Yes. Vice Chair Zik. Yes. Commissioner Rojos. Yes. Commissioner Kleak. Yes. Commissioner Andrade. Yes. Commissioner Dixon. Yes. Commissioner Martinez. Yes. That motion carries 70.

Great. We have one public hearing item tonight. It's the only item, which means this is going to go 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 reszone six cycle 2021 to 2029 housing element sites, implement specific housing element programs to encourage and facil facilitate housing development per state requirements and a resolution to amend the North Costa Mesa specific plan for consistency with the housing element site reszoning PCTY- -25-00008 and PSPA-2600001. Please note we have received public comments on this item.

All right, I will now turn it over to Miss Heligan to present the item.

Thank you. Um, good evening, chair and commissioners. I'm Michelle Hallagan, senior planner with the economic and development services department. I'm joined by Anna McIll and Melinda Daisy and we're here to present zoning code amendments to reszone housing element opportunity sites, implement um 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, um, amendments to the zoning map, the zoning code, and North Coast to Mesa's specific plan, and staff recommendation. 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 um which uh after being approved in 2022 allows the city to reszone 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 Housing Element only meets statutory requirements if the resoning is completed in a timely manner. So they have urged the city to expedite the resoning of housing element sites. Since then, we've identified a new SQUA envir um California Environmental Quality Act or SQA exemption known as SB131. Now that housing element sites um reszoning can be exempt from SQA, neighborhoods where we all belong will have two pathways. Path one is tonight's reszoning of housing element sites, a North Costa Mesa specific plan amendment for consistency, and other zoning code amendments to encourage and facilitate housing. Path two is the reszoning of non-housing element measure K sites on

the original project schedule, which will include additional public outreach, um, development standards, studying other opportunities, looking at other zoning code amendments, as well as an environmental impact report. With that context in mind, um the draft amendments to the zoning map at this time are specific to housing element sites. In path one, housing element sites would be reszoned to the mixeduse 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 um 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 element sites are distributed throughout the city. So details are hard to see at this scale. Um but you'll see an example from the legend that shows the mixeduse overlay district in a dot pattern as well as our specific plans and our urban plans. Um note that the sun setting of urban plans is expected on the um 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. Um, 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. [snorts] Key changes include updating definitions, streamlining planning application processing, changing the name administrative adjustment to major amendment for clarity, um removing master plan requirements for misuse mixeduse projects, um 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 tenency 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 ft 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 of 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. Um 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 statutoily exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, SQUA, pursuant to public resources code section, let's see, 21080.85A, 85A, also known as SB131, 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 um an amendment to the north coast of Mesa specific plan for consistency with the application of the mixeduse overlay district on housing opportunity sites. This concludes staff's presentation and we are available to answer your questions.

Thank you very much, Miss Heligan. Uh, commissioners, any questions of staff? Who wants to take the first step? Okay, Commissioner Martinez.

All right. Uh, thank you. Um, so I'm just going to go through our proposed amendments. um attachment by attachment and see if we have any responses and see if we can't make this any uh cleaner. So, I'm using red line page numbers. Um starting with exhibit B, page 168. Um mentions the section 139 still mentions the redevelopment agency. And while we're here, um, first of all, wanted to ask, do we still use the redevelopment agency? I know in various other parts, um, we we remove redevelopment actions um, from um, the planning application review process. So, should we also remove the redevelopment agency or if it's still used, should we amend this? Um, Chair Martinez, thank you for that. It, you know, 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 like quarterly code cleanups like you saw last fall um because it will be um in many many parts of our zoning code. So, I think that might be something we could add to our list um for planners to tackle in our next code cleanup. All right, other thing for the list. Um, okay. Uh, page 213. Where is this? We're in the mood. Okay. Um, so section B3

is an exception for the Fairview for uh the area that will be the Fairview Developmental Fairview Development Center specific plan. Do we currently have a Fairview Development Center specific plan? Um, a draft will be released for public review in March. So we 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 I think my point is for for the for the time between when this is adopted and when we will officially have an FDC specific plan. What happens in that time? So we developed the specific plan. It's covered under state legislation. So there's there isn't a scenario where that developer could precede 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 and the specific plan? [clears throat] Um 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 time that this would get approved and the the specific plan would get adopted, those are really the only actions I see realistically happening. If that helps.

Okay. Um and then sticking on FDC. So we say here uh this section does not apply to FDC but the case law is the reason why we're having this um preeemption um if that's supersession right so if if case law maybe state law is saying that housing element sites need to fit these 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 Roondo Beach case speaks to. And the reason is because an overlay is like a a second form of zoning. So, you have two different zoning that are kind of laying on 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 h you 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. The 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. And that that's why there's a little bit of difference in how they get approached. Okay. Um let's see. Page 217 is uh development standards tables. And I wanted to see if I could get an explanation for footnote number three. Commissioner Martinez, are you talking about maximum setbacks? I want to make sure we're looking at the correct note.

Yes. Okay. For the benefit of the public, footnote three reads, "Minimum setback shall apply to all portions of a building or structure. Maximum setbacks along public streets shall only apply to a building or structures 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, I so sorry. Um, 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 um 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.

Okay. Um, yeah. Okay. Um and then right above that we have our table with open space standards. And uh could you all just remind me um what are is this uh if a de if a developer did not meet these standards is that the fee process uh like a park fee or is it uh variance adjustment? What's the process if those aren't exactly met? um 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 um they only apply in 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. Um, those are my questions for tonight. Thank you. Okay. Any other commissioners? Commissioner Andrade.

Um, looking at the map, uh, that is I think attachment 4 269. Um, and just thinking about the resoning 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, our very walkable corridors, uh, to include public green space um, and helping us expand our our tree canopy as being one of what is it arbor city right um what what would be an applicable section so that we can set that expectation in thank you commissioner um 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 revisit visiting our landscaping standards. Um we're also looking at performance and how the buildings perform. Um there's another opportunity through um 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, you know, treelining 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, would is can we build in an 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 c 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. Um but um 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 t 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. Um, so it's a little bit the cart before the horses. 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 um mood projects.

Thank you. Um, and again, I just don't want this to get if this is the opportunity to insert that or put a footnote somewhere. Um, I I just don't want this to get lost while another master plan from another commission takes its toll and you know follow the the time the usual timelines as things move along um as an essential opportunity. And then the same um I we received um one public comment from past commissioner Toller. Um and one of the things that I think also stood out with me along with in 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 quite walkable. A lot of the community is on foot. great bits. The few businesses that are available are heavily trafficked by foot, some biking. Um, 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. Um, 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 um like you know refining those 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. Uh, okay. Go ahead, Commissioner Dixon.

I don't have no way to to, you know, hit the button on the uh on this. So, I So, there's a couple of questions. I received um 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 um post new commune or post the initial outreach from the city uh to these particular parcels that are identified on the housing element opportunity sites. What sort of outreach has there been uh prior to this effort and this u sort of change in the scope of what the being on that list would would mean? Um, do these property owners have they been given an affirmative notice that this was coming down this 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. Um, let me know if I'm not exactly answering the question that you're asking. Um, but during the housing element process, those um, property owners were engaged and there were discussions about including them on the housing element at the time. And this is um this happened California based. So it's not it's not just um kind of a thing that the city of Costa Mesa is trying to tackle it. Um 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 um particularly in cities that used an overlay that base zoning would still be applicable. So that would still be an option for them. Um since that time we're obviously trying to understand the Roondo Beach case and the implications of it on housing element sites and so that direction that we all that Californiaide we understood has changed a little bit um because we're going through this process at the same time um we just 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. Um and so we have to move forward with what we know today. And so um some of the questions that we're now um fielding from developers and we're holding 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 is of it is today, how HCD is interpret 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 staying on our housing element. [snorts] And for those developers, we're working with them on the appropriate steps to um remove them. At the same time, we are also speaking to um land owners who are interested in going on the housing element. Um and so we're we're constantly kind of trying to field those requests. Um and so any requests that we get in as part of this

process, we'll be taking to the city council for their consideration. And Anna, I I did want to add that um in December we um sent out a mailer to our housing element site property owners and then we followed up with a public notice. Um and you know we've uh we actually put out notices in the newspaper when they weren't required just hoping to capture more eyes on this uh process. as well as we've been doing frequent eblasts to our email list which is over 350 contacts at this point just trying to raise the profile that way. Um but yes, we did send out two notices to our housing limit site property owners.

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

Commissioner Dixon? Um what we've been hearing through other cities throughout the state since we're all in this situation together um is looking at leadership [snorts] 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, we 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. Um, another question was, um, so we received some public comment today and I'm sure that, you know, since staff forwarded it to us, you've seen it as well. Um, from the Ohio House, uh, from, uh, the folks at Searstrom Company, the folks at Sakioka, and I just wanted to find out if staff had any, uh, comments or responses to those comments that they wanted to share. Um, and if not, I understand, but if 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. Um, 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 we're putting together a path forward for those sites. Um and we anticipate that going to the city council on March 17th. Um the property owners that maybe had some additional questions or potential revisions like in the North Coast Mesa specific plan, we have um plans to get together with that team and meet and kind of further discuss some of the amendments that they pointed out and um assess whether they're appropriate to include in this process. Um there were an a handful of North Coast Mesa specific plan amendments that we were anticipating um doing on the November timeline on that longer timeline because it's it's a very complex document. So we're trying to do a very minimal min minimal surgical and revisions to that um document. But there if there are um amendments that warrant revisions, we will make sure to um include them before we go to city council. Um, and if you want, you could, you know, this the planning commission could include in their motion to, you know, go back and do a consistency look and make any, you know, revisions needed, um, to that 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. Um, 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. So again, 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 your comment about HCD, and I see that there were some notes about collaborating with HCD. Um, what I'd like to really understand, and I think that the agenda report and the 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 by right development for certain applications and things like that is there is there anything that you have proposed or that is in are the in these amendments that was not something that was required by state law. It's something that we are are doing on our own or if we're doing you know in hopes of pleasing HCD or something along those lines. um because I think it's pretty clear from my experience that um we want to limit the by right to what is necessary under state law and so I'm just trying to understand um where the line falls on that are 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 um Commissioner Dixon. So um the majority of the amendments are um are proposed in line with our housing element imple implementation that's mandated by state law and to meet any applicable state legislation updates um that we need to make. Um you mentioned the by 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 the rest of the amendments to that planning application section. So um we are proposing um a planning um a staff level review of housing element projects the ones that don't meet the byite um we are only reviewing them against objective standards. So that part is mandated. Um uh but um that revision to like go to a zoning administrator or a 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 um housing production which is one of our housing element programs. Um, two to reduce confusion so that our developers understand like 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 a like a you know checking against objective standards. So there's not a lot of room on those particular projects for discretion.

Okay. Um All right. And then All right. Those are my questions for right now. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Commissioner Dixon. Vice Chair Zick. Thank you,

Miss Heliggan, when you mentioned that uh you sent a written notice to all the property owners uh 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 Zik. I'm trying to remember the differences between the one in December versus the one in January. I know the one in January included um that they would be able to visit the website and actually review the track changes. Uh but I'm 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 imple implications to their sites as housing elements um as housing element sites and then obviously invited them to follow the process. Um that is why we are starting to hold additional meetings with um property owners and make sure that um they understand what our understanding of that that court cases and how it'll impact their site.

So to put a finer point on that um by identifying to them that your understanding has changed and it might impact them could mean a a number of things to them. In fact, that doesn't sound too serious or even too scary. Do 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 that it did include that. Yeah. Got it. Okay. [snorts] 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 uh find themselves on the housing element update uh list, they would know specifically that issue without having elaborate consultants to tell them uh what's going on. It would be really clear to them that there is a residential build obligation being layered onto their land. [snorts] Yeah, that's true. Supplanted. Really?

Yeah. And we've been holding a sign 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 um court, if there's going to be a challenge along the way. So, typically larger developers have just a better um better means of tracking those things than the smaller, you know, land owners. Do you have a way of confirming whether 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 um this SQL exemption. Um, are we somehow saying that SQA 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 Zik, so the um the state of California has created some new laws to encourage and facilitate housing. So, we are able to use one of them, SB131, to exempt our reszoning 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 that was really maybe the answer to my second question. Uh which would have been why bother with an EIR at all then?

Well, SB131 is new. It hasn't been challenged. Um 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 for for 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. Uh I was curious about this and you talked a little bit about it. um this um 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 going to say conflict difference between the entitlements that somebody enjoys by having an entitled specific plan and what these changes might um pose as a potential risk to those. Could you speak to that?

Yeah. So, at a 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 elements, i.e. building 50% at a specific density. Um 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 um the March 17th meeting. We're going to sit down with one of the property owners that um sent a letter today to make sure that we correct those inconsistencies and we make sure that all the um development standards that they had in the North Coast Mesa specific plan would still apply if they opt into the mode. So, I kind of like that 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 of 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 were that they had in the specific plan would still maintain. So, I think one example. No, that's good. Okay. Okay. They don't lose anything, correct? Yeah, they don't lose anything. Okay. And the measure K sites that are uh outside of the housing element sites, are they also going to be um exempt from SQA by SB 131? And is that because they're not part of the housing element update?

Vice Chair Zick, that's correct. they are not housing element opportunity sites and SB131 um specifically allows us to exempt actions within our housing element program. Okay. 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 SQA 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. Okay. 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 SQL 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. Um it's a big savings on time and money for them. Oh, I'm sure it is.

If a 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. Um, so we would go through that that administrative process um, if they were to come to us and and have interest in being a site.

Um, 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 they're kind of a contiguous area, maybe misshapen, but you know, kind of a a shape but contiguous area. Um, this mixeduse 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 um effect of spot zoning?

Yeah. So, vice chair, when selecting housing element sites, um there isn't a requirement in order to have them all be um uh in certain proximity to each other. So, when you do your housing element reszoning, it could have the appearance of spot zoning like you're suggesting, but [clears throat] we're really just implementing our um state mandate. And then I wanted to make it a little bit more clear that our mixeduse 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 um are like a version of the mood. Um, so moving forward, uh, we'll be suns setting those plans and you'll see adaptations of the mood in those areas. So they still have the same rights 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. Um in the second or last paragraph in the middle um you 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 uh adopting this is discretionary because I'm getting the impression from some of your other answers that uh this is all have to do this statemandated, lawmandated, 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, um where we have a choice.

Um so any action requires a planning commission recommendation and city council action. So that's where that language is coming from. Um, 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 H. Sorry, maybe I'm misunderstanding the question. The housing element to in order to amend the housing element or adopt a resoning, it requires a planning commission recommendation in city council action.

Okay. I was curious on this topic of streamlining the 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. Has been several years. So, I'm kind of wondering about this streamlining uh the process without having to 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 how is it that you're thinking we're going to streamline the process and at the end of that actually get what you're trying to get, which is housing.

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

Well, let me ask you this question. It's not quite gerine, but it but it's certainly related. uh in the course of a development agreement negotiation for projects that might be subject to that, would it be um 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 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 uh you make between the subjective and the objective. Can you give me uh kind of anam 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 Zik um some of the things you mentioned we 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 in setback something like that or for so many feet you have to have a window or some other sort of articulation. So we can you know build in um 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 um 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 U 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. 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. Um, this I'm not quite sure how you're going to be able to answer this question for me, especially given uh the public comment letter that we received um later this afternoon. Um what I'm concerned about [clears throat] um when we're talking about this topic of reasonable accommodation, there's been a a tremendous effort by the city over the last number of years [clears throat] to settle down on a a a process, a set of rules, a criteria, methodology, all these sort of words together dealing with this subject of of group homes and related types of occupancy. And up until now, or at least for me anyway, up until reading this detail, um I've sort of been under the general impression that this is all about how can we reszone 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 Zeke. That's a fair question. Um, I try to be fair with all my questions. We

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. Um, but the reasonable accommodations and 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 you've noted. Um, so um that that's where those um revisions are are have derived from. Okay. And then I'll refer to our legal team if they want to add anything to that.

Does it um 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 reszoning 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 reszoning these sites. Does it muddy the waters or choke the horse trying to get the whole kitten kaboodleoodle 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 within the time frames that we've 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 every every no everything that is that is reasonable that is past a deadline that can be included in this package has been um there are some programs that will follow on the November timeline but okay this effort is going to implement um almost 25 of the housing element programs so it is a big chunk I defer to your strategy on this

um if I could just um add a add a brief um additional information. Um I I think we've indicated to the planning commission um multiple times over the course of the last couple months of our um ongoing and consistent collaboration and coordination with HCD. Given the uh timeline that the city has been on, we've passed many of the deadlines for the housing element programs that the city committed to doing in the adopted housing element. And and as such,

the 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 resoning. 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 uh this effort is inclusive of all of those programs. So I just wanted to add that as well. Thank you.

Okay. Um reducing minimum parking standards for residential um 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 a house, uh, they might decide they'd like to provide the homeowner a place to park a car. It's up up to them if they did that, I guess. Yeah, that's correct.

Okay. I'd recommend they do that, but they they know the market. They probably see their cars out there. People drive them. Okay. And then the last question on page 26, uh, you mentioned um something about reducing. This is in the, uh, second paragraph down. along with ministerial uh approvals which I kind of have a general concern about but in this one you say and reducing the courtesy notice requirement from 500 ft down to 100 ft. 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. So, don't rub it in. I know that that's where a lot of the amendments are from. We we issue about 2500 ministerial permits every day. That excuse me, not every day. Wow. Every year every year that don't have any 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 to try to have some consistency with how we're doing other types of ministerial permits but understanding that noticing in this case is is still um important and and desired by the city. So are there other notification situations that have only a 100t radius and not a 500t radius? I'm trying to understand what we're trying to be consistent with. Yeah. Um I I assume 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. um 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? That Okay. I thought I thought you would know that. That's all for now. Okay. Um I have a handful of questions and you're going to have to forgive me. Um, some of these may end up in the category of code cleanup at a later date, but I read the code, so um, I couldn't help but notice some things. Um, and and most of these focus on chapter 3, the planning application section, where you've made some, I think, good and important changes. Um, I will note that this is just for discretionary planning applications.

[clears throat] And you know to my mind the planning application process what we put in our code should be a a guide for both staff as well as the applicants. So I want to start with um what's a proposed change. This is on page 172. Um we're calling this development review streamlined um in contrast to what's below. It's just standard development review. So um that sounds great but how is streamlined defined? Give us just a moment. We have a definition. We're just

trying to find it. Um, Chair Harland, streamline 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. See that on page 165. So um and then in contrast to development re review below. So with development review uh the planner prepares a report that then is reviewed by um leadership and signed off by leadership. Okay. But they're both staff level administrative reviews. Right. They are. But there's different amounts of work effort and timing involved.

Okay. Okay. So, with the streamlined development review, 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. Um, and unless we define what that is, it's just going to be ambiguous. But that's just a comment. Um, I want to ask questions. So under that subset there's a um we're giving a streamlined review for uh number one residential construction 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 ostensibly encourage singlestory buildings in multif family zones. I'm sorry, chair. We're trying to understand your question because um they used to go through the typical development review process which included more staff time, a report, signatures, buy off um and instead they'd be streamlined. We're just encouraging and facilitating a variety of housing types.

Okay. I I I didn't want to get into comments, but I I'm just going to to for for clarity. So, in an R3 zone where we have a density of let's say it's 20 units the acre, I think that's about right. A singlestory building arguably would undermine the benefit of that density. So, um I 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 multif family sites 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 for that type of product. Um, and by the same token, I'm not quite sure why. What is the difference between twotory 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 multif family as um two units or more, which we typically see as like two stories. Um there's a little bit of cleanup that needs to happen. It's a little clunky in the sort of November timeline where [snorts] there is a requirement for second stories um and some noticing 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. Again, I understand some of these are going to be later code cleanup. I'm just going to highlight them as much as I can. Um, okay. I don't want to take up too much time, but moving on to um page 177 under 13-29, it talks about

planning application review process. So, I I feel like something is missing um from this list. We have one and two under application. One about forms provided. Second requiring the record owner to sign. Um there's nothing about a project being deemed complete. Um and I I think it's important to at least establish that for clarity. Um 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 a planning application, planning division shall fix a time and place for a public hearing if one's required. Um the deemed complete should occur far before the hearing is being established and typically the process is a application submitt 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 some definition uh here. It may might not may not be necessary at this point but I just want to point it out. Um since we are doing this this code review. Um and then on page 180 uh under the is the subsection about review criteria for planning applications. Number eight seems a bit out of place to me um 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, um, sorry if I'm going too fast, but I want to let the public get to to comments. Um, we've we've renamed administrative adjustments to major modifications, which makes

perfect sense. Um, but we're lumping it in with variance. The the findings required for variance. It seems to me that um that very first one, special circumstances, that's a pretty high bar to to achieve. I understand the reasoning for variances, but I guess my question is whether or not we want to have the same for major modifications. Are they equivalent in in kind of uniqueness? And then I'm going to conclude with um the following page 181 under density bonus. Um so review criteria for density bonus. I mean generally speaking density bonus is a ministerial review um and and approval. And so I I'm perplexed by why we would require any written findings. I understand the the code requires state law requires the city to provide findings if there's a proposed denial um but not to support an application. So I'd give some consideration to removing those. [snorts] Um 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 field of the substance of what we're talking about tonight. Um, so with that, I'm gonna end my comments. One last chance for commissioners. Any more comments? Okay. Um, I am gonna 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, um, use the raised 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. Okay.

Thank you very much, Commissioner Harlon, honorable members of the commission, Justin McCusker on behalf of CJ Seagarstrom and Sun, South Coast Plaza. We submitted a letter into the record today. Uh I'm sorry, over the weekend with regard to the housing element. Uh that was a followup from the January uh 30th letter that we submitted uh to city council with copies to the planning commission highlighting uh our concerns with regard specifically to redondo and the use of overlays. Um getting uh to the point in the career where I'm uh finding myself being the the oldest memory uh of the situation. So I started this process working with Jennifer Lee back uh during the height of COVID back in 2020. We had very clear discussions which are documented in 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 uh providing properties into the housing element knowing that the city had a significant task in front of them with regard to the arena numbers. Uh we did not provide an answer at that time. I said outside of the fact that uh 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. Uh when we did get back to the city which is also documented in those communications, we set a 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. uh when redando occurred in the fall of last year. Uh I uh found out uh through my own uh research and following up on it. I approached the city uh that fall uh to see what level

of concern they had for it. And I will say uh Carrie Tai and her staff have been great to afford us time um much last fall, November and December, but we immediately in the wake of Redando 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 segre properties officially from the housing element. uh based on the uncertainty uh with regard to Red Roondo, just hearing I think Commissioner Dixon's comments tonight with regard to the court case probably only amplifies that. Uh I know I only have three minutes, but I would also like to say that uh my colleague Tim Pion 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 uh Mr. Pon uh drafted that letter to put into the record with a recommendation on how we might proceed uh to both protect the city and um the segment properties and the housing element. We're here.

All right. Thank you.

All right. Good evening. Uh Cynthia McDonald, Costa Mesa resident. Uh 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 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 13-200.62B7, the phrase reasonably necessary is used. Who decides what's reasonably necessary? You either need to define a standard of reasonleness 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 polls, 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 missed opportunity for real communication with the public.

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 in inadequate, inconsistent, and far too obscure for changes of this scale. Our major corridors are being proposed for highdensity 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 5 to 12tory 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 going to 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 resoning 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 reszoned to 40 units per acre or more, effectively

allowing a fivestory 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.

Thank you. Go ahead.

Hi, my name is Thomas Coaron. I currently have a development application in front of the city on a with pack baron companies on a measure K site that is not a housing element site and it is not sitting in any specific overlay as well. Uh we've currently been advised because of the process uh to wait until the Measure K reszoning process happens in November of 2026. And 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 Lenar Homes. And the 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. Um, and I would like to ask if staff and the commissioners could consider a way forward for these Measure K non-housing element sites um, in the meantime while those two concurrent processes are going on. Thank you.

Thank you. Go ahead.

Good evening, Chair Harland, U, members of planning commission. I'm George Sakyok. I'm here to represent Saki yoga companies and this afternoon we submitted a comment letter uh to the planning commission on the uh 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. Um, and the overlay zone height envelope is actually lower than that. And there's you can't essentially get to where you want to go as far as increasing the housing stock, etc. Um, to get a um certified housing element through HCD. And what we would like to do before it goes to assuming you move this thing forward and we're supportive of continuing this process because we know we've been you've been taking some time trying to have a housing element that's complying is that uh if you would direct staff to just meet with us for a little bit. I think um Anna McIll mentioned it as well to sit down and work out some of these sort of technical inconsistencies and housekeeping items that we brought up in our email earlier today. Um but that's pretty much it and uh we appreciate your your help. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening, Chair Harlland, members of the commission. My name is Tim Pon. 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 uh 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. It's that the situation uh got turned upside down by the courts. It's that it's that simple. Um, HCD as 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 Seagarstrom position, uh, 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 uh both in the general plan from the list of housing element sites uh and in the zoning to be exempted and you know 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 uh it's much better to deal with it now than let it get farther where uh it will just become messier. I I I think you understand how it evolved uh and the reasons why uh Sagerstrom needs to be removed uh 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 and we we hope you will uh move toward the exemption that we requested and since the letter uh the most recent letter came to you over the weekend. I'm here to answer any questions that anyone may have. I 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. Uh my name is Andrew. I'm also a Costa Mesa resident. Um 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 uh the codes and technicalities of a lot of things as well as their own personal concerns and uh value agreements and disagreements. Um, I just wanted to show up because I wanted to comment on something that I heard about from the last meeting uh two weeks ago, I believe, as well as uh comments that I may anticipate would come again at this meeting. Um, I just wanted to represent some of the interests of my general demographic of I'm 30 years old. There's people and I'm mainly trying to speak for people that I speak to that are younger than me. um about the fact that uh I think that the increasing uh worries, concerns and real financial stresses of affordability being sort of uh handled or tackled and hopefully resolved in some meaning with some meaningful progress towards that uh through these sorts of measures and uh these processes feel very urgent to a lot of them and uh a lot of the concerns that I had heard uh two weeks ago and from other people that I've talked to about the types of housing being built. Uh, a lot of people that are my age, younger, even some that are older, uh, are simply worried about their own housing affordability and anything that can increase supply and hopefully kind of massage increasing costs of living and, uh, resolve affordability problems for them in ways that they feel that they can either uh, continue to make a way on their current way of life, renting, eventually build up enough wealth to uh, mortgage a property and become owners, um, or uh, move from where they currently are, either renting, owning a home, staying in that position, and uh extending more towards being able to provide for families and

stuff like that. Uh I had co-workers that were working like three jobs, supporting two kids, and uh just having really a difficult time with that. And I remember some of the comments about like, does Costa Mesa want uh 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. Um that a lot of them are simply worried about being able to uh 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 uh while I completely understand a lot of concerns that come from a lot of different sides here from uh extended by the commission, the public um everyone uh I hope and have like a lot of measured optimism for this and uh I just wanted to once again uh 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 one more time.

Good evening. Um, this is my name is Autumn Elliot. Um, 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 um, Costa Mesa's reasonable accommodation ordinance. Um, 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 um there are still a number of other problems with the ordinance, and we explained what those were. Um 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. Um to give just one example, um findings F3, 5, and 8 of the reasonable accommodation ordinance um 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. Um, 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 um may even make it worse. Um, and um there's also some new language we hadn't seen that um 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 um to bring 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 collaborative

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 um Costa Mesa so that it doesn't come to that ordinance before you need more work in order to come into compliance with the law And we hope 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 um about um how best to do that. It sounds like um staff are still waiting for comments from HCD and it also sounds like it didn't get the careful review um by the members of this commission that it deserves, which are more reasons to continue working on it. It's important not to have um more delay, but it's even more important to get this right. Thank you.

Thank you, Wendy Lee. You may provide your public comment.

Yes. Good evening, um planning commission chair Haron 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 uh compelled to listen tonight on this very important matter. Uh well, I appreciate staff's uh work and and all the details and the requirements uh that the state has imposed and the burdens that the state has imposed on our city staff and [clears throat] because of the housing element. Um I would just like to uh make a few points. one, I don't want to see us streamline things to the point where when you talk about 100 ft 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. uh whatever we just to fit in with the rest of the to make it equal with the rest of the the notification rules. Uh please don't um heir on the side of um expediency, but heir on the side in Costa Mesa of transparency and fairness for residents. Um, I've been a homeowner here since 1973. And, um, 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 and 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 uh, the comments that uh, Commissioner Dixon and Zitch have made. Also, I support uh my

friends Cynthia McDonald and Rick Huffman and those comments um regarding the future of parks and parking and our safety, police and fire and um I don't know if we have to because of state law. I'm not up up to speed on the sober living, but um I was there whenever and um I hope you don't really uh make it easier for sober living homes to come into our town and um not have to go through the the qualifications and the uh notifications to the surrounding homeowners uh of what they're going to be doing. And we've already gone through that. I know that there's there's been some lawsuits that have changed some things, but um overall, please heir on the side of transparency to the residents uh of every street um and not have these surprises uh 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. Um, I've noticed in other cities that rather than the little uh legal signs, they have more bigger signs like yard signs that announce a project.

Thank you, Miss Lee. And 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. Uh, commissioners, any further questions of staff? No, actually I had a quick question and it may be already covered in the um Mr. Chair. Yes, go ahead. M Comm Commissioner Dixon,

regarding the definition of operator, um 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 I'm just asking because in-house manager is an employee as opposed to and and that may be what you intended and maybe I just wanted to get a little bit of clarity on that. Uh, Commissioner Dixon, can I clarify the question? Are you asking whether the definition of operator was um in was 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. It's to broaden. Yes, it's to broaden the definition of operator to include what realistically we have been seeing um as part of operations at group homes. Okay. And and Okay. Thank you. Yep.

And then just just to get a little bit of clarity on the streamline development um and the by right ministerial I understand completely that there are state law provisions. I'm looking at them in in this in some of the materials. Um, 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 Dix Dixon. They need to be a housing element site, provide at least 50% um housing um meet the minimum density which is 20 dwelling units to the acre and um 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. Um I I getting rid of design review I realized that res residential design guidelines that we've had uh adopted I believe in 2018 or something like that those were for residential in you know typically kind of R1 areas but

they would still be subject to the MUD objective standards and the the citywide residential design standards when those are adopted. um they would get submitted to the building permit for review and get routed to the planning division so that um planning staff can do that check to make sure they're consistent with all of those standards. Got it. And then um Okay. And what about the notification? There would be no notification if of any surrounding folks of a potentially 10story building going up. Yes. Those standards.

Yep. 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. Um and then in addition to that, um the city is also developing a GIS mapping tool that we think will be um helpful for these projects and other projects where residents can go on the website and get more information about what projects are under review um either by planning or building.

Okay. And then so just again for clarity on this on this process um we are g we're asked we're asked to make a recommendation based on the staff report and the questions and the public comment tonight understanding full well that a lot of there's a lot of cleanup that's necessary and there's some major elements of this which will have impactful you know like like you're saying the design standards um that those are still in process. Will those be complete by the time this gets to council?

So, the objective design standards that are in the mood, the mixeduse overlay district um will go to city council for um their consideration on March 17th. The citywide objective standards are following that longer November time frame. Um 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 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. Okay. And and I notice um I notice in the in the North Coast Mesa specific plan, it was existing that there's a requirement for shade and shadow or it's a recommendation that shade and shadow analysis be done. Um where would that play come into play on on these sites if at all?

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

Okay. And then regarding the sort of the SQA questions and how this all plays into the housing element like the the different housing laws from the state, would you just briefly if you can, if it's not too much of an ask at this point, if so that let's say that there's one of these housing element opportunity sites that meets all the objective design standards and is 10 stories for instance and uh it's adjacent to a single family or a park or something like that. Um, 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 SQA? Would it be an administrative? Would it be a a ministerial SQA from the city? Would it be just a categorical exemption? Would it be um would there be any sort of analysis of potential impacts?

Um, so it depends on the type of project. If it's a housing element project that's by right, it's a ministerial pre permit and those are not subject to SQA. So there would be no SQA review. Um if it's a housing element site that doesn't meet the byite or it's a measure K site, they would be um submitted and we would do um oh I'm sorry, not a housing element site, a measure K 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 um studied, then we can, you know, we can put together the documentation to show that they're consistent.

Okay. And 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. Um [clears throat and snorts] I will make the motion this evening. Um and that is to um move staff's recommendation which includes uh finding the project exempt saturatorally exempt from SQA. uh recommending that city council adopt an ordinance amending the zoning code with the [clears throat] stated um chapters in the staff report and recommending the council adopt either a resolution or an ordinance approving an amendment to the North Coast Mesa specific plan for consistency with application of the mixeduse overlay district on housing element opportunity sites and then two additional recommendations. Uh the first is to amend the zoning code to include uh the sagerstrom properties under the exception provision which is in 13.83.58 B3 and referencing the uh letter that was submitted dated uh February 7th, 2026. And then secondly, directing staff to conduct a consistency review for the North Coast Mesa specific plan regarding uh property owner comments um and working with the property owner on those uh spec that specific input. Is there a second for that motion?

Okay. Second by Commissioner Dixon. Sorry, trying to get that there. Um I'll be very brief. I mean this is a inelegant solution at best but it's what we have to deal with at the moment. Um and despite the clunkiness of it all I think there are some real substantive improvements that are going to move towards the policy of uh basically just generating more housing which is what we desperately need in the city. Um I think this is a a solid recommendation for city council. Um we know they're ultimately going to be the final decision maker here. Um and it's uh I think the best that we can do in this interim step. Uh Commissioner Dixon, you want to speak to the second?

Yes. Um I think this is an inelegant process to say the least. Uh there's a lot that I would prefer was not here. I think that some of it is 100% uh state driven. Uh 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 would have opportunity to reach out to council members and make our voices heard on that. But I think that the structure of this uh with the the notable inclusion of the um the request from the Seagar properties to be exempted and also to do the cleanups that were pointed out by other public commenters uh 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 that they have a a 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 Segstrom properties is the 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 uh 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 uh are interested in becoming part of this process and having their parcels included in the housing element opportunity sites because you know for some owners the opportunity for residential is is massive. It's something they desire. But I think for the owners that uh 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 uh 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 uh some good things here as far as the way we're moving forward and to get some certification of our housing element. Um, I do think it's a bit sped up, but I think that us putting a halt on it here or saying let's go think about it some more is not really going to change the process much. So, I I would like to see the motion that you made uh go forward with uh my comments included. So, thank you very much.

Okay. 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 the our our housing element sites. Yes. And that's a recommendation to council.

Okay. Uh, 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 council because we have a compelling argument about how this was originally presented and and the opportunities that were there, which some and now that there's a a mandatory residential component, maybe some of the property owners that were originally approached uh may decide that they 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 u individual parcel property rights and also the city's economic vitality. So that's to include that in a recommendation. Okay. I I'll I'll agree to that as part of my motion.

Mr. Chair, um is there an opportunity to extend that exception to current developers that are ready to proceed in nonhousing 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 um 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

wouldn't be covered by what this the subject that we've talked about tonight. Got it. May I through the chair provide some additional information? Sure.

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

Okay. Thank you for that, Miss McIll. Um, commissioners, we've got a motion and a second. Any comments? Uh, Commissioner Martinez.

Yes. Um, 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, uh I I would like to move uh that the planning commission adopt a resolution to uh find the uh the project exempt from SQA as noted in the staff report. uh recommend uh the city council adopt an ordinance for the following chapters and with amendments in uh attachment E. So that section 1383.58B3 reads as the provision the provisions of this section shall not apply to residential, mixeduse or other projects located within the boundaries of any of the following properties identified in table B6 of the housing element. Uh unique ID numbers 38 uh and then the ones identified in the segrestrom's letter. 38 is the identifier for the Fairview Developmental Center. So, we're just adding all of them into one code section. Uh, further from uh Mr. Sakyoka's letter in 138358E11 uh change trip uh add trip budgets before ministerial review and add not withstanding 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 uh from me and from my comments last meeting uh delete everything in 1383.58H2 except minimum off- streetet parking

requirements for multif family dwellings on housing element sites and add there are no before that phrase in the setback standards table replace 10 ft with 5t 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 [clears throat] that reads may be provided as publicly accessible open space and uh 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 uh 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. Like to speak to your motion?

Yes. Uh this covers many of the things that the chair's motion has uh already included. Uh it has uh further amendments to in to further incentivize the development of housing in Costa Mesa, including making it uh easier to build in our in our housing element sites. Uh it includes uh some uh I think important changes that I brought up last meeting uh making it uh the standards uh uh a bit more malleable so that a developer can do this and it for and it also adds in some uh 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 uh the commercial a percentage of the commercial that it will be on the site. Uh this amendment will allow for uh open space that would be private to become public and accessible to all people. Um and uh it it further uh includes comments uh and a request to amend the mood from the Sakyoka company which was not included in the original motion. Thank you.

Uh 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 flappical and accessible to the public. So, okay. Um, Commissioner Martinez, can you clarify the exact proposal for the open space, you kind of went through those very quickly, I understand, but Yes. Okay. So the open space standards uh change essentially what I'm proposing is so just for reference are you page 217 in their staff report? I am trying to find it. Yes. Okay.

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

Mh. Anything that is private can become common or public. Anything that is common can become public. So it opens up more uh space to the public if a developer so chooses. I guess my my question is when you say private to become public, if it was are you referring to like a private balcony space to be public?

Well, the 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. Okay.

I'm 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, use still have that open space, but it can be common or public. And is that that is that at the applicant's uh option or is that a a mandate? That is the applicant's option. It may be um uh may be uh 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? Uh No questions but comment. Okay. Of course. Thank you.

Um I'll remove any mystery right at the onset. I will not be supporting that motion. I didn't even understand half of the uh last second changes that were suggested. But that may be neither here nor there because what we're sending up to council is uh what I affectionately refer to as a halfbaked plan. I like sending final work products to council, final work products to my boss as opposed to rough drafts that then they have to figure out. That's a personal preference obviously. Um I uh also want to say at the outset that I completely agree with um uh granting the request from Seagerstroms for removal from the housing element update opportunity site list. Um, I also agree with them through no fault of the cities that they find themselves in a rather problematic uh position as I suspect there might be many property owners that uh either know or may discover at some point in their future that they too are um going to have a problem. Um, I also uh would be remiss if I didn't acknowledge a comment from uh the public because I agree and support uh affordability uh 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 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. Um, 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. their barriers to housing and 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 a 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 for the state. How are you going to accommodate the RENA 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 11760, we're planning for 17,042. It's going to accommodate 30 to 40,000 new residents in the city. But that's not going far enough. We're going to take measure K sites and reszone 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 are 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

two of the biggest developers in our city have come forward and said nope nope this isn't this isn't good the way you got it. In fact, we have an adamant objection this 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 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 SQA. 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 [clears throat] by 50%. by virtue of high-rise, highdensity, 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 going to preserve residential neighborhoods. Of course, the city had no insight that SB9 was going to 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 fivetory, sixtory, sevenstory apartment complexes? No, it's not the same. Do you think people understood that? Because we didn't tell them that. Um, 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 deedrestricted taxpayer subsidized housing that you have to qualify for based on your income level, which oh by the way, you might not qualify for if you've got, you know, 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? Um, I don't know. Maybe if developers build a bunch of apartments, uh, it'll over supply the market and that'll drive down prices. But 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, [clears throat] 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 land owners 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 halfbaked plan to council I think is irresponsible. Staff has got a lot of work to do between now and then. And what council gets in the end of March is going to be different than what we are presumably I'm not but majority will be approving. 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 uh you're not dumb. You know that's what you need to do. I see you nodding. Yeah. Gosh, this is so disappointing to me. And uh it's also disappointing I'm the only one to say it. All right, commissioners, any final comments. All right, this is on a substitute motion, correct?

Yes, we're on the substitute motion.

Chair Harland, may I ask a question about the motion so that I I understand um what it includes? Um there was um some additional comments about um the site that's in the North Costa Mesa specific plan. The the letter that we received from George Saki yoga. My understanding that is that he wanted to still be included in the MUOD but he wanted um there to be some 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 mixeduse. The only sites that are removed are the ones identified in the letter by the Seagarstrom company. Um, amendments proposed by the Sakyoka company to the mood um are what is included in this motion.

Okay. Um, thank you. Thank you for that clarification. Uh, Commissioner Dixon, did you want to speak on substitute motion? No, thanks. Okay. Uh, Anna, will you do a voice vote for the substitute motion?

Chair Harland, no. Vice Chair Zik, no. Commissioner Rojos, yes. Commissioner Kleak, no. Commissioner Andrade, yes. Commissioner Dixon, no. Commissioner Martinez, yes. That motion fails. 34 with commissioners Kleak, Zik, Haron, and Dixon voting no. Okay, we have the original motion and will you please do the voice roll call?

Real I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. Would you just clarify that? Would you restate that original motion because I think maybe my my comments might have cloudied the fact that it includes the [clears throat] exception as referenced in the letter, specifically the exception language [clears throat] and the inclusion of that in section 13-83.58B4. B4 ju it's a it's 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 that that particular exception was included.

Right. So just to clarify, so B3 is the exception provision which as proposed by staff [clears throat] only includes Fairview Development Center specific plan. Uh the motion the motion on the table includes the Sager properties. Correct. Okay. All right. Are we all clear? Okay. Anna, will you uh call voice vote? [snorts] Chair Harland, yes. [sighs] Sorry, just one moment. Chair Harlland, yes. Vice Chair Zik, nope. Commissioner Rojos, yes. Commissioner Cleipek, yes. Commissioner Andrade, yes. Commissioner Dixon, yes.

Commissioner Martinez, yes. That motion carries 61 with Commissioner Zik voting no. All right, that is on to council. Uh, we have no old business and no business uh, new business this evening. Um, takes us to departmental reports, public services. Mr. Yang.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the planning commission. Uh 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 encourage the commissioners to attend. Uh, 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 equip equipment and also other amenities. And lastly, public works is pleased to report that the South Coast Drive wall is completed along the uh South Coast Drive with the construction of the new sidewalk. The concrete K rail has 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 Tai.

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 the, uh, small lot ordinance for two subdivisions. And so that'll take effect in 30 days at which point um two unit subdivisions in all zones, all residential zones including single and multif family will be ministerial. Uh at the last city council meeting, the council also received an update and conducted a discussion on the ongoing effort to uh develop a climate action and adaptation plan. So uh the council and climate planning commission should hear more about that later this during the spring and summer during policy uh policy development. Uh the Ohio House public hearing was rescheduled to uh April 21st at city council. Um and so that's the quick update, but I do have exciting news. Um as of right now on the department's website, uh it is live. There is an active development map and so uh the me every member of the public, the planning commission, anybody can go on there and uh click on a map of the whole city and it will show you on a map-based parcelbased level um every planning application, every building permit, every encroachment permit, all business licenses um and it shows things, you know, whether they have licenses or not. So, don't stay up all night um surfing, but if you do, I wouldn't blame you. I think this is a long time coming, and I really wanted to credit um all the hardworking members of the city's info techchnology team, as well as members of our planning division staff, our public works staff, and also Dan Enlos, the city's economic development uh 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 yourselves out. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. That is exciting news. And Commissioner Martinez looks like he's trying to crash the site already. [laughter] Uh, city attorney, Mr. Presiosi, any report? [sighs] No report this evening, Cher. Okay, with that, I will adjourn the meeting.