Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right. Good evening. Welcome to the planning commission meeting of Monday, April 13, 2026. I now call the meeting to order. It's time for the pledge of allegiance, which will be led by Commissioner Dixon.

Good evening. Please face the flag and place your hand over your heart. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you, Miss Green. Will you please do the voice roll call? Commissioner, Commissioner Dixon here. Commissioner Andrade here. Commissioner Roas here.

Uh, Commissioner Martinez attending remotely here. And I am participating remotely in compliance with the Brown Act. And there is nobody in the room that is 18 years or older with me. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, Vice Chair Zik here. Chair Harlland here. Thank you.

All right. Uh before we get started, please note that the agenda has been amended to reflect um changes to a couple of the headings. Old business item number one is now public item uh public hearing item number one. New business item number one is now public hearing item number two. And lastly, new business item number two is now new business item one. Uh we have one presentation tonight. Uh, Miss Greenley, will you please read the title of the presentation? Thank you. This is presentation regarding the 2025 general plan annual progress report. Presentation by Miss Curley, assistant planner, and Miss McIll, advanced planning manager.

Okay. Is it Miss Dy who's going to be presenting? Okay.

Yes. Thank you, chair. Good evening, planning commissioners. Melinda Dy, the principal planner with economic and development services. I will be doing the presentation on behalf of Caitlyn Curley this evening. Um, so the presentation for you this evening is based off of the 2025 general plan annual progress report or APR. So every year the city has to file with the state uh office of land use and climate innovation and the department of housing community development the city's annual progress report in meeting general plan compliance goals as well as housing element compliance. Um, city council had reviewed the annual progress report at their March 17, 2026 city council meeting and authorized city staff to submit the applicable reports to this the applicable state agencies by the April 1st reporting deadline. And this report is based off all of the activities in the 2025 calendar year. So, some of the notable actions from 2025, the city had partnered with some affordable housing developers um to uh assist with funding home key projects, for example, the projects located at 2274 Newport Boulevard and 1400 Bristol that brought to the city affordable uh permanent supportive housing. In addition, the the city continued to make progress on updating the climate action and adaptation plan which assesses impacts of climate change in Costa Mesa. The city is also making progress on updating our safety element to be in compliance with the local hazard mitigation plan that was updated a few years ago as well as updating any applicable mapping within that document. Additional notable actions include updating the neighbor or the city's initiated project neighborhoods where we all belong which had significant outreach taking place in the latter half of 2025. In addition, the city continued to make

progress on the Fairview Developmental Center specific plan and with some more information about neighborhoods. Um, we had several outreach events scheduled in the fall and summer of 2025. There were a total of 19 outreach events for that project. We had 12 popups, three focus group meetings, and four outreach events that included an openhouse and a walking tour. Um, additional study sessions were held with the planning commission on December 8th to go over the proposed approach to the resoning effort and the draft development standards for the project. In addition, we had held the project scoping meeting in relation to the anticipated release of a draft environmental impact report and issued a notice of preparation for that do that that document. Um, in addition with the release of the notice of preparation, the city has begun drafting the environmental impact report for that project. And then since 2025, the city has um received planning commission recommendation and city council action to remove specific sites from the housing elements as well as a lot of the reasonzoning um applications and programs and code amendments were recently adopted by city council in their prior meeting. Some significant milestones also happened with the Fairview Developmental Center specific plan. There were three planning commission study sessions held in 2025. Those were in May, June, and August of last year. And we also went to city council to receive direction on the preferred land use plan for the environmental study purposes for this specific plan. In addition, we also held the public scoping meeting for the Fairview Developmental Center specific

plan in November on November 17th, 2025. And since 2025, the city has released the public review draft specific plan that is currently out for public comment and review with the public comment period ending on April 15th. So some notable a activities with the department and the 2025 planning applications housing units that the city had seen are displayed on the screen. As you can see the applications received are increasing um with the multifamily in relation to the single family attached and detached homes and the applications approved are those that had to go through an entitlement process. In addition, in 2025, the city has u permitted and constructed several housing units. Um, a lot of the activity that you see on the screen is within the multifamily and the ADU areas for permits being issued and as well as for construction complete in the single family, detached and ADU categories. Um, in addition, as part of the annual progress report to HCD, that that is the opportunity for the city to report on how we are doing regarding our regional housing needs allocation and meeting those goals. Um on the screen you can see that um we have 643 units that have been met in total of the 11,760 that have been designated to the city to date. With that, that concludes staff's presentation and we recommend that the planning commission receive the report and we have already filed it with the state and it is also exempt from SQA. I'm available to answer any questions.

All right. Thank you. Uh, commissioners, any questions of staff? Commissioner Martinez? Uh, no, thank you. Okay. Um, I just have one quick question. Um, so as far as the RENA is concerned, we only take credit when a certificate of occupancy has been issued or is it at building permit stage? We actually get credit when the building permit is issued. Okay. All right. Good to know.

All right. Well, thank you very much. Uh now we have public comments. These are for uh items that are not listed on our uh agenda but are within our jurisdiction. I'll open public comment and if you'd like to speak, please come to either podium or if you are participating by uh Zoom, use the raise hand option at the bottom of your screen or if you're joining by phone, please press star nine. Is there anybody in chambers wishes to speak? Seeing none, Miss Green, do we have anybody on Zoom or by phone? No, Mr. Chair.

Okay, I will close public comments. Uh, it's time for planning commissioner comments and suggestions. I will start with Commissioner Rojos. I have no comments. Thank you. Okay. Commissioner Andrade. Okay. Commissioner Dixon, I'm good for tonight. All right. Commissioner Martinez. Of course. Yes. Thank you. Thank you.

So, first I wanted to mention that I attended Cruise the Loop, uh the open semi-open street event in Mesaverie. It was great. Uh a lane of traffic was uh close to cars and opened to bikers and golf carters. Um there were a lot of small businesses, a farmers market uh near the intersection of um uh Mesaverian Harbor uh and another area set up at uh Early College High School. It was a great event. Uh I know it was wet in the morning, but uh by the end it was it was it was nice. It was really popular. Uh and I hope that we can do it again in the future. Um uh two events that are coming up uh both on April 18th, Saturday, April 18th. First is our Arbor Day event. 9:00 a.m. at Wilson Park. Come help us plant some trees at Wilson. And then following that event from 10 to 2 at city hall will be the city's Earth Day event. So please come and join for a day full of uh environmental events for the city. Um, I want to remind folks that uh comments on the uh Fairview Developmental Center specific plan are due soon. Uh, I believe it's on Wednesday, but I'm happy to be corrected. Um, so please uh take a look and please provide your comments if you're so interested. Um, the previous presentation had a had a quick mention of ADUs. So, I just want to ask uh for an update on uh the city blueprints uh that would be provided. I know that was something that we tried to do last year, but I'm hoping for a good update. Um and then finally, I would also uh love to hear the update on uh council's final decision on our uh previously recommended housing element resoning item. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

All right. Thank you, Commissioner Martinez. Vice Chair Zick. Nothing.

Okay. Uh, the only thing I want to say tonight is just another thank you to all the city staff uh, who are involved in the Brentwood Park uh, reopening which happened on April 3rd. It was probably the best grand opening of a park I've seen in years. Um, we had, I'm not exaggerating, probably 100 plus kids and parents and families and community members. And um I'm even more pleased to report the park has been just busy for the last two weeks. Every day I go by and there's more kids and families playing and people just hanging out. It's really become a very active uh park and I really want to express my thanks to staff, especially our public's work staff and uh Rob Ryan in particular for for managing that project. Uh we have the consent calendar night. Uh we only have one item. All matters listed under the consent calendar are considered routine and will be uh considered in one motion. There's no separate discussion unless an item has been pulled. Miss Green, anybody pulled this item?

No, Mr. Okay. Uh can I have a motion on the minutes? I'll move approval. Okay. Anyone second? Okay. Motion made by Commissioner Dixon, seconded by Vice Chair Zik. And since we have Commissioner Martinez remote this evening, uh we will be doing voice roll calls. So, Miss Green, will you do the voice roll call? Thank you. Commissioner Rojas, yes. Commissioner Andrade, yes. Commissioner Martinez, Commissioner Dixon, yes. Vice Chair Zik, yes. Chair Harland, yes. Motion carries 6.

Okay, great. We have two public hearing items tonight. Uh, Miss Green, can you please read the title for public hearing item number one? Item number one is call to review zoning administrator approval of a minor conditional use permit for a new wireless communication facility at 2065 Placentia Avenue and presentation by Mr. Arios, associate planner. And do do you do a call for exparte communications, please? Commissioner, any exparte communications to report?

Yes. Um, I visited the the neighborhood that is most directly impacted. Spoke to a couple of neighbors. Okay. What else? Commissioner Dixon, I've been to the site and I've spoken with one of the project proponents, uh, Mr. Dan Velik. Thank you. Okay, Commissioner Martinez. None, sir. Okay, great. Uh, I will turn it over to Mr. Arios for staff presentation.

Thank you. Uh, good evening, chair, commissioners, Justin Arios, associate planner. Uh, as described, the item before you is a call to review the zoning administrator's approval of a minor conditional use permit for a new wireless communication facility. The project site is located along Placentia Avenue between West 20th Street and Hamilton Street with one driveway that provides access from Placentia Avenue. Uh the site has a general plan land use designation of light industrial and a zoning designation of general industrial. Uh on July 17th, 2025, the city's zoning administrator approved the project uh as a request for a minor conditional use permit, concluding that the project would be consistent with the federal laws and with adherence to federal law health and safety regulations would not present any health and safety concerns. On July 24th, 2025, uh, Council Member Reynolds submitted an application for review of the approval to be considered by the planning commission. At its September 8th, 2025 planning commission planning commission meeting. Uh the planning commission reviewed the application for review and the project was ultimately continued to the December 8th planning commission hearing, allowing the applicant additional time to explore relocating the tower on the site. In response to the planning commission's comments, the applicant worked to explore additional site locations prior to the December 8th hearing. Uh the applicant was uh discussed with staff that uh the on-site location could be modified, but additional time was needed to revise the plans and uh application

package. Uh so the applicant submitted a request for the item to be continued from the December 8th, 2025 hearing to the March 23rd, 2026 hearing. Uh the March 23rd, 2026 planning commission meeting was cancelled and the item was rescheduled and renoticed for this April 13th, 2026 planning commission meeting. The subject review is intended to provide the planning commission with an opportunity to review the requested minor conditional use permit to allow a new 60-oot tall wireless facility described or disguised as a as a eucalyptus trees uh eucalyptus tree. Sorry. Uh the planning commission hearing is a denovo hearing in which the planning commission may consider the project in its entirety. The planning commission may consider all aspects of the project and is not required to limit the uh discussion to the issues raised in the call to review application. Uh this slide shows the revised uh disguise of the proposed mono eucalyptus which is proposed to be 60 ft tall measured to the highest point of the structure. Uh the fac facility includes four antenna struct uh sectors each containing three antennas and a total of 48 remote radio units. Uh the disguise of the facility was changed to be a monucalucalyptus to blend better with the existing eucalyptus trees located at the front of the property. Additionally, for the updated project, an alternative sites analysis and EM report were updated for the revised project. This slide here shows the uh various locations of the existing and previous proposed locations of the uh wireless

facility. Uh the blue dot on the slide shows the existing uh facility that is proposed that is not part of this project. Uh the red dot is the location of uh is the previous location of the proposed facility um that is being heard tonight. and the green dot and green rectangle is the new location and enclosure that is being proposed for for this project. Uh the proposed monucalyptus is approximately 420 ft from the shared property lines with the single family residences along Federal Avenue and approximately 65 ft to the nearest industrial uses to the south. Uh the wireless facility is approximately 470 uh feet to the nearest residential structure on Federal Avenue and approximately 400 ft from the other monucalyptus facility on site. Uh the support facility for the monucalyptus is proposed to be located behind a proposed 8-foot CMU enclosure uh which would also include the proposed mono eucalyptus and associated equipment. uh related to wireless facilities. Jurisdictions are highly regulated when it comes uh as to when and how they can deny wireless communication facility applications. Uh jurisdictions may not impose an effective prohibition of wireless communication facilities. An effective prohibition is one that prevents a wireless carrier from closing a significant gap in service coverage provided by the that carrier. As such, wireless carriers must submit gap coverage analyses with their applications demonstrating that the subject location is needed to close service gaps. uh as previously mentioned and as part of the application the applicant submitted an alternative sites

analysis with with this gap coverage analysis. Additionally, jurisdictions are not permitted to consider radio frequency or RF emissions for the purpose of evaluating a wireless communication facility. It is the responsibility of the FCC. A federal law prohibits the city from denying a wireless facility application based on concerns about RF when the applicant has demonstrated that its facility facility will comply with FCC standards. Also, as previously mentioned, the applicant submitted a report demonstrating the proposed facility will comply with applicable FCC standards. Wireless communication facilities are evaluated against findings in section 1329 section G number two and 13144B. Uh the require uh the findings require that the project be compatible with nearby development, not be detrimental to nearby properties or the public health, safety or welfare. be consistent with the general plan general plan and represent the minimum height needed to achieve reasonable signal transmission. Lastly, all planning planning applications must comply with review criteria that addresses neighborhood compatibility, safety, and compatibility with design, compliance with applicable performance standards, and consistency with the general plan. For this April 13th planning commission meeting, the three required types of public notification have been completed and no new written public comments have been received. Uh the planning commission may take the following actions. They can approve the revised project, approve the revised project subject to modified conditions

of approval or deny the revi revised project. If the planning commission believes that there are s are suffic insufficient facts to support the findings for approval, the planning commission must deny the application, provide facts in support of denial, and direct staff to incorporate the findings into a resolution for denial. If the project is denied, the applicant could not submit a substantially same type of application for six months. Uh with that, staff recommends that the planning commission find that the project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, SQUA, and approve minor conditional use permit M PMCP-24-0029 for a new wireless communication facility. Uh that concludes staff presentation. Uh the applicant is here for a brief presentation and is available to answer any questions as well.

Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Arios. Uh commissioners, any questions of staff? Commissioner Andrade, in the code for for this antenna, um you mentioned design compatibility. Um, does that include aesthetics or is there anywhere in the code for these that prescripts um standards of aesthetics on the appearance of these?

So there isn't like specific aesthetic requirements. There is just the general review criteria that is compatible. Um and typically when we are looking at these type of applications the standard kind of proposal is just the blank wireless facility. So in when it comes to our kind of view in this type of application any sort of disguise is more beneficial than no disguise at all. And typically we'll take that into consideration for each specific application and its specific environment. So that is within the city's purview to ensure that the disguise like you said

is appropriate yet doesn't stand out like something weird.

Um has the um city had an opportunity to visit the site before? Um I know I when I took my ride around I was had the opportunity to take a look at the at the existing tower. I don't know if um Miss Green we have it available. I sent it earlier to Julie. Um Oh, you do? Awesome. So, because the proposal here looks great. Um but what's currently existing does not look anything like what we're what what the what the applicant is proposing to do. So, I just wanted to again make sure is this what we're going to expect and this is why I was asking about the

Yeah, definitely not. Um so and we have viewed this and have kind of taken a look ourselves as to how it kind of came to this condition. Um and we are trying to address that separately with this specific carrier. Okay. But it's really on the applicant's responsibility, right? Not the city to correct this. Correct. Yeah. And specifically for this new uh proposed um entitlement, we do have new and new in uh conditions that we have applied. Um specifically for this one, condition of approval nine uh speaks about the type of disguise and ensuring that it is maintained for the life of the project.

Okay. Thank you.

All right. Any other questions? Commissioner Dixon, looks like you're reaching. And just to follow up on Commissioner Andrade's question, um we discussed this at the last meeting in September, but just to reiterate for the existing towers, you're working with them on what they can do, but there's not a condition regarding maintaining the cover. Just we have the the handwritten or actually typed 149 in the staff report from the previous meeting where they show the pictures from Continental and then you have the picture you were just showing on the screen and it's it's ridiculous clearly. Um, so you're working with them. Do you think there's any chance that they can better disguise those or

Yeah, I think we can hopefully work this out. I think definitely coming from the perspective of the residents and kind of being able to reference this hearing and the public comments received, I think that might be a good talking point for for them to try to be a good neighbor in this situation. Yeah. And I think with the fact that we don't have a whole bunch of comments on this one tonight compared to previously um indicates that the proposed design which looks like an actual tree and more fuller and is I think that folks would be a lot happier with something like that just in general citywide. So I'm really pleased with that evolution. But thank you Commissioner Martinez. Any questions of staff? Yes.

Go ahead. Uh first I wanted to ask about the conditions of approval. Um in numbers one and eight we reference a monopine. Is that just outdated reference? So the condition of approval number one um is more referencing the totality. Um so it references there being one monopine and one mono eucalyptus. Um, the one on eight I think was one that we did miss. So I think that one should be mono eucalyptus. Is is the one that currently exists a mono pine or eucalyptus?

Monopine. Gotcha. Okay. So number eight uh should say should have been updated when the disguise for this one was changed to a eucalyptus. Correct.

Okay. Um and then I a probably more substantial question. Um in the housing element, this address is unique ID number 69 with 73 net units in the site's analysis. So, what I first want to ask um and I I think I know the answer, but I just want to make sure is uh can you tell me why either housing element law or new commune or whatever that requires housing on the sites um doesn't apply in this case. Commissioner Martinez, uh this is Carrie. Uh to address your question, um the technical question is that the application came in prior to the reszoning um that applies to housing element sites and so it was deemed complete prior to that. So the zoning at the time of deemed complete is the applicable zoning. That's number one. And number two, um at the end of the day, it is still the property owner's um decision on how they would want to develop their site, especially if the application comes in in accordance with the uh in accordance with the current zoning in place. So, I hope that addresses your question. Thank you.

Yes. And then following up with its status as a housing element site, was that considered by staff while processing this application? And I mean that as in like a like does this cell tower wherever it may be located prelude housing being built on this site? Does it mean that we're we're not going to get to our sight specific goal here because of this cell tower? like was was housing at all considered during processing this application?

Uh thank you for that question, Commissioner Martinez. Uh staff would not consider um uh a project scope outside of what the applicant is considering if the application is in line with the current zoning in place. Um in the case of any future potential housing development, I would need to defer that question to the property owner or the applicant. Um however if at such time uh the property owner decided to to to move in a direction of uh housing development um and they choose to whether it's terminate the lease or redevelop the property to make that possible that would be their their decision to do so.

Okay. Um I I I just wonder if because we had to update our zoning code to match with perhaps not state law but um state court decision. Um and I wonder um sure it it complied with our municipal code at the time, but what I would really like to know is does it apply with state law and uh state court decisions? At this time, there's nothing that uh in the current proposal that conflicts with state law. Thank you, those are my questions.

Okay, any other questions, commissioners of staff? Okay, Commissioner Andrade, one more. Um, I guess just uh clarification on process. So, we're we're recommending staff's recommendation is to move forward with this applicant. Um I'm curious is at does at some point in the process do we you know for a returning uh developer here in this case do we verify that they are in good their existing properties or projects are in good standing before we move ahead and approve the next one.

Well this applicant is not the same applicant or carrier as the other tower. So it is an individual application. Um we did not review other um sites where the operator is operating currently. Um but based on the conditions of approval that we've included, we feel that um we can justify supporting the project. Okay. Thank you.

All right. If there are no more questions, I will open the public hearing and ask the applicant or applicants representative if you'd like to come to the podium. if you would state your name for the record. And then my second question is, have you read the conditions of approval and do you agree with them? My name is John McDonald. I'm here on behalf of AT&T and I do agree to the conditions. Okay, the floor is yours if you'd like to make presentation.

Thank you. Good evening, chair and commissioners, and thank you for your time this evening. Thank you, Justin, for that presentation. We appreciate the opportunity to return and present a revised proposal for the wireless facility at 2065 Placentia Avenue and to address the concerns that were raised by both the commission and the surrounding community at the previous hearing. On September 8th, 2025, a planning commission hearing was held to review the zoning administrator's approval of a minor conditional use permit for a new wireless communications facility at 2 2065 Placentia Avenue. staff recommended that the planning commission find the project categorically exempt from SQA and uphold the zoning administrator's conditional approval by adopting the previously attached resolution. This recommendation was met with concerns from a few residents living on Federal Avenue and the surrounding streets in close proximity to the existing Monipine located at the rear of 2065 Placentia. Many of the concerns focused on potential impacts to health, safety, noise, privacy, and aesthetics. Based on that public comment, the planning commission requested that AT&T re-evaluate the proposal to determine whether these concerns could be addressed. Over the past several months, AT&T has worked closely with public storage to address these concerns and revise the original proposal to better accommodate the requests made by the community. AT&T also met with several residents who attended the previous planning commission hearing. Thank you for showing up. That meeting allowed us to share the revised design and work directly with residents to address and resolve many of the issues they raised. Starting with the issue increased separation from nearby residences. In response to community concerns regarding proximity to nearby houses, the project was significantly redesigned to relocate the facility from the rear of the property to the front as close to the street frontage as feasible. while maintaining the required 25- ft setback. The original location was roughly 25 ft

from the residences to the to the west, which is in the rear of the property. The revised location sets us at about 420 uh feet, which is roughly a 1580% increase in separation. Previously, at the distance of approximately 25 ft from the western property line, an independent third-party EM vendor conducted a radio frequency safety survey report and determined that AT&T's facility would operate within allowable RF exposure limits and remain compliant with FCC's rules and regulations. With the new revised location approximately 420 ft from the western property line, the independent EM vendor completed an updated study confirming that the increased separation from nearby residences remains fully compliant with FCC standards. A specific question was raised by one of the residents regarding how cumulative RF exposure from multiple sources is calculated. Typically, the EM vendor includes all transmitters within approximately 150 ft of the site as part of the cumulative analysis as as contributors beyond that distance become negligible. In this case, AT&T's proposed facility will be approximately 380 ft from the existing facility, meaning its contribution to cumulative exposure is minimal. It is also important to note that these studies are conducted using conservative assumptions including operation at 100% transmission capacity and continuous transmission which represents the most heavily utilized operating scenario. The previous proposal had completed a noise study that showed the project would comply with the city's applicable noise standards. A new noise study has been completed that confirms the increased separation from nearby residents remains fully compliant with the city's applicable noise standards. The previous proposal raised concerns related to privacy, particularly regarding maintenance activities that may require the use of a man lift. Residents expressed concern at the prior location near the property line. This could allow temporary views into

adjacent backyards. With the revised design relocating the facility to the front of the property, the distance to the nearest residential properties has increased from 25 ft to four over 400 ft. This substantial increase in separation significantly reduces the potential for any direct visibility into nearby homes during maintenance activities. Another key concern raised by residents was the visual impact of the proposed facility, particularly in light of the condition of the existing monopine on site. Residents noted that the existing structure had experienced loss of branches over time, which had diminished its appearance and contributed to concerns about how a new facility may look in the f future. AT&T engaged the property owner to explore whether modifications could be made to improve the appearance of the existing monopine, specifically through rebranching. It was determined the property owner does not have the authority to require the tower owner to implement such changes. While AT&T does not have control over the maintenance of the existing Monopine, the city incorporated specific conditions of approval to ensure that the proposed facility is properly maintained over time. Specifically, what Justin referenced is condition number nine, which requires the proposed mono eucalyptus to be maintained for the life of the project in a manner that continues to resemble a natural tree. This includes maintaining full full branching, preventing fading or loss of limbs, and ensuring that the branches extend in front of the antenna panels to provide effective screening. The condition also establishes minimum branching dimensions and spacing to preserve a realistic tree appearance while accommodating the facility. Additionally, the equipment enclosure will be painted to match the existing building, further reducing visual contrast. And then um the equipment enclosure is also located behind public storage as well, so you won't see it at all. In combination with in combination with these uh maintenance requirements, the relocation of the facility to the front of the property significantly increases the distance from nearby

residences as shown in the photo simulations. This increased distance reduces the perceived scale of the tower and allows it to blend more naturally into the surrounding environment. Furthermore, the faux eucalyptus design was specifically selected to complement the existing eucalyptus tree along the property frontage. Uh with these design considerations, maintenance conditions, and increased separation, the overall visual impact of the project has been substantially minimized. In summary, AT&T has carefully considered and responded to the concerns raised by the surrounding community by relocating the facility to the front of the property, increasing separation from nearby residences, incorporating a design that better integrates with the existing environment, and complying with strict maintenance conditions imposed by the city. The revised proposal significantly reduces potential impacts and res to privacy, safety, and aesthetics. Overall, these changes represent a thoughtful and responsive approach that balances community concerns with the need to provide reliable wireless service. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. McDonald. Uh commissioners, any questions of the applicant, Vice Chair Ze, thank you. Uh thank you, Mr. McDonald for your thoughtful redesign, your significant improvement in your redesign and uh I commended you back in September for your willingness to go back and take a second look and uh and you haven't disappointed. Um a question when you mentioned that the uh with regard to the existing monopine

that the owner has no authority over um that situation with regard to your tower could the owner have told you no I don't want an AT&T tower on my property. Um yes the owner could have said that. Okay. So, at the outset, the owner has complete control from that standpoint over you, but once you put your tower up, are you saying the owner no longer has any control over you?

Not necessarily. It depends on what the lease says. So, excuse me. I don't know. I'm not privy to the lease that uh Public Storage signed with the existing tower owner. Um, some uh landlords are more strict on what they will allow and so they have more control over the tower, how it looks, the aesthetics, and some they sign leases that that don't give them control over the aesthetics of the tower. But in their research on the lease they have with the existing tower owner, they determine that they can't force the tower owner to rebranch. Got it. And so I recognize they might not have that as a um a legal force, correct,

with the existing tower. And I think you'll recall from the September meeting, I was um maybe a little um aggressive in my uh concerns that I expressed to you since you indicate that you represent the owner and uh and so you might recall that. Yeah. So, but my question then is, are you aware of the owner sending any correspondence to the operator of the Monopine expressing concerns and wanting action even though maybe he doesn't have the force of law behind him?

Um, I'm not aware of any correspondence. Um, they I could look into it to see if they did send send an email or a notice to them. Okay, that's all I've got. Thank you very much for your work. Mhm. Right. Any other questions, Commissioner Martinez? No, sir.

Okay. Um, you're free to sit down. I'll invite you back up if you'd like later to respond to any comments, but that's at your discretion. Uh, I will now open public comments. If you'd like to speak on this item, please come to either podium. And if you're participating by Zoom, uh, use the raise hand option. And if you're joining by phone, please press star 9. Good evening.

Hello. Uh my name is Selene. I came to the last meeting. So I'm here to speak on behalf of the people who signed the petition with me. We have no objection on the new um on the new sale tower being where it's at. Of obviously no tower at all would be a better uh better bed, but we it's a good compromise for everybody. So, we're okay with that. I also wanted to give you a little update because I spoke the last time about the noise that was recurrent in my front yard. So, I'm here to give you an update. Uh, first of all, I want to thank the commission for sending a code enforcement officer within 12 hours of the meeting. It was on my door. So, thank you very much. His name was Andy. And uh he came to measure uh the noise at the towers. So he explained to me that he had to measure an increment of 30 minutes and if half of that time was making noise then the city could intervene. Unfortunately for me the noise would go every 15 minute for about 40 seconds. So I didn't qualify for help from the city. So um Andy your code enforcement officer gave me the number of American towers who apparently owns this tower. Um he gave me their phone number and he told me just ask them to open a ticket for maintenance which I did. So uh I run into a problem because American Towers refused to help me telling me we need the number of the tower that is on the sign at the front of the property. By law they're supposed to be a tower number, an American tower with a phone number. Well, that doesn't exist. I went there. I took a panoramic. That doesn't exist. So I called repeatedly until I found after a month and a half a good customer service lady

who opened a work ticket. Within two weeks, American Towers came in and fixed my problem. I'd like to also point out that five weeks after Andy came to my house, the noise became permanent all the time. So now all is fixed. I do not have the noise anymore. But I just want to bring another point. you saw the state of the tower. I think it's obvious everybody sees what's happening. Um, obviously the noise, nobody even care that I had noise for an entire year. So my question is if that tower not maintained catches fire, Edison cannot enter the property, your commission members cannot enter the property, your code of enforcement officer could not enter the property, he had to wiggle behind cars to do so. I'm scared about what a firefighter does in case this tower catches fire. How do we enter the property to fix the problem? So, that's my concern tonight.

All right. Thank you. I think that's it. Thank you. All right. If there's nobody more in chambers, Brenda, do we have anybody on Zoom or by phone? No, Mr. Chair. Okay, I will close public comments. Commissioners, any further questions? Uh, Commissioner Dixon, I just wanted to follow up with staff regarding that the public comment. Um, first of all, thank you for sending out the code enforcement officer. Um, do so my understanding and from the public comment and I'm not want to check with staff is there required to be a sign out front with the contact information and the name and all that good stuff. I believe that's more from the the federal standpoint, but we can I can look into that further and confirm.

Okay. And I don't know if that would have been included in the earlier conditions of approval for when that was put in if compliance with other applicable. Yeah. So most likely. Well, let's make sure that contact information is there. And I'm assuming that the standard fire access correct available.

Yeah. For any proposed vehicle gates uh planning will review it. We'll ensure that fire and transportation review for their appropriate uh queuing distance from the transportation side and then emergency access from the fire side. I I got just a little brief aside, I got to see that in action the other night uh very early in the morning. The police came over to where I'm staying right now. It's an apartment complex and I thought they need to buzz himself in, but he just hopped out, had a key, and got right in. So I I'm assuming it's the same for fire. So um and then um I think that's all I have. Thank you.

Any other questions? Commissioners, Vice Chair Ze,

Mr. Arios, are you aware of the city sending any written correspondence to the property owner expressing our concerns with the condition of the existing tower? And if not, why not? Yeah, staff hasn't specifically reached out to the property owner as of yet. Um but plan on I think in this case more reaching to the operator of or owner of the tower in this case um is is the approach we're going to be taking.

Okay. I would encourage that. Um this was um fairly unambiguously uh pointed out in September that this was an issue and that AT&T did not have authority over that existing tower. Um, and I I'm concerned about the hand ringing and no action. So, um, I know we might not have not have the force of law, but we certainly have the force of pen and we should be using it. I'd encourage you to do that. Thank you, Commissioner Martinez. Any final questions of staff? No, thank you.

Okay. Uh, I will now close public hearing. Uh, can I get a motion on the item? Motion by Vice Chair Zik. What's your motion? uh recommend that the planning commission find that the project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, SQUA, per SQL guidelines section 15303 class 3, new construction or conversion of small structures and approve the minor conditional use permit PM CP24-0029 for a new wireless communication facility at 65 Placentia Avenue by adopting the attached resolution and um correct on condition of approval number eight the reference uh to the mono eucalyptus instead of the mono pine. That's my motion.

Okay. We have a motion by Vice Chair Zick, a second by Commissioner Dixon. Would you like to speak to your motion? Nope. Thank you.

Okay. Just briefly, uh, you know, earlier in Costa Mesa, I lived near another tower that made a lot of noise. It kept me up all night, drove me crazy, and nobody could pin it down because for the reason you were saying, it was intermittent. Um, and it was in a totally different area. So, I'm not implicating anybody who's here tonight. But, um, I appreciate the staff going out. I appreciate the code enforcement efforts. And I think that, um, in a situation like this where it may fall in the cracks, it's we should really make an effort and like we did. So, I'm very glad that we did that because some of these things you can't sort of pin down in a normal driveby situation. So, I'm very appreciative of that. You know, I I live close to this and we have zero AT&T reception. Um, and it's a problem because, uh, there was a news article today about how they want to get rid of call boxes on the freeway because everybody uses a cell phone. Well, if you're in an area where there's no reception, uh, that's useless. And so I think that um as much as people may not like them aesthetically, I think that when we have a situation like this where we have an applicant that's willing to step go above and beyond what the minimum requirements are and make something that's actually aesthetically pleasing, uh and respond to complaints like they did, which they may not have had to and they could have forced us through. Um I'm very appreciative of that and I I hope that um this is a good it's obviously not precedent setting but it's a good indication of how we can move forward in the city is and to have more um because we do need these cell towers and we do need the coverage um and so it's a necessary element of our modern life and if we can have them look like this and have such a responsive applicant that'd be great. So that's why I'm enthusiastically supporting this motion and we did not have 90 plus people saying don't do this. So um in fact they all said it's okay. So, thank you.

Any final comments or question or uh commissioners? Okay. If not, uh Miss Green, would you do the voice roll call? Thank you. Commissioner Andrade, yes. Commissioner Roas, yes. Commissioner Dixon, yes. Commissioner Martinez, yes. Vice Chair Zik, yes. Chair Harland, yes. Motion carries 6. All right. Thank you. Moving on to public hearing item number two. Miss Green, would you please read the title for that?

Thank you. Conditional use permit to modify the existing offsell state alcoholic beverage control ABC license from type 20 beer and wine to type 21 general for an existing convenience store 7-Eleven at 675 Polarino unit Avenue unit one. Presentation by Mr. Arios, associate planner. Do we have any uh exparte communications to report commissioners? None. Okay, Mr. Arios, you have the floor again.

Thank you. Uh, good evening again, chair, commissioners. Uh, Justin Aros, associate planner. Uh, as described, the item before you is a request to modify the existing ABC license from a type 20 beer and wine license to a type 21 general license for an existing convenience store, 7-Eleven. Uh the project site is located at 675 Polarino Avenue, unit one, an existing 7-Eleven store. Uh the project site is zoned C1 local business district and is designated general commercial by the city's general plan land use uh element. The the subject property is adjacent to a C1 property to the south, east, and west developed with a Japanese market, the Mitsuba marketplace, and its associated parking lot uh to the south and east and a gas station with convenience store, Chevron, an extra mile to the west. Uh across Polarino Avenue, uh to the north is a PDC zoned property developed with a hotel uh the Hilton Orange County Costa Mesa. Uh the subject property is a 26,400 ft parcel with 34 existing parking spaces developed with an 8 thou 8,060qt 5 tenant commercial building. Uh the existing 7-Eleven occupies suite 1. Uh suite 2 is occupied by a massage establishment. Uh, suite three is occupied by a food use uh, Sugo Costa Mesa. Suite four is occupied by a hair salon and suite 5 is occupied by a retail cannabis storefront. Uh, the existing 7ele1 business currently has a type 20 ABC license that

allows the sale of beer and wine. Uh the applicant is requesting to expand their operations by changing their ABC license from a type 20 to a type 21 license to include the sale of distilled spirits. Uh the floor plan of the 7-Eleven will remain the same and the proposed floor plan shows that the distilled spirit spirit offerings uh will be very limited and confined to a locked display cabinet uh across from the front counter island. Uh the cabinet is approximately 4 feet wide and would only be accessible to store employees. Uh beer and wine would also continue to be available within the existing walk-in reachin cooler. Uh the 7 711 hours of operation will remain the same 24 hours, 7 days a week and the business will continue to limit alcohol sales from the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. or I'm sorry 2:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. um which is required by ABC. Uh additionally for this request, the police the city's police department has reviewed the request and has no objections to uh the proposed modification to the ABC license. Conditions of approval have been implemented to regulate the existing convenience store, including conditions such as the prohibition of alcoholic sale, alcohol sales between 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. daily uh as required by ABC. Uh distilled spirits only being displayed within a locked cabinet and only accessible by store employees. Uh that non-alcoholic beverages be displayed or offered for sale. that no alcoholic beverage be displayed or offered for sale outside of the building. Um, and that a condition that the applicant relinquish their type 20 license upon receipt of the type 21 license. Uh, for this project, the three types of

required public notification have been completed and no written public comments have been received related to this item. Uh, with that, staff recommends that the planning commission adopt a resolution to find that the project is categorically exempt from the provisions of SQUA and approve conditional use permit 25-23 based on the findings and facts subject to conditions of approval. Uh, that concludes staff presentation and we are available for any questions. All right. Thank you again commissioners. Any questions of staff? Vice Chair Zeke.

Just one question, Mr. Arios. There's a attachment to a letter from SSJ law indicating that the police department had been contacted and they had no u opposition or concern about this. Was this a law firm that the city contracted with for that opinion? So that is the applicant. This SSJ law is the applicant on the Did we independently verify that our own police department correct in fact had no concern? Correct. Yeah. through our own review process is how we concluded that the police department has no concerns. Thank you very much. Great. Right. Commissioner Martinez, any questions?

Question was answered during the presentation. Thank you. Okay. I will now open the public hearing and ask whether the applicant or applicant's representative is present. And if you wouldn't mind stating your name for the record and then uh I need to ask whether you've read the conditions of approval and agreed to those. Good evening. Bruce Evans for 7-Eleven. I have read the conditions of approval and they are all agreeable. Okay.

Uh in light of the u positive staff uh presentation I I um or report. I don't have a presentation other than just offer two comments. Um first I would thank uh Mr. Arios and the planning department. They've been professional and responsive throughout this process. We thank them for that. Um, additionally, I would point out that the um the distilled spirits proposal in this case is is very limited. As Mr. Ario said, it's limited to about a 4ft wide shelf. Um, the store is not going to become a liquor store or anything of that nature. It is not going to change the character of the store. Um, SSJ Law is my firm. Uh, the process to upgrade the license um is a little bit costly because we have to buy a liquor license. Uh so before we start that process, spend the money on the cup, we always try to reach out to the local PD, talk to the planning department. Um we did that here to make sure there were no red flags or concerns before we went forward. Um and uh we thank you and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Okay, commissioners. Any questions of the applicants? Commissioner Martinez? No. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. I'll now open public comments. If anybody in chambers wishes to speak, please come to a podium and if we have anybody on Zoom or by phone, they can participate as well. See nobody in chambers. Miss Green, do we have anybody by phone or Zoom? No, Mr. Chair. Okay, I will uh close public comments. Commissioners, any further questions? Commissioner Dixon? No, I was gonna

Would you like to make a motion? I would my my butt is kind of tweaking a little bit. I would I move that uh we find the planning commission finds that the project is exempt from the provisions of SQA per guideline section 15301 existing facilities and that we approve conditional use permit 25-0023 based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions of approval. All right, we have a commission uh motion by Commissioner Dixon, second by Vice Chair Zik. They're tag teaming our motions tonight. Would you like to speak to your motion?

Just I I think this is a innocuous proposal. There's a Mitsua right there which has distilled spirits during regular business hours. And this is a um I walk by there with my dogs almost every single night. It's a well-maintained facility. I I have every confidence that they'll run this particular aspect of their business pretty well as well. Um so I'm in support of the motion. Vice Z. No comment. Okay. Commissioners, any final comments? All right. Miss Green, would you please call the voice vote? Commissioner Rojos, yes. Commissioner Martinez, yes. Commissioner Dixon, yes. Commissioner Andrade, yes. Vice Chair Zik, yes. Chair Harland,

yes. Motion carries 6. Okay. And that decision is final unless appealed to city council within seven days. We have no old business tonight. Um, and we have one new business item. Thank you. This is the overview of proposed amendments to the Costa Mesa Municipal Code to update land use classifications for personal services, artisan studio and retail uses, active entertainment uses, event centers, and assembly uses, specialized fitness studios, studios, and related commercial uses. Presentation by Miss Greg, contract planner, and Miss Coron, planning manager.

All right, Miss Greg, whenever you're ready.

Good evening, planning commissioners. Amber Greg, uh, contract planner for the city and happy to be in front of you again tonight. So, thank you so much for having me. Um, I do a number of projects here in the city and tonight we're going to be going over updates to the Costa Mesa zoning code pertaining to economic development targeted land use and regulations. Um, I'm going to keep my fingers crossed we don't have technical difficulties because I got a little warning here. So, if I do, please bear with me. Um, so a little bit of an introduction first. So, back in August, we came to you and identified that we're going to be coming forward with some zoning code amendments. And the zoning code does play an important role in supporting economic development here within Costa Mesa. And having clear regulations and development standards really helps facilitate economic development and provides clarity for new businesses. Likewise, if we don't have clarity, that does create uncertainty for businesses and can potentially hinder them from establishing here in the city. So, the purpose of this study session is to overview the proposed zoning code updates, identify key issues in the current code uh pertaining to the the uh topics that we're going to be going over tonight. We'd like to receive planning commission feedback, and then after that, the next step will be to draft those zoning code amendments and present them to you for your review. So, why is this zoning code amendment needed? Well, a little bit of background information. Our zoning code framework has largely been unchanged since 1997. And although that doesn't seem that long ago, that's the year I graduated high school. So, a little bit of context on that. Um, the way our zoning code is set up is that specific uses um are actually listed as opposed to general categories of uses. And this can eliminate potential emerging new business models from actually being clearly defined. So

when you're really stringent on those types of uses, it's hard to have figure out what category they really fit in. This can create uncertainty for applicants as well as staff trying to implement the zoning code. And because of that, that can limit reinvestment and economic growth when you don't have that type of certainty that's needed for businesses. So how is our zoning regulated in the city? Well, we have a giant land use matrix in our zoning code. And for the people at home that aren't looking at our zoning matrix like we do every day, thought it would be nice to see what that might look like. And to orient everyone, so the top row are all the different zoning uh districts within our city, ranging from residential, commercial, industrial, uh and public domains. And then on the left hand side, you'll see a list of uses. And here, this list skips from 1 to 7 all the way down to 155. And that's because there are 155 individually listed uses in our zoning code as opposed to more general descriptions of things. Um, all of the letters in the middle, P stands for permitted, MC stands for minor conditional use permit, a C stands for conditional use permit, and a dot means it's not allowed or not permitted in those areas. So what was our approach when looking at economic development and any potential hindrances that we have? We had a limited scope. We targeted 11 different amendments that we focused on particularly again for economic development. And as a side note, none of these amendments um occur within our residential zones of the city. They're all in non-residential areas. Um, we looked our goal was to combine uses where we could into categories instead of specific uses where possible. We also wanted to modernize land use categories

and improve clarity and consistency both for staff and the public. We wanted to support economic development while also maintaining Costa Mesa standards. And we also wanted to provide clarification for our floor um area ratio. So, the 11 topics that we're going to go over um in a little bit more detail, but are summarized here is personal service, artisan studio and retail, active entertainment, event centers and assembly uses, small fitness studios, food halls and ghost kitchens, electric vehicle charging, sports clubs, commercial kitchens, height deviation, and floor area ratio. And if you don't know what one of those uses are, don't worry. We're going to define them as we go through here. I will be going over items 1 through nine and then I'm going to hand it over to Martina to cover 10 and 11. All right, so let's dive in. So the first one is personal services. And our goal here is to establish a broader personal service category. These are more one-on-one grooming, wellness, and similar uses that are currently regulated separately or are not clearly identified. We will incorporate parking requirements and definitions as needed. But example uses and the ones with the asterisks um are contained within our zoning code already and the ones without are not. Uh a barber shop is included in our zoning code, but a beauty salon and nail salon is not. We do not have day spas, pet services, tutoring, wellness centers offering services like uh chyrotherapy and infrared therapy. Massage establishments are listed and would still have those same requirements. And then tattoo and body art are would still require conditional use permit. So these are limited to more one-on-one services and those would be permitted by right. Uh group instructions or uh yeah group instructions would most likely require minor conditional use permit. However,

if we can bake in regulations into the uses uh that would have any cause particularly like parking or hours, we we will do that so that way it could potentially be under permitted use as well. The current parking requirement for that is six spaces per thousand. The next one is artisan studio in retail. So the goal of this one is to consolidate smallcale creative production or maker spaces in related accessory retail uses into one category. And the purpose of this is to provide clear framework for businesses that have a hybrid model and produce goods and sell them on site. So, a lot of times, let's take a um a ceramicist. They produce in the back and that would be considered manufacturing and then might sell their wares in the front. That would be considered retail. And right now, we don't have a use that accounts for that. And when you don't have a use that accounts for that in a zoning table, the zoning code requires you to get a conditional use permit. even if we don't anticipate you having a negative adverse impact which is the purpose of a conditional usement it's to make sure that we go through that analysis and also provide someone an opportunity to get that use there. So by having a clear framework we would eliminate that need for a cup every time we would be recommending parking requirements and would also be adding a definition. Example uses are artisan maker studios, custom woodworking or furniture stores, photography and recording studios already exist and smallcale uh craft production. And that parking standard is currently four spaces per thousand. Next one is active entertainment. So, these are indoor uses with interactive participant-based recreation where the customers are actively engaging in an activity rather than observing or receiving a service. And we'll get into a little bit more detail on that in a

minute. But our existing zoning code identifies entertainment uses individually by um bowling centers, billiards, and ice skating rings. Um, so ones that aren't included in our code are like escape rooms that are becoming very um common, virtual reality gaming venues, indoor mini golf, sports simulators. We do have interactive arcades and vending um and bowlings and billiards, but we don't have esports gaming lounges. By having a broader category and you know capturing these interactive type uses, then we can allow for them more readily and not require the conditional use permit. Active entertainment currently has 10 spaces per thousand for the requirement. The next one is event centers and assembly uses. So this would be to consolidate banquet halls, assembly halls, reception venues, conference facilities, and spectator oriented esports arenas into a single classification. By doing this, this distinguishes assembly uses from active entertainment that we just reviewed. And the difference is as an active entertainment, you're a participant, whereas in the event center and assembly uses, you're an observer. Um, and that way by having these two different ones, we can have consistent standards across both of those uses. Parking requirements in a definition will be added. Um, we've already gone over the examples, but the parking is one space or one parking space per three seats or one space per 35 square ft of seating area. Next, we have fall small fitness studios. And that's to establish a category for smaller instructional fitness uses. And these would fall into your smaller studios such as yoga, pilates, martial arts, dance, and other similar type fitness studios. By having a smaller category, that would distinguish it from the larger fitness

clubs and health clubs that these uses find themselves falling into. In those types of uses, the larger fitness clubs really do operate at a greater intensity than what we're talking about on these smaller studios. We would be adding parking requirements and a definition. And the small fitness studio currently is 10 spaces per thousand. Uh on this particular one, we'll establish operational characteristics typical of these uses such as schedule sizes um or class sizes, noise regulations, and limiting those class sizes. Next, food hall and ghost kitchens. And if you're not familiar what a food hall is, it's typically a larger building that has multiple smallcale restaurants inside of it um with seating as well as to- go opportunities. A ghost kitchen, however, is a kitchen facility with multiple businesses with no on-site seating, but takeout orders. And so that has a much higher um intensity to it typically because of all of those takeout orders. So, the zoning code does not specifically identify food halls or ghost kitchens as a permitted use. This means that all those proposals actually require a conditional use permit to process them. And these types of uses are starting to become more common for us. Without clear classifications, it can create uncertainty, making it difficult to consistently regulate these types of uses. Both, as I said, operate at a greater intensity than traditional food services. So, the regulations would reflect that to make sure that um we can address any negative impacts of that type of business. An example of a ghost kitchen is a Costa Mesa kitchen. Identifying them in the zoning code improves regulate um regulatory clarity, reduces reliance on staff interpretation and ensures that we're evaluating those types of business consistently. We again

would have to define parking and um the use itself. Electric vehicle charging. So electric vehicles or EVs charging infrastructure is an increasingly important component of commercial and mixeduse developments as well as redevelopments. State law requires that EV charging stations be permitted and subject to streamline ministerial review. And EV charging stations and associated equipment are currently not clearly identified in our zoning code. And that can create uncertainty for applicants looking particularly to redevelop. Identifying EV charging stations and development standards at a permitted as a permitted consistent use with state requirements will help alleviate that uncertainty. Um, it supports expan expansion of our EV infrastructure and the city's sustainability goals. Sports club. So, this one is more of a clarification item. We're looking to clarify that sports clubs such as basketball, pickle ball, volleyball, and soccer facilities are regulated under the existing physical fitness facility uses. Since they're not specifically identified, sometimes people wonder, okay, well, where do I really fall? And by identifying them, it helps uh alleviate that uncertainty. Uh these uses do require a conditional use permit in um consistent with the existing framework for larger fitness and recreational facilities and we anticipate that staying as such, but we will look at those regulations. Parking clarification and definitions may be needed. So commercial kitchens, commercial kitchens are definitely different than our food hall and ghost kitchens. uh our zoning code currently does not have a commercial or a shared kitchen classification and that's exactly what commercial kitchens are are shared spaces. So establishing a land use clarification for commercial kitchens including catering kitchens, shared kitchens and other similar food preparation facilities that don't have

your traditional on-site dining or takeout. And another example of that is Hood Kitchen here in the city. um by providing clearer framework for evaluating newer food business models um helps provide for certainty. In addition, commercial kitchens are great incubator uh places for new restaurant businesses coming to town that need to get a start first with a shared space before they relocate into a brickandmortar location. Parking requirements um and a definition would be added. And with that, I'm going to hand it over to Martina. Good evening, commission. So, as Amber mentioned, we're investigating opportunities to promote economic development through the planning process. And uh we've identified a handful of uses that um will be combined and updated, but we've also identified two areas that can help promote economic development through development standards. Uh the first one I'm going to touch upon is the non-residential height limits. Um, in most non-residential zones within the city, there is a twostory or 30foot um, height limit, and there's only a narrow exception that allows for up to a 5% increase when dealing with uh, rooftop screening or um, other features, but it's limited. So, um, heights are important tools for maintaining neighborhood compatibility and development and scale, but when they're rigidly applied, they can be, um, a hindrance for economic development and redevelopment of a site. So, we've investigated and are proposing to allow a height deviation through a conditional use permit process to allow for up to a 12-oot deviation. Um, it would be subject to review and subject to standards and findings to be made. But, as previously discussed this evening, it would promote uh the economic development. I'm showing here on the screen some examples where um the Home Depot site actually did obtain a variance for a similar type of um exception. Um and so the existing

Marcato and the um prior plans shown here, these buildings didn't seem to obtain variances, but they do exceed the current 30- foot height limit. So we're identifying other um other sites in town that would benefit from some u modification to the height limits. Uh the next item, oops, that one to be discussed is also the floor area ratio. So, as we talked about having consistent um and clear application of the city's policies, uh the city's primary tool for regulating intensity and non-residential growth is the floor area ratio or the F. It's established in the general plan and discussed and implemented through the zoning code. Um, currently the F is the foundational development standard, but there's not a clear definition in the zoning code as to what contributes and what would be provided for the F and for what staff should be including when they're doing calculations for F. So, right now, the current zoning code only maintains in uh these two definitions. um staff is proposing to expand that to clarify to capture only the areas that really drive the intensity of the site which is the intent of the F. So um non-usable areas are areas that would not typically be counted toward traffic or any other type of um uh

yeah trip generation would be excluded as part of our proposal. we and we would capture that and define that better so it's clear to the applicants and clear to staff as we're working through that process. All right. So just to kind of conclude what is the difference between our existing code versus what the proposed changes are and what impacts that have. So for oh sorry thank you I apologize for that. So just to reiterate just to look at what our existing code is versus the proposed changes that we're u presenting to you tonight. So in regards to the land use framework, um the framework again has largely been unchanged since 1997. Uh the proposed updates modernize and update to reflect current market conditions for use classifications. Right now we have over 155 very narrowly defined and fragmented categories. Um this is the beginning of trying to consolidate them into broader, more flexible categories that can be more adaptable over time. Emerging uses currently are not clearly identified. Examples are wellness, entertainment, creative uses. Uh new uses are adding clarity and are better defined um including the ones that we went over tonight. As far as the regulatory approach relying, um currently we rely on subjective similar use determinations which are made individually by the director each time. Um and we're proposing to establish clearer classifications to reduce ambiguity and to help those uses fall under those categories. Uh consistency with the existing code. Unfortunately, there's opportunity to be inconsistent due to the number of interpretations and types of applications that are required. So, this would improve consistency across um uses and zones. Uh user experience. Um this can cause uncertainty and delays for applicants sometimes. if um you have an a planner who's not as experienced or an applicant who's not as experienced with zoning codes and by um the proposed

changes were providing greater predictability for property owners as well as businesses. In regards to development standards, right now we have rigid height limits and unclear F uh calculations. We're targeting flexible heights deviations and clarified FR. And then as far as economic development, our existing code can unfortunately sometimes constrain um reinvestment and adaptive reuse because of uncertainty and the proposed updates help support reinvestment in evolving business models. So with that, staff's available to answer any questions and we look forward to taking your feedback. And that concludes our presentation.

Okay. Thank you very much. Commissioners, questions. Vice Chair Zick.

Thank you, sir. Uh, Miss Greg, we don't see a lot of you here, but when we do, I'm overwhelmingly impressed with your presentation. Clear, concise, crisp, um, and, uh, digestible. Very uh, excellent. I enjoyed that. And Martina, your portion as well. I'm always impressed with you. Um, couple of questions on the event center use. event center and assembly uses. Um, you didn't for the relative to the parking, you didn't seem to make a distinction between fixed seating and movable seating, which is generally associated with occupancy limits of the space, not so much the parking. Um, but since it affects occupancy, I would think that there might be a relationship to parking. Is that something you looked at or would look at? Does it have a bearing?

Um, first off, thank you for the compliment. I appreciate that. Um, and in regards to the parking standard, what you have listed here is what our current parking standard is today, which is one space per three fixed seats. Okay. And then one space per 35 square ft of seating area. So sometimes you will have a use where they have fixed seating and sometimes you have non-fixed seating. So this accounts for both. Got it. Thank you. On the uh number nine, the commercial kitchen and you drew a distinction between commercial kitchen and uh what was the other one here?

Food halls and and kitchen that that was on the same page. Um and the distinction that I understood you to draw is that they don't have takeout or on-site uh customer um consumption. And as you were describing it, I couldn't help but think it sounded more like an industrial use. And so, can you help me understand why commercial kitchen might be added as a specific use or category rather than simply view it as an industrial use?

So, thank you for that question. And in this particular case, you're right. We would not be looking at permitting a commercial kitchen in a commercial zone because it is more of a manufacturing type use where you're creating catering. There is no um customer so you don't have traffic generating uses. So we would be looking at limiting it to the industrial zone. The difference is is we just need that category called out in order to enable it in that area.

Thank you for that answer. And then on the floor area ratio, um the uh modification to your definition of gross floor area, did you consider um or did you look at the definition of gross area that Bulma uses or IFMA uses? Um because in addition to vertical shafts, um staircases are called out. not always considered a vertical shaft, but they they are from a structural standpoint. So, did you look at those definitions?

Yes, we did. Um, and we're also um working with some of the IT trip rate generating definitions in the ways that engineers look at generating the trips as well because that's really what's supposed to drive intensity. So, um, additional storage or non, um, conditioned areas and things like that would also probably be grouped in our new definition that we'll bring back to you. Got it. Thank you very much, both of you. All right. Uh, Commissioner Dixon,

and thank you again. This is a great presentation. I'm excited about a lot of these changes. Um, I if you can go back to 18, the next slide real quick. Um, this is something that we work with on a it seems to be every project I work on in my commercial life is, you know, it's not in the matrix. How do I make it fit? Right? And so, um, this is great. And I I would like to So, when you kind of group some stuff together, and I just want to understand what this is going to look like at the end. Instead of 155, it's going to have, let's say, a hundred. and you're going to have some of those 155 underneath a particular category, but they're still going to be called out or is it going to be just 15 and then staff gets to figure it out?

So, thank you for that clarification question. This is a very scalpel approach to things that are what we're really seeing in the planning department of um common questions that are coming up from businesses for various types of uses. So this is in no way an overhaul of our entire land use matrix. That would just be a very big endeavor for us to take and that's not part of the scope at this time.

But by starting this process and attacking the items that we that we see are causing the biggest road bump and speed bump for not only applicants but staff. Every conditional use permit that we're processing as a staff member right now takes up a significant amount of time. So, um, these 11 targeted one, the goal is to help, um, you know, alleviate some of those economic development hurdles, but also our staffing resources.

Okay. And and that answers that question. And so, we're working on a project that is dealing with the ex the height issue you're talking about. And in in some of the community standards districts in Los Angeles County, they call it out. In others, they don't. And so I I do like this approach, the 12% or the the 12 feet or 40%. But and I I saw the 30% of building area and I wanted to clarify that and I know you haven't gotten to the definitions yet, but if you look at Northgate, which we all love Northgate, I'm super glad it's there, but that's all the way across. There's a massing issue. Now, it's not that big of a deal when you're facing a parking lot, but we're with our some of our reusing our resonings and our corridors and stuff like that. I think we're going to have more interface with residential on some of these. And so I would just encourage with the with the building massing with the 30% of the building floor area or whatever that particular was that it not be a massive thing that creates a shade or shadow or a visual sort of monolith over someone's backyard fence if that's how we're exceeding the height. Um I I think you should have 10% with specific defined categories without an MCU. Right? Here's here's your extra over the 30 ft or five however you I think it's 5% now. But you are going to have roof equipment. You are going to have facads. You are going to have signage and that's just the nature of the game. So I I I wouldn't be opposed to that not requiring an MCU as long as we define it correctly so that there's not the mass facing the public view. So that that's my comment there. Um the ghost kitchens again is fantastic, but if you you look at the the current example we have, I mean it's like they've got a whole bunch of parking staff because they have to. I

mean we pick up stuff there all the time. There's great food. It's a beehive of activity. So, they may not need permanent parking spaces, but they but but keep in mind the loading and unloading because all those delivery drivers are coming in and out. And there's been a little bit of a mess on that corner when it's a really really busy time. And so, um, as part of this, you may have, you know, requirements for, you know, a lot monitor who can direct traffic or, um, uh, some sort of way of managing that process because you'll be there and there's nobody there and then you'll be there at another time and there's 50 people. They're packed inside. They're all in the parking lot. There's people driving in circles. So, that's something to consider for the ghost kitchens because it's it's very popular and I think that's a great category. Same with the commercial kitchens. I think that we should be think about how we define that because back in, you know, 150 years ago when I was uh like in my 20s, I worked for Lorie's Kitchen. I don't know if you ever heard of them. They're the people who take a cooler around to your office. M

so there'd be 75 or 80 of us there at 7 to 8:00 in the morning picking up our stuff. Now it was an industrial kitchen. There weren't a whole ton of employees in there, but so just think about it's just something to consider when you're talking about that particular category of use is that um but yeah, those are I think these are fantastic approaches. I wanted to um quickly get a little bit of a better idea of what you folks were thinking about as far as the yoga studio part of it. Uh small fitness studios, so it's generally 15,000 square feet or less. I I think most of us who've been going to a lot of commercial centers around Costa Mesa understand the issue with yoga and or any gym that has scheduled classes for large numbers of people. I used to go to yoga at the YMCA over on Back Bay. there be 40 people in that room and um you know you go to Costa Mesa courtyard, you go to some other places and there's there's just just explosion of people with yoga mats and yoga clothes for about 10 minutes every hour and it's a mess. And so it just when we're thinking about the the parking on particular in particular ones that have classes or organized maybe there's a definition that prescribes a maximum number of people or something along those lines and and they have steps up or something. But uh just to take that into consideration because while there may be one where there's only four people in there at any particular time there's then there's the YMCA or the you know the core something like that that has um you know maybe 50 or 60 cycling through at a time. And the same as sort of the high-intensity workout ones. I went to one over an airport loop that was, you know, there'd be 75 or 80 of us in there screaming our heads off and running up and down the parking lot. So, I I think the definitions are going to be interesting for you folks and and I think we have a lot of, you know, precedent in the city of how we do that, but it it's going to be I think this is a really good improvement to help

provide clarity as long as we can bolster some of the definitions and sort of anticipate kind of the the the higher intensity outliers. Yeah. So, those are right. Thank you very much for bringing this forward. I think this is a a good Thanks. Perfect. Thank you for your comments. didn't realize you had such strong feelings about yoga studio. I mean, I used to don't wind them up. I I apologize. You need a little yoga there, Rob. Namaste. Um, any other

question questions? Yes, Commissioner Andre. Um, I'm curious if this is an opportunity to plant the seed for microenterprises in the future while we're reviewing this code. Is this maybe leaving the door open for council or opportunities for for further review for microenterprises?

Uh, Commissioner Andradi, would you mind elaborating on that a little bit? So the um I think it's called Miko microenterprise kitchen operations where individuals can um sell a limited amount of food out of their home kitchens or like a coffee shop or something like that or like a small bakery where people can welcome folks. I think it it was in the news California passed the state passed a um a law that now will allow it. I think as long as they don't make more than a 100k in sales a year, it's permissible.

Um, but not all counties and Orange County is one that does didn't have that um approved, but some cities are independently um jumping in on that opportunity to provide opportunities for local residents. So, I don't know if as I'm reviewing this, I was curious and that's how I went into the rabbit hole of figuring out that the county doesn't allow it, but would that be an opportunity to um open up considerations for something like that?

Um, Commissioner Andrad, we can take a look at that. Typically, um, Miko, uh, did we already use that acronym? Miko is, um, adopted through the county health department. And so because the cities don't have a local way to inspect or otherwise verify the the health quality of these the locations that potentially would operate as a Miko. I don't know that this I don't know that Costa Mesa city of Costa Mesa has that but we can certainly look into that and get back to you on whether it would need to be adopted by the Orange County Health Department or whether cities can on their own um do it. But I know cities as large as Los Angeles can and they have a whole different set of resources, but we're happy to look into that. I just know traditionally it's been a health department um endeavor.

Okay. And Berkeley as well. I think it's in the in the listings of opportunities. Great. Thank you. Great. Thanks, Commissioner Martinez. Any comments or suggestions?

Yes, sir. Thank you. Um, fir first I just want to note um that doing this kind of thing is very positive, very good, and I'm very appreciative of city staff for working on this. I think so far what's proposed is uh moving in the right direction. Um, so I'm looking forward to seeing what the final version may look like. I know that I've previously asked I think specifically about uh escape rooms since that's one of the one of the uh cups that we've received while I've been on the commission. So seeing that uh wrapped up and all all these other kinds of uses uh wrapped up um is is a very good thing. Uh so thank you. Um, but I I I just want to ask and see and now I'll get into my questions if there's any other kinds of uses that uh maybe there you've seen one or two or three uh over the course of the last few years or any other kinds of uses that have been approved by the director um it to fall into a specific category that you are not proposing. to include in this uh uh code cleanup.

Uh thank you for that question. Yes, actually um going back again to the August update where we came um and said, "Hey, here's a whole bunch of list of things that we'd like to do and we've been keeping track of these for years at this point. Um there are other items included on that but given uh the current scope of what we were trying to tackle our resources at this time in um we thought that these were the most important uh ones to come forward with at this time. So hopefully that helps answer your question. So there's so there's still other items in the land use matrix or or amendments to the land use matrix to allow for let's say specialty uses that are not covered in this proposal.

That's correct.

Okay. Um I think I'd just be interested in knowing what those may be. Um just as a point of information. Okay. Um, regarding floor area ratio, uh, is staff not looking into our current, uh, commercial F requirements that tie it to, uh, ADT. What we're looking to do with this update is just generally define what would be classified for our calculations for for air ratio and part of the trip generation calculation. So um if they are not typically included or should not be part of the intensity of the proposed use, we are going to try to exclude those areas from the floor area ratio calculation.

Okay. But at this time, staff is still currently proposing to keep the high, moderate, low, and very low. Yeah. And let me be clear with that. There there's no changes to the proposed F ratios in the general plan. All those um ratios will stay the same. Moderate, low, and um the the high. Um however, what we're doing is just trying to clarify what areas um help contribute when we're doing the calculations for each of those categories.

I see. All right. Um, I'm going to ask the city engineer to confirm a few numbers for me right now. Um, so I I pulled up um our parking stall dimensions or at least what I think are parking stall dimensions guide for commercial businesses. And so I want to make sure that I have these numbers right. Um, is it accurate that a parking stall has to be 18 feet uh deep? So, Commissioner Martinez, uh, may I ask where'd you get that figure of 18 ft being deep?

Uh, from what is this document called? Costa Mesa Parking Design Standards. All zones except R1. Okay. So, for usually on private property in terms of those standards, so probably the accurate standard. uh our transportation division usually uh adheres to those standards. So uh what you have just uh enumerated would be probably the correct figure.

Okay. So what what I have and this document I'm referencing is that uh each parking stall has to be 18 ft deep. Um it needs to have a dry vial behind it that's 25 ft wide and then they have to be um 9 ft wide. So, a parking stall is going to be 18 by9 and then it's going to have a 25 ft uh drive aisle behind it. So, since there's uh two sides to park on, let's just call that 12 1/2. So in total each parking spot requires 274 12 square ft of area which means that for um for 1,000 square ft of parking area you get 3.64 parking stalls. So any requirement that has uh that requires more than 3.64 64 spaces per thousand square feet means that we require more parking than we do business. And I just want to make that clear and put that out there because each of the parking standards that are in this staff report are higher than that figure, which means that we don't want more business, we want more car storage. Uh, okay. And now I want to go through these parking standards and see where we got these numbers from. So personal services, six spaces per 1,000 square ft. From where did we get this number?

Uh that's contained within our off-site parking requirements matrix. Where did we get the number from though originally?

Oh, that I can't tell you off the top of my head. I apologize, Commissioner Martinez. What we c what I can say is that as as part of this process two things um we are looking at consistency within the existing parking requirements but we'll also be looking at um IT requirements to see if they're in keeping with that. In addition, um, one thing to know about our parking standards is that in some cases it there's very interesting wording there and what I'm referring to is, and I don't know if you have your off- streetet parking standards, um, but for example, for retail type uses, it's four spaces per thousand with a minimum of six spaces. And so in looking at that staff, you know, believes that it's better to have the base four spaces per thousand and utilize that as a calculation and not require the six minimum because that is also an an added obstacle um and an unnecessary uh requirement as part of this we believe and we're going to be looking into that as part of um these updates to remove those.

All right. It's good that we're going to be looking into that. Um though I will note four spaces per thousand is still above the 3.64. So we are saying that we don't want we want less business area than we want parking area by saying that uh no no matter no matter what uh even if we uh remove the six space minimum. Okay. Um, now I'm looking at small fitness studio on Commissioner Martinez. Wait, wait one second. The director Tai wants to respond.

Thank you, Commissioner Martinez. Um, I just wanted to add on to your original question about where the city's current parking standards come from. um you know having having worked in seven different cities and looked at parking ratios across the board at many dur different jurisdictions they all originated um as Amber mentioned um from some combination of the IT trip generation manual parking generation um numbers and also occupancy. So uses tended tend still to correspond to some level of building code occupancy be it assembly uses or you know what B occupancy which is typically like retail and certain smaller restaurants and bars. And so um parking ratios across many different jurisdictions um are tied to one of those three sort of metrics and they're um consistent across a lot of jurisdictions. And so I hope that at least answers where the origin of those parking standards um what the what that origin is. Now that's not to say um in the last 10 years uh trip trip generation models have changed. Transportation has become more multimodal. There is more there there's been the introduction and a wide adoption of ride share. And so in studying parking ratios moving forward we do expect those numbers to be different. Um but the origin of the numbers all you know relate back to the same metrics and you will find those in multiple jurisdictions. I hope that clarifies that a bit. Thank you. Thank you chair.

Yeah and that and that does answer the origin I guess of what's currently in our code. But now we still have these numbers in the staff report that I'm reading and that I have in front of me. So, I want to make sure that as we update our code and that we uh put new numbers in here, maybe hopefully um that we see where these numbers are from, what they're based on, and if they're based on actual scientific data or if they are just based on vibes. Uh because I'm I'm looking at these numbers. Um small fitness studios 10 p 10 spaces per thousand square feet. active entertainment, 10 spaces per thousand square feet. Um, that's almost triple as much parking as business for those for those uses. So, we're saying that we want triple the area for car storage that we do for economic development. And I don't know if we should be doing that. I I especially don't know if these numbers are actually based on on anything. I've seen some IT parking uh recommended parking minimum graphs that are um basically they they're the wrong way. they their their line of best fit is the exact reverse of what the graph would suggest. So I want to make sure that these parking standards actually um are either based on reality or we don't have them and we allow the small business owners who know their clientele and who know their customers to decide what they need in order for their

business to succeed. I'm going to end end with um this uh asking about event centers. So, one space per 35 square foot uh of seating area. So, can you translate that into uh the standard that is in the rest of them which is for 1,00 square feet? Uh, so yeah, that's where you would have the other, let me go up just so I make sure I'm quoting it correctly. One space per 35 square feet of seating area. Three seats per 35.

Yes. And so all the other standards are per thousand square feet. So I want to just provide a like forl like comparison for specifically that one. Okay. So, uh, Director Tai, who is much faster with her calculator than I am, it's 28.5, uh, spaces per thousand.

28.5 spaces per thousand. That means that we we are going to require eight times as much parking than we do seating area for these event centers and for these assembly uses. I don't think that meet meets our goals related to VMT to climate to active transportation to our mode share goals. I think that 28.5 per 1,000 is an insane standard. Um that I I I'm I'm just um flabbergasted. Uh because that's we're we're we're saying I mean I'm going to keep repeating this point. Um, and I think based on council's housing element uh, program decision, I think the council may agree with me that we should not be mandating as much as we are here where we're saying that we do not want business, we want parking. So, I encourage staff to take a look at all of these parking standards. I would like when you return to actually base it on scientific evidence and not just uh two dots that may or may not be on a graph. Uh and I look forward to seeing what uh that true evidence actually comes up with. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Um I have no questions about parking tonight. I think uh Commissioner Martinez covered that. Um I do have two specific requests uh and suggestions and then one general one. But first I I do appreciate the approach of looking at broader categories and providing some some flexibility and then backing those up with specific definitions for uses. Uh the two specific requests, one um I think this would probably fall in the active entertainment category. Uh I would suggest we consider um climbing gyms and trampoline parks um those kind of you know active usually that you have kids parties at these types of facilities. um just as a an example. And then uh under the electric vehicle charging category, I think Miss Greg, you mentioned something about we're looking at this from an infrastructure perspective uh for EV. And I think that's a good way to look at it. Um one component of broader infrastructure would be autonomous vehicles. Um, and so if we were to potentially have someone who operated a fleet, they would need space for storage and dispatch and probably some auto repair. Um, I'm actually working on this right now in several different communities around the country. And it's amazing how um challenging it is to actually try and find comparable uses. It's a lot of Frankensteining um, if you will. Um and then generally uh my suggestion is that as part of this effort staff um convenes meetings with the commercial property owners here in the city. Um they have their they they're really on the you know know the pulse of what um uh what tenants need and what's the perspective uses that will be coming in. We have a

number of large property owners who have you know strip mall centers and and others. I think they would be a very good resource. Um, as well, I think maybe even for staff at the uh ICSE event coming up, really trying to learn what are some of those future uses. Um, and and really take advantage of having those those people present and and maybe just bouncing a few ideas off of them. So, those are my suggestions. All right, last chance. Any other comments? Commissioner Dixon. And I I I I appreciate and look forward to any sort of um modernized rational approach to trip generation and parking.

Um the word flabbergasted was used and there are different significant ideological and uh practical realities that we're we're dealing with here. And um for instance, there are 301.06 million registered vehicles in California, including third over 13 million passenger automobiles, 1.5 million EVs, um and that the percentage of personal automobile ownership has gone up quote dramatically between in the last 20 years. So we we have goals. We have our stated city policy. We and I encourage that as well. I ride bikes with my kids. I like to walk places. Like I've said a hundred times before when I lived in another community that had actual public transportation. it was great to use, but getting way ahead of ourselves and um not planning for what we have as well as what's in the future is is a fool's errand. And um you know, I work at the at Center Tower and we have performances at the Performing Arts Center and it's not car storage. It's allowing thousands of people to see a Broadway show.

It's not car storage. So, there's hundreds and hundreds. That entire parking garage fills up more than the office building every time there's a show. So, we have a choice. We can be realistic about how people get around in our community. We can be aspirational and we can help encourage changes to those modes. But when you have over 90% by statistics the government puts out of people who get around by personal automobile, pretending that's not the case is not realistic. And I just want to be sure that we take a holistic approach. We don't knock down multimodal. We promote it and we incorporate it. But we don't take from one to give to the other or pretend that uh the vast majority of people who are going to a supermarket or a yoga studio or a escape room or whatever take a personal automobile to get there. I mean we have two or three bus lines in Costa Mesa. I've done it just to prove a point to try to drive take the bus from my house in westside Costa Mesa to my job. Doesn't happen. So, it's an hour and a half or five minutes in my car. So, I think we just have to be realistic. I am all about promoting multimotal. All about it. But we have to be realistic and we can't pluck aspirational goals out of the thin air and pretend that that's what's happening right now. That's my opinion. I'm sure Commissioner Martinez and I will have further discussions about that in the future, but I think we need to be realistic and practical and holistic. Those are my comments.

All right. All right. Well, if you can believe it, we still need to take public comment. So, um I'm going to open public comments if anybody would like to speak on Zoom or by phone because we have nobody in chambers. Brenda, do we have anybody on? No, Mr. Chair. Okay. I'm going to close public comments. Um any final questions or comments, commissioners? If not, I will entertain a motion. Is it? You have the motion, Commissioner Dixon. What is the button? Is it a receiving file? Yes. I move that we receive and file. Okay. And seconded by Commissioner Andrade. Do you want to speak to your motion?

I do. I I think this is fantastic and I I genuinely appreciate the comments of Commissioner Martinez because there's a huge part of the community that feels exactly the same way. It's a it's a it's a real conflict we have in transportation and um I think more of this discussion as these uses come forward is is vibrant and I think that's what the city needs. I'm looking forward to this approach. Um I'm excited about it because as chair was saying we you know we people are doing planning as you do every day there's so many holes. You think it's a big comprehensive net but not there's a million holes and so I think we can plug those and help more certainty and get more development. I think it's great. So, and we can modernize our parking and modernize all that. There's chip generation because a lot of it's really old. Commissioner Martinez is 100% correct. So, we'll find a balance. I support. Thank you so much, staff. I really appreciate it.

Commissioner Andrad, you want to speak to your second? Yeah, I'll just echo the same. Thank you so much, Miss Greg and um Karen, for doing some um due diligence and housekeeping. um we often hear the challenges from our business community. So your efforts in simplifying it and streamlining opportunities of some great innovation that we've seen um here in in in the DAS. So really appreciate your work. Thank you. All right. Any final comments?

Yes, sir. I'll I'll just close um to respond to a few of uh Commissioner Dixon's points and also but first I I do want to thank staff for you know notwithstanding the parking standards section. I do really appreciate uh putting putting this forward. Uh I think that the uh most of what's in here uh is very good uh and will help uh promote economic development uh in our city. Uh but regarding the parking like I I we just do have to recognize um like sure you cited vehicle usage statistics and I can tell you that there are eight parking spaces for every car in this country. Uh every uh acre of parking is going to create more storm water uh that we're going to have to uh facilitate uh getting rid of. uh in uh right now we're looking at a hund00 million in order to fully fund the storm water infrastructure that's needed in this city. Um and by the way, Commissioner Dixon, it's six bus lines in this city, not two or three. Uh I have been on all of them. Um and I also want to clarify that not having minimum parking requirements does not mean that there will be no parking. It means that the business owner that a developer can choose how much parking is good for their business. It means that in some cases it'll be higher than the standards that we currently have set and in some cases it may be lower and that is up to the individual business owners to decide what is good for their business, what is good in the current market that we have. Doesn't mean that there will be no parking whatsoever. just gives the option for business owners. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

All right. Thank you, Vice Chair Ze. I like the work you've done. Um maybe we should at some point have a session on the philosophy of parking. This isn't it. But if it was something that was resembling that, I associate all my concerns and comments with Commissioner Dixon. Thank you. All right, we have a motion and a second. Uh, Miss Green, can we call for the voice vote? Thank you. Commissioner Martinez, yes. Commissioner Dixon, yes. Commissioner Andrade, yes. Commissioner Roas, yes. Vice Chair Zik, yep. Chair Harland,

yes. Motion carry 6. Okay, let's wrap up with our departmental reports. Public services report. Mr. Yang, uh, no report from public works. Uh, Mr. Chairman. All right. Excellent. Uh, development services, Director Tai.

Yes. Thank you, Chair and members of the planning commission. Just a quick report on prior city council items. Um, so for March 17th, the city council did introduce for first reading the housing element related reasonzoning um, amendments and on April 7th adopted that resoning. Um, as part of the housing element sites, there is no longer minimum parking um, standards and also there was added flexibility for open space. Those were the two city council modifications um to the housing element zoning amendments. Now that the zoning a zoning amendments are complete, those were the last items before we could submit for certification. So, city staff will be packaging up the housing element as well as the uh zoning amendments for submitt to the state uh California housing and community development to request certification and HCD has 60 days um to review and provide comments to the city. Um, for upcoming city council meetings, there is the uh on May 5th, the stephouse recovery uh group home request, special use permit request for 1601 Baker Street. And staff will also be taking at that same meeting the annual action plan for the community development block grant funds that the city receives from the federal government on an annual basis. Um, and lastly, I do want to apologize on behalf of staff for the cancellation of the last uh planning commission meeting. we did have um some uh some agenda posting complications. Um so I do apologize for that. But for tonight, I wanted to thank city clerk Brenda Green for stepping in and helping us clerk this meeting. Um and also wanted to acknowledge uh our our department assistant, Julie Kogan, who also stepped in to prepare for this meeting. Um the planning commission may be aware um Anna Partida, who did provide value support to the planning commission for over four years, has transferred over to the police department. And so right now we do appreciate the extra help from everybody um with the meetings. And so with that, that concludes my update. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Lastly, city attorney, Mr. Presioce. No report this evening. Chairman Har. Okay. I will adjourn the meeting. Thank you. Thank you.