Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening and welcome to the Planning Commission meeting of Monday, July 13th, 2026. I now call the meeting to order. Tonight, the Pledge of Allegiance will be led by Commissioner Martinez.

Please stand if able. Place your right hand over your heart and say with me, 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. Ms. Green, will you please do the voice roll call?

Mr. Chair, the record will reflect that all commissioners are present except for Commissioner Dixon.

All right. We have no announcements or presentations this evening, which takes us to public comments. These are for matters that are not listed on the agenda. THAT ARE WITHIN OUR JURISDICTION. I'LL OPEN PUBLIC COMMENT. IF YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK PLEASE COME TO EITHER PODIUM AND IF YOU'RE PARTICIPATING BY ZOOM PLEASE USE THE RAISE HAND OPTION OR IF YOU'RE JOINING BY PHONE PLEASE USE STAR 9. ANYBODY IN CHAMBERS WISH TO SPEAK? MS. GREEN, DO WE HAVE ANYBODY ON ZOOM OR PHONE?

NO, MR. CHAIR.

I WILL NOW CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENTS. IT TAKES US TO PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS. LET'S START TO MY LEFT, COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. Yes. So first some community events that are coming up. For the next three Tuesdays there is going to be concerts in the park at Fairview Park. The event starts I think around 5. Music starts around 6. Enjoy Fairview Park and the music that the bands that they'll be playing. It'll be a very fun event. I don't know if Public Works is doing the separated bike lane that they do on Fairview like they do every year, but it's a great time. I always enjoy concerts in the park. For planning, FDC, Fairview Developmental Center Community Meeting, is coming up on Thursday, July 23rd from 6 to 8 p.m. at the Norma Herzog Community Center. I'm sure there will be more information at the end of the meeting on that one. Two parks meetings also coming up soon on Monday, July 20th. There will be a meeting at Moon Park about Moon Park. That'll be from 6 to 8 p.m. on July 20th. And then the Friday of that week, July 24th, also from 6 to 8 p.m., there will be an event at Shalimar Park to talk about the future of that space. I WASN'T HERE LAST MEETING. I WASN'T HERE TWO MONTHS BEFORE THAT SINCE WE DIDN'T HAVE MEETINGS BUT JUST SUFFICE TO SAY ALL THE EVENTS THE CITY PUT ON DURING MAY AND JUNE, BIKE MONTH, PRIDE MONTH, THE NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE WE ALL BELONG OPEN HOUSE, VERY GREAT EVENTS, FISH FRY HALL, GREAT EVENTS. I'M HAPPY THAT THE CITY PUT THOSE ON AND HELPED OUT WITH MANY OF THOSE THINGS. SO THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER ANDRADE, ANY COMMENTS THIS EVENING?

Nothing, just to echo the comments from Commissioner Martinez regarding the FTC review that we'll be having or update of the latest on July 23rd at 6 p.m. at Norma's. I highly encourage the community to come out. We're going to see first initial plans of what's going to be happening. There's, I believe, still opportunity for the community to give feedback. This is a major project that is going to impact our community. Anyone out there share with friends bring a plus one to the event to learn what are the future. What is the future of customers are going to look like with this project. Thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner.

Nothing for me. Thanks.

OK. Commissioner Rojas.

Nothing other than wanted to commend the city and the group putting together the event last Friday at the fairgrounds for the 4th. and excited to see the OC fair coming back to life. I know that's a great event hosted here and we're blessed to have it in our area. That's it, thank you.

All right, thank you. Nothing from the vice chair?

No, sir.

Okay, I have no comments this evening. That takes us to the consent calendar. We have three items on the consent calendar tonight. These are all matters that are considered to be routine and will be acted upon one motion unless an item has been pulled. I believe, Vice Chair, you would like to pull which item?

Number two.

Number two. Anybody else want to pull anything? OK. Let's reserve number two. Can we get a motion on the balance?

Move the balance.

Motion by Commissioner Martinez. I'll second that motion. Can we, if it's the screen, it's not working for me this evening. The vice chair to my rescue. Oh, sorry. That's okay.

Hold on. I figured it out. We've got a mix up here.

Okay. We've got a motion by Commissioner Martinez, second by Vice Chair Zick. Do you need to speak to your motion? Okay. Let's call for the question.

Commissioner Klepack. Motion carries 6-0.

Okay, so consent calendar item number two. Ms. Green, can you please read the title for that?

General plan conformity determination for proposed excess right-of-way vacation EABN-26002 adjacent to 296 East 19th Street.

Vice Chair Zick, you had questions?

I did. I've got a couple. Thank you. You know, I noticed the width of 19th just on the east side of the 55. And I was wondering if that was the width, the number of lanes that was originally intended for 19th before the roadway was downgraded.

Vice Chair Zick, essentially that was. And essentially that was the width which is to be vacated back to this particular resident in this situation here.

Is there no contemplation, or let me ask it differently, in terms of the circulation plans for the city in light of Measure K and the prospect that another 30,000 plus residents will be joining the city over the next dozen years, there's no need whatsoever to widen any of those east-west streets on the east side?

I can only speak of East 19th Street and situation.

From my understanding there is no plans of widening the street and therefore it's perfectly appropriate to dedicate it back to this to the residents who request it Okay, and then I was curious about the Active Transportation Committee's I Guess recommendation as a result of their review There's no intent to ever put bike lanes on 19th Street. I

Not particular bike lanes, but it's what we call class three, which will be share-ups. So it will be shared with the traffic of the street along with the bicyclists.

Yeah, okay. Okay, and then from a process standpoint, I've asked about this when we've done these sorts of projects before. There are property owners all along this stretch of 19th that have this right away adjacent to their property. And we're not releasing that right away back to them because they haven't asked for it. Is that correct? Essentially, yes. Have we notified these property owners that such an opportunity exists?

To my knowledge, no.

Is there a reason why we wouldn't be proactive and do that?

I wouldn't say there's any particular reason. It's just that as a matter of policy, we basically defer to the residents or homeowners who are doing any type of improvements to come to us and make the request to us. And then after which our staff refuse it. And if it's... within the realm of being dedicated, then we do the dedication at that point.

Okay. And you don't anticipate any use of any of the remaining rights away that the city retains? You don't anticipate any use whatsoever?

I wouldn't say never, never, but in all likelihood, no.

Okay. That's it. Thank you, Chair. All right.

Commissioners, any other questions on this item?

If not, anybody in the public wish to speak on this? MS. GREEN, DO WE HAVE ANYBODY ON ZOOM OR PHONE? OKAY. MAY I HAVE A MOTION?

MOVE THE ITEM.

MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ, SECOND BY VICE CHAIR ZICK. WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS? NO. LET'S CALL FOR THE QUESTION.

MOTION CARRIES 6-0.

All right, we have two public hearing items tonight. Ms. Green, will you read the title for public hearing item number one?

Conditional use permit to allow a proposed amusement center with an existing shopping center tenant space at 2200 Harbor Boulevard, Unit P-110. Presentation by Mr. Arios, Associate Planner.

Welcome, Mr. Arios. I'll give you a second to get settled. Any ex parte communications, commissioners?

I visited the site on Saturday.

Okay.

Yeah, same. Just my neighborhood. So, yeah, good to meet you.

All right. Mr. Arias, you have the floor.

Thank you. Good evening, Chair, Commissioners, Justin Arias, Associate Planner. As described, the item before you is a conditional use permit request to allow a proposed amusement center, an indoor trampoline park within an existing tenant space in a multi-tenant commercial shopping center. The subject property is located at 2200 Harbor Boulevard near the intersection of Harbor Boulevard and West Wilson Street. There are two points of ingress egress on Wilson Street, three on Harbor Boulevard and two on College Avenue. The site is designated general commercial by the city's land use element of the general plan and is zoned C1S for shopping center district for the zoning. THE PROPERTY IS ADJACENT TO SIMILAR ZONED PROPERTIES ACROSS WEST WILSON STREET TO THE NORTH DEVELOPED WITH THE HARBOR SHOPPING CENTER. ACROSS COLLEGE AVENUE TO THE EAST ARE PROPERTIES ZONED R3 MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT AND R2 HD MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL HIGH DISTRICT DEVELOPED WITH MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS. To the south, our properties zone C2, general business and R2MD, developed with the Newport Rib Company and multifamily residential uses. And finally, across Harbor Boulevard to the west, our properties that are zoned C2, developed with various commercial and retail uses. The subject property is an approximately 12-acre property developed with an approximately 190,000 square foot multi-tenant commercial building with 789 existing parking spaces. The existing development was originally established in 1963 and expanded over time to its current development. CURRENT TENANTS WITHIN THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT INCLUDE AQUATAUT SWIM SCHOOL, PLANET FITNESS, ALONG WITH OTHER FOOD AND RETAIL AND SERVICE USES. THE PROPOSED TRAMPOLINE PARK WOULD OCCUPY SUITE P110, PREVIOUSLY OCCUPIED BY PARTY CITY. The proposed use, Jump Start Trampoline Park, is an indoor family-oriented trampoline and adventure park offering open jump sessions, birthday parties, group events, and occasional private facility rentals. As part of its proposed operations, the park would implement various safety features including mandatory waivers, age-specific play areas with posted rules, trained staff monitors, regular equipment inspections, customer safety orientation, and continuous employee supervision of all activity areas. Typical hours of operation would be Sunday through Thursday, 10 a.m. to 8 p.m., and Friday and Saturday, 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. The trampoline park would be staffed by three to six employees during non-peak hours and up to 12 employees during peak times. Food service would include light concessions, such as prepackaged snacks, an icing machine, bottled or fountain beverages, and warming equipment in the kitchen. Additionally, there would be no alcoholic beverages sold or allowed to be consumed on site. The proposed floor plan includes several areas including a super court, trampolines, airbag area, dodgeball area, party rooms, slides, toddler area, the concession area, along with the main entry lobby, check-in counter, and restrooms. Groups can rent out individual areas or the entire facility. Additionally, specific areas can be reserved by appointment in advance, but walk-ins are also allowed. Each area has a maximum capacity to ensure safe operations depending on which area, type of activity, age of participants, and et cetera. Furthermore, no arcade games are proposed. Based on staff's analysis, the proposed project would be in conformance with the general plan, zoning code, planning application review criteria, and the required CUP findings can be made. The proposed indoor trampoline park would be compatible with the commercial developments in the same general area and would not be materially detrimental to the nearby residential properties. The proposed use, as conditioned, would not generate adverse noise, traffic, or parking impacts that are unusual for commercially zoned properties. Noise impacts are not anticipated because the use would be conducted entirely within the existing tenant space, and conditions of approval have been included to ensure the use is operated in a manner that avoids disturbances and maintains the quiet enjoyment of the surrounding neighborhood. As it relates to parking, there is not a specific code requirement for the proposed use per Table 1389, and parking would be evaluated through this CUP process. However, and in this instance, the project is subject to Assembly Bill AB 2097, and thus the city is barred from imposing a minimum parking requirement on the project, and no additional parking is required. The proposed project is also consistent with the general plan land use policy LU-1.1 and LU-6.7 in that the proposed project would add to the mix and balance of commercial goods, services and employment opportunities and would provide an active entertainment opportunities for residents and visitors. In addition, the police department has reviewed the proposed use and has no objections to the approval of the application. Pursuant to code, three types of public notification have been completed no less than 10 days prior to the date of this public hearing, including mailed notice, on-site posting and newspaper publication. In response, one public comment has been received in support of the request from the adjacent Newport Rib Company and has been provided as an attachment to the report. With that, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution to find that the project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA, pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15301, existing facilities, and approve conditional use permit PCUP-25-22 based on the findings and facts and subject to the conditions of approval. That concludes staff's presentation, and staff is available to respond to any questions. As well, the applicants team is here both in person and virtually and are available for any questions as well.

All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Arios. Commissioners, any questions of staff? Vice Chair Zick?

Thank you. Thank you Mr. Arias for your presentation. Am I correct that the reason why a CUP is required by this applicant is because their use is not one of the specific uses in our municipal code?

So there were a couple ways it could have been evaluated. We are classifying it under the amusement center which would require a conditional use permit in this zone. Alternatively there is in the code where if the use is not listed it could be processed through that CUP process which would also come here.

Okay. And then with regard to the proposed updates that we're going to be hearing about later tonight, we've been working on, would this use fall under the category of active entertainment?

Yes.

And in that, uh, in that regard would not require a cp but in mcp correct that's correct yet good thank you and then uh... with regard to the eighty twenty ninety seven we cannot require a minimum parking of the applicant as you said the applicant is not precluded by law for providing parking if they choose to we still allow an applicant to provide parking if they want that's not illegal yet

That is correct.

Good. Thank you.

All right. Any other questions, commissioners? Just a quick follow-up on the AB 2097. Do we have a map available on the city's website that shows where the areas that are covered by AB 2097?

We do. It's visible both on the active development map and also we have it published through the SCAG map as well. And Sung, do we have it in any other location?

WHAT IS IT IDENTIFIED ON THE ACTIVE DEVELOPMENT MAP?

I BELIEVE THERE'S A LAYER THAT IS TOGGLEABLE SO YOU CAN VISUALIZE THE AREAS THAT ARE ENCOMPASSED. IT'S ALSO LISTED IN THE INFORMATION TAB. IF YOU CLICK ON A PROPERTY IT WILL BE POPULATED IF IT'S IN AB 2097. IT'S ACTUALLY A TRANSIT PRIORITY AREA. OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

Okay, I will open the public hearing and ask whether the applicant or applicant's representative is present. If you'd like to come to the podium. First, let me ask you to say your name for the record and then ask you if you have read the conditions of approval and do you agree to those.

Yes. So, thank you, Chair Harlan. Good evening, Commissioners. My name is David See. I'm a consultant representing the applicant, Jumpstart Adventure Parks. Also, I'd like to introduce with me Greg Hendricks. With Jumpstart, he's going to be the general manager, and he's just available for questions. I can get to that later if it's operational-oriented, but I'm here to answer land use related questions. Before starting, I'd like to thank Justin Arios for doing a great job. He was wonderful to work with. It went very smooth. Sometimes these don't go smooth. I do this a lot and this went very well, so compliments to Justin. I don't want to repeat everything that the staff said. They covered it pretty well in our opinion, so I don't need to say the same things other than Jumpstart's very excited to get started here, hopefully open at the end of the year. This is a family-oriented business. As you know, there's no alcohol sold or served on the premises. This is really meant for children. It's a very safe and fun environment for them. There are safety rules and waivers that they will be using there for the customers. And if I could just answer the parking real quick. We're aware that AB 2097 does apply, so parking is exempted. But rest assured, there is plenty of parking in the center. It's a very large center. We carefully surveyed it to make sure there is plenty of parking and is better for their business anyways. Seven days a week, there's always parking available there. And... really in summary I don't have much more to add other than yes we did review the staff report and the resolution and were in agreement with the conditions of approval. And as mentioned by the planner, a number of the Jump Start team is attending remotely, and they're available to answer questions, too, that Greg is not able to. So with that, that concludes my presentation. I'm available for questions.

Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. C. Commissioners, any questions of the applicant? Vice Chair Zik?

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. C for being here. I noted in our package your letter of March 25th, a little less than four months ago. So that's a pretty rapid turnaround. Is that when you first contacted the city with your application?

Yes, I believe we did coordinate with staff with some phone calls and some email coordination and so on, but generally that sounds about right. And it did go fairly fast for a conditional use permit. Interesting to hear that there's a code amendment being proposed where This falls under MCUP. I think that's a great idea. I don't see these businesses are very impactful, especially if it's all indoors. But regardless, yes, to your question, we felt it moved pretty quick.

And then my other question for you, if you have a response to it. I know how helpful and professional our staff is. But in terms of process and your experience working through the process to get here, Did you come across anything where if you had the opportunity to make a constructive comment, I don't want to call it a criticism, would you have changed anything about the process? Anything come to mind? Four months is pretty fast, so maybe not.

It is pretty fast. I would say, yes, this was one of the better ones. It did move quick. And Justin was very pleasant to work with, very responsive. And that is important. You don't always get that with some cities. I THINK MINIMIZING ROUNDS OF REVIEW, BECAUSE EACH APPLICATION TAKES 30 DAYS. SO IT'S NOT UNCOMMON TO GO THROUGH THREE, FOUR, FIVE ROUNDS OF REVIEW, AND IT COULD GET NINE MONTHS TO A YEAR TO GO THROUGH A CONDITION USE PERMIT UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES. A lot of it is on the applicant, too. It's important that we submit a good application with all the information staff asks for, but I would say not too much needs to be changed in this case.

Well, we have an excellent staff in this city.

Yes, agreed.

MAY I CLARIFY IT ACTUALLY THE ACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT IS A PERMITTED BY RIGHT UNDER THE PROPOSED CODE ORDINANCE I MISUNDERSTOOD IT WOULD NOT REQUIRE A C.U.P. NO ACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT IS PERMITTED BY RIGHT PROPOSED TO BE PERMITTED BY RIGHT.

All right, Mr. C, if you'd like to say something after the end of public comment, I'll give you that opportunity. If not, don't feel any obligation. One quick question from Commissioner Andretti. I'm sorry, you can ask as many questions as you'd like.

Thank you. So thank you so much, Mr. C, for kind of highlighting what your experience was like. One quick question. Very excited about this opportunity of this business coming to town. Why this location? Why choose Costa Mesa?

So I may ask Greg. Greg's going to be the general manager of the facility. My understanding is due to the market, the need for this, probably competition, that type of thing. But if it's okay, can I ask Greg to come up and answer that? Thank you.

Good evening. To my knowledge, the main reason is just the demographic, a lot of young families, which is our core demographic, and then the lack of competition.

Yeah, absolutely. Yes. And thanks so much for considering that because it was sad to see Party City go. But this site has been, unfortunately, this area has been, I guess, underutilized, right? It has capacity for so much. So thank you for choosing this area and this great project.

Thank you. All right. Thank you. I'll now open public comments. If anybody in chambers wishes to speak, please come to a podium. And while I wait for everybody to rush forward, Ms. Green, do we have anybody on Zoom or by phone? OK.

I don't know if I'm unmuted here. Am I on unmute? Can anybody hear me?

Yes, we can hear you. I'm tapping in.

To the point of why customize, I'm Joseph Hatch. I'm one of the owners. We're super excited about this, and I know this is maybe an extracurricular question. It doesn't have to do with code or anything really related to the conditional use, but So my family's from Southern California. The ownership is actually up here in Utah. But we went through a series of over 100 different spaces that we looked at. I specifically toured 19 or so buildings in California. And then at the end of the trip, then we ended up at the Gonzalez Market. And if you've ever been there, it's seriously some of the best Mexican food ever. And at the end of that, then we saw the space and I loved everything about the community. I'd known Costa Mesa is one of the favorite places. it's just families, community. It's just such a great place, such a great city. And so aside from, you know, we do a lot of research on the demographics and the competition and, you know, there's 101 different things to, but I think at the end of the day, what it came down to is we just really love, the community and families. And that's really what we're all about. You know, it's this about families is about birthday parties is about fun and core memories. And, um, so we, yeah, I mean, it was when, when we went into that space, it was like this, this has to be one. This is, and we're, you know, we're a small group. We're not a franchise. Right. So we're really picky about where we go. Um, and so, yeah, I mean, this, this was the product of, um, looking at over 100 different spaces that we kind of could have gone to and touring many, many more and landing here. So we're just really, really excited to get started and be part of the community. All right.

Thank you. Ms. Green, anyone else? Okay. I will close public comment unless commissioners have any other questions of staff. Nope. OKAY. I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE ITEM. MAY I HAVE A MOTION? COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ?

I MOVE THAT WE FIND THAT THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PER SEQUA GUIDELINE SECTION 15301 EXISTING FACILITIES AND APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 25-0022 BASED ON FINDINGS OF FACT AND SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.

So motion by Commissioner Martinez, second by Commissioner Andrade. Would you like to speak to your motion?

Yeah, this looks like a really fun business, something that I would want to go to, honestly. Yeah, no, this looks great. It's next to another kid-oriented use, the Aquatots. I saw when I visited the site, it had the caution slow down children around. I'm guessing for Aquatots, but now also serving children. serving this potential business. Happy to hear that this might be covered under our next code amendment that would have simplified the process. But here we are. I think this will add a lot of smiles to the community. So happy to have you and happy to support it.

Commissioner Andrade. Thank you.

Yeah, I'll equally second that. As a parent and family here, you guys are going to save me the drives driving up to Brea and Anaheim and Fountain Valley, which are still wonderful cities. But to know that our local community can now celebrate right here in our neighborhood. And this is, again, a mall that I lived close walking distance from that has needed investment for quite some time. And you're absolutely right, Mr. C. The parking lot is predominantly more visited by seagulls than cars. And it's such a great fit, right? Because I appreciate that you guys are not serving food or anything like that, but folks can, like we heard one of the partners share, you can cross the street, have some Thai food, have your hearts filling of all the great cuisine here in our city. So thanks so much for choosing our town.

Commissioners, any other comments? Commissioner Rojas?

I just want to second what Commissioner Andrade was saying. I really appreciate you guys picking Costa Mesa. Definitely underutilized, and I think it's going to be a phenomenal fit. So thank you very much.

I just want to follow up on Mr. Hatch's observation that amazing food is our secret economic development strategy here in Costa Mesa. So if that brings more quality businesses for our community, especially for young families and kids, we need to continue on that road. If that's all the comments, I will call for the question.

Motion carries 6-0.

All right, congratulations. That decision is final unless it's appealed to the city council within seven days. All right, Ms. Green, can you please read the title for public hearing item number two?

Proposed amendments to Title 13 of the Coastal Mesa Municipal Code to update land use classifications for various non-residential uses include but not limited to personal services, artisan studio and retail uses, active entertainment uses, event centers and assembly uses, specialized fitness studios, and other non-residential uses and standards. In presentation by Ms. Gregg, contact planner, and Ms. Caron, planning manager.

All right. Ms. Caron and Ms. Gregg, you have the floor. Welcome.

Thank you so much. I will hand this off to Amber Gregg to introduce the item, and we will follow up together at the end of the presentation. Okay.

Hello. Good evening, Planning Commissioners. Thank you so much for having me here again tonight. I apologize for not being at the last meeting. Martina did a wonderful job. I did take a vacation, and I was very excited about that. But I'm very glad to be back tonight. So this will be our second round of looking at economic development targeted land use regulations, zoning code amendment updates. As we said, this will be tag-teamed by Martina and myself. and I'll take the first half of this presentation. So just as a little bit of an introduction as well as background for those following along at home as well, zoning code amendments were introduced to the planning commission at the last planning commission meeting of June 22nd. The purpose of the amendments is to help start to modernize our zoning code, particularly to help support evolving business models that have changed over the decades, improve regulatory clarity for not only applicants but staff, reduce reliance on similar use determinations, as well as facilitate reinvestment and adaptive reuse of our brick and mortar facilities, and clarify development standards for all parties involved. The Planning Commission supported most of the 11 proposed amendments, but did have concerns about fitness facility as well as floor area ratio. With those two things in mind, the item was continued to tonight's meeting to allow staff time to analyze feedback and address Planning Commissioner's comments. So those will be the two items that we're focusing on tonight. So just to summarize what all the code amendments entailed that we reviewed last time, there were a total of 11. The first was personal service, then artisan studio, active entertainment, which has already been discussed tonight, event centers and assembly uses, small fitness studios, food halls, ghost kitchens, electric vehicle charging, sports clubs, commercial kitchens, heights deviation, as well as floor area ratio definition. And just to reiterate tonight we're going to be focusing on fitness uses as well as floor area ratio definition. So based on the feedback that we heard at the last meeting there was some concern about the size of fitness uses in that up to 15,000 square feet was a pretty big broad category and so to help address that staff is now proposing three fitness use categories to better distinguish between different facility sizes as well as operational models. So tonight before you we have small fitness studios. These are meant to capture the small uses that would be anywhere up to 2,500 square feet. They're generally designed for one-on-one instruction as well as personal training or small classes. We're proposing these to be permitted by right. There would be special land use regulations in there just to make sure there's no negative adverse impacts to the surrounding businesses or community. The required parking proposed is four spaces per thousand. That is based on ITE suggestions as well as reviewing surrounding cities. The next category is fitness studios. This is for facilities from 2,500 square feet up to 15,000 square feet. These are generally intended to accommodate small to midsize class-based facilities, such as yoga, pilates, martial arts, and other similar uses. Those, too, would be permitted by right, but would also have special land use regulations. And those would be 10 spaces per 1,000 square feet. The reason for that jump is because when you have uses with group instruction, you can fit a lot more people in a smaller space, which can tend to generate parking. That too follows ITE as well as surrounding cities. And then lastly, it's physical fitness facility. This is an existing use already, which our uses all get captured under. physical fitness facilities does require conditional use permit, so by differentiating these for the larger facilities, it helps identify those bigger impacts that come with the larger facilities. That would continue to require CUP, so there's no proposed changes. So by having these three different categories, this helps provide objective standards for distinguishing smaller instructional facilities from larger or mid-sized physical fitness facilities with regulations. And not to belabor the point, but just to kind of break this down. So we have smaller, up to 2,500 square feet. These would be permitted by right with special land use regulations. We are proposing a new parking requirement as well as a new definition for this one. And then likewise for fitness facility, this is midsize, 2,500 to 15,000, permitted by right again with special land use regulations, also proposing new parking requirements and a definition for that one. And that completes fitness. I'm going to turn it over to Martina.

Thank you so much, Amber. And then the next topic that we reviewed at the prior planning commission meeting that there was discussion on was the floor area ratio definition. So as a recap, as part of this code update, we are proposing a modification for the implementation of floor area. The proposed definition is intended to clarify how floor area is calculated for non-residential development and provide greater consistency for the review of the four-year ratio as it relates to trip generation for uses. The proposed definition will address areas primarily devoted to operational utility or support functions of the building and areas that are not intended to generate additional occupancy, customer activity, or employee activity should be excluded from our calculations. During the June 22nd Planning Commission hearing, the Commission discussed whether the FAR calculation should continue to use this implementation and the question of the storage areas came up, the commission expressed support generally for excluding areas that don't drive intensity but wanted us to drill down and clarify the definition a little bit more as related to general storage. Let's switch. So staff went back and looked at the definition and we revised it to the definition that's shown on the screen. It's been updated to exclude areas that do not directly contribute to the intensity of the development and also recognizes that certain accessory storage areas do not necessarily increase trip generation or operational intensity. BE NOTED THAT GARAGES AND CAR PORTS ARE NOT CURRENTLY INCLUDED IN THE GROSS FLOOR AREA WITHIN THE EXISTING WALLS, SO THIS WILL CONTINUE THAT PRACTICE. THE DEFINITION IS ALSO INTENDED, IT WASN'T STRICKEN IN OUR STRIKETHROUGH VERSION, BUT IT'S INTENDED TO REPLACE THE GROSS FLOOR AREA, SO AS A RECOMMENDATION, WE WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAKE THAT DISTINCTION IN THE MOTION. So that completes our presentation.

Staff does recommend approval of the project as noted in the staff report to the city council. I did want to note that we did receive two public comments as part of this. Those are both placed on your dais. Both are actually in support. Oh, I'm sorry, three comment letters. two of which were in support of the... All in support. I'm sorry, all three were in support. Sorry, I missed that. Missed one of them in there. So all three were in support of the proposed changes. And with that, staff is available to answer any questions. Thank you.

All right. Thank you very much. Commissioners, questions of staff? Sorry, I can't see your light there. This is in the way. Commissioner Martinez.

Thank you. Well, you weren't the only one who was not here last meeting.

So I...

And I'm going to ask questions about things that aren't just those two, since I wasn't here last time. So let's start. I use the strikethrough version. I don't use the clean version. So I'm going to be referencing page numbers in the strikethrough. I'll start off by saying that, which starts on 178. So my first question is on page 179, the definition of amusement center. has a does not include clause that references the active entertainment. Should active entertainment, in fact, be amusement center in that definition?

I'm sorry, I'm just reading the definition really quick, so I re-familiarize myself with this. And just, if it's helpful, I'm happy to read it out loud for everyone, too. So it says active, or... Active entertainment, a commercial use. Oh, you're talking about amusement center.

I'm talking about amusement center.

Okay. So a commercial use that provides interactive participant-based amusement, recreation, or gaming-oriented activities for an individual or group partation that is larger than 15,000 gross square feet. Active entertainment does not include spectator-oriented uses, live performance theater, adult entertainment, businesses, physical fitness facilities, or event center. AND YOU'RE ASKING IF WE SHOULD ALSO ADD ACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT TO THAT.

SO WE'RE SO.

INSTEAD OF ACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT SHOULD IT READ AMUSEMENT CENTERS DOES NOT INCLUDE SPECTATOR ALREADY INTRODUCES LIVE PERFORMANCE.

OH, OKAY. YES. IS THAT A YES? YES, THAT'S CORRECT. WE SHOULD CHANGE THAT TO AMUSEMENT CENTER.

OKAY. PAGE 183. The esports arena definition mentions electronic gaming, but it doesn't mention esports, which is the definition above that. Should we include esports, since that's the term that's defined in the esports arena definition?

We can include it as part of the examples. So we would say for esports arena, a facility designed and operated primarily for organized electronic gaming competitions, which is what the definition of esports is. TOURNAMENTS, EXHIBITIONS, BROADCASTS, LIVE STREAMING EVENTS OR SIMILAR EVENTS WHERE SPECTATOR VIEWING AND ATTENDANCE ARE THE PRINCIPAL ACTIVITIES. THEN WE CAN ADD INCLUDING E-SPORTS OR ELECTRONIC SPORTS.

I THINK I CAN FIGURE THAT OUT LATER AS WELL. OKAY.

COOL. PAGE 189.

SO I DID LISTEN TO THE PRESENTATION FROM LAST TIME. And Commissioner Rojas asked a question about personal services and personal services group that this includes pets. So I want to ask if the word individuals in both of these definitions includes pets or if it doesn't.

So it's an individual's pet? So if you as an individual are looking for one-on-one services for your pet, that would still count as personal care? because you are the owner of the pet. The pet can't go in requesting services.

That's true. Yeah. Yeah, hard to do. OK, fair enough, fair enough. Let's see, also on 189, at the bottom, planning division, we now say instead of development services department, community development department. Do we do this in other parts of the code where it says Development Services Department, or did we only just do it here?

So I'm happy to defer to Director Tai, but our department is actually going through a name change right now, and so this is reflective of that name change.

Thank you, Amber. So the approach to updating the department name is if we happen to be in a particular code section, and there happens to be a mention, we will change the name. However, we are not opening up every other part of the code at the moment. And so as the time goes by, we will incrementally update the name of the department that way. Thank you. OK.

I'll do a comment later. OK. Page 228. Get to skip over the land use metrics. OK. At the bottom, bottom bit of underlined, it says esports area. Should that read esports arena?

Yes, thank you for catching it. Okay. 228, and that's the parking section, is that correct? That is correct.

It says esports area instead of esports arena.

Okay. Next page, 229. Actual substantial question and not just grammar. So we have this long piece of underlying section about accessory food or beverage service. So I think my first question is, do these parking requirements for accessory food and beverage only apply for health clubs, fitness studios, and whatever else is in that category? like section, or should accessory food or beverage service be the use and be in the use column?

Let me look into that while we're going over a question, because that's going to take me a minute to review, and I can do that while we're doing other things. But let me review that section.

OK. And then I'm going to ask. basically a math question about the same part. So the accessory food or beverage service parking requirements. The first 25% of gross leasable area is one space per 1,000 square feet. The remaining gross leasable area, so the last 75%, is at five spaces per 1,000 square feet. No matter how much square footage you have, that's always going to be four spaces per thousand square feet. So why do we split it up for first 25% and then last 75%? Why don't we just say four per thousand?

I believe it comes straight from our food and beverage section, so that's why I want to double check that. And then I can better answer that question. But I see your point where if we're saying five spaces, you're saying four spaces per thousand versus five spaces per thousand. Is that correct, Commissioner Martinez?

I apologize. So what it says here is that the first 25% is at one space per thousand. So just for example, let's just say it's 1,000 square feet, this accessory use. So that'll be 0.25 parking spaces. And then the remaining area, which is going to be 75%, is at five spaces per thousand, which for a 1,000 square foot thing would be 3.75 parking spaces. 3.75 plus 0.25 is four spaces per thousand. And no matter how much area it'll be, it'll always be four spaces per 1,000. Because it's not like we have first 1,000 square feet is at one space per 1,000. It's the first 25%. It's a percentage instead of a gross amount.

So. Okay, I see what you're saying. So you're right. The first 25% shall be one space per thousand and the remaining shall be five spaces per thousand. So I just want to check and see if it matches our existing food requirements. And then I can better answer that question.

Okay. Two things to check. Cool. I'll go... I'm just gonna note now, since we're going through this, page 230, there's an or that I would make an R for grammar. Page, let's go with 231, which is the next page. Note number three. is about bike racks, and you know I like bike racks. So this note says that there can only be a maximum credit of one parking space for providing bike racks. If multiple trips are done using bikes and they aren't done using vehicles, which would take up a car parking space, why can't that credit be applied more than once?

So for this particular question, we weren't reviewing what our bike rack requirements are applicable to the whole city. So that's why that's not being modified. So you're not seeing any underlying strikeout changes in that area. It's just not, it wasn't within the purview of our limited scope of this review process, but it doesn't mean it's not anything that can't be looked at in the future.

I will flag that for the future. I'll also flag that Note 3 has that second paragraph about approval of a use permit, which is the same as Note 4. So I'm going to say that's a mistake, and I might suggest cutting that. Okay. Page 238 is... Active entertainment and amusement centers. OK. So active entertainment and amusement center uses shall be conducted entirely within an enclosed building and shall be limited to a maximum gross square footage of 15,000 square feet. Now, the whole point SPLITTING ACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT AND AMUSEMENT CENTER WAS THAT ONE OF THOSE TWO IS BIGGER THAN 15,000 SQUARE FEET. SO WHY ARE WE SAYING HERE THAT AMUSEMENT CENTER IS LIMITED TO A MAXIMUM GROSS SQUARE FOOTAGE OF 15,000 SQUARE FEET?

YOU'RE CORRECT. THAT SHOULD HAVE A PREFACE OF ACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT SHOULD BE LIMITED TO NO LARGER THAN 15,000 SQUARE FEET AND AMUSEMENT CENTER SHALL BE FOR LARGER THAN THAT. SO WE'LL MAKE THAT EDIT.

And active entertainment. Okay. Let me see if I can keep track of all of those.

Okay.

Okay. And now if you want to pull up the slide on fitness parking. And this will just be kind of general questions. So. How did we get to these parking requirements? What data did we use?

Do you want to answer that one? So initially, when we were proposing the amendment at the prior meeting, we had two classifications. There was discussion from the Planning Commission and also discussion from members of the public that were requesting maybe consideration for a smaller category similar to some neighboring jurisdictions. When we reviewed the modification opportunities, And we were able to pull information from some applications that were submitted to the city for MCUPs, for parking deviations, for different fitness uses. 2,000 square feet is a, we've seen in other jurisdictions as a threshold, but most of the proposed spaces were larger than 2,000 square feet. So if we had implemented that threshold, we don't believe it would have been as helpful to future applications. So it was modified to 2,500 square feet. It also tracks at 2,500 square feet the 10 parking spaces that seems to accommodate typical small scale fitness instructional uses. So if you had two teachers, up to eight students, that would be 10 people, 10 cars. That seemed to track out to be a reasonable recommendation for the small fitness.

Yes, but where did we get these numbers?

And then additionally, there's a boutique parking classification in the ITE rates that also helps provide for direction on how to differentiate between the levels of the fitness studio and a health club.

Now these ITE graphs, I've seen a few ITE graphs. I was a student member of ITE. Sometimes these graphs, they have the reverse correlation of parking. Sometimes they just make some parking requirements up. So I would like to see what these specific graphs look like. And then additionally, I would also like to point out page, 77, which I know is the prior item, but I still want to read it out. The top of page 77. The two businesses with the highest parking requirement, Planet Fitness, which is a fitness use, and Dick's Sporting Goods, which are 170 and 376 spaces respectively, do not reflect the actual demand, which is much lower. So Planet Fitness, a currently existing Costa Mesa physical fitness facility, does not reflect the actual demand of parking of 10 spaces per 1,000 square feet. So we have that data point just from our previous item.

So that information, that's from the applicant letter?

I know it's from the applicant letter, and it's data also from Costa Mesa. So I'm just going to point that out. I'll also just point out, just for fun, and while we're here, that 10 spaces per 1,000 square feet, do you know how much square footage 10 spaces is?

I could do the math.

I also don't have the math on me. But rough guesstimate based on knowing that 3 and 1 half spaces roughly is 1,000 square feet. It's about 2,000 and something.

The 10 per thousand is also consistent with our current health club classification. But as the spaces are smaller in the physical fitness centers, then they would require less parking proportionately. But it's consistent because the commission has expressed that there's still concern with larger group classes and the parking impacts to a site.

OK, so I'm just going to ask, is it still the department's recommendation that the parking requirement be a bit more than double than the actual gross leasable area of the fitness studios?

I think what we're looking at is what the parking demand is, not necessarily the square footage of parking that's required for us. So looking at ITE as well as our past parking requirements and looking at other cities in the surrounding areas, 10 parking spaces per thousand is very typical for that type of use. And so as part of this review, we weren't looking to modify that. So we are proposing to keep that requirement consistent with what it is today because a parking study was not a part of this proposal.

Yeah, and if I can just further reiterate, thank you, Amber. That is correct. One of the main motivations for this focused update to the code was making it easier for uses to be permitted without WITHOUT SUCH A DRACONIAN ENTITLEMENT PROCESS, THE CURRENT PARKING STANDARD FOR HEALTH CLUBS AND PHYSICAL FITNESS FACILITIES AS WE ARE USING THE NEW NAME has been 10 spaces per 1,000 square feet. We did break that up into several categories, as you can see on the screen. However, this was for the purposes of getting businesses into tenant spaces. The scope of this effort did not necessarily include restudying all of the THE PARKING RATIOS. SO THIS IS AN INCREMENTAL IMPROVEMENT, ALTHOUGH THERE IS FURTHER OPPORTUNITY TO COMPREHENSIVELY RESTUDY THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CITY IN GENERAL. I WILL ALSO POINT OUT THAT WHILE THE VAST MAJORITY OF PHYSICAL FITNESS FACILITIES HAVE GROUP CLASSES THAT PERHAPS NECESSITATE THE 10 SPACES PER THOUSAND SQUARE FOOT PARKING RATIO, PLANET FITNESS IS NOT ONE OF THOSE AND PERHAPS THAT MAY BE A REASON THAT THEY ACT AS AN ANOMALY WHEN IT COMES TO PARKING DEMAND WHICH WORKS FOR THAT PARTICULAR CENTER. BUT I WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT LITTLE NUANCE AS WELL. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. WELL, WHENEVER WE GET TO THOSE FUTURE CONVERSATIONS, DO LET ME KNOW. OKAY.

I JUST WANTED TO MAKE ONE MORE POINT ON THAT ONE. SINCE THESE TYPES OF USES THAT WE'RE PARTICULARLY TALKING were previously a CUP and now are proposing to allow them to be permitted by right with special use regulations. I do want to note that we have an existing provision within our zoning code for a reduction in parking, and it does require a minor conditional use permit, which is still less impactful than the process that they would have to go through today, should they decide that they did want to submit a parking study, to prove in that particular location, in that particular scenario, as those can differentiate on a case-by-case basis, that that minor CUP process is available to them as well.

Okay. How are we doing on accessory food or beverage and the four per thousand?

WE ARE STILL WORKING ON THAT AS WE'RE ANSWERING YOUR OTHER QUESTIONS. THAT'S THE END OF MY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ. VICE CHAIR ZICK.

THANK YOU. I WILL NOTE I'VE GONE THROUGH THE ALGEBRA ON THE POINT THAT COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ HAS BROUGHT UP AND FOUR PER THOUSAND IS EQUIVALENT TO WHAT YOU'VE DESCRIBED.

For the food and beverage? Yes.

Yes, thank you. I would also comment that where you identify, and this is on page 229, the accessory use The way I interpreted that was accessory means like, oh, by the way, as opposed to a main use. And if it was a main use, well, then that would be in the left-hand side of the category. So, but that's not my question. I've just an aside. My question, as it did last time, focuses on this gross floor area issue. And I'm looking at the staff report page six. And under the bold heading that is the definition for non-residential gross floor area, I'm very comfortable with part of your definition and I'm very uncomfortable with another part of your definition. The first portion of the first sentence, I think, perfectly describes the total size of a building, the total horizontal area of all floors within the exterior walls of the structure. Perfect. That's the starting point. That's how big an entire building is. But in terms of your definition, you want to exclude certain things from that total. In the latter part of that paragraph, you identify what those things are. Elevator, stair shafts, mechanical shafts, pipe chases, equipment and mechanical rooms, electrical rooms, other accessory storage, utilities, service spaces that are devoted exclusively to the development operations and maintenance, where you say development, you mean the buildings, operations, and maintenance. So that's, to me, the perfect definition. Total size of the building minus all the stuff that's unique and required for a building to be a building. What's left over, the difference between those two, is what any owner, tenant, operator moves into. What troubles me, though, is the second part of the first sentence that tends to qualify your definition by saying it contributes to the building's occupancy or intensity of use. Well, I'd say every single thing that an operator, a renter, an owner, a leaser, leasee, moves into the building contributes to the building's occupancy and intensive use. It absolutely contributes. So it's almost redundant to have that in there. What bothers me, though, is the language that's used up above in the first paragraph on that page. The third line down says recognizes that certain accessory storage areas do not necessarily increase trip generation. Okay, I don't dispute that. Andoril has a humongous facility. They've got within that some large rooms that hold a bunch of equipment that the engineers use. those large rooms that store all that equipment or store all the parts that they may put together on breadboards and prototypes, doesn't necessarily contribute to trip generation. But the totality of their operation does, and as they shift their use around within their facility, it absolutely could. I think the definition of gross floor area is and should be a simple physical definition. Total building minus the guts of the building that are required for the building to function. Stairs, elevators, equipment rooms, you list them all. What's left over though is what contributes to the intensity and the impact. The possibility, the way you're describing it, that you would reduce the gross area of a building because an operator tells you, hey, I'm putting a bunch of stuff in this area, seasonal merchandise, materials for upcoming events, for the holidays. And then you would somehow exclude that square footage and then say, well, you can build a bigger building now because of the FAR. We've excluded that in the buildings area. Makes no sense to me at all. Please respond.

So our intent and approach was to classify that within the walls of a building. Their gross for area is calculated, but then we wanted to exclude all of those items. Let's see if we can revise the definition to capture that in a different way, and I can present that shortly to you.

Okay. Thank you for that, and I'll wait to see what you come up with. Okay.

I'd actually like to follow up on the Vice Chair's question there because I want to get a clearer understanding from him first. What is the driving characteristic? In other words, is your concern about occupancy and that being the driver for intensity of use? SO FOR EXAMPLE YOU LISTED A NUMBER OF ITEMS. I'M TRYING TO BE ARGUMENTATIVE. I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS TOO. ALL OF THESE EXCLUDED ITEMS WHY WOULDN'T FOR EXAMPLE RESTROOMS BE INCLUDED IN THERE?

IT NORMALLY IS. RESTROOMS NORMALLY ARE.

WELL ARE RESTROOMS NORMALLY EXCLUDED FROM GROSS FLOOR AREA? FOR NONRESIDENTIAL?

Thank you for that question. We have thus far not been able to exclude restrooms, right? I mean, that's why there are there are such a wide variety of items proposed to be excluded from that calculation because thus far I simply the bare, you know, whether they're built in or whether they're vertical spaces or whether they're necessary service spaces have not been able to be excluded, which means it really limits not only the development scope, but it also limits operations to a certain degree. And we are trying to build in more flexibility and usability for our businesses. Thanks.

Right. So again, this is going to sound like a very nebulous conversation, but I think the question for me is really what are we defining as contributing to the intensity of the development?

Anything that a business brings with them and moves into a building. They don't bring the restrooms. They don't bring the mechanical equipment rooms. They don't bring the electrical rooms, the staircases, the elevators. They don't bring any of that. Everything else they bring is part of their business, part of their use.

So for staff, is that how this is intended to be thought of as the vice chair describes?

We are intending to exclude areas that DON'T CREATE ADDITIONAL TRIPS. SO WE'VE LISTED THE USES OR AREAS OF A BUILDING THAT DON'T DRIVE INTENSITY WHICH IS RELATED TO TRIPS IN THIS SCENARIO.

OKAY. BUT THAT'S A DIFFERENT ANSWER IN THAT THE TRIP GENERATION IS REALLY WHAT WE'RE STATING DEFINES INTENSITY OF USE. CORRECT. IF THAT'S WHAT WE ARE SAYING THEN I THINK YOU WOULD AGREE IF I SHARE THAT RESTROOMS SHOULD BE PART OF THAT. exclusion.

Okay. So what I was very clear about last time was that when you're talking about the size of a building, there are different, uh, I'll say coordinate systems for sizing that growth square footage is the largest, the most overarching encompassing. rentable is the next one down, usable is the next one down, assignable is the next one down. And the Building Owners and Management Association has these definitions. The International Facility Management Association has these definitions. I suggested that staff refer to those so that they could see how each of these layers of definition excludes certain additional parts of a building to get down to the point where you understand what is actually going into the space. that an operator, a business, is moving in. The stuff they move in is what has an impact on trips, on traffic, on open space, on everything else. And if you exclude a portion of what the business is bringing into a building and say, well, that doesn't generate much traffic. Well, that's true. So therefore, you're going to say, well, you can put a bigger building on that piece of land. And the moment you do that, you have less open space.

Right. So I agree with your logic. I just think that in this, somewhere in the code there needs to be some explanation about how intensity of development is tied directly to trip generation and that in turn is tied to business operations or what you described the business brings. It's missing something here.

Well, it's missing, and this mixes two things together, the size of the building and the intention that you have to exclude some of the businesses' activities because they don't contribute to trips, but in doing so, allows for bigger buildings to be put on sites than would otherwise be allowed.

Well, that's a different question. And I hope we're not muddying this too much. I think this is going to be a very esoteric discussion. My point is, I just think that we need to be very clear about what the main driver is here for this definition. And if its intensity of use is driven by trip generation, then how do we make sure that the excluded, we'll call them areas or uses, are tied to that?

Yeah, Chair, if I may. On page four of the second, bottom of the page of page four of the staff report starts the explanation of this, the motivation behind this proposed definition change. So it begins by explaining this concept of floor area ratio And on the very last paragraph, it says floor area ratio is tied directly to traffic generation and the city's ability to evaluate development intensity based on anticipated trips. And I won't read the whole thing, but basically, RATIO IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE USES THE WORDS GROSS FLOOR AREA. NOW, RECOGNIZING VICE CHAIR ZICK'S POINT ABOUT THERE BEING INDUSTRY TERMS, ABSOLUTELY AGREE. HOWEVER, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS ZONING CODE AMENDMENT, WE ARE LIMITED BY the pre-existing framework of our zoning ordinance, which may define terms similarly or differently from other industry applications. But we had to fit it within the calculation of floor area ratio. And so that's ultimately what is the limiting factor right now is that the term gross floor area excludes very, very, very few items, which means things like restrooms. we have to currently count and that does limit the scope of development in many cases as we found. And while I have the mic, if I can just do one last footnote. As we review dozens and dozens of floor plans for businesses, We find that regardless of what businesses bring into the space, ultimately all businesses need support areas. Like your janitor's room, for example. It's where the mop is stored and whether somebody brings one in or not, there's a janitor's room. And it's spaces like that where there are rarely employees and there are no customers. but that items are stored there for incidental use to support the business. Those are the kind of spaces we're talking about. We're talking cold storage, like a walk-in freezer, for example, that has shelving for food. Somebody walks in, grabs whatever they need, but nobody uses that space full-time. And those are the kinds of service spaces we're talking about. So whether they're cold, hot storage, but they're not occupied by somebody full-time, and they do support the business. So thank you.

OK, thank you. I appreciate that, which is why I started my question about is this a question of occupancy and defining that term for these purposes. My questions initially had nothing to do with this. So if I can just for a moment move on to the fitness use questions and pick up where Commissioner Martinez had left off. So as I recall, our discussion in June was really about THE SIZE OF THE FITNESS FACILITIES RELATIVE TO PARKING STANDARDS AND INTENSITY. AND I SEE WE'VE GOT THREE CATEGORIES NOW. THE SURVEY I DID VERY INFORMAL AMONG FRIENDS OF MINE ALL OF WHOM GO TO GYMS WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT'S THE SIZE OF THE GYM, WHAT'S THEIR PARKING LIKE. And what are the potential impacts? And what I have divined from this, for example, the gym I go to is about 2,500 square feet. So that would be 10 spaces of parking. That probably tracks with two to three instructors and six to eight people. So that seemed to make a lot of sense. IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S A BIG GAP BETWEEN 2,500 AND 15,000 AND THEN TO BUMP UP TO THE 10 SPACES PER 1,000. SO TO COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ'S QUESTION, I'M WONDERING WHAT DATA WE'RE USING TO UNDERSTAND THAT. IF THERE'S ANY SURVEY DONE OF FACILITIES IN THE CITY AND WE'VE TAKEN A LOOK AT THE DIFFERENT SQUARE FOOTAGES AND WE'VE DONE AN AVERAGE OR AN AGGREGATE. I DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW MANY PHYSICAL FITNESS FACILITIES WE HAVE OVER 15,000 SQUARE FEET. WHAT I DO KNOW THOUGH OR I DO SUSPECT IS THAT WHEN WE HAVE LARGER PARKING REQUIREMENTS TIED TO THE SIZE OF THESE FACILITIES It's going to push into certain areas. So you're not going to be able to put a 10,000 spaces per 1,000 square feet is probably going to push you into an industrial area. And that's where the available parking and the size of the facility is going to be. I DON'T KNOW IF WE DID ANY KIND OF SURVEY WHERE IN THE CITY WE'RE ALLOWING THESE. I SUSPECT THAT HASN'T HAPPENED. MY POINT THOUGH IN GENERAL QUESTION IS ABOUT WHY WE WOULD HAVE THIS THIRD CATEGORY. MAYBE WE CAN HAVE SOMETHING THAT'S A LITTLE SMALL FITNESS STUDIO IS A HIGHER NUMBER AND THEN WE HAVE A LARGER FITNESS FACILITY THAT MAYBE STARTS AT 6,000 OR 8,000 SQUARE FEET.

In terms of your first question of why do we have these three categories is I think how you said the small fitness facility of up to 2,500 square feet is pretty clear with the four per thousand so where it really comes into play where it's helpful for applicants is that mid-size to large so the mid-size which will call 2,500 to 15,000 is that changes it from acquiring a CUP, let's not talk about parking for a second, but if you're just going in, you can meet the parking requirement, but if you're just going in, you're permitted by right as long as you meet the special land use regulation. So that's a huge benefit that you don't need to go through a full CUP process in that case. So then with the physical fitness facility, which is your 24-hour fitnesses, if you have any kind of large sports complexes, racquetball centers, things like that, those are the ones that we're talking about that fit that over 15,000 square foot category. Lifetime fitness is a really good example of that as well, where you have a lot of multi-uses. potentially pools in that area, so that remains a CUP just because it's more intense. So that's the first purpose of having three separate categories. And then in terms of the required parking spaces, that 10 per thousand not only is consistent with what we require today, we did look at other cities to see what their requirements were for group instruction type uses. as well as ITE and that's 10 per thousand. So we just remained consistent with that and are not proposing a parking study analysis as part of this.

Okay, so if I understand that explanation, the first part was related to the entitlement vehicle, let's just call it that, whether it's a CUP or by right or even an MCUP. And the second is the parking standard. And my concern, I know we're supposed to be asking questions, but my concern is that the parking standard is what's going to kill projects. And it's going to be too high. So the entitlement vehicle is going to be irrelevant, right? And if the idea is to streamline this and to facilitate our processing, the standard needs to, I think, have that same intent.

And we can absolutely talk about that more. And then I also want to reiterate that. IF AN APPLICANT WERE TO COME IN THAT SAYS THIS IS JUST RIDICULOUS FOR MY PROJECT BECAUSE HERE'S WHAT MY OPERATIONS ARE THAT DON'T FALL UNDER TYPICAL LAND USE OF GROUP INSTRUCTION, ALTHOUGH GROUP INSTRUCTION CAN STILL HAVE A LOT MORE INTENSE, EVEN UP TO 15,000 SQUARE FEET. THAT'S A PRETTY GOOD SIZED FACILITY. SO IF YOU HAVE A LOT OF GROUP INSTRUCTION, PARKING STILL HAS A POTENTIAL. BUT REGARDLESS OF THAT, THEY STILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY UNDER THE CURRENT CODE TO APPLY FOR A MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. not a CUP, to do a parking modification. So that is that middle ground between that permitted by right versus a full CUP that comes before you. It's something that staff can review internally and identify if that would require lower parking requirement.

And there's one thing I would like to add as well, that establishments where food and beverages are served with more than 300 square feet of public area are also parked at 10 per thousand. And we have restaurants that do come in that don't have a parking challenge at a bigger size. So we did think that the gyms would have the opportunity to come in as well and provide parking in some of the larger centers and places like that where there's a lot of parking spaces. AND THEN IF THEY WERE SHORT THEY ARE ELIGIBLE FOR THE MCUP PROCESS WHICH IS STILL LESSER ENTITLEMENT THAN WHAT WOULD BE REQUIRED TODAY.

THANK YOU. I'M GOING TO COME BACK TO THE OTHER QUESTIONS. VICE CHAIR ZICK.

I KIND OF WANTED TO COMMENT ON THAT LINE OF INQUIRY. WHEN AFTER THE LAST MEETING OR AT THE LAST MEETING WE ONLY HAD THIS ONE CATEGORY. IT WAS UP TO 15,000 SQUARE FEET. And we had a public speaker come forward. He said, you know, we got a little place. It's kind of a yoga studio type thing. And then there was a discussion about this. And staff was asked. I wasn't part of the passionate discussion of this item, but I'm a good observer. It was, hey, can you go back and look at this and see if there's a way to deal with that situation? So when I saw this from staff, my first thought was they did it. They did a great job. My second thought was, yeah, now they got three categories. There was only one. Somebody's going to think there should have been four or there should have only been two. So it's almost like you couldn't do the job properly. you couldn't anticipate that three was gonna be the right number. But I think what they've done is a terrific balance with these three, because two of the three is by right. And I think that's an improvement over what we had in the previous version. That's just my comment.

Any other comments of staff, commissioners, questions? Okay, Commissioner Martinez.

Just a really quick technical one. You asked for a change to the gross floor area definition in the presentation. Can you tell me what's different between what you presented and what's in code? Because I didn't see a strikethrough in the definition part, and it looks the same as what you have on the slide.

Two questions. So currently, if you look at the staff report as a better reference for what's currently in the code against the proposed definition. So on page five of the staff report, you see gross floor area. That's what's currently proposed in the code. We're proposing the change, which is on page six. So right now, the current definition for gross floor area only excludes vertical shafts and stairwells and elevator equipment. THE PROPOSED DEFINITION EXPANDS THOSE EXEMPTIVE AREAS TO THE LIST THAT'S LISTED IN THE PROPOSED DEFINITION.

I SEE. SO YOU'RE NOT TRYING TO CHANGE THE DEFINITION OF GROSS FLOOR AREA. YOU'RE TRYING TO ADD THE NEW DEFINITION GROSS FLOOR AREA NONRESIDENTIAL.

WE'RE TRYING TO EXPAND THE GROSS FLOOR AREA EXEMPTIONS THAT LIST ALL OF THE ITEMS THAT ARE WITHIN THE PROPOSED LIST HERE.

CAN I JUST REFERENCE PAGE So the bottom of page 184 is gross floor area and then it's the current definition which is also the one on the slide and then the next one is gross floor area non-residential which is the one that's being proposed. So is this correct is basically my question.

So thank you for the question. To clarify and as I presented in the presentation our intent is actually to include a strike through of the existing gross floor area and and adopt the revised gross floor area for non-residential areas.

I see. Okay. So gross floor area is not something we use for residential? Correct. Correct. Okay, good.

I will add that to my notes.

Thank you.

And then I'd like to return back to your question, Commissioner Martinez. So thank you for being patient. The purpose of my pause was just to make sure I wasn't inadvertently crossing out something in another section. So you're absolutely right. We can make that modification for the two different breakouts to just say four per thousand. That would be less of a requirement than the 10 per thousand for other areas because it's assumed that they would be a shared use within the health club. So we'll change that to four per thousand.

And then the other question that was in that same area was, does accessory food or beverage apply just to health clubs, fitness studios, and physical fitness facilities, skating rinks, and active entertainment?

Yes, that one is specifically for that section. Great, thank you.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS? I'M GOING TO CONCLUDE MY QUESTIONS. PIGGYBACKING ON VICE CHAIR ZIX'S COMMENTS. I AGREE WITH YOU THE THREE CATEGORIZATION MAY BE FINE. I DON'T REALLY HAVE AN OBJECTION TO THAT. WHERE I DO HAVE SOME HEART BURN IS ON THAT MINIMUM SIZE OF A FITNESS STUDIO. Or I should say maybe what should be the maximum size of a small fitness studio. Because I think, for example, a 2,500 square foot gym decides they've got 3,000 square feet. They're going to add a locker room or a sauna. That doesn't really contribute to the intensity of the development. I WANT TO START MIXING IN THE GROSS FLOOR AREA PIECE OF THIS. BUT THAT BUMPED UP THE PARKING REQUIREMENT SIGNIFICANTLY. WHERE I REALLY STRUGGLE IS IF THE INTENT IS TO TRY TO FACILITATE PROCESSING FOR THE APPLICANTS that the standards should also reflect that. And so it doesn't sit well with me when we say, but you can come back and get an MCUP, or you can get a deviation. We're going to offer you this by right approval, but you're going to have to jump through some more hoops to do that. I would just rather get the standard right so that it seems like you can just come in and get a buy right approval rather than have to go through the machinations of what is going to be a secondary adjustment. That costs a lot of time for businesses. It creates a lot of angst for applicants because there's some uncertainty to that. And arguably there's a little bit of a potential of a public hearing process, which again creates more uncertainty. So it's a long way of saying from my recommendation at least for this would be that the small fitness studio number be increased at least to probably something in the four or 5,000 square foot range. Still keep the three categories, but allow for smaller businesses to have a parking standard that is I think correct, it's right sized. because once you do get start and you start getting into the larger facilities you may have larger intensity and you would likely have more parking requirements that's just my recommendation

What about the guy that's five and now he goes to seven?

Well, I agree. You have to draw the line. I'm just saying in my informal survey of our facilities, and I haven't heard any competing data, that's where I land. All right. Let's open it up for public comment since we've had some too patient people in our chambers. All right, welcome, Mr. Tabota.

Good evening, Chair and commissioners. Could you pull up the slide for the gyms or the studios? Thank you. So I'm looking at the three categories, and in my mind, fitness studio, 2,500 to 15,000 is a pretty large range. And specifically, I'm thinking of the curl gym, on Adams, it used to be 24 Hour Fitness, opened nine months ago or so. I believe that's less than 15,000. And yet, in my mind, that is a full physical fitness facility. And I don't think it, so I would basically recommend that the fitness studio, 15,000 square feet be reduced. I'm not sure to what 10, 12,000 square feet. I don't know. I would ask staff if they know the square footage of curl. And maybe that's the maximum for fitness studio. I don't know. It doesn't seem like that would, the square footage would impact the parking. I guess it would impact the review process. And that's not my area of, expertise, so I'm not sure what the difference would be permitted with special land use regulations versus C CUP But I would ask the commissioners to take a look at that and staff to take a look at that that max of 15,000 certainly There's going to be apparently a new gym opening up on Harbor where UFC used to be. I'm guessing that's over 15,000. I guess there's going to be a new gym opening up on 19th where 24 Hour used to be. That's over 15,000. But, again, my frame of reference is Curl on Adams, which, again, I don't believe is 15,000. And it's definitely a physical fitness facility. It's not a studio. So thank you. Thank you.

Just for your information, Vice Chair Zick's AI tells us that it's 30,000 square feet. That's why I said it was Vice Chair's AI. Everybody else's could be different. BUT I THINK IF WE COULD HAVE STAFF ACTUALLY FIGURE OUT WHAT WAS THE SQUARE FOOTAGE AND ALSO WHAT THE ENTITLEMENT WAS OR APPROVAL, THAT MIGHT BE HELPFUL FOR DISCUSSIONS PURPOSES.

OKAY.

MS. GREEN, DO WE HAVE ANYBODY ON ZOOM OR BY PHONE?

NO, MR. CHAIR.

WE GOT ONE MORE. EVERYONE LEFT IN CHAMBERS WANTS TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.

Hi, I'm a resident of Costa Mesa. I actually live down the block. And I bike to my small fitness studio on the corner of Wilson and Fair, I think. And so, yeah, I'm a big proponent of increasing the minimum square footage of the small fitness studio. I think active people tend to go to gyms. and I'd really like to see more options in our neighborhood of gyms, particularly the bigger ones. If I could bike to an LA Fitness with a spa, that would be cool. So, yeah, that's my comment.

Okay, can I ask you quickly, recoup?

Yeah.

Okay. Which anecdotally, because I belong there, a lot of people do walk from the neighborhood or bike, like that last speaker. All right, anybody else, Ms. Green, on Zoom or by phone?

yes chris please go ahead chris hi hi this is uh chris bennett um with lab holding i just wanted to thank the commission for looking at this and we're in support of these changes that make a big difference for the small businesses we work with that's it all right thank you very much mr bennett no other speakers mr chair all right i will close public comments commissioners do we have any other questions of staff

NONE? OKAY. GO AHEAD.

SINCE YOUR NEXT STEP WOULD PROBABLY BE TO SEEK A MOTION.

LET ME JUST CLOSE THE ITEM FORMALLY.

I'M NOT READY FOR A MOTION. I WAS INTERESTED IN THE RESPONSE FROM STAFF ON AN ALTERNATIVE DEFINITION.

TAKE A LOOK AT THE SCREEN HERE.

THE SCREEN HERE HAS A REVISED DEFINITION FOR GROSS FLOOR AREA AND IT REORIENTS THE WAY THAT THE. I LIKE IT.

YEAH. WOULD YOU JUST DELETE THE WORD NONRESIDENTIAL?

YES, TO CLARIFY AGAIN AS THE STRIKETHROUGH COMPONENT FOR THE GROSS FLOOR AREA THEN NONRESIDENTIAL WOULD BE EMITTED WOULD BE GROSS FLOOR AREA DEFINITION.

Keep that on the screen in case I get to put the motion.

Okay. And then just for the commission's clarification, the facility where the curl fitness went in was a 22,000 square foot facility. I don't seem to track easily the initial entitlement for the gym, but there was an MCUP for an outdoor area for the gym. But they, I think because the prior gym was there, I can't I CAN DO A LITTLE MORE DIVING TO SEE IF THE INITIAL BUT IT WAS OVER 15,000 SQUARE FEET.

OKAY. GREAT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE ITEM NOW AND I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ, WHAT IS YOUR MOTION?

I MOVE THAT WE FIND THAT THE PROPOSED ZONING CODE AMENDMENT IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PURSUANT TO SECRET GUIDELINES SECTIONS 15-061B3 AND 15-305. And adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve amendments to Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code to update land use classifications for various non-residential uses, including but not limited to personal services, artisan studio and retail uses, active entertainment uses, event centers and assembly uses, specialized fitness studios and other non-residential uses and standards. And amend... proposal as follows first to change the definition of gross floor area so that it reads as presented on the slide and strike the current definition of gross floor area and I'll start referencing page numbers now on page 179 in the definition of amusement center, change active entertainment to amusement center. On page 183, in the definition of esports arena, change electronic gaming to esports.

We were just gonna, okay. We'll just do that.

On page 183, and 89 on page 189, I'd just like to add another sentence that says, um, uh, development services department. Uh, wait, let me, let me figure this out. Um, Any reference to development services department means community development department. And then on page 228, in the bottom row, change esports area to esports arena. On page 229, remove the sentences, first 25% of gross leaseable area for food and beverage service, one space per 1,000 square feet, and remaining gross leaseable area for food and beverage services, five spaces per 1,000 square feet. And instead, have it say gross leaseable area for food and beverage service, four spaces per 1,000 square feet. On page 230 in what I think is the third row, change or to are so that it reads establishments where food or beverages are served in excess of 5%, et cetera.

On page 231 in note three,

remove that second paragraph, which is a duplicate of note four. And then on page 238, have indoor operations read, active entertainment and amusement center uses shall be conducted entirely within an enclosed building and active entertainment, those two words added, shall be limited to a maximum gross square footage of 15,000 square feet. And finally, change the definition of small fitness studios to go up to 5,000 square feet and the definition of fitness studios to start at 5,000 square feet. And that is my motion.

Okay, motion by Commissioner Martinez, seconded by Vice Chair Zick. Would you like to speak to your motion?

Yes. This is a big compilation of a lot of good updates to our zoning code. There are a lot of good things in here that we didn't get to talk about. And I don't think that were even talked about at the previous meeting. So I'd very much like to thank staff for all of the work that they've put in into making this. I think there are still more updates to be done. And I'm very excited for those future updates as well. But this collection, of updates is very good. It will streamline a lot of different businesses that we've seen. I know many times when I've seen an escape room here, I've been like, why do we have to continue looking at these? I've seen the Cat Cafe and the previous trampoline park. All of these issues can now be streamlined, and that'll make businesses easier to open here in Costa Mesa. I'll note In updating the definition of gross floor area, gross floor area is also what the parking requirements use. So by changing the definition of gross floor area and removing and excluding certain things, we also make some parking requirements less. So I'm very much in favor of that. So thank you very much to staff for doing that. It's a lot of different things. that have to be updated. So I'm just happy that we're getting to it and looking forward to what the future items are going to be. Thank you. Thank you.

Vice Chair Zick.

Well, I'm not gonna sound as ebullient as all of that, but I do appreciate staffs working that definition with me. There's a difference between listening and hearing, and you heard me, and I liked your response to that. I also do support the change that Commissioner Martinez made for the small, FITNESS STUDIO, I THINK THE COMMENTS BY THE CHAIR WERE APPROPRIATE IN TERMS OF UPSIZING THAT JUST A LITTLE BIT. YOU GOT TO DRAW THE LINE SOMEWHERE. MAYBE 2500 WAS TOO SMALL. I THINK IT WAS SUGGESTED BY A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC, 5000 I CAN LIVE WITH. AND I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY AN IMPROVEMENT. SO I SUPPORT THE MOTION.

OKAY. ANY OTHER COMMENTS, COMMISSIONERS? NO? Okay, well, I echo those those comments. I appreciate staff's work on this. I especially appreciate the Commission's work on this and really getting into the weeds. Thank you, Commissioner Martinez. I didn't expect to go through every page number, but it's it's worthwhile. And I think this is definitely ready to send to City Council for their consideration. So with that, let's call for the question.

MOTION CARRIES 6-0.

ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE NO OLD BUSINESS. WE HAVE NO NEW BUSINESS. DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS. MR. YERING. PUBLIC SERVICES.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. members of the planning commission so for the public works report for tonight is as commissioner martinez mentioned in his comments the annual concerts in the park at fairview park there will be three concerts in the park all on tuesdays and the headliners are the following on july 14th will be sega genocide July 21st will be the Tijuana Dogs and July 28th is Common Sense. But more importantly, the Public Works will be implementing the cycle tracks as they have done every year. So there won't be one set up for tomorrow, July 14th. However, there will be set up for the July 21st and the July 28th headliner events. There'll be a long southbound placenta Avenue. There'll be protected bike lanes for bicyclists and pedestrians To walk and and cycle to the concerts for their enjoyment Lastly, I'd like to talk about what Commissioner Rojas mentioned about the OC fair. It starts this Friday on July 17th and will run through Sunday, August 16th. And as I mentioned before in the last Planning Commission meeting, Public Works will request that public to watch for vehicles and pedestrians since this event generates the most traffic here in the City of Costa Mesa.

that's all for my uh public works report and i'll defer it back to the chair thank you okay thank you mr yang uh community development department report mr thank you chair members of the planning commission um yeah so that zoning amendment item we will prep that to go to city council on august 4th because we are we are eagerly looking forward to the new rules as well AND JUST ALSO UPCOMING FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S INTEREST ON AUGUST 4TH AT CITY COUNCIL, WE WILL BE PRESENTING A RESPONSE TO A GRAND JURY STUDY ON HOW LOCAL CITIES AND COUNTIES ARE RESPONDING TO STATE HOUSING LAWS. AND THAT PERTAINS TO THE REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT ALLOCATIONS AS WELL AS GENERAL HOUSING ELEMENT LAW AND WHAT CITIES ARE DOING TO PLAN FOR THE NEXT HOUSING ELEMENT CYCLE. And we'll send a copy of that response once approved by City Council to the Planning Commission as well. The other thing I wanted to announce is that there is quite a busy couple of months coming up for both the Planning Commission as well as the City Council. The department has been working on many different multi-year initiatives that are culminating in a series of public meetings. The first of which is the community meeting for the Fairview Developmental Center on July 23rd. The purpose of that is to review all of the Fairview Developmental Center specific plan materials including the draft specific plan as well as the draft environmental impact report findings, all to assist the public in preparation for public meetings because the July 27th Planning Commission meeting will be the study session on FDC's specific plan before public hearings on both the Planning Commission as well as the City Council agendas. Also of note, there is potentially going to be a special Planning Commission meeting ON AUGUST 17TH TO GO OVER THE NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE WE ALL BELONG CITYWIDE COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR REZONING EFFORT TO ACCOMMODATE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND ALSO TO GO OVER SOME HOUSING ELEMENT REVISIONS ON as the city reestablishes capacity for meeting the city's RHNA. And then all of those meetings will lead into city council meetings in September and October. So it's going to be quite a busy couple of months. And then lastly, as a quick reminder, the city's active development map is active. And so at any given time, any member of the public or anybody can go on and look at all of the active Planning Commission applications building permit applications, construction projects, encroachment permits, and it's map-based, so you can see that all at a glance. And any questions, please direct that to staff, and we're happy to assist you. Thank you, Chair.

All right. Thank you, Director Tai. Mr. Preziosi, City Attorney Report.

Thank you, Chair Harlan. No report this evening.

Okay. Then we are adjourned. Thank you, everyone.