Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

all right good evening welcome to the planning commission meeting of monday september 14th 2026. i now call the meeting to order uh tonight commissioner rojas will be leading us in the pledge of allegiance i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands

under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Turan, will you please do the voice roll call?

Yes, let the record reflect that all commissioners are present.

OKAY. WE HAVE NO ANNOUNCEMENTS OR PRESENTATIONS THIS EVENING WHICH TAKES US TO PUBLIC COMMENTS. THESE ARE FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS WILL BE HEARD ON ITEMS THAT ARE NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA BUT ARE WITHIN OUR JURISDICTION. IF YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK PLEASE COME TO EITHER PODIUM AND IF YOU'RE PARTICIPATING BY ZOOM USE THE RAISE HAND OPTION OR IF YOU'RE PARTICIPATING BY PHONE PLEASE PRESS STAR 9. ANYBODY IN CHAMBERS WISH TO SPEAK? WE'RE VERY TOP HEAVY ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE CHAMBERS TODAY. OKAY. LAST CHANCE. ALL RIGHT. MR. RON, DO WE HAVE ANYBODY ON ZOOM OR PHONE?

NO, MR. CHAIR.

OKAY. I WILL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENTS. THAT TAKES US TO PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS. LET'S START TO MY RIGHT, COMMISSIONER ROJAS.

I HAVE NO COMMENTS, THANK YOU.

OKAY. COMMISSIONER KLIPAK.

Yes, Barktoberfest is coming up on October 17th, which falls on a weekend. It'll be 11 to 2 at T. Winkle Park. I volunteered at this event last year, and it's a lot of fun. People come dressed in costumes with their dogs, and they do a parade. And there's also a Costa Mesa PD canine demonstration, which is very interesting. And there's adoptions and a mobile vaccine clinic as well. So I highly recommend that.

All right. Commissioner Andrade.

Yes, I'm catching up on the city of Costa Mesa's Instagram. So many great activities, as Commissioner Klipek shared. One of the ones that I'm looking forward to is the September 19 Hispanic Heritage Month celebration. It's going to kick off at 10 a.m. with some Pilates. So come and join us. Enjoy some great food, some great performances and the diverse cultures that are here in our city.

right commissioner dixon it's a pretty full agenda so hold off tonight okay thank you commissioner martinez of course that won't stop me um yes so uh there's a council meeting tomorrow a lot of different planning commission items on there they have a bind they have actually two binders ours is this thick and both of theirs are that thick so if you're interested in attending their meeting that is tomorrow 6 p.m Commissioner Andrade mentioned the Saturday Hispanic Heritage Month celebration at Lyons Park. While you're there, you can also visit ArtVenture at the Norma Herzog Community Center. They have their exhibits going through all the way through the 26th. On weekends, they're open from 11 to 3, and on weekends, they're open from 1 to 7. Go and check out all of the art that's going on at ArtVenture. The next day from Hispanic Heritage Month, September 20th, the Costa Mesa Historical Society will be hosting their fourth annual bike ride. This bike ride, it's arts-focused. It'll begin at 1.30 p.m. at the Historical Society, which is within the Lions Park Complex. And finally, the Knowledge and Health Fair Expo will be held at the Costa Mesa Senior Center on Thursday, September 24, from 9.30 to 12 PM. This event will share some resources and services in the community that are put on by other groups for seniors. So please go and attend if you'd like to learn about all the resources that are available to you. Thank you.

THANK YOU.

VICE CHAIR ZICK? NOTHING.

OKAY. NOTHING FROM ME THIS EVENING. THAT TAKES US TO OUR CONSENT CALENDAR. WE HAVE ONE ITEM ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR TONIGHT, THE AUGUST 10, 2026 UNOFFICIAL MEETING MINUTES. ALL MATTERS UNDER THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE AND WILL BE ACTED ON IN ONE MOTION UNLESS THE ITEM HAS BEEN PULLED. MS. TRAN, HAS ANYBODY ASKED THE ITEM TO BE PULLED?

NO, MR. CHAIR.

OKAY. MAY I HAVE A MOTION?

MOVE THE ITEM.

OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER DIXON. LET'S CALL FOR THE QUESTION.

MOTION CARRIED 7-0. GREAT.

WE HAVE THREE PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS TONIGHT. MR. RON, WILL YOU PLEASE READ THE TITLE FOR PUBLIC HEARING ITEM

This is variance to exceed the maximum 30-foot building height for retail use at 2200 Harbor Boulevard, Unit K. Presentation by Mr. Villalobos, Assistant Planner.

Commissioner, do we have any ex parte communications to report? All right. Okay. All right. I will turn it over to Mr. Villalobos.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Gabriel Villalobos, and I'm a system planner with the Community Development Department. And tonight I'm presenting variance application PVAR-26-0001 for requested height deviation for the applicant Dick's House of Support. The project's located at 2200 Harbor Boulevard, Unit K. The subject property is on C1S, otherwise known as a shopping center district. The property directly north across Wilson Street is similarly zoned as commercial. The properties to the east across College Avenue are zoned residentially. The properties to the west across Harbour Boulevard are zoned commercially, and the properties to the south are a mix of commercial and residential uses. General development in the immediate vicinity includes a mix of multifamily residential and commercial developments, including businesses such as Northgate Market, Planet Fitness, Aqua Tots, as well as other retail and food establishments. This project includes a planning application for a variance requested to deviate from the maximum height of 30 feet allowed in the C1S zone. The project proposes tenant improvements to the existing commercial building, which will necessitate the increased height up to 50 feet to allow for a new entryway facade that is typical for Dick's stores. Additionally, a new roof structure is proposed to house a proposed climbing wall that will exceed the 30 foot height limit. This variance request will allow for an updated facade to the exterior of the building and will facilitate an indoor amenity that is unique to the Dick's House of Sport brand. The photos shown above were taken recently and show the existing conditions of the project site. Photo one shows the existing facade of which the highest point has been determined to be 30 feet. Photo two shows the other structures located within the shopping center, which were determined to be no more than 31 feet in height. Photo three shows the existing garden center located along Wilson Street, which is proposed to be demolished and redeveloped as green space abutting the public right of way. As mentioned previously, this request is for a proposed height increase for the tenant space. The existing structure has a max height of 30 feet, but most of the building frontage is 22 feet in height measured from the top of the parapet wall. This application seeks to allow an increase of up to 36 and 50 feet for a new entryway facade at the front of the structure facing Harbor Boulevard and 40 feet for the proposed roof structure housing the climbing wall located closer to the public right of way along Wilson Street. Other improvements include new landscaping and updated driveway approaches along Wilson Street. The slide above shows a site plan for the proposed project. In addition to the modifications previously mentioned, it should be noted that there will be no increase in the floor area of the structure. The removal of the enclosed garden center will decrease the overall floor area of the tenant space and replace it with landscaping. The next slide shows the proposed floor plan for the interior of the tenant space. The majority of the space will be dedicated retail floor area and back of house space to support the retail use. Additionally, some new amenities are also proposed as part of this project to establish this location as separate from other similar stores in the area and as a Dick's House of Sport. That includes the climbing wall shown in yellow, the golf simulator shown in red, putting green shown in green, and multi-sport cage in blue. These amenities are intended to supplement the retail experience and allow for in-house use of products sold at the store. The slide above shows the proposed landscaping for the former garden centre along Wilson Street. The existing fence, enclosed garden centre and hardscape will be replaced with new landscaping to improve the aesthetic quality of the streetscape along Wilson Street. Planning staff supports the requested variance as the application has been deemed to meet the findings required pursuant to Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29. The strict application of the 30-foot height limit restricts the visibility of the project along one of the city's major commercial corridors of Harbor Boulevard. The increased height will allow for greater visibility along Harbor, similar to that allowed for the development directly north of the project site. Those businesses, including Northgate Market and Home Depot, all currently include a 50-foot height and were approved through a variance request as well. This request will not allow for an increase in floor area and will not create a new second floor area. The approval will simply allow for an increased height for the facade and to allow overhead clearance for the climbing wall to be fully enclosed. The proposed roof structure will be located approximately 76 feet from the frontage along Wilson Street and at least 260 feet away from the nearest residential development located to the east across College Avenue. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution to find that the project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA subject to CEQA guidelines section 15301 and approve variance PVAR-26-0001 based on the findings of fact and subject to conditions of approval. This concludes staff's presentation. Staff and applicant are available to answer any questions. The applicant has also prepared a presentation for the commission. Thank you.

OK. Thank you very much, Mr. Villalobos. Commissioners, any questions of staff? Commissioner Martinez.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll start with the conditions of approval. Actually, my only questions are on the conditions of approval. So starting with handwritten page 58. Handwritten, whatever. Condition of approval number five. is on the windows for the climbing wall area. And it says that they shall be tinted or obscures to minimize light pollution. However, we also have them doing a lighting plan and photometric study in condition of approval number 13. So why have them do tinted or obscured windows if we don't yet know what the light pollution impacts would be?

So the intent of that condition is just to minimize or mitigate any potential light pollution effects. We felt that if a photometric study would be required, it would be done so during the building permit phase and not prior to approval of this variance.

So but we don't know what the light pollution impact will be? Not currently, no. OK. So maybe that's a conditional condition. OK. Conditions 8 and 11 are on landscaping. And they both say that the landscape plans will meet the requirements of our municipal code. However, this is a legal non-conforming site. So I wanted to first check that they're not going to meet the code once they're done with the project. So should these conditions meet the requirements of these code sections, or IS THAT PROPERLY WORDED?

THE CODE ACTUALLY DOES PROVIDE FOR IMPROVED, SO IF IT IS NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE THE CODE ACTUALLY BY MEETING THE CODE IT WILL PROVIDE ADDITIONAL AND BECOME A MORE CONFORMING LANDSCAPED AREA. With that, there is a provision in our nonconforming section that talks about improving the condition. So it would meet the code, even if it doesn't meet the prescribed landscaped area for the overall site.

That is the code, right? That's the code section that says that you can go further in conformance with to get to what our code says. But in our conditions, it says that they have to meet it.

Which they are by providing additional landscaping.

Gotcha.

OK.

Thank you. And condition of approval number 16 starts by saying, show method of screening for all ground-mounted equipment.

And then that's basically a sentence.

I'm assuming that it should read something like the plans should show the method of screening for all ground-mounted equipment. I'm assuming that's just something left off of a copy-paste, but I would be willing to be corrected.

Yeah, generally, as far as the screening is concerned, we typically request that any new, I guess, utility or mechanical equipment be screened to the greatest extent feasible. That typically includes either some sort of landscaping or other method, but there is definitely some vagueness there to um I guess allow for flexibility as far as the screening proposed yeah the condition can be updated as noted that the plan should show or the applicant shall show okay those are my questions thank you Mr. chair okay any other questions of staff commissioners yes so just um

It was great to have a comparison of Mercado next to what this project will be and also the property that were approved not too long ago in the same mall. So I'm going with this is clearly going to bring a nice increase of traffic and movement to this area. Are there opportunities to kind of meet forecasting that need and meeting accessibility to improve the walkability in that area, because that intersection is heavily trafficked, to work with city staff or public works to make a, I don't know what the proper name is, but an X intersection where folks can go four ways. Do you know what I mean? Because I'm assuming, right, lots of families, children, Lots of people on foot are going to be coming here. I mean, I'm sure there's great parking there as well. Um, just kind of thinking ahead on how can we kind of improve and ensure that this business has quality safety for folks. Is that something that the city can maybe collaborate with the, what would that look like? Do they have to collaborate with the developer? or can we take a stab at it?

So the applicant is providing additional improvements for circulation with this project. It provides for two additional improved ADA accessible driveways off of Wilson. As far as a scramble or a crisscross or a new crosswalk, that'd be something that would be a different, probably a public works type project that would be evaluated.

So is that something we can incorporate in in the approval process just again kind of maximizing opportunity here because again we have such a now we're going to have such a diverse that this is going to feel like a downtown right. We got a you can go food shopping you can get a cell phone you can go climb a wall.

So Commissioner Andrade that will be something that staff can evaluate.

OK. Great. Thank you.

Right. Any other questions. Commissioner Andrade, are you done? Okay, Vice Chair Zick.

Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Villalobos, for your report. Could you refresh my memory as to the rationale for staff's recommendation for the 40-foot high height to accommodate the climbing wall? What's the rationale for recommending approval of that?

Specifically for the increased roof height, the increased height is located at least 260 feet away from any of the nearest sensitive uses in the area. DEVIATION WOULD ALLOW FOR UP TO 50 FEET, ULTIMATELY THAT IS SOLELY FOR THE PROPOSED FACADE IMPROVEMENT, BUT THE ROOF STRUCTURE IS INCLUDED WITHIN THAT DEVIATION REQUEST AND WE BELIEVE THAT THE STRUCTURE OR AT LEAST THE PROPOSED ADDITION WOULD BE SET BACK FAR ENOUGH AWAY FROM OTHER USES TO NOT IMPOSE ANY SORT OF substantial, I guess, impacts.

Is that a subjective determination or do you have some guideline of distance or sight line that you use for that?

When staff was evaluating the project We believe that where it was set back from these streets and recessed into the building, it would have minimal visual impact to the public right of ways. And in addition, the new facade would also somewhat screen it and that the placement on the site would provide for an appropriate location for the structure of the site.

So if they needed more than 40 feet, your view would probably be that that would be okay?

We'd have to evaluate it. We didn't look at it, but at a 40-foot height, that's what we evaluated and what we saw.

Okay. And then on the criteria for the 50-feet storefront facade, the indication is that the project must demonstrate a special circumstance applicable to the property. And you're, if I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that special circumstance is the fact that the building is 530 feet away from Harbor. Is that what I'm understanding you to say? Correct. Okay. So could you go to slide two of your presentation? Thank you. I'm gonna ask you a couple hypotheticals, so those are a little harder, maybe a little less fair to ask you, but if you could help me with the understanding. If we assume for a moment that the building in the corner of Wilson and Harbor existed, and if we assume also that the series of stores along the southern edge of the parcel were also in existence. But the actual project location had not been built. Or maybe it was even a dilapidated building and was certain to be demolished. And they're going to build a new building. how close would that building have to be from Harbor before you would say, oh, it's so far away, we would be entertaining a recommendation to approve a 50-foot facade variance? We didn't study it, we don't know.

So I think based off of that criteria, we did look at other similarly zoned commercial properties within the immediate vicinity along Harbor Boulevard, majority of which are located substantially closer to the frontage along Harbor Boulevard. I think if we were to take a look at the depth of some of those lots, you'd be able to see that those businesses are located within, would say 100 to 200 feet of the frontage along Harbor Boulevard that's not a specific criteria set that's not in the city zoning code but I think based off the merits of this project it seemed to to justify the request but we didn't study there's not a magic number where that was obtained so we just studied the application at hand and what was submitted so I

and the other piece of information I think it'd be important to share with the Planning Commission too is recently we did do a zoning code update that provides for more flexibility with the height this application was submitted prior to that adoption of the new code but we would allow up to with a conditional use permit actually a minor conditional use permit up to 42 feet in that zone so the

Actually the climbing wall itself would not necessitate a variance under the new code But the facade but the facade still would okay and the indication on page five and you referenced it in the staff report or the presentation Was that there are other properties in the vicinity? That apparently go at least 250 feet which properties were those specifically and

Specifically, it would be the property to the north at 2200 Arbor Boulevard, where the Northgate and Home Depot and at-home businesses are located.

So both Northgate and Home Depot have signage or a facade that goes up at least 50 feet?

Correct.

Okay.

That would be the height of the building.

I have not reviewed the conditional use permit public hearings for either of those projects to determine the rationale for an approval for variances for them. What I do know, and you can help enlighten me about this, is that those approvals don't set a precedent for other properties, that this kind of a variance is a determination unique to the property. So the mere fact that these other properties north of Wilson have this variance in and of itself would not justify a variance here. Would you agree with that statement?

I would agree, but I would also say that both sites do have similar conditions and that their depth of the lot is substantially larger than other commercial properties along Harbor Boulevard.

So the mere fact that the variance was approved next door doesn't PROVIDE THE JUSTIFICATION BUT THE SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS ARE SIMILAR ON BOTH SITES THAT WAS USED TO PROVIDE THE JUSTIFICATION.

THAT'S A GOOD ANSWER. I LIKE THAT ANSWER. YEAH, I'LL JUST LEAVE IT AT THAT. THANK YOU.

ANY FINAL QUESTIONS OF STAFF, COMMISSIONER ANDRADE?

FINAL QUESTION. I APPRECIATE THE LANDSCAPING DETAIL. I KNOW COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ COVERED SOME OF THAT. Safe to assume these are all natives that are going along Wilson. I was curious if at all in the application I know in the in the report you know we get some pictures of what it currently what the College Avenue looks like currently and I guess what's going to be changed there but I don't see any landscaping recommendations for the side along College Avenue. Any thoughts, feedback? Because right now it's just a very sad and bare. I used to live along Avocado Street. So yeah, it would be really a nice touch to have any landscaping. So I'm curious if the applicant at all had any thoughts on that. Doesn't look like it's an entrance or would be blocking anything.

So there is some landscaping currently along the, I guess you would call that the eastern frontage along College Avenue. Staff pushed for additional landscaping, and I think we were satisfied with any increase in landscaping, specifically along that garden center area. I think it's feasible or possible AT LEAST WITHIN OUR PURVIEW THAT MAYBE WE CAN CONSIDER ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING ALONG THE REAR ESPECIALLY TO FURTHER SCREEN THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS AT THE SITE FROM THE RESIDENCES TO THE.

YEAH BECAUSE IF WE'RE LOOKING AT THE MODELS AND I THINK THIS IS THE SIDE THAT IT WOULD BE I THINK IT'S PAGE 80 OF THE of the models that we're getting. Again, even right now, that wall at home is just a bare gray wall. Maybe it's an entrance for storage or for large items or whatever. And there's very few trees along that area or landscaping, if at all. So yeah, we definitely would love an opportunity to discuss maybe with the applicant to consider additional landscaping along College Avenue. Thank you.

Thank you. ALL RIGHT. IF THERE'S NO FURTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF, I'LL OPEN PUBLIC HEARING AND ASK THE APPLICANT OR THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE TO COME TO THE PODIUM. LET ME GET YOUR MIC SET UP. AND IF YOU COULD STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD AND I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS. FIRST, HAVE YOU READ THE STAFF REPORT AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND SECONDLY, DO YOU AGREE TO THOSE?

YES AND YES.

Okay.

My name is Don Alexander with Onyx Creative. We're the architect for the project. Unfortunately, Shannon Yackel with Dick's Sporting Goods, Senior Director of Real Estate, is stuck in traffic, so she's not going to make it.

Okay. The floor is yours.

Thank you. So the Dick's House of Sport, they started a new concept a few years ago. This was an idea to, it's a two, their prototypical store is a two-story store with a field, as you can see in the photo here. This is one of their locations, Ross Park, which is in the Pittsburgh market, which is right in their headquarters backyard. And then this just shows the interior of the store as you walk in with the jumbotron and the displays. There's a lot of graphics for the merchandise. And then they also merchandise the store based on the community. So your sports stores, you know, your sporting leagues or teams in the area are represented in the store. And these are just some, you know, mannequins and figures in the store displaying the merchandise in the store. This is a picture of the rock rock wall, the climbing wall. So one thing I did want to mention tonight is, uh, after reviewing the rock wall dimension. So it's 31 foot six in height. Um, Dick's always required us to have like eight feet of clearance so that nobody could reach anything around it. If somebody was on there for liability purposes, they've since decreased that height. So the current drawings that have been submitted for planning are actually a 38 foot climbing wall. So the height has come down a little bit because we were able to reduce that clearance at the top of the climbing wall So you'll see that in the actual permitted drawings that are submitted. So this will be this is a little different This is a corner climbing wall all glass. We are internal to the building So just that portion that popped up in order to give us that extra height for the climbing wall. I then they have a golf department so this just displays some of the golf department and then they have the hitting area where you can test out clubs try them out again same thing this is a two-story concept with the the clear story just for some reference and then some of the merchandise and some of the different brands that they have within the store again same thing and then of course there This is the store in Pittsburgh with all the local teams. And then the women's area for the athletics, house of cleats. Again, just another department in the store with the graphics trying to be interactive with the athlete. Another footwear department. So they say they're interactive, experienced, elevated service, high heat product. This obviously shows the field, which we weren't able to do at this location just because of the site. It didn't accommodate it. Then the heat tracks is an area where they can test lacrosse sticks and bats and things of that nature. Same thing in the golf department with the putting green where you can test out, you know, putters and clubs. And then back to the rock wall. So DIX is very much about community. You'll see in some of the slides coming up how much they contribute to the local youth sports organizations in the community. So as this notes, they're built on four pillars, experience, service, community, and product. And this is just expanding on that a little bit more. Sorry, Shannon was gonna talk to this, but she's in traffic. So this is where we're seeing the new concept of the House of Sport that came out a few years ago. There are actually just over 40 stores now, and their hope is to double that within the next 12 months. So this gives you some numbers on what a house of sports brings potentially to the community, not only with donations, but also potential tax revenue. And then there's support of youth sports. Thank you.

Thank you. Commissioners, any questions of the applicants? Vice Chair Zick.

Thank you. I've got a couple. Don, thank you for being here and for standing in for others in your team. You mentioned community being one of the pillars. I've got a question about that. But first of all, is the Dick's store in Hindson Beach a house of sport or a Dick's sporting good?

I do not know that answer.

Relative to the priority you put on that community pillar, does it make a difference?

No, I don't think it makes a difference.

Can you explain a little bit about what kind of community interaction or benefit that Huntington Beach store has done with that local Huntington Beach community?

Unfortunately, that would be a question for Shannon to address.

I thought that might be the case, okay. I'm gonna ask you another question that I know you won't have the answer to, but I have to ask it anyway. I think you're familiar, if you read the staff report, that the city cannot require you to provide a minimum amount of parking, seems to be adequate parking, but you realize we can't require you to provide a minimum amount of parking because of AB 2097. My question for you is, of all the customers you expect to visit that location, what percentage of those customers would you expect would show up on bus?

That's a tough question. I'm not sure I can answer that.

Okay.

That's all I've got. Thank you.

Okay. Any other questions of Mr. Alexander? Commissioner Andrade.

Looks like a really exciting opportunity for our city. So thank you for considering and doing business in Costa Mesa. So as you heard me earlier asking about, I mean, you're the architect, so tell me about your beautification plans along College Avenue.

So I believe, and you can correct me if I'm wrong because you're more familiar with the area, when I walked College Ave, there is a very big row of hedges. So from the sidewalk, you actually cannot see the building. Obviously, if you're back further on the other side of the street, you probably can see the building, which is what I think you're asking about. The problem is from that row of hedges up to the building, that is all parking and asphalt. So I'm not sure where we would put landscaping to help screen some of the building.

Is that what you're... Screen some of the building, add again beautification to this part of the neighborhood would be wonderful. Maybe there are some existing trees, but I know there's a clause in here that you may remove some trees for X, Y reason. Can you expand additional landscaping? I mean, again, as I mentioned, I would actually advocate for an X cross street right on Wilson and Harbor because, again, it's so heavily trafficked on foot. I mean, this is my neighborhood. I'm like walking distance here. it would definitely create a welcome opportunity for neighbors to just walk right over. So kind of as a sign of being neighborly and excited to invest in the local community, I think it would be a great opportunity to either expand landscaping. I mean, I'm looking at page 66 of the staff report. And currently, it's just one long, endless wall with some tiny trees that look like bonsais, not really shade providing. So there's really such a creative opportunity. I love how in one of the slides, you had, oh, right here, wonderful investment on Boys and Girls Club and all these great community efforts. I mean, we can start right there. The community investment could be right here. Maybe it's a mural. along the wall, right? We are City of the Arts and we are Tree City, so it would be really great for this business to take that opportunity and really capitalize it, right? You have such a wonderful and inviting project here.

And I would be glad to take that back to my client and work with the city. I think we really focused on, after removal of the garden center, doing something there to sort of reactivate that area a little bit. We are doing two of the entrances off of Wilson to make them more accessible. And we did do a CASP report for the property. And we are doing upgrades to the parking lot to make sure it is more accessible.

Yeah, yeah. Definitely. So it's a great opportunity to also work on your backside, okay, on College Avenue. Wonderful. Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, Mr. Alexander, I'll give you an opportunity. Oh, sorry, Commissioner Martinez.

Yes. I just wanted to ask about windows, since you're the architect. Obscured or tinted windows for the climbing wall area? I noticed on your climbing wall slide, it looked pretty transparent. You could see in from the outside. You could see out from the inside. Is that also the intent of... this one that you'd be able to see in and out and how would tinted or obscured windows affect the vision?

Sure. Thanks for the question. So the climbing wall, obviously with today's energy code, we are going to be required to have some tinting on the windows. The idea is for somebody to be able to see the climbing wall potentially behind that glass, at least the outline. to help bring, you know, potentially draw people into the store. But I think there is a potential after we do the, you know, the light study to if we need to obscure that glass a little bit, that's not a problem. We've done that before when it's, you know, on like a westerly or southern exposure because you do get a lot of glare, you know, when somebody's trying to climb a wall.

Okay. Thank you.

All right. Mr. Alexander, I'll give you an opportunity to speak after public comment if you'd like to respond to any questions or concerns.

I don't think there's anything more.

As I noted, the – I meant after we hear from the public. Oh, sorry. You'll have an opportunity. Okay. Thank you. I'll now open public comments. If anyone would like to speak on this item, please come to either podium. And if you're joining by Zoom, use the raise hand option, or by phone, please press star nine. All right, you have the floor.

Good evening, Commissioner Jay Humphrey, Costa Mesa resident. I've got no problem with this project as far as bringing Dix into our community to enhance our retail process, especially since we're going to lose retail and commercial due to the zoning for major K that's now been happening that are going to be converted to housing and when that housing goes away of course I mean that housing happens of course those commercial facilities that convert that way will in fact have less employees in Costa Mesa so our housing jobs balance is gonna twiddle off a little bit. But I like the fact that Dick's gonna come here because this facility is actually used two times the kind of number of employees, which is gonna kind of offset that whole employee loss we're gonna have up and down Harbor and Newport with the changes that are gonna happen. So I don't have a problem with this project except for the precedence. And precedence is interesting because precedence isn't something that just, it has, there's not rules that say you can't use precedence, you can't do that, you can't, it won't happen over here. Because what happens with precedence is if somebody comes to the project and says, well, yeah, but over here down this street, you did X, Y, Z, and why do I get less entitlement for my project in the same kind of circumstances. I think back on the motel on Harbor, Costa Mesa Motor Inn, and the 39 single family housing units just up the road, both on four acres, and the differentials of what we allowed at which ones under what braces. And precedence is the thing that winds up by slowly but surely eating away at rules we have. And one of the rules we have is that we are not to have anything over four stories south the 405 freeway. Of course, that's gonna be beat up by the densities that are gonna drive stories higher than four stories, but this is just one more nail in that coffin. And it concerns me greatly that we are, we set what we think we want our city to look like, we set what we think we want our city to be, And then we slowly but surely change it to a point where it doesn't even resemble what we have asked for multiple times, few times. Everybody wants to see us grow. Everybody wants to see us stay healthy. That is important. Keep in mind that cancer is a growth also. And it's just when growth gets out of hand, you have to deal with it. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Any ballots in chambers wish to speak?

All right, Ms. Duran, do we have anybody on Zoom or by phone?

No, Mr. Chair.

Okay.

I'm going to close public comments. Commissioners, any further questions of staff?

Yeah, really quick. I don't know if stated if I've missed this in the report, but in the presentation you talked about CLOSE TO 2,000 HIRES, IS THAT CORRECT? OR THE NUMBER OF HIRES IN THE SLIDE. OR MAYBE THAT WAS THE APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION. OKAY. BUT WE DON'T HAVE ANY INSIGHT OF HIRING LOCAL, ALL THAT GOOD STUFF AS PART OF THE APPLICATION. OKAY. SO THAT'S A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.

SURE.

MR. ALEXANDER, IF YOU WOULD MIND COMING BACK UP TO THE PODIUM.

I BELIEVE THERE WAS A SLIDE THAT WAS IN THIS DECK THAT ACTUALLY REFERENCED THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A STANDARD DICK'S STORE AND A HOUSE OF SPORT THAT REFERENCED THE STAFF.

CAN WE GO BACK A COUPLE OF SLIDES? THERE WE GO. I THINK, YEAH, RIGHT THERE. OKAY, TWO TIMES, OKAY. So yeah, my question is opportunities. How are we, what is the hiring strategy plan to hopefully provide some employment to local co-submissions? I can see a lot of our maybe college youth, high school youth that is ready to get excited on a first retail opportunity.

Right. So as soon as they get under construction and they get far enough along where they can start actually putting up some banners or, you know, coordinating with the city, of course, and start advertising for employment, the intent is that, you know, local residents have the opportunity to apply for employment.

Okay. Great. Thank you.

right thank you very much mr alexander all right if there's no more questions i'm going to close the item and commissioner dixon would like to make a motion i would i move that the planning commission find that the project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the california environmental quality act pursuant to sequoia guidelines section 15301 and that we approve variance pva pvar-26-0001 BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.

OKAY. A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DIXON AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ANDRADE. WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION?

YES. I DIDN'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS BECAUSE I'M VERY, VERY, VERY FAMILIAR WITH DIX WITH TWO KIDS IN SPORTS RIGHT NOW AND WE LOVE We absolutely focus on buying things at local smaller shops in Costa Mesa, but sometimes that's just not possible. We've got Ketchum Tackle here, which is great. We've got a lot of great other shoe stores and athletic stores. But sometimes there's things that just that Dick's has. And Dick's has got an incredible track record of merchandising and keeping up on their facilities. And I've never been into a DIX in any location in the United States. And I've gone to multiple ones where it's been a mess or it's not been clean on the outside or it's whatever. My point is it's a great business. I think it's a much needed business. I think it's going to be a great thing for that particular spot. I think that concerns with landscaping on the Long College can be taken up with the master developer or the master landlord under the pre-existing approvals, if possible, if that's an issue. I'm very excited about this and so thank you very much and I'm enthusiastically supporting it.

Commissioner Andrade you wish to speak.

I would ask wholly support the motion. I would just ask the maker of the motion instead of a possibly explore College Avenue beautification encourage it. Highly encourage it. Again just putting on a marketing hat for a second right there. I'm sure you guys walked the neighborhood that is full of That's your clientele right there on the backside of College Avenue that could be easily attracted to your business. And again, it would allow a great opportunity to lean into the city of the arts, Tree City, which we are. So again, I would highly encourage collaborating with the city staff on improving landscaping and beautification along College Avenue.

And I think you just did as a second of the motion. I WOULD OCCUR OBVIOUSLY IT IS A PRETTY ROUGH LOOKING HEDGE. ANYTHING ANYBODY CAN DO WOULD BE GREAT. THAT'S MY MOTION. OKAY.

COMMISSIONER, ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ.

WILL THE MAKER OF THE MOTION CONSIDER FOR CONDITION OF APPROVAL NUMBER 5 ON PAGE 58 Beginning that condition with the clause, unless the lighting plan and photometric study submitted pursuant to condition of approval 13 shows it's unneeded, comma.

Certainly.

I mean, that seems, I mean, they seem to complement each other from what you're saying.

And I think that my main concern is that having been on climbing walls of different facilities, the glare is really dangerous. And so I'd want to make sure that the applicant has the ability to... And they do the... They do under 13. Yeah. All right. Did staff get that amendment? Did you... Do we need to restate it?

If you'd like to restate it, that would be fine.

Unless the lighting plan and photometric study submitted pursuant to condition of approval 13 shows it's unneeded, comma.

Thank you. And that's still providing discretion and allowing them to have it if they need it. But not binding them to tent. Having to tent. That's correct. Great. And is this?

Yep. Does the second accept that change as well? Yes. Okay.

And then for 16, beginning that condition with the plans shall show the method of screening.

Okay. Thank you. Any other comments?

Yeah. I mean this right now is a vacant or soon to be vacant business which we're now allowing a business to open up here. So I'm excited for that. It's in my district so that's really cool that we're getting new jobs, we're getting new retail. So I'm happy to support it. Thank you.

Thank you. Vice Chair Zick. Thank you. I'm in enthusiastic support of this motion and of Dick's House of Sports coming to Costa Mesa. I had that feeling from the get-go. I'm concerned that we take a little bit of a twisted, tortured way to justify what it is that you're asking for. And I think there's a much more straightforward, non-precedent linking way to do it. And that's not your problem. I think... I think when we want something, we twist ourselves into a pretzel to accommodate it, and when we don't, we just tell you no. Can't be done. The rules say no. Forget that you're 530 feet away from harbor. The rules are the rules, and we don't abide by precedent. We didn't do that here. You're the benefit of that, and I think our whole community will be the benefit of that. I'm thrilled and looking forward to you guys opening. Thank you.

All right, if there are no more comments, let's call for the question.

Motion carries 7-0.

All right, that decision is final unless appealed to the city council within seven days. All right, let's give staff a moment. Get ready for item number two. And in the meantime, Mr. Rand, will you please read the title for public hearing, item number two?

Thank you. This is conditional use permit to allow proposed commercial paddle facility at 2045 Harbor Boulevard. And the presentation is by Mr. Garcia, assistant planner.

Okay. First, any ex parte communications to report?

I visited the site.

Okay. Mr. Chair?

YEAH, I DID A LITTLE BIT OF RESEARCH ON THIS SPORT. THAT'S ABOUT IT.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. MR. GARCIA, THE FLOOR IS YOURS.

GOOD EVENING, CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS FERRILLAN GARCIA, ASSISTANT PLANNER WITH THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. AS STACEY MENTIONED, I WILL BE PRESENTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR PADDLE UP, A PROPOSED COMMERCIAL PADDLE FACILITY LOCATED AT 2045 HARBOR BOULEVARD, ALONG WITH THE SUPPLEMENTAL ATTACHMENTS PROVIDED TO YOU ON THE DIAS. As shown on the slide, the project site consists of two adjacent parcels. The subject properties are zone C2, or General Business District, as the properties to the north and south. Properties to the east are zone C1, local business district, while the properties to the west are zone R3, multiple family residential. To the north, a single family residence and a currently vacant building that was previously occupied by an automotive business. To the south is a window tenting business, and to the west are multifamily residential developments, and to the east is a gas station. PROPOSAL INCLUDES A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A COMMERCIAL PADDLE FACILITY. THE PROJECT INCLUDES FIVE OUTDOOR PADDLE COURTS, PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS, THREE PRE-FABRICATED BUILDINGS AND NEW LANDSCAPING. THE PROJECT SITE IS APPROXIMATELY 35,858 SQUARE FEET AND CURRENTLY CONSISTS PRIMARILY OF A SURFACE PARKING LOT. THE SITE WAS PREVIOUSLY USED FOR VEHICLE STORAGE ASSOCIATED WITH SOUTH COAST TOYOTA. The proposed site improvements include five paddle courts enclosed by glass walls and mesh fencing. The project also includes 14 parking spaces and one bicycle rack. 13 parking spaces would be located along Harbor Boulevard with one additional parking space along Charlie Street. Additionally, three prefabricated buildings are proposed consisting of two storage buildings and one restroom facility. A brief overview of paddle. Paddle is a racket sport typically played in doubles that combines elements of tennis and squash. Players serve underhand, and the surrounding walls are used as part of play. The ball is allowed to bounce once on the court before contacting walls, resulting in fast-paced rallies. A typical paddle match lasts approximately 60 to 90 minutes, depending on the players and pace of play. The maximum amount of people estimated on site is about 30 people. The proposed facility would operate daily from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. Court reservations would be the primary way of reserving courts. The facility would accommodate regular matches, coaching, and league play. At least one staff member would be on site during operating hours to manage activities and court reservations. The site would also accommodate walk-ins if there's any courts that are available at that time. AS PART OF THE APPLICATION, A NOISE STUDY WAS PREPARED TO EVALUATE POTENTIAL NOISE IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE OPERATION OF A PROPOSED PADDLE FACILITY, PARTICULARLY AT RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTIES. THE STUDY EVALUATED TYPICAL PADDLE ACTIVITY INCLUDING RACKET AND BALL IMPACTS AND PLAYER ACTIVITY. BASED ON THE ANALYSIS, ANTICIPATED NOISE LEVELS AT NEARBY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES WOULD COMPLY WITH THE APPLICABLE NOISE STANDARDS. Because courts four and five are located closest to adjacent residential properties, conditions of approval limit these courts to operate between 9 a.m. to 8 p.m. Additional conditions have also been included to further minimize potential impacts. As part of the project, the applicant proposes to update landscaping across both parcels, as shown on the conceptual landscape plan. A final landscape plan will be submitted during plan check to ensure compliance with applicable city landscape standards. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL HAVE ALSO BEEN INCLUDED TO ENSURE THE FACILITY OPERATES IN A MANNER THAT MINIMIZES POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. THESE CONDITIONS INCLUDE REQUIRING COURT LIGHTING TO BE DIRECTED DOWNWARD AND SHIELDED TO MINIMIZE LIGHT AND GLARE ON TO PROPERTIES. OUTDOOR LOUD SPEAKERS, PUBLIC ADDRESS SYSTEMS AND AMPLIFIED MUSIC WOULD BE PROHIBITED WITH THE EXCEPTIONS OF LOW LEVEL BACKGROUND MUSIC AS EVALUATED AS PART OF THE NOISE STUDY. As previously discussed, the two courts closest to the residential uses would also have reduced operating hours. Pursuant to Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 1329D, three forms of public notification were completed no less than 10 days prior to the public hearing. These included mail notices to the property owners, tenants, on-site posting at the subject properties, and newspaper publication. As of the publication of the staff report, no public comments were received. ONE PUBLIC COMMENT WAS RECEIVED PRIOR TO TODAY'S NOON DEADLINE AND HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AS SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL. STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION ADOPT THE RESOLUTION TO FIND THAT THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 1533-2 FOR INFILL DEVELOPMENT AND APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCUP 250021 SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. The planning Commission may also approve the project modifications the planning Commission may suggest specific changes that are necessary to alleviate concerns if any of the additional requested changes are substantial the item should be continued to a future meeting to allow a redesign or additional analysis. In the event of a significant modifications to the proposal staff will return with the revised resolution incorporating new findings and or conditions. Deny the project. The Planning Commission, if the Planning Commission believes that there are insufficient facts supporting the findings for approval, the Planning Commission must deny the application providing facts in support of denial and direct staff to incorporate the findings into a resolution for denial. If the project is denied, the applicant cannot submit substantially the same type of application for six months. This concludes staff presentation. The applicant and the noise consultant are available to answer any questions. And the applicant has also prepared an application for the commission. Thank you.

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

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Garcia. With this property being zoned C2 general business, if instead of this application, we had a auto repair business that wanted to set up shop there, would they be allowed to do that by right?

I BELIEVE IT WOULD REQUIRE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DUE TO THE PROXIMITY OF THE RESIDENTIAL ZONE PROPERTIES.

AND THE THERE IS NO LARGE STRUCTURE ON SITE SO OUTDOOR ACTIVITIES ALSO REQUIRE AN ENTITLEMENT.

PRESUMABLY AN AUTO REPAIR SHOP WOULD BUILD A BUILDING THAT WOULD BE MY ASSUMPTION IN MY QUESTION.

THEN THE PROXIMITY WITHIN 200 FEET WOULD REQUIRE AN ENTITLEMENT.

IF THE BUILDING WAS WITHIN 200 FEET OF RESIDENTIAL.

Correct, which this site would be.

And would that be the same case if a business came in and wanted to have a construction equipment rental business? No real building involved, maybe a building up close to Harbor Boulevard where they keep equipment, keys, or paperwork. Would that be allowed, that kind of business, buy right?

The outdoor activity itself would require a minor conditional use permit and then can we check?

Yeah, we'd have to check for the other follow up question to both of those hypothetical uses. What would be the maximum noise level that we would allow them to operate at? Would it be 55 DB?

Yeah, it would be the same as the paddle use. There is no, our noise section doesn't include noise for commercial, but it does include a section for noise to the residential zone property. So any noise that would be generated as part of whatever use would be in the lot would have to conform to our noise standards.

Okay, and then I only have one other question, I think, at this point, and I may repose the question to the noise consultant who apparently is here, but I'll ask you first I Read the information the staff report about the noise and it sounded like the rationale of the justification was that the The sound levels were within acceptable were were acceptably were within acceptable range. Am I correct about that?

That is correct.

Okay, so the idea of requiring that courts four and five cannot operate earlier than 9 a.m. or past 8 p.m. is based on what?

The just the proximity to the residential and the way that our public parks operate so the way our parks operate which typically have tennis courts which is the use that is the most similar to this use is from sunrise to sunset without you know obviously we couldn't provide sunrise to sunset because that changes every single day just based on like. at the time that the sun rises, right, or sun sets, and it would be a bit more complicated to actually enforce. And therefore, just due to the proximity of those courts, it was just a condition that was included.

The rationale is proximity or the rationale is sound? What is the rationale for saying those two courts can't be used earlier than 9 a.m. or past 8 p.m.? What is the rationale?

both because of the potential sound that will be created in proximity to the residential. So although it meets the noise requirements, there could still be, that doesn't mean there will not be noise generated from the courts at those times.

So the applicant may be totally okay with that. But you're saying we studied it, there's not a problem, but there might be a problem. And so... We're going to say you can't use those courts outside of those hours. Applicants, OK, problem solved. We move on. Is that the situation?

The potential for there won't be no noise created. So although it complies with the noise ordinance, we're concerned that it would still it could potentially affect the residential structure. And so we limited the hours to 9 to 8 p.m.

Okay. Now, within the city, when there are projects that are buildings that are being constructed, we have requirements, don't we, regarding the early start time of construction that generates noise for surrounding areas? Isn't that start time 7 a.m.?

That's correct. But the construction is typically temporary in nature and not to continue beyond the construction.

Okay. Thank you.

Right any other questions Commissioner Dixon.

Back to the that noise and that sort of issue with these properties on harbor. So we're going to have this is part of a former overlay. But it was it was a residential ownership I believe that because I don't I just can't I'm not don't have a map in front of you that shows that but. The ones that are next door, the residential that's next door, that's a live work, right? That was approved as a live work?

No, that's just a legal non-conforming residential property to the north.

Okay, okay, I just wasn't clear on exactly. So on these, if we're gonna have a miscues, we're gonna be mixing in residential. with other uses all the time. So just as part of the entitlement process, no matter what the application is, if there's within 200 feet, if there's residential, it'll be a hearing.

It depends on the use. But it would have to be residentially zoned properties.

Residentially zoned properties. But an overlay where it was a former we're still talking about the base zoning, right? So if it's like for areas where there's live work, right? If the base original zoning was an R2, but then they decided to apply an over live work, that's still the base zoning is what would be determinative.

Correct.

Okay.

All right. Thank you. All right. Commissioner Martinez.

Thank you. I want to go on to the path of travel from the sidewalk. Just based on the plans, like I just see striping going from the sidewalk up to the entrance. Do we know if it's just going to be like painted stripes like what is presented on the plans? Is it going to be a curb up elevated from the parking lot? What is the exact plan for a path of travel from sidewalk to the entrance?

This is a conceptual plan at this point building and safety would evaluate the path of travel during a plan check process where they would provide us with more information Okay Well the the the plans have identified the requirement for the handicap accessible parking space I'm not just talking about that the handicap accessible parking space.

I'm talking about from the sidewalk to the handicap parking space to the entrance so your question is how is it drawn my question is how will it be built Is it going to be stripes on an asphalt parking lot? Is it going to be a curb?

Typically, yes. It would be striped and painted on the asphalt for accessible. The accessible path of travel would be striped.

So from the sidewalk, it would be painted along that edge.

Yes.

Yes. The hatch marks that are shown on the plan, that will be done in not necessarily paint. There's a word for it. Plastomeric or something. Thermoplastic. Thermoplastic. Yeah.

There's a word for that.

But it's a heat-treated kind of material that looks like paint. And it'll be striped. And then it'll connect from the sidewalk back to the loading zones for the accessible vehicle parking.

Does that help? Yes. And then for grading, I'm looking at a page that I think is talking about grading. I see the path of travel has a 1.9% grade horizontally across it. I want to make sure that that's okay.

Yes. Path of travels are allowed to have a 2% cross slope. So 1.9 is within the threshold. Thank you.

Okay. Those are my questions.

Okay. Any other questions? Okay. I will open the public hearing and ask the applicant or applicant's representative to come to the podium. And if you wouldn't mind, state your name for the record, and then have you read the staff report and conditions of approval, and do you agree to those?

Hi, my name is Albert Blank. I have read the conditions of approval, and we agree to most of them, but ask for some clarification and revisions to a few mentioned in the report.

Okay, well, the floor is yours for presentation.

Thank you. Okay, thank you. So I want to start by just thanking everyone here, commission, staff, for all your hard work, and the consultants and PaddleUp team who are here today. We've spent a long time getting to this point, and we're excited to be here. So we are PaddleUp. I am one of the co-founders, and I head our real estate where we find, source, build, and title these sites. We are based in Los Angeles.

You can go to the next slide.

Here's a slide about our team. The gentleman sitting back here. Keep going. So our goal is to bring padel or paddle to Southern California and particularly Los Angeles and build these clubs as premier clubs and introduce the sport to a market that it hasn't really entered into. To date, we have two clubs open in Los Angeles. Here's a picture of one of them at Westfield Century City Mall that's on the rooftop above the food court. And we hope to be the first in Costa Mesa and really all of Orange County. As Fraulein mentioned, here's just a little background about the sport. At its core, it's fundamentally the same rules scoring concept as tennis with some elements of squash where you can play off the walls. As you can see, some dimensions of the courts. They're about 33 by 66. Play is generally done in the doubles format. You serve underhand. My colleague here has a racket that we thought we wanted to show you just because some people aren't as familiar with it. The ball is a tennis ball, but a little bit more deflated. What we all love about this sport is that it's for everyone. It's for all ages. It's a very low barrier to entry compared to tennis. And so anybody who wants to get out there and play can go and do it. It's a good workout. It's great for community. And there's a lot of alternative benefits that come with that. To date, the sport was created in the 60s in Mexico City. It's been highly adopted in South America and Europe with thousands and thousands of courts across the world. It's still in very early adoption stages in the US. Part of the reason being is there is pickleball here, and just to be clear, this is not pickleball. It's not a plastic ball. And if you go to the next slide. so compared to the rest of the world where there's i think about 58 000 um clubs in california we only have 38 with the majority of them being up north and a handful in san diego we now have about five clubs which i'll show you on the next slide paddle up we've successfully opened two clubs in los angeles if you can go back there quick with a total of five courts. We've been open for about two years. We've had about 16,000 unique visitors or clients, customers come through our doors, and we also have about 150 current members that can utilize both clubs. But it's not exclusive to members, just to be clear. Next slide. So because of the slow adoption in California, and particularly cities like Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York City, where there are stricter zoning laws, unlike places like Texas, for example, we're starting to see a lot of creative solutions to bring this sport and club to life. Here's a few examples, just to give you guys some pictures and vision of what has been accomplished across the country. This site's a little bit more straightforward, but for example, in the top left corner is our club, which I'll tell you a little bit more, at Westfield Century City Mall, and if you're not familiar with Westfield, it's one of, in my opinion, the nicest outdoor malls in the country, and we were able to come in as a pop-up. We're now there. soon to be there as a long-term tenant, and have found a very collaborative way to work with Westfield Malls to bring in customers, foot traffic, and really bring this sport to a very highly trafficked mall, which I think, which we can get to later on, is just a good example of how we're able to integrate into some more potentially sensitive uses or locations. Bottom left you'll see is the public plaza, which is the In San Francisco, they have some courts there, Hudson Yards, New York City, and in San Diego, they've turned a large office park science center into a very large, nice club down there. Here's a map of the existing clubs in Los Angeles and Southern California down to San Diego. As you can see, the green circles here are our clubs, Westfield, Century City Mall, and then our flagship, which I'll explain on the further side. There are three other clubs currently in Los Angeles down to Torrance, and as you can see on the map, there's nothing in the Orange County region just yet. We hope to be that first club and for reference, we have people driving over an hour, hour and a half to come to our clubs and the constant feedback we get is, hey, can you guys open up something closer to us? So we've put in the work and we hope that we can accomplish that with you guys here today. Here's some overview and pictures of the site at Westfield Century City Mall. As I was explaining, we opened this in 2024 as a pop-up. We came in on a multi-month pop-up lease. We're now finalizing a 10-year lease there and in talks with them to open up at Westfield's, hopefully across the country. Here's some pictures of the courts. You'll see it's on a rooftop. One of our founders playing.

Keep going.

This is our second location that we opened up in May 2025. This we call our flagship site. This is the only indoor club in Los Angeles, SoCal region. This consists of three courts, largest square footage in terms of the club itself. It was a old lighting distribution We repurposed that and went through a change of use here to get this zoned for our club. As you can see, we have a lounge retail area, ping pong tables, couches, TVs. In the top left, you can kind of see it in the small. There's a little gym workout area. We have a locker room, retail area, and then not pictured here, we have a kind of like a bar area where we serve foods and drinks, and it creates a little bit of an activation for the lounge area. Here's the proposed project. I think, Fraulein, you did a great job covering this, so I won't get too much into this, but we're looking at five courts here, landscape buffers. We've designed this with many consultants to address the lighting, noise, traffic, air concerns that we understand come up being where the site is located. Questions that we've been asked that we like to highlight is there's always gonna be staff here. It's not, you know, come in, go as you please. You do have to check in, book it, whatnot. And I think on the element of creating jobs and activating the space, we currently have about 40 staff members between our two sites that are part-time, full-time at a project level, leadership level. And we think that this will bring a similar amount in the range of 10 to 15 full-time and part-time jobs for the area. so as froyland pointed out here's the existing site i think that this slide just shows what we're working with it's currently a parking lot um it does have a nice mural which we we plan to keep but you can see there's not much activation or life to this and our goal is really to revitalize this and turn this into a publicly benefiting you know amenity so from harbor street you're going to be looking uh west You'll see there's the parking lot, there's the mural, there's currently some old fencing that we would paint, put up our signage, and then from Charles Street on the residential side, there's this existing CMU block wall, existing trees and landscaping that block most of the visibility from the residential side actually into the property facing east. So here's a rendering we had done early on. This is obviously not to scale and not completely accurate in terms of the street layout and access, but we really like this picture and think it's just a good representation. The structures here are not what we're proposing, but to give you guys an idea of kind of court layout, what we would have are small storage areas with a prefab bathroom, landscaping around, and then a fence that will have some noise um reducing barriers that we plan to you know put our logo up on and help use that to block light and noise to surrounding areas Here's a slide about the operations of the business. Fraulein, you did a great job covering this, so thank you, but hours of operation, more standard per code, seven to 11, five courts. We expect about a 35 to 40% occupancy rate, hopefully more if the business goes well, but on average, we would say about 15 people. On the high side, hopefully 30. Parking was addressed, staff and booking questions came up, so we have an app that you can book through. There's also a system called Play By Point, which is one of the largest booking platforms for most racquet sports, where you can go on, create a profile, set up matches, book through there. And you can also call or visit the site. That said, everything is booked through our system to play. Accordingly, you have to sign waivers and we want to make sure that everybody on the court is registered in our systems. So to your question about the conditions of approval, the majority of them we do accept. There are two that we wanted to have a discussion about or present our case on. The first is, I believe, condition 12, which you guys discussed previously, where the condition of approval limits the two most Western courts to 9 a.m. to 8 p.m. Our ask is that This is not imposed. We believe that through all of our studies we have shown that we meet the codes and are abiding by the city codes. We also believe from a business perspective this does affect 40% of our courts in partial peak hours, which also affects a lot of our programming of leagues. clinics, open plays, and it also just eliminates a lot of what we see our clients and customers like, which is going and playing in the morning and then going to the office, where unfortunately if people have to work late, they can work and then still come and play on our courts. So what I included here was what we proposed. We offered or suggested that we would be okay with limiting just the westernmost court to 10 p.m., but we would ask that that would be the only limitation on the hours of operation for specifically the western court and only closing that one from 10 to 11 p.m. The second is condition six which was not addressed. The conditions of approval here limit us to four tournaments per year. We ask that this be striked completely and replaced with language if needed addressing us abiding by special events permit. The reason for this is tournaments is an undefined term We have much regular programming, like I said, of open plays, round robins, if someone hosts a birthday party, they'll play a tournament format. And there's also a set limit on that that we think is very restrictive to our normal, ordinary course of business. We believe that the city already has in place GUIDELINES AND RESTRICTIONS FOR SPECIAL EVENT PERMITS AND THERE'S NO REASON TO CREATE A NEW RESTRICTION FOR THIS WHEN IT'S ALREADY DEFINED AND APPLICABLE TO US AND ANY OTHER USE THAT MAY BE HERE. The last one we just wanted to call out here, I believe it's condition nine, and Freyland touched on this one, is the turning off of all lights once after hours of operation. We would just like to hopefully add language saying that security and parking lighting would be exempt from that because we do believe that on the street, We want to protect ourselves. We want to protect our customers, our staff, and there may be requirements to have emergency lighting that is there as well as lighting for some security measures. In closing, we're excited to be here. Again, thank you everyone for all your time. What we hope to bring here is activating an underutilized parking lot that, in my opinion, most people probably don't want to look at every day with a well-lit recreation facility that serves the community in many different ways. This is meant to be a place for everyone. There's no memberships required. We have many youth programs, nonprofits we work with, college students, leagues, open plays. We do a lot of holiday parties, birthday parties, et cetera. We think that we are bringing many local jobs to the area that help support a healthy lifestyle and also brings foot traffic and intangible benefits to the community. Additionally, there is local transit nearby bus stops that allow easy access from the street on this highly busy area. We'd like to think we designed this as a good neighbor, using the right consultants to design this thoughtfully for sound, light, bookings, and informational purposes. our information that will be easily available and easily be able to contact us if you ever need and our goal here is hopefully to work through the permit process this fall get them by the end of the year and start construction and hopefully open early next year so with that thank you and we request or we respectfully request the approval thank you very much Mr Blank uh commissioners any questions Mr Dixon

Thank you very much, and thank you very much. I just had a quick question. In the illustration that you showed in your presentation, the site was aligned the other way.

Yeah, that would be looking south. The orientation is off.

But my point is that why didn't you orient it with the parking in the back and the courts in the front when you might alleviate some of the noise problems or the issues with the conflict of residence.

I'm just... Yeah, so we wanted to work within the existing site conditions. So, if you go to the site, as is, there's existing gates, you can see here, and defined parking. The rest is kind of what you guys were alluding to before, almost like an outdoor storage yard where they're parking... Right now, it's like trailers and... storage materials you know stuff you don't want to see so what we were very excited about this site is we think it lends itself as is with existing conditions to what we're looking to accomplish um also with that our understanding and the conversations we had with our planning staff here is it's actually beneficial or we would think to have courts away from a very busy intersection because what we don't want to happen obviously is people running around on a busy street balls going over whatever it may be so It was a combination, I think, of the thoughtful design that we were trying to go for as well as the existing conditions that meet kind of what we were looking for to begin with.

Great. And then the other question I had is that I'm very familiar with paddle tennis. This is a little different because it goes off the walls. Correct. So you've got semi... You've got the barriers, so they're only in the middle? Is there where it's open for sound to go through, but otherwise it's glass on the corners? Or polyplastic or something?

I would say there's U-shapes on the ends where you have glass panels on the back, about 20 feet of glass panels coming on the sides, and then it's a metal cage going in between those. Okay, great.

Thank you. Yeah, got it.

Thank you.

All right. Vice Chair Zick.

Thank you. I think my first question, I have a question for you, but I think my first question involves getting a response from staff. If this project is approved with a condition that says courts four and five cannot be used earlier than nine or after eight, And if based on the question that Commissioner Dixon asked, the applicant goes back and he goes, you know, maybe if I flip my courts and I put that parking lot in the back, I could operate all five. Would that require a... new public hearing or could they simply resubmit that as a plan to you that would then allow you to remove that condition of reduced hours on a court? I'm wondering what is the process if as a result of what we could potentially approve tonight that the applicant wouldn't like? What options would they have to make the adjustment according to what commissioner Dixon suggested?

At a minimum, they would probably require a minor conditional use permit to modify the entitlement if you approved it as presented and they went to reconfigure, I think we would evaluate it.

So it'd be a fairly simple process for them to go through to do that. Okay. So, um, My question is about the sound study. And the staff report indicates that you were the one that had to hire the sound consultant, MD Acoustics, is that correct? Correct. Okay. And I'm assuming because you hired them, MD Acoustics understands the difference between paddle tennis and pickleball in terms of the noise that kind of activity would generate?

yes they are experts on this and they consult in for many different cities on this that's all i wanted to know thank you any other questions of the applicants yeah commissioner andrade um thank you so much again for choosing uh costa mesa for this innovative sport um and exciting to see that we're going to be one of the few cities along the coast after LA. Tell me a little bit about, I really love that, I think it was the last slide you were talking, you mentioned public benefit activity, how you engage with youth programs and the nonprofit. Maybe give us a picture. What does that look like in your other clubs?

Yeah, of course. So I think one we like to highlight is we recently just started doing a summer camp in a youth program that's offered to the entire community. So there is an option to pay and not pay depending on who you are and how it works. So that program grew, I believe, to about 40 or 50 kids this summer in our first one. We also have programs with UCLA, USC, some local schools where we're trying to teach the sport and also offer essentially a new healthy fitness activity for these schools and young programs. In terms of the non-profits, we've done many events with the Boys and Girls Club. We've done some with the marathon, Sorry, Rose Marathon, which is like a nonprofit marathon that Lulu puts on with the Rose Bowl. We've worked a lot with Chambers of Commerce. We've done holiday parties for commissions. So it's been a range. And my partner here, who's our CEO, can speak more to that if you want more specific examples.

Great, great. Great to hear. We have many great youth organizations here in the area. I'm sure you guys have done your research, but it would be fantastic to have them engage in this opportunity because, yeah, I really love the idea of finding creative ways to engage youth with other activities, this very innovative activity. Yeah.

Thank you.

All right. If there's no more questions, I'll give you an opportunity at the end of public comment if you want to respond. Thank you. Okay. I'll now open public comments. If anybody in the public would like to come speak on this item, please come to either podium. Don't all rush at once. Okay. Ms. Turan, do we have anybody on Zoom or by phone?

No, we do not.

Okay. I'm going to close public comments. Commissioners, do we have any further questions? Commissioner Martinez.

Yeah. One of the original questions I had written down but did not ask was, what do we mean by tournament in condition of approval number six? Since I'm assuming that is not a word that is defined in our zoning code. So I guess first, I'll give you the opportunity to answer what do we mean by tournament. And second, I'll ask for staff's opinion of the proposal of the applicant on simply requiring them to comply with the special event permit requirements of our zoning code.

So you're correct. Tournament isn't defined in our zoning code. But the idea is that the anticipated AMOUNT OF PEOPLE ON THE SITE WAS TO BE 30 PEOPLE, BASED ON THE APPLICANT LETTER. AND THE FACT THAT A TOURNAMENT, ANYTHING THAT EXCEEDED 30 PEOPLE IS WHAT WE WOULD ASSUME WOULD BE SOMETHING LIKE THAT, WHERE MORE THAN 30 PEOPLE WOULD BE THERE FOR A SPECIFIC EVENT, LIKE A ONE-DAY TOURNAMENT WHERE THERE MIGHT BE MULTIPLE MATCHES THAT DON'T You know, like with this event, you could have like matches that are organized where you and I are going to play a match, right? And then we're just leave. But if we have something where it's a larger tournament, there's more people there and there's consistent like a bracket or something like that where it's a single day event, that's what we assumed the tournament would be rather than just league matches or just normal play.

Yeah, so any event that was more than just the maximum amount of rentals that you would have on the site at any given hour. So if it was maximum capacity, you have four courts or five courts with four people, that's 20 plus 10 overlap that are changing, getting out of there. We would evaluate potentially as a tournament. So the idea was just a larger event could potentially need to be reviewed and evaluated up to those four times a year.

And why not just cover it under the special event permit requirements?

Because of potential impacts to the neighbors. So that's a difference of 20 potential people, right? So we haven't evaluated parking impacts, potential noise impacts, what are the people doing when they're not playing, those types of impacts. So we thought that that would be a reasonable approach to look at it more from a change from a daily operation to like a special event.

Okay.

BUT WE'RE OPEN FOR DISCUSSION AND HERE TO PROVIDE ANY MORE.

YEAH.

INFORMATION AS NEEDED.

SIMILAR BUT RELATED. DIFFERENT BUT RELATED. THE BACK GATE. IS THAT OPEN? IS THAT CLOSED?

I THINK THE APPLICANT CAN PROVIDE. I BELIEVE THAT IT WOULD BE OPEN DURING BUSINESS HOURS. BUT THEY CAN CLARIFY. The echoes say it's been closed and it's available to open only for trash pickup. But there's a parking space in the rear. That would be for employees, I'm assuming, because it wouldn't be accessible.

Okay.

Those are my questions.

Okay. Commissioner Dixon?

So along the lines of the noise issue, and I'm very sensitive to the requirement for that. a great way to look at these things. But did you do any sort of analysis of the other sort of tennis courts in the city or things like that? Not just the tennis center, but the apartment complex I'm temporarily living in has a lot of tennis courts. And I think they go till 10. I'm not exactly sure. I know the pool does. But so I'm just curious because and those are not going to have the same sort of controls or or noise barriers that this seems to have designed into the mix. So I'm just curious how we've approached that elsewhere in the city. And then as far as the morning side of that as well, because I'm pretty I mean, I have a guy with a leaf blower in front of my apartment at seven o'clock in the morning and, you know, There are people in the pool and the tennis courts until 10. And I'm just curious. I understand where you came from on that. But have you had any sort of experience that you can share with other tennis courts or these sort of uses in the city? If not, that's OK. I'm just curious.

We didn't do a noise evaluation at the others, but we did review the hours at the public parks and what's consistent throughout. And there are also pickleball courts in the hours at the public parks. And that's where we based our recommendation.

Yeah. Park right next to our complex. It's dark. So OK. Thank you.

All right. I have one technical question, and I didn't quite realize this until the staff's presentation. So there's two separate parcels here, right? But we have one full development that straddles both. Why don't we have a condition of approval requiring a lot tie?

In this instance, because they're not doing any substantial construction like a building that's crossing the property line we didn't fire that at this time so the thought was that if it were to be taken over in the future to return it to 2 lots would be fairly minimal reconstruction. Because this is essentially temporary facilities know it's just the nature of it being more fencing and not necessarily a full structural building with foundations and things like that.

Okay.

But we could require a lot tie if you're concerned. I think that the property owner would like to maintain the opportunity in the future that they remain separate parcels.

Right. And I can appreciate that. And I'm not in the habit of adding conditions of approval, but I would say for the city's own protection of the integrity of the CUP, it may be necessary. I don't know if we'll have support for that. I may bring it up, but go ahead, Ms. Carone.

I mean, the entitlement will run with the land, which will run with both parcels simultaneously. So if it ever were to be If one were to be sold off or something like that, that could jeopardize the use permit.

Right. Understood. Okay. Any other questions? Vice Chair Zik?

Yeah. I'll torture this a little bit more. Just as Commissioner, go ahead.

Excuse me. Go ahead. Mr. Garcia is going to add one information. We didn't require a lot tie, but we required a land use restriction that can be reversed when the use is changed.

Okay. Just as Commissioner Martinez was asking for you to describe or define a tournament, at the time he was doing that I thought, okay, so now tell me what a special event is. And I think in your answer you basically did that by talking about the numbers of people that would not normally be there if there was some kind of event, greater number of people. I'm leading to a question. I'm not there yet. And then I thought, well, OK, if there's more people than normal, what's the big deal? They're hanging around. They parked in the parking lot. And then I thought, well, if there's a whole bunch, maybe double the number of people there for some big special event, they're not all going to fit in the parking lot. So maybe they're going to want to park on Charlie Street. And maybe for that special event, they open up that back gate. Otherwise people really couldn't get in there without walking all the way around the block and that would kind of be impractical. But then I read condition of approval number eight and ordinarily I like this condition of approval which says patron and employee parking shall occur within designated parking spaces on the project site. Operator shall actively discourage parking associated with the use on nearby residential streets. Normally, if you know me, you know I like that kind of a condition of approval. What I don't like, and you know this also, is that because of AB 2097, we can't dictate to this business a minimum number of parking spaces. Under the presumption that many of these people don't need parking, they come on bus. And I wasn't gonna ask the ridiculous question of the applicant, how many people they think will be showing up by bus, because I think I know the answer to that question, and this is a ridiculous rule because of that. But if at the same time we don't care about parking, Why do we have a condition of approval where all of a sudden we care about parking? It feels inconsistent to me. Can you help square that circle?

AB 2097 does provide limitations to our requirements for parking. However, if parking is provided and it's generally the best practice to have parking maintained on site, but we're limited by AB 2097. But if the chance that we do have parking, which is a lot of businesses do provide it as the market dictates, people want to go to a property with parking, it's It's best if we try to focus it on the site itself.

Okay. And then if they were to have a special event, anticipated a bunch of additional people and knew the most practical way to accommodate them would be to open up the back gate to allow people to come in that way as well as the front parking lot. You wouldn't be opposed to them doing that, correct?

It's not conditioned at this time that the back gate remain closed. So as it's proposed, they could do that.

Good deal. Thank you.

Okay. If there are no more questions from the dais, Mr. Blank, if you'd like to come back up and speak. No obligation, but if there's anything you want to respond to.

I can clarify anything if you need me to, but that's about it.

Any last questions? Okay. I think we're good. All right. I will close the item. Do we have a motion? Commissioner Dixon.

and rearranged, sorry. So I will move that the Planning Commission find that the project is category exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act for CEQA guidelines section 15332, and that we approve conditional use permit 25-0021 based on the findings of fact and subject conditions of approval with the following amendments. For condition of approval number 12, that we utilize the amendment proposed by the applicant. So it'll be the one court and the 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. And that we'll replace that condition of approval number 12 with the one that was in that present debt slide, which I felt looked perfectly appropriate. And we can read that back into the record if you'd like. I just didn't see the slide up on the screen. So there we go. Condition number 12, courts 4 and 5 curfew, limit only the single westernmost court to 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. as proposed in the red line. The red line reads our proposed language. The single paddle court located closest to the adjacent residential use as identified on the approved site plan, the westernmost court, shall be limited to operation between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. daily. No court play instruction, practice, tournaments, or other recreational activities shall occur on that court outside of these hours. Actually, Aren't they? Oh, it's till 11 on the other ones. Okay, sorry. No court play, instruction, practice, tournaments, or other recreational activities shall occur on that court outside of these hours. The remaining paddle courts may operate during the hours otherwise authorized by the conditional use permit. Staff shall use the best efforts to assign reservations to the courts nearest Harbor Boulevard where available. That's condition number 12. I would like to, as Commissioner Martinez suggested, amend condition number six to... to obtain, that the applicant, the applicant operator shall submit an application for and obtain approval of a special event permit from the city prior to conducting an event that requires, how would you word that? An unusual

More than the capacity of the courts?

More than the standard capacity of the courts or if there's like anticipated spectators or a gathering.

We were initially recommending for a tournament definition something more than 30 people. So if you want to put a number on it that would...

I would like to keep it in a special event permit round.

Which is 50? Is that that's what the applicant submitted was the threshold for a special event or one of the qualifications. But we also look at special events when it's more than the normal generated traffic being

happening on site so the the court capacity is going to be 40 like eight times five courts is going to be 40 special events is 50 so either one okay so your proposed amendment was just to replace this the capacity is four per court per four per court 20 20. so yes bad math all right let's put in a definition for

Would the maker yield for a moment? Yes. So on the screen is in green the proposed language for condition number six, that the operation shall comply with the conditions and requirements of the applicable special event permit for the City of Costa Mesa when they expect more than 50 participants. Right. I suggest that to you as a way to describe conditional approval number six. All right. Thank you for the interruption.

I will go with Vice Chair Zick's description of conditional approval number six. And then there was conditional approval number nine, was that?

Yes.

Just to clarify, is the recommendation as it's written on the slide here to modify number six?

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

And then I understand where he's coming from, but I don't, you had mentioned court lighting. Lighting shall comply, so I think that condition number nine, as staff intended, is only intended for court lighting, correct? Not security lighting, not walkway lighting, not parking lot, okay. Correct. So I think we can leave condition approval number nine alone. So those are my proposed amendments, and that's my motion.

Okay, motion by Commissioner Dixon.

Sloppy, I apologize, but I wanted to get that all in.

That's okay. Second by Commissioner Martinez. Would you like to speak to your motion?

Yeah, I think this is a great... more physical activity, more outdoor, more sports, more opportunities for youth to get involved in a different kind of sport. We have the tennis center, but it's over on the other side of town. I live on the west side. My son used to have to try to get over there all the time when he wanted to go to the skate park, but if you wanted to do tennis and stuff like that as well, this is much closer to the west side, and I think any opportunity is great. I hope you do have a mechanism or a system in place with local schools or local youth groups where you can offer discounted rates or special times for kids and things like that. We have a lot of great youth sports organizations in this city. So it's a great opportunity and I think that You know, I'm intimately familiar with paddle tennis, which is actually louder. It's got a metal-rimmed paddle and there's a deflated tennis ball as well, but it's yelling and the hitting on the court and things like that. But even that can be contained, and it was usually contained within the areas where we were playing pretty well. And we do have a nose ordinance, and so I feel that if it, besides that one that's closest to residential, I think we're going to be just fine. but this is a great, I'm super excited about this. I think it's a great reuse of that particular parcel and I'm enthusiastically supporting of it and I hope you're successful.

Commissioner Martinez.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll start with the general abroad of seeing this application, I wonder, if we had to have seen this application as the Planning Commission. Like we have our noise ordinance, we have these other things that control. I wonder if this had to have risen to this level. Otherwise, I do think, It's a good application. It promotes, as Commissioner Dixon said, physical activity. Great. We get some more open space out on the west side of Costa Mesa. To answer Vice Chair Zick's point about buses, it is literally right next to a bus stop. So anyone who is taking the 55 or the 43 can very easily walk into this facility. I think the amendments, these proposed amendments are good and will allow more people to use the facility. So I will be supporting the motion. Thank you.

THANK YOU. OK. COMMISSIONER ROJAS.

I JUST WANTED TO GET CLARITY. I DIDN'T HEAR COMMISSIONER DIXON'S REQUEST ON CONDITION NINE. I'M SORRY. WOULD YOU PLEASE REPEAT IT? I WASN'T CLEAR ON YOUR EYE.

WE'RE GOING TO LEAVE THAT ALONE. THAT WAS APPLYING TO COURT LIGHTING AND NOT THE SECURITY REQUEST.

UNDERSTOOD. THANK YOU.

OK. COMMISSIONER ANDREA.

YEAH. AGAIN, EXCITING OPPORTUNITY COMING TO OUR CITY, ENGAGING IN NEW SPORTS AND ACTIVITIES. AGAIN, I'LL JUST REITERATE AND COMMISSIONER DICKSON'S COMMENTS AND MY COMMENTS EARLIER REGARDING ENGAGING SCHOOLS, NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS AT $120 PER HOUR PER GAME IS PRETTY UP THERE FOR THE LOCAL COMMUNITY WHERE YOU WILL BE. SO CREATING THOSE ACCESSIBLE OPPORTUNITIES WOULD BE AMAZING. SO I REALLY LOOK FORWARD TO THAT.

VICE CHAIR ZICK.

SURE PEOPLE COULD TAKE THE BUS THERE. I NEVER SAID THEY COULDN'T. whether they will or not. I'm enthusiastically in support of your plan, your business plan, and this particular use. I'm glad we were able to accommodate your concerns about the several conditions of approval. It seems fairly simple. What isn't so simple, and we're going to be paying a lot of attention to this, and it's not specific to you, in the future, We talked about the adjacency to residential uses. We got one public commenter who was an adjacent residential user, I guess, that was concerned about noise. You know, when we intend to zone up and down Harbor Boulevard and Newport, spot zoning, creating by definition incompatible adjacent uses, we should expect a lot of people to be concerned about the noise from the commercial businesses adjacent to them, particularly if there's a change of use. I'll just leave it at that. Good luck to you.

Okay. I will be supporting the motion and I think like you've heard from most people, I'm very enthusiastic about what I think is obviously a very new use and I appreciate you coming to Costa Mesa for this. I think we are beginning to see a lot more new development that is quite frankly just unique. I mean the Dick's House of Sport, is an unusual offering. I'm really excited about making sure we get sales tax revenue here in Costa Mesa from that use. But what I do appreciate, and I think this is where we are, where it's different for us is that we are attracting kind of the third places um that you don't typically find i remember years ago we approved moon goat coffee and i thought that was something unusual for the area and it's been a wild success we need more of these kinds of places especially with harbor boulevard and some of our other major corridors changing where we transition with more housing with more housing we're going to need more places like that So I, like I said, support this. I think it's a great project. And I'm a little less concerned about the friction that we're going to see. That's just the nature of some change here. If there are no other comments, let's call for the question.

Motion carries 7-0.

All right, that decision also is final, unless appealed to city council within seven days. I can tell from my colleagues that we need a little bit of a break. So let's come back at, let's say 8.05, 10 minutes. ARE YOU SURE? OKAY. WE ARE BACK ON THE RECORD. I WAS SKIPPING AHEAD TO OLD BUSINESS HERE. OKAY. MR. TRAN, CAN YOU PLEASE READ THE TITLE FOR PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NUMBER 3?

Yes, this is City of Costa Mesa, neighborhoods where we all belong, proposed zoning code amendment, zoning map update, and establishment of citywide multifamily residential and mixed use objective design standards, and repealing of urban plans, amendments to the following elements of the Costa Mesa general plan. Circulation, community design, land use, noise, and open space and recreation, and amendments to the Newport Boulevard Specific Plan, North Coast to Mesa Specific Plan, and One Metro West Specific Plan. Certify final PEIR, adopt findings of fact, statement of overriding considerations, and mitigation, monitoring, and reporting program pursuant to CEQA. Presentation by Ms. Halligan, Senior Planner.

All right, Ms. Halligan, help us understand all the light reading we had this weekend.

MICHELLE HALLIGAN, SENIOR PLANNER. TONIGHT WE'RE PRESENTING REVISED PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING CODE, SPECIFIC PLANS, FIVE GENERAL PLAN ELEMENTS, AS WELL AS PROPOSED OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS THAT COMPRISE MUCH OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE WE ALL BELONG EFFORT. HERE IS OUR AGENDA TONIGHT. I'LL PROVIDE A BRIEF BACKGROUND BEFORE WE HEAR FROM OUR CONSULTANTS, KATHY AND KRISTEN FROM DUDEK. WE HAVE A LOT OF SLIDES SO I'LL TRY TO BE QUICK. As a reminder, Neighborhoods Where We All Belong is the city's name for a series of actions to implement several housing element programs, increase development opportunities, as well as updating zoning and land use in Costa Mesa. This is enabled by Measure K. So Measure K was a housing element program and a ballot measure to allow the city to change the zoning and land use on specific commercial and industrial sites, including but not limited to housing element sites. In 2022, the city adopted the six-cycle housing element and Measure K passed. The following year, the California Department of Housing and Community Development confirmed that the housing element met statutory requirements, but rezoning was necessary for certification. In 2025, the city kicked off this effort. There were several months of data collection, analysis, and the first round of community visioning. In March, we held the second round of outreach and formally bifurcated the effort into two paths. Path one expedited the rezoning of existing housing element sites, and path two would increase development opportunities on non-housing element measure case sites as well as new housing element sites, improve the zoning code, build urban plan development opportunities into the zoning code, establish objective design standards and so on. In April, the city council had the second reading to adopt path one. In May, we shared draft amendments to the zoning code, specific plans, general plan elements, and draft design standards for public review. Then we conducted the third round of community outreach, shared the draft program EIR, and the draft housing element revisions. Today, we're presenting path two. Just a little background of how we prepared for tonight. We held a study session on August 17th and did an extended newspaper noticing. Emails were sent to the neighborhoods where we all belong and the housing element interest lists, which includes over 600 email addresses. We published in the city hall snapshot that is sent to approximately 10,000 folks. We also have a project website, planning commission meetings, social media reminder, and traditional postings here at city hall. I want to briefly note some of the changes that were made following the study session, although we'll get into more detail later. Some will be reviewed in more detail later, as I said. Input from the study session resulted in updates to definitions, offsite improvements, the publicly accessible open space standard, refined objective design guidelines, updated a general plan policy related to allowing mood projects south of the 405 to be exempt from a four-story limit, just like affordable housing projects are. Two weeks ago, we received a comment letter of proposed edits, primarily related to master plans and the North Coast and Mesa specific plan. This resulted in updates to the row house and townhouse definition, adding a note about master plans to the mood and the objective design standards, and edit about roadways in the North Coast and Mesa specific plan and private street design standards in the objective design standards. We are continuing to collaborate with the commenting party. So again, Path 1 was the expedited rezoning of housing element sites only. The second reading to apply the mood took place back in April, and we utilized SB 131, a new CEQA exemption for housing element programs. We used that exemption again this September when the City Council adopted the amendment to the housing element to ensure adequate site capacity to meet state law. Tonight, we are focused on the balance of Measure K sites in Path 2. So with that, I'd like to reintroduce you to Kathy Tang-Saez, the project manager from Dudek.

Thank you, Michelle. Good evening, commissioners. Thank you for having us back tonight. Michelle described path one, so let me describe path two of neighborhoods where we all belong. Path two consists of addressing the balance of Measure K sites. So these are non-housing element sites. and implementation of other housing element programs. So like our study session from last month, let me go deeper into each component of Path 2. The mood, updates to the general plans, specific plans, updates to the zoning code, and preparation of new objective design standards. Next. I think we're all familiar with the MOOD now, but as a refresher and just for information for the public, let me go into it a little bit more. The MOOD or the Mixed Use Overlay District is the primary means of rezoning Measure K sites. So that includes housing element sites and non-housing element sites. Again, the mood is a zoning overlay. So that means that it applies additional optional zoning regulations in addition to those of the base underlying zoning. But for housing element sites, the mood becomes the default zoning. So if and when housing element site is redeveloped, it must comply with the mood to provide housing as required by state law. Next. Remember that path one consisted of a surgical update to the city's existing mood in order to implement the rezoning of housing element sites. But path two, however, is a comprehensive restructuring of the entire mood in the zoning code. So this is Article 11. We did this in order to do a couple of things. One was to sunset the existing urban plans and transfer their applicable regulations directly into the zoning code. So another reminder here, the urban plans are currently a separate standalone documents. These will be going away as part of this process, but their intent and the requirements will not. They'll just be getting folded into the zoning code in a way that makes it easier for someone to reference when developing a project. And to it was an effort to modernize these regulations add some new ones and streamline it all in order to better reflect today's needs and market for housing and mixed use development next. The mood will regulate many topics, the first is permitted uses, so the mood will allow multifamily housing. live work as the mood does today, commercial uses, institutional uses, and open space. This is all for the reason of encouraging more complete neighborhoods where housing and other compatible uses can coexist to allow people to live, work, shop, play in their neighborhood. This also helps to promote walking, reduce traffic, encourage economic development and revitalization, and create more livable places. In response to a comment from last month's study session, note that the permissions for commercial uses in the mood mimic those in the citywide land use matrix. So if a commercial use is allowed today in the underlying commercial zone, then its permission is carried through into the mood, whether that be an outright P for permitted or a conditional permission or a minor condition of permission in order to maintain that consistency with the citywide land use matrix. Next. The mood will regulate new development by density and building height. Density in the mood will be established by what we're calling sub-areas, which play an ode to the urban plans. So you'll see Mesa West Plus, 19 West, Newport Boulevard, Harbor Boulevard, Sobeka, and North Coast of Mesa. And the densities range from 20 to 90 DUs per acre. Note that most of the mood is set at a maximum of 60 feet, which is the max allowed today throughout the mood and the urban plans. Um, and we've increased that max height for greater, greater densities that are consistent with HCD guidelines. Next. The mood will also regulate setbacks. So since last month's study session, we've added some clarifying language to distinguish between minimum and maximum setback requirements. You'll see those in the red on the screen. And in response to a few comments made from last month. So we've maintained the minimum 10 foot setback between the mood and the residential zones. This is comparable to residential and commercial requirements in the city today and we believe is a reasonable requirement to ensure development flexibility but also to encourage the realistic development of housing which is the goal of this effort. We've also maintained the minimum and maximum front setback. Again, this is to better encourage more active and engaging buildings that are closer to the sidewalk, which is in contrast to how some projects are allowed to be developed today. So having buildings with storefronts and shopping and dining or even residential frontages, for example, be closer to the sidewalk instead of, say, a surface parking lot. This better facilitates a more vibrant, more comfortable, safer environment for walking, which is a direct request from many community members that we heard from during the visioning process. Next. The mood will require three kinds of open space, private open spaces that are private to a dwelling unit, so balconies, terraces, porches, patios, for example. Common open space, these are shared by tenants or residents in the development, so like shared parks, terraces, decks, and other shared amenities. And publicly accessible open space, these are areas that are open to the general public, like plazas, parks, and paseos. A reminder that while there is an established minimum required amount for each, the MOOD provides the flexibility to provide all or portions of each of these in another category. One change here that we want to highlight since our study session last month is a revision to the requirement for publicly accessible open space. We've lowered the threshold to better ensure that MOOD projects are providing publicly accessible open space. SO THE REQUIREMENT IS TIED TO THE AMOUNT OF COMMERCIAL FLOOR AREA OF A MIXED USE PROJECT. AND IT WORKS LIKE A SLIDING SCALE. SO MORE COMMERCIAL IN THE PROJECT, MORE PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE OPEN SPACES REQUIRED. THIS CHANGE WAS BASED ON PUBLIC COMMENT IN OUR LAST STUDY SESSION BUT ALSO JUST GENERAL COMMENTS THAT WE HEARD THROUGHOUT THE VISIONING PROCESS AS WELL. NEXT. And lastly, the mood includes other provisions. So to promote development flexibility, the mood is doing a couple of things. Minimum parking will not be required for residential uses in the mood. This doesn't mean that parking is disallowed. It just means that the city will not be requiring a certain amount of it. This is consistent with AB 2097, which went into effect in 2023 and prohibits local jurisdictions from imposing minimum parking requirements for certain projects that are close to transit. For reference, about 70% of parcels in the Mood are located in transit priority areas. A minimum amount of commercial floor area will also not be required for Mood projects. This means that projects can decide how much, if any, commercial space to provide based on market needs. Elsewhere, the mood will require studies, fees, or improvements. So mood projects, for example, will be required to provide a phase one environmental assessment to look at any potential hazardous conditions on site. Mood projects, if they meet certain thresholds, will also be required to provide a traffic study and a noise study as well. And mood projects will be required to pay certain fees. And in other cases, will be required to construct off-site improvements like new sidewalks or street trees. Next. The second set of updates are related to the general plan and some specific plans. So to reflect the update to the mood, the sunsetting of the urban plans, and the rezoning of Measure K sites, we've amended multiple elements of the general plan. Most of the edits are going into the land use element. These are just surgical updates meant to insert necessary language where appropriate and remove other languages necessary. ONE CHANGE HERE WHICH MICHELLE MENTIONED EARLIER SINCE OUR LAST STUDY SESSION IS A REVISION TO LAND USE POLICY 2.8 WHICH DESCRIBES AN EXISTING FOUR STORY MAXIMUM REQUIREMENT SOUTH OF THE 405 EXCEPT FOR CERTAIN PROJECTS. THIS POLICY HAS SINCE NOW BEEN REVISED TO ALSO EXCLUDE MOOD PROJECTS GIVEN THAT SOME PARCELS IN THE MOOD WILL BE ALLOWED TO ACHIEVE CERTAIN DENSITIES THAT MAY REQUIRE MORE THAN FOUR STORIES. NEXT. Three of the city's specific plans have also received amendments. Newport Boulevard specific plan, North Coast Mesa, One Metro West, So like the general plan, these are getting surgical updates while keeping intact the development potential and rights of properties in these specific plan areas while also applying the mood. So there are certain properties that have more development capacity or potential by using the specific plan than by using the mood. So the updates made here are in an effort not to take away those rights. The inserted language inside clarifies that the more permissive provisions may apply. Next. And I'll hand it back to Michelle for zoning code updates. Thanks, Kathy.

So we are proposing amendments to 19 areas of the zoning code to implement the housing element, comply with state law, improve clarity, and build in standards from the urban plans to the zoning code. We are adding and refining definitions, expanding the base zones to which the mood can overlay. removing references to the urban plans because moving forward the mood would apply so just a quick reminder the urban plans are documents that were adopted in 2006 to implement the mixed-use overlay district in three parts of west side costa mesa and the sobeca area so we may have forgotten that over the years but those urban plans are actually the mixed-use overlay district they're already in it so instead of having separate documents living outside of the zoning code we're having the development capacity built into the code and they'll be subject to objective design standards. We are also clarifying how planning applications are processed in line with state law, organizing the land use matrix alphabetically within use categories, updating the ADU ordinance for compliance and adding some objective design standards to the residential development standards. We added a section to the residential common interest developments article to accommodate condominium potential from the Mesa West residential ownership urban plan. This notes changing references to the mood and ODS and a comprehensive restructuring of the mood to enable the sunsetting of urban plans as well. Other proposed amendments include repealing and replacing the density bonus ordinance for compliance with state law and to identify local criteria, clarifying where tandem parking can be located in multifamily projects and other revisions to remove references to urban plans and to incorporate references to the new multifamily residential and mixed use objective design standards. We also have an update to an ADU government code reference in the park fees section, but no change to those fees at this time, and removing references to urban plans and adding missing titles to some tables in the noise section. Just briefly, I'd like to note that Costa Mesa received a Southern California Association of Governments Regional Early Action Planning Grant to implement select housing limit programs. This includes amendments to the ADU ordinance, the new density bonus ordinance, identifying environmental justice general plan policies, compliance with SB4, which is housing opportunities on faith-based and nonprofit educational sites, and a memo identifying potential affordable housing incentives. Now I'd like to invite Kathy back to share information about the proposed objective design standards.

Okay, the last set of updates includes the objective design standards. So these are new requirements for all new multifamily and mixed use development citywide, so not just within the mood. A reminder that these are not development standards. So development standards are your typical requirements in the zoning code that affect the capacity or the envelope of a project. So how many units, how much area, how many stories, how much open space, how much parking, those are development standards. These are design standards that affect the look, the feel, and the function of projects. So the shape and the mass of the project or the windows or the entries, et cetera. We've prepared these objective design standards for a couple of reasons. One is It's now required by state law. So multifamily projects must now be reviewed using objective criteria that doesn't involve, quote, the personal or subjective judgment by a public official. So in order to standardize requirements and just make it more straightforward and predictable for both city staff and project applicants, these objective design standards are now the norm. And second, objective design standards is one way to enable the kind of projects that the community wants for Costa Mesa, focusing on some of the elements that really matter and the things that we heard during the visioning process. A reminder that as part of this exercise, we also folded in some applicable requirements from the city's residential design guidelines. So that said, the objective design standards address building design as well as site design, next. For building design, some examples include upper story setbacks. So this works in tandem with the setback requirements in either the underlying zoning or the mood, for example. In addition to a building needing to be a certain number of feet away from a neighbor on the side, it will also be required to set back its upper stories an additional distance. This is to further enable separation and privacy between multifamily projects and residential zones. Another category is facade breaks and modulation. This is intended to break up the perceived mass or length of what would otherwise be a really long or big building. So instead, this promotes some variation in scale and facade. And another example, transitional entry spaces. So ground floor residential units will be required to provide areas between the sidewalk and the front door for porches or stoops. This helps create a better buffer from the street, but also creates, quote, eyes on the street, a relationship between the ground floor unit and what's happening on the street to promote safety and visibility. Next. And for site design, some topics here include the location of parking. So this goes hand in hand with the maximum front setback I mentioned earlier. Here we're disallowing parking to be the main element along the street, instead requiring it to be at the rear of the lot or behind a building. The second one, we're also recognizing that there is a potential for large redevelopment. So the objective design standards are meant to discourage mega blocks by instead requiring the breaking down of sites by introducing private streets or paseos. And then there are other provisions about open space and landscape to pair with what's required in the mood or the underlying zoning. So if providing a certain type of open space the objective design standards will regulate the dimensions of location of open space. Note that we've been careful and thoughtful in crafting these standards. So these are in line with best practices. We're trying to regulate just enough of the critical elements in order to promote good urban design, good city making, good neighborhoods, because those are the elements that we'll likely have the most tangible effect on placemaking and people. And we did this while also being cognizant of not being too onerous or too restrictive, but also allowing room for design flexibility and creativity. Next. That said, the documents before you, so the mood, the amendments to the zoning code, the general plan elements, the specific plans, the objective design standards, all of that stems from our need to comply with state law, be in line with best practices, but also the community. So the community's input was especially critical in the formation of the mood and the objective design standards because the community visioning process we conducted over the past year and a half was pretty extensive. Three rounds of community visioning, hundreds of community members, eight community events and workshops, 12 pop-ups, seven focused discussions with stakeholders, and a slew of email blasts, social media posts, postcards, website updates, and more. City staff did a lot to help inform and engage the community, so much that our efforts were recognized last week by the American Planning Association. The city received an award of opportunity and empowerment. AND CAME IN AS A FINALIST FOR TECHNOLOGY DRIVEN TRANSPARENT GOVERNANCE WITH THE ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA CITIES IN ORANGE COUNTY. I CAN'T DO THIS ENOUGH BUT I WANT TO EXTEND A BIG THANK YOU TO EVERYONE THAT JOINED US, EVERYONE THAT CAME TO TALK WITH US AND SHARED THEIR FEEDBACK, CONCERNS AND IDEAS AND ASPIRATIONS FOR COASTA MESA. We did our best to reflect the community's input in what is being presented today. So the mood and the standards, for example, in particular, are meant to reflect the community's input for a better Costa Mesa, which was a broad goal for the future of Costa Mesa. We heard a lot, some of which is on this slide. We heard that growth should be balanced with infrastructure, parking and traffic should be addressed, that we need more third places, all the while keeping Costa Mesa eclectic. So our team did our best to reflect these priorities in the updated regulations you see today. Next, um, a quick flash of statistics. So listed here are the various ways that the city noticed the community for the third and last round of community visioning. So a citywide postcard, an interview, Michelle did an interview on let's talk Costa Mesa, a YouTube tutorial on how to review all these, what would otherwise be very complicated documents, uh, newspaper ads, email blasts, social media posts, posters, and signs at various city facilities. and an ongoing update to the project website, CostaMesaNeighborhoods.com. If you haven't visited yet, it includes a wealth of knowledge and ongoing archive of the work conducted today. And for tonight's Planning Commission meeting, we started noticing back in August via newspaper, email blasts, and City Hall snapshot. Now that we're in the home stretch, a recap that neighborhoods where we all belong will be responsible for implementing 23 of the city's 47 housing element programs. This is a big deal, one, because it's required by state law, but two, it enables us to demonstrate to the state and to stakeholders that our progress on our obligations, our goals and priorities to address housing for the Costa Mesa community. SO, WITH THE ADOPTION OF THE UPDATE TO THE HOUSING ELEMENT EARLIER THIS MONTH, RATHER, AND THE EXPECTED ADOPTION OF FDC POTENTIALLY TOMORROW, THE CITY OF COASTA MESA IS ON TRACK TO RECEIVE CERTIFICATION FROM THE STATE, FROM HCD, WHICH HAS MANY BENEFITS, INCLUDING, FOR EXAMPLE, ACCESS TO FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES TO KEEP DOING THIS SIMILAR GOOD WORK. WITH THAT, I'LL HAND IT TO MY COLLEAGUE KRISTEN TO TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT CEQA.

Good evening. Thank you for having me. I'm going to talk a little bit about our program environmental impact report. Programmatic meaning that it's a high level evaluation at not at a project level, but looking more at long range planning efforts for when specific details of any particular project are not known. So for the PEIR, it studied the rezoning of all of the Measure K sites, course, with the exception of FTC for full disclosure and mitigation. And as was previously noted, the housing element sites are exempt from CEQA pursuant to Senate Bill 131. Nevertheless, this draft EIR analyzed the environmental impacts of the implementation of all measure case sites. We studied the implementation of the project, which would occur over the next 30 years and would have a build out in 2050. Next slide. So a little bit about the process. The initial study was prepared and the notice of preparation was made available for a 30-day window for public review in November to December. During that time, we held an in-person scoping meeting in these chambers. Then we went away and prepared that draft EIR, which was then made available for public review in June for a 45-day public review period in which we did receive comment letters on the draft EIR. We prepared responses to those comments, and those are available for you in the final EIR document, and that was made available on the city's website on September 4th, and here we are tonight before you for consideration. Next slide. So one thing to note is that the final EIR also reflects changes that were made to the project between the time of the circulation of the draft EIR and preparation of the final document. So that really did consider the removal of selected sites that were responsive to a common letter that was provided from ALUC. Also, some technical cleanup and discrepancies in certain parcels that were identified and corrected through the final EIR. And then, of course, reflecting changes in housing element sites that were, again, responsive to property owners' desires. So those changes resulted in changes to parcels and ultimately to the build out that was analyzed in the EIR. Summarized here below, our build out for the units increased as a result of these changes by 4.3 percent and the build-out of non-residential or commercial uses decreased by 1.6 percent. So those changes were analyzed in the final EIR. There's what is looking like an initial study where you'll see we did some quantification and qualify to say that there is no substantial change to the analysis in the draft EIR due to these changes. And this is an impossible to read slide that highlights the CEQA topics in the initial column right there. We wanted to include this just to give you a little bit of an overview of the category of topics that are determined to have no impact or a less than significant impact. thresholds and topics identified in the central column, and then also identifying those that had significant and unavoidable impacts after the implementation of feasible mitigation. So to be clear in that last column, there's a threshold identified, there was an analysis conducted, and all feasible mitigation was employed, that's available for you to look at through the MMRP and the final EIR. And any topic that did have mitigation also was given a significant and unavoidable impact.

And with that, I'll turn it over to Michelle.

Okay, so here are our next big steps. We are tentatively scheduled to present neighborhoods where we all belong to the City Council on October 6th. We are also tentatively scheduled to present the ALUC overrule and a second reading to the city council on October 20th. So this is staff's recommendation. It is as written on the first page of the staff report and as you see it on this slide. So thank you all for listening. This concludes the presentation. Staff and our consultants from DUDEC are available to answer your questions.

All right, thank you very much. Questions, commissioners? Commissioner Dixon.

I just have a quick one just to make sure I understand everything correctly. So anything that was in a former urban plan that's not a housing element opportunity or inventory site, Mood's going to apply to that and these multifamily residential and mixed use objective design standards will apply as well? Or the base zoning?

So Commissioner Dixon, they could develop through the base zoning, but they could opt into the mood. If it's not a housing element site, it's totally optional.

That's what I understood. So that's during the presentation, I thought we were saying the urban plans would that the citywide multifamily residential and mixed use to the executive are going to that citywide. So even if it's base zoning, those urban plans are now going to be moved as far as those objective design standards.

So multifamily housing throughout the city would be subject to this objective design standards and it's not because of the overlay. So you could be in an R2 HD and still be subject to the new multifamily design standards.

Okay. So essentially we're losing anything that was unique to the urban plans as far as design standards or any of that stuff. That's all gone because it's going to be this one size fits all. Well, no, it is.

So typically when you look at the urban plans, what was unique is some of them really specify you had to have live work. And in this case, it's much more open to mixed use. We did find some difficulties from the development community in working with those standards. And that's part of why those urban plans, as well intended as they were, weren't as successful as the city had hoped.

Right. But there was a tremendous amount of effort that went into how they looked. And I watched every single one of those meetings. I specifically remember at that point, I think it was, I don't remember if she was a planning commissioner or a council member, Foley holding up the thing and saying, is it going to look like this? And assured that it would. So these things are important. We just completely revamped a lot of these standards. Three days to review them. And now we're going to be applying those to urban plans area as well. So I just want to make sure that we're, you know, that was one of the things I brought up at the very beginning of this was that we have these urban plans and went through this very extensive process. And I don't want those to go away. I mean, I understand the planning nightmare they are with standing outside of everything. And I appreciate the economy of putting them into the zoning code and making sure all those things, but we were assured that everything that was in there would transfer over. And so I'm just, I'm nervous about, well, not nervous, I'm just, I'm not really supportive of a one size fits all objective design standards for the entire city, anything multifamily or potentially mixed use when the urban plans used to have some pretty specific design elements.

Commissioner Dixon, if I can respond to that. So in our look and understanding of the urban plans, it was interesting to note that there actually wasn't too much of a differentiation across the urban plans other than some key things like density and permitted uses. But for the most part, the design regulations or the design requirements were pretty similar across the three. That said, we took a lot from the urban plans and incorporated that either into the mood or into the objective design standards. So those renderings for maybe like the three-story sort of townhouse feel, all of that is still possible in the mood today. And it varies from sub-area to sub-area, the names that we're taking from the urban plans. A lot of the work from the urban plans is not going away. As I mentioned earlier, it's getting folded in more in a standardized format in the zoning code and the objective design standards.

Any other questions of staff? Commissioner Martinez.

I mean, if Commissioner Andrade would like to go first, because I have quite the list.

Yeah, I mean, I think, again, amazing job team, I think. It was quite a journey, again, just going through all the material. Congratulations on having the well-deserved recognition on, I really loved how the award was described, opportunity and empowerment, the tech-driven aspect on how you guys all approached the community input and outreach. Congratulations, because I know that that's a key, I hear that so often with neighbors on, Not knowing what's going on, but clearly you all went above and beyond to make sure, to the point where you got awarded for it. So thank you for all that great work. It was really great to see that some of the CAP objectives are incorporated here. I think you said this early on in your presentation that the commenter letter that we received those recommendations have been included, right? And we're continuing to work with, right?

Yeah, thank you Commissioner Andrade for that question. So a couple of things to note, we've been meeting with the applicant to discuss, you know, them potentially redeveloping sites in Costa Mesa and how their project might fit into the mood or a housing element site. And so we've been having those conversations over the last handful of months obviously they needed to wait until the study session to see the final revised draft. So they quickly put together a comment letter at that time. It was then received by city staff at the very end of August. So we quickly tried to go through what was a lengthy letter and identify anywhere where we thought that there were changes that were appropriate in response to some of the things that they highlighted for consistency across all the documents. And so we've done that. So it was a quick dive through. It's not to say that it's entirely complete and comprehensive. We've still, and we noted in the staff report that we'll continue to meet with them before city council. One of the things I can say, and I think they redrafted a letter identifying that some of the comments that they had addressed had been incorporated and responded to, but there were still a handful of key comments. I think there were like six of them. that they still wanted to meet with staff and further discuss. We're open to doing that. We're willing to do that. So if the planning commission is supportive of that, you could include in your motion to meet with the applicant and make any non-substantive changes to address their comments before city council. Obviously, if they get into a substantive territory, we would be required to come back to planning commission for a recommendation and to provide you with those updates. IF THAT'S IMMEDIATE ABLE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION IT COULD BE INCLUDED IN THE RECOMMENDATION.

FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE THESE ARE NON-SUSTAINABLE RECOMMENDATIONS?

SOME OF THEM ARE AND SOME OF THEM AREN'T. I THINK AS STAFF STANDS HERE TODAY THE RECOMMENDATIONS AND REVISIONS THAT WE'VE INCLUDED IN THE IS STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION AND WHAT WE WOULD RECOMMEND THAT YOU MOVE FORWARD WITH. THERE'S A HANDFUL OF RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WE JUST SIMPLY HAVEN'T HAD ENOUGH TIME TO FULLY VET. THE APPLICANT MIGHT BE LOOKING AT IT FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THEIR PARTICULAR PROJECT. WE NEED TO LOOK AT IT FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF IF IT APPLIES TO ALL CITIES PARCEL WIDE AND SO WE JUST WEREN'T PREPARED IN THE IN THE SEVEN DAYS BEFORE THE PACKET CAME OUT TO MAKE THAT RECOMMENDATION TO YOU.

OKAY. GREAT. YEAH, AND OTHER THAN THAT, AGAIN, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR GREAT WORK. ALSO ON THE DEW DECK TEAM AND THE TEAM THAT WORKED WITH THE EIR AND GETTING US BACK ON TRACK WITH HCD. SO REALLY APPRECIATE THAT. GETTING US OUT OF HOT WATERS.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have questions from page 261 to 1,017. So let's go through this. 261 is the staff report area on the ALIC. I wanted to know if we have a map of which properties we excluded based on the ALIC feedback.

Thanks for that question, Commissioner Martinez. I can pull up something from our presentation to City Council. We can also zoom in on our zoning map here. Let me just get a moment to pull that up.

Okay. I will go on while that's being pulled up. Page 314, I'm in zoning code definitions for zoning district overlay.

what are the words the final three words unless otherwise indicated modifying it's it's basically just a safety net unless there's something that we may have missed from a specific plan or elsewhere in the code where there's maybe a you know a more detailed description WE HAVE OTHER OVERLAYS IN THE CITY SO WE JUST DIDN'T WANT TO, YOU KNOW, ERRONEOUSLY PROCLUDE A SPECIFIC DEFINITION THAT WAS INCLUDED IN A DOCUMENT ELSEWHERE. OKAY.

BECAUSE I THINK THE WAY I READ IT WAS THAT THAT SECOND CLAUSE IS WHAT'S UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED BUT NOT WHEN A PROPERTY OWNER CHOOSES TO EXERCISE THE PROVISIONS. BECAUSE THE WAY I READ IT WAS THIS IS LIKE BASICALLY ABOUT HOUSING ELEMENT SITES.

YES, EXACTLY. SO IT IS BUT IT COULD APPLY ELSEWHERE IN THE CODE BUT YES, YOU KNOW, THEY CAN CHOOSE TO EXERCISE IT UNLESS THERE'S A HOUSING ELEMENT SITE IN they need to comply with state law and provide the minimum density in the 50% housing.

OK. I think that's fine. Page 352, density bonus law. How much of this is repeating our, oh, wait, hold on, ALIC map.

Thanks, Commissioner Martinez. So I've pulled up the map from our presentation to city council. So what you'll see are different safety zones. Those are part of the ALUP, which is the airport land use plan. Safety zone one, there was like a thousand square foot sliver of one of our Measure K sites. ALUP made it very clear that they wouldn't support it. And the sites that are in gray, none of them were our housing element sites. So we were amenable to working with them and being really collaborative of removing the measure case sites that are within certain safety zones, safety zones one, two, and three, as well as those in the noise contour over 65 decibels. We did keep one site because it's a housing element site, and it was already converted from a motel to affordable SRO units. It's actually been completed. So we let them know that. And I think we had a really great positive process with them. And we're looking forward to just moving forward.

Great. So it looks like it's just that tail end of Bristol Street.

That's correct. OK.

Cool. Thank you. Density bonus law. How much of it is what state law says? And how much did we add in for Costa Mesa specific stuff?

Yeah, that's a great question, Commissioner Martinez. Um, and I spent a lot of time going back and forth between our inclusionary ordinance and this to make sure that we appropriately captured things. So, um, the state density bonus law, um, ordinance complies with state law. In addition to that, um, you know, it asks for in detail, the things that are permitted under state law, like an affordable housing plan and a detailed application. INDICATING WHERE THE AFFORDABLE UNITS ARE GOING TO BE PLACED, THE PROCESS FOR LOOKING FOR TENANTS THAT ARE INCOME QUALIFIED, ALL OF THAT INFORMATION. NOW, SOME CITIES WHEN THEY ADOPT A STATE DENSITY BONUS ORDINANCE THEY JUST REFER BACK TO THEIR INCLUSION ORDINANCE. IN THIS CASE THAT WASN'T A SUITABLE OPTION SO THEY'D SAY YOU NEED TO DEVELOP AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN IN LINE WITH THE INCLUSION ORDINANCE. THE REASON THEY DO THAT IS MOST OF THEIR HOUSING PROJECTS ARE ACTUALLY SUBJECT TO THE INCLUSION ORDINANCE. IN OUR CITY SPECIFIC CASE, You know, there's a threshold of 50 units for where we even start to consider whether a project is subject to our inclusionary ordinance. So we wanted to make sure, while maybe in some cases a little bit repetitive, that we made sure that we included those requirements so that there is a plan that's submitted. You know, they tell us how they're going to go about and choose income qualified residents. There's a marketing plan, all that stuff that we would typically want to see as part of providing affordable housing.

Okay.

Cool, thank you. Is there any reason that it's just the lower income, moderate income, and senior units that are included, even though state density bonus law says student housing, disabled veteran housing, the other categories? Is there a reason we only call out those two categories?

Can you show me the section you're referring to?

I mean, just like in the purpose section, like at the top, and also there's in page 355, 1A, calls out affordable units and or senior housing. And it won't go on to say student housing, disabled veterans housing. I think foster children housing is one of them.

Oh, yeah, it's just trying to be as high level as possible and then refer to the government code for, you know, any additional types of housing that may qualify under state density bonus law.

Okay. Page 353. at the bottom in B2 and at the next page on B3, it says, except where mixed use zoning is proposed. Um, so I know this, this doesn't, you know, it applies everywhere cause it's density bonus, but, but what do we mean by zoning is proposed?

So this is applicable citywide. So that would be, you know, in a scenario where it was not in the mood, it was in like a residential neighborhood and an applicant was proposing, you know, mixed use as the incentive, you know, as allowed under state density bonus law. So that's just that we would need you know reasonable documentation to show.

So what happens for a project where mixed use zoning is already allowed like it does that theoretically mean it's also proposed because it's already allowed or does this section not apply because it's already allowed?

It's exactly it doesn't apply it's not being asked for as an incentive because it's already allowed under that zoning district.

Gotcha okay. Cool. 356, page 356, section 4A. The affordable housing agreement and or senior housing agreement shall in a form approved by the city attorney. Is this supposed to be shall be in a form or is it supposed to copy the language in? the next page where it says Shall enter into a restrictive covenant with the city running with the land in a form approved by the city attorney Yeah, thanks for highlighting that I think that's a typo and we can update that prior to City Council Okay, I will Mark this here. OK. Page 373. Ah, yes. Fun one. So this establishes the various permitted uses in the mood. Some of the uses in here have less stringent requirements in the base zone than they do in the mood. So I'll point out on 373, active entertainment is a minor conditional use permit in the mood and in a C1 zone, for example, it's permitted. So why have a more stringent requirement in the mood than its base zoning?

Commissioner Martinez, I'd like a moment to go back. I'm going to flip over to the land use matrix just to be sure. But off the top of my head, I believe it's because of the mixed use nature of the development. But let me check our land use matrix. Page 340.

Just so you can get to it quicker. All right. While you do that, I will go on to page 376 and ask about our public commenter and master plans and such. So. ARE YOU GOOD?

DO YOU WANT TO GO BACK TO THE QUESTION ABOUT THE LAND USE MATRIX?

YEAH.

SO FOR THAT USE WE HAVE IN SOME ZONES IT WAS ALLOWED PERMITTED AND OTHERS WITH AN MCUP. SO IN THE MIXED USE ENVIRONMENT WE WENT WITH THE MORE RESTRICTIVE MCUP BECAUSE OUR OVERLAY APPLIES TO BOTH COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ZONES.

I WILL HAVE COMMENTS LATER. COOL. PAGE 376 THEN. Master plans. First I want to just ask, are all alternative development standards in master plans? Will some be in specific plans or some other kind of plan?

It depends on the city. In Costa Mesa we have some PD zones that have their own specific standards in the actual zoning district and in addition to that in some cases there's a specific plan that acts as an overlay and those requirements would be applicable too.

If a specific plan is adopted and not a master plan as this section says does that override the mood

In some cases, yes, and in some cases, no, because we have a complex zoning ordinance. So let me give you some examples. North Coast of Mesa specific plan, there may be some requirements in the PD zone that apply, and in addition to that, the specific plan. FDC, which will be considered by City Council tomorrow, operates under a plan development specific plan, so it only refers to the specific plan. That is the typical process, and then, like, what I would describe as best planning practice, because it's not confusing. There's not maybe conflicting requirements. But we have old specific plans on the books from, you know, 30 plus years ago. So that's how they operate today.

Yeah, I guess I'm just trying to figure out if this should include specific plans as well. Because this says, you know, these are the development standards for mood projects unless there are alternative ones in a master plan. So should it also include specific plans?

Let us think about that before city council. I don't think so because not all specific plans operate through a master plan process. And so I wanted it I would want to just go back and look at all of our specific plans and make sure that we're gonna apply that consistency consistently Or you know, we're as applicable

If I may, I think one point of clarification is that in the way a master plan is used here, that's not on the same level as a specific plan. So a specific plan acts as a zoning document in this case, but a master plan in this case in a plan development zone would act kind of like an overarching entitlement, where for a project site, literally an overarching master plan with alternative development standards could be approved, and that's how THE ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ARE ESTABLISHED ALTERNATIVE TO THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN. SO THEY'RE ON TWO DIFFERENT ALMOST PLAYING FIELDS. SO YOU WOULD NOT WANT TO ADD, YOU KNOW, ESTABLISH THROUGH A MASTER PLAN OR A SPECIFIC PLAN IN A PLAN DEVELOPMENT ZONE BECAUSE A SPECIFIC PLAN IS ABOVE THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT ZONE.

THANK YOU. THEN LET ME ASK ABOUT PLAN DEVELOPMENT ZONES. ARE ALL MASTER PLANS ONLY IN PLAN DEVELOPMENT ZONES?

Yes, that's correct.

Okay. Cool. I will max that out. Okay. Page 378. Storage standards. Back to our public commenter.

Can I jump in before you get to that one? Go ahead. Thank you. So looking at page 376, that first section under applicability. So it seems to suggest that there's, I hate to use the word supremacy, but that there is for the mood standards. AND IN FACT THAT SECOND SENTENCE SAYS DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ARTICLE SHALL SUPERCEDE AND PREVAIL OVER ANY CONFLICTING PROVISIONS OF THE UNDERLYING BASE ZONE AND ALL OTHER APPLICABLE ZONING PROVISIONS SUCH AS OTHER OVERLAY SPECIFIC PLANS AND THEN HERE COMES THE NEBULOUS CATCH-ALL UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. SO AGAIN WHAT IS THAT UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED MEAN? yeah it's kind of the same you know uh safety implicate if state law is updated and it needs to be referenced somewhere else in the code to make sure that that's captured here okay i'm just thinking future proofing i'm thinking from the practical perspective of an applicant who's looking at this and trying to get some certainty because that's what we're trying to provide um i would read that to mean that the mood is supersedes anything in a specific plan And my concern would be staff could come back at some point and say, yes, but. And the but is covered by unless otherwise noted without having a specific reference. And I can appreciate if the law changes, state law in particular, but this gives me a great deal of pause. I'm just noting that.

Yeah. Thank you chair. We can take a look at this again prior to city council and make sure that that there is clarity there for future applicants. Yeah. We'll, we'll work with the city attorney and assistant city attorney on developing the appropriate language.

All right. Thank you. Okay. Sorry, commissioner Martinez.

Oh, thank you. I did not include that second sentence in my questions. STORAGE STANDARDS ON 378. FIRST OF ALL I GUESS JUST ESTABLISH WHY DO WE HAVE THESE?

THANKS FOR THAT QUESTION COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ. PART OF OUR WORK WITH HCD WAS IMPLEMENTING A PROGRAM ON WAYS TO MAKE OUR HOUSING MORE APPROPRIATE FOR FAMILIES. AND SO STORAGE IS SOMETHING THAT'S COME UP. SO WE LOOKED AT THE STORAGE OPTIONS FOR THINGS LIKE STROLLERS, BICYCLES AND WHATNOT. It's really common in cities throughout California to see a standard like this.

OK. OK. 379. At the bottom of the table, the general site improvement standards. Is it possible that there will be conflict between the mood and the requirements the general site improvement standard section of our code?

Commissioner Martinez, one of the things that we did edit based on feedback from the Planning Commission as well as from members of the public was to remove a list of off-site improvements that were originally included here. We worked with the city attorney's office and they recommended that we remove those and refer to this section of the code for consistency. So we believe that that was the right path forward.

I think

I THINK THIS ONE MIGHT BE ON-SITE IMPROVEMENTS. I DON'T KNOW. I THINK I TOOK A LOOK AT IT.

GENERAL SITE IMPROVEMENTS.

I THINK IT MIGHT HAVE INCLUDED TRASH ENCLOSURES AND SUCH.

IN ADDITION TO THAT, I'LL JUST ALSO NOTE THAT THERE'S A PROVISION IN THE MOOD THAT SAYS IF THERE'S A CONFLICT BETWEEN A REQUIREMENT IN THE MOOD AND ELSEWHERE IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE THAT THE MORE RESTRICTIVE REQUIREMENT WOULD APPLY. SO JUST IN CASE THERE'S ANY INCONSISTENCY THAT WE DIDN'T FLAG DURING THIS PROCESS.

ALL RIGHT. WELL, WHILE YOU BRING THAT UP, WHY DO WE SAY THE MORE RESTRICTIVE PROCESS SHALL APPLY?

IT'S A MORE CONSERVATIVE APPROACH TO ENSURE THAT WHATEVER REQUIREMENT WAS PUT IN PLACE AT THAT TIME THAT HAD REASONS BEHIND IT IS STILL ADHERED TO.

OKAY. WE'LL HAVE COMMENTS LATER. Yeah. Also, I think responding to one of the public comment EDITS WAS WHY USE THE TERM LOWER INCOME HOUSING ELEMENT SITES? I KNOW WE'RE BACK IN HOUSING ELEMENT STUFF BUT WHY USE THAT TERM?

SO COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ THANKS FOR THAT QUESTION. THERE ARE DIFFERENT STANDARDS FOR OUR LOWER INCOME HOUSING ELEMENT SITES. SO AT THE MOMENT ALL OF THE CITIES HOUSING ELEMENT SITES ARE LOWER INCOME ONES BUT WE'LL HAVE A NEW HOUSING ELEMENT IN 2029. And we may have some sites that only have moderate income units assigned to them. And so in that case, they wouldn't be subject to this minimum density that the state establishes. So there is a nuance there that we'd like to maintain since we will be updating the housing element shortly. Okay.

IF I COULD ADD ONE MORE THING, THAT LANGUAGE, SECTION E OF THE MOOD ON PAGE 383 WAS BLESSED BY HCD SO THAT COMES ALMOST DIRECTLY FROM THEM IN ORDER TO COVER THE CITY GIVEN THE RECENT COURT CASE FROM RODONDO BEACH ABOUT THE USE OF OVERLAYS AND SUCH. SO THAT LANGUAGE IS SPECIFIC TO LOWER INCOME HOUSING ELEMENT SITES AND SHOULD BE KEPT.

OKAY.

I CAN UNDERSTAND THE STATE'S PERSPECTIVE ON THAT BUT IF WE WERE TO MODIFY THAT TO JUST SAY HOUSING ELEMENT SITES WOULD THAT BY DEFINITION COVER LOW INCOME HOUSING ELEMENT SITES?

IT WOULD MEAN THAT ALL HOUSING ELEMENT SITES WOULD BE SUBJECT TO MINISTERIAL REVIEW AND STATE LAW ONLY THESE LOW AND VERY LOW SITES BE SUBJECT TO A MINISTERIAL REVIEW. THAT CHANGE WOULD BE MORE PERMISSIVE THAN WHAT STAY LAW REQUIRES. IT'S AN OPTION BUT SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT.

OKAY. LET'S TAKE THAT TO THE NEXT STEP. DOES THAT MEAN THE OVERLAY ITSELF IS JUST A MINISTERIAL REVIEW?

um to help answer that question let me maybe clarify what anna said so it's not just lower income housing element sites are not only subject to ministerial review there are other requirements so for example minimum 50 residential minimum 20 to use per acre those are requirements by the state for lower income housing element sites It just so happens that today the cities, all of the cities, the city of Costa Mesa, all of the cities housing element sites are lower income, but we're just trying to, as Ana said, future proof for future housing element cycles.

Okay, but that would mean at some point future housing cycles we'd have to come through and add a new narrative specifically for non-low income housing element sites.

I don't think so because currently right now it's only the lower income sites that are subject to those very strict requirements. The minister will review the 50 percent residential and the minimum 20 which means that sites that are not lower income so above moderate they would not be subject to that. So we wouldn't want to just use the term housing element sites to require all housing element sites to those requirements when state law only requires us to do it for lower income housing sites.

Okay.

All right.

I'll follow up on that.

Commissioner Martinez will have comments on that.

Yes, indeed, I will. Let me follow up on the chair. With the Redondo Beach decision, does that apply only to lower income housing element sites, or does it apply to all housing element sites?

I THINK MAYBE THE VERBIAGE IS WHAT'S MAKING IT A LITTLE BIT CONFUSING. IT'S HOUSING ELEMENT SITES WHERE LOWER INCOME IS IDENTIFIED. AND THERE'S A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT WAYS TO ACCOMMODATE RENA. ONE STRATEGY WHICH IS WHAT THE CITY OF COAST OF MESA USED IS TO DISBURSE ITS LOW AND VERY LOW INCOME ACROSS ALL OF ITS HOUSING OPPORTUNITY SITES. BUT SOME CITIES CHOOSE NOT TO DO THAT. THEY MIGHT HAVE specific affordable housing projects where all of their very low and low might meet the requirement. You know, think of arena that's not 11,000 units and maybe that might make sense, right? And so what we're trying to do here is just not restrict ourselves in the future if we do end up having, you know, housing element sites that ARE ONLY MODERATE OR MAYBE IN SOME CASES MODERATE AND ABOVE MODERATE SO THEY DON'T NEED TO MEET THESE STRICT STATE REQUIREMENTS. THINK ABOUT IT IN ANOTHER WAY JUST TO KIND OF GIVE YOU SOME EXAMPLES. SOME CITIES DON'T NEED TO IDENTIFY AS MANY HOUSING ELEMENT INVENTORY SITES AS WE HAVE. INSTEAD THEY TAKE THEIR EXISTING MIXED USE ZONING DISTRICTS AND THEY JUST INCREASE THE DENSITY. SO LIKE FROM 60 DWELLING UNITS and that satisfies the RHNA requirements and doesn't identify specific sites. So there's different ways to accommodate your RHNA. And so it's just saying, you know, in this section, in this language that these state requirements that were implemented, you know, under HCD and the Redondo Beach case are only applicable to what state law and HCD said they were applicable to.

So the Redondo Beach case only applies to lower income housing element sites.

This particular provision. So the Redondo Beach case clarified a lot of different things, like how cities can meet their arena and the use of overlays to do that. And one of the key things that came out of that case is ensuring that housing element sites actually produce housing. And so that's the point of this requirement. So lower income sites need to do at least 50% housing, a minimum density, and they also could have a ministerial review for doing that.

Okay. Let me just put this a different way. Because right now we say we want to future proof this for in the future. Maybe we won't have a development that is a lower income housing element site. Right? So it's possible that that does not exist. What I'm trying to figure out, because in Section E11, it says that the supersession of the overlay only applies to projects on lower income housing element sites. So is that what the Redondo Beach case says? Or does it apply to the supercession part of the of the Redondo Beach case? Does that apply to all housing element sites only lower income?

Correct?

Yeah, thank you. Okay. Got it. All right. Back to asking questions about the public comments. If you REVIEWED. I THINK THIS WAS PROBABLY THE SPREADSHEET ONE. THESE ARE PROBABLY MORE TECHNICAL IN NATURE. BUT PAGE 528 IS IN THE LAND USE ELEMENT. AND IT'S THE VERY FIRST WORDS ARE SAKIOKA LOT 2 AND AREA 8 ON THE NEXT LINE. THE PUBLIC COMMENT SAYS THIS SHOULD BE SAKIOKA LOT 1 AND AREA Is what's presented here correct or is what the public comments are presented correct?

Can you say the page number again? 528.

So Commissioner Martinez, that's existing language that's been in the general plan. So we would need to go back and look and see if that is still accurate. It may or may not be. It's been in there since 2015. But if the motion or the recommendation includes making non-substantive changes, we would work with the city attorney to see if that's non-substantive.

OK.

I mean, just just because it it might have been in there for 10 years does not mean, you know, we should we shouldn't fix it if it's wrong.

No, I understand that we were trying to make our edits as limited as possible. But if if we go back and have the opportunity to review it, it is incorrect. I'm hoping that that's not substantive.

Fair enough. Yeah. If they're factual updates or, you know, corrections or inconsistencies, we can make those updates before city council.

Yeah, like the next one is like on page 538, public commenter mentions that figure, that whole page essentially should not exist, figure LU6. And then the reference to it on a subsequent page.

So I will add that.

Okay, still with the public commenter 633 on the noise element. Do we have noise standards that are different from the typical noise standards when any property is adjacent to a freeway?

Okay, let's see. Commissioner Martinez, let me pull up some notes I made earlier today as we sort of looked into this. Here we go. Okay, so as we were looking into the noise issue, it looked to me like there may have been some changes made during the general plan that weren't also then updated in the North Coast and Mesa specific plan. So we were looking at that edit to see if that's something that we could make, but we would want to obviously work with the city attorney's office to make sure that there aren't like further implications of adding like the footnote that they were interested in.

OK. OK. Cool. Let's skip 400 pages. 1,017.

That brings us to our objective design standards.

I know last time I had notes and I was vague and I do apologize for that. Um, but were there any amendments to the objective design standards following my feedback from the study session? And if so, what were they?

Okay. Commissioner Martinez. Um, one of the things that we edited, um, was we used to have a standard in there about not having more than six or more townhouses or row houses. We went ahead and removed that standard because we have building separation requirements and facade modulation. We also received, you know, the feedback about private streets being to city, local, and collector standards. So we worked with the assistant city engineer and made those modifications to remove the word geometry so that we can still say we want to see things like the landscaping and sidewalks but without specifying the width so there's a lot more flexibility. I think those were some key changes. And then we also, let's see here. We had a couple of refinements related to what was like business hours. And then Kathy, can you think of any others that come to mind?

And there was one clarification about the dual use of a Paseo with fire access as well. So clarification there.

So we worked with Fire Marshal Boer and he gives a little bit more specific information so that the designer would have more certainty in which the sales would be considered emergency access and which would not qualify.

Got it. Nothing in the facade section where I was most vague.

No, that's good. Okay. Thank you. Let's do an EIR question for fun.

Also responding to the public commenter. And I think first I'll actually start with the more general, like what authority do we as a planning commission have on editing text in the EIR? I'm assuming not much, but if you could

Sorry, it depends on the text. Mitigation measures, they're usually flexibility in there if it's equitable. So if there's a change but you're not reducing the stringentness of the mitigation measure. But there's flexibility in changing wording if it needs clarity.

Okay. Did you see the proposal on EV standards? Yes. And is that... Right.

No. So one of the things that is required in an EIR whenever you have a significant unavoidable impact is you need to implement reasonable and feasible mitigation measures. And the way it is proposed to be reworded would make it a regulation, compliance with regs. which is not by definition mitigation. So mitigation is always, CEQA assumes you comply with the law no matter what. So if you're going to have a mitigation measure, it's always above and beyond just compliance with the law. So basically saying you shall comply with the law is not mitigation.

Thank you. Those are my questions. Thank you.

Okay. Any other questions of staff? Okay, I'll save my, well, I'll ask a few. And this is just kind of broad level at this point. We've got thousands of pages of revised text, narrative, diagrams, photographs. Has this been tested in any way? In other words, have we run through a hypothetical development project and said, On this site, let's just call a low income housing element site. And given what we have here, this is the project that we would come up with.

Yes commissioner Harlan yes these have been tested so we've looked we've come at this from a variety of ways. We've been speaking to property owners in some cases in a very detailed manner about specific properties specific uses in Costa Mesa that was done through focus discussions the many focus discussions that I mentioned earlier that was part of the community visioning process. So that was one way. Another way is that we've been talking or speaking directly to certain property owners specific to their projects. So these have been coming in through comment letters where we've been looking specifically at projects and sites. Another way is the way that we tailored some of these objective design standards was specific to the areas. So we wanted to make sure that One particular standard wasn't going to conflict with one particular zoning code provision, especially in the mood. So there was a lot of back and forth in that regard to make sure that they were complimentary rather than conflicting. And then generally, these are based on best practices. So our firm has been drafting these sort of standards for some time now. we've been testing them across other cities with similar conditions sometimes different conditions but we've been making sure that they're at least appropriate for the context of Costa Mesa so across all those means yes we have been testing these standards to make sure that they're adequate and appropriate for Costa Mesa.

Okay but I think my real question is have you taken a hypothetical development proposal and run it through this?

Chair Harland, we actually have some real development proposals. And we've had our current planners go through and they're reviewing them under the current standards. But those that are in the pre-application phase, we've had the opportunity to go back and work with them on how would you interpret this part of the ODS and how would it work on the site. And some of the sites have been really narrow. And too much to my chagrin because I really liked Commissioner Dixon's comment about why did you change that setback? He was pointing out that the public wanted more of a setback between some of these new uses in their existing neighborhoods. We were ending up with like wedding cake houses where the tiers just kept getting smaller and smaller. So we've had a chance to kind of ground through some of these in our pre-application phase as well as taking it a little bit step further and saying, okay, what if we tried this and what if we tried that?

I WOULD JUST ADD THAT THERE ARE A HANDFUL OF UNIQUE PLANNING CASES WHERE, YOU KNOW, THESE CHANGES ARE SORT OF WRITTEN FOR THE 90% OF SITES. SO THE PUBLIC COMMENT LETTER THAT WE RECEIVED IS ONE OF THOSE EXAMPLES. THAT APPLICANT IS CONTEMPLATING, YOU KNOW, A MORE UNIQUE, LARGER PROJECT IN THE NORTH COAST MESA SPECIFIC PLAN. And so we've been working directly with them to, you know, look at a master plan process or something that's more appropriate for their project because some of the moon standards or the ODS standards don't apply to those larger unique sites where we need to have additional consideration. So that's why we're continuing to work with them and meet with them as they develop a project.

Great. Okay. Okay. That's all I have for now. Any other questions? Quick follow up. Sure. Go ahead, Commissioner.

Just a quick follow up to that. one of the things we've always had is the flexibility with variances and other things like that for these unique situations, because we've always seemed to have a really unique situation. So we're not losing that flexibility, right?

That's correct. Yep. All of those flexibilities, um, you know, the, um, I think we changed it from an admin. It used to be called an administrative adjustment. It's now called a major, a major amendment, the minor modifications, variants, those all, those all still apply in the zoning code and can be used on unique projects. YOU KNOW, SOME PROJECTS ACTUALLY HAVE MULTIPLE OVERLAYS ON TOP OF THEM SO THEY WOULD HAVE THE MOOD, THEY WOULD HAVE THE NORTH COAST OF MESA SPECIFIC PLAN AS AN EXAMPLE AND THEY COULD OPT INTO EITHER OF THOSE WHICH IS MOST SUITABLE FOR THEIR PROJECT.

WE'RE NEVER GOING TO GET ONE SIZE FITS ALL. I'M CONCERNED WE'RE TRYING TO DO THAT. I KNOW WE NEED OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS BUT ONE SIDE NEVER FITS ALL. WE'VE GOT A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF THAT. THANK YOU.

Yeah, one quick question since we're talking about objective design standards. Is this opportunity to include, you know, ensuring that some of this development is, what is it, LEED certified or are incorporating, you know, I don't know, clean energy opportunities like solar, right? It's super popular nowadays.

So I think some of those elements that you're touching on, like solar, those are most likely covered and often covered in the building code. So the building code has requirements for things like that. We did our best here to make sure that these zoning standards didn't bleed into the building code because then that would just create conflicts that we wouldn't want. But other than that, yes, theoretically, a set of objective design standards could go down that pathway of being very particular about certain requirements like achieving LEED certification. In this case, we didn't go that route. We tried to strike a balance between regulating just enough of the elements that sort of, as I mentioned earlier, are the ones that create the tangible effects on placemaking and people, but not going so far that it just becomes so onerous and so restrictive where it just makes development really hard and expensive to achieve. So we wanted to stay in line of the goal of facilitating housing without being too onerous.

And then I'll just add that mood projects are required to comply with the city's climate action and adaptation plan, which will also be considered by city council tomorrow night. And so, you know, that document was written where, you know, requirements for the development community was more incentive based. So we followed that direction that we received from city council earlier this year. So we tried to develop all these documents in line with that, that the cap that we were also drafting at the time.

Okay, great. Thank you.

All right. I want to thank everybody for their patience. I'm going to open the public hearing item now. If you'd like to speak, please come to either podium. And if you're participating by zoom, use the raise hand option or by phone star nine.

Good evening, Chair Harlan, members of the Planning Commission, staff, consultants of Dudek. I am George Sakiyoka of the Sakiyoka Company. And first of all, we are very excited that the neighborhoods where we all belong, I guess we would say suite of approvals, are moving forward. We're excited. This has been a long process, and we certainly appreciate staff's efforts listening to our comments and working with us. And After listening to some of the comments from the commission staff, you clearly have taken into consideration a lot of comments that we've submitted in the past. We submitted several comments on previously circulated drafts of the documents that are in front of you. And based on the revised iterations that have come out last Thursday, Staff has incorporated many of our comments and questions and we appreciate that. We feel that you heard what we said and also listening to a lot of stakeholders and members of the public during this process. A lot of them have been included in the latest version. We have submitted another letter yesterday. We went through the latest version and we have a handful of comments that i think staff alluded to as well some of them are for internal consistency some clear clarification of text that weren't clear a lot of how some housekeeping items honestly in a couple typos really is what we we mentioned and so we we encourage that the commission considers some of our changes that we've provided in the appendix we feel that those changes would if adopted, would frankly lower the friction on being able to build and have more housing in the city of Costa Mesa. And so other members of our team are here to maybe focus more on some of our comments. And thank you very much.

All right. Thank you.

Commissioners, thank you. Chris Maney with Wilson Maney. I work with the Sakyoka Company. First of all, with recognition for the incredible amount of work that you, the public, and the staff has done, we sincerely hope, we ask, that you pass this on to the City Council this evening. I want to touch on a few things. First, I think it came up in your conversation tonight In many of the conversations we've listened to that you've all had, you've said the idea is when there's a specific plan, when it's a housing element site, when it's the mood, that we want these to be a choice of which path you go down, which means to the extent that there's a conflict, it must be that which is most flexible. And that's what we interpret the staff report to say. But then as you heard tonight, places come up where they say, no, it'll be most stringent. We supplied a set of very specific edits that you could adopt tonight that would ensure that that flexibility is clear in the document. Secondly, we just note that on the those sites that are large and have to be have to have streets put in that the open space requirement that now says a percentage of the parcel should be net of the streets i respectfully by the way we're all imperfect but i respectfully submit that 500 square feet per unit outside of the unit as storage for multifamily projects in California is unusual, and that we suggest that you consider at least in multifamily projects modifying that requirement. With respect to the EV requirements, you have an EIR expert here, so I want to tread gently, This is a mitigation measure for greenhouse gas emissions that are significant and unavoidable. Whatever you do, you will not change it, but what your mitigation measure says is that you must put in a separate circuit for every car space in a multifamily development, and that is not best practices. The best practice is to have load sharing, and we're just asking that you not lock it in so that you cannot make the technological changes that are coming up to us. again a lot of this is just slight cleanup that we think you could work out between now and the city council member meeting but we also provided specific edits for your consideration thank you thank you good evening commissioners amy forbes with windsor strategies also working with sakeoka sakeoka company i just want to focus in on this the

discussion that was had about which is going to govern and the lower income housing site versus the just housing inventory site and I really appreciate the conversation because we had been scratching our heads to understand exactly what a lower income housing element site was and so we appreciate the clarification but It isn't just in the objective design standards that it appears. And so we provided a comment. It turns out it's at the wrong page. And my pages don't match your pages anyway. So I don't think it's very helpful. But on our page, which was the resolution at page 499, it's the North Coast to Mesa specific plan. And that there has to be a super session and if it's just lower income housing element sites I think it has to be clarified that you don't actually have to be building low-income housing I think that's the issue that that we have it doesn't make it clear that is it just that you are Designated for lower income housing or that you're actually building lower income housing on that site in the in the amount specified in the plan and we think that is confusing and So we would suggest that it be just housing element site. I understand the idea of future proofing, but I think it can, in fact, create ambiguity going forward. So I think that was, for us, the most important thing is to understand. We think, and we heard it here tonight, you get the specific plan, and you can get new standards through a master plan development approval, and you get to rely on the MUOD. And whichever one produces the most housing is the one that you get to do. So we said flexible. We think that will be the way that you will actually produce housing with this very complicated, but ultimately needed to satisfy the state housing requirements. Thank you. And we're here to answer any other questions from our letter, if you have any.

All right. Thank you.

Good evening, Cynthia McDonald. On paper, a lot of the aspects of this proposal sound very reasonable. Residents support better design standards, safer streets, more open space, improved mobility, a variety of housing options. But what's actually enforceable? You know, these are aspirations, they're not guarantees. When developers utilize a state density bonus, significant concessions, waivers, reductions in development standards can be granted in exchange for a few affordable units. As a result, the design standards, they're gonna be waived. Then there's the promise of affordable housing. Costa Mesa's track record gives residents reason for skepticism. You adopted an IHO, but we've had virtually no results. At the same time, you're rezoning and upzoning, which significantly increases land values. That benefits property owners, but it's going to increase development costs and create pressure for more market rate units. Will affordability actually be achieved? Then we've got the environmental concerns. The EIR identifies numerous significant unavoidable impacts involving air quality, noise, traffic, recreation, and other areas. And beside the environmental findings, we've got bigger questions. FTC, along with this project, could add 60,000 new residents to Costa Mesa. How's that gonna affect police and fire response times, traffic congestion? infrastructure capacity, parks, libraries. We can't even maintain our own city facilities right now. And where is the vision the residents asked under Measure K? This process has been so difficult to follow. This has been revised, amended, reconfigured so many times it's been like the shell game with the P under the shell. I don't know where the P is at this point. The more prudent approach would be to adopt the housing element changes comply with the state requirements, defer the Measure K changes until the public has a clear understanding. And in terms of HC certification, we all know that's not going to happen. You haven't dealt with the elephant in the room, which is what the HGD has asked for, which is, in several letters, repeal the sober living ordinance. They've demanded it. They've filed lawsuits about it. We're not getting... CERTIFICATION ANY TIME SOON. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE IN CHAMBERS WISH TO SPEAK? MS. DURAND, DO WE HAVE ANYBODY ON PHONE OR ZOOM?

YES. FIRST ONE IS PHONE NUMBER ENDING IN 613. GO AHEAD, 613.

YES, HI, GOOD EVENING. I AM ABSOLUTELY BLOWN AWAY THAT THIS, THERE'S SO MUCH DENSITY IN HOUSING CONSIDERED FOR COAST TO NATIONAL. I THOUGHT WE WERE ON THE HOOK FOR, LET'S JUST SAY, 12,000 UNITS, AND I SAW IN THIS PRESENTATION 22,000 UNITS. THAT IS GOING TO DESTROY THE CITY. And then further, you know, there is no public participation, uh, in this process development, like you guys are pushing. I know it's a state law. Um, any bamboozle, the residents in the measure K, but the element that we're seeing is insanely unpopular and there's group think that goes on at city hall. and on the planning commission and the city council that you guys are all for development. While the residents, we're not. It's really hard to find someone that's against it. The damage that you guys are putting on the industrial and commercial base in this city is never gonna recover. The pressure that you're putting on rents to start a business in Costa Rica, they're not doable anymore because you can't find a unit to start a business in and work out of because they're becoming fewer and fewer between. And you're destroying an economic engine of the city for housing. People can't, not everyone can work from home. Measure K, I actually, this was on my radar because I saw the map. for Measure K, which when it was advertised by the city, claimed that there would be no impact to residential neighborhoods. That's a lie, because next to residential neighborhoods, we're now gonna have a 60-foot tall building. I guarantee you can find more than 22 people that would gladly take their vote back when they realize that the carpet's been pulled under them by the city. This is a terrible, terrible direction the city's heading in. And, you know, The first three speakers on this are developers. They're salivating. They're like, look at these guys. They're handing us the keys. You guys, I mean, you're worse than the Rainheimer Mensinger. You're like, it's magnitude worse. And, you know, again, the everyday Coastal Bay resident THROUGH THESE TERRIBLE MEET AND GREETS THAT KIND OF POINT YOU IN THE DIRECTION THAT THE RESULTS THAT THEY WANT. I WENT TO A FEW AND THEY'RE NOT MADE FOR TRUE PUBLIC INPUT. THANK YOU.

NEXT WE HAVE LINDA.

GO AHEAD LINDA.

Good evening Planning Commissioners. My name is Linda and I'm a lifelong member of the Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition. Our coalition has been advocating for the development of affordable homes that will help achieve our city's lower income RENA goals, but will also make a significant impact on our city's unmet housing needs. As you all know, finding quality housing in our city that is readily available and affordable is a major challenge. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, or HUD, considers housing to be affordable when a household spends 30% or less of its income on housing costs, which includes rent and utilities. However, this calculation doesn't factor in other costs that significantly impact our daily lives, such as food and groceries, medical care, transportation, and childcare or daycare services. Once all of these costs are considered, it places a very high cost burdens for our families, especially in lower income working families with young children, because they are really struggling to find to afford housing and child care. unless you have access to high quality low-cost child care options which includes grandparents or extended family members and friends to help out you would need to resort to child care or daycare services in our city half day and full day services um child care services can easily easily run between one thousand to three thousand dollars per month which is just as much and just as high as monthly rent Lower income working households who can't afford it end up struggling to figure out childcare and how to continue to work to make ends meet and to pay for high housing costs. Housing in our city is expensive and childcare in our city is even more expensive. As the city moves forward in amending the zoning code and specific plans, we urge the city to continue its effort to strive and do everything it can to commit to creating affordable housing development opportunities to help alleviate the high cost burden for our lower income working family households. I also want to take the time to really thank our city staff for conducting all the outreach to the public and for their hard work and effort in updating all the documents and ensuring that our city is on track to compliance. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

No other speakers.

Okay. I will close public comment. Commissioners, any further questions? None, okay. I'll close the item and ask if anyone wants to make a motion.

I move that the Planning Commission adopt the staff recommendation with the following amendments. Okay. On page 310, change the definition of row house to see townhouse since they're the same. On page 352, continue the list in 13152.1. so that it says and very low-income households senior citizens and other groups to reflect other groups that density bonus law applies to and do similar on pages 355 and 1a and 356 and 4a by saying in housing for other groups on page 354 at the very bottom where it says fee in subparagraph seven, move that up to be a three since that should apply for application requirements and not just for requested waivers for a housing development. On page 356 in section 4A, at staff's discretion, either add B before in a form approved by the city attorney or make it the same as what is provided for in section 4B on the next page. On page 371, in permitted uses for mood projects, under paragraph A1, create a new subparagraph that states, notwithstanding paragraph one, if the underlying base zoning district establishes a less stringent permit requirement for a use, that permit requirement shall be used so that if the mood says that something is a conditional use permit and the base zoning says a minor conditional use permit, they can use the minor conditional use permit. In paragraph A2, add a subparagraph A that says notwithstanding paragraph 2 if the underlying base zoning district permits a use not specified in table 13-83.11.6 that use shall be permitted per the base zoning district unless the use is only permitted in the MG, MP, or PDI zones, so that if there is not a use that's listed in the table, it's not just prohibited, but it uses the base zoning provisions, except for industrial uses, which shouldn't be under residential. On page 376 in development standards for mood projects in A1, Add to the end of that section so that it reads unless otherwise noted in such zoning provision and then further direct staff to work with the city attorney to clarify that language regarding specific plans. on page 378 in the off-street parking standards section so that the additional provisions if applicable column is split into two cells with the top cell adding article three to only reference that article of the zoning code which is about how parking is designed and then the second cell to remain the same. on page 378 still in open space standards add a new footnote on lot which will read for lots greater than four acres a lot shall be measured excluding streets and rights of way which is responsive to the public comment but only applies to projects that require interior streets and rights of way per the objective design standards. On page 462, replace more restrictive regulation with objective design standards. On page 470, replace more restrictive regulation with objective design standards. On page 481, replace more restrictive regulation with objective design standards so that we are using the objective design standards and not the more, yeah, so that we're being more allowing of development. On page 519, to respond to the public comment. Add, if applicable, before the trip budget limitations in the first paragraph on that page. On page 528, to direct staff to make corrections if necessary on whether it's Sakayoko lot two or one or area eight or seven. On page 538, to make corrections if necessary, to delete figure LU6 or not. On page 541, to delete C figure LU6 Sakyakulatu only if necessary. On page 734, to add development standards after and capacities in the one, two, three, four, five, six, seventh line from the bottom. On the third line from the bottom, add standards or at the beginning and add and provisions after standards on the last line. On page 1015, delete the more restrictive regulation shall prevail and add these standards shall prevail notwithstanding the foregoing to the extent an applicable specific plan allows for more permissive standards projects may utilize such standards in the specific plan and On page 1017, I'm proposing a pretty comprehensive rewrite of facade design, which will essentially delete sections B and C in their entirety on facade length and facade modulation, and instead read maximum facade length. Street-facing facades shall be visually divided into sections such that no individual section exceeds 75 feet. So I'm having the vertical sections. Each section shall be separated by at least one of the following features. A facade break either as a projection or recess in the entirety of the facade which shall measure at least two feet deep perpendicular to the facade and at least 10 feet long parallel to the facade as illustrated in Figure 2. B, variation in apparent building height of at least five feet between sections such as with parapets or roofline variation or at a ground floor entry as shown in Figure 8. You can see an example of that in figure four on the next page. C, a change in facade materials or color between sections, a material or color change used to satisfy subdivision D facade hierarchy shall not qualify to meet this requirement. D, a vertical architectural element such as a pilaster, engaged column, column, or vertical fin projecting a minimum of six inches from the facade extending from the ground or second floor and above. And E, variations in fenestration size and pattern. Another example of that is in figure four. The main point of this provision is to make it so that there's still these different vertical separation along the building. but have an easier way of doing that than going five foot deep and 10 feet along, which takes out 50 square foot of the building and possibly causes issues with some utilities having to go around that. In subdivision D, facade hierarchy, number one, add a D at the very bottom of page 1018 that says variations in fenestration size or pattern. on page 1023, replace the more restrictive regulation with the standards and finally direct staff to fix spelling, grammatical and numbering changes as needed and wording changes only to further clarify the intent of the commission. And I'm done.

That's it? All right, I'll second that motion. No, public comment is over. All right. Go ahead, Mr. Mayor. Miss McDonald, please. Miss McDonald, Miss McDonald, please. The commission is entitled at this point to make recommendations. That's what's being offered. We will deliberate and debate All right, we're not gonna have a dialogue right now. All right, would you like to speak to your motion?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll say, first of all, overall, and before I get into some of the proposed amendments, that I'd like to very much thank staff for all of their work that they have put in to the Neighborhoods Where We All Belong program. This is an excellent job on all your parts. The award is very well earned. So thank you for everything that you've done for this project. So quite a few of these proposed amendments are responsive to the public comment letter that have been submitted, mainly going from more stringent to the objective design standards. And that is intended to be more allowing of development because more housing is, I think, a good thing. More housing means that we get Lower rents, we welcome more people into our wonderful community. We are able to bring in the people that want to live here, including the children that are currently going to school here that may not be able to afford living here without creating the opportunities for more housing. Um, a few of these amendments are very technical in nature. Uh, like the row has one, like changing the numbering of a subdivision. Uh, so I won't go into those too much. Um, uh, the facade design one I know is a big one and I would, uh, very much like to hear any other comments on that one, but that really is just intended to have, um, less, impact on the building floor plate so that you don't have to do that big punch in the wall of 50 square feet along the entirety of a building and so that we still get the separation of a building into different sections. Other. big ones, I'm happy to take questions from my fellow commissioners on any of these provisions and explain them more in detail. But otherwise, I think this addresses some concerns from public comment, some of my own things that I mentioned at the study session last time. And I'm sure this going to council will have the opportunity for more input and feedback there when they are the ones who will be finally deciding on this. So thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

I second the motion largely because I agree that these are very reasonable and practical adjustments. And I echo my fellow commissioners comments and praise for staff. This is a huge effort. And I mean, there's a lot of time spent not just by staff, but by commission and trying to really dig in and understand this. And this is not easy stuff. I mean, this is mostly my day job, and it still makes my head hurt. I WANT TO ADDRESS THE QUESTION OR PLEA FROM THE PUBLIC AND JUST TO SIMPLY SAY THIS IS THE SAME PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS THAT WE CONDUCT ALL THE TIME. AND AS COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ NOTED OUR ROLE HERE IS SIMPLY ADVISORY TO THE CITY COUNCIL. WE MAKE A RECOMMENDATION. THEY MAKE A FINAL DECISION AND SO THEY WILL DELIBERATE BASED ON HOPEFULLY WHAT WE'VE SAID AND WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING AS WELL AS PUBLIC COMMENT. SO THIS IS BY NO MEANS A FINAL DECISION ALTHOUGH IT'S PROBABLY OUR FINAL DECISION AND MAKING SOME RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL. I THINK WHAT COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ IS PROPOSING IS CONSISTENT WITH THIS NOTION THAT WE SHOULD BE TRYING TO FACILITATE DEVELOPMENT AS NOT ONLY THE STATE DESIRES BUT AS WE AS A COMMUNITY DESIRE. you know, the phrase that we keep saying this, unless otherwise noted, to me suggests we're just hedge our bets, that we're really not making a full commitment to facilitating the type of development and in particular the housing that we need here. And so I agree with this approach of trying to be permissive. And that doesn't mean we have no say in what happens. It just means that we want to give property owners developers the option to develop property but not necessarily put up obstacles once we say yes so either we provide clear pathways or we just go back to the business as usual with regard to some of the design proposals from commissioner martinez I looked at that section carefully and I do agree, I think it needs some adjustment. What you've proposed I think is at least consistent with my thinking and is driven towards making sure that we give flexibility to the development community and architects and designers and not unnecessarily handcuff them, but also make sure that we get the best kind of neighborhood design as well as building design for our community. COMMISSIONER DICKSON.

AND THE OBLIGATORY SUBSTITUTE MOTION THAT WE CONTINUE THIS TO THE NEXT MEETING SO WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO UNDERSTAND WHAT COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ SAID IN FULL AND WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY AS A COMMISSION TO ACTUALLY REVIEW THESE DOCUMENTS AND GO THROUGH THEM. I GOT THIS THURSDAY AND I DO THIS FOR A LIVING AND I'VE BEEN READING IT FURIOUSLY. I don't know where the P is. This cake is not baked and it's clear from the motion that was made and the second and the discussion that we are not ready to recommend anything. I know we probably will. I hope I get a second, but my motion is to continue this till the next meeting to have an opportunity to digest what was discussed here this evening, to adjust the proposed changes, which are substantive. I'm not even prepared to address them. And I had multiple comments that I had highlighted on many of those subjects, but I don't want to sit here and deliberate in the middle of a motion. So my motion is to continue this till the next meeting and have an opportunity to discuss and analyze the proposals. I'll second that. OK.

Substitute motion by Commissioner Dixon, second by Vice Chair Zick. Do you want to speak to your second?

Yeah. I think what Commissioner Dixon is proposing is a minimum of what my level of interest is continuing this to the next meeting to me is insufficient in terms of what's needed for true public engagement THE SUGGESTION FROM MS. MCDONALD THAT WHAT WE ADVANCE ARE THE LEGALLY REQUIRED ELEMENTS OF THIS THOUSAND, ACTUALLY 1100 PAGE DOCUMENT, THAT WE ADVANCE THE LEGALLY REQUIRED PORTIONS OF THAT. THE THINGS THAT WE THINK STAND BETWEEN US AND HCD CERTIFICATION AND THE REST OF IT we keep working on. We got five people, well, we have more than five people here. We have three public speakers, Cynthia, Chris McAvoy, and Linda, who wants affordable housing. That's it. 41,000 mailers, newsletters, postings, blah, blah, blah. Incredible effort to reach out to the public, and this is it? This monumental change, 22,000 units by 2050, all the changes to the city, these are the people that care? Unbelievable. I'll add the rest of my comments now, because I know that this is going to go down, and I know that the original motion is going to pass, and this is going to be kept up to council. So I'll put my comments in now. I mean this genuinely. I am impressed with the knowledge of staff, particularly Anna, on this subject. I'm impressed with the knowledge of this subject from the consultants. What I'm not impressed about is whether that has been used to the benefit and to further the interests of the residents of Costa Mesa, or whether it's to further the interests of some textbook about urbanism, some philosophy about what this city ought to be, which isn't what it is today, That's the road that you're trying to take us down. Tonight's the first time I've, not tonight, Thursday when this dropped, was the first time I've seen final versions of a number of these documents. First time I've seen a final version of a document. I have three days to go through 1,200 pages. comprehend it, piece it together, make sense of it, and then what, put my name on it and say, I recommend this to council? And you've spent hours and hours and hours and hours and hours. No, there's no equivalency for what you're expecting of me. This is the first time we've seen a couple of these documents for the very first time. Open space, reducing from 40% to 30%. Who asked you to do that? Wasn't me. Somebody in a public workshop maybe said that? You listened to them, you didn't listen to me. Now, we're gonna include balconies and roof decks as part of that. Didn't you, Stu? Who asked you to do that? Wasn't me. Balconies aren't open spaces. A window isn't a garden. A driveway is not a playground. A member of the public said that once. I guess we didn't listen to him either. Maximum setback, 20 feet. Well, you didn't listen to me about that one either. Oh, but somebody at a public workshop was saying that we ought to do that, have a maximum setback of 20 feet. Oh, so you listen to them. You don't listen to me. We're going to crowd all these buildings up against the street. And the butt end of those buildings is going to be what we see from our major thoroughfares because the parking is going to be around behind. That's where the entrance is going to be to these buildings. That's where the nice stuff is going to be so that when people park, they see the beautiful building in front of them. We'll see the butt end of these buildings from our major thoroughfares. Yeah. Where'd that come from? I don't know, your philosophy, your what, you call it best practices. Could be, it's not what Costa Mesa asked of you to do. Objective design standards. I mean, this one's a beauty. I love the concept of objective design standards. Yeah, that's what we ought to have, objective, not subjective. You even explained what that is, according to the Senate Bill 330. Objective design standards are those that quote, that involve no personal or subjective judgment. Sounds good, I can accept that. So how do you get around that? By writing into these objective design standards a whole bunch of personal and subjective judgments. We just even heard 20 different items of changes, I'll get to that in a minute, and one of them was, an individual's personal judgment about what a facade should or shouldn't be. Write that into the objective design standards, and then it'll be an objective thing in the future. We'll go, well, you didn't do what my predilection is. Now, my goodness, this objective design standard document is full of that kind of stuff. I won't waste your time going through it. Community hasn't weighed in on this stuff. Why are we doing it that that same book that same philosophy that people are trying to follow? We got a grant so we reached out to faith-based organizations Yeah, what's our interest here now To try to convince faith-based organizations to convert their properties into affordable housing projects Is that what our interest is? We're not saying, hey, we'd like to work with you on how to expand your sanctuary, your church, your temple, how to establish a parochial school for your men. No, that's not what we're working on. Hey, can we use your land to build affordable housing? Oh, my gosh, I tell you, I don't know what road you're on. I really don't know. I really don't know. Page two of the staff report talks about what Measure K says, and it says it is to allow updates to zoning. You criticize Measure Y, the people that criticize it, say that was a barrier. That was a barrier to development. Development didn't come forward, why? Because people were afraid that the residents would say that's a bad project, we vote no. So we got rid of it. Measure K. Measure K says no, we don't need to listen to the residents now at the ballot box. Bring us a project and we city council, we can just approve it. We're going to step beyond that. We're actually rezoning property that doesn't even have a project coming before us. Why don't we wait for the project before we consider rezoning something? It says to allow rezoning. I mean, Measure K, Chris hit it on the head, and I've ranted about this before. Measure K made promises that we are not keeping. And because of 22 tricked votes. My goodness, this is so bad. It really is so bad. The litany of meetings. You know, and I give you credit for this. All this outreach, all these meetings, it's like you're, you're trying to engage the public. I can't fault you for not having this full of people and all the engagement, the same people showing up, you know, pulling out their little book saying, yeah, this is strong town this, and here's what we want, activate the streets and all that. Great, those are the people that showed up. You get an award, you deserve it, because you worked your tail off. And I mean that, you worked your tail off, you deserve that award. but you haven't served the residents of Costa Mesa with this thing. And then, which takes me to the support of this substitute motion, 20 things. I mean, I couldn't even get to the page number that was being referenced for a change to the 1,200 pages, 1,100 pages of stuff that is even hard to sort through and you want me to put a stamp of approval on this and send it up to council. I apologize right now to anybody on council that's gonna get this thing and think that what we've done is made a solid work product here and made a recommendation. You're gonna be walking into this as blind as everyone else, unless you have ascribed to the same philosophy and you trust that the people that have been cramming this thing forward are doing exactly what you want. 22,000 units in the city? 11,760 was ridiculous. The city appealed that number. 11,760 is awful. 22,000? I mean, I don't know really truly. I don't know what planet anybody's on. 22,000 units, doubling the population of the city almost. Oh my God. Ah, I'm done for now.

All right, Director Tai, question. Our next Planning Commission meeting is September 28th, correct?

That is correct.

And what do we have on that agenda that's critical?

I believe there are a couple of current planning projects. I don't know them off the top of my head. Okay. They haven't been noticed.

And then when was this expected to go to Council, and is there a schedule or deadline?

What's the Council date? October 6th.

October 6th, it's supposed to go to Council? Correct. Okay, is there some deadline associated with that? AT THE ELECTION. OKAY.

LET STAFF ANSWER, PLEASE. WHEN CITY COUNCIL AWARDED THIS CONTRACT, THERE WAS A PROJECT SCHEDULED THAT ACCOMPANIED THE CONTRACT AND WE'VE BEEN WORKING FURIOUSLY. THAT'S THE WORD I'M GOING TO USE BECAUSE THERE ARE MANY OTHER WORDS I COULD USE BUT THAT'S THE WORD I'M CHOOSING TO USE. FURIOUSLY TO MEET THAT DEADLINE, BUT THAT WAS THE REQUEST FROM CITY COUNCIL THAT WE HAVE AS EXPEDITIOUS OF A TIMELINE AS IT WAS. SIMPLY PUT, MEASURE K WAS VOTED ON IN NOVEMBER OF 2022, AND WHEN THIS WAS STARTED, enough time had elapsed that it not only caused complications for the housing element, but the truth is that this entire process, you know, had to be progressed expositiously to get us here tonight. And that was asked for by the city council. Thank you.

Okay. Commissioners have any other comments? Okay.

Do you want to speak to the substitute or wait until that vote happens?

Well, if you want to speak, I thought you spoke to the substitute.

I did really quickly, but I just wanted to reiterate, and I'm not trying to just throw a wrench in the works because everybody knows there's some things I'm not happy about in this, but that's just the way the cookie crumbles. But we get an extraordinarily detailed letter from one of the largest parcels in the subject area yesterday. And, you know, I really strongly think that I understand the pressures staff has been under. I understand the pressures we are under as far as timing goes. But that is, I hate to keep saying this because it sounds so trite, but the whole reason we're here is the people of Costa Mesa. We're here for the residents of Costa Mesa. And we're not serving them. We just aren't. We just aren't. They're not here. When they know there's something going on, they show up. Look what happened on FTC. I looked on every social media the city has today. Nothing about this. Not a damn thing. City Hall snapshot, sure, it's buried underneath stuff that's not even relevant for what's happening tonight. So I understand. I do this for a living as well. And I am so appreciative of what Dudek has done and what the consultants have done and what our own staff has done. Seriously, I am not saying that to be nice to you guys. I'm dead serious. I know you're given a scope of work. I know you've been given lots of conflicting direction. I know you've had a lot of things you've had to do. This is a tremendous work product. But it's not representative of, honestly, truly, of what this city has been going through with planning issues for as long as I've been around. And we don't do things this quickly. Measure K passed in 2022. And we're asked to go through basically upending our entire zoning code and all of our urban plans in essentially a three-week period. We got the draft of this. And then we get the the the revised one and then we're just going to whip through it and then we're going to move it on it's it's not the as as miss mcdonnell said. You know I don't know where the p is I really don't i'm not just I think we need to really. I hated it when people said this was on the planet commission before because I thought it was a delay tactic designed to stop projects, but I think on this particular one, we need to be a little more deliberate. We need to understand exactly what we're doing. Some of these are so incredibly major, and some of the things, just in the objective design standards alone, are wildly inconsistent. Wildly. We want to ensure privacy for ground floor residentials, but we're going to dictate the type of window they have, the type of patio they have, what they can do as far as how tall their wall is, all of this stuff. I mean, it's just such a ridiculous picking and choosing of things out of the American Planning Association's do-over-it-ism-like handbook compared to what is working here for the city of Costa Mesa and what people want. We're going to have people with a patio right on Harbor Boulevard, activating Harbor Boulevard? I mean, I think we need to be much more conscientious about some of these design standards and what they really mean. And I really appreciated the comment about the irregular size yacht and the wedding cake. I really appreciate that, because we're now dictating, we're prohibiting parking in front of, between the street and the building. Some lots, you may need to do that. Some lots, that may be the best thing to do. And instead of offering an incentive, we're dictating. But we also want to provide as much free leeway as possible. We want to strip away any sort of non-ministerial review. It's just astonishing how inconsistent this entire effort is as far as from our position and leadership's position and how this document is going to go and get up to the council. The objective design standards, I encourage everyone to sit down and read through them. They are inconsistent. Just the document itself is internally inconsistent. And I think we all need to be honest about that and understand that we can't pick and choose the elements we like and just ignore everything else. So that's my opinion. But I think we need to slow this down because we had such substantive amendments. And Commissioner Martinez was always incredibly prepared. did your homework you know exactly what you're talking about as far as each of those particular things i think the rest of the commission needs to have time to digest those and understand exactly what we're looking at that's my and that's where i'm coming from i just want to reiterate that timing issue all right thank you um yes commissioner andrade i think i i would love to provide some just expansive perspective um

I think we need to acknowledge that Costa Mesa, like lots of cities across Orange County, has a tale of two cities, right? Where folks are at a certain income level that have the capacity to have bought into their home decades ago and now reap the benefits. On my side of the neighborhood, in District 4, District 5, along the west side, we're renting apartments that are under code. Where communities, families are barely making ends meet, are worried that they just got to notice that renovations are happening in their unit with an increase of rent. So that is who this is built for. So maybe it's not, and I guess I would love to invite my fellow commissioners. Let's do a walk around my neighborhood. I invite you. Let's do a walk around Shalimar. Shalimar nowadays, we all have our perceptions around Shalimar. Two bedroom apartments are almost going for $3,000. And I'm sure you've driven around Shalimar. Those don't look like top quality apartments, do they? So that is why projects like this, easing of the code like this, is essential, because it needs to respond to the other side of town, to the other side of the city, right, where we don't have the luxury front yards, backyards, side yards, and ADU to go along with it. Over and over we've heard at city council and planning that the city is putting far too many roadblocks and not supportive of business and not welcoming of business So that is exactly what this team has done. That's exactly what this team has done. They're working along in partnership with the commentator, with the Sakioka family and the project to make sure that their feedback is incorporated. That was like the first statement, the opening statement that they had. We're working along with them to make sure that this incites development. I've been living here for eight years, many of you much longer, but how much longer do you want empty lots along Harbor Boulevard? How many more years? Again, I live a kitty corner to Harvard Boulevard, and all I see is empty lots, empty lots, empty lots, lots of empty lots. So this is a solution to that because of so many years of limiting land code use and policy. So yes, it's about time that we wake up. Clearly the empty lots continues. So the city has now responded and improved this and created layers and provided feedback and has been working for over three years on, on making the best case scenario to again, allow the creativity. We're not the developers, right? We're handing this over to developers and saying, Hey, here's the best case scenario. Do what you can. But here are just some minimum requirements that we have to meet, to make sure that everyone has quality of life, quality housing, quality business opportunities, not just one side of town. The opportunity for faith-based development, I think it's beautiful. Again, I'm not a theologian, but last I remember, right, Jesus was born in a farm, right? Home is a temple. Home is a temple for many, many individuals. A response, the guaranteed response to ending homelessness is providing individuals with a roof over their head. So yeah, very much I find housing to be in perfect alignment with faith-based organizations and by the look of the survey, many individuals supported it. And again, this is an upper, yes, it's not perfect. And thank you, Commissioner Martinez for going down the line, 50,000, lots of edits. I'm also not an expert, but I read the material and based on, and I was following along, taking notes on the edits that were made. I think again, they are reasonable. This is going to city council. Again, we're not the final decision makers. So this is not an upper, you know, I don't wanna take this opportunity to be another cog in the road to then slow down development. Because over and over again, we hear Costa Mesa puts too many rules and requirements and development is not welcome here. Why do we have so many permitting delays and this and that? And here it is, best award-winning effort, and we wanna say, no, let's put a pause on it. We'll get another bite at the apple with the body that is actually gonna be able to vote on it. So again, I highly, I support the, clearly in support of in the first motion. Just wanted to add a little context and some perspective, because it seems to be lacking in the conversation.

All right. Thank you, Commissioner Andrade. Before we take a vote on the substitute motion, I'll just simply say I supported the original motion because I agree with the makers points and adjustments and I believe that that's the right direction we should be heading in obviously I support that motion. However I am appreciative of the fact that this is a lot of information to digest in a short period of time. And so I am willing to change my perspective and allow for a continuance, or at least vote in support of a continuance. But my expectation is very much that when we come back in two weeks, we are going to deliberate and make a determination on this. I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT WILL END UP, BUT THAT'S JUST MY PERSPECTIVE ON THIS. SO WITH THAT, WHY DON'T WE CALL FOR THE QUESTION ON THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION.

MOTION CARRIES 4-3 WITH COMMISSIONERS KLIPAK, UNDERRATTI AND MARTINEZ VOTING NO.

Okay. I should say we can continue it to a date certain, correct? We don't need to reopen the public hearing? Okay. So that'll be September 28th.

Yeah, and then just to clarify, so that we as a team have a snowball's chance and you know where to capture all of the changes that were suggested. I don't know if they, you know, I mean, they weren't, they were part of a motion, but that wasn't, you know, that wasn't voted on. So if we could, receive those in writing please that would save us a lot of time and then we will if you could plan for a short update agenda report for this next item we will not be republishing the materials. simply because each packet was 1100 pages and we simply cannot do that. We don't have the resources. So if you could be prepared for that, we would be appreciative. Thank you.

Yeah, of course.

Should we ask the other commissioners to submit any questions or comments they have directly to Director Tire or to the entire commission beforehand just so we can kind WHATEVER IS NOT VIOLATING THE BROWN ACT.

EVERYBODY IS ENTITLED TO SUBMIT WHATEVER THEY WANT TO STAFF.

IF ANYBODY WANTS TO PROVIDE MORE COMMENTS IN THE FRONT END SO WE CAN.

RIGHT. MY SUGGESTION IS THE BEST PRACTICE THOUGH IS THAT WE DO THE PUBLIC'S BUSINESS IN PUBLIC.

ABSOLUTELY. I JUST MEANT AS FAR AS IF WE HAD QUESTIONS THAT WE GIVE STAFF TIME TO PREPARE. SUBMIT THOSE PRIOR TO THE MEETING. OR AT THE MEETING. Economize.

All right. We have no old business or new business tonight that takes us to departmental reports. Public services report. Mr. Yang.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Vice Chair, and our members of Planning Commission. So the Public Works announcement is that, first of all, we'd like to thank once again our planning colleagues for winning their prestigious award. But on our end, I'm proud to announce that our Transportation Division, under our Transportation Services Managers Paul Martin also won the American Planning Association Orange County Branch Award for the Fairview Transportation Improvement Project between Newport Boulevard and Fair Drive. So that's it for the Public Works Report and I defer back to the Chair.

Okay, thank you. Congratulations, Paul. Director Tai, Community Development Services Report.

Yes, thank you. One of my announcements was actually going to be about the Public Works Award, so thank you, City Engineer Yang, for mentioning that. And, of course, our team with the award for Neighborhoods Where We All Belong. The only other short announcement I have is that the Fairview Developmental Center specific planned public hearing will occur at City Council tomorrow night. And that is it for me. Thank you.

Okay. And, Mr. Preziosi, anything from the City Attorney?

Nothing this evening, Chair Holland.

All right. I will adjourn the meeting.