Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

[Music] [Applause] All right. Good evening. Welcome to the planning commission meeting of Monday, October 13, 2025. I now call the meeting to order. Uh it's time for the pledge of allegiance, and we'll have Commissioner Dixon lead us tonight. Thank you so much. Please address the flag. Good afternoon. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, liberty and justice for all.

Anna, will you please uh read the voice roll call? Chair Harley here. Vice Chair Zick here. Commissioner Rohos here. Commissioner Kipac here. Commissioner Andrade here. Commissioner Dixon here. Commissioner Martinez here.

We have no announcements or presentations this evening, which takes us straight to public comments for matters not listed on the agenda. Public comments will be heard at this time on items that are not listed on the agenda but are within our jurisdiction. I'll open up public comment. If you'd like to speak, please come to either podium or if you're participating by Zoom, please use the raise hand option at the bottom of the screen. Or if you're joining by phone and like to speak, please press star 9. Give me one second. I'll get the podium set up. All right, you have the floor.

Uh my name is Wendy Simo. I'm here about the gym at 1417th Street. Um Mr. Harland, I didn't even realize whenever you were our district person that you are a a real estate like attorney, you know, but besides that, um, so you guys did the sound sample and you know the gym owner talked to the sound sample, made it kind of unethical, you know, so that's not really any good. But yet you still don't know how many amps are in the gym, how much noise this gym can actually produce. And now that they have no thing on their cup, they continuously open their door every single day at 7:00 a.m. Door open anytime there's a workout. Woo! 4 3 2 1 Just anything they want to our community at 5:30 in the morning still boom boom boom. Sometimes it fades out, but it'll be back. The opening the door whenever it's 64 to 67 degrees outside is beyond ridiculous. In their cup, it says that they're supposed to have valet parking. There's no valet parking over there. And I'd also like to bring up November 9th. November 9th of 2024 where they woke up not only us but our whole community surrounding us outside screaming about energy drinks and donuts. Um if you need this footage, I can I can provide it. No problem. Um on an intercom outside, they had no permit. They said it was an annual event. This is what they told the cops that it was an annual event. So they lied to the cops that it was an annual event. They had no permit and yet the cops still could not do anything about this gym. So the code enforcement tells the citizens that it's going to be an incognito sound sample as the sound sample is walking around with them something this big and talking to the gym owner on the second day of the sound sample. And that's the sound sample the city won't stand behind the golden sample of the gym with the gold. The gym is nothing near golden. The gym is like a three-year-old child that you cannot

control, honestly. And um I'm just here to tell you guys that I moved back to H City for 10 months because I couldn't take it anymore. I couldn't take the woo 3 2 1 the boom boom boom, you know, cuz um scientifically, if you're on the right frequency, you can mess with somebody's heartbeat with this base that they don't have to control. And that's the problem is my heartbeat goes up to like 160 and then I got to take medicine because my heartbeat's at 160 because I got a gym boom booming base at me and my heart's trying to match it. And it's a scientific fact. You can't deny it. And I'm just wondering when the city is really going to care about the citizens on our street. It's not just me. The little girl had a lemonade stand and her mom I said, "If I hear a woo one more time and the mom looked at me and was like, "Oh, I know the dispensary. Talk to the security at the dispensary. They'll tell you how bad it is. Talk to people. I got new neighbors coming in."

All right. Thank you. Anybody else in chambers wish to speak? Anna, do we have anybody on Zoom or phone? No, we do not, Mr. Chairman. Okay. I will uh close public comments. Now is the time for planning commissioners comments and suggestions. Uh let's start to write. Commissioner Roas, I have no comments. Okay. Commissioner Klec.

Yes. This Saturday the 18th is Barktoberfest at T-winkle Park. Um it is an event from 11 to 2 to promote pet adoption and it also raises awareness for our city's animal animal services. Um, so it's a family-friendly event. There will be food trucks and a DJ and a pet costume contest and also a vaccine and microchip clinic. All right. Thank you, Commissioner Andrade.

Um, just a highlight to all the wonderful fall upcoming events that the city is leading. It's a great way to connect with local staff members from the city, whether it's the recreation. It's always great to see the planning commission staff at the Hispanic Heritage Month celebration. Um so encourage you all to follow the city's recreation website and city website to follow up with um to get connected with the community and get plugged in. All right. Thank you. Uh Commissioner Dixon,

thank you very much. Um, I just would like a quick followup from uh, Miss Tai regarding the conditions of approval for the gym referenced at 1417th Street. If you just offline in the next couple weeks, if someone could send me that, that would be great. And then, um, and I I'm only making that comment because, uh, I used to live um, right across the street from a gym off 17th Street and I know exactly the noises uh, the commenter was talking about. However, uh I was educated on what they can and cannot do and some things are just part of living in a city. So, I'd just like to better understand um what the conditions of approval there were. Um other than that, uh I would encourage everyone to watch the last city council meeting. Uh there were some interesting discussions about uh different things uh in the planning department uh area. So, uh that's all I'm going to say on that. It's just uh if you don't watch the council meetings, I encourage you to do so. There's always a lot of great information. Doesn't need to be repeated here when we have stuff on the agenda. Thank you so much,

Commissioner Martinez.

Thank you. Uh, yesterday I attended a very fun event in the city of Los Angeles. Uh, Cichlavia is an open streets event that they do semionthly. They do it a few times a year. Uh, they shut the streets down and they open up for people walking, biking, skating, scooting. Uh, and it was in downtown LA. It was I I personally think their best route. It's it's an amazing experience that I encourage everyone to attend at least once. Um, and the train up, the Metro Link up is always packed with bikes. So, it's a really fun time and I hope we can do something like that here in Costa Mesa. Um, I know the city of Irvine has their event annually now. So, uh, I hope we can have one in the future. Um, speaking of attending city council meetings, the city council is holding a special meeting, a homeless solutions town hall meeting on Wednesday the 15th at 5:30 p.m. at the Norma Herzog Center. So, please attend if you are interested. Um, on Saturday, October 25th, uh, there will be fire station open houses. Uh, starting at 10:00 a.m., the Adams, Baker, and Metro fire stations will be open to the public. So, please check it out if you want to see what's inside of a fire station. And that same day, the 25th, at 1:00 p.m. at the Senior Center will be a community bike skills workshop uh, co-hosted by the city and the walk and rollers organization. So, they'll be handing out free helmets and teaching people how to ride their bike. Uh, and I just wanted to end with today is the last day for the governor to sign legislation, but last Friday he signed a big package of state housing legislation of of legislation that will affect planning specifically here in the city. So, I wanted to go through some of the bills to make sure that our planning staff is aware of them and so that we can get the ball rolling on updating our municipal code as needed or just uh be aware of some of the requirements that are in

these bills uh so that we know about them. So, first I'll start with Assembly Bill 253. Uh this requires the city to prepare a residential building permit fee schedule. post the schedule on the city's website and it additionally allows for a third-party plan checker if uh the city estimates that our plan check process will take more than 30 days. So uh that's something to know about, something to be aware of. Um Assembly Bill 507 uh relates to adaptive reuse projects. I'm not sure that we'll have that many here in Costa Mesa. Uh but another thing to be aware of uh Assembly Bill 893 expands AB 2011 standards within a half mile of Orange Coast College. Assembly Bill 1021 uh expands uh how um a school district can develop housing on their parcels on their properties. AB 1154 affects the owner occupancy requirement of junior accessory dwelling units. I know in our last clean code cleanup, we did a little bit of work in the ADU section. Another thing to update in there um this year's um let's see SP 543 some more JADU changes. Um SB 358 I think is an important one since the traffic impact fee ad hoc committee just met. Um this affects how a city can apply its traffic impact fees, its vehicular impact fees, however it may be called. Um, essentially if it's um if it

meets certain requirements, a development must receive a lower traffic impact fee than it otherwise would. And the these requirements relate to being close to a certain number of uh things that create a walkable community. So, so if a development is built in a walkable neighborhood, then you're getting you're going to get a lower traffic impact fee. if you don't have uh a lot of parking, you're going to get a lower traffic impact fee because the more parking you provide, the more vehicular impacts your development will cause. So, since the traffic impact fee committee just met, hopefully they did consider that and if not, hopefully they meet again soon um before they send their recommendation over to the city council. And then I just wanted to uh mention SB79 by Senator Weiner. It's a transit oriented development bill. It will not affect the city of Costa Mesa because we do not have the level of transit required. It requires either heavy heavy rail, light rail, so a subway, uh something like you'll see in Los Angeles or the metro link. So the only places that will be affected in Orange County are Fullerton, Anaheim, Santa Ana, and Irvine and uh the stops along the OC Street car. But I wanted to mention it because it's a very big housing bill and I am very happy that it passed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for that legislative update. All right, Vice Chair Ze, I too noticed some important uh documentation being signed today and it's something that really uh dominated my attention during the day. It's not so much a a local issue except some people locally may feel the way I did and that was the uh progress and the prospect of a lasting peace in the Middle East and for that I'm grateful.

All right. Thank you for that. Um uh I appreciate that Vice Chair Zick and I also do want to thank you for uh filling in quite a few weeks ago. All right. takes us to consent calendar. We have uh one consent calendar item tonight. All matters listed under consent calendar are considered to be routine and will be acted on in one motion. There will be no separate discussion unless the item is pulled. Um do we have anything pulled tonight? No, we do not, Mr. Chairman. Okay. Can I get a motion? Motion by Commissioner Dixon. Move to approve. There's a second by Commissioner Martinez.

Second. All right, let's call for the question. That motion carries 70.

We have two public hearing items tonight. Anna, would you please read the title for public hearing item number one? Public hearing item number one, conditional use permit PCUP-25-000012 to modify the existing offsale state alcoholic beverage control ABC license from type 20 beer and wine to type 21 general for an existing convenience store 7-Eleven at 2244 Fair View Road. Please note, we have not received public comments on this item. This is a call for any exparte communications.

Commissioners, any exparte communications? Commissioner Dixon, your lights on. That's okay. All right. Seeing none, I will turn it over to Mr. Aldana for the presentation.

Thank you, Chair Harland, and good evening, commissioners. My name is Christopher Aldana, assistant planner with the economic and development services department. And the item before you tonight is a conditional use permit application for 7-Eleven. The applicant requests to modify the existing offsale state alcoholic beverage control license from a type 20 beer and wine license to a type 21 general license. The project site is 2244 Fair View Road, which is the boxed red, which which is boxed in red within the aerial photo and is located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Fairview Road and Wilson Street. The site is zone C2, which stands for General Business District. Adjacent to the rear and east of the property is the US Post Office in Dollar Tree. To the west across Fairview Road are autoreatated businesses and multifamily development. Across Wilson Street to the north is the Costa Mesa Sanitary District and a multif family development. The existing site is 15,257 square ft in size with 18 parking spaces and it is developed with a 4556q ft 3en commercial building. The existing 7-Eleven currently occupies suite A. Suite B is occupied by a food establishment. Suite C is occupied by a hair salon. The existing business has an existing ABC type 20 license that allows the sale of beer and wine. The applicant is is requesting to expand their operations by changing their ABC license from a type 20 to type 21 license to include the sale of distilled spirits. The floor plan of the 7-Eleven will remain primarily the same. The only change involve the inclusion of a proposed spirits display behind the checkout

counter and a spirit storage area within the back room highlight highlighted in yellow on the floor plan. The 7-Eleven will remain in operation 24 hours, 7 days a week, and the business will continue to limit alcohol sales from the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. as required by ABC. Conditions of approval have been implemented to regulate the existing convenience store, including conditions such as prohibit alcohol sales between 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. daily as required by ABC. The business shall be conducted at all times in a manner that will allow the quiet enjoyment of the surrounding neighborhood. The business shall institute whatever security measures are necessary to comply with this requirement. No alcohol beverage shall be displayed or offered for sale outside the building. The applicant shall relinquish their type 20 ABC license upon receiving a type 21 ABC license. Pursuant to Costa Mesa Municipal Code section 13-29D, three types of public notifications have been completed no less than 10 days prior to the date of the public hearing. A mail notice. A public notice was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 500 foot radius of the project site on October 1st. The required notice radius is measured from the extreme boundaries of the property. On-site posting, a public notice was posted on each street frontage of the project site on October 3rd and newspaper publication. A public notice was published once in the daily pilot newspaper. Also on October 3rd, staff recommends that the planning commission adopt a resolution to find that the project is categorically exempt

from SQA and to approve conditional use permit uh subject to the conditions of approval. This concludes my presentation and I'm available to answer any questions you may have and the applicants are also in attendance to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Alana. Commissioners, any questions of staff? Commissioner Dixon.

Thank you. Quick question on the conditions of approval on condition approval number five. Uh it says beer or wine shall not be displayed or sold from an ice tub or any other type of portable refrigerated unit. Beer and wine shall only be available within the approved walk-in reach and cooler. But it's the staff report talks about it being on display behind the counter. So I'd imagine if there's red wine or something like that, it's not going to be in a cooler, for instance. Is that something we'll need to amend to make sure that they'll be putting those things for sale behind the counter? And it also doesn't specify liquor in that one. So there something we can do later, but I just wanted to see if that was your understanding as well, what the intent of that condition was.

That's a good point. Um, it reads, "Beer and wine shall not be displayed or sold from an ice tub or any other type of portable refrigerator unit." And it also reads, "Beer and wine shall only be available within uh the approved walk-in reach and cooler." So, uh, yes, we can make that clear. Okay. And that that'll be for later, but I just wanted to see if that was if there was a reason that was worded that way, if that was just not including the behind the counter. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome, Commissioner Martinez. I I just I just wanted to clarify the the behind the counter is just for the distilled spirits, right? The the new things that are being added and the and the beer and wine will stay in uh what what currently exists. That's is that correct?

Correct. Okay. Thank you. All right, Commissioner Andred, is there any um distance requirements from one liquor store to another? Because I know that there's another one on Fair View and Avocado. There are no distance requirements from a liquor store to another. In regards to um zoning requirements, ABC might have some, but in regards to our municipal code, there aren't any listed. So just just for context, we would have now two fully stacked liquor stores within a block. Right. Right. Does it just be right on Fair View? Wilson and Avocado are

they'll both be offering the application tonight includes though just a small display area behind the um service counter that is serviced by the clerk and is not for the clientele at a large because you know like a grocery store or something like that. Yeah, this is a a liquor store that's right on the corner of Avocado and Fair that I'm referring to. Um, okay. I just want to of course highlight any is there any um maybe traffic incident incident records that we've have had in this general area that we can point to that may have led to the use of alcohol? So, the police department did provide a request for service report for staff to review. And um when they reviewed it, there weren't any alcoholrelated arrests within the area. So, so no, there was no um direct correlation or DUI arrests that we were able to find at this location. And they had no concerns about just a high concentration of two exact businesses kind of operating around in the same block.

They didn't express a concern with that. Okay. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Any other questions? Okay. Uh I will open the public hearing and ask the applicant or the applicant's representative if you'd like to come to the podium can state your name for the record. And also, if you wouldn't mind if uh just ask you if you've read the staff report and if you agree to the conditions of approval.

Good evening, chair, members of the commission. My name is Sherri Olsen on behalf of 7-Eleven and the owner of the 7-Eleven is here, owner operator. Uh we do want to comment a couple that the commissioner brought up a concern about the other liquor store. Just kind of clarity here that we're offering a small amount behind the cash register. So, we're in no competition with the liquor store. We're solely pretty much a market here. We're offering just a a little alcohol behind our sales counter. So, we're not going to be a liquor store. Uh, as for the other, we have a lot of security measures in our store. We have security cameras. Uh, quite a few of them in the interior. quite a few on the exterior which can be accessed by the police department on IP address so they're able to go in and look at all everything that's going on in our stores. Uh we do have a POS system. We have a lot of security measures in place uh as car accidents uh liquor runs or anything like that. We don't have any problems at our site and we've been a good community neighbor. So, we're, you know, here to answer any questions and if you want to say anything or

No, I'm good. So, if you have any questions for us, we'd be more than happy to answer them. Okay. Thank you, Miss Olsson. Oh, and we did read the conditions of approval and we concur with them. Okay. Thank you, Commissioners. Any questions of the applicant? Uh, Commissioner Dixon, I just I work for a law firm, so I'm a little I get caught up on details like this. So, where are where is wine and beer currently displayed outside of the cooler? Is there any display outside? We do have a small endcap a small encap of wine, red wine. Um, but that can be moved behind the counter if that's the commission wishes.

Uh, and sorry for not marking it, but it's not a huge area. It's just a small very small area of just red incap of wine because obviously red is not supposed to be coolered. But um Okay. Thank you. That's perfect. Thank you. Okay, Commissioner Martinez. Thank you. Um, I read your uh applicant letter for the CUP. Um, and I didn't see a date on it, and I want to know when did you first apply for this permit? Uh, and what has the timeline been like?

Okay. So, we've held a beer and wine license for 27 years at that location. Uh, we have not applied for the full liquor license. The lottery just ended. Um, we did not enter the lottery. We wanted to make sure that we went through this step first because once we put a license into escrow, you don't get your money back. So, we just wanted to take one step at a time and making sure that, you know, our first step was the city and then our second step is the state. So, when did you first apply for a cup? For this?

Oh, this uh it hasn't really been Yeah, maybe 3 months, maybe two and a half. Actually, it was a very fast process. Staff was excellent working with us. Um, we had a little problem on our site, but we corrected it right away. Um, actually, this was the fastest process I've been in in a long time, so I was really happy. Very good. Thank you. Thank you. All right. And Vice Chair Zick,

I just have one question for Miss Olsen. Um, and I'm not looking for college course education on this, but I'm not familiar with the liquor license process itself, assuming it's a one-time purchase price because you indicated you had your type 20 license for 27 years. Um, and you indicated that you would have to pay for the type 21 license. When you relinquish your type 20 license, do you get money back from the state for do you sell it back to them? I wish we did. Um, no, the state is relatively um inexpensive. You can buy a 20 from the state of California and it's probably about $2,000. Um, as for a type 21 or a 47, which you would find in many restaurants, um, you have to buy from either once a year the lottery will offer licenses and based on the population and the, um, what's driving it out there would be how many they offer. So they might not offer any based on the population, but then if you don't get it from the lottery, you would have to go to the open market and purchase one from a somebody that's selling the license. So time that we would purchase a 21, then we would reling our 20 and we would the count and that census track would remain the same because we're getting rid of the 20 and the 21 will stay.

Understand that. Would you have the option of selling your type 20 license to somebody? We could long as if you would sell it into a moratorum area, but not being in a moratorum area, they're really not worth that much because you can go to the ABC and get it for $2,000 versus selling on the open market for four and they're going to go, "Well, we don't want that. I can go to the ABC for two." Thank you for that. Okay. Thank you. Um, if there's any need for you to come back up to respond to any public comments, I'll give you an opportunity to All right. Thank you very much. questions for the applicant. Um,

so I I appreciate in the report it documented that the police department had mostly responses to the the general area responding to homelessness issues just in the general area. And again, I'm a neighbor I'm a neighbor of the 7-Eleven. I have frequent it quite a bit. Um, and so I am privy to the unhoused neighbors that are in the general area. So, just as a I mean, unrelated to the application, but just to look to learn, how are some ways that you could continue to be such a wonderful neighbor and maybe support the local unhoused neighbors that are in that area?

I think I'll let him answer that question. I'll let the owner because he's there all the time. Um, and I don't I I do know that on a corporate stance, our our goal is to not aggravate any homeless um occupant. We move them along and ask them to please, you know, leave the property. Um, being as nice as we can. Sometimes we'll give them a cup of coffee and let them go down the street. So, we do different things. Um, we played music. Sometimes our neighbors doesn't don't like it as much. So, we try to be respectful to our neighbors as well, but there's a lot of different things that we can do. Walk the parking lot on an hourly basis and making sure that nobody's hanging out, the parking lot's kept clean.

And we do that and we encourage that. Yeah. For our employees, um, I would love to just share just these little business cards of information for resources for this community. You don't have to do anything. Just hand it to them here. This is information on where you can get help. Full stop. Um, since you're it sounds like you're already engaging them, I so appreciate you showing them a little decency and respect by offering them a warm cup of coffee when you can. So, I greatly appreciate being such a wonderful neighbor. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Any more questions, commissioners? Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you.

Uh, I'm going to open the public comment portion of the meeting if uh you'd like to speak. I don't see anybody in chambers, but Anna, do we have anybody on Zoom or by phone? No, we do not, Mr. Chairman.

Okay, I'm going to close the public comment portion of the public hearing. Uh, commissioners, do you have any other questions? Okay. gonna wait for Commissioner Andrade or not. Um, okay. Uh, I'm going to close the public hearing. May I have a motion? Motion by Commissioner Martinez. What's your motion? I move that we find that the project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per sequel guideline section 15301 existing facilities and approved conditional use permit 25-0012 based on findings of fact and subject to conditions of approval

and seconded by Commissioner Dixon. Commissioner Martinez, would you like to speak to your motion? Uh, no. This seems like uh I mean yes, fine. I will speak to it. This seems like a standard typical uh you're switching from one alcohol license type to another one. Uh this seems fine. You're not increasing the amount of uh facilities in this census tract. Seems pretty standard and typical and it's good to hear that we processed it very quickly. I was very happy to hear that from the applicant. Thank you. All right, Commissioner Dixon, any comments? And uh will the maker of the motion uh want to make a friendly amendment to condition approval number five?

Let's hear it. uh that we insert the word uh refrigerated at the beginning of that condition and that we state that um wine um that we wine may also be available. We could put an and end cap for wine. Wine may be available on an endcap at the end or single incap. Commissioner Dixon, can you just read uh exactly what you're you're proposing for condition of approval number five so we can all follow along? Yep. Yep. Yep.

So, I'd like to amend condition approval number five to read, refrigerated beer or wine shall not be displayed or sold from an ice tube or actually get rid of refrigerated. Beer or wine shall not be displayed or sold from an ice tub or any other type of portable refrigerated unit. Beer and beer shall only be available within the approved walk-in reachin cooler. Wine may be available on an end cap.

Can I get staff opinion? And then distilled spirits shall be displayed as described in the staff report. I would suggest amending distilled spirits shall be displayed behind the counter as noted in the staff. Sure. But it's just I want to include that end cap because red wine shouldn't be in the fridge. That's all. And I know I've been in there a bunch of times. I've seen that end cap. I just want to make sure that

we're not limiting them. That's all. And just in general to the motion, I go to Frank's Philadelphia a lot. Full disclosure, I've been to that 7-Eleven many times. It's very clean. It's very wellrun. Um, it's a great store. So, I appreciate this. I have no problems with the the application whatsoever. I just want to make sure that you're not, God forbid, five years down the road, somebody has a hair and sees red wine outside of the cooler and there's a problem for you. That's all. Thank you. Um, staff, is that okay? I think so. Yeah. Yes.

What What's your question? the um the this the wording of this of this condition as as proposed. Beer I'll read it again. Bureau of wine shall not be displayed or sold from an ice cup or any other type of portable or refrigerated unit. Beer shall only be available within the approved walk-in beer and wine shall be available beer shall only be available within the approved walk-in reach cooler. Wine may be displayed shall only be available in the approved walk-in reachin cooler. and a single spilled spirit shall be only displayed behind the counter. Sure. Does that exclude white wine from being in the refrigerator? I didn't say that.

I know. Okay. Trying to be inclusive and not of of course, Vice Chair Zeke,

I've got kind of a question uh that maybe may be helpful uh with this, maybe not, but it's a question I have. Is the intent of this condition of approval number five to prevent the sale of beer and wine from being sold from an ice tube or portable refrigerator unit? Is that the primary intent of this? And in furtherance of that intent, then you clarify and say that you're expecting to see the beer and wine, refrigerated beer and wine really to be sold only from the approved walk-in. You're not saying, there's a question, you're not saying with this condition of approval that you do not allow beer or wine to be sold unrefrigerated on end caps. Is that correct? Yes. So from a staff standpoint, I'm simply understanding that the first sentence in that condition is really what you're not allowing. Correct. Okay. So, I don't know what uh Commissioner Dixon's desire is, but it seems to me that what we want to be allowing the merchant to do is to sell refrigerated beer and wine if they want, only from the approved walk-in cooler and unrefrigerated beer and wine if they want, from anywhere else in the store, which might be an endcap.

Right. And my understanding was that they were not having beer just stacked up on the floor. But maybe they want that. That's fine. And your condition sounded like it might preclude that. Okay. And that's all I'm trying to address. So maybe we just say you shall not have refrigerated beer or wine coolers or tubs except for the walk-in cooler.

That's kind of what condition number five says. Yeah. What it doesn't expressly say is you can sell unrefrigerated beer or wine. That's the only thing it doesn't say. And maybe that's implied. And what I didn't see in these conditions of approval was we typically will sometimes have one that say the business shall be operated as manner described in the staff report. I didn't see that and so I may have missed it and so that's why I'm I'm clarifying uh and so I'm perfectly happy with Vice Chair Zick's, you know, suggested amendment which is simply to prohibit the use of the coolers or any other refrigeration outside of the walk-in reachin coolers. Is that that where you're going with that? I I thought that where the vice chair was going with that was removing the second sentence of that condition, but I don't know if that's entirely accurate. I was suggest just eliminating the first sentence. So, um

Oh, well, you could that Well, okay. Yeah, a word smithing. We love doing that. If you were to say, "Beer and wine shall only be available in the approved walk-in or reach-in cooler or unrefrigerated elsewhere in the store. Director Tai,

chair, if I could um if I could try to organize this discussion. Um I think really the intent of uh condition number five as um vice chair Zik indicated is that it prevents the uh business operator from basically in an ad hoc manner expanding the amounts of areas that uh baron wine can be sold. In other words, the ice tub is portable that you just add ice tubs and that that way you expand the amount you're selling or any kind of portable refrigerated unit. I think one of the things that one of the aspects that condition number five assumed is that all beer and wine is refrigerated. And I think that is the point that um Commissioner Dixon is trying to solve. And so if the intent of uh condition number five is simply to not allow these ad hoc portable items. I do think the first sentence um does speak directly to that intention and that a clarification is needed for the second sentence to indicate that in addition to the approved walk-in region coolers that there are other approved maybe non-refrigerated areas that already exist um such as an endcap um that would be for non-refrigerated um wine or beer for that matter. the commission is is able to say a single endcap if that is desired since that is directly um consistent I believe with the current operations as well as the floor plan and then if there's another sentence that uh wanted to be added on about distilled spirits being sold behind the counter that would also be a suitable um addition that does not you know does not compromise the intention of condition number five so just trying to maybe organize some of the thoughts there thank you

I just wanted to add on to that first sentence that's noted in the condition is directly um verbatim from the code requirements too. So, it's reiterating a code requirement, but it's not specifically a condition of approval for this project. I'm sorry. It it is a code requirement, but it's not a condition of approval. It's both in this instance. So, if if for say condition five went away, that first sentence would still be required because it's a code requirement. Got it. Right. Okay. Okay, I don't want to belabor this. I just guess I want to know what we're actually conditioning here because if it's already required by code, it's

right. When I see shall only I don't that's why I'm trying to get away from that. So, we could strike we could amend condition of approval number five completely. Strike it. You mean strike it completely and add or replace it with beer and wine or distilled spirit shall only be sold behind the counter. Correct. That's it. That's correct. There we go. All right. Does the maker of the motion accept that? So, replace condition approval friendly convoluted amendment. Yes. Strike condition of approval number five. And thank you very much. And thank you for director Thai. Strike condition of approval. The current language and condition of approval number five and replace it with distilled spirit shall only be sold and displayed behind the counter. That works for me.

Okay. Wonderful. All right. Any other comments by commissioners? All right. Let's call for the question. That motion carries 70.

Okay, great. Great. All right. Um, that decision is final unless appealed to the city council within 7 days. And while staff comes to the Well, Anna, will you please read the title for public hearing item number two?

Public hearing item number two, amendment to the land use element of the city's general plan to provide consistency with the six cycle 2021 to 2029 housing element PCTY-25-000044. Please note, we have received public comments on this item. This is a call for any experte communications.

Guessing no experte communications. Vice Chair Ze, if it qualifies. I've had several conversations today on the phone with uh several different individuals and I've also done some calculations um based on staff report.

Okay. Um I will now turn it over to Miss Stacy to present the item. Thank you, chair. Good evening, commissioners. My name is Melinda Daisy. I'm the principal planner with the city of Costa Mesa in the economic and development services department. With me this evening, I have Anna McIll, planning and sustainability manager. The item before the planning commission is the land use element amendment for the general plan consistency with the housing element. So the agenda for the presentation this evening we will go over the background and timeline of the housing element and the process and why we are here. Uh review of the draft land use element updates next steps and then recommendation. So the six cycle housing element is one of the seven statemandated general plan elements. It is an imple implementation plan for the city's regional housing needs allocation or arena. The state requires that this element be updated every eight years and currently the city is on the sixth cycle and we have arena allocation of 11,760 units. The housing element establishes the plan through various programs consistent with state law and the city has 47 programs to implement within the housing element. The city council adopted the housing element in February of 2022 which included a mitigated negative declaration and a mitigation and monitoring and reporting program as required under the state environmental guidelines. In April of 2022, city staff received a revision letter request from HCD in

response to our submittal to the agency. And in response in November of 2022, city council adopted additional amendments to the housing element to address those comments received from HCD. The city council at that time also authorized staff to make any additional non-substantive revisions if HCD had further comments. staff sub sub st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st staff sub sub subsequently submitted the uh housing element update to HCD again and received a revision letter in January 2023 staff made minor non-substantive revisions to the housing element and submitted back to HCD and we received their letter that noted that the housing element meets state requirements but did not have it um in substantial compliance unless that there were several programs within that letter that needed to be addressed prior to um receiving certification. Measure K was voted on November 8th, 2022 by the Costa Mesa voters. This authorized modification to city regulations to allow housing in commercial and industrial areas to revitalize the city's commercial and industrial corridors and keep residential neighborhoods intact. Measure K also includes the housing opportunity sites within the sites inventory and the implementing ordinance became effective on November 18th, 2022. This ordinance allows the city council to uh approve any changes in land use, zoning, specific plan, overlay or adoption of a new specific plan and to accommodate housing, mixeduse and or revitalization of commercial areas. So we are here this evening to talk about the land use element amendment

that is being proposed for general plan consistency with the housing element. So staff reviewed the administrative record associated with the housing element adoption and at the time the city did not make a finding for general plan consistency um between the housing element and the rest of the general plan. This is a requirement in state law and that finding was not made at the time. So the land use element is intern is not internally consistent. So the efforts this evening are to bring the general plan element into consistency and reconcile the city's record. And the way that we are approaching processing that is through a Latin term. It's used in legal discussions for nunk pro tunk which means now for then. So based on the review of the record we are going back in time to uh make any necessary corrections to address that inconsistency. Um, and this is also being done because that should have been done at the same time as the housing element adoption. And part of the housing element adoption process, there was public engagement which included several town hall meetings, outreach, and study sessions with planning commission and city council. We conducted tribal consultation at the time which is a requirement of um state law when we're updating a general plan document as well as conducting public hearings with the planning commission and city council. There's more details about the dates for those meetings within the staff report. And then for internal consistency, the city is obligated to ensure that the 97 housing opportunity sites identified within the housing element allow for residential use at the specified densities contained therein. Um other considerations that uh need to be um taken into consideration is that the city cannot limit or restrict the

residential site capacity of housing opportunity sites. And that has to be done in a way that the um development isn't restricted in any way for um meeting that density of the site. So there has to be certain development standards in place for um allowing that development. So the draft amendments includes flexibility regarding floor area ratio, trip generation or heights if there's any way that those are restricting the densities noted within the housing element sites opportunity list. The draft amendments are included throughout attachment three of the staff report as underlined text for text that is being added or strike through text for any text that's being removed from the document to bring it into consistency. So, some of the excerpts from the land use element amendments include um adding some footnotes to tables um clarifying text throughout the land use element to address any inconsistencies. Um an example that was provided in the staff report and on the slide here is a figure for a housing element site that specifically noted that there's no residential use permitted on that site. However, this is a housing opportunity site. It is got a unique identifier within the list of uh 137, 138, and 139. And that allows a residential density of 90 dwelling units per acre. And so all of these amendments that are proposed within the staff report and attached exhibits are to align the land use element with the housing element. And part of the review of the request this evening is the environmental determination under the California Environmental Quality Act or SQUA. Staff reviewed the prior environmental documentation and found that additional

analysis is not required under state SQA guidelines section 15162 and that the adopted mitigated negative declaration the mitigation monitoring and reporting program analyzed the housing opportunity sites from the housing element and that the land use element updates are for consistency with the housing element. Some of the mitigation measures required um for that include the hazard and hazardous materials, biological resources, cultural resources, noise, tribal cultural resources, and there's a list of standard conditions. Um that was also linked within the staff report in case there's anyone that needed to refer to that. Um so part of our next steps in the process, we will be taking this item if we receive coun or planning commission direction this evening to city council for their consideration of the draft land use element amendments. And in the near future, staff will be returning to planning commission with the zoning code specific plan amendments to also align with the land use element amendments at separately publicly noticed meetings. With that, staff recommends that the planning commission adopt the planning commission resolution attached as exhibit one in the staff report um providing recommendations to city council regarding the adoption of the draft amendments to the land use element for consistency with the six cycle housing element. And that concludes my presentation and I'm available to answer any questions.

Okay. Thank you very much, Miss Stacy. Um I'm going to start just with a quick summary. So at least my understanding is this is essentially a technical cleanup of the land use element. All the substantive analysis was already done in the housing element. This is just intended to memorialize some of that analysis and make sure it's in the right places in the land use element. That's correct. Okay. Commissioners, any questions? Staff? Yes.

Commissioner Andrade? Um, I just want to check in on the public comment that we received regarding notification. If there's any validity, comments, feedback on that, city attorney,

thank you. Um I'm aware of the comment where the public com comment and respectfully uh the public comment is uh does not accurately describe um the realities of the section 1329 which states um mailed notice shall be mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 500 foot radius of the project site except for applications for the construction of a building 150 ft or more in height. These applications shall require greater notice, a greater notice radius as stated. Uh this is not an application for the construction of a building. Thank you so much.

Okay, Commissioner Martinez. Thank you. Um I wanted to start on staff report page three number 45. Um the the last sentence on that page. Um I'll just read it. The draft updates to the land use element remove reference to the residential use prohibition in addition to allowing flexibility to modify the F and DRIP budget as the city is unable to restrict the site capacity. What does that last part mean? Unable to restrict the site capacity. So

that is in regards to the context of the Seagerstrom home ranch site on those amendments for that specific uh update in the land use element there. Um and essentially there's um the obvious no residential use is permitted in the land use element where that is a housing element site. So we do have to remove that restriction from the land use element to allow uh the residential site capacity to take place on that site. Um as well as any kind of development standards that need to be implemented. So we do have the ability to provide some type of um input on the development if that does come through through that process. We just can't uh limit the density and capacity noted within the housing element for that site.

Okay. So so just to clarify we can restrict the site capacity. It just has to be within housing at it has to meet housing element standards. Yes. Yeah. It has to allow up to the density prescribed in the housing element. So you could, and we're planning to do as part of the neighborhoods for all process, come back with objective standards for these sites, but they have to allow up to 90 dwellings acre, 60 dwelling units acre, whatever the housing element states.

Okay. Um, if we if we go to slide 11, you'll see the language that I'm talking about that is also on page 211. Um it it re it mentions it's the new it's the new text unless reductions are needed to accommodate the residential site capacity identified. Um would would we want reductions in trip capacity or would wouldn't we want more to allow for more development?

Yeah. So the the trip uh generation or floor area ratio if you reduce those it's typically limiting the development more. So um staff would propose amending the language from reductions to modifications unless um and that would be the same for page 216. Correct? Yes, that's correct.

Okay. Plus let me just make a note of that. All right, page 229 is the Fairview Developmental Center. Um the the map in the table. Uh I just wanted to ask if the numbers there were the minimum numbers. Yes, a 2300 is the minimum identified in the housing element site. This has got a unique identifier on the housing opportunities list of 38.

Okay. And I wanted to end with uh process question. If if we had done this originally in 2021, we would have done this with the housing element, right? Uh okay. And then would we have done the subsequent part, the updating of the zoning code and the specific plans or overlays, would that have also happened at the same time or would it have happened after like what we're planning on doing now?

Um, it depends. So, generally speaking, some cities choose to do the resonings when they adopt their housing element if they're succinct enough and easy enough to get done in that timeline. Obviously, at that time, um, we were very much up against the deadline. So, um, when I'm looking at the documents and materials, what I read from that is that we were trying to get to that timeline quickly with the intent that we would do the resoning program shortly after. So now we're making those corrections to make sure there's that consistency and then we'll follow up in 2026 with those objective standards that would apply to housing projects in the housing element and then in the measure K sites.

Yeah, just a brief add-on to that. that um at the time that the city adopted the housing element, completion of the reszoning just from a planning commission to city council standpoint wouldn't have it would have been severely limited because of um because of measure Y and so actually the measure K had to happen first before the city could kick off the resoning effort and that's why there's a separation in timing as well. Thank you.

That makes sense. Um, and then I wanted to ask about timeline for for our next steps for zoning code updates and for uh overlay updates and if um it's being done concurrently with the neighborhoods where we all belong or if these are now two separate completely separate things. Um yeah, we intend to come back in 2026 obviously with the updates to the reszone program or what we're calling neighborhoods for all. We're going to provide an update of that on November 4th when we come to city council with these updates and we'll give a little bit more information on specific timelines, but we're trying to look for different opportunities to get to HCD certification faster. And if that means sort of bifurcating the housing element sites and we'll look into that to to be on a faster timeline.

Okay. Um and then I was made aware of a letter from HCD that said we are in violation of our housing element um from August. Does this address that at all? Does it sway any of their concerns or is that letter also a completely separate thing that we need to get to fixing?

Um I can I can take that on. So um the letter from HCD uh it does indicate that the city has passed deadline on its housing element certification. So that is true. Um it's actually during the neighborhoods where we all belong um process where staff was working very um intensely with our consultant team in evaluating all of the city's um legislative history, all of the city's zoning documents to put together basically the to-do list that we realized this step had not been accomplished. And so while this step is in integral to us completing the adoption of the housing element from several years ago, that isn't directly related to um the HCD letter, but we are giving our full attention to that letter as well. Thank you.

Good to hear. Thank you. Okay, Vice Chair Zik. Thank you. I think I'd like to start I may bounce around, but I want to start with a question following up uh Commissioner Martinez. So, I'm on page 230, which was a page he referenced where it showed total units 2300. His question was, "Is that minimum?" Your answer was, "Yeah, that that's a minimum." But on that same page, it also shows dedicated open space is 25%. So, does this mean we can count on 25% open space for this project? since that's not been updated.

The Fairview Developmental Center specific plan still being processed right now. Um once there's more um known information about what the open space will look like at the the end of that process, then the land use element will need to get updated again to correct that um any kind of discrepancies between the specific plan and the land use element. So with that answer, so I I appreciate that answer, but with that answer then this number 2300 could say a th00and it could say 558. It could say anything and the answer that you've given would be applicable to correcting that number as well. Correct. If that lesser number is the number of residential site capacity identified in the housing element, yes, but the minimum identified is 2300.

Understand, but that number could certainly change just like you're indicating the 25% open space number would change. Well, ju sorry if I may through the chair just to clarify um the recommendation that the planning commission gave on August 25th August 25th was 4.26 per thousand. Um I also um discussed that with the parks commission last Thursday and that actually is a higher requirement than the 25%. Oh yeah. That's what we intend to take to the city council as part of your recommendation to embed into the specific plan. Um so that would surpass the requirement of 25% and then the means of compliance would be through okay on-site designation improvements.

I appreciate that. I just noted the difference in in numbers and so that's what I was following up on. All right. So I've got a couple questions about the uh certification of the housing element. Uh so you mentioned there are 47 programs that comprise that. I have a series of questions that really focus on the reena allocation uh component of that. So, we have this or you have this a document as you said of 97 sites that totals 16,000 units well above the 11760. And I'm going to guess that the the mere completion of this document as is does not satisfy HCD when it comes to Reena. We can't say we're done. We met Reena. Correct. Okay. So there is an expectation then that we reszone these sites. So let's say we reszone all these sites with these densities uh and the elements of the development that you've highlighted like no height limit etc. And we reszone them all. At that point we have not met our obligation with regard to arena. Correct. If nothing gets built, but that's all we did is reszone, we're not we're not done. We haven't satisfied HCD. Is that also correct?

Uh, no. Our obligation is to plan for the number of units, but we don't have the control over a developer actually building the units.

Got it. So, if at the end of this sixth cycle in 2029, HCD says, "How'd you guys do?" We said, "Well, we did a wonderful job of planning 11,760. We actually planned 16,000. Uh we reszoned all these things. Um unfortunately nothing got built, but you know, give us an A+ because it was a great plan. Would HCD say, "Well, you met your obligation. We know you don't build anything, but you did a plan, so good job." Is that that satisfy Reena and HCD? um it's the means by which they would allow us to uh or it's the means by which they would certify our housing element and say it's in compliance. There are some um future implications if those sites that we've identified don't get used and built for housing. So you're able to use those sites for two cycles and then if they still don't get built there's additional implications like they might be by right sites or um more flexibility for a developer to develop on them. But when HCD says we say through Reno we want 11,760, do they count towards our credit simply by having them planned and zoned or do we only get them counted once they're built?

So they are tracking yearly the number of units that are being built and that is something that we report to them yearly as you know. Mhm. But in terms of getting certified, it is only the planning for it. So nothing needs to be built in order to satisfy HCD in terms of our obligation. We just plan it, we reszone it, and if it never gets built, that's not a problem.

Well, it's a nuance, but satisfied is a little bit of a difficult word to respond to because obviously their goal is to support and prioritize housing. So ideally they would like our programs to reflect um encouraging more production of housing. So if we're reporting through our housing element cycle that we're not building to our arena or anywhere to that capacity, they would continue to encourage us to expand our housing element programs to find new ways to promote housing.

Okay. And encouragement never scares me. Encouragement's fine. Penalties scare me. Encouragement that sounds good. I'll I'll encourage people all day long. Um, no obligation there. So, in 2029, again, assuming nothing gets built, now we enter the seventh cycle. Uh, will there be likely a new reallocation the city gets? Uh, chair, if I could. Yes, if you don't mind,

director. Um I wanted to add a little bit more of a context um to the question about what happens when a jurisdiction does not accomplish you know facilitating construction of you know uh uh housing on those Rena sites. Um as part of I'll give you an example actually it's not even an example I'll just recount some history. um for as part of the sixth cycle housing element. One of the parts of the housing element and is an analysis of your fifth cycle housing element and how effective your housing programs and your zoning and your internal protocol, procedures, fees, process, etc. how effective all of that was in accommodating new housing. Um and through that analysis um this jurisdiction is essentially reporting to HCD everything that goes into the at least everything within the government's control within that jurisdiction's control that goes into affecting possibly whether somebody develops or not. And if the sum of the total is that nothing got developed in that jurisdiction, then everything that made up that total will then also be under review as possibly needing refinement, updating, streamlining, improvement, etc. in that next cycle housing element. And so when asked about what ramifications there are when nothing is built, that is the ramification is that all your all your elements, your internal processes, rules, regulations are reviewed to ensure that none of it becomes an obstacle to constructing housing. So I don't know if anybody would consider that a penalty, but certainly that sheds light and attention on what needs to be improved and that gets factored into your next cycle housing element, thereby not allowing jurisdictions to somehow prevent things from being built. But I just wanted to walk through what happens if we were to report that nothing was built in a certain uh housing element. And I hope that helps a little bit. It

it does. I think that might have been the answer to the question that I was just uh trying to formulate. So I'll do it again for clarity. Um and see if I understand your answer. Uh so in 2029, we get to that point. Not a single unit has been constructed. We did not accomplish any construction. I'm assuming let for sake of argument assume that there's another arena allocation given to Costa Mesa of a thousand. Would we now be on the hook for 12,760 units? Yes, that's correct. It would be additive.

Good. Thank you. And I'm asking these questions so I know so I'm clear what we're trying to accomplish. Not just a paper plan college try. We have to get this 11,760 has to be a realistic achievable plan. Correct. Okay. um you referred to a term and measure K refers to measure K sites and then housing element opportunity sites. Are those two different things? Measure K sites and housing opportunity sites. Are those two different things? the the measure K sites go beyond what the housing housing element opportunity sites are identified in the housing element. So there are a lot more properties that were um approved for requests for resoning through measure K. So they're they they overlap because they also do include the housing element sites as part of the measure K process.

So let me ask the follow-up question for clarification. Would I find every single housing opportunity site within the measure K sites? Yes, that's correct. Okay. And that's 97 of them. Correct.

Got it. And then my last question, I think at least at this point, if there was a new site that somebody suggested over coffee to a council member, they ah that's I hadn't thought of that one. Let me check. Nope, it's not on our list. What would be the process? Could there be a way to get it added to the measure K sites? Um, and what's that process?

Yeah. So, if they are within the Measure K boundaries on the map, then they could potentially build housing if and once our neighborhoods for all program is complete and they are reszoned to allow for housing. If they are not within the measure K sites, then they would have to go through our general plan Paul process for measure Y and possibly go for a voter uh you know voter initiative.

Okay, let make sure I'm understanding this. I was under the impression, so correct me if I'm wrong, that measure K identified sites, locations, parcels, not an area within which there might be some parcels. Yes, that's correct. That's that's what I'm intending to say. So, if if the site is is a measure K site, but by definition, somebody says, "Hey, how about this area over here? It's not on this list." By definition, it's not a measure K site. Oh, if they're not included on the measure K map, then the only subject about it over coffee.

Yeah. Then they'd be subject to measure Y. Well, now so, okay, let's clarify housing element sites, right, can move forward with an application in line with the housing element capacity and densities. And part of this effort is clarifying, memorializing that measure. K sites that are not housing opportunity sites are part of the neighborhoods for all process. They will come back to council for consideration next summer and at that point an applicant could move forward with a housing project.

Okay. So, so you've confused me a little bit and that's okay. I confuse easily. We have things in this document that say for example um height not a problem. Um trip budget not a problem. Do those nonrestrictions apply only to housing element excuse me housing opportunity sites or so they do not apply to measure K sites correct interesting but this includes all the measure K sites

the list that you're holding sites those are housing element opportunity sites not measure K sites they are also measure K sites so in order to allow housing on the housing opportunity sites, a voter initiative needed to be passed for the resonings to take place. When we say that there's no limit on height for for sites, how do I know which of these that no height limit applies to and which it doesn't? That appendix, all those 97 sites that are on that appendix. But you said this was a combination of measure K and housing ele housing opportunity sites. So let let me rephrase it. Hopefully this makes sense. Okay.

All housing element opportunity sites are within measure K are on the measure K map. Okay. Not all Measure K sites are housing element opportunity sites. Okay. So Measure K is the much larger envelope, right, of what we're allowed to plan for housing, right? And the housing element odd opportunity sites are the 97 sites to accommodate that 11,000 reena. Got it. So this does not include all the measure K sites. Correct. Okay. Sorry I took a long time to get to that point.

Got it. And so these things about no height limit restriction etc. does not apply to all the measure K sites. It only applies to the housing opportunity sites which is a subset. That's correct. And then if I could just add one more sentence and that is why

remember I'm a slow student. That's why throughout the land use element uh the red line text in references toward accommodating um whether it's density, floor area ratio, height, trip generation standards. All of those sentence are qualified um for housing opportunity sites identified within the site's inventory of the housing element. And that phrase is found throughout all of the red lines to be very clear that the scope of tonight's request is to apply to the housing element sites only.

Got it. And that does help uh clarify. All right. Since I'm on roll, I've got a couple more questions for you. And on page 189, this one puzzled me a bit. Page 189. Here's what puzzles me. And I'm sure there's a simple answer. I'm looking at table LU4 and I'm specifically looking at the second row on population and I see by comparison the population growth from 2000 to 2010 was 1.1%. The table doesn't show that. That was a side calculation of mine. uh the growth from 2010 to 2020 was 3.6% again side calculation to mine and then we go to 2040 and the growth from 2020 to 2040 is about 2.2%. Here's my question. If we build 11,760 units at an average occupancy of 2.6, we have over 30,000 over 30,000 new residents presumably by 2029, the end of the sixth cycle, not even 2040, another 11 years out. That's an increase of 26% over 26% population. Yet, this table says by 2040, we're only anticipating another 2%. So, why doesn't this table show what we're actually forecasting in our planning? Um, I had those questions as well when we started our reszone program. Um, because the math I I was looking at it in the same way you were. Um, and our

economic development manager explained it actually. Um, I'm going to simplify it a little bit just so that it's understandable. But yeah, the these numbers are taken from SCAG and it's what it's doing is pulling from like job projections mostly and it's a lot more conservative than if we were to look at um what was pulled the methodologies that were used for the housing element which was to identify potential demand based on a number of subsets. So proximity to schools, amenities, jobs. So this is only looking at one set set of forecasting and it's the most up-to-date population information that we have.

Okay. But related to that, you know how the financial consultant on uh FCD said that a 2300 development with 40% affordability was just the market wouldn't build that. If this is what SCAG and authorities see our population being in 2040, then isn't it unrealistic to plan and reason for the development of a 26% growth in the community? Isn't that unrealistic from an economic standpoint?

So, we're still trying to answer that question and it's a really good question. Okay. And that's why there's um fiscal analyses and economic demand analyses that are part of the neighborhoods for all program so that we can actually try to answer that question. We're planning for 11,760 units. Is that actually the demand that we're anticipated to see? Um so it's a more upto-date and detailed analysis to hopefully answer that question. All right, I think that's it for now. Thank you very much. Okay, Commissioner Dixon.

And and thank you, Vice Chair Zik, you asked most of my questions, but I really quickly, so for the Rena, and I know we've been through this a lot, and I know there's been challenges to it, and I know we challenged it, but just to follow up on that question, what population number did they use for 11,700 whatever. So the population projections that were included in table LU4 come directly from the housing element um and the numbers that we had at the time when that was being adopted. The reena allocation process is complicated and it uses various different um sources to come up with the allocation of number of um affordable housing that needs to be done in the city and that includes um overcrowding and units and things like that. So all of those different parameters kind of play into the allocation that um was assigned to Costa Mesa.

Okay. They I mean we've had a remarkably stable population for decades. So it's just it's odd but that's neither here nor there. Okay. So regarding using the MM the NM M andd for the housing element uh I notice a lot of language in that M andd that talks about you know the this action will not build anything it's just allowing for those and everything must be consistent with the Costa Mesa municipal code and development standards and the general plan and all the other stuff and here with one fell swoop we're eliminating height requirements for all of these sites that are all over 19th Street and you just look at chart and those development standards developed in those particular specific plans and overlay plans were part of an exhaustive process. And so I don't see how we can and perhaps it's the answer they used in the housing element that this is not building anything but I still don't I don't see how we analyzed removing those. I mean, we just struck out we're adding height as something that's being eliminated in almost every section. And so, I just don't see how that was analyzed from a environmental perspective. And maybe the answer is

so the the cor the updates that we're doing today are to clarify that it can be modified. If a project were to move forward, they would have to conduct their own environmental review, right? And so we are

so we're we're doing that as part of the reszone program, right? As part of the neighborhoods for all in order to anticipate those measure K sites and housing element opportunity sites. This is an inconsistency update to make sure that we have consistency with the housing element. And if a project were to move forward between now and the time that we conduct our environmental review on this entire program, they would potentially need to do environmental review to cover whatever project they were proposing. Does that help?

It it does. And I I get where you're going on that, but with this we're saying for instance in the west side area, we're saying that if if the housing opportunities site, which in that table, let's say the shopping center on the corner of I think it was uh Placentia and 19th is 1.29 acres, the maximum F is 70,000, right? And so, but there's no discussion. The contemplation is that with no restrictions on the height in the general plan as far as the constitution of the development of our city, which we used to say north of the 405 we have the highrises, south of the 405 we wouldn't. That's a more general plan sort of concept, right? And this is just striking those without any public engagement review or any of that. So, is that are you was were these subjects discussed in those public engagements? And I know they weren't analyzed in the M &D because I I read it, but

the intent of the amendments to the land use elements is to indicate that if a site if a housing development application were be were to be submitted to the city and processed that they would have to comply with the underlying zoning of that specific development application. However, if the regulations in place at the time of application were overly restrictive of the applicant being able to build the residential site capacity at the density identified in the housing element, then we put in the flexibility in the land use element for there to be able to um do that without having to come back and do a land use element update to kind of change those regulations at a later date.

Okay. And if I could add on to that, I want to provide a little bit of an example. So to um add on to what Melinda was saying, um obviously the general plan um is the overarching document and zoning has to be compliant with the general plan. So for example, some of the a lot of the zoning on our commercial corridors, commercial, you know, it's just it's red on the land use map. The zoning table today has height limits for that and it's two stories and 30 feet. Now, if a project comes in um before neighborhoods where we all belong, before the zoning gets changed and they're applying for a sightsp specific zone change, that sight specific zone change would be consistent with the language proposed in the land use element in that the land use element says standards can be modified to accommodate development on the housing opportunity sites identified in the housing element. Right? It would be consistent with that, but they would go through the process to amend the height limit because the height limit as it stands today, table 13-44 says two stories and 30 ft. So there is a height limit and they would have to change that. Now, as part of neighborhoods where we all belong, the city is working through changing changing development standards to ensure that they can accommodate that density. What that height limit is, I don't know today sitting here, but as we work through what form, what floor area ratio, what height is needed to accommodate certain densities, that will come out through the resoning process. But even that needs to be consistent with the housing element and the land use element. And so the proposed language in tonight's land use element is to ensure that those future actions can be consistent. So I hope that frames it a little better.

Yeah. All right. Thank you. Commissioner Martinez,

I just want to make this point abundantly clear because th this is the phrase that keeps popping up in this update um which is that we have to realize the site capacity that is identified in the housing element. So I cannot propose building the Empire State Building on one of these sites, right? I have to it it we have to just be able to meet what's in the housing element. We're not just completely eliminating height limits. We're not just completely eliminating F. We're just saying that you have to be able to meet what's in the housing element. Is that correct?

That's correct. And also the neighborhoods where we all belong program will have objective standards for these housing element sites. It'll have height, it'll have setbacks, lot coverage, all those typical development standards. Thank you. Right.

I'll just follow up on that. Um I think it was referenced in the staff report. Um Costa Mesa's general plan is a bit of an anomaly in that we do have sightsp specific development standards in the general plan. Correct. So that over complicates things in some way. Okay. No more questions staff. Uh I'll open the public comment per uh portion now. Um, I don't see anybody in. Oh, look at you magically appear. Your timing is impeccable, Mr. Dabota. Appreciate you accommodating my timing. I didn't even get to finish the rest of it, but we'll get to that after. You You can have the floor now.

No, I just uh Ralph Tabota, longtime resident, I just wanted to thank the commissioners for a lot of good questions. Um, sitting in the audience listening to the questions and the answers. I learned quite a bit tonight, so I appreciate the Q&A. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, Anna, do we have anybody on phone or by Zoom? Cynthia McDonald, you may provide your public comment. Go ahead, Miss McDonald.

Okay. Good evening, commissioners. I want to follow up on the email I sent earlier this afternoon. I apologize for not identifying the noticing issues sooner. Um, I disagree with the city attorney's interpretation. I can read the ordinance, uh, which is, if you get to that section, notices of the hearing shall be ma mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 500 ft radius of the project site. Okay. Then it goes, except for the application's construction of a building 150 ft or more in height. Well, of course, this isn't 150 ft building. We know that it's a reszone and the reszone is contained in the table above this noticing provision which shows that it's required to be noticed and the city is the proponent of the project here. It doesn't have to be a property owner when it comes to reszoning. Um at any rate, the public deserves fair opportunity to comment on proposed changes that could s significantly affect their neighborhoods and overall quality of life. Notices sent in 2021 or even last year are insufficient. Property ownership may have changed since then and prior owners may no longer be aware of the potential impacts of the housing element update. The city must ensure that current property owners receive proper notice before this item is brought forward for consideration. Additionally, I want to raise a concern about uh regarding the the lack of reference in the agenda report to measure Y implications for the upzone properties. The proposed amendments to the land use element suggest increased densities and building height parcels within specific plan urban plan and overlay areas to meet residential site capacity goals. And while some of those parcels may not currently be developed with residential units, they hold entitlements through existing plans to

allow for residential development. If the proposed changes resulted in an increased development potential for these in entitled sites, the changes may trigger a public vote vote under measure Y. This critical aspect should have been clearly addressed in the agenda report and must be considered before any action is taken. Lastly, I note there appears to be no coordination with the circulation element despite the fact that increased density and height will inevitably impact traffic patterns. This too may constitute a measure wide trigger for properties within existing residential entitlements and should be evaluated accordingly. Given these concerns, I respectfully urge the planning commission to defer consideration of this item until proper noticing has been completed and the implications of measure have been thoroughly assessed and disclosed. Thank you.

Thank you. Anna, do we have anybody else on Zoom or phone? No, we do not, Mr. Chairman. Okay, I'm going to close the public comment portion of the public hearing. Commissioners, any further questions of staff?

Yes. Um, sorry, I missed the I missed the window before you opened it up to a public comment. Um, I wanted to ask on page 205, you touch up on opportunities for uh, what's the term? Um, the westside development, what's the term you use here? Um, you know, opportunities for first-time ownership on the west side. Is is there can we include in here? or is this a space to include opportunities for talking about affordability for first-time home buyers? Like creating, you know, I don't know, a line that says based on the average median income of at the time of the project development, right? Because we understand that these are all developments that are coming up in the future. So I'm looking at it's at the top of page 205, the Messa West residential ownership urban plan. So my question is just can we insert some language, right? Because I love it that you're talking about first-time home ownership on the west side, which is highly desired in my district. So, any lines or recommendations here for what does affordable first-time home ownership look like or is that supplemental some other way? Yeah.

Yeah. Um, we're looking at this urban plan as part of our um neighborhoods where we all belong program. So, we could we could take that on board and think about um um ways that that could be incorporated or changes that could be made.

Yeah. Right. because I imagine this is going to be in the future, 10 years, 15 years in the future. So what does affordability will look like or an average there? Um I think FDC was answered earlier. [Music] Oh, and is there opportunities to include in the land use element? And pardon me if I missed it somewhere, but as we embark on this very ambitious plan to include um opportunities to increase the tree canopy as we develop the city further, right? ensuring that developments that come up have um right drought resistant landscape increase the count the tree count for the city to continue to qualify as an arbor city um and I I think I did see also so first I'll answer if you have a response for that again I apologize if I missed that somewhere along the lines so the landscaping item can be a consideration for objective design standards when the reszone program for neighborhoods where we all belong come back. Okay. Um and so I imagine the same for um again as we continue to expand this land use element to also include um a weaving interweaving of our city of the arts branding and you know again I don't know what I don't know what that looks like exactly but just I'm thinking of projects like um uh what is it the the beehive Um, hive Live. Excuse me. Thank you. I was just thinking, honey. Um, thank you.

The Hive Live, right? How they incorporated in that development project, housing project, that intersection of inviting community into even though it's a private, you know, um, project, some arts and inviting the community kind of to accessible. So, is that more again for the neighborhoods where we all belong opportunity? Okay, great. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions? If not, I'm going to close the public hearing. May I have a motion? Motion by Commissioner Martinez. I move that we adopt planning commission resolution number PC-2025- XXX providing recommendations to the city council regarding the adoption of draft amendments to the land use element of the city's general plan to provide consistency with the six cycle housing element and associated California environmental quality act environmental der determination and additionally modify figure LU- -4 and figure LU-6 to change the word reductions to modifications.

Okay. The second is Commissioner Andrade. Is that change acceptable? Yes. And then does what could we is this an opportunity to include the recommendations for the neighborhoods we all belong that various commissioners are a footnote? No, I don't think that's I don't think that's the intent of Commissioner Martinez and that's not really before us on the agenda. Yeah, I I think that will be better included once we go through the neighborhoods where we all belong process and then we'll get it in there once we once we get that back from staff. Sounds good.

Okay. Commissioner Martinez, you'd like to speak to your motion? Sure. Um, this seems like just another typical uh step that we need to do to move forward with our housing element. All we're doing in the land use element is we're saying, "Hey, the housing element exists. We should do what's in the housing element because we need to do that. Uh, so I think this is a good step forward and I look forward to the next steps of uh moving forward with the zoning code amendments and specific plan amendments. Thank you.

Commissioner Andrade, would you like to speak to your second Yeah, just along those lines, thank you for the great work in carefully combing through opportunities for improvement and making our our code consistent across the board for the the future of our city. So, thank you.

Any other comments by commissioners? Vice Chair Ze. Yeah, I did not pull up the housing element update and compare it with um everything that's included in this um technical update. Um but in looking at this package from staff, there were a number of things that caught my attention that never caught my attention um during the housing element update process. For example, removing uh height limits or waving uh trip budgets. That never caught my attention before. May have been there. Didn't catch my attention. What also didn't catch my attention uh were things like taking uh the Seagerm home ranch which was an extensive entitlement process, tremendous amount of planning, engineering, community engagement, uh public hearings resulting in an entitlement and with a stroke of a pen, essentially adding it to a spreadsheet, they now have the ability ility to put residential there. That didn't catch my attention during the housing element update. And if it didn't catch my attention, I can't help but think it might not have caught the attention of other members of the public. And that may be neither here nor there. So, I started wondering really um why is this topic getting so much attention? this topic that we're talking about. You know, if it was pretty straightforward, do you really need a recommendation from planning commission, maybe process dictates that um but there is a perceived some people

think it's real housing crisis. Um in Costa Mesa and California, this term housing crisis is used in a lot of major cities across the United States. Um there are a lot of subjects where the word crisis is added on um maybe to help draw attention to whatever the issue is a person is is pushing. Um I don't uh ascribe to that. Um there's also a lot of talk about an affordability crisis and uh I understand in general what uh what people are concerned about there but that's why this is getting so much attention. Uh that's why in this list of 97 sites, the majority of them, maybe all of them, I didn't do the math on all of them, show a 15% um provision for affordable housing. It's getting a lot of attention. Um another reason this is getting a lot of attention is because Arena, the regional housing needs assessment, uh the number that was allocated for Costa Mesa is huge. It is so huge that the city filed an appeal with HCD, a multi-page letter, highly technical, highly professional, highly compelling appeal and it was rejected. So we're stuck with this number and it has driven a significant amount of of planning certainly Excel planning. How high a density do we need on these sites to be able to get to the bottom line number that's greater than 11760? I think if our allocation had only been 5,000, then maybe instead of 90 units per acre, we might have been shown 60 or 40 or 30. I don't think anybody's in love with the

density of 90 units per acre. Some people are. I'm have no doubt. The other reason this is getting so much attention is because of measure K. And measure K removed the public from being able to have the last word on major projects that they have an interest in and may very well impact them. And so what's happening as a result of all this attention? Um our priorities, goals, and constraints on the general plan are changing. We have priorities. You've identified them. land use issues, things about homeownership, stability of neighborhoods in the commercial districts. Um, a lot of concern about substandard parking. We don't seem to be too interested in that anymore. Uh, so certainly our priorities are changing as they have been uh depicted in the general plan. Another big change is that a lot of our commercial and industrial zoned land is being reszoned for residential. I'm sure somebody is looking at the economic impact of reducing the city's commercial and industrial land. I'm sure somebody is looking at the city's fiscal impact of having a higher cost land use, which is residential, compared to revenue generating commercial industrial. Somebody, I'm sure, is looking at that. We have densities now that are double and triple what is currently in the general plan as high density. The impacts of all this resoning which we're running full steam head on not fully understood. People are thinking the worst might happen and quite honestly nobody is guaranteeing that that isn't the case. Nowhere in here are we talking about getting more open space. We're adding

30,000 new residents to the city by virtue of this plan which we expect is achievable, which I don't believe is achievable, but somebody thinks it is. No more open space. And worse, a component of this, one of the elements on this is the Fairview Development Center. And on that one, not only aren't we really getting the open space that we need, but we're looking at chopping up one of the two major golf courses, not only in the city, but in the region. Why? To accommodate a high arena. That's the impact. That's what's happening. Height limits are being removed. Yeah, I I uh I would acknowledge that if you wanted to build a I don't know if it was Eiffel Tower or whatever the reference was. I didn't remember that. Yeah, that would certainly exceed the height that would be contemplated um or needed if you're limited to 90 units per acre. Maybe nine stories is all you'd be able to do and not any higher than that. So, you're right, you couldn't do an Eiffel Tower, but height limits being removed, particularly south of the 405. I don't know that homeowners knew that when they voted for measure K. I don't know that they knew that when the housing element was before council, but that's what we're doing now. spot zoning. There's been a lot of talk about spot zoning being a problem, something we shouldn't do. Measure K in these housing element sites, this is the definition of spot zoning. So, if you don't like spot zoning, you're not going to like this plan. We run the risk of having incompatible adjacent uses the way we're doing this. Commercial corridors particularly are going to be affected by this. If a high-rise or highdensity residential development goes in right next to existing commercial enterprises, it will

have an effect on them. And I can't help but think residents aren't really aware of this. And part of the reason I think that is because I pulled up the original Measure K flyers, created by the city, distributed by the city, advertised by the city, advocated for by the city, and it's specific about what they say measure K will be and do. In fact, it's titled facts about Measure K. It will preserve residential neighborhoods. That's a claim. Residential neighborhoods will be unaffected by Measure K. That's what it says. It's not entirely true and it's not entirely true in two aspects. One is if you have an existing neighborhood that is adjacent to a Measure K site that is developed with highdensity high-rise project, it's next to you. you're affected. The other reason this is a little bit misleading and not intentionally maybe is while measure K may not have dug into residential neighborhoods character and changes, the state certainly has with SB9, SB10, AB68, AB 881, AB976, AB 1332, AB 2097. So, a measure K may have preserved residential neighborhoods. State wasn't part of that plan. They're going after them. Second of the six promises, revitalize commercial and industrial corridors. This claim says we are going to attract new businesses and revitalize the major corridors. The implication is we're going to have new businesses and revitalize businesses on the major

corridors. It doesn't say we're going to reszone these things for residential. Yet, that's exactly what we're doing. The third promise, create affordable housing opportunities. It says that there's regulations that create barriers. I believe that might be true. And it says that the measure will allow for the creation of affordable housing. That's possible. What the measure is really doing is creating the opportunity to build over 16,000 units in the city. How many of those are going to end up being affordable? If you really care about affordable, it's a small percentage of that number. Yet, that's what was sold. Protect the environment, parks, and open space. That's the fourth promise. protect parks by focusing development on major corridors only. I'm not quite sure how that protects parks unless it implies that we're not going to develop on our parks. U good good to know that. And it also says specifically and restricting building heights. We know that's not true. The fifth of the sixth promise says maintain local control. And it says, and these are all quotes I'm reading, this measure will help Costa Mesa control what can and can't be built in the city. Measure K will help protect against regulations that limit local control. Maybe we tried, but clearly that is not the case. Reena is steamrolling our entire local control construct. And the last one, require developers to pay fees to mitigate traffic and improve parks. Well, developers will have to pay their

fair share to improve roads and parks. Great. And this fee will help to acquire open space. I haven't seen anywhere where we're talking about acquiring open space. Nowhere. These are the promises. No residentially zoned parcels will be subject to land use changes under Measure K. That's the sales pitch. I don't know if this was wishful thinking, active deception, inexperience, a combination thereof, but by only 22 votes, only half the city approved Measure K. The other half were against it. And yet, we're moving full steam ahead, implementing a whole bunch of things that I can't help but think the residents don't know about and wouldn't support if they did. And when are they going to find out about this? Once a project is approved and built and then this chamber will be full of people. How could you let this happen? I'm not supporting the motion because I'm not going to let it happen by one vote.

Any further comments, commissioners? Commissioner Andron.

Yeah. Um I'd love to just also share some perspective. Um, just I guess from just some perspective, um, I'm sure some of you all know and city staff know about 211. Anybody heard about 211, an essential resource hotline for the community? Any kind of need an individual has can call that number. And uh data shows provided by 211 that last year 5,200 residents in Costa Mesa called that line for help. The primary concerns were housing needs and food assistance. Um, we understand that the the real cost of living in our community is not just defined by, you know, how much you make and how much you um how much what's the estimated cost of living for an apartment because that doesn't include um transportation, food, daycare, all of that good stuff. So, we know based on data provided by our countywide that there are 7,000 Orange County residents that are housing insecure. So, these are either families that have that are in our school districts right here in Newport Mesa that live in cars, live in shelters, are doubled and tripled up in onebedroom or two-bedroom units. So, we're talking like two, three families in the two-bedroom unit. Can you just pause for a moment and think about what that looks like? um 300 countywide veterans. We're about to celebrate that veterans holidays soon and we all get to joyishly take a day off, but about 300 veterans are currently in our streets. So maybe it's an opportunity to share some data and

resources to the city das to city council to city staff about the realities of the level of poverty that our community lives the housing insecurity and homelessness that exists in our cities. I mean we we can't avoid it when we drive around in our cities. So just to continue to elevate the the very real housing crisis as rents continue to rise. I mean I experienced it myself every two years without a fail I have gotten a rent increase in the in the complex that I live in. I am fortunate and am in a place of privilege that I can some sustain continue to sustain that regardless of you know as cost of living increases. But there are many families that don't. And I'm sure as we all are encouraged to watch city council meetings, we frequently hear a lot of constituents come to this d to um city council and talk about some slum landlord situations that people are facing. People are afraid to complain to their landlord about just basic repairs. Can you remove the mold out of my windows? Can you correct that leak in my roof every time it rains? because they're deathly afraid that if they complain they will either get a rent hike or they will get pushed out of these units and then put them out and out on the streets um increasing the housing and homelessness population in our city. So um and again the com your you know um commissioner your comments about FDC. I understand that we are looking at modifications at the Gulf um some of the golf spaces but this is to in response to the inequitable green space that the west side of Costa Mesa faces. I see it firsthand. I had to I have to drive my kid over to the east side so she can have a cool new park because as much as I love and I know Ketchum Liel is on the path and I know

Shalomar is on the path for improvement but even those are still a ways away for where I live on the west side of Kosamea. So carving out some golf holes to finally provide some green space equity to the west side of Kosamea is the least that our city can do. I've been sitting on this dis for 2 years. How long has that inequity been in play? I don't, you know, I'm sure staff can can share more details and and you know, we don't have you don't have to go too far. We do have a Nate Robbins that sits in um city staff that can educate you about the housing crisis and how our local residents are living this very real truth and reality. So, this is not a madeup story. This is very real. And one last thing I will share, there is a beautiful powerful Costa Mesa aid group that has come into life as our community is being threatened by kidnappings in our community by ICE. And I've had the fortune and the honor to be trusted with delivering food boxes to families that need it. And I I knew of the housing crisis and the un and the housing instability that our community faced, but to see it firsthand. So I invite anybody to join me in a ride along to deliver some of these food boxes to our community right here in Costa Mesa on the west side. Maybe it's an opportunity to break some of the silos, right? Maybe we're we're I it's easy. We're all busy and get stuck in our bubbles. But I invite you to come and do a ride along with me to deliver 13 boxes across the of the west side of Costa Mesa. So you can firsthand see I have to say even myself that I thought I was aware to see it firsthand was quite eyeopening and just a reminder of how important and how critical this issue is and how real it is and how it's affecting real lives, real people right

here in our city. So again I this is an open invitation for you all to come and help us either pack the food boxes, help us deliver it. We have an increase of request week after week. Um but this is again just a very real issue and also an opport a learning opportunity. It's a learning opportunity for all of us to just maybe get out of our comfort zone and see the the tale of two cities that we have here. Thank you. We have a motion. We have a second. Let's call for the question. Oh, Commissioner Dixon, quick comment. Okay.

I'm not going to Vice Chair Zick got most of my comments, but I think I think it's important to remember that the general plan is a development constitution for the city and until Sacramento decides to start issuing them, it's ours. And we have it's been an I've been involved in city stuff since about 2004. And the number one issue that drives public engagement is development issues and land use issues and things like that over the years. And we've had these exhaustive extensive programs and and efforts to adopt specific plans and to amend our general plan and to get all these different schemes in place. But the bedrock, the foundation is the general plan. Things have to be consistent with the general plan. And they the general plan has to be internally consistent. I understand why staff is doing this. I appreciate the effort. However, I think there's enough I don't think it's specific enough. I don't think it it protects the character of Costa Mesa, which is one of the things the general plan is designed to do. I don't think that it's it's encompassing enough of what we need to keep and in specific just let's let's get to the housing element inventory. So, we've heard that there's a development capacity for each of these lots and that's what's going to drive the zoning and whether or not it's consistent, whether or not to be a zone change or whether or not we need to do these development standards. However, we're hearing that in for instance, one of the biggest parcels which is the Fairview Developmental Center, the net units is not the net units, it's a minimum. So, we're basing all of this on these interrelated and interlocking sort of facts and factors and they're all going to come back and complement each other and don't worry about it. It'll be fine in the end. Nope. I don't see that as happening. I think that it's too unspecific. I think we've we're eliminating some of the safeguards. We don't have to say that, you know, it has to be a maximum of x number of stories

we can talk about. There are different ways you can word this that preserve the intent of trip budgets, preserve the intent of height limits that don't constrain against the state requirements. And again, ignoring the fact that we have all of this new state legislation which will completely kneecap our own municipal code in some instances. And to say that we're relying on underlining zoning, which has been blown up by the state, I I don't think this is the right approach. I don't know what our timing is on this. Obviously, we're going to vote on this tonight, but I'm not going to support it for a number of reasons. the the just striking out the height requirements with a pen, striking out a lot of the trip stuff. Um the inconsistency with a whether or not a housing element unit for general payment purposes and height and F and all that other stuff is a minimum or aspirational or if it's a net unit. um when you're dealing with land use, you're dealing with property rights, you're dealing with the public, you know, terms like shall and they're they're set in stone. A shall is a shall. Um on the Fairview Developmental Center, the staff report or the amended language puts in what the requirements of the state legislation are while conveniently leaving out the part that says shall be consistent with 1500 to 2500. So I think when we're coming down to things as as as core and as foundational as a general plan, we cannot be loosey goosey. We cannot leave things up in the air. We have to do it we have to to to create it and structure it and amend it in a way that preserves what the public's intent is while complying with applicable law. Not just throw everything out and say, "Well, we'll deal with it in the future. We don't know exactly what's going to happen." So I understand what staff's trying to do. I I would love to be able to vote on this tonight, but it's not

nearly um what I'm looking for and I don't think I can't support it. So, that's my comments.

Okay. Um I'll call for the question. One second. I just want I I'll explain why I'm supporting this motion. Um the housing element went through an exhaustive process uh with the public as well as with council and planning commission. All that was decided a few years ago. Um this is really just a cleanup. um a technical one at that. There's no major policy changes. Um there's no additional analysis that needs to be done. Um we can talk all we want about whether or not this meets the needs of Costa Mesa or people's individual feelings or ideological perspectives, but the bottom line is that we have to have an internally consistent constitution. That's what's called for here. That's all we're really voting on. And quite frankly, the where the rubber really does meet the road is not so much in the constitution itself. It's going to be in in the resoning. That's where everybody has an opportunity to talk about implementation of regulations. So, I encourage folks to participate in that process to get involved. If you want to encourage other people, please do. This should be a communitywide process. Uh but for my purposes tonight, this is to me a very very narrow ask and uh one I'm willing to um agree to and send to the uh council for their final approval. So with that, let's call for the question.

That motion carries 52 with Vice Chair Zik and Commissioner Dixon voting no. All right, we have no old business and no new business. Uh, departmental reports. Mr. Yang, public services.

Good evening. So, Chair Harland, Vice Chief Zik, and honorable members of the planning commission. Good evening. Uh, it's my pleasure to present to you tonight's public works report. Uh, first report is walk to school day. Uh, it's an annual event held in October that encourages healthy habits, community building, and safe pedestrian biking routes to school. Uh, one was held last week, Wednesday, October 8th. uh with various schools participating such as Victoria, Sonora, College Park, Kaiser, etc. Um this week, Wednesday, October 15th, walk to school day continues with Whittier, Paulino, Wilson, Adams, and Davis elementary schools all participating. So, come on and come all. Uh next to report is the community bike skills workshop that Commissioner Martinez mentioned uh in his commissioner reports. So, briefly, it's going to be held at the Costa Mesa Senior Center at 695 West 19th Street from 1 to 5:00 pm. It's a free event to teach kids and young adults about bike safety, uh, learning the rules of the road and bike skills. And also, free tuneups to bicycles will be given as well. So, again, everyone is welcome to come and join. Uh, lastly, public works is proud proud to announce that construction along Fairview Road between Fair Drive to Newport Boulevard starts this week. Uh the planned road will involve a replace uh degraded roadway sections and new paving and also renewed uh street striping, improved bicycle uh lanes and green conflict zones. And also a new crossing for pedestrians called the Hawk signal will be provided south of Lyola Road to improve connections to College Park Elementary School. So that completes my public works report and I now defer back to the chair.

Thank you very much. Uh development services director Tai. Thank you, chair and members of the planning commission. Just a quick update on some recent city council actions. On October 7th, the city council heard the appeal of a small lot subdivision at 2308 Santa Ana Avenue and upheld the planning commission's decision to approve that uh small lot subdivision with the construction of the two single family homes. Uh the city council also approved second reading of the technical code cleanup um updates that the planning commission had previously heard. Those updates will take effect uh November 6th. um at the upcoming city council meeting. Uh currently on the agenda, the appeal of a cannabis business permit for culture cannabis club at 2301 Newport. Um and also the city council will be discussing the uh Fairview Developmental Center scope of environmental study that the planning commission previously uh forwarded a recommendation on. And then coming up on November 4th at city council, uh we will be taking the uh planning commission's recommendation on the land use element um general plan amendment tonight. And peripherally also uh the uh trienal building and fire code updates are happening this year. So those will be presented to city council. And just by way of a brief primer, there aren't um a lot of changes. Um, Assembly Bill 130 essentially froze a lot of the building code changes for residential development as a way of minimizing the number of adjustments that uh developers and architects had to make to plans. Um, so they'll be doing some safety updates, but generally we're not looking at any wholesale changes. Um, you know, although everybody will have to undergo training. Um, and then just a quick recap. Um last week our staff uh hosted the the city's one of the city's um bianual fair housing workshops and also presented a status update for the Fairview Developmental Center planning process at the parks and community services commission. So that's my update

tonight. Thank you so much. Thank you. Lastly, Mr. Presioce, city attorney's report. Thank you, Chair Harland. I have no report this evening. Okay, then I will adjourn the meeting. [Music]