Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Anybody with a soft drink, I advise you to open it now. All right.

Is that like to silence your cell phone? [sighs] Good evening and welcome to the planning commission meeting of Monday, December 8th, 2025. I now call the meeting to order. Uh I've asked uh Vice Chair Zik to please send the pledge this evening. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Anna, would you please uh do the voice roll call? Chair Harland here. Vice Chair Zik

here. Commissioner Rojos here. Commissioner Kleak here. Commissioner Andrade here. Commissioner Dixon here. Commissioner Martinez here.

We have no announcements or presentations this evening. Uh which brings us to public comments. 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. Uh if you'd like to speak, please come to either podium. If you're participating by Zoom, use the raise hand option at the bottom of the screen. And if you're joining uh the meeting by phone and would like to speak, please press star 9. Give me one second. I'll get your mic set up. All right, go ahead. Good evening, Commission. Jay Humphrey, Cost me Mesa resident. Just want to do two things. First off, thank staff for their ongoing efforts and positive outcome on the Fair View Park um update master plan. Uh it will be truly a a good document to move forward on and to continue to see Fairview Park handled appropriately and and uh uh preserve for the people that come way after we're long gone after I'm long burning dirt inside. Uh secondarily, I would like to wish all of you a very happy holiday season, merry Christmas, happy new year. Please enjoy it with family and friends, but please enjoy it. Uh we won't get the chance again because you don't have any more meetings, but we will have to leave the first year to see you again and look forward to it. Thank you very much.

All right. Thank [snorts] you, Mr. Humphrey. Anyone else in chambers? Anna, do we have anybody on Zoom or phone? No, we do not, Mr. Chairman. Okay, I will close public comments, which takes us to planning commissioner comments and suggestions. Uh, I'll start to my left with Commissioner Martinez.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, first, uh, I wanted to mention that the Costa Mesa Sanitary District is accepting applications for their citizens advisory committee if you're interested in talking about waste and waste water. Feel [snorts] free to go to their website at www.cmssdca.gov and apply for their committee. Uh next, uh Snoopy House is back. As we all walked in, I'm sure we all saw the decorations. Uh starting this Friday evening, you can enjoy the display, see Santa, enjoy some food, some performances. It'll be a great uh uh event. I know it's a tradition here, and I'm excited for it. Um and I wanted to use my comment to uh talk about uh something that I think that perhaps not us, but the council needs to work on updating. I previously mentioned last time our planning commission bylaws and how they're out of date. One thing that the council has to work on, a kind of a minor thing is their own council policies. Um uh some some examples that specifically relate to planning for us is um that private privately initiated general plan amendments uh shall only be heard at the first meetings in February, June, and October. I don't know if we've ever actually done that. Um, there's also a specific review procedure for F deviations in council policy, which I don't know if that's now in our municipal code. And relating to Mr. Humphrey's comment about the Fairview Park master plan, here's a fun one for us. It actually requires that we as the planning commission review changes to the Fair View Park master plan and approve and uh and recommendations to the council on the Fairview Park master plan. So unless the council changes that or there's some other different legal interpretation, um then I guess we might be seeing the Fairview Park master plan soon. So

that's very exciting. Um and those are my comments. Thank you. All right. Thank you, uh Commissioner Dixon.

Thanks, uh Commissioner Martinez and and Chair. I don't have a lot of comments tonight. I just really briefly um we we hope that we know there's not a ton of viewers on YouTube right now. I typically log in and check as myself, but watch the city council meetings. Watch the planning commission meetings. I'm telling you, you'll know more about the city than you've ever understood. You'll know who your neighbors are. Get up and call in. You'll understand how where the city council feels on certain things. It's really, really important. And I bring that up because Commissioner Martinez uh did a great job in the Fairview Fairview Park master plan update uh with his comments just reminding other elements of city staff that may not have an eye on sort of the general plan is things about how things such as the Fairview Park master plan have to be consistent with other elements in the city. And so there had been some disconnect with the bike plan and the active transportation plan and the Fairview Park master plan update. And so that's been reconciled and I hope it does come back to us because it's a very important plan. But just reiterating uh being very involved. I don't like watching the city council meetings on a Tuesday myself as much. I've got other things to do, but it's incredibly important and uh it turns out to be quite valuable. So thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Andrade. I won't repeat everything that was said, but um just a huge appreciation uh to the city staff, [clears throat] my fellow commissioners, and just wishing everyone a wonderful um holiday full of gratitude. Commissioner Kipek, nothing else for me. Thanks. Okay, Commissioner Roas. Nothing really. Thank you.

Okay, Vice Chair Zeke, nothing. Okay, nothing for me this evening. That takes us to uh consent calendar. We have one item on the consent calendar tonight. All matters listed on our consent calendar are considered to be routine and will be act upon in one motion. There'll be no separate discussion unless members of the commission, staff or public request specific items be discussed or removed and items removed from the consent calendar will be discussed and voted upon immediately following planning commission action on the remainder of the consent calendar. I understand Vice Chair Zik wants to have a discussion. So, we'll pull item number one, which is the unofficial meeting minutes of November 10th, 2025.

Thank you. I just wanted to make a comment on page 11. I just want to compliment staff on very accurately capturing and reflecting my comments at the uh last meeting regarding Tessa and the gym on 17th and my interest in seeing a list of active planning applications. So I want to thank you for that accurate capture and uh I won't bring those items up again. I merely point out I've not uh seen or heard any progress on those three uh suggestions and I suppose that's okay. I feel better that I expressed them. Thank you.

Okay. Would you like to make the motion to approve the minutes? Okay. Motion by Vice Chair Zik, second by Commissioner Dixon. Let's call for the question. That motion carries 70. All right, we have three public hearing items tonight. Uh Anna, would you please read the title for public hearing item number one?

Public hearing item number one, called to review PAPL-25-00004, zoning administrator approval of a minor conditional use permit. PMCP-24-000029 for a new wireless communication facility at 2065 Placentia Avenue. I understand the applicant has requested a continuence and that's staff's recommendation to continue the item to the planning commission meeting of March 23rd, 2026. Do we have a motion for that? I move the staff recommendation. Okay. Moved by Commissioner Martinez, second by Commissioner Dixon. Let's call for the question.

That motion carries 70. Okay. Before I move on, Mr. Presioce, do we need any public comment on that or since we are continuing to a date certain?

Correct. Typically, if you're going to continue it to a date certain not to renotice it, that one would open the public hearing. Uh if there is any public comment, they could take the public comment and the hearing be continued till the next uh meeting. Okay. Date certain. Okay. Um let's go to public hearing item number two. Anna, would you read the title for that? Public hearing item number two, design review PDES-25-00002 and tentative parcel map 2025-141 for a residential small lot subdivision to create two parcels each containing a new twostory detached single family residence and an attached twocar garage at 2396 Orange Avenue. Please note, we have received public comments on this item. This is a call for any exparte communications.

Commissioners, any exparte communications? Seeing none to my right. I visited the site today. Okay. Commissioner Dixon. Okay. All right. Turn over to Mr. Roando to present the item.

Thank you, Chairman. Good evening, commissioners. My name is Jeffrey Roando, assistant planner with the economic and development service department. And the item before you tonight is a design view and tenant parcel map application. for a small lot subdivision development at the subject property 2396 Orange Avenue. Now, the subject property is currently developed of a single family dwelling and a two-car garage which will be proposed to be demolished. Uh the the project includes the request for approval of a design review and attended parcel map application to facilitate a residential small subdivision to create two parcels and for the construction of a new detached residential unit on each parcel with an attached twocar garage. In addition, the project proposes site improvements including new hardscape and landscaping. The subject site is located in east side Costa Musa and the property consists of an approximately 7,580 square foot lot that is identified on the south corner on the intersection of Orange Avenue and Santa Isabel Avenue. The property is zoned R2MD multifamily residential medium density and has a general plan land use designation of medium density residential. The surrounding established neighborhood contains a mixture of single family and multifamily residential units. Now, here is a couple site photos of the site. Uh the project will involve demolishing the existing dwelling and garage to accommodate the new development. The photo on the top right is a view of the existing home from Orange Avenue and the photo directly below is a view from Santa Isabel Avenue. The proposed tenant parcel map proposes to to subdivide the 7,580 ft parcel that's outlined in red into two part separate parcels. The tenant parcel map proposes um a dedicated 5-ft sidewalk easement

along a portion of Orange Avenue as highlighted in yellow, which in turn would result in updated parcel lines as shown as follows. Parcel one, which is the parcel shaded in blue to the right, would have a lot area of 3,752 square feet. And parcel two, as seen to the left, would be 3200 ft in size. When it comes to parking for a small at subdivision development, the required parking per is based on the amount of bedrooms per unit. The proposed site plan includes a detached single family dwelling on each parcel and and each unit will feature a two-car garage, which you can see in the shaded areas in blue, and two open parking spaces met on the driveway, which are highlighted in yellow. The project will be providing the minimum number of parking require parking as required by the municipal code with two garage spaces and two open parking spaces for each parcel. Both parcels would also have separate new curb cutouts to accommodate driveway access directly from Santa Isabel for parcel one and from Orange Avenue for parcel 2. And looking at the floor plans, both units would consist of a half bath, a garage, and a living room with a kitchen on the first floor. onto the second floor. Both units would consist of three bedrooms and three full bathrooms and no balconies would be proposed on the second floor. And here is a colored rendering of each the front of each unit. The proposed dwellings would consist primarily of a white stucco for the exterior walls with a chimney covered in stone veneer. Uh the dwellings would also be topped with a standing seam metal roofing to provide a more modern and cleaner look. Now the code requires that all landscape areas consist of drought tolerant plant material and shall meet the minimum

number of plant types based on the total landscape square footage. Uh the landscape area proposed for an entire development site consists of 2341 square ft. The proposed planning materials such as trees, shrubs, and ground cover coverage are proposed to comply or exceed the code minimum. Also, um that the applicant proposes uh two two new uh street trees along Orange Avenue. In addition, staff has also included condition number 12 um to require that the driveways and parking areas to be finished with decorative stamped concrete or previous papers. In order to approve the project, the plan commission must make the required findings for tenant parcel map and design review applications. staff has conclude has included proposed findings in the report. The proposed design review for the residential small lot subdivision complies with the findings since the development standards comply with the zoning code and the proposed design of the new two-story units comply with the residential design guidelines. The proposed tenant parcel map also complies with findings since the subdivision and the proposed use is consistent the zoning code and general plan. And in addition, staff has proposed an amendment to condition of number condition of approval number four to be amended as follows. The applicant shall install or maintain a 6ft high decorative block wall around the perimeter of the proposed development lot pursuant to the CMMC or walls on adjacent properties already exist. The applicant shall work with the adjacent property owners to prevent sidebyside walls with gaps in between them and or provide adequate privacy screen by trees and landscaping. In the event either of the neighboring properties to the southwest and southeast remove their existing perimeter block wall adjacent to the subject property, the subject property owner shall be responsible for constructing a 6ft high block wall along the perimeter of the subject property.

Now the updated language is to acknowledge that there is an existing 6ft high block wall entirely within the neighboring properties that functions as a barrier from this subject property. The amended condition approval would no longer require the applicant to provide a new six foot high block wall within their property boundaries as there is already an existing block wall separate adjacent properties which would um satisfy that condition. With that said, staff recommends that the planning commission adopt the resolution to find that the project is calculating exempt from SQA and to approve design review and tenant parcel map applications subject to conditions of approval including conditional number uh including condition of approval number four amended as shown on the previous slide. This concludes my presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have and the applicant Rod Jber is also in attendance to answer any questions this evening. Thank you.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Roando. Uh, commissioners, any questions of staff? Quick question. Go ahead.

Uh, thanks for your presentation. Um, I just had a quick question regarding condition of approval number five, and it talks about, uh, prior to building permit final, the developer shall construct decorative block walls or wood fencing on the interior property lines of the development lot pursuant to the Coast Mesa Municipal Code. But the, uh, I'm looking at the site plan, and it indicates vinyl. So, I just want to make sure that that vinyl fence that's either going to be replaced with what's required in the condition of approval or what was the staff's intent on that? And I'm looking at SP1 site plan. And then it's also depicted I believe on the landscape plan. And yes, on the conceptual landscape plan as well as vinyl So the intent of condition number four is to require that there's There's perimeter fencing around um the entire project site. Um condition number five ensures that modification to the fencing would also be required to be reviewed by the planning division. Um I think they both work um in concert with each other to require the perimeter fencing. We were proposing the amendments to condition number four because um as it sits there's a current wall. So the way

that the condition was written would require them to put an additional wall next to the other wall. Um the condition number five also has language to respect the visibility requirements in the um in the intersection and in the driveways. So they sort of they will both work to require the walls as far as um if the intent is to remove the vinyl fence or not. Um, Jeffrey can maybe speak a little bit more to that and what the plans say and the applicant can provide information.

Thank you. So I guess I is so is the privacy fence the same fence you're talking about in condition rule number five because it there's also a photograph of it on the site plan or the conceptual landscape plan which I it looks like page 69. So, I just want to make sure before we move forward that we're not going to be saddling them with a requirement for a block wall when they wanted to put vinyl or we can't they can't put the vinyl there if we want to have it. I just want to make sure we're consistent.

Yeah, the vinyl the the vinyl fencing can can be allowed on the interior of the of the property. Okay. Um but yeah, the the condition of approval number four being amended is just not to require the applicant to constru be required to construct the new um six high block wall on okay around the perimeter there. All right. Thank you. Just to follow up on that. So condition five says prior to building permit final developer shall construct decorative block walls or wood fencing on the interior of the property lines of the development lot pursu pursuant to the CMCC. So, does our municipal code require either wood or concrete block?

Now, according to the municipal code, it does require a um um a masonry block wall on the perimeter of the property.

Okay. But what about the interior? Because this this clause is referencing the municipal code and I don't know if we've got a specific provision for interior walls. And this is specifically the fence that's depicted between the two uh structures or lots. Yeah. Uh the fencing requirement in the municipal code requires um a masonry block wall along the uh property lines of the subject property. Um okay. Well, I I'm less concerned about the actual material than I am about making sure that the condition reflects what is in our municipal code. So, if we don't require the interior property line to have a block wall or wood fencing, then number five would need to be amended.

Let us pull a little bit more information. We'll get back to you. All right. All right. Any other questions of staff, commissioners? Yes, sir.

Okay. Commissioner Martinez. Um, I will stick on fencing for one question. Um, and I just want to question the word perimeter because to me perimeter means around the entire site and not just the interior lines. So, uh, when we say a block wall around the perimeter, does that just mean the interior property lines or is it around the entire site? We are referring to just the interior property lines. Okay. Um

uh I will take that answer and you guys are working on fences so I'll move on to a different question. Um and then maybe we can get some clarity. Um on page 31 or 11 of our staff report, it um under general pan general plan conformance policy LEU 1.3 consistency, it says that it is demolishing two rental single family dwelling units. Is that accurate or are we just de demolishing one? Uh the project involves just the masheen one single family residence.

Okay. Um I want to ask about SB 330 consistency which is the housing crisis act of 2019 and whether this development project is in conformance with that state law. So, first I want to ask if in the past 5 years was this unit was this unit rented by a low or very low-income household. So, this property is not subject to the housing crisis act because of the requirements in the act note that even if it was lowincome or rental property, when it's replaced, it doesn't have to be such. So, we're not studying the replacement because the requirement is there is essentially no requirement to replace it with an affordable unit.

I'm going to I'm going to read from the state law and then I'm going to see what uh what the legal opinion is. So, so it says notwithstanding paragraph 1, for purposes of a development project that consists of a single residential unit on a site with a single protected unit, replace shall mean that the protected unit is replaced with a unit of any size at any income level. So my my question is how many units is this development project? Because the site contains one unit. This development project, how many units does it contain?

They're demolishing one unit and constructing two units. Uh well, one unit on each subdivided lot, but in in totality, this development project is two units. Correct. So that means that the exemption under state law does not apply. No, it is exempt from requirements of the Housing Crisis Act because it is only one existing unit on site right now. and it's being replaced with more than one unit on the property.

Mr. Presioce, can you please confirm that because I'm reading development project and site as different parts of that state law.

So my understanding is that the planning staff's interpretation is correct. There's not this is not a replacement unit. This is not a a protected unit that is being demolished and needs to be replaced. This is a single family existing single family unit not not in protected status that is being replaced with two separate units in essence. Okay. Um I'm going to go to code requirement number 19 on page 54. Are we requiring sprinklers on this property? Do you mean fire sprinklers?

Yes. Yes. Yes. Okay, those are my questions. All right, any other questions, staff? Okay, seeing none, I'll open the public hearing and ask the applicant or applicants representative if they'd like to come to the podium. I need you to I have to ask you two questions. So, commissioners, oh, hold on one second. Let me get your

So, just state your name for the record and also I want to ask if you read the conditions of approval and if you agree to them. Hi, this is uh Rod Jar and I have read the conditions of approval and we agreed to them. Okay. Um if you want to make any comments, you can. If you want to respond to any questions that uh commissioners have asked already. No, everything's fine. Appreciate your hard work. Okay, before I let you go, commissioners, any questions of the applicant? Yep. Okay. Commissioner Andrade. [clears throat]

Hi, good evening. Um um page 52 u condition of approval one on code requirements. All contractors subcontractor must have valid business license to do business in city of Costa Mesa. Um, you know, just curious, this being a wonderful project in our city, um, are you engaged in any contractors being late, uh, union supported in your plans? I don't think so. I think we're local guys. I don't believe they're union to ensure that they have benefits and fair pay and protections and all of that.

Yeah, I've never come across that before. Union contractors is that the question? Yes. Not in my experience. Supported labor. Yeah. Yeah. Not in my experience. I'm not sure how to answer that honestly. So, you commonly don't engage with um contractors and and Yeah. developers that are typically they're not part of a union. Yeah. On a single family or that kind of project. They're not typically union. So, completely independent pretty much. Yes. On to their own devices.

Okay. Great. Um you know as you um heard a little bit about the conversation happening with um or the questions that uh Commissioner Martinez was going at um you know one of the things the findings that we were the staff was looking to explore is you know opportunities for to support the California Department of Housing and Community Development where we we really seek to create affordable the city is seeking to create affordable multif family housing developments and projects And just out of um the project looks amazing. Um but just out of curiosity from the your work um would have there been any incentives that the city could have provided you in as you were exploring this breakdown of of lot um that would have maybe interested you or kind of piqu your attention or interest to create town homes, condominiums to truly like increase the volume of housing. What from your perspective like anything that would have we could learn from?

Yeah. You know, it's based upon your zoning code that what we've put on the plans is is maxing it out. So, there's not much room for more. I I mean, I guess if you want to split it up and make smaller stack shacks that are pretty common in town now. I I'm a resident. I own a house in Costa Mesa. So, um you see them mostly on the west side. I mean, I think I saw they're going up. What is um In and Out? Is that Anaheim? Uh, yes. It looks like they're four story tall. They're four stories tall over there. That was a first. Yeah. Yeah. But I don't think that would really fit on our side of the east side neighborhood. It's more twotory single family homes.

Yeah. Or it could have been something I mean, do you could have been an opportunity for twotory like single flats, right? That could have been a family each per floor. So four units. Mhm. The parking probably would be the issue providing the parking for four units. Mhm. Unless there's some consideration cuz it's some consideration parking consideration. Yes, exactly. All right. So, is that would that be kind of from your perspective? I know my neighbor

over on Hamilton. I walk my dog every morning and he is doing an ADU and initially he wanted to do a separate unit in the back but he was being required to have seven parking spaces on site which he didn't have room so he's doing an ADU now which doesn't require the parking right right it's the parking that typically kills these in my humble opinion perfect thank you that's really helpful to

to um kind of understand from our developer partners uh perspective in the community, but otherwise um it looks like a great project. Um did you from your perspective there we did receive one comment um from the community on concerns on uh public safety on that intersection because I I also frequently commute down um Sante Sav and um Orange Avenue. Yes. Any concerns on traffic visibility? Anything that the city can support to ensure that it's safe? actual crosswalk lines, not just the stop. From your perspective, again, since you're gonna have two two families moving in.

Yeah, I don't know. That's an interesting comment. I mean, I do drive a lot on the west side and east side as well. Um crosswalks, I don't know if they help stop signs, everybody knows. Um, we have our line of sight from the corner, too. So that, you know, as the person's coming up in their car, they can look to the right or look to the left, depending on what property it is, that you're below, what is it, 3 feet, I believe. Um, are there crosswalks there? I don't think there is. No, there isn't. No. Okay. Well, great. Interesting comment, though. Yeah.

Yeah. just want to ensure and address this um constituents concerns about public safety and intersection sight lines, but from your assessment and all the um variables going into this project, pretty safe. Yes. No concerns in this case. Yeah, I believe there's a corner setback and it's 35 ft that goes across so that um for the line of sight as someone's coming up and we've abided by that. Okay, great. Thank you so much. Thank you. All right, I will invite you back if you'd like at the end of uh Thank you. public comments. Appreciate it, Commissioner.

All right, I'll now open public comments. If you'd like to speak on this item, please come to the podium. If you're in the chambers or if you're on uh Zoom, use the raised hand option. And if you're joining by phone and would like to speak, please press star nine. Not seeing anybody rush to a podium. Anna, do we have anybody on Zoom or by phone? No, there is not, Mr. chairman. Okay, I will close the public comment portion of the hearing. Um, commissioners, any other questions of staff or the applicant? Uh, Commissioner Dix Dixon,

have we um figured out the interior fence thing? I just want to make sure. Condition of approval number five, I think that the the follow-up wording in here, oh gosh, where did it go? Um, it says that any future modifications to the fencing on the interior property lines after project completion shall first be reviewed and approved by the development services director. Um, I I looked up the code. I may not be it may not be the right code you're talking about, 1375. And it basically it doesn't require just masonry. It it it requires opaque or green or whatever. So, um, if we would like to amend that condition in our motion, we could. That's correct.

Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Dixon, did you notice does it prohibit vinyl? Is it exclusive? It does not. Just want to make sure we get this right. So, the way that the code is written is it indicates that block or masonry walls are required. However, there's exceptions allowed which include vinyl fences and some other types of wood fences subject to the development services director review. Okay. My laptop is fighting on this, but I just had it open. I'll read it. Somebody else can ask her a question if they have one and I'll pull this up. I felt like Commissioner Tai was giving me a look. Okay, Vice Chair Zick.

Uh, thank you. Um, before I get to my question, just following up on the line of questioning from Commissioner Dixon, if indeed a vinyl fence is consistent with the municipal code, I would simply recommend that if paragraph five or condition of approval number five is boilerplate that it be updated so that it reflects the intent in future projects. Um, my question is staff. So, I'm looking at the letter we received from the public and the comment about the um unobstructed sightelines. Is that something we looked at? And if not, and if it were an issue, how would we deal with that in the future? Yeah, staff has looked at that public comment and we did examine the um the impacts to visibility along the around the site. Um I did provide an exhibit in regards to that. Um I mean looking at the the um development along both streets along Orange Avenue there is um just only a 2 and a half foot decorative fence on the front front yard and then also on along Santa Isabel they're they are going to propose just a three-foot um high solid vinyl fence but then they will not uh continue the fencing onto the visibility triangle. So they they were aware to just [snorts] not impact visibility.

Uh thank you for looking at it and thanks for that response. [clears throat] Regarding the last paragraph uh of concern having to do with the population, my question is if somebody u bought one of these homes and uh whether they occupied it or they rented it out and uh a dozen people moved in, does the city have any way of dealing with that kind of an overcrowding situation? My understanding is that there's not a maximum number of tenants, but we have some um requirements for um family development or families occupying places. And I think there are some limitations regarding unrelated members. I don't remember off the top of my head exactly what number that is, but if it's if it's an unsafe or not consistent with the building code requirements, state requirements, then that's something that we can enforce. That's all I got. Thank you.

Okay, Commissioner Dixon, just a quick followup. So, I'm looking at um municipal code section 13-75 uh A1 where it says all interior property lines of the mass and it it's basically in residential zones including plan development except R1 and this is R2. Um, all interior property lines of the master development lot shall have 6 foot high solid opaque walls or fences that conform to the city's walls, fences, and landscaping standards. Would there be anything in those standards that prevents vinyl?

No. And if you continue down, um, so that's interior walls shall just be opaque. Exterior walls, which is subsection two, talks about the block wall. If we go down to subsection 23 with the exceptions, it talks about these exceptions may include but are not limited to a combination of walls with vinyl fencing, stain treated wood, rot iron um fencing, green wall or green sustainable compost materials. So those exceptions provide a variation of materials that are allowed. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, if we're all good, I'm going to close the public hearing. And may I have a motion on the item?

Got Vice Chair Zick. What's your motion? um that uh planning commission adopt a resolution to find that the project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act SQUA pursuant to section 15315 class 15 minor divisions of land and section 15303 class 3 new construction or conversion of small structures. In addition, the project is statutoily exempt from the requirements of SQUA pursuant to public resources code section 211080.66 66 housing development projects and that we approve parcel map number 2025-141 and the design review PDES-25-00002 based on findings of fact subject to conditions of approval including the staff recommended uh changes to condition of approval number four uh that was included in the staff presentation and uh clarity on condition of approval number five that wood or vinyl on the interior property lines adding the word or vinyl. That's my motion.

And that motion is seconded by Commissioner Dixon. Uh would you like to speak to your motion? Nope. Okay. Commissioner Dixon. Uh just a potential friendly amendment. Uh, Vice Chair Zick, if you wanted to just strike [clears throat] decorative block walls, shall con or just strike block or decorative construct walls or wood fencing on the interior property lines of development lot pursuant to the CMC. That way you can they have a little flexibility with the other materials mentioned in there. Or do you want to keep it as you did? Yours works fine too, but if you wanted to [clears throat] if you're if you're happy with mine, I would just keep it.

Yep. I think there's a We don't often have uh projects that come forward with zero deviations uh from the code. So, we appreciate that. And um it's a it's a good looking development. I appreciate that. Uh I think it's going to be an improvement to that corner. I think that you do have um the design was was thoughtful and careful and preserving the visibility on that corner and sort of the the look from it. It's not masked and uh I like the landscaping. So, thank you very much for bringing this forward and I hope it's a success. Okay. Any other commissioners wish to speak? Yeah. Commissioner Martinez.

Yeah. I'm still not comfortable with staff's interpretation of uh the housing crisis act. To me, it seems pretty clear that a in order to fall under an exemption that the development project needs to consist of a single residential unit and this consists of two residential units. So, I I want to be just straight with you. I I like the project. I think it's a good project. I just need to know from staff that this is not a protected unit. um and then I would be able to support it. But but without the knowledge that this is not a protected unit, I cannot support it at this time. Thank you.

Okay, Commissioner Andrade.

Yes. Um again, um this is a a great project. Um and I greatly appreciate um Mr. Jihiba for your feedback on how the city can work towards its general plan goals to include to improve the balance between rental and home ownership opportunities. understanding that many of our a large prop portion of our community are rental in we're not really creating realistic paths for someone one day to move into these somebody in a true rental say on the west side or anywhere across our city to move into this beautiful two-story home. Um, so again, just creating for the record efforts that we really need to create meaningful paths for individuals to actually move from a rental to home ownership. That's all.

All right. Thank you. Uh, I'll be supporting the motion. Um, and I I would agree it's it's a well-designed project. I drive by this corner almost daily. Um, and that property has seen much better days. So, this will be a vast improvement. Uh, I do appreciate the fact though that it is also, I think, rightsized for the neighborhood. I mean, it is not a McMansion by any stretch. And I think you're you're uh accommodating two homes on that one lot in a in a kind of thoughtful manner. Uh, if there are no other comments, let's call for the question. Can and can we just have clarity that the additional language to be modified wasn't added to the motion. Um it the original motion stands. Okay.

Yes. Thank you. All right. That motion carries 61 with Commissioner Martinez voting no.

That decision is uh final unless appealed to the city council within seven days. Ann, will you please read the title for public hearing item number three? Public hearing item number three, an ordinance to amend title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code to allow for ministerial approval of two unit small lot ordinance projects PCTY-25-00007. I'll turn it over to Mr. Joerger now to present the item. Uh thank you. Uh good evening, Chair Harlland and the rest of the commission. Uh my name is Chris Jagger, senior planner here with the city of Costa Mesa. Um the zoning code amendment for you tonight is regarding uh two-unit small lot ordinance projects just like the one you just saw. Um so um the city's small lot ordinance, it was first established in April 2014. Uh and this was Orange County's first small lot ordinance. Um it allows for uh the subdivision of up to 15 units in multifamily zones uh into fee simple lots uh with single family homes on each lot. Um on three separate occasions the development standards have been modified since that initial adoption. Um, in addition, there is a current pathway for single family zone districts, R1 districts, um, to have a twounit subdivision that is ministerial, ministerally processed. Um, and that's a result of, uh, Senate Bill 9. Um, [clears throat] so staff is proposing the zoning code amendment uh to allow for a ministerial

pathway for these two-unit small lot ordinance projects. Um this would provide consistency with multifamily zones with the current R1 subdivisions that can happen because of SB9. Um the goal of this is to reduce processing time for these applications uh to increase ownership housing opportunities uh and just to provide consistency with other uh residential districts in the town. Um the first uh part of the zoning code amendment is the planning applications review process uh in table 13-29C. Um this would add a uh new row uh which would allow for the ministerial processing of parcel maps for two unit small lot ordinances. Uh it would make note that there's no public notice and no public hearing that is required. Um in addition with the SB9 um ordinance which was been codified uh there wasn't an omission um and it was not included in the planning applications table. Um so this [clears throat] zoning code amendment would include that as well. Um regarding the actual small lot ordinance uh section 13-42.2 is proposed to be modified to exempt these qualifying twounit projects from design review. Um and then furthermore, the development standards uh for smaller ordinances are proposed to be modified. Um just to provide clarity for the setbacks, um the table lists various setbacks for front, side, and rear. Um and the the front setback identifies it as a development lot. Uh while the side and rear uh does not include that. Um however, uh pretty much every project that's been processed has been uh processed that way. Um, in addition, the code is proposed to be modified uh to match uh driveway

widths from other residential districts. Um, the the intent here is to allow for one flag lot unit to have a 10- foot wide driveway as opposed to the required 16. And the 10-ft is uh um the same as all other development standards and the residential um development standards. Uh to ensure that these projects are processed ministerally um and to ensure that there is objectivity um staff is proposing a checklist be required with all qualifying twounit smaller ordinance projects. Um that was included in your in your report packet. Um and these uh would just ensure that it is objective. Uh there should be no subjectivity and ministerial approvals. Um, if there are deviations requested, the code already allows for pathways for these deviations, uh, including minor modifications, administrative adjustments, variances, uh, and minor design review. So, if a project doesn't comply with all the standards, they're still route forward, and this is on a case-by case basis. Uh the zoning code update it is uh uh conforms with the general plan uh including the housing element which includes various programs to reduce governmental constraint on the production of housing. Um this preserves the density of residential neighborhoods as it doesn't increase the density which is already allowed. Um it promotes owner occupied housing. Um and it also facilitates housing creation. Um the zoning code amendment uh is exempt from SQA pursuant to general rule uh because there is no increase in the density. Uh no land use new land uses are authorized uh and there is no uh uh foreseeable physical change to the

environment that would occur. Uh so in terms of next steps, staff is recommending that the planning commission find the project exempt from SQA and to recommend to the city council to adopt an ordinance approving the code amendment uh relating to the ministerial approval of these projects. Um that concludes my presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you, Mr. Joerger. Commissioners, any questions of staff? Commissioner Martinez.

Thank you. Uh first I just want to confirm that no current property where there are three or more units would be eligible for this ordinance. Correct. Uh so that would be reducing the number of units on the site. So no.

Yeah. Um, and then I just wanted to make a very small point, but in our new table 1329C, so that's page 92 I'm looking at. Um, this is um the third one down on that page is what establishes this new ministerial uh review. Do we need to specify or fewer? I I don't think you can split it into fewer than two lots, right? Uh that's correct. Okay. Thank you,

Vice Chair Ze. Thank you. Uh Mr. Joerger, if this amendment was approved, um I understood you to say there would be no public notice given for these types of projects. Is that correct? Uh that's correct. And that's consistent with the SB9 projects. And are staff reports still going to be prepared as they are for zoning administrator approved projects or not? Um, so most ministerial approvals through the city are processed just through the processing of the tentative map itself uh and then building permits. Um, however, we would work through the exact processing from here. So the answer is likely no.

Likely no. Okay. Thank you for that clarity. And um what appeal process would exist if any if there was a ministerial approval and uh planning commissioner, city council member, resident uh wished uh to appeal that decision. Um so any any decision made by city staff is appealable. Um and then that would get routed up to the uh next highest review authority. And that process would happen how um I'll leave that to uh Mr. Presioce. Can you repeat the question please commissioner?

So if this uh um amendment is approved and then there is a ministerially approved project that somebody wants to appeal, what is the appeal process? So typically a ministerial project typically a ministerial project is not appealable. For example, a building code is a ministerial action. The issuance of a building permit is a ministerial action that's not subject to appeal. However, there not that many ministerial projects um in the zoning code. So we need to take a look at that. But generally a ministerial project is not subject to appeal.

Got it. Okay. I'll take that as a a a note. Those were my questions. Thank you. Okay. Anything else? Go ahead, Commissioner Andrade.

Um, just out of curiosity on page 95, um, why the limitation of property owners developing their attic as they wish. So, right, there's very specifics and there I think somewhere I read in the report you can't have electricity, you can't have um you know double-sided walls just so that it's warm or whatever you know just for weather prevention is any just to clearly understand what's the why the limitation.

Um so this is a standard which is consistent through all residential districts. Um we could do some research and get back to you on why it was adopted in that way. Mhm. Yeah. Just curious, right? If I have a the the luxury of an attic, maybe I want to turn it into a reading nook or something or something creative. Um, so just limiting property owners not having the ability to have electrical outlets or operable windows. Um, but a dormal style window is okay. So anyways, just out of curiosity, maybe providing developers a little more freedom and property owners on that. Um and then on um on the same table, [sighs] the maximum number of stories and building height. And maybe just for the record, can you elaborate on the limitation of only two stories only allowed in the west side overlay? Why not allowed across the across the city? So, the residential development standards um throughout the city allow for the twostory and 27 ft height. Um the westside overlay district um including the residential ownership district does allow for higher um heights uh and that's processed through a master plan. Um however the um those heights they're they're more consistent in the westside area and that's why they were adopted at that time of the urban plans. Um you you see a lot more of the threetory town homes roof decks on top in the west side area.

Um so that's basically limited by the design of the east side or the code in in the east side. Um yeah, the the west side overlay allows for additional opportunities on the west side. So can we in in this in this process can we add for opportunities for taller taller structures? Um under this ordinance as noticed I wouldn't recommend it. Um that that would be a a different ordinance. Okay. that would have to come forward in the future.

Got it. Um also along the lines so um right so now with this process now individuals that are going to develop like the project we just saw they are within three units. So they would skip um the need for having to go through a an application process coming to commission and all of that. So, would you anticipate would this discourage developers to just kind of take that route and say, "Well, I'm just going to create um units that or or units that only have three three bedrooms only so that way we don't have to go through this approval process just to keep it simpler and go through the ministerial process instead of uh going through commission."

So, the the ministerial process applies to two units. um doesn't it's regardless of bedroom size. Um and I think that the market is strong enough that if three units are allowed per the underlying density, a developer would move forward with that regardless of if it has to go through a ministerial process or not. um this the two-unit ministerial process um over 60% of the applications for smaller ordinances have been with these two units and that's just because of the existing lot sizes which allow for two units only

right yes thank you I think I got a typo in my notes here um and I think that is it thank you okay Um, Mr. Jagger, one one question. Um, for the project that we just considered and approved, had this amendment been in place for that project, it just would have been a ministerial approval. Correct. Correct.

Okay. Then actually one other question before I go to Commissioner Dixon. Um on page six of the staff report there's a discussion under fiscal analysis of um the uh the fees planning fees. Um would there be any reduction in the fees if this is just a ministerial approval? Um so we would need to examine the fees and that would have to move forward in a separate ordinance to the uh the city council. Okay. Um but it is something we wouldn't be looking at if this does get approved.

But as an example that's provided um you can see currently the fees are roughly $7800 for the discretionary process where we're anticipating it would probably be reduced more like the SB9 applications which are more of a fee of about $1,500. Right. But that'll be studied by the council.

Okay. All right. Thank you. Um Commissioner Dixon. And you addressed this in the staff report to a certain degree, but I just wanted to get a little bit of more clarification as far as, you know, there's all this new housing law coming from Sacramento and we want to make sure we're consistent with that. We're not in opposite to that. Um, you know, there's SP 1123 and there's all kinds of others that have come out. I think it's 742, etc. Um, but even like in 1123, they have some ex there's some criteria like it has to be a a vacant lot, right? or it has to be um under a certain size, etc. And I read that and and I may be reading it wrong and I'm curious what staff's thought is on as you know, we're trying to preserve the integrity of the subdivision map act while still encouraging housing and all this other stuff. And the subdivision map act does have public notice requirements and all this other stuff. And part of the reason is that an adjacent property owner, we don't have to deal with mineral rights as much here, but an adjacent property owner has, you know, a a right or an expectation to understand what's going to happen next door. So, to that line, I understand what you're trying to do and trying to mimic the mysterial process of the SB9. Um, but does this, and it may be splitting hairs, but is this close enough from staff's perspective where we're not going to be doing anything to impair public notice? Because as we all know, when something happens at the property next door and people are surprised and it generally is a negative experience. So um if we wanted to include some sort of you know posting requirement is that as part of this or no is absolutely no public notice no hearing? No, it's completely ministerial. Is there any posting at all that occurs with SB9 or this sort of thing?

Um so there's there's no postings with SB9. Um it's just allowable right um by R1 property owners to move forward with that. Um and that's uh consistent with state law. Um staff believes that this is also consistent. Okay. Thank you. Right. Any more questions of staff? If not, I'm going Oh, go ahead. And um yes, Chair Harland, just want to clarify that uh yeah, I I misspoke earlier. Appeals uh would not be able to be uh requested on these processes.

Okay. Thank you for clarifying. Uh I will open public comments now. If you'd like to speak on this item, please come to either podium. Nobody is moving. Anna, do we have anybody on Zoom or on the phone? No, we do not, Mr. Chairman. Okay, I'll close public comment portion of the public hearing. Uh, commissioners, any further questions, Vice Chair Zick,

thank you. Um, my question of staff is this. If the planning commission, if the majority of the planning commission uh voted against uh recommending this amendment and uh voted simply to receive and file, would it be staff's intention to still trot this up in front of council or would this be the end? Uh vice chair Zik and through the chair if I could address that.

Sure. Um this topic of the uh two-unit small lot uh the small lot the applica the applicability of the small lot ordinance to two-unit projects has come up multiple times um during city council hearings where um there has been uh expression of interest in a streamlined process for uh two-unit small lot ordinance projects that are equivalent to SP9 um which is only applicable in R1 you know and and I don't need to take the time to explain the difference between R1 and the R2 and R3 lots, but um what staff's intention would be to would be to report back to the city council of the planning commission's discussion um and and and move forward from there. I mean, if the planning commission sends forward a recommendation of not to adopt, we would forward that through. If the planning commission sent through a recommendation of adopt an ordinance, we would send that through. And if the planning commission took no action, we would report that as well. Thank Thank you. Thank you, Vice Chair Ze.

So, does the the phraseiology sending it through mean that amending title 13 would be agendaized on the city council agenda or does send it through mean some memo or email is sent to members of the council? [clears throat] Uh, the mechanics would be dependent on the planning commission's action. Well, if the action was as I described it, I apologize. the action being a a recommendation or I'm sorry, please remind me if the planning commission majority Uhhuh.

voted against amending title 13 and to simply receive and file the report. If that was the decision of the majority of the planning commission, I'm asking for clarity on the phrasiology you used about sending it up. My question specifically was, does that mean you agendaize on the council agenda amending title 13 or does that sending it up phrase mean you send an email to members of the city council and tell them about what happened?

I apologize for the use of the idiom. we would um agendaize an item on amending title 13 with the appropriate action as taken by the planning commission. Yeah, that's what I thought. Thank you. And and just to clarify, um we're merely in an advisory capacity here too. The council is the only body that can take an action to actually amend the ordinance. Yes, that is correct. And that is why any action taken by the planning commission um staff is obligated to present that to the city council. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions? Vice Chair Ze,

did the city council take any action in uh on the public record to request planning commission input on this item? Uh, no. The city council did not take any formal action. Thank you. Thank you.

All right. There are no more questions. I will close the public hearing. Anybody like to make a motion? Motion by Commissioner Martinez. And I've seconded it. Go ahead, Commissioner Martinez. I move that the planning commission adopt a resolution to find that the project is exempt from the provisions of California Environmental Quality Act SQA pursuant to SQA guideline section 15061B3 and recommend that the city council adopt an ordinance approving code amendment PCTY-25-00007 amending title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code pertaining to two unit small lot ordinance projects with a minor amendment to remove the words or fewer from the tentative parcel map row in table 1329 C.

I got ahead of myself, but I do second that motion. Thank you. Would you like to speak to it?

Yes. Um it it seems to me that um these uh uh splits are one of the ways that we've created a lot of housing in this city. and uh the two unit splits specifically and the under the small lot ordinance are the vast majority of the splits um under this section. So it's very good that we are encouraging a ministerial process. It's good that we're going to move forward quickly with applications and projects. I just hope that as we move forward in this process that we protect any of the protected units under state law. Hence my insistence in the last item. I want to make sure that we are good with state law moving forward. But this uh regardless is a very good step to make it easier to build housing in the city. Thank you.

I concur with that uh reasoning. I've been on this day for a long time hearing these uh projects. I was actually trying to think how many small lot ordinance projects and I know vice chair Zik and I did that together for many years. Um and when I was going through the staff report I was curious what the final tally was and it's it's listed you know 77 projects since 2014 and 66% are two units. Um, and as we could tell from the last, uh, hearing, these are generally pretty non-controversial, um, benign projects. And, uh, I do support streamlining our process and, and encouraging more ministerial approval so we can, um, get through these things and provide housing as quickly as possible. I'll also note that I I will, in part of my um, support for this encourage the city council to look at ways at reducing the fees for this. Obviously, there'll be less staff time involved. no hearing. Um we should make it as easy as possible for the applicants to get through this process with with minimal um financial burden because we desperately do need uh these projects. Any other comments? Vice Chair Ze.

Well, I foreshadowed my uh opinion on this item, but I will elaborate on it. Um I will not be supporting this uh motion. Um and it's not a close call at all. Um while it is true that we are an advisory body, nobody asked us for our opinion on this. So to have this trotted up in front of council regardless of what we did uh to me is uh problematic. Of course, I can't do anything about that. um to make uh this ministerial for purposes of consistency. The only thing we're doing is making it consistent with SB9. And SB9 is an abomination. People in R1 uh neighborhoods never expected until SB9 came along that their next door neighbor could subdivide their lot and put two houses on it. Never expected that. So to argue that this would be consistent with SB9, that'd be a true statement. But I think it goes the wrong direction. What also goes in the wrong direction with this change is that there's no public notice. There's no public hearing. There's no staff report. There's no ability by anybody to appeal the decision. We just finished going through an application, spending over 30 minutes on it. questions by multiple questions by multiple planning commissioners, letter from the public. And on previous small lot projects, we've also had members of the public come forward with concerns and we're saying none of that matters. We're cutting all that out. I think that's wrong. We're not inundated with these. That is not a burden to our

agenda. It's not a burden to the staff workload. This hardly streamlines the process. We had one of these projects not too long ago and the applicant said it took two years. And what are we going to save with the ministerial approval? 10 days. No. Wrong direction. This is the wrong direction. You're cutting the public out. We cut them out with Measure K. We cut them out with this. We cut them out with ADUs. Cutting out the public. And yet we pretend that we're here to serve. I'm not pretending.

Commissioner Dixon,

thanks so much. And um I'm not going to be supporting this for the same reasons as Commissioner Zik. I just this is a city initiated effort and what it does and I appreciate staff's desire to do this and streamline things and and there may be a you know I would hope that the city council when they look at this could look at ways of uh finding other elements in our zoning code if they do support this to provide posting or notice or some sort of appeal mechanism or something along those lines if it could be you know doesn't require a full public hearing or it could be a zoning administrator whatever the city council decides to do as we are the advisory body. But just to just to echo those, you know, I have dozens of quotes that I pulled up about the importance of local government, why local government was created, and how things like SB9 is a complete and total abomination and upside down of California legislative and statutory history. But that aside, um, anything we can do to eliminate a property owner's notice of what's happening on the property next door is a bad thing. So, uh, I will not be supporting it for that reason. I understand what staff's trying to do. I appreciate the effort, but at the same time, um, this, and I've said it before, and I'm sorry if it's pedantic, but this city exists to serve the people of Costa Mesa. Every thing in this building is paid for by the residents of Costa Mesa, and we're here only to serve them and uh, tailor government to their needs, and cutting them out of the process does not do that. Thank you. Any other comments? If not, let's call for the question.

That motion carries 52 with Vice Chair Zik and Commissioner Dixon voting no. We have uh no old business tonight and we have um two new business items. Does anybody need to take a break or can we move through? Go through. Okay. All right. Anna, would you please uh read the title for new business item number one? New business item number one. study session to introduce the approach to the neighborhoods where we all belong housing element in measure K resoning PCY-25-00008.

I'll give you guys a minute or two to get settled. Let me know when you're ready, Miss Heligan. Okay, go ahead.

Okay. Good evening, chair and commissioners. I'm Michelle Hallagan, senior planner with the economic and development services department and the city's project manager for neighborhoods where we all belong. I'm joined by Anna McIll, advanced planning manager, as well as our consultants from DUTEK. This study session is designed to provide information on the city's approach to the housing element and measure K reszoning and receive your feedback. We will go over some project backgrounds, the approach to the resoning, some other zoning code updates, the next steps in the process, and then receive your comments and questions. As a reminder for the broader audience, this is the city's effort to address housing needs and obtain housing element certification from the California Department of Housing and Community Development. That's HCD. You'll hear that a lot. Um, neighborhoods where we all belong implements numerous programs of the adopted housing element. It also implements Measure K. Um, before Measure K, many major land use changes in the city required a vote of the public. Um, Measure K, which passed in 2022, allows the city to reszone housing element sites and other specific commercial and industrial sites to allow housing opportunities. This is a map of our planning area. Um, the measure K sites are shown in mint and the housing element sites are also in mint but outlined in orange. Um, as a reminder, the housing element sites are measure K sites, but not all measure K sites are housing element sites. The housing element um sites to be reszoned to meet the arena of 11,760 units plus a large buffer are all shown here. Um, if any housing element sites are developed with a non-residential use, there will still be adequate capacity because of the buffer. The city has to maintain that reena capacity to

comply with state law. The city is also going to be studying creating additional um optional residential capacity on non-housing element measure K sites. This effort will implement programs that generally fall into two buckets. One is about housing development opportunities. This includes the reszoning of measure K sites which include housing element sites to allow more housing near jobs and amenities. The second involves various zoning code amendments to comply with state law such as update updating regulations, streamlining our review and approval procedures and creating new objective design standards. There are 23 housing element programs that will be implemented as part of this process. Not all of these programs are required prior to certification, but they are all part of the housing element, and we will report our progress to the state. In May of 2023, HCD issued a letter stating that the city's adopted housing limit met statutory requirements, but reszoning was necessary for certification. In August of this year, HCD issued another letter specifying that the element only meets statutory requirements if the resoning is completed. HCD has urged the city to expedite expedite the reszoning of housing element sites. The city council has also asked staff to find ways to reach certification quickly. The city is collaborating with HCD to find these solutions. There may be a path forward to focus on housing element sites ahead of others. A new opportunity was created by Senate Bill 131 which established new SQA exemptions on the 1st of July of this year. Now housing element resonings can

be exempt from SQA. If we can use the new exemption, there is potential to process the reszoning of the housing element sites only in advance of other resonings. This would allow the city to obtain certification more quickly. However, HCD is still preparing their SB131 technical guidance. Um so we're eagerly eagerly awaiting um their assistance. And just note that even with the potential exemption, the city is continuing the environmental review process on schedule. A recent case law also impacts the city's resoning. Um in October, the California Court of Appeal concluded that an overlay cannot satisfy the arena if the overlay doesn't require residential development. Um this sort of reduces our flexibility that we um had in the past. It also reflects other case law that there must be a minimum of 50% residential development at a minimum of 20 units per acre on housing element sites that are needed to meet the arena. For now, Costa Mesa must update the approach to meet both case law requirements. The court's decision in the Roondo case is under appeal and staff will continue to monitor. So, this is the project timeline. We recently went to city council and planning commission and we are here on the red line holding a public study session. At this time we are also drafting basic regulations um objective design standards other zoning code updates reviewing our procedures preparing the environmental compliance and the scoping meeting is this Wednesday evening. The timeline may be amended with SB131. The city might reszone the housing element sites in advance of others. We await HCD's guidance and may return with a revised timeline.

So now let's dig into the approach to the resoning. Um I'd like to reintroduce you to Kathy Tang Saias, the uh project manager for DUTEK.

Thank you, Michelle. And good evening, commissioners. As Michelle said, my name is Kathy Tangai. I'm the project manager on the consultant side with DUTEK. I'm joined by my colleague uh to my right here, Elizabeth Dixon, also a planner with DUTEK. All right, so with that overview in place, let's dig deeper into the two buckets that Michelle mentioned. Uh first is the reasonzoning. So, the sites that are slated for resoning, as Michelle mentioned, are all Measure K sites, which again were approved by uh Costa Mesa voters back in 2022. In total, we're looking at about over a thousand sites, some of which are housing element sites and some of which are non-housing element sites. You'll notice that they're located generally in existing commercial and some industrial areas. And as shown in the table, they're also located within a variety of existing zoning frameworks. So in order to reszone these sites, we first need to understand how they're zoned today. This map shows that it's essentially complicated. We have over a thousand measure K sites and their existing zoning varies. Not only do they each have their respective underlying base zone, but in some cases they also have an overlay or an urban plan or a specific plan as well. And I recognize that these terms can be a bit confusing. So I'd like to take a minute here to explain a bit further. In the city of Costa Mesa, this is how land use and development are genuinely regulated. I know that the planning commission knows this well, but I want to take a moment here to explain this for clarity, especially for folks that are listening in in the audience. The general plan, which you see at the very top, is the city's overarching regulatory document. And the land use element, which is one of the many

chapters of the general plan, is where you'll find general land use policy. The land use element establishes a number of land use designations like residential, commercial, industrial that are then applied to different properties in the city. At that level, it's still land use policy. The land use element is then implemented primarily through the zoning code or through specific plans. This is where land use policy becomes regulations. On the left is the zoning code which establishes a zone or a zoning designation or a zoning district or the base zone for each property. So you may know these as R1, R2, R3, C1, etc. In addition to the base zones, properties can also have overlay zones, which is an additional layer of zoning that goes on top of the bay zone. Overlays sometimes work in tandem with the bay zone and often times they supersede the bay zone. In Costa Mesa, there are two overlays, the mixeduse overlay and the residential incentive overlay. This is where it gets tricky. In Costa Mesa, there are also urban plans. These aren't specific plans, which I'll get to in a minute. These aren't master plans. These are unique plans to Costa Mesa, but essentially they're standalone documents that live outside of the zoning code and provide supplemental regulations to the mixeduse overlay. and they're tailored specific to certain parts of the city. So, Becca, 19 West, Mesa West Bluffs, and another one for Mesa West. In addition, under the mixeduse overlay, there's also a harbor mixuse overlay, which again is tricky tricky. It's not an urban plan, but it again provides supplemental regulations to the mixeduse overlay. All in all, the mixeduse overlay is a pretty complicated zoning framework with these multiple layers and sometimes overlapping conditions and this was the main focus of attention in being to implement the reasonzoning. So

I'll come to back come back to that in a second. The second way that the land use element is implemented is by a specific plan. A specific plan is a state recognized state regulated zoning document that implements the general plan for a specific part of the city. And in Costa Mesa, there are at least three active specific plans. North Costa Mesa, Newport Boulevard, and East 17th Street. These provide specific regulations to properties that fall within specific plan areas. And then outside of these categories are some other city documents and plans. They're off to the side on this screen, and they're essentially not regulatory in nature, but they exist. But for purposes of our effort, they don't affect our reasonzoning. The zoning frameworks that affect our resoning are the overlays and the specific plans. They're colorcoded here on the screen so you can see what they are and how they're nested with each other. And these were the focus of our resoning effort given council directive, given staff direction, and even community direction just to make better sense of the city's house housing regulations with the goal of allowing for a more clear, a more predictable and more straightforward path to develop housing in the city. So you'll see in the city that there are two overlays as I mentioned the mixeduse overlay which cons which consists of all those urban plans plus the harbor mixuse overlay and then the residential incentive overlay which is on its own and then on the right are the two specific plans. These are the ones applicable to our measure K sites. So our recommendation is to use the mixeduse overlay as the zoning mechanism to implement the reszone of all measure case sites. In doing so, we recommend taking this opportunity to clean up and consolidate this framework. So what does this mean? The mixeduse overlay is an

existing zoning tool. It's already in place. It has a section in their zoning code. It applies to actually many measure case sites already. We're proposing to clean this up and make better use of it. This doesn't mean that the urban plans are going away, per se. As you can see, the urban plans are nested under the mixeduse overlay. The urban plans are the mixeduse overlay. The urban plans are are enabled by the mixeduse overlay. But the urban plans live outside of your zoning code. They're separate documents and now are outdated and sort of hard to use. So, we're proposing to sunset the urban plans and transfer the regulations into the zoning code itself under the mixeduse overlay. And we'll use this refined, updated, streamlined version of the mixeduse overlay as the tool to reszone the measure K sites. There's beauty in using an overlay. It's an additional layer of zoning. It won't change a property's base zone. It won't remove existing property rights. It adds additional zoning rights. This means more zoning flexibility. A property can continue to be as it is today or it can redevelop under the provisions of its base zone or it can redevelop as housing or mixed use under the provisions of the overlay. Now that scenario is only true for nonousing element sites given state law and recent court cases. As Michelle mentioned, there are restrictions to how the overlay can be used on sites identified in the housing element. So in this case, if an if an overlay is used on a housing element site, the overlay is the requirement. This means that a housing element site must redevelop under the provisions of the overlay with a minimum of 50% uh residential floor area and a minimum density of 20 units per acre. Outside of the mixuse overlay, we're also recommending a few other cleanups.

We're proposing to sunset the Mesa West residential ownership urban plan. This plan, though technically under the mixeduse overlay today, for some reason actually doesn't allow Mick for mixed use. Therefore, we recommend sunsetting it and codifying its provisions into a more appropriate section of the zoning code. So, no zending changes here. Uh none uh but this was an objective of the housing element. We propose keeping the residential incentive overlay as is. Again, no impact to this overlay given the reasonzoning of measure K sites and we propose keeping the specific plans in place but amending them accordingly to apply the mixeduse overlay to measure K sites which I'll explain in a bit. So what does this look like? Means you'll go from this map to this map which is a simplification and consolidation of the mixeduse overlay where the mixeduse overlay is applied to all measure K sites and for those sites that are not measure K sites but already in the mixeduse overlay they maintain all previous provisions. So in other words no changes to zoning for non-measure K sites. You'll notice that the mixeduse overlay also applies to sites that fall within the specific plan areas. This is intentional for a few reasons. One, specific plans in Costa Mesa are a bit unique in that they maintain a property's base zone. They don't apply a specific plan zone to a property. So, in other words, although the property is within a specific plan area, the base zone still applies. That means that all the specific plan really does is provide supplemental regulations to the bay zone for that property. For this reason, application of an overlay works like it would anywhere else in the city. And then second, application of the overlay

in the specific plan areas is our recommended best approach to implementing the reszone as efficiently and effectively as possible. The more ideal way would be to update the entire specific plan given that the plans are somewhat outdated and from what we hear from staff and applicants is that they're hard to use. But because the specific plan areas cover both measure K sites and non-measure K sites, a comprehensive update to those specific plans just isn't feasible at this point in time. So in summary, the reasonzoning portion of the work would result in three things. The mixeduse overlay district, which from here on out I'm going to call the mood mu o. It's applied to every measure K site. It's an existing section in your zoning code that'll be cleaned up and consolidated u by consolidating the provisions of the urban plans into one place and where there'll be special provisions specific to housing element sites. Note that these special provisions have already been drafted uh in an effort to expedite the resoning of just the housing element sites as required by ACD. I believe you should have a draft in that uh of those provisions in your packet. The second are the specific plans. We're keeping both the North Coast Mesa and the Newport Boulevard specific plans, but we're making targeted amendments to reflect the application of the Mood to measure K sites. And finally, the general plan. Although a recent amendment to the land use element reflects the consistency with the housing element and that was recently adopted, we'll need to revisit the land use element again to reflect the cleanup regarding urban plans and overlays. Note that drafts of all of these items are currently being drafted as we speak. Next, let's move on to the zoning code amendments. So, in addition to the resoning, the city is required to implement a number

of housing element programs that require amendments to the zoning code in order to comply with state law. The goal here is to implement the housing element as required by state law. Ensure that we're being consistent with state law pertaining to housing given that there is a lot of new state law. And in doing so, we're helping the city make it a simpler, more straightforward process to help develop housing across the city. The topics being addressed are those that are called out in the housing element, including definition of different kinds of housing, parking standards, and then findings and conditions of review and approval of projects. And the action being taken here is a series of targeted surgical amendments to the zoning code. We're updating definitions for certain terms. We're updating the allowances for certain types of housing. And we're refining and reviewing the approvals and process for housing projects. And this also uh we're drafting all of these sections as we speak. With that, I'll hand it back to Michelle.

Thanks, Kathy. Um so, as you've just heard, there are a lot of things happening all at once. Um well, we've been working on preparing, you know, this portion of the project. We're also drafting how to carefully possibly incorporate urban plan guidance into the mood. Um potential amendments to specific plans and how that might work. Um, we're refining regulations. We've been taking technical guidance calls with HCD. Um, we're drafting residential and mixeduse regulations for non-housing element sites and trying to keep making progress with those drafts. Um, we're looking at other zoning code amendments. Um, and new objective design standards as well. Um, for SQUA, we are having the scoping meeting this Wednesday, December 10th, at 5:30m here in the city council chambers. Um, the public is invited to attend the scoping meeting. This is their opportunity to raise um, questions and provide comments on the content and scope of the draft EIR. We're also engaging in consulting with um, local tribes. Um, at this time we are also preparing for the second round of public outreach that will begin in February of 2026. So, thank you all for your time. This concludes staff's presentation. Um, staff and DUDE are here to listen to your comments and respond to your questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Um, God, drinking from a fire hose, right? Um I wish I'd asked this upfront but it's um certainly appropriate now. Uh this is a highly technical exercise. We are generally speaking not the technical experts are you are um what is it that you want from the commission to give you some guidance on and please be specific. Um, I think this study session is more for transparency and to let you know our thoughts and strategies on how we're going to approach this. Obviously, we welcome your feedback if you have concerns about the way that we're going to start approaching it. But we don't have specific questions for you. Um, the draft mood was provided so that you could start taking a look at it and sort of put the pieces together and understand where we're going, but staff will be coming back in February with the specific amendments for you to make a recommendation on, including the zoning code amendments. Um, we anticipate making those available to you before then, too, so that you can have time to review them before we have those conversations.

Okay. Thank you. I'm going to have more questions, but who's first up? Vice Chair Ze, as you might expect, I I'm in a mood, but I will spare you the speech that goes along with it. I have just one question. Um, if you approach a property owner along Harbor Boulevard or north of the 405 and you tell them about this great plan that you're working on and they say, "Nah, I don't want you to reszone my property. I don't want to be stuck with having to develop residential if I ever do a development here." uh can they opt out

um if they are a housing element site? No, because they are in the housing element and their site has been committed to the requirements of um housing opportunity. Is that like an eminent domain kind of thing? Then you captured them. He's in the housing element update and so he's stuck with whatever you do for his zoning. Well, so those decisions were made by the city council and that that outreach they they need to provide they need to comply with if they want to redevelop, they need to comply with the provisions that are in the mood. So So the answer is at least 50% residential and at the density. Okay. So the answer is no. They cannot opt out. They cannot opt out to being a housing element site. No, not at this stage.

And if you reszone them, they can't opt out to that, which was what my question was. Yeah, correct. Okay. Thank you for that simplicity. That's all. Okay. Any other questions? Commissioner Dixon.

And uh so this is a study session and I know we're on an accelerated timeline. I watched the city council meeting again, but um there's five people here, five watching. Um I'm curious what the public notice was of this. if it was just your standard agenda notice or if there was a effort like we have in the neighborhoods where we all belong all that fancy stuff any

Yeah. Um thanks Commissioner Dixon. Um so we weren't required to but we went ahead and put an ad in the daily pilot. Um we also did our typical um notifications on our website. We also added the notice to the neighborhoods where we all belong website and then we provided notification to our mailing list for folks who are particularly interested in this project.

Okay. And before this agenda item went out, um I I don't recall, and it may be me, so if I'm wrong, please let me know, seeing anything that was basically saying, well, we're going to basically just throw out everything we've done for the past 30 years and start over. I mean, I know what you're you're rolling it in to the mute. I I appreciate that. I like that mechanism. There are specifics to each of those urban plans that were, you know, it was a six or sevenyear process um back in 200 two to six or 2001 um with, you know, multiple citizen committees and meetings and all kinds of controversy and um so I'll be curious to see how that comes back. But this is and again there's a huge tension. I get where you guys are coming from. you have a task that sometimes may not be attractive to the general public and and um they're statemandated. I get that. I'm this is not a criticism of what staff's doing it, but this is greatly larger in scope than simply measure K. Uh, and so I would like to have a much more robust uh, and I know this is a a broken record public process on this because, you know, I've been around for a long time and this room would be packed when we had meetings on some of these plans. So, um, thank you for that on the public comment. Um, and then that was the and regarding the buffer of the arena. Um, so we're looking at 31% roughly I think if my math is correct. It's it's actually higher commissioner Dixon. Um so the city worked with HCD during the development of the housing element and that's where they landed with the buffer and so that's the buffer that was approved by city council in our adopted housing element and we're moving forward with it as we continue to work

with HCD. Okay. Um I I note that the buffers in a lot of other adopted housing elements are 10 15%. So that's why that jumped out at me. All right. Thank you. Uh, Commissioner Martinez. Thank you. Um, so you provided a draft of amendments to article 11 for the for the mood. So I just want to go through a few questions specifically for that as you further revise it. Um, so page 138. [snorts]

um B1, we're saying that that this would be applicable to the sites in this housing element, but eventually we're going to have to adopt another housing element, right? So, is there a reason that it's specific to just the one that we're currently in?

Thank you, Commissioner Martinez. Uh that's a good question and yes for right now this section of the uh zoning code amendment would be just applicable to this cycle's housing element though we're still working with staff to fine-tune this first draft. So uh one uh good recommendation would be as as you just pointed out which would be to remove the cycle mention in that language so that it could be applicable to future housing element sites as well.

Okay. Um on 140 it defines uh use by right under review and approvals procedures. And I wanted to uh understand I guess what the state law requires is if it would be a use by right at a lower income housing element site if it if the proposed development provides 20% of the lowincome units that are identified in the housing element sites analysis or if 20% of the total units in the proposed site are lower income.

Yes, thank you for that. That's uh the total units within the proposed development. Okay, so 20% of the total have to be lower income. Yeah. Okay. Yes.

Thank you. Um so the next page, uh H11 maximum densities. So I I understood the housing element to be we have to plan for up to the this many units uh in order to satisfy requirements. And then here we're saying you can only build up to the amount of units that are in the housing element. So, are we saying that in order to get to the housing element numbers, we would have to build at the maximum density?

Uh, let me make sure I'm following. So, there's no requirement to build at the maximum density. Um, there are zoning requirements where that maximum density does have to be permitted, but um, there's also minimum density requirements. And I think that maybe that's what we're getting at. Okay.

Yeah. And Commissioner Martinez, I think you might be thinking of um you know, when you look at the the RENA table and you see those high numbers, but that might be part of the discussion with HCD that the city had in the past and why this city in particular has such a large buffer so that if those sites don't hit those high capacities, there's plenty of capacity elsewhere. I'm just going to add to it because I I think I understood your question a little bit differently. Um the appendix B within the housing element site assumed a level um of development based on um the density, the realistic percentage of a site that typically gets built. Other things like easements that were on the site that may impact um overall capacity. So, not all of the housing element sites are built to 90 dwellings per acre or 60 dwelling units per acre, but those projects could if they can figure out a way to do that and even exceed that if they can utilize state density bonus law.

Okay. Um, what what if a housing element site can't reach the unit count in appendix B with the provided density? Uh then the city has the obligation to meet no net loss findings and either utilize that um buffer in order to accommodate the loss of those units elsewhere in the city or if they can't do that through the buffer identify other sites where um that would become housing element sites to accommodate it.

Okay. Um, do we have a plan for the the urban plan sites that are being sunsetted that are not on the measure K map, specifically any that are not in the ones in the MA messa west residential ownership urban plan.

So, commissioner, there will be no change to sites that are not measure K sites because we can't make changes. So, uh, that's why I mentioned earlier that although we're suns setting the urban plans, those separate scanned PDF documents, we're transitioning all of those provisions into the zoning code. So, we're not losing any of those provisions because we can't for those sites that are not measure K sites. So to answer your question, uh the provisions, the regulations, the zoning that exists today for non-measure K sites as provided by the urban plans will remain the same in the future just in a different part of the zoning code.

Okay. So, so essentially it'll be like the the urban plans exist, but it might apply to like one to five properties depending on whichever one um gets gets uh sunsetted. Yes. Um each urban plan has a different uh tally of housing element sites and non-housing element sites. For example, Sbeca um all of the urban plan area is uh me our measure K sites. Um Mesa West, it's half and half. So it just varies from urban plan to urban plan area.

Yeah, I I think uh you provided a staff t uh a table somewhere in the staff report that says here are housing element sites, here are measure K sites that aren't housing element sites. um in each urban plan. I think a good third column would be how many aren't in either that are in each of the plans just to know what what sticks around. Um Commissioner Martinez, can I interrupt on a quick followup? Yes. Um Kathy, what is what's the reason why we can't just simply sunset or eliminate the urban plans? Do you mean sunsetting them and not transferring the regulations into the zoning code?

Yes, exactly. Because the those provisions apply to non-measure K sites. So, because uh Costa Mesa voters did not vote on those, did not authorize the city to reszone them to something else, our hands are basically tied. We can't change them unless they go through the measure Y process. Okay? So in other words, measure Y has a significant limitation on what can be reszoned citywide. Correct.

Okay, that's all. Sorry. Now I'm confused. Um because if if we if we reszone the property, let me know if this is actually what we're doing. If if we reszone the properties to meet the exact specifications that are already in the urban plan, can we not just get rid of the urban plan since there would be no significant change?

Um, yes. So, technically we are getting rid of the urban plans, meaning we're getting rid of that separate scanned PDF document. We're just transitioning its provisions into the zoning code under the mixeduse overlay district which is article 11 of I'm blanking on the chapter but the zoning code. So yes, the urban plans are going away as a zoning mechanism but its provisions will persist in the mixeduse overlay district.

Okay. Um, I'm going to go to the north. Uh, the the staff report mentions that certain development rights would be lost in the North Coast Amasa specific plan if we just got rid of it or reszoned it. What What specifically would um property owners lose? Commissioner Martinez, the North Coast Aesa specific plan is really interesting. It has been amended many, many times over the years. And so when you look at it, you'll find there are entire sections within the North Coast to Mesa specific plan where the specific plan does not apply. Um, and there are also sections in which um, there have been certain development agreements that have special rights. There are also areas where there's layers within the specific plan, sub areas where you can do certain things that aren't allowed on the rest of the specific plan or in our zoning code. Um, and other sections too that refer back to the base zoning as an option. So, in in that specific plan, we want to be very targeted in any changes to ensure that we're not creating u non-conforming uses. We don't want to be at risk of taking away um an existing development or use's right to exist. Um we want to be additive and provide um new opportunities instead.

Okay. So basically it's a super complicated document that unweaving would take probably way too much time. Um I would say that's a fair assessment. Um but we do have another you know reena cycle coming up and we'll have to revisit it when we have another eightyear cycle.

Fun. Um, okay. On slide four, um, there was a a table of how many units, um, we'd end up zoning for, possibly allowing um, way at the beginning. Yes. So, housing element sites 17,000 And then we have a total of 21 a.5,000. So are we saying with all of the measure K reszone resoning that we're only going to get 4 and a half thousand in non-housing element sites?

Um thank you Commissioner Martinez. So um we are in the process of starting our environmental review. Um we are having the scoping meeting on Wednesday. I think we'll get into the details of what we're studying at that meeting. Um but in general um we're just looking at this potential opportunity of what might be added through a mixeduse overlay on those measure K sites. it wouldn't necessarily reflect the highest yield of residential development, but it's something that we're looking at in terms of a realistic capacity um and looking at um what might actually turn over um during the time frame that we're studying in that SQA document.

Okay. Um since this is a study session, I have many more comments, but I will save those for after public comment. Thank you, Mr. Mr. Chair.

Okay. Any other questions of staff commissioners? Uh I've got a couple. Um what analysis, if any, was done on the efficacy of the urban plans? In other words, did you look at them and say, "Okay, from a technical standpoint, this is in our our regulatory framework and this is what has resulted and when."

Yes, Commissioner. We conducted a very robust uh analysis of all of your zoning, your regulatory tools in place. So, uh we went through uh a monthslong process to understand the urban plans. We read word for word every single one of them. We even looked at um recently developed projects that use the urban plans as the mechanis mechanism to develop. So we looked at it from a couple of different perspectives and we talked to property owners as well. So and what was your conclusion after that analysis?

Very complicated. I mean it took us a while to rub our hands around it. um as we were discussing with staff uh there were some aha moments like oh that's how it works um we weren't aware of it so it was a very informative process but at the end of the day the conclusion was that it's it's probably too complicated um and this is I think the right opportunity to to clean it up

so if that's the conclusion it's too complicated I'm trying to understand the rationale behind taking those regulations and even though you're sunsetting the document, you're going to include them in the zoning code. And no disrespect to to anyone in the community who put in the time and effort to develop these plans. I know exactly how difficult and challenging that is. Um, but if the plans themselves are not yielding the results that we want, there to my mind seems to be limited value in keeping that on. And in fact, having that residual regulation is just going to over complicate things. So if they're not working, why are we keeping them? That is a really good point to make. So, um, even though we are transitioning or transferring over the provisions from the urban plans into the zoning codes, we're taking the opportunity to modernize them, to update them. So, whether that's in terms of of clarity of organization, uh, applicability to the types of, uh, development typologies and products that we see today, uh, allowing more flexibility. So, the things that we're able to update to help streamline development without uh triggering what would be considered uh significant land use changes as as identified by measure Y, for example. So you what I'm hearing you say is you may make modifications to the language to reflect and maybe I'm reading into this um the spirit or intent of some of those urban plans but not necessarily the exact language that's there. So there still will be a policy uh modification at some point. um policy modification in terms of the the purpose and intent.

If if some of these urban plans are just not working, then I I'm questioning the value of putting in effort to modify them.

Um Chair Harlland, I think that um it can be a little bit confusing because we've got housing element sites and non-housing element sites. So I and when we provide more drafts, it'll be more clear. So you would see the mood set up so that housing element sites might be mood one um mood two mood three to like relate to their former urban plan and that's where we have a lot of flexibility in how we can improve things but for the non-housing element non-measure K sites there may be some things left over from the urban plans that we simply have to carry over but what we can do is improve the process we can streamline how those applications are processed right Now, um you know, the state is looking at our procedures and they're seeing that you immediately jump into an uh urban plan screening with the city council and they're considering that, you know, a governmental barrier to housing. So, those are things that we can work with through the mood and um changing the process to help encourage housing.

Okay. So, I I'm I'm happy to hear that. I know at the last meeting I had suggested looking at this from the applicant's perspective and I think that that's what you're suggesting here. So that's that's definitely a move in the right direction. Um, in the same vein as the urban plans, I I have some concerns about the maintaining the specific plans. You said we have three, I think you said active, Kathy, I might have chosen a different word. At best, they're on life support. Um, at worst, they've never been used. Um, and in all the time that I've been on this day, I don't think I've ever had a project come forward uh under the Newport Boulevard specific plan. um and for good reason because it's antiquated and it doesn't really operate as a regulatory document with any incentive. Um in fact there's an implementation program that I don't think has ever been finalized or or implemented in any way. So why not just remove those specific plans as well? Is it the same complication that we have residual properties that are non-measure K that have to maintain that connection to the specific plan? Otherwise, they basically require a measure Y vote.

Correct. So, yes, measure Y is probably the the biggest roadblock here for updating those two documents comprehensively plus the fact of of time. I mean, our goal here is to implement the resonings as quickly as possible. Um, and a comprehensive update to either specific plan would take more than enough, more than more than the time we have available to us.

Great. Okay. I have two last questions. I'll try and make them quick. I don't want to to monopolize this. Um, one, our general plan and in particular land use element has a number of development standards and I'm thinking of densities in particular that are hardwired in there. Uh, are we going to amend our general plan to remove those or put them properly in the zoning code as opposed to the general plan? So, the amendments that we've uh been looking at so far are just to make sure that they are consistent with um the work that we're doing for the mood. So, that would be removing references to urban plans, things like that. And a lot of that is including development standards.

Okay. Yeah. So said another way, will the general plan be just a cleaner document? That is the goal. Okay. All right. And my last question, if I can even find it at this point. Um well, I'll come back to that later. Any other questions of staff? Yeah. Commissioner Andrade. Um, in regards to the definitions on 138, is there an opportunity to adjust the definitions of a lower income household to actually incorporate cost of living or is it only tied to income?

Lower income household is actually defined by the state. So, we can't change that definition. Correct. But is there an opportunity for as a city to incorporate or keep in mind somewhere in there that um average median income is just that the the ex the expected income, but it doesn't consider cost of living to truly defined lowincome housing. Um

right because when we look at average median income you know for a family of of um four I see is 137k but that doesn't take into account you know health insurance you know education transportation um food um so actual cost of living to actually create a realistic definition on what should a lowincome household cost to rent or to buy.

Yeah. Um Commissioner uh Andrade, if I could just address that. Um I don't know if we've ever distributed the state um income table to the planning commission, but we're happy to share that. But we basically um the uh income levels are defined by the state in accordance with every county. Um and so it does take into account the cost of living in each additional in each county. And furthermore, um, in terms of, uh, the maximum housing cost, it does set that at 30% of the gross income. And so that takes into account that there's 70% to pay for everything else in the commensurate level of cost in the geographical region that that income level is set. And so I wanted to give a more holistic explanation as to how these definitions are formulated because they actually do take into account all of the um different um realms of cost of living across the spectrum and that's why housing cost is limited to 30%. So I hope that helps a little bit but we're happy to share that document as well.

Yeah, of course. And I was trying to find this online as well to make sure that um you know that I was following along in what's what's listed here. Um, but I think what we're hearing, what we are hearing and are seeing the reality in our community is that most low-income individuals are paying more than 30% of their income in housing. So, this is why I'm like, how can we incorporate a more realistic uh picture of what closer to reality? So, and I'm not sure is there another is it a we're waiting for an update or or something that can be seems more accurate because 30% is ideal but it's not reality,

right? And so the use of these um the income levels as they're referred to for the cost of housing that is uh reflective of the type of housing that these proposed regulations or or codes would create as opposed to a reflection of what is currently happening because it is very true that um many people are spending more than 30% of their gross income um on on housing. uh when for example under um a state or local housing laws when [clears throat] when housing is created that is qualif that that requires you to be in a certain income level

um to qualify once you're qualified in that income level the maximum am amount that can be charged is your 30%. And so really the regulations are not going to be reflective of what is happening currently in existing conditions because the existing conditions are a condition that we're hoping to improve. And how would we improve them?

But how would we improve the conditions? How do you improve a condition where a certain segment of the population is paying more than they can for housing is you facilitate and come up with regulations to create housing that's available to people in certain income categories and that way they once they qualify then they're able to pay the amount that's 30% or less. So in so is there an opportunity then in this document to I don't know again just kind of going back to the application that we saw earlier to create incentives right because every development we see that comes to the dis it's it's never for now a definition of acutely low income residents or extremely low or very low it's always for moderate moderate and above of so I I guess you know this is an exciting opportunity to make sure that we can help address that community that is in that acutely low category.

Sure. So there's multiple things along the toolbox and the housing team certainly can explain the different you know there's the different income categories in in the arena in the regional housing needs assessment but the city also has for example the inclusionary housing ordinance that was approved last year and that has certain thresholds um I believe it's um I don't have them memorized but it's uh applicable to 40 unit developments or more and then there are different requirement categories for low and very um housing depending on what the density is. I think the break is uh either you're less than 60 dwelling units per acre or you're more and so there are certain thresholds that the city council did approve for um requiring um additional uh uh affordable housing and developments. Um what we are seeing are a lot of projects coming forward that do not rise to the level of those thresholds. Um but that is an example of a tool that currently the city has to create housing that is qualified to um certain income levels. So hope that helps a bit.

Yes. Thank you. Um so um I guess back to Dudek. So will there be opportunities in this mood [laughter] u reszoning for um properties that will do 40 units or more that would could yield 40 units or more? Yes. So the there's there's two kinds. Uh one is the the housing element sites. Those have targets of various densities and then non-housing element sites. We're exploring a variety of densities as well.

I'm sorry. So non-housing development site that are categorized as non-housing could potentially be projects for housing. Is that what did I misunderstand that? Um, Commissioner Andraardi, I just want to clarify that what Kathy was saying is that we are looking at um additive or an optional development opportunity for residential development on measure K sites that aren't housing element sites. So, they may, you know, we're going to study that in our SQA document.

Um, and those densities um that we're looking at are, you know, 30 units an acre and above depending on where they are in the city. But that study hasn't been completed. But we, you know, we are expecting to look at that. And then for our housing limit sites, you know, we've got densities ranging from 40 to 90 dwelling units an acre.

Okay. So, basically everything under mood could have now become a housing opportunity site because before, right, it was the little orange boxes in the original map. So, we wouldn't be able to call them housing opportunity sites because then we would have to add them to our housing element and amend the housing element. But they if they are within the mood, they do. Gosh, that sounds so we got to rethink that one. Um mood mode maybe

they would have the ability to opt into that um that mixeduse development potential which includes res residential. And then Commissioner Andrade, if I can um speak a little bit to your prior question. Um one of the tables we included in the staff report were the 23 programs that we're implementing as part of this process. Some of those speak specifically to incentives for affordable housing development. So um we have a big range of zoning code updates that we're going to be bringing back. Some of which are being done by DUDE, some of which are be done being done by staff, some of which are being done, um by a grant that we're hoping to get finalized very soon. So, those include things like incentives for affordable housing development. Um, looking at our state density bonus ordinance and making sure it complies with state law, and then making recommendations that we could consider above and beyond to build more affordable housing or deeper levels of affordability. So, I think that speaks to um targeting your question, which is how do we get more affordable units and then deeper levels of affordability. So, that's kind of separate from the mood. So, we want to make sure that sites can develop for housing and in addition to that, how do we incentivize them to actually target affordable housing as part of their project and that's something we'll bring back to you um when we have the zoning code updates like in full for you to review.

Fantastic. [clears throat] Thank you so much. Appreciate it. Okay, Mike.

Uh one last question. Um so Kathy mentioned that the mood is the zoning mechanism. So, we are focusing on an overlay, which we know has been the subject of a court decision. Um, what what's our plan B? If if for whatever reason there's some adjudication and this approach is uh unacceptable either to the courts or to HCD, what do we do next? Um I can answer and I don't know if staff wants to jump in but we are aware of those court cases and we are aware of what they are requiring of uh housing element sites. So, the draft of the mixeduse overlay district amendment number one that was included in the packet includes very specific language that says that if a project on a housing element site were to be redeveloped, the provisions of the mood supersede anything else, supersede the base zone, supersede any other overlay or specific plan, anything else such that those requirements need to be met. the 50% of res a total floor area to be residential, the minimum 20 dwelling units per acre, and then all the other provisions for the use by ride and whatnot. So, those are um clearly stated upfront and in our um technical discussions with HCD, they have verbally said that is on the right track. We haven't formally submitted yet, but we believe we are on the right track. As to a plan B, I I will defer to staff.

Yeah, I don't think the mechanism of the use of the overlay would change, but some of the provisions in it could potentially change um depending on um as we learn more about the case. So, the requirements of of um like the baseline density, the project needing to be 50 50% residential um or SB131. So, um, we're still waiting on technical guidance from HCD. We believe that we may be able to utilize it to expedite the housing element sites. If not, then we would just follow our original timeline as we've always been communicating um to the planning commission and city council. Um, so the use of the overlay has been the strategy um since we adopted the housing element and um many cities do that. I don't think the the strategy of using it is going to change. It's just maybe the provisions that need to be included.

Okay. All right. Before I get to public comment, I just want to make clear that the marketing campaign for property owners and developers is not get in the mood. No problem. Oh god. All right. Um, there are no more questions. I'll I'll open up to public comments. If you'd like to speak on this item, please come to either podium. And uh Anna, you'll let me know if we have anybody on Zoom or phone. No rush. As I can.

Evening again. Jay Humphrey, Coast Mesa resident. Um I I only have a couple comments and the comments are kind of once a question. Uh there was a document uh 18 pages that listed off all the properties that are in the major K life and they were all by parcel number. Why they didn't have address I don't understand because the general public doesn't know how to go look up a parcel number. Now the addresses are available if you know to go to the computer, you know to go to the city, you know to go to the interactive map for measure K and click on a spot, it'll tell you the parcel number. So on se on 179 parcels, you get to do each one individually if you can figure that one out. The better way to do it because the city has both of those is for the city to provide the list with parcel number and address. Makes perfect sense. So then you know places like Norm's restaurant is in the list is going to become housing. Maybe maybe Norms is going to close down. Maybe it's going to get torn down. It's going to get remodeled and it's going to become housing right there at the corner of Victoria and Harbor. So, keep in mind that those lists, nobody, the public can't really figure out what that list means. So, you could help them and I'd appreciate if you do that. Secondarily, you know, I found it interesting to note that before measure Y existed, the general plan at that time allowed for about 900 9,500 additional housing units. With a little bit of tweaking, without having to change

too many things, you could easily have come up with 11,750 units by doing this micro. an example, a simple example at Harbor and uh oh okay Harbor and Marramac. There's a project that came in before measure after measure Y had to have a zoning change. So he had an entitlement change and he built his project with 39 units without a vote and he built his project that is perfectly successful made him profit dollars and made Coast Mason 39 more housing units housing for sale which everybody up there keeps saying they'd like to see more of that but we keep doing things that force us to go to more and more and more rental and by the way for housing as long as we're going to pay inlue fee for for uh affordable housing. Uh you're going to get nothing built but market rate. So for just to your questions earlier tonight, thank you guys for all your time. I appreciate how hard you work and I mean it clearly. Have a very very happy holiday season. Merry Christmas. Happy New Year. Stay healthy.

Thank you Jay. Anna, do we have anybody on phone or Zoom? Richard Huffman, you may provide your public comment. Hello. Good evening. Can you hear me? Okay. Yes, we can.

Okay. Um, the agenda report helps explain a complex process and is a good start. There are some obvious gaps, but the overall approach is a step in the right direction. So, while some um let me see, my notes are all over. So, some thoughts on uh on the uh mixeduse overlay district approach. Page four lists a number of programs in the housing element that update specific plans and overlays and even add overlays. The main purpose is to zone for high density residential much higher, but the measure K map only covers the nonresidential parts of the existing overlays and specific plans. So keep in mind that some of those new highdensity overlay areas will be subject to voter approval because they are existing resident residential areas that are subject to measure Y. That's not a bad thing in my view since it will involve an informed consensus about future development in those areas. Uh in addition, I have a few other con questions. What about traffic planning? There's no talk about the circulation element and the effects of all these extra units being zoned for. A reminder that changes to non-measure K areas can be made by voter approval. for example, such as mentioning that maybe we could reszone the airport area and change it to residential like like Baker block with us done. So voter approval requires effective outreach and good planning.

What's wrong with that? Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else else? Anna

Cynthia McDonald, you may provide your public comment. Uh good evening uh commissioners and happy holidays to you. I reviewed the notice of preparation ahead of tomorrow night's scoping meeting and I have some serious concerns. The meeting and the comment deadline are scheduled barely a week apart and right before the holidays when many residents are busy and likely to miss critical information. Much of what was presented here tonight is new. Yet the public has not been given adequate time to review and respond. Timing matters and in this case the timing feels anything but transparent. Uh a few key points from the NOP. Um the city has to plan for its reallocation of 11,760 units for the housing element. But if we include the measure K sites, now we're resoning for a staggering 21,522 dwelling units. We're going to add 17,36,033 square ft of commercial space by 206. Now, the NOP acknowledges there's going to be significant impacts to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, transportation, utilities, and public services. And yet at the last planning commission meeting, the consultant admitted transportation impacts will not be addressed. The city recognizes the problem but offers no solution. Measure K grants sweeping authority to change land use and zoning with minimal resident input. While Measure Y still requires some reasonzoning to go to a public vote, much of this process bypasses community oversight. The initiative's name is misleading.

Look, developers will not build housing where everyone belongs because the city adopted an exclusionary housing ordinance, not an inclusionary one. The public outreach has been inadequate and opaque. Residents remain unaware of the full scope of these changes, and I've had to ask repeated questions just to get basic answers. And all of this comes without the visioning promised under measure K. This process does not serve the people. It undermines transparency, limits public engagement, and prioritizes development over community interest. Finally, I'm going to ask that tonight's presentation be uploaded to the city's website. Planning Commission presentations aren't being uploaded. That's another transparency issue. I ask that you comply with the Brown Act and give the public the same information that the commissioners receive. Thank you.

Thank you. There's no one else, Mr. Chairman. Okay. Thank you. I'm going to close public comment portion. Uh commissioners, do you have any further questions or comments of staff? Commissioner Dixon,

I do. Um, so if we just limited this to the measure K sites, is that I I I just really briefly I I if I mischaracterized by saying throwing out all those plans that I said earlier before, I appreciate the mixed juice overlay plan and the way you're doing that from a planning perspective is elegant and I like it because it's taking those those PDFs that are hard to find and identify and when people are asking questions about Costa Mesa land use, I have to find them and send them to them and sometimes I even I can't find them. Um when I was first on the planning commission in 2011, um I was tasked with activating those urban plans and we had a study session right off the bat and we heard earfuls from everybody who owned property over there about how the intent was great but there was inconsistent language between them etc. Um Claire Flynn who was the assistant development services director back then she had been a key part of developing that along with Don Lamb and they both sat me down. I had meetings with them and they explained that the intent was to be flexible and so what we started doing as a planning commission and subsequently city council is to take elements from each of those plans and put them together to make projects work. So this MUOD is a great solution and getting rid of those in inconsistencies etc. as long as as long as the intent and the the geographical scope maybe is reflected in maps is retained and all that good stuff. But um I I just want to clarify that comment about the urban plans because I didn't want it to come off as saying you guys are just throwing everything out and you know trashing it. I I appreciate your approach greatly. Um and so that was really the the the comment I had. So would you I'm assuming when you say you're going to you're going to modernize it. Some of the language and some of the way there some of the you had to go back and watch almost every single public meeting to understand the intent and a lot of it was unwritten as I'm sure you've discovered. Um if I had come into Costa

Mesa from uh as an assignment to evaluate the zoning codes I would see a lot of the inconsistencies you are. So again I appreciate that approach. Um I'm assuming that whatever geographic scope is in those plans and whatever specific um restrictions or requirements will be somehow modernized and moved in. Is that what you're the geographic scope is what I was concerned about and that be reflected on maps. Okay. Correct. So um we're still drafting that version of the of the mood. Um but one way to maintain the provisions specific to each of those geographic uh sub areas would be to uh provide some sort of a map. Okay,

that illustrates where those geographic areas are. So the names that are in those urban plans will continue to persist. So Becca 19 West Mesa West etc. Okay. And then regarding the specific plans and things like that and and my general my general question was actually this is a comment for afterwards. So thank you. you make a comment. This is it.

I just my preference is this is a study session would be to focus on the measure K sites and the GHCD off our back and and to do what the voters asked for on that particular thing when we're talking about and and I think that the technical cleanup of the urban plans is a great idea and I don't think that I think that we'll see that when it comes back and if there's anything that leaps out we can talk about it then. But when we're talking about specific plan amendments or not even amendments, but specific plan cleanups and there's there's especially in the North Coast Mason specific plan, there's a lot of stuff that was going on for a very very long time. Some of it didn't work. I think the the high-rise EIR was 1991 or something like that and I don't think any of those got built. So I I would just my suggestion would be and my comment would be to focus on the measure K sites if there's a way to cut those out right now and to speed up this process and not bog you bog everyone's efforts down and then come back once we've gotten past that hurdle and we can satisfy HCD um and and carry through what the voters asked for and then with their specific plans we can have a more engaged process. process as I'm sure you've done all the research. It it always takes a long time to do stuff like this in Costa Mesa because we have a very engaged public. So that's that's my focus. So those are my comments. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Anyone else? Commissioner Martinez.

Thank you. I have a lot of comments. Um yeah, I expected that we would have a lot more comments and I think um we do. So I'm going to start off with the housing element programs that are described in the staff report. Um just initial feedback on uh what I'm hoping to get as we move forward in this process. Um, so, uh, programs 2B, 2E, and 2I all involve, um, uh, or at least, um, are described as possibly including modified development standards. And I'm very interested in that, in getting more incentives with each of these items. Um, maybe we could have our own menu of options and incentives for these sites. Um it would be good to have our uh our own incentives um that may differ from uh state law uh incentives waiverss or some kind of other process to make sure that we get these things. I'm especially looking at uh 2B following up on Commissioner Andrade's comments. Um anything we can do to increase affordable housing uh would be fantastic. Um, and I know uh there there's been a lot of comments about the the interaction between this and any other part of our general plan. Um, for me, I I I know I focus a lot I look a lot at circulation. So in any way that we could have our own incentives to be near key circulation um facilities that don't involve using a car. If we are near transit, if we incentivize near bikeways, that means that we're not going to be having uh a bunch of traffic go onto our roads.

Hopefully people will be able to have a diverse um set of transportation options as well. Okay. Uh 2M, parking standards for residential development. I think most of you already know what my opinions are on this, but I'll just clarify that um parking is extremely expensive. Parking in a structure can be tens of thousands of dollars, which increases the price of rent by hundreds of dollars a month, which people without a car or who choose not to have a car or cannot afford a car would be forced to pay by increasing how much parking we have. We therefore incentivize driving, which exacerbates all the traffic concerns that we hear. When we have more parking, we encourage more driving. And when we do that, it means walking, biking, taking transit is that much harder because you have to cross a giant parking lot just to get to the grocery store. Um, and the grocery store then has to pay for that part parking from everyone. Parking also takes up a lot of space. Each individual parking stall could be three two to 300 square feet of space which could be somewhere for a person to live instead of a car to live. So when we look at program 2M in our housing element I'm hoping that we relieve the developers of the burden of requiring parking. What I did not say what I did not say is no more parking in any project ever. I did not say that. I said let's remove [snorts] the

government mandate of parking. Um so when we look at the draft ordinance that is also in our packet when I see parking standards for housing element sites no I don't want to see that. I want that removed because that is a burden to the construction of housing. Okay. Uh 3 C is updating the North Costa Mesa specific plan. [snorts] Uh North Costa Mesa already a very dense area. It already has some proposed developments that go above the 90 dwelling units an acre. Um, if we're going to zone, if we're going to upzone an area and if we're going to go further, I'd be comfortable with development having more flexibility to go even further in that area. Uh, 3F relates to efficiency units and co-living. These are basically very small units. Um, first I'll note that council policy 500-05 has some standards specific for these units which may need to be updated uh in this housing element program. Um and then where where a normal unit could be I don't know let's say 800 square feet that could be four efficiency units which therefore means that the density of those efficiency units if it's a development of just efficiency units would be four five times what it would be. Which means if we use our standard density uh metrics some projects might not be able to exist. and and these units because they're smaller means cheaper living. Someone just out of college, someone just at a high school could be able to go into these units. So, um I I'd also

be okay with waving or multiplying the density standard if there's a project with solely efficiency units. Okay. 3J actually first note 3 I in the staff report I believe should be the E17th plan and I noticed that it was not in the in the graphic and I don't know if that's just because there are no measure K sites that are on E17th but that would be good to clarify 3J is the uh Newport Boulevard specific plan analyzing that um I think it's mostly in Measure K and anything that is not in measure K is housing. Uh which would not would not apply. Um feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on that later on. Um but I I think given the fact that I think it's all measure K sites, um I'd be comfortable removing it. I I don't know if there are any specific standard standards in there that we do need to keep. Um I'll also note that this one also has a council policy 500-09 which also might need to be amended um for this housing element program. Okay. Program 3K is housing opportunities on church sites. And I'll note that state law under I already forgot the number. there's so many already allows um housing at church sites and at nonprofit universities. So, I don't know if this is just we're going to codify that into our municipal code, what state law already says. Um either way, uh

conforming to state law on that would be good. Okay. on the mood. Um, so what I what I'm hearing already is that basically the entirety of article 11 is getting reworked and reddrafted. The sections the new sections that we have here are just a draft for housing element specific properties. So, I I'm hopeful that once we get this new uh new mood, um that's what uh we're going to get for the approval process for housing element sites, for measure K sites. Um so that any of our processes to approve housing can be much simpler than what is currently in our zoning code. Um and then I think right now the housing element sites are defined as having densities of 40, 50, 60 and 90 which have those development standards on the last page of the of the proposed uh ordinance. Um, measure K sites are very near. They're could be surrounding the housing element sites that are in here. But in the staff report, I saw that the proposal was like 30 dwelling units an acre for measure K sites south of the 405 and 60 dwelling units an acre north of the 405. Um, I think just to be consistent and just to be easy and not complex,

we should say in this zone. Let's call it, let's first say north coast of Mesa. If you're in North Costa Mesa, you're at 90 dwelling units an acre. We're going to make that really easy for you. If you're in Sbeca, I checked the site's inventory of the housing element. um all the ones that are in Sbeca and along Baker are at 60 dwelling units an acre. So if you're a housing element site and you're in Sbeca, just because you're um no, if you're a measure K site and you're not in the housing element, just because you're not in the housing element doesn't mean that you're going to have a vastly different density or development standard than your neighbor. We're going to want to keep things simple. um and easy for people to be neighbors and not have um the this this difference. So, I'm hopeful for what we come back with uh because there are many many people in our city who uh are in an overcrowded unit. They're in a unit they cannot afford. they are in so many different things. Um, and by providing more housing, we will be able to help relieve that burden of of overcrowding, of being in a unit you can't afford. So, I'm looking forward to receiving this uh and providing some further incentives so that we can construct more housing. Um, and this is uh this is just a really important thing. So, thank you for the work you're doing.

If there are no more comments, uh may I have a motion? Motion by Commissioner Martinez. Move to receive and file. Second by Commissioner Andrade. I'm not going to invite you to speak your motion. [laughter] Can we call for the question? That motion carries 61 with Vice Chair Zik voting no. All right. Thank you very much. Uh we have one final business item number two. Anna, could you please read the title for that?

New business item number two. Review and approve the 2026 planning commission meeting calendar. All right, Director Ty, the floor is all yours.

Yes. Thank you, Chair. Uh members of the planning commission, good evening. Just a brief staff report on this. Um, this is a an an item for you to consider and approve your proposed uh 2026 planning commission meeting calendar. Um, just by way of some background, um, the bylaws currently state that the regular planning commission meetings are are conducted on the second and fourth uh, Mondays of each month with the exception of December. Um, but also by way of background, I noticed that um, our city council just approved their 2026 meeting calendar and they've subscribed to a certain cadence as well. So, we took that into consideration. Um, there's a couple days that they go dark uh and that we that we discuss in the staff report. The other thing we did was took a look at this year's meeting calendar. Um, because of the placement of our meetings on Mondays, there are certain holidays that the meetings um we need adjustments for and that is particularly prevalent during the holidays as we're seeing right now. Um, typically our meetings end up the week of Thanksgiving or Christmas. um and that sometimes poses a challenge with regard to available um support staff and things like that. The other thing we realized is that for uh staff that are working on some deeper focus initiatives, sometimes getting a break to just kind of uh but break in the meeting but so they can focus on internal work is also um beneficial. So a couple of changes to the regularly scheduled meetings. Um we are proposing to start the first meeting of the year on the 26th. That allows the city council to start their first meeting on the 20th and we would come after that. And then we would have our um the our two meetings a month for the next three months. We would go dark on the week of Memorial Day and then through the summer we would have two meetings a month until we would go dark the last meeting in August which matches the city council agenda. then we would go back to two meetings a month and then have one in November and one in December just like we're doing this year. So those are that's the proposed calendar.

Um it's also attached to your staff report and with that we recommend that you approve this calendar. I will add as a footnote um as a Brown Act body you are able uh we are able if we need um additional special meetings if we're finding that uh there are an overabundance of agenda items on a meeting we can schedule special meetings in advance um so we're absolutely always willing to do that as well so we have that flexibility I think having a calendar helps the commission and staff plan for the year um and hopefully you you feel that way as well so with that I'll let you have your discussion thank you okay thank Thank you. Uh, commissioners, any questions of staff? Commissioner Martinez,

just a procedural one. Since it is in our bylaws, as you mentioned, that our regular meetings are on the second and fourth Mondays of each month except December, is would the correct motion to approve this be to suspend the bylaws and approve the staff recommendation? I don't believe suspension of the bylaws is required. the planning commission is making adjustment to the previously established schedule by removing one or two meetings, one or two Monday meetings. I don't really think we need to suspend the application of the bylaws. Thank you. All right, Commissioner Dixon.

Quick question. Uh so if we and I know that uh vice chair Zik has been asking for a list of applications and and such if we if we do if we do start getting a really heavy load and you'd indicated that director Tai that we could add meetings but if it's just a heavy planning load would we be able to put a meeting back on for the 25th of May for instance if it wasn't a holiday or or move it around maybe on the 26th or something along those lines. I just want to make sure it's critically important to me that we don't have any applicants waiting because we're take taking the day off. That's my

No, no, no. Correct. That's absolutely correct. Um you may have seen this year's agendas. We had um at le I mean we had I think six or seven agendas in a row that were two items each and those just fell under a regular cadence. But yes, if we found that, you know, we had six or seven um and that, you know, they were bunching, we could schedule a special meeting. And yes, if you know, there were an applicant um that uh had to go on a certain date but you know, perhaps missed their deadline to go on an earlier date. I mean, the logistics are possible that we could schedule a special meeting. Um and then the question would be um generally the the staff liaison I would call the chair and we would discuss whether you know the one item would be worth scheduling a special meeting for and we would also generally work with the applicants on their schedules. Uh we find that applicants are usually amanable to um you know if they can't make the deadline for one meeting and then we have a next schedule meeting they'll know about that in advance and then they'll be agreeable to that as well. But it's a very dynamic working environment. So, we're always open to scheduling a meeting when we need to when we need to.

All right. Thank you very much. If there are no more questions, I'll excuse me. Open public comments. If anybody would wish to speak on this, come to the podium. Seeing none, Anna, do we have anybody on Zoom or phone? No, we do not, Mr. Chairman. Okay, I'll close the public comment portion. Any further questions, commissioners? If not, may I have a motion? Move to approve the proposed 2026 planning commission meeting calendar. Okay, I will second that. Can we call for the question?

That motion carries 70. All right, we have a couple departmental reports or maybe not. Uh Mr. Hang, public services. Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh no no reports from public works. Thank you. Okay. Defer back to the chair. Thank you. Uh director Tai, anything from development services?

Yes. Thank you, chair. Just a brief um update from the last city council meeting. Uh the Ohio House appeal was scheduled for that meeting, but the applicant did request a continuance until February. So, it will be heard next year. Um let me see. I think planning manager McIll or was it Michelle may have mentioned the scoping meeting for the neighborhoods where we all belong environmental impact report uh this Wednesday, December 10th at 5:30 in the council chambers. Um and then just a brief look ahead for 2026, you have your calendar adopted. Thank you for that. Um but the 2026 planning commission activities at least for the first half of the year will largely be focused on all of the city's major housing initiatives. Um and that includes both neighborhoods uh as well as the uh Fairview Developmental Center specific plan. Um those two major efforts are at the top of the city council strategic priority list and both will hopefully culminate in the city's ability to submit a um compliant housing element to the state for certification. And so with that, I'm wishing everybody a safe, warm, happy, joyous winter and holiday season. Please get plenty of rest and return energized. There is a lot of work next year. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Presiosce. Anything from city attorney? Just happy holidays everyone and a happy new year. Okay. And before we adjourn, I as well wish everybody a happy and healthy holiday season and new year and we'll see you in 2026. Meeting is adjourned.