Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right. Good evening, and welcome to the Planning Commission meeting of Monday, 03/09/2026. I now call the meeting to order. It's time for the Pledge of Allegiance, and tonight we will be led by Vice Chair Zick. I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

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

Chair Harlan? Here. Vice Chair Zick?

Here.

Commissioner Rojas?

Here.

Commissioner Klepack? Here. Commissioner Andrade? Here. Commissioner Dixon? Here. Commissioner Martinez?

Here.

All right, just in time. Takes us to public comments for matters not listed on the agenda. These are items that are within our jurisdiction but not on the agenda. I'll open public comment. If you'd like to speak, please come to either podium. Or if you're participating by Zoom, please use the raise hand option at the bottom of your screen. Or if you're joining by phone, please press 9. Anybody in chambers wish to speak? Any of the four? Nope? Anna, do we have anybody on Zoom or phone?

No, we do not, Mr. Chairman.

Okay. I will close public comments. Takes us to Planning Commissioner Comments and Suggestions. Let's start with Commissioner Rojas.

I got nothing.

Okay. Commissioner Kleefak?

None for me.

Okay. Commissioner Andrade.

Yes. I'll just start off happy Tuesday. Tuesday? Is it Monday? Monday. It's Monday. Yes. Days days are all melted together. We just moved down the street from Wilson Street. So very exciting times. And thanks so much for your understanding and a late arrival. But I want to give a huge appreciation and shout out to the city staff for a wonderful and insightful Neighborhoods Where We All Belong session at the Norma Herzog Community Center. I think it was a great turnout of folks that came out to the presentation. The interactive activities I thought were really great. The summaries really highlight all the work that has been done so far.

And just leaning back on the interactive activities, I really did appreciate the little block portions to kind of give folks a visual on what the structures or recommended structures that could be built will look like, taking us back a little bit to block playing as children. But I think very useful. So, thank you. Looking forward to the final community sessions and to see what else can we gain from insight.

Thank you. Commissioner Dixon.

Thank you. Just a brief follow-up from the last meeting. And welcome to everybody who's here. It's great to see people in chambers. We had had a discussion related to one of the items about the security guards and the council policy change, or the change regarding twenty four hour security guards.

And we had discussed recommending to counsel, and I sent an e mail to the chair and staff. And it seems like the best path would be for counsel to do that. And there have been some indications that counsel will be addressing that issue. And it's just I to bring it up again because we had a zoning administrator decision from Friday on just this subject. So I think that for staff and for the applicants, it'll be a huge cost saving and time saving effort if we can streamline that process. And so we don't have to have individual applications come forward every time that happens. So I just wanna give a quick follow-up on that. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Commissioner Martinez.

Thank you. There are a few community events that are coming up. First, the Spring Bark Bash. This is an event for all things canine. The canine unit of the CMPD is going to be at TeWinkle Park.

There will be pet adoptions, pet supply, vendors, photo booths, face painting. It'll be a very fun event. This will be Saturday, March 21 from eleven to two at TeWinkle Park, so go check it out. Next, the community feedback on the Fairview Developmental Center will be continuing. There will be three open houses in late March that I'm sure Director Tai will cover during her part of the meeting.

And last, community event. If you're interested in volunteering at Fairview Park, our jewel of Costa Mesa natural space, there's numerous volunteer opportunities Fridays, Thursdays, Saturdays, whenever you're free. So if you're interested in helping preserve this natural open space, please check out our city website and see how you can get volunteering. Two past events that I wanted to mention. First, I also attended the Neighborhoods Where We All Belong community meeting at the Norma Herzog Community Center.

Good event. Thank you, staff, for organizing that. And then I also saw a public works team out at Placentia And Center Street working on possible design options for a new crosswalk at that intersection. I know there's been a lot of organizing to get something there so that we can make our streets safer, so it's very good to see that. And then a future government action the Newport Mesa Unified School District has their board meeting tomorrow night where they are considering several measures that will make it harder for students to ride their bike to school.

This includes banning bike riding for students in second grade and below. It includes requiring a waiver, consent form, and training in order to ride a regular bicycle between third and eighth grade, and also making the process difficult if you're riding simply a class one e bike. That's the least powerful of the e bikes, I'll put it, for high schoolers. And then all other kinds of e bikes would be banned. I think this is a response to real problem is, which are electric motorcycles, e motos.

Sometimes other people call them motorized cycles or mopeds. These are devices which do not follow the classification of an electric bicycle as defined in state law. State law requires that an e bike can go no more than 20 miles per hour if it's a class one or two, no more than 28 miles per hour if it's a class three. If it's a class three, that also requires the user be above the age of 16 years old and requires all users to wear helmets. All students everyone under the age of 18 is also required to wear a helmet.

So these requirements by the Newport Mesa board to make it more difficult to ride even the regular bicycles, I think, are poorly thought out. The policy even as written is it's poorly written, even if I were to agree with the policy outcome. So I encourage everyone who wants to encourage our children to be active, to get to school safely through means other than riding in the back seat of a car, to go to the Newport Mesa board meeting tomorrow night at 6PM on Bear Street, and let them know that you want our children to be active and be able to get to school by bike without them making it more difficult to do so. Thank you.

Thank you Commissioner Martinez. Vice Chair Zick?

Nothing.

Okay. And nothing for me tonight. We have one item on the consent calendar tonight. All matters listed on the consent calendar are considered to be routine and will be acted upon in one motion. There will only be separate discussion if an item has been pulled. Anna, has any item been

pulled? Chairman.

Okay. Do we have a motion on motion by Commissioner Dixon, second by Commissioner Martinez?

Move to approve the minutes. Second.

Okay. Let's call for the question.

That motion carries seven-zero.

We have two public hearing items tonight. Anna, will you please read the title for Public Hearing Item Number one.

Public hearing item number one, two year extension of time for master plan PA-twenty two-thirty for an eight unit live work development at 1711 To 1719 Pomona Avenue. Please note we have not received public comments on this item. This is a call for any ex parte communications.

Commissioners, any ex parte communications?

Just driving in the vicinity.

Okay. Alright. I will turn it over to Mr. Yeager for staff presentation.

Thank you, Chair Harlan. Good evening, commissioners. My name is Chris Yeager, senior planner with the City of Costa Mesa. So the project here tonight, it is a two year extension for the live work project on Pomona. The project included eight live work units with Ground Floor workspaces and garages and then living space and a roof deck above.

The project includes a rear parking lot for guest parking as well. Back on March 17, director allowed a one hundred and eighty day extension already for the project, so it would extend to 03/17/2026. However, any extension longer than one hundred and eighty days is required to be acted upon by the final review authority. So the application is in front of the Planning Commission tonight for that reason. The request is a two year time extension to pull permits.

Currently the product is under plan check and it is also being reviewed by Southern California Edison for undergrounding. Once it gets through Southern California Edison, it will come back to the city and then the permits can be issued. So if approved tonight, the project, it would be vested until 03/17/2028, more than enough time to get through this process. Once the permits are pulled and construction begins, the project would be fully vested. So the required findings for time extension basically requires that there's no change in the conditions or circumstances of the site.

So there have been no changes, and the project could continue as it's been proposed with the applicable development standards. In addition, there's been no amendments to the general plan zoning code or urban plan that would result in the denial of the original project. And no other changes to the plans that would preclude the approval of the time extension. The project is conformance with the general plan, and that it is at the allowable density. The current infrastructure supports the project.

It would promote a residential ownership product in the city. And it is a well planned mixed use project with prominent facades facing Pomona Avenue, which are compatible with other live work and commercial and industrial uses in the surrounding neighborhood. Back at the original approval, Planning Commission determined that the project was exempt to CEQA pursuant to categorical exemption Class 32 infill development, And the time extension does not propose any changes to the approved plan's development intensity or operational characteristics, would require any additional further review of CEQA. So with that, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution approving the two year extension to find that the project is exempt from CEQA. I'm available to answer any questions if you have any.

Okay. Thank you, mister Yeager. Commissioners, any questions of staff? Vice chair Zick is nodding his head. Go ahead.

Thank you. Thank you, mister Yeager. First, just a comment. A condition of approval number six. I like that condition. I think it's appropriate to give some notice to a buyer, although it might be obvious if they're buying a property that's in the middle of an industrial zone. But I think that's a good thing to include in the conditions. If you did not include that as a condition of approval, would the city be at any risk? In other words, why are you including that condition of approval?

So the Mesa West Bluffs urban plan requires this as a condition of approval that the buyer's notice be provided and that the live work units remain as a place of work in the work area. So since the urban plan prescribes it as a condition, that's the main reason why it's included.

Do you anticipate this condition existing in the new construct for the rezoning plan the city, where we're rezoning lots of industrial and commercial land.

Do you want to comment on that?

Specifically, I'm not sure if that full analysis has been done, if we are going to be including that or not. But that could be something that we discuss through the process. If the urban plan prescribes it and remains, it would remain as a condition.

Okay. And then the question I've got, when an applicant pulls a permit, building permit

for

a project, is there a time limit within which they must get a certificate of occupancy? In other words, complete the project?

So there's no time limit to obtain the certificate of occupancy. However, there are time limits to receive inspections. I believe it's one year after it's issued, you must have a completed inspection on the project.

What happens if you don't?

Then the permit would be void.

Typically, requirement is that it's diligently pursued. There's an actual term, you might want to speak to that.

Yeah. The billing code has set time intervals for certain steps. Active construction projects have to call for inspections every six months. And they have to yeah, they do have to diligently pursue. And then if there's no activity, the permits do expire. And the building official does have the discretion to extend permits when there are extenuating circumstances, particularly when we are trying to keep projects moving when the building codes are changing, for example. So we tend to work with them. But there are set timelines.

Okay. And then I'm sorry. My other question has to do with this letter from Build Group Properties. And it kind of goes to what I see as their rationale or justification for the request, which is that the plan check process with the city takes much longer than expected. Do we really think they need a two year extension? And that a one year extension or a six month extension, considering how long it's been since this was originally approved, is necessary?

No, I don't anticipate it taking two years. The request originally came in, I believe it was for six months in my discussions with them. I just wanted to make sure that we didn't have to come back here in six months if there were some extreme circumstances that happened.

So if we gave it one year, you think it would happen within one year?

Yes.

Good. Thank you.

Okay. Commissioner Martinez, then Commissioner Dixon.

Thank you. And perhaps this might be a better question for the applicant. But I wanna understand, it seems like the thing that is holding up this project is Southern California Edison and undergrounding of utilities. Is that accurate?

So the undergrounding of the utilities, it wasn't included in initial round or two of plan check. And then it was a condition of approval on the project. So the applicants did receive communication from the city that it needed to be done. And then since then, they've been in communication with SCE.

So they didn't include the undergrounding in the plan check, that's why it's been delayed. And it's not because SCE has taken a long time with whatever they need to do.

I I'm not sure of SCE's timing. I know that the applicant is actively working with them.

Okay. And then is the undergrounding of utilities something that can happen after a project has been built? In other words, like, could could they just start building the project and then do the undergrounding later?

Typically, the undergrounding is gonna be included with the grading, which is gonna be one of the first steps in the project.

Okay. Thank you.

Commissioner Dixon?

And I just wanted to kind of comment on Vice Chair Zick's comment. This was the buyer's notice used to be sort of buried in CC and Rs. And back when we were approving a lot of the live work units in the mid-2010s, we had a lot of opposition from adjoining property owners who were running for instance, one I explicitly remember was that development on the corner of Harbor And Hamilton. And the folks who were running the rental business was very exercised about and I understand. He's got a busy rental yard with a lot of noise at six in the morning.

And so we, as a commission, decided that we would bolster that buyer's notice so that there would be much more front and center and so people would be aware that they were buying a property that was next to an industrial or a commercial operation. And there may be associated noises with that operation that, of course, can't exceed the noise ordinance. So that's a little bit of context on where that came from. Thanks.

Okay. Any other questions, commissioners?

Okay.

I'm gonna open the public hearing and ask if the applicant or applicant's representative is present.

My name is Dirk Phelan. I'm with BSP Design and applicant's not here but I can answer any questions they have.

Okay. Commissioner Martinez, do you want to follow-up on your question? I think that may have been ripe for the applicant.

If you remember the question, if you just want to answer it or else I can restate it.

If you can restate it, please.

Yeah. Could the undergrounding of utilities happen after the main part of the project is being built, or on a later time period so that main part can start before the undergrounding?

Typically, the site improvements have to happen prior to construction.

All right. And while I have you up here, I mean, guess you're not exactly the applicant, but it says in the letter the plan check process with the city of Costa Mesa taking much longer than expected. And I want to know if there was more info on that. Was it timelines? Was it this undergrounding requirement? If you have any other information?

No. I agree with what staff mentioned in the presentation. And Southern California is typically has a long period of plan check to get projects built and to get transformers days. It takes years, you've to order them while you're in plan check. So, it's just the time of our to get electricity is not easy nowadays.

Commissioner Dickson?

Vice Chair Zichnate, I may be stealing your thunder here, but so do you anticipate getting that SCE process completed in a timely manner, or is it still sort of kind of in the ether?

No, it's not in ether. The dry utility consultant's currently working on it, and I agree with what staff indicated in their presentation, but just in case something did come up, it's always better to have a little bit more time so we can solve that issue. So that was the reason we're asking for eighteen months.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Okay. You.

CHAIRMAN Free to sit down. Thanks. Anybody else in chambers wish to speak to this item? Seeing none, Anna, do we have anybody on Zoom or phone?

Mr. Chairman.

Okay. I will close the public comment portion of the hearing. Commissioners, any further questions of staff? If not, does somebody want to make a motion? Vice Chair Zix?

I move that we adopt a resolution approving a one year time extension for PA twenty two-thirty master plan allowed for an eight unit live work development and find that the project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA, per CEQA guidelines section fifteen thousand three thirty two, class 32, infill development.

Okay, is there a second? Second by commissioner Dixon. Vice chair, do you want to speak to your motion?

Yeah. This was approved a long time ago. And based on staff's comments and my expectation that the applicant will be diligent, I think one year is plenty of time for them to get to the point of pulling the building permit.

Okay.

And I agree with Vice Chair Zakin. I think that the one hundred and eighty days the applicant asked for or the eighteen months included the one hundred and eighty days they already got. So this one year is appropriate, and I support the motion. Wish they get approved quickly.

So just a quick question for staff. The applicant did ask for and receive an extension at one point, correct?

Correct. The director granted a one hundred and eighty day extension, which expires on March 17.

And that was prior to the two year expiration or closer to the eighteen month expiration?

So they have received a one hundred and eighty day extension after their two years of approval.

Okay. Okay.

All

right. We have a motion and a second. Any final comments? Okay, let's call for the quip. A Go ahead.

A question for staff. Do you have any concerns that this could be fulfilled in just a year or will we be back here for another extension?

The undergrounding is pretty much the only thing that's pending in the plan check. So, I mean, it's in SCE's hands at this point, so I can't for certain say it'll be a year.

Right. Because Otherwise, your recommendation tonight would have been just one year, right, if we felt assured that it could happen within a year.

But I imagine that this could be completed within a year. But again, I can't say with certainty.

One last question for staff. So if applicant if we grant a one year extension, applicant cannot fulfill its obligations by then, can they then request another extension?

Yes.

Okay. All right. Okay. Director Tai?

Chair and members of the Planning Commission, if you would indulge me. While Senior Planner Yeager has indicated that the only outstanding item is the utilities, I would also say if the Commission were to grant a one year extension tonight and something else unforeseen were to happen, which none of us sitting here in this room would have any idea of, If the applicant had to come back for another extension, they would have to pay another application fee, for example. And so my recommendation would be to on a staff level, would be for the full two years just to provide the applicant the utmost flexibility and to avoid any possibility that they might have to come back and ask for another extension. So I would just want to reiterate that. I mean, obviously, it's the Commission's decision.

But in our experience, we just never know what comes up sometimes. So thank you.

Okay. We have a motion

on the floor.

I do have a comment on that.

Hold on. Go ahead Commissioner Rojas.

Yeah, I don't know why we're painting a client into a corner based upon third party expectations they have no control over. It's better to have a non need than need to not have. So I won't be supporting a motion of one year, I would be glad to support the motion of two years just to keep it simple, know, just to streamline the process with them because I don't I don't think we should limit the client nor the staff or something that's third party that we have no control over.

Okay. Any other comments or questions? Commissioner Andrade?

Similarly, I think we've often heard in this space on encouraging the city staff to be supportive of business, limit roadblocks and red tape just to be able to move projects forward. So especially in today's climate and economy and the state of commerce internationally, I would hesitate to give this very tight window when we have our city staff that is recommending a full two year just for that added accommodation and to simplify, hopefully expedite the process. I'm sure the developers want to build as soon as possible anyways. So leaning in with that expectation, would support two year extension as recommended by staff.

Okay. Vice Chair Zwick?

Question for clarification from staff. Did the requirement for undergrounding, was that included in the original approval in 2023?

Yes, it was. Okay.

I'm going to clearly, I'm going stick with my motion. And the rationale I have is, while it's true, we have no control. We have no control over Southern California Edison. We didn't communicate with Edison, nor would we. This isn't our project. We have nothing in front of us from the applicant that says, hey, I I contacted them the day after the Planning Commission approval in 2023, and this is how long it's taken them to get back to me. These delays are killing me. I need more time because they're just dragging their feet. We have nothing in the record to support that. We don't even have the applicant here.

We have a so no disrespect to him. I mean, we're not here to handhold people. They're managing the project and have presented no evidence that Edison is delaying them. They've had a lot of time to get this thing through.

Okay, I'm going to offer a substitute motion, which is an eighteen month extension. And I agree with Vice Chair Zik that there really isn't anything in the record that shows the applicant's need for this, or at least a significant amount. Quite frankly, it's troublesome when an applicant is making a request and there's a one line request in the record. I want to see something more. On the other hand, I do recognize it takes a long time for these things to happen, especially when something requires an approval of an outside agency.

So to me eighteen months seems reasonable. It sort of seems like we're all kind of falling. And I think that would give the applicant at least adequate time and we know that they recognize that they need to get it done or they're coming back to pay another fee for an extension. I see a second by Commissioner Martinez. Do you want to speak to that?

Mr. Chairman, I agree with you. This eighteen month extension would be a total of two year time extension, including the one hundred and eighty eight days that were previously approved. So I will support the motion.

Okay, thank you. All right, so we have a motion and a second. Let's call for the question. Vice Chair Zwick, you want comments? Yeah,

I'll be supporting your motion in spirit of collaboration, and I would like the applicant's representative to take back the message from me. And you've heard my message. Thank you.

Okay. Any other comments by commissioners? No. Commissioner Dixon? No. Okay, let's call for the question then.

That motion carries seven zero.

Okay, that decision is final unless appealed to the City Council within seven days. We have our next public hearing item. Anna, will you please read that into the record?

Public hearing item number two, design review PDES-twenty Five-three tentative parcel map, PTPM-twenty five-three, and development review PDVR-twenty Five-five for a common interest development consisting of two two story townhome condominiums located at 121 Cecil Place. Please note we have received public comments on this item. This is a call for any ex parte communications.

Any ex parte communications, commissioners? Commissioner Kleefac?

Just visited the site.

Okay. Commissioner Rojas?

Same here. Just visited.

All right. I will turn it over to Mr. Villalobos to present the item.

Good evening chair and commissioners. My name is Gabriel Villalobos, and I am an assistant planner with the development services department. And tonight I am presenting my findings for a residential common interest development project located at 121 Cecil Place. Proposed project includes demolition of an existing single family residence and detached garage on the property to allow for the development of two two story townhome condominiums that would total approximately 2,938 square feet of livable area per unit. Each unit will contain four bedrooms and 3.5 baths and will also include a four forty four square foot two car garage per unit.

The proposed project is a residential common interest development which proposes to subdivide the property into two condominium units on a commonly shared parcel. Each unit will be owned separately, and the driveway area landscaping open space will be commonly owned but privately maintained by each respective owner. In addition, the project has been reviewed for compliance with the residential design guidelines through a development review as required by the zoning code for new two story construction in a multifamily zone. Other site improvements such as a new driveway approach and sidewalk are also incorporated into the project design. Subject property is located on the South Side of Cecil Place between Newport Blvd and Eldon Avenue.

The property is owned r two md and is surrounded by both residential and commercial uses including a mix of single and multifamily housing, as well as some commercial developments, including a hotel and food establishments in the immediate vicinity. The slide above includes some photos of the existing conditions on the site depicting the existing residential development while other developments exist in the immediate vicinity and the proximity to Newport Blvd and the 55 Freeway. The slide above shows the proposed subdivision of the property. This includes the establishment of two individual condominium units for each dwelling unit on the property as shown in red and blue. The common lot is shown in green, and the proposed three foot dedication for the public right of way is shown in orange.

The site plan above shows the location of each driveway, garage, and building footprints proposed on the subject property. Each unit will share a common driveway approach but will have their own individual driveway and two car garage providing for a total of eight off street parking spaces consistent with the city's parking requirements for the type of development proposed. Landscaping will be provided throughout the development, and each unit will have their own private yards located within the common lot. The CCNRs and HOA, as conditioned through this project, will be established by the applicants to regulate individual maintenance of the landscaping, open space, and driveway areas. Shown above are the floor plans for the 1st Floor of each unit.

Most notably, each unit will have their own two car garage and will also have covered patio areas at the rear and sides of each unit along with a guest bedroom on the 1st Floor. The slide above shows the 2nd Floor sort the 2nd Story floor plans where the three remaining bedrooms for each unit will be located. The windows and second story setbacks have been evaluated for consistency with the city's residential design guidelines and shall maintain an average setback distance of 10 feet and shall utilize obscured glass windows to limit privacy impacts to adjacent properties as described in the staff report provided to the commission. Shown above are colored renderings of the proposed development for the subject property. The proposed dwelling units will be attached to each other similar to that of a townhome and will be designed to incorporate architectural articulation and offsets to provide an aesthetically pleasing design to this residential development The development will use a mixture of finishes and materials and will comply with several key aspects of the residential design guidelines including masking, second story design, elevation treatments, window placement.

As described in the staff report provided to the commission, the proposed development meets the findings required for both residential common interest developments and tentative maps. As such, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution to find the project is exempt from CEQA per section fifteen three fifteen and section fifteen three zero three and approve the design review tentative parcel map and development review applications subject to the conditions of approval. That concludes staff's presentation and I'm available for any questions.

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

All right. First, I just want to understand why this came to us as the Planning Commission and if a project like this would come to us in the future. So first, if I understand correctly, because this is not zoned single family residential, SP nine is not applicable. Is that correct? Yes. Thank you. A design review which of these? So there's three different applications here, The design review, the tentative parcel map, and the development review. Which of those cause it to come to us as the planning commission? And I'll stop there for now.

Yeah, it would be the design review application, which is required for new residential common interest projects. That is pursuant to section thirteen-thirty eight subsection E1 of the Costa Mesa municipal code.

That's the only one that causes it to come to us.

To the Planning Commission specifically, yes.

And just to reiterate, as Gabis said, is the tentative map requires a design review process. So it's not just at its face a design review application. It's combined with the map.

Okay. And then with our proposed amendments to the zoning code that we sent over to the city council, didn't we remove the which one did we remove? Was it the design review?

You mean the recently adopted small bot ordinance revisions that we

Yeah, just the housing element rezone. No?

Neither of of those included modification to a section like this. But there is discussion as part of the updates to the housing process to modify processes for all different unit types and processes. So anticipate that possibly a smaller project like this would see a different entitlement process through after that's approved. Okay.

Yeah, just to clarify, the housing element related streamlining provisions had to do with housing element sites, of which this one is not, and also to streamline projects that have 20% lower income as ministerial review to echo the existing state statute. So that was the major streamlining. And there were a couple other process streamlining steps that affect housing element sites, but not this particular one.

Okay. The sidewalk, I see it's a three foot easement. Is there already a one foot on the Cecil Place side that's already an easement for the city? I know there's like a dotted line in the plan with that's in the middle of the what would be a sidewalk.

So the first dotted line that you are referencing would be the location of the current current width of the public right of way. And it's from there where the three feet is being taken from. It appears that the current width of that measured from the centerline is approximately I believe that's Yeah. Appears to be 22 feet. But with the request for the additional three feet, that would bring the half width of the public right of way to up to 25, which is being requested requested by the city.

I

just want to make sure there's four feet for sidewalk easement which if I'm right is the ADA standard.

Commissioner Martinez, the ADA standard at the very bare bones minimum is three feet. Our city standard is typically four feet.

Okay. So to our city standard then.

This condition was provided by transportation to include the three foot wide sidewalk, but it could be modified by the commission if desired.

If I'm reading the plans correctly, I think it already includes four feet if you include already existing public right of way. So I don't think I'll make a change. And I wanted to ask, is a sidewalk also being proposed to be built, or is it just the easement?

As of now, it appears that it would only be the easement that's being requested. And I do not believe that a sidewalk was included as one of the conditions of the of the project.

Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Any other questions of staff? No? Okay. I will open the public hearing, ask whether the applicant or applicant's representative is present. And if so, please come to the podium. If you could state your name for the record, and then two questions: Have you read the conditions of approval, and do you agree to those?

I've read the conditions of approval, and I do agree with them. My name is Josh Martinez.

Floor is yours if you want to present anything or respond to any questions.

Just a brief summary if that's okay. Good evening, commissioners. My name is Josh Martinez with OSA Homes. I'm the project lead designer and authorized representative for the property owner, cesall ventures LLC for the project located here at 121 Cesall Place. I would like to thank our assistant planner Gabriel Villalobos and the city review staff for the coordination and thoughtful review of the project We have carefully reviewed the staff report and conditions of approval and appreciate the time the staff has put into the process.

The proposal replaces an older nineteen twenty seven single family residence with two new ownership homes providing additional housing opportunities within an established residential neighborhood while remaining consistent with the city's general plan use and designation. From a design standpoint, the project incorporates pitch rift forms, articulated massing, and varied exterior materials to help the homes integrate with the surrounding neighborhood. The shared central wall configurations allows us the development to efficiently utilize the building envelope while maintaining setbacks, preserving open space on the site, and reduce overall building bulk compared to fully detached structures. We have coordinated with the city arborists regarding the existing frontage trees, and landscape proposes six new trees in the front yard adjacent to the new driveway, helping enhance the streetscape. The project will also, include some frontage improvements along Cecil Place, including the installation of a new city standard sidewalk and parking landscape.

If approved this evening, our team intends to proceed into building permit plan check and move forward with construction following permit issuance subject to the city's review timelines. We appreciate staff's recommendation for approval and would be happy to answer any questions the commission may have.

Thank you Mr. Martinez. I know we're going to have some questions I just want to jump in quickly. You did mention construction or installation of the sidewalk is that correct?

Just to clarify earlier comments pursuant to condition of approval number 34, the Public Works Division did condition that the applicant obtain a permit from the city of Costa Mesa at the time of development to construct a residential sidewalk per city of Costa Mesa standards.

Okay. Thank you. Appreciate that.

With four feet clear, with four foot clearance as written in the condition.

Okay. Good. Sorry. Any other commissioners have comments or questions of the applicant? I do before you sit down. So Mr. Martinez, were you the project designer for the project the East Of Eldon on 161?

I am.

Okay, so it's, to my mind, it's a very similar design. The footprint's a little bit different, but it's essentially garage fronted, entries on the side yard, shared wall, correct?

Yes, the program is articulated the same. The architectures and massing is a little bit different on this one.

Yes, it definitely is different. The project at 161 was approved in January '3. I think that it was actually at the staff level. It was a development review, if I remember correctly. So it didn't come to Planning Commission. But was there any discussion with staff, either at that time or even in this process, about basically how the buildings front CECL? In other words, you're proposing basically a garage on both sides with entries on the side. Was there any consideration for a different kind of design?

None at the time. There was no questions regarding that.

Okay. All right. Any other questions of the applicants? Commissioner Andrade.

You mentioned just now a little bit about the landscape and looking at Attachment attachment five of the application. It looks like you're so I appreciate, first off, by the looks of it, that you're going to be creating a sidewalk where there wasn't one. But it looks like you're also, based on the design map, that you'll have to remove the tree that currently exists, the large tree that's in place right now, right? Or are you kind of building around it?

The trees are positioned in a nonconforming zone. So if the sidewalk were to be installed, we'd have to relocate the tree. But we spoke with our city arborists, and the recommendation is provide at least six trees, which we comply with in our site plan and landscape now.

Okay. Is there Could there be an opportunity in your design, because again, appreciate to have six trees installed, but to be along the sidewalk so that it's actually kind of making it pedestrian friendly, creating some shade to pedestrians?

They're just placed too close to the sidewalk. I'm not sure if ADA will be a standard if the tree's in the middle of the sidewalk. They're just in a nonconforming zone. So, we're subject to essentially relocate and plant new trees to keep up the streetscape of the city.

Correct. So I understand you have to remove this, looks like an elder tree here, but the six that you're putting in, is there an opportunity to put it along the sidewalk to kind of again bring some shade to pedestrians?

There there is adjacent I guess the six the three the three trees on both sides are actually adjacent to the parking I'm sorry, the the sidewalk. So, it is in the proximity of the sidewalk, just not really a canopy. It's really on lot, but the natural grade where the trees will be placed actually bleeds into the sidewalk, per se. The sidewalk will be it's a remain dominant feature. Adjacent to it would be the landscape where our trees would be.

So is there an opportunity to have those trees provide shade along your sidewalks?

I'm just not sure how I can comment on that. Probably we'll need to work with the city public works about a tree just being in the new proposed sidewalk.

Right. I mean, see it design along many streets along Costa Mesa that help us build upon the canopy that you mentioned. It's one of kind of the key concerns of residential areas, right, where it's just uncomfortable to walk around our neighborhood when it's unbearably hot. And so having trees that help us build along that canopy would really be helpful. So if there's any opportunity of again, I'm not an arborist or a developer here, but a designer here.

But how could we again, just for the public good to kind of be inviting in this neighborhood. There's a lot of commercial around. I often see in this neighborhood lots of parents strolling around, people walking and exercising. I'm sure they would greatly appreciate a developer that's kind of taking into mind how their structure is actually providing them a service.

Thank you.

All right. You can sit down, Mr. Martinez, and I'll call you back if you want to respond to any other comments or questions from public comment.

Thank you.

I'll open the public hearing and ask oh, it's open now. Do we have any other people in chambers who wish to speak on this item? Anna, do we have anybody on Zoom or by phone?

No, do not, Mr. Chairman.

Okay. I'm going

to close public comments. Commissioners, any further questions? Commissioner Dixon. Staff. Yeah, for staff.

Just wanted a clarification on condition of approval number 17 because it seems like that contradicts the plan. Just that it says all trees damaged or replaced, maybe all trees removed or destroyed. I don't know if that condition, if you're looking at it like a lawyer, it may seem like you can't remove the tree, whether or not it's damaged. Just curious if that was the intent or if that's just a standard condition that was damaged as synonymous with destroyed or removed in this context.

So generally speaking, whenever there is a proposal to remove trees pursuant to the city's landscape ordinance, they're required to consult with the public works division as far as a plan for replacement trees. In this case, it would appear that the applicant had conducted those discussions with the city arborists and a guess replacement or mitigation plan was approved that would include the replacement of the one tree with the proposed landscaping that's included as part of this project.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions, comments? Steph, can we bring up the slide with the elevations? There, perfect, okay. Less so a question, although I might get to one more sort of a comment. So looking at the front facade on CECL, I referenced another project that was approved a few years ago down the street.

It's very similar in how it kind of approaches the street, which is two car garages fronting the street. You can't see the entrance to the house. It's off on the side. And in this case, there's no, I would say, relief between the two properties or two buildings. At least at the 161 CECL, which sorry I don't have an exhibit for, there's a little recession between the two.

So you can clearly see that there are two different buildings there. This to me is very monolithic and doesn't really address our interest in creating more of a pedestrian oriented environment. I'm only raising it because this is in fact a design review. However, it's always a frustration because it is just design guidelines that we have. The applicant seems to be complying at least with the guidelines and our code requirements.

But from kind of a design perspective, I don't know that this necessarily creates the kind of streetscape environment that we want. I'll also note it is very much not part of the neighborhood pattern. Pretty much every other property has a garage and the entry facing on CECL. In fact the only other property that doesn't in the neighborhood is the other one at 161. So I'm just bringing this up for Commission's consideration as we come to a motion.

Like I said, I don't know that there's a resolution to it, but I want to note it because I am going to encourage the city and council in particular to focus on objective design standards, actual standards that can be more readily applied to get the kind of development that we are looking for, especially with regard to trying to enhance pedestrian activity on our streets. So that's more of commentary than question. Does anybody have any more questions or would someone like to make a motion? Motion by Commissioner Dixon.

Alright.

I will move that the Planning Commission find the project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per CEQA guidelines section 15,315, and that we approve design review PDES 20 five-three, tentative parcel map PTPM-twenty five-three, and development review PDVR-twenty five-five, based on the findings of fact and subject to conditions of approval with an amendment to condition of approval number 17 that just adds the word words or removed after damaged in the second sentence. And that would be my motion.

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

Yes. I agree with you about the front facing and the relief. I think the 161 looks quite good, including the one next door to it. And I don't like the massing on the street. However, this is a very well designed project in many other elements, far as the privacy and the way it's on the lot and the way it gives some space and distance between the adjacent properties.

Think that if you look at the 161 project, it's a very good looking project, and it looks like it has a great design and implementation. Do concur with Commissioner Andrade's comments about the trees. It would be great if any effort could be made to move those six new trees, the olives, at least two of those closer to the sidewalk for some canopy and some shade, that would be great. I'll leave that up to staff and the applicant. But if you look on Cecil Place, a lot of the sidewalks are just street and sidewalk. This is an opportunity to get some grass between the street and the sidewalk. And there's going to be turf grass there according to the landscaping plan. But it would be nice if there were some shade, if at all possible. It may not fit. It may not be possible with the root systems and utilities and all that good stuff.

But anything we can do to increase the canopy would be great. So great project. I appreciate you bringing it to us. I would encourage you, if you bring additional project to Costa Mesa, to reduce that massing in the front and give more of a of a pleasant as you're walking by and approach. So thank you very much.

Thank you. Vice Chair Zik.

Thank you. So I'll be supporting the motion. I do want to just speak briefly to address the one public comment we had that expressed concerns about parking impacts on Cecil Place. Their interest was that there'd be more on-site parking. That's their interest. I'd only mention that. I think the project is well designed. Two car garage, placed for two additional vehicles in the driveway. I think that's awesome. The trees aligned in the driveway, I imagine that's going to look nice.

If there was a wide parkway, then trees could be in the parkway. But given the choice between trees along the street or sidewalk along the street, I'd opt for a sidewalk along the street, and that's what you're providing. I think that's excellent. The view from the front, I would share the concern that's been expressed about maybe the way that looks from the front. But you know what?

We're not the designers. You're the designer. And it seems to me that we've faced this before. And the constraint is the amount of frontage along the street and trying to have the width to be able to have not only garages but an entrance. And I can see your challenge to do that. The way you've dealt with the entrance, it actually gives more privacy to the entrance as opposed to right up against what is a busy street very close to Newport. So I think this was a tasteful design, and I'm in full support. And thank you for providing ownership housing. That's what the city needs desperately.

Thank you. Commissioners, any other comments? Commissioner Andrade?

Yes, I support the motion. I would ask for Commissioner Dixon, instead of making it a suggested or leaving it up to city staff on maybe just requiring it, figuring it out. There's many streets and great developments across our city that are these double town homes in a single lot that have a safe ADA sidewalk providing shade. I think that you bring a very good point that because it's a garage, it's not even the front entrance, so it's not like it's going to be blocking someone's front door or access to their home. But then again, it provides a sense of community by expanding the tree canopy.

I'm sure there's some creativity. Crunch some numbers and then a way to adapt it so that we still have our full sidewalk, we still have ADA compliance, while, again, expanding the canopy, especially in this area. I drive by here all the time. There's a lot of pedestrian movement. So again, it would be an opportunity to make our development more in alignment for what the city wants to see.

Is there a suggestion for language?

To not I think you mentioned in your motion suggested trees to expand the canopy. Maybe it's trees in the front to expand the canopies. A must, I don't know, a must or a must have. I don't know what the proper language would be, but a requirement for them to go back and create it, make it happen.

I appreciate that. I think that if you look at the landscaping plan, if you look at the site plan, where any trees would go in the parkway would be almost opposite the front the far forward olive trees, the 24 ounce 24 inches box trees that are yeah, if we can get to that. That I think we'd be, it's six and one half dozen the other if you have the trees adjacent to the sidewalk on the property side as opposed to the parkway side. And the parkway side may be an issue with routes and utilities because there's a gas meter and a mailbox and an electric meter that are over going to be located there. So I think that the motion suggesting that we and this is directed to staff and the applicant as well, where you wanted to move one of those olive trees or the other olive trees forward as close as feasible to the sidewalk.

That's the intent of my motion. If that is clear enough, I'm not sure if that's actionable with a narrative or if that

Is it that way sorry. Is it actionable that way, the way it was outlined?

I think it would be helpful to amend the motion. I think as it stands right now, it would indicate just replacement of the trees, not necessarily proximity or location.

All Do want me to read the entire thing again, or just make that particular

I think as it stands right now, we have that the words after damaged or removed were added. And you can also include replace or we can include the intent is to move those trees as close to the sidewalk as possible.

Okay. So yeah, we'll add the amendment to conditional approval number 17 to place two of the replacement trees, the olive two of the replacement trees for the removed additional tree as close to the sidewalk as feasible. Sure. Okay.

Any other comments?

Vice chair Zik, do you concur with that?

Thank you.

Vice chair Zik?

I don't have a problem with it. I'm a little bit familiar with olive trees, and the roots seem like they would be a problem if you tried to put it right up against the sidewalk. But I leave it to staff and the arborist and public works Close as feasible. To not do anything dumb just to, you know

As we're reviewing them, the sidewalk integrity will be important. So it will make sure that they're placed so that they won't cause an

issue.

Yeah. Six inches won't make a difference for shade.

Thank you.

Are we Okay on the language then?

I believe so, right?

Commissioner Martinez?

Thank you. First, I wanted to clarify my previous question about the design review. In our first February meeting, our recommendation to counsel was to eliminate design review as one of the planning applications. You can look at that if you want. So yeah, that was one of the things, but I imagine that the tentative parcel map might still be required to come up to us.

So this adds a sidewalk in an area where it doesn't currently exist, and I am supportive of that. Hopefully, with this amendment to the motion, we'll add more tree canopy, and I am supportive of that. And it adds another housing unit to our city, which is very needed, so I am supportive of that, though I do concur with the chair's comments about the design, and I encourage staff in future applications to give some guidance to applicants on wanting more pedestrian oriented development, the frontage facing the street as close as possible with our current guidelines, promoting more pedestrian oriented public right of way and encouraging this tree canopy to benefit the pedestrian experience. Thank you.

Thank you. If there are no other comments, let's call for the question.

That motion carries seven zero.

Okay great. That decision is final unless appealed to the city council within seven days. I see we have no old business tonight and no new business which takes us to departmental reports public services Mr. Yang.

Thank you Mr. Chairman and good evening members of the planning commission. For tonight's public works report we'll be speaking about caltrans reconnect OC. Caltrans district twelve which Costa Mesa belongs in studying ways to reconnect neighborhoods in Orange County that have been divided or affected by state highways. The title of this community event is called reconnecting our communities roc study.

It looks at priority areas in Anaheim, Buena Park, here in Costa Mesa, Garden Grove, and Huntington Beach with a focus on improving safety, access, and how people get around. The goal is to enhance multimodal transportation in these cities. Once again, are Anaheim, Buena Park, Costa Mesa, Garden Grove, and Huntington Beach. The objective is to reconnect neighborhoods divided by highway infrastructure to increase multimodal networks for pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and transit riders alike and also improve safety, visibility, comfort near roadways, freeway, crossings and underpasses. For the public who are interested in attending this event, it's through zoom or Teams.

And you can go on-site, www.reconnectingoc.org. Once again, that's www.reconnectingoc.org. The meeting link is there, and the meeting is next Monday, March 16 at six p. M. That concludes my report, and I defer back to

the chair. You. Thank you, Mr. Yang. Director Tai, anything from development services?

Yes. Thank you, chair. I do have an update tonight. So first of all, I would like to thank the community and members of the public, as well as the hardworking staff throughout the city that put together three successful workshops on neighborhoods where we all belong this past week. There were two workshops that were in person, one at Norma Herzog and then also the senior center.

And the city also put on a virtual workshop. At the in person workshops, participants had an opportunity to catch up on round one of outreach, as well as look at proposed development standards and provide feedback on objective design standards, as well as play a building block exercise that really visualize and demonstrates in physical three d form how density can be arranged. So very productive. So I wanted to thank everybody. In terms of the theme of Neighborhoods Where We All Belong, that continues at the March 17 City Council meeting coming up next week.

There will be two agenda items that the Planning Commission provided recommendations on. The first is the general plan amendment request for properties from three different property owners to be removed from the housing element sites inventory and also requests from I believe two property owners to add their sites. There is the also the rezoning item to implement the housing element related zoning changes and that will both be going to public hearing at council on March 17. Also going to city council on that same day is the general plan and housing annual progress report where we prepare a run down on all the accomplishments related to the general plan and housing element. That will be submitted to the state on April 1.

But shortly after we go to council, we'll also be presenting to the Planning Commission as well. That will provide an opportunity for any questions here in this forum. Two more related items. One is the department will be presenting an item to award home funds. Home funds are a federal type of grant intended to fund affordable housing.

And so there were two proposals. And I think they're finalizing the staff report. But the department is proposing to award $1,500,000 out to recipients. Ultimately, that will be a council decision as to how that is awarded, but that will be presented. And then lastly, there will be an agenda item pertaining to a funding request from Jamboree Housing on the Jamboree Senior Housing Project that the Planning Commission had spent some time on their entitlement.

And that funding request is to close a funding gap that has come up due to some shifting of funds from many different policies, both local all the way up to the federal government. Also upcoming on city council in April, there will be the public hearings for the Ohio House sober living home application, as well as the step house recovery facility that the Planning Commission rendered a vote on. And there was a call for review. So that will be coming up in April. Going back to the outreach theme, so Fairview Developmental Center specific plan will be ready for unveiling later on this month.

There will be three outreach events, one on March 24 at the Costa Mesa Country Club, one on March 26 at the Senior Center, and March 30 will be virtual. We're trying to do these in different settings as well as virtual just to provide accommodations for people on different sides of the city and also those that work or have different schedules. And so for the public that is listening, specific plans do serve as the zoning document and the regulatory document for this very important Fairview Developmental Center site. So please stay involved. Get involved, if you haven't already, to be a part of the future of this important property in the city.

For more information, the FTC website is www.fdcplan.com. And there you'll also find the information on the workshops. And that concludes my report tonight. Thank you so much, Chair.

Thank you, director Tye. City attorney, mister Presiocci.

Thank you, chair Harlan. No report this evening.

Okay. Excellent. I will adjourn the meeting.