Remarks by David Martinez
101 remarks on the record, newest first · Page 2 of 5
- Play at 2:48:54
“Great. So it looks like it's just that tail end of Bristol Street.”
PLANNING COMMISSION · Sep 14, 2026
- Play at 2:48:59
“Cool. Thank you. Density bonus law. How much of it is what state law says? And how much did we add in for Costa Mesa specific stuff?”
PLANNING COMMISSION · Sep 14, 2026
- Play at 2:50:29
“Cool, thank you. Is there any reason that it's just the lower income, moderate income, and senior units that are included, even though state density bonus law says student housing, disabled veteran housing, the other categories? Is there a reason we only call out those two categories?”
PLANNING COMMISSION · Sep 14, 2026
- Play at 2:50:53
“I mean, just like in the purpose section, like at the top, and also there's in page 355, 1A, calls out affordable units and or senior housing. And it won't go on to say student housing, disabled veterans housing. I think foster children housing is one of them.”
PLANNING COMMISSION · Sep 14, 2026
- Play at 2:51:26
“Okay. Page 353. at the bottom in B2 and at the next page on B3, it says, except where mixed use zoning is proposed. Um, so I know this, this doesn't, you know, it applies everywhere cause it's density bonus, but, but what do we mean by zoning is proposed?”
PLANNING COMMISSION · Sep 14, 2026
- Play at 2:52:27
“So what happens for a project where mixed use zoning is already allowed like it does that theoretically mean it's also proposed because it's already allowed or does this section not apply because it's already allowed?”
PLANNING COMMISSION · Sep 14, 2026
- Play at 2:52:49
“Gotcha okay. Cool. 356, page 356, section 4A. The affordable housing agreement and or senior housing agreement shall in a form approved by the city attorney. Is this supposed to be shall be in a form or is it supposed to copy the language in? the next page where it says Shall enter into a restrictive covenant with the city running with the land in a form approved by the city attorney Yeah, thanks for highlighting that I think that's a typo and we can update that prior to City Council Okay, I will Mark this here. OK. Page 373. Ah, yes. Fun one. So this establishes the various permitted uses in…”
PLANNING COMMISSION · Sep 14, 2026
- Play at 2:55:03
“Just so you can get to it quicker. All right. While you do that, I will go on to page 376 and ask about our public commenter and master plans and such. So. ARE YOU GOOD?”
PLANNING COMMISSION · Sep 14, 2026
- Play at 2:55:54
“I WILL HAVE COMMENTS LATER. COOL. PAGE 376 THEN. Master plans. First I want to just ask, are all alternative development standards in master plans? Will some be in specific plans or some other kind of plan?”
PLANNING COMMISSION · Sep 14, 2026
- Play at 2:56:45
“If a specific plan is adopted and not a master plan as this section says does that override the mood”
PLANNING COMMISSION · Sep 14, 2026
- Play at 2:57:40
“Yeah, I guess I'm just trying to figure out if this should include specific plans as well. Because this says, you know, these are the development standards for mood projects unless there are alternative ones in a master plan. So should it also include specific plans?”
PLANNING COMMISSION · Sep 14, 2026
- Play at 2:59:20
“THANK YOU. THEN LET ME ASK ABOUT PLAN DEVELOPMENT ZONES. ARE ALL MASTER PLANS ONLY IN PLAN DEVELOPMENT ZONES?”
PLANNING COMMISSION · Sep 14, 2026
- Play at 2:59:33
“Okay. Cool. I will max that out. Okay. Page 378. Storage standards. Back to our public commenter.”
PLANNING COMMISSION · Sep 14, 2026
- Play at 3:01:56
“Oh, thank you. I did not include that second sentence in my questions. STORAGE STANDARDS ON 378. FIRST OF ALL I GUESS JUST ESTABLISH WHY DO WE HAVE THESE?”
PLANNING COMMISSION · Sep 14, 2026
- Play at 3:02:39
“OK. OK. 379. At the bottom of the table, the general site improvement standards. Is it possible that there will be conflict between the mood and the requirements the general site improvement standard section of our code?”
PLANNING COMMISSION · Sep 14, 2026
- Play at 3:03:32
“I THINK THIS ONE MIGHT BE ON-SITE IMPROVEMENTS. I DON'T KNOW. I THINK I TOOK A LOOK AT IT.”
PLANNING COMMISSION · Sep 14, 2026
- Play at 3:03:41
“I THINK IT MIGHT HAVE INCLUDED TRASH ENCLOSURES AND SUCH.”
PLANNING COMMISSION · Sep 14, 2026
- Play at 3:04:05
“ALL RIGHT. WELL, WHILE YOU BRING THAT UP, WHY DO WE SAY THE MORE RESTRICTIVE PROCESS SHALL APPLY?”
PLANNING COMMISSION · Sep 14, 2026
- Play at 3:04:22
“OKAY. WE'LL HAVE COMMENTS LATER. Yeah. Also, I think responding to one of the public comment EDITS WAS WHY USE THE TERM LOWER INCOME HOUSING ELEMENT SITES? I KNOW WE'RE BACK IN HOUSING ELEMENT STUFF BUT WHY USE THAT TERM?”
PLANNING COMMISSION · Sep 14, 2026
- Play at 3:08:05
“Yes, indeed, I will. Let me follow up on the chair. With the Redondo Beach decision, does that apply only to lower income housing element sites, or does it apply to all housing element sites?”
PLANNING COMMISSION · Sep 14, 2026
- Play at 3:10:05
“So the Redondo Beach case only applies to lower income housing element sites.”
PLANNING COMMISSION · Sep 14, 2026
- Play at 3:10:43
“Okay. Let me just put this a different way. Because right now we say we want to future proof this for in the future. Maybe we won't have a development that is a lower income housing element site. Right? So it's possible that that does not exist. What I'm trying to figure out, because in Section E11, it says that the supersession of the overlay only applies to projects on lower income housing element sites. So is that what the Redondo Beach case says? Or does it apply to the supercession part of the of the Redondo Beach case? Does that apply to all housing element sites only lower income?”
PLANNING COMMISSION · Sep 14, 2026
- Play at 3:11:35
“Yeah, thank you. Okay. Got it. All right. Back to asking questions about the public comments. If you REVIEWED. I THINK THIS WAS PROBABLY THE SPREADSHEET ONE. THESE ARE PROBABLY MORE TECHNICAL IN NATURE. BUT PAGE 528 IS IN THE LAND USE ELEMENT. AND IT'S THE VERY FIRST WORDS ARE SAKIOKA LOT 2 AND AREA 8 ON THE NEXT LINE. THE PUBLIC COMMENT SAYS THIS SHOULD BE SAKIOKA LOT 1 AND AREA Is what's presented here correct or is what the public comments are presented correct?”
PLANNING COMMISSION · Sep 14, 2026
- Play at 3:13:29
“I mean, just just because it it might have been in there for 10 years does not mean, you know, we should we shouldn't fix it if it's wrong.”
PLANNING COMMISSION · Sep 14, 2026
- Play at 3:13:59
“Yeah, like the next one is like on page 538, public commenter mentions that figure, that whole page essentially should not exist, figure LU6. And then the reference to it on a subsequent page.”
PLANNING COMMISSION · Sep 14, 2026