CITY HALL UPDATE FOR JUNE 2026: GROWING PRESSURE ON 💰 CITY FINANCES 💰 AND FUTURE SERVICE LEVELS; CONCERNS ABOUT GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY AND 🕵🏻‍♂️SURVEILLANCE 🕵🏻‍♂️TECHNOLOGY -PART TWO OF TWO

City Hall was busy in June due to several long meetings, two of which we have already delivered reports to you. Due to the length of the meetings, this report is divided into two parts. Part One can be found here. Below is a summary of the remainder of City Hall activity for June 2026.

Council, Commission and Committee Meetings:

• City Council: two more meetings held;

• Planning Commission: one meeting held;

• Pension and Finance Committee: one meeting held (but we did not attend due to a conflict)

• Fairview Park Steering Committee: held one meeting; and

• Active Transportation Committee met once, but we did not attend that meeting because it was held the same night as the “Shaping Neighborhoods” Open House.

JUNE 16 CITY COUNCIL MEETING. At this meeting, the items acted on were: 

• Continuation Request—Appeal Of Planning Commission Decision to Uphold Denial of Reasonable Accommodation Request for Sober Living Home Operated by The Ohio House

• Appeal and Award of Maintenance Services Agreement for Janitorial Services to CCS Facility Services - Orange County, Inc.

• Proposed First-Time Homebuyer (FTHB) Pilot Program Funded by Measure Q (Retail Cannabis)

• Fairview Road and Belfast Avenue Traffic Signal Project

• Award of Professional Services Agreement for the Senior Transportation Program

• Award of Professional Services Agreement for Arts and Culture Master Plan Update

This meeting took over five hours to complete. All Councilmembers were present.

City Attorney Closed Session Report. Kimberly Hall Barlow said there was no reportable action taken, but that the Closed Session would resume at the end of the Regular Session.

Presentations:  There were two presentations. The first was a proclamation for for Pride Month, and the second was recognition of the City's Network for Homeless Solutions for helping over 500 people over the past seven years.

Public Comment. Twenty-one (21) residents addressed the City Council during public comment. The majority of speakers focused on opposition to the City's use of Flock Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) cameras, citing concerns related to privacy, legality, data security, government transparency, and impacts on vulnerable communities. Additional comments addressed the Fairview Developmental Center project, Housing Element implementation, youth programs, park amenities, and environmental concerns.

Opposition to Flock ALPR Cameras: Most speakers urged the City Council to terminate its contract with Flock Safety and remove existing ALPR cameras throughout Costa Mesa.

Privacy and Civil Liberties Concerns: Speakers argued that the cameras constitute a form of mass surveillance by tracking vehicle movements and storing location data. Concerns were raised about residents being monitored while traveling to work, places of worship, medical facilities, and other routine destinations without a warrant or individualized suspicion.

Data Ownership and Sharing: Several speakers expressed concern that collected data is stored and managed by a private company rather than directly controlled by the City. Questions were raised regarding data-sharing practices with federal agencies, out-of-state law enforcement agencies, and other external organizations.

Legal Concerns: Commenters asserted that the program may conflict with California laws governing the use and sharing of ALPR data, including references to state restrictions on data sharing. Some speakers also argued that the technology raises potential Fourth Amendment concerns regarding unreasonable searches and government surveillance.

Potential Misuse and Accountability: Several speakers cited allegations that a Costa Mesa police officer had improperly used the system to monitor individuals. Speakers contended that existing oversight mechanisms, audit procedures, and safeguards are insufficient to prevent misuse.

Cybersecurity Risks: Concerns were raised about the security of the system, including claims that ALPR databases could be vulnerable to unauthorized access, hacking, or misuse by bad actors.

Future Expansion of Surveillance: Some speakers expressed concern that ALPR technology could evolve into broader surveillance systems incorporating artificial intelligence, facial recognition, or other tracking technologies, particularly if future policy changes expand the system's scope.

Community and Equity Impacts: Many speakers highlighted the impact of surveillance on immigrant communities and other vulnerable populations. Concerns included:

• Potential access to data by federal immigration authorities.

• Increased fear and anxiety among immigrant residents.

• Disproportionate impacts on marginalized communities.

Transparency and Trust: Several speakers criticized both the City and Flock Safety, alleging insufficient transparency regarding data-sharing practices, audit records, and oversight procedures. Speakers also questioned whether a private technology company should play such a significant role in public surveillance.

Requests to the Council: Speakers requested that the City Council:

• Terminate the contract with Flock Safety.

• Remove existing ALPR cameras.

• Reject future surveillance technology expansions.

• Place the issue on a future agenda for formal Council discussion and action.

Additional Topics Raised:

Fairview Developmental Center and Housing Issues: Several speakers commented on planning and development issues related to the Fairview Developmental Center, including:

• Questions regarding ownership and management of public open space.

• Potential parking impacts near recreational facilities.

• Concerns about increasing housing density without additional parkland.

• Questions regarding Housing Element implementation and compliance.

• Potential legal risks related to recent actions by the California Attorney General concerning group-home and sober-living regulations, including references to Costa Mesa.

Youth Drone Program: One speaker highlighted the achievements of local students participating in a STEM-focused drone competition, emphasized the importance of the Fairview Park airfield as an educational resource, and requested continued City support for the program.

Parks and Community Amenities: Comments included:

• A request for additional restroom facilities or temporary restroom options in City parks.

• Praise for the community music event "Songs in the Canyon."

Environmental Concerns: One speaker expressed concern that drone activity in Fairview Park may have adverse impacts on local wildlife and sensitive habitat areas.

Councilmember Comments. Loren Gameros (District 2) announced the upcoming July 3^rd Independence Day celebration at the OC Fairgrounds. He noted that the free event features live entertainment. He also reminded residents of event policies, including prohibitions on glass containers, bottles, hard-sided coolers, pop-up tents, outside alcohol, and firearms, and encouraged the community to attend and enjoy the festivities.

Andrea Marr (District 3) highlighted the work of the Immigrant Defenders Law Group, which administers Costa Mesa’s Immigration Defense Fund. She noted a recent case in which legal advocates successfully prevented an individual’s detention, but contrasted that outcome with the case of Rafael Ruiz, a father of two who reportedly was detained while on his way to work and deported the same day before attorneys could intervene. Marr expressed sympathy for Ruiz’s family and underscored the challenge local legal support programs face in responding to the pace of federal immigration enforcement actions.

Addressing public comments regarding the City’s Flock license plate reader cameras, Marr thanked residents for their input and agreed that the issue warrants a dedicated Council discussion. She said she would like to see the matter formally agendized for a future meeting and plans to discuss it further with the Police Chief, while also potentially seeking guidance from legal counsel.

Marr acknowledged that the technology may provide legitimate public-safety benefits, such as helping law enforcement solve crimes more quickly. At the same time, she voiced concern about provisions in the City’s agreement with Flock, including what she described as a significant loophole regarding access to collected data. She emphasized that she remains genuinely conflicted on the issue and has not yet reached a decision on how she would vote if the matter comes before the Council.

Arlis Reynolds (District 5) voiced support for formally agendizing the Flock license plate reader (ALPR) program for a future City Council discussion. She noted that in April the Council had already directed Staff to undertake a more thorough review of the program following a misuse incident involving a police officer's improper access to the system, as well as to evaluate alternative ALPR vendors and technologies.

Since then, Reynolds said she has reviewed additional materials and has developed new concerns, particularly regarding the program's user agreements, data retention practices, and redactions contained in the publicly available ALPR operations manual. Among the questions she raised were:

• Who is conducting the approximately 20 ALPR searches per day;

• Whether retaining data for up to one year is necessary; and

• The financial and operational impacts of long-term data storage.

Reynolds asked the City Manager for an update on the timeline for the previously requested audit and analysis. She described the situation as "very concerning," thanked residents for drawing attention to the issue, and said public engagement had helped elevate the discussion.

In addition to her comments on Flock, Reynolds highlighted several local community initiatives:

Songs in the Canyon

• Praised the event as a successful community gathering featuring local music, vendors, and neighborhood engagement.

• Encouraged continued City support for similar grassroots events.

SBDC Eats Program

• Celebrated the small-business food startup program and its role in supporting local entrepreneurs.

• Highlighted Costa Mesa's participation and the program's potential for future growth.

Youth Soccer Camp

• Promoted an affordable summer soccer camp for middle school students.

• Encouraged families to participate and watch for additional information about upcoming sessions.

Jeff Pettis (District 6) expressed appreciation for the strong turnout and active public participation, emphasizing that open, vigorous debate—whether in agreement or disagreement—is essential to a healthy democracy. Recognizing that not everyone can attend formal council meetings, he highlighted his effort to increase accessibility through his “Eastside Exchange,” a monthly, informal gathering where residents can speak with him directly. He invited the community to attend the upcoming session at Jordan Park, stressing that his goal is simply to listen to constituents’ concerns, ideas, and feedback.

Mike Buley (District 1) praised recent community events, especially Songs in the Canyon, describing it as a strong example of how parks can bring people together and support local businesses. He also highlighted a Goat Hill Lions Club fundraiser, noting its importance in supporting youth sports, including funding a high school golf team without school financial support.

Turning to the Flock discussion, Buley acknowledged the strong public opposition and supported agendizing the issue for further debate. However, he emphasized that the issue is not one-sided, arguing that Flock also has public safety benefits, including helping law enforcement deter crime and identify suspects. He said he remains open to discussion but would need to see clear evidence that the risks outweigh the benefits before supporting removal.

During Buley's remarks on Flock, several members of the audience left the Council chamber. Mayor John Stephens commented that the departure was discourteous, noting that Councilmembers had listened respectfully to the public's comments and should be afforded the same courtesy in return.

Manuel Chavez (District 4) said that he wants to agendize the discussion on Flock.

Stephens kept his remarks light and community-focused. He praised the Songs in the Canyon event as an ideal use of the park and encouraged its continuation, also mentioning new small businesses opening at The LAB. He promoted the upcoming July 3^rd celebration, highlighting its significance as part of the nation’s 250th anniversary and inviting residents to join the community choir performance. He also noted upcoming local happenings, including the opening of the OC Fair and Costa Mesa Day, and ended by wishing Happy Father’s Day and offering well wishes to a local golfer competing in the U.S. Open. At the end he added that he supports agendizing the Flock issue.

City Manager Comments. Cecilia Gallardo-Daly announced that the Flock camera issue will be formally discussed at Tuesday’s (July 21) City Council meeting as a new business item, including a presentation from the police chief on safety measures and alternative vendors, with the option for the council to vote on potential contract cancellation.

She also highlighted city initiatives, including:

• Pride Month recognition, reaffirming the city’s commitment to inclusivity.

• Parks updates, noting completed restoration work at Tewinkle Park’s upper lake and ongoing improvements at Ketchum-Libel Park, funded in part by state support.

Finally, she recognized Ivis Torres as the June City Manager Leadership Award recipient, praising her contributions to community engagement, multilingual outreach, pandemic response, and housing assistance efforts.

City Attorney Comments. Hall Barlow congratulated the City Clerk, Brenda Green,  on becoming a grandmother and shared that she will also be welcoming a grandchild in January. She informed the council that she will be on vacation the following week, with the Assistant City Attorney covering in her absence. She closed with light remarks about her upcoming trip and wished everyone a Happy Pride Month.

CONSENT CALENDAR. Staff requested that Item 5 be pulled from the Consent Calendar. Usually Staff does not pull an item, so this was odd. Marr moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar items, which was seconded by Stephens. That motion passed unanimously, 7–0.

Item 5, Acceptance of the Lions Park Project, City Project Number 17-03, was pulled by Public Works Director Raja Sethuramen. His brief presentation recognized the completion of the Lions Park Project, which Staff described as one of the largest and most transformative capital improvement projects in Costa Mesa's history.

He noted that the project was more than a decade in the making and has significantly reshaped the Lions Park campus. Major components included construction of the new Costa Mesa Library, conversion of the former library into the Norma Hertzog Community Center, expansion of public green space, reconstruction of the playground, and the recent addition of a café. Sethuramen also highlighted that the facilities achieved LEED Gold certification and recognized the contributions of numerous City employees, project managers, and consultants who helped bring the project to completion.

Councilmembers asked a few questions regarding remaining project details, including the installation of commemorative plaques, but otherwise expressed strong support for the project. Several members characterized Lions Park as a significant long-term investment in the community, particularly for the Westside, and praised the sustained efforts of multiple City Councils, Staff members, and community stakeholders whose work over many years made the project possible.

The item received no public comment. A motion to accept the project was made by Mayor Stephens and seconded by Councilmember Chavez. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0, with councilmembers reflecting positively on the project's successful completion and lasting community impact.

PUBLIC HEARINGS: There were two public hearing items:

1.         Continuation Request—Appeal Of Planning Commission Decision to Uphold Denial of Reasonable Accommodation Request for Sober Living Home Operated by The Ohio House. This item may now hold the record for the most continuances of any agenda item. It concerns an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to uphold the denial of a reasonable accommodation request for a sober living home operated by The Ohio House.

Originally scheduled for the December 2, 2025 City Council meeting, the item has been repeatedly delayed. The applicant requested a postponement until September 1, 2026. There were no questions by Councilmembers and no public comments. Upon motion made by Marr, which was seconded by Chavez, the motion passed unanimously.

2.        Appeal and Award of Maintenance Services Agreement for Janitorial Services to CCS Facility Services - Orange County, Inc. This item was originally scheduled for consideration in May but was removed from the agenda before Council discussion. It returned to the agenda with additional information regarding a bid protest filed during the procurement process. Deputy Public Works Director Patrick Bower presented the item.

Background: The proposed agreement provides comprehensive janitorial and waste management services for a wide range of City facilities, including City Hall, community centers, police and fire facilities, parks, and other municipal buildings. Staff noted that the City's current janitorial services contract is set to expire at the end of the month, making timely contract approval important to ensure continuity of service.

Procurement Process: The City issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) and received eleven proposals. Key steps in the evaluation process included:

• Two firms were disqualified for failing to meet minimum solicitation requirements, including one vendor that did not attend the mandatory pre-bid job walk.

• Eight qualified proposals were reviewed by a three-member evaluation panel representing multiple City departments.

• The three highest-ranked firms advanced to interviews.

• Following proposal review and interviews, CCS Facility Services – Orange County, Inc. received the highest overall ranking.

Staff noted that CCS currently provides janitorial services to more than 15 public agencies throughout Southern California.

Bid Protest and Appeal: Following the City's notice of intent to award, the incumbent contractor, Executive Facility Services (EFS), filed a formal bid protest on May 4. EFS raised eleven protest issues and an additional concern regarding scoring. After reviewing the protest, the City Manager, acting as Purchasing Officer, issued a written determination rejecting all claims.

EFS subsequently appealed that determination to the City Council, arguing that:

• CCS failed to disclose labor-related matters involving affiliated CCS operations in Denver and Washington.

• Scoring discrepancies remained unresolved.

• The procurement process had not been administered consistently.

In response, CCS stated that the Denver and Washington operations referenced by EFS are separate legal entities and therefore were not required disclosures under the Orange County firm's proposal. Staff further stated that concerns regarding scoring had already been evaluated and addressed in the City's written protest response.

Appellant Presentation: Scott Cooper, attorney for Executive Facility Services, argued that CCS should have disclosed labor-law-related issues involving affiliated CCS entities. He contended that CCS relied on the experience and reputation of its broader corporate network to strengthen its proposal while simultaneously asserting that those same entities were separate and not subject to disclosure requirements. Cooper urged the Council to reject all bids and restart the procurement process.

Jim Ferrara, owner of Executive Facility Services, argued that the integrity of the bidding process had been compromised because proposal requirements were not enforced uniformly. He said EFS identified numerous deficiencies in CCS's submission and felt those concerns were not adequately addressed. Ferrara urged the Council to uphold principles of fairness and transparency by rejecting the award and rebidding the contract.

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommended that the Council:

• Deny EFS's appeal and uphold the Purchasing Officer's decision rejecting the protest.

• Award the contract to CCS Facility Services – Orange County, Inc.

• Approve an initial two-year term with three optional one-year extensions.

• Authorize an annual contract amount not to exceed $577,973.

• Authorize an annual 10% contingency for emergency work, special events, and unforeseen needs.

• Approve annual CPI-based escalation and de-escalation provisions.

Fiscal Impact: Total funding for the contract, including contingency, is budgeted at $635,771 within the FY 2026–27 General Fund budget.

Councilmember Questions and Comments. None.

Public Comment. None.

Motion and Vote. Chavez moved to approve the Staff recommendation, which was seconded by Marr. The motion passed unanimously.

OLD BUSINESS: None.

NEW BUSINESS:  There were four new business items:

1.     Proposed First-Time Homebuyer (FTHB) Pilot Program Funded by Measure Q (Retail Cannabis). Planning Manager Anna McGill and Grant Administrator Nancy Sa presented a proposed First-Time Homebuyer (FTHB) Pilot Program funded through Measure Q cannabis tax revenues. Staff reported that the dedicated fund currently contains approximately $550,000, with an estimated $242,000 in annual revenue expected going forward.

Staff outlined the challenges facing prospective homebuyers in Costa Mesa, noting that the median home price is approximately $1.4 million, while entry-level condominiums and townhomes typically range from $900,000 to $1 million. To help address affordability barriers, Staff proposed a pilot program that would provide one-time grants, rather than loans, to first-time homebuyers. Staff explained that grants would reduce administrative costs, simplify program administration, and allow more households to benefit from available funding. Key proposed program elements included:

• Assistance could be used for down payments and closing costs, but not for renovations, furnishings, or home improvements.

• Eligible applicants would include:

  • Current Costa Mesa residents;

  • Former residents who were raised in Costa Mesa; or

  • Graduates of the Newport-Mesa Unified School District.

• Applicants would need to meet California's definition of a first-time homebuyer and obtain mortgage preapproval.

• Homes purchased under the program would need to be located within Costa Mesa.

• Staff recommended a five-year owner-occupancy requirement to encourage long-term residency.

• Applications would be accepted during a 60-day application period, with recipients selected through a randomized lottery and given 12 months to purchase an eligible home.

Because Measure Q does not require income restrictions, Staff sought Council direction on whether to impose an income limit and recommended eliminating an earlier proposal to include a liquid-assets test.

Staff requested direction on the program's design and proposed returning to the Council with an evaluation after completion of the pilot program.

Housing Purchase Costs

Councilmember Questions and Comments. Pettis  asked whether the Measure Q funds designated for a first-time homebuyer program were legally restricted or could be redirected by Council policy. Staff and the City Attorney explained that the Measure Q implementing ordinance specifically dedicates 0.5% of cannabis tax revenues to a first-time homebuyer program serving eligible Costa Mesa residents and graduates. The funds cannot be used for other purposes unless the ordinance is amended by a two-thirds City Council vote.

Pettis also questioned the definition of "first-time homebuyer," noting that applicants may qualify even if they owned a home more than three years ago. Staff explained that this definition comes directly from California law and is consistent with state-administered homebuyer programs.

Marr sought clarification regarding whether the first-time homebuyer requirement was established by Measure Q itself or by a later City action. The City Attorney explained that the requirement is contained in the Council-adopted implementing ordinance, not in the voter-approved measure. As a result, the Council retains authority to amend it with a five-vote supermajority.

Marr emphasized that the allocation is therefore not permanently fixed by voters and could be modified if sufficient Council support exists.

Buley asked whether the Council could simply take no action, revisit the issue later, and potentially discuss alternative uses for the funds before deciding whether to amend the ordinance. Staff confirmed that such an approach would be permissible.

Buley also questioned the relationship between the program and mortgage qualification. He noted that lenders already evaluate a buyer's ability to afford and maintain homeownership and wondered whether applicants would already qualify for a mortgage before receiving assistance. Staff responded that participants must independently qualify for a mortgage before receiving City assistance. The grant would supplement an approved transaction rather than enable mortgage qualification itself.

Buley expressed concern that the grant could function more as a bonus for already-qualified buyers than a tool to overcome homeownership barriers. He also questioned the removal of the proposed liquid-assets requirement, noting that homeowners need reserve funds to address unexpected maintenance and repair costs.

Chavez explored the extent of Council discretion in designing the program. Staff confirmed that the Council could:

• Limit grants to specific purposes, such as closing costs only;

• Adopt a stricter definition of first-time homebuyer than state law;

• Establish a cap on eligible home purchase prices; and

• Add additional eligibility requirements and restrictions.

The City Attorney further clarified that amendments to the implementing ordinance would require a two-thirds supermajority vote (five of seven councilmembers) but that the Council could discuss and study potential changes without meeting that threshold.

Stephens asked whether the Council could consider two paths simultaneously:

1.     Potentially amending the Measure Q ordinance to remove or change the first-time homebuyer requirement; and

2.     Continuing development of the pilot program if sufficient votes to amend the ordinance were not obtained.

The City Attorney confirmed that this approach would be permissible. Stephens also asked whether funds could potentially support a partnership with an organization such as Habitat for Humanity, including property acquisition efforts that ultimately create homeownership opportunities. Staff indicated they would need to research the issue further and report back to the Council. Stephens said he generally supports helping residents achieve homeownership but wanted a broader discussion before finalizing the program's structure.

Public Comment. Steve Smith, a candidate for City Council District 5, opposed the program. He argued that the approximately $550,000 in available funding could have a greater impact if directed toward other City priorities, such as public safety, infrastructure improvements, or economic development. Smith criticized the proposal as a lottery-style program that would benefit only a limited number of households and questioned whether such a small pilot would meaningfully improve housing affordability or generate useful data. He urged the Council to pause the initiative and explore alternative uses for the funding.

Rick Huffman supported the concept and offered a technical clarification, noting that a condominium is a form of ownership rather than a building type. He expressed support for a first-time homebuyer assistance program, observing that similar programs have successfully helped individuals who can afford monthly mortgage payments but need assistance with down payments or interest-rate costs. Huffman encouraged the City to review successful programs in other jurisdictions and stated that targeted assistance can help qualified buyers enter the housing market.

I (Cynthia McDonald) expressed general support for the program, while raising several questions and concerns. I support efforts to increase housing affordability and expand homeownership opportunities, but questioned whether the proposed grant amounts would be sufficient in Costa Mesa’s high-cost housing market and whether the program’s scale would be large enough to produce a meaningful impact. I also raised questions regarding eligibility requirements, the effectiveness of limiting assistance to closing costs (given they are negotiable), and how residency and school district qualifications would be defined. Additionally, I suggested prioritizing assistance for applicants with long-term ties and demonstrated commitments to the Costa Mesa community.

Angely Andrade Vallarta, a candidate for City Council District 4, strongly supported the program. She argued that down payments and closing costs remain significant barriers to homeownership for many local families. Vallarta stated that the program would help residents, workers, and graduates with ties to Costa Mesa remain in the community and build wealth through homeownership. She noted that similar programs in neighboring cities provide even higher levels of assistance and described Costa Mesa’s proposal as a modest but meaningful first step. She urged the Council to move forward with some form of the program.

Motion. Stephens moved to continue consideration of the item and return it to the Council for further discussion, including:

1.     Whether to amend the Measure Q implementing ordinance and potentially remove the requirement for a first-time homebuyer program; and

2.     If such an amendment fails to receive the required supermajority vote, what direction should be provided to Staff regarding the proposed pilot program.

In support of the motion, Stephens said he wanted the full Council to have an opportunity to discuss the future of the program before moving forward. He noted that the fund has accumulated revenue since 2021 and would continue to receive funding if the program remains in place. While acknowledging that the proposal is relatively modest in scope, he shared his personal experience of purchasing a first home in Costa Mesa with financial assistance from family and said he believes many residents today could similarly benefit from targeted assistance. Although supportive of the program's goals, he emphasized the importance of a broader Council discussion before making decisions about implementation.

Chavez seconded the motion and reflected on the origins of the Measure Q allocation. He explained that during development of the cannabis tax measure, he initially favored dedicating the full allocation to arts funding, but the first-time homebuyer program emerged through committee discussions as an additional community benefit.

Chavez stated that housing affordability remains a significant challenge, particularly for younger residents and renters seeking to become homeowners. He expressed support for efforts to expand homeownership opportunities and noted that affordability concerns affect people across all income levels, including elected officials.

At the same time, Chavez raised concerns about the ordinance structure. He argued that requiring a five-vote supermajority to modify the allocations limits the flexibility of future councils and makes the funds difficult to utilize. He stated that if the Council ultimately decides not to pursue a first-time homebuyer program, it should consider eliminating both the housing and arts set-asides and returning the funds to the General Fund, where future councils could allocate them without being constrained by the ordinance. He described the current situation as potentially leaving the funds as "dead money" if sufficient support for a program cannot be achieved.

Substitute Motion. Buley offered a substitute motion to:

Take no action on the proposed first-time homebuyer program at this meeting;

• Schedule a study session to allow a more comprehensive discussion of the program, potential alternatives, and the future use of Measure Q funds; and

• Use the outcome of that study session to guide future Council action, including possible ordinance amendments or modifications to the proposed program.

Buley said the Council was attempting to address complex housing policy issues without adequate discussion and that a dedicated study session would allow for a more thoughtful evaluation of options before directing Staff to develop a program. He questioned whether creating a local housing assistance program was the best use of the funds given the City's existing affordable housing obligations under state law and emphasized that his intent was not to abandon the proposal but to ensure all alternatives are carefully considered.

Gameros supported the substitute motion. While thanking Staff for their work, he expressed concern that the proposed program was too small to generate a significant impact. He suggested that the study session also examine broader housing-related alternatives, including partnerships with organizations such as Habitat for Humanity, contributions to the City's Housing Trust Fund, and expanded rental assistance programs aimed at preventing homelessness. Gameros noted that the City had waited several years to revisit the issue and said additional time to evaluate options was warranted.

Stephens sought assurance that the substitute motion would not simply delay or eliminate the effort. Buley responded that his intent was to have a good-faith discussion and establish a clear direction for the funds, whether that resulted in a first-time homebuyer program or another housing-related initiative. The

City Manager stated that Staff could schedule a future study session, although several study sessions were already planned.

Vote: The substitute motion passed 6–1, with Chavez voting “No.” The Council directed Staff to return with a study session for further discussion before taking action on the proposed program. When will that happen? Let's not hold our breath.

2.     Fairview Road and Belfast Avenue Traffic Signal Project. Senior Traffic Engineer Ramin Nikoui presented plans for a new traffic signal at Fairview Road and Belfast Avenue, a project approved as part of the FY 2023–24 budget.

Project Overview: The project would install a new traffic signal at the intersection to provide controlled access to and from Belfast Avenue. Preliminary design began in October 2024, community outreach was conducted in March 2025, and final design work commenced in October 2025.

Key improvements include:

• A new signal synchronized with the nearby Fairview Road/McCormack Avenue intersection.

• A high-visibility crosswalk across Fairview Road.

• A curb extension (bulb-out) to shorten pedestrian crossing distances.

• Extension of the northbound left-turn lane on Fairview Road.

• ADA-accessible curb ramps, pedestrian push buttons, countdown signals, and leading pedestrian intervals.

• Enhanced signal visibility, upgraded lighting, and emergency vehicle preemption.

Belfast Avenue Improvements: Belfast Avenue is a residential street serving approximately 1,400 vehicles per day and providing access to Killybrooke Elementary School. The project will remove one on-street parking space and add speed humps intended to discourage speeding near the new signal.

Traffic Operations: Staff and consultants analyzed corridor operations and developed signal timing plans intended to coordinate the new signal with nearby intersections and minimize traffic impacts along Fairview Road, including potential backups toward the I-405 Freeway.

Construction and Cost: Seven bids were received, with Select Electric, Inc. submitting the lowest responsive bid at $683,584. Including a 10% contingency, the total project budget is $751,943. Funding will come from Gas Tax revenues and OCTA Measure M2 Fair Share funds, with construction anticipated to be completed by Spring 2027.

Councilmember Questions and Comments. Reynolds led the Council discussion, focusing on the proximity of the proposed signal to the existing signal at Fairview Road and McCormack Avenue. Staff stated the two intersections are approximately 225 feet apart. Reynolds questioned how common it is to have traffic signals so closely spaced, particularly given the City's past concerns about closely located pedestrian crossings. Staff acknowledged that such spacing is uncommon but noted there are similar examples, particularly near freeway interchanges.

Reynolds also asked whether the traffic concerns at Belfast could be addressed through signal synchronization rather than a new signal. Staff explained that the Fairview corridor's signals are already synchronized and that the primary issue is not signal timing but the difficulty drivers experience making left turns both onto and from Belfast Avenue.

She further questioned whether the signal was being proposed because it represented the best engineering solution or because the Council had previously approved the project. Staff responded that the project was authorized as part of the FY 2023-24 budget and remained the recommended solution after evaluating multiple alternatives, including maintaining existing conditions and exploring other turn-related improvements.

When Reynolds asked whether the recommendation originated with Staff or the Council, Staff indicated it had support from both. She also inquired about future multimodal and traffic-calming improvements along the Fairview corridor. Staff confirmed that a future roadway rehabilitation project north of Baker Street is planned and may include additional improvements. Funding has been identified for portions of that work, although construction is still several years away.

Gameros asked whether a marked crosswalk currently exists at McCormack Avenue and was told that none exists. Staff identified Paularino Avenue as the nearest signalized pedestrian crossing. He also asked about the challenges facing drivers exiting Belfast Avenue, noting that motorists must cross multiple lanes of traffic to make certain turning movements.

Gameros asked whether Staff had considered relocating the existing McCormack signal to Belfast Avenue. Staff said that option was evaluated but rejected because it would remove traffic control at McCormack while shifting the same access challenges to that intersection. Staff concluded that retaining the existing signal and adding a new signal at Belfast provided the best overall outcome.

Gameros also asked whether the proposed signal would improve safety. Staff responded that the project was designed to operate safely and would not be expected to create additional hazards.

Stephens asked questions regarding project funding. After reviewing the staff report, he noted that approximately $538,000 of the project cost would come from gas tax and Measure M fair-share funds and asked whether the remaining balance would require CIP General Fund support. Staff clarified that no CIP General Fund dollars would be used and that the project would be funded entirely through transportation-related revenue sources, including gas tax, Measure M funds, and other funding designated for associated civil improvements. Stephens confirmed his understanding that General Fund resources were not being utilized for the project.

Public Comment. Public testimony was divided on the project, with opponents questioning the project's necessity, cost, and supporting data, while supporters emphasized safety concerns for drivers, pedestrians, and school-aged children.

Comments in Opposition: I (Cynthia McDonald) opposed the project, arguing that existing signals at McCormack Avenue and Paularino Avenue already provide opportunities for residents to safely enter and exit Belfast Avenue. I noted that many residents who attended a March 2025 community meeting supported traffic-calming measures, such as speed humps, rather than a new traffic signal. I also questioned whether a signal would improve safety, citing concerns that signalized intersections can experience different types of collisions and that the project could increase delays for residents in the surrounding Mesa North neighborhood while primarily benefiting Belfast Avenue residents.

I further questioned the project's cost-effectiveness, arguing that the City has more pressing infrastructure needs, including road repairs, sidewalk improvements, landscaping, bicycle infrastructure, and general maintenance. I noted that significant funds have already been spent on engineering and design and stated that additional public comments and correspondence had been submitted opposing the project.

Slide from McDonald Presentation Showing Locations of Existing Signalized Intersections

Jay Humphrey described the proposal as an expensive solution in search of a problem. He said residents he had spoken with generally favored traffic-calming measures (such as speed humps) to address cut-through traffic rather than a new signal. Humphrey argued that the Staff Report did not present sufficient data demonstrating safety concerns, pedestrian demand, or school-related crossing needs. He suggested that improving nearby crossings could be a more cost-effective alternative and questioned the project's timing given the City's ongoing fiscal discussions. He also noted that ADA-compliant ramps already exist at Belfast while other sidewalks in the area remain in need of upgrades.

Rick Huffman opposed the project based on his experience as a longtime neighborhood resident. He stated that the existing signals at Paularino and McCormack create regular gaps in traffic that allow motorists to enter and exit Belfast Avenue safely. Huffman argued that current delays are generally brief and expressed concern that a signal could increase wait times. He also questioned whether the project was necessary as a Safe Routes to School improvement and suggested that additional outreach should have been conducted with residents east of Fairview Road.

Comments in Support:  David Martinez, Planning Commissioner but speaking as an individual, highlighted proposed improvements including a high-visibility crosswalk, curb extensions, traffic-calming measures, accessible curb ramps, enhanced signal visibility features, and leading pedestrian intervals. He stated that the project would improve access to destinations such as Gisler Park and the Santa Ana River Trail and supported the proposal for its pedestrian and safety benefits.

Chris Cox, a Belfast resident, said he has lived on the street for approximately ten years and regularly experiences difficulty making left turns onto Fairview Road during peak traffic periods. While acknowledging that gaps in traffic are available at off-peak times, he said rush-hour conditions can make turning movements challenging and stressful. Cox supported the signal as a safety improvement and noted that many children, teenagers, and families live in the neighborhood.

Chris, a Halecrest resident, also supported the project. He said he was aware of crashes and near misses at the intersection and noted that he advises young drivers in his household to avoid making left turns from Belfast Avenue. He compared the experience of navigating the intersection to the video game "Frogger" and stated that the proposed design addressed many of his concerns regarding safety and traffic operations.

Alyssa, a Belfast resident, supported the signal, citing concerns as the parent of two young drivers. She said increasing traffic volumes and vehicle speeds on Fairview Road have made left turns from Belfast Avenue more difficult and dangerous over time. Alyssa reported witnessing numerous near-collisions and expressed concern for both drivers and pedestrians, noting the presence of many children in the neighborhood and the area's proximity to a school.

Motion and Vote. Gameros moved to approve Staff's recommendation, and Stephens seconded the motion. Speaking in support, Gameros acknowledged that the proposal had generated significant debate, but noted that many of the residents most directly affected—particularly those living on Belfast Avenue—had expressed support for the signal. He emphasized the project's purpose as a safety improvement for motorists and pedestrians.

Stephens also supported the motion, characterizing the project as a safety enhancement, noted that it would not rely on General Fund resources, and said he trusted both Staff's analysis and the recommendation of the district's councilmember.

Reynolds explained that she had reservations about the project dating back to its inclusion in the City's budget and would not support it. While emphasizing her commitment to improving road safety, she argued that the City's most effective approach is a comprehensive corridor strategy focused on reducing vehicle speeds through traffic-calming and multimodal improvements. She noted that recent planning efforts, including the Local Road Safety Plan, emphasize these strategies rather than adding new traffic signals.

Reynolds also raised concerns about the cost of installing and maintaining a new signal and said the project would do little to address speeding concerns raised by residents. She stated that she would prefer the City accelerate planning for the broader Fairview corridor improvement project between Baker Street and the I-405 Freeway to evaluate more comprehensive safety measures. She characterized her opposition as a policy disagreement over how transportation-safety investments should be prioritized rather than opposition to improving safety.

Vote: The motion passed 5–2, with Reynolds and Marr voting “No.”

This traffic signal will impact more than those living on Belfast. It will also impact those who live on Augusta Street (almost directly across Fairview Road from Belfast), an impact the City failed to address. Since the signal at McCormack has failed to prevent collisions, it is unlikely this new signal will stop crashes either.

3.     Award of Contract for the Senior Transportation Program to Orange County Yellow Management LLC (OC Yellow Cab).  Brian Gruner, Director of Parks and Community Services, presented a recommendation to award a transportation services contract to OC Yellow Cab for an annual amount not to exceed $200,000, plus a 10% contingency ($20,000) for unforeseen costs.

The proposed contract is intended to preserve senior transportation services while addressing rising operating costs and declining funding sources. Staff's recommended approach includes modest rider co-pays, monthly ride limits, and targeted service-area adjustments while maintaining access to essential medical transportation. Staff stated that the proposal reflects community feedback and is designed to improve the program's long-term financial sustainability.

Background: The City's Senior Transportation Program was established in 2011 using Measure M2 funding. From 2011 through 2020, services were provided through a shuttle model. Following the COVID-19 pandemic and the insolvency of the City's shuttle operator, Costa Mesa transitioned to a door-to-door taxi service operated by OC Yellow Cab, which remains the current service model. The program consists of two components:

• Senior Mobility Program – Provides transportation within Costa Mesa for shopping, social activities, and other personal needs.

• Medical Transportation Program – Provides non-emergency transportation to medical appointments throughout much of northern Orange County and to the Long Beach VA Hospital.

Program Challenges: Under the current program, eligible participants—Costa Mesa residents age 60 and older who are members of the Senior Center—receive transportation services at no cost, with no limit on the number of rides. Service is available Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

Staff reported that demand has increased substantially, growing from approximately 5,000 rides in FY 2021 to a projected 25,000 rides in FY 2025. During the same period, annual program costs increased from roughly $150,000 to approximately $450,000. Staff noted that a relatively small number of high-frequency users account for a significant share of rides and program expenses.

Ridership Growth

According to Staff, accumulated Measure M2 funds and grant funding that previously supported the program have largely been exhausted, making the current service model financially unsustainable.

Community Outreach: Staff conducted outreach through Senior Center meetings, Parks and Community Services Commission discussions, and surveys sent to current participants. Key findings included:

• Medical transportation was identified as the community's highest priority.

• Most participants expressed willingness to accept modest co-pays.

• Feedback generally supported reasonable ride limits while preserving core transportation services.

Request for Proposals: The City issued a Request for Proposals seeking a provider capable of:

• Adjusting service areas as needed;

• Collecting co-pays;

• Managing ride limits; and

• Adapting service levels to available funding.

The City received proposals from Orange County Yellow Management LLC and Onward Health. Staff reported that OC Yellow Cab received the highest evaluation score and submitted a significantly lower-cost proposal than Onward Health.

Proposed Service Changes: To maintain the program within available funding levels, staff recommended several modifications.

Service Areas:

• Non-medical trips: Continue throughout Costa Mesa.

• Medical trips: Continue to most existing destinations but discontinue service to Garden Grove, Westminster, and Midway City, while also eliminating non-medical trips to major retail destinations outside Costa Mesa.

Ride Limits: Currently there are unlimited rides at no cost. What was proposed was:

• Eight one-way rides per month (equivalent to four round trips) per participant.

• Co-Pays: Participants would pay co-pays of $3 per one-way non-medical trip/$5 per one-way medical trip.

Councilmember Questions and Comments: Reynolds focused on how the proposed ride limits would affect current program participants and whether the City has sufficient data to assess those impacts. She asked Staff to explain the ridership distribution chart and where the proposed limit of eight one-way rides per month would fall relative to current usage patterns. Staff explained that roughly 20% of riders account for 80% of all trips, with the program’s highest-volume user taking approximately 700 rides in a single year.

While Staff could not provide exact usage thresholds for each ridership tier during the meeting, they estimated there are approximately 97 participants in each quintile, representing just under 500 total participants. Reynolds observed that more than half of current users could receive fewer rides than they currently utilize under the proposed limits. Staff acknowledged that many participants may be affected but noted that recent operational changes have already altered ridership patterns.

Reynolds also asked whether more current data was available. Staff reported that a 48-hour advance reservation requirement, implemented in February, appears to have reduced ridership by roughly 50%. However, because only a few months of data are available, Staff said it is too early to determine the long-term effects and would prefer to evaluate at least six months of data before drawing firm conclusions.

When asked how ridership is monitored, Staff explained that ride and invoice data are reviewed monthly, detailed information is available for individual users and trips, and program performance will likely be evaluated at six-month intervals. Staff also noted that OC Yellow Cab will be responsible for tracking ride limits.

Reynolds expressed concern that lower-income seniors could lose access to transportation needed for medical appointments and essential daily activities. She asked how the City would identify unmet transportation needs resulting from ride limits or co-pays. Staff responded that monthly data can identify participants who reach their ride limits, annual surveys can help assess unmet needs, and the City intends to pursue grants and other funding opportunities that could support increased service levels in the future. Staff emphasized that the immediate goal is to stabilize a program whose costs have grown beyond available funding.

Marr focused on the balance between medical and non-medical trips and the rationale behind the proposed co-pay structure. Staff estimated that medical trips account for approximately 40% to 45% of all rides, while non-medical trips account for 55% to 60%.

Marr questioned why medical trips, which are often more essential, would require a higher co-pay. Staff explained that medical transportation is substantially more expensive because of longer travel distances and the City's mileage reimbursement structure. Although medical trips represent a minority of total rides, they account for approximately two-thirds of overall program costs. By comparison, non-medical trips are generally shorter and confined to Costa Mesa.

Marr also asked whether a medical appointment within Costa Mesa would still require the proposed $5 co-pay. Staff confirmed that it would, while noting that relatively few medical destinations are located within the city.

Gameros asked how ADA-accessible transportation would be handled under the proposed contract. He noted that OC Yellow Cab's proposal did not list a separate rate for ADA-accessible non-medical transportation, while the competing proposal from Onward Health did.

Staff explained that OC Yellow Cab can provide ADA-accessible vehicles and does not charge the City an additional fee for ADA service. Staff noted that the company has a limited number of ADA-capable vehicles, which is one reason the program requires 48-hour advance reservations.

Gameros also asked how ADA trips would be billed under the contract. Staff clarified that ADA riders are charged the same rate as all other riders. For example, a non-medical ride within Costa Mesa would cost the City $17.50 per ride, regardless of whether an ADA-accessible vehicle is required. Staff noted that, unlike OC Yellow Cab, Onward Health's proposal included additional charges for ADA-accessible transportation.

Public Comment: None.

Motion and Vote. Chavez made a motion to approve the Staff recommendation, which was seconded by Marr. The motion passed unanimously.

4.     Award of Professional Services Agreement for Arts and Culture Master Plan Update. Brian Gruner, Director of Parks and Community Services, presented Staff's recommendation to award a professional services agreement to MIG, Inc. to update Costa Mesa's Arts and Culture Master Plan. The proposed agreement would authorize an amount not to exceed $132,000, plus a 10% contingency ($13,265) for unforeseen project costs.

Staff concluded that MIG was the most qualified consultant to lead the update and help develop a new strategic vision for the City's arts and cultural initiatives over the next five to ten years.

Background: In March 2021, the City Council adopted Costa Mesa's first Arts and Culture Master Plan, intended to strengthen the city's identity as a regional arts destination. Staff highlighted several accomplishments achieved during the plan's first five years, including:

• Hiring the City's first Arts Specialist in 2022.

• Establishing the Arts Commission in 2022.

• Expanding arts programming and grant opportunities.

• Advancing public art initiatives.

• Increasing partnerships with local and regional arts organizations.

With the original plan reaching the end of its initial five-year horizon, Staff proposed updating the document to establish priorities and goals for the next five to ten years.

Consultant Selection Process: The Arts Commission approved a scope of work that includes:

• Evaluating the results and accomplishments of the current plan.

• Identifying new priorities, strategies, and recommendations.

• Developing a long-term vision for arts and culture in Costa Mesa.

The City issued a Request for Proposals and received five submissions. One firm was determined to be non-responsive due to insufficient resources, and the remaining four firms were interviewed and evaluated based on project understanding, approach, qualifications, experience, communication skills, and presentation quality.

Consultant Rankings: MIG received the highest evaluation score by a substantial margin:

Firm	Score
MIG	2,702
Designing Local	2,255
Dyson & Womack	2,142
Arts OC	1,897

Note: Arts OC prepared the City's original Arts and Culture Master Plan.

Staff's Rationale for Recommendation: Staff highlighted several strengths of MIG and its project partners, Cultural Planning Group and CVL Economics, including:

• Extensive experience in arts and cultural planning.

• A data-driven planning methodology.

• Strong community engagement and multilingual outreach capabilities.

• Expertise in arts funding, governance, and implementation strategies.

• Experience with municipal arts projects throughout California and across the country.

• Specialized knowledge in public art, cultural policy, and economic impact analysis.

Staff also noted that MIG is currently working on arts and cultural planning projects for several jurisdictions, including Redmond, Grand Rapids, and San Diego.

Councilmember Questions and Comments: Stephens focused on the cost of the Arts and Culture Master Plan update, the status of the City's arts staffing, and whether the work could be completed internally. He asked how much the City spent on the original Arts and Culture Master Plan. Staff responded that the original plan cost $35,000.

Stephens also inquired about efforts to fill the vacant arts position. Staff explained that the former Arts Specialist position is currently undergoing review by Human Resources and the employee union to ensure the job description and responsibilities remain current. Staff expects that process to conclude by July or August, after which recruitment can begin. Recruitment is expected to take approximately three to four months, potentially resulting in a new hire by late fall.

Stephens asked how MIG's proposal compared with those submitted by other firms. Staff stated that one proposal was somewhat less expensive than MIG's, while the remaining proposals were higher, although exact figures were not immediately available. Staff also noted that the original Arts and Culture Master Plan was completed at a significantly discounted rate. According to Staff, Arts OC viewed the project as an opportunity to help Costa Mesa develop its first arts master plan and provided services at a substantially reduced cost.

Stephens further asked whether Arts OC had continued to receive compensation after the original plan was completed. Staff clarified that Arts OC's role ended after preparing and finalizing the plan and that implementation was subsequently carried out by the City's Arts Specialist.

Finally, Stephens asked whether a future arts manager or specialist could update the master plan without hiring an outside consultant. Staff responded that the process is highly labor-intensive and would require substantial Staff time that could otherwise be devoted to arts programming and operations. Staff also stated that an outside consultant can provide an independent perspective and specialized expertise. As a result, Staff concluded that the City currently lacks the internal capacity to complete a comprehensive update while maintaining existing arts programs.

Public Comment: One speaker, a former Orange County Poet Laureate and co-founder of Artists Safespaces, spoke in opposition to the proposed contract with MIG.

The speaker urged the Council to reject the contract, arguing that spending approximately $146,000 on an outside consultant was unnecessary and represented a missed opportunity to invest directly in Costa Mesa's arts community. Citing their involvement in the City's arts planning efforts since 2019, they argued that funding associated with the currently vacant arts position, combined with the proposed consulting contract, could instead be directed toward local artists, arts organizations, and creative programming.

The speaker contended that direct investment in artists provides more tangible community benefits than additional planning efforts and highlighted their organization's experience administering grants, providing direct support to artists, and organizing arts events throughout the region.

They also challenged the assertion that the City lacks the capacity to conduct the work internally, arguing that local expertise exists to assist with data analysis, program evaluation, and arts planning.

The speaker concluded by asking the Council to deny the proposed contract and redirect available resources toward supporting Costa Mesa's artists, arts organizations, and creative economy.

Motion and Substitute Motion. Stephens moved to receive and file the item, effectively rejecting all proposals received through the RFP process, including the recommended contract with MIG. Gameros seconded the motion.

In support of his motion, Stephens stated that while MIG appeared highly qualified and had submitted a strong proposal, he believed the proposed scope and cost were excessive for an update to an existing master plan. He noted that the proposed contract was significantly more expensive than the City's original Arts and Culture Master Plan and argued that, given limited arts funding, more resources should be directed toward arts programming and support for the local arts community. He encouraged Staff to return with a more creative and cost-effective approach.

Reynolds expressed concern about rejecting the contract without a clear alternative. She noted that the Council had previously indicated that future arts funding decisions would be guided by an updated master plan. Without an updated plan, a dedicated arts Staff member, or a defined budget strategy, she argued that the City would lack clear direction for its arts programs and priorities.

The Council then discussed several alternatives, including reducing MIG's scope of work, negotiating a lower contract amount, involving the Arts Commission in prioritizing project elements, and redirecting any savings toward arts programming.

The City Attorney advised that because consultant selection was based on qualifications as well as cost, the City could negotiate a reduced scope and fee with MIG without restarting the RFP process.

Marr then offered a substitute motion directing Staff to retain MIG as the selected consultant but negotiate a reduced scope and contract amount, with a target cost below $100,000. The motion also directed that any resulting savings be made available for Arts Commission programming and initiatives.

In support of the substitute motion, Marr emphasized the importance of continuing the master plan update while ensuring that a greater share of available funding supports public-facing arts programs. She also expressed a desire to provide the Arts Commission with additional resources and a more meaningful role in shaping the City's arts investments.

Several councilmembers voiced support for this compromise approach, citing the need to maintain momentum on the master plan update, reduce consulting costs where possible, and maximize funding available for arts programming.

Vote: The substitute motion prevailed. Council voted 6–1 to retain MIG as the selected consultant, to direct Staff to negotiate a reduced contract cost (targeting below $100,000), and allow any savings to be redirected to the Arts Commission. Stephens was the lone "No" vote, maintaining his position that the City should pursue a significantly less expensive approach.

After the meeting concluded, the City Councilmembers returned to Closed Session.

JUNE 22 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. All Commissioners were present, except for David Martinez (District 5).

Aside from approval of minutes from two prior meetings, the Commission considered three action items:

• Conditional Use Permit (CUP) – On-Site Alcohol Consumption Until 12:00 a.m. for Three Eyed Tiger Restaurant at the LAB

• Conditional Use Permit (CUP) – Extended Hours for On-Site Alcohol Consumption Until 1:30 a.m. for Naisho Omakase and Highball Bar

• Proposed Amendments to Title 13 (Planning, Zoning And Development) of Municipal Code to Update Land Use Classifications for Various Nonresidential Uses

Public Comment. Jim Fitzpatrick urged commissioners to take a more active role in identifying and addressing what he described as systemic issues within City government. He argued that commissioners should regularly engage with residents and businesses and advocate for process improvements when recurring concerns are identified.

As an example, Fitzpatrick criticized the City's residential demolition permit process, describing it as unnecessarily burdensome. He cited a case involving a homeowner seeking to demolish and rebuild a single-family residence and argued that requirements such as affidavits and financial documentation create avoidable delays. He contrasted Costa Mesa's process with Newport Beach, where he said demolition permits can be issued over the counter.

Fitzpatrick also raised concerns regarding transportation-related policies and the City's handling of animal services matters. He encouraged commissioners to seek additional performance data from Staff, ask more questions about City operations, and improve transparency surrounding permit processing timelines and development review periods. He concluded by urging commissioners to use their positions proactively to help improve City processes and better serve residents and businesses.

I (Cynthia McDonald) spoke about my review of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for Measure K and the Housing Element. I noted that the report identifies more than 35 significant and unavoidable impacts, including several for which no feasible mitigation measures are available.

I expressed concern that, despite the scale of future development being contemplated, she did not see traffic impacts identified among the report's significant unavoidable effects. I questioned the absence of traffic-related concerns in a city already experiencing congestion.

I also shared observations from a recent visit to Hollywood, where she observed the shadowing effects created by mid-rise and high-rise residential buildings. Based on those observations, I expressed concern about the potential impacts of taller buildings in Costa Mesa, particularly the effects of shade and shadow on streets and neighborhoods. I encouraged commissioners to carefully review the EIR's findings regarding shadow impacts and consider how increased building heights could affect the character and livability of the community.

Commissioner Comments. Rob Dickson (District 5) expressed concern about the Planning Commission's three recently canceled meetings, describing them as missed opportunities to engage the public on significant planning initiatives, including the Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan, the Housing Element, and ongoing Measure K environmental review efforts. He suggested that the City explore alternative ways to facilitate public engagement when regular meetings are canceled.

Dickson also highlighted Songs in the Canyon, praising the event as a strong example of Costa Mesa's community spirit and successful collaboration among local artists, businesses, musicians, and residents. He encouraged continued City support for events that strengthen community connections.

Responding to public comments, Dickson emphasized the importance of evaluating how City policies and planning decisions affect local businesses and economic activity. He cited areas such as Harbor Boulevard, South Coast Plaza, 17th Street, and 19th Street as critical commercial corridors and noted that traffic circulation challenges can directly impact business accessibility and economic vitality.

He also called for greater consistency in the City's response to state mandates and regulations. Referencing discussions surrounding the Fairview Developmental Center, Dickson questioned how proposed housing densities have evolved beyond the limits contemplated in the original authorizing legislation and suggested that state requirements should be applied consistently across planning decisions.

In closing, Dickson noted that Costa Mesa faces both significant challenges and important opportunities. He stressed that future planning decisions should carefully balance the needs of residents, businesses, and the City's long-term economic health.

Angely Andrade (District 4) highlighted several recent City initiatives and encouraged residents to remain engaged in ongoing planning and community development efforts.

She thanked City Staff for hosting the June 3 community meeting on the Neighborhoods Where We All Belong initiative, noting that it provided residents with an opportunity to review potential housing opportunity sites and share feedback. Andrade also encouraged the public to review and comment on the project's Environmental Impact Report, which is available for public review through August 3, emphasizing that community participation will help shape Costa Mesa's future.

Andrade recognized staff's participation in the ICSC retail conference, thanking them for promoting Costa Mesa as a destination for business investment and economic development.

She also highlighted several major parks projects, including the groundbreaking of Shalimar Park, ongoing improvements at Ketchum-Libolt Park, and upgrades to the City's skate park. She described these projects as important investments in community amenities, particularly for residents on the west side of the city.

In addition, Andrade commended the City's Economic Development and Community Relations teams for supporting the Small Business Diversity Network's EATS entrepreneurial training program. She noted that the program provided business planning and development assistance to 24 participants, many of whom are Costa Mesa residents, and praised its role in helping aspiring entrepreneurs build the skills needed to launch and grow businesses.

She concluded by encouraging residents to participate in upcoming Movies in the Park, Concerts in the Park, and other community events, highlighting their value in fostering neighborhood connections and community engagement.

Jon Zich (District 1) responded to concerns raised during public comment by emphasizing that, while he values resident feedback and takes community concerns seriously, the Planning Commission's authority is often more limited than many residents realize.

Zich explained that the Commission's primary role is to review development applications for compliance with existing City regulations rather than establish planning policy or manage day-to-day City operations. As a result, issues such as permit processing procedures and administrative practices may fall outside the Commission's direct jurisdiction, even when commissioners share the concerns being raised.

Addressing comments related to permit processing and business challenges, Zich said that meaningful action generally requires specific information and direct input from affected residents or businesses. While commissioners can relay concerns to Staff or elected officials, he noted that detailed examples are often necessary to effectively advocate for changes.

Zich also expressed frustration with the Commission's limited access to certain planning information. He noted that he has repeatedly requested a list of active planning applications but has yet to receive one, arguing that access to basic workload and project-tracking information would help commissioners better understand development activity and upcoming issues facing the City.

He acknowledged the contributions of engaged residents such as me and Fitzpatrick, noting that they often bring forward community concerns that might not otherwise reach the Commission's attention.

Finally, Zich questioned whether the Planning Commission is receiving enough information regarding major planning initiatives and environmental review efforts. Referencing recent public comments about significant and unavoidable impacts identified in environmental documents, he suggested that the Commission should have a more active role in discussing such issues. He concluded that many important planning matters are being addressed outside the Commission's purview and expressed a desire for the Commission to be more involved in those conversations.

CONSENT CALENDAR: The two items on the Consent Calendar was approval of the minutes from the April 13, 2026 and April 27, 2026 meetings. Dickson moved approval, Zich seconded, and the motion carried by a 6-0 vote, with Martinez absent.

PUBLIC HEARINGS: There were three public hearings:

1.     Conditional Use Permit (CUP) – On-Site Alcohol Consumption Until 12:00 a.m. for Three Eyed Tiger Restaurant at the LAB. Gabriel Villalobos, Assistant Planner, presented the item.

Project Overview: The proposed restaurant would occupy Suite B60, a former retail space within The LAB shopping center. The project consists of a 2,520-square-foot full-service restaurant and cocktail bar with a 500-square-foot outdoor patio. Proposed hours of operation are:

Tuesday–Saturday: 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m.

Sunday: 11:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

Monday: Closed

The restaurant would operate under a Type 47 ABC license, permitting the sale of beer, wine, and distilled spirits for on-site consumption.

Site Context: The property is located within a C2 (General Commercial) zone at The LAB, a multi-tenant commercial center that includes numerous restaurants and food-related businesses. Three existing establishments within the center already have approvals to serve alcohol and operate beyond 11:00 p.m. Although residentially zoned property is located east of the site, the proposed restaurant is positioned closer to Bristol Street and approximately 320 feet from the nearest residential property line.

Staff Analysis: Staff determined that the proposed use is compatible with the surrounding area for several reasons:

• The restaurant is located within an established commercial center containing similar uses.

• No live entertainment, dancing, or entertainment venue is proposed.

• The restaurant is separated from nearby residential properties by distance and intervening development.

• Conditions of approval include noise restrictions and good neighbor operating practices intended to minimize potential impacts.

Commissioner Questions. Zich focused on a procedural issue involving the applicant's letter included in the Staff Report. He noted that the letter submitted by Three-Eyed Tiger was neither dated nor signed and asked staff why those elements were absent.

Staff explained that the letter was a revised version of an earlier submittal and was updated to address staff comments, including clarification that no live entertainment was proposed. Because the revised letter replaced the original version, it was included in the agenda packet. Staff acknowledged that a dated or signed letter was not required under current procedures but stated that email records document the submission and that future documents would be date-stamped where appropriate. Zich expressed appreciation for that commitment and encouraged improvements to the City's documentation practices.

Andrade asked whether a previous restaurant in the area, which she recalled as Gypsy Den, had operated with similar hours and alcohol service. Staff clarified that Three-Eyed Tiger would occupy a former Urban Outfitters space rather than the former Gypsy Den location. While the suite itself had not previously housed a restaurant, staff noted that several nearby businesses within The LAB—including Habana, Ruin Bar, and the former Bootleggers—operate or operated with similar alcohol service and evening hours. Andrade also asked about nearby breweries along Randolph Avenue, and staff confirmed that comparable alcohol-serving establishments operate in the surrounding area.

Dickson asked whether nearby establishments such as Habana or Bootleggers Brewery had generated recent noise complaints. Staff responded that the Police Department reported no concerns and identified no significant complaints associated with those businesses. Dickson also sought clarification on the restaurant's location within The LAB. Staff confirmed that the proposed restaurant would be located near the Bristol Street frontage, farther from nearby residential uses. Staff further noted that only a limited number of businesses within The LAB are currently authorized to remain open and serve alcohol after 11:00 p.m.

Commissioner Johnny Rojas (District 2) reviewed the operating hours of existing alcohol-serving establishments at The LAB, noting that Ruin Bar, Habana, and previously Bootleggers had approvals allowing them to remain open later than the hours requested by Three-Eyed Tiger. He asked whether several existing businesses already operate beyond the proposed midnight closing time. Staff confirmed that they do, and that Three-Eyed Tiger's request is consistent with approvals already granted to other establishments within the center.

Applicant’s Presentation. Zachary Scherer, owner of the proposed Three-Eyed Tiger restaurant, responded to a question from the Commission, in which he acknowledged that he had submitted the revised applicant letter and apologized for not including a date and signature.

Scherer explained that Three-Eyed Tiger would be a second location related to his existing restaurant, Darkroom in Santa Ana. He emphasized that the concept is intended to be a high-quality restaurant and cocktail destination rather than a late-night bar, noting that the business is only seeking approval to operate until midnight, not the later hours permitted at some nearby establishments.

Public Comment: Staff reported receiving one written public comment prior to the hearing. The commenter urged the City to prohibit alcohol service after 11:00 p.m.

Fitzpatrick stated that he did not have a strong opinion on the proposed restaurant or conditional use permit itself, but instead wanted to comment on the City's processing of the application. He argued that Staff missed an opportunity to highlight what appeared to be an exceptionally efficient review process.

Fitzpatrick noted that City records showed the application was submitted in April 2026 and had reached the Planning Commission within a relatively short period of time. He described the project as a potential success story and suggested the City should analyze and document how the application moved through the system so efficiently in order to replicate those results for other applicants.

To emphasize his point, Fitzpatrick outlined the typical development review process, including application intake, completeness reviews, interdepartmental review, compliance with permit-streamlining requirements, preparation of the Staff Report, and public noticing. Given those procedural steps, he said he was surprised by how quickly the project advanced to a public hearing.

Fitzpatrick encouraged commissioners to pay closer attention to application timelines and processing metrics, arguing that understanding both successful and delayed projects could help identify opportunities for operational improvements. He also questioned why the item had reportedly been ready for an earlier Planning Commission hearing but was delayed when that meeting was canceled.

In closing, Fitzpatrick praised The LAB for attracting unique and high-quality businesses and said the applicant appeared to be the type of operator that adds value to Costa Mesa. However, he emphasized that his primary purpose in speaking was to encourage greater transparency, oversight, and understanding of the City's development review process.

Motion and Vote. Chair Jeff Harlan moved to approve the item. The motion was seconded by Andrade. Dickson requested a friendly amendment to strike Condition of Approval No. 9 because it was duplicative, which was accepted by the maker of the motion and the second. The motion passed 6-0, with Martinez absent.

2.     Conditional Use Permit (CUP) – Extended Hours for On-Site Alcohol Consumption Until 1:30 a.m. for Naisho Omakase and Highball Bar (NYSHO). Gabriel Villalobos, Assistant Planner, presented a request to allow the applicant to extend its operating hours and on-site alcohol service from 11:00 p.m. to 1:30 a.m.

NYSHO is an existing Japanese restaurant and cocktail bar that opened earlier this year and operates under a Type 47 ABC license, authorizing the sale of beer, wine, and distilled spirits for on-site consumption. The proposal does not involve a change in use, an expansion of the restaurant, or a modification to its liquor license. It is limited to extending operating hours and alcohol service beyond the City's standard 11:00 p.m. threshold.

Project and Site Context: The restaurant occupies a tenant space within a 39,000-square-foot multi-tenant commercial center at 3033 Bristol Street that includes 167 parking spaces and a mix of restaurant, retail, and service-oriented businesses. Nearby properties are predominantly commercial, although apartment buildings are located west of the site.

Overhead view showing location of NYSHO

Staff explained that omakase is a reservation-based dining experience in which guests are served a chef-selected, multi-course meal. The restaurant primarily operates through reservations rather than walk-in business. Patrons may enjoy drinks before or after their meal in a waiting area, and the business typically has four to eight employees on site at any given time.

Staff concluded that the requested extended hours are compatible with the surrounding area and are not expected to adversely impact nearby residential uses. Factors supporting that conclusion included:

• The restaurant is located within an established commercial center.

• No live entertainment, dancing, outdoor activities, or entertainment venue is proposed.

• Conditions of approval are included to address potential operational impacts and promote compatibility with nearby uses.

• Staff anticipates no significant impacts related to noise, traffic, parking, lighting, litter, or other nuisance factors.

• In addition, the Costa Mesa Police Department reviewed the application and reported no concerns regarding the proposed extension of operating hours or alcohol service.

Commissioner Questions. Zich asked several questions regarding the proposed hours extension, nearby late-night businesses, public safety concerns, and application documentation.

Zich first confirmed that the restaurant does not currently operate under a Conditional Use Permit, with Staff explaining that its existing hours—ending at 11:00 p.m.—are permitted by right. The CUP is required only because the applicant seeks to extend alcohol service and operating hours until 1:30 a.m.

He also questioned a comparison in the Staff Report to a nearby business authorized to remain open until 2:00 a.m., noting that the referenced establishment is located across Bristol Street and farther from residential properties than the subject site. Staff confirmed that distinction.

Addressing concerns raised in public comments regarding alleged late-night street racing on Paularino Avenue, Zich asked whether the Police Department had investigated the issue. Staff responded that police are aware of the activity but do not believe it is related to the proposed extension of alcohol service hours at NYSHO. Staff added that the Police Department continues to monitor and address such issues as appropriate.

Finally, Zich revisited a procedural concern raised during a previous agenda item, noting that the applicant's letter included in the Staff Report was neither dated nor signed. Staff explained that applications submitted through the City's electronic permit system are automatically date-stamped and agreed to explore ways to better document application submittal dates in future agenda packets.

Commissioner Johnny Rojas (District 2) asked for clarification regarding the operating hours of other restaurants within the same shopping center. Referring to the staff report, he noted that Angin is authorized to operate until 1:00 a.m. seven days per week, while Curry Do remains open until 1:00 a.m. on two days each week.

Applicant’s Presentation. Michael Cho of the Palmieri Tyler law firm, representing the applicant, explained that NYSHO's reservation-based omakase dining experience is highly popular and that the restaurant's limited seating capacity can make reservations difficult to obtain. He said the requested extension of operating hours until 1:30 a.m. would create additional reservation opportunities and allow the restaurant to better accommodate customer demand.

In response to commissioner questions, Cho emphasized that NYSHO is not a traditional bar. Patrons are seated throughout their visit, and cocktails are served as part of the overall dining experience rather than through a standing-room bar operation. He also noted that the restaurant operates on scheduled reservation seatings, typically beginning on the hour, with guests having the option to remain and enjoy drinks after their meal if seating is available.

Public Comment. Staff reported receiving two written public comments. The comments expressed concerns about extending alcohol service into the late-night hours, including potential impacts from intoxicated patrons and the proximity of the business to nearby residential properties.

Fitzpatrick spoke in support of the application and praised the City's handling of the permit request, describing it as an example of an efficient review process that should be studied and replicated. He also thanked Vice Chair Zich for encouraging greater transparency regarding application timelines and processing metrics.

Fitzpatrick noted that NYSHO has developed a strong reputation and is often difficult to book due to high demand. He argued that extending the restaurant's operating hours would create additional reservation opportunities for customers while supporting a business that has become a positive addition to Costa Mesa's dining scene. He encouraged the Commission to approve the request and highlighted the project as a success for both the applicant and the City's permitting process.

Additional Commissioner Questions. Rojas asked Staff to clarify whether there had been complaints associated with the area, given public comments regarding late-night noise and potentially intoxicated patrons. Staff said the Police Department was aware of similar complaints citywide but did not identify any issues specifically tied to the restaurant or project site.

Rojas also asked if the approval would remain tied to the restaurant's operational characteristics and would not automatically allow the site to become a late-night bar in the future. Staff explained that any significant change in operations would require review, and Economic and Development Services Director Carrie Tai added that the restaurant operates under a Type 47 alcohol license, which requires a food-service component. The approval would not permit the site to become a standalone bar without additional approvals.

Motion and Vote. Dickson then moved to approve the item, while removing Condition of Approval No. 9, which was seconded by Commissioner Karen Klepack (District 1). The motion passed 6-0, with Martinez absent.

3.     Proposed Amendments to Title 13 (Planning, Zoning And Development) of Municipal Code to Update Land Use Classifications for Various Nonresidential Uses. Planning Manager Martina Carone presented a City-initiated zoning code update intended to modernize portions of Title 13 and better accommodate emerging business types and evolving commercial uses.

Purpose: Carone explained that Costa Mesa's land use matrix has remained largely unchanged since 1997 and contains approximately 155 highly specific use classifications. As new business models have emerged, many no longer fit neatly within existing categories, often requiring Staff to rely on discretionary “similar use” determinations. The proposed amendments are intended to:

• Modernize the City's treatment of emerging and evolving business types.

• Provide greater clarity and predictability for applicants and property owners.

• Reduce reliance on case-by-case similar-use determinations.

• Encourage business investment, adaptive reuse, and economic development.

Carone emphasized that this is a targeted economic development initiative, not a comprehensive rewrite of the Zoning Code.

Prior Commission Feedback: During a previous study session, the Planning Commission generally supported moving toward broader and more flexible use categories. Commissioners also identified the need to carefully consider operational impacts, parking requirements, and compatibility issues associated with uses such as ghost kitchens, fitness studios, entertainment venues, and event centers.

Proposed Amendments: The proposed package includes 11 targeted amendments affecting nonresidential zones:

• Personal Services – Consolidates uses such as beauty salons, spas, pet grooming, tutoring, and wellness businesses into a broader category while maintaining separate regulations for massage establishments and tattoo/body art businesses.

• Artisan Studios – Creates a new category for creative and maker-oriented businesses, including ceramics studios, furniture makers, photography studios, and recording studios, allowing small-scale production and related retail sales within commercial areas.

• Active Entertainment – Establishes a category for interactive uses such as escape rooms, virtual reality venues, sports simulators, e-sports lounges, and interactive arcades. The category would apply to facilities up to 15,000 square feet, with larger venues regulated separately.

• Event Centers and Assembly Uses – Consolidates banquet halls, conference facilities, assembly halls, and spectator-oriented venues into a single category while retaining Conditional Use Permit requirements and adding clearer operational standards.

• Small Fitness Studios – Creates a separate category for smaller instructional and class-based facilities, such as Pilates, martial arts, dance, and yoga studios, distinguishing them from larger gyms and sports facilities.

• Food Halls – Establishes a formal definition for food halls and clarifies that they are regulated under existing food and beverage standards.

• Ghost Kitchens – Creates a new classification for delivery-focused food preparation businesses. Ghost kitchens would require a Minor Conditional Use Permit in C1 zones but would be permitted by right in C2 and industrial zones, subject to operating standards.

• Electric Vehicle Charging Stations – Creates a streamlined ministerial review process and updates the code to align with state law.

• Sports Clubs – Clarifies that facilities such as indoor basketball, pickleball, volleyball, and soccer training centers fall within a defined use category and remain subject to Conditional Use Permit requirements.

• Commercial Kitchens – Establishes a category for catering kitchens, shared kitchens, and similar food-preparation facilities and permits them by right in industrial zones.

Commercial Development Standards: The proposal also includes two updates to commercial development regulations:

• Height Deviations – Establishes a Minor Conditional Use Permit process for limited increases above the standard 30-foot nonresidential height limit.

• Floor Area Ratio (FAR) – Clarifies FAR calculations by excluding certain non-occupiable building components, such as mechanical shafts, utility areas, and similar support spaces that do not contribute to operational intensity.

Commissioner Questions. Zich asked Staff to explain the proposed changes to the City's Floor Area Ratio (FAR) calculations, particularly the exclusion of certain storage and building-support areas. Staff said the intent is to exclude spaces that do not contribute to operational intensity or generate additional traffic, such as mechanical rooms, electrical rooms, utility areas, and walk-in coolers. Because these spaces generally do not increase occupancy or trip generation, Staff believed they should not count toward FAR. Zich indicated that he understood the explanation but disagreed with the rationale and reserved further discussion for deliberations.

Rojas sought clarification regarding the proposed personal services category, specifically whether pet services would be included. Staff confirmed that they would and explained that the category is intended to cover uses such as pet grooming, dog washing, and similar day-to-day pet care services. Staff further clarified that kennels would remain a separate land-use category, while veterinary and animal medical services would fall within the broader personal services classification.

Andrade asked whether the proposed code amendments would better accommodate unique businesses such as the cat café previously reviewed by the Commission. Staff responded that a use of that nature would likely fall within the new active entertainment category because customers actively participate in the experience. If food service were also offered, the use would additionally be subject to the City's food and beverage regulations. Staff noted that one goal of the amendments is to provide clearer pathways for emerging business models and reduce the need for discretionary approvals. Staff also clarified that animal hospitals, veterinary services, shelters, pounds, and kennels would continue to be regulated as separate uses.

Harlan asked how businesses such as golf simulator facilities would be classified under the proposed amendments. Staff responded that golf simulators would generally fall within the active entertainment category, provided the facility is 15,000 square feet or smaller.

Harlan also asked about the distinction between small fitness studios and larger physical fitness facilities, particularly in light of public comments regarding parking requirements. Staff explained that the two uses are differentiated primarily through the permitting process, with smaller studios receiving a more streamlined review process and larger facilities subject to additional review. However, Staff acknowledged that the proposal does not currently modify parking requirements, meaning b

Public Comment:  Daniel Pietenpol, a longtime Costa Mesa commercial property owner with several buildings in the Old Town area, expressed strong support for the proposed zoning code amendments. He commended Staff for modernizing the code and creating a clearer pathway for new and emerging businesses, arguing that the changes would reduce costs, simplify the entitlement process, and make Costa Mesa more attractive to entrepreneurs and property owners.

While supportive of the overall package, Pietenpol urged the City to further reevaluate its parking requirements, particularly for small fitness studios and similar low-intensity uses. He argued that the proposed standards remain significantly higher than those of neighboring cities—including Newport Beach, Irvine, Huntington Beach, and Fountain Valley—and may discourage businesses such as Pilates, yoga, and boutique fitness studios from locating in Costa Mesa.

Drawing on his experience leasing commercial properties, Pietenpol stated that parking requirements regularly affect a business's ability to occupy a space and can place Costa Mesa at a competitive disadvantage. He encouraged the Commission to continue refining the proposal, particularly the parking standards, to better reflect modern business models and support economic development.

Then it was Fitzpatrick’s turn. He didn’t miss one opportunity to hear his voice that evening. Even the Chair got tired of him.  Fitzpatrick criticized both the Planning Commission and City Staff, arguing that many of the proposed zoning code updates should have been addressed years ago through more proactive and regular code reviews. While he supported efforts to modernize regulations for emerging business types, he contended that some of the changes were necessary because of overly restrictive interpretations of the existing code.

Fitzpatrick also raised concerns about the City's past handling of electric vehicle charging station applications and other development regulations, arguing that they created unnecessary barriers for businesses.

At one point, Harlan asked Fitzpatrick to keep his comments focused on the agenda item, prompting a brief exchange before Fitzpatrick continued. He concluded by urging the Commission to take a more active role in reviewing zoning regulations and improving the City's business climate.

Chair Harlan telling Jim Fitzspatrick to stay on topic

Additional Commissioner Questions and Comments. Dickson generally supported the proposed amendments but focused on the treatment of small fitness studios. He questioned whether the proposed 15,000-square-foot threshold was too large, noting that most yoga, Pilates, and personal training studios are typically much smaller. Dickson argued that applying the same parking standards used for larger fitness facilities could create unnecessary burdens for small businesses and suggested that Staff develop a lower size threshold and more appropriate parking requirements.

Dickson also raised concerns about the proposed Floor Area Ratio (FAR) definition. While he supported excluding truly non-occupiable areas, he cautioned that some storage and support spaces may still contribute to a building's intensity of use and suggested that Staff further refine the definition.

Zich continued the discussion on both fitness studios and FAR. He asked how smaller fitness businesses with lower parking demand could obtain relief from standard parking requirements. Staff explained that applicants could request a Minor Conditional Use Permit for a parking deviation, with operating conditions tailored to the specific business model.

Zich also questioned the rationale for excluding storage areas from FAR calculations. He argued that building intensity is more accurately measured using concepts such as rentable or usable square footage and expressed concern that excluding tenant-controlled storage areas could understate a building's true development intensity.

Harlan agreed that the proposed parking requirements for small fitness studios warranted further review. He supported evaluating standards used in neighboring cities and developing a more tailored approach that reflects the lower parking demand typically associated with boutique fitness operations.

More broadly, Harlan expressed support for the overall zoning code update, praising its efforts to modernize the code, provide greater flexibility for emerging business types, and expand opportunities for by-right approvals rather than discretionary review.

Motion. Zich moved to continue the item rather than forward it immediately to the City Council. His motion directed Staff to refine two areas of the proposed zoning code amendments:

1.     Parking standards for small fitness studios, and

2.     The proposed Floor Area Ratio (FAR) definition.

Zich stated that, as an advisory body to the City Council, the Planning Commission should strive to send forward fully developed recommendations rather than asking the Council to resolve outstanding policy details. He argued that additional work was needed to refine the parking thresholds and FAR calculations before making a final recommendation.

Dickson seconded the motion and agreed that the overall package was well-conceived but would benefit from additional refinement. He praised Staff's efforts to modernize the code and improve opportunities for by-right approvals while noting that parking standards and FAR calculations are significant issues warranting further review.

Director Carrie Tai urged the Commission to consider allowing portions of the amendment package to move forward while deferring only the unresolved items. He explained that the proposal was the result of approximately 18 months of work, including input from businesses and Staff observations of development applications that have required discretionary review because the zoning code lacks clear classifications for newer business models. He cautioned that delaying the entire package could postpone regulatory improvements beneficial to the business community.

Harlan acknowledged Director Tai's concern but indicated he could support continuing the item provided that future discussion remains focused on the narrow issues identified by the Commission. He emphasized that the Planning Commission's role is advisory and that consensus is not always required before forwarding recommendations to the City Council.

Both Zich and Dickson ultimately expressed a preference for keeping the package intact and returning it to the Commission for final review once Staff had addressed the concerns regarding fitness studio parking and FAR definitions. Zich stated that he was not persuaded that a short delay would negatively impact the business community and preferred to ensure the Commission completed its review before forwarding the item.

At the request of Staff, the motion was amended to keep the public hearing open and continue the item to a date certain.

Vote: The Commission voted 5–1 to continue the public hearing and return the item on July 13 with revisions addressing the Commission's concerns regarding small fitness studio parking standards and the Floor Area Ratio definition. Andrade was the sole “No” vote.

OLD BUSINESS: None.

NEW BUSINESS: None.

SAVING THE BEST FOR LAST, at the end of the meeting Tai mentioned that the One Metro West project (off Sunflower north of the 405) came in with a project modification. The developer reduced the number of units from 1057 to 957, increased the size of those units, redesigned their office building into a creative workspace, and reconfigured some of the buildings to create a more centralized amenity and podium connection between the different residential buildings. Tai said that overall, the project remains the same in terms of meeting affordability requirements and open space requirements. The developer is working on construction drawings, which will be submitted near the end of the year.