Planning Commission reviews 90‑item zoning code amendment list; asks staff to prioritize clarifications and state‑law alignment

The Costa Mesa Planning Commission on Aug. 11 received a staff presentation and discussion on a proposed package of roughly 90 potential zoning code amendments and asked staff to return with a prioritized work plan. The commission voted 7‑0 to receive and file the presentation and directed staff to refine priorities, distinguishing technical clarifications from policy changes.

Amber Gregg, contract planner, said staff compiled approximately 90 amendments that ranged from minor clarifications and definitions to substantial amendments needing interdisciplinary research and public outreach. Gregg said the items were organized by category (definitions, standards, uses, procedures) and by complexity (level 1 = minor, level 2 = moderate, level 3 = substantial). She told commissioners the list has grown from routine project review, state law changes and commissioner requests.

Gregg framed the purpose of the exercise as improving customer service, clarifying ambiguous code language, ensuring state law consistency and updating uses and procedures for modern business and housing needs. She cautioned that the current meeting was for prioritization and that substantive policy decisions would require later public hearings so as not to run afoul of Brown Act limits on commission deliberation.

Commissioner priorities and public comment

Commissioners emphasized several priorities: - Clarify ambiguous language and add missing definitions (commissioners identified common categories where staff spends the most time: use definitions, standards, and process references). - Address items where current code is inconsistent with state law. - Consider high‑impact policy items, including parking minimums (item #22 on the list), floor‑area standards and drive‑through regulations; several commissioners said those items merit higher scrutiny even if they are complex. - Use external advisory bodies (arts, active‑transportation committees) where appropriate for subject matter such as murals or bike parking.

Public comment supported removing arbitrary parking minimums and urged prioritizing #22. Speaker Mark Vosovich told the commission: “I strongly agree that number 22 is a massive priority — removing arbitrary parking minimums.” Gregg and Director Tai reiterated that tonight’s action was a procedural prioritization; Director Tai summarized the meeting’s next step by asking staff to return with a refined priority list.

Disposition and next steps

Commissioner Dixon moved, and Vice Chair Zick seconded, a motion to receive and file the staff presentation. The motion carried 7‑0. Commissioners asked staff to return with a reorganized list that separates technical clarifications from policy matters, and to highlight items that are required by state law or that correct ambiguities. Several commissioners also suggested staff consider how amendments would affect application processing workload and municipal revenues as part of prioritization.

Why this matters

Zoning code amendments identified in the packet could alter how projects are reviewed, what uses are allowed and how standards (for parking, setbacks, FAR, and public art/murals) are applied. Commissioners and members of the public singled out parking minimums, drive‑throughs, and standards that affect housing and business development as high‑impact items. Staff said some technical clarifications will be advanced when resources permit, while larger policy items will return for broader public engagement and formal hearings.

Ending

Staff will return with a refined, prioritized work plan that distinguishes technical updates from policy amendments; in the interim staff will continue to implement minor clarifications as capacity allows. The planning commission will consider formal public hearings on priority items after additional research and outreach.