Commission reviews draft housing-element rezonings and zoning code updates; commissioners debate parking, setbacks and public outreach
Loading...
Summary
Staff presented 'Neighborhoods Where We All Belong,' a two‑path approach to rezone housing element sites using a mixed‑use overlay (MOOD), apply SB 131 CEQA exemptions and update the zoning code; commissioners pressed staff on parking requirements, consistency with Measure K sites, public outreach and potential impacts; the commission voted 5‑1 to receive and file.
City staff and consultants presented a broad set of draft zoning map and code amendments on Jan. 26 intended to implement Costa Mesa's housing element and seek certification from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).
The "Neighborhoods Where We All Belong" package proposes two paths: Path 1 (expedited rezoning) would rezone identified housing‑element sites to a mixed‑use overlay district (MOOD) requiring at least 50% residential with a minimum density of 20 units per acre, streamlined review options and objective design standards; Path 2 would follow the original schedule for additional public outreach, objective design standards, an environmental impact report (EIR) and potential rezoning of Measure K sites.
Staff said HCD has urged timely rezoning for certification and that recent case law requires residential uses be included on housing‑element sites. Because SB 131 provides a CEQA exemption for housing element rezonings, staff proposed using that pathway for Path 1 but said the city is conducting a consolidated EIR exercise to study cumulative impacts if Measure K sites are later included under Path 2.
Key changes proposed include updates to definitions and the land‑use matrix, removing certain planning barriers, reducing some residential parking requirements to conform with state law, creating MOOD development standards (setbacks of 10–20 feet in typical cases, open‑space minimums, objective standards), and two streamlined review tracks: ministerial building‑department review for by‑right projects meeting thresholds (including 20% low‑income) or planning‑level objective review for other housing‑element projects.
Commissioners extensively questioned the draft standards. Vice Chair Zick said the packages reflect state pressure to increase density and criticized the approach as primarily about "density, density, density," urging that the community has not been adequately engaged. Commissioner Martinez pressed staff about rounding and density calculations in the sites analysis and urged flexibility in setbacks and open‑space requirements; he also objected to minimum parking standards on some sites and proposed unbundling parking costs from rent. Staff responded that AB 2097 and other state law preemptions mean many sites already lack minimum parking requirements, that HCD reviewed technical details, and that the EIR work is intended to produce appropriate cumulative mitigation.
Public commenters included Cynthia McDonald, who warned that changes could lead to dramatic upzoning, questioned outreach transparency and cited potential traffic and air‑quality impacts (she said the initial study projected substantial impacts and that the city could add tens of thousands of residents under some scenarios). A caller expressed support for housing and urged attention to transit and bike access.
After discussion and requests for cleanup edits, the commission voted 5‑1 (Vice Chair Zick opposed) to receive and file the presentation and asked staff to return Feb. 9 with an updated report ahead of planned City Council hearings in March for Path 1 (first reading March 17; possible second reading in April). Staff emphasized ongoing meetings with HCD and additional outreach planned for Path 2.
