a Outlook Pf-)2
Title13 Proposed Amendments
From Daniel Pietenpol <[email protected]>
Date Thu 7/9/2026 11:52 AM
To PC Public Comments < [email protected]> Dear Commissioners,
I was very honored to speak at the June 22nd meeting.
After reviewing the updated proposed amendments, I want to express my appreciation for your thorough review of the Small Fitness Studio and FAR sections. Both revised sections will encourage fairness, flexibility, and reasonable development.
Thank you for being responsive to your community.
Best regards,
Daniel Pietenpol
714-308-2708
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments rinless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department. -1-
ATTACHMENT 9
CARON, MARTINA
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Honorable Commissioners,
Daniel Pietenpol <[email protected]>
Thursday, June 18, 2026 2:53 PM
PC Public Comments
June 22, 2026 Meeting
'Pi'< 3
Thank 7ou far 70ur WOrkin reviewing and simplifying the Land use classifications within Title 13 or the Costa Mesa Municipal Code. As an owner of six buildings on Newport BouLevard in downtown Costa Mega, I appreciate 70ur EFFORTS tO adapt Our regulations to the evoLving retail Landscape.
I specificaLLy welcome the increased cLarityin the new definitions for Artisan Studios, PersonaL Services, and Physical Fitness Facilities. However, I would Like to request a review of the parking requirements for "Small Fitness Studios" compared to "Physical Fitness Facilities." Currently, both classifications require per 1,000 square feet (Table 13-89). While this ratio is appropriate for Large gyms, smaller studios typically host far fewer attendees-often training only two to three people at a time. Maintaining the same high requirement for these small businesses creates an undue hardship, particuLarLyin Downtown Costa Mesa where many older buiLdings have limited parking capacity. Furthermore, the high volume of pedestrians and cyclists in the downtown core naturalLy offsets the need for such intensive parking.
WOuld 70u consider reducing the requirement Tar Small FitneSS StudiOS tO 48 per 1,000 square feet? This adjustment would provide adequate parking whiLe significantly reducing the burden on small business owners and align better with other surounding cities. (See the chart beLow) Thank you for your time and consideration.
Best regards,
Daniel Pietenpol
714-308-2708
City FitnessType StudioType PersonalServices
SPACES per 1,000 square feet SPACES per 1,000 square feet SPACES per 1,000 sq NewportBeach 4 under2,000sqft 4 4
5 over 2,000 sq ft
Irvine 7 lspaceperl50sqff
FountainValley 4 5
HuntingtonBeach 5 5
10 if group instruction
1 -2-
ess you recognize the sender and knQWl tpe,cpnient i5 s@ie,3ep<3jgyq'[email protected] actiyjiiesto ther ortatiqp TecbpologyDepartment.
-3-
Th-3
PUBLIC COMMENT TO THE COSTA MESA PLANNING COMMISSION Re: Proposed Zoning Code Amendments and Electric Vehicle Cliarging Station Permitting Submitted by: Jim Fitzpatrick, SOLUTIONEER
Question for Commissioners:
Costa Mesa continues to commit "Economic Terrorism", against Business and Residents, will you help? Was this the cause of yet another Planning Commission Meeting cancellation, when there I sso much to talk about, and so many important decision?
In this case I had to contact a state agency to require City Staff to write compline Code, after significant delays in doing so. Is that OK with you?
Recommendations:
1. Recognize the "Economic Terrorism" and get involved
2. Mandate Staff bring forward Code cleanup on a quarterly basis instead of waiting years Summary
This comment concerns the City of Costa Mesa's treatment of electric vehicle (EV) charging stations in its proposed Zoning Code Amendments. California law requires cities to approve EV charging station permits through a streamlined, ministerial process. The City's May 18, 2026 Public Review Draft did the opposite. It proposed a discretionary Minor Conditional Use Permit for EV charging, which conflicts directly with state law and with the Attorney General's March 18, 2025 Legal Alert. After the Governor's Office of Business and Economic Development (GO-Biz) was contacted, the City revised the draft to permit EV charging by right and added dedicated code language. I am submitting this comment to document that sequence and to ask that the by- right, ministerial approach be preserved in the final ordinance.
The Governing State Law and the Compliance Timeline Two state statutes govern here. AB 1236 (Chiu, 2015), codified at Government Code section 65850.7, requires every city and county to adopt an ordinance that creates an expedited, streamlined, ministerial permitting process for EV charging stations, with review limited to health and safety. AB 970 (McCarty and Chiu, 2021), codified at Government Code section 65850.71, added binding timelines to that review, generally 20 business days for projects of 25 or fewer chargers and 40 business days for larger projects. The Legislature found that timely, cost- effective installation of EV charging stations is a matter of statewide concern and not a municipal affair, so these laws apply to all cities, including charter cities, and preempt conflicting local zoning.
On March 18, 2025, the California Attorney General issued Legal Alert OAG 2025-01 to all local planning directors, reminding cities that these laws are mandatory and identifying the most common violations. Two of those violations describe Costa Mesa's May 18, 2026 draft precisely: applying local zoning designations to EV charging permits, and requiring discretionary review such as a conditional use permit instead of streamlined ministerial approval. The Alert is a reminder of obligations that were already in force, not a new deadline. The City was required to have a compliant streamlining ordinance years before the Alert was issued and well before the May 18, 2026 draft was published.
References with brief summaries are listed at the end of this comment.
-4-
What the May 18, 2026 Draft Proposed
The Public Review Draft published May 18, 2026 contained requirements for a discretionary approval process rather than the ministerial process state law requires. The clearest example is the Citywide Land Use Matrix at
matrix structure, that designation forces an applicant into public notice, zoning administrator review, and the delay and discretion the streamlining laws were written to remoye.
Legend: P = Permitted by right (ministerial) MC = Minor Conditional Use Permit (discretionary) C = Conditional Use Permit (discretionaiy) Figxrre l Laird Use Arlatrix excerpt as proposed (Ma.si 18, 2026 dmft).
EV Charging Station (as proposed in May 18
draft)
What Changed After GO-Biz Was Contacted
On June 8, 2026, I emailed GO-Biz, the state agency that tracks EV charging streamlining compliance, asking who could help require City staff to bring the Zoning Code changes into line with state law. The email explained that, instead of following AB 1236 or the Attorney General's Legal Alert, the City was again proposing discretionary review through a Minor Conditional Use Permit, and it pointed to real-world consequences for charging projects already trying to open in Costa Mesa.
After GO-Biz reached out to the City, the draft was revised. EV charging is now treated as a by-right, permitted use, and dedicated code language was added that was entirely absent from the first draft:
@ Page 30, Primary Use: permitted by right.
@ Page 21, Accessoiy Use: permitted by right.
@ Page 53, Section 13-100.10: EV Cliarging Station language finally introduced.
Figure 2. Land Use A4atrix excerpt as r'evised after GO-Brz contact.
EV Cliarging Station (as revised affer GO-Biz
contact)
Figxnac 3. Eefore and after, by page.
Land Use Matrix listed EV Charging Station as a
discretionaty Minor Conditional Use Permit (MC).
No by-right primary use categoiy for EV charging.
No accessory-use treahnent for EV charging.
Primary Use permitted by right across applicable
districts.
Priinaiy Use, permitted by right.
Accessory Use, permitted by right.
Section 13-100.10, EV Charging Station, laztguage
introduced (absent from the first draft).
-5-
Request
I appreciate that the revised draft moves EV charging to a by-right, ministerial footing and adds the missing code section. I ask the Planning Commission to keep it that way. Specifically, please confirm that the final ordinance treats EV charging stations as permitted by right in every applicable district, as both a primary use and an accessory use; limits review to health and safety as required by Government Code section 65850.7; honors the AB 970 timelines in Government Code section 65850.71; and contains no discretionary conditional use permit, minor conditional use permit, design review, or aesthetic review for EV charging. These steps bring Costa Mesa into compliance with state law and end the delays that have driven charging projects out of the city.
References
Attorney General Legal Alert OAG 2025-01 (March 18, 2025). Statewide reminder to local planning directors that AB 1236 and AB 970 require streamlined, ministerial EV charging permits, and that discretionary review and local zoning designations applied to EV cliarging are unlawful.
Attorney General Press Release on the Legal Alert. Announcement of the Legal Alert, summarizing the state- mandated local program to streamline EV charging permits and the consequences of noncompliance.
AB 1236 Fact Sheet (Government Code section 65850.7). GO-Biz overview of the 2015 law requiring cities to adopt a streamlining ordinance and checklist and to limit EV charging review to health and safety.
Permitting EV Charging Stations, GO-Biz Best Practices (AB 970, Government Code section 65850.71 ). GO- Biz guidance describing the 2021 binding timelines added by AB 970 and best-practice ordinances and checklists for compliant jurisdictions.
Costa Mesa Zoning Code Amendments, Public Review Draft, May 18, 2026. The City draft at issue. See Page 53, the Land Use Matrix, wliere EV charging was proposed as a discretionary Minor Conditional Use Permit, along with the revised Pages 21, 30, and 53 noted above.
-6-
@ Outlook PH-l
FW: Julyl3, 2026 - Support for Title 13 Zoning Code Amendments (PCTY-26-0001) - Item PH-2 From CARON, MARTINA <[email protected]>
Date Mon 7/1 3/2026 3:16 PM
To COLGAN, JULIE <[email protected]>
For the PC.
Martina Caron, AICP
Planning Manager l Current Planning
City of Costa Mesa l Economic and Development Services Department (soon to be the Community Development Department)
77 Fair Drive l Costa Mesa l CA 92626
(office) (714) 754-5153
"The City of Costa Mesa serves our residents, businesses and visitors while promoting a safe, inclusive, and vibrant community."
rlO[a
Beginning July 1, 2026, the Economic and Deve/opment Services Department wigl begin undergoing a name change to become the Community Development Department.
PLEASE CONSIDER THE ENVIRONMENT BEFORE PRINTING THIS EMAIL. THANK you.
From: George Sakioka <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2026 3:14 PM
To: GREEN, BRENDA <[email protected]>; TAI, CARRIE <[email protected]>; GREGG, AMBER <[email protected]>; CARON, MARTINA <[email protected]> Cc: Mark Sakioka <[email protected]>
Subject: July 13, 2026 - Support for Title 13 Zoning Code Amendments (PCTY-26-0001) - Item PH-2 Dear Chair Harlan and Commissioners,
I want to express our appreciation for staff's work to update Costa Mesa's zoning framework and our general support for the proposed updates to Title 13.
We support efforts to streamline the development process. Clearer classifications and definitions reduce uncertainty for property owners and tenants, improve consistency and efficiency in review, and make it easier to reinvest in and modernize existing properties-the kind of responsible, well-managed growth that benefits the broader community.
We defer to staff's expertise on the specific standards and thresholds and appreciate the balance between flexibility and the City's long-standing planning and compatibility objectives.
We're glad to remain a constructive resource as this moves forward. -7-
Thank you for your consideration.
Best always,
George
George M.K. Sakioka
Sakioka Company, LLC
14850 SunflowerAvenue
Santa Ana, CA 92707
714-545-8611
qmks(a)sakioka.com
@ SAKIOKA COMPANY
NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALIIY: The information contained in this communication (and any attachments) is intended solely for the use of tlie individual or entity to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential or legally privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, yorir disclosure, copying, distribution or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately, then delete this communication and any attachment.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attacbments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicioris activities to the Information Technology Department. -8-