[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6545627,"mediaKeyId","3527206-d344a098d5c3942e26b1c900186d6ee0","parentId",3527206,"title","Planning commission studies 1,050‑unit “Hive Live” proposal at 3333 Susan St.; public hearing set for June 9","audioSeconds",6123,"startMs",1443000,"endMs",7566000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3527206-d344a098d5c3942e26b1c900186d6ee0&start=1443&end=7566","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3527206-d344a098d5c3942e26b1c900186d6ee0/thumbnail_1443000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6545627/Costa-Mesa/Orange-County/California/Planning-commission-studies-1050unit-Hive-Live-proposal-at-3333-Susan-St-public-hearing-set-for-June-9","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6545627-77a1d61dfd1426c954c5ffc333098301/orig.mp4?Expires=1771198869&Signature=l7X7SPeZHlKMTn15Zmm3Qvc7DI~rLZocRs98oGCBw53ZKPRvAG~lbAVpb9-mYMBtMQ45W8quyh6qY-9uYfRxjzAZHUjc7i6RHVGRMb1y2tO~6VWLz1Qn0-0Vs4aXZt6ASZbb8aNlbe-qmaZh~K21h1DOon~ORv8cNxiflSw9tgaHbTOOb-KrWFGMJqb1zfz4b4ADI1gAQR5L~VYXgYIHU3Sfn6TnDHAcnHdeNMxl53isBlQVFDsdA89GKgnZaHYsgnCx-pXGMzRqf7HQm2v0pTRA01tyZdvf3u7Jc1Es3qElgPr2Bd9rxyNrqkMwQNYSwU2n0tGlSG-LGI0M7Q1V2A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Costa Mesa","date","2025-05-27T00:00:00Z","article","Planning commissioners on Tuesday heard a study‑session presentation about Hive Live, a proposed three‑phase residential development at 3333 Susan Street that would replace the existing HIVE creative office campus and the former LA Chargers training facility.

The project team and City staff described a proposed 1,050‑unit development with three five‑story buildings, a small retail component and an environmental impact report (EIR) underway. Senior Planner Chris Yeager told commissioners the application package includes a general plan amendment (industrial park to a mix of urban center commercial and high‑density residential), a zone change, a North Costa Mesa specific‑plan amendment, a tentative parcel map to enable phasing, a density‑bonus agreement and a request for a development agreement. Yeager said the draft fiscal analysis prepared by RSG Inc. and reviewed by the city projected a net revenue to the city of roughly $347,000 over a 28‑year forecast period after build‑out.

Why it matters: the site is inside the area covered by the North Costa Mesa specific plan and Measure K; the application would permit the conversion of an office/industrial campus to a high‑density residential center adjacent to the rail trail and IKEA Costa Mesa. Staff characterized the evening as a study session and noted a full public hearing and more detailed materials will return to the Planning Commission on June 9, followed by Airport Land Use Commission and City Council hearings if the project proceeds.

What staff and the applicant described

- Program and phasing: Yeager summarized the master plan’s three phases (identified as Innovator, Explorer and Eco‑enthusiast). Phase 1: 315 units, 3,692 square feet of retail and 538 parking spaces (5 stories; max height 73 ft. 3 in.). Phase 2: 346 units and 572 parking spaces (5 stories; max height 77 ft. 6 in.). Phase 3: 389 units and 643 parking spaces (5 stories; max height ~77 ft.6 in., stepped down to 4 floors where the project faces single‑family homes on Susan Street). Total proposed parking: about 1,756 spaces (roughly 1.65 spaces per unit). Yeager said the applicant provided a parking study by LLG and a traffic and circulation analysis; the traffic work found no significant impacts to signalized intersections and modeled the project’s trips for 2028 build‑out.

- Affordable housing and density bonus: the applicant requests a density bonus; Yeager said the project includes a minimum 10 percent affordable income units (which staff described as 105 low‑income units to be preserved for 55 years) and therefore receives a 20 percent density bonus. Staff said the project does not match the exact mix set out in the City’s housing element (which shows a different distribution of very low, low and moderate units for the site) and that the City would make a “no net loss” finding because the housing‑element buffers remain adequate for some categories.

- Public realm and open space: the master plan shows paseos and a publicly accessible plaza in the southeast corner that would be open during business hours, a pedestrian paseo connecting to the rail trail, wrapped parking garages with residential units around them, and more than 300,000 square feet of combined public and private open space (paseos, landscaped perimeters, plaza, and residential amenities).

- Entitlements and timelines: staff said development‑agreement negotiations are ongoing and the DA terms will be presented as bullet points at the public hearing; any final DA would be adopted later by City Council. Yeager also said the draft EIR concluded project impacts can be mitigated to less‑than‑significant levels for topics such as air quality, biological and cultural resources and transportation; a final EIR will be released after public comments and further study.

What commissioners and the public focused on

Commissioners pressed staff and the applicant on parking design (waivers for compact stalls and vertical obstructions), the relationship between the proposed parking supply and trip generation, the housing‑element unit counts and the distribution of affordability, parcel zoning choices (why the southern parcel is proposed as a commercial planned‑development district while the northern parcels are planned residential), inclusion of density‑bonus concessions in the specific‑plan language, and the status and likely timing of the development agreement.

During public comment several residents expressed concern about traffic, the amount and timing of affordable housing, and restricted hours and access at the rail trail adjacent to the site. Multiple speakers urged more publicly accessible open space and questioned whether the project delivers community benefits commensurate with its scale.

Formal action

After discussion the commission voted 7–0 to receive and file the study‑session presentation and set the matter for a public hearing on June 9. Motion by Commissioner Martinez; second by Commissioner Dixon. The public hearing will include the applicant’s materials, the DA terms (as available) and the City’s EIR materials.

Where it goes from here

Staff said the project will return to the Planning Commission on June 9 as a public hearing item; a conformity determination from the Airport Land Use Commission is scheduled for June 19; City Council hearings would follow. Staff and the applicant repeatedly told the commission the DA negotiations are “ongoing” and that they expect to supply the Planning Commission with DA terms before the public hearing.

Ending note: the presentation generated extended technical and policy questions from commissioners and a mix of supportive and critical public comments. Commissioners asked for additional materials (final parking and traffic reports, clarified housing counts and DA bullet points) to arrive with the public‑hearing packet so they can review details before the June 9 hearing.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Costa Mesa Planning Commission Meeting May 27, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Planning commissioners on Tuesday heard a study‑session presentation about Hive Live, a proposed three‑phase residential development at 3333 Susan Street that would replace the HIVE creative campus and the former LA Chargers training facility.","taxTitle","Costa Mesa, Orange County, California","taxId",3682,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6545622,"Planning commission reviews Fairview Developmental Center specific‑plan concepts; staff proposes 600–800‑unit preferred band and recommends minimum public‑open‑",2452,8202000,10654000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3527206-d344a098d5c3942e26b1c900186d6ee0&start=8202&end=10654","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3527206-d344a098d5c3942e26b1c900186d6ee0/thumbnail_8202000.jpg","/articles/6545622/Costa-Mesa/Orange-County/California/Planning-commission-reviews-Fairview-Developmental-Center-specificplan-concepts-staff-proposes-600800unit-preferred-band-and-recommends-minimum-publicopen","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6545622-fdab245b0926ebaf0ae5e3e083ae2634/orig.mp4?Expires=1771198869&Signature=kAnsrARnUZes3OFzwOM8JSMHO75~ivP0Scl5RhcoKj0QZdTYg-WdavORbUooOyzzSOR76-RIXRtVC57csYUNrryVaOPWrkIWdi4bZSDVs42hkA4XnFFn0U3fM-3U76qh03Jl6bhZJJfgNFrNqD5of23XkBQbDzhpAeMdhPOhfAvNq271~sNmAftJh~gFu0VyAV4kExmXkPDbzUUk-HdEGR0mJHBYk5pQkVMUT7n22KCKylBBjdK2PDA~Rl~3XkZMzll0BfaTkVtKWmhgCzcRuzwxadh38gKpBDYI3swS-tPJG3WjwOv1eLuxLAqSK73IFMpoc9zFKk5ctcTWTUblxw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Staff and consultants on Tuesday presented updated land‑use concepts for the Fairview Developmental Center (FDC) redevelopment area and sought Planning Commission input on a preferred development band and the components to carry forward into a specific plan and environmental review.

What staff presented

Planning Manager Anna McGill and consultant team PlaceWorks outlined three illustrative land‑use concepts that tested different tradeoffs among housing capacity, publicly accessible open space and infrastructure cost. The presentation and supporting analysis incorporated input from the state agencies that control parts of the site: the California Department of General Services (DGS) — which oversees disposition of the property and the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) parcel — and the Department of Developmental Services (DDS), which will continue to operate and provide housing for some of its clients on parts of the campus.

Key points staff reported

- Project footprint and state‑controlled parcels: staff said approximately 80 acres of the site are under active planning consideration after accounting for the EOC (DGS‑selected, about 15 acres) and portions the state will retain or lease for DDS uses (including a roughly 5‑acre complex‑needs housing area within Harper Village). DDS has indicated a preference to consolidate some of its housing needs on the site adjacent to existing Harbor Village rather than the previously discussed “Shannon’s Mountain” parcel.

- Three concepts tested: the concepts ranged from a lower‑unit, more open‑space plan (concept 1, ~2,300 units as a city/housing element base) to higher‑capacity plans (concepts 2 and 3, up to 3,450–4,000 units). Concept 2 emphasized larger contiguous fields and parks (roughly 18 acres of public open space in staff’s testing), while concepts 1 and 3 used more distributed parks and paseos.

- Financial feasibility: PlaceWorks and consultants presented a developer‑level pro forma and infrastructure cost model. The analysis concluded concept 1 (lower density, more open space under the tested assumptions) was not financially feasible for a master developer as modeled (a large shortfall relative to required returns). Concept 2 produced a near‑feasible internal rate of return (approximately 14.6 percent under the study assumptions). Concept 3 (the highest unit count with least open space) reached a modeled developer return in the range consultants judged workable (approximately 16.7 percent). Staff said these results suggested a financially plausible band lies between concepts 2 and 3; staff recommended evaluating a preferred range of roughly 600–800 dwelling units per the specific‑plan approach (this is staff’s recommended banding for public‑plan policy consideration, not an entitlement).

- Infrastructure and phasing: the master developer would likely undertake site‑wide demolition, abatement and grading, then install primary utilities (water, sewer, storm drain, power). Consultants estimated multi‑hundred million‑dollar infrastructure and construction costs; schedules in consultant workstreams ranged from roughly 10 to 18 years depending on total unit count and phasing assumptions.

- Open space and public access: staff proposed a minimum of 10–12 acres of publicly accessible open space distributed across the site (paseos, plazas, parks) while accommodating DDS program needs and the EOC parcel. The commission and members of the public asked whether more open space could be achieved by alternative strategies (for example, a land swap with the golf course), but staff said the state had declined to pursue a swap at this time and also noted deed restrictions and lease arrangements that constrain some golf‑course parcels.

- State coordination and constraints: staff described ongoing coordination with DGS and DDS; Turner Construction has been selected for the EOC work and has begun site preparations. DDS clarified it expects to retain or directly control certain access drives (for example, Merrimack Way/Harbor Village access) to maintain security for its group homes; that will shape where the specific plan can place public streets and two‑way access for the new neighborhood.

What commissioners and public asked

Commissioners probed the housing counts, the model assumptions in the feasibility analysis (cost per hole for golf course reconfiguration, park construction costs, off‑site improvements), circulation and second‑access alignments across the golf course, and how a master developer procurement (request for bids) process would work in practice. Multiple speakers from the public urged more open space and stronger local control (some asked the city to seek legislative or political help in Sacramento to limit state control over the site).

Formal action and next steps

After the presentation and public comment, the Planning Commission voted to receive and file the study‑session materials and asked staff to return June 9 with a refined preferred land‑use concept, a draft vision and guiding principles, and answers to outstanding questions. Motion to receive and file: Commissioner Martinez; second Commissioner Dixon. Vote: 7–0.

Staff said that, if Planning Commission and City Council schedules permit, the city would release a Notice of Preparation for an EIR in August 2025 and proceed with the specific‑plan drafting and environmental review after City Council adopts a preferred land‑use concept. Staff advised the commission that substantial questions remain about infrastructure costs, the precise alignment and width of a required secondary access road through the golf course, and how to ensure the affordable housing portion can be financed given parking and structure costs.

Ending note: commissioners asked for more detail on circulation cross‑sections, distributed mixed‑use or ground‑floor retail concepts, a clearer list of permitted uses and development standards (fixed vs. flexible), and a clearer exposition of financial‑feasibility assumptions ahead of the June 9 meeting.","Staff and consultants presented three illustrative land‑use concepts for the Fairview Developmental Center (FDC) site and sought commissioner input on a preferred range of components to carry forward into the specific plan and accompanying environmental review.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Planning commission studies 1,050‑unit “Hive Live” proposal at 3333 Susan St.; public hearing set for June 9

Planning commission reviews Fairview Developmental Center specific‑plan concepts; staff proposes 600–800‑unit preferred band and recommends minimum public‑open‑