[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-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",[32,75,87],{"_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",6522581,"mediaKeyId","5070590-2fa94b2fd5eac835f5d2f7687f5f7df3","parentId",5070590,"title","Commission hears proposed 2025 zoning code updates; staff to return with public hearing draft","audioSeconds",2266,"startMs",13038000,"endMs",15304000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5070590-2fa94b2fd5eac835f5d2f7687f5f7df3&start=13038&end=15304","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5070590-2fa94b2fd5eac835f5d2f7687f5f7df3/thumbnail_13038000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6522581/Costa-Mesa/Orange-County/California/Commission-hears-proposed-2025-zoning-code-updates-staff-to-return-with-public-hearing-draft","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6522581-a9af0b4da43b74e758d9b2fcd4e7e24f/orig.mp4?Expires=1770448446&Signature=Nw-4i3~XRaUGOjIkx7wBopA4RqNl-eXXlwl4cuwOx0DY~IXENKCU7f2qsNY5Yes4hSBQIShp0~RjCCq3v4-DYHMVGyJSI~O78aNVjez9pnidT--pmTa0IMb5v4zMbmxsPc~GlB0wwfdWnTPbZoYVyCuEvTjAT6OWXCInNQxbbmFmggnu1lfm6YbkuBZYx-7up~lCLLRyV-TGsR5hd-fUsgnN-4CXWXNVZHb6qK1KNTTaDvKvBci6yrP2IxXu3vmBpeYBXbmZD-Vvg6xBB-05m96lKlcsnYWrZxmi7kLEedjdLF4qywNoNsybpqAvGKVlCCv28n~Gnl2ti-aSyzX~nA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Costa Mesa","date","2025-06-24T05:34:03Z","article","Costa Mesa planning staff on June 23 presented a study session on a package of technical zoning code updates and codifications intended to clarify frequently used zoning‑administrator determinations and to align several provisions with current state law.

Assistant planners Caitlin Curley and Froylan Garcia described the package (PCTY‑25‑0001) as focused on technical clarifications rather than new policy. The proposed changes include codifying existing zoning administrator determinations for: walls, fences and landscaping standards; definitions and parking rates for individual and group counseling uses; exterior piping and conduit treatments; screening requirements for ground‑mounted antenna support elements and equipment; and updates related to implementation of Senate Bill 9. Staff also proposed revisions to ADU/JADU provisions to address two minor HCD comments and planned an updated shared‑parking analysis tool with more current demand data.

On walls and fences, staff said the package would consolidate existing local standards into the zoning code and would modestly increase the maximum permitted front‑yard fence height in certain narrow conditions while narrowing the ability to seek deviations in the same locations. Vice Chair Zick raised a constituent concern about codifying a 6‑foot wall allowance near front setbacks; staff explained the change reflects current practice and noted it could produce nonconforming situations for existing walls if changed. Commissioners asked staff to return with clarifying language and to identify the policy tradeoffs; staff said the proposal was intentionally technical and that broader policy shifts could be considered in a later code update.

Other specifics presented:
• Pipes and conduits — new language would discourage locating new pipes and conduits on building exteriors and allow existing exposures to be painted to match adjacent facades.
• Group and individual counseling — staff proposed adding individual counseling to the use matrix and establishing parking ratios (4 spaces per 1,000 square feet for individual counseling; 10 spaces per 1,000 for group counseling) to reduce ambiguity for small operators.
• Ground‑mounted mechanical and antenna equipment — proposed standards would require screening where visible off‑site but acknowledge state and federal preemption where screening is infeasible.
• SB 9 — staff proposes to codify the city’s SB 9 urgency ordinance so the code reflects state law, clarify that an urban lot split allows up to four total units as state law permits, and add clarity about driveways and garage spaces per resultant lot.
• ADU clarifications — staff noted two minor clarifications requested by HCD following the city’s recent ADU ordinance update: (1) ADUs and JADUs alone do not trigger a sprinkler requirement for the main residence; (2) objective limits on exterior stairways (no exterior stair on a front façade within 20 feet of the front or street‑side property line).
• Raised decks — staff proposed requiring raised decks more than 18 inches above finished grade to meet main‑structure setback requirements to address privacy concerns.
• Shared parking update — an updated Excel‑based shared‑parking demand tool with current data and additional uses to reduce the need for parking deviations.

The Planning Commission asked technical follow‑up questions and requested additional detail on several items. Commissioners asked staff for a list of uncodified zoning administrator determinations that remain in use and asked staff to clarify the impact of the proposed changes on existing nonconforming walls and fences. Several commissioners urged caution before rolling local interpretations into the written code when doing so would require major policy decisions. Commissioner Martinez asked staff to provide a list of additional technical code items the commission might consider in future updates.

No members of the public called or signed up to speak on the zoning code amendments during the study session; staff said the item will return in July or August for a formal recommendation and then to City Council in September or October for adoption hearings.

Action
• Motion to receive and file the zoning code amendment study session materials — Motion: Commissioner Martinez; Second: Commissioner Dixon; Vote: 7‑0.

Next steps
• Staff expects to return with a public hearing draft in July/August and to schedule City Council hearings in September/October; staff said they will provide additional documentation and respond to commissioner requests (including a list of remaining uncodified zoning administrator determinations and clarifications requested for walls/fences and SB 9 issues).","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Costa Mesa Planning Commission Meeting June 23, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Costa Mesa planning staff on June 23 presented a study session on a package of technical zoning code updates aimed at codifying common zoning‑administrator determinations and aligning local rules with state law.","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},6522586,"Public debate grows over Fairview Development Center plan as commission seeks preferred land‑use approach",10061,2252000,12313000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5070590-2fa94b2fd5eac835f5d2f7687f5f7df3&start=2252&end=12313","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5070590-2fa94b2fd5eac835f5d2f7687f5f7df3/thumbnail_2252000.jpg","/articles/6522586/Costa-Mesa/Orange-County/California/Public-debate-grows-over-Fairview-Development-Center-plan-as-commission-seeks-preferred-landuse-approach","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6522586-70aea2784b32960ce8fa5fcf0b1d2b56/orig.mp4?Expires=1770448446&Signature=VlsmA4G~~sVhEnv0WbDjHFIXDSi8qgYeYHIp7F2kZWj1sPX5KrxYhocLLYxyYumtOZOpLgrvaCu-oLXCpCr7f9~A6Zdcwm3iE-~-qlWmcOQbbnKgjO2KMB1lvyT5ZWB3BsdOsF9UN81L3qwBzZUdx7YoS-Ry2pZrbH~Qw4ME9Povz2b-AA9pZzLjIcMl77vG006Jpbg3-uo5re0xpMRoWO-RXiQ43GVEawtQpRUEKCp9nZZCTRtxBeQZfxj3OZBaQ1jomHwbQHBbB3Dlu5jkgEOX6YgvIect~Dl-mEwsrf~NcqKncaFbg3YmYoZXcUgeIkGslNA3oJt3CxWYQiO~ag__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","City planners and residents on June 23 debated the future of the 95‑acre Fairview Development Center (FDC) site as staff sought Planning Commission input on a preferred land‑use plan and the financial analysis underpinning it.

Staff described the city’s role — leading the land‑use planning, financial feasibility study and the environmental review — while the state will remain the landowner and select a master developer to implement the final specific plan. The presentation summarized outreach to hundreds of residents, three land‑use concepts that were tested for financial feasibility and the ways state density‑bonus law could affect the total number of units a developer may propose.

The city’s consultant and staff said they tested three concepts: a 2,300‑unit scenario (the figure used in the city’s housing element), a scenario accounting for state density‑bonus allowances, and a high‑capacity 4,000‑unit scenario that reflects physical development capacity on the site. Staff explained the financial feasibility analysis to estimate what a future master developer could reasonably submit and said a feasible development range likely falls between roughly 2,300 and about 3,500–3,800 units depending on assumptions about affordability and density bonuses.

The commission and an audience of many residents raised several recurring concerns. Dozens of residents urged the city to safeguard the Coastie golf courses, to designate significant publicly accessible athletic fields and active open space for youth sports, and to avoid making the future neighborhood an isolated “island” cut off from the rest of the city. Speakers asked the commission to prioritize utility fields and lit fields, to require that open space be built in early phases, and to avoid routing a secondary access road across the Mesa Linda golf course unless necessary. Several commenters called for a land‑swap approach that would shift development frontage to Harbor Boulevard and preserve the golf course more intact.

Commissioners focused questions on key tradeoffs: how many units would trigger the need for a second access road; how state density bonus law (which can increase housing yield through concessions and waivers) changes the feasible unit count; and whether the city can write minimum affordable‑housing percentages and minimum open‑space/field acreage into a specific plan. Staff said that under state density bonus law a master developer could request concessions and waivers that may require the city to demonstrate health and safety reasons to deny them; staff cautioned that some denials are difficult under state law. Staff also confirmed that current agreements and state agency plans expect the Department of Developmental Services (DDS) to build housing for its clients on part of the site and to retain certain facilities, including an Emergency Operations Center (EOC) and state housing.

Public safety and circulation questions dominated some discussion. Commissioners asked whether the existing single access off Fair Drive could support a given unit count; staff said the primary single access is adequate for the 2,300‑unit baseline but that any build‑out above that threshold would require a second access. Residents proposed alternate routes and asked staff to study connections other than a road across the golf course. Staff said Shelley Circle construction, including a portion adjacent to the golf course, is already moving forward for the EOC area and that additional design work on a potential secondary access is ongoing.

Several residents urged the city to require specific guarantees in the specific plan rather than leaving items to negotiation with a future master developer. Suggestions included a written minimum number of affordable units (some speakers recommended embedding the housing element’s 40% low/very‑low target into the specific plan), phase‑for‑phase requirements that would require open space and athletic fields to be built in early phases, and explicit language protecting the golf course. Staff said the city could include minimums for affordable units and minimum amounts and types of open space in the specific plan draft and will continue to refine tradeoffs before returning to the commission.

At the end of the session the commission voted 7‑0 to “receive and file” the study session materials and asked staff to return in July with a recommended preferred land‑use plan to advance to city council. Staff said drafting of the specific plan has already begun and an environmental review (EIR) would follow once a preferred plan and project description are confirmed. Staff is discussing an extension with state partners to allow more time for detailed work on the plan and outreach.

What happened (actions)
• Planning Commission motion to \"receive and file\" the Fairview Development Center study session materials — Motion: Vice Chair Zick; Second: Commissioner Dixon; Vote: 7‑0.

What’s next
• Staff plans to return in July with a recommended preferred land‑use plan for Planning Commission review, then to seek City Council action on a preferred plan before issuing a Notice of Preparation to start the environmental review process. Staff said it is pursuing a schedule extension with the state to allow additional public outreach and technical work.

Key documents and terms mentioned in the meeting
• Financial feasibility analysis (city‑commissioned) — tested 2,300 units, a density‑bonus scenario, and a 4,000‑unit capacity scenario.
• State density bonus law — may allow a master developer to seek concessions or waivers that could increase the unit count beyond baseline plan limits; the commission discussed the practical implications of density bonus eligibility.
• Department of Developmental Services (DDS) and Emergency Operations Center (EOC) — state‑led site elements already planned on part of the site; the EOC construction and Shelley Circle roadway work were described as in active preparation.

Community concerns recorded in the hearing
• Strong public interest in preserving the Costa Mesa golf courses and avoiding routing a major new access road across the Mesa Linda golf course.
• Requests for minimum acreage of active athletic fields (utility fields, lit fields) and for field construction to be phased early in the project build‑out.
• Requests to enshrine affordability minimums in the specific plan and not defer them to a developer negotiation.","City planners and residents on June 23 debated the future of the 95‑acre Fairview Development Center site as staff sought Planning Commission input on a preferred land‑use plan and the financial analysis underpinning it.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6522591,"Planning Commission approves two‑lot small‑lot subdivision at 2280 Eldeen Avenue",1550,665000,2215000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5070590-2fa94b2fd5eac835f5d2f7687f5f7df3&start=665&end=2215","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5070590-2fa94b2fd5eac835f5d2f7687f5f7df3/thumbnail_665000.jpg","/articles/6522591/Costa-Mesa/Orange-County/California/Planning-Commission-approves-twolot-smalllot-subdivision-at-2280-Eldeen-Avenue","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6522591-639ec00888e84e91b677b32d66490e2b/orig.mp4?Expires=1770448446&Signature=euZe3W1hLFEKfWgrYn4T2uH-WXgR9PoUBI6-k85bDLT3R-Xt6HcucQ3rr4OEddpMU~j2CNxQO6OF0TGWzCwgRYGBggrzu8YnIiXY0aHM85tsar~ga02ume1tXEXJy2jiAGMfYU41sUnKVS2xynampAb4E5~nyrx~JI-d4MUWcaKtL~sTwk3KejoQ-tsqyqFwNTpzhTGUTMluKY9jXgKAf~U7Dlo8HagEj8BKczPcAiTouVAMk1ChAkiHCkr~YpsRztC~49uiUm46JDPz-M5lgXV5w2H4NC9yKNi-8Bg4CgYfCOBetF8OfjfCzfW-OfELU2joHX2QKEopscb~k4whdw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Costa Mesa Planning Commission on Monday approved a design review and tentative parcel map to divide 2280 Eldeen Avenue into two small‑lot parcels and build two detached two‑story single‑family homes.

The commission voted 7‑0 to adopt findings and approve Planning Application PDES‑24‑0013 and Tentative Parcel Map 2024‑156, with conditions of approval and a determination that the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under CEQA Guidelines §§15315 and 15303.

Staff presented the proposal as a small‑lot subdivision on an approximately 6,470‑square‑foot lot on the southeast corner of Eldeen Avenue and Albert Place that would replace two existing single‑story homes and their one‑car garages. The applicant proposed two new three‑bedroom, two‑bathroom detached homes, each with an attached two‑car garage and two driveway parking spaces. Assistant planner Jeffrey Armando said the project meets the R‑2MD zoning and the city’s residential design guidelines and provides about 49% open space for the overall lot, above the 35% minimum required by code.

The commission asked about several technical items, including the maintenance agreement that governs shared areas between the two parcels, required sidewalk and curb ramp work close to a fire hydrant, and whether a red curb would be applied. Staff said the California Vehicle Code (as cited to commission) prohibits parking within 15 feet of a fire hydrant regardless of whether the curb is painted and that Transportation Division staff did not require a red curb in this instance. Commissioners also asked about trash bin access and whether the three collection bins shown could be maneuvered; architect David Delatoso said the site plans were illustrative and that bins could likely be rotated or rearranged, and the final plan would be reviewed at building permit plan check.

Public comment on the item was limited; no one spoke in chambers or by phone or Zoom on the project. The applicant’s representative, Corley Newman of Government Solutions Inc., and architect David Delatoso were present and noted they had worked with staff on revisions to conditions of approval. Owner‑developer Madison Walker also attended.

Commissioners cited several positive features in their approval remarks: the project’s conformity with the small‑lot ordinance, variety in building materials and articulation to avoid “boxy” façades, the inclusion of sidewalks and curb ramps where none exist today, and the fact that the units provide for for‑sale housing stock. Vice Chair Zick and other commissioners praised the project’s attention to open space and garage parking.

The commission’s approval included the set of written conditions of approval that staff revised after discussions with the applicant; staff said the final landscape plan will be reviewed during building permit plan check and must comply with the Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance. The chair noted the decision is final unless appealed to the City Council within seven days.

Votes at a glance
• Motion to approve PDES‑24‑0013 and Tentative Parcel Map 2024‑156 (design review for a two‑lot small‑lot subdivision and two new detached homes) — Motion: Commissioner Dixon; Second: Commissioner Martinez; Vote: 7‑0 (approved).","The Costa Mesa Planning Commission on June 23 approved design review PDES‑24‑0013 and tentative parcel map 2024‑156 to subdivide 2280 Eldeen Avenue into two small‑lot parcels and build two detached two‑story homes, finding the project CEQA‑exempt and subject to conditions.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Commission hears proposed 2025 zoning code updates; staff to return with public hearing draft

Public debate grows over Fairview Development Center plan as commission seeks preferred land‑use approach

Planning Commission approves two‑lot small‑lot subdivision at 2280 Eldeen Avenue