[{"_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",6586070,"mediaKeyId","5561666-62154342a584560cc01af6c23a726e44","parentId",5561666,"title","Planning Commission approves two‑unit small‑lot subdivision at 2308 Santa Ana Avenue","audioSeconds",4739,"startMs",1149000,"endMs",5888000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5561666-62154342a584560cc01af6c23a726e44&start=1149&end=5888","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5561666-62154342a584560cc01af6c23a726e44/thumbnail_1149000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6586070/Costa-Mesa/Orange-County/California/Planning-Commission-approves-twounit-smalllot-subdivision-at-2308-Santa-Ana-Avenue","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6586070-37194a074dc78b6974d4eee540622a8b/orig.mp4?Expires=1773027240&Signature=O6E4CSm3LPUtI8ezozhRyBzKn~N2Qz1xHb7L~l8TGvWYSftAcNyOssvEuyB5Pcq2QhK-X1jT32SCOZ3Hd-ATVk4ynEJUPXQnYZEkBGgSWK5oaX3cBRoaNDK-yAJnarwO3PHX3jJ-btRe7MzsmW-wYkQM2obqH2Jyv6Yb~spYAAeQz2rUcHxLBrCWFOEA-U1rXCGsPay-Gi2NYQek~NBBXHsttQDiJM0YPhKw1RUmB93YPFpwfHlWI1hLQ3JcgODEZxsi2hkOcBN7ZkS3lZqdYXIda7Qfhn-QPSB8kIYJsBi-PHwuzEYc8jdI4lnsXlubgsJO7xtkWLPrxSL9~109hQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Costa Mesa","date","2025-08-12T00:38:57Z","article","The Costa Mesa Planning Commission on Monday, Aug. 11, approved design review PA‑23‑14 and tentative parcel map 2023‑117 to subdivide 2308 Santa Ana Avenue into two parcels and construct two two‑story detached single‑family homes, voting 7‑0 to adopt the resolution finding the project exempt from CEQA and approving the entitlements.

The commission’s action implements staff recommendations and a set of conditions of approval that include requirements for on‑site sprinklers, rooftop solar installed prior to final building inspection, driveway surfacing, a traffic impact fee and stormwater controls. The approval followed public testimony raising concerns about notice timing, potential second‑story privacy impacts, drainage and the applicant’s use of palm trees in the landscape plan.

Staff presentation and project details

Caitlin Curley, assistant planner, told the commission the application proposes a small‑lot residential subdivision on an existing 9,450‑square‑foot parcel at the southeast corner of Santa Ana Avenue and 20th/Third Street. The tentative parcel map would create two lots and two two‑story residences; Parcel 1 is described as 2,623 square feet of living area with a 430‑square‑foot attached garage and Parcel 2 is 3,031 square feet of living area with a 427‑square‑foot attached garage. Curley said the proposed building heights measured from finished grade are 26 feet 5 inches for Unit 1 and 26.5 feet for Unit 2.

Curley advised the commission that staff recommends finding the project categorically exempt from CEQA under Guidelines section 15315 (minor divisions of land) and section 15303 (new construction of small structures), and that staff corrected an item in the draft resolution to state the project is subject to a traffic impact fee because it increases the number of units from one to two. She also noted the project complies with municipal parking requirements (four required spaces: two garage and two open per unit) and that condition of approval 14 requires driveways and parking areas be finished with decorative stamped concrete or pervious pavers.

Conditions and legal references

Key conditions noted by staff include:
- Condition 23: installation of a solar system prior to final building inspection (stated by staff to be consistent with the California building code).
- Condition 40: fire sprinklers in the homes, a requirement staff said is derived from the California Building Code (staff noted this requirement has been in effect since 02/2011).
- Condition 32: a storm runoff study/water quality management plan (WQMP) furnished with the final parcel map to ensure cross‑lot drainage will not occur and on‑site drainage will not exceed the capacity of adjacent facilities.
- Condition 3: second‑floor window design to minimize direct lines of sight into adjacent windows and to protect usable side and rear yard privacy; staff said a window placement study will be required prior to building permit issuance.
- Condition 41: traffic impact fee because the project adds a unit.

Staff also cited CEQA exemptions (Guidelines §§15315 and 15303) and discussed state law limits on replacement of occupied units, referencing the Housing Accountability Act (as discussed in the hearing). The project was reviewed by Public Works for grading and drainage; staff said the grading and drainage plans show on‑site drainage measures including a perforated storm drain pipe and curb and gutter elements to limit cross‑lot flow.

Applicant and public comments

Ali Sedgy, the applicant’s representative, said the property was purchased three years earlier and that the design team (Mark Gross & Associates) had produced coastal‑modern homes meant to fit the Eastside character. “I believe this project will be a tremendous improvement to the city of Costa Mesa and its community,” Sedgy said, and described revisions the team made for privacy and plan completeness.

Neighbors and other members of the public urged additional review time and raised technical and privacy concerns. Representative Alfonso Jimenez, speaking for owners of 320 Third Street, asked for a continuance and said the owners had been given limited time to review materials. Neighbor Dave Procik said the project materials were posted Thursday, Aug. 7 for a Monday hearing and said that, given his work schedule, he had limited time to review more than 100 pages; Procik and another neighbor said second‑story windows on Parcel 2 would look into bedrooms and private yards and asked that windows be eliminated or altered. Other commenters cited: possible historic flooding and sewer overflow at the site, the project’s timeline (applicant materials dated July 2023 but reviewed over roughly two years), concerns about light and equipment placement, and unease about the proposed use of 11 windmill palm trees for perimeter screening.

Staff responses and verification steps

Staff confirmed the public posting of materials on Thursday, Aug. 7, and said privacy exhibits and plans were included with the posted packet. Curley said building heights are measured from finished grade and will be verified during building plan check. Public Works staff confirmed they reviewed the grading and drainage plans; engineering discussion during the hearing pointed to sheet C‑3 (grading/drainage) and details showing a perforated storm drainage pipe and curb/retaining wall features intended to keep site runoff on parcel and route it to the street.

On the landscaping concerns, the applicant’s representative said palm choices reflected constraints near retaining walls, utilities and planting rooting zones; he said the project team would consider alternatives in response to commission direction.

Motion and vote

Commissioner Martinez moved to adopt a resolution finding the project exempt from CEQA (per Guidelines §§15315 and 15303 and Public Resources Code §21080.66) and to approve Parcel Map 2023‑117 and Design Review PA‑23‑14, with an amendment to the draft resolution’s section C. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Dixon. The commission approved the motion 7‑0 (Roll call: Chair Harlan, Vice Chair Zick, Commissioners Rojas, Klipak, Andrade, Dixon, Martinez). The chair noted the decision is final unless appealed to the City Council within seven days.

Why this matters

The approval creates two for‑sale homes on an existing large single lot in a medium‑density area of the Eastside, increasing the city’s housing supply by one unit. The hearing also highlighted recurring community concerns about short public notice windows for completed staff packets on complex applications, second‑story privacy impacts, and onsite drainage — items the commission and staff said would be addressed through conditions and the building permit review process.

Ending

The applicant was directed to continue coordination with staff on landscaping alternatives and drainage details during building plan check and final parcel map submittal. The commission closed the public hearing after the vote and recorded no appeals at the meeting.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Costa Mesa Planning Commission Meeting August 11, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Costa Mesa Planning Commission on Monday, Aug. 11, approved design review PA‑23‑14 and tentative parcel map 2023‑117 to subdivide 2308 Santa Ana Avenue into two parcels and build two two‑story detached homes, voting 7‑0.","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},6586065,"Planning Commission reviews 90‑item zoning code amendment list; asks staff to prioritize clarifications and state‑law alignment",3452,5905000,9357000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5561666-62154342a584560cc01af6c23a726e44&start=5905&end=9357","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5561666-62154342a584560cc01af6c23a726e44/thumbnail_5905000.jpg","/articles/6586065/Costa-Mesa/Orange-County/California/Planning-Commission-reviews-90item-zoning-code-amendment-list-asks-staff-to-prioritize-clarifications-and-statelaw-alignment","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6586065-88dc7538dc7924edf790376a2e6ff801/orig.mp4?Expires=1773027240&Signature=iZe~g2BBZvV8jUAZ3jyYMmeZQM4YyFOi2nDIef82M1CsbYINtYkJn-AGoK4UoV6iI0s-3ZoKt~hmBOq-VR00vP3JyNsQ2WtJ6X7Qt~BL2yo~fzXnBCeonasbg9uvreM7ryVaWeaJahMCgw9XXCN50vESouESbk5N8LQPTSafIRMtL-EJhM-OawdCl60gu842DY8QagsljhOwXfYACL93TXDI4wBy7JkmD1p4h5lwdfQlZRcpyRwXliIpf-hUutwa-wQIQ0wI0rqRP6el6~lqzouoFoXma1tGT19iEjdF7hU~qKRzWd0YG1ebb4cPRTrWBg9i3AP0cuddAUGuYfMTbA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","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.

","The Planning Commission on Aug. 11 received a staff briefing on about 90 proposed zoning code amendments and voted 7‑0 to receive and file the list, directing staff to return with a prioritized work plan that separates technical clarifications from policy changes.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Planning Commission approves two‑unit small‑lot subdivision at 2308 Santa Ana Avenue

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