Costa Mesa Planning Commission forwards housing-element rezoning and code changes to council, adds Segerstrom exception
Loading...
Summary
The Planning Commission voted 6-1 to recommend City Council adopt zoning-code amendments that rezone designated housing-element sites to a mixed-use overlay (requiring at least 50% residential and a minimum of 20 units per acre), find the rezoning exempt under SB 131 (PRC 21080.85(a)), and directed staff to review North Costa Mesa consistency; commissioners also added an exception for properties identified by Segerstrom.
The Costa Mesa Planning Commission voted 6-1 on Feb. 9 to recommend the City Council adopt zoning-code amendments to implement the cityhousing element, rezone identified housing-element opportunity sites to a Mixed Use Overlay District and to amend the North Costa Mesa specific plan for consistency.
Senior Planner Michelle Halligan told the commission the draft Mixed Use Overlay District (MUOD) will function as base zoning on housing-element sites and require at least 50% residential use at a minimum density of 20 dwelling units per acre. Halligan described a package of code changes that also updates definitions, streamlines planning application processing, reduces certain residential parking requirements to align with state law, and revises group-home and emergency-shelter regulations. Staff recommended the commission find the rezoning statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under Public Resources Code section 21080.85(a) (SB 131) and forward ordinances and a specific-plan amendment to council.
The commission debated details for more than two hours. Commissioners pressed staff on outreach to property owners, how MUOD interacts with existing specific plans, and whether the package removes public notice or design review in ways that reduce transparency. Staff said property owners received mailers in December and follow-up public notices and e-blasts, that the city is coordinating closely with the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), and that a programmatic EIR remains on the November timeline even though SB 131 allows rezoning actions to be statutorily exempt.
Several public commenters objected to aspects of the proposal. Justin McCusker, representing CJ Sagerstrom & Sons and South Coast Plaza, and lawyers for Segerstrom Companies submitted letters asking that Segerstrom properties be removed from the housing-element list because the recent Redondo Beach litigation altered how overlays are treated. Disability Rights California (Autumn Elliott) urged additional work on reasonable-accommodation language to ensure compliance with fair-housing obligations. Several residents and neighborhood speakers said the packet lacked clear visual examples, raised concerns about park, traffic and service impacts, and criticized narrower noticing radii for some ministerial approvals.
Chair Harlan made a motion to forward staffrecommendations to council, including the CEQA-exemption finding and the MUOD and specific-plan amendments, and he added two recommendations: amend the zoning code to include the Segerstrom properties under the exception provision (referencing a Feb. 7, 2026 letter) and direct staff to conduct a consistency review for the North Costa Mesa specific plan prior to council consideration. Commissioner Dixon seconded the motion.
Commissioner Martinez offered a substitute motion with additional edits (trip budgets before ministerial review, explicit open-space flexibility, and parking-paragraph changes) but the substitute failed on a 3-4 voice vote. The original motion passed on roll call 6-1 (Chair Harlan, Commissioners Rojas, Klipak, Andrade, Dixon and Martinez voting yes; Vice Chair Zick voting no). The item will go to City Council on March 17, 2026 with staff-directed follow-up on the North Costa Mesa consistency issues and with Segerstromexception language included in the materials.
What was decided: the Planning Commission recommended the council adopt the zoning-code amendments and the North Costa Mesa specific-plan amendment, found the rezoning eligible for the SB 131 CEQA exemption, and asked staff to pursue the Segerstrom exception and additional consistency changes. What remains: City Council consideration on March 17, completion of objective design standards on the November timeline, further outreach and technical corrections requested by property owners, and finalization of the programmatic EIR for measure-k sites.
Key factual points: - Staff recommended applying the MUOD to designated housing-element sites with at least 50% residential uses and minimum density of 20 units/acre. - SB 131 (Public Resources Code section 21080.85(a)) was cited as the basis for a statutory CEQA exemption for rezoning of housing-element sites; staff nonetheless is continuing a programmatic EIR on the original schedule. - By-right ministerial approvals will apply for qualifying housing-element projects that meet objective MUOD standards (staff said such projects would be processed ministerially and not be subject to CEQA). Site noticing on the property and a public-facing GIS mapping tool are planned. - The Planning Commission added a targeted exception to the code for properties identified in the Segerstrom letter (Feb. 7, 2026) and directed staff to check North Costa Mesa specific-plan consistency.
The Planning Commissionrecord includes detailed written comments from developers and disability-rights advocates that staff will address before the March 17 council hearing. The commissionvote sends the package to council with the direction that staff bring back technical edits and consistency changes in response to public comment.
