Planning commission approves 18‑month extension for Pomona live/work project

The Costa Mesa Planning Commission on March 9 approved an 18‑month time extension for PA‑22‑30, a previously approved eight‑unit live/work development at 1711–1719 Pomona Avenue, after hearing staff and the applicant describe delays related to utility undergrounding and external utility review.

Senior planner Chris Yeager told the commission the director had already granted a 180‑day extension that expires March 17, 2026, but any extension longer than 180 days requires Planning Commission action. Yeager said the project is in plan check and is also awaiting Southern California Edison (SCE) review for undergrounding; staff recommended a two‑year extension and that the commission find the project exempt from CEQA under Guidelines section 15332 (infill development).

Commissioners questioned whether the applicant genuinely needed two years. Vice Chair Zick moved for a one‑year extension, and Commissioner Rhotenberry offered an 18‑month substitute motion, arguing, “It’s better to have and not need than need and not have.” Rhotenberry’s 18‑month substitute motion was seconded and carried 7‑0. Commissioners acknowledged that the prior 180‑day director extension, when combined with the newly approved 18 months, would equal roughly a two‑year total extension from the original approval window.

Applicant representative Dirk Thalen of BSB Design told the commission the primary delay related to SCE’s timing for transformers and service work, saying that “to get electricity is not easy nowadays” and that lead times for transformer equipment can be lengthy. Staff reiterated that undergrounding is typically part of initial site improvements and discussed permit inspection timelines: permits can expire if required inspections are not called for and completed within established intervals, although the building official can grant extensions in extenuating circumstances.

The commission debated balancing certainty for applicants against the need for documentation justifying long extensions. Director Thai advised commissioners that granting the full two years would give the applicant maximum flexibility and avoid a future application fee if unforeseen issues arise, but the commission favored the 18‑month compromise.

The commission’s action was procedural and limited to a time extension; no changes to the project’s approved plans, development intensity or CEQA findings were made. The decision is final unless appealed to the City Council within seven days.