Planning commission recommends City Council adopt zoning updates to modernize active entertainment, fitness and floor‑area rules

The Costa Mesa Planning Commission on July 13 recommended that the City Council adopt a package of zoning code amendments intended to modernize nonresidential land‑use categories, clarify parking standards, and revise the nonresidential gross floor area definition used for floor area ratio (FAR) calculations.

Staff presenters Amber Greg (contact planner) and Martina Caron (planning manager) said the package includes 11 updates to Title 13 covering personal services, artisan studios, active entertainment, event centers, specialized fitness studios, food halls, ghost kitchens, EV charging, sports clubs, and a revised FAR definition. Greg said the goal is to “modernize our zoning code, particularly to help support evolving business models, improve regulatory clarity, reduce reliance on similar‑use determinations, and facilitate reinvestment and adaptive reuse.”

On fitness uses, staff proposed three categories: small fitness studios (initially up to 2,500 sq ft), fitness studios (2,500–15,000 sq ft) and physical fitness facilities (larger facilities that would continue to require a conditional use permit). Staff recommended parking rates informed by ITE and peer cities: 4 spaces per 1,000 sq ft for the smallest studios and 10 spaces per 1,000 for group‑instruction or larger fitness uses. Caron said the proposed nonresidential gross floor area definition would exclude certain support areas (mechanical rooms, equipment/storage spaces, janitor rooms) from FAR calculations to better tie FAR to trip generation and operational intensity.

Commissioners pressed staff on technical points: Commissioner Martinez questioned whether the accessory food/beverage parking math could be simplified (he demonstrated that the staff’s 25%/75% split equates to 4 spaces per 1,000) and asked for the data behind the parking ratios; Vice Chair Zick and others pushed for clearer language on which internal spaces would be excluded from gross floor area and warned that overly broad exclusions could allow larger buildings on constrained sites. Caron and Greg said staff would refine the wording and noted an existing minor‑CUP process remains available for site‑specific parking reductions.

Public commenters urged tighter thresholds for the "fitness studio" category to distinguish large commercial gyms from neighborhood studios. Mr. Tabota and a resident who bikes to a local studio expressed concern that a 15,000‑sq‑ft cap could misclassify full gyms as "studios;" Chris Bennett of Lab Holding supported the changes as helpful to small businesses.

Commissioner Martinez moved a multi‑point recommendation to City Council that (a) adopt the revised gross floor area language presented on staff slides, (b) correct terminology (change "esports area" to "esports arena" and adjust amusement/active entertainment wording), (c) consolidate accessory food/beverage parking to 4 spaces per 1,000 sq ft, (d) remove duplicate language in Note 3, and (e) raise the small fitness studio cap to 5,000 sq ft (so the fitness‑studio tier would begin at 5,000 sq ft). Vice Chair Zick seconded. The commission voted 6–0 to send the amended package to City Council; staff said the item will go to City Council on August 4.

The recommendation preserves a path for site‑specific adjustments (minor CUP for parking reductions) and asks staff to return with clarified code text that ties FAR exclusions to spaces that do not generate additional trips.