AUGUST 2025 CITY HALL UPDATE - REZONING, FAIRVIEW DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER, NEW PROJECTS IN COSTA MESA AND SANTA ANA, IMPACTS OF ICE, FAIRVIEW PARK AND MORE
- Cynthia McDonald
- 5 days ago
- 41 min read
The City Council had one meeting in August. The Planning Commission met twice. The Active Transportation Committee and the Fairview Park Steering Committee also had meetings.
AUGUST 5 CITY COUNCIL MEETING. At this meeting, the items acted on were:
Mitigated Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment, Rezone, Design Review, Tentative Tract Map, and Density Bonus For A 142-Unit, Owner-Occupied Residential Project at 3150 Bear Street.
Second Reading and Adoption of an Ordinance Approving a Rezone to Apply the Residential Incentive Overlay District Zoning Designation to the Properties Located at 220, 222, 234, and 236 Victoria Street
Resolutions Affirming the City’s Core Values and Support of Senate Bill 805, No Vigilantes Act, and Letter Advocating for SB 805 AND $100,000 DONATION
Professional Service Agreement for the Acquisition of a New Enterprise Resource Planning System
All members were present except Councilmember Mike Buley, who was scheduled to attend remotely but did not. The City Council Chamber was packed with concerned citizens, as the Agenda was very full of interesting items.
City Attorney Closed Session Report. Kimberly Hall Barlow reported that the City Council gave direction, but there was no reportable action.
Public Comment. The Mayor read the law about disorderly conduct by the public at the City Council meeting. He did NOT disclose the new language added to the City Council Agenda about prohibiting certain items in the Chamber or anything about the size of the signs that can be brought into the Chamber (see photo).
Hold Your Horses! Before the Public Comments, Council member Andrea Marr (District 3) moved to delay hearing New Business Item 3, Professional Service Agreement with Endemic Environmental Services for the Fairview Park Mesa Restoration Project, and Addendum to the 1997 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Fairview Park until the September 2nd meeting (Note: It was not on that Agenda). The motion was seconded by Council member Arlis Reynolds (District 5). The motion passed 5-1, with Council member Manuel Chavez (District 4) voting no. Marr did not speak to her motion until later in her public comments.
There were 18 public comments, including:
Unsafe and unsanitary conditions on Puente Avenue.
Responsible municipal leadership.
Disappointment in the recent meeting regarding updating the City’s rezoning.
Advocating for an advisory committee for both the Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan and the citywide rezoning effort.
Poor road conditions on Harbor Boulevard.
Adoption of an ethics policy.
Dangerous pedestrian and cycling conditions on Newport Boulevard.
Costa Mesa Tennis Center fee hike.
Council Member Comments.
Arlis Reynolds (District 5) requested updates on Tennis Center fees, Fairview Park Master Plan release (meeting on this topic is scheduled for September 16), roadway safety reporting, ethics policy development, and more community meetings for the Measure K/Housing Element rezoning effort.
The Fairview Park technical reports are available at: https://www.costamesaca.gov/community/fairview-park/fairview-park-master-plan
Jeff Pettis (District 6) advocated for infrastructure updates and improved communication with residents. Spoke about attending the Measure K/Housing Element rezoning kickoff event and advocated for a Town Hall-type event.
The City of Irvine sends out notices to interested residents of roadway work throughout the City in a weekly email. Perhaps the City of Costa Mesa could do that.
Loren Gameros (District 2) suggested pedestrian safety improvements near Triangle Square and raised concerns about Tennis Center operations.
Andrea Marr (District 3) explained her motion to delay the Fairview Park contract (had not received a briefing), requested lighting improvements in Mesa del Mar, emphasized the need for an ethics policy and code of conduct, and requested community support for the "Enough for All" fund.
Manuel Chavez (District 4) addressed neighborhood concerns, trash issues, and the affordability of Tennis Center fees.
John Stephens (Mayor) acknowledged the comments about Puente Avenue and 18th and Kenwood, spoke about his support for the Consent Calendar item for CalTrans/Newport Boulevard recommended improvements (he and Reynolds will make an in-person presentation of those items to CalTrans).
Interim City Manager Comments. Gallardo-Daly congratulated Carrie Tai, Economic and Development Services Director, for the kickoff open house meeting for the Measure K/Housing Element, aka “Neighborhoods Where We All Belong” rezoning effort. She announced the dates for the future meetings for this initiative. She said that the Tennis Center operator had indirectly contacted the City about raising fees and that the City will be working with the operator to confirm the request and prepare a Staff analysis of the increase; the fees can’t increase without City review and approval. There would be notice to the players of any increase before the increase takes place.
City Attorney Comments. Hall Barlow had no relevant comments.
CONSENT CALENDAR. No items were pulled from the Consent Calendar. A motion to approve all the items was made by Chavez, seconded by Reynolds. Gameros and Stephens had to recuse themselves from the warrants because of conflicts of interest. The vote was 5-1, with Council member Pettis voting “No.” Pettis did not speak about his vote.
PUBLIC HEARINGS: There was really only one public hearing, as the first item, the final Environmental Impact Report for the Hive Live project at 3333 Susan Street, was postponed to September 2, 2025 meeting, probably due to negotiation of the development agreement. The other item was:
2. Mitigated Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment, Rezone, Design Review, Tentative Tract Map, and Density Bonus For A 142-Unit, Owner-Occupied Residential Project at 3150 Bear Street. Neighbors of this proposed development showed up in force. The project is located on a Measure K site. The site was put on the Measure K Map by Councilmember Loren Gameros because the property owner asked that it be included. Stephens, Gameros, and Pettis revealed ex parte interactions with the property owner and representatives of the developer. Chris Yeager, Senior Planner, gave a presentation. The project includes:
Seven very low-income units (5%), enabling density bonus and waivers of development standards, including height limitations, individual lot sizes, side-by-side units, front setbacks, landscaped parkways, and minimum open space requirements.
One hundred twenty-two stacked flats in eight four-story buildings; 20 detached homes on the perimeter.
CC&Rs that allow rental of the condos (stacked units could easily become rentals).
Private driveways (alleys with garages) lack pedestrian-friendly landscaping.
Traffic signal and pedestrian crossing are to be added at Bear Street.
Shiffer Park will serve as open space due to site limitations.
No new bike lanes or pedestrian facilities despite available space.
Emergency access from Olympic Avenue will be retained.
Economic impact: Estimated net revenue of $78,058/year—drop in the bucket compared to the City’s $187M budget.
Privatization of public land: Developer will convert a publicly maintained parkway into private open space.
Community benefits: $250,000 for improvements to Shiffer Park (pickleball court, playground, shade structures).
Standard development fees still apply.
This is the first reading of an ordinance change, so this is a two-step process. The item will return to the City Council on Tuesday, September 2.
After Yeager’s presentation, Stephens allowed the developer’s representative to speak. She talked about the awards the developer has won, and then moved to the project. She slipped in casually that this would be the first time the developer has built stacked flats as part of a project. Stacked flats are typically seen on the East Coast, where walking up several flights of stairs to reach one’s apartment is common. Because there are four units in each stack, the garages have tandem parking for only two cars. Because the project uses the State density bonus laws, the number of parking spaces is reduced, despite most of the units having 3 or more bedrooms. Not all the bedrooms will be for kids. In fact, because investors are buying properties like these for rentals, I bet that they will be occupied by adults who can afford the rent. If we count all the bedrooms and subtract the parking, it leaves about 262 cars in need of a place to park. There won’t be parking on site for all those cars, so where will they go? Therein lies the rub.
Council Member Questions and Comments. Arlis Reynolds asked about the safety of the design of the driveway, and the new crosswalk and signal, given the speed at which motor vehicles travel on Bear Street. She also asked about the nearby amenities and noted that to get to them requires going past the 73 on and off ramps, which is a difficult intersection for pedestrians and cyclists to navigate, let alone motorists. She also asked about the proposed pedestrian gate and how to mitigate the new project’s residents from using the adjacent neighborhood for parking. Yeager responded that the HOA would be responsible for monitoring parking, policing garages to make certain cars were parked in garages, and submitting an affidavit annually stating that the garages were used primarily for parking. The CC&Rs provide that the guest parking is for guests only. Each unit has .25 guest parking spaces. Yes, that’s ¼ of a space per unit. Reynolds also asked about adding a plaque recognizing the site's history. I hope she doesn’t want to recognize Trinity Broadcasting Network and the Crouchs.
Gameros asked about traffic backing up on Bear Street to prevent getting in and out of the Lifestyles development and the office building where Dr. Grant has his optometry office. Yeager responded that there was “Keep Clear” painted on the roadway in front of the Lifestyles entry. Gameros remarked that paint is like cones, and they are easily ignored. Paul Martin, Transportation Services manager, said that the signal and islands would only be near the new project, and the entrance to Lifestyles would not be affected.
Public Comments. There were 31 comments on the item. Most of the speakers supported the idea of adding more housing, but protecting the existing neighborhoods. Many neighbors were concerned about parking and congestion on Bear Street. One resident brought up the fact that there is expansive soil nearby. There was overwhelming opposition to the pedestrian gate. There were several people who spoke in favor of the affordable units.
Rebuttal. The applicant said she was disappointed because she thought that some points had been made clear. She said the developer is amenable to removing the pedestrian gate. She then went on about how the tandem garages work. Says her. She then went on and said that the buyers know what they are getting into because the sales agents will tell them. She says that if you have four or five cars, this isn’t for you. She tried to explain the affordability calculation, which is that a buyer would have to make less than 50% of $95,000 per year as a single person or less than $136,000 per year for a household of four people. But how that translates into the sales price for the seven affordable units has never been explained. In terms of the parking, she says it works well for other communities. She said that the two community meetings they held were good outreach. She should take note of the 150, I REPEAT, 150 meetings the Segerstroms had for their project just up the road.
Motion. Stephens asked for a motion, to which Chavez said he would make it. Stephens asked Gameros if he wanted to make a motion, but Gameros, who didn’t turn on his mic, but was heard to say, “No. I want to see where this goes.” Chavez moved to approve Staff’s recommendation with the exception that the pedestrian gate be removed. That motion was seconded by Pettis. Chavez spoke to his motion, addressing things like the height of the new homes near the single-family homes, the fact that this is an ownership project, versus more apartments. He said the project isn’t perfect. Pettis said we need housing, and we need homeownership housing. He wondered if removing the affordable units to make more parking would make it more amenable to people. He could have suggested that change, but now it was too late.
Reynolds tried to add a friendly amendment to restore the pedestrian gate, but didn’t get a friendly response, so she offered a substitute motion. That motion failed for the lack of a second. Chavez agreed to add enhanced pedestrian features at the entrance to the development that was suggested by Reynolds. Reynolds also added that traffic calming should be looked into by the Public Works Department for the Triangle neighborhood. That addition was agreed to by Chavez and Pettis.
Gameros then asked that the motion be restated. Chavez repeated the motion with the three changes (remove the gate, pedestrian improvements, and traffic calming). Gameros didn’t seem to understand what the pedestrian and traffic calming measures were. Gameros wanted to make some changes, but Stephens had to provide the words “friendly amendment” for him. He said that concerns of the residents about parking in adjacent neighborhoods and the blocking of the entrance to the Lifestyles development need to be addressed.
Raja Sethuramen, Public Works Director, addressed Gameros’s concerns. He said that the traffic from the new project should not have any impact on Bear Street. In terms of the parking issues, the current parking ordinance does not apply to impacts by residents on neighborhoods adjacent to where they live. The ordinances only apply to impacts by businesses. The only way to deal with the problem is to gather evidence of the new residents parking in the adjacent neighborhoods and then ask the City Council to override the current ordinance to allow permit parking on the impacted streets. Gameros said he wanted to do that, but didn’t specify how it would be done. He requested that Sethuramen work with him on preventing a bottleneck in front of the driveways. Good luck with that one during the holiday shopping season. Stephens spoke to why he supported the motion, which was that the property is underutilized, the project has affordable housing, and he thinks it won’t impact the neighbors very much. By the time the project is built and sold, Stephens will be off the dais, so any impact on the neighbors won’t be his problem. Just his legacy. The motion passed 6-0 (Buley absent).
At this point, many of the public left the Chambers, as did Pettis.
OLD BUSINESS: Second Reading and Adoption of an Ordinance Approving a Rezone to Apply the Residential Incentive Overlay District Zoning Designation to the Properties Located at 220, 222, 234, and 236 Victoria Street. This project previously came before the City Council on July 15. Denial of the project was recommended by the Planning Commission to the City Council, due to the developer stretching every City ordinance and regulation to cram in units. It was approved, despite lacking the parking needed for a resident to host Thanksgiving Dinner, as noted by Mayor John Stephens. This is the second reading, so less time was spent on the item. There was a very short presentation by Victor Mendez, Senior Planner. There were no questions from the City Council and no comments from the public. A motion was made by Chavez to approve the Staff recommendation, which was seconded by Marr. The motion passed 5-0, with Buley and Pettis absent.
NEW BUSINESS:
1. Resolutions Affirming the City’s Core Values and Support of Senate Bill 805, No Vigilantes Act, and Letter Advocating for SB 805. This item was requested by members of the public as a show of support to members of the community. A presentation was given by Alma Reyes, Deputy City Manager, Jay Barkman, Government Affairs Manager, and Sergio Escobar, Management Analyst. The task that was given to City Staff was:
The Core Values of the City Council were presented, along with an overview of SB 805, which expands existing impersonation laws and mandates identification requirements for law enforcement in California, with an aim to address fear and confusion stemming from aggressive law enforcement operations and incidents of police impersonation relating to immigration enforcement. The City Attorney then discussed where the bill could face challenges, particularly under the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Council Member Questions and Comments. Chavez asked about the status of SB 805. Barkman said it has been passed by the Senate, but needs to go to the Assembly appropriations committee and then to the full Assembly before it can be passed. Gameros asked if this resolution would force our police officers to ask for identification (currently, the law allows that an officer can do that). It does not. He asked that language be removed from the resolution because he thought that “allowing” meant “mandating.” Stephens asked if the bill prohibited ICE officers from wearing masks. Barkman confirmed that the bill does not do that.
Stephens asked the Interim Police Chief Joyce LaPointe to come to the podium. He gave her a hypothetical situation of there being an ICE raid, and our police show up. He asked her what she would do. She said, “Right now, we already have laws that allow us to do this type of Investigation. We have done this type of investigation. Um, in the past, we actually just a couple weeks ago had an incident that occurred where someone called in and thought they were being kidnapped, and we went out there, and we spoke to the officers and identified them. They went on their way with their arrest, and we went back to work, so there are already all of these laws are already in effect and pursuing officers, as, uh, the City attorney advised is something that we already can investigate and make arrests for. Um, and all the other things that are in this, that I'm seeing are already current for us to be able to address.”
Stephens then asked, “What type of identification would you require them to provide?” LaPointe said, “When we go up to one, we can identify their patches, and we would not get asked them for an identification card if that's what someone is specifically looking for. Um, we can identify badges and uniforms.”
The gentleman sitting behind LaPointe appears to have the same reaction that I did. How is identifying patches (which can easily be faked) going to ensure that this isn’t a kidnapping situation?
To provide some context, on July 1, the Los Angeles City Council called for a policy that would require L.A. police to verify the identity of masked federal agents when requested by an individual targeted in an enforcement action.
Public Comment. There were 22 commenters for this item. Most spoke in support of the resolution, but said that it should do more, such as changing the police policy and adopting a housing rental policy that expands the tracking of evictions. Many of them disagreed with Gameros’s analysis and argument over semantics. Some asked for a legal defense fund for those arrested by ICE. Only one person spoke against the item.
Motion. Immediately upon closing public comment, Stephens made a motion to adopt the two resolutions and approve the letter. He added to that motion:
Direct the Interim City Manager and Finance Director to find $100,000 to donate to two nonprofits. Where did that come from? It wasn’t on the Agenda. And it wasn’t revealed to the public at the meeting, so they could comment on it or offer suggestions on who should get the donations (Staff could have weighed in as well). BUZZ! BROWN ACT VIOLATION!
Direct the City Attorney to come back at the next meeting with options for developing a legal defense fund, and with options to join the Perdomo lawsuit.
The motion was seconded by Chavez, but Marr said she wanted to make friendly amendments. In speaking to his motion, Stephens said we had a tough budget year but that we have reserves to tap into. He also said if you want to see a community’s values, look at the City budget. While I do value every person who lives in our community, and I don’t think the motion to donate the money is wrong, it would have been better if that donation had been on the Agenda and the public had the opportunity to speak to it.
Marr’s friendly amendments were to specify the nonprofits that would receive the donations. One of the nonprofits Stephens had selected, the Someone Cares Soup Kitchen, will not take government funding, so another needed to be selected. Reynolds stated that the “Enough for All” organization has more flexibility than the soup kitchen and could use the funds for a larger range of help, so the motion was altered to go only to Enough for All. Marr asked that Staff look at tracking at fault evictions and creating a rent registry. She asked that the City Manager get any data she can on detentions. Marr asked that a paragraph in the resolution be struck as it was not necessary. All of this was agreed to by Stephens and Chavez. Gameros went back to the same concern he had before about requiring our police officers to ask for identification from ICE, and that the public might expect that to happen. The City Attorney suggested adding language to the City information stating that asking for identification may not happen. Stephens said that satisfied him and asked Gameros if he had anything else. He did not. Carol Molina, Finance Director, had to request that the motion include that the City Manager and Finance Director be empowered to execute agreements in connection with the donation. This is why you put items like this on the Agenda so that simple instructions like these get included in a resolution.
The motion passed 5-0 (Buley and Pettis absent).
2. Professional Service Agreement for the Acquisition of a New Enterprise Resource Planning System. Carol Molina gave a speedy presentation. The new software:
Replaces outdated and unsupported financial and payroll software.
Funded by FY 25–26 IT Replacement Fund as part of the five-year IT Strategic Plan.
Cost:
Oracle ERP Implementation: $2.9 million, for a five-year term; a Managed Services Service Order for a Managed Services Post Go-Live for $0.2 million per term, with an optional additional term.
Oracle Cloud ERP subscription licensing: $285,000/year, for a total of $1.4 million for a five-year term, with an option of two (2) one-year renewals.
Council Member Questions and Comments. The only question by the City Council was whether or not to approve it, and Staff gave a resounding “YES!” as the answer.
Public Comment. The only public comment was from Ralph Taboada, who pointed out that the IT implementation plan adopted back in 2020 needs to be revised, as the implementation timeline has changed, and the estimated cost to implement it has changed. He said that the Finance and Pension Advisory Committee and the City Council need to get a report on where we are in implementing the plan, and what the future costs should be.
Motion. Stephens made a motion to approve, which was seconded by Reynolds. Stephens said he agrees with Mr. Taboada. Reynolds remarked that the evaluation of the next phase of the implementation plan is in process.
The motion passed 5-0 (Buley and Pettis absent).
AUGUST 6 ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MEETING. There were several comments, both from the public and Committee members, about safety. An example of a bike lane with a concrete barrier was shown. Statistics of traffic incidents involving pedestrians, cyclists, and vehicles were given, with 38 injuries in Costa Mesa in July.
Requests were made for more proactive policing and for an Ad Hoc Committee to be formed for requests to CalTrans. City officials were to meet with CalTrans the following day about Newport Boulevard issues. The old CalTrans Newport Boulevard project was briefly discussed. CalTrans is stuck on the old project (from 2018?). Apparently, it had selected a contractor. City Staff said the project lacks crosswalks and bulb-outs. There have been five deaths on Newport Boulevard in the past three years.
Concept drawings are being prepared for the Fairview Road project between Fair and Adams. The Committee will review those drawings.
The main focus of this meeting was the improvements to Del Mar/Fair Drive/Newport Boulevard. Bike lanes will be added on both sides of Del Mar beginning at Eldon Avenue and continuing through Newport Boulevard and over the 55 bridge to Fair Drive.
The most complicated aspect of the project will be the Northwest corner of the project, where cyclists are to exit the bike lane and go over the “pork chop” at the corner of the slip lane where cars exit southbound Newport Boulevard to Fair Drive.
Getting motorists to stop near the “shark's teeth” will be a challenge.
AUGUST 11 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. All Commissioners were present. Two items required action:
Design Review and Tentative Parcel Map Request for Two New Homes at 2308 Santa Ana Avenue
Study Session on Potential Zoning Code Amendments (Commission to provide direction to Staff)
Public Comment. None.
Commissioner Comments. Rob Dickson and David Martinez shared their experiences attending the City’s “Neighborhoods Where We Belong” rezoning meeting at the Norma Hertzog Community Center on July 30. Dickson recommended that future meetings adopt a town hall format to allow for public Q&A. Martinez emphasized the importance of diverse community participation and announced upcoming meeting dates.
Jon Zich reiterated two requests to City staff:
1. Include a list of current planning applications in Commissioner packets.
2. Provide a comprehensive list of SB 9 projects (which allow additional housing units on single-family lots).
Jeff Harlan also attended the rezoning meeting and noted that many attendees felt the discussion lacked new direction. He suggested providing clearer context and tangible outcomes to help residents understand the implications of zoning changes. Harlan emphasized the need for accessible engagement strategies, such as hosting events in informal settings like parks or breweries, and supported the idea of town halls to encourage broader public input. He alluded to thinking that planning is just too complicated for us to understand. I strongly disagree. I think it has been proven that Costa Mesa residents are capable of understanding planning issues that impact them.
I previously wrote about the July 30 meeting, and the report can be found here (go to the end of the blog entry): https://www.costamesa1st.com/post/city-hall-update-for-july-2025-plus-a-missed-opportunity
CONSENT CALENDAR: The only item was the minutes from the July 28, 2025 meeting. Martinez moved to approve the minutes, which was seconded by Dickson. The motion passed unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARINGS: There was only one public hearing, a Design Review and Tentative Parcel Map Request for Two New Homes at 2308 Santa Ana Avenue. This project will subdivide the lot into two parcels for new two-story, detached single-family homeownership homes. Each home includes four bedrooms, four bathrooms (one with an additional half bath), and an attached two-car garage. The proposed development meets open space and parking requirements (4 spaces per unit). There is no street parking in front due to a bike lane, so overflow/visitor parking will need to be elsewhere. The presentation was given by Caitlyn Curley.
Commissioner Questions. Dickson commented that there was a comment from a resident that the notice for this item was too short. That comment was that there was insufficient time to review the voluminous material, as it was posted with less than two working days before the meeting. The response from Curley was that the materials were posted to the City website on the Thursday prior to the meeting on Monday. Dickson remarked it would be nice to have a list of accepted applications or a map on TESSA, as other cities do. He asked how the finished grade and building height were calculated, as well as verifying the property line survey. Curley responded that those would come later when the actual plans are submitted for the building permit.
Martinez asked about the requirement for sprinklers. The California Building Code has required that new single-family homes be equipped with fire sprinklers since 2011.
Zich questioned a statement in the Agenda Report about the property not being a protected unit. Amber Gregg, a contract planner, answered that it refers to housing categorized as affordable units, so the City maintains its affordable housing stock. He asked about the requirement for installed solar panels. That is also a California Building Code requirement. Carrie Tai added that many of the conditions of approval are used as a checklist so applicants realize they need to comply with important requirements of the State code.
The applicant gave a presentation. The Commissioners asked about the reason why the project took two years to get to the Planning Commission. The applicant said the process time was a combination of the time he needed and the time the City needed to complete the process. It took five reviews to get it through the process, and the final review was with a request from the applicant to the City to give final comments. The selection of palm trees was questioned. The selection of palms was due to the space limitations and the number of trees required. The applicant offered some flexibility on the use of palms.
Public Comment. Five people gave comments. One person commented that he supported the project, but the other commenters, mostly neighbors of the property, repeatedly complained that there were over 100 pages to review, and the time given was too short. The other comments were about the results of testing, especially drainage, done on the property, not being available for review; that privacy is an issue as the windows are at a height where one could look into bedrooms; the poisonous fruit from palms falling in adjacent yards.
Rebuttal. The applicant said he gave one neighbor updates by email. He said the palms are being used due to access to utilities and because of the footing for the retaining wall.
Commissioner Questions. Zich asked Staff if they had reviewed the drainage plan. Seung Yang, City Engineer, responded that Public Works had reviewed it. Zich asked if the draining was pumped or if it was sheet flow. Yang said he believed it was sheet flow. Dickson also asked about the draining, and Tai referred him to the correct blueprint that showed the flow of drainage. The retaining walls would control any nuisance flow to adjacent properties. There were also questions about privacy, and Staff said they worked to eliminate views into adjacent properties. Staff commented that they had worked to control privacy, but the Commissioners could modify the conditions to require opaque glass, etc.
Motion. Martinez moved to approve the project. The motion was seconded by Zich. In speaking to the motion, Zich said he also has a short amount of time to review projects and is always disappointed at the rush to review. He said if he lived next to a project, he would certainly want more than four days to review all the paperwork and more than three minutes to talk about it. And while he supports the project, he has serious reservations about the process. The City shouldn’t be keeping the public in the dark.
Dickson asked about the condition of approval regarding the privacy of windows. He didn’t make a substitute motion or friendly amendment, but remarked that Staff needs to work with the applicant on the final plans to make certain no privacy issues are created.
Harlan requested a friendly amendment that the applicant work with Staff to find a better tree than the palm for the project. That was acceptable to the second, Zich. Zich commented that the Commissioners were being placed in the position of making landscaping changes at the last moment when these issues should have been worked through by Staff with the applicant and the neighbors before this project came to the Commission. And he is right. This applicant should have met with his neighbors to make certain the privacy issue was ironed out.
The motion was unanimously approved.
NEW BUSINESS: There was only one New Business item, a Study Session on Potential Zoning Code Amendments. Since this was a study session, the Commissioners needed to provide direction to Staff, and then the motion was to receive and file. Amber Gregg, contract planner, gave a presentation. In her presentation, she cautioned the Commission not to get into policy discussions and to stick with the prioritization of items, as policy discussion would violate the Brown Act, as they are not on the Agenda.
Commissioner questions were about which items come up for Staff most often, so the focus could be on those first. Staff indicated the items with the most impact are zoning code deficiencies that create problems with Staff efficiency, project processing, and community development. There were also questions about housing-related amendments, but those weren’t presented because many of them are part of the Housing Element Update, which has been separated into a different work area. Zich asked if any of these changes require City Council approval, and Gregg responded, “Yes.”
Public Comment. Marc Vukcevich was the only speaker and advocated for removing parking minimums. He also thinks that setbacks, the FAR standards should be looked at, and that we should have more hookah lounges.
The items that were identified as priorities were parking standards, drive-throughs, floor area ratio, and parks. The Commission requested coordination with other city bodies, such as the Arts Commission and Active Transportation Committee, if relevant. The categories will be better defined, and the list returned to the Commission.
Zich spoke in favor of parking standards, citing businesses that are so successful that they end up needing more parking at certain times and cause nearby businesses to suffer when clients use parking not intended for them. The Camp is a good example of this.
Martinez had to respond to Zich’s comments. He cited other states (most of which are less dense than California) that abolished parking minimums.
Motion: Dickson moved to receive and file, which motion was seconded by Zich. The motion passed unanimously.
AUGUST 11 SANTA ANA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING (THE VILLAGE SANTA ANA SPECIFIC PLAN). Although this was not a meeting held by the City of Costa Mesa, there are tremendous changes happening right across the city border that will have a significant impact on our community. The plan calls for the demolition and replacement of the Segerstrom family’s South Coast Village — including the Plaza Drive theatre — with a new Specific Plan area.
This 17.2‑acre redevelopment, known as Village Santa Ana, will transform the site into a mixed‑use urban community featuring up to:
1,583 residential units
80,000 sq. ft. of commercial/retail space
300,000 sq. ft. of office space
13.8 acres of public and private outdoor and recreational space
3,439 parking spaces
$7.1m payment of in-lieu affordable housing fees
The planned density is 93 dwelling units per acre with a floor‑area ratio (FAR) of 3.0. Building heights could reach 25 stories (about the size of four football fields), although those directly adjacent to the St. Albans and The Lakes neighborhoods would be limited to eight stories.
Infrastructure updates include new bike lanes on Bear Street and Sunflower Avenue, along with roadway, pedestrian, and cycling improvements coordinated between Santa Ana and Costa Mesa. However, no street improvements within Costa Mesa will be funded by the applicant, and no traffic impact fees will be paid to our city.
Because Santa Ana’s General Plan update from a few years ago already approved this level of density and associated impacts, only a supplemental environmental impact report was required. Traffic projections estimate 3,018 additional daily trips beyond the roughly 8,700 already generated by the existing development.
The project will be built in five phases, each blending residential and commercial components, as outlined in the Development Agreement between the City of Santa Ana and the Segerstrom family company.
Here is what the project is anticipated to look like:
This project was approved by the Santa Ana Planning Commission and will now go to the Santa Ana City Council for review. Note that Segerstrom held over 150 community meetings, and the City of Santa Ana held a meeting pursuant to its “sunshine ordinance,” which required notice to residents and businesses located within 2,000 ft. of the project, including residents and businesses of Costa Mesa who are located within 300 ft. of the project. For comparison, Costa Mesa only requires a notice of 500 ft.
And this is the second large project to come to Santa Ana. Read about The Related project here: https://www.costamesa1st.com/post/city-meetings-update-is-here
AUGUST 13 FAIRVIEW PARK STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING. All Committee members except Jose Toscano were present. City Council Liaison Arlis Reynolds was absent, as was Orange County Model Engineer Liaison Hank Castignetti. City Council member Andrea Marr was in the audience.
Much of the focus of this meeting was on the upcoming draft Master Plan update document, but the Administrator’s report provided useful information about upcoming projects.
New signage has been installed, including labeling of native plant species. Volunteers working on restoration and preservation completed one area and have moved to another area. They have found concrete, asphalt, and a car battery. The West Bluff project is about a 12 to 18-month project. The Mesa restoration project is a seven-year construction project that will begin this Fall. It requires a permit from the State of California. During the construction period, approved trails will be open, but the “social” trails will be fenced off so those areas can recover, after which they will no longer be accessible. The berms will be addressed, but the fill area is not part of this contract. The mesa restoration project must begin by the end of 2026, or the City may lose the grant if progress is not shown. The grant process started in 2023, but permitting problems due to the discovery of the Crotch’s bumblebee have hindered progress. The Wetlands Recirculation project is to come. It will address a missing recirculation line, provide water quality enhancements, and the City has a $500,000 grant, and the design is currently under review.
The draft updated Master Plan has been received by Staff for review, and was due to be released sometime around August 26, so everyone can review it in time for the September 16 City Council meeting, but it was not available as of today (September 2). Since the Master Plan has programs that require analysis, a CEQA document is required. Again, the technical reports can be found here: https://www.costamesaca.gov/community/fairview-park/fairview-park-master-plan
One of the members of the Harbor Soaring Society (HSS) commented that the Land IQ report was inaccurate because it says that HSS has moved its flying field. Looking at the photos in the report (start with page 18), I could easily see a progression in the paths in the park, and also when grading was done at various times for the fly field. I also recall it was much closer to the small vernal pool that is close to the football field when the Waldorf School moved into the Marion Parsons school. The 2009 and 2012 photos show the movement and grading, so the claim that HSS hasn’t moved the field doesn’t seem to hold up.
The meeting ended after a quarterly report from Doug Lithgow of Sea & Sage Audubon about the bird counts. A group of hawks that had bred and nested in the park in prior years did not this year, likely due to human encroachment. The full bird count can be found here: https://www.costamesaca.gov/home/showdocument?id=60910&t=638902625060856800
AUGUST 15 COASTAL COMMISSION MEETING – UPDATE ON HUNTINGTON BEACH AIR SHOW COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
Again, this isn’t a City meeting, but it has an impact on Costa Mesans. On August 15, 2025, the California Coastal Commission (CCC) approved a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) for Pacific Airshow LLC (PAL), the operator of the Huntington Beach Air Show. This follows previous violations by PAL for operating without a CDP and violations of State law by PAL.
The approved permit covers a three-day annual air show (excluding practice days) and is valid for five years (see photo).
Approximately 20 conditions were imposed, including enhanced public access and biological monitoring of the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve (BCER).
One key restriction requires aircraft to maintain a minimum altitude of 1,000 feet over BCER. However, this does not extend to Fairview Park, Talbert Park, or the Frank and Joan Randall Preserve. PAL is also required to contribute $274,758 toward public access and habitat restoration at BCER, implement a traffic management plan for Huntington Beach, and distribute 1,500 free tickets per day to Title I students and individuals with disabilities.
It will be interesting to see how PAL and the City of Huntington Beach proceed with the Environmental Impact Report for the five-day event that PAL intended to hold. For now, Costa Mesa will only have to enjoy/contend with three days of the Air Show.
AUGUST 21 “NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE WE ALL BELONG” REZONING MEETING (OR HOW I WISH I HAD SPENT MY EVENING DOING SOMETHING ELSE). The August 21 outreach meeting, part of the Measure K and Housing Element rezoning efforts, was intended to focus on community visioning. But this element was notably absent, as it was in the previous session.
Attendance was low, with approximately 20 members of the public—fewer than at the July 30 meeting, and some of them left quickly. Opening remarks were delivered by Cathy Tang Saez (Dudek) and Carrie Tai (Director of Economic and Development Services). Mayor John Stephens made a brief appearance, and Councilmember Jeff Pettis and Planning Commissioner Angely Andrade were also present, along with city staff and representatives from consultants Dudek and Kearns & West.
The Community Room doors were propped open to create a welcoming environment, but the outside heat completely negated the air conditioning. The room featured the same two large posters from the previous meeting, along with a few smaller ones—only two appeared to be new. Public engagement with the small poster sticker exercises was minimal. The larger one about what makes a good neighborhood got a little more attention, but in general, they don’t seem to be resonating with the public.
Was this just a repeat of the last meeting? Not completely. On the conference table were two large maps of Harbor and Newport Boulevards, with the Measure K and Housing Element parcels highlighted. We were told to put pins into the parcels that we liked. This was a variation of a sticker exercise.
There was no reason given as to why we were doing this exercise. It took about three attempts to finally get Cathy Tang Saez to tell me that the information gathered would be used to determine whether certain areas need to have restrictions put on their redevelopment.
No explanatory material accompanied the maps. There was no copy of Measure K available to allow the public to read about why the parcels were put on the map. The proposed densities of the Housing Element parcels were not on the maps. FYI, they are up to 50 dwelling units per acre (du/ac), with the areas above the 405 freeway proposed to be zoned up to 90 du/ac. A general rule of thumb is one story for each 10 dwelling units per acre.
The lack of accessible, substantive information presented is very frustrating. The meager information that is given has been dumbed down to the point it feels infantile, or third-grade level at best. There has been no effort to educate the public or to engage us in a meaningful conversation. Treating the residents as if we are stupid is risking alienation of the residents and undermining the value of the outreach effort.
A BETTER VISIONING PROCESS:
Establish a public community advisory committee
Host town hall meetings with open Q&A and public commentary
Present visuals of building types with densities
Share examples of similar cities with corridor commercial property conversions
Provide a clear list of potential impacts, including
Pros and cons of high-density urbanization
Traffic and transit solutions
Public service upgrades (police, fire, schools)
Affordability requirements
Fiscal feasibility
Preservation strategies for existing neighborhoods
Explain effects Measure Y (voter approval) and Measure K (City Council approval)*
Identify policy priorities
Establish and refine community goals
Explore and evaluate community-generated options
*Lobbying by developers aimed at the seven-member City Council, instead of voters in the city at large
The next meeting was scheduled for the following Saturday, with a walking tour starting at the Senior Center at 10:00 a.m. I don’t know about you, but my Saturdays are filled with many other activities and family events. Plus, it was only slightly less cool than Hades. If anyone attended, I’d appreciate a report.
AUGUST 25 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. All Commissioners were present. Two items required action:
Updates to Procedure for Determining Shared Parking Requirements
Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan Land Use Plan – Review and Recommendation
Public Comment. Three members of the public addressed the Commission:
One speaker expressed concern about not being called on during a previous Zoom meeting and recommended that rooftop decks not be counted as open space, advocating instead for ground-level open space. He also questioned the City's position that increasing housing supply would reduce housing costs, suggesting it could negatively impact property values.
A second speaker (me) commented on the “Neighborhoods Where We All Belong” housing meeting, noting a disconnect between the City and residents due to a lack of substantive information being shared.
The third speaker voiced frustration over limited public involvement in planning decisions, particularly regarding the Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan. Concerns were raised about the potential for substandard housing and unsafe street design, with a perception that developer interests are being prioritized over community needs.
Commissioner Comments. Johnny Rojas thanked those attending in person.
Karen Klepack encouraged public attendance at future housing workshop walking tours, referencing her experience at the prior Saturday event.
Angely Andrade spoke about attending the Thursday housing workshop event and that she is certain there will be town hall events because the residents are requesting them. She also emphasized the need for safer streets for school-age children and cited a UC Irvine study refuting claims that affordable housing lowers property values.
Rob Dickson requested clarification from staff or consultants on the format of the housing meetings and whether future sessions would include formal visioning discussions. He also raised concerns about e-bike safety.
David Martinez praised the recent walking tour on 19th Street and acknowledged the City’s efforts to improve pavement conditions and crosswalk visibility. He congratulated former Mayor Arlene Schafer on her retirement and announced upcoming events, including the next housing workshop on September 10 and the start of Artventure on September 13.
Jon Zich expressed appreciation for public engagement and emphasized its value in informing Commission decisions. He thanked Economic and Development Services Director Carrie Tai for providing a list of SB 9 projects in Costa Mesa (Senate Bill 9 was the bill that allows single-family zoned lots to be subdivided into two new parcels, often with two units allowed on each new parcel).
Jeff Harlan thanked the City Works department for relocating a sculpture.
CONSENT CALENDAR: There was one set of minutes from the August 11, 2025 meeting. Martinez moved to approve the minutes, which motion was seconded by Dickson. That motion passed 7-0.
PUBLIC HEARINGS: There were two public hearings:
1. Updates to Procedure for Determining Shared Parking Requirements. A presentation was given by Caitlyn Curley, Assistant Planner, and Dan Inloes, Economic Development Administrator. This item was continued from the July 28, 2025 Planning Commission meeting. The old table being used was from 1985. The updates include the source of reference materials and an update for new uses, which provides a more accurate method of predicting parking needs for shared uses. Twelve additional uses to the table. The goals were to align parking supply with actual demand, support mixed-use development and adaptive reuse, and reduce infrastructure costs and improve land use efficiency.
Commissioner Questions and Comments. Zich asked about what happens if there is a change in use. In general, a change in use can instigate a change in the parking calculation. He asked about a case study that cited a parking surplus, but since the number of empty parking stalls wasn’t specified, one can’t determine if the new formula works.
Martinez wanted to know what the formula was supposed to represent: is it the relative demand or how much parking will be filled? Inloes replied that the percentages reflect the percentage of the required parking ratio by hourly use. In looking at the table required, it showed the number of parking spaces expected to be used hourly, thereby reflecting the peak hourly use, which would generate the parking required. He asked about supermarkets being busiest at 6:00 a.m. Yes, deliveries and stocking of shelves happen in the early hours. He asked about the police having any concerns about parking at places that serve alcohol. Inloes indicated the police department wasn’t consulted on this item. He asked about residential and why a simple percentage wasn’t used for housing. Inloes said there are diverse uses within housing that are a strong economic benefit, and the new table will provide a better estimate of parking demand. Martinez then pontificated that the most flexibility would be for a business owner to be required to have the least amount of parking. Inloes retorted that the City is trying to balance flexibility with accuracy. Inloes added that many businesses in Costa Mesa have expressed satisfaction with the shared parking table over other cities that don’t have one. This is because businesses don’t have to commission a parking study at their own expense.
Dickson asked about breweries and distilleries that act as nightclubs, specifically how the process of the application would work if a business didn’t cleanly fit in one slot. Inloes said that Staff look at many qualities of a business to determine the most appropriate use to designate for the purposes of determining parking.
Public Comment. The sole public comment was about compact car parking versus larger spots.
The response to the comment is that the item was only about the number of required shared spaces and didn’t impact compact spacing.
Motion: Zich moved to approve the item, which was seconded by Dickson. Both of the Commissioners spoke about the benefits of having a table so businesses don’t have to commission their own parking studies.
Martinez had to get up on his parking soapbox and claimed to have a better solution. He made a substitute motion to get rid of the shared parking requirements. No one seconded it, so the motion died.
The original motion was passed on a vote of 6-1, with Martinez voting “No.”
2. Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan (FDCSP)—Land Use Plan—Review and Recommendation. Carrie Tai, Director of Economic and Development Services, introduced Melinda Dacey, who will be taking over the project from Phayvanh Nanthavongdouangsy, who left the City. Tai then gave a presentation recapping what has been done on this project. This slide shows the progress so far:
It was mentioned that pedestrian access to Fairview Park from the FDCSP area was a desired item, and it appeared in the draft resolution for the Commissioners to adopt, but where that access path would be was never revealed.
The City is working to redesign the golf course, since at least six holes would be impacted by the new roadway that cuts across the golf course. In addition, a land swap with the Master Developer for parts of the golf course fronting Harbor Boulevard for property in the back of the FDCSP area has not been removed from consideration since the City can negotiate with the Master Developer after title to Fairview Developmental Center is transferred to it from the State.
This slide shows us the feasibility of what is expected to be built in the FDCSP area:
It is likely that the Master Developer will want to build 3,800 units (or more). There is a mathematical error in this slide. 3,800 units X 2.64 people per unit = 10,032 person increase in population (not 9,704).
Tai then turned over the presentation to the Placeworks consultants, who talked about the feedback received from the public on the various plans. Apparently, they are drafting a Specific Plan document, but it hasn’t been revealed to the public. The open space land uses would be determined by the City’s Park Master Plan. Here is the current plan:
And this is the current land use plan; design standards are yet to be determined:
The presentation flipped back to Tai. She gave the Commission their task for the meeting, which was to adopt a resolution and send the project on to the City Council. What is seen on the slide is the recommendation:
The minimum density is what was in the Housing Element when it was adopted by the City Council and sent to the State. While these recommendations don’t commit the City to this, the recommendation to the City Council gives the Planning Department and the consultant the ability to commence preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
Commissioner Questions. Harlan asked when and if the Harbor Frontage Plan (not this plan, but the alternative land swap plan) would be considered as an alternative. Tai said it would have to be on a separate track and direction, and would have to be given to Staff by the City Council to pursue it. It might require a feasibility study and become a parallel plan.
Dickson asked for a nexus between the project description (which is something that must be provided in the Notice of Preparation for the EIR and is only for study purposes) and what will ultimately be constructed. The project description is different from the Specific Plan because the Specific Plan document can’t be adopted until an EIR is prepared and the City Council sees all the impacts of the development. The development cannot exceed what is in the EIR, or if it does, a revised EIR would be required. He wanted to make certain that the project description included any density bonus or any other idea that came out of State Senator Scott Weiner’s brain.
Martinez started by stating he’s a fan of Weiner. He asked the same question Dickson just asked. Tai clarified her answer to Dickson by stating this is not a project-level EIR, but rather a program-level EIR, meaning that the City doesn’t have a plan for what is being built yet, but it is trying to set limitations on what can be built. If a developer presents a project that exceeds the Specific Plan, then it would likely require a Specific Plan Amendment and a new or revised EIR. She explained the process of the Master Developer selling off parcels within the FDCSP area to homebuilders who then, using the density bonus law, propose to construct a higher-density project, and if another homebuilder does that as well, then you start to have a cumulative effect. That is why the City is trying to establish a maximum capacity. It is also why Measure Y required that developers disclose the cumulative impact of phased development.
Martinez then asked about where the “stand-alone commercial” that is mentioned in the Agenda Report might be located. If he had listened to Tai’s answer above, he would have caught on that this would be a program-level EIR and not a project-level EIR, so we don’t have specific locations yet. He asked his question again using different words. He asked if the secondary road would be a voluntary or required acquisition by the Master Developer. It said in the Agenda Report that if the Master Developer decided to build to the maximum number of units, then it would need to build a secondary road, acquiring land across the golf course from the City. He wanted to know if the street cross-sections that were presented were part of what was being voted on. It was pointed out to him that they aren’t part of the resolution. He asked that the Active Transportation Committee review the street designs.
Andrade requested clarification about the housing in the area retained by the State be included as part of satisfying the City’s RHNA. It will be included, even though the State will work with the Master Developer separately on what is built on that land. For purposes of CEQA and the preparation of the EIR, the land and the units are included in the project description. Andrade’s concern was that Costa Mesa residents would be able to rent the State housing. Tai responded to her that there wasn’t a way the City could govern that, and that for the EIR, all units are just units; there is no differentiation for affordability.
There should have been a study session for environmental documents. These documents inform the public as to environmental impacts, and the public and some of the Commissioners mixed up other issues, such as housing affordability, with this item.
Andrade asked about an access road through the golf course to Placentia. I believe she wanted to use a DG trail that runs to a hole near the City Yard. The consultant said it could be considered if direction was given.
Dickson asked about Merrimac Road within the project area not being used. It is because the State owns it, and it is technically a private road. He said that using the maximum number of units could create the need for mitigation measures that would drive away a Master Developer. He then went on to say that we need to know the maximum number of units under every specific plan; otherwise, we won’t know what mitigation measures might be needed. He asked that the highest potential be used for the analysis of the environmental review so the impacts could be revealed.
Dickson talked about the frustration with the State not being explicit with its expectations from the City. We don’t know what the State means by the City focusing on providing affordable housing at this site. He said that he wants to be clear that if we come up with 3,800 units because it will make a profit for developers, the State will be happy. He said that the City is deferring to ancillary issues in the State’s legislation for the property over the required number of units in the legislation.
Tai spoke about the history of dealing with the State and the legislation and changes to the requirements that happened over the past few years, and how vague the documents were about what the City needed to do and considered in designing the Specific Plan. She said she felt that the State required the financial feasibility study because it was concerned that if the condition of the property was not suitable for immediate building (lack of infrastructure, environmental quality of soil, etc.) the cost would overburden a Master Developer.
Dickson returned to the question about using a number of units that would generate an EIR that was reasonable in terms of something a developer would consider. Tai said the financial feasibility report is what generated the move to 3,800 units.
It was now an hour and twenty minutes into this item. Martinez wanted to ask more questions, but decided to wait until after public comment.
Public Comments. Finally! There were about 18 comments. Speakers included those in the affordable housing community, including a representative of Habitat for Humanity, who advocated for homeownership affordable housing, and affordable housing in general. Another speaker spoke about the vagueness of the plan at this point, and the risk that the lack of specifics will also create vagueness in the EIR that could cost the City down the road. The subject of traffic from the development came up several times, and examples given of the impacts. In addition, there were comments about money lost by reconfiguring the golf course and the desire for a sports complex. One speaker said the State is expecting too much, and then he mentioned that the State’s retention of property never came up in the outreach sessions last year. He’s right. I only knew because the consultant mentioned it to me verbally. A speaker advocated for a town hall-style meeting. A carpenter’s union rep asked that labor standards be included in the plan. I spoke on a number of impacts and the vagueness of the project description. The vagueness does not provide the public enough information under CEQA, and it prioritizes developers’ financial benefits over specifics for the public. The final comment was that there is hope that a burrowing owl will be found on the site. There may be!
During the public comment, Commissioner Johnny Rojas left the meeting.
Further Commissioner Questions and Comments. Martinez asked what density of housing the State would be providing on its 15-acre parcel. The consultant said at this point, it looks like about 480 units at about 32 du/ac. Legislation requires that 200 supportive units be built. If the State doesn’t build them, the Master Developer will be required to provide them. He asked if the State controls Harbor Village. Yes, indeed it does, and that is why Merrimac Way is a private road on FDC, except for emergency purposes. The land next to Harbor Village, which will become the new Shannon’s Mountain project, is where the State housing would go. Martinez then asked some basic questions about EIRs. He asked for an explanation about the open space. While the General Plan requires more open space (about 42.6 acres) than what is being requested in the Specific Plan (12 acres), the City is trying to coerce a Master Developer to provide more, or to provide a community benefit, such as a library, senior center, etc.
Zich pointed out the math error in Slide 5. He asked about the term of the deed restriction on the affordable housing. Typically, that is 55 years, unless it is changed by agreement or by a funding restriction. The City will not operate the housing; that will be done by the developer or a third party selected by the developer.
Dickson returned to the sticky point of how much affordable housing the State really expects to be built here. The legislation says the City needs to focus on affordability, but doesn’t say how much housing must be affordable. However, since this is a programmatic EIR, it doesn’t matter whether a unit is affordable or not, so the EIR doesn’t specify the affordability. He also asked about using Golf Course Drive as a second or third access road if a land swap was worked out, but everyone confused Golf Course Road with something else, and no answer was given.
There was discussion about secondary and tertiary access routes, but Zich pointed out that the Agenda Report states they are unfeasible, despite Andrade’s desire to add one across the backside of the golf course to Placentia. Harlan told Andrade to save it for the motion.
Harlan asked about the number of units that were used in the old concepts that had been presented to the Commission. Those numbers are irrelevant because, to prepare an EIR, the Commission is required to select a preferred option with a specific maximum number of units.
Motion. A motion was made by Dickson to recommend to the City Council that the scope of the EIR for analysis will be what is contained in the Preferred Option presented by Staff. That motion was seconded by Andrade for discussion purposes. Andrade asked that the motion include adding a third access road to Placentia to offset traffic concerns. In speaking to her motion, Andrade mentioned that the draft Resolution had a provision to include the land swap that many of the Commissioners wanted. I did not see that in the draft Resolution, so I’m wondering where that came from.
Martinez advocated for studying a higher maximum number of units, so if a developer goes over the 3,800 units, then it wouldn’t have to pay for a supplemental EIR. He requested that the motion include 4,000 units as the maximum. That was acceptable to Dickson and Andrade. That means planning for 10,560 more people and the impacts.
Zich commented on the lack of progress, despite Staff’s use of the word “progress” in the report. He said that selecting a worst-case scenario for an EIR is a way of gaslighting the public. He feels that the public is being misled. He brought up issues with the Housing Element numbers being infeasible; that a bunch of market-rate units would need to be built to fix it, and building more units creates the need for the secondary access road, which screws up the economics of a profitable City golf course. He said the plan is wonky, and to do an environmental study at this point makes no sense. He feels that Staff isn’t giving realistic feedback, and the vagueness of asking for levers and incentives when it comes to open space doesn’t provide the specifics he wants. He requested that Staff include the community survey results in its presentaton to the City Council. He asked that they not gaslight the City Council.
The biggest problem I see is that to achieve a plan that “pencils out” for the developer and has enough affordable units for the City, it means allowing the developer to build market-rate or luxury homes, but the State doesn’t want that. I also think that this is vague and doesn’t reflect the wishes of the community. This project is exactly why the residents voted to pass Measure Y.
Harlan said there are many variables outside the control of the Commission and that the only thing that is before them is the plan for the EIR. He intentionally shoved aside the desires and concerns of the community to focus on that. He said the City has to come up with a Specific Plan which will give regulatory guidance to developers. The problem with that is developers will take a mile if you give them an inch, and David Martinez did that by increasing the number of units studied to 4,000. Dickson asked Staff to confirm that studying the 4,000 units will not lock us into that. There was no audible response from Staff or the consultant.
Harlan asked that the Harbor frontage option come to the Planning Commission before it goes to the City Council.
Vote. The motion passed by a vote of 5-1, with Zich voting “No” and Rojas absent.
OLD BUSINESS: None.
NEW BUSINESS: None.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: Tai thanked people for attending the Neighborhoods Where We All Belong event. The next event will be held in North Costa Mesa on Wednesday, September 10, 2025 from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. at FLDWRK, 150 Paularino Avenue, Building B.