COSTA MESA PLANNING COMMISSION TO HOLD A DOOZY OF A MEETING ON MONDAY
🏢Costa Mesa Planning Commission Special Meeting – Monday, September 14, 2026 at 6:00 PM
📍 City Council Chambers, 77 Fair Drive📄 View the Agenda here.
Attend in person or by Zoom, watch on TV, or on YouTube. Instructions are in the Agenda.
🎤 PUBLIC COMMENTS: This is the time for YOU to comment for THREE FREE minutes on ANYTHING that is not on the agenda. There will also be a public comment period for each Agenda item.
WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY CLERK BY NOON.
🗂️ CONSENT CALENDAR: Minutes of the August 10 meeting.
📢 PUBLIC HEARINGS: Three items here (Item 3 is the most significant and deserves your attention and voice):
1. Variance to Exceed Maximum 30-Foot Building Height for Dick’s House Of Sport at 2200 Harbor Blvd, Unit K. Staff requests approval of a variance for Dick’s House of Sport, a subsidiary of Dick’s Sporting Goods, to permit portions of the existing building at 2200 Harbor Blvd, Unit K to exceed the 30-foot height limit established in the C1-S (Shopping Center District) zone. The project would occupy the former At Home store.
The request includes a storefront architectural feature with a maximum height of 50 feet and a roof structure reaching 40 feet above an indoor climbing wall. The proposed height increases are limited to specific portions of the building and would not result in any increase in floor area, building footprint, or intensity of use.
Key Considerations:
Site-Specific Justification: The tenant space is located approximately 530 feet from Harbor Boulevard, reducing its visibility from the public right-of-way. Similar height variances have previously been approved for nearby shopping center tenants facing comparable visibility constraints.
Project Compatibility: The proposed experiential retail concept, which includes indoor recreational features such as a climbing wall, golf simulators, and batting cages, is consistent with the site's zoning designation and compatible with surrounding commercial and residential land uses. All activity areas will be fully enclosed within the building.
Parking and Landscaping: No additional parking is required because the project does not increase floor area and is subject to the provisions of Assembly Bill 2097. The project also includes new landscaping improvements, including the conversion of a former garden center area into landscaped space.
Variance Findings: The requested variance is supported by the property's unique depth and configuration, does not confer a special privilege unavailable to similarly situated properties, and remains consistent with the City's General Plan and zoning objectives.
2. Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to Allow Commercial Padel Facility (Padel Up) at 2045 Harbor Blvd. Staff requests approval of a CUP for a proposed commercial padel facility (Padel Up) at 2045 Harbor Blvd., subject to conditions of approval. The proposed project would change a 0.82-acre site currently used as overflow parking for South Coast Toyota into a recreational facility featuring five outdoor padel courts, accessory storage, and restroom facilities. Padel is a growing racket sport that combines elements of tennis and squash.
Although padel facilities are not specifically identified in the City's Land Use Matrix, the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and the zoning district's intent to accommodate commercial recreational activities.
Key Considerations:
Noise: A project-specific noise study, along with an independent peer review, concluded that the facility would comply with all applicable City noise standards. To further minimize potential impacts on nearby residences, the courts closest to residential properties would be limited to operating between 9:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.
Traffic and Parking: The project is expected to generate approximately 131 daily vehicle trips, including 22 trips during peak hours, which is below thresholds for significant traffic impacts. The site provides 14 parking spaces and bicycle parking and is exempt from minimum parking requirements due to its proximity to public transit.
Operations: The facility would operate daily from 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., with court reservations managed through a mobile application and staff present on-site during operating hours.
Tournaments and Special Events: Tournament activities would be limited to four events annually and would require the issuance of separate special event permits.
3. Measure K Proposed Zoning Code Amendments, Zoning Map Update, and Establishment of Citywide Multifamily Residential and Mixed-Use Objective Design Standards, and Repeal of Urban Plans; Amendments to Circulation, Community Design, Land Use, Noise, and Open Space and Recreation Elements of General Plan; Amendments to Newport Boulevard Specific Plan, North Costa Mesa Specific Plan, and One Metro West Specific Plan; Certification of Final Program Environmental Impact Report, Adoption of Findings of Fact, Statement Of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act. The Planning Commission is being asked to adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve a series of significant land use, zoning, and policy changes associated with the Neighborhoods Where We All Belong (Measure K) initiative and implementation of the City's Housing Element.
Note: The summary provides a high-level overview. Additional details are included below.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:
Environmental Review: Certify the Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) and adopt the associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Measure K Zoning Updates and Housing Element implementation efforts.
General Plan Amendments: Amend the following General Plan elements:
Land Use
Circulation
Community Design
Noise
Open Space and Recreation
Zoning and Specific Plan Amendments:
Zoning Code and Map Updates:
Amend the Zoning Code.
Update the City's Zoning Map.
Establish Citywide Multifamily Residential and Mixed-Use Objective Design Standards (ODS).
Repeal Existing Urban Plans: The following Urban Plans would be repealed:
SoBECA Urban Plan
19 West Urban Plan
Mesa West Bluffs Urban Plan
Mesa West Residential Ownership Urban Plan
Specific Plan Amendments: Amend the:
Newport Boulevard Specific Plan
North Costa Mesa Specific Plan
One Metro West Specific Plan
Key Zoning and Land Use Changes:
Expanded Mixed-Use Overlay: The proposal would expand the Mixed-Use Overlay District (MUOD) to most Measure K and Housing Element sites, with limited exceptions for certain airport-related and buffer properties. Development capacity currently contained in several Urban Plans would be incorporated directly into the Zoning Code.
Updated Development Regulations: The amendments would update:
Definitions
Application procedures
Development standards
These changes are intended to improve clarity, streamline implementation, and ensure compliance with state law.
Increased Density and Height Limits: The proposal would increase allowable residential densities and building heights in selected areas. Examples include:
Up to 90 dwelling units per acre
Up to 108 feet in height on certain North Costa Mesa Housing Element sites (see Table from Agenda Report below)
As a general rule, every 10 feet of height is roughly equivalent to one story. Accordingly, portions of Newport Boulevard and other designated areas could accommodate buildings of approximately six stories or more.
Objective Design Standards (ODS): The proposed Objective Design Standards would apply to all new multifamily and mixed-use developments that are three stories or taller. The standards are intended to:
Provide clear, objective, and measurable design requirements
Reduce subjective design review
Streamline project approvals
Improve consistency in building and site design citywide
Environmental Review Findings: The PEIR identifies several potentially significant and unavoidable impacts, including:
Aesthetics
Air quality
Noise
Population and housing
Mitigation measures are proposed where feasible.
Several alternatives were evaluated. The "No Project" Alternative was identified as the environmentally superior alternative; however, it would not fully achieve Measure K's objectives.
Importantly, the No Project Alternative would:
Implement Housing Element rezoning requirements;
Continue to satisfy the City's Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) obligations; but
Not implement the Measure K rezoning, thereby limiting additional housing opportunities beyond those required by state housing law.
Housing Element Implementation: The amendments would advance numerous Housing Element programs and state housing initiatives, including:
Affordable housing incentives
Density bonus ordinance updates
Parking standard revisions
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) implementation
Transitional and supportive housing provisions
Policies supporting larger family-sized units
Funding and Additional Housing Initiatives: The City is utilizing REAP grant funding to support:
Technical consulting services
Community outreach
Zoning and ordinance updates
The City is also reaching out to faith-based and educational institutions about potential housing opportunities authorized under SB 4.
NEXT STEPS: City Council hearings are currently scheduled for:
October 6, 2026
October 20, 2026 (Final Adoption)
THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS! While the summary above highlights the major policy changes, many of the most consequential impacts are contained within the detailed amendments to the General Plan, zoning regulations, specific plans, and development standards discussed below. Below the details is our commentary.
DETAILED CHANGES TO THE GENERAL PLAN:
1. Land Use Element Updates
Housing Element Integration: The proposed amendments incorporate the City's Housing Element more directly into the General Plan. Residential densities and floor-area ratios (FAR) could be increased on designated Housing Opportunity Sites, even where those densities exceed previous General Plan standards.
Overlay District and Urban Plan Changes: Several overlay districts and urban planning tools are being consolidated and simplified. At the same time, the Mixed-Use Overlay District and Residential Incentive Overlay are being expanded to allow greater residential density and development intensity, particularly on Housing Opportunity Sites. (See the table below for a site-by-site summary.)
Specific Plan and Site-Specific Changes:
Fairview Developmental Center: A new Specific Plan would guide redevelopment of the site, emphasizing affordable and supportive housing, open space, and services for individuals with developmental disabilities. Population density is projected at approximately 105 persons per acre.
One Metro West and other major development sites: Existing entitlements, density allowances, and mixed-use requirements would be updated to support higher-intensity residential development.
Trip Budget and FAR Flexibility: The amendments provide greater flexibility for projects located on Housing Opportunity Sites by allowing modifications to trip budgets and floor-area-ratio standards. These changes are intended to facilitate additional residential development while maintaining overall planning goals.
2. Circulation Element Revisions:
Greater Emphasis on Complete Streets: The revised policies place increased emphasis on "Complete Streets" principles, supporting transportation systems that accommodate pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users, and drivers alike.
Roadway Reclassifications: Several major roadways, including portions of West 19th Street, West 17th Street, East 22nd Street, Baker Street, and Bluff Road, would be reclassified to support a broader range of transportation options rather than prioritizing vehicle traffic alone.
Expanded Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure: The amendments strengthen support for:
Protected bike lanes (Class IV)
Bicycle boulevards
Pedestrian-priority corridors
Improved connectivity throughout the city
Transit and Transportation Demand Management: Updated policies encourage expanded transit service, transportation demand management (TDM) programs, and closer coordination between transportation planning and land-use decisions.
3. Community Design Element Updates:
District and Corridor Refinements: The plan updates the descriptions and boundaries of key districts, corridors, and activity centers to better define neighborhood character and community identity.
Enhanced Design Expectations: New and updated policies promote:
High-quality architecture
Public art
Context-sensitive design
Improved visual character in mixed-use and commercial areas
Signage and Wayfinding Improvements: The amendments place greater emphasis on coordinated signage, gateway features, and wayfinding systems to strengthen Costa Mesa's identity and improve navigation throughout the city.
4. Noise Element Updates:
Updated Noise Standards: The proposal revises noise compatibility standards for residential, mixed-use, and special planning areas. It also expands requirements for noise studies and mitigation measures in new developments.
Airport and Fairgrounds Provisions: Language has been updated to reflect current agreements and monitoring requirements related to:
John Wayne Airport
OC Fair & Event Center
5. Open Space and Recreation Element Updates:
Parkland Standards Remain Unchanged: The General Plan continues to maintain the goal of 4.26 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. However, the updated element includes additional analysis of park access and identifies areas that are currently underserved.
Community Gardens and Urban Agriculture: The amendments expand support for:
Community gardens
Urban agriculture programs
Shared-use agreements with schools and other institutions
Arts and Cultural Programming: New policies strengthen support for public art, cultural programming, and Costa Mesa's longstanding identity as the "City of the Arts."
6. Policy and Implementation Updates:
State Law Compliance: Numerous sections have been updated to reflect recent state legislation and regulatory requirements, including provisions affecting housing, environmental sustainability, and Fairview Developmental Center redevelopment.
Environmental Justice: The amendments introduce and strengthen policies aimed at directing investment and infrastructure improvements toward designated environmental justice communities.
Administrative Updates: Various tables, maps, figures, references, and implementation programs have been updated to reflect:
Recent General Plan amendments
New Specific Plans
City Council actions
Housing Element implementation requirements
Key Takeaway: In practical terms, these General Plan amendments do three things:
1. Create additional opportunities for higher-density housing on designated Housing Opportunity Sites.
2. Shift transportation planning toward a more multimodal approach, with greater emphasis on walking, bicycling, and transit.
3. Align Costa Mesa's planning documents with state housing mandates and recent legislation, while updating policies for design, open space, environmental justice, and future development.
DETAILED CHANGES TO THE SPECIFIC PLANS:
1. Newport Boulevard Specific Plan: Most of the changes are to incorporate the MUOD into this Specific Plan. The MUOD would allow Mixed-Use Overlay Housing, such as multifamily dwellings, blending residential uses into key areas that are served by various shopping, convenience, employment, and community-serving uses. The residential density would be less than or equal to 90 dwelling units per acre. The property owners have the option of applying the MUOD to their properties. The purpose is to encourage the development of residential properties along Newport Boulevard.
2. North Costa Mesa Specific Plan: The amendments apply the MUOD to selected properties within the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan area to encourage residential and mixed-use development. While the underlying zoning remains in place, property owners may choose to use the MUOD standards for qualifying projects.
For Lower-Income Housing Element sites, the MUOD generally takes precedence over conflicting provisions in the Specific Plan and underlying zoning. This allows greater flexibility regarding:
Residential density and development capacity
Residential floor area requirements
Permitted uses
Ministerial approval processes
Unit caps
Traffic trip budgets
Building height limits
However, if the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan already allows higher densities or taller buildings than the MUOD, those more permissive Specific Plan standards may still be used. The parcel commonly known as Sakioka 2, which is currently being planned for development, is now limited to a maximum building height of 120 feet.
In practical terms: the amendment gives qualifying housing projects, especially those on Lower-Income Housing Element sites, more flexibility and larger development potential by allowing them to rely on whichever regulations are more favorable between the MUOD and the existing Specific Plan.\
3. One Metro West Specific Plan: The changes to this Specific Plan extend the MUOD to selected properties within the One Metro West area to encourage additional housing and mixed-use development. While the Specific Plan generally remains in effect, developers may choose to use MUOD standards where applicable.
For sites identified in the City's Lower-Income Housing Element inventory, the MUOD overrides many existing zoning and development restrictions, including limits on density, building height, permitted uses, and project approval procedures. In practice, this provides greater flexibility to maximize residential development on these sites. However, if the One Metro West Specific Plan already allows greater density or height than the MUOD, the developer may take advantage of those more generous standards instead.
As a reminder, the One Metro West Specific Plan would permit the demolition of the existing industrial buildings and surface parking lots, and redevelopment of the site with:
Up to 1,057 multifamily residential units (the developer has indicated to the City that it wishes to enlarge the unit size and reduce the number of units, but that change has not yet been processed)
Approximately 6,000 square feet of neighborhood-serving retail
Approximately 25,000 square feet of office space
A 1.5-acre publicly accessible urban open space
Maximum Building Heights:
Residential buildings: Up to 7 stories (98 feet)
Office buildings: Up to 3 stories (52 feet)
Setback Requirements:
Generally 10 feet from Sunflower Avenue and adjacent property lines
5 feet for the creative office building adjacent to Interstate 405
Parking Standards: Parking structures must be architecturally integrated into the project and comply with safety and lighting requirements.
A minimum parking ratio of 1.3 spaces per residential unit
Approximately 1,914 total parking spaces provided through a combination of residential and shared office parking
Open Space Requirements: The Specific Plan includes:
A 1.5-acre public open space area featuring landscaping, seating, recreation amenities, and public access easements
A minimum of 250 square feet of combined private and common open space for each residential unit
Permitted Uses: The plan expands the range of allowable residential, office, and retail uses while continuing to prohibit or restrict certain activities, including:
Cannabis-related businesses (they are right around the corner)
Schools
Day care centers
Playgrounds
Sunflower Avenue Enhancements: The plan proposes substantial improvements along Sunflower Avenue, including:
Reduction to two travel lanes with a center turn lane
New sidewalks, bike lanes, and enhanced landscaping
Undergrounding of utility lines
The project would also improve bicycle and pedestrian connections to the Santa Ana River Trail.
Utility Upgrades: To accommodate new development, upgrades would be required to:
Water systems
Sewer systems
Storm drain infrastructure
Dry utilities and communications facilities
KEY POINTS OF THE COSTA MESA MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND MIXED-USE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Purpose and Applicability: The proposed Objective Design Standards (ODS) establish clear and measurable design requirements for new multifamily and mixed-use developments that are three stories or taller. The standards are intended to:
Promote high-quality building design throughout the city.
Create a more predictable and objective development review process.
Reduce subjective design decisions.
Ensure consistency with state housing laws and City planning goals.
The standards apply citywide unless a Planned Development zone adopts alternative design requirements through an approved master plan.
2. Relationship to Other Regulations: The ODS supplements the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, and other development regulations. When standards conflict, the more restrictive requirement generally applies. The Community Development Department is responsible for administering and interpreting the standards, including reviewing requests for deviations where permitted.
3. Building Design Standards:
Building Mass and Scale: To reduce the visual impact of larger buildings and improve compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods, the standards require:
Upper-story setbacks
Building articulation
Design techniques that break up large building masses
Facade Design: Buildings must avoid long, uninterrupted walls through the use of:
Facade modulation and offsets
Architectural detailing
Clearly defined building bases, middles, and tops
Windows and Privacy: Window placement and design standards are intended to:
Enhance architectural character
Improve natural lighting
Protect privacy for residents and neighboring properties
Architectural Consistency: Buildings must maintain a cohesive architectural style and materials palette, particularly along public streets and other visible elevations.
4. Ground-Floor Design: The standards emphasize pedestrian-oriented design and active streetscapes. Key requirements include:
Ground floors designed at a human scale.
Minimum transparency standards of 30% for residential uses and 60% for non-residential and common areas.
Direct entrances for ground-floor residential units.
Transitional spaces such as porches, stoops, courtyards, or entry patios.
Separate entrances for residential and commercial uses.
5. Site Design Standards:
Walkability and Circulation: Projects must promote pedestrian connectivity through features such as:
Pedestrian paseos
Internal walkways
Private streets
Connections to surrounding neighborhoods
Open Space Requirements: The standards establish minimum requirements for:
Private open space (includes balconies)
Common open space
Publicly accessible open space
Requirements address size, accessibility, landscaping, and resident amenities.
Walls, Fences, and Streetscape Design: Frontage walls and fences are limited in height to maintain visibility and neighborhood connectivity. New gated communities are generally prohibited.
Utilities and Building Equipment: Mechanical equipment, utility installations, and similar infrastructure must be screened from public view.
Trash and Recycling Facilities: Trash and recycling areas must be:
Easily accessible
Screened from view
Integrated into the overall architectural design
Lighting Standards: Outdoor lighting must be pedestrian-scaled, appropriately shielded, and designed to enhance both safety and aesthetics.
Parking and Loading Areas: The standards minimize the visual impact of parking by:
Prohibiting surface parking along primary street frontages
Requiring parking structures to be screened and incorporated into building design
Requiring privacy buffers when parking areas abut residential uses
6. Administration and Definitions: Clear definitions are established for key design terms, such as blank wall, facade modulation, transparency, and building articulation.
Procedures for implementation, interpretation, deviations, and enforcement to ensure consistency with state law and the City's development objectives are also outlined.
Key Takeaway: The Objective Design Standards do not determine where housing can be built or how many units are allowed. Instead, they establish how new multifamily and mixed-use developments must be designed, creating a more predictable approval process while requiring standards for building appearance, pedestrian experience, open space, parking design, and neighborhood compatibility.
COMMENTARY: On paper, many of these proposals sound reasonable. Who wouldn't support better design standards, more open space, safer streets, and a greater variety of housing options?
The real question, however, is how much of this is actually enforceable?
Many of the features highlighted throughout these planning documents are presented as aspirations rather than guarantees. Under California's housing laws, particularly when a developer utilizes State Density Bonus provisions, developers can request significant concessions, waivers, reductions in development standards, and other deviations in exchange for providing a relatively small percentage of affordable units. As a result, many of the design features, compatibility standards, and community benefits described in these documents may ultimately be negotiated, modified, or waived.
This raises another important question: Will these changes actually produce affordable housing?
The City's track record provides reason for skepticism. Costa Mesa adopted an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance a few years back, yet it has produced little, if any, meaningful affordable housing inventory. More recently, the City Council effectively dismantled its first-time homebuyer assistance program. At the same time, rezoning and upzoning properties dramatically increases land values because developers no longer need to spend years pursuing General Plan Amendments, zone changes, or entitlement approvals.
That increase in land value benefits property owners, but it also has consequences. As land prices rise, developers must generate higher returns to make projects financially feasible. In many cases, that means building more market-rate units to make the numbers work, raising legitimate questions about whether the City's stated affordability goals will actually be achieved.
Environmental Concerns.
The Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) itself acknowledges a number of significant concerns regarding Costa Mesa's future environmental quality if the project is approved as proposed. The report identifies significant impacts related to:
Air quality
Noise
Recreation and park resources
Traffic and circulation
Even where mitigation measures are proposed, many impacts remain significant.
What the environmental review does not fully address are the broader public-service and economic consequences of this level of growth. For example:
Combining this project with the Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan, the City estimates nearly 60,000 new residents will be added. That’s like adding another city within our boundaries!
How will increased traffic affect police, fire, and emergency response times?
How will city infrastructure and public services accommodate thousands of additional residents?
What will be the long-term fiscal impacts on taxpayers?
Will public facilities (libraries, parks, etc.) keep pace with population growth?
These are questions residents deserve to have answered.
A Vision Driven by Residents or by Housing Mandates?
Measure K was presented as an opportunity to create a shared community vision for Costa Mesa's future through a robust public engagement process.
Yet the planning documents often feel less like the product of community-driven planning and more like the result of an effort to satisfy state housing mandates, the Housing and Community Development (HCD) requirements, and Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) targets.
Rather than asking, "What kind of city do residents want Costa Mesa to become?" the process increasingly appears focused on answering, "What zoning changes are necessary to satisfy state requirements?"
In that sense, the exercise can feel less like community planning and more like solving a complex numbers puzzle.
There is also a legitimate question as to whether Housing Element Program 3G's commitment to meaningful public engagement was truly fulfilled. Many residents feel key decisions were developed behind closed doors, with public participation occurring after major policy choices had already been made.
The Environmental Findings Tell a Different Story.
A particularly striking contradiction appears in the Environmental Impact Report itself.
One of the stated objectives of Measure K is to reduce impacts on existing residential neighborhoods. Yet the PEIR concludes that the project would result in 31 significant and unavoidable environmental impacts.
These impacts include effects on:
Aesthetics and visual character
Air quality
Biological resources
Cultural resources
Greenhouse gas emissions
Hazards and hazardous materials
Noise
Population growth
Recreation resources
Tribal cultural resources
Other environmental categories
The obvious question is this: How does a project that acknowledges dozens of unavoidable impacts simultaneously satisfy a goal of protecting existing neighborhoods?
The documents do not provide a particularly clear answer.
While some impacts may be mitigated, many cannot be fully avoided. Those impacts will be felt, directly or indirectly, by existing residents, businesses, and neighborhoods throughout the city.
Does the Proposal Reflect What Residents Actually Asked For?
Perhaps the most important question is whether the current proposal still reflects the community vision that emerged during the Measure K outreach process.
Residents consistently identified several priorities:
Core Themes from Community Input:
Diverse housing options, including affordable housing, ownership opportunities, and housing for a variety of household types.
Safer streets and improved mobility through walking, biking, and transit infrastructure.
More parks, open space, and community gathering places.
Preservation of Costa Mesa's eclectic character and neighborhood identity.
Greater transparency and public communication throughout the planning process.
More trees, landscaping, and shade.
Housing designs that thoughtfully address height, setbacks, parking, traffic, and neighborhood compatibility.
Top Priorities Identified Through Community Outreach:
Outdoor gathering spaces, recreation, and nature access (36%).
Mobility improvements, including sidewalks, bikeways, transit, and parking (33%).
Housing choice and affordability (33%).
Access to neighborhood-serving amenities (31%).
Landscaping and tree canopy improvements (27%).
Across surveys, workshops, and pop-up events, participants repeatedly identified the same values: quality design, housing choice, neighborhood character, open space, mobility, landscaping, and transparency.
Final Thought.
At this point, the fundamental question is whether these documents still embody the community vision that launched the Measure K process or whether they have evolved into something substantially different.
The proposal has been revised, amended, reconfigured, and expanded so many times that it has become increasingly difficult for residents to track what is being proposed, what standards remain enforceable, and what the final outcome might look like.
To many residents, the process no longer feels transparent or predictable. Instead, it feels like watching a shell game, where the pieces continue to move just as the public begins to understand where they started.
🕰️ OLD BUSINESS: None.
🆕 NEW BUSINESS: None.
🎤 PUBLIC COMMENTS: This is the time to speak up! Costa Mesa will change radically! YOU get THREE FREE minutes to comment on ANYTHING that is not on the agenda at the beginning of the meeting. There will also be a public comment period for each Agenda item, including the Measure K and General Plan changes. Written public comments are due by noon on Monday.
Comments