PLANNING COMMISSION PREVIEW: MEASURE K, 20 CONTROVERSIAL AMENDMENTS, AND A LOST MOBILE HOME PARK
Is This Really What Measure K Was Supposed to Deliver?
🏢Costa Mesa Planning Commission Meeting – Monday, September 28, 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, except the first item. More on that below. There will be a separate public comment period for the second Agenda item.
WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY CLERK BY NOON.
🗂️ CONSENT CALENDAR: Minutes of the August 17 meeting.
📢 PUBLIC HEARINGS: Two items here:
1. 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 will revisit the sweeping package of Measure K-related amendments that was continued from its September 14 meeting. The item includes amendments to the Zoning Code, Zoning Map, General Plan, multiple specific plans, citywide multifamily and mixed-use Objective Design Standards (ODS), repeal of several Urban Plans, and certification of the Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR).
At the September 14 hearing, Commissioner David Martinez made a motion that introduced more than 20 amendments, requiring approximately 11 minutes to read into the record. Because the amendments were extensive and had not been fully analyzed by Staff, a substitute motion was made to continue the hearing to allow commissioners additional time for review. That motion passed on a 4-3 vote, bringing the item back for further consideration.
What Is Being Proposed? The Measure K initiative, branded as "Neighborhoods Where We All Belong" (NWWAB), is intended to expand housing opportunities, implement Housing Element programs, and align local regulations with state housing requirements. The proposal would:
Amend multiple General Plan elements, including Land Use, Community Design, Circulation, Noise, and Open Space/Recreation. The Land Use Element changes include increased density.
Amend the Zoning Code and Zoning Map.
Update the Newport Boulevard, North Costa Mesa, and One Metro West Specific Plans, including increased densities in some places.
Establish citywide Objective Design Standards for multifamily and mixed-use development.
Repeal several existing Urban Plans.
Certify the PEIR and related CEQA findings.
What does that look like? Measure K would allow major corridors throughout Costa Mesa to be redeveloped with apartment buildings rather than single-family homes or condominiums. The reason is simple: land along these corridors is already expensive, and apartments typically generate the highest return on that investment.
At the same time, very little vacant land remains available for development in Costa Mesa. By granting these new development entitlements, Measure K is likely to increase land values even further. As land becomes more expensive, developers will have a stronger incentive to maximize the number of housing units on each property to make projects financially viable.
I searched the City's website for examples of what Measure K could produce and found only this poster:
From a bird's-eye view, these buildings can appear attractive and well-integrated into their surroundings. But those perspectives often do not show how the buildings will feel to pedestrians at street level.
Based on the City's examples, here is what I would expect residents to experience from the ground:
This building on Santa Monica Boulevard in West Los Angeles illustrates the scale that can result from this type of development. From the street, the building's mass dominates the surrounding environment and looms over pedestrians and nearby properties.
The Most Significant Issues. Staff has provided a detailed comparison of amendments requested by The Sakioka Company and Commissioner Martinez, many of which Staff does not support. Staff prepared a table of the proposed changes and Staff’s recommendations. That table can be found here. Among the most significant disagreements:
Prevailing Standards: Staff recommends eliminating language that would automatically make the Objective Design Standards supersede the Zoning Code in cases of conflict. Instead, conflicts would be resolved through future amendments or administrative interpretation on a case-by-case basis.
Open Space Requirements: Staff opposes changes to lot-area calculations that could reduce required open space in larger developments, arguing that larger projects should provide more meaningful open-space amenities.
Façade Standards: Staff recommends maintaining the proposed 150-foot maximum façade length rather than reducing it to 75 feet. Staff believes the existing standard strikes a better balance between architectural variation and design flexibility.
Development Entitlements: The amendments clarify how projects located within overlapping zoning districts and specific plans can proceed while still meeting Housing Element requirements.
Most of the remaining changes consist of clarifications, mapping corrections, and other non-substantive revisions.
Environmental Review. According to Staff, none of the proposed revisions would require recirculation of the Environmental Impact Report because they do not introduce new significant environmental impacts or substantially alter the project's conclusions.
What Happens Next? If approved by the Planning Commission, the package will move to the City Council for consideration. Staff argues that these amendments are necessary to implement 23 Housing Element programs and establish the regulatory framework needed to accommodate future housing development throughout the city.
The larger policy question facing the Commission is whether the proposal as drafted adequately balances housing production with community priorities such as neighborhood character, open space, design quality, and local planning objectives. We can only hope the Commissioners debate and discuss their reasoning on this question when the item returns for consideration.
NOTE: A detailed analysis of the September 14 proposed changes can be found here.
A report on the September 14 meeting can be found here.
HOW TO MAKE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM: Since Chair Jeff Harlan specifically requested that the hearing be continued to a date certain so that the public hearing would not need to be reopened, public comments on this item must be submitted (a) in writing, or (b) made at the beginning of the meeting, unless an announcement is made to the contrary.
COMMENT: What happened at the September 14 meeting was deeply troubling.
First, Chair Harlan made a serious mistake by allowing Commissioner Martinez to speak for 11 minutes on substantive amendments that had clearly not been reviewed by Staff or the City Attorney. Once it became obvious these were significant changes, the discussion should have been stopped and referred back to the professionals who have spent years developing and analyzing these policies.
Second, it was inappropriate for Martinez to bypass the Staff experts entirely. Whether one agrees with the amendments or not, Staff has invested countless hours in this process and understands both the policy and legal implications far better than any individual commissioner acting alone.
Third, the public received no notice and no opportunity to comment on the proposed changes. Some amendments were difficult to evaluate without access to the Commission's materials, but the proposed façade changes immediately raised concerns. Yet the public was effectively silenced because the Planning Commission was characterized as merely an advisory body. That argument rings hollow when the City Council has historically adopted Planning Commission recommendations with little modification.
More fundamentally, Measure K does not require rezoning for high density. It simply allows the City Council to approve zoning changes without a citywide vote otherwise required under Measure Y. The Housing Element calls for community planning, visioning, technical studies, environmental review, and City Council approval. It also contemplates evaluating whether Measure K should even be applied in certain areas, demonstrating that its application is discretionary, not mandatory.
The larger question is: Where is the community vision?
Residents consistently identified priorities such as diverse housing options, walkable neighborhoods, public gathering spaces, landscaping, neighborhood character, transparency, and thoughtful design. Survey results repeatedly emphasized outdoor space, mobility, housing choice, and quality streetscapes. Yet little in the current proposal advances those goals. Well-designed higher-density development can be beneficial if it is combined with community benefits.
Instead, the proposal appears designed primarily to increase development entitlements. That may benefit property owners and developers, but it does little to address affordability. In fact, increasing entitlements can raise land values, making affordable housing more difficult, not less, to deliver.
Ultimately, this proposal feels less like the implementation of a community vision and more like an effort to open the door wider for development while ignoring the priorities residents spent years identifying.
2. Design Review, Tentative Tract Map, and Density Bonus for A 21-Unit Single-Family Residential Development at 396 East 21st Street. Staff requests approval of development of a 21-unit single-family residential project on a 1.49 acre lot, including one very-low-income unit and 20 market-rate units. It is located at 396 E 21st Street, zoned Multiple-Family Residential, Medium Density (R2-MD), and currently vacant (formerly a 28-unit mobile home park).
The project requires approval for Design Review, Tentative Tract Map to subdivide one parcel into 21 lots, and a Density Bonus.
Applicant: Pete Zehnder, on behalf of Modern Mobile Ventures I.
You may recall Mr. Zehnder as the developer of several projects around Costa Mesa, including the homes that replaced the church and professional offices on Mesa Verde Drive East.
Density Bonus & Affordable Housing:
Density Bonus: The project qualifies for a density bonus under State law by providing one very-low-income unit (5% of base units), allowing three bonus units for a total of 21 units (out of a possible 22).
Waivers Requested: Ten waivers from development standards are requested, including for lot cap, building height, setbacks, open space, and parking, to enable the proposed density.
No Concessions: No incentives/concessions are requested, but the applicant reserves the right to request one if needed.
Design Details
Design: Two-story, Nordic farmhouse-style detached homes with attached garages and private open space. Common open space and landscaping are included.
Unit Mix: Four floor plans, with units ranging from 1,349 to 2,657 sq ft and 3-4 bedrooms. Private open space per unit averages 470 sq ft (the size of an average two-car garage).
Compliance & Review
Development Standards: The project exceeds some standard limits (e.g., lot count, building height, reduced setbacks, less open space) but requests waivers as allowed under State Density Bonus Law.
Parking: 60 spaces provided (42 garage, 18 surface), exceeding the 40 required under Density Bonus Law.
General Plan Consistency: The project supports city goals for increasing ownership housing and affordable units.
CEQA: The project is exempt from CEQA as an infill development with no significant environmental impacts.
COMMENT: It is striking how quietly Costa Mesa lost a mobile home park that provided some of the city's most affordable housing. The replacement is an intensely dense project with homes packed so tightly together that privacy will be at a premium. The project wraps around a large craftsman-style home on a large lot, which creates a prime example of incompatible contrast with an existing neighborhood.
The "Nordic Farmhouse" label feels more like a marketing term than a design concept. In reality, it appears to be a relatively inexpensive façade treatment applied to a high-density development. The one saving grace is that the buildings have pitched roofs instead of the four-story boxes with rooftop decks that now dominate parts of the Westside.
The affordable housing component raises concerns. The developer gets to decide which unit will be designated affordable. Cities such as Los Angeles reserve that authority for themselves to ensure affordable units are not simply the least desirable homes in the project.
And then there are the trees. The renderings suggest a lush, well-shaded environment, but those images often bear little resemblance to reality. Trees do not magically appear at full height. In a project this dense, many will struggle to receive the sunlight and growing space needed to ever look like the artwork being presented today.
🕰️ OLD BUSINESS: None.
🆕 NEW BUSINESS: None.
🎤 PUBLIC COMMENTS: This is the time to speak up! YOU get THREE FREE minutes to comment on ANYTHING that is not on the agenda (OR MAYBE THE MEASURE K AND GENERAL PLAN CHANGES) at the beginning of the meeting. There will also be a public comment period for the 21 units on Tustin and 21st. Written public comments are due by noon on Monday.
Comments