City of Costa Mesa
Agenda Report
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Item #: 25-427
Meeting Date: 9/16/25
TITLE: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 13 (PLANNING ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT) OF THE COSTA MESA MUNICIPAL CODE (PLANNING ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT) TO PROVIDE TECHNICAL UPDATES AND CLARIFICATIONS (CODE AMENDMENT PCTY-25-0001) AND A RESOLUTION TO UPDATE THE PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINING SHARED PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND FINDING OF EXEMPTION FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DEPARTMENT: ECONOMIC AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT/PLANNING DIVISION PRESENTED BY: CAITLYN CURLEY AND FROYLAN GARCIA, ASSISTANT PLANNERS AND DANIEL INLOES, AICP, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATOR CONTACT INFORMATION: CAITLYN CURLEY, 714-754-5692, [email protected] RECOMMENDATION:
Planning Commission Recommends the City Council:
Find that the project is Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15061(b)(3) (“Common Sense Exemption”); and Introduce for first reading, by title only, Ordinance No. 2025-XX approving Code Amendment PCTY-25-0001, amending Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code (Planning, Zoning, and Development) to modify the City’s Zoning Code to provide technical updates and clarifications.
Adopt Resolution No. 2025-XX amending the City of Costa Mesa Procedure for Determining Shared Parking Requirements table to reflect current parking trends.
APPLICANT OR AUTHORIZED AGENT:
The subject Zoning Code amendment is City-initiated.
BACKGROUND:
Periodic updates to the Zoning Code are a necessary component of proper city planning as cities update their zoning codes to meet state law, clarify code sections, align the Code to current practices and procedures, and modify procedures to increase efficiency in entitlement and permit reviews. Zoning Code amendments allow the City to effectively and accurately implement the Zoning Code and state law. The purpose of this Zoning Code amendment is to codify requirements currently located outside the Zoning Code, to clarify Zoning Code language where necessary, provide clarification based on past practice, and to conform to recent revisions and requirements of state law. The modifications included in this Zoning Code Amendment are technical or “clean-up” revisions, based on established documents and practices, and are not intended to constitute changes in City policy.
The Zoning Code provides land use and development standards that regulate structures and uses throughout the City. Over the years, as staff applies the Zoning Code to individual projects, interpretations are made to account for instances of imprecise language that are documented in Zoning Administrator Determinations. These determinations allow for projects to proceed without having to wait on a zoning code clean-up but are merely a temporary fix since the intent is for the determinations to be codified. State regulations are also enacted outside of the Code, and staff have identified several state regulations that require additional updates to the Zoning Code.
Over time, the City has created several interpretations and procedural documents that exist outside of the Zoning Code. These documents include the Walls, Fences, and Landscaping Standards, Zoning Administrator Determinations (described below), and Urgency Ordinance 2021-21 which implemented the State’s SB 9 regulations (Attachment 8). This code amendment would codify these documents. The code amendment also includes modifications to some sections of the Zoning Code to align with current State law and provides minor clarifications based on past practice.
Zoning Administrator Determinations are interpretations of the code that provide clarification and ensure consistent interpretation for sections of the Zoning Code that are ambiguous or for uses and developments that are not regulated in the Code. Many of these Zoning Administrator Determinations are used regularly by planning staff in day-to-day operations, for example determinations that establish placement requirements for HVAC units (air conditioners) or pool equipment. Although these Zoning Administrator Determinations function similarly to other regulating documents, such as the Zoning Code, keeping these procedures separate from the Zoning Code confuses and reduces the transparency of City requirements and regulations.
The proposed Zoning Code Amendment includes minor technical modifications within the following sections of Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code:
Chapter I, Section 13-6: Definitions
Chapter III, Section 13-28: Types
Chapter IV, Section 13-30: Purpose
Chapter V, Section 13-32: Development Standards
Chapter V, Section 13-35: Accessory Dwelling Units
Chapter V, Section 13-36: Two-Unit Housing Development
Chapter V, Section 13-41: Residential Common Interest Development Standards and Requirements Chapter V, Section 13-42.3: Development Standards and Requirements Chapter V, Section 13-74: Elevation and Screening Requirements Chapter V, Section 13-75: Fences and Walls
Chapter VI, Section 13-89: Parking Required
Chapter VIII, Section 13-111: Definitions
Chapter IX, Section 13-142: Development Standards
Chapter XII, Section 13-265.5: Parcel Maps for Urban Lot Splits This Zoning Code amendment also includes updating the City of Costa Mesa Procedure for Determining Shared Parking Requirements table by adding 12 additional uses to the table and updating the hourly adjustments for all listed uses with the most current industry standard sources. The proposed updates to the City’s shared parking requirements table do not change the methodology of how the table was developed, do not alter the procedure on how the table is used, and do not alter the City’s codified parking ratios.
Previous Hearings
On June 23, 2025, the Planning Commission received a presentation and provided feedback on the proposed technical code clean-ups. Agenda details for the meeting are found in the following link:
https://costamesa.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7443282&GUID=AE089610-AFA1-4E8F-AA29-232D3985B67B On July 28, 2025, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed Zoning Code amendments. The Planning Commission supported the ordinance with minor modifications and voted 6-0 to recommend that the City Council adopt the ordinance. Item 11, updating the Procedures for Determining Shared Parking Requirements, was not discussed but continued to the August 25, 2025, Planning Commission meeting. Agenda details for the meeting are found in the following link:
https://costamesa.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7493951&GUID=CC465AE1-17DB-42DC-AFFE-DE83EDDAF04B On August 25, 2025, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed updates to the City’s Procedures for Determining Shared Parking Requirements (Item 11). The Planning Commission supported the updates and voted 6-1 to recommend that the City Council adopt the updates. Agenda details for the meeting are found in the following link:
https://costamesa.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7523284&GUID=FF0780B3-2DE6-4E7A-8080-BD65D94B9465 ANALYSIS:
The following discussion outlines the proposed revisions to the Zoning Code. The comprehensive strikethrough version is included as Attachment 4.
Item 1: Fences and Walls
The City Council adopted standards for fences and walls in 1991 and approved revisions to these standards in 2001. While these standards, referred to as the Walls, Fences and Landscaping Standards (Attachment 6), were approved by City Council, they were never added to the Zoning Code, but referenced within the Zoning Code to a separate document. Planning Commission Recommends:
Incorporate the Walls, Fences, and Landscaping Standards into the code.
Provide clarity where the standards are ambiguous, like clarifying commercial fence standards.
Remove allowances for height increases for walls within front setbacks as part of a minor modification, Modestly increase the height limit of walls near the front of a property to four feet.
These changes are proposed to consolidate City regulations, improve efficiency of application reviews, provide clarity on current standards, and create objective, rather than subjective, design standards, as required by State law.
Staff Alteration
At its July 28, 2025, hearing, the Planning Commission recommend that R-1 district be included in the fencing standards found in CMMC 13-75. The recommended action at the hearing was removing the phrase “except in the R-1 zone” from Section 13-75(a) of the proposed Fences and Walls ordinance. However, since that section has specific requirements unique to multi-family zones staff created a separate subsection for R-1 zones (13-75(b)) instead. This format implements Planning Commissions direction and appropriately preserves fencing standards for each zone type.
The text of section 13-75(a)(1) and 13-75(a)(2), as provided at the July 28 Planning Commission meeting, to become Section 13-75(b)(1) and 13-75(b)(2), with the rest of the citations modified to account for the addition of a new Section 13-75(b).
For clarity and brevity, staff also recommend modifying Section 13-75(f) to read “In non-residential zones” rather than “In commercial, industrial and institutional zones.” Affected sections:
13-28: Types
13-75: Fences and Walls
Item 2: Group and Individual Counseling
Over the past couple of decades, the Zoning Administrator has made several written determinations related to group and individual counseling. Ultimately, these Zoning Administrator Determinations created the following requirements:
Group counseling is substantially similar to the “Trade and Vocational Schools” use in terms of operating characteristics and parking demand.
Individual counseling is substantially similar to the “General Office” use in terms of operating characteristics and parking demand.
These Zoning Administrator determinations established a parking rate of 10 spaces for every 1,000 square feet of gross floor area for group counseling and a parking rate of four spaces for every 1,000 square feet of gross floor area for individual counseling. It was also determined that the two types of counseling businesses would be permitted, conditionally permitted, or prohibited based on their corresponding related use that appears in the land use matrix. The proposed Zoning Code Amendment defines individual counseling to differentiate between group and individual counseling, adds individual counseling to the Citywide Land Use Matrix (Section 13-30), aligns with the requirements of the “General Office” use, and also codifies the previously established parking rate for individual and group counseling, separately. These changes are proposed to consolidate City regulations, improve application review times, and create objective, rather than subjective, development standards, as required by State law.
At July 28, 2025, Planning Commission hearing, the Planning Commission recommended implementing the Zoning Administrator’s determination with a small modification. They recommended setting a parking rate of four parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area for group counseling, rather than the 10 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area established by the Zoning Administrator Determination.
Table 1: Existing and Proposed Counseling Development Standards Development Standard
Individual Counseling
Group Counseling
Existing
Proposed
Existing
Proposed
Land Use Category
General Office
General Office /Individual Counseling
Trade and Vocational School
Trade and Vocational School / Group Counseling
Code Required Parking Rate
4 spaces / 1,000 SF Gross Floor Area
4 spaces / 1,000 SF Gross Floor Area
10 spaces / 1,000 SF Gross Floor Area
4 spaces / 1,000 SF Gross Floor Area
Affected sections:
Chapter I, Section 13-6: Definitions
Chapter IV, Section 13-30: Purpose
Chapter VI, Section 13-89: Parking Required
Item 3: Exposed Pipes and Conduits
In 2008, the Zoning Administrator issued a determination that new pipes, conduits, ducting, and other plumbing and mechanical elements should not be present on the exterior of buildings where visible from off-site, adjacent buildings, private yards, or common space. This policy was created to encourage building facades without pipes or other elements that may deteriorate over time and negatively impact the appearance of the building. This determination was implemented due to a common practice of installing new pipes for plumbing repairs or fire sprinklers, ductwork for HVAC systems, or other items on the exterior of a building’s walls or roof rather than within the structure. The proposed Zoning Code Amendment codifies this Zoning Administrator Determination by prohibiting plumbing pipes, vents, ducting, fire sprinkler systems, and electrical conduits from being installed on exterior walls of a building. The code amendment provides an objective exception for existing pipes and conduits, which permits existing elements to be painted to match the wall or roof to satisfy the requirement. However, if the wall or roof on which the pipe or other element will be placed is structurally altered or demolished, then the work does not qualify for the objective exception, and the element must be placed within the interior of the building. These changes are proposed to consolidate City regulations, remove unnecessary financial burdens on property owners, and create objective, rather than subjective, design standards, as required by State law.
Affected sections:
Chapter V, Section 13-74: Elevation and Screening Requirements Item 4: Antenna Screening
In 2015, the Zoning Administrator clarified Code related to the screening of antenna and their support structures. The Zoning Administrator acknowledged that, while the Zoning Code is clear that antennas themselves must be screened, it is unclear if their support structures and equipment need to be screened as well. While existing State and Federal laws related to antennas, including the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and AB 57 do not preclude cities from requiring screening, they do identify strict review timelines (also known as a “shot clock”) and parameters under which a telecommunications facility application could be denied (i.e., screening requirements cannot be the sole basis to deny an application). The proposed Zoning Code Amendment clarifies that screening is required for ground-mounted antennas and any support structures and equipment. This change is proposed to consolidate City regulations, reduce the presence of unsightly uses within the City, and create objective, rather than subjective, design standards, as required by State law.
Affected sections:
Chapter IX, Section 13-142: Development Standards
Item 5: SB 9 Ordinance
California Senate Bill (SB) 9 took effect on January 1, 2022. SB 9 permits the subdivision of Single-Family Residentially zone parcels into no more than two parcels, and the construction of two units on each parcel. In response to this law, the City passed Urgency Ordinance No. 2021-21, which adopted the requirements outlined in SB 9. The updated regulations of Urgency Ordinance No. 2021-21 were not added to the Zoning Code. The proposed Zoning Code Amendment integrates the requirements outlined in Urgency Ordinance No. 2021-21 and provides three points of clarification, specifically related to driveways on subdivided parcels, the number of units permitted on properties under SB 9, and minimum parking requirements. These changes are proposed to align the City’s Zoning Code with State law.
Affected sections:
Chapter V, Section 13-36: Two-Unit Housing Development
Chapter XII, Section 13-265.5: Parcel Maps for Urban Lot Splits Urgency Ordinance No. 2021-21
Item 6: Accessory Dwelling Units
The City’s latest Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) ordinance update went into effect on May 1, 2025. Subsequent conversations with HCD required further minor amendments to the City’s ADU requirements to meet State law. Staff met with HCD on May 14, 2025, to further discuss these changes, and HCD staff acknowledged that the ordinance substantially met state requirements, and the minor revisions suggested did not necessitate the need to issue a formal letter to the City. These amendments most notably include clarification that ADUs and JADUs (Junior Accessory Dwelling Units) do not trigger a requirement for fire sprinklers in the main residence and increased the objectivity of requirements regarding stairways leading to second story ADUs. These changes are proposed to align the City’s Zoning Code with State law.
Affected sections:
Chapter V, Section 13-35: Accessory Dwelling Units
Item 7: Contiguous Window Area
In 2008, the Zoning Administrator issued a determination clarifying the definition of “contiguous window area” within the Zoning Code to encourage individual windows to maintain their transparency. The code is seeking to limit cluttered window signage. Specifically, this code amendment helps provide clarity on calculating allowable sign coverage on windows. The proposed Zoning Code Amendment includes additional language to the existing definition of “contiguous window area” for improved clarity, along with the addition of a new diagram (see below) to serve as a visual aid. The proposed changes aim to objectively define the limits of “contiguous” and establish a maximum width for mullions and other elements to still be considered contiguous window area. These changes are proposed to consolidate City regulations, improve efficiency of application reviews, provide clarity on current standards, and create objective, rather than subjective, design standards, as required by State law.
Figure 1: Example of Contiguous Window Area
Affected sections:
Chapter VIII, Section 13-111: Definitions
Item 8: Mechanical Rooms
In 2017, the Zoning Administrator made a determination that allows deduction of the square footage of electrical and mechanical rooms from the gross area calculation, specifically for the purpose of calculating parking requirements. The determination may reduce the parking requirements with the understanding that mechanical rooms cannot be used for any purpose other than to store mechanical equipment. The proposed Zoning Code Amendment deducts the square footage of mechanical and electrical equipment, along with the typically required clearance, from the gross floor area of a building. These changes are proposed to consolidate City regulations, improve efficiency of application reviews, incentivize the location of mechanical equipment indoors, and create objective, rather than subjective, design standards, as required by State law.
Affected sections:
Chapter VI, Section 13-89: Parking Required
Item 9: Screening of Ground-Mounted Equipment
The Zoning Code itself currently offers limited guidance on the placement of ground-mounted electrical and mechanical equipment. In 2017, a Zoning Administrator Determination established placement standards and recommended mitigation measures for ground-mounted mechanical equipment when distance requirements cannot be met in residential zones. The proposed Zoning Code Amendment incorporates the Zoning Administrator's determination into the Zoning Code, with adjustments to account for new State laws. This update would codify the placement and screening standards previously established and also modify the language to address setbacks related to mechanical equipment associated with Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and SB 9 projects. These changes are proposed to consolidate City regulations, reduce the presence of unsightly development within the City, and create objective, rather than subjective, design standards, as required by State law.
Affected sections:
Chapter V, Section 13-74: Elevation and Screening Requirements Item 10: Raised Decks
Currently, the Zoning Code is silent regarding raised decks in residential zones. According to the Zoning Code, structures under six and a half feet in height in the R1 zone, and 15 feet in multifamily zones, are permitted to have zero side and rear setbacks. The proposed Zoning Code Amendment would require that all raised decks with a finished floor height of more than 18 inches above finished grade comply with the main structure setbacks established in the applicable zone. This amendment will ensure that elevated decks are appropriately distanced from property lines, therefore reducing visibility into neighboring yards and preserving the privacy of neighboring properties. These changes are proposed to protect the privacy of residents and create objective, rather than subjective, design standards, as required by State law.
Affected sections:
Chapter V, Section 13-32: Development Standards
Chapter V, Section 13-41: Residential Common Interest Development Standards and Requirements Chapter V, Section 13-42.3: Development Standards and Requirements Item 11: Shared Parking Requirements Table Update
The Zoning Code requires new developments, major remodels, and new tenants to provide a minimum number of parking spaces based on the property’s land use, as outlined in Table 13-89 for non-residential uses and Table 13-85 for residential. For mixed-use sites, parking is calculated using the City’s Shared Parking Table, which applies use-specific hourly demand factors to determine true peak demand for weekdays and weekends. The higher value becomes the code-required parking for the development.
The Shared Parking Table, adopted in 1985, has served the City for 40 years, but no longer reflects current land use patterns. Over time, retail, restaurant, and fitness uses have diversified, creating new operational and parking characteristics not represented in the original table. Without specific factors for these uses, staff must rely on conservative flat demand rates, leading to unnecessary parking requirements, deviation requests, or lost business opportunities.
The update follows the same methodology as the existing table but uses current industry data from the Urban Land Institute (Shared Parking, 3rd Ed.) and the Institute of Transportation Engineers (Parking Generation, 6th Ed.). We refined existing use categories, added new ones based on Costa Mesa’s Land Use Matrix and common local business types, and verified results with case studies and field observations. Both case studies showed that the updated table more accurately predicted demand and revealed on-site parking surpluses.
The proposed amendment to the City’s Shared Parking Requirements table adds new land uses, updates to the existing uses, and updates demand factors; all to improve the accuracy of parking demand calculations. The proposed update adds 12 additional uses to the table. Some broad categories from the 1980s table, like retail, office, and restaurant, are now broken into smaller, more specific subcategories. Retail and restaurant categories, for example, have diversified into specialized subcategories with distinct operating and parking characteristics. Similarly, new popular uses were not represented in the original model. These include uses that were not previously considered, such as physical fitness facilities, dance studios, and event centers; business types that are now common in many mixed-use developments. This change accounts for differences in operating hours and customer patterns within these groups, resulting in a more accurate and fairer estimate of parking needs.
To determine the effectiveness of the proposed updates, staff conducted two case studies and compared them to the current Shared Parking Requirements table. The results of the case studies are shown in Table 2. Case Study 1 is a large shopping center consisting of a supermarket and grocery store, restaurants, medical offices, smaller retail tenants, and physical fitness studios. Case Study 2 is a medium commercial center with smaller retail tenants, medical offices, and restaurants.
Table 2: Summary of Case Study Results
Case Study 1
Case Study 2
Code Required Parking
1123 parking spaces
250 parking spaces
1980s Shared Parking Demand
1110 parking spaces
234 parking spaces
Proposed Shared Parking Demand
960 parking spaces
209 parking spaces
Parking Provided On-Site
1011 parking spaces
225 parking spaces
Parking Surplus with New Data
51 parking spaces
16 parking spaces
In both test cases, the new summary table more accurately reflected the parking demand onsite based on site observations throughout the year and specific site assessments during the development of this report. To determine the accuracy of the proposed updates, staff conducted site visits on the weekend and weekdays at the identified peak parking demand hours, which were noon and 1:00 p.m. for Case Study 1, and 6:00 p.m. and 1:00 p.m. for Case Study 2. In both case studies, Staff observed a parking surplus on-site at peak demand hours on both weekends and weekdays. Furthermore, not only did the new demand data result in a lower parking demand than the data from the 1980s, but it also resulted in a parking surplus at the site, therefore increasing flexibility at the sites for future uses.
The benefits of this update are:
Maximized efficiency – Aligns parking supply with actual demand, reducing overbuilt parking while accommodating peak use periods.
Optimized land use – Frees property area for revenue-generating uses, public amenities, or landscaping.
Economic development – Expands the variety of businesses that can operate without costly parking deviations, fostering a business-friendly environment.
Data-driven decisions – Uses current, industry-standard data to provide predictable, transparent parking requirements for applicants and staff.
Cost savings – Lowers maintenance and construction costs for parking infrastructure.
Support for mixed-use and adaptive reuse – Facilitates redevelopment and revitalization of existing properties in line with General Plan goals.
The Code cites the City’s Procedure for Determining Shared Parking Requirements as the resource for establishing parking requirements for mixed-use developments. The Code also allows for this procedure to be updated from time to time by resolution.
The City’s Shared Parking Requirements table adds new land uses, updates to the existing uses, and updates demand factors; all to improve the accuracy of parking demand calculations. The goal of the Shared Parking Requirements table aims to present a realistic picture of true parking demand based on contemporary land use patterns.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
The proposed amendments are exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) (General Rule) in that there is no possibility that the minor technical updates to the City’s Municipal Code provisions or shared parking requirements will have a significant impact on the environment.
Items 1 through 10 are incorporating documents, interpretations and state law that already exist and are being implemented therefore, there is no potential for these amendments to have any significant impact on the environment.
Amendment Item 11 has been reviewed under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Staff recommends a finding of exemption pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3), the “Common Sense Exemption,” which applies when it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility of significant environmental effects.
This update is amending the shared parking table that already exists in the City’s Municipal Code and has long been used to calculate parking demand. The proposed amendment simply refines this tool by updating hourly demand distributions and expanding the list of uses to reflect current development patterns. These refinements improve the accuracy of parking calculations without altering the underlying methodology, land use entitlements, floor area limits, or codified parking ratios. Development capacity remains constrained by existing FAR standards and the Land Use Matrix, ensuring no increase in allowable intensity.
By providing more accurate estimates, the amendment reduces the risk of spillover parking, overbuilt lots, and associated traffic or greenhouse gas impacts. It may also lessen impervious surface, stormwater runoff, and heat island effects, while allowing greater flexibility for landscaping, pedestrian paths, and bicycle circulation. Case studies included in the analysis substantiate these benefits.
Accordingly, it can be seen with certainty there is no possibility of significant environmental effects, and the project is exempt under CEQA Section 15061(b)(3).
ALTERNATIVES:
Approve with modifications. The City Council may recommend approval with modifications, provided that the revisions are consistent with State law.
Deny the amendments. The City Council may choose not to adopt the proposed Zoning Code Amendments and updates to the Shared Parking Requirements, leaving all documents unchanged.
Continue the item to a date certain. The City Council may continue the item to a date certain with direction for staff to return with additional information, changes, and/or clarifications.
FISCAL REVIEW:
The adoption of the proposed amendments will help increase efficiency in the building permit process by making the City’s code clearer and more predictable. This will allow for a more efficient plan check and permitting process, which may lead to faster permit issuance. Additionally, updates to the shared parking requirements table is not anticipated to have a significant increase to the City’s revenue as a direct impact, however it may result in a more diverse collection of uses within sites with multiple uses, allow for more uses that are currently in demand, and therefore encourage the continual investment within Costa Mesa, which in turn will support our long-term fiscal sustainability goals.
LEGAL REVIEW:
The City Attorney’s Office has reviewed this report and approves it as to form.
PUBLIC NOTICE:
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65853, a public notice was published once in the Daily Pilot newspaper no less than 10 days prior to September 16, 2025, public hearing.
Any public comments received for the September 16, 2025, City Council meeting may be viewed at this link: CITY OF COSTA MESA - Calendar (legistar.com) CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES:
This item supports the following City Council Goals:
Diversify, Stabilize, and Increase Housing to Reflect Community Needs Achieve long-term fiscal sustainability
CONCLUSION:
The proposed Zoning Code Amendment provides technical updates and clarifications that are consistent with the General Plan and State law. This is intended to improve the efficiency of the plan development review process and encourage high-quality development within the City of Costa Mesa while minimizing effects on neighboring properties.
Item #: 25-427 Meeting Date: 9/16/25