From: Stewart Ramsey
To: FVPMP
Cc: CITY COUNCIL; CITY CLERK
Subject: Fairview Master Plan Feedback
Date: Monday, October 20, 2025 3:50:28 PM
Attachments: Screenshot 2025-10-20 at 3.30.47 PM.png
Hello Fairview Park Team,
I regretfully cannot attend the upcoming Nov. 18th city council meeting for public feedback - please take this email below as feedback in lieu of my absenteeism.
Thank you for the extensive work that’s gone into the Fairview Park Master Plan Update (Draft 2025).
It’s clear how much effort and care have been invested in protecting sensitive ecological and cultural resources.
After reviewing the plan, I believe the proposed scope — including large-scale grading, elevated walkways, new drainage systems, and permanent interpretive structures — constitutes major physical change and new uses that likely trigger Measure AA.
Before moving forward, I respectfully request a formal legal determination confirming whether these actions meet that threshold.
If Measure AA applies, then Costa Mesa has a once-in-a-generation opportunity: not just to vote on compliance, but to re-imagine Fairview Park as a bold synthesis of ecology and human creativity.
Why This Moment Deserves a Bigger Vision
Across the world, there are parks that show how nature and humanity can thrive together — not in opposition, but in dialogue.
Think of The High Line in New York, where native grasses and art installations rewild the city’s skyline while eating ice cream while you stroll.
Or Gas Works Park in Seattle, where industrial relics became sculptural landmarks surrounded by meadows.
Or Balboa Park in San Diego, where drought-tolerant plantings and playful topography connect people to the coastal landscape.
Or Golden Gate Park in San Fran, which fuses native ecology, community play, and culture in a space that feels both wild, welcoming, and uniquely San Franciscan.
These parks prove that environmental restoration doesn’t require human absence — it flourishes through thoughtful design and creative participation.
Costa Mesa has that same opportunity with Fairview Park: to create something iconic, imaginative, and deeply rooted in both nature and community.
If It Goes to a Vote — Let’s Make It Worth Voting For
If the community is being asked to decide, then let’s invite them to dream:
A pump track or adventure cycling loop that gets kids outdoors.
Shade-canopy trees and pollinator gardens for comfort and climate resilience.
Artist-designed installations and community art nodes celebrating Costa Mesa’s creative DNA.
A small craft brewery and café pavilion on the bluff, offering views and connection while honoring the landscape.
Outdoor learning and event space for ecology, music, drama, and storytelling.
These ideas would turn Fairview Park into a place that protects habitat and draws people into relationship with it — a space of stewardship, not separation.
My Requests
1. Conduct and publicly release a Measure AA applicability review.
2. If a vote is required, broaden the ballot concepts to include visionary community amenities and cultural integration.
3. Engage local artists, cyclists, educators, and small businesses in co-creating a plan that reflects Costa Mesa’s unique spirit.
Thank you for considering these perspectives and for your dedication to the future of our city’s most remarkable landscape.
Warm regards,
Stewart William Ramsey
President
The R&D Dept.
509-570-2002
[email protected]
www.rad.agency
1945 Placentia Ave, F-1, Costa Mesa, CA 92627
Schedule Some Time
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
From: Cassidy Flynn
To: FVPMP; CITY CLERK
Cc: CITY COUNCIL
Subject: I do NOT support | Comments on Draft 2025 Fairview Park Master Plan Date: Tuesday, October 21, 2025 7:00:32 AM
Dear City Staff and City Council,
I am writing to express my opposition to the current Draft Fairview Park Master Plan. I'd like to see major changes so the community can keep enjoying the long-standing activities that make Fairview Park special. I urge the City to make significant revisions so that the community can continue the long-standing and valued uses of Fairview Park. Specifically, the Plan should:
Clearly preserve Concerts in the Park, the model glider field, bicycle and dog-walking trail access, and the Goat Hill Junction Railroad.
Direct staff to work with the CDFW promptly on a mitigation approach that allows these uses to continue in a safe and compliant manner.
I also oppose any proposal to fence off portions of the park. Any revisions should reflect the community intent expressed through Measure AA and protect the recreational and cultural activities that have been part of Fairview Park for decades.
Please include this message in the public record for the Draft 2025 Fairview Park Master Plan Update. Thank you for your consideration.
Best,
Cassidy Flynn
(Freedom Homes resident)
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
From: Daiquiri Scherer
To: CITY CLERK; FVPMP; CITY COUNCIL
Subject: I do NOT support the Draft Fairview Park Master Plan Date: Monday, October 20, 2025 5:53:49 PM
City staff and City Council,
I do not support the current Draft Fairview Park Master Plan. Please make major changes so the community can continue long-standing uses at Fairview Park. Specifically, the Plan should explicitly preserve the model glider field, Concerts in the Park, bicycle/dog-walking trail access, and the Goat Hill Junction Railroad—and direct staff to work with CDFW promptly on a mitigation approach that allows these uses to continue safely and compliantly.
I also do not support any fencing off of any area of the park. Any revisions should honor the community intent reflected in Measure AA’s declarations and protect existing community uses that have occurred for decades.
Please include this comment in the public record for the Draft 2025 Fairview Park Master Plan Update.
Thank you,
Daiquiri C. Scherer
Canyon Park, 92627
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
From: Katie Van Berckelaer
To: FVPMP
Cc: CITY COUNCIL; CITY CLERK
Subject: I do NOT support the Draft Fairview Park Master Plan Date: Monday, October 20, 2025 4:47:20 PM
City staff and City Council,
I do not support the current Draft Fairview Park Master Plan. Please make major changes so the community can continue long-standing uses at Fairview Park. Specifically, the Plan should explicitly preserve the model glider field, Concerts in the Park, bicycle/dog-walking trail access, and the Goat Hill Junction Railroad—and direct staff to work with CDFW promptly on a mitigation approach that allows these uses to continue safely and compliantly.
I also do not support any fencing off of any area of the park. Any revisions should honor the community intent reflected in Measure AA’s declarations and protect existing community uses that have occurred for decades.
Please include this comment in the public record for the Draft 2025 Fairview Park Master Plan Update.
Thank you,
Katie Van Berckelaer
Freedom Home Neighborhood
Sent from my iPhone
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
October 20, 2025
Mayor Stephens and Council Members
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA
RE: Maximize Lower-Income Affordable Housing at Fairview Dev. Center
Dear Mayor Stephens and Council Members:
The Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition urges the City Council to prioritize lower- income affordable housing opportunities at Fairview Developmental Center (FDC) by approving the 4000-unit maximum recommended by the Planning Commission.
At this week’s council meeting, you will likely hear from golfers, “sports fields” enthusiasts, and NIMBYs who want to limit the number of residential units planned for FDC. We hope you will do the opposite. We ask you to approve increased densities that will allow up to 4000 units for the site, with 40% of those units affordable to low- and very low-income households.
The lack of affordable housing is the MOST PRESSING issue facing Costa Mesa. According to the Costa Mesa Housing Element, 47% of CM households are lower-income (i.e., a family of four makes no more than $79,200). Moreover, 29% of Costa Mesa’s households-- approximately 11,842 families-- fall into the very low- and extremely low-income categories (family of four earns less than $42,700).
Today, the average 2-bedroom Costa Mesa rental costs $2934 a month. Very low-income households can only afford a monthly housing cost of $1601. Clearly, the average rent in Costa Mesa is acutely unaffordable for its 11,842 very low-income families. When a family pays too much for rent, parents must scrimp on food, medicine and other necessities. Living on the edge of homelessness is not good for children.
Please maximize lower-income affordable housing at FDC through increased density. This site holds the greatest potential for meeting our community’s dire need for affordable housing.
Respectfully,
Kathy Esfahani
Kathy Esfahani, Chair of the Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition
From: Betsy Densmore
To: STEPHENS, JOHN; PETTIS, JEFF; MARR, ANDREA; CHAVEZ, MANUEL; GAMEROS, LOREN; BULEY, MIKE; CITY CLERK; REYNOLDS, ARLIS
Subject: Fairview Development Center Plan
Date: Sunday, October 19, 2025 8:28:34 PM
Hello!
I am a semi-retired business owner with deep concern for the economic future of Costa Mesa if we do not provide more housing for our middle and lower income workers.
While I generally support the Planning Commission’s recommendations, I ask that you champion a commitment to more housing, more green space, and two entrances. · Units of Affordable Housing for families: as the planning process evolved, we were introduced to three models of development. I believe that the one dubbed “Fairview Fields” with 3450 units will provide the most value for Costa Mesa because it includes more senior housing as well as more opportunity for families and young professionals. Please be wary of the fact that the DDS will control over the 200 units of very low-income housing for their clients so those units should not be included in the
city’s efforts to increase affordable housing for normal citizens. DDS’s units should not be included in fulfilling our commitment to 40% affordability. · Green Space: I also like the “Fairview Fields” design because it included 18 acres of open space which would help to satisfy the cry for more athletic fields and parks. Surely we can free up 18 out of 95 acres!
· Two Entrances: I wholeheartedly endorse creating a neighborhood that has plenty of retail space and necessary amenities within it, so that walking and biking is attractive. However, there will still be cars and visitors and deliveries filling the streets.
To reduce congestion and mitigate safety risks, this community should have two entrances. I know we love our golfers but they already have many benefits and they are a small minority of our total population. We should refigure the golf course or reconsider installing a road that exits onto Placentia.
I recognize that some of these suggestions may be resisted by potential developers. However, the city has many tools (taxes, fees, finance subsidies etc) which it could use to incentivize doing what the community has asked for. This is our one big, beautiful chance to address the housing scarcity crisis that is only going to get bigger.
Thank you for representing all of Costa Mesa’s citizens.
Warm Regards,
Betsy
Betsy Densmore
[email protected]
949-500-2381
"The difference between winning and losing is most often not quitting." — Walt Disney" God has given inner strength for the tree to survive the harshest winters. You are no less endowed. The wintertimes of life come not to destroy you, but to stimulate you to fresh enthusiasm and constructive effort." - Paramahansa Yogananda (a)
(1)
(2)
(b)
(c)
City of Costa Mesa, CA
Tuesday, October 21, 2025
Title 13. Planning, Zoning and Development
Chapter III. PLANNING APPLICATIONS
§ 13-29. Planning application review process.
Application.
Application for any planning application shall be made to the planning division on the forms provided. Plans and information reasonably needed to analyze the application may be required. A list of required plans and information shall be available from the planning division.
All applications shall be signed by the record owner of the real property to be affected. This requirement may be waived upon presentation of evidence substantiating the right of another person to file the application.
Fees. The application shall be accompanied by all applicable processing fees as established by resolution of the city council.
Public hearing. Upon receipt of a complete application for a planning application, the planning division shall fix a time and place of the public hearing if one is required pursuant to Table 13-29(c). For planning applications which require review by both the planning commission and city council or redevelopment agency, pursuant to Table 13-29(c), the final review authority shall hold a public hearing no more than 45 days from the receipt of the planning commission's recommendation.
TABLE 13-29(c)
PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW PROCESS
Planning Applications
Public Notice
Required
Public Hearing
Required
Recommending
Authority
Final Review
Authority
Notice of
Decision
Development Review
Minor Modification No No None Planning Division No
Reasonable
Accommodation No No None Planning Division No
Lot Line Adjustment No No None Planning Division No
Special Use Permit Yes Yes None Planning Division No
Administrative Adjustment
Minor Conditional Use
Permit Minor Design
Review
Planned Signing Program
Yes No None Zoning
Administrator Yes
Design Review
Mobile Home Park
Conversion
Common Interest
Development Conversion
(Residential or
Nonresidential)
Specific Plan Conformity
Review Tentative Parcel
Map
Yes Yes Planning Division Planning
Commission
Yes
(d)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(e)
TABLE 13-29(c)
PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW PROCESS
Planning Applications
Public Notice
Required
Public Hearing
Required
Recommending
Authority
Final Review
Authority
Notice of
Decision
Tentative Tract Map
Variance
Conditional Use Permit
Density Bonus
Master Plan
Master Plan—Preliminary
Yes Yes Planning Division
Planning
Commission
(excepted where
noted otherwise
in this zoning
code)
Yes
Redevelopment Action Yes Yes Planning
Commission
Redevelopment
Agency Yes
Rezone Yes Yes
Planning
Commission; and, if
located in a redevel-
opment project area,
the Redevelopment
Agency
City Council No
Local Register of Historic
Places No No
Planning
Commission or other
commission/committ
ee as designated by
the City Council
City Council Yes
Certificate of
Appropriateness No No
Planning
Commission or other
commission/ commit-
tee as designated by
the City Council
Planning
Commission or
other commis-
sion/ committee
as designated by
the City Council
No
Public notice. When required pursuant to Table 13-29(c), public notice shall be given as described in the following subsections. Public notices shall contain a general explanation of the proposed planning application and any other information reasonably needed to give adequate notice of the matter to be considered.
Mailed notice required. Notices of the hearing shall be mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 500 foot radius of the project site, except for applications for the construction of a building(s) 150 feet or more in height; these applications shall require a greater notice radius:
Building Height in Feet Notice Requirement
More than 150 and less than or equal to 225 700-foot radius More than 225 and less than or equal to 300 900-foot radius More than 300 1,100-foot radius
The required notice radius shall be measured from the external boundaries of the property described in the application. The notice shall be mailed no less than 10 days prior to the hearing or determination on the application. The planning division shall require mailing labels from the project applicant for this purpose.
The mailing labels shall reflect the last known name and address of owner(s) as shown on the last equalized county assessment roll or by a more current listing.
On-site posting required. Additional notice shall be provided by posting a notice on each street frontage of the project site, no less than 10 days prior to the date set for the hearing or determination on the application.
Newspaper publication. When a public hearing is required, notice shall also be published once in the city in a newspaper of general circulation, no less than 10 days prior to the date set for the public hearing.
Review criteria. Review criteria for all planning applications shall consist of the following:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(f)
(g)
(1)
a.
b.
c.
(2)
a.
b.
c.
(3)
a.
Compatible and harmonious relationship between the proposed building and site development, and use(s), and the building and site developments, and uses that exist or have been approved for the general neighborhood.
Safety and compatibility of the design of buildings, parking area, landscaping, luminaries and other site features which may include functional aspects of the site development such as automobile and pedestrian circulation.
Compliance with any performance standards as prescribed elsewhere in this Zoning Code.
Consistency with the general plan and any applicable specific plan.
The planning application is for a project-specific case and is not to be construed to be setting a precedent for future development.
When more than one planning application is proposed for a single development, the cumulative effect of all the planning applications shall be considered.
For residential developments, consistency with any applicable design guidelines adopted by city council resolution.
For affordable multi-family housing developments which include a minimum of 16 affordable dwelling units at no less than 20 dwelling units per acre, the maximum density standards of the general plan shall be applied, and the maximum density shall be permitted by right and not subject to discretionary review during the design review or master plan application process.
Conditions. The final review authority pursuant to Table 13-29(c), may impose reasonable conditions to assure compliance with the applicable provisions of this Zoning Code, and to assure compatibility with surrounding properties and uses and to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. The final review authority may also require such written guarantees, cash deposits, recorded land use restrictions, etc., as may be necessary to assure compliance with the conditions.
Findings. When granting an application for any of the planning applications specified below, the final review authority shall find that the evidence presented in the administrative record substantially meets any required conditions listed below. Other findings may also be required pursuant to other provisions of this Zoning Code.
Administrative adjustment and variance findings:
Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, the strict application of development standards deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by others in the vicinity under identical zoning classifications.
The deviation granted shall be subject to such conditions as will assure that the deviation authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitation upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the property is situated.
The granting of the deviation will not allow a use, density, or intensity which is not in accordance with the general plan designation and any applicable specific plan for the property.
Conditional use permit and minor conditional use permit findings:
The proposed development or use is substantially compatible with developments in the same general area and would not be materially detrimental to other properties within the area.
Granting the conditional use permit or minor conditional use permit will not be materially detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the public or otherwise injurious to property or improvements within the immediate neighborhood.
Granting the conditional use permit or minor conditional use permit will not allow a use, density or intensity which is not in accordance with the general plan designation and any applicable specific plan for the property.
Density bonus and concession or incentive findings:
The request is consistent with State Government Code section 65915 et. seq. regarding density bonuses and other incentives, the general plan, any applicable specific plan, and Chapter IX special regulations, Article 4 density bonuses and other incentives. b.
c.
d.
e.
(4)
(5)
a.
b.
c.
(6)
a.
b.
(7)
a.
b.
(8)
a.
b.
c.
d.
(9)
(10)
The requested density bonus and incentive or concession constitute the minimum amount necessary to provide housing at the target rents or sale prices and/or a child care facility.
The granting of the incentive or concession is required in order to provide for affordable housing costs, as defined in Health and Safety Code section 50052.5 or for rents for the targeted units.
The granting of the incentive or concession and/or the waiver or reduction of development standards does not have a specific, adverse impact, as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Government Code section 65589.5 upon health, safety, or the physical environment, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact.
The granting of the incentive or concession and/or the waiver or reduction of development standards does not have an adverse impact on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources.
Lot line adjustment findings: The lot line adjustment and improvements are consistent with the general plan, any applicable specific plan and this Zoning Code.
Master plan findings:
The master plan meets the broader goals of the general plan, any applicable specific plan, and the Zoning Code by exhibiting excellence in design, site planning, integration of uses and structures and protection of the integrity of neighboring development.
Master plan findings for mixed-use development projects in the mixed-use overlay district are identified in Chapter V, Article 11, mixed-use overlay district.
As applicable to affordable multi-family housing developments, the project complies with the maximum density standards allowed pursuant to the general plan and provides affordable housing to low or very- low income households, as defined by the California Department of Housing and Community Development. The project includes long-term affordability covenants in compliance with state law.
Minor modification findings:
The improvement will not be materially detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of persons residing or working within the immediate vicinity of the project or to property and improvements within the neighborhood.
The improvement is compatible and enhances the architecture and design of the existing and anticipated development in the vicinity. This includes the site planning, land coverage, landscaping, appearance, scale of structures, open space and any other applicable features relative to a compatible and attractive development.
Mobile home park conversion findings:
The impacts of the conversion on the residents of the mobile home park have been duly considered as required by the State Government Code.
The proposed conversion project is consistent with the general plan, any applicable specific plan and this Zoning Code.
Planned signing program findings:
The proposed signing is consistent with the intent of Chapter VIII, Signs, and the General Plan.
The proposed signs are consistent with each other in design and construction taking into account sign style and shape, materials, letter style, colors and illumination.
The proposed signs are compatible with the buildings and developments they identify taking into account materials, colors and design motif.
Approval does not constitute a grant of special privilege or allow substantially greater overall visibility than the standard sign provisions would allow.
Reasonable Accommodation findings: Refer to Chapter IX, Article 15.
Common interest development conversion findings:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
(11)
(12)
(13)
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
(14)
a.
The applicant has submitted an adequate and legally binding plan which addresses the displacement of long-term residents, particularly senior citizens and low- and moderate-income families and families with school-age children; and
The proposed common interest development conversion project conforms to adopted general plan policies and any applicable specific plan or urban plan, and if applicable, increases the supply of lower cost housing in the city and/or that the proposed conversion project fulfills other stated public goals.
The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the surrounding neighborhood, nor will the project be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the city.
The overall design and physical condition of the common interest development conversion project achieves a high standard of appearance, quality, and safety.
The proposed common interest development conversion project conforms to the Costa Mesa Zoning Code requirements.
For a proposed common interest development conversion project that does not conform to the zoning code requirements, the project due to its proportions and scale, design elements, and relationship to the surrounding neighborhood, is of continued value to the community and it contributes to defining and improving the community as a whole. Deviations from zoning code requirements are acceptable because it would be impracticable or physically impossible without compromising the integrity of the overall project to implement features that could result in conformance with current code requirements.
For a proposed common interest development conversion project located in an urban plan area, the proposed conversion is consistent with the applicable mixed-use overlay zoning district. Specifically, the proposed non-residential conversion project supports a mixed-use development or a similar land use that is not allowed in the base zoning district, or the proposed conversion project is a residential common interest development that is permitted by either the base or overlay zoning district.
Rezone findings: The proposed rezone is consistent with the Zoning Code and the general plan and any applicable specific plan.
Specific plan conformity review findings: Refer to the applicable specific plan text.
Tentative parcel or tract map findings:
The creation of the subdivision and related improvements is consistent with the general plan, any applicable specific plan, and this Zoning Code.
The proposed use of the subdivision is compatible with the general plan.
The subject property is physically suitable to accommodate the subdivision in terms of type, design and density of development, and will not result in substantial environmental damage nor public health problems, based on compliance with the Zoning Code and general plan, and consideration of appropriate environmental information.
The design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating and cooling opportunities in the subdivision, as required by State Government Code section 66473.1.
The division and development will not unreasonably interfere with the free and complete exercise of the public entity and/or public utility rights-of-way and/or easements within the tract.
The discharge of sewage from this land division into the public sewer system will not violate the requirements of the State Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with State Water Code section 13000).
Design review and minor design review findings:
The project complies with the City of Costa Mesa Zoning Code and meets the purpose and intent of the residential design guidelines, which are intended to promote design excellence in new residential construction, with consideration being given to compatibility with the established residential community. This design review includes site planning, preservation of overall open space, landscaping, appearance, mass and scale of structures, location of windows, varied roof forms and roof plane breaks, and any other applicable design features. b.
c.
(h)
(1)
(2)
(i)
(1)
(2)
(j)
(k)
(1)
(2)
a.
b.
1. 2.
3. 4.
(3)
The visual prominence associated with the construction of a two-story house or addition in a predominantly single-story neighborhood has been reduced through appropriate transitions between the first and second floors and the provision of second floor offsets to avoid unrelieved two-story walls.
As applicable to affordable multi-family housing developments, the project complies with the maximum density standards allowed pursuant to the general plan and provides affordable housing to low or very- low income households, as defined by the California Department of Housing and Community Development. The project includes long-term affordability covenants in compliance with state law.
Decision.
After the public hearing, if required, the final review authority may approve, conditionally approve or deny any application for the planning application based upon the standards and intent set forth in the applicable provisions of this Zoning Code. In the case of a denial, the applicant shall be notified of the circumstances of the denial.
For planning applications which require the planning commission to make a recommendation to the final review authority, the authority shall not approve any major change or additions in any proposed planning application until the proposed change or addition has been referred to the planning commission for a report, unless the change or addition was previously considered by the planning commission. It shall not be necessary for the planning commission to hold a public hearing to review the referral. Failure of the planning commission to report to the final review authority within 40 days after the referral shall be deemed approval of the proposed change or addition.
Notice of decision.
Notice of the zoning administrator's decision shall be given within five days of the decision to the city council, planning commission and to any affected party requesting the notice. Any member of the planning commission or city council may request review of a zoning administrator's decision within seven days of the notice of the decision. No fee shall be charged for such review.
Notice of the planning commission's and/or redevelopment agency's decision shall be given within five days to the city council and to any affected party requesting the notice. Any member of the city council may request review of the decision within seven days of the notice of the decision. No fee shall be charged for such review.
Appeals. Appeals of the final review authority shall be filed within seven days of the public hearing or the date of the notice of decision according to the procedures set forth in Title 2, Chapter IX, Appeal, Rehearing and Review Procedure.
Time limits and extensions.
Planning applications shall run with the land until revoked, except as provided in this section or in a condition imposed at the time of granting the planning application.
Unless otherwise specified by condition of approval, any permit or approval not exercised within 24 months from the actual date of review authority approval shall expire and become void, unless an extension of time is approved in compliance with paragraph (4) of this subsection; The permit shall not be deemed "exercised" until at least one of the following has first occurred:
A building permit has been issued and construction has commenced, and has continued to maintain a valid building permit by making satisfactory progress as determined by the building official.
A certificate of occupancy has been issued.
The use is established and a business license has been issued.
A time extension has been granted in compliance with paragraph (3) of this subsection.
The time limits specified in paragraph (2) of this subsection shall not apply to preliminary master plans, except that the first phase of the final master plan must be approved within 24 months of the approved preliminary master plan. Time limits regarding the construction of improvements authorized by the approved final master plan for each phase of the project shall comply with the time limits established in paragraph (2).
(4)
a.
b.
c.
(5)
(6)
(7)
(l)
(m)
(n)
(o)
(1)
a.
b.
(2)
(p)
(1)
Extension of time.
Filing and review of request. No less than 30 days or more than 60 days before the expiration date of the permit, the applicant shall file a written request for an extension of time with the department, together with the filing fee established by resolution of the city council.
For extension requests not to exceed 180 days: The director of development services may extend the time for an approved permit or approval to be exercised. Only one request for an extension of 180 days may be approved by the director. Any subsequent extension requests shall be considered by the original approval authority.
For extensions requests of more than 180 days: The review authority for the original project shall consider the request to extend the time for an approved permit or approval to be exercised. A public hearing shall only be held if it was required on the original application. If notice was required for the original application, notice of the public hearing shall be given according to the procedures set forth in this chapter.
Fees for extensions of time for planning applications may be established by resolution of the city council.
Action on extension request. A permit or approval may be extended beyond the expiration of the original approval provided the director or the review authority finds that there have been no changes in the conditions or circumstances of the site, such as Zoning Code or General Plan amendment or other local and statewide regulations affecting the approved development standards, or project so that there would have been ground for denial of the original project or any changes to the General Plan and/or Zoning Code that would preclude approval of the same project at the time of the requested extension.
Effect of expiration. After the expiration of the permit or approval, no further work shall be done on the site and no further use of the site shall occur until a new permit or approval, or other city permits or approvals are first obtained. Fees for extensions of time for planning applications may be established by resolution of the city council.
Building permits/authority to proceed. No building permit or authority to proceed shall be granted until all required review and approval has been obtained and all applicable appeal periods have expired.
Compliance. Final occupancy shall not be granted unless the site development conforms to the approved set of building plans, applicable conditions of approval and code requirements.
Reapplication. Upon final denial of any planning application, a new application for substantially the same planning application may not be filed within six months of the date of the denial. The development services director shall determine whether the new application is for a planning application which is substantially the same as a previously denied application. No decision of the development services director shall be effective until a period of seven days has elapsed following the written notice of a decision; an appeal of the decision shall be filed according to the procedures set forth in Title 2, Chapter IX, Appeal, Rehearing and Review Procedure.
Enforcement authority.
The planning commission may require the modification or revocation of any planning application and/or pursue other legal remedies as may be deemed appropriate by the city attorney, if the planning commission finds that the use as operated or maintained:
Constitutes a public nuisance as defined in State Civil Code Sections 3479 and 3480; or Does not comply with the conditions of approval.
The modification or revocation of any permit by the planning commission under this subsection shall comply with the notice and public hearing requirements set forth in subsections (c) and (d). The development services director may require notice for a development review or minor modification, if deemed appropriate.
Amendment to a planning application. Any approved planning application may be amended by following the same procedure and fee schedule as required for the initial approval, with the exception of the following two instances:
Minor amendments to conditional use permits shall be processed as minor conditional use permits; and (2)
(q)
Amendments to master plans which comply with section 13-28(f)(1) may be authorized by the planning division.
Concurrent processing. Unless otherwise stated in this Zoning Code, applications for proposed projects which require two or more planning application approvals may be processed concurrently. Final project approval shall not be granted until all necessary approvals have been obtained. (Ord. No. 97-11, § 2, 5-5-97; Ord. No. 98-5, § 5—7, 3-2-98; Ord. No. 99-17, § 4, 11-15-99; Ord. No. 01-11, § 1a., 3- 5-01; Ord. No. 01-16, §§ 1c.—e., 6-18-01; Ord. No. 03-8, § 3, 9-2-03; Ord. No. 05-2, § 1d., e., 2-22-05; Ord. No. 06- 7, § 1a., 4-18-06; Ord. No. 06-9, § 1c., 4-18-06; Ord. No. 07-17, § 1c., d., 10-2-07; Ord. No. 09-13, § 1, 11-17-09; Ord. No. 17-12, § 1, 9-19-17; Ord. No. 18-06, § 1, 9-4-18; Ord. No. 21-20, § 1, 12-7-21)
From: Cynthia McDonald
To: PETTIS, JEFF; Arlis Reynolds; CHAVEZ, MANUEL; STEPHENS, JOHN; MARR, ANDREA; GAMEROS, LOREN; BULEY, MIKE
Cc: CITY CLERK; [email protected]
Subject: Concerns Regarding Planning Commission Public Hearing No. 2 (Amendment to Land Use Element) and Transparency in Noticing
Date: Tuesday, October 21, 2025 12:58:50 PM
Attachments: Email to Planning Commissioners 101325_Redacted.pdf City of Costa Mesa, CA Planning application review process_.pdf Honorable Mayor and City Council:
Prior to last week’s Planning Commission meeting, I sent the attached email to the Commissioners requesting that Public Hearing No. 2 be removed from the agenda. Upon reviewing the Agenda Report, I identified a significant procedural issue: the public noticing for the proposed amendments to the Land Use Element did not comply with the City’s ordinance.
Specifically, the report stated:
“Additionally, public notices were published throughout the processing of the Sixth Cycle Housing Element update, where the individual properties identified as housing opportunity sites within the sites inventory received proper legal notifications.”
However, the hearing in question pertained to zoning changes within the Land Use Element— specifically, increased building heights, increased density, and the elimination of trip budgets in Specific Plan areas. These changes fall outside the scope of the Housing Element, which does not govern zoning regulations.
According to Title 13, Article 13, Section 13-29(c) of the Municipal Code, rezoning is a planning application requiring a public hearing. Subsection (d) outlines the noticing requirements for such hearings. As the City is the proponent of this project, it bears the responsibility of notifying affected property owners. For reference, I have attached a copy of CMMC Section 13-29.
I requested the item be removed from the agenda to allow Staff time to issue proper and legally sufficient notices. The notices distributed during the Housing Element Update in or around 2021 did not mention proposed increases in building height, rendering them incomplete.
Furthermore, given the time elapsed, property ownership may have changed, and current owners must be informed. Any changes to the Land Use Element for a zoning change is a separate and distinct process requiring proper notice.
Despite my request, the Planning Commission proceeded with the hearing. I provided additional public comment at that time on this subject, in addition to remarking on the fact that the Agenda Report failed to address Measure Y implications for industrial/commercial properties that hold residential entitlements in the Specific Plan, Urban Plan and Overlay Areas. Furthermore, we have not seen any coordination of these changes with the Circulation Element.
As of this writing, neither the meeting recording nor my public comment has been posted on the City’s website. Historically, such materials are made available within 24 hours of a hearing.
The absence of this information raises concerns about transparency. While the YouTube video is accessible, my written public comment is not included, nor is there any indication of where the public may access it, as required under Section 54957.5(b)(2)(B) of the Brown Act.
I respectfully urge the City to ensure transparency in the rezoning process and to actively engage the community. Property owners affected by these zoning changes must be properly notified and given the opportunity to provide input at a public hearing.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Cynthia McDonald
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.