TABLE13-29(d)
MAILED NOTICE REQUIRED
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 1,1 00-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. (2) 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. (3) Newspaperpublication. 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. (e) Review criteria. Review criteria for all planning applications shall consist of the following:
(1) 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. (2) 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. (3) Compliance with any performance standards as prescribed elsewhere in this Zoning Code.
(4) Consistency with the general plan and any applicable specific plan. 9 1201
(5) The planning application is for a project-specific case and is not to be construed to be setting a precedent for future development.
(6) When more than one planning application is proposed for a single development, the cumulative effect of all the planning applications shall be considered. (7) For residential developments, consistency with any applicable design guidelines adopted by city council resolution.
(8) Foraffordablemulti-familyhousingdevelopmentswhichincludeaminimumofl6 affordable dwelling units at no !ess 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 master plan application process.
(f) Conditions. The final review authority pursuant to Table 1 3-29(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. (g) 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. (1) Major modifications and variance findings:
a. 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 b. 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.
c. 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.
(2) Conditional use permit and minor conditional use permit findings:
a. 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.
10 1202
b. 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.
c. 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. (3) Density bonus and concession or incentive findings:
a. TherequestisconsistentwithStateGovernmentCodesection65915et.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. 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.
c. 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.
d. Thegrantingoftheincentiveorconcessionand/orthewaiverorreductionof 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. e. Thegrantingoftheincentiveorconcessionand/orthewaiverorreductionof development standards does not have an adverse impact on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources. (4) Lot line adjustment findings: The lot line adjustment and improvements are consistent with the general plan, any applicable specific plan and this Zoning Code.
(5) Master plan findings:
a. 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 or neighboring development.
(6) Minor modification findings:
a. 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. b. 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.
11 1203
(7) Mobile home park conversion findings:
a. The impacts of the conversion on the residents of the mobile home park have been duly considered as required by the State Government Code. b. The proposed conversion project is consistent with the general plan, any applicable specific plan and this Zoning Code.
(8) Planned signing program findings:
a. The proposed signing is consistent with the intent of Chapter Vlll, Signs, and the General Plan.
b. 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.
c. The proposed signs are compatible with the buildings and developments they identify taking into account materials, colors and design motif. d. Approval does not constitute a grant of special privilege or allow substantially greater overall visibility than the standard sign provisions would allow. (9) Reasonable Accommodation findings: Refer to Chapter IX, Article 15. (10) Common interest development conversion findings:
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
12 1204
b. 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. c. The establishment, maintenance, or operation or 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.
d. The overall design and physical condition of the common interest development conversion project achieves a high standard of appearance quality, and safety.
e. The proposed common interest development conversion project conforms to the Costa Mesa Zoning Code requirements.
f. 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.
g. 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.
(11) Rezone findings: The proposed rezone is consistent with the Zoning Code and the general plan and any applicable specific plan.
(12) Specific plan conformity review findings: Refer to the applicable specific plan text. (13) Tentative parcel or tract map findings:
a. The creation of the subdivision and related improvements is consistent with the general plan, any applicable specific plan, and this Zoning Code. b. The proposed use of the subdivision is compatible with the general plan. 13 1205
c. 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.
d. 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.
e. 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.
f. 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). (h) Decision.
(1) Affer 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.
14 1206
(2) 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.
(i) Notice of decision.
(1) Noticeofthezoningadministrator'sdecisionshallbegivenwithinfivedaysofthe 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. (2) Notice of the planning commission'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. (i) 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. (k) Time limits and extensions.
(l) 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.
(2)
a. 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;
b. The permit shall not be deemed "exercised" until at least one of the following has first occurred:
1. 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.
2. A certificate of occupancy has been issued.
3. The use is established and a business license has been issued.
4. Atimeextensionhasbeengrantedincompliancewithparagraph(3) 15 1207
of this subsection.
(3) 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) Extension of time.
a. 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. b. 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.
c. 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.
(5) Fees for extensions of time for planning applications may be established by resolution of the city council.
(6) 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.
(7) 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. (1) 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 16 1208
applicable appeal periods have expired.
(m) 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.
(n) 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. (o) Enforcement authority.
(l) 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:
a. Constitutes a public nuisance as defined in State Civil Code Sections 3479 and 3480; or
b. Does not comply with the conditions of approval. (2) 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 (p) 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:
(l) Minor amendments to conditional use permits shall be processed as minor conditional use permits; and
(2) Amendments to master plans which comply with section 1 3-28(f)(1 ) may be authorized by the planning division.
(q) 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, 11-1 5-99; Ord. No. 01-11, § 1 a., 3-5-01 ; Ord. No. 01-16, §§ 1 c.-e., 6-1 8-01 ; Ord. No. 17 1209
03-8, § 3, 9-2-03; Ord. No 05-2 § 1d e, 2-22-05, Ord. No. 06-7, § 1a. 4-18-06a Ord.
No. 06-9 § 1 c., 4-1 8-06; Ord No 07-17, § 1 c d., 1 0-2-07; Ord. No. 09-13, § 1 11-1 7-09; Ord. No 17-12, § 1 9-19-17 0rd No 18-06, § 1, 9-4-1 8; Ord. No. 21-20 § 1 12-7-21)
1210
Exhibit D
CHAPTER IV
CITYWIDE LAND USE MATRIX
§ 13-30. Purpose.
The purpose of this chapter is to provide a comprehensive list of uses which are permitted, conditionally permitted, or prohibited in the various zoning districts, as represented by Table 13-30, Land Use Matrix. In evaluating a proposed use, the following criteria shall also be considered:
(a) Uses determined as permitted may be subject to a discretionary review when construction is proposed, pursuant to Chapter Ill, Planning Applications.
(b) Uses proposed in the planned development zones are subject to verification of consistency with the master plan adopted for planned development zones. A proposed use not expressly allowed by the adopted master plan may require additional discretionary review pursuant to Table 13-30, Land Use Matrix.
(c) All listed uses in the matrix are subject to verification of compliance with density and floor area ratio limits, parking requirements and performance standards which may, in certain cases, prevent the establishment of the use.
(d) Any proposed use not listed in the Land Use Matrix shall be reviewed by the development services director to determine its similarity to another listed use. If no substantial similarity exists, the proposed use shall require approval of a conditional use permit prior to establishment of the use.
(e) For the purpose or Table 13-30, Land Use Matrix, the various zoning districts are labeled as follows:
Residential zones: R1, R2-MD, R2-HD, and R3
Commercial zones: AP, CL, C1, C2, C1-S, and TC
Industrial zones: MG and MP
Planned Development Residential zones: PDR-LD, PDR-MD, PDR- HD, and PDR-NCM
Planned Development Commercial zone: PDC Planned Development Industrial zone: PDI
The Parking zone: P
Institutional and Recreational zones: I & R, & R-S, and & R-MLT 1211
(f) For zoning districts located in a specific plan area, please refer to the appropriate specific plan text to determine if any additional regulations related to land uses are applicable.
(g) For the mixed-use overlay district located in an urban plan area, please refer to the appropriate urban plan text for additional regulations related to development standards and allowable land uses as applicable. 1212
LAND USES
TABLE13-30
CITY OF COSTA MESA LAND USE MATRIX
ZONES
Rat R2-MD R2-HD R3 AP CL C1 C2 C1-Sl TC' MG MP
PDR PDR PDR PDR- I&R- I&RM
- NCM' PDC' PDI' I&R' S1 LT'
LD' MD' HD'
RESIDENTIAL USES
1. Single-family P' P P P
dwellings (single
housekeeping
units)
2.Multi-family P P P
dwellings
2.I Common interest P P P
developments,
residential
2.2 Small lot P P P
subdivisions,
residential
3. Mobile home parks C C C
4. Boarding- ' P P P
house, small'
5.Boarding- C C C
house, large'
6. Residential care P P P P
facility, six or fewer
persons (State
licensed)
7. Group homes, six or S Ef S" Sa
fewer
7.1 Soberliving Sa S" Sa Sf
homes, six or fewer
8. Residential care Ca Ca C'
facility, seven or more
9. Group homes, Ca (' C'
seven or more
9.I Soberliving C" Ca Ca
homes, seven or
more
PPPPPP
PPPPPP
PPPPPP
CCCCCC
PPPPPP
CCCCC
P
PPPPPPP P
S" Sa Sa S" Sa Sa P
S" S" Sa Sa Sa Sa P
Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca P
C8 Ca Ca C" Ca P
Ca C" C" Ca C" P
P
3 1213
LAND USES
TABLE13-30
CITY OF COSTA MESA LAND USE MATRIX
ZONES
Rl R2-MD R2-HD R3 AP CL C1 C2 C1-81 TC' MG
PDR PDR PDR PDR- I&R- I&RM
MP - - - NCM' PDC' PDI' I&R' 81 LT'
E' MD' HD'
10. Referral facility
(Subject to the
requirements of
section 13-32.2,
referral facility).
13. Single room
occupancy residential
hotel (subject to City
Council Policy 500-5)
Employee housing, six P
or fewer
Supportive housing P"
C2 C2 C!
P P P
plll2 plll2 plll2
Transitional housing P" P'a P"' P"
Low barrier navigation
center
ACCESSORY USES
Ca
(,2
(,2
pX t 12
pl2
pl3
(,2 Ca
P P P P P P
plll2 plll2 plll2 pll.l2 plil2 pll.l2
pl2 pl2 pl2 pX2 pl2 p12
pl3 P13
P
pll. 12
pl2
pl3
43. Animals, keeping
of
14. Antennas: Amateur
radio, Satellite dish,
CommunicaUon
SEE TITLE 3, ANIMALS AND FOWL
SEE CHAPTER IX, ARTICLE 2, ANTENNAS
16. Day care facilities
(15 children or more)
(see also Nursery
schools)
f 7. Family day
care-Large (7 to 14
c
F"
c
p2
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
Pa P" Pa P' Paa P" P
P P
Pa
4 1214
children) (subject to
the requirements of
section 13-37, large
family day care
homes)
18. Family day care- P
Small (up to 8
children)
19. Garage/yard P
sales-No more than
2 events permitted a
year, not to exceed 3
consecutive days
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
p3
P3
P3
p3
P P3
P"
21 Home occupations P
(subject to the
requirements of
chapter IX, article 6,
home occupations)
22. Home occupations MC'
that generate traffic
and do not involve
more than I
customer/ client at a
time or more than 8
customers/clients per
day (subject to the
requirements of ch. IX,
artide 6, home
occupations)
22.1 Non-residential
accessory uses in a
residential
development not
otherwise specified in
this table
21. Home occupations P"
(subject to the
requirements of
chapter IX, article 6,
home occupations)
P2 P2 P2 P2.3 P2.1 P2.3 P33 P2,3 P23 P2.3 pii P2 P2 P2 P2 pzt (x3 P2 MC" MC' MC' MC" MC" MC" MC"' MC' MC' MCa' MC" MC' MC' MC' MC' MC" MC" MC" p2 p2 pu p2,3
P2.3
p2 3 pi'3 p2,3 p2.3
P2.3 P" Pa
p2 3 p}.3 p2
P2
MC2.3
p2
5 1215
MC' MC" MC?' MC" MC" MC' MC' MCa' MC" MC' MC! MC' MC" MC" MC" MC" P2
p2 p2
P' P2
p2 p2
P
p2 p2
P' P'
p2 p2
Pa
P'
p2 p2
P2 P' P P' P' P2 Pa Pa P2 P' P'
M C2.3
P2
p2 p2
23. Cemeteries c
6 1216
LAND USES
TABLE13-30
CITY OF COSTA MESA LAND USE MATRIX
ZONES
R1 R2-MD R2-HD R3 AP CL C1 C2 C1-81 TC' MG
PDR PDR PDR PDR- I&R- I&RM
MP - - NCM' PDC' PDI' I&R' 81 LT'
LD' MD' HD'
24. Churches and C'
other places of
religious assembly
(Subject to the
requirements of article
4.5, development
standards for churches
and other places of
religious assembly)
25. Civic and C
community clubs
26. Convalescent
hospitals; nursing
homes
27. Country clubs: golf C
courses
C'
c
c
c
C'
c
c
c
(,2
c
c
c
(,2
c
c
(,2
c
c
P2
P
c
p2
P
c
(,2
P
(,2
P
p2
c
p2
c
(,2
c
c
(,2
c
c
(,2
c
c
C2
c
c
(,2
c
C"
c
p2
c
P
P
(,2
c
(,2
P
28. Crematories (See
also Mortuary
senAces)
29. Fairgrounds
outdoor festival
(permanent)
30. Hospitals, general
c c c c
c
P P
31 Libraries, privately- C
operated
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c P c
31a. Marijuana and/or
medical marijuana
cultivation
31 b. Cannabis and/or
marijuana distributer
(,9
Ca
31c. Cannabis and/or
mariluana
manufacturer or
processor
31 d. Cannabis and/or
marijuana retail sales
storefront
(,9
09 (,'l (,9
C9 C"
7 1217
LAND USES
TABLE13-30
CITY OF COSTA MESA LAND USE MATRIX
ZONES
Rj R2-MD R2-HD R3 AP CL CI C2 Cl-Sl TC' MG
PDR PDR PDR PDR- I&R- I&RM
MP - - - NCM' PDC' PDI' I&R' SI LT'
LD' MD' HD'
Ca
marijuana retail sales
nonstorefront
(deliveries)
:31f. Cannabis and/or
marijuana research
and development
and/or testing
laboratories
32. Mortuary services
without crematories
32a. Needle exchange
program
33.Nursery C C C
schools-See also
Day care facilities for
15 or more children
34. Parks and C C C
playgrounds
35. Public offices and C C C
facilities, such as city
halls, courthouses,
police/ fire stations,
etc.
CCCCC CC c
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCPC
c c CCCCCCPP P
CCCPPPPCCCCCCCCP
36. Schools: primary,
secondary and
COLLEGES
37. Schools: trade and
vocational; group
counseling
38. Senior congregate
care facility
39. Swap meets
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCPP
MC P P P P MC MC P MC P P
CCCCCCCCC
39a. Emergency
shelters
SPECIAL SEASONAL EVENTS
C'a
CCCC C
CC
pto *
8 1218
LAND uSES
TABLE13-30
CITY OF COSTA MESA LAND USE MATRIX
ZONES
Ral R2-MD R2-HD R3 AP CL C1 C2 C1-Sl TC' MG
PDR PDR PDR PDR- I&R- I&RM
MP - - NCM' PDC' PDI' I&R' 81 LT'
LD' MD' HD'
41. Christmas tree lots:
pumpkin patches;
fireworks stands;
produce stands
(subject to the
requirements of title 9,
chapter 11, regulation
of certain businesses)
COMMERCIAL AND
INDUSTRIAL USES
42. Acupressure;
massage (subject to
the requirements of
title 9, chapter ii,
artide 22, Massage
establishments and
practitioners)
43. Adult businesses
(See Sexually-oriented
businesses)
44. Aggregate batch
plants; Rock or asphalt
crushing; Sand
blasting
45. Ambulance
services
46. Amusement
centers (subject to the
requirements of
chapter IX, article 5,
electronic game
machines)
47. Animal hospitals;
veterinary services
(kenneling only when
incidental to principal
hospital use)
P'
p2
P2 Pa P'
p2
P2
p2
P2
p2
P2 P'
p2
MC MC MC MC MC MC MC MC
C'
(,2
C" C'
c c P P c c c
Ca C! Ca
P2 P2
p2
MC MC
Ca
P
Pa P"
9 1219
LAND USES
TABLE13-30
CITY OF COSTA MESA LAND USE MATRIX
ZONES
R1 R2-MD R2-HD R3 AP CL C1 C2 Cl-81 TC' MG
PDR PDR PDR PDR- I&R- I&RM
MP - - NCM' PDC' PDI' I&R' 81 LT'
LD' MD' HD'
c c c c48. Animal shelters,
pounds, kennels,
training schools
48a. Antique malls P P P MC MC P MC
49. Artists, sculptors
studios
50. Auction houses
51. Automobile (See
Motor vehicle)
52. Banks; savings and
loans; and other
financial institutions
53. Bars; nightclubs
(See Establishments
where food or
beverages are
served)
54. Barber and beauty
shops with accessory
uses such as
permanent make up,
facials, and accessory
massage
55. Billiards parlors
56. Botanical gardens;
Zoos
57. Bowling centers
58. Breweries;
Distilleries
P
P
P
P
P
P
c
P
P
c
c
c
P
c
P
P
c
c
c
P
c
P
P
c
c
c
P
c
P
P
c
c
c
P
c
c
c
P
c
c
c
P
P
c
P
P
c
P
P
c
c
P
c
P
P
c
c
P
c
P
P
c
c
10 1220
LAND USES
TABLE13-30
CITY OF COSTA MESA LAND USE MATRIX
ZONES
R1 R2-MD R2-HD R3 AP CL C1 C2 Cl-81 TC' MG
PDR PDR PDR PDR- I&R- I&RM
MP - - NCM' PDC' PDI' I&R' S1 LT'
LD' MD' HD'
60. Building supplies;
Hardware stores
(retail)
61. Business
services-See Offices
62. Car washes
63. Carts - Outdoor
retail sales in
conjunction with an
established business
64. Catering
65. Coffee roasting
66. Coffee roasting (in
conjunction with
establishments where
food or beverages are
served)
67. Commercial art;
Graphic design
68. Commercial testing
laboratories
69. Computer and data
processing
70. Contracting:
general contractors;
operative builders
71. Convenience
stores; mini-markets
(subjectto the
requirements of
chapter IX, article 16,
liquor stores,
convenience stores,
and mini-markets)
P
P
P P P
c c c c c c
MC MC MC MC MC MC MC
MC P P P P P
MC MC
MC MC MC MC MC MC
P P P P P P P
P P
P P P P P P P
c c P c P P
Ca C' Ca C'
P P P P
c c c c c
MC MC MC MC MC MC
P P
MC MC MC MC MC
P P
P
P P
P
C'
(,2
Ca
11 1221
LAND USES
TABLE13-30
CITY OF COSTA MESA LAND USE MATRIX
ZONES
PDR PDR PDR PDR-
R1 R2-MD R2-HD R3 AP CL CI C2 C1-81 TC' MG MP - - NCM' PDC' PDI'
LD' MD' HD'
I&R- I&RM
I&R' S1 L'T' P
P P P P P72. Department stores
(retail)
73. Electronic game
machines (four or
more), incidental to the
primary use, (subject
to the requirements of
chapter IX, article 5,
electronic game
machines)- Excluding
amusement centers
listed separately
74. Engineering;
architectural; and
surveying services-
See Offices
75. Entertainment, live
or public
76. Establishments
where food or
beverages are served
77. Exhibition of
products produced on
premises or available
for wholesale
distribution
78. Flower stands-
See also Carts
79. Furniture repair
and refinishing with
incidental sales
80. Grocery stores-
See also
Supermarkets;
excluding convenience
stores; and liquor
stores listed
separately
MCa MCa MC' MC' MC" MC' MCa MC! MC' MC' MC! MC" SEE TITLE 9, ARTICLE 11 , REGULATORY PERMITS
FOR PUBLIC ENTERTAINMENT
SEE TITLE 9, ARTICLE 11 , REGULATORY PERMITS
FOR PUBLIC ENTERT AINMENT
SEE CHAPTER V, ARTICLE 4, EST ABLISHMENTS
WHERE FOOD OR BEVERAGES ARE SERVED
P P P P P P P
MC MC MC MC MC MC MC
SEE CHAPTER V, ARTICLE 4,
EST ABLISHMENTS WHERE
FOOD OR BEVERAGES ARE
SERVED
PP
MC MC MC MC MC MC
P
P
P
P
P
P P
P P
MC MC MC MC
P
12 1222
LAND USES
TABLE13-30
CITY OF COSTA MESA LAND USE MATRIX
ZONES
Rl R2-MD R2-HD R3 AP CL C1 C2 C1-SI TC' MG
PDR PDR PDR PDR- I&R- I&RM
MP - - NCM' PDC' PDI' I&R' 81 LT'
LD' MD' HD'
81. Hazardous waste
facilities, off-site
(subject to chapter IX
artide 9, off-site
hazardous waste
facilities)
82. Heliports; Helistops
(,2
C' C'
c
(,2
c
(,2
c
(,2
c
(,2
c
(,2
c
C'
c c
83. Hotels- Excluding -
motels listed
separately
84.Landscape
services (installation
and maintenance)
85.Laundry, cleaning
and garment services,
including plants
86. Leathertanning
and finishing
87. Limousine services
88. Liquor stores
(subject to the
requirements of
chapter IX, article 16,
liquor stores,
convenience stores,
and mini- markets)
89. Lumber and
building materials
dealers, (wholesale)
90. Manufacturing:
Light EXCEPT
the following
which are
prohibited:
a Manufacture
of fertilizer
- Manufacture of
products involving
c c c P
MC MC P P
P P PP
c c c c c
(,2 (,2
C2 C2
P
P
c
c
P
P2
P
P
c
c
P
P2
c
P
c
P
c
P
P
P
c
C'
P
P
c
c
P
P2
13 1223
the use of
explosives
Manufacture of rubber
(including tires), steel
9'l. Manufacturing
of chemical
products, paints,
pharmaceuticals,
and plastics
Ca C'
(,2
92. Manufacturing of
stone, clay, glass and
concrete products
EXCEPT the
following which are
prohibited:
- Manufacture of
flat glass
- Manufacture of
cement and
structural day
products
a Manufacture of
concrete, gypsum
and plaster
products
- Manufacture of
abrasive and
asbestos products
o Manufacture of
nonclay refractories
and crucibles
a Processing and
preparation of clay,
ceramic and
refractory minerals
93. Manufacturing or
processing of foods
and beverages
EXCEPT the
following which are
prohibited:
a Meat and
poultry packing
P2 Pa
P- Pa
P2
P'
14 1224
LAND USES Rl R2-MD R2-HD R3 AP
TABLE13-30
CITY OF COSTA MESA LAND USE MATRIX
ZONES
PDR PDR PDR PDR- I&R- I&RM
CL Cl C2 C1-S1 TC' MG MP - - - NCM' PDC' PDI' I&R' St LT'
LD' MD' HD'
plants
- Grain mills
- Sugar refining
- Fats and oils
processing
mills
- Seafood canneries
and packaging
(See also Breweries;
Distilleries; Coffee
roasting)
94. Massage - See
also Acupressure
(subjectto the
requirements of title
9, chapter 11, article
22, massage
establishments and
practitioners)
95. Medical
laboratories
96. Metal fabrication,
welding, foundry, die
casting (subject to
subsection 13-54(a),
performance
standards)
97. Motels - (Subject
to requirements of
chapter IX, article 8,
motels) Excluding
Hotels listed
separate5/
98. Motion picture and
television studios
99. Motion picture
theaters and other
theaters not within
200 feet of residential
zones
00. Motion picture
theaters and other
P' P2
p2
P'
p2
MC MC P P P P MC MC
P' P'
C'- C2
c c c c P P
P P P P
c c c c
p2
MC MC
P P
P
c
15 1225
theaters within 200
feet of residential
zones
1 €)1. Motor oil,
used-Collection
facility (subject to the
requirements of
chapter IX, article 9,
off-site hazardous
waste facilities)
102. Motor vehicle,
boat, and motorcycle
retail sales, leasing,
rentals and service
with two or more
outdoor display
parking spaces
103. Motor vehicle,
boat, and motorcycle
retail sales, leasing,
and rentals with one
or less outdoor
display parking space
and no service
(su5ject to verification
of parking availability)
104. Motor vehicle
service stations
p2
P2 p2 p2 p2
c c c c c c
P P P P P P
c c c
P
p2 p2 p2
c c
P P
c
105, Motor vehicle
service stations with
concurrent sale of
alcoholic beverages
(subject to
requirements of
chapter IX, article 3,
concurrent sale of
alcoholic beverages
and motor vehicle
fuel)
106, Motor vehicle;
boat; and motorcycle
repair servlces
(including body and
C2
(,2
C2
P P P P P
(,2
P P
16 1226
paint work), not within
200 feet of residential
zone (subject to
subsection 13-54(b))
107. Motor vehicle;
boat; and motorcycle
repair services
(including body and
paint work), within 200
feet of residential
zone (subject to
subsection 13-54(b))
108. Nurseries (retail
with no bulk fertilizer)
109. Offices: central
administrative
4 4 0. Offices:
engineenng;
architectural; and
surveying SeNICeS;
management;
consulting and public
relations
111. Offices: general
c c c c c c c
c c P P c c
P P P P P P P P P P
P P P P P P P P MC MC MC P P
P P P P P P MC MC MC MC MC P P
113. Offices: medical
and dental
114. Offices: services
to businesses such
as bookkeeping and
data processing
115. Off-street parking
lots and structures
including related
maintenance
buildings
116. Off-street parking
lots and structures,
P P P P P P
P P P P P P P P
c c c c c P c c
MC MC MC MC MC MC MC MC
MC MC MC P MC MC
P P
c c c c c
MC MC MC MC MC
P
MC
17 1227
LAND USES
TABLE13-30
CITY OF COSTA MESA LAND USE MATRIX
ZONES
PDR PDR PDR PDR-
Rl R2-MD R2-HD R3 AP CL C1 C2 C1-Sl TC' MG MP - - - NCM' PDC' PDI'
LD' MD' HD'
I&R- I&RM
I&R' 81 LT' P
incidental uses within
4 4 7. Oil fields; oil
wells (see chapter
XIV, oil drilling)
118. Pawn shops
119. Photocopying;
blueprinting and
related services
120. Photofinishing
laboratories
121. Photofinishing
stores
122. Photography:
Commercial
123. Photography:
portrait studio
4 24. Physical fitness
facilities
125. Printing and
publishing
126. Recording
studios
4 27. Recycling and
collection facilities for
nonhazardous
materials
128. Research and
development
laboratories - Other
than cannabis and/or
marijuana testing
laboratories
129. Restaurants-
See Establishments
where food or
beverages are
c
P
P
c
P
P
c
P
P
c
P
P
P
P
P
P
P P P P P P MC MC
P P P P P P
c c c c c
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
MC
MC
c c c
MC P MC MC P P
MC MC MC MC MC
- MC MC MC MC - MC MC
P P
MC MC
MC MC MC MC
c c c P c c P P P
18 1228
served
130. Retail: general-
Excluding antique
malls, pawn shops,
supermarkets,
grocery stores,
convenience stores;
and liquor stores
listed separately
131. Retail, incidental
sales to the main use
(subject to the
requirements of
section 1 3-54(a),
incidental retail
sales)
132. Retail: nonstore
P P P P P P P P P P
P P P P P P P2 P2 P P P P P'-
P P P P P P P P P P P P P
4 33. Rifle, pistol, and
firing ranges
c c c
134. Sexually-
oriented businesses
(subject to the
requirements of title
9, chapter IV and title
13, chapter IX,
sexually-oriented
businesses)
135. Skating rinks
p2 p2
c c c c c c
P"
c c c c c
1 35a. Smoking
lounge (subject to
chapter IX, article 19,
smoking and vaping
uses)
135b. Smoking/
vaping retailer
(subject to chapter
IX, article 19,
smoking and vaping
C'
p2
P2 P2
p2
P2
P2 C'
p2
Pa
p2
P2 P2
19 1229
uses)
136. Storage of
chemicals and allied
products (except as
incidental use)
4 37. Storage of
explosives
138. Storage of
fertilizer
139. Storage of motor
vehicles - Outdoor
(not including
impound yard)
139a. Storage of
motor vehicles -
Indoor only (not
including impound
yard)
140. Storage of
petroleum and coal
products
141. Storage of rock,
sand, crushed
aggregate and gravel
142. Studios: dance;
martial arts; music,
etc.
143. Supermarkets-
See also Grocery
stores
143a. Specialty stores
144. Tattoo parlors
145. Tire sales and
installation notwithin
200 feet of residential
zone
c c
c c c MC MC
P P P P P
c c
P P P MC MC MC
P P P P
P P P P
c c c
P P P P P
C MC
P P
MC MC MC P MC
MC MC MC MC
MC MC MC -
c
P P
20 1230
LAND USES
TABLE13-30
CITY OF COSTA MESA LAND USE MATRIX
ZONES
PDR PDR PDR PDR-
R1 R2-MD R2-HD R3 AP CL C1 C2 C1-81 TC' MG MP - - - NCM' PDC' PDI'
LD' MD' HD'
I&R- I&RM
I&R' 81 LT' P
4 46. Tire sales and
installation within 200
feet of residential
zone
147. Tow companies
with or without
impound yard
148. Transfer station
for refuse, sewage
treatment
149. Trucking: local
and long distance
MC MC MC
c c c
c
MC MC
MC MC
c c
P P
MC MC
MC
c
c
c
150. Warehouses,
mini (subject to the
- requirements of
chapter IX, article 7,
mini- warehouses)
151. Warehouses,
public
152. Warehousing of
durable and
nondurable goods
except livestock and
p(i5Jt-See also
Storage
C'
c
C'
c
(,2
c
MCa M(!
P P
P P
MC'
P
P
153. Wholesale trade
of motor vehicles,
boats and
motorcycles with
outdoor storage of
vehicles
154. Wholesale trade
of motor vehicles,
boats and
motorcycles without
outdoor storage of
vehicles
c c c c c c
MC MC P P P P P P P P
c
P
c
P
21 1231
LAND USES
TABLE13-30
CITY OF COSTA MESA LAND USE MATRIX
ZONES
Rl R2-MD R2-HD R3 AP CL C1 C2 Cl-S1 TC' MG
PDR PDR PDR PDR- I&R- I&RM
MP - - - NCM' PDC' PDI' I&R' 81 LT'
LD' MD' HD'
155. Wholesale trade
of durable,
nondurable goods,
except livestock,
poultry and
perishable goods
MC MC P P P P P P P P P P
Notes:
2 3
4 Uses proposed in this zone are subject to verification of consistency with the adopted master plan. Uses not specified in the master plan, could be allowed, subject to the review process indicated in this matrix, if the proposed use is determined to be compatible with the adopted master plan. Residential uses shall not be permitted on any site or parcel of land on which residential uses are expressly prohibited by the general plan.
This use is subject to the requirements of the referenced Municipal Code article or section.
If residential uses exist, accessory uses shall be permitted.
For the purposes of this table, the symbols in the non-shaded areas shall have the following meaning: C-Conditional Use Permit MC-Minor Conditional Use Permit; P-Permitted; a- Prohibited: and S-Special Use Permit.
5 6
7 8
9 10
Six hundred fifty foot separation required between sober living homes, or from state licensed alcohol or drug abuse recovery or treatment facilities. CMMC 13-311 (a%10)(i).
Subject to the separation requirement set forth in sections 13-322(a%3) and 13-323(b).
Small boardinghouses shall locate at least 650 feet from any other small boardinghouse. Large boardinghouses shall be located at least 1,000 feet away from any other boardinghouse.
Uses prohibited in the base zoning district of a mixed-use overlay zone shall also be prohibited in the overlay zone.
Prohibited at the SoCo property, 3303 through 3323 Hyland Ave.
Emergency shelters located on sites owned, controlled, and/or operated by the city in the MP and/or the PDI zone are a permitted use, not su5ject to a master plan requirement and the standards in section 1 3-200.79(1 ), (2), (4), (8), (10) and (13) do not apply to such uses. 11 Supportive housing, as defined in Government Code Section 65650, shall be permitted by-right in all zones where multifamily and mixed uses are permitted by-right, provided it is consistent with Government Code Sections 65650 - 65656.
12 PursuanttoGovernmentCodeSection65583(c)(3),transitionalandsupportiveHousingshallbeconsideredaresidentialuseofpropertyandshallbesubjectonlytothoserestrictionsthatapply to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zoning district. 13 Low barrier navigation centers shall be permitked by-right provided they are consistent with the requirements in Government Code Sections 65660-65668. (Ord. No. 97-11, § 2, 5-5-97; Ord. No. 98-4, § 2, 2-2-98; Ord. No. 98-5, § 8, 3-2-98; Ord. No. 00-5, § 1(b), 3-20-00; Ord. No. 01-1, § 4, 1-15-01; Ord. No. 01-30, § la(Att. A), 1-7-02; Ord. No. 02-4, § 1b(Att.
A), 3-18-02; Ord. No. 02-12, § 1c, 6-17-02; Ord. No. 05-2, § 1f.(Atk. A), 2-22-05; Ord. No. 05-11, el ;b., 7-19-05; Ord. No. 06-2, § la., 2-7-06; Ord. No. 06-9, § 1d., 418-06; Ord. No. 06-18, § 1b., 9-5-06; Ord.
No. 07-2, § Id., 2-6-07; Ord. No. 11-10, § 1, 9-20-11; Ord. No. 13-1, § 2B., 3-19-13; Ord. No. 14-04, § 2B., 4-1-14; Ord. No. 14-13, 10-21'14; Ord. No. 15-06, §§ 1-3, 7-7-15; Ord. No. 15-10, § 2B, 9'15- 15; Ord. No. 15-11, §§ 3-5, 11-17-15; Ord. No. 16-01, § 4, 1-19-16; Ord. No. 16-09, §§ 4, 5(Exh. A), 10-4-16; Ord. No. 16-13, § 2, 11-15-16; Ord. No. 16-15, § 5, 11-8-16; Ord. No. 18-03, § 3, 1'16-18; Ord.
No. 18-04, § 3, 4-3-18; Ord. No. 19-13, § 3, 9-3-19; Ord. No. 19-15, § 1, 9-17-19; Ord. No. 21-03, § 4, 3-2-21; Ord. No. 21-08, § l 6-15-21; Ord. No. 21-20, § 112-7 22 1232
Exhibit E
Article 1l Mixed-Use Overlay District (MUOD)
13-83.50. Purpose
13-83.51. Definitions
13-83.52. Mixed-use development types
13-83.53. Application review procedures in mixed-use overlay district
13-83.54. Mixed-use development standards
13-83.55. Mixed-use compatibility standards
13-83.56. Phase mixed-use developments
13-83.57. Harbor Mixed-Use Overlay
13-83.58. Properties identified in Housing Element
(a) Purpose.
(1 ) The purpose of this Section is to implement the City's currently adopted Housing Element by establishing zoning provisions for sites identified in the Housing Element Sites Inventory to accommodate the City's lower-, moderate-, and above-moderate-income Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) consistent with Government Code sections 65583 and 65583.2, Subsections (c), (h) and (i). (b) Applicability.
(1 ) The provisions of this Section shall apply to all sites identified in the City's currently adopted Housing Element Sites Inventory to accommodate the City's RHNA, shown in the Housing Element as Table B-6: Sites to Accommodate Costa Mesa 2021-2029 RHNA or any future adopted Housing Element Sites Inventory to accommodate the City's RHNA.
(2) Previously Identified Sites. The provisions of this Section shall also apply to any non-vacant Housing Element Site that was identified in a prior Housing Element and any vacant Housing Element Site that was identified in two or more consecutive prior Housing Elements, consistent with Government Code Section 65583.2 Subsection (c). Such sites shall be subject to the minimum density and by-right approval standards established in this Section. Such sites are identified in the City's currently adopted Housing Element Sites Inventory, shown as Table 1 1233
B-6: Sites to Accommodate Costa Mesa 2021-2029 RHNA or any future adopted Housing Element Sites Inventory to accommodate the City's RHNA. (3) Exception. The provisions of this Section shall not apply to residential projects or mixed-use projects having residential units located within the boundaries of the Fairview Development Center Specific Plan.
Severability and State Law Consistency.
(1 ) This Section is intended to be consistent with, and shall be interpreted and applied to comply with, all applicable requirements of State housing law, including Government Code Sections 65915(c)(3), 65583 and 65583.2 as those provisions may be amended from time to time, and any successor statutes. If any provision of this Section conflicts with State law, the applicable State law shall control.
(2) If any provision of this Section, or its application to any person or circumstance, is held invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect other provisions or applications of this Section that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.
The City Council declares that it would have adopted this Section and each provision, section, sentence, clause, and phrase thereof, irrespective oT the fact that any one or more provisions may be declared invalid or unenforceable. (d) Definitions
(1 ) "Housing Element Site" means any site identified in the currently adopted Housing Element Sites Inventory to accommodate the City's (RHNA), shown in the Housing Element as Table B-6: Sites to Accommodate Costa Mesa 2021- 2029 RHNA.
(2) "Lower-Income Household" has the same meaning as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 50079.5.
(3) "Lower-Income Housing Element Site" means any Housing Element Site identified in the currently adopted Housing Element that accommodates any portion of the City's lower-income RHNA and subject to the requirements of Government Code Section 65583.2 (h) and (i), shown in the Housing Element as Table B-6: Sites to Accommodate Costa Mesa 2021-2029 RHNA. (4) "Use by Right" has the same meaning as in Government Code Section 65583.2 Subsection (i) and requires ministerial approval for multifamily housing developments in which at least 20 percent of the total number of units are affordable to lower-income households. "Use by Right" means that the review of an owner-occupied or renter-occupied multifamily residential use may not require a conditional use permit, planned unit development permit, or other discretionary review or approval that would constitute a "project" for purposes of Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code. 2 1234
(5) "Prior Housing Element Site" means any non-vacant Housing Element Site that was identified in the prior Housing Element and any vacant Housing Element Site that was identified in two or more consecutive prior Housing Elements. Such sites are identified in the City's currently adopted Housing Element Sites Inventory, shown as Table B-6: Sites to Accommodate Costa Mesa 2021-2029 RHNA.
(6) "Protected Unit" means any unit that, within the past five years, was occupied by a lower-income household regardless of whether the unit was deed-restricted or that was subject to an affordability covenant or rent control. (e) Supersession of Overlay
(1 ) For Lower-Income Housing Element Sites:
i. Supersession of Other Zoning Provisions. Projects on Lower-Income Housing Element Sites shall be governed by this Section, and the provisions in this Section shall supersede and prevail over any conflicting provisions of the underlying base zone, including, but not limited to, minimum residential floor area, minimum residential capacities and densities, ministerial review and approval requirements, and permitted uses, and all other applicable zoning provisions, such as other urban plans, overlays, and specific plans, and the provisions of this Article that apply to non-Lower-Income Housing Element sites.
ii. Ministerial Review and Approval. Projects on Lower-Income Housing Element Sites shall be a Use by Right pursuant to Subsection (f)(1 ). iii. Minimum Residential Floor Area. Projects on Lower-Income Housing Element Sites shall satisfy the minimum residential floor area requirements established in Subsection (g)(3).
iv. Minimum Residential Site Capacity and Density. Projects on Lower- Income Housing Element Sites shall satisfy the minimum residential capacity and density requirements established in Subsection (h)(1 )(ii) and (hX1Xiii).
Review and Approvals Procedures
(1 ) Use by Right. A project on a Lower-Income Housing Element Site that provides at least 20 percent of the total dwelling units affordable to Lower-Income Households shall be processed as a Use by Right, consistent with Government Code Section 65583.2(h) and (i). Such projects shall be subject only to ministerial review to verify compliance with all applicable objective design and development standards in accordance with a Streamlined Development Review process per CMMC Title 13, Chapterlll (Planning Applications). A project that does not qualify as a Use by Right shall be processed in accordance with a 3 1235
Development Review process per CMMC Title 13, Chapter Ill (Planning Applications).
(2) Subdivision. Any subdivision of a Lower Income Housing Element Site shall comply with all applicable provisions of CMMC Title 13, Chapter XI (Subdivisions) and the Subdivision Map Act.
(g) Permitted Uses
(1 ) Multi-Family Dwellings. Multi-family dwellings shall be permitted on all Housing Element Sites subject to the requirements of this Section. (2) Non-Residential Uses. Those non-residential uses permitted in Commercial Zones in accordance with CMMC Title 13, Chapter IV (Citywide Land Use Matrix) shall be permitted as part of mixed-use projects on all Housing Element Sites. (3) Mixed-Use on Lower-Income Housing Element Sites. Mixed-use projects shall be permitted on Lower-Income Housing Element Sites so long as at least 50 percent or total floor area is provided as residential uses, consistent with Government Code Section 65583.2, Subsection (h)(1)(B). (4) Multi-Family Dwellings on Lower-Income Housing Element Sites. Multi- family dwellings consisting of 100 percent residential uses shall be permitted on Lower-Income Housing Element Sites, consistent with Government Code Section 65583.2, Subsection (h)(1 )(B).
(h) Development Standards
(1) Density Standards
i. Maximum Densities. Maximum residential densities shall be permitted as specified in the Housing Element Sites Inventory. ii. Minimum Site Capacity for Lower-Income Housing Element Sites. If the identified maximum density of a Lower-Income Housing Element Site does not allow at least 16 dwelling units on site, then the maximum density identified shall be waived, and the maximum number of dwelling units permitted shall be 16 dwelling units on site consistent with Government Code Section 65583.2 Subsection (h).
iii. Minimum Densities for Lower-Income Housing Element Sites. A project proposed on a Lower Income Housing Element Site shall meet a minimum density requirement of 20 units per acre, inclusive of Accessory Dwelling Units, consistent with Government Code Section 65583.2, Subsection (h).
4 1236
(2) Off-Street Parking Standards
i. Residential Uses. Minimum off-street parking requirements for multi- family dwellings on Housing Element sites are provided in Table 13-
83.58-A. Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirements.
ii. Non-Residential Uses. Minimum off-street parking requirements for those permitted non-residential uses on Housing Element sites shall be subject to CMMC Title 13, Chapter Vl (Off-Street Parking Standards).
Table 13-83.58-A. Off-Street Parking Standards for Residential Uses Studio or 1-bedroom unit 1 space per unit
2 or more bedrooms per unit 2 spaces per unit
0.25 space per unit
0.25 space per unit
(3) Development Standards
i. Minimum and maximum requirements for building height, non-residential intensity, setbacks, lot coverage, and open space are provided in Table 1 3-83.58-B. Development Standards.
Table 13-83.58-B. Development Standards
Min. Residential
Densityl
20 du/ac
Max. Residential
Density2
40 du/ac
50 du/ac
60 du/ac
90 du/ac
Max. Building
Height
60 fi.
72 ft.
108 ft.
Min. FAR None
Max. FAR
Frcnt oi sice abutting a p..iblic
street
Min. 10 ft. and max. 20 ff.
5 1237
Table I 3-83.58-B. Development Standards
Side or rear abutting alley
Side or rear abutting:
* Residential zone
* Industrial use
Side or rear abutting bluff crest
20 ft.
10 ft. Section 13-34 (Bluff-Top
Development) of Chapter V of
Titls 13 of the Costa Mesa
Municipal Code
Min. lot size None
Max. lot coverage
Usablt: c:innion
residential open
space
r
Total area equivalent to min. 30% of lot
Usable private
open space
Publicly
accessible open
space
Min. 100 sq. ft./unit provided on the ground
floor for dwelling units located on the
ground floor, and min. 50 sq. ff./unit
provided for dwelling units located above
the ground floor
Total area equivalent to min. 5% of
commercial gross floor area for
developments with a commercial gross floor
area greater than 100,000 sq. ft.
1 2
3 Based on the currently adopted Housing Element Sites Inventory Only applicable to Lower-Income Housing Element Sites and inclusive of Accessory Dwelling Units.
Minimum setbacks shall apply to all portions of a building or structure. Maximum setbacks along public streets shall only apply to a building or structure's ground floor, with exceptions for driveways, walkways, and open space.
(4) Objective Design Standards forthcoming.
i. The City intends to prepare and adopt design standards to further guide the physical form and character of development on the rezoned sites.
Until such standards are adopted, projects shall be subject only to the objective development standards contained in this Section. Upon adoption, the objective design standards shall apply to all projects subject to this Section and shall serve as the sole design criteria for ministerial review, consistent with Government nnrlp Sections 65583.2 and 65589.5. 6 1238
Replacement of Protected Units
(1 ) Demolition or Conversion of Protected Units. Any project that involves the demolition or conversion of Protected Units, or that is located on a site where Protected Units were demolished or converted within the previous five years, shall comply with all applicable replacement housing, tenant protection, and right- of-return requirements under State Density Bonus Law, including Government Code Section 65915, Subsection (c)(3), and any successor statutes. 7 1239
Exhibit F
Article 1
Residential Districts
§ 13-84. Purpose.
The purpose of this article is to establish parking requirements for the residential zones.
The provisions of this article shall apply to the R1, R2-MD, R2-HD and R3 zones, and to the residential portions of the planned development and Institutional and Recreational zones. Exception: These parking standards do not apply to high-rise residential developments in the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan; see the specific plan for applicable parking rates.
(Ord. No. 97-11, § 2, 5-5-97; Ord. No. 07-2, § 1 k., 2-6-07) § 13-85. Parking required.
In the residential districts, the following minimum off-street parking spaces shall be provided.
The parking spaces shall provide safe and adequate ingress and egress and shall be maintained in connection with the building or structure and use of land. (a) R1 zone and small-lot single-family common interest developments (excluding townhouses). Off-street parking in the form of a garage and open parking shall be provided as follows:
TABLE 13-85(A)
OFF-STREET PARKING STANDARDS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED RESIDENCES IN R1
ZONE AND SMALL-LOT, DET ACHED, RESIDENTIAL COMMON INTEREST DEVELOPMENTS Sinqle-Family Detached Residence with 4 Bedrooms or Fewer Garaqe Parkinq Spaces Open Parkinq Spaces' Total Parkinq Spaces Lots without garage access from alley:2 4
2 Lots with garage access from alley: 1 3
Sinqle-Family Detached Residence with 5 Bedrooms or More2 New Construction
Garaqe Parkinq Spaces2 0pen Parkinq Spaces'2 Total Parkinq Spaces Lots without garage access from alley:2 5
3 Lots with garage access from alley: 1 4
Detached Common Interest Developments Up to 2 bedrooms 2 1 3
Detached Common Interest Developments with 3 bedrooms or more 2 2 4
1 In R1 zones, required open parking may be provided in a garage or on a minimum 19-foot long, individual driveway leading to a garage. In common interest developments, required open parking may be provided on an l
1240
individual unit's driveway or within the common area. Open parking provided as tandem spaces is subject to approval of a minor conditional use permit. 2 For single-family detached residences with five bedrooms or more, tandem parking of up to two standard vehicles is permitted in the garage as it relates to new construction. Tandem garage parking for single-family detached residences shall exclusively consist of two standard parking spaces. (1) Required garage dimensions. Each garage space shall have interior dimensions that are a minimum 10 feet wide by 20 feet long, unobstructed inside measurements.
Each residence shall have no more than 700 square feet of garage area unless authorized by a minor conditional use permit.
(2) With approval of a minor modification, the planning division may allow the retention of an existing driveway access from a street to satisfy open parking requirements, at such time that garage access is proposed from an abutting alley. (b) R2-MD, R2-HD, R3, PDR-LD, PDR-MD, PDR-HD, PDR-NCM and residential components of developments in the PDC and PDI zones. At the time of the construction of any building and/or when a structure is enlarged or increased by adding a bedroom(s), required parking shall be provided per Table 4 3-85. Exceptions:
(l) For lots that are zoned multiple-family residential and contain only one single-family detached residence, the parking requirements in Table 1 3-85(a) shall be applied. (2) For individual lots in common-interest developments that contain only one single- family detached residence (excluding townhouses), the parking requirements in Table 13-85(a) shall be applied.
(C) Reduction of required parking prohibited. A property owner or property manager shall make available to tenants and guests the parking required by this subsection. No property owner or property manager shall lease, rent, sell, or otherwise make unavailable to residents and guests required parking. Furthermore, the rental of a dwelling unit shall be deemed to include the exclusive use of at least one covered parking space and equal access to the required open spaces reserved for residents. (d) Parking for accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units shall be provided per the requirements of section 13-35.
2 1241
1 0.25STUDIO OR 1
BEDROOM
2 BEDROOMS
OR MORE
2 0.25
1 If covered parking for apartments is provided in a parking structure and there is more than one parking space in any parking structure, then there shall be no solid walls constructed to separate individual parking spaces. 2 If open tenant parking spaces are provided in a project, spaces shall be distributed throughout the project at convenient locations and shall be screened from view from any public right-of-way.
3 For projects with individual driveways that are at least 19 feet long and iead to a garage space(s) or a carport space(s), the driveway area may be used for satisfying tenant parking requirements
4 Parking can be reduced by O.25 space per unit for two bedroom and larger units if parking is provided within either a carport or a parking structure. For purposes of this section, a parking structure shall be defined as: a structure designed and constructed to provide covered automobile parking where parking spaces are located in a common area with no walls or other physical separations between spaces. Open parking requirements may be met by excess covered parking.
5 Guest parking shall be clearly marked and permanently maintained for individuals visiting within the development. Guest parking spaces shall not be allowed on individual driveways except for single family detached, townhomes, or duplexes, where the driveway is leading to a two-car garage.
6 Fractions equal to or above one-quarter (0.25) shall be rounded up. (Ord. No. 97-14, § 2, 5-5-97; Ord. No. 01-16, §§ 1 s.-4 u., 6-18-01 ; Ord. No. 02-4, § 1i, 3-1 8-02; Ord. No. 03-8, §§ 5-7, 9-2-03; Ord. No. 09-3, § lc., 5-19-09; Ord. No. 11-10, § 1, 9-20-11; Ord.
No. 18-03, § 6, 1-16-1 8; Ord. No. 21-03, § 5, 3-2-21 ; Ord. No. 21-20, § 1, 12-7-21 ) § 13-86. Parking required in mixed-use overlay zone.
In the mixed-use overlay zone, residential parking rates are provided in the applicable urban plan.
(Ord. No. 06-9, § 1f., 4-18-06)
3 1242
§ 13-87. General development standards.
General development standards for parking areas applicable to the residential zones are contained in Article 3, Development Standards, of this chapter. (Ord. No. 97-11, § 2, 5-5-97)
4 1243
Exhibit G
Article 8
Motels
§ 13-172. Purpose and intent.
The purpose of this article is to establish operational and development standards, and requirements for motels which will ensure the continued availability of transient visitor and automobile tourist lodging within the city and to ensure the continued use of motels in the manner intended to provide such lodging.
(Ord. No. 14-11, § 1, 8-5-14)
§ 13-173. Definitions
Long-term occupancy shall mean any occupancy in a motel in the city for a period exceeding 30 consecutive days or 30 days within any sixty-consecutive-day period.
Short-term occupancy shall mean any occupancy of a motel in the city for a period that does not fall within the definition of a long-term occupancy. (Ord. No. 14-11, § 1, 8-5-14)
§ I 3-'174. Operational and development standards.
The following operational and development standards shall apply to all motels in the city and shall be included in conditions imposed upon the granting of any conditional use permit for such business, unless specifically modified by the conditional use permit:
(a) No property owner, motel operator or manager shall rent a room for a period that exceeds 30 consecutive days or 30 days within any sixty (6) consecutive day period, unless the property owner or motel operator has obtained a conditional use permit authorizing long-term occupancies pursuant to section 13-175.3. (b) On-site management shall be available 24 hours a day. (c) Each guest room shall be provided regularly-scheduled maid and housekeeping services. Such services shall be provided at least once every three days during any consecutive occupancy and at least once between each occupancy. (d) In-roomtelephoneserviceforemergencyresponsepurposesshallbeprovidedinall guest rooms of the motel.
(e) Persons responsible for the renting of a room in any motel shall provide their name and permanent address, as verified by presentation of a valid driver's license or other valid identification, and the license number, state of license, make, model and year of any vehicle parked on-site or off-site. The registration information shall also include the dates of occupancy, length of stay and room rate. Such information shall be maintained for at least one year past the last day of stay of the guest. (f) No room, suite or bed shall be assigned or rented more than once within any 24 hour period.
(g) The property owner/motel operator shall comply with the provisions of Chapter IV of Title 16 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code pertaining to the operator's responsibility for the collection of transient occupancy tax. l
1244
(h) The business shall be conducted, at all times, in a manner that will allow the safe and quiet enjoyment of the surrounding neighborhood which includes, but is not limited to, security and operational measures to comply with this requirement. (Ord. No. 14-11, § 1, 8-5-14)
§ 13-175. Application to existing businesses
The requirements of this chapter, specifically including the long-term occupancy restrictions in section 13-1 74(a), shall apply to all motels in the city, whether it is new or was in existence prior to the effective date of this ordinance. (Ord. No. 14-11, § 1, 8-5-14)
§ 13-al75.l. Application to existing tenants.
(a) Nothing in this chapter shall require an existing tenant of a long-term occupancy, established prior to the effective date of this chapter, to move out of a unit they are already occupying. Those pre-existing long-term occupancies may continue pursuant to the terms of the existing lease or agreement, until that tenancy terminates by its own terms under the law.
(b) Whenever a long-term occupancy terminates, for whatever reason, the property owner/motel operator shall not re-lease that unit for a new long-term occupancy, except to the degree the motel will be in compliance with the requirements of this chapter.
(Ord. No. 14-11, § 1, 8-5-14)
§ 13-1 75.2. Procedure for compliance.
(a) Within 30 days of the effective date of this ordinance, the city shall notify the owners and operators of each motel in the city of the ordinance's adoption. The city shall send a copy of the ordinance, a "longterm occupancy form," and a schedule for compliance via certified return receipt mail. If a notice is returned, the city shall send the notice via standard u.s. mail.
(b) Within 30 days of the mailing of the notice in section 13-175.2(a), the property owner/motel operator shall submit a fully completed "long-term occupancy form" to the city that provides the total number of rooms used as long-term occupancies during the preceding 60 days; identify the long-term occupant by a valid driver's license or other valid identification; the make, year, and model of any vehicle parked on-site or off-site; and any other information to demonstrate compliance with the ordinance. If a property owner/motel operator fails to submit the long-term occupancy form, in addition to taking any other action authorized by law, the city shall estimate the total number of rooms used as long-term occupancies at zero. (Ord. No. 14-11, § 1, 8-5-14)
§ 13-175.3. Conditional use permit for long-term occupancies.
A property owner/motel operator may apply for a conditional use permit authorizing the facility to exceed the long-term occupancy limits in section 13-174(a), subject to restrictions of the issuing authority. In order to be granted a conditional use permit under this section, the property owner/motel operator must demonstrate compliance with, and the city shall make a finding that, each of the following standards have been met:
2 1245
(a) The motel must have a minimum of at least 75 rooms. (b) Fireproof safety deposit boxes must be available to all occupants of the motel. (c) Each guest room shall be provided regularly-scheduled maid, mail and housekeeping services. Such services shall be provided at least once every three days during any consecutive occupancy and at least once between each occupancy.
(d) Each room shall be a minimum of 375 square feet. (e) The motel shall maintain on-site laundry services, available for use by guests. (f) The proposed use is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, uses, zoning and general plan.
(g) Eachguestroomshallhaveafullyequippedkitchenwithanareaforthepreparation of food, and include the following: sink, cook top, oven and/or microwave oven, and refrigerator
(Ord. No. 14-11, § 1, 8-5-14)
§ 13-1 75.4. Termination of tenancy.
(a) The provisions of this article shall not be used to terminate a tenancy in violation of the requirements of California Civil Code section 1940 et seq. (b) When the conversion of motel to another use is proposed, the applicant shall comply with all applicable State and Federal laws related to the displacement and relocation of long-term occupants.
(Ord. No. 14-11, § 1, 8-5-14)
3 1246
Exhibit H
Title 13, Chapter IX, Article 15
Reasonable Accommodations
§ 13-200.60 Purpose.
It is the city's policy to provide reasonable accommodation in accordance with federal and state fair housing laws (42 USC § 3600 et seq., and Government Code § 12900 et seq.) for persons with disabilities seeking fair access to housing in the application of the city's zoning laws. The term "disability" as used in this article shall have the same meaning as the terms "disability" and "handicapped" as defined in the federal and state fair housing laws. The purpose of this article is to establish the procedure by which a person may request reasonable accommodation, and how the request is to be processed
§ 13-200.61 Applicability.
Any person seeking approval to construct and/or modify residential housing for person(s) with disabilities, and/or operate a residential care facility, group home, or referral facility, which will substantially serve persons with disabilities may apply for a reasonable accommodation to obtain relief from a Zoning Code provision, regulation, policy, or condition which causes a barrier to equal opportunity for housing.
§ 13-200.62 Reasonable Accommodations - Procedure.
(a) Application required. An application for a reasonable accommodation shall be filed and processed with the Planning Division. The application shall include the following information and be subject to the determinant factors required by this section. (b) Submittal requirements. The application shall be made in writing, and shall include the following information:
(1 ) The zoning code provision, regulation, policy, or condition from which accommodation is being requested;
(2) Thebasisfortheclaimthattheindividualsareconsidereddisabledunderstateorfederal law, and why the accommodation is necessary to provide equal opportunity for housing and to make the specific housing available to the individuals; (3) Any other information that the director reasonably determines is necessary for evaluating the request for reasonable accommodation; (4) Documentation that the applicant is: (a) an individual with a disability; (b) applying on behalf of one or more individuals with a disability; or (c) a developer or provider of housing for one or more individuals with a disability; (5) The specific exception or modification to the zoning code provision, policy, or practices requested by the applicant;
(6) Documentation that the specific exception or modification requested by the applicant is necessary to provide one or more individuals with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the residence; 1247
(7) Any other information that is reasonably necessary to determine whether the grounds for reasonable accommodation identified in subsection (e) of this section and the findings in subsection (f) of this section can be made, so long as any request for information regarding the disability of the individuals benefited complies with fair housing law protections and the privacy rights of the individuals affected. (c) Fees. No application fee is required.
(d) Director action. Within 60 days of receipt of a completed application, the director shall issue a written determination to approve, conditionally approve, or deny a request for reasonable accommodation, and the modification or revocation thereof in compliance with this chapter.
Any appeal to reasonable accommodation request denial or conditional approval shall be heard with, and subject to, the notice, review, approval, and appeal procedures prescribed for any other discretionary permit.
(e) Grounds for reasonable accommodation. The following factors shall be considered in determining whether to grant a requested accommodation:
(1) Is the requested accommodation necessary to afford a disabled person an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling? To determine whether the accommodation is necessary, the director may consider, among other things: The nature of the disability including the special needs created by the disability, the physical attributes and setting of the property and structures, the potential benefit that can be accomplished by the requested accommodation, and alternative accommodations that may provide a comparable level of benefit.
(2) Is the requested accommodation reasonable? A requested accommodation is not reasonable if it would impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the City. It is also not reasonable if it would fundamentally alter a City program, such as the City's zoning scheme.
a. In considering the Financial or administrative burden on the City, the director may consider, among other things, the extent to which the City would have to dedicate resources, such as staff time and funds, to grant the request and other requests like it.
b. In considering the potential alteration to a City program, such as the City's zoning scheme, the director may consider, among other things, the degree of deviation from the City's General Plan, if any, the purpose and nature of the particular zoning district, and with nearby uses. The director may also consider whether the requested accommodation would potentially have adverse external impacts on properties in the vicinity.
(f) Findings. The written decision to approve, conditionally approve, or deny a request for reasonable accommodation shall be based on the following findings, all of which are required for approval. In making these findings, the director may approve alternative reasonable accommodations which provide an equivalent level of benefit to the applicant. (1) The requested accommodation is requested by or on the behalf of one or more individuals with a disability protected under the fair housing laws. 1248
(2) The requested accommodation is necessary to provide one or more individuals with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. (3) The requested accommodation will not impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the city, as "undue financial or administrative burden" is defined in fair housing laws and interpretive case law. The determination of whether an accommodation poses an undue financial and administrative burden or whether a modification poses an undue financial and administrative burden must be made on a case-by-case basis and must consider various factors including:
a. The cost of the requested accommodation or the cost of a requested modification if the City is being requested to pay for the modification; b. The financial resources of the person or persons who have a duty to provide the accommodation or the Financial resources of the City if it is obligated to pay for the modification;
c. The benefits that a proposed alternative accommodation or modification would provide to the individual with a disability;
d. The availability of alternative accommodations or modifications that would effectively meet the disability-related needs of the individual with a disability; (4) The requested accommodation demonstrates scale and intensity of use comparable to adjacent and nearby uses.
(5) The requested accommodation will not, under the specific facts of the case, result in a direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals or substantial physical damage to the property of others. The assessment of whether the specific accommodation in question poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others or would cause substantial physical damage to the property of others must be based on objective evidence, and not unsubstantiated inferences. The evidence must be sufficiently recent as to be credible.
The assessment must consider:
a. Thenature,duration,andseverityoftheriskofadirectthreattothehealthandsafety of others or of substantial physical damage to the property of others; b. The likelihood that a direct threat to the health or safety of others or substantial physical damage to the property of others will actually occur; and c. Whether there are any additional or alternative reasonable accommodations that will eliminate the direct threat to the health or safety of others or substantial physical damage to the property of others.
(6) If economic viability is raised by the applicant as part of the applicant's showing that the requested accommodation is necessary, then a finding that the requested accommodation is necessary to make facilities of a similar nature or operation economically viable in light of the particularities of the relevant market and market participants generally, not just for that particular applicant. 1249
(7) The requested accommodation will not result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of the City's zoning program.
(g) The City may consider, but is not limited to, the following factors in determining whether the requested accommodation would require a fundamental alteration in the nature of the City's zoning program:
(1 ) Whether the requested accommodation would fundamentally alter the character of the neighborhood.
(2) Whether the accommodation would result in a substantial increase in traffic or insufficient parking.
(3) Whether granting the requested accommodation would substantially undermine any express purpose of either the City's general plan or an applicable specific plan. (4) Whether the requested accommodation would create an institutionalized environment due to the number of and distance between facilities that are similar in nature or operation.
(5) Anyotherfactorsthatwouldcauseafundamentalalterationinthecity'szoningprogram, as may be defined in the Fair Housing Law.
§ 13-200.63 Severability.
Should any section, subsection, clause, or provision of this article for any reason be held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this article; it being hereby expressly declared that this article, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase hereof would have been prepared, proposed, approved and ratified irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional. This article shall be prospective in application from its effective date. 1250
Exhibit I
Article 18
Emergency Shelters
§ 13-200.79. Purpose and intent.
The purpose of this article is to establish operational and development standards for emergency shelters to ensure that these uses are operated to address the homeless' needs and consistent with the requirements of sections 65582, 65583, and 65589.5 of the Government Code relating to local planning.
Development standards. The following development and operational standards shall apply to establishment of emergency shelters as defined by the Zoning Code; provided, however, that operational standards (1 ), (2), (4), (8), (10) and (13) shall not apply to emergency shelters owned, controlled and/or operated by the City of Costa Mesa. (1) The maximum length of stay shall not exceed 120 days in a 365-day period. (2) Each emergency shelter may have a maximum of 30 beds. (3) Off-site parking shall be provided at a parking rate of one parking space per employee during the largest shift, provided that the amount of parking required does not exceed the amount of parking required for any other residential or non-residential uses within the same zone.
(4) Stays at an emergency shelter facility shall be limited to the hours of 5:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. the following day. Each emergency shelter shall provide an interior and exterior waiting area adequate to accommodate waiting clients and to prevent queuing into the public right-of- way. An exterior waiting area shall be physically separated and visually screened from the public right-of-way.
(5) The emergency shelter facility shall provide an on-site resident manager on site at all times.
(6) A minimum distance of 300 feet shall be maintained from another emergency shelter.
The distance of separation shall be measured in a straight line between the property lines of each use without regard to intervening structures or objects. (7) The shelter operator shall provide minimum exterior lighting in compliance with the city's security requirements.
(8) The shelter operator shall patrol a half-mile radius surrounding the shelter site during hours that the shelter is in operation to ensure that shelter clients and homeless individuals who have been denied access are not congregating in the neighborhood (9) An operations plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the development services director and police chief prior to operation of the emergency shelter. The plan shall include minimum provisions related to on-site security and safety, staff training, loitering control, client eligibility, counseling services, and indoor and outdoor management of the facility.
(10) No emergency shelter in the MP Industrial Park zone that is also located in an area subject to the jurisdiction of the airport land use commission shall commence operation until the commission either approves the action or permit pursuant to the procedures set forth in Public utilities Code section 21676(b) or, if denied, the city overrules the commission's decision.
(Ord. No. 13-1, § 2C., 3-19-1 3; Ord. No. 19-15, § 2, 9-17-19) 1 1251
Exhibit J
Article 3
Transportation System Management
§ 13-271 Purpose.
The purpose of this article is to set forth the provisions for assuring an adequate transportation system in conjunction with new development.
(Ord. No. 97-11, § 2, 5-5-97)
§ 13-272 Definitions.
For the purpose of this article, the following definitions shall apply:
Development project. This article applies to the following development project approvals:
general plan amendments, specific plans, master plans, rezones, development reviews, variances, use permits, major modifications, minor modifications and development agreements, unless otherwise exempted by section 13-276, Exemptions.
Intersection. The general area where two or more roadways join or cross.
Measurable traffic. A volume of traffic which will result in a O.O"l or greater increase in the peak period volume to capacity ratio at any given signalized intersection.
Potentially deficient intersection. An intersection identified in the general plan for which the standard level of service may not be feasible upon general plan buildout. The intersection volume to capacity ratios identified in the general plan shall not be exceeded for these intersections.
Pro rata. A proportionate share based on a development project's impacts.
Standard level of service. The standard level of service shall be level of service "D" or better (0.90 or less volume to capacity ratio) for all signalized arterial intersections within the city during peak hours Monday through Friday with the exception of those intersections identified as potentially deficient in the general plan. Levels of service shall be defined and computed using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology.
Transportation demand management program. A series of required and/or voluntary actions which reduce the vehicle trip generation rate of a specific use or uses of land. (Ord. No. 97-11, § 2, 5-5-97)
§ 13-273 Comprehensive transportation system improvement program. (a) Purpose. The comprehensive transportation system improvement program shall be adopted by resolution of the city council which addresses the cumulative impacts of development in a defined impact area. This program shall mandate circulation improvements, including freeway improvements, to ensure that the master plan of highways is constructed and that the standard level of service is achieved and will be maintained at all intersections in the defined impact area in accordance with the general plan. For those intersections identified as potentially deficient, the program shall identify the maximum improvements feasible in accordance with the general plan. The program shall address the funding, construction and maintenance of transportation facilities to implement the master plan of highways. The program shall be updated on an annual basis.
1 1252
(b) Relationship to development fee program. The comprehensive transportation system improvement program shall be utilized to determine the pro rata share of the cost of necessary improvements attributable to development projects as described in section 13-274, Development fee program.
(c) Development phasing and performance monitoring report. Each year the city shall prepare a development phasing and performance monitoring report which shall be used to update the comprehensive transportation system improvement program. (d) Interim approval procedure. Until such time as this program is adopted, development projects not exempted pursuant to section 13-276, Exemptions, may be approved if the city adopts findings that the development projects are consistent with the provisions of this article. (Ord. No. 97-11, § 2, 5-5-97)
§ 13-274 Development fee program.
(a) Establishment of development impact fee program. A development impact fee program shall be established by resolution of the city council based on the comprehensive transportation system improvement program. The program shall set forth the basis for the fee as required by State Government Code section 66001. The program shall establish guidelines for payment, accounting, and refund of the fees collected as required by State Government Code Sections 66001, 66006 and 66007.
(b) Updates of fee. On an annual basis, the city council shall review this fee program, as required by State Government Code section 66002, to determine whether the fee amounts are reasonably related to the impacts of development projects and whether the described public facilities are still needed.
(c) Limited use of fees. The revenues raised by payment through this fee program shall be placed in a separate and special account and such revenues, along with any interest earnings on that account, shall be used solely to:
(1 ) Pay for the city's future construction of facilities or to reimburse the city for those facilities, described or listed in the program, constructed by the city with funds advanced by the city from other sources; or
(2) Reimburse developers who have been required or permitted to install such listed facilities to the extent the actual cost of the facilities installed by the developer exceeds the impact fee obligation of the development project.
(d) Developer construction of public facilities. Whenever the conditions of approval of a development project require direct construction of a public transportation facility (see section 13- 275(c), Development project review procedures) described or listed in the comprehensive transportation system improvement program, a credit or reimbursement, as applicable, shall be given against the development impact fee, which would have been charged to the development project under the program, for actual construction costs incurred by the developer. The reimbursement and/or credit amount shall not include any improvements the city can require from the development project under the Subdivision Map Act, or the portion of the improvement deemed to be an on-site improvement that is not included in the comprehensive transportation system improvement program.
(e) Fee adjustments. A developer of any development project subject to the fee program provided in this article may apply to the city council for:
2 1253
(1 )A waiver of the fee, or portion of the fee, based upon adequate documentation of the absence of any reasonable relationship or nexus between the circulation impacts of that development project and either the amount of the fee charged or the type of facilities to be financed; or
(2) A reduction of the fee based upon the implementation of a transportation demand management program, as described in section 13-275(d), Development project review procedures.
(3) The application for a fee waiver shall be made in writing and filed with the city clerk not later than:
a. 10 days prior to the public hearing on the development permit application for the project; or b. If no development permit is required, at the time of the filing of the request for a building permit.
(4) The application shall state in detail the factual basis for the claim of waiver. The city council shall consider the application at the public hearing on the permit application held within 60 days after the filing of the application. The decision of the city council shall be final. If a waiver is granted, any change in use or increase in building intensity within the development project shall invalidate the waiver of the fee, and the developer shall be obligated to pay the full amount of the fee attributed to the development project, including the change in use or increase in intensity, as provided by this article.
(f) Fee refunds. A refund shall be made when a building permit expires and no extensions have been granted for a development project for which the funds have been collected and the development project has not been constructed.
(g) Fees for phased development projects. Where there is a requirement imposed upon a phased development project pursuant to this article for the payment of traffic impact fees into a comprehensive transportation system improvement program, such fees may be payable on a pro rata basis as each phase of the project is completed, in conjunction with the improvements accomplished.
(Ord. No. 97-11, § 2, 5-5-97)
§ 13-275 Development project review procedures.
(a) Traffic study required. A traffic impact study shall be required for all development projects estimated by the public services director to generate 100 or more vehicle trip ends during a peak hour. Traffic studies may also be required for smaller projects at the discretion or the public services director. The cost of the study shall be paid for by the developer. The study area and number of intersections to be analyzed shall be determined by the public services director and the study area shall be reasonably related to the estimated impacts attributed to the development project. The traffic study shall also identify mitigation measures that are reasonably related to the development project's traffic impacts. (b) Mitigation measures. Mitigation measures for development projects shall consist of either payment of a development impact fee and/or construction of circulation improvements. The necessary circulation improvements may be designed and constructed by the developer as determined by the city. These mitigation measures shall be incorporated as conditions of the development project's approval. Table 13-275 indicates the criteria for either requiring payment of a development impact fee and/or construction of circulation improvements. 3 1254
(c) Approval criteria. A development project may be approved if as a condition of approval it is required to construct a circulation improvement and/or pay a development impact fee, as shown in Table 13-275, and if a finding is made that the development project's impacts will be mitigated at all affected intersections within three years of issuance of the first building permit for the development project, as described in subsection (b), unless additional right-of-way or coordination with other government agencies is required to complete the improvement. If right- of-way acquisition or coordination with other governmental agencies delays the improvement construction, appropriate measures shall be taken to ensure that the improvement construction occurs in a timely manner. Circulation improvements may be required sooner if, because of extraordinary traffic generation characteristics of the development project or extraordinary impacts to the surrounding circulation system, the circulation improvements are necessary to prevent significant adverse impacts. For phased development projects, the construction of circulation improvements may be phased as well based upon the findings of the traffic study.
When a development project affects a potentially deficient intersection, the development project's impacts shall be mitigated such that the intersection volume to capacity ratios identified in the general plan shall not be exceeded.
(d) Transportation demand management program. Where a transportation demand management program is used to reduce vehicle trips related to a development project, the program shall comply with the following:
(1 )A conditional use permit for the development project and program must be approved by the planning commission consistent with the requirements of subsection (c). An annual report shall be prepared for the city at the expense of the property owner, to show whether the vehicle trip reduction identified in the program has been achieved and maintained. (2) If the annual report demonstrates that the vehicle trip reductions identified in the program have not occurred, the conditional use permit shall be reevaluated and additional conditions imposed by the planning commission in order to meet the requirements of this article. (3) The traffic impact development fees required under this article shall be based on the trip generation forecast without consideration of estimated reductions associated with a transportation demand management program. An application for a fee reimbursement may be approved by the city council pursuant to section 1 3-274(e), Development fee program, based upon documentation of average annual trip reduction over a three-year period as reported in the annual monitoring report referenced in section 13-273(c), Comprehensive transportation system improvement program.
(e) Change of use. Each development project approved under this article shall be reevaluated by the public services director when any change in use occurs which may increase the project's traffic generation. The purpose of this reevaluation is to assure that traffic capacity is available in the transportation system. Any increase in traffic generation by the change of use shall be subject to review by the appropriate reviewing authority who may impose additional conditions on the development project for the mitigation of the increased traffic generation. 4 1255
TABLE 13-275
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT CRITERIA
PROJECT
DEVELOPMENT
SIZE
INTERSECTION
CONDITION
ECU INCREASE' MITIGATION
MEASURE(S)
INTENT OF MITIGATION
MEASURE(S)
Projects
generating less
than 100 peak
hour trip ends
Adequate
(Standard Level of
Service or better)
OR Deficient
(exceeds
Standard Level of
Service)
Less than 1 % Payment of
impact fee
Contribute to
implementation of the
Comprehensive
Transportation System
Improvement Program1 % or greater
Projects
generating "I 00 or
more peak hour
trip ends
Adequate
' (Standard Level of
Service or better)
OR Deficient
(exceeds
Standard Level of
Service)
Less than 1 % Payment of
impact fee
Contribute to
implementation of the
Comprehensive
Transportation System
Improvement Program
1 % or greater Payment of
impact fee and
improvement
construction by
developer under
conditions listed
in footnote #2
Contribute to
implementation of the
Comprehensive
Transportation System
Improvement Program
and mitigate development
project's impacts
1 ICU = Intersection Capacity Utiliza:ion
2 When the project contributes 50% or more of the incremental impact at the intersection and all of the improvements identified in the general plan at the subject location are required as mitigation. If all of the improvements identified in the general plan are not required as mitigation, then only the improvements determined necessary by the public services director shall be constructed by the developer.
(Ord. No. 97-11, § 2, 5-5-97)
§ 13-276 Exemptions.
(a) Exempt development projects. Projects which fall within any of the categories listed below shall be exempt from the provisions of this article:
(1 )Any residential construction that does not increase the number of permanent housing units on the lot where the construction takes place, such as remodeling or rebuilding an existing house or units. Second units are also exempt.
(2) Any industrial or commercial construction that neither increases the footprint nor square footage or changes the use on the lot where the construction takes place, such as remodeling or rebuilding an existing structure, and does not increase peak hour trip generation. (3) Public benefit facilities limited to public libraries, public administration Facilities, public parks, public utilities, schools and related facilities.
(4) Facilities serving the health and safety of the public, limited to hospitals, police, fire and safety facilities.
(Ord. No. 11-10, § 1, 9-20-11 )
5 1256
Exhibit K
Title 13, Chapter XV,
Group Homes
§ 13-310Purpose.
This chapter is intended to preserve the residential character of single-family residential neighborhoods and to further the purposes of the FEHA, the FHAA and the Lanterman Act by, among other things: (1) ensuring that group homes are actually entitled to the special accommodation and/or additional accommodation provided under the Costa Mesa Municipal Code and not simply skirting the city's boarding house regulations; (2) limiting the secondary impacts of group homes by reducing noise and traffic, preserving safety and providing adequate on street parking; (3) providing an accommodation for the handicapped that is reasonable and actually bears some resemblance to the opportunities afforded non-handicapped individuals to use and enjoy a dwelling unit in a single-family neighborhood; and (4) to provide comfortable living environments that will enhance the opportunity for the handicapped and for recovering addicts to be successful in their programs.
§ 13-311 Special use permit required.
(a) A group home that may otherwise be considered an unpermitted use may locate in an R1 zone with a special use permit provided:
(1 ) An application for a group home is submitted to the director by the owner/operator of the group home. The application shall provide the following:
i. The name, address, phone number and driver's license number of the owner/operator;
ii. lftheapplicantand/oroperatorisapartnership,corporation,firmorassociation,then the applicanUoperator shall provide the additional names and addresses as follows and such persons shall also sign the application:
a. Every general partner of the partnership,
b. Every owner with a controlling interest in the corporation c. The person designated by the officers of a corporation as set forth in a resolution of the corporation that is to be designated as the permit holder; iii. The license and permit history of the applicant(s), including whether such applicant(s), in previously operating a similar use in this or another city, county or state under license and/or permit, has had such license and/or permit revoked or suspended, and the reason therefor;
iv. The name, address, phone number and driver's license number of the house manager;
v. A copy of the group home rules and regulations; vi. Written intake procedures;
1257
vii. The relapse policy;
viii. An affirmation by the owner/operator that only residents (other than the house manager) who are handicapped as defined by state and federal law shall reside at the group home;
ix. Blank copies of all forms that all residents and potential residents are required to complete; and
x. A fee for the cost of processing of the application as set by resolution of the city council.
No person shall open a group home with an operator or begin employment with a group home until this information has been provided and such persons shall be responsible for updating any of this information to keep it current. (2) The group home has six or fewer occupants, not counting a house manager, but in no event shall have more than seven occupants. If the dwelling unit has an accessory dwelling unit, occupants of both units will be combined to determine whether or not the limit of six occupants has been exceeded.
(3) The group home shall not be located in an accessory dwelling unit unless the primary dwelling unit is used for the same purpose.
(4) The group home has a house manager who resides at the group home or any multiple of persons acting as a house manager who are present at the group home on a 24 hour basis and who are responsible for the day-to-day operation of the group home. (5) All garage and driveway spaces associated with the dwelling unit shall, at all times, be available for the parking of vehicles.
(6) Occupants must not require and operators must not provide "care and supervision" as those terms are defined byHealth and Safety Codesection 1503.5 and section 80001 (c)(3) of Title 22, California Code of Regulations. (7) Integral group home facilities are not permitted. Applicants shall declare, under penalty of perjury, that the group home does not operate as an integral use/facility. (8) If the group home operator is not the property owner, written approval from the property owner to operate a group home at the property.
(9) The property must be fully in compliance with all building codes, municipal code and zoning.
(10) At least 48 hours prior to an occupant's eviction from or involuntary termination of residency in a group home, the operator thereof shall:
Notify the person designated as the occupant's emergency contact or contact of record that the occupant will no longer be a resident at the home; 1258
ii. Contact the Orange County Health Care Agency QC Links Referral Line and/or another entity designated by the City to determine the services available to the occupant, including, but not limited to, alcohol and drug inpatient and outpatient treatment;
iii. Notify the city's Network for Homeless Solutions that an occupant is no longer a resident at the home, and determine the services available therefrom; iv. Providetheinformationobtainedfromparagraphsiiandiiiofthissubsection(a)(10) and any other treatment provider or service to the occupant prior to his or her release on a form provided by the City and obtain the occupant's signed acknowledgement thereon;
v. Provided, however, that if the occupant's behavior results in immediate termination of residency pursuant to rules approved by the City as part of the special use permit for that facility, the operator shall comply with paragraphs i through iv of this subsection (a)(1 0) as soon as possible.
(11 ) Prior to an occupant's eviction from or involuntary termination of residency in a group home, the operator thereof shall also:
Make available to the occupant transportation to the address listed on the occupant's driver license, state-issued identification card, or the permanent address identified in the occupant's application or referral to the group home; ii. Provided, however, that should the occupant decline transportation to his or her permanent address or otherwise has no permanent address, then the operator shall make available to the occupant transportation to another group home or residential care facility that has agreed to accept the occupant. (12) The group home operator shall maintain records for a period of one year following eviction from or involuntary termination of residency of an occupant that document compliance with subsections (a)(1 0) and (a)(1 1 ) of this section; provided, however, that nothing herein shall require an operator of a group home to violate any provision of state or federal law regarding confidentiality of health care information. The group home operator may not satisfy the obligations set forth in subsection (a)(11 ) of this section by providing remuneration to the occupant For the cost oT transportation. (13) All drivers of vehicles picking up or dropping off persons at a group home shall comply with all applicable provisions of this Code and the Vehicle Code, including, but not limited to, those provisions regulating licensure and parking, standing and stopping. (14) lnadditiontotheregulationsoutlinedabove,thefollowingshallalsoapplytosoberliving homes:
The sober living home is not located within 650 feet, as measured from the closest property lines, of any other sober living home or a state licensed alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility.
ii. All occupants, other than the house manager, must be actively participating in legitimate recovery programs, including, but not limited to, Alcoholics Anonymous or 1259
Narcotics Anonymous and the sober living home must maintain current records of meeting attendance. Under the sober living home's rules and regulations, refusal to actively participate in such a program shall be cause for eviction. iii. The sober living home's rules and regulations must prohibit the use of any alcohol or any non-prescription drugs at the sober living home or by any recovering addict either on or off site. The sober living home must also have a written policy regarding the possession, use and storage of prescription medications. The facility cannot dispense medications but must make them available to the residents. The possession or use of prescription medications is prohibited except for the person to whom they are prescribed, and in the amounts/dosages prescribed. These rules and regulations shall be posted on site in a common area inside the dwelling unit. Any violation of this rule must be cause for eviction under the sober living home's rules for residency and the violator cannot be re-admitted for at least 90 days. Any second violation of this rule shall result in permanent eviction. Alternatively, the sober living home must have provisions in place to remove the violator from contact with the other residents until the violation is resolved.
iv. The number of occupants subject to the sex offender registration requirements of Penal Code section 290 does not exceed the limit set forth in Penal Code section 3003.5 and does not violate the distance provisions set forth in Penal Code section 3003.
v. The sober living home shall have a written visitation policy that shall preclude any visitors who are under the influence of any drug or alcohol. vi. The sober living home shall have a good neighbor policy that shall direct occupants to be considerate of neighbors, including refraining from engaging in excessively loud, profane or obnoxious behavior that would unduly interfere with a neighbor's use and enjoyment of their dwelling unit. The good neighbor policy shall establish a written protocol for the house manager/operator to Follow when a neighbor complaint is received.
vii. The sober living home shall not provide any of the following services as they are defined by section 10501(a)(6) of Title9,California Code of Regulations:
detoxification; educational counseling; individual or group counseling sessions; and treatment or recovery planning.
(15) An applicant may seek relief from the strict application of this section by submitting an application to the director setting forth specific reasons as to why accommodation over and above this section is necessary under state and federal laws, pursuant to section 13- 200.62.
(b) The special use permit shall be issued by the director as a ministerial matter iT the applicant is in compliance or has agreed to comply with subsections (a)(l) through (a)(14) of this section. At least 10 days prior to issuing a special use permit, the director shall cause a courtesy written notice to be mailed to the owner of record and occupants of all properties within 100 feet of the location of the group home. The issuance of the special use permit shall be denied upon a determination, and if already issued shall be revoked upon a hearing, by the director if any of the following circumstances exist:
1260
(1) Any owner/operator or staff person has provided materially false or misleading information on the application or omitted any pertinent information; (2) Any owner/operator or staff person has an employment history in which he or she was terminated during the past two years because of physical assault, sexual harassment, embezzlement or theft; falsifying a drug test; and selling or furnishing illegal drugs or alcohol.
(3) Any owner/operator or staff person has been convicted of or pleaded nolo contendere within the last seven to 10 years, to any of the following offenses:
i. Any sex offense for which the person is required to register as a sex offender under California Penal Code section 290 (last 10 years); ii. Arson offenses-Violations of Penal Code Sections 451-455 (last seven years); or iii. Violent felonies, as defined in Penal Code section 667.5, which involve doing bodily harm to another person (last 10 years).
iv. The unlawful sale or furnishing of any controlled substances (last seven years). (4) Any owner/operator or staff person is on parole or formal probation supervision on the date of the submittal of the application or at any time thereafter. (5) The owner/operator accepts residents, other than a house manager, who are not handicapped as defined by the FHAA and FEHA.
(6) A special use permit for a sober living home shall also be denied upon a determination, and if already issued, any transfer shall be denied or revoked, upon a hearing, by the director that any of the following additional circumstances exist:
Any owner/operator or staff person of a sober living home is a recovering drug or alcohol abuser and upon the date of application or employment has had less than one full year of sobriety.
ii. The owner/operator of a sober living home fails to immediately take measures to remove any resident who uses alcohol or illegally uses prescription or non- prescription drugs, or who is not actively participating in a legitimate recovery program from contact with all other sober residents. iii. The sober living home, as measured by the closest property lines, is located within 650 feet of any other sober living home or state licensed alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility. If a state-licensed alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility moves within 650 feet of an existing sober living home this shall not cause the revocation of the sober living home's permit or be grounds for denying a transfer of such permit.
(7) For any other significant and/or repeated violations of this section and/or any other applicable laws and/or regulations, including, but not limited to, failure to comply with the provisions of subsections (a)(10) through (13). 1261 (8) Revocation shall not apply to any group home, which otherwise would cause it to be in violation of this section, that has obtained a reasonable accommodation pursuant to section 13-200.62.
§ 13-:312 Compliance.
(a) All group homes which are subject to this Chapter shall comply with the provisions hereof regardless of when they commenced operations.
§ 13-313 Severability.
Should any section, subsection, clause, or provision of this chapter for any reason be held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this chapter; it being hereby expressly declared that this Ordinance, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase hereof would have been prepared, proposed, approved and ratified irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional. This chapter shall be prospective in application from its effective date. 1262
Exhibit L
Title 13, Chapter XVI,
Group Homes in the R2-MD, R2-HD and R3 Residential Zones and the PDR-LD, PDR-MD, PDR-HD, PDR-NCM, PDC, and PDI (Planned Development Zones) § 13-320 Purpose.
This chapter is intended to preserve the residential character the City of Costa Mesa's residential neighborhoods and to further the purposes of the FEHA, the FHAA and the Lanterman Act by, among other things:
(a) Ensuring that group homes are actually entitled to the special accommodation and/or additional accommodation provided under the Costa Mesa Municipal Code and not simply skirting the city's boarding house regulations;
(b) Limiting the secondary impacts of group homes by reducing noise and traffic, preserving safety and providing adequate off-street parking;
(c) Providing an accommodation for the handicapped that is reasonable and actually bears some resemblance to the opportunities afforded non-handicapped individuals to use and enjoy a dwelling unit in a residential neighborhood; and
(d) To provide comfortable living environments that will enhance the opportunity for the handicapped, including recovering addicts to be successful in their programs. § 13-321 Definitions.
Property. For purposes of this chapter, "property" is defined as any single development lot that has been subdivided bearing its own assessor's parcel number or with an approved subdivision map or condominium map.
§ 13-322 Group homes in the R2-MD, R2-HD and R3 residential zones and the PDR-LD, PDR-MD, PDR-HD, PDR-NCM, PDC, and PDI (planned development zones) zones with six or fewer occupants.
(a) A special use permit shall be required for and may be granted to permit the operation of a group home including a sober living home with six or fewer occupants in the R2-MD, R2-HD and R3 residential zones and the PDR-LD, PDR-MD, PDR-HD, PDR-NCM, PDC, and PDI (planned development zones) zones subject to the following requirements:
(1 ) The application for and operation of the group home complies with subsections (a)(1 ), (a)(2) and (a)(4) through (a)(14) of section 13-311. (2) The application includes a live scan of the house manager and/or operator of the group home.
(3) The group home or sober living home is at least 650 feet from any other property, as defined in section 13-32'l, that contains a group home, sober living home or state- licensed drug and alcohol treatment facility, as measured from the property line. 1263
(b) The development services director may issue, revoke or deny a special use permit for a group home including a sober living home subject to this chapter pursuant to the procedures and requirements of section 13-311.
(c) An applicant may seek relief from the strict application of this section by submitting an application to the director setting forth specific reasons as to why accommodation over and above this section is necessary under state and federal laws, pursuant to section 13-200.62. § 13-323 Conditional use permit required for group homes, residential care facilities and drug and alcohol treatment facilities in the R2-MD, R2-HD and R3 residential zones and the PDR-LD, PDR-MD, PDR-HD, PDR-NCM, PDC, and PDI (planned development zones) with seven or more occupants.
A conditional use permit shall be required for and may be granted to allow the operation of a group home, state-licensed residential care facility or state-licensed drug and alcohol treatment facility with seven or more occupants in the R2-MD, R2-HD and R3 residential zones and the PDR-LD, PDR-MD, PDR-HD, PDR-NCM, PDC, and PDI (planned development zones) zones subject to the following conditions:
(a) The requirements of Chapter Ill, Planning Applications, of this title have been met. (b) The group home, residential care facility or state-licensed drug and alcohol treatment facility is at least 650 feet from any property, as defined in section 13-321, that contains a group home, sober living home or state-licensed drug and alcohol treatment facility, as measured from the property line, unless the reviewing authority determines that such location will not result in an over-concentration of similar uses.
(c) The applicant obtains an operator's permit as required by Article 23, Chapter 2 of Title 9, except that this requirement shall not apply to any state-licensed residential care facility, state licensed drug and alcohol treatment facility, or group home without an operator. (d) The findings For granting a conditional use permit in accordance with subsection 1 3-29(g) are met.
§ 13-324 Compliance.
(a) All group homes which are subject to this Chapter shall comply with the provisions hereof regardless of when they commenced operations.
§ 13-325 Severability.
Should any section, subsection, clause, or provision of this chapter for any reason be held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this chapter; it being hereby expressly declared that this chapter, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase hereof would have been prepared, proposed, approved and ratified irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional. This chapter shall be prospective in application from its effective date. 1264
Exhibit M
SlaleiAve 'l
E Dyer Rd
0affleld Aye
Hoipllal Rd :"
W Coast HWV
(:l Cosla Mesa City Boundary
Overlays and Specific Plans
Residential Incentive Overlay Dislnct
Mixed Use Ovtmay Distiict
CJ 19 West Uiban PlanlMixed-Use Overlay Dlsltict
[:l SoBECA Urban PlanlMixed-Use Overlay Disliict
[:l Mesa West Bluffs urban Plan{Mixed-Use Overlay Dislnct [J Mesa West Residential Ownership lltban PlanlMixed-Use Overlay Distnct [:l Haio+ Mixed-Use Overlay District
(J North Costa Mesa Specific Plan
[J Newpof Boulevard Specific Plan
Cl East 171h Skeet Specific Plan
Rl: Slngle-Family Residenjal Dislnct
R2-MD: Multiple-Family Resldeniial Dislrlct- Medlum Density R2-HD: Multiple-Family Residenllal Disliict- High Density R3: Multiple-Family Residential Distnct
I MG: General Industnal
MP: Industnal Park
PDI: Planned Development Indushlal
Cl : Local Business [)islrlct
C2: General Buslness Dlstnct
ffia Cl-S: Shopping Center Dlsltict
TC: Town Center Dlsltlct
ffia PDR-NCM: Planned Development Residenlial-North Cosla Mesa i I & R: Insiltutional and Recreational Dlstricf
I & R-S: Institutional and Recreauonal School Distdct IR-MLT: Ins(ilulional and Retteatlonal MLT
I 3 P: OffStreet Parking Dish'lct
PDR-LD: Planned Development Residential-Low [)ensily
PDR-MD: Planned Development Residential-Medium Density PDR-HD: Planned Development Residenllal-High Density
SOIIRCE City oi Coila Mesa Omnge County Sanitation Dislncl, Open Street Map Zoning Districts
Neighborhoods Where We All Belong Zotung Updates and Housing Element Implemenlaiion 1265
RESOLUTION NO. PC-2026-04
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA,
CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA
MESA ADOPT AN AMENDMENT TO THE NORTH COSTA MESA SPECIFIC PLAN
FOR CONSISTENCY WITH AMENDMENTS TO COSTA MESA MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 13, CHAPTER V DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, MIXED-USE OVERLAY
DISTRICT, TO REZONE HOUSING ELEMENT OPPORTUNITY SITES WITHIN THE NORTH COSTA MESA SPECIFIC PLAN AREA (PSPA-26-0001 )
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA FINDS AND DECLARES AS FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa adopted the 2015-2035 General Plan, a long-range comprehensive guide for the orderly development of Costa Mesa, on June 21, 2016;
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa adopted the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan by Resolution No. 94-67 in July 1994; WHEREAS, the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan provides additional planning guidelines and standards for several large development areas located in North Costa Mesa;
WHEREAS, by its very nature, the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan needs to be updated and refined to account for existing and projected community needs; WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 65580 et sec. (State Housing Element Law) requires each city and county to adopt a housing element that identifies and analyzes existing and projected housing needs within their jurisdiction and prepare goals, policies, programs, quantified objectives, and sites to further the development, improvement, and preservation of housing;
WHEREAS, the City's Sixth Cycle (2021-2029) Housing Element was adopted by the City Council on February 1, 2022, through Resolution No. 2022-06 and amendments adopted on November 15, 2022 through Resolution No. 2022-67, and as revised as recently as March 1, 2023 to incorporate non-substantive changes as authorized by the City Council;
WHEREAS, this Resolution would establish the applicable standards in Section 13-83.58 "Properties Identified in the Housing Element" of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code as the 1266
prevailing planning, zoning, and development standards for any Lower-Income Housing E(ement Site within the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan; WHEREAS, North Costa Mesa Specific Plan amendment would allow the Mixed-Use Overlay District to supersede the base zoning and Specific Plan allowances on Lower- Income Housing Element Opportunity Sites pursuant to concurrently proposed new Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section I 3-83-58(e);
WHEREAS, the rezoning of Housing Element Opportunity Sites is exempt from Title 13, Chapter IX Special Land Use Article 22, An Ordinance to give the People of Costa Mesa Control of Their Future (Measure Y) pursuant to Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-200.1 06(g);
WHEREAS, adoption of a specific plan amendment is considered a legislative action subject to the discretionary approval of the City Council; WHEREAS, a Study session was held by the Planning Commission on January 26, 2026 with all persons having the opportunity to speak for and against the amendments; WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on February 9, 2026 with all persons having the opportunity to speak for and against the amendments;
WHEREAS, on November 15, 2022, the Costa Mesa City Council adopted Resolution No. 2022-67, certifying and adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program that analyzed the candidate housing sites for the Sixth Cycle (2021-2029) Housing Element, which provided environmental clearance for the adoption of the Housing Element; WHEREAS, the proposed amendments implement a schedule of actions contained in the approved Housing Element pursuant to Government Code Section 65583 and do not allow the construction of a distribution center, or oil and gas infrastructure, accordingly, the proposed amendments are statutorily exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.085 (an exemption also known as SB 131 );
WHEREAS, the CEQA statutory exemption for this proposal reflects the independent judgement of the City of Costa Mesa.
1267
NOW, THEREFORE, based on the evidence in the record the Planning Commission, in its independent judgement, hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan amendment incorporated herein as Exhibit A.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Costa Mesa Planning Commission does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon the activity as described in the staff report, and in compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if any section, division, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this resolution, or the document in the record in support of this resolution, are for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of February, 2026. 5effi,<"'c2k
Costa Mesa Planning Commission
1268
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE )ss
CITY OF COSTA MESA )
I, Carrie Tai, Secretary to the Planning Commission of the City of Costa Mesa, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. PC-2026-04 was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City of Costa Mesa Planning Commission held on February 9, 2026 by the following votes:
AYES: Harlan, Andrade, Dickson, Klepack, Martinez, Rojas NOES: Zich
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Carrdetary
Costa Mesa Planning Commission
Resolution No. PC-2026-04
1269
1270
This page intentionally left blank
1271
Costa Mesa North Costa Mesa Specific Plan
SUMMARY OF NORTH COSTA MESA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENTS The North Costa Mesa Specific Plan was adopted by the Costa Mesa City Council in July 1994. Since adoption, the plan has been amended. The following table provides a list and a brief description of the amendment(s).
AMENDMENT # DATE OF ADOPTION DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT SP-98-04 April 19, 1999 Created a site-specific FAR of O.72 for South Coast Metro Center (Area 6).
SP-99-02 July 3, 2000 Increased the site-specific FAR to O.79 for South Coast Metro Center (Area 6).
SP-00-01 February 5, 2001 Created a new Cultural Arts Center designation and corresponding FAR of 1.77 for South Coast Plaza Town Center (Area 4).
SP-00-02 November 19, 20 €)1 Increased the size of Area 1, and amended land use designations, floor area ratio, and trip budgets for Segerstrom Home Ranch (Area 1 )
SP-02-01 July 1, 2002 Updated regulations to be consistent with 2000 General Plan.
SP-03-02 November 17, 2003 Amended acreage and building square footage allocation in Area 1 sub-areas.
SP-03-01 February 2, 2004 Incorporated the Theater and Arts District Plan into the plan.
SP-06-01 March 27, 2006 Amendment to the Theater and Arts District Plan regarding financing.
SP-06-02 January 16, 2007 Amendment to allow high-rise residential development In Sub-areas 4, 5, and 6 in this specific plan.
SP-07-01 November 20, 2007 Amendment to allow high-rise residential development for Wyndham Boutique Hotel/High-Rise residential project at 3350 Avenue of Arts, Area 5.
SP-1 1-01 September 20, 2011 Amendment to Sakioka Lot 2 SP-15-01 October 20, 2015 Clarifying language to South Coast Plaza Town Center SP-16-01 September 06, 2016 Updating Home Ranch, 3350 Avenue of the Arts and Sakioka Lot 2 per 2015-2035 General Plan Update
PSPA-26-0001 Month Day, 2026 Amendment to reflect General Plan Land Use Element and Mixed-Use Overlay District Amendments, including
identified Housing Element sites, and corresponding General Plan Land Use Map and City's Zoning Map. 1 1272
Costa Mesa North Costa Mesa Specific Plan
2 1273
Costa Mesa
SP-94-01
North Costa Mesa Specific Plan
NORTH COSTA MESA SPECIFIC PLAN
PREPARED BY:
City of Costa Mesa Planning Division
July 1994
Adopted by Resolution #94-67
Amended April 1999
Amended July 2000
Amended February 2001
Amended November 2001
Amended July 2002
Amended November 2003
Amended February 2004
Amended March 2006
Amended January 2007
Amended November 2007
Amended September 2011
Amended October 2015
Amended September20l6
Amended Month 2026
3 1274
Costa Mesa North Costa Mesa Specific Plan
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.O INTRODUCTION. .5
Authority and Scope....
Specific Plan Contents..
2.O DEVELOPMENT SETTING .6
Location..............
Existing General Plan and Zoning Designations
Mixed-Use Overlay District
Land Use Compatibility/Integration.....................
Circulation..
Nonconformity.....
Parks and Recreation.
Fire Protection Services.....................................,,
3.O SUBAREA ANALYSIS 33
Area 1 -Home Ranch.
Area 2-Metro Pointe...................
Area 3- South Coast Plaza.....
Area 4- South Coast Plaza Town Center.
Area 5- The Lakes..
Area 6- South Coast Metro Center...........
Area 7- Sakioka Lot 1
Area 8- Sakioka Lot 2....................,,,,,,,,,,,,
4.O DEVELOPMENT ST ANDARDS. . 79
5.O IMPLEMENTATION . 87
APPENDIX A- Noise Estimates
APPENDIX B- Parks and Recreation.................
APPENDIX C- General Plan Policies........................................
APPENDIX D- Theater and Arts District Plan (bound separately) 4 1275
Costa Mesa North Costa Mesa Specific Plan
5 1276
Costa Mesa North Costa Mesa Specific Plan
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 4- Location....
Figure 2- Existing Land Uses.....................
Figure 3- General Plan Land Use Designations......................
Figure 4- Zoning.. .............
Figure 5- Land Use Integration...........
Figure 6- Imaginary Surfaces for JWA.... ......
Figure 7- Master Plan of Highways
Figure 8- Bikeways. .. .......
Figure 9- Urban Rail Alternatives..................
Figure 10- Parks
Figure 11- Area L............
Figure 11 a- Historical Preservation Area....
Figure 11 b- Home Ranch Building Heights
Figure 12- Area 2............
Figure 13- Area 3.............
Figure 14- Area 4......
Figure 14A- SCPTC Conceptual Location of Future Projects..
Figure 14B - Aerial Map of Location of Future Projects........
Figure 15- Area 5...........
Figure 1 6A- Area 6............
Figure 1 6B- Area 6 Sub-Areas... ... .. .......
Figure 17- Area 7. .. ..........
Figure 1 8-Area 8
Figure 19- Development Standards Summary.........................
LISTOFTABLES
Table 1- General Plan Designations..........
Table 2- Maximum Building Heights
Table 3- Master Plan of Highways Improvements...
Table 4- Floor Area Ratio Nonconformities...
Table 4a- Segerstrom Home Ranch Sub-Areas Statistical Summary..........
Table 5A- South Coast Plaza Town Center Subarea Statistics.....................
Table 5B- Statistical Summary of Unbuilt SCPTC Components as of 2006...
Table 64- South Coast Metro Center Sub-Area Statistics........
Table 6B-South Coast Metro Center Maximum Building Heights... ................
Table 7- Sakioka Lot 1 Density Bonus Program .................
Table 8- Sakioka Farms Lot 2 Density Bonus Program.
Table 9- Public Improvement Implementation Schedule.......... 6 1277
Costa Mesa North Costa Mesa Specific Plan
1.O INTRODUCTION
Authority and Scope
This specific plan has been prepared for a portion of North Costa Mesa in accordance with the California Government Code Section 65450 et seq. The plan area encompasses 423 acres and is an established area of the City with many identifiable and diversified components, including the urban mixed use development of South Coast Plaza Town Center. There is still, however, a considerable amount of undeveloped land within the plan area that prompts the need for this specific plan.
The 1990 General Plan, adopted on March 16, 1992, specifies the land use designations and accompanying residential densities and commercial and industrial intensities for the plan area, as well as numerous policies that are relevant or specific to North Costa Mesa. In 2001, the City of Costa Mesa 2000 General Plan was adopted, which was primarily a technical update of the 1990 General Plan. (See Appendix C for a listing of relevant General Plan policies). It is the intent of this specific plan to implement the policies of the General Plan through the adoption of development standards. These standards recognize the development potential of the plan area and the need to sensitively integrate new development with the surrounding areas, and, therefore, promote both resident and business community confidence in the long-term vision for the plan area.
Specific issues that are addressed in this plan are as Follows:
> Land Use Compatibility/Integration
> Building Heights
> Nonconformity
> Density Bonuses
> Circulation
> Urban Rail Transit
> Parks and Recreation
> Fire Protection Services
Specific Plan Contents
This specific plan provides a comprehensive review and analysis of the plan area. Section 2 provides an overview of the plan area's development setting. In Section 3, the development issues that will present a challenge to future development of each subarea are identified, and Section 4 provides the development standards which address these issues. Finally, Section 5 discusses the specific plan's implementation on timing.
Updated November 2001
7 1278
Costa Mesa North Costa Mesa Specific Plan
2.0 DEVELOPMENT SETTING
Location
The North Costa Mesa plan area comprises the northernmost portion of the City of Costa Mesa, i. e., that area north of the San Diego Freeway (1-405) and generally east of Harbor Boulevard. South Coast Drive and Sunflower Avenue generally form the northern boundary of the plan area and the Costa Mesa Freeway (SR-55) is the eastern border. Costa Mesa's surrounding cities include Fountain Valley and Huntington Beach to the west, Santa Ana to the north and east, Irvine to the east, and Newport Beach to the south. Major regional facilities include John Wayne Airport to the southeast of the plan area. See Figure 1.
Figure 2 indicates the existing land uses as well as the eight subareas the plan area has been divided into for analysis purposes.
Updated November2001
8 1279
Costa Mesa North Costa Mesa Specific Plan
Location Map
§ ORANGE
al mn COUNTY
tall AK
COSTA *'X/, =MESA /; 73 :!5
*
HUHnNGTON
BEACH
NEWPORT
BEACH
PACIFIC OCEAN t)GuNA
BEACH
LAGUNA
NIGUa
MISSION
l/[JO
SAN Jt91Fl
CA.OIS!RANO
Figure 1
S
NORTH COSTA MESA SPECIFIC PLAN
Updated November200l
9 1280
€ a) m OanCtmmai
'.giE9;
i ui tx it it i s r
LEGEND
BVacant Land Parcels
p, North Costa Mesa Specific Plan Area
Note: All maps and flgumi In € ha NorUi Coata Mega 8p*clflc Plan are not to scale and are provldod %r llluatraun purposes only. 1 - Home Ranch
2 - Metro Pointe
3 - South Coast Plaza
4 - South Coast Plaza Town Center
5 - The Lakes
6 - South Coast Metro Center / Experian
7 - 8akioka Lot 1
8 - Sakioka Lot 2
N
A
EXiSting Land USeS Figure2
1281
Costa Mesa North Costa Mesa Specific Plan
Existing GeneralPlan andZoning Designations
Figure 3 indicates the General Plan land use designations for the area of the City north of the 1-405, and Figure 4 indicates the accompanying zoning designations. Table 1 summarizes the development parameters of the General Plan land use designations, and the compatible zoning districts.
As shown in Table 1, the General Plan establishes Floor Area Ratios (FARs) for all non- residential land use designations. The FAR is used to determine the maximum amount of building that is allowed on a lot or parcel. Several land use categories in the plan area contain stepped FARs which are tied to the traffic characteristics of the proposed land use.
Residential density is measured in dwelling units per acre. Trip budgets have also been established for properties in the plan area designated as Urban Center Commercial, Cultural Arts Center, or Regional Commercial in the plan area. The industrial portion of Home Ranch also has a trip budget. When applicable, the FAR, or in the case of residential, dwelling units per acre, and trip budget work in concert to ensure that building intensity and trip generation do not exceed the capacity of the circulation system in the plan area. The trip budget for individual properties is given in Section 3.
The lowest FARs are found in the Neighborhood Commercial designation as well as in the residential, industrial and public-semi land use designations. The highest FARs are allowed in the Regional Commercial, Cultural Arts Center, and Urban Center Commercial land use designations. The General Plan does not allow the established floor area ratio to be exceeded in any instance.
Trip budgets are calculated on a square footage basis for commercial, industrial, residential, and institutional land uses. As with FARs, trip budgets cannot be exceeded. The General Plan, however, does allow for the transfer of trip budgets in the plan area in the following circumstances:
1. The combination and/or transfer or trips shall only be allowed in the area of the City that is north of the 1-405 and east of Harbor Boulevard, and shall be limited to parcels within a one-mile radius of each other.
2. Tripbudgettransfersshallbeevaluatedinthereviewandapprovalofaplanned development or master plan project. Sufficient conditions of approval shall be applied to the master plan or development plan to ensure long-range control over subsequent phases of development.
3. The combination and/or transfer of trips shall not result in any greater impacts on the surrounding circulation system then would occur if each Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) was developed independently. (Consult with the Planning Division for a figure depicting TAZs)
4. For the combination and/or transfer of trips between TAZs, such combination and/or transfer of trips shall not exceed the total trip budget of all parcels involved if each were developed independently according to the FAR and trip generation rates provided herein.
11 1282
Costa Mesa North Costa Mesa Specific Plan
5. The combination and/or transfer or trips shall not allow development intensities which result in abrupt changes in scale or intensity within the project or between the project and surrounding land uses.
6. Approvalofthemasterplanordevelopmentplanshallbeconditionedtoensurecompliance with the above criteria and to preclude future overdevelopment on portions of the project or properties from which trip budgets were transferred
7. Trip budget transfers shall be recorded against the properties.
Therefore, if a property is underdeveloped in terms of its trip budget, there is the possibility that the "excess" trips could be transferred to another parcel to augment its trip budget.
It should be noted that all the Planned Development (PD), Town Center (TC), and Shopping Center (C1- S) zones require Planning Commission review and approval of the land use mix and building location.
Mixed-Use Overlay District and Properties identified in the Housing Element In 2026, this specific plan was amended for consistency with an amendment to the City's Zoning Map, which resulted in the rezoning of several properties in the plan area to encourage and facilitate residential and mixed-use development. While base zoning districts remain the same, the Mixed-Use Overlay District (MUOD) was applied to several parcels in the PDC, I&R, PDR-HD, TC, C1, and PDI zoning districts within the plan area. The MUOD is an overlay district and shall only apply to the parcels identified in the City's Zoning Map. This specific plan shall continue to apply to a property unless specifically superseded by a MUOD project when a property owner chooses to exercise provisions of Article 11 (Mixed-Use Overlay District) of ChapterV (Development Standards) of Title 13 (Planning and Development) of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code on a qualifying property. However, it should be noted that projects identified on Lower- Income Housing Element Sites shall be governed by Section 13-83.58.e, (Supersession of Overlay) of Article 11, and the provisions of that Section shall supersede and prevail over any conflicting provisions of the underlying base zone, including, but not limited to, minimum residential densities and capacities, minimum residential floor area, ministerial review and approval, and permitted uses, and all other applicable zoning provisions, such as other urban plans, overlays, and specific plans, including this specific plan.
Updated Month 2026
12 1283
c
W Segeigliom Ave
(l)a'a 78
6 (:0- -
j9 j5
a;_
m ;:
'__= -_-___ ____ _ . 7
:y. e,,l a a
j,_ fi u:-(l) '
- . ______ ,-_-_ - -- .- z r -.__"_ : -------'='. ' =MacArlhui Blvd '------ == '-'---'""'-' "-- ' ----- -'Z IQ e;
a
" g, i
?
'ffl y ' N
!) %
,";,E:":'4"-$,"-
hi 4r"l,,,,7;,,_'?0a,, 'Xi -r a--'gl$y,!i==i,,,,_ r,:,,_, . _ . Al,:.1,d_k4,l=:-H!,B, t,
,(TJ--;ii-;ii!l'i' ,_.Y*a'Q'.lJl € ii2,__,,,,,D, , V-.amdii_ _ € $-,.,__,=-i @o, _ al
' Osii
OCosta Mesa City Bounday _ _g Neighborhood Commercial C", North Costa Mesa Specific Plan Boundaiy Commercial Center UU! Mixed Use Overlay 85 Regional Commercial
General Plan Land Use _ _ Urban Center Commercial , _ Low Densi$ ResidenUal 88 Cullral Arts Center [ Medium Densi§ Residential Industiial Park
High Density ResidenUal 85 Public/lnsfflutional
%, -
X ai i ._ -i __ __ :' _ _ __ ___ _ __ __ i
4e',Y .
_ __ ' 1. . - ,_ ____,_ . . . i, 11. ' _ _ __ _ _____,_ _ .. * , m- i . - . - - 7 a'Sly,';:1';7Ajl,',i:"i.__ " '
- j - 'l- - __: _ " &::iL ."'- " " " "- " " ' } ate' .
SOIIRCE City of Cosla I<)ss Oper Sueei )Aap
4 Costa Mesa !b
0 000 1000
Fnta
o
cri
FIGURE 3
General Plan Land Use
North Cosla Mess Speafic Plan
1284
c
W Segerstiom Aye
E g
Sm ,em
"- %(!l
(l)
4, , , _ _ __ _ %
(I)
N_ o,l =a
o2o W 0'
'% : '- '- - --- - - - " o-a -"-o-o - " o'-"- o-- - - ' -'-- - a MacArthui Blvd =.__ : :: _. ;=_ - _ - -,. _ .- =""= , __ _____ , ,,___ _ 1 ,_., ----- e)
in
Ze
% #
ll_ "
(Q a:
sayi(;1411,-,,,,%,%%,"
"""'_ S z J!'- _i %19#%#%1% #0aa % j ---- '-"" 'i
I
i
:' .i..:- - I
.1-__l,__,__,,_ =:
a!
ri.7_t,H'i
':!"'9":f,"i'yl
m
'l
pi 9,,-) .= - _-. Q
I .%llll'l _%11112 .11j .a, . - - - -
J -i=l li:i
Il
I
l__la P4!t! l'!mk' Nak"
zsa a @i
.!.(
:l - - - - - N' IlffiaN; :'l
; 7 -l t" 'i
N I!iJAi
>%kl ', iff; ""
411 * i - i a 4'4
a l_ i t ' "'f'a!Af '.- - _' & _a" d',
'Q!IfflW
i.:t';S -==_ '- . *ff=lJ)ffi'a
w-yl- =. - maaaigli s __:L._5is,ff,,_- g"'rj l l iit-axa
C:I Costa Mesa City Boundaiy TC: Town Center District r_ ', Nor!h Costa Mesa Specific Plan Boundary PDR-NCM: Planned Development Residential-North Costa Mesa [i Mixed Use Overlay Dishict _ __ I & R: Institutional and Recreational Distrit.f Zoning Districts PDC: Planned Development Commercial Rl : Single-Family Residential Distrct PDR-LD: Planned Development ResidenUal-Low DensitV el R2-MD: Multiple-Family Residential District- Medium Densih/ PDR-MD: Planned Development Residential-Medium Density PDI: Planned Development Industrial PDR-HD: Planned Development Residential-High Density :!!'] C1: Local Business Dishict
,la , '
,,F -
- -- z,
Sl,,
SOIIRCE Oly of :xsta l.!isa Open Street )iiap
C"'-"ost&""" fb 'I ..-."" -!j?-i
o
cri
FIGURE 4
Zoning
North Cosia Mesa Specific Plan
1285
Table 1- General Plan Designations North Costa Mesa Specific Plan
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION
TYPICAL USES RESIDENTIAL DENSITY FLOOR AREA RATIO COMPATIBLE ZONING
Low
Density
Residential
Single family detached and attached units, granny
units, accessory apartments, family day care
Less than or equal to 8 units per acre. 0.15 high traffic
0.25 moderate traffic
0.35 low traffic
Rl , POR-LD, I &R
Medium
Density
Residential
Single-family attached units, multiple family units, senior congregate care facilities, convalescent hospitals, and group residential homes. Ancillary commercial uses are permitted the planned development zone.
Less than or equal to 12 units per
acre
0. 15 high traffic
0.25 moderate traffic
0.35 low traffic
Rl , R2-MD,
PDR-MD,
, I&R
High
Density
Residential
Multiple familY units, senior congregate care facilities, convalescent hospitals and group residential homes.
Ancillary commercial uses are permitted in the planned development zones.
Less than or equal to 20 units per acre:
except the density in the PDR-NCM
zone is 25 to 35 units per acre. See also
The Lakes for site-specific density.
0.15 high traffic
0.25 moderate traffic
0.35 high traffic
R2-HD,R3, PDR-
HD, PDR-NCM,
, I&R
Commercial Center Major shopping, service, and office facilities designated serve city-wide and regional markets.
Less than or equal to 20 units/acre 0.25 high traffic
0.35 moderate traffic
0.45 low traffic
0.75 very low traffic
Except that Home Ranch has a site-specrfic
FAR
0.37 for the IKEA portion of the project and
0.64 for the office portion
Cl, C2, Cl-S,
PDC, AP, P, CL
Regional Commercial Regional scale uses including major department stores, specialty retail outlets, restaurants, offices, and Less than or equal to 20 units/acre 0.652 South Coast Plaza (east of Bear Street)
0.89 South Coast Plaza (west of Bear Street)
PDC
Llrban
Center
Commercial
Intensively developed mixed commercial including offices, retail shops, restaurants, and hotels. Residential uses are also permitted pursuant to the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan
Less than or equal to 20 units/acre.
Exceptions: South Coast Metro Center
(Area 6) has a site specific density of
100 units per acre; Sakioka Lot 2 may
be up to 28 units/ac for mixed- use
development.
South Coast Metro Center (Area 6) has a
site- specific FAR of O.79
Sakioka Lot 2 (Area 8) has a
maximum site- specific FAR of 1.0.
PDC,TC
Cultural Arts Center Mixed commercial, residential, office and cultural uses. 1.77 See also the South Coast Plaza Town Center discussion regarding the FAR.
TC
Industrial Park Wide variety of industrial and compatible office and support commercial uses.
Less than or equal to 20 units/acre 0.20 high traffic
0.30 moderate traffic
0.40 low traffic
0.75 very low traffic
MP, Pal, CL
Public and
Semi-Pubic
Parks, hospitals, schools, religious facilities,
fairgrounds, and public facilities.
0.25 l& R. I&R-S, P
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.
Less than or equal to 90 units/acre 1 .0 MUOD
Updated Month 2026
15 1286
Costa Mesa North Costa Mesa Specific Plan
LandUseCompatibility/Integration
The plan area and its immediate surroundings contain a variety of land uses that range from single family residential homes to high-rise offices which provide a good mix of housing opportunities, commercial goods and services, entertainment, and employment opportunities in a relatively small geographical area. This mix allows people the opportunity to live near their jobs, and gives residents and employees a full range of commercial services near their homes or jobs. This reduces traffic congestion and improves air quality. Mass transit opportunities are also more easily developed in this type of community setting.
Several General Plan policies support the development of mixed-use projects along or near transit routes as a means to improve air quality and reduce traffic congestion.l Mixed use projects also add variety and interest to an area by supporting day and evening activities. The South Coast Plaza Town Center, South Coast Metro Center, and The Lakes projects currently provide the opportunity to live, work, shop and be entertained within a compact and pleasant urban environment.
The benefits of having a mix of land uses in an area can quickly be lost if there is not enough forethought in the design and location of diverse uses. Common problems include tall buildings overshadowing adjacent buildings and outdoor areas, late night commercial uses affecting residential areas, heavy truck or automobile traffic affecting access to residential areas, inadequate parking availability, and incompatible land uses being located adjacent to one another. Residential areas are particularly sensitive land uses, but commercial and/or industrial uses may also be impacted by inappropriate siting of land uses. Figure 5 highlights the location of existing and future residential areas. In 2006, this specific plan was amended to allow high-rise residential development in Areas 4, 5, and 6. See Section 3.O for additional discussion.
It should also be noted that a residential component could be incorporated into any Planned Development Zone in the plan area (see Figure 4 for Zoning). New commercial and industrial developments anticipated by the General Plan are also shown in Figure 5.
Noise
A major concern related to land use compatibility is noise. The City of Costa Mesa uses the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) to measure and regulate noise. The City's maximum acceptable exterior noise level for residential areas is 65 CNEL. The plan area's primary source of noise is vehicular and two major sources are the 1-405 to the south and the Costa Mesa Freeway to the east. Likewise, the plan area's major streets are another source of noise. Appendix A provides a list of the existing and General Plan build-out CNEL levels in the plan area.
New residential development as well as other sensitive land uses shall be required to comply with the General Plan and zoning ordinance standard of 65 CNEL for exterior recreation areas and 45 CNEL for interior areas. However, for high-rise residential developments, the exterior standard of 65 CNEL only applies to common outdoor recreation/amenity areas that are located at the ground level. Recreation/amenity areas located above the ground floor and private patios and balconies are exempt from the 65 CNEL requirement due to the urbanized 16 1287
Costa Mesa North Costa Mesa Specific Plan
nature of the overall setting. Mitigation measures may be used in order to achieve these noise levels.
John Wayne Airport is located to the east of the plan area. Although the 60 CNEL contour encompasses the area generally east of Avenue of the Arts, the 65 CNEL contour is outside of the plan area, and therefore does not impact existing or future land uses. One heliport is located in the plan area in South Coast Metro Center atop the building located at 555 Anton Boulevard.
I See Policies LU-"IA.1, LU-1 F.5, and CIR 1A.9 in Appendix C.
Updated January 2007
17 1288
ffi,9
W Q D (11J
)%u',"-l ffSUNFLOWERaAV
via
LEGEND
@Vacant Residential
@ Heliport
[p Fire Station
Sensitive Interface
ffllvacanf Indusfr'a' SFR - Single Family Residential []Vacant Commercial/Office MDR - Medium Density Residential HDR - High Density Residential Land Use Integration Figure5 o
o
1289
Costa Mesa North Costa Mesa Specific Plan
Building Heights
Existing building heights in the plan area vary from single story single family homes to twenty- one story office buildings. Generally, the high-rise office buildings are located in the South Coast Plaza Town Center and South Coast Metro Center areas; the Metro Pointe area has approval for additional buildings that include two fifteen story buildings. The buildings at South Coast Plaza and Crystal Court vary from one to three stories in height.
The General Plan does not establish a general limit on building heights north of the 1-405 but rather contains two policies that provide guidelines for determining the appropriate building height. Policy LU-1C.1 permits the construction of buildings over two stories or 30 feet only when it can be shown that the building height will not impact surrounding developments.
Policy LU-1C.3 prohibits the construction of buildings that present a hazard to air navigation at John Wayne Airport as determined by the Federal Aviation Agency.2 Policy LU-1C.3 is particularly relevant to the plan area, since the portion of the plan area generally east of the Metro Pointe property is within the imaginary horizontal surface of John Wayne Airport. Beyond the horizontal surface for another 4,000 feet is the imaginary conical surface. See Figure 6. These imaginary surfaces are the trigger for requiring special studies and review by the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County and the FAA. It should be noted that a number of existing buildings in South Coast Plaza Town Center encroach within the imaginary horizontal surface; however, each was determined not to pose a hazard to the airport's operations and were required to install obstruction lighting.
Building heights in North Costa Mesa have created public controversy in the past, especially in the Home Ranch area where high-rise development approvals were overturned by the voters in 1988. Table 2 specifies the maximum building heights for the plan area and shall continue to apply to a property unless specifically superseded by a MUOD project when a property owner chooses to exercise provisions of Article 1l (Mixed-Use Overlay District) of Chapter V (Development Standards) of Title 13 (Planning and Development) of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code on a qualifying property; these building height standards recognized existing patterns and surrounding land uses. Any new building proposed at 3 stories or more should require a shade and shadow impact analysis in relation to surrounding land uses.
It should be noted that Home Ranch has a specific height limitation of five stories and only in the center of the property. Any additional height above five stories (75 feet) would require a General Plan amendment. Exhibit 11 b depicts the height limitations for Home Ranch. 2SeeAppendix CTorfulltextofPolicies LU-IC.I and LLI-1C.3.
Updated January 2007; Month 2026
19 1290
LEGEND
APPROACH
St)RFACES
TRANSITIONAL
SURFACE
HORIZONT AL
SURFACE
CONICA(
SURFACE
HELIPORTS
SAMPLE ALTtTUDES 550%
AIRPORT GR(XJNO S:ibb
ElEVATiON REFERENCE
POINT
SPECfK: Pt AH
STUDY AREA
kl sutucct uapxs aK ?.f.hlfbiF ?a
!i k b t [ V & t is a msl o {) .:
SOukCts ptoisxc AVIAllOtt ADl.tlNiEJRATIO+l
5 % :+
IMAGINARY SuRFACES FOR JWA
NORTH COSTA M !fl(JIC PLAN
m6
1291
Costa Mesa North Costa Mesa Specific Plan
Table 2- Maximum Building Heights
North Costa Mesa Specific Plan
SUB-AREA MAXIMUM BUILDING
HEIGHT'
NOTES
AREA 1
Home Ranch
Varies See Exhibit 41 b.
AREA 2
Metro Pointe
30 feet-north of South
Coast Drive (approx. 2
stories)
90 feet-south of South
Coast Drive (approx. 6
stories)
Current development agreement allows buildings up to 15 Buildings above 173 feet in height will require a determination of no hazard by the FAA.
AREA 3
South Coast
Plaza and
Crystal Court
85 feet (approx. 4
stories)
None
AREA 4
SCP Town
Center
315 feet (approx. 25
stories)
Buildings above 173 feet in height will require a determination of no hazard by the FAA.
AREA 5
The Lakes
Mid-rise Residential-90
feet (approx. 6 stories)
High-rise Residential -
280 feet (approximately
26 stories) Commercial-
110 feet (approximately
4 4 stories)
Buildings above 173 feet in height will require a determination of no hazard by the FAA.
AREA 6
South Coast
Metro
Varies-See Table 6B. Buildings above 173 feet in height will require a determination of no hazard by the FAA.
Buildings which encroach into the setback for Anton cannot exceed 30 feet (approx. 2 stories) within the AREA 7
Sakioka Lot 1
60 feet (approx. 4
stories)
Buildings which encroach into the setback for Anton Blvd. and/or Sakioka Dr. cannot exceed 30 feet (approx. 2 stories) within the setback area.
AREA 8
Sakioka Lot 2
North of collector street-
60 feet (approx.4 stories)
South of collector street-
180 feet (approx. 12
stories)
Buildings above 4 73 feet in height will require a determination of no hazard by the FAA.
Buildings which encroach into the setback for Anton cannot exceed 30 feet (approx. 2 stories) within the setback area.
1. All building height measurements reference the height above grade- not mean sea level.
2. The maximum building heights specified in this Specific Plan shall continue to apply to a property unless specifically superseded by a MUOD project when a property owner chooses to exercise provisions of Article 11 (Mixed-Use Overlay District) of Chapter V (Development Standards) of Title 13 (Planning and Development) of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code on a qualifying property.
Updated February 2001 ; November 2001 ; January 2007; November 2007; Month 2026 21 1292
PARTIDA, ANNA
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
GREEN, BRENDA
Monday, February 9, 2026 10:18 AM
PC Public Comments
FW: NB-1 Comments
Toler Comments NB-1. 202601 l6pdf.pdf
Respectfully,
Brenda Green
City Clerk
City Clerk's Officei (714) 754-5221
77 Fair Drive l Costa Mesa i CA 92626
Z110[7
As City Hall has reopened, we encourage the public to take advantage of our appointment system. Appointments can be made at www.costamesaca.gov/appointments. Please note that It is required that all guests check in with our Concierge Staff, located on the 1" Floor Lobby, upon arrival at City Hall.
From: Russell Toler <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, February 7, 2026 3:01 PM
To: HARLAN, JEFFREY <[email protected]>; MARTINEZ, DAVID <[email protected]>; DICKSON, ROBERT <[email protected]>; VALLARTA, ANGELY <[email protected]>; ROJAS, JOHNNY <[email protected]>; ZICH, JON <[email protected]>; KLEPACK, KAREN <[email protected]>; MARR, ANDREA <[email protected]>; REYNOLDS, ARLIS <[email protected]>; CHAVEZ, MANUEL <[email protected]>; CITY CLERK <[email protected]>; GAMEROS, LOREN <[email protected]>; BULEY, MIKE <Mike.Bu)[email protected]>; STEPHENS, JOHN <[email protected]>; PETTIS, jEFF <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: NB-1 Comments
Hello commissioners, please see my attached comments on PH-1 (Amendments to the Zoning Code) for Monday's PC meeting. I'd sent this before the last meeting and it's in my 'sent' box-thought it looks like no one received it.
Thanks!
Russell Toler
CAUTION: This emaii originated from. outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attacbm entq 'unless you recognize the sender and know the content'is safe. Report any suspiciousactiyitiesto$e:
Inforination TechnoiqgyDepartmep
1 ATTACHMENT 10
1293
Chair Harlan and Planning Commissioners,
I wanted to share some thoughts on the City's rezoning project. 1 What matters most is the public realm
People experience the city from the streets, public plazas (if we had any!), and parks.
These spaces together constitute what is often called the public realm. It is from these areas that the city is seen and felt. People travel the world to visit beautiful cities and villages overseas-and their vantage points are from the public realm.
There are two major roles that development plays when it comes to the quality of our public realm: the distribution of uses (the proximity of housing and "amenities," which in turn affects how far we need to travel for daily needs and therefore what type of transportation mode we need to accommodate), and the way that development physically shapes the public realm-how it literally forms the "walls of our outdoor rooms."
The former is very much worth discussing, though a bigger fish to fry. At the moment I just want to emphasize the importance of the latter: we need to ensure that new developmenf appropriately frames our public spaces.
On the surface it may seem like appropriately is an impossibly subjective term. However, we could all likely take a walking tour of the city and generally agree on which developments are doing a good job at this and which are not-meaning that we could at least in theory extract the characteristics that determine success or failure.
Complicating the task or ensuring appropriate relationships between the public realm and development, however, is that our streets are largely devoted to the accommodation of fast-moving traffic. In the last several decades, we've allowed (or maybe even required?) many developers to orient their projects away from such unpleasant spaces and/or even seal the street off with a wall (see for example, The Enclave, the new houses on Harbor and Merrimac, and the new houses on Harbor and Hamilton).' While it is understandable why developers would want to do this, we need to consider the long-term impact of such a design decision on the beauty, comfort, and even safety of our public spaces.
What I think we should do:
-} Recognize that the city has an important role to play in this: we should be ensuring that our streets are desirable to front. Otherwise, what right do we have to insist that new developments engage with it?
' These are just three of many examples, but are especially egregious in that even the edge units -those adjacent to the public right oF way-are turned inwards. 1294
-} Adopt some minimum standards to ensure appropriate street edges: frequent conspicuous entrances and access to them, minimum glazing, setbacks, ground floor height and elevation, trees in the parkways (not smashed up against buildings), usability of the setback areas (not just caricatures of nice frontages), etc.
-+ Communicate our expectations clearly to the development community. If we have objective standards requiring this without compelling explanations, they will fail when developers push back.
4 Admit that there may arise some difficult cases, and work on creative solutions for them.
4 Stop allowing low-intensity development on high-intensity streets.
2. Reduce or eliminate costly parking mandates
Requiring developers to provide 2.25 on-site parking spaces per residential unit is progress, but still not good enough. Parking is not, as has never been, something that is appropriate for the government to be requiring of private developers. It can only exacerbate the problem of car traffic and car-dependency. Developers should be able to take their own risks and base them on their own analyses of the market demand for parking to be in our area. The government's role in this very specific topic should rather be to ensure that driving is not the only feasible way For new residents to move about the neighborhood.
3. Be careful with townhouse projects
I've been trying to articulate this problem For a while now because 1 ) no one else is, 2) many people haven't grasped this problem, and 3) I haven't heard any good solutions for it yet.
We all generally consider townhouses as great "starter homes" that can line streets with charming front doors and stoops, allow in more families than single-family homes can, and feel like dignified places to live in.
Historically, the townhouse-as an urban building type-had parking in detached garages that took access off an alley, if it had any parking at all.
The projects that we're seeing now in Costa Mesa differ from those traditional townhouses in two ways:
-4 To fit more units on a piece of land, garages are scooted underthe living space, taking up the majority of the ground floor and therefore deadening the ground floor environment.
1295
-4 Deep lots that were originally platted for farming, big backyards, or commercial/industrial uses are being eyed by townhouse developers. Now you have "interior" townhouses that don't face the street.
Why these projects are so bad:
-4 Since each unit has attached parking, sites are dominated by access drives, leaving little-to-no room for respectable spaces for interior units to front, and little-to-no open/green space.
-+ The little spaces that units Front are offen disconnected from each other and from the public right of way, meaning that the true "extension of the public realm" into the site is really the garage-door-dominated access drives.
What I think we should do:
+ Building Dept: Enable other housing types to be built under the (less expensive) IRC. North Carolina recently passed leqislation that allowed tri- and quad-plexes to be built under the IRC. California is beinq more ambitious and paving the way for up to ten units to be approved under the IRC.
-+ Building/Fire Dept: is paving the way for single-stair construction so we can build simple small buildings of flats the way we used to, and the way the rest of the world still does. L.A. is alreadv movinq forward with this. 4 Planning Dept: If we cap a parcel at low densities, we are going to get these sorts of townhouse proposals because they make economic sense. -+ Planning Dept: Reducing parking requirements can help, but developers and lenders need to know that there is decreasing parking demand in Costa Mesa, otherwise they will provide enough to preclude good design.
My humble (and likely impractical) proposal is that we recognize the following statement, base new policy on it, and amend zoning standards in light of it: Townhouse projects that have a) ample on-site parking and b) interior units can be designed well, but once a density threshold is passed, the quality of design will be degraded. After this density threshold is passed, a more efficient building type (e.g., buildings with flats) is necessary to achieve the quality design that Costa Mesa expects.
4. Our large sites need to be designed better
Several of our opportunity and Measure K sites are larger than "walkable" city blocks2 and/or don't have enough frontage for each new building to front. At a minimum we 2 No sides longer than 400 or 500 feet. Conventional suburban developers may gawk, but look at the substantial and beautiful buildings that are able to be achieved in the Pearl District of Portland-where block sides are =225 feet.
1296
should ensure that each new building fronts the existing site frontage or a respectable3 new "public realm" that is extended into the site. The largest sites should be required to be carved into blocks. Yes-this means new rights of way cutting through, thus creating "more city." These rights of way need not be dedicated public space, though they would ideally be publicly accessible.
an example of this done well; an example of this done poorly.
We should have insisted on this with The Enclave, Superior Pointe, and 17 West. Some have tried to codify this: see Section 4.4 of ABAG's ODDS Handbook (the whole thing is worth looking at) and Chapter F.40 (Large Site Standards, pages 127-1 34) of Zoninq Code, though there are a handful more out there.
My thought is that as important as this is, it is very difficult to codify, which leads me to my final point.
5. Rather than relying on very detailed ODDS, we should focus on good design guidelines and improve communication between staff and applicants
Ever since architects and developers started designing ugly buildings several decades ago, cities have depended on design review boards to ensure better physical outcomes.
These boards have a notorious history of creating an unpredictable building environment and protracting entitlement processes, all while managing to not achieve their purpose.
Now in California we can only enforce "objective standards," prompting many cities to pursue design codes that, in theory, will result in predictable and "aesthetically pleasing" (sorry) new buildings.
If you want to gauge the success or this approach, do an informal survey on which cities have adopted ODDS and Form-Based Codes, and what development in those places has since been like (both in terms of review processes and physical outcomes).
But even if this approach were widely successful, the State has continued to undermine efforts at local control by making waivers and concessions even easier, which take us backwards once again.
In my limited experience, the problem of ugly buildings/projects is not so much a result of goofy planning regulations (though that is sometimes the case) but by a general loss of skill in the professional world. Architects and planners that understand what makes buildings and the spaces around them beautiful are few and far between. How can a code compensate for that without being overwhelmingly prescriptive? And how can a 3 "Respectable" is admittedly doing a lot of work here-but what I basically mean is something designed as a front, and is not primarily for vehicle access. 1297
prescriptive code allow for enough development freedom to make complex projects work?
I'll resist a tangent on those questions and get to my point: my feeling is that a wise way forward might be to express what we physically want to see, extract the principles from such a vision, and then derive design guidelines from them. But the guidelines need a guide. Someone with a background in architecture and urban design that can work with applicants on meeting the principles and achieving the spirit of the guidelines.
You're right if you object that such guidelines would not have any teeth and we may therefore end up with ugly development. But by avoiding onerous faux-technical checklists and openly discussing clear, reasonable expectations under the guidance o( a good-faith designer, I believe good physical outcomes are more likely. This would be especially useful for the type of larger projects mentioned above.
What I think we should do:
4 Establish simple zoning requirements that at least cover the basics (which obviously include much more than the following points):
+ Require that buildings adjacent to the street must orient towards the street (currently missing from the draft);
+ Prohibited parking between the street and the building (currently missing from the drafi); and
+ Not mandate superficial complexity
-4 Establish a design manual that is written and used by an on-call or staff architecUurban designer:
+ It should emphasize simplicity, regularity, proportions, frontage, the human scale/experience, the relationship of buildings to public space, and quality materials;
+ Rather than seeking to prescribe what buildout should look like in each neighborhood or corridor, it depends on principles so that whatever the market ends up producing, buildout makes our city better, not worse; + It should especially address large sites and the frontage conditions of all new buildings; and
* It should be heavily informed by great books and resources, such as your House Riqht, Soft City, A Pattern Lanquaqe, the Charter for the New Urbanism, and Courtyard Urbanism.
Thanks for reading!
Russell Toler
1298
Correspondence
received
AFTER the 12 NOON
DEADLINE
1299
HALLIGAN, MICHELLE
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
George Sakioka <[email protected]>
Monday, February 9, 2026 12:27 PM
HALLIGAN, MICHELLE
HARLAN, JEFFREY; DICKSON, ROBERT; ZICH, JON; KLEPACK, KAREN; ROJAS, JOHNNY; VALLARTA, ANGELY; MARTINEZ, DAVID; TAI, CARRIE; Mark Sakioka; Forbes, Amy R.;
GREEN, BRENDA
Feb. 9 Planning Commission meeting agenda - Sakioka comments 090616 NCMSP Amendments-SUPPLEMENTAL SR.pdf; Proposed Edits to MUOD and North Costa Mesa Specific Plan JKS and Sakioka.pdf
Hi Michelle: (cc: CM Planning Commission)
We had our land use consultant review the staff report and we want to get these comments to you ASAP.
We feel these items can be addressed before it goes to City Council and wanted to give you our thoughts before tonight's meeting.
Let me know if you'd like to discuss further.
Thanks,
George
From: Forbes, Amy R. <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 9, 202611:57 AM
To: George Sakioka <[email protected]>; Mark Sakioka <[email protected]> Subject: Feb. 9 Planning Commission meeting agenda now available George and Mark,
I have completed my review of the recently released materials pertaining to the rezoning of property to be consistent with the update Housing Element. The action creates a new Mixed Use Overlay District (MUOD) that would apply to the sites in the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan identified for new housing.
There are some places where I think further cleanup amendments and other changes to ensure that there is internal consistency, consistency with the Housing Element, and compliance with state law. Most importantly, as far as I can tell the specific plan itself is not being updated to include the unit numbers from the General Plan, and the Specific Plan would still have trip budgets, which would make it impossible for anyone to achieve the minimum densities as a practical matter. The only way to get the higher densities would be through the MUOD, but the MUOD has lower height limits than the Specific Plan, so that may not be possible.
I also don't think the strike through text reflects the Specific Plan amendment that was approved by the City Council in September of 2016 for Sakioka Lot 2. (attached).
Here are my other thoughts
1. Trip Budqets Are Still in Place in the Specific Plan; and the Units are inconsistent with the General E!U!!. Page 11 of the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan still refers to trip budgets. Based upon the trip budgets in place, the new residential development contemplated by the general plan cannot be implemented as a practical matter. The Housing Element provides for 1,200 units on Lot 2....But the text of the specific plan is not being amended to reflect that. At page 12 of the proposed amendment to the North Coast Mesa specific plan, there is language that confirms that there will be an override of conflicting specific plan requirements for any project that meets the mixed-use overlay requirements. 1 1300
But this language does not expressly apply to trip budgets. The language refers to section 1 3-83.58(e) for the override language. But that section does not mention trip budgets. Moreover, because they are not changing the units in the Specific Plan text, the only way you can get to the 1,200 units is through the mixed-use overlay zone. The base entitlement in the Specific Plan needs to be consistent with the housing element, allowing for 1,200 units on Lot 2 (not the 528 currently in the NCMSP), 305 on Lot 3 in the Metro Center, and 230 on Lot 2. And, the amendment should expressly do away with trip budgets.
2. Table 1 in the Amended Specific Plan is Confusinq: Sakioka Lot 2 and Lots 2 and 3 in Metro Center must be approved for 90 units/acre to be consistent with the General Plan. Table 1 is confusing because it shows Sakioka Lot 2 as being limited to 28 units/acre (see page 15 of the strike through version of the specific plan; page 109 of that pdf). But, per the 2016 amendment, Lot 2 was changed to 80 /units to the acre, and per housing element, Sakioka Lot 2 and the Metro Center lots should have 90 units/acre to be consistent with the general plan. By only allowing for the increased density in the overlay zone, the specific plan is creating an inconsistency with the general plan. Table 1 should reflect that Sakioka Lot 2 can have 90 units to the acre. And it should also reflect that Lots 2 and 3 in the Metro Center could have 90 units/acre.
3. No shade and shadow study should be required. At page 19 of the strikethrough Specific Plan, page 113 of the pdf) it states: "Any new building proposed at 3 stories or more should require a shade and shadow impact analysis in relation to surrounding land uses." That requirement is inconsistent with the new height limits and the need to remove barriers to the creation of housing. It should be deleted.
4. The Heiqht Limits in the Specific Plan are Hiqher than the Proposed Mixed-Use Overlay. The maximum heights permitted for Sakioka Lot 2 and Lots 2 and 3 are higher in the NCMSP than they are the Mixed- Use overlay zone. Once again this creates an inconsistency with the General Plan. The specific plan should be amended to permit the number of units shown in the general plan, with the heights limits that are already approved in the Specific Plan. By only allowing the extra units in the Mixed-Use overlay, those extra units can only be built at the lower heights in that zone, and you will not be able to take advantage of the higher heights in the specific plan. attach marked pages reflecting my concerns and the edits needed to address them.
Thanks, Amy
This message may contain confidential and privileged information for the soLe use of the intended recipient. Any review, disclosure, distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If it has been sent to you in error, please repLy to advise the sender of the error and then immediately delete this message.
Please see our website at https://www.gibsondunn.com/ forinformation regarding the firm and/or our privacy policy.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do no.t click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and knog the content js safe, Report any3suspiciousactivities;othei Jnformation Technolo.gyDepartment.l
2 1301
CITYCOtlNCIL
SUPPLEMENTAL MENIORANDUM
MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 6, 2016 ITEM NUMBER:
SUBJECT: NORTH COSTA MESA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT (SP-16-01) RELATED TO HOME RANCH SITE, 3350 AVENUE OF THE ARTS AND SAKIOKA LOT 2 DATE: SEPTEMBER 6, 2016
FROM: PLANNING DIVISION/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PRESENTATIONBY: MINOOASHABI,PRINCIPALPLANNER
FORFURTHERINFORMATIONCONTACT: MINOOASHABI(714)754-5610 [email protected]
Two (2) resolutions are presented to the City Council as part of this action. One resolution recommends approval of an addendum for Final EIR No. 1054 and amendment to the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan related to the property located at 3350 Avenue of the Arts. The second resolution would allow for amendment to the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan related to the Home Ranch Site and Sakioka Lot 2. -g
MINOO ASHABI, AIA v
Principal Planner
Services Director/Deputy CEO
Attachmentsa 4. Draft City Council Resolutions
CC: Justin McCusker
C.J. Segerstrom & Sons
3315 Fairview Road
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
George Sakioka
14850 Sunflower Avenue
Santa Ana, CA 92707George Sakioka
Judy Wang
Wincome Group
888 Disneyland Dr I Suite 100
Anaheim, CA 92802
Paul Sanford, Rosanna Inc.
3350 Avenue of the Arts
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
1302
A'lTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION N0. 16-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
COSTA MESA ADOPTING AN ADDENDUM TO FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0. 1054 (STATE
CLEARING HOUSE NUMBER 2007011125) AND
AMENDMENT TO NORTH COSTA MESA SPECIFIC PLAN
(SP-16-01) RELATED TO THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT
3350 AVENUE OF THE ARTS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CtTY OF COSTA MESA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS, the City Council or the City of Costa Mesa adopted the 20al5-2035 General Plan on June 21, 201 6;
WHEREAS, the General Plan is a long-range, comprehensive document that serves as a guide for the orderly development of Costa Mesa; WHEREAS, by its very nature, the General Plan needs to be updated and refined to account for current and future community needs; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Costa Mesa adopted the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan by Resolution No. 94-67 in July 1994 to provide additional planning guidelines and standards for several large development areas located in north Costa Mesa;
WHEREAS, within the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan, General Plan 2015-2035 allowed an increase in the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for Home Ranch site, an increase in the residential density for Sakioka Lot 2, and development flexibility for 3350 Avenue of the Arts within the trip budgets adopted by the Land Use and Circulation Elements; WHEREAS, the amendments promote diversity of development options at 3350 Avenue of The Arts are in conformance with the objectives of the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan and General Plan, including the following:
North Costa Mesa Specific Plan - Recognize the development potential of the planning area and the need to sensitively integrate new development with the surrounding areas, and therefore, promote both resident and business community confidence in the long-term vision for the plan area.
General Plan Land Use Objective LU-2A: Promote land use patterns and development that contribute to community and neighborhood identity. -2-
1303
General Plan Land Use Objective LU-6A: Ensure the long term productivity and viability of the community's economic base.
* General Plan Land Use Objective LU-4A: Encourage new development and redevelopment to improve and maintain the quality of the environment.
General Plan Land Use Objective LU-5A: Ensure availability of adequate community facilities and provision of the highest level of public services possible, taking into consideration budgetary constraints and effects on the surrounding area.
WHEREAS, a Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 1054 (State Ciearinghouse Number 2007011125) was certified on November 20, 2007 for the Wyndham Boutique Hotel /High-Rise and Final Master Plan PA-06-75 for the project that included 200 rooms and 120 for-sale condominium units; WHEREAS, in accordance with Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations Sections 15162 and 15al64, an addendum to the FEIR No. 1054 was prepared by BonTerra Psomas in August 2016 analyzing the environmental impacts associated with the change from residential units to hotel rooms;
WHEREAS, in accordance with Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations Section 15162 and 15164, the Addendum to the EIR determined that the proposed modifications to the project which allows for hotel rooms to replace the residential units does not require preparation of a subsequent EIR because the proposed changes would not result in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified environmental impacts;
WHEREAS, on August 22, 2016, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended approval of the amendment to the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan; WHEREAS, a duly-noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on September 6, 2016 to allow for public comment on the proposed project and with all persons having been given the opportunity to be heard both for and against the proposed project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, based on the evidence in the record, and the findings contained herein, the City Council adopts the Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report No. 1054 and amendment to North Costa Mesa Specific Plan (SP-16-01 ) consistent with the provisions of the 2015-2035 General Plan attached hereto as Exhibit A to this resolution.
1304
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 6'h day of September, 2016 ATTEST:
CITY CLERK OF THE
CITY OF COSTA MESA
STEPHEN M. MENSINGER
Mayor, City of Costa Mesa
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ATTORNEY
"l-
1305
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
)ss
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
I, BRENDA GREEN, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk or the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, hereby certify that the above Council Resolution Number 16 as considered at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 6th day of September, 2016, and thereafter passed and adopted as a whole at the regular meeting of said City Council held on the 6th day of September, 2016, by the foliowing roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the Seal of the day of , 2016City of Costa Mesa this
Brenda Green
City Clerk of the City of Costa Mesa
-5-
1306
EXHIBIT A
North Costa Mesa Specific Plan
SP-16-01
REVISED PAGES
REVISED 09-06-2016
1307
The Wyndham Hotel Site: In 2007, Specific Plan Amendment (SP-07-01) was approved for the 3-acre site. The Specific Plan Amendment includes a development option that wocild allovi a mixed-cise development consisting of a 200-room boutique hotel and 1 20-unit high-rise bciilding with approximately 1,740 sq.ft. of retail space and 3,450 sq ft. for a bar/loiinge. This would rescilt in a maximcim nonresidential floor area ratio (FAR)with a maximum 120dwelling units.
Development Maximum
i, Option hRloOOomt'SHotel
Option 1 200 rooms
388 rooms
Maximcim Allovvable
Non-Residential FAR
2.12 FAR
2.29 FAR
Maximuin Allowable
Number of High-Rise
Rasidential Units
120 units
-O-
The Specific Plan allows development flexibility with regard to the overall mix of hotel rooms and residential units. This is subject to compliance with the following conditlonsthrough the final masterplan review process:
The applicant can demonstrate traffic-generation characteristics comparable to Option 1
For mixed use, Ddevelopment may be allowed up to a combined maximum of 320 hotel rooms/dwelling cinits, provided that the maximum number of hotel rooms in the mixed-use development does not exceed 200 rooms The maximiim FAR may be increased to no greater than 2.12 FAR in direct relat:ontothereductionoftheresidentialdensityfromand44du/acreand 2.29 FAR for hotel development'
The maximum allowable ncimber of high-rise residential units may be increased to no greater than 132 units (44 dci/acre) in direct relation to the reduction of the nonresidential FARfrom 2. 12 FAR.
The 238 existing hotel rooms may be redciced to allow additional residential units, but any increase inthc numbcrof existing hotel rooms is prohibited.
As shown above, if the property oWner decides not to develop the high-rise residential option and volcintarily demolishes the hotel instead the maximum allowable nonresidential sqciare footage would remain at 2 08 FAR with a redevelopment potential of 60.000 sq.ft.
"l
1308
RESOLUTION NO. 16-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
COSTA MESA ADOPTING AMENDMENT TO NORTH
COSTA MESA SPECIFIC PLAN (SP-16-O'l) RELATED TO
HOME RANCH SITE AND SAKIOKA LOT 2
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa adopted the 2015-2035 General Plan on June 21, 201 6;
WHEREAS, the General Plan is a long-range, comprehensive document that serves as a guide for the orderly development of Costa Mesa; WHEREAS, by its very nature, the General Plan needs to be updated and refined to account for current and future community needs; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Costa Mesa adopted the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan by Resolution No. 94-67 in July I 994; WHEREAS, the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan provides additional planning guidelines and standards for several large development areas located in north Costa Mesa;
WHEREAS, by its very nature, the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan needs to be updated and refined to account for current and future community needs; WHEREAS, within the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan, General Plan 20j5-2035 allowed an increase in the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for Home Ranch site, an increase in the residential density For Sakioka Lot 2, and development flexibility for 3350 Avenue of the Arts within the trip budgets adopted by the Land Use and Circulation Elements; WHEREAS, Home Ranch site is located in Area 1 (Subarea 3) of the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan and Sakioka Lot 2 is located in Area 8; WHEREAS, amendments to North Costa Mesa Specific Plan are required to reflect increased development flexibility for these planning areas as allowed by 2015- 2035 General Plan;
1309
WHEREAS, the amendments promote diversity of development options on Home Ranch and Sakioka Lot 2 that are in conformance with the objectives of the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan and General Plan, including the following:
North Costa Mesa Specific Plan - Recognize the development potential of the planning area and the need to sensitively integrate new development with the surrounding areas, and therefore, promote both resident and business community confidence in the long-term vision for the plan area.
General Plan Land Use Objective LU-2A: Promote land use patterns and development that contribute to community and neighborhood identity.
General Plan Land Use Objective LU-6A: Ensure the long term productivity and viability of the community's economic base.
General Plan Land Use Objective LU-4A: Encourage new development and redevelopment to improve and maintain the quality of the environment.
General Plan Land Use Objective LU-5A: Ensure availability of adequate community facilities and provision of the highest level of public services possible, taking into consideration budgetary constraints and effects on the surrounding area.
WHEREAS, on August 22, 2016, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended approval of the amendment;
WHEREAS, a duly-noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on September 6, 2016 to allow for public comment on the proposed project and with all persons having been given the opportunity to be heard both for and against the proposed project. The Planning Commission recommended City Council approval of the proposal;
WHEREAS, the project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines, and the City environmental procedures. The proposal has been found to be less than significant with regard to the development limitations in the General Plan and North Costa Mesa Specific Plan, including trip budgets and development intensity. Therefore, the relevant environmental analysis contained in the following previously-approved environmental documents has been found to be valid, and no further environmental review is required:
1310
* City of Costa Mesa General Plan Environmental Impact Report, SCH No. 2015111053, June 21, 2016.
@ Segerstrom Home Ranch Environmental Impact Report, SCH No. 2000071050, November 2001.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, based on the evidence in the record, and the findings contained herein, the City Council adopts amendment to North Costa Mesa Specific Plan (SP-16-01 A1 ) related to Home Ranch site and Sakioka Lot 2 consistent with the provisions of the 2015-2035 General Plan attached hereto as Exhibit A to this resolution.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 6'h day of September, 2016 STEPHEN M. MENSINGER
Mayor, City of Costa Mesa
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY CLERK OF THE
CITY OF COSTA MESA
CITY ATTORNEY
1311
ST ATE OF CALIFORNIA)
)ss
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
1, BRENDA GREEN, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, hereby certify that the above Council Resolution Number 16 as considered at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 6th day of September, 2016, and thereafter passed and adopted as a whole at the regular meeting of said City Council held on the 6th day of September, 2016, by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the Seal of the City of Costa Mesa this day of , 2016
Brenda Green
City Clerk of the City of Costa Mesa
1312
EXHIBIT A
North Costa Mesa Specific Plan
SP-16-01
REVISED PAGES
REVISED 09-06-2016
-'%1-
1313
3.O SUBAREA ANALYSIS
The plan area is composed of eight unique areas that are analyzed individcially as well as in consideration of scirrounding land uses.
AREA f -HOME RANCH
Existing Land Uses
A portion of -l:this 93-acre site is in agricultural production. Onsite structures include a single- family residence. gucsthousc, barn, related farm buildings, and an office biiilding located on Fairview Road. This sitc is These are all owned by c.,,i. Segerstrom-am j. The single family home and barn are identified in the General Plan in the Historical and Cultural Resocirces Element. The Segerstrom family. who continue to maintain the house, constructed the farmhouse in 1915. The barn was constructed in 1928. Several farm related structures are located nearthe house.
Sinqle family attached and detached homes, an Emulex industrial park, and a Iarqe IKEA retail/warehouse facility also now sit on the oriqinal Home Ranch site.
General Plan and Zoning
The portions of this site owned by the Seqerstrom family and IKEA are -is-designated as C o m m e r ci a I C e n t e r Industrial Park by the General Plan and is zoned PDC I. The maximum Floor ,/'krca P,atio (F/\R) is a./10, which equals 061,060 squart:i f5ct of building arca. The General Plan establishes site specific FAR of O.37 for the 19.27 acre IKEA site and a site specific FAR of O.64 for remaininq 43.6 acres located south of South Coast Drive. The trip budgct is 827 a.m. peak hour trips and 855 p.m. peak hour In 2001. GP-00-05 was approved for Home Ranch to allow residential, commercial, office. and indcistrial cises. The overall allowable square footage was increased to 1.351.698 square feet and trip budget adjusted accordingly. In respect to this specific plan, the Home Ranch area vias expanded to include the 30.5 acres bcated north or South Coast Drive. See follovving Sub-areas discussion.
In 2003, SP-03-02 tit/aS approved that reallocated a 2.074-acre portion of Sub-area B to Scib-area A to be used as the IKEA parkinq lot. This reallocation of acreage reduced extinquished the square footaqe development riqhts attributable to the 2.074 acres, increasinq the IKEA site to 19.27 acres and reducinq the IKEA site FAR to O.37 andT3he overall alloviable square footage to 1, , 319E3133: the overall trip budget remained cinchanged. Table IlA was modified to reflect this change.
In 2016, General Plan 2015-2035 was approved adjustinq the FAR of Sub-Area B resultinq in an increase in the FAR and a maximum development square footaqe of 1,200,000 SF. Table 4A was modified to reflect this chanqe.
Sub-areas
The Segerstrom Home Ranch is divided into four scib-areas. Table 4A provides a statistical summary of the maxirmim number of dwelling units floor area ratio. bbiilding square footage. and the trip budgets for each scib-area. Figure ll illustrates the boundaries of the sub-areas
13-
1314
To facilitate flexibility for Sub-Areas B and C, bui:Cling square footages and trip budgets may be transferred, provided that the total building square footage. floor area ratio. and trip Ixidget for the combined two sub-areas are not exceeded as delineated in Table 4A. Transfers affecting Sub-Areas A and D are not permfted Future development in Scib-Area B shall be limited to high quality office, office- related cises, and corporate office/headquarters with subsidiary support functions that may include research and design minor assembly. light manufactciring and storage Retail uses in Sub-Area B shall be limited to those that are ancillary to the office development
Shown below are the development parameters for each distinct sub area. 1315
Table 4A- Segerstrom Home Ranch Sub-Areas
Land Use Acreage Floor
Area
Rakio/D
hriri*i i
Maximum Units/
Square Footage
Maximum
Stories/Height
A M. Peak
Hocir Trips
P.M.Peak
HocirTrips
A IKEA 19 27 0 37 FAR 308,000 sf 2 StOrieS/45 fee 43 431 B Office and
Office-r-ii _i+ed
uses
C I nc:cistr:al
Park
D IS,l-idium
Density
43 572 0.4G) _64 i
1,_,_200000SF
2-5 stories/36 -
73 Feet
See Fgure Ilb
L5&1
i u860
1a9
1,_788
14.5 0 40 FAR 252,648sf 1-5 stories 45-
60 feet
Sae Figut's l fb
3_763 3__62a
16 0 i2
unitstacre
136 single-family
attached uni(s'
3 stories. 50 feet
Residential
TOT AL:
56 single-fami}z
detached units'
Toial Ma:amum.
192 units
2 siori-is;27 feat
" )
93.34 NA 192 units
sf
+-7J
,2381
Note '
j,%he mix of units is for illustrative purposes only: the preie mix of product types will be de(erm ined dciri ng master plan review :in noinstance shall the 192-unit maximum and/or the morning and evening peak hocirtrip budget be exceeded.
2. The 1,200,000 maximum square footaqe is calculated based on the full acreaqe oriqinally in Home Ranch which includes acreaqe transferred to the State of California for public improvements This full square footaqe intensity may be used for development in Sub-Area B.
4=3. See partial Assiqnment and Assumption of Development Aqreement recorded on 02/05/2004 as Instrument No. 2004000089554 in official records Oranqe County.
IS-
1316
Land Use Compatibility/Integration
The Segerstrom farmhouse provides a uniqcie opportunity for preservation of a small piece of the City's agricultural heritage This tiivo-story home and accompanying barn are familiar sights n the area and stand as a reminder of the farming community that was evident here in the early 1900's. Although the Segerstrom home and barn are designated as Commercial Center on the General Plan Land Use IVlap, it vvould be in keeping with Policy HCR-1A.5 of the General Plan to preserve these historical striictbires.
Preservation of these structures in their ccirrent k:ication eeuaccompl:shed by transferring thc dcvclopmcnt potential of the anca to be pncscrvcd to the n:'maindar of the Industrial Park area. /\t that time, the General Plan would bc amcndcd to an appropriatc land use dcsignation (c.g., Public Semi Public) and a k:ind use ncstriction recorded restrictions which include provisions for the property which rccognizcs the bng term preservation of these buildings as historical resources. The property covered by the recorded restrictions is a 1.5-acre site shown in Exhibit l1a and includes the home, barn, and two related structures. The boundaries of the property may be modified, as approved by the City's Development Services Director, so lonq as the site continues to include 1.5 acres and all four historic structures. The barn may be relocated within the site. Ownership of the property could remain with the Segerstrom family until such time they wished to sell (he property. At that time. the City, another public agency. or private ' a Ms; could acquire (he site subject first right of refusal to purchase the sitc.to the recorded restrictions for preservation of this valuable community resource.
The reten(ion of the farrnhouse resuLs in a site des:gn consideration. Non-residential bui'd:rgs sl'iould be set back from the Farmhouse si(e so as to not visually encroach into this area. Suffering coulci Includa walls/fencing. Iandscaping, and or parking areas. Consideration shocild be given (o physically linking the adjacent development to the farmhouse site wi(h pedestrian paths.
In conjunction with approval of GP 00 05,a historical prcscrvation area was dcntifiad on Home Ranch, as shown in Exhibit 1l a. The barn is to lx, rclocatcd into the prcscrvation an:'a. Thc Scgcrstrom Home Ranch dcw.loprncnt agrccmcnt includt,s provisions for the bnd dedication, building prt,scrvation, and k:ing term managcmcnt of this valuabk, community resource. Mcsa Consolidated Water Dt,trict has also expressed an interest in obtaining land from the property owner in order to place an underground rcscrvoir adjaccnt to the pre-scrvation area. ShoukJ this occur, the anticipated offict:' development could not occur ow,r the reservoir r,itc; it would be necessary for it to remain as open space. The dcyclopment agreement specifies that er# potential (sqciare footage and trip budget) of the 1 5-acre site and any future raacrvoir cite can tx.-transferred to the portion of the Home Ranch site located south of South Coast Drive and east of the Susan Street.
Mesa Consolidated Water District at one time held a ground lease from the Seqerestrom family for a small portion of the property in Sub-area B and had expressed an interest in acquiring the site.
The Water District has since removed all of its facilities from the site, terminated the lease. and abandoned the site. This leaves this site available for development as a part of Sub-area B.
Building Heights
The Genera: Plan specifically limits building heights to a maximum oft'ive storias tand only in !he project's center) for this see Five stories approximate a 75-foot heght limitation. Exhibit 'llb indicates the various heightlimits for Home Ranch The actual siting offutcire buildings sha take into account surrounding development in order (o minimize visual impacts. The use 1317
of' low- reflec(ive materials for the building's exteriors ill/:II minimize glare impacts. In Building Height Area 1 adjacent (o Fairview Road, the Ci(y of Costa Mesa shall also require a shade/shadow analysis for any building proposed to exceed 30 feet in height in order to e,nsure tha( building's shade or shadow does not extend beyond the project sita or publ:a rights- of-iivay
1318
Circulation
The primary project access/egress points shocild be aligned vvith Sbisan Street and the existing Automobile Clrib entry to the north Access to the farn'ihocise preservation site should be considered from within this area so as to minimize the number of driveways on South Coast Drive
Freeway access improvements in the immediate area include the vvidening of tha Fairview Road off-ramps, both northbocind and southbound, and the construction or the ne'i'/ South Coast Drive off-ramp. Both are completed.
Final Program Environmental :mpact Report No 1048 for Home Ranch inclcided a preliminary analysis of a Susan Street e:<it from the nelf'/ Socith Coast Drive-Fairview Road- Harbor Boulevard collector road inclcided in the 1-405/SR-73 conflcience project.
Prior to approval of this addit:onal exit by CalTrans, additional environmental documentation would be reqtiired. Tha Susan Street exit m not reqciired for the Home Ranch project.
A fuh.ire bikevvay lil!aS shown on the Master Plan of Bikeways traversing this ste to South Coast Drive from the 1-405 bikeway cindercrossing. However. in conjignction with GP-00-
05. this bike trail undercrossing and related linkages Were deleted from the Master Plan of Bikeways This deletion li'/aS necessitated by the CaFrans,IFHVVA l'reeway improvements in tha general area.
Parks and Recreation
The Segerstrom family hocise and barn may also be considered as meeting a portion of the future park needs for any future residential development north of South Coast Drive. It would not meet any active recreational nseds txit serve rathata as a ciiltciral/historical center
In conjunction with GP-00-05, the historical reservation area !iVaS established. See prsvious Land Use Compatibility- Integration discussion.
Fire Protection Services
Future development plans and environmental analyses for this site need to assess the fciture fire station in the North Harbor area,i.e. bcation and timing of construction.
In conjunction with adoption of GP-00-05, i! was determined that Segerstrom Home Ranch iArea 1) increased the demand for City fire suppression services in the City's northwest area* The Segerstrom Home Ranch development agreement includes provisions for (he necessary land acquisit6n. bui!cling design. and construction costs.
The City of Costa Masa Fire Department is responsible for determining the tining of !and acquisition and fire station construction. If the fire station is ultimately bcated on Segerstrom Home Ranch. tha development agreemant allows for transfer of development rights (bciilding sqeiare footage and trip biidget) to the balance of the Home Ranch project.
1319
AREA 8- SAKIOKA LOT2
Existing Land Uses
This 33 acre area is designated for planned development, including mixed-use, residential, and commercial office development and is currently in agricultural production. Two single fami!y homes are k:icated along Scinflovver Avenue. Lot 2 is ovvned by Roy K Sakioka & Sons
General P1anandZoning
This site is designat'ed Urban Center Commercial by the General Plan and is zoned PDC.
Development Standards and Trip Budget
The development intensity for planned development (i.e. master plans) on Sakioka Lot 2 is limited by the following:
The trip budget for this site is 1,062 a m. peak hour trips and 1,407 p m. peak hour trips. The trip bcidget shall not be exceeded for the aqqreqate development any master planned dew:'lopmcnt on Sakioka Lot 2.
Planned Development Standards of the PDC zone are appliable to the site. unless othervvise indicated in the North Costa Mesa Specific Ptan A maximum 1.O F!oor-Area-Ratio applies to nonresidential development.
Nonresidential development is also subject to the trip budget limitation, applicable development standards of the PDC zone and consistency with the General Plan.
The maximum residential density (dwelling cinits per acre) is a maximum of 28 dwelling units per acre for the residential component of a mixed-use development on a sinqle leqal parcel (See "Mixed-Use" discussion) or a maximum of 80'X) dwelling units per acre ror an independent residential community includinq development that afford,:iblcincorporates affordable housing (See "Affordable Housing / Density Bonus discussion). An independent residential community development m defined as a development in which a separate leqal parcel (or parcels) is entirely developed as a residential use and therefore does not inclcide commercial uses on the same su leqal parcel.
The maximum building heiqht of 8 stories per Airport Land Use Determination dated May 26, 2016 and as reflected in 2015-2035 General Plan.
The projected trip generation for land uses proposed for Sakioka Lot 2 will be based on latest edition of Trip Generation.lnstitute of Transportation Engineers. The methodology will consider reasonable allowances for trip credits due to internal capture and pass-by trips Internal capture credit refers to trips for various cises proposed within the parcel that can be accomplished withobit having to bave the Facility. 1320
For example, an office complex could have restacirants and other ancillary uses which may not generate new trips - rather serve tenants within the complex Other examples include conference room and fitness facilities. Pass-by trips refers to trips that are already on roadway adjacent to the devebpment and use the facilities. Pass-by trip credits are limited to retail uses.
The credits allowed for internal captcire and pass-by trips will be determined by the Transportation Services lianager. The net trip generat6n after credits will be comparaj to the trip budget to determine if the proposed development is iivithin the limits prescribed in the North Costa llesa Specific Plan
Land Use Compatibility/Integration
Future development of this site is anticipated to include mid- and h5h-rise office buiUings as well as support commercial. Shade and shadow impacts for bciildings in excess of 2 stories should be considered in relation to surrounding bnd uses. Site design shocild limit vehicular access to and from Sunflower Avencie.
New commercial and office buildings are encouraged to be located along the Anton frontage Encroachment into the bciiUing setback on Anton Boulevard for commercial or mixed-use deve:opments can be consldered based on how iiiiell the projed design accommodates pedestrmns and if the parking areas and/or structhires are hcated behind the commercial or mmed-use buiUing(s). Parking areas shall not be allowed to encroach into the street setback, unless they are tucked under the commercial development. Parking bts/structures should be locatad primarily along the eastern edge of the site adjacent to the Costa Mesa Freeway and the new on-ramp Internal pedestrian linkages to Anton Boulevard should be provided.
Mixed-Use
The PDC zoning does permit mixed-iise development including residential and nonresUential uses as complementary uses. The residential component of a mixed-use development shall be limited to a maximcim density of 28 dwelling units per acre. This maximum density only applies to residential uses as complementary uses to commercial uses within a mmed-use development. It does not apply to an independent residential communitydcw,lopment-that does not include commercial uses on the same-4ej p. Total buitding intensity for the entire -site shall not exceed the maximum allowable development intensity as set forth by the trip budgets. For a mixed use development, ic overall mix of uses including trips from dwelling cinits. shall be counted together in determining compliance with the trip budgets. The trip budget shall not be exceeded.
The Costa Mesa Freeway Sunflower Avenue and llain Street represent significant air quality and noise sorirces that will impact the siting of residential units and other sensitive bnd uses. Existing ambient air qciality may exceed state and federal )evels for carbon monoxide: therefore, significant mitigation measures may be reqbiired. Acceptable interior and exterior noise bvels for residential uses would need to be ach:eved. An appropriate interface between the office buildings and residential uses wocild also be reqciired -20-
1321
Affordable Housing and Density Bonus
If the cntirc all or a portion of the site is developed as an independent residential community development that incorporates v#h affordable housing, the maximum density shall be X80 dwelling units per acre involving a maximum number of 660 residential units (including any density bonuses, see Table 8.'Total buikjing intensityfor the entiresite shall not exceed the maximum allowable development intensity as set forth by the trip budgets.
The maximum number of dwelling units (including any density bonuses) for Sakioka Lot 2 is 660 units. The maximum base density is 528; in order to be granted a 25% density bonus (132 dwelling urls), the developer would have to provide affordable housing pursuant to one of the following three options shown in the following table. All affordable housing provisions shall be for a minimum of 30 years.
Table 8- Sakioka Lot2 Dersity Bonus Program
North Costa Mesa Specific Plan
MAXIMUM BASE
DENSITY
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CATEGORY' DENSITY BONUS
CRITERIA
528 UNnS
OPTION I
1. ER ( LO'ill INCOME'
REQUIRED PERCENT OF
BASE DENSIT{ TO 8E
ArFORDABLE
l 0 !/,
-+ OF AFFORDABLE UNI t'S 53USITS
OPT10N2
LO'i'/ INCOIIE
REQIIIRED PERCE'ilTOF
BASE D-cNSITY TO BE
AFFORDA8LE
20%
4 0FAFFORDAaLE uNIT3 106 '_.NIT3
OPTION 3
'_D iai & MODEtRATE INCO}.1E
REQulP.ED PEFCEI-I" OF
BASE DENSffY TO BE
AFFORD.-IBLE
lO%LO'i'/& 13ViAi!ODEFlt'JE
#Oh- 'IFFORDABLE UNITS 132 UNITS
25% DENST Y EIONUS 132 11N ITS
TOTAL LT 11T3 660
NOTES,
Very Low, LOI/I/ and Moderate determriaiions are based on HUD definitons and inmme fmits adjusted for famity sze
The total number of units asscimes that other cttsaa of the P!anned Development Commercial Zone have been met regarding densUy increases
i3.. Density Bonus as provided herein, or as otherwise provided for by state law (Government Code 65915) 'The maxrmim number of i.inits (660) n an hc!ependent iesrlen(ial comnuiniky is based on a38.25 acres of land and .]80 cines per acre
2i
1322
Building Heights
The maxirncim building height is 4-ml20 feet (approximately -i-28 stories) south of the ne!V collector street and 60 feet (approximately 4 stories) north of the new collector street.
Commercial or mixed use developments that are allowed to encroach into the street setback of Anton Boulevard shall be limited to 2 stories/ 30 feet within the street setback.
Buildings above 4-7-3161 AMSL -feet in height viill require approval by the FAA.
Circulation
The Master Plan of Highvvays includes a new collector street that connects Main Street and Anton Boulevard through this site. A ne!iV 1-405 on-ramp from Anton Boulevard is to the south of this site. The Master Plan of Bikeways includes a new bikeway on Sunflower Avenue. As shown on Figurc O, thc various altcrnativt,s for the urban rail alignment travcrsc this property and a station is also proposed in the vicinity.
Figure 19 provides an overview of the entire plan area and depicts development standards that can be shown graphically. It should be noted that the information is intended to be illustrative and is not to be interpreted as the precise locations for future land usesor structures, or the collector street.
22-
1323
I
Table 1- General Plan Designations
North Costa Mesa Specific Plan
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION
TYPICAL USES RESIDENTIAL
DENSITY
FLOOR AREA RATIO COMPATIBLE
ZONING
Low
Density
Residential
Single family detached and attadied units, granny units, accessory apartments, family day care
Less than or equal to 8 units per
El(Ye.
0.15 high traffic
0.25 moderate traffic
0.35 low traffic
Rl, POR-LD, I &R
Medium
Density
Residential
Single-family attached units, muRiple family units, senior congregate care facilities, convalescent hospitals, and group residential homes. Ancillary commercial uses are permitted the planned development zone.
Less than or equal to 1 2 units
per acre
0.15 high traffic
0.25 moderate traffic
0.35 low traffic
Rl , R2-MD,
PDR-MD,
4, I&R
High
Density
Residential
Multiple family units, senior congregate care facilities, convalescent hospitals and group residential homes.
AnciJlary commercial uses are permitted in the planned development zones.
Less than or equal to 20 units per
acre: except the density in the
PDR-NCM zone is 25 to 35 units
per acre. See also The Lakes for
site-specific density.
0.15 high traffiC
0.25 moderate traffic
0.35 high traffic
R2-Ha,R3, PDR-
HD, PDR-NCM,
, I&R
Commercial Center Major shopping, service, and otfice facilities designated serve city-wide and regional markets.
Less than or equal to 20 ur'jts/acre 0.25 high traffic
0.35 moderate traffic
0.45 low trifflc
0.75 very low traffic
Exwpt that t-bme Ranch has a site-spearic
FAR
0.37 for the IKEA portion of the project and
0.64 for the office portion
C1 , C2, C1-S,
PDC, AP, P, CL
Regional Commercial Regional sale uses including major department stores, specialty retail outlets, restaurants, offices, and hotels.
Less than or equal to 20
units/acre
0.652 South Coast Plaza (east ofBear Street)
0.89 South Coast Plaza (west of Bear Street)
PDC
Llrban
Center
Intensively developed mixed mmmercial including offloes, retail shops, restaurants, and hotels. Residential uses are also Less than or equal to 20 units/acre.
Exceptions: South Coask. Me_tro ,q,
South Coast Metro Center (Area 6) has a
site- specific FAR of C1.79 '
PDC,TC
Commert.ial
perrnineu pursuiin{ (0 11 le iiionn LO5ia IVlesa apeciric rian (;enter l/Vea u) rTaS-a Slit:l 5 'I 00 units per acre;%
!Qiikinkii I n+ 1 rnav hp r in tn QS
SaklOka LOt 2 (Area 8) riaS a
maximum site- specific FAR of 1.0.
-it-uu+az ##} a- 400#J oo oY a"'a a' '
. . - i&- i . . 7. .. . . . . ... .. I . . _ ._ j. ... .. .1. .. .. .. .. . I -l() I
I
Cultural Arts Center Mixed commencial, restdential, office and cultural uses. 1.77 See also the South Coast Plaza Town Center discussion regarding the FAR.
TC
Industrial Park Wide variety of industrial and compatible office and support commerciat uses.
Less than or equal to 20
units/acre
0.20 high traffic
0.30 moderate traffic
0.40 low traffic
0.75 very low traffic
MP, POI, CL
I
Public and
Semi-Pubic
Parks, hospRals, schools, religiaus facilities, fairgrounds, and public facilities.
0.25 l& R. I&R-S, P '
I
Mixed Use Overlav Housino. such as mulWamilv dweliinqs, blendinq residenffal Less than or equal to 90 units/acre I .o_ ___MUOD I uses into key areas that are served by various shoppinq, --- I I convenience, employment, and community-servinq uses. I I I I
Updated Month 2026
15 1324
(5) "Prior Housina Element Site" means any non-vacant Housing Element Site that was identified in the prior Housinq Element and any vacant Housinq Element Site that was identified in two or more consecutive prior Housinq Elements. Such sites are identified in the City's currently adopted Housing Element Sites Inventory, shown as Table B-6: Sites to Accommodate Costa Mesa 2021-2029 RHNA.
(6) "Protected Unit" means any unit that, within the past five years, was occupied by a lower-income t'iousehold reqardless Of whether the unit was deed-restricted or that was subject to an affordability covenant or rent control. (e) Supersession of Overlay
(1) For Lower-Income Housinq
development standards in accordance with a Streamlined Development Review process per CMMC Title 13, Chapter (II (Planninq Applications). A project that does not qualify as a Use by Riqht shall be processed in accordance with a 3 1325
(2) Off-Street Parking Standards
i. Residential Uses. Minimum off-street parkinq requirements for multi- family dwellinqs on Housinq Element sites are provided in Table 13-
83.58-A. Minimum Off-Street Parkinq Requirements.
ii. Non-Residential Uses. Minimum off-street parkinq requirements for those permitted non-residential uses on Housinq Element sites shall be subject to CMMC Title 13, Chapter Vl (Off-Street Parkinq Standards).
Table 13-83.58-A. Off-Street Parkinq Standards for Residential Uses I * *
Studio or 1-bedroom unit
2 or more bedrooms per unit
I soace oeir unit
2 spaces per. unit
0.25 @ ace er unit
0.25 s ace er unit
(3) Development Standards
i. Minimum and maximum requirements for buildinq heiqht, non-residential intensity, setbacks, lot coveraqe, and open space are provided in Table 13-83.58-B. Development Standards.
Table 13-83.58-B. Development Standards.
Min. Residential
Density'
20 du/ac
Max. Residential
Densitv2
40 du/ac
50 du/ac
60 du/ac
90 du/ac
Max. Buildinq
60 ft.
72 ft.
108 ft. O( -O( ' ;i i e C
Min. FAR
Max. FAR
Front or side abutting a public Min. 10 ft. and max. 20 fl. 5 1326
Costa Mes.i North Costa Mesa Specific Plan
Existing Genera//"/an andZoning Designations
Figure 3 indicates the General Plan land use designations for the area of the City north of the 1-405, and Figure 4 indicates the accompanying zoning designations. Table l summarizes the development parameters of the General Plan land use designations, and the compatible zoning digtrictg.
for commercial, industrial, residential,
cannot be exceeded. The General
in the plan area in the following
of trips shall only be allowed in the area of the and east of Harbor Boulevard, and shall be limited of each other.
in the review and approval of a planned
Sufficient conditions of approval shall be
plan to ensure long-range control
trips sl*all not result in any greater impacts
then would occur if each Traffic Analysis
. (Consult with the Planning Division
trips between TAZs, such combination
the total trip budget of all parcels
according to the FAR and trip
11 1327
Costa Mesa North Costa Mesa Specific Plan
5. The combination
in abrupt
surrounding land
or transfer oftrips shall not allow development intensities which result in scale or intensity within the project or between the project and
6. Approval of the
with the above criteria
properties from which
plan or development plan ehaltbe.eonditieinod to oneure ceimpliaiice to preclude future ove$velopment on portions of the project or budgets were transfe,rred'."
7. Trip budget transfers shall recorded against the properties.
Therefore, if a property is underdevel
"excess" trips could be transferred to a
in terms- 6f its trip budget, there.js the possibility that the parcel to augment its trip budget;
It should be noted that all the Planned Development (PD), Town Cent,4r (TC), and Shopping Center (C1- S) zones require Planning Commission review and approval of the land use mix and building location.
MIX € EdaoUSe OVla%f DgStrgCt a/7d ri upCs Ls,y hJs'ntgfNed in the HousJ'nq Element In 2026, this specific plan was amended for consistencyWithaan amendment to the City's Zoning Map, whichresultedintherezona of:eeveral " inthei ' areatoenc5u andfacilitateresidential and mixed-use deve l/Vhile base zoni districts remain the same the Mixed-Use Overla District (MUOD) was applied to several parce:Is in the PDC, 18R, PDR-HD, TC, C1, and PDI zoninq districts within the plan area. The MUOD is an overlap district and shall only apply to the parcels identified in the City's Zoninq Map. This specific plari shallr,ontinue to applV to a property unless specifically superseded by a MUOD pr6ject when a property6wner chooses to exercise provisions of Article 11 (Mixed-Use Overlay District) of ChapterV (Development Standardsl'ofTitle 13-(Planning and Development) ofthe Costa Mesa Municipal Code on a qa-alifying properiy. Howeve?, it ihould be noted that projects identified on Lower- Income Housinq Element Sites shall be' qoverned by Section 13-83.58.e, (Supersession of Overlay) of Article 14, and the provisions of.'.that Section shall supersede and prevail over any conflicting provisions omf.lnthlmeuumnderer-lsQlidneqnltblaalseffozoornea,eina6:.umdi.InnglsltebrulatlnoretvlilmeWiteadn:,)ampipnriomVuam, raensdidepnetrima:udeednsuitsiees,anadndcaapla, coittihees, applicable zoninq provisions, such as other urban pl , overlays, and specific plans, includinq this specific plan.
lJpdated Month 2026
12 1328
Costa Mesa North Costa Mesa Specific Plan
Building Heights
Existing building heights in the plan area vary from single story single family homes to twenty- one story office buildings. Generally, the high-rise office buildings are located in the South Coast Plaza Town Center and South Coast Metro Center areas; the Metro Pointe area has approval for additional buildings that include two fifteen story buildings. The buildings at South Ceioat 41aza and Cryatal Ceiurt vary fr'om ono to throo gtoriog in hgight The General Plan does not establish a general limit on buildj.n<' heights north of the 1-405 but rather contains two policies that provide guidelines for 'd'etetmining the appropriate building height. Policy LU-1C.1 permits the construction of bqildings oyer two stories or 30 feet only when it can be shown that the building height witl not impact surrounding developments.
Policy LU-1C.3 prohibits the construction of buildings that present a hazard to air navigation at John Wayne Airport as determined by the Federal Aviation Agency.2 Policy LU-1C.3 is particularly relevant to the pl'an area, since the portion of the plan area generally east of the Metro Pointe property is withiri the imaginary horizontal surface of John Wayne Airport. Beyond the horizontal surface for another a.,ooo feet is the imaginary conical surface. See Figure 6. These imaginary surfaces are the.trigger for requiring special studies and review by the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County and the FAA. It should be noted that a number of existing buildings in South Coast.Plaza Town Center encroach within the imaginary horizontal surface;. however, each was determined not to pose a hazard to the airport's operations and were required to instalt ot>structi6n lighting.
Building heights in North Costa Mesa have"createdJpublic.coritroyersy in the past, especially in the Home Ranch area whe're high-rise Qevei6pment approvals were overturned by the voters in 1988. Table 2 specifie's the maximum..building heights for the plan area and shall continue to apply to a property"unless specifically superseded by a MUOD project when a property owner choosesto exercise provisions of Article 14 (Mixed-Use Overlay District) of Chapter V (Development Standards) of Title 13'(Planninq and Development) of the Costa Me'sa Muna a Code on a a a a. these building height standards recognized existing patterns and surrounding land . a
It shoufd be noted that Home Ranch has a
the center of the property. Any additional
General Plan amendment. Exhibit 'l 1 b
height limitation of five stories and only in
ht above five stories (75 feet) would require a
the height limitations for Home Ranch.
2SeeAppendixCforfulltextofPoliciesLU-lC.landLU-1C.3. y5 Updated January 2007' Month 2026
19 1329
North Costa Mesa Specific F'lan
AREA 6- SOUTH COASTMETRO CENTER
Existing Land uses
In 2006, this approximate 45-acre area was developed with several office buildings, a health club, restaurants, and retaii uses. At one time, the entire South Coast Metro Center was owned by one property owner (Sakioka Farms) and was leased on a long- term basis to various other parties. In the early 2000s, there was a change of ownership and operation of the area, and it is now owned and managed by several different parties.
Some parcels are owned tn fee, while others are owned by the Sakioka family and leased on a long-term basis to others. For planning purposes only, this area has been broken into rour different sub-areas, as described in the following discussions, and shown in Table 8A and on Figure 5 6a.
Generai Plan and Zoning
The site is eiesignated Urban Center Commercial by the General Plan and is zoned PDC In 2000, a site-specific FAR of O,79 was adopted for this area to aliow a maximum square footage of 1,546180 of non-residential devetopment on the total site area of 44.97 acres (this is the net acreage of the site after all necessary dedications for public improvements),
When the 2000 Ge.neral Pian was adopted in 2002, the trip budget for South Coast Metro Center was established as 1,886 a,m, peak hour trips and 1,994 p.m. peak hour trips for a strictly non-residential deveiopment project.
In 2007, General Plan Amendmen't (GP-06-02) was approved, and it consisted of a site- specific high-rise resideritial development option On a 4.86-acre portion of Area e (Sub- Area I ) at a density of 100 units per acre with 6,000 square feet or integrated ancillary retail uses. Additionally, for this residential development option, the Area 6 trip budget was modified to 1,931 a,m. peak hour trips and 1,976 p.m. peak hour trips.
See the following section for a discussion of the four sub-areas and the corresponding allocation of the floor area ratio, dwelling units, trip budget, and building square footages.
Sub-Areas
The South Coast Metro Center was divided into four sub-areas in conjunction with the approval of GP-08-02. These four sub-areas are under separate ownership and management, Provided in Table 6A is a statistical summary of the maximum floor area ratio, maximum number of residential uriits, and trip budgets for each sub-area. Figure 16a illustrates the boundaries ofthe sub-areas. ,>qva To facilitate flexibility within a sub-area, building square foot$es may be transferred, provided that the total building square footage, number of units}ffoor area ratio, for the affected sub-area are not exceeded as delineated in Table 6A. -Trartafcrs bctwccn thc sub-areas arc not pcrmittod Llpdated July 3+ 2000; January :!007 6 0
1330
North Costa Mesa Specific Plan
Sub-Area 'E GP-06-02 amended the 2000 Gerieral Plan to create a site-specific residential density of -'100 units/acre in the Urban Center Commeirciai land usedesignation for this 4,66-acre su5-area with a maximum of 484 residential units. In thissub-area, the 484 high-rise residential units and 6,000 square feet of ancillary retaH, known as Symphony Tower3 may be constructed at the southeast corner of Avenue ofthe Arts and Anton Boulevard in conjunction with the demolition of two existingrestaurants and the relinquishment of a 300-room hotel (200,950 square feet)entitlement. This would result in a maximum non-residentia( floor area ratio of O.03 witha maximum number of 484 high-rise residential units at 100 units per acre (Option 4 inTable 6A).
Strould the property owner determine not to develop any or only a portion of the high-rise residential option, then the unbuilt residential uses may be converted to acorresponding non-residential development provided that the maximum allowable non-residentiai building square footage, floor area ratio, and trip budget are not exceeded for the Option 2 development scenario shown in Tabie 6A. The Option 2 developmentscenario represents the maximum amount of non-residential building square footage allowed for this sub-area, which is 2al6,794 square feet. It is anticipated that thisdevelopment option would be composed of a 300-room- hotel (200,950 square feet) and 15,844 square feet of restaurant uses.
For both Options 4 and 2, Table M indicates the a.m. and p,m. trip budgets, maximum number of dwelling units, maximum non-residential building Square footage, andassociated maximum floor area rotio.
The maximurri buiiding height is 306 feet above grade level for Option 1 and 180 feetabove grade level for Option 2, Sub-Area 2: For this 2.57-acre sub-area, the maximum allowable building square footage is 4,000 square feet with a corresponding maximum allowable floor area ratio of
0.036. Iri 2006, this sub-area was developed with a muiti-tenant retai) buiiding (545 The maximum building height is 180 feet above grade level. Thc a.m- and p.m. peakI iuui Liip LiuJgbt is sliown in Tablc 6i Sub-Area 3: In 2000, GP-99-06 was approved for this 19.5-acre sub-area with amaximum building square footage of 525,000 in four buildings for Experian information Solutions (475 Anton Boulevard). The corresponding maximum allowable floor arearatio is O.62. )n 2006, the Final bui!ding was approved for construction. The maximum bui!ding height for this sub-area is 180 feet above grade level The a.m. and p.m. peakhour trip budget is shown in Table 6A.
Updated JUIY 3, xooo; January 2007 6i
1331
North Costa Mesa Specific Plan
8ub-Area 4: For this 18.06-acre site the maximum allowable floor area ratio is 1.02 (900,990 square Feet o(a buiidirig area) Iri QOOO, this, sub-area waa built-out with:
Three Office buildings (535, 555, 575 Anton) - 749, 230 square feet One Health Club (589 Anton) - 51;156 square feet The maximum building height is 180 feet above grade level, ) Thc a.m. ho.ur trip budget is shown in Table 6A,
o- --=- """""" ' """"""' . " I
'aa'@""'a'-t't-QO""""""b"raa==ia" I%offlh(20@t@.,Qes'7 EJecjfi6f?lan . , 'Maximum
AllgWatGlb.
N6ii-
Residential
.F'AR
Magimum Nb.n-
Resid'er'itial '
ap:a!lding
Squ_are,
F6qtagsffi
-(Qax.itnyrfi
Allowable '
Number.of
Migh=ni_@e-
Residential,
'Units.
MaXimurp '
4M, Pink."
._t'l6ur Tcip '
Buag@l "
--I
Ni:axjr0pi l
-'P,M. Pea_k 'i
-BM.tudtrgTetjip i.1
.1
Sub-Areal (4.86acres) t
Option "l 0.03' 6,000 sq. ft.' 484 227
290' l'
Option 2 1 .0 :j6,794 sq. ft. o 182 308
-""" I'S\ Yub-Area2 (2.i7 acres) \ \, ,
kY'j"41}
s-%';;-r
&!'A
!.7Ji
'< 'v
%[]!!I #,
j'a
?Jra
.,t!!
W
,;Rl,:
! 0.036X 4,00%. ft. % 'l '\=l
--- - " % % '% ' % j
..._ _ i . 'S,. ,Sub-Area 3 (19.4%acres) z i.q m W l%4b,i_am I ffl u(!af!l! ,0.62
52%O sq. ft.-'S 752 'S,, 704!
!e
)m
q?
m
%8ib.-4
id
f:ffi'a
&! aa'.l
&
!
t
ti
tiM'iiI
""" ! '%, %Rub-Area 4 (18.06 acres)
1 .02 800,386 sq. ft. o 947 968
TOTAL SOUTH COAST METRO CENTER (44.97 acres)
Option 4 0.89" 1335,386 sq.ft2. 484 1931 1 976a
Option 2 0.79 1546;180 sq.ft. o 1886 1994
1. This maximum may be increased to no more than the Option 2 maximum for this sub- area in direct relation to the decrease in the maximum number of high-rise residential units. See text for Sub-Area I for additional information.
2. This maximum may be increased to no more than the Option 2 maximum for the total ' area in direct relation to the decrease in the maximum number of high-rise residential , units in Sub-area 1.
AP/N
Updated July 3, ,iooo; January 2007
1332
Existing Land Uses
AREA 8- SAK{OKA LOT 2
North Costa Mesa Specific Plan
This 33 acre area is designated for planned development, including mixed-use, residential, and commercial office development and is currently in agricultural production.
TWO Single family homes are located along Sunflower Avenue. Lot 2 is owned by Roy K.
Sakioka & Sons.
General Plan and Zoning
This site is designated Urban Center Comrnerciat by the General Plan and is zoned PDC.
Devetopment Standards and Trip Budget
The development interisity for planned development (i.e. master plans) on Sakioka Lot 2 is limited by the following:
The for this site !s\l,062 a.m. peak hou(trips and '),407 p.m. peak hour trip4 The trip budget $all not be exceeded for any master planned developmJt on Sakioka Lot 2.S
Planned Development 8tandards of the PDC zone are applicable to the site, unless otherwise indicated in the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan- A maximum I,O Floor-Area-Ratio applies to nonresidential development.
Nonr@sidendteiavleldoepvmeelonp(tment is as)soofthseubiect, to etheantdripcOX;nlsgteeltlcylimwitltahtitohne, The maximum residential density (dwelling units per acre) is a maximum o dwelling units per acre for Lltq- rcsidcntial pumpunviil J a mixed-use nt (800 "Mixcd*ac" dic%meion) or a maximum of 20 dwelling units an inclspsnctsnt rps!';lpnfial community inctuding a
indepcndam ibbidc)iiial tvmmunity ia dcfincd as a development in which th silb ib siiliisly Jevblu%,ffd aS a residential use and therefore duss iiuL il acommercial uses Qil the Same sit
land uses proposed For Sakioka Lot 2 will be based on or Transportation Engineers The msthodology
for trip credits due to internal capiure and pass-by trips for various uses proposed within the parcel !hat leave the facility.
The projected trip generation
latest edition of Trip Generation
will consider reasonable a
trips. Internal capture credit refers
can be accomplished without having
For example, an office complex could have
may not generate new trips - rather serve tenants
include conference room and fitness facilities,
and other ancillary uses which
the complex. Other examptes
trips refers to trips that are
Updated Jut} 2002, September 2011 73
1333
North Costa Mesa Specific Plan
already on roadway
credits are limited to
t to the development and use the facilities. Pass-by trip uses.
The creditg allowed for i rnal capture aqd pass-by $rips will be determined by the Transportation Services Mari . The net trip generation after credits will be compared to the trip budget to determirie i the proposed development is within the limits prescribed in the North Costa Mesa i Plan. (-p
'Facintu"re' dSeevceloompmpea'n't' o"f' t'hli's" seitge ias :onnticipated to includCidl - aUnd h""ighir'ise offl'ce buildings as well as support commercial Shade and shadow impacts for buildings in excess of 2 stories should be considered in relation to surrounding !and uses. Site design should limit vehicular access to and from Sciriflower Avenue.
NeW cornmerciai and office bui(dings are encouraged to be located along the Anton frontage. Encroachment into ihe building setback on Anton Boulevard for commercial or miXeCl-uSe developments Can be COnSidered baged On hOW Well the project desigrl accommodates pedestrians and if the parking areas and/or strcictures are located behind the commercial or mixed-use building(s) Parking areas shall not be allowed to encroach into the street setback, unless they are tucked under the commercial development.
Parking lots/structures shouid be located primarily along the eastern edge of the site adjacent to the Coata Mesa Freeway and the new on-ramp. Internal pedestrian linkages to Anton Boulevard stiould be provided.
Mixed-Use
The PDC zoning does permit mixed-use development including residential and nonresidentiai uses as complementary uses, Thc rcaidcntial componont of a mixed-use- development shall be limited to El maximum density of 28 dwelling units per acre. Thm- maximum dcnaity only :ipplicc to rcsidcntial u3Ca d6 complcriit,,iilaiy J6b6 to pu -uses within a mixecl-usb Jvvt,lupir It dt<s not a(iply to qn inr'lel'; t'-'i i ctnily tha! does riot include cuiniuvicial uSCQ On tlta beiltib site, Total building devel63pment, the overall
including trips from dwelling units, sh.Ji be counted together in d$rmining compliance With the trip budgets. The trip budget not be exceede& '( Q.
The Costa Mesa Freeway, Sunflower Avenue, and Main Street represent significant air quality and noise sources that will impact the siting of residential units and other sensitive land uses Existing ambient air quality may exceed state and federal levels for carbon monoxide; therefore significant mitigation measures may be required. Acceptable interior and exterior noise levets for residential uses would need to be achieved. An appropriate interface between the office buildings and residential uses would also be required.
Updated July 2002, September 2011 74
1334
..l/al.,iaayll, ti';' L: t'ii't"il X3j I, ' i, i : I i i,' ,t, II" i"C lr"""'n-)"lll'(i"'l'r"1'!4.'i:"-'J"':'ii'-:ii,."aIl"'!'a'al!l"'-ra 5:" L':' rif[i'/""i':': i' 11-l-L-I-:!":\1!___.i'- y' i'r'l'--iMv'a""'i{j'iriJil""ylii7'i'-!L'i:u"!y'e::j!r -" Lit - - - --' l-i J l-- I - - - ' - -" f iTi"TTfT--) F- )f;:'i-i'i-r<l:"-: ir-rrrt!-Si -! S . _ - -J.. * _ 1__ J_ - .; . l___' % L _!l_ l _ _lJ_ __ j I l i 8____/pi t' I
1 * li g I: i i7 2 i,-Rl !,i
!H""'c-_.__ __ __l -- )! if ha':
i a,r-- i _J-- gI, Z
iri-'-' s<,["i-' I
)l
il
___JI
r"i .il
j
,r." f'AJ"!X7';"o [-J' j'J-"':a'o'IIJ) fi " ";J- :U6-- -":'11'3""" (2- ---- """'-',
!- i 152 i
j y, " X( X-,!J"// /"<i j ( k t L 1_ Ixll<" 7II!- ,.,<) a, ' ___' _l=i-' -.,, - - - i 1,,/7 /- i ,I /" a'o a 'J2>a,X/";_7i/l/.[_,"i/(' ,l,l,oaneas z,- .8:j"L.x--' . @' i--l,__,If __l ="'% ."s"""-I !=& 6(-ANTONJ3J.-_. -_ _J .___,,, __, _l_! %i,$4 A/ ct LEGEND
- Bikeway
--------- Freeway Ramp
-'- Future Collector Street
Du's Potential Dwelling Units Locatiort
<> ?mioct Entrv
AREA 8 - SAKIOKA LOT 2
Development Summary
Total Aha - 33 acres
i General Pian: tkban Center Commercial
Zoning: PDC
Maxlmumlnter+alty: o.so'mn-noun l.C7 FAJ
O.60 P)IR - Office
aa.,t.,<'imncrih*ain>Rg!l)flnnf _
- r a 5 -l- - $ a - aa- l
' ?.odogtriati Litikaae I 'm"'ax"i'm"'u"m"'os':';i"""u:aaitsaaapa'ae;'ao;;e-a- N! .- i l# a # # $ € 0 W # % # # - - - --, _ t II fl' B % s 0 0) + + 0% - 0 ' - a r' - - ' - ' 0 ' 4 jllaT.s m rinnk heiur trms hs
+ Dwelling Unit Orientation I } ,alV # @.- - --l- - -- - - - - - - -. ata -I l Maximum&iHdmaHelohl: 12stories/180fast(southofthecollectorstreet) f'& """""'="- '-'---'-'------ ' - *itoriesieotaet(nonhofttmcolkxtorstreet) " ate-.yheinroiioripmetiinvaphielotmiiuivntb+ovJiaitaauve 2stodes/30feat-Commercia*uaesthataraliod and iS not iniendeo 10 tie inleirpiolo) as ihti 911!lad) kmri !or tuluieland uses to ancroach. ,nto th, setback for Anton atm. Fig,, 18 or shidiams. unlna so*pml!led vii SetWt 4.O Devoloprnem Stantlards 1335
Affordable Housing and Density Bonus
If the entire site
housing, the
number of 660
as an
density shall be 20
units (including any
site shall not
residential community with affordable
units per acre involving a maximum
bonuses, see Table 8).' Total
the maximum allowable development
budgets.
units (incti,irlin.y rlcnsity bonuses)-for Sakioka Lot 2 density is 528; in order to be granted a 25% density developer Would have tO provide affordable housing optiorig shown in the following table. All affordable of 30 years,
building intensity for the
intensity as set forth by the b
1hemauXnmits.um"rnhuemmbearxOimfum
bonus (132 dweHing units),
Sl-"'o purgu,arit to 5rie. of the following
housing provisions shall be for a
North Costa Mesa Specific Plan
MAXIMUM BASE
DgNSlTY , ypopoxsuti%acareaonv'
s os74"7;+,tiu:s I
528 11NITS
j
I
I
I
I
OPTION 1
VERY LOW INCOME'
PERCENT OF
DENSffY TO BE
10%
#OFA%RDABLEUNITS83 uNlTS I
OPTION 2
LOW INCOME'
REaUIR[:(&ERCENT OF
BASE osis)q-'r to BE
qpposoosc4
20%
# OF AFFORDAblLE uNITS 106 LINITS I
CIPTION 3
LOW & MODERATE INCOME'
REQulRED PER(,kNT OF
exss DENSIT/ TO 'qe
pppopooeci
I
10aA LOW & 15% MODERATE
#OF AFFORDABLE ukTS 132 UNITE
25% DENSln' B NUS 132 UNITS
" TOTAuUNIS= 660
NOTES:
Very Low, Low, and
adjusted for family size.
The total number of units
have been met regarding
Yerate
a!umes
der%ity
determinations are based on HUD definitions and income limits, that other criteria of the Planned Development Commercial Zone increases
'The ma:mum number of units (660) in an independent residential community is based on 33 acres of land and 20 units per acre...
Updated January :ioo7, September 2011
78 1336
North Costa Mesa Specific Plar3
Building tleights
The maximum building height is 180 feet (approximately 12 stories) south of the new collector street and 60 feet (approximately 4 stories) north of the. new collector street.
Commercial or mixed use developments that are allowed to encroach into the street setback of Anton Boulevard shall be limited to 2 stories/30 feet within the street setback.
Buitdings above 173 feet in height will require approva) by the FAA.
Circulation
The Master P(an of Highways includes a new collector street that connects Main Street and Anton Boulevard through this site. A new 1-405 on-ramp from Anton Boulevard is to the south of this site. The Master Plan of Bikeways includes a new bikeway on Sunflower Avenue. As shown oii Figure 9, the various a!terriatives for the urban rail alignment traverse this property and a sta(ion is also proposed in the vicinity.
Figure 19 provides an overview of the entire plan area and depicts development standards that can be shown graphical!y It should be noted that the information is intended to be illustrative and is not to be interpreted as the precise locations for future land uses or structures.
Uptlated Januaiy 2007, September 2011
77 1337
HALLIGAN, MICHELLE
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Christopher Brancart <[email protected]>
Monday, February 9, 202612:09 PM
HALLIGAN, MICHELLE; MCGILL, ANNA; TAI, CARRIE; PC Public Comments; CITY CLERK;
PLANNING INFO
Public Comment - PC Mtg 02/09/2026, Item PH-1
sent letter to City PC re Agenda Item PH1.pdf
PLEASE SEE ATTACHED; THANK YOU
Christopher Brancart
Brancart & Brancart
(650) 879-0141 (voice)
(650) 879-1103 (fax)
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, please call me. Thank you. (.AUTION: Tis-email originated from outside of the organization.'D6 not click links or open attachm entd pnless you recognize the sender and know thecontent is safe. R3eortagsuspicious activitiesto thel iInformation TechnologyDepartmeHt.j
1 1338
Christopher Brancart
Elizabeth Brancart
BRANCART & BRANCART
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
P. 0. BOX 686
PESCADERO, CA 94060
Telephone (650) 879-0141
Facsimile (650) 879-1103
www.brancart.com
Street Address
8205 Pescadero Road
Loma Mar, Califomia 94021
February 9, 2026
Via Email and Facsimile
Michelle Halligan, Sr Planner
Anna McGill, Adv Planning Mgr
Carrie Tai, Director
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Fax: (714) 754-4856
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Jeffrey Harlan, Chair
Planning Commission
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Fax: (714) 754-5028
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Re: Planning Commission Agenda Item PH-1
Meeting: February 9, 2026
Obiections, Issues, and Concerm
Dear Gentlepersons:
I write on behalf of The Ohio House and its residents, along with present and former Group Home owners, operators, and residents to address several issues regarding Agenda Item PH-l to be heard, considered and acted upon by the Planning Commission at a public hearing on Monday, February 9, 2026. Item PH- 1 asks the Planning Commission to approve a resolution recornrnending the adoption by the City Council of several code amendment purporting to implement specific housing programs set forth in the City's Sixth Cycle (2021-2029) Housing Element.
-1-
1339
Planning Commission
February 9, 2026
1. Issues Addressed in This Letter
This letter focuses exclusively on code amendments purporting to implement Housing Programs regarding the regulation of housing for persons with disability; specifically:
1. Program 20 (Definition of Single Housekeeping Unit): That the City will "review and revise the definition of 'single housekeeping unit' within the zoning code to provide greater flexibility in consideration of accommodating a variety of household situations for related and unrelated individuals living together."
2. Program 2P (Group Homes): That the City will "review and adopt revisions to its zoning code applicable to group homes to affirtnatively further fair housing and comply with fair housing laws per the [following] objective: Review and revise the City's zoning code and application procedures applicable to group homes to promote objectivity and greater approval certainty similar to other residential uses."
3. Program 2N (Reasonable Accommodation): That the City will "review and adopt revisions to its Reasonable Accommodation process to be consistent with State and federal fair housing requirements."
To implement these programs, the City proposes to amended the following provisions of the City's zoning code (Title 13), set forth in Exhibit 3 in the Planning Commission Agenda Report:
4. Exhibit A: Chapter 1, Article 2, Definitions
5. Exhibit D: Chapter IV, Citywide Land Use Matrix
6. Exhibit H: Chapter IX, Article 15, Reasonable Accommodations
7. Exhibit K: Chapter XV, Group Homes; and,
Exhibit L: Chapter XVI, Group Homes in the R2-MD, R2-HD and R3 Residential Zones and the PDR-LD, PDR-MD, PDR-HD, PDR-NCM,
8. -2-
1340
Plaru'iing Commission
February 9, 2026
PDC, and PDI (Planned Development Zones)
and the related Title 9's Group Home Operator's Permit, set forth in Exhibit 5.
These code amendments fail to meet the requirements in Housing Programs 2N, 20, and 2P, but also, if enacted as presently proposed, each amendment violates three federal laws - the Fair Housing Act, ADA, and Rehabilitation Act - and several state statutes, including the California Government Code §§ 12955, 65008, 8899.50, and 11135 as well as the California Constitution.
2. The Proposed Amendment of the Definition of Single Housekeeping Unit fails to implement the requirements of the City's Housing Program 20 and promise to violate federal and state fair housing laws.
The definition of Single Housekeeping Unit (SHU) is the pivotal zoning provisions that governs housing opportunities throughout Costa Mesa's residential districts. Among all Residential Uses listed in the City's Land Use M atrix, CMMC TABLE 13-30, a Single Housekeeping Unit is the only use permitted of right in every residential districts. Thus, if the City chooses to classify an residential occupancy as a SmJ, then that household may occupy any dwelling in Costa Mesa pursuant to the zoning code. If the City refuses to classify a residential occupancy as a SHU, then that household is prohibited from the City's residential districts unless specially or conditionally permitted by the City or compelled by state statute.
The City proposes to implement Housing Plan Program 20 ("Definition of Single Housekeeping Unit") by amending the current definition of Single Housekeeping Unit as follows:
-3-
1341
Planning Commission
February 9, 2026
far aitlh eadtx otev, oNgmy use of am respansbaNy tr eo a We urge the Planning Cornrnission to reject the resolution recommending the adoption of the proposed amended definition of Single Housekeeping Unit (SHU) because it fails to implement Housing Program 20, invites unlawful and arbitrary enforcement, and violates state and federal fair housing statutes. a. The Proposed SHUDefinition Perpetuates The City Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities
The City last amended its SHU definition in 2014 as part of Ordinance 14- 13, the City's sweeping revision of its zoning code to compel the closure of existing group homes in Rl (SFR) districts - and to prohibit any new group homes there - unless the household qualified for issuance of a specially use permit. (This same framework was enacted by the City in 2015 to group homes in the City's MFR districts, as discussed below.) A fundamental, necessary condition of the City's discriminatory zoning restrictions enacted under Ordinance 14-13 was the simultaneous adoption of the current SHU definition. Given its inclusion in Ordinance 14-13, it should come as no surprise that the City repeatedly has admitted that the purpose of the current SHU definition was to exclude group homes from the definition and privilege afforded households classified as SHUs. -4-
1342
Planning Commission
Febniary 9, 2026
To achieve this result, the City includes a facially discriminatory presumption, a list of subjective, standardless criteria (carried forward in the proposed amendment), and several of observable indicia "that a household is not operating as a single housekeeping unit," including more than one rental agreement, private, separate entrances, separate food storage and refrigerators.
The proposed amendment deletes the facially discriminatory presumption but also deletes the only objective, observable standards (locks, entrance, refrigerators) in the pivotal provisions. While those observable indicia were enacted for a discriminatory purpose, they at least had the virtue of being an objective standard that could be applied to readily observable conditions (lock, entrance, refrigerators). Once observable conditions are stripped from the definition, the proposed amendment devolves into a series of necessary conditions lacking objective standard and impossible to apply without invading a household's constitutionally protected privacy.
The upshot is chilling: If applied as written, there are few if any households that could qualify as SHUs. Worse still, the proposed definition commits the City to police persorial relationship among every dwelling's occupants and to monitor the domestic affair of every household in Costa Mesa. b. The Text and Terms of the Proposed Single Housekeeping Unit Definition Offends Common Sense, Valid Zoning Principles, and Fair Housing Laws
The proposed SHU amendment lacks valid, measurable, discernable, objective standards to determine whether a household qualifies as a SHU.
Moreover, even if it provided valid standards, its application depends on the City's observations and determination of the nature and quality of personal relationships amongst household members and their domestic affair within the privacy of their dwellings. In sum, the proposed SHU definition is useless in application, invalid on its face, and unconstitutional in effect.'
' There are several ways to assess the efficacy of a zoning definition. We can disaggregate its terms into necessary and sufficient conditions. We can evaluate whether its intention (what it connotes) aligns with its extension (what it denotes). But under any test, the ultimate question is whether the text provides objective standards that can be consistently applied to observable facts reflecting conditions that endure over time. Thus, most zoning regulation concern the physical -5-
1343
Planning Commission
February 9, 2026
As drafted, the proposed definition consists of a series of necessary conditions regarding personal relationships that each occupant must satisfy and several domestic affairs that each occupant must perform. Each of these conditions is necessary. In other words, if the City decides that any one occupant fails to met any one of the following conditions, then the household is disqualified as a Single Housekeeping Unit:
Single housekeeping unit. The occupants of a dwelling unit have [1] established ties and [2] familiarity with each other, including joint [31 use of and [4] responsibility for common areas, which includes [51 interaction with each other, [6] shared meals, [7] household activities, and [8] expenses and responsibilities; where [9] residency is mutually agreed by all residents, is [10] not transitory in nature and the residential activities of the household are conducted on a [11] not-for-profit basis.
A close examination of these necessary conditions demonstrates why the proposed definition is not only profoundly flawed for purported purpose (implementing Program 20), but also wholly dependent on the City violating the California Constitution, fair housing law, and sound zoning principles. as built environment or readily observable externalities. The proposed amended SHU definition meets none of these criteria under any framework. -6-
1344
Planning Commission
February 9, 2026
No. Necessary
Cotxdition
Conditiotx 's Application
Objective
Standards
Established
Ties between
each occupant
with each other
occupant.
No, lacks
objective
cnteria
measuring
quality or
quanttty
Familiarity
between each
occupant with
each other
occupant.
No, id.
a. Necessary condition
must exist throughout the
every persons occupancy
at any point in time.
b. To deternnine whether
household's "established
ties" are sufficient, each
one-to-one relationship
amongst occupants must
be evaluated by the City;
thus, in a six member
household, there are 15
unique relationships to
be evaluated. C(n,r)[i.e.,
"n chose 2 7.
Id.
Can City Lawfully
Observe and Verify
Facts to Determine
Condition
Yes, for some households,
but only by proxy, limiting
Establish Ties to
relationships defined by
law (e.g., consanguinity),
and thereby discriminating
against non-traditional
families.
No, this conditions lack
any objective criteria;
moreover, this condition
involves personal
relationships that are
inherently difficult to
observe and assess since
relationships transpire
within sphere of
constitutionally protected
prtvacy
No, this conditions lack
any objective criteria;
moreover, this condition
involves personal
relationships that are
inherently difficult to
observe and assess since
relationships transpire
within sphere of
constitutionally protected
prxvacy
-7-
1345
Planning Commission
February 9, 2026
No. Necessary
Condition
Condition 's Application
Objective
Standards
Joint use of.. .
common areas
Joint...
responsibility
for common
areas
Yes, in part,
because -
unlike other
conditions -
common areas
are observable.
No, since use
lacks objective
criteria
measuring
quality or
quanttty
No, Iacks
objective
criteria
measuring
quality or
quantity
Interaction No, id.
w"th each other
Id.
Id.
Id.
Cart Chy Lawfully
Observe and Verify
Facts to Determine
Cotxdition
No. This condition lack an
objective standard;
moreover, it occurs within
the privacy of dwelling.
No. This condition lack an
objective standard;
moreover, it occurs within
the privacy of dwelling.
No, this conditions lack
any objective criteria;
moreover, this condition
involves personal
relationships that are
inherently difficult to
observe and assesS since
relationships transpire
within sphere of
constitutionally protected
pnvacy
-8-
1346
Planning Commission
February 9, 2026
No. Necessary
Condition
Shared meals
Shared...
household
activities
Shared...
expenses
Condition 's Application
Objective
Standards
No, id.
No, id.
No, Id.
Id., but measured by
participate rate of each
occupant. (i.e., Assume
five occupant and five
"household activities,"
the City must examine
each occupants
participation rate in a
total of 25 activities.
Cartesian Product (mxn)
Id.,
Yes, with an
administrative subpoena.
Can Ciffl Lawfully
Observe and Verify
Facts to Determine
Condition
No. The scope, frequency,
and participation rate
transpires within the
privacy of dwelling
No. This condition lacks
an objective, reliable
standard. Moreover,
participation of domestic
activities transpires within
the privacy of dwelling.
No, unless the City obtains
an administrative subpoena
to obtain detailed
statements of household
expenses and contributions
by each member of the
household
-9-
1347
Planning Commission
February 9, 2026
No. Necessary
Condition
Residency is
mutually
agreed by all
residents
Cotxdition 's Applicatioti
Objective
Standards
No, Id., unless Id.
condition is
intended to
empowers any
occupant at the
time to bar any
prospective
occupant or
oust any
existing
occupant from
a household,
regardless of
that occupant's
age or
mahirity,
consensus of
the other
occupants, or
the basis for
the preclusion
or ouster.
not transitory No., Id.
in nature
No, without a duration of
occupancy specified, this
necessary condition
cannot applied.
Can City Lawfully
Observe and Verify
Facts to Determine
Corxdition
Possibility, but if and only
if the City obtains
confimation from each
occupant who occupied a
dwelling during its
purported status as a SHU.
No, unless the City obtains
an administrative
subpoena, permitting the
City to lawfully review
records or compel
statements that establish
the date each occupant
joined a household. This
information, however, is
meaningless without a
temporal criterion.
-10-
1348
Planning Commission
February 9, 2026