City of Costa Mesa
Agenda Report
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Item #: 26-381
Meeting Date: 9/15/2026
TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF THE FAIRVIEW DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN AND RELATED AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING CODE, LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN AND CERTIFY THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT / ADVANCED PLANNING AND HOUSING DIVISION PRESENTED BY: MELINDA DACEY, PRINCIPAL PLANNER; ANNA MCGILL, ADVANCED PLANNING MANAGER; KAREN GULLEY AND MOLLY MENDOZA, PLACEWORKS CONTACT INFORMATION: MELINDA DACEY, PRINCIPAL PLANNER, (714) 754-5611 RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council:
Adopt Resolution No. 2026-XX titled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, California, Certifying the Environmental Impact Report and Adopting the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan Project;” and Adopt Resolution No. 2026-XX titled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, California, Amending the Land Use Element of the General Plan and Update the Land Use Map to Change the Land Use Designation of the 110 Acre Fairview Developmental Center (FDC) Site Located at 2501 Harbor Boulevard from Multi-Use Center to Refer to the 95 Acre FDC Specific Plan (FDCSP) and Change the Remaining 15 Acres to Public/Institutional;” and Introduce Ordinance No. 2026-XX titled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, California, Adopting the Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan (FDCSP) and Amend Sections 13-20, 13-28, 13-30, Chapter V, Article 7, and Add Chapter XVIII “Specific Plans” to Title 13 of the Zoning Code, and Amend the Zoning Map to Change the Zoning Designation of the 110 Acre Fairview Developmental Center (FDC) Site Located at 2501 Harbor Boulevard to Refer to the 95 Acre FDCSP and Change the Remaining 15 Acres to Institutional and Recreational (I&R).” BACKGROUND:
The Fairview Developmental Center (FDC) is a 110-acre State-owned property located at 2501 Harbor Boulevard in the City of Costa Mesa. The site was historically developed and operated as a residential care facility for individuals with developmental disabilities. Through extended negotiations, the State will retain ownership of 15 acres for the Southern Regional Emergency Operations Center (SREOC), which is not included in the FDCSP area. The FDCSP boundary encompasses approximately 95 acres. Of this, the California Department of Developmental Services (DDS) will retain 15 acres for housing similar to Harbor Village Apartments, leaving approximately 80 acres available for future development. Prior staff reports noted different acreage for the FDC site and the acres identified within this report are reflective of the final available land for the FDCSP and supersede all previously identified acres.
Legislative Context
The FDC Specific Plan effort commenced in 2022, after Senate Bill (SB) 188 was enacted by the State legislature and inter alia added section 14670.31 to the Government Code. SB 188 provides a framework for the reuse of the FDC property and codifies a partnership between the Department of General Services (DGS), DDS, and the City of Costa Mesa, including defined roles for each entity. This bill also stated that the State did not intend to follow the traditional state surplus property process. To support this effort, the State allocated $3.5 million in State funding to the City to develop a Specific Plan, conduct necessary studies, and manage a community-based planning process. The Legislature’s intent for the redevelopment of the FDC site is to prioritize affordable housing and housing to the greatest extent feasible, including a minimum of 200 units of permanent supportive housing, open space, and housing for individuals with developmental disabilities, and for the City to create a Specific Plan for the FDC site that implements the provisions of Government Code section 14670.31.
To that effect, Government Code section 14670.31(c)(4) includes reference that a “development plan shall provide for housing and affordable housing at a level consistent with the January 2020 council-adopted strategy of 1,500 units and the housing assessment in the Department of General Services’ 2021 Infrastructure Assessment of up to 2,500 units for the site (emphasis added).” DGS prepared its May 27, 2021, Infrastructure Assessment as a part of its due diligence since the FDC site was identified as surplus and DGS needed to understand what would affect the State’s disposition of the site. The 2021 study evaluated likely constraints for redevelopment with a specific set of assumptions such as the total 110-acre site being available, the existing roadway configuration remaining unchanged and a financial feasibility component that included 500 affordable housing units. At the time the legislation was drafted, these were known factors for the FDC site. However, subsequent actions affecting these predefined unit counts identified within the legislation have occurred, which include:
The City’s adoption of its Sixth Cycle (2021-2029) Housing Element in November 2022 (amended in 2023), increasing the affordable units for the site; The Southern Regional Emergency Operations Center (SREOC) utilizing 15-acres of the 110-acre site, thereby reducing available land for redevelopment; and The financial feasibility analysis conducted as a part of the planning process for the FDCSP found that development of fewer than 3,450 units would not be financially feasible (discussed in further detail below).
Due to the factors described, and acknowledging the predefined unit count in the legislation, City staff requested clarification from the State regarding the legislative intent and inclusion of the predefined unit counts. In addition, the community and Planning Commission have also inquired about this topic. Accordingly, DGS provided a letter to the City, dated July 2, 2026, that reiterates the intent of Government Code section 14670.31, and provides overall support for a specific plan that can accommodate up to 4,000 units. DGS further notes in its letter that when it drafted the requirements of the planning process, it specifically used the phrasing consistent with in the legislation instead of “between” or “not less than, and not more than” or other limiting language. DGS also reiterated that the “legislation required that the planning process address ’economic feasibility of future development’” (subsection (c)(1)), “maximize interested third-party potential purchases” (subsection (c)(2)), and have as an explicit intent to “provide certainty for the community and a potential developer” (subsection (c)(2)). As is clear from these requirements, the City’s task under the statute is to advance the land use process such that the Specific Plan is reasonably certain to be financially viable to implement.” The DGS letter is included as Attachment 12 and can also be accessed here:
https://costamesa.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=15709361&GUID=7019DFA6-4238-4BA1-A05D-0858848AEBE5 City and State Agreement
The City and DGS executed State Standard Agreement No. HD229063 in December 2022, consistent with SB 188. The Agreement was later amended on September 22, 2025 (collectively, the Agreement). As outlined in the Agreement, the final development plan must align with both the City’s adopted vision and the State’s interests. While the site is owned and controlled by the State (DGS), the Agreement outlines the City’s responsibilities for leading the land use planning process. The Agreement envisions that the City’s planning work for FDC would include the following deliverables:
Robust Community Engagement Strategy (and implementation thereof); Comprehensive Conditions Report on the property and its setting; Economic Market Demand Report;
Water Supply Assessment and coordination among Water Agencies; Project Conceptual Alternatives & a Preferred Plan Framework; Draft Specific Plan with Implementation Strategies;
Public Draft Initial Study and Notice of Preparation, if required; Public Draft Environmental Impact Report;
Draft Final Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; Final Draft Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report; and Public hearings for EIR certification and Specific Plan adoption, including any General Plan and Zoning amendments identified as necessary for consistency.
In accordance with the Agreement, the development of the FDCSP has progressed to the final stages of the City’s planning process which include:
Public Review Draft Specific Plan;
Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR);
Public Hearing Draft Specific Plan;
Public Hearings with the Planning Commission and City Council; and Adoption of the Final Specific Plan, and associated amendments for consistency, and certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR).
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the draft FDCSP and its components, associated Zoning Code and General Plan amendments for consistency, and the FEIR for recommendation to City Council. Further details are discussed below. The City Council is conducting a public hearing relating to the Planning Commission’s recommendation on the FDCSP.
Financial Feasibility Analysis
The City’s project team prepared a financial feasibility analysis that was presented to the Planning Commission and City Council in 2025, available here:
https://costamesa.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=15709362&GUID=D5AF92F2-BFE5-4D6D-93E7-7F691E7B80A5).
As required by the Agreement with the State, and reiterated in the July 2, 2026, DGS letter, the City oversaw preparation of a Financial Feasibility Analysis (“Analysis”) for the FDC site, using three land use concepts as test cases. The three land use concepts included different unit counts, at Concept 1/2,300 units, Concept 2/3,450 units, and Concept 3/4,000 units, along with land use components identified during community outreach. Incorporating market demand and pricing, the Analysis provides a detailed summary of the development cost at the FDC site, excluding the cost that affordable housing developers will pay to build and operate their projects. The Analysis also includes project-wide infrastructure costs, such as demolition, roads, water, and sewer, along with public safety and open space needs for the level of development. Feasibility alternatives (i.e., changes in the assumptions for each land use concept that would make each concept more feasible) were included to identify adjustments that could make the overall project financially feasible.
Financial feasibility analyses are prepared and analyzed from the perspective of potential developers and ask the question: do the concepts provide enough market rate housing units to offset the costs to support the affordable housing, the DDS housing, and other amenities, such as public safety and parks and recreation facilities. It can be used to predict the potential feasibility of a project with the most accurate information on hand at the time the analysis is conducted. While these analyses try to anticipate future market trends, unforeseen trends or market factors could adjust identified feasibility when a future master developer is ready to construct. The Analysis is a ‘snapshot’ of the current market and its considerations. For FDC, the Analysis evaluated the three concepts to determine how and whether a developer could redevelop the site and achieve an industry standard internal rate of return for project feasibility (15%). Table 1 is a summary of the results of the financial feasibility analysis:
Table 1: Total Cash Flow and Annual Internal Rate of Return 2,300 Units
(Previously Concept 1)
3,450 Units
(Previously Concept 2)
4,000 Units
(Previously Concept 3)
Cash Flow Sums with Financing and Cost/Revenue Escalation Total Cash Inflow
$810,300,000
$2,148,000,000
$2,905,000,000
Total Cash Outflow
-$962,700,000
-$1,779,000,000
-$2,235,000,000
Total Net Cash Flow
-$152,360,000
$369,100,000
$669,8900,000
Financial Feasibility Metrics
Annual Internal Rate of Return (IRR)
-20%
14.6%
16.7%
Feasibility Surplus/(Gap)
($233,000,000)
($5,020,000)
$26,700,000
The financial feasibility analysis found that Concept 2 and Concept 3 were financially feasible; however, Concept 2 has a financing shortfall, commonly referred to as a “gap” in project financing. Based on the financial feasibility analysis, staff initially recommended a residential unit mix of 3,600 to 3,800 units for the preferred land use plan as a reasonably expected development range at the FDC site, but studied up to 4,000 units as directed by City Council while not pre-committing the City to a specific course of action.
Community Outreach
The community outreach and engagement process for the FDCSP began in 2023, with the first of five workshops. Each of the five workshops consisted of three separate sessions and dates at various locations throughout the community, for a total of 15 public engagement sessions. These workshops were advertised through various efforts, including mailers to 46,000 households, social media posts, newspaper advertisements, and electronic notifications through the interested parties list and City newsletters. The workshops focused on various topics to garner community input throughout the planning process for the specific plan.
Workshop No. 1 – November 2, 3, and 6, 2023 – Topics included the introduction of the project, FDC site context, requirements under State statute, and Housing Element requirements of the site. Community engagement included asking community members components of a great neighborhood as the beginning of the visioning process.
Workshop No. 2 – January 23, 25, and 29, 2024 – Topics included background information for the project, project timeline and a summary of Workshop No. 1. Community engagement focused on the draft Vision and Guiding Principles, and feedback around mobility and open space concepts.
Workshop No. 3 – February 29, March 4 and 6, 2024 – Topics included Refined Vision Statement, Housing, Mobility and Traffic, Parks and Open Space, and Infrastructure. Community engagement activities included stations of these topics with sticker dot exercises to learn more about the community’s preferences to further identify the details of the specific plan.
Workshop No. 4 – July 24, 25, and 31, 2024 – Topics included three land use concepts, key features, and analysis for each concept. This led into a land use concept survey that was available online from July 24 through August 30, 2024.
Workshop No. 5 – March 24, 26, and 30, 2026 – The topic introduced the community to the Public Review Draft Specific Plan and all of its components based on prior community engagement efforts.
In addition to the above community engagement meetings, City staff held a focus group meeting with various golf course clubs on July 15, 2026, to discuss the secondary access road contemplated in the FDCSP and outline the future process. City staff coordinated the meeting with golf course club members after the March 2026 workshops, where staff determined that additional discussions with these groups were needed. The purpose of the stakeholder meeting was for the City to connect with representatives of the various golf course clubs at the Costa Mesa Country Club, to provide an overview of the project, share information about the secondary access road, the fact sheet (https://fdcplan.com/wp-content/uploads/Fact-Sheet_FDC-Secondary-Access_Road-Golf-Course_Final.pdf), and related impacts to golf course holes of the Mesa Linda Golf Course with respect to the secondary access road. The City’s golf course architect, Origins Golf Designs, also attended the stakeholder meeting. The Specific Plan includes an implementation action (Section 8.2.6.A.15) for the City and the Master Developer to continue coordinating additional outreach with the Master Developer as and when a detailed project application is submitted to the City for review.
On July 23, 2026, staff conducted a community “question-and-answer” format meeting at the Norma Hertzog Community Center where City staff presented the FDC Specific Plan, covering the site's history, planning process, housing goals, conceptual land use plan, environmental review, and upcoming next steps. The meeting included a moderated public question-and-answer session. The primary topics raised by attendees included:
Housing density (2,300–4,000 units)
Affordable housing levels and feasibility
Traffic and circulation
School capacity
Emergency access
Impacts to the Costa Mesa Country Club
Open space
Commercial uses
Public amenities
Infrastructure funding
City's role versus the State's in redevelopment
Staff provided information on the draft Specific Plan regulations and how the Draft EIR evaluated these topics (traffic, schools, public safety, infrastructure, and other impacts), including mitigation measures.
Staff emphasized that the Specific Plan land use plan is conceptual, and the future Master Developer must submit a detailed Development Review Application that includes plans, public amenities, phasing and proposed development agreements. This is described in further detail below under, Implementation – Phasing and Subsequent Applications.
The proposed secondary access road was described as a fire safety requirement, although construction may not occur for many years. Staff also clarified that developers would fund onsite infrastructure and pay impact fees, while ongoing public services would be supported through property taxes and City revenues.
Prior FDC Project Updates at City Council, Planning Commission, and Parks and Community Services Commission On December 12, 2023, the City Council received an overview of the planning process, the historic background of the FDC site, potential housing types (including both market-rate and affordable options), and considerations for future development. The staff report and attachments are available online at: https://costamesa.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=1141509&GUID=345AA40A-863E-4705-8AC0-6F703488A2F9 On March 25, 2024, the Planning Commission received a presentation that included a summary of the public workshops and outlined the upcoming steps in the planning process. The staff report and attachments are available online at:
https://costamesa.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=6600445&GUID=BE5C5BFB-7FF3-4EC5-B6A4-16240D272894 At both meetings, the project team also presented detailed information on the economic and market considerations for affordable housing development. Topics included financing strategies, eligibility requirements, and the trade-offs needed to achieve feasibility. As part of the research and analysis, PlaceWorks conducted interviews with affordable and market-rate housing developers, advocacy groups, and industry experts familiar with Orange County housing trends. These interviews explored preferences related to housing types, supportive services, private and public open space amenities, and neighborhood design. Insights gathered have directly informed the market demand and market feasibility analysis, the outcomes of which are included in this report to guide the development of a preferred land use plan.
The Planning Commission conducted three meetings on the Preferred Land Use Plan Framework on May 27, 2025, June 23, 2025, and August 25, 2025. Over the course of these three meetings, staff presented a comprehensive background on the City and State roles of the FDCSP, the findings of the Financial Feasibility Study (discussed above), community outreach summary, three different land use alternatives (balanced land use components that support affordable housing that is financially feasible with long-term flexibility), components of a Specific Plan, development realities of State housing laws, and environmental review. At the August 25, 2025, meeting, the Planning Commission adopted PC Resolution No. 2025-17 recommending a draft preferred land use plan for the FDCSP to the City Council for purposes of environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.
Link to May 27, 2025 Meeting Agenda, staff reports and associated attachments:
https://costamesa.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7408827&GUID=E7162FB0-6F1B-49C8-8A10-A2B71A59E397 Link to June 23, 2025 Meeting Agenda, staff reports and associated attachments:
https://costamesa.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7443281&GUID=794883F8-79F0-429F-89AA-27A1037F3206 Link to August 25, 2025 Meeting Agenda, staff reports and associated attachments:
https://costamesa.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7523283&GUID=C8358D22-1767-42E4-9683-A0A0A9E45E27&Options=&Search= On October 9, 2025, City staff presented the FDCSP to the Parks and Community Services (PACS) Commission that included an overview of the project, timeline, and the Planning Commission’s Open Space recommendations. The purpose of the meeting was to obtain PACS feedback regarding park amenities for consideration and inclusion in the FDCSP. At this meeting, the PACS Commission and wider community emphasized the need for a minimum amount of open space within the specific plan, particularly neighborhood sports fields for local sports programs.
Link to October 9, 2025 Meeting Agenda, staff reports and associated attachments:
https://costamesa.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7693105&GUID=A38BE8F7-2C3F-4912-8FEC-E46C6A295BCB&Options=&Search= On October 21, 2025, the City Council considered the Planning Commission recommendation of the preferred land use plan for the FDCSP. After public comment concluded, the City Council deliberated the plan and ultimately directed staff to move forward with the Planning Commission’s recommendation (which included a scope of environmental study in the form of the Draft Preferred Land Use Plan, up to 4,000 units, without committing the City to a specific course of action on the Specific Plan) and additionally increased the minimum open space by two acres resulting in the following change to the total open space acres: 12 acres increased to 14 acres. Table 2 depicts the Land Use categories that were utilized for the CEQA environmental review and preparation of the Public Review Draft Specific Plan.
Link to October 21, 2025 Meeting Agenda, staff report and associated attachments:
https://costamesa.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7702666&GUID=68E67F0E-2180-4D5E-BF92-87ED2CB439DB&Options=&Search= Table 2 – Preferred Land Use Plan Designations and Affordable Housing Land Use
Development Minimum
Development Maximum
Total Residential Units1,4
2,300 units minimum
4,000 units maximum
Very Low Income
575 units2
-
Low Income
345 units
-
Moderate Income
690 units
-
Above Moderate Income
690 units
-
Commercial
10,000 sf minimum
35,000 sf maximum
Public Open Space3
14 acres minimum
No maximum
Notes for Table 2:
The Very Low, Low, Moderate, and Above Moderate-income categories is defined in the City’s Housing Element.
The very low-income units shall include 200 Permanent Supportive Housing Units in accordance with Government Code section 14670.31. Housing developed on-site by DDS may count towards meeting this requirement.
Public Open Space includes areas planned for possible use of the following, including but not limited to: public parks, trails, plazas, and other types of open spaces available to the general public. It does not include private and common open space that is considered an on-site amenity for housing and is primarily accessible by the residents of the housing development.
Total units include the residential development within the 15-acres of land retained by DDS.
The Plan also contemplates a secondary access at the southeast corner of the site through the golf course, requiring the reconfiguration of up to six holes.
With this information known, the project team was able to move the FDCSP project into the next stages of the planning process which are discussed in detail below.
Public Review Draft Specific Plan
The City released the public review draft specific plan for a 30-day public comment period that began on March 16, 2026, and concluded on April 15, 2026. The public comments received during this process resulted in refinements to the Draft FDCSP that include further text refinements to the vision and guiding principles, purpose statements, and addressing project phasing details and specific plan implementation processes. Staff also made edits to align with new terminology for uses that were presented to the Planning Commission on April 13, 2026, at a study session as part of zoning code updates to Land Use Classifications for various nonresidential uses, which returned for recommendations to City Council at the Planning Commission’s July 13, 2026, hearing. City Council introduced the nonresidential code amendments for first reading by on August 4, 2026 and adopted them on September 1, 2026. In addition, the residential parking minimums were removed to be consistent with City Council’s direction for Housing Element sites rezoning at its March 17, 2026, hearing. This change was made for consistency due to the FDC site being a Housing Element site. Prior to this change, there were no parking minimums for affordable housing units and the market rate units included a 1.25 parking ratio for each one-bedroom unit and a 2.25 parking ratio for each two- or more bedroom unit. The 0.25 for each of these ratios were inclusive of guest parking.
The more substantial edits occurred in Chapter 8, Administration & Implementation. The edits include:
Further refinements to the planning application process with some slight reorganization; Development impact fees were added to section 8.3.3;
New Transportation Demand Management section 8.3.4;
New Funding and Financing subsection 8.3.5.A;
Further refinements to Table 8-3, Implementation and Conceptual Phasing, were made; and New Table 8-4, Ongoing Ownership, Maintenance and Funding.
A new planning application implementation action was added requiring the future Master Developer to conduct outreach and community engagement once the final secondary access road alignment through the golf course—and any necessary redesign—is determined. This is included in the FDC Development Review Application requirements in Section 8.2.6.A as item number 15.
On July 27, 2026, the Planning Commission held a study session on the FDCSP and its associated Zoning Code and General Plan amendments, and the Draft EIR. At the study session the Planning Commission received public comments, asked questions of staff, and provided feedback related to the draft specific plan. Public comments raised concerns about the scale of development and concerns that traffic will increase on Harbor Boulevard and within the existing College Park neighborhood. Other comments received were related to the availability of sports fields, and petitioning the State to make Merrimac Way a public road so a new secondary road is not needed through the Mesa Linda Municipal Golf Course. The Planning Commission provided varying feedback on the FDCSP, including proposed edits to the plan itself regarding appropriate referencing throughout the plan and updates to the permitted uses table. Additionally, the Commission asked clarifying questions regarding the secondary access road and other alternative routes considered, the financial feasibility and its impact on the number of units studied under the FDCSP, and the status of the State’s disposition process. Further discussion on traffic, updates made to the FDCSP, and financial feasibility considerations are included in the analysis section below.
Link to July 27, 2026 Meeting Agenda, staff report and associated attachments:
https://costamesa.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=8144200&GUID=13F93617-431F-4E0E-BAED-FB1ACBB62095&Options=&Search= Link to July 27, 2026 written public comments (See items marked as NB-2):
https://costamesa.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=E3&ID=1429415&GUID=D14C456A-C716-444D-B92A-5460E080F1C8 On August 10, 2026, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the FDCSP and the associated Zoning Code and General Plan amendments for internal consistency, and the Final EIR. The Planning Commission received public testimony for and against the plan. Concerns continue to be raised regarding the number of units included in the plan and the resulting traffic, in addition to the secondary access road that crosses through the Mesa Linda Golf Course. The staff report for the Planning Commission hearing included discussion on the following:
Updates made to the FDCSP in relation to the July 27, 2026, Planning Commission study session feedback; Maximum units allowed in the specific plan and financially feasible residential unit count reductions below 4,000 but above 3,450 units; The level of service traffic analysis included in the Final EIR; General Plan and Municipal Code amendments for internal consistency; and The Final Environmental Impact Report.
The Planning Commission considered all public testimony and ultimately recommended (4-2) that the City Council adopt the FDCSP as drafted with incorporating information from the August 10, 2026 Planning Commission Memorandum relating to an update to figures in the level of service traffic study, the associated Zoning Code and General Plan amendments for internal consistency, certify the Final EIR, and adopt findings of fact and statement of overriding considerations. The Planning Commission Resolution No. PC-2026-22 is included as Attachment 9.
Link to August 10, 2026 Meeting Agenda, staff report and associated attachments:
https://costamesa.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=8164832&GUID=9C7F2239-13C0-4A25-A31D-73774C7CC4D3&Options=&Search= Link to written public comments (See items marked as PH-1):
https://costamesa.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=E3&ID=1436219&GUID=7764137B-AF15-4922-8FC5-93FCC2FD99EB California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) The FDCSP is an implementation program (Program 3B) identified within the City’s Sixth Cycle Housing Element, in addition to being a site identified within the sites inventory. The site includes a Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 920 lower-income residential units, 690 moderate-income residential units, and 690 above moderate-income residential units for a total of 2,300 units. This establishes the FDCSP minimum residential unit threshold for the site as shown in Table 2. The City Council recently amended the Housing Element on September 1, 2026. As a part of the amendment to the Housing Element, HCD issued a formal review letter dated August 21, 2026, indicating that the City’s revisions to the Housing Element meet the statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law and that the City’s Housing Element can be certified pending City Council approval of the pending rezone (includes other Housing Element sites) for the FDCSP, which means adoption of the Specific Plan and associated amendments to the Zoning Code and General Plan for internal consistency. The HCD letter is included as Attachment 10.
Department of Developmental Services (DDS) Letter Regarding Merrimac Way On September 4, 2026, DDS provided a letter to the City confirming and supporting information that the City prepared and included in the Secondary Access Road Fact Sheet (https://fdcplan.com/wp-content/uploads/Fact-Sheet_FDC-Secondary-Access_Road-Golf-Course_Final.pdf), which states that Merrimac Way is a privately maintained road by the State with emergency vehicle access only. DDS further explains that Merrimac Way cannot be used for daily through traffic for the safety and protection of the community members who reside at Harbor Village who have developmental disabilities. DDS also indicates that Merrimac Way will remain private and restates their intention that the road will continue to be limited to the general public regardless of when their lease may come up for negotiation with the Harbor Village operator. The DDS letter is included as Attachment 11.
ANALYSIS:
FDC Specific Plan
The FDCSP was developed based on extensive community outreach and input from the public. The FDCSP is a planning tool that provides a regulatory framework acting as a zoning document to guide future redevelopment, and improvements for the FDC site which includes specific land use regulations and development standards to carry out the community’s vision.
The FDCSP is comprised of a total of eight chapters. These chapters establish the regulatory framework for the future redevelopment of the FDC site and include development and design standards to achieve the community’s vision. Each chapter includes a purpose statement that explains the intent of the chapter, objective development and design standards (where applicable), and chapter specific topics. For example, Chapter 4, Land Use & Urban Design, includes the following sections: Purpose, Land Use Plan, Urban Design, Housing Plan, Uses, and Development and Design Standards. Whereas Chapter 6, Open Space, Landscaping & Public Art, includes: Purpose, Open Space and Trails Plan, Landscaping and Trees, and Public Art. The various sections of each chapter implement the community’s vision. Details of the various community outreach activities, including their dates, are included in Chapter 2, Introduction, of the FDCSP. The eight chapters are as follows:
Chapter 1, History & Disposition Process, documents the location, history of the FDC property and state law pertaining to operations and reuse of the site.
Chapter 2, Introduction, provides existing conditions, and the purpose, authority, and intent of the Specific Plan and summarizes the planning process, including community outreach.
Chapter 3, Vision & Guiding Principles, establishes the vision and guiding principles which serve as a guide for this Specific Plan and future development.
Chapter 4, Land Use & Urban Design, provides the conceptual land use plan, statistical summary, and objectives for housing developments and overall urban design on the Specific Plan site. It includes objective development and design standards.
Chapter 5, Mobility, describes the roadway network, including the different types of roadways and their requirements, bicycle and pedestrian connections, and intersections improvements.
Chapter 6, Open Space, Landscaping & Public Art, identifies the kinds of open space that will be incorporated within the Specific Plan area, and those that can be implemented as part of future development.
Chapter 7, Infrastructure & Public Services, provides information on the facilities and infrastructure needed to support future development, including electricity and natural gas, water and sewer, waste management, and nearby public services.
Chapter 8, Administration & Implementation, outlines the processes and procedures for development approvals as well as implementation of the Specific Plan, including conceptual phasing.
Implementation – Phasing and Subsequent Applications
Chapter 8 of the Specific Plan requires the Master Developer, once selected by the State of California, to file a Development Review Application with the City on the details for the entire site, including but not limited to:
The location and size of Planning Areas
Maximum number of units in each Planning Area
Backbone infrastructure (roadway, utilities, etc.)
Open space locations
Proposed phasing plans
Development projects
The City will review this application to ensure compliance with the Specific Plan. Subsequent development projects for individual Planning Areas would need to be consistent with the approved Development Review Application. Any proposal that involves City property, including the golf course or city land, must also be reviewed and decided upon by the City Council.
Implementation – Affordable Housing
With regard to affordable housing, the Specific Plan requires the Master Developer to submit an Affordable Housing Plan detailing how the requirements of the Specific Plan would be implemented. Details include, but are not limited to, location, structure, tenant, size/bedroom count of units, total number of affordable units, provisions for income certification and screening, financial of ongoing administrative and monitoring costs, fair housing marketing plan, and construction phasing plan schedule. The Affordable Housing Plan is subject to the approval of the Community Development Director or at the Director’s discretion, the Planning Commission.
Implementation – Future Development Impact Fees
A short-term implementation action is also identified within Chapter 8 for the City to conduct a nexus study to identify project specific impact and/or in-lieu fees related to the FDCSP future development. This study is currently under way, and it is anticipated to identify FDC project specific fees to be collected by the City for items such as public services (police, fire, libraries), traffic impacts, etc. The school district already collects fees for residential construction projects at a price per square foot and all developers would be required to pay those fees directly to the school district prior to building permits being issued by the City.
At the July Planning Commission study session, commissioners reviewed the Public Hearing Draft Specific Plan and provided comments related to internal consistency in the document. Accordingly, non-substantive amendments have been made to the draft which are depicted as strikethrough text which denotes text being removed, and underline text for text being added. These edits can be found in Chapter 4, Chapter 5, and Chapter 8, and are available at the following webpage: https://www.costamesaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/64123/639215145597715649.
In addition, map figures were updated to address misspelled words, and existing bus stops were added to Figure 5-16. Other edits made to the FDCSP included flexibility around Merrimac Way being considered the secondary access road in the event that future negotiations between the State and the Harbor Village operator allow for the opportunity to make Merrimac Way publicly accessible, rather than being limited to emergency only access. This edit was made by staff in response to public comments. No further edits to the FDCSP were requested by the Planning Commission during the August 10, 2026, hearing.
Specific Plan Revisions Subsequent to Planning Commission Recommendation After the August 10, 2026 Planning Commission hearing, staff made non-substantive edits to correct figures within the FDCSP where Victoria Street was inadvertently identified as Hamilton Avenue and incorporated other internal consistency updates within the FDCSP. For example, the “Purpose” sections of the FDCSP Chapters refer to the Guiding Principles found in Chapter 3 in some chapters, but it was not consistently applied throughout the document; the Economic and Development Services Department officially changed its name to Community Development Department so references were updated accordingly; and other miscellaneous edits were made for typographical nits, internal document references, and further alignments related to the Planning Commission at their July 27, 2026 study session to ensure hierarchy of priority for pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists. Staff corrected certain applications to ensure proper decision authority. Staff also incorporated language to ensure that the street sections identified within Chapter 5 could be modified if greater pedestrian and bicycle safety are proposed by the future Master Developer, in addition to making it clear that street furniture items are allowed within the future right-of-way parkways.
Other additional updates have been incorporated into the FDCSP for City Council consideration in response to public comments relating to the secondary access road as well as providing some clarity relating to “who” the affordable housing units in the affordable housing plan are for that meets the intent of State fair housing laws and goes beyond just the income levels. Under Chapter 8, Section 8.2.6.A, FDC Development Review Application, the following has been added:
16. Use of City-land, including any portion of the golf course, for an access road will require the Developer to enter into an agreement with the City that considers the following:
Result in the least possible changes or impact to existing uses; Developer-funded replacement or reconfiguration of impacted uses to a condition that considers prior conditions; Developer-funds all survey and design work, subject to City review and approval; The equivalent of the appraised value of City land to be directed to City public benefits; Construction schedule, staging, and coordination plan to be approved the City; The agreement may be a standalone agreement or in combination with another agreement.
Under Chapter 8, Section 8.2.6.E, Affordable Housing Plan and Density Bonus Program, the following has been incorporated into the plan to “set aside” a portion of the affordable housing units that meet applicable fair housing laws:
At least 10-20 percent of the affordable units shall be set aside for households who live or work in Costa Mesa with a priority for households that are first responders, teachers, public service employees, or seniors.
These edits provide additional clarity relating to these items that are being raised by the community for City Council consideration to either include, remove or modify them within the FDCSP. A tracked change version of the specific plan is available online where edits are depicted as strikethrough text which denotes text being removed, and underline text for text being added here: https://www.costamesaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/64770/639246341164296886 In addition, these edits are incorporated in Exhibit A of the draft Ordinance for City Council consideration.
Traffic Analysis
The City includes Level of Service (LOS) standards within the General Plan and has adopted Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines for the City. LOS is a transportation performance measure to determine how efficiently traffic moves through the roadway network and intersections within a City. LOS utilizes various “grades” that include the summary:
LOS A: Free-flow conditions. Little to no delay. Drivers move freely.
LOS B: Stable flow with slight delays. Minor restrictions noticeable.
LOS C: Still stable, but operations become more restricted. Speeds may drop.
LOS D: Approaching unstable. Significant delay and reduced speeds.
LOS E: Near capacity. Heavy congestion. Very low speeds. Reliable flow is no longer guaranteed.
LOS F: Breakdown. Stop‑and‑go conditions. Demand exceeds capacity.
LOS helps planners and engineers understand how much congestion exists, or will exist, when compared to existing and future conditions to evaluate a project and determine whether improvements are needed. The City’s LOS standards for all intersections are to retain an LOS D, or better. Appendix J.2 of the Draft EIR includes the transportation study that discusses LOS based on the project’s current 4,000 residential unit mix, non-residential uses, and 14 acres of open space.
The study looked at 26 intersections (15 of which are located on Harbor Boulevard) surrounding the project site, and utilized a traffic modeling tool as a standard best practice. The traffic model incorporated current traffic patterns, traffic patterns with the project, and cumulative traffic patterns which also include traffic growth associated with Housing Element sites. The results of the analysis during peak traffic conditions indicate that the intersections at Placentia Avenue and Victoria Street, and Harbor Boulevard and Fair Drive would operate at an LOS E, without intersection improvements. With the intersection improvements included in the FDCSP (Figure 5-14, Intersection Improvements), the LOS level will become LOS D or better at Harbor Boulevard and Fair Drive, which meets the City’s minimum acceptable LOS standard. For reference, the intersection of Fairview Road and Adams Avenue is an example of an LOS D intersection operating in the City today. The following table has been included in the response to comments in the DEIR, which shows the intersection LOS with improvements.
On August 10, 2026, the Planning Commission received a memorandum from staff which indicated that an illustration for Intersection No. 26 (Harbor Boulevard and Harbor Center) in Figure No. 3 and Figure No. 6 of the Appendix J.2 traffic analysis did not accurately render the lane geometry. The memorandum included revised exhibits with the applicable intersection clouded in red for Planning Commission that included incorporating this information as a part of their recommendation to the City Council. The memorandum has been included as an appendix in the revised Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations that was published to the City’s environmental notices webpage on August 20, 2026, which is included within the linked Exhibit A of the City Council draft Resolution to certify the FEIR.
Link to August 10, 2026 Memorandum to Planning Commission (See item labeled as PH-1):
https://costamesa.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=E2&ID=1432600&GUID=368A4788-EE0B-4CAC-B5E7-757496DB5EAB General Plan and Municipal Code Consistency
Government Code section 65300.5 mandates that General Plan elements, and parts thereof, be integrated, internally consistent, and include a compatible statement of policies for the adopting agency. Staff has confirmed that the proposed FDCSP is consistent with the goals and policies of the Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Noise, Safety and Open Space and Recreation Elements of the City’s General Plan. The Land Use Element is proposed to be amended to be consistent with the FDCSP by removing the existing general plan designation of Multi-use Center (MUC) throughout the Land Use Element and referring to the FDCSP. This change is proposed because the FDCSP establishes its own site-specific land use regulations. In addition, a new “Specific Plan” section is being added to the Land Use Element. Since the Southern Regional Emergency Operations Center (SREOC) is adjacent to the FDCSP, and per the City and State agreement, the SREOC’s land use designation is proposed to change from MUC to Public and Institutional. The Land Use Element amendments are included as Exhibit A to the draft Resolution relating to the Land Use Element, where strikethrough text denotes text being removed, and underline text denotes text being added. Exhibits depicting the existing and proposed land use map designations for the FDCSP, and the SREOC, are available as Exhibit B in the draft Resolution.
Since the MUC land use designation is being removed from the Land Use Element, the complimentary zoning designation for this land use designation must also be removed from the Zoning Code (Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code). Targeted amendments to the Zoning Code remove all references to the “Institutional and Recreational Multi-use” (I&R-MLT) Designation. In addition, a new chapter titled “Specific Plans” is proposed to be added to the Zoning Code and refers to the FDCSP, but it will also list Costa Mesa’s other adopted specific plans. This Zoning Code amendment allows the FDCSP to be implemented and supersede other zoning code requirements where there may be inconsistencies. This is due to the FDCSP incorporating its own site-specific zoning regulations (setbacks, heights, open space standards, etc.). Since the SREOC has a zoning designation of I&R-MLT, the site will be rezoned to “Institutional Recreational,” which is a zoning designation that is consistent with the SREOC operations. The Zoning Code amendments are included in the draft Ordinance as Exhibit B, where strikethrough text denotes text being removed, and underline text denotes text being added. Exhibits depicting the existing and proposed zoning map designations for the FDCSP, and the SREOC, are included in Exhibit C.
The proposed amendments to the Land Use Element and Zoning Code bring these documents into internal consistency and are therefore consistent with the purposes of the General Plan and Municipal Code. The General Plan and Zoning Code amendments associated with the FDCSP were made available for review on July 17, 2026.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS:
The City issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) on October 29, 2025, which started the environmental review process for the FDCSP. The NOP was available from October 29, 2025, through December 5, 2025. A public scoping meeting was also held on November 17, 2025. The purpose of the NOP is to notify potential Responsible Agencies (Agencies) that the City, as Lead Agency, plans to prepare an EIR for the project and to solicit comments and suggestions regarding (1) the scope and content of the EIR and (2) the environmental issues and alternatives to be considered in the EIR, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (CEQA Guidelines) (Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations) section 15082. The NOP also provides agencies, organizations, tribes, and interested parties of the preparation of the EIR and requests for comments on the scope and contents of the environmental document. The NOP was submitted to the State Clearinghouse per statute, and the following project number was assigned: SCH No. 2025101405. All subsequent project related environmental documents can be accessed on the State Clearinghouse webpage utilizing this project number.
A Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was issued on May 14, 2026, which began a 48-day public review and comment period that began on May 14, 2026, and concluded on July 1, 2026, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092 and CEQA Guidelines section 15087. The DEIR was prepared to analyze potential impacts of the project and identify measures to mitigate the environmental effects. The DEIR determined that the proposed project would result in potentially significant impacts related to the following environmental topics: air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, transportation, and tribal cultural resources. In addition, the DEIR describes and evaluates project alternatives that may reduce or avoid any identified significant adverse impacts of the project. Topics that could not be mitigated to less than significant include air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, and greenhouse gas emissions.
Responses to public comments on the DEIR are included in the Final EIR (FEIR). The FEIR incorporates text edits made to the DEIR that are shown in double underlined text. In addition, the public comments do not warrant recirculation of the EIR and response to public comments are included. Those who submitted comments were notified that the FEIR was available according to statutory requirements and the FEIR was included for Planning Commission recommendation to City Council to certify the FEIR and adopt the statement of overriding considerations.
The DEIR identified that the FDCSP project would result in the following:
No Impact or Less than Significant Impact
Significant Impacts that can be Mitigated to Less than Significant Impact Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
Aesthetics
Geology and Soils
Air Quality
Energy
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Biological Resources
Hydrology and Water Quality
Noise
Cultural Resources
Land Use and Planning
Transportation
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Population and Housing
Tribal Cultural Resources
Public Services
Recreation
Utilities and Service Systems
Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
The DEIR includes an Executive Summary that contains Table ES-2, Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures, which identifies all of the potentially significant and significant impacts that can be mitigated to a level that is less than significant with mitigation measures incorporated, and significant and unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated to a level that is less than significant with mitigation measures incorporated. A summary of the significant and unavoidable impacts are discussed below.
Air Quality: The DEIR found that the FDCSP would cumulatively contribute to air quality impacts with all new future development (residential and non-residential) that results in cumulative construction and operational criteria pollutant emissions. This is due to nonattainment designations in the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB) and inconsistency with the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (South Coast AQMD’s) Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) (Impact AIR-1), short-term emissions that exceed the South Coast AQMD’s thresholds during construction (Impact AIR-2), long-term emissions exceed South Coast AQMD’s thresholds and cumulative contribution to the SoCAB’s nonattainment designations (Impact AIR-3), sensitive receptors being exposed to pollutant concentrations (Impact AIR-4), and cumulative impacts would be cumulatively considerable (Impact AIR-5). Each of these identified impacts include mitigation measures that reduce the overall impact, but not to a level that is less than significant.
Biological Resources: The DEIR found that the FDCSP may impact an aquatic resource (potential wetland) if the off-site improvements that may be needed in relation to the secondary access road at the Costa Mesa Country Club affect the man-made pond on the Mesa Linda Golf Course (Impact BIO-2). The biological report notes that the man-made pond may be a wetland and would need to go through an aquatic resource delineation process with appropriate state and federal agencies. The other biological resource impacts (Impact BIO-1 and Impact BIO-3) indicate that the impacts would be reduced to a level that is less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Impact BIO-1 requires on-site surveys to be completed prior to construction activities commence for specific flora and fauna due to presence of suitable habitat on the FDC site. Impact BIO-3 requires compliance with Migratory Bird Treaty Act and pre-construction surveys are required to be conducted during the bird nesting season prior to commencement of construction activities, or avoidance during the bird nesting season.
Cultural Resources: The DEIR found that the FDCSP would result in the loss of a historic resource. The FDC site as a whole (buildings and internal walking paths) contribute cumulatively towards a historic district designation, even though the individual buildings themselves are not identified as a historic resource. The FDCSP envisions the complete redevelopment of the property that will result in the buildings being demolished, as well as the walking paths. This results in a significant and unavoidable impact. Mitigation measures include the completion of a Historic American Building Survey (HABS) with a scaled district map, detailed description of the site with historic narrative, and high-resolution digital photographs of the site. In addition, the FDCSP incorporates a requirement that at a minimum, three interpretive panels be placed on the site during redevelopment that explain the site’s history (Impact CUL-1). Other cultural resource impacts (Impact CUL-2 and Impact CUL-3) indicate that the impacts would be reduced to a level that is less than significant with mitigation incorporated in relation to site grading and construction activities. The mitigation measures include archaeological monitoring and procedures for inadvertent discoveries that may arise during construction.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The DEIR found that the operation of the FDCSP project would cumulatively increase Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions that exceed the South Coast AQMD thresholds (Impact GHG-1 and Impact GHG-2) and mitigation measures will not reduce the impact to a level that is less than significant. Mitigation measures utilize the Air Quality mitigation measures because both of these topics overlap.
CEQA Alternatives
The DEIR evaluated the proposed project against three alternatives including a No Project Alternative, General Plan buildout with no specific plan (minimum 2,300 residential units from the Housing Element), and adaptive reuse of the Historic District. Chapter 4 of the DEIR includes a more detailed description of each alternative. The DEIR identified the adaptive reuse of the Historic District as the environmentally superior alternative, but it would not meet all of the City’s goals and would not eliminate any of the significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the project, though it would likely reduce the severity. The DEIR notes that this alternative would still result in the demolition of buildings and alterations to walking paths to accommodate the redevelopment, but it does not improve connectivity and mobility and only partially enhances open space and recreation. As such, a statement of overriding considerations is included for justification for the City to continue to move forward with the current project and opt not to pursue the Historic District alternative studied under the FEIR.
All applicable environmental documents referenced above (NOP, NOA, DEIR and FEIR) are available on the following City webpage:
https://www.costamesaca.gov/government/departments-and-divisions/community-development/planning/environmental-notices-and-reports ALTERNATIVES:
Maximum Units Allowed by Specific Plan
The July 27, 2026, Planning Commission study session and August 10, 2026, Planning Commission hearing included the financial feasibility analysis that was completed as a part of the planning process for the FDCSP. This study is required under statute, specifically, the planning process must address the “economic feasibility of future development” (section 14670.31(c)(1)), “maximize interested third-party potential purchases” (section 14670.31(c)(2)) and an explicit intent to “provide certainty for the community and a potential developer” (section 14670.31(c)(2)) as indicated in the DGS letter from July 2, 2026. Accordingly, Concept No. 2 (3,450 units) and Concept No. 3 (4,000 units) from the financial feasibility analysis (https://costamesa.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=15709362&GUID=D5AF92F2-BFE5-4D6D-93E7-7F691E7B80A5) indicates that the likely feasible development threshold is between 3,500 and 4,000 residential units.
The Planning Commission and City Council directed studying up to 4,000 units for the purpose of identifying and understanding the potential environmental impacts and ensuring mitigation and appropriate standards within the FDCSP. The Planning Commission subsequently recommended City Council approve a specific plan with a 4,000 maximum unit count at their August 10, 2026 meeting. However, the City Council could approve of a specific plan that is less than 4,000 but equal to or greater than 3,500 units. For relevant comparison, in terms of existing projects located within the Costa Mesa community, the Baker Block project located at 125 Baker Street East, Costa Mesa, is 58 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) and Halcyon House, located at 585 Anton Boulevard, Costa Mesa, is 81 du/ac. At 4,000 units, the development density would be 50 du/ac. 3,800 Unit Alternative
Assuming 3,800 units, which is 48 dwelling units (rounded up) per gross acre (80 acres), an estimated addition of 2 acres of ground level open space could be provided in the FDCSP. This unit range would be consistent with the City’s affordable housing goals identified in the Housing Element for the FDC site and is also consistent with the statutory requirement to provide a financially feasible plan. This unit alternative is consistent with legislation, the Agreement with the State and meets the Housing Element certification criteria outlined by HCD in the August 21, 2026 letter. 3,500 Unit Alternative
Assuming 3,500 units, which is approximately 44 dwelling units (rounded up) per gross acre (80 acres), an estimated additional 5 acres of ground level open space could potentially be provided in the FDCSP. This alternative is still financially viable and could potentially provide additional open space, as identified as a need and priority through community input. This unit alternative is consistent with legislation, the Agreement with the State and meets the Housing Element certification criteria outlined by HCD in the August 21, 2026 letter.
The above alternatives are the City’s best estimates at trade-offs with reducing the residential unit count and increasing the amount of potential ground level open space, based on estimated acreage of planning areas shown in Figure 1. The alternative options are still based on prior analyses and fall within the range studied. As such, the City Council may choose to recommend a lower residential unit count. 2,300 Unit Alternative
Questions have been raised about the feasibility of a 2,300-unit development. As noted in the report, the FDC site at 2,300 units with 920 affordable lower-income units is consistent with the City’s adopted Housing Element. The 2,300-unit alternative does not meet the industry standard for the internal rate of return (15 percent) and is therefore not financially feasible. Any alternative that reduces the number of affordable units for the FDC site would require an amendment to the Housing Element, would significantly reduce the buffer for lower-income housing citywide (currently at 454 units or 10 percent) and would risk HCD certification of the City’s Housing Element. The 2,300-unit alternative would likely propel a developer to utilize State density bonus law to achieve additional units to make the project more financially feasible. A secondary access road is still required under this unit alternative. In addition, this unit alternative is not consistent with legislation, or the Agreement with the State.
Figure 1: FDC Planning Areas and Acreage
FISCAL REVIEW:
There are no direct fiscal impacts associated with the adoption of the FDCSP. The City received State Grant Funds (Fund 231) in the amount of $3.5 million from the State of California Department of Development Services in 2023, of which approximately $3.1 million has been expended or committed as of this Council Agenda date. Additional FDCSP expenses related to the environmental study and other eligible expenses will be funded from the remaining grant funds, which currently have a balance of approximately $0.4 million.
LEGAL REVIEW:
The City Attorney has reviewed the report, resolutions and ordinance and has approved them as to form.
PUBLIC NOTICE:
Pursuant to Title 13, Section 13-29(d), of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code, three types of public notification have been completed no less than 10 days prior to the date of the public hearing:
Mailed notice. A public notice was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 500-foot radius of the project site on Wednesday, September 2, 2026. The required notice radius is measured from the external boundaries of the FDCSP boundary.
On-site posting. A public notice was posted on each street frontage of the project site on Friday, September 4, 2026.
Newspaper publication. A public notice was published once in the Daily Pilot newspaper on Friday, September 4, 2026.
Any public comments received for the September 15, 2026, City Council meeting, may be viewed at this link: CITY OF COSTA MESA - Calendar (legistar.com) CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES:
The FDCSP meets the following City Council Goals and Priorities:
Diversify, stabilize and increase housing to reflect community needs.
Strengthen the public’s safety and improve the quality of life.
Advance environmental sustainability and climate resiliency.
CONCLUSION:
Staff recommends that the City Council move forward with the Planning Commission’s recommended action to certify the FEIR and adopt Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, adopt the FDCSP and the associated General Plan and Zoning Code amendments for internal consistency identified within this report and its associated attachments. The City Council could approve the Planning Commission’s recommendation to adopt the FDCSP with a 4,000 unit maximum or identify a maximum unit threshold that is less than 4,000 units to incorporate into the FDCSP, as discussed under the alternatives section above.
The FDC site is a Housing Element Site with a minimum of 2,300 residential units (920 lower-income units, 690 moderate-income units, and 690 above moderate-income units).
The reduction in units does not result in changes to the EIR.
Item #: 26-381 Meeting Date: 9/15/2026