and the residential activities of the household are conducted on a nonprofit basis. There is a rebuttable presumption that integral facilities do not constitute single housekeeping un,ts. Additional indicia that a household is not operating as a single housekeeping unit include but are not limited to: the occupants do not share a lease agreement or ownership of the property; members of the household have separate, private entrances from other members; members of the household have locks on their bedroom doors; members of the household have separate food storage facilities, such as separate refrigerators. '' The house rules submitted as part of the Operator's Permit for this property make it clear that the facility is not operated as a Single Housekeeping Unit as defined above. • Residents purchase and prepare their own food. Each resident has a designated area for food storage.
• Daily chores are assigned by the house manager.
• Rent is collected from each resident.
• The rental agreement covers one month, indicating that membership in the household is transient.
• Visitors must be approved by the Facility Manager.
• Residents must take direction from the staff.
• Occupancy of the units is determined by The Ohio House staff, not the residents of the facility.
The CMMC specifies that a minimum separation of 650 feet shall be provided between group homes, residential care facilities and/or state licensed drug and alcohol facilities.
The subject property is within approximately 500 feet of a sober living facility located at 165 E. Wilson. This facility has an existing CUP (PA-16-03) to serve more than six individuals and is located on the same street as the subject property, one block to the east.
Requirements of Section 13-311 of the CMMC are cited in your letter. However, this section of the Code applies to the operation of group homes located in single-family zones. The subject property is located in the R2-MD zoning district. Therefore, the regulations set forth in Section 9-374 of the CMMC regarding Operator's Permits apply to the property. Many of the requirements for operation of group homes in single family zones also apply to those operated in multi-family zones.
In single family zones, the size of a group home is limited to six or fewer occupants, not counting the house manager. In a multi-family zone, there is no such limitation on the number of residents in a group home, except that those serving seven or more residents are required to obtain a conditional use permit (CUP). Therefore, there is no need for the City to waive the provisions regarding the size of a group home, as requested in your letter.
The operator of a group home may request reasonable accommodation when compliance with all City standards is not possible. Section 13-200.62 (f) of the Zoning Code sets forth the required findings to be used in the determination to approve, conditionally approve, or 532
OH_CM000462
Steven Polin
November 27, 2017
deny a request for reasonable accommodation. The Code specifies that all findings must be made to approve such a request. Based on the information submitted, the City cannot approve any of your requests for reasonable accommodation, as all the required findings described below cannot be made.
o The requested accommodation is requested by or on the behalf of one (1) or more individuals with a disability protected under the fair housing laws.
I accept that this application was submitted on behalf of persons who are considered disabled under state and federal law.
o The requested accommodation is necessary to provide one (1) or more individuals with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.
The application explains the benefits of allowing those recovering from alcoholism and substance abuse to live in a setting that offers a self-paced recovery option that provides sufficient time for personal psychological growth while avoiding the use of alcohol and other substances. The City recognizes that while not in character with residential neighborhoods, when operated responsibly, group homes, including sober living homes, provide a societal benefit by providing disabled persons the opportunity to live in residential neighborhoods. These facilities provide recovery programs for individuals attempting to overcome their drug and alcohol addictions. The City has established separation criteria to ensure that an overconcentration of sober living homes and licensed drug and alcohol treatment facilities does not occur in any neighborhood, thereby, preserving the residential character for all who choose to reside there.
The application established that the waiver of the separation requirement would allow one or more individuals who are recovering from drug and alcohol abuse to enjoy the use of these dwellings. However, approval of the request is not necessary to allow one or more individuals who are recovering from drug and alcohol abuse to enjoy the use of 2 dwelling within the City.
The operation of a group home is inconsistent with the City's definition of a single housekeeping unit. The City has established procedures to allow group homes in residential neighborhoods; allowing a group home to be considered as a single housekeeping unit is not necessary to allow the disabled to reside in residential neighborhoods.
The City has adopted standards for sober living homes and licensed treatment facilities in residential zones to ensure the disabled have the opportunity to live in a typical residential neighborhood. The permit process ensures that sober living homes and licensed treatment facilities comply with the City's standards. The City specifically required all existing group homes to comply with the new regulations within one year.
Your letter fails to provide a basis to "grandfather" this facility when all other facilities in operation at the time the regulations were adopted are also required to comply. 533
OH_CM000463
Steven Polin
November 27, 2017
o 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.
There is no evidence that approval of this request will impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the City.
o The requested accommodation is consistent with surrounding uses in scale and intensity of use.
The subject facility does not operate as a single housekeeping unit, or even five single housekeeping units, making it dissimilar to the composition of households on surrounding properties. The facility is occupied solely by adults at a higher occupancy than is typical in Costa Mesa. Each resident is allowed to keep a car on the property, providing opportunities for parking conflicts with owners of nearby properties who also rely on on-street parking. The City's intent in adopting its group home regulations was to ensure an overconcentration of group homes did not occur in any neighborhood.
The facility would contribute to overconcentration given that it includes five units on five individual lots.
o 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.
There is no evidence that approval of this request would result in a direct threat to the health or safety of anyone, or substantial physical damage to the property of others.
o 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.
The applicant did not cite economic viability as a factor in requesting an accommodation to consider the facility as a single housekeeping unit, or to waive the separation standard between facilities serving those in recovery. No economic justification was provided to justify the waiver of compliance with other standards that apply to all sober living homes.
o Whether the existing supply of facilities of a similar nature and operation in the community is sufficient to provide individuals with a disability an equal opportunity to live in a residential setting.
534
OH_CM000464
Steven Polin
November 27, 2017
The City has received applications for 66 sober living homes and 11 licensed treatment facilities that are subject to compliance with Ordinance Nos. 14-13 and 15-
11. Twelve ( 12) sober living homes serving six or fewer residents have been approved by the City, and one sober living home serving 13 men has been approved. In addition, there are 63 state-licensed drug and alcohol residential treatment facilities in Costa Mesa that are not subject to the Special Use Permit requirements, or have already obtained the required conditional use permit. No evidence has been submitted to indicate that the number of sober living homes and drug and alcohol facilities existing or potentially allowed in compliance with the City's standards is inadequate.
o The requested accommodation will not result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of the city's zoning program.
Ordinance 15-11 established requirements for sober living homes, group homes and licensed drug and alcohol treatment facilities in multi-family zoning districts. When the City Council adopted this ordinance, it specifically included a provision requiring a separation of at least 650 feet between such facilities. The intent of this limitation is to ensure that sober living facilities do not occupy a disproportionate number of homes in any neighborhood, and to avoid overconcentration of sober living units in any area.
The City also sought to ensure that disabled persons recovering from addiction can reside in a comfortable residential environment versus in an institutional setting. The City determined that housing inordinately large numbers of unrelated adults In a single dwelling or congregating sober living homes in close proximity to each other does not provide the disabled with an opportunity to "live in normal residential surroundings," but rather places them into living environments bearing more in common with the types of institutional/campus/dormitory living that the state and federal laws were designed to avoid. The subject property consists of five units on five individual lots, which already contributes to an overconcentration of sober living homes in the area.
The site's proximity to another sober living home serving more than six adults contributes to an overconcentration of sober living facilities in this neighborhood.
Granting the accommodation to consider this facility as a single housekeeping unit, and/or to waive the separation standard, will result in an overconcentration of sober living facilities in this area.
When the City adopted Ordinance 15-11, it specifically included provisions requiring all existing group home operators to come into compliance with the new regulations within one year of their adoption. The ordinance did not create or recognize any nonconforming uses. Given the intent of the ordinance, it is not appropriate to grant your requested accommodation to be "grandfathered" and exempt from compliance with the current regulations.
The application for reasonable accommodation failed to justify any reason to waive compliance with the provisions of Section 9-37 4(b )( 11) of the CMMC that require the applicant to have a house manager; ensure all occupants, other than the house manager, are actively participating in legitimate recovery programs; prohibit the use 535
OH_CM000465
Steven Polin
November 27, 2017
of any alcohol or non-prescription drugs by any recovering addict; have a policy regarding use and storage of prescription medications; post house rules in a common area inside the dwelling unit; prohibit visitors who are under the influence of any drug or alcohol; and maintain a good neighbor policy.
The City carefully crafted regulations to allow group homes, including sober living homes and licensed treatment facilities, to be located in residential neighborhoods. The intent of these regulations is to ensure that facilities maintain compatibility with the residential neighborhood in which they are situated, and to ensure that the disabled are able to live in normal residential settings. The approval of this request will contribute to an overconcentration of sober living units in this neighborhood. The application did not include adequate information to allow me to make all of the required findings set forth in the CMMC. Therefore, your request for a reasonable accommodation has been denied.
This determination may be appealed. An appeal must be filed with the City Clerk within seven (7) days of the date of this decision. A fee of $1,220.00 must accompany an appeal. If no appeal is filed by 5:00 p.m. on December 4, 2017, this decision shall be final.
Please contact Sheri Vander Dussen, consultant to the City, at (714)754-5230 if you have any questions regarding this decision or the appeal process.
Barry Curtis, AICP
Economic and Development Services Director
c: Brandon Stump, The Ohio House
234 2nd St., Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Tarquin Preziosi, Assistant City Attorney
Katie Angel, Management Analyst
Sheri Vander Dussen, Consultant
File: PA-17-10
536
EXHIBIT 16
537
Record_ID Legal Name Program Name Facility Address Type of Application Service Type Resident Capacity Target Population 300067AP NANCY CLARK AND ASSOCIATES, INC. THE RECOVERY CENTER 1110 VICTORIA STREET Licensed RES 38 CO-ED 300121AN YELLOWSTONE WOMEN'S FIRST STEP HOUSE, INC. YELLOWSTONE, WROC 3132 BOSTON WAY Licensed RES 13 MEN ONLY 300121LN YELLOWSTONE WOMEN'S FIRST STEP HOUSE, INC. YELLOWSTONE RECOVERY - EAST HOUSE 590 TRAVERSE DRIVE Licensed RES 6 CO-ED 300270CP HOTEL CALIFORNIA BY THE SEA, LLC HOTEL CALIFORNIA BY THE SEA, LLC 1509 ORANGE AVENUE, #A Licensed RES 6 CO-ED 300270DP HOTEL CALIFORNIA BY THE SEA, LLC HOTEL CALIFORNIA BY THE SEA 317 ROCHESTER STREET Licensed RES 6 CO-ED 300007LN NEW DIRECTIONS FOR WOMEN, INC. NEW DIRECTIONS FOR WOMEN 2601, 2603, 2607 WILLO LANE and 334 UNIVERSITY AVE Licensed RES-DETOX 36 WOMEN ONLY 300012BN SOUTH COAST COUNSELING, INC. SOUTH COAST COUNSELING, INC. 693 PLUMER STREET Licensed RES-DETOX 15 CO-ED 300043BP ASANA RECOVERY ASANA RECOVERY 3062 JOHNSON AVENUE Licensed RES-DETOX 6 CO-ED 300121FN YELLOWSTONE WOMEN'S FIRST STEP HOUSE, INC. THE YELLOWSTONE BRIDGE 2028 FULLERTON AVENUE, Units A, B & C Licensed RES-DETOX 16 CO-ED 300121BN YELLOWSTONE WOMEN'S FIRST STEP HOUSE, INC. YELLOWSTONE (WOMEN'S RECOVERY OF CALIFORNIA) 154, 160 EAST BAY STREET Licensed RES-DETOX 12 CO-ED 300313JP SOUTH COAST BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SOUTH COAST BEHAVIORAL HEALTH 559 PIERPONT DRIVE Licensed RES-DETOX 6 CO-ED 300313MP SOUTH COAST BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SOUTH COAST BEHAVIORAL HEALTH 3125, 3129 PIERCE AVE Licensed RES-DETOX 12 CO-ED 300326BP CASA CAPRI LLC CASA CAPRI RECOVERY 671, 675, 679, 687 GOVERNOR STREET Licensed RES-DETOX 24 WOMEN ONLY 300382BP KKB HEALTH SOLUTIONS, LLC CLEAR LIFE RECOVERY 2822 MONTEREY AVENUE Licensed RES-DETOX 6 CO-ED 300394BP TEAGLE HALL LLC WINDWARD WAY RECOVERY 395 VICTORIA STREET Licensed RES-DETOX 6 CO-ED 300394CP TEAGLE HALL LLC WINDWARD WAY RECOVERY 2136 THURIN STREET, Unit B Licensed RES-DETOX 6 CO-ED 300394FP TEAGLE HALL LLC WINDWARD WAY RECOVERY 2136 THURIN STREET, Unit A Licensed RES-DETOX 6 CO-ED 300394DP TEAGLE HALL LLC WINDWARD WAY RECOVERY 2137 DOCTORS CIRCLE, Unit A Licensed RES-DETOX 6 CO-ED 538
Record_ID Legal Name Program Name Facility Address Type of Application Service Type Resident Capacity Target Population 300394EP TEAGLE HALL LLC WINDWARD WAY RECOVERY 2137 DOCTORS CIRCLE, Unit B Licensed RES-DETOX 6 CO-ED 300412BP RECOVERY SOLUTIONS, LLC SADDLEBACK RECOVERY 209, 211 E. 18TH STREET Licensed RES-DETOX 12 CO-ED 300028AP OPUS HEALTH, LLC OPUS HEALTH, LLC 925 VICTORIA STREET and 2738 LORENZO AVE Licensed and Certified RES-DETOX 12 CO-ED 300043DP ASANA RECOVERY ASANA RECOVERY 3073 MADISON AVE Licensed and Certified RES-DETOX 6 FAMILIES 300154RP SAFE HARBOR TREATMENT CENTER FOR WOMEN, INC. THE HARBOR 240 KNOX STREET Licensed and Certified RES-DETOX 6 CO-ED 300154NP SAFE HARBOR TREATMENT CENTER FOR WOMEN, INC. SAFE HARBOR TREATMENT CENTER FOR WOMEN, INC. 546, 548, 550A, 550B BERNARD STREET Licensed and Certified RES-DETOX 20 CO-ED 300154SP SAFE HARBOR TREATMENT CENTER FOR WOMEN, INC. SAFE HARBOR TREATMENT CENTER 236 KNOX STREET Licensed and Certified RES-DETOX 6 CO-ED 300269AP DIVINE BLISS THE HO TAI WAY 1219 PARNELL PLACE Licensed and Certified RES-DETOX 6 CO-ED 300297CP AKUA BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, INC. AKUA MIND & BODY 369 RALCAM PLACE Licensed and Certified RES-DETOX 6 CO-ED 300394AP TEAGLE HALL LLC WINDWARD WAY RECOVERY 316 HAMILTON STREET Licensed and Certified RES-DETOX 6 CO-ED 300423AP JJLT HOLDINGS LLC OCEAN COAST RECOVERY CENTER 1799 HUMMINGBIRD DRIVE Licensed and Certified RES-DETOX 6 DUAL DIAGNOSIS 300438AP EMBRACE TREATMENT LLC EMBRACE TREATMENT LLC 1912 SUMBA CIRCLE Licensed and Certified RES-DETOX 6 CO-ED 300647AP AKUA BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, INC. AKUA MIND & BODY 326, 328 UNIVERSITY DRIVE Licensed and Certified RES-DETOX 12 MEN ONLY 300647CP AKUA BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, INC. AKUA MIND & BODY 319- A UNIVERSITY DR. Licensed and Certified RES-DETOX 6 CO-ED 300647DP AKUA BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, INC. AKUA MIND & BODY 319- B UNIVERSITY DR. Licensed and Certified RES-DETOX 6 CO-ED 300778BP RENU HEALTHCARE, LLC RENU HEALTHCARE 1008 W WILSON ST., Suite B Licensed and Certified RES-DETOX 6 CO-ED 300778AP RENU HEALTHCARE, LLC RENU HEALTHCARE 1008 W WILSON ST, Suite B Licensed and Certified RES-DETOX 6 CO-ED 300626EP ELITE CARE, INC. BEGINNINGS TREATMENT CENTERS 930, 934 MAGELLAN STREET Licensed RES-DETOX 12 CO-ED 539
EXHIBIT 17
540
Ohio House v. City of Costa Mesa Nancy Clark
LINDA RYAN REPORTING (714) 457-5810
2 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3 THE OHIO HOUSE LLC, )
)
4 Plaintiff, )
) CASE NO.
5 vs. ) 8:19-cv-01710-JVS
) GJS
6 CITY OF COSTA MESA, a )
)
7 Defendant. )
______________________________)
8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11 INSIGHT PSYCHOLOGY AND )
ADDICTION, INC., et al., )
12 )
Plaintiffs, )
13 ) CASE NO.
vs. ) 8:20-cv-00504-JVS
14 ) (JDEx)
CITY OF COSTA MESA, et al., )
15 )
Defendants, )
16 ______________________________)
)
17 AND RELATED ACTION. )
______________________________)
18 19 Videotaped/Videoconferenced Deposition of NANCY
20 CLARK, taken on behalf of Insight Psychology and
21 Addiction, Inc., Mary Helen Beatificato, Gerald Grosso, 22 and Ohio House, commencing at 9:39 a.m. and ending
23 at 3:26 p.m. on Monday, November 15, 2021, before LAURA 24 L. CORNING, Federal Certified Realtime Reporter,
25 Certified Shorthand Reporter No. 8363.
541
Ohio House v. City of Costa Mesa Nancy Clark
LINDA RYAN REPORTING (714) 457-5810
7 1 Irvine, California
2 Monday, November 15, 2021
3 9:39 a.m. - 3:26 p.m.
4 (At this time Ms. Beatificato was not
5 present in the Zoom deposition proceedings.)
6 7 PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT THE DISMANTLING AND/OR UNBINDING 8 OF THE ORIGINAL TRANSCRIPT WILL VOID THE CERTIFICATION OF 9 THE CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER, FEDERAL CERTIFIED
10 REALTIME REPORTER, AND NULLIFY THE INTEGRITY OF THE
11 ORIGINAL TRANSCRIPT.
12 13 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're on the record. My
14 name is Gary Wade. I am a videographer employed by Wade 15 Enterprises located at 166 North Eckoff Street, Orange, 16 California. This is the video recording of the
17 deposition of Nancy Clark. We are starting at
18 approximately 9:39 a.m. on November 15th, 2021 via remote 19 videoconference. This is the matter of Insight
20 Psychology and Addiction, Inc., et al., versus City of 21 Costa Mesa, et al., and The Ohio House versus City of 22 Costa Mesa. Case numbers are 8:20-cv-00504-JVS (JDEx) 23 and Case Number 8:19-cv-01710-JVS GJS. This deposition 24 is taken on behalf of the plaintiff.
25 May we have the introductions beginning with
542
Ohio House v. City of Costa Mesa Nancy Clark
LINDA RYAN REPORTING (714) 457-5810
8 1 the witness? Can you please state your name.
2 THE WITNESS: Nancy Clark.
3 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Thank you.
4 Counsel?
5 MR. LEE: This is Christopher Lee on behalf of
6 the City of Costa Mesa.
7 MS. PATTERSON: Ms. Anderson, do you want to
8 introduce yourself? Okay. I'll go next.
9 Good morning. Alisha Patterson, Rutan and
10 Tucker, on behalf of Plaintiff and Counterdefendant
11 Insight Psychology and Addiction, Inc. and
12 Counterdefendants Mary Helen Beatificato and Dr. Gerald 13 Grosso.
14 MS. HASSAN: Good morning. Zeenat Hassan with
15 Disability Rights California for Plaintiff Jane doe. 16 MS. PATTERSON: Ms. Anderson, are you there?
17 MR. LEE: Ashley Anderson for Everett Dorey,
18 also counsel for City of Costa Mesa.
19 NANCY CLARK,
20 having been first duly sworn to state the whole truth, 21 testified as follows:
22 EXAMINATION
23 BY MS. PATTERSON:
24 Q. Good morning, Ms. Clark.
25 A. Good morning.
543
Ohio House v. City of Costa Mesa Nancy Clark
LINDA RYAN REPORTING (714) 457-5810
154
1 One of the -- one of the fraudulent situations
2 that's been taking place is that insurance will pay for 3 IOP -- outpatient treatment -- for a lot longer than
4 residential. So many of these facilities were using
5 insurance money to pay for the sober living of a person 6 living -- who was enrolled in their outpatient program, 7 and that's not legal.
8 Q. So I want to take these one at a time.
9 Do you think there's a sufficient amount of,
10 what you're calling, traditional sober living in Costa 11 Mesa to meet the needs of the community?
12 A. Well, when my people graduate, they're
13 hard-pressed to find an affordable living situation in 14 Costa Mesa. Many of them have to move to Santa Ana or 15 less expensive places to live.
16 Q. Are the people who graduate from your program
17 looking for traditional sober living?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And what about sober living connected to an
20 IOP? Do you think that there is a sufficient amount of 21 that in Costa Mesa to meet the need?
22 A. I -- I really don't know about that, because
23 those would not be sober livings to which I would refer 24 people.
25 Q. So when you have Opinion Number 4 about how
544
Ohio House v. City of Costa Mesa Nancy Clark
LINDA RYAN REPORTING (714) 457-5810
156
1 THE WITNESS: I don't think there's anything
2 the City of Costa Mesa could do. The reality is that the 3 price of housing in Costa Mesa has gone up so much
4 that -- I mean, they're selling million dollar condos in 5 Costa Mesa. So, you know, the days of where I rented a 6 four-bedroom house for 1200 a month are long gone.
7 Q. (By Ms. Patterson) Is that a problem beyond
8 just recovery industry housing?
9 A. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I rented a sober living
10 home for $1200 a month, and I -- I charged 400 to 500 11 dollars per person.
12 Q. So if a facility that was operating before the
13 group home regulations went into effect was then told 14 you're going to need to move because we have regulations 15 now and you're within 650 feet of another center and 16 that's a conflict, do you think that that facility would 17 be able -- or that housing would be able to find an
18 alternate site in this market?
19 MR. LEE: Objection to form.
20 THE WITNESS: No, I don't.
21 Q. (By Ms. Patterson) And your report throughout
22 uses the term "overcrowded," and I want to understand 23 what you mean when you say "overcrowded" in your report. 24 A. You mean overconcentration?
25 Q. So I'm going to get to that one too. I want
545
Ohio House v. City of Costa Mesa Nancy Clark
LINDA RYAN REPORTING (714) 457-5810
182
1 Q. Was that one an area where it was
2 overconcentrated? Was there more than one recovery
3 residence?
4 A. Yes. Yes.
5 Q. Did all of the recovery residences have this
6 issue where walls and kitchens had been removed?
7 A. All the ones owned by these people did.
8 Q. Did the same people own a whole bunch of
9 different buildings on the same street?
10 A. They did.
11 Q. They did?
12 And how many buildings would you say there
13 were?
14 A. They probably owned at least three or four,
15 but they have since been shut down.
16 Q. Okay. I can't remember the name of it. Are
17 you aware of any areas in Costa Mesa that feel
18 institutionalized due to group homes?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Do you know if Insight's housing is in an area
21 that feels institutionalized?
22 A. I only drove by it once, and I -- I don't -- I
23 don't -- that wasn't my impression.
24 Q. What about Ohio House's housing? Does that
25 area feel institutionalized?
546
Ohio House v. City of Costa Mesa Nancy Clark
LINDA RYAN REPORTING (714) 457-5810
183
1 A. I have not driven by Ohio House, but in the
2 area where I think it is, no.
3 Q. Do you know what year you drove by Insight's
4 housing? Would it have been after 2017?
5 A. Oh, this has been within the last -- I want to
6 say, within the last year.
7 Q. Oh, okay. And I want to circle back just a
8 little more to normal residential environments.
9 I think you describe the average person being
10 somebody who goes to work and drops their kids off at 11 school. Is that what you're envisioning as a normal
12 residential environment is households like that?
13 A. Households where people, you know, get up in
14 the morning and get dressed and go to work and are gone 15 significant portions of the day, as opposed to an area 16 where people are retired and -- older people are retired 17 and home all day. To me, a normal residential
18 environment is, you know, people who live somewhere, and 19 they live there for some period of time.
20 Q. So if a household has people who are retired
21 and they don't work, does that fit into your idea of a 22 normal household?
23 A. Well, I suppose so. I -- I just -- I mean,
24 I -- I think about my street of 17 houses, and we have, 25 you know, a few retired people. We have a few people 547
Ohio House v. City of Costa Mesa Nancy Clark
LINDA RYAN REPORTING (714) 457-5810
230
1 I, the undersigned, a Certified Shorthand
2 Reporter of the State of California, do hereby certify:
3 That the foregoing proceedings were taken
4 before me at the time and place herein set forth; that 5 any witnesses in the foregoing proceedings, prior to
6 testifying, were placed under oath; that a verbatim
7 record of the proceedings was made by me using machine 8 shorthand which was thereafter transcribed under my
9 direction; further, that the foregoing is an accurate 10 transcription thereof.
11 I further certify that I am neither
12 financially interested in the action nor a relative or 13 employee of any attorney of any of the parties.
14 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have this date
15 subscribed my name.
16 17 Dated: November 21, 2021
18 _______________________________________
LAURA L. CORNING
19 FCRR, CSR No. 8363
20 21
22 23
24 25
548
EXHIBIT 18
549
licensed treatment licensed treatment licensed treatment No longer licensed or operating Women only Women only
Homeless Men Homeless Men No contact information/not operating No response to calls and texts No response to calls No longer operating 112 beds in approved unlicensed sober living homes
550
EXHIBIT 19
551
5600 Fishers Lane • Rockville, MD 20857
www.samhsa.gov • 1-877-SAMHSA-7 (1-877-726-4727)
Behavioral Health is Essential to Health • Prevention Works • Treatment is Effective • People Recover January 27, 2022
CERTIFICATION OF AGENCY RECORDS
Pursuant to Rule 44 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, I, CAPT. Michael King, hereby certify that I have custody of the official records for the Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality. Attached are certified and authentic copies of records of the Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality:
• Exhibit 733, excerpt from "2016-2018 National Survey on Drug Use and Health Substate Region Definitions." This was obtained from this link:
https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/reports/rpt29374/NSDUHsubstateRegion Defs2018/NSDUHsubstateRegionDefs2018.pdf
• Exhibit 732, substate data for California. This was obtained from this link:
https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/reports/rpt29375/NSDUHsubstateStateTa bs2018/NSDUHsubstateCalifornia2018.pdf
These records are kept in the ordinary course of the regularly conducted business of the Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality.
Sincerely,
Michael King
CAPT. Michael King
Acting Director
Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality
SAMHSA 5a
Case 8:19-cv-01710-JVS-GJS Document 315-25 Filed 03/09/22 Page 2 of 42 Page ID #:19121
552
CA-1
200213 CALIFORNIA
Table 5.1 Illicit Drug Use in the Past Month and Illicit Drug Use Other Than Marijuana in the Past Month in California among Individuals Aged 12 or Older, by Substate Region: Percentages, Annual Averages Based on 2016, 2017, and 2018 NSDUHs
State/Substate Region
Illicit Drug Use
in the Past Month
Illicit Drug Use Other Than
Marijuana in the Past Month
Estimate
95% Confidence
Interval Estimate
95% Confidence
Interval
California 13.33 (12.62 - 14.07) 3.75 (3.39 - 4.15)
Region 1R 20.74 (17.80 - 24.01) 4.76 (3.62 - 6.24)
Region 2R 14.92 (12.10 - 18.26) 4.02 (2.94 - 5.48)
Region 3R (Sacramento) 14.47 (12.16 - 17.15) 3.48 (2.57 - 4.68) Region 4R 14.98 (12.13 - 18.35) 3.98 (2.96 - 5.32)
Region 5R (San Francisco) 20.84 (16.86 - 25.48) 4.41 (3.20 - 6.06) Region 6 (Santa Clara) 10.17 (8.36 - 12.31) 3.13 (2.33 - 4.18) Region 7R (Contra Costa) 13.35 (11.08 - 16.00) 3.66 (2.73 - 4.89) Region 8R (Alameda) 17.08 (14.46 - 20.07) 4.45 (3.33 - 5.91) Region 9R (San Mateo) 13.23 (10.76 - 16.15) 2.92 (2.13 - 4.00) Region 10 12.56 (10.00 - 15.66) 4.16 (3.05 - 5.65)
Region 11 (Los Angeles) 13.56 (12.44 - 14.76) 3.88 (3.37 - 4.46) LA SPA 1 and 5 14.33 (11.77 - 17.33) 3.92 (2.89 - 5.29) LA SPA 2 14.04 (11.72 - 16.72) 3.80 (2.83 - 5.10)
LA SPA 3 9.80 (7.92 - 12.05) 3.02 (2.23 - 4.09)
LA SPA 4 19.22 (15.82 - 23.15) 5.62 (4.15 - 7.57)
LA SPA 6 13.91 (11.38 - 16.91) 3.64 (2.69 - 4.91)
LA SPA 7 10.74 (8.50 - 13.47) 3.44 (2.51 - 4.71)
LA SPA 8 14.45 (12.11 - 17.16) 4.11 (3.11 - 5.40)
Region 12R 13.92 (11.25 - 17.10) 4.40 (3.22 - 5.99)
Regions 13 and 19R 11.47 (9.71 - 13.50) 2.83 (2.12 - 3.76) Region 14 (Orange) 10.18 (8.56 - 12.08) 3.32 (2.55 - 4.32) Region 15R (Fresno) 11.91 (9.68 - 14.57) 3.77 (2.76 - 5.11) Region 16R (San Diego) 13.88 (11.95 - 16.06) 3.99 (3.11 - 5.11) Region 17R 10.19 (8.41 - 12.30) 3.50 (2.59 - 4.71)
Region 18R (San Bernardino) 10.61 (8.81 - 12.72) 3.28 (2.43 - 4.41) Region 20R 12.60 (10.33 - 15.30) 4.08 (3.02 - 5.50)
Region 21R 16.82 (13.90 - 20.21) 4.42 (3.28 - 5.93)
NOTE: For substate region definitions, see the "2016-2018 National Survey on Drug Use and Health Substate Region Definitions" at https://www.samhsa.gov/data/.
NOTE: Estimates along with the 95 percent Bayesian confidence (credible) intervals are based on a survey-weighted hierarchical Bayes estimation approach and generated by Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques.
NOTE: Illicit Drug Use includes the misuse of prescription psychotherapeutics or the use of marijuana, cocaine (including crack), heroin, hallucinogens, inhalants, or methamphetamine. Illicit Drug Use Other Than Marijuana includes the misuse of prescription psychotherapeutics or the use of cocaine (including crack), heroin, hallucinogens, inhalants, or methamphetamine. Misuse of prescription psychotherapeutics is defined as use in any way not directed by a doctor, including use without a prescription of one's own; use in greater amounts, more often, or longer than told; or use in any other way not directed by a doctor. Prescription psychotherapeutics do not include over-the-counter drugs.
Source: SAMHSA, Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality, National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2016, 2017, and 2018.
SAMHSA 5 -1-
Jennifer Le
11/5/21
Exh 732
Ohio House v City of CM
Case 8:19-cv-01710-JVS-GJS Document 315-25 Filed 03/09/22 Page 3 of 42 Page ID #:19122
553
CA-9
200213 CALIFORNIA
Table 5.9 Needing But Not Receiving Treatment at a Specialty Facility for Illicit Drug Use in the Past Year, Needing But Not Receiving Treatment at a Specialty Facility for Alcohol Use in the Past Year, and Needing But Not Receiving Treatment at a Specialty Facility for Substance Use in the Past Year in California among Individuals Aged 12 or Older, by Substate Region: Percentages, Annual Averages Based on 2016, 2017, and 2018 NSDUHs
State/Substate Region
Needing But Not Receiving
Treatment at a Specialty
Facility for Illicit Drug Use
in the Past Year1
Needing But Not Receiving
Treatment at a Specialty
Facility for Alcohol Use in
the Past Year
Needing But Not Receiving
Treatment at a Specialty
Facility for Substance Use
in the Past Year1
Estimate
95%
Confidence
Interval Estimate
95%
Confidence
Interval Estimate
95%
Confidence
Interval
California 2.88 (2.59 - 3.20) 5.65 (5.20 - 6.13) 7.43 (6.91 - 7.99) Region 1R 4.05 (3.07 - 5.31) 8.14 (6.39 - 10.32) 10.99 (8.95 - 13.41) Region 2R 2.82 (2.07 - 3.83) 6.11 (4.67 - 7.96) 8.11 (6.31 - 10.36) Region 3R (Sacramento) 2.91 (2.21 - 3.82) 5.95 (4.62 - 7.64) 7.91 (6.36 - 9.81) Region 4R 2.68 (1.99 - 3.60) 6.09 (4.62 - 7.99) 7.79 (6.10 - 9.90) Region 5R (San Francisco) 3.45 (2.50 - 4.73) 7.04 (5.28 - 9.32) 9.90 (7.64 - 12.73) Region 6 (Santa Clara) 2.47 (1.87 - 3.25) 4.90 (3.79 - 6.33) 6.63 (5.32 - 8.23) Region 7R (Contra Costa) 2.48 (1.87 - 3.27) 5.78 (4.47 - 7.44) 6.97 (5.38 - 8.97) Region 8R (Alameda) 3.15 (2.39 - 4.16) 5.36 (4.11 - 6.95) 7.70 (6.13 - 9.64) Region 9R (San Mateo) 2.42 (1.78 - 3.28) 5.64 (4.24 - 7.47) 6.70 (5.20 - 8.60) Region 10 3.07 (2.26 - 4.15) 5.70 (4.30 - 7.52) 7.70 (5.92 - 9.96) Region 11 (Los Angeles) 2.90 (2.51 - 3.36) 5.49 (4.89 - 6.16) 7.25 (6.49 - 8.09) LA SPA 1 and 5 2.86 (2.11 - 3.86) 5.50 (4.16 - 7.24) 6.95 (5.39 - 8.91) LA SPA 2 2.95 (2.25 - 3.86) 5.68 (4.45 - 7.22) 7.76 (6.19 - 9.69) LA SPA 3 2.33 (1.74 - 3.11) 4.62 (3.57 - 5.97) 5.69 (4.46 - 7.23) LA SPA 4 3.63 (2.67 - 4.94) 6.34 (4.83 - 8.30) 9.06 (6.99 - 11.68) LA SPA 6 3.27 (2.43 - 4.41) 4.70 (3.55 - 6.21) 6.70 (5.19 - 8.60) LA SPA 7 2.77 (2.04 - 3.75) 4.79 (3.61 - 6.31) 6.13 (4.67 - 8.01) LA SPA 8 2.85 (2.13 - 3.80) 6.64 (5.15 - 8.51) 8.41 (6.69 - 10.54) Region 12R 3.10 (2.29 - 4.17) 5.89 (4.45 - 7.74) 8.13 (6.31 - 10.42) Regions 13 and 19R 2.86 (2.24 - 3.66) 5.70 (4.58 - 7.07) 7.45 (6.18 - 8.95) Region 14 (Orange) 2.18 (1.65 - 2.88) 4.76 (3.75 - 6.02) 5.79 (4.64 - 7.20) Region 15R (Fresno) 3.04 (2.28 - 4.06) 5.58 (4.31 - 7.20) 7.20 (5.62 - 9.17) Region 16R (San Diego) 2.89 (2.24 - 3.71) 5.90 (4.77 - 7.27) 7.66 (6.35 - 9.21) Region 17R 2.91 (2.22 - 3.82) 5.38 (4.19 - 6.89) 7.10 (5.63 - 8.92) Region 18R (San Bernardino) 3.07 (2.38 - 3.96) 5.13 (4.01 - 6.55) 7.12 (5.69 - 8.87) Region 20R 3.04 (2.30 - 4.01) 5.18 (3.94 - 6.77) 6.78 (5.26 - 8.70) Region 21R 3.47 (2.61 - 4.60) 7.44 (5.79 - 9.51) 9.25 (7.32 - 11.62) NOTE: For substate region definitions, see the "2016-2018 National Survey on Drug Use and Health Substate Region Definitions" at https://www.samhsa.gov/data/.
NOTE: Estimates along with the 95 percent Bayesian confidence (credible) intervals are based on a survey-weighted hierarchical Bayes estimation approach and generated by Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques.
NOTE: Respondents were classified as needing substance use treatment if they met the criteria for an illicit drug or alcohol use disorder as defined in the 4th edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) or received treatment for illicit drug or alcohol use at a specialty facility (i.e., drug and alcohol rehabilitation facility [inpatient or outpatient], hospital [inpatient only], or mental health center). Needing But Not Receiving Substance Use Treatment refers to respondents who are classified as needing illicit drug or alcohol treatment, but who did not receive illicit drug or alcohol treatment at a specialty facility. 1 Illicit Drug Use includes the misuse of prescription psychotherapeutics or the use of marijuana, cocaine (including crack), heroin, hallucinogens, inhalants, or methamphetamine. Misuse of prescription psychotherapeutics is defined as use in any way not directed by a doctor, including use without a prescription of one's own; use in greater amounts, more often, or longer than told; or use in any other way not directed by a doctor.
Prescription psychotherapeutics do not include over-the-counter drugs.
Source: SAMHSA, Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality, National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2016, 2017, and 2018.
SAMHSA 13 -9-
Case 8:19-cv-01710-JVS-GJS Document 315-25 Filed 03/09/22 Page 11 of 42 Page ID #:19130
554
ECONOMIC & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
July 2, 2025
SENT VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL AND U.S. MAIL
Christopher Brancart, Esq.
Brancart & Brancart
P.0. Box 686
Pescadero, CA 94060
[email protected]
Subject: Request for Reasonable Accommodation - The Ohio House, 115 East Wilson Street, Units A-E in Costa Mesa
Dear Mr. Brancart:
The City is in receipt of your request for a reasonable accommodation, with components submitted on May 2, 2025, May 6, 2025, and June 2, 2025, to allow Ohio House LLC to continue its operation of a sober living home at 115 E. Wilson st., Units A through E ("Wilson St. Property"). This is the third request made by Ohio House for this property. The stated basis for this renewed request is an alleged material change in facts and circumstances since prior requests were made and denied, based upon the 2022 Group Home Technical Advisory issued by HCD, the City's adopted housing element, the California Attorney General's amicus brief filed in the federal litigation between the City and Ohio House, HCD's 2023 letter, and an alleged reduction in the number of sober living homes in the City.
I would note thatthe Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Ohio House, LLC v. Cityof Costa Mesa, Case No. 22-56'l8 7, issued April 24, 2025, considered all of the alleged changes in circumstance in reaching its decision that the City's denial of prior accommodation requests were lawful.
And while you indicate that the present request is made only under state law, that does not change the fact that you have already litigated the issue of reasonable accommodation under state law in the cited case. The Courts analyze FHA and FEHA claims under the same standard. Socal Recovery v. Costa Mesa, 56 F.4th 802, 811 (2023). The City believes that priorlitigation precludes your request for an accommodation that fundamentally alters the 77 FAIR DRIVE, POST OFFICE BOX
Building Safety Division (714) 754-5273
Housing & Community Development (714) 754-4870
1200, COSTA MESA CA. 92628-1200
Communitylmprovement Division (714) 754-5638
Planning Division (714) 754-5245
www.costamesaca.gov
1 Pa g e
ATTACHMENT 2
555
ECONOMIC & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
City's zoning scheme, and hence is unreasonable as a matter oflaw and is res judicata.' You previously argued to the District Court that it was improper for the City to consider "[w]hether the existing supply of facilities of a similar nature and operation in the community is sufficient to provide individuals with a disability an equal opportunity to live in a residential setting." CMMC § 13-200.62(f%7). Given your challenge to this section and your position that the City's reasonable accommodation ordinance should be revised to remove it, I have determined notto considerthat requirement applicable for purposes ofthis request. I do note, however, that there are hundreds of both licensed and unlicensed beds throughout the City.
Moreover, the City has consistently maintained that the 650 foot separation is fundamental to the City's zoning scheme and reducing it would change the essential nature of the scheme, which is already designed to provide a beneficial opportunity to disabled persons and intended to protect the disabled from living in an institutional setting and instead maintaining the residential character of neighborhoods for all their residents.
As to your request for accommodation under the "single housekeeping unit" definition, you have not cited any actual change in the operations of Ohio House from its inception, nor any change since the last request was made. It is clearly a business, hosting a relatively transient population, rather than a single housekeeping unit. Indeed, your request on its face makes clear the housing units do not "operate" like single housekeeping units. Fundamentally, this is because single housekeeping units do not operate as businesses. Ohio House residents are forced to submit to drug testing. They must sign an admission agreement agreeing to restrictions on activities, submission to curFews and attending meetings. Existing residents do not have control over who moves in or who moves out. Clients "share" chores not because they are a single housekeeping unit but because their contracts require that they do so. Thus, the residents are not actually a single housekeeping unit and do not qualify under the City's code.
And while you assert that there is no institutional effect from allowing Ohio House to continue operating despite proximity to other group homes, you appear to base this on your claim that "The Ohio House operates consistent with the requirements the City applies to single housekeeping units." As noted above, this does not appear to be true.
The letters you have submitted include two from 115 E. Wilson, Unit C, two from 115 E. Wilson, Unit D, and one from 165 E. Wilson, Unit A, which had a CUP issued to a different operator.
Unfortunately, with a regular resident load of 30-45 men as well as the factors outlined above, I cannot conclude that the Ohio House is operating like a single house-keeping unit so as to grant the requested accommodation.
' Your letter states that the Court simply concluded that a reasonable jury could have concluded that the City did notimproperly deny Ohio House's prior accommodation request. But this ignores the fact that Ohio House made a facial challenge to the City's Reasonable Accommodation Ordinance, which the Court of Appeal rejected. The Court also upheld the trial court's denial of Ohio House's motion for judgment as a matter oflaw on the issue of its specific accommodation request underthe facts and circumstances presented to the jury and the court. I disagree that the facts and circumstances surrounding this issue have changed. 77 FAIR DRIVE, POST OFFICE BOX 1200, COSTA MESA CA. 92628-1200 Building Safety Division (714) 754-5273 Community Improvement Division (714) 754-5638 Housing & Community Development (714) 754-4870 Planning Division (714) 754-5245 www.costa m esaca.gov
2 Pa g e
556
ECONOMIC & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
California Courts have regularly permitted zoning in residential areas to exclude transient and institutional uses. See Santa Barbara v. Adamson, 27 Cal.3d 123, 133 (1980). The Adamson court upheld as valid "the legitimate aim of maintaining a family style ofliving," including regulations that require "a bona fide single housekeeping unit.... As long as [an ordinance requires that] a group bears the 'generic character of a family unit as a relatively permanent household," the regulation is valid. See id. at 133-34. The City has worked hard to provide for disabled individuals to have housing in our residential neighborhoods which is genuinely residential, and to avoid the re-institutionalization of those with disabilities. Both the separation requirement and the bona fide single house-keeping unit definitions are essential to meet that goal.
With regards to the issue of alternative accommodations and engaging in the interactive process, as stated in your citation to 2 CCR § 12177(c), the issue is "whether other alternative accommodations or modifications would be equally effective in meeting the needs... [and] will allow the person with the disability to use and enjoy a dwelling or housing opportunity...." Thus, the issue of alternative accommodations goes to the element of necessity. See Vorchheimer v. Philadelphian Owners Ass'n, 903 F.3d 100, 103 (3d Cir. 2018). "For a housing accommodation to be 'necessary' under the Act, it must be required for that person to achieve equal housing opportunity, taking into accountthe alternatives on offer.... To qualify as alternative 'reasonable accommodations,' the accommodations must afford the particular disabled person equal opportunity both to use and to enjoy her home.... But all the proffered alternatives that afford equal opportunity to use and to enjoy housing bear on whetheraspecificaccommodationisnecessary." ld.at103,109(emphasisadded);seealso Comm'n on Hum. Rights & Opportunities ex rel. Pizzoferrato v. Mansions, LLC, 231 Conn.App. 121, 152 (2025) ("we agree with the textual analysis ofthe Third Circuit in Vorchheimer and likewise conclude that, under § 46a-64c, the plain meaning of the word 'necessary' requires courts to consider 'all the proffered alternatives that afford equal opportunity to use and to en3oy housing' in deciding whether a specific accommodation is necessary.").
As an initial matter, the Court of Appeal has already held that the City's zoning scheme provides a more than equal opportunity to use and to enjoy housing to the disabled. Therefore, no accommodation is required to "afford equal opportunity to use and to enjoy housing" to the disabled; they already do enjoy the opportunity. Furthermore, there appear to be many multifamily properties available in the City which comply with the City's separation requirement.
Regardless, the issue of whether the requested accommodation or any alternative accommodation is "necessary" has no bearing on the issue that such accommodations would result in a fundamental alteration of the City's zoning scheme; they are separate analyses. The effect of any accommodation, alternative or not, necessary or not, that still results in Ohio House continuing to operate its business in violation ofthe spacing requirement underthe code would still result in a fundamental alteration, thus warranting denial ofthe request. 77 FAIR DRIVE, POST OFFICE BOX 1200, COSTA MESA CA. 92628-1200 Building Safety Division (714) 754-5273 Community Improvement Division (714) 754-5638 Housing & Community Development (714) 754-4870 Planning Division (714) 754-5245 www. costa mesaca.gov
3iPage
557
ECONOMIC & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Your proffered alternative of merely relabeling Ohio House as something it is not, "Supportive Housing," just to bypass the City's zoning scheme, not only does not change the effect Ohio House's business has and the fundamental alteration ofthe City's zoning scheme, but it also would fundamentally alterthe purpose ofthe entirely-separate "Supportive Housing" zoning scheme that is designed to address bona fide "Supportive Housing" and not as a placeholder to relabel other land uses.
The interactive process is designed to identify whether "alternative accommodations or modifications would be equally effective in meeting the needs of the individual with a disability.
Your requested accommodation is to override the City's code to allow Ohio House to continue to operate its business. Of course, there are myriad alternative ways of ignoring the City's code that would "be equally effective" in allowing Ohio House to continue to operate. But it is that continued operation itselfthat creates the fundamental alteration. Thus, regardless ofthe alternative, any such alternative accommodation would inevitably result in fundamental alteration and is not warranted.
Sincerely,
C-arrie Tai
Economic arevelopment Services Director
CC: Kimberly Hall Barlow, Esq., City Attorney
Tarquin Preziosi, Esq., Assistant City Attorney
Christopher Le, Esq., Everett & Dorey, LLP
77 FAIR DRIVE, POST OFFICE BOX 1200, COSTA MESA CA. 92628-1200 Building Safety Division (714) 754-5273 Community Improvement Division (714) 754-5638 Housing & Community Development (714) 7'Ei4-4870 Planning Division (714) 754-5245 www. costa mesaca.gov
4iPage
558
-,,_. -s
Costa Mesa
€ Appeal of Planning Commission Decision:
$1,220.00 (Tier 1 )'
$3,825.00 (Tier 2i
City of Costa Mesa
RESERVE FOR FIL:ING STAMP
€ Appeal of Non-Planning Commission Decision: File with: City Clerk $690.00 (Tier i)l City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive
$3,825.00 (Tier z)2 Costa Mesa, CA 92626
APPLICATION FOR APPEAL OR REVIEW 714-754-5225
4pplj(,B(i0 N;3171B" The Ohio House, LLC and Geo. Castaneda, Diego Blake, Garey Miller, Kayl McReynolds, Robert Palmer AddreSS 115 EaSt WilSOn StreeI UniS A-E, COSta MeSa, CA 92627 Phone (650) 879-0141
REQUEST FOR: x5 APPEAL @ REVIE\/V"*
Decision of which appeal or review is requested: (give application number, if applicable, and the date of the decision, if known.)
July 2, 2025 Denial of Request for
Reasonable Accommodation,
PRAC-25-0002
Decision by:
Reasons for requesting appeal or review:
IDirector of EDS
e denial, including the application process, is
ntrary to state law and violates the City's
uties under California's Fair Employment and
ousing Act and the State Planning and Zoning
w, fails to affirmatively further fair housing,
nd is contrary to the City's Zoning Code,
eneral Plan and Housing Element, and the
irective of the Department of Housing and
munity Development.
GNED ON BEHALF OF The Ohio House, LLC and
eo. Castaneda, Diego Blake, Garey Miller, Kayl
cReynolds, Robert Palmer
Date: July 9, 2025 Signature:
"If you are serving as the agent for another person, please identify the person you represent and provide proof of authorization. "Review may be requested only by Planning Commission, Planning Commission Member, City Council, or City Council Member For office use only - do not write below this line
SCHEDULED FOR THE CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF:
If appeal or review is for a person or body other than City Council/Planning Commission, date of hearing of appeal or review updated September 2023
' Includes owners and/or occupants of a property located within 500 feet of project site (excluding owners and/or occupants of the project site). 'Includes the project applicant, owners and/or occupants of the project site, and owners and/or occupants of a property located greater than 500 feet from the project site.
ATTACHMENT 3
559
ATTACHMENT 4
560
561
Legend
City Limit
Streets
Addresses
Silver
²
0 0.03 0.05 0.1
mi
The City of Costa Mesa makes no guarantee as to the accuracy of any of the information provided and assumes no liability for any errors, omissions, or inaccuracies.
WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxiliary Sphere
© City of Costa Mesa
Vicinity Map
Site
ATTACHMENT 5
562
Separation Map
The Ohio House
165 E Wilson St (City-permitted sober living home)
N
ATTACHMENT 6
563
OH_CM000434
EXl!iTING C,ARAG~S
TABULA TfONS
LOT AREA
1121,S'
l 3802,S
~ 31102.i
1801.411
't2 S
iOTAL ~l.3'1.!i SITE
cove~eo
OP!!.H
10 ...... EXISTINC.
C'ONOOMUrtJ.UMS
BI.OCt cov ORJVl!:WA't
11 8 SJ' l,2 S~.
11◄$ s.,. ~~l S.f.
IHa 5'.F. 312 5.~.
1'1-48 S.~. 312 ,S,f .
11-41.1 S.ll. 411 $~
8140 5,,. t'l1-, S,F
P'AftlCfNC. P'~OV10e0
tc
,0
TOTAL
cove.RAG!:
l l"tO S~
2/40 S.f-.
ll-1.0 S,i=-
21 0 S ,F
lt5"tt S,fF
C0.100 S . .fllOPENS PA.Ce
, .. a,s s.P
lU .2,S .s.-
IUl.S 5 F
1'415 5 ~-
21'3.S 5 ,f
I0,4'f.5 5,-
~
~
ATTACHMENT 3
NC.
PLANNING INSPECTION REQUIRED "'°' lo lllw, o/ ,Uitit\'e,nmr.,~ ol oc,,:oioci API'ROVED CITI'Of'COSTAMUA PLA."00.MO D1VJ.SION J\11.reCT TO au)Q, DD't UG. fr(OT!.: A.DDfflOff.l:. DUJ!TIOf,IS:.
~
Olt COUJt.Cno.NS S'UALI., H IT TM!Pl.A1nflNOD.IV
NOTE
.lol)Oli'JONS. Ml..mffl. Di CO~IIS SMALi.
Ill WWOYfO 1f Tl(! Pl}.Jllilllf; OMSI0PI
Pl Y "flWTIC IMP.ACT Hl
,-.Ofil TO 11£1.~ Of
QCCUl'AH(;'/'/ UJIU'I\D
.. ~ .. ff
/,\~OUT
%
<{
J
Q..
w
Iin
-
-....
11/03
...... 1· • 10·
-~
_,
SP
.,
ATTACHMENT 7
564
OH_CM000435
' .,__ ___ ; . '---
SECOND FLOOR
.... ..,.
7 PLAN REFERENCE NOTES
L cooeU! :lJNIC till' Ql,.5"'0S ... L
'2 OflMII.A&M~
) . lU.~~ jt.4NGI! AKO QV~ \lilTl-t LXj.1-AU:l T MOOO
At,0 VllNT ABOVIL
I , 1teJL1DC;EtATOIII!: &!9AC1 ,-ROVICE. C0\..D IIA-U Jkl! 4 ~AitTl(Y
• • SHOIIU ta/ IN• TffJtJl'JlOOf' t.N,::1.0~,e~
'- OVM. l'Utl
IO rua/lMOWl,t ... , Of-'TIOMJ. i.M.ATI"e~'lOOI'
&NOLOIU"-
a.. u.,t..1M•• 11i-""cs ,-111.ov1oe -.e..ce..u.o V.4l"e .,1,NC> OJltMN SOX ()... Clf'T'ellf: 6-P,1,CI!. 1111 VOT TO Ol,ITIIOI!
~
-, I ~1 ~
Ii
' ,.
f
I
!
FIR ST FLOOR
flORCaO .-.J~ Ufl!JT" If' 4'tTIC
fl, utAff" M!!:AT•ll ~I • .T~ V4L.VI. 01'1 tr ,-wei,po-ll!r, w.. 1, rtllf",,t,\. il'~Vl.ACe IV GLAH OOOIU
M liA.IJtt04:T 6tMI(.
II CIULlhC, TUH.51TIOH
-., l'\.OOft l"ATIIRIAL fflAiHII~
'1.l.. 611!1C.\.ll tH~ AHO " OLlt
13. 00\lDI.I f"Ot.e. ~JrilO ,l,ING;LE. .ili&.L.f-
◄ ~~JCAL CHcAH
;as. -io· )C so· • TTIC AC.Cl!U
" · -vu !if1.106,
11. ~• GU.-.!lllO "A,L
·n • .,.~
.,,. " .. 0,011.a =AetM! T
JO U,_.KN CAiSCN.J:T
31 TB.l.aV1!otOH Al.COYS
31, 3'" W!OM' _.ON'f w.-.i. ..
n . l' MK.IM t-ON"r 11111,toU.
. (1\ "" X W GAIUc.a :&.X>4AU5i Ve.N1'S
"Ii, ]' 01A ST"UL Plf"'■ 01.lfrfll!Jt G\IAJIO. U '" MC.M, C0'4C. "t.1.20
,,. •• Tyll'f!: K' GYP'&OAAO TTP', ... T 111.AI.U COt'l'NOtil; to MOUtt Al'ID c..AJtAc.e 014 GA~ SIOe OHL. T
')i, 1 /r f'T,-E •l(' G"TPDO~ OVU Jlt.c. Cj,tAl'l)ilBl.$ ,tt w,• O .C. PEit !C80 ltl!l'OJI T H.!Jl .100, H .C:, .S.l.i t N.00~/C-.iLu«:,$ C0rtl10H. TO MOU&I! 4N.0 WANAGa:
OH C.utAGI 5101 OHL. 'f
3,, I-It' ti,-"!. ' j(' GYP'&O,.t.R.0 .lriT 4'&.!.- tlAU..6 .,_1\0 Ce.Ll'°IC.I 01' ST~G• C\.Ol&T" u,-oL• STAflf5.
J• V~ T ASLI: .IHI( fJ/ 01.5,.0&Bflt
M 'l!IIIIOll'O.-.fl .. I
(/j\~~OOT
1/2\~~!uv .
u
z ~, ii!
C) !o~~
4 II) < ~;~; z o·
Q sd ,.u. Di!J~ .J ., $ : ~i
3 <• g !C
e
I
-
-.. .. T Al!IULATJONS, ..... l/ ' • 1•-0 ·
...... 1S T PLOOF! l-'L8 S .f . 21:l<
lNO FLOOR 1n, s .~. _ ,
TOTAL U1'i 5...f_
C.AF!AC.E <IS S.F_ A -I T PORCl-l ; 1 S F
565
OH_CM000436
OOU&U! 'llfill~ WI O(Sl"Oa ... L
'l- 015'4U~
J. auoa."""' llMG.11 A/;0 oveN il&TH txw.AUIT WOOD
MO V l""T >•OV'I
-t. OO~OV'aH
L ~,uc..-...TOllf 6'..t,C&. .-ltOVIOI! C~0 ldA1'Lll l.1He "- f .AKr-.Y
1. 1 2" 1-iG~ IUJUO COUNTBlt 'tOP
• ~u Ill/ SKA TTUPttoo, l!NCU>5'J" E
1 OVAL TUa
IO T\la /SMOl,.'°EJt Ill OPTIO"'IAI. $M,t.T'T!Rfl'll00,- ~CLO~a
It • AL.1. c.,t,.e lN.eT
12. ~~R t•A--&. ~OY10& •11!.c&•sec Y"il.VI! ANO OJUJN&O)( (I ClltY&Jlt si-;-.ce ., Vl!."'IT TO OUTSIOI!
PLAN REFERENCE NOTES
. ~IU::~ .&JR UNIT IIC ATTIC
~ IIIATllll ~~TU~.,~ f,A. v~v~ ON 11· f'\.ATTOR?f
1, J, fll!T.11,,L Jlll'lllV'L.ACe 1111 Ctl.AII$ 000~5
t,, L.AUl,U) llY SIN.IC.
ll, ca/UfltG TltA,"5,/T,Cfll
I'\ 1"1.00tl NAT!ltiAL 1'it,.,.-lt6'TIO~
~ UMe. :Jft ,.Loo« .AeOVE.
21. IJNG,L!. 11-tt!V AND 191)1.,e'
23_ OCUBut r'OLE MO 51Hc.l.1 a+,ll!I.J'
l◄, ffl!.CMAHICAt.. C~
U , 1~ )( 30' ATTIC A~t!H
'l'" l)U. STU'C:91
11 J4. C',UA"O lfAIL
:ZI ITAi!(
,.-CY
5•-0· ll'-~
. ...,. 10 -r
f 1·-K)· ,._,,. '4'- J·
r ' r-f
' M @ U@ >0405~
;. I l~•o:J ) 1
'1.A)(. ..t' COHC. r SelOII IT00fl' T__ ew ""4.. llt.lit. i'
~ .. ,. .. Q~
,: ~"
I
)
0-- ~AMl~l'
~
"
~
4,• li·
.,
i(
/ r.,
V "
--'
Pl'-r ......,..~A ...._ ... A. ..
FIRST FLOOR - LOT 5 ONLY SH. ISA!ilC , 1.00,e. ~i..,&.I( IHl!ET A"'I •or nl'1CAJ.. JHl"'OIUlATICM.. eECCf'O .. Loo, .... ,,£ ,oflt .t.lL lOfl :Z41 /'\l!OICfNt C,'SJJ!tl!T
JO U N~N C:.AO~Nl!l'
fl, ffLt!.V'l&fON ALCOV2.
Jl- :i,· ,«,~ fl'OH'T l,ll.,lt,t.,1.
l) • • ,.. MICM POKY- AU
:Ji ) 0 a.A. !,~ PrP~ !1Ul'1P'11Jt. C,VA.1110, 1'" .-.~. COl'IC. f'tilO
.u ., .. T't'I""!. ' )(' C.Tfl'a.o•11t0 TY~. AT QfALU connoN TO MOuSa ANO C',Alt.4G~ ope C.AJtAC,1! W I! OHL T
)l itr f'rl"I!: ' )C.' C,Yfl'DO~O OVelt R.C. CMANIU!LS
Ill"" o.c.. .-u, aeao QPORY N€f' 200. RC.. u ., M 11'1.00IVCUJHC,! COMnCH TO HOU.5R ANO GAR/lo.Ge O.N CAR.a.CB. !lilC■ OKL..,
38 ,,... TTl"'E 'X' C.Yfl'l!OAAO AT A\.L MU& ~KO
cell..lMiC.& 01' 91'011l4CI! CLOll!!T UNOI!..~ STAi•S.
)", V5C.TA.~e l:PU'. rlll Ollfl'Q!,"'1,.
10 L»I.!. cw ?le:,.n 4HO t R.l!LU!I •eov■
n--r
I
.. '
-#+--l---i-1,•,o;T
WS&- t ~ r 0 ~ .. ""· ::1
L~ .. ~
-'l
~ ~: . .....,_.,_
!! l
1•-1· t•
~
-"'-' . -• lJU.DJNG SAFETY
11·- ◄• w• crrv~ ~v ~
TA.BULA TJONS,
1ST FLOOR
2ND fLOOR
TOTAL
C.ARAC.e
PORC,,
£.,Ir-- -
1.2'8 S.F.
IJ'.21 S.F
•.3~5 Sf
~~• S,F
21 SF,
... ._., .. ,. .. Ii\~~ 01P'T
~~:REV.
0:
Ill
0 0
,-.
U.: Z w
ti) w ::, :C:z
0.. w;:
I- O> C J <.- w
w ~~g 1k'. W o -1!l
I- Ca~~
IJ) ~mg:; z <~zr
0 8z~ ti)
_J < ~ 3 z"'
Ill
0 IL
:;
<
0 Ill
I0
_J
I
z
<{
_J
IL
._:
_J
,<{
-
-
om
..... 1/~• • l'-0"
-~l ll~ -
-
A-1.1
566
OH_CM000437
VJ
-
Building Sketch •
Borrower Edie Johnson
Property Address 115 E WIison St
City Costa Mesa County Oranae State CA Zio Code 92627
Lender/Client US Bank Home Mortaaae - Wholesale
Uncovered Patio S!; I
20· I
~, 2 Cat· Garage
20'
TOTAL - by. II! moo,, '"'·
Uvfng Area
First Floor
Second Aoor
Total living Area (Rounded):
Non•Uving Ar&
2 Car Attached
5'
"!
Dining
,._,
q
r--
N
I
23'
"'" ... Kitchen
13'
I
t Bath
Living
io
N
,-~- - -,
Bedroom
,.A.4•~
r-, r-1
' .
Bath ,(le~ I •• 11' 1 13'
11'
Area Cakulations Summa1
1210 Sq tt
1261 Sq tt
2471 Sq ft
400 Sq ft
-&~
20'
F~' 12'
Master Bath
Jr~ 18' '
Be
-
CaJa!latlon Deta11s
Form SKT.BLOSKI- "TOTAL" aooratsat software bv a la mode, Inc. -1·800-ALAMOOE IN
5 X 2 = 10
l4 X 8 = 112
3 X 3 = 9
24 x 41 = 984
7 X 8 = 56
13 x 3 = 39
22 X 12 = 264 20 X ],4 = 280
10 x 6 = 60
27 X 13 = 351
12 X 11 "' IJ8
14 x 12 = 168
20 ,i; 20 = 400
567
OH_CM000438
52 568
OH_CM000439
53 569
OH_CM000440
IMG_2<102.JPG 5/3/16, 1:10 PM
54 about:blank Page 1 of 1
570
OH_CM000441
IMG_2~ 03.JPG 5/3/16, 1:10 PM
about:blank Page 1 of 1
571
OH_CM000442
IMG_2394.JPG 5/3/16, 1:08 PM
about:blank Page 1 of 1
572
OH_CM000443
IMG_2395.JPG 5/3/16, 1:08 PM
about:blank Page 1 of 1
573
OH_CM000444
IMG_2396.JPG 5/3/16, 1 :09 PM
about:blank Page 1 of 1
574
OH_CM000445
IMG_2397.JPG 5/3/16, 1:09 PM
about:blank Page 1 of 1
575
OH_CM000446
IMG_2398.JPG 5/3/16, 1:09 PM
{J)
about:blank Page 1 of 1
576
OH_CM000447
IMG_2404.JPG 5/3/16, 1:09 PM
about:blank Page 1 of 1
577
OH_CM000448
IMG_2405.JPG 5/3/16, 1 :09 PM
about:blank Page 1 of 1
578
OH_CM000449
IMG_2406.JPG 5/3/16, 1:09 PM
about:blank Page 1 of 1
579
OH_CM000450
IMG_2407.JPG 5/3/16, 1 :10 PM
about:blank Page 1 of 1
580
OH_CM000451
IMG_2399.JPG 5/3/16, 1:10 PM
about:blank Page 1 of 1
581
OH_CM000452
IMG_2400.JPG 5/3/16, 1:10 PM
about:blank Page 1 of 1
582
OH_CM000453
IMG_2401.JPG 5/3/16, i:10 PM
about:blank Page 1 of 1
583
Statement to the City of Costa Mesa.
Good evening Mayor, Councilmembers, and City Staff,
My name is Brandon Stump and I am the founder of The Ohio House, a sober living community here in Costa Mesa. I appreciate the opportunity to share my story, my business’s history, and why I believe our presence here is both valuable and essential to the fabric of this city. I never set out to work in mental health or addiction recovery. My journey into this field started with my own personal recovery. When I moved to Costa Mesa from Ohio, friends back home noticed how I had changed my life. They wanted to follow the same path I had taken. Out of a genuine desire to help, I invited them into my home. What started as a simple act of generosity quickly grew into something much larger. More people wanted help, and what began informally in my living room grew into The Ohio House. The name came from friends jokingly calling my place “the Ohio House,” and it stuck. Over time, I realized that not only was I good at supporting others in recovery, but the people who lived with us were truly changing their lives.
Investment in Costa Mesa
As this mission grew, I made a serious commitment to this City. I invested more than seven million dollars in real estate on the Eastside of Costa Mesa. At the time of these purchases, there were no restrictions regarding the proximity of sober living homes. It was only later that the City passed an ordinance requiring a 650-foot separation between homes. Because the City first granted a permit to another home 550 away from my homes -- something I had no control over -- the new rule directly impacted the properties I had already purchased in good faith. It is important to note that my decision to invest here was not just about business. Costa Mesa became my home. I own a house on Costa Mesa Street, where I live with my fiancée, whose daughter attends school here. My brother and business partner also lives in Costa Mesa, on Santa Isabella Street, with his wife and their two-year-old daughter, who also goes to school locally.
We are not outsiders coming in to take from this community — we are neighbors, homeowners, taxpayers, and fully invested in the wellbeing of Costa Mesa. Beyond financial investment, our work at The Ohio House has contributed something even more valuable: hope. We provide a safe, structured, and supportive environment for people who are serious about rebuilding their lives. Every day, we witness individuals transform from hopelessness to stability, from addiction to employment, from isolation to reuniting with their families. Our homes are well-maintained and professionally managed. We hold ourselves to high standards of care and accountability. We work hard to ensure that our presence enhances the neighborhoods we’re part of, rather than detracting from them. Many of our graduates go on to become productive, responsible community members themselves — renters, homeowners, employees, and even business owners right here in Costa Mesa.
ATTACHMENT 8
584
Costa Mesa has a long history as a place where recovery thrives. People come here because of the strong recovery community, and our City has a national reputation as a place where people can turn their lives around. The Ohio House is a part of that legacy. If our homes are forced to close or relocate due to an ordinance that came after our investments were made, it doesn’t just affect me or my family. It affects the dozens of men who currently live in our houses, the staff we employ, the local businesses we support, and the families who depend on their loved ones having a safe place to recover. We are not asking for special treatment. We are simply asking for recognition of the fact that we invested here in good faith before the ordinance was enacted, and that our presence in Costa Mesa is not only legal but beneficial to the community. In closing, I want to emphasize that I came into this work because I wanted to help people. I stayed because I saw lives changing in ways that were profound and lasting. And I invested deeply in Costa Mesa because this city felt like home — not just for me, but for the people who needed a safe, supportive place to build a new life. I respectfully ask that the City of Costa Mesa recognize the value of The Ohio House and allow us to continue operating here. We are not just a business; we are part of this community. We are homeowners, taxpayers, and parents. And most importantly, we are an organization that helps people find hope and a future.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Brandon Stump
585
Good Evening Commissioners,
My name is Ryan Stump, Co-Founder of The Ohio House. I am a father, husband, brother, son, and proud resident of Costa Mesa. For nearly 15 years, The Ohio House has been a safe haven for thousands of men fighting for their lives against substance abuse and mental illness.
Tonight, I come before you because our very existence in this city is on the line. And yet, outside these chambers, America faces the deadliest addiction and mental health crisis in our history.
The National Institute of Health reports that nearly 1 in 4 adults struggles with mental illness or substance abuse. In a city of roughly 100,000 adults, that means more than 23,000 of our neighbors are in need. Against that reality, why would Costa Mesa work to eliminate one of the few programs proven to save lives?
Addiction does not discriminate. It impacts doctors, lawyers, students, entrepreneurs, and even public servants. It has touched nearly every family in this city. And yet, instead of being supported, recovery programs and sober living have been targeted, vilified, and driven out. The City has spent millions of taxpayer dollars attacking sober living and aftercare — money that could have been invested in real solutions. Programs like The Ohio House should be celebrated, not scapegoated.
We are not asking for special treatment. We are asking for equal treatment under the law. The laws that protect people with disabilities from housing discrimination require a city to make reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities — including those in recovery. The California Attorney General has gone on record: “ordinances that restrict sober living are unlawful and harmful.”
The Ohio House has always opened our doors to scrutiny. We have always been transparent.
The City has reviewed our program and operations. We have operated responsibly, openly, and in good faith. The question is — has the City treated us in good faith? For nine years, I have sought a real conversation with Costa Mesa leadership. Instead, this hearing is the best I could do. So why? Why have you approved more massage parlors than Ohio Houses? Why more weed dispensaries than Ohio Houses? Why are the leaders in our community isolating, chastising, and institutionalizing those in recovery?
If you deny this appeal, more than 40 men in early recovery will be displaced. They will lose their stability, their community, and their best chance at success. Relapse, homelessness, and despair will follow — and Costa Mesa will bear that cost. But if you grant this reasonable accommodation, you will affirm that Costa Mesa stands on the side of law, compassion, and human dignity.
586
The war against recovery homes like the Ohio House must end. Our city should not be in the business of eliminating solutions during a national crisis — it should be leading the way in supporting them.
I respectfully but firmly urge you: grant this appeal. Let The Ohio House continue doing what we have done for 15 years — saving lives, supporting families, and serving this city.
Thank you.
Respectfully,
Ryan Stump
Co-Founder, The Ohio House
587
RESOLUTION NO. PC-2025-19
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA UPHOLDING THE
DIRECTOR'S DENIAL OF A REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION
REQUEST TO DEVIATE FROM CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS OF
THE ZONING CODE TO OPERATE A SOBER LMNG HOME;
OPERATED BY OHIO HOUSE AT 115 EAST WILSON STREET,
UNITS A THROUGH E
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, FINDS AND DECLARES AS FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS, The Ohio House (the "Applicant") currently operates sober living home serving more than six persons at 115 East Wilson Street, Units A through E; WHEREAS, the Applicant filed a request for a Reasonable Accommodation seeking relief from the definition of "single housekeeping unit" in order to exempt the site from the Conditional Use Permit requirement; and in the alternative, a request to allow the sober living home to be located within 650 feet from another sober living home; WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa recognizes that while not in character with residential neighborhoods, when operated responsibly, group homes, including sober living homes and drug and alcohol treatment facilities, provide a societal benefit by providing disabled persons as defined by state and federal law the opportunity to live in residential neighborhoods, as well as providing recovery programs for individuals attempting to overcome their drug and alcohol addictions; therefore, providing greater access to residential zones to group homes, including sober living homes and drug and alcohol treatment facilities, than to boardinghouses or any other type of group living provides a benefit to the City and its residents;
WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa has adopted standards for the operation of group homes, residential care facilities and state-licensed drug and alcohol facilities that are intended to provide opportunities for disabled persons, as defined by state and Federal law to enjoy comfortable accommodations in a residential setting; WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa has found that congregating group homes, drug and alcohol treatment facilities and sober living homes in close proximity to each other does not provide disabled persons as defined in state and federal law with an opportunity to "live in normal residential surroundings, but rather places them into living environments ATTACHMENT 9
588
bearing more in common with the types of institutional/campus/dormitory living that the FEHA and FHAA were designed to provide relief from for the disabled, and which no reasonable person could contend provides a life in a normal residential surrounding; WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa has determined that a separation requirement for such facilities will still allow for a reasonable market for the purchase and operation of group homes, drug and alcohol treatment and sober living Facilities within the City and still result in preferential treatment For group homes, sober living facilities and drug and alcohol treatment facilities in that non-disabled individuals in a similar living situation (i.e., in boardinghouse-style residences) have fewer housing opportunities than disabled persons; WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa has determined that a group home, sober living home or state-licensed drug and alcohol treatment facility shall be operated on a single parcel of land;
WHEREAS, the Applicant filed a Reasonable Accommodation application with the City's Director of Economic and Development Services (the "Director") requesting relief from the definition of "single housekeeping unit" in order to exempt the site from the Conditional Use Permit requirement; and in the alternative, a request to allow the sober living home to be located within 650 feet from another sober living home; WHEREAS, the request for a Reasonable Accommodation application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by Federal, state and local laws, and the Director denied the request for the Reasonable Accommodation in a letter dated July 2, 2025:
WHEREAS, the Applicant appealed the Director's decision to deny a Reasonable Accommodation on July 9, 2025;
WHEREAS, a duly-noticed public hearing was scheduled For September 22, 2025, before the Planning Commission to hear the conditional use permit and the appeal of the Director's denial of the Reasonable Accommodation request; and WHEREAS, a duly-noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on September 22, 2025 with all persons having the opportunity to speak for and against the proposal.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission hereby UPHOLDS THE DIRECTOR'S DENIAL of the Applicant's request for Reasonable Accommodation. 589
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 22nd day of September, 2025.
z7]VICeCh[lrg
5;2\aJoCrxhesapianningXs
590
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE )ss
CITYOFCOSTAMESA )
1, Carrie Tai, Secretary to the Planning Commission of the City of Costa Mesa, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. PC-2025-19 was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City of Costa Mesa Planning Commission held on September 22, 2025, by the following votes:
AYES: Zich, Dickson, Klepack, Martinez, Rojas
NOES: Andrade
ABSENT: Harlan
ABSTAIN: None
-4'
/-
Carrie Jetary
Costa Mesa Planning Commission
Resolution No. PC-2025-19
591
EXHIBIT A
FINDINGS
The City's evidence consists of a staff report with attachments. The staff report provided the factual background, legal analysis and the City's analysis supporting the denial of the Applicant's request for a Reasonable Accommodation based on the Applicant not meeting its burden to demonstrate compliance with all required findings per the Costa Mesa Municipal Code (CMMC).
A. The subject property is located approximately 550 feet from a sober living home at 165 East Wilson Street. The City approved a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in 2016 for this licensed facility (PA-16-03). The Applicant applied for Reasonable Accommodation on May 2, May 6, and June 2, 2025 to allow the subject sober living home to be located within 650 feet of the existing sober living home. The applicant's request for a Reasonable Accommodation to allow this sober living home to be located within 650 feet of the sober living home was denied by the Director of Economic and Development Services on July 2, 2025. The applicant appealed the request on July 9, 2025.
B. The Application does not meet the Findings required by Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 1 3-200.62(f) "Reasonable Accommodation Findings" because:
Finding:"The requested accommodation is necessary to provide one or more individuals with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling." Facts in Support of Finding: The City recognizes that, while not in character with the residential neighborhoods, when operated responsibly, group homes, including sober living homes, provide a societal benefit by providing disabled persons the opportunity to live in residential neighborhoods. C e rt a i n o f these facilities provide recovery programs for individuals attempting to overcome their drug and alcohol addictions. The City has established separation criteria to ensure that an overconcentration of group homes, sober living homes and licensed drug and alcohol treatment facilities does not occurin any neighborhood, thereby, preserving the residential character for all who choose to reside there.
The application established that the waiver of the separation requirement would allow one or more individuals who are recovering from drug and alcohol abuse to enjoy the use of these dwellings. However, approval of the request is not necessary to allow one or more individuals who are disabled to enjoy the use of a dwelling within the City.
The operation of a sober living home with a regular resident load of 30-45 occupants is inconsistent with the City's definition of a single housekeeping unit.
The City has established procedures to allow group homes in residential neighborhoods; allowing a group to be considered a single housekeeping unit is not necessary to allow the disabled to reside in residential neighborhoods. 592
The City has adopted standards for group homes, soberliving homes and licensed treatment facilities in residential zones to ensure the disabled have the opportunity to live in a typical residential neighborhood. The permit process ensures that group homes, sober living homes and licensed treatment facilities comply with the City's standards. The City specifically required all existing group homes to comply with the new regulations within one year. The applicant's letter failed to provide a basis to "grandfather" this facility, which was not in conformance with existing zoning requirements, when all otherfacilities in operation atthe timethe regulations were adopted are and were also required to comply.
Finding:"The requested accommodation is consistent with surrounding uses in scale and intensity of use."
Facts in Support of Finding: The subject property does not operate as a single housekeeping unit, or even Five single housekeeping units, making it dissimilar to the composition of households on surrounding properties. The facility is occupied solely by adults at a higher occupancy than is typical in Costa Mesa. The nature of the occupancy is transient. With a regular resident load of 30-45 residents and 10 onsite managers, the facility provides opportunities for parking conflicts with owners of nearby properties who also rely on on-street parking. The City's intent in adopting its group home regulations was to ensure an overconcentration of group homes did not occur in any neighborhood. The facility would contribute to overconcentration given that it includes five units on five individual lots.
Additionally, the applicant has not demonstrated any actual change in operations since its inception or since the last request was made. The operation continues to function as a business hosting a transient population rather than as a single housekeeping unit. As outlined in the request itself, the units do not "operate" like single housekeeping units because single housekeeping units do not function as businesses.
Ohio House residents are required to submit to drug testing, sign admission agreements with restrictions on activities, comply with curfews, and attend mandatory meetings. They do not control who moves in or out of the home, and they share chores only because contracts obligate them to do so. These conditions are imposed by management, not by the residents themselves, and are inconsistent with the characteristics of a genuine household.
With a regular occupancy of 30-45 men, the scale and intensity of the Ohio House is far greater than that of typical singlelamily residences in the surrounding neighborhood. The level of activity and institutional oversight distinguishes the use from the character of nearby households. While letters of support have been submitted, including two from 115 E. Wilson, Unit C, two from 115 E. Wilson, Unit D, and one from 165 E. Wilson, Unit A (where a CUP had been issued to a different operator), these submissions do not alter the conclusion. 593
For these reasons, the Ohio House does not operate like a single housekeeping unit or that it is consistent with surrounding residential uses in scale and intensity.
Therefore, the request does not satisfy this finding.
Finding: "Whether the existing supply of facilities of a similar nature and operation in the community is sufficient to provide individuals with a disability and equal opportunity to live in a residential setting." Facts in Support of Finding: No evidence has been submitted to indicate that the number of group homes and sober living homes existing or potentially allowed in compliance with the City's standards is inadequate.
Finding: "The requested accommodation will not result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of the City's zoning program." Facts in Support of Finding: Title 13, Chapter XVI of the CMMC established requirements for sober living homes, group homes, and licensed drug and alcohol treatment facilities in multi-family zoning districts that otherwise qualify as more restricted boardinghouses. The City Council reduced the higher separation standard applicable to boardinghouses to 650 Feet between group homes, sober living homes, and licensed drug and alcohol treatment facilities. Part of the intent of these requirements is to ensure that businesses such as group homes, sober living homes and licensed drug and alcohol treatment facilities do not occupy a disproportionate number of homes in any residential neighborhood, and to avoid overconcentration in any area. The City also sought to ensure that disabled persons, including those recovering from addiction, can reside in a comfortable residential environment versus in an institutional setting. The City determined that congregating group homes, sober living homes and licensed drug and alcohol treatment facilities in close proximity to each other does not provide the disabled with an opportunity to 'live in normal residential surroundings" but, rather, places them into living environments bearing more in common with the types of institutional/campus/dormitory living from which the state and federal laws were designed to provide disabled persons relief. The subject property consists of five units on five individual lots, which already contributes to an overconcentration of sober living homes in the area. The site's proximity to another sober living home serving more than six adults contributes to an overconcentration of sober living homes in this neighborhood. Granting the accommodation to consider this facility as a single housekeeping unit and/or waiving the separation standard will result in an overconcentration of sober living homes in this area and would be in conflict with the fundamental intent of the City's zoning program.
C. When the City adopted Title 13, Chapter XVI of the CMMC (Ordinance 45-11 ), it speciTicallyincluded provisions requiring all existing group home operators, who were not in compliance with existing zoning requirements, to come into compliance with the new regulations within one year of their adoption. The ordinance did not create 594
or recognize any nonconforming uses. Given the intent of the ordinance, it is not appropriate to grant the Reasonable Accommodation to allow the subject facility, which was not in compliance with existing zoning requirements, to be "grandfathered" and exempted from compliance with current regulations.
D. The Applicants have not stated any factual change in circumstances related to operation of the properties since the previous Reasonable Accommodation requests were made and have already litigated the issue of Reasonable Accommodation under both state and federal law. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Ohio House, LLC v. City of Costa Mesa, Case No. 22-56'l81, issued April 24, 2025, in upholding the City's prior denial of the requested accommodations, held inter aria that the City's zoning scheme provides a more than equal opportunity to use and to enjoy housing to the disabled, and that the requested accommodations would result in a fundamental alteration of the City's zoning scheme.
E. The Costa Mesa Planning Commission has denied the requested Reasonable Accommodation. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080(b) and CEQA Guidelines Section 1 5270(a), CEQA does not apply to this project because it has been rejected and will not be carried out.
F. The project site is exempt from Chapter
Management, of Title 13 of the Costa Mesa
Xll, Article 3 Transportation System
Municipal Code.
595
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY,SEPTEMBER 22,2025-MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER - The Regular Planning Commission Meeting was called to order by Vice Chair Jon Zich at 6:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG - Commissioner Martinez led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
Present: Vice Chair Jon Zich, Commissioner Angely Andrade, Commissioner Robert Dickson, Commissioner Karen Klepack, Commissioner David Martinez, Commissioner Johnny Rojas
Absent: Chair Jeffrey Harlan
Commissioner Dickson joined the meeting at 6:04 p.m.
ANNOUNCEMENTS AND PRESENTATIONS: None.
PUBLIC COMMENTS - MATTERS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA: None PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS:
Commissioner Andrade congratulated the City for the successful culmination of the Art Venture program, sharing that her family enjoyed the activities at Lions Park. She encouraged the community to stay connected through social media to learn about upcoming events, which help neighbors build community. Andrade also highlighted the upcoming September 27th Hispanic Heritage Month celebration, inviting residents to enjoy Latin music, food, and culture.
Commissioner Martinez highlighted a full calendar of community events, including the Hispanic Heritage Month celebration at Lions Park on September 27 from 10:00 AM2:00 PM, which also marks the last day to view the Art Venture exhibit at the Norma Herzog Community Center. That same day will feature a Community E-Bike Skills Workshop at TeWinkle Middle School for NMUSD students and parents, as well as the QC Pride Festival at the QC Fairgrounds. Looking ahead, he noted the Costa Mesa Sanitary District's Eco Expo on October1, the annual Scarecrow Festival at Lions Park Minutes - Costa Mesa Planning Commission Meeting - September 22, 2025- Page 1 ATTACHMENT 10
596
on October 11, and reminded the public that two important surveys-the Neighborhoods Where We All Belong and the Climate Action & Adaptation Plan - close on September 30, encouraging everyone to participate and provide feedback.
Commissioner Dickson reminded the community about the Safe Routes to School survey available on the City's website. He emphasized theimportance of participation, noting that the survey helps the City understand how families are getting children to school.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
1. SEPTEMBER 8, 2025 UNOFFICIAL MEETING MINUTES
MOVED/SECOND: MARTINEZ/ DICKSON
MOTION: to approve Consent Calendar with one spelling edit.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Vice Chair Zich, Commissioner Andrade, Commissioner Dickson, Commissioner Klepack, Commissioner Martinez, Commissioner Rojas Nays: None
Absent: Chair Harlan
Recused: None
Motion carried: 6-0-1
ACTION:
Planning Commission approved consent calendar items.
END OF CONSENT CALENDAR
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PCUP-25-0017 TO ALLOW OUTDOOR STORAGE OF MOTOR VEHICLES (TOW TRUCKS AND EMPLOYEE VEHICLES) AT 2648 NEWPORT BOULEV ARD.
One ex-parte communications reported from Vice Chair Zich.
Presentation by Associate Planner, Justin Arios.
David Pauda, from the applicantteam, stated he read and agreed to the conditions if approval.
Public comments:
Monica McDade, spoke on behalf of the seven units directly behind the project site. She expressed concern that in the past she did not receive notice about the Minutes - Costa Mesa Planning Commission Meeting - September 22, 2025- Page 2 597
removal of three large trees in her backyard, which has changed the environment after 19 years by making it brighter and warmer. She asked for clarification on whether the project will have 24-hour operations, what level of traffic is anticipated given the nearby family residences, and whether a new block wall will be constructed to address damage to existing fencing that occurred when the trees were removed.
Motion Discussion:
Commissioners expressed support for the project, noting it would replace an eyesore, improve the area with new landscaping and a block wall, and that noise concerns for nearby residents had been addressed through conditions of approval. The Commissioners highlighted the benefit of a shorter driveway for sidewalk safety and stressed the importance of including evergreen trees rather than palms in the landscaping plan, consistent with City preferences.
MOVED/SECOND: DICKSON/ZICH
MOTION: To move staff recommendations with the following modifications:
1. Add the standard landscaping condition to require that landscaping be approved by Planning Staff.
2. Strike the word "lien" from Condition No. 10.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Vice Chair Zich, Commissioner Andrade, Commissioner Dickson, Commissioner Klepack, Commissioner Rojas, Commissioner Martinez Nays: None
Absent: Chair Harlan
Recused: None
Motion carried: 6-0-1
ACTION:
The Planning Commission adopted a resolution to:
1. Find that the project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 (Class 1) Existing Facilities; and
2. Approve Conditional Use Permit PCUP-25-0017 based on findings of fact and subject to conditions of approval.
2. AN APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF A RECIUEST FOR REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION (PRAC-25-0002) FOR RELIEF FROM CERTAIN LAND USE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING CODE TO OPERATE A SOBER LMNG HOME; OPERATED BY THE OHIO HOUSE AT 115 EAST WILSON STREET,
UNITS A THROUGH E
Minutes - Costa Mesa Planning Commission Meeting - September 22, 2025- Page 3 598
Three ex-parte communications reported from Vice Chair Zich, Commissioner Andrade and Commissioner Dickson.
Presentation by Senior Planner, Victor Mendez.
Christopher Barncart, from the applicant team, stated he read the staff report.
Public comments:
Ryan Stump urged the Cityto support, not eliminate, soberliving homes, stressing that programs like his have saved lives, operated transparently, and are protected under housing discrimination laws. He warned that denying the appeal would displace over 40 men in recovery-leading to relapse, homelessness, and despair - while approval would show Costa Mesa values compassion, dignity, and equal treatment.
Diego Blake shared that the Ohio House gave him community, accountability, and the opportunity to rebuild his life after treatment. He described how residents support each other, pursue education and careers, and live inclusively emphasizing that addiction does not discriminate and that opportunities like this are vital for recovery.
Gary Miller shared his personal journey of relapse after 14 years of sobriety, explaining that after leaving College Hospital with limited options, the Ohio House became a lifesaving resource that has supported his recovery for the past two and a half years. He emphasized Costa Mesa's strong recovery community, the close link between homelessness, substance abuse, and mental health, and urged the City to recognize the Ohio House as a place that saves lives and deserves continued support.
Speaker 3 described the Ohio House not as a business or treatment center, but as a family and brotherhood that helped him overcome homelessness and heroin addiction. Now a college graduate with both a bachelor's and master's degree and working as a therapist, he stressed that displacing the Ohio House would take away that family for many men in recovery, sharing that even his father credits the program with giving him his son back.
Tyler Douglas Warm shared his personal story of struggling with addiction and homelessness for nearly eight years before being given a second chance at life through the Ohio House, founded by his lifelong friend Brandon and supported by Brandon's brother Ryan. He described the Ohio House as a vital sanctuary that not only saved his life but also helps countless others regain stability, return to work, and contribute positively to the community. He urged the City to recognize its value, stressing that closing or relocating the facility would jeopardize recovery Minutes - Costa Mesa Planning Commission Meeting - September 22, 2025- Page 4 599
efforts, dismantle a proven support network, and ultimately harm both individuals and the broader community.
Brandon Stump explained that the Ohio House grew from his own recovery journey into a community that has helped countless people rebuild their lives, supported by over $7 million in local real estate investment and his family's deep roots in Costa Mesa. He emphasized that despite new ordinances unfairly impacting his homes, the Ohio House provides hope, accountability, and stability, turning those in recovery into productive community members while enhancing the neighborhoods it serves.
Corey Dispenser shared his journey from being homeless and struggling with addiction to becoming a sober, employed, and responsible resident who can now support his family and give back to the community. He credited the Ohio House for providing accountability, structure, and community, emphasizing that it transformed his life and that its residents are a gift to Costa Mesa, not a burden.
Jeremy Kangaroo shared that after losing his career and nearly his life to alcoholism, the Ohio House gave him purpose, structure, and the chance to serve as a house manager for six years, where he witnessed countless recoveries. He described the program as a gold-standard sober living community that saved his life and urged the City to reconsider its recommendation, asking leaders to imagine if someone they loved needed a place like the Ohio House.
Cynthia McDonald acknowledged and commended the success stories shared about the Ohio House but reminded Commissioners of past community concerns over the overconcentration of sober living homes. Citing two court rulings that upheld the City's ordinance as legal, she urged the Commission to maintain the denial, arguing that reversing it would risk costly litigation and that City funds would be better spent supporting residents rather than legal battles.
Motion Discussion:
Several commissioners thanked the Ohio House residents and supporters fortheir heartfelt testimonies, acknowledging the bravery it took to share such personal stories and recognizing the value of the recovery work being done. However, they emphasized that the decision before them was a Land Use and Zoning matter, not a judgment on the merits of recovery programs. While expressing deep sympathy and support for the individuals and their successes, Commissioners noted that the necessary permissions to operate the property were not in place, and therefore stated they would support the motion to uphold the denial.
MOVED/SECOND: MARTINEZ/DICKSON
MOTION: To move staff recommendation.
Minutes - Costa Mesa Planning Commission Meeting - September 22, 2025- Page 5 600
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Vice Chair Zich, Commissioner Dickson,
Commissioner Rojas, Commissioner Martinez
Nays: Commissioner Andrade
Absent: Chair Harlan
Recused: None
Motion carried: 5-1-1
Commissioner Klepack,
ACTION:
The Planning Commission adopted a resolution to:
1. Uphold the Economic and Development Services Director's denial of the Reasonable Accommodation request.
OLD BUSINESS: None.
NEW BUSINESS: None.
REPORT - PUBLIC WORKS - Mr. Yang noted that the City will host a Community EBike Skills Course on Saturday, September 27, from 10 AM-2 PM at TeWinkle Middle School, as previously mentioned by Commissioner Martinez. He added that Citywide walk audits are underway, beginning with seven elementary schools and expanding to 16 more, as part of updating the Safe Routes to Schools plan. Lastly, he congratulated the Transportation Division for winning the ASCE Los Angeles Section award for Outstanding Bikeways and Trails Project, recognizing the Adams Avenue/Pike Creek Drive multimodal intersection improvements.
REPORT - DEVELOPMENT SERVICES - Director Tai noted that on October 7, City Council will hear an appeal of the small lot subdivision at 2308 Santa Ana Avenue, conduct the second reading of the recently approved minor code cleanup, and considerthe Planning Commission's recommendation on the Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan project description for environmental review. She also updated the Commission that the Hive Live project has been continued to a date uncertain at the applicant's request, with new notices to be sent once it is ready to return. When asked, she clarified that no substantial project changes are currently anticipated that would require another Planning Commission hearing, though significant alterations would trigger a return if necessary.
REPORT - ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY - None
ADJOURNMENT AT 8:07 p.m.
Minutes - Costa Mesa Planning Commission Meeting - September 22, 2025- Page 6 601
Submitted by:
COSTA MESA PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes - Costa Mesa Planning Commission Meeting - September 22, 2025- Page 7 602
4%_ - f' )
Costa Mesa
City of Costa Mesa
2j Appeal of Planning Commission Decision:
$1,220.00 (Tier 1)'
$3,825.00 (Tier 2)"
0 Appeal of Non-Planning Commission Decision:
$690.00(Tierl)' CityofCostaMesa
77 Fair Drive
$3,825.00 (Tier z)2 Costa Mesa, CA 92626
APPLICATION FOR APPEAL OR REVIEW 714-754-5225
Applicant Name" The Ohio House, LLC and Geo. Castaneda, Diego Blake, Garey Miller, Kayl McReynolds, Robert Palmer Address Sie: 115 East WilSon StreeI UniS A-E, COSta Mega, CA 92627 Phone (650)879-0141;email: cbrancartpbrancart.com
REQUEST FOR: xi APPEAL g REVIEW"
Decision of which appeal or review is requested: (give application number, if applicable, and the date of the decision, if known.)
Decision of Planning Commission, issued orally on September 22, 2025, upholding the Director of Economic Development Service's denial of appellants' request for reasonable accommodation, issued July 2, 2025. Planning Commission referenced this matter as PRAC-25-0002.
Decision by: Planning Commission upholding decision by EDS Director Reasons for requesting appeal or review:
The Planning Commission's decision upholding the EDS Director's denial of appellants' request for reasonable accommodation, including the underlying substantive and procedural requirements and standards related to that decision, violate California state law, including the Fair Employment and Housing Act and the State Planning and Zoning Law. The denial, requirements, and standards also violates the City of Costa Mesa"s state law duty to affirmatively further fair housing and are contrary to the City's General Plan and the directives of the California Department of Housing and Community Development.
SIGNED ON BEHALF OF appellants The Ohio House, LLC, George Castaneda, Diego Blake, Garey Miller, Kayl McReynolds, and Robert Palmer.
Slaned bv:
"If you are serving as the agent for another person, please identify the person you represent and provide proof of authorization. "Review may be requested only by Planning Commission, Planning Commission Member, City Council, or City Council Member For office use only - do not write below this line
SCHEDULED FOR THE CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF:
If appeal or review is for a person or body other than City Council/Planning Commission, date of hearing of appeal or review Updated September 2023
' Includes owners and/or occupants of a property located within 500 feet of project site (excluding owners and/or occupants of the project site). alncludes the project applicant, owners and/or occupants of the project site, and owners and/or occupants of a property located greater than 500 feet from the project site.
ATTACHMENT 11
603
CITY OF COSTA MESA
Agenda Report
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
File #: 26-423 Meeting Date: 10/6/2026
TITLE:
ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 2026-08 ADOPTING THE FAIRVIEW DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN AND RELATED AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 13 OF THE ZONING CODE
AND THE ZONING MAP
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 Ordinance No. 2026-08 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).”
604
City of Costa Mesa
Agenda Report
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Item #: 26-423 Meeting Date: 10/6/2026
TITLE: ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 2026-08 ADOPTING THE FAIRVIEW DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN AND RELATED AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 13 OF THE ZONING CODE
AND THE ZONING MAP
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:
1. Adopt Ordinance No. 2026-08 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.
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 considered all public testimony and ultimately recommended (4-2) that the City Council adopt the FDCSP with 4,000 residential units and incorporate information from the August 10, 2026 Planning Commission Memorandum relating to an update to figures in the level of service 605
Item #: 26-381 Meeting Date: 9/15/2026
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.
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC-2026-22 is available here:
https://costamesa.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=15847945&GUID=CDB278B1-71A9-475AA230-8A5C01E8662B 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
On September 15, 2026, the City Council conducted a legally noticed public hearing and unanimously introduced on first reading an ordinance to adopt the Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan (FDCSP) that includes amendments to Title 13 of the City’s Zoning Code. After considering all public testimony presented at the hearing, the City Council unanimously moved to adopt the FDCSP with changes that will be discussed under the analysis section of this report, certified the Environmental Impact Report, adopted findings of fact and statement of overriding considerations in Resolution No. 2026-51, and adopted associated general plan amendments to the Land Use Element for internal consistency with the FDCSP in Resolution No. 2026-52.
Link to September 15, 2026 Meeting Agenda, staff report and associated attachments:
https://costamesa.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=8209117&GUID=63B29E44-2C19-42E1- BC71-B25DC3EC462A&Options=&Search=
Link to written public comments:
https://costamesa.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=E3&ID=1431709&GUID=4AD52C19-0209-4002- 9008-0E4FB4501140
Link to Presentation, Memo to City Council, and List of 22 edits requested during the meeting:
https://costamesa.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=E2&ID=1431709&GUID=4AD52C19-0209-4002- 9008-0E4FB4501140
ANALYSIS:
FDC Specific Plan – September 15, 2026 City Council Revisions Ordinance No. 2026-08 is included in Attachment 1 of this report and Exhibit A reflects the City Council revisions to the FDCSP made during its motion on September 15, 2026. The changes requested by the City Council are summarized as follows:
• Reduce the maximum units from 4,000 to 2,300, with no change to the number of affordable units;
• Increase the minimum acres of open space from 14 acres to 25 acres; • Increase the minimum non-residential square-footage from 10,000 square feet to 15,000 square feet;
• Include a requirement for an updated transportation study or traffic analysis that identifies, during the phasing and construction of units, if and when it is necessary to construct a secondary access road;
606
Item #: 26-381 Meeting Date: 9/15/2026
• Incorporate a list of 22 specific non-substantive text amendments (linked above) to the specific plan document as presented at the hearing, including the updated language discussed at the hearing relating to fruit trees in item number 20, which was modified to include reference that they are allowed, provided that they do not create a pest problem and are maintained by a future private owner; and
• Direct staff to continue discussions with the State Department of General Services (DGS) and Department of Development Services (DDS) around the public’s use of Merrimac Way whereby alternative safety improvements should be considered to protect the residents rather than a wholesale prohibition for public access and request State subsidy for the disposition of the FDC site to reduce costs for hazardous materials remediation for the future Master Developer.
The City Council also moved the potential creation of two committees; however, that would be brought forth as a separate action item for City Council consideration as noted by the City Attorney at the hearing. As such, the specific plan has been updated so all references to the 14 acres of open space have been updated to 25 acres, references to 4,000 units have been reduced to 2,300 units, and 10,000 square feet minimum of non-residential or commercial area has been increased to 15,000 square feet throughout the document. The list of text edits provided by the City Council on September 15, 2026, are also included within Exhibit A. In addition, the following text edits were made to the FDCSP by staff to further implement the City Council’s motion where strikethrough text denotes text being removed, and underline text denotes text being added:
• Chapter 5: Mobility, Section 5.2.3
“A secondary access road will be required for additional safe ingress and egress for development of 2,300 residential units or more. If a secondary access road is proposed as part of the FDC Development Review Application, then the requirements set forth in Chapter 8 shall apply. The secondary access via a new street is proposed through the golf course connecting to the existing intersection at Harbor Boulevard and the Harbor Shopping Center Driveway and aligned with the shopping center east of Harbor Boulevard. This roadway alignment will be finalized with a master developer, and a redesign and/or reconfiguration of impacted golf course holes is required (see Chapter 8, Administration and Implementation).” Per the list of 22 edits, item 11 requested a note be added to Figure 5-6 through Figure 5-10 but included specific reference to the on-street parking lane. Several of these figures do not include an on-street parking lane, so this note was only added to the figures that include onstreet parking. • Chapter 6: Open Space, Landscaping & Public Art, Section 6.2.1, a new bullet point was added at the end of the list which states the following:
“Any lighting that is proposed in a publicly accessible sports field shall require a lighting study and potential environmental analysis.”
• Chapter 8: Administration & Implementation includes the following changes:
Section 8.2.6, Application Review and Processing
607
Item #: 26-381 Meeting Date: 9/15/2026
“[…] All development applications must be consistent with the Vision, Guiding Principles, purpose, intent, objectives, development and design standards of this Specific Plan. In the event an application that is not identified in this section is submitted to the City for review, a subsequent FDC Development Review Application shall be submitted.” Section 8.2.6.A FDC Development Review Application
“[…]
7. Backbone circulation and location of local roads.
8. A traffic study shall be required to identify if an additional access road is necessary, and if necessary, what unit count will trigger the additional access road.
8. 9. Draft Transportation Demand Management Plan and Climate Action and Adaptation Plan compliance.
[…]”
Section 8.2.6.G Specific Plan Amendments
“[…]
6. A proposed new additional access road.
6.7. A proposed change […]”
Finally, all figures that depict the secondary access road through the golf course include a note that states the following: “NOTE: This graphic is conceptual and represents potential roadway configurations and does not pre-commit the use of the City Municipal Golf Course for road access.” This note has also been added to street section Figure 5-7 and Figure 5-8, which are kept in the plan as reference to street design requirements (widths, pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, etc.) for a secondary access road. The additional edits identified above implement the City Council’s motion around field lighting, incorporate application processing requirements in the event a new access road is needed which includes a specific plan amendment, and address the figures in the FDCSP that show the road through the golf course.
A strikethrough version of the document can be viewed online here:
https://www.costamesaca.gov/home/showdocument?id=64942&t=639258436079063484 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS:
Pursuant to State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2026-51 certifying the Environmental Impact Report, adopted findings of fact and statement of overriding considerations, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program on September 15, 2026. A Notice of Determination was filed with the County Clerk Recorder and with the State Clearinghouse on September 21, 2026. A second Notice of Determination will be filed within five days of City Council action on the Ordinance.
608
Item #: 26-381 Meeting Date: 9/15/2026
ALTERNATIVES:
The City Council may adopt the Ordinance as proposed, modify the Ordinance, or not adopt the Ordinance. If the City Council chooses to make substantive modifications to the Ordinance after introduction, the modified Ordinance would need to be brought back at a future meeting for re-introduction and adoption.
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 and ordinance, and has approved them as to form.
PUBLIC NOTICE:
Pursuant to government Code section 65854(a), a public notice was published once in the Daily Pilot newspaper on September 25, 2026, exceeding the minimum 10 days prior to the October 6, 2026, public hearing.
Any public comments received for the October 6, 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 the City Council adopt the FDCSP and the associated Zoning Code amendments for internal consistency identified within this report and its associated attachments. 609
ATTACHMENT 1
Ordinance No. 2026-08 Page 1 of 8
ORDINANCE NO. 2026-08
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA,
CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE FAIRVIEW DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN AND AMEND SECTIONS 13-20, 13-28, 13-30, CHAPTER V, ARTICLE 7, AND ADD CHAPTER XVIII TITLED “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 FDC SPECIFIC PLAN (FDCSP) AND CHANGE THE REMAINING 15 ACRES TO INSTITUTIONAL AND RECREATIONAL (I&R).
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY FIND AND DECLARE AS FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS, in June 2022, the California State Legislature adopted SB 188, enacting Government Code section 14670.31, which outlines the general terms under which the State of California, through the State Department of General Services (DGS) and the State Department of Developmental Services (DDS), will collaborate with the City of Costa Mesa (City) to determine the future of the FDC site; and WHEREAS, on October 4, 2022, the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa (City Council), authorized the City Manager to enter into a Standard Agreement with the DGS and receive State funds in an amount not to exceed $3.5 million to develop the Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan (FDCSP); and
WHEREAS, in December of 2022, the City of Costa Mesa and DGS entered into Standard Agreement Number HD229063; and
WHEREAS, on June 13, 2023, the City released the solicitation of a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the FDCSP that was released via PlanetBids, the City’s web-based procurement system, where four proposals were received and evaluated by City staff based on the selection criteria identified in the RFP, and of the four proposals, PlaceWorks was selected as the qualified consultant to complete the FDCSP scope of work; and
WHEREAS, on August 1, 2023, the City Council approved the agreement between the City and PlaceWorks pursuant to the RFP; and WHEREAS, on November 2, 3, and 6, 2023, a publicly noticed community workshop (Workshop No. 1) took place at various locations within the City to gather 610
Ordinance No. 2026-08 Page 2 of 8
community input and feedback relating to the existing conditions within the FDCSP and gain insight on the community’s vision for the area; and WHEREAS, on December 12, 2023, the City Council held a study session and received a project status update on the FDCSP; and
WHEREAS, on March 25, 2024, the Planning Commission held a study session and received a project status update on the FDCSP; and
WHEREAS, throughout 2024, Workshop No. 2 (January 23, 25, and 29), Workshop No. 3 (February 29, March 4, and 6), and Workshop No. 4 (July 24, 25 and 31) were publicly noticed and each workshop was held at various locations within the City to gain community input on the draft Vision and Guiding Principles (including further refinements throughout), mobility, open space, housing, infrastructure and learn the community’s preferences on these items to incorporate greater detail within the FDCSP; and
WHEREAS, Workshop No. 4 included three land use concepts, key features and applicable analysis for each concept and a land use concept survey was made available from July 24 through August 30, 2024; and
WHEREAS, on May 27, 2025, June 23, 2025, and August 25, 2025, the Planning Commission held publicly noticed study sessions that included project background information, financial feasibility findings, summary of community engagement, and three land use scenarios to obtain their input and provide recommendation to the City Council for a land use plan scenario to be studied for environmental review purposes and inclusion in the FDCSP which does not pre-commit the City to any action for adoption; and
WHEREAS, on October 9, 2025, the FDCSP was presented to the Parks and Community Services Commission to obtain feedback about park amenities for consideration and inclusion in the FDCSP; and
WHEREAS, on October 21, 2025, the City Council held a publicly noticed study session to review the Planning Commission’s recommended land use plan for the FDCSP and the City Council directed staff to move forward with the Planning Commission’s recommendation to study 4,000 residential units, 35,000 square feet of 611
Ordinance No. 2026-08 Page 3 of 8
non-residential area, and increased the minimum open space requirement from 12 acres to 14 acres which does not pre-commit the City to any action for adoption; and WHEREAS, on October 29, 2025, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) a notice of preparation (NOP) was issued and submitted to the State Clearinghouse where the FDCSP was assigned project number SCH No. 2025101405; and
WHEREAS, the NOP started the CEQA environmental review process by notifying agencies, organizations, tribes, and interested parties about the City’s plans to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and that the written public comment period began October 29, 2025, through December 5, 2025; and WHEREAS, on November 17, 2025, a public scoping meeting was held at City Hall to solicit comments and suggestions regarding the scope and content of the EIR and environmental issues and alternatives to be considered in the EIR; and WHEREAS, on March 16, 2026, the Public Review Draft Specific Plan was made available for a 30-day public comment period that concluded on April 15, 2026; and WHEREAS, on March 24, 26, and 30, 2026, Workshop No. 5 was held at various locations within the community to introduce the community to the draft specific plan, inform them of its components, and obtain their feedback on the draft document; and WHEREAS, on May 14, 2026, a notice of availability Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was published in a newspaper of general circulation which included a 48- day public review period that occurred from May 14, 2026, through July 1, 2026, and the DEIR were made available for public review pursuant to the requirements of the CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, on May 14, 2026, the DEIR was uploaded to the City’s environmental notices webpage, provided to the County Clerk-recorder’s Office for posting, and submitted and uploaded to the State Clearinghouse (State Clearinghouse No. 2025101405); and
WHEREAS, on July 14, 2026, the Public Hearing Draft Specific Plan was made available on the project webpage which incorporates public comments received during the March 2026 public comment period for the FDCSP; and 612
Ordinance No. 2026-08 Page 4 of 8
WHEREAS, on July 15, 2026, City staff held a focus group meeting with Costa Mesa Country Club golf course clubs to discuss the secondary access road contemplated in the FDCSP and outline the future process; and WHEREAS, on July 16, 2026, the Airport Land Use Commission held a duly noticed public hearing and determined that the FDCSP was consistent with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport; and
WHEREAS, on July 23, 2026, the City held a Community Q&A event to provide the community the opportunity to ask questions of staff in order to prepare the community for upcoming public hearings with the Planning Commission and City Council; and
WHEREAS, all workshops and the Community Q&A were advertised through various means, including social media posts on Facebook, Instagram, Next Door, postcard mailers to 46,271 residential homes, email notifications to interested parties, flyer distribution and A-frame signs placed outside of City facilities, announcements made at Planning Commission and City Council meetings, and newspaper advertisements; and
WHEREAS, on July 27, 2026, the Planning Commission held a study session on the FDCSP where it received a presentation for the introduction of the July 2026 Public Hearing Draft Specific Plan, associated Zoning Code, Zoning Map, Land Use Element and Land Use Map amendments and the Draft EIR, and after public comment the Planning Commission received and filed the report and provided feedback on the FDCSP; and
WHEREAS, the implementation of the FDCSP requires amendments to Section 13-20, 13-28, 13-30, and Chapter V, Article 7, of the Zoning Code and add Chapter XVIII “Specific Plans” to Title 13 of the Zoning Code, and update the Zoning Map, the Land Use Element of the General Plan and Land Use Map for consistency with the FDCSP to rezone the FDC site and change the Land Use Designations; and WHEREAS, on August 10, 2026, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to discuss and consider the FDCSP project and proposed amendments to Zoning Code, Zoning Map, Land Use Element and Land Use Map, with all persons having the opportunity to speak for and against the proposal and 613
Ordinance No. 2026-08 Page 5 of 8
recommended that the City Council incorporate clarifications included in the August 10, 2026, Memorandum to the Planning Commission, certify the Final EIR, adopt the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on September 15, 2026, for the purpose of considering the FDCSP project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered the totality of the record and all evidence submitted into the record, including public testimony and the evaluation and recommendations by staff and Planning Commission, presented at said hearings; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and
WHEREAS, on September 15, 2026, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2026-51 certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report, adopting Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopting the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the FDCSP project and adopted Resolution No. 2026-52 updating the Land Use Element of the General Plan for consistency with the FDCSP and change the land use designations of the 110-acre FDC site located at 2501 Harbor Boulevard to refer to the 95-acre FDCSP area and change the remaining 15 acres to Public/Institutional; and
WHEREAS, on September 15, 2026, the City Council unanimously introduced the Ordinance and in their motion requested changes be incorporated into the FDCSP, that include the following (reflected within Exhibit A):
• Reduce the maximum units from 4,000 to 2,300, with no change to the number of affordable units;
• Increase the minimum acres of open space from 14 acres to 25 acres; • Increase the minimum non-residential square-footage from 10,000 square feet to 15,000 square feet;
• Include a requirement for an updated transportation study or traffic analysis that identifies, during the phasing and construction of units, if and when it is necessary to construct a secondary access road; • Incorporate a list of 22 specific non-substantive text amendments to the 614
Ordinance No. 2026-08 Page 6 of 8
specific plan document as presented at the hearing, including the updated language discussed at the hearing relating to fruit trees in item number 20, which was modified to include reference that they are allowed, provided that they do not create a pest problem and are maintained by a future private owner; and
• Direct staff to continue discussions with the State Department of General Services and Department of Developmental Services around the public’s use of Merrimac Way whereby alternative safety improvements should be considered to protect the residents rather than a wholesale prohibition for public access and request State subsidy for the disposition of the FDC site to reduce costs for hazardous materials remediation for the future Master Developer.
Now, therefore, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Fairview Development Center Specific Plan is hereby adopted as shown in Exhibit A to this Ordinance. This Specific Plan is adopted for the purpose of implementing the Costa Mesa General Plan for the Specific Plan area.
Section 1. Amendments to Sections 13-20, 13-28, 13-30, Chapter V, Article 7, Add Chapter XVIII “Specific Plans”, as identified within Exhibit B and update the Zoning Map to change the zoning designation of the FDC site located at 2501 Harbor Boulevard from “Institutional and Recreational Multi-use (I&R-MLT)” to refer to the 95-acre FDCSP area as “FDCSP” and change the remaining 15 acres of the 110-acre site to “Institutional and Recreational” zoning designation as identified within Exhibit C.
Section 2. Inconsistencies. Any provision of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to affect the provisions of this Ordinance.
Section 3. Severability. If any chapter, article, section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance, or the application thereof to any person, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the 615
Ordinance No. 2026-08 Page 7 of 8
remaining portion of this Ordinance or its application to other persons. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each chapter, article, section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions of the application thereof to any person, be declared invalid or unconstitutional. No portion of this Ordinance shall supersede any local, State, or Federal law, regulation, or codes dealing with life safety factors.
Section 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its final passage.
Section 5. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published or posted in the manner required by law.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this ___ day of _____, 2026.
_____________________________
John Stephens, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________ _____________________________
Brenda Green, City Clerk Kimberly Hall Barlow, City Attorney 616
Ordinance No. 2026-08 Page 8 of 8
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss
CITY OF COSTA MESA )
I, BRENDA GREEN, City Clerk of the City of Costa Mesa, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and foregoing Ordinance No. 2026-08 was duly introduced for first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 15th day of September 2026, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 6th day of October, 2026, by the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the seal of the City of Costa Mesa this ___ day of ___________, 2026.
__________________________
Brenda Green, City Clerk
617
October 6, 2026
Public Hearing Draft
Prepared by PlaceWorks
ATTACHMENT 2, EXHIBIT A
618
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026
PREPARED FOR:
City of Costa Mesa
CITY COUNCIL:
John Stephens, Mayor
Manuel Chavez, Mayor Pro Tem
Jeff Pettis, Council Member
Andrea Marr, Council Member
Loren Gameros, Council Member
Mike Buley, Council Member
Arlis Reynolds, Council Member
PLANNING COMMISSION:
Jeffrey Harlan, Chair
Jon Zich, Vice Chair
Karen Klepack, Commissioner
Johnny Rojas, Commissioner
Angely Andrade Vallarta, Commissioner
David Martinez, Commissioner
Robert Dickson, Commissioner
CITY STAFF:
Carrie Tai
Anna McGill
Melinda Dacey
Jennifer Le
Phayvanh Nanthavongdouangsy
Sheri Vander Dussen
COORDINATION WITH:
California Department of General
Services (DGS), Real Estate Division
California Department of
Developmental Services (DDS)
PREPARED BY:
619
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026 1 HISTORY & DISPOSITION PROCESS 1-1
1.1 Purpose 1-2
1.2 Location and History 1-2
2 INTRODUCTION 2-1
2.1 Purpose 2-2
2.2 Location and Existing Uses 2-2
2.3 Planning Context 2-4
2.4 Plan Authority 2-13
2.5 Relationship to Other Plans 2-14
2.6 The Planning Process 2-20
3 VISION & GUIDING PRINCIPLES 3-1
3.1 Purpose 3-3
3.2 Vision Statement 3-3
3.3 Guiding Principles 3-4
4 LAND USE & URBAN DESIGN 4-1
4.1 Purpose 4-2
4.2 Land Use Plan 4-2
4.3 Urban Design 4-6
4.4 Housing Plan 4-8
4.5 Uses 4-10
4.6 Development and Design Standards 4-15
5 MOBILITY 5-1
5.1 Purpose 5-2
5.2 Mobility Plan 5-2
6 OPEN SPACE, LANDSCAPING & PUBLIC ART 6-1
6.1 Purpose 6-2
6.2 Open Space and Trails Plan 6-2
6.3 Landscaping and Trees 6-14
6.4 Public Art 6-16
7 INFRASTRUCTURE & PUBLIC SERVICES 7-1
7.1 Purpose 7-2
7.2 Infrastructure, Utilities and Public Services 7-2
8 ADMINISTRATION & IMPLEMENTATION 8-1
8.1 Purpose 8-2
8.2 Administration 8-2
8.3 Implementation 8-10
620
LIST OF FIGURES
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026
FIGURE 1-1: LOCAL VICINITY.............................................................................................................................. 1-3 FIGURE 1-2: CAMPUS MAP.................................................................................................................................. 1-5 FIGURE 2-1: SURROUNDING AREA.................................................................................................................... 2-2 FIGURE 2-2: REGIONAL LOCATION.................................................................................................................... 2-3 FIGURE 2-3: CURRENT GENERAL PLAN LAND USE (2015)............................................................................. 2-5 FIGURE 2-4: CURRENT ZONING (2025) .............................................................................................................. 2-9 FIGURE 2-5: PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN LAND USE .................................................................................... 2-11 FIGURE 2-6: PROPOSED ZONING..................................................................................................................... 2-12 FIGURE 2-7: JOHN WAYNE AIPORT (JWA) NOISE CONTOURS 2026 (DBL CNEL)....................................... 2-18 FIGURE 2-8: JOHN WAYNE AIPORT (JWA) OBSTRUCTION AND NOTIFICATION ZONES............................ 2-19 FIGURE 2-9: TYPE OF HOUSEHOLD BY SHARE OF TOTAL NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS, 1970–2021 ...... 2-25 FIGURE 2-10: REAL AVERAGE SALES PRICE AND REAL ESTATE AVERAGE SALES PER SQUARE FOOT FOR NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING, 1971–2021........................................................... 2-25 FIGURE 4-1: CONCEPTUAL LAND USE PLAN ................................................................................................... 4-3 FIGURE 4-2: CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN.............................................................................................................. 4-7 FIGURE 4-3: BUILDING FORM, SCALE, AND MASSING.................................................................................. 4-18 FIGURE 4-4: SREOC TOWER LOCATION AND ANTENNA CLEARANCE ....................................................... 4-19 FIGURE 4-5: KEY INTERSECTIONS1 ................................................................................................................. 4-20 FIGURE 4-6: BUILDING ORIENTATION.............................................................................................................. 4-21 FIGURE 4-7: BUILDING FRONTAGE.................................................................................................................. 4-25 FIGURE 5-1: EXISTING ROADWAY NETWORK................................................................................................... 5-5 FIGURE 5-2: PROPOSED ROADWAY NETWORK............................................................................................... 5-7 FIGURE 5-3: BACKBONE ROADWAY NETWORK............................................................................................... 5-8 FIGURE 5-4: PROMENADE STREET SECTION OPTION 1 ................................................................................. 5-9 FIGURE 5-5: PROMENADE STREET SECTION OPTION 2 ............................................................................... 5-10 621
LIST OF FIGURES
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026
FIGURE 5-6: SHELLEY CIRCLE STREET SECTION .......................................................................................... 5-11 FIGURE 5-7: SECONDARY ACCESS THROUGH THE GOLF COURSE OPTION 1.......................................... 5-12 FIGURE 5-8: SECONDARY ACCESS THROUGH THE GOLF COURSE OPTION 2.......................................... 5-13 FIGURE 5-9: LOCAL ROAD, NO PARKING STREET SECTION........................................................................ 5-14 FIGURE 5-10: LOCAL ROAD WITH PARKING STREET SECTION..................................................................... 5-15 FIGURE 5-11: MULTI-USE TRAIL SECTION ........................................................................................................ 5-16 FIGURE 5-12: EXISTING AND PROPOSED SURROUNDING BICYCLE NETWORK ......................................... 5-19 FIGURE 5-13: PROPOSED BICYCLE NETWORK................................................................................................ 5-20 FIGURE 5-14: INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS ............................................................................................... 5-21 FIGURE 5-15: SREOC TURNING RADIUS VEHICLE SIZE.................................................................................. 5-22 FIGURE 5-16: BUS STOPS AND TRANSIT ROUTES .......................................................................................... 5-23 FIGURE 6-1: CONCEPTUAL SITE WITH OPEN SPACE...................................................................................... 6-3 FIGURE 6-2: PROPOSED OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS PLAN ............................................................................ 6-5 FIGURE 6-3: PASEO.............................................................................................................................................. 6-9 FIGURE 6-4: OPEN SPACE ILLUSTRATIVE ...................................................................................................... 6-10 FIGURE 6-5: NEARBY CITY PARKS AND OPEN SPACE.................................................................................. 6-13 FIGURE 7-1: EXISTING WATER SYSTEM FACILITIES........................................................................................ 7-6 FIGURE 7-2: PROPOSED WATER SYSTEM FACILITIES .................................................................................... 7-7 FIGURE 7-3: EXISTING SEWER FACILITIES....................................................................................................... 7-8 FIGURE 7-4: PROPOSED SEWER FACILITIES ................................................................................................... 7-9 FIGURE 7-5: EXISTING STORM DRAIN FACILITIES......................................................................................... 7-10 FIGURE 7-6: PROPOSED STORM DRAIN FACILITIES ...................................................................................... 7-11 FIGURE 7-7: PUBLIC SERVICES........................................................................................................................ 7-14 622
LIST OF TABLES
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026
TABLE 2-1: RETAIL MARKET POTENTIAL IN SQUARE FEET OF GROSS FLOOR AREA........................... 2-27 TABLE 4-1: LAND USE STATISTICAL SUMMARY............................................................................................. 4-5 TABLE 4-2: INCOME CATEGORIES ................................................................................................................... 4-9 TABLE 4-3: PERMITTED AND CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USES ............................................................. 4-11 TABLE 4-4: BUILDING FORM, SCALE, AND MASSING.................................................................................. 4-17 TABLE 4-5: SETBACKS .................................................................................................................................... 4-23 TABLE 5-1: BUS ROUTES ................................................................................................................................ 5-22 TABLE 5-2: PARKING REQUIREMENTS.......................................................................................................... 5-25 TABLE 6-1: OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS..................................................................................................... 6-6 TABLE 8-1: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PROCESS AND REVIEW AUTHORITY...................................... 8-7 TABLE 8-2: MINOR MODIFICATIONS................................................................................................................. 8-9 TABLE 8-3: IMPLEMENTATION AND CONCEPTUAL PHASING..................................................................... 8-15 TABLE 8-4: ONGOING OWNERSHIP, MAINTENANCE, AND FUNDING......................................................... 8-17 623
APPENDICES
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026
APPENDIX A: DEFINITIONS
APPENDIX B: OUTREACH
APPENDIX C: MARKET STUDY
APPENDIX D: GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
APPENDIX E: MICROWAVE PATH CLEARANCE REPORT FOR PROPOSED SOUTHERN REOC LOCATION APPENDIX F: TREE INVENTORY
624
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026
Nearly 95 acres of land available for development in
Costa Mesa is a transformative opportunity. State
disposition of the Fairview Developmental Center (FDC)
property has prioritized housing to address the pressing need to increase housing supply for workforce, veteran, individuals with developmental disabilities, and others.
Most importantly, it is an opportunity to create a vibrant, walkable, mixed-income, mixed-use neighborhood
unique to Costa Mesa and responsive to the City’s future.
This Specific Plan is the regulatory framework for future development. It documents the history of the site;
provides land use, circulation, and infrastructure
requirements; and establishes clear standards and
guidelines for processing development applications and
overall implementation of the Specific Plan. It also
provides a structured process for administration and
implementation. The FDC site has historically housed
and cared for people, a legacy that will continue through implementation of this Specific Plan.
Specific Plan and Document Structure
A specific plan is a land use tool used to implement a
city’s general plan. It establishes a link between
implementing policies of the general plan and the future development of a defined area of a city, which could be a single parcel or multiple properties. The Specific Plan itself is a special set of development standards and
must be consistent with a city’s general plan and zoning code (see Chapter 2 for more about the purpose, intent, and authority of this Specific Plan).
The FDC Specific Plan (also referred to as, FDCSP,
Specific Plan, and Plan) consists of eight chapters.
Each chapter covers a topical area and identifies its
purpose. The order of information intentionally guides
the reader through the past, present, and future of the site according to the statutory requirements for a
specific plan in Section 65451 of the California
Government Code (see Chapter 2, Section 2.4, Plan
Authority). Each chapter includes a set of objectives that are designed to implement each chapter.
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.
625
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026
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
626
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026
627
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026
1 History &
Disposition Process
628
Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan
1-2 Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026
1.1 Purpose
The purpose of this chapter is to provide background
information about the Specific Plan site. This includes its location, history of the Fairview Developmental Center (FDC), and relevant information about the site as a state-owned property. This context sets the foundation for the Specific Plan elements described in the following chapters.
1.2 Location and
History
The Fairview Developmental Center (FDC) is an approximately 110-acre site nestled within the Costa Mesa Country Club and accessed from Fair Drive and Merrimac Way. The FDCSP
includes 95 acres of the 110-acre site. The adjacent multifamily property, Harbor Village, is owned by the State of California and leased to a long-term housing operator. Other nearby uses include the Harbor Shopping Center across
Harbor Boulevard and additional multi-family housing south of the golf course, including the Joann Street neighborhood.
Figure 1-1, Local Vicinity, shows the FDC property and
adjacent uses.
Historical Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report Fairview Development Center Costa Mesa, California (2020); Photograph printed in Costa Mesa Historical Society, Images of America: Costa Mesa, 1940-2003 (Charleston, South Carolina: Arcadia Publishing, 2016), 49. 629
Chapter 1: History & Disposition Process
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026 1-3
Figure 1-1: Local Vicinity
630
Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan
1-4 Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026
Historical Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report Fairview Development Center Costa Mesa, California (2020); (photograph published in “Fairview: Costa Mesa State Hospital will have a New Name, Image,” January 10, 1983, Fairview State Hospital Clippings File, from the Collections of CMHS.
Historical Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report Fairview Development Center Costa Mesa, California (2020) Lee Payne, Staff Photographer, photograph published in Costa Mesa Globe-Herald and Pilot: Fairview Hospital Special Edition, May 4, 1961, 9.
Historical Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report Fairview Development Center Costa Mesa, California (2020); Lee Payne, Staff Photographer, photograph published in Costa Mesa Daily Globe-Herald: Fairview State Hospital Dedication Issue, May 4, 1961, 2, from the Collections of the Costa Mesa Historical Society, Costa Mesa, California [CMHS].
1.2.1 Fairview Developmental
Center History
The FDC was one of three State-operated facilities built in the 1950s to meet expanding demand for facilities focused on mental illness, and beds were also added to care for severe developmentally disabled individuals. The FDC opened in 1959 as the “Fairview State Hospital.” The hospital provided general acute care, skilled nursing care, intermediate care, and acute crises services to individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. This was due to the expanding population of baby boomers and increased demand from families seeking access to public care. The history of FDC reflects the changing understanding of developmental disability in modern America. Post-war, public mental health institutions in California grew rapidly, with new hospitals developed and existing facilities expanded.
The FDC was the third-newest state hospital facility established during this time period.
To develop the hospital, the State purchased 750 acres from George H. Capron for $410,000 and certain mineral rights in 1950. The center consists of 39 buildings built between 1953 and 1974. The FDC was designed to house up to 4,125 residents and had an initial bed capacity of 2,622. Facilities also included a work activity center, auditorium, park, recreational campsite (referred to as “Shannon’s Mountain”), and a library.
Since 1979 the property has totaled about 115 acres, including the five-acre plant operations site off of Merrimac Way and staff housing along Mark Lane, as shown on Figure 1-2, Campus Map. Over time, surplus land was sold to the City of Costa Mesa with the stipulation that it be preserved as open space. Today those areas are Fairview Park and the Costa Mesa Country Club. An historic assessment of the site is included in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that accompanies this Specific Plan.
631
Chapter 1: History & Disposition Process
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026 1-5
Figure 1-2: Campus Map
632
Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan
1-6 Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026
1.2.2 State-Owned Property
The FDC is a State-Owned and-operated facility regulated by many legislative bills. In the late 1960s, the state of California approved a series of legislative acts that fundamentally transformed the delivery of care for mental health and
individuals with developmental disabilities. Two acts—the Lanterman Mental Retardation Services Act of 1969 and
subsequent Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act in 1976—not only acknowledged the civil liberties of these individuals but improved facilities, requiring living conditions to more closely resemble a home environment.
These bills also established Regional Centers, and as a result, life-long care in “large” hospital-like institutions was used less and less. Since the early 2000s, State legislation has
recognized, provided money to plan for, and ultimately
regulated interim use of and ultimate disposition of these State facilities. The side panel summarizes bills that directly influenced disposition of the FDC property and creation of this Specific Plan.
Disposition Process
Two state departments are responsible for the FDC property.
The Department of General Services (DGS) and the
Department of Developmental Services (DDS). Senate Bill 188 identified DGS as the lead agency of the disposition process for the property; therefore, this project is not subject to the Surplus Land Act. As the lead agency for operations at the FDC, DDS is expected to retain up to a 20-acre portion of the property, as authorized by Senate Bill 82. The state will initiate a process to select a Master Developer for the site who may purchase or lease the property.
Lanterman Developmental
Disabilities Services Act
The Lanterman Development Disabilities
Services Act, AB 846, outlines the rights of
individuals with developmental disabilities and
their families. It also describes how regional
centers can provide help to these individuals,
what services are available, and various ways
to access support. This act was passed in
response to the lack of options for those with
developmental disabilities and the need for
greater services and support.
The act was an extension of 1965 legislation
that authorized the establishment of two pilot
regional centers in the state, one in San
Francisco and one in Los Angeles. After the
pilot regional centers were determined to be
successful, the original Lanterman Mental
Retardation Services Act, AB 225, was
passed in 1969 to extend the network of
regional centers. The act was renamed the
“Lanterman Developmental Disabilities
Services Act” in 1976 and expanded to
include a wider range of developmental
disabilities. It has been amended and
expanded over time to provide more support
and services to those with developmental
disabilities.
633
Chapter 1: History & Disposition Process
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026 1-7
Southern Regional Emergency
Operations Center
As a part of the redevelopment plan for the property, the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) approved a Southern Regional Emergency Operations Center (SREOC) on 15 acres at the southwestern corner of the FDC site, shown on Figure 1-1, Local Vicinity. The SREOC will remain in property ownership with the State, supporting fulltime staff and establishing a regional hub for critical emergency management planning and emergency preparedness services in support of local agencies. The SREOC is not within the Specific Plan boundary.
The approved plans for the SREOC include:
A 39,000-square-foot, single-story office building.
A 21,000-square-foot support warehouse building.
A 120-foot-tall communications tower.
Parking that includes photovoltaic shade canopies.
A helipad was studied in the original plans but later deemed unnecessary.
Construction of the SREOC site commenced during preparation of this Specific Plan and is expected to be completed by the end of 2027. This will be the second emergency operations center in the state, intended to complement the existing State Operations Center in the city of Mather.
State Regulation and Legislation
Senate Bill 82
SB 82, passed in 2015, allows up to 20 acres of the Specific Plan area to be used for new housing for the developmentally disabled. Fifteen of these acres are for DDS housing, and the remaining five acres are for complex needs housing. The project permitted by the bill is Mixed-Income State Housing and was formerly known as “Shannon’s Mountain.” While the
legislation allows for supportive housing on-site requiring 20 percent of the units developed to be available and affordable to Regional Center of Orange County (RCOC) consumers, the
development options within this Specific Plan include
integration with new housing throughout the Specific Plan area.
Senate Bill 188
SB 188, passed in 2022, authorized DGS to enter into an agreement with the City of Costa Mesa for the City to develop a specific plan for the FDC property and to manage the land use planning process. The intent of the legislation is for expeditious planning and disposition for affordable and permanent
supportive housing at the property.
Consistent with Government Code Section 14670.31, the
Agreement specifies that:
Housing shall be a priority in the planning process;
Any housing that is determined to be appropriate for the property shall include affordable housing; and
Any housing opportunities on the property shall give
priority to projects that include deed restricted housing for individuals with developmental disabilities.
634
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026
635
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026
2 Introduction
636
Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan
2-2 Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026
2.1 Purpose
The purpose of this chapter is to provide an understanding of the Plan Area, and its surrounding context. This information is a critical component of the Specific Plan process, ensuring that future development fits within the existing community,
enhances what is already in place, and aligns with the
community’s long-term vision. This vision is outlined in the General Plan and implemented through various planning tools, such as development standards and other adopted plans.
This chapter includes an overview of the project location, existing uses, as well as the planning context, such as the General Plan, zoning, and other relevant plans. Together, this information forms the foundation for this Specific Plan.
Figure 2-1: Surrounding Area
2.2 Location and
Existing Uses
The Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan (FDCSP) area covers approximately 95 acres of the existing 110-acre Fairview Developmental Center (FDC) property at 2501 Harbor Boulevard in the City of Costa Mesa in Orange County,
California. The City of Costa Mesa is nestled between the cities of Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley, Santa Ana, Irvine, and Newport Beach (see Figure 2-2, Regional Location Map).
Within Costa Mesa, the Plan Area is just west of Harbor Boulevard and south of Tanager Drive. The Costa Mesa
Country Club surrounds it to the east, south, and west. There are some residential uses, including the Harbor Village Apartments, directly north of the project site as well as residential and commercial uses east along Harbor Boulevard and to the north of Tanager Drive. Orange Coast College is east of Harbor Boulevard. Fairview Park and Estancia High School are just west of the Costa Mesa Country Club (see Figure 2-1, Surrounding Area). This creates a wide range of uses around the Plan area, including recreational, open space, educational, residential, and commercial land uses.
As discussed in Chapter 1, this Specific Plan guides the future redevelopment of the FDCSP plan area. The site is developed from the time when the facility was in full operational use. The existing development includes buildings, parking areas, other paved areas, landscaping/grass areas, and associated
infrastructure (street network, water, sewer, utilities, etc.). While these buildings and infrastructure are still on-site, the facility was shut down in late 2025.
637
Chapter 2: Introduction
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026 2-3
Figure 2-2: Regional Location
638
Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan
2-4 Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026
2.3 Planning Context
The current land use policy and regulations for the City and plan area informed the creation of this Specific Plan. The two most important land use tools that guide planning decisions are the General Plan and Zoning Code. Current designations and standards for both are discussed below as well as the
amendments required for consistency with this Plan.
2.3.1 General Plan
A general plan is a long-term planning document that helps set policy to guide future land use and development in a
jurisdiction by providing policy direction through an established vision and subsequent goals, objectives, and policies. The City of Costa Mesa adopted a comprehensive update to the
General Plan in 2016, with a time horizon from 2015 to 2035.
California law requires local jurisdictions to include a minimum of seven mandatory general plan elements: Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Conservation, Noise, Safety, and Open Space. Each jurisdiction has authority to include additional elements for issues important to the long-term vision of the community and may combine elements. Costa Mesa includes three additional elements: a Growth Management Element, a Community Design Element, and a Historic and Cultural Resources Element. In addition, Costa Mesa includes recreation policies in its Open Space and Recreation Element. A series of amendments to some of the Costa Mesa General Plan Elements are required for internal consistency; these include and may not be limited to: the Land Use Element, Circulation Element, and Housing Element.
The implementation of the General Plan ensures that
development in the City is consistent with the community’s vision for the future.
Costa Mesa: A Vision for
Land Use and Mobility
"Costa Mesa is a vibrant community where
residents and visitors can enjoy all our City has
to offer. From the youthful and eclectic to the
established and historical, our community
features opportunities unparalleled in Southern
California. Our neighborhoods are diverse,
distinctive, and safe. Our commercial districts
offer world-class shopping and are home to
thriving businesses including the creative class,
technology, and automotive ventures. Every
day, hundreds of children and adults enjoy our
abundant parks and open spaces. The City
offers exciting and unique cultural opportunities
that draw visitors from all over Southern
California and enrich the lives of our residents.
The founding principles that established our
community as a great place to live and own a
business are still in place. We anticipate, adapt,
and plan ahead. As a result, we are able to
respond to regional influences in ways that
continue to move Costa Mesa in positive
directions. The City ensures new development
is economically and environmentally
sustainable, and is compatible in scale and
character with our neighborhoods.”
Costa Mesa, City of. 2016. 2015-2035 General Plan.
639
Chapter 2: Introduction
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026 2-5
Figure 2-3: Current General Plan Land Use (2015)
640
Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan
2-6 Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026
The goals and vision of this Specific Plan, described in greater detail in Chapter 3, Vision and Guiding Principles, align with the goals and vision of the General Plan, specifically the Land Use, Housing, and Open Space and Recreation elements.
Land Use Element
The Land Use Element is the most important General Plan element for new development and its physical form in the City because it indicates the location and extent of development that is permitted.
The Land Use Element also specifies land use designations for all parcels within the Costa Mesa city limits (see Figure 2-3, Current General Plan Land Use). The Land Use Element
designated a majority of the Plan area as Multi-Use Center, a designation that only applies to the FDC site. A small area around Fair Drive was designated Medium-Density Residential.
As described in the General Plan, the designation was
intended to integrate a range of land uses with low-to-moderate intensities that are urban in character. This designation allowed for 582 total residential units in a range of intensities. However, through the Specific Plan process, the Land Use Element was amended to align with this Plan and the Housing Element, as described in Section 2.3.3, which allows for increased
residential density on the site, consistent with this Specific Plan. This Specific Plan is an implementation tool consistent with the Land Use Element.
Directly surrounding the Plan area to the east, west, and south, the land is designated Golf Course. Directly adjacent to the north, land is designated High Density Residential (20 du/ac) or Medium Density Residential (12 du/ac). The areas beyond the adjacent land uses include:
Low Density Residential (8 du/ac): accommodates
detached single-family residences.
Medium Density Residential (12 du/ac): supports
single- and multi-family developments.
High Density Residential (20 du/ac): intended for
residential development.
Public Institutional: includes uses such as recreational and open spaces; levels of building intensity are
minimal.
Neighborhood Commercial: retail that caters to
residents' convenience shopping and service needs,
allowing for uses such as markets, drug stores, retail
shops, financial institutions, service establishments, and support offices.
General Commercial: allows for diverse commercial
uses catering to local and regional needs; typically
results in one- and two-story commercial buildings, a
residential density of less than 20 dwelling units per
acre, and a FAR from 0.25 to 0.75.
641
Chapter 2: Introduction
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026 2-7
Housing Element
The Housing Element outlines how the City will meet current and future housing needs for residents. It exists on a different schedule than the other elements of a general plan. California law requires jurisdictions to review and revise housing elements every eight years, and they have more specific and detailed requirements than other elements. Cities must demonstrate their ability to meet the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocated to them by their respective association of governments.
The Costa Mesa Housing Element was most recently updated in 2023 for the 2021-2029, 6th Housing Element Cycle.
As part of the Housing Element process, jurisdictions must conduct a site analysis and identify potential candidate housing sites by income category to meet the City’s RHNA. Costa Mesa’s 6th Cycle Housing Element identified the FDC site as one of these candidate sites, allocating 2,300 residential units of its RHNA to this site. This allocation includes 575 very low-income units, 345 low-income units, 690 moderate-income units, and 690 above moderate-income units. As mentioned previously, the General Plan Land Use Element was amended so the site could adequately accommodate this housing supply, described in the Housing Element. This was the basis for determining the potential buildout of residential units described in this Specific Plan. Additionally, this Specific Plan is consistent with the goals and policies of the 2021-2029 adopted Housing Element.
.
Open Space and Recreation Element
The Open Space and Recreation Element is intended to help ensure the sustainability of open space and recreational resources available to the community of Costa Mesa. The goals, policies, and objectives from this chapter of the General Plan work to protect, maintain, and enhance open spaces and recreational opportunities. This Specific Plan is consistent with the Open Space and Recreation Element of the General Plan.
642
Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan
2-8 Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026
2.3.2 Current Zoning
The current zoning of the FDCSP site is primarily Institutional & Recreational–Multi-Use (I&R-MLT). This is the implementing zone for the Multi-Use Center General Plan Land Use
designation (see Figure 2-4, Current Zoning). A small amount of Planned Development Residential–High Density (PDR-HD) can also be seen around Fair Drive, which is intended for residential uses and allows up to 20 dwelling units per acre. Future zoning for the FDCSP area is regulated by this Specific Plan, as discussed in Section 2.3.3.
The land adjacent to the Plan area on the east, west, and south, where the golf course is, is zoned Institutional and Recreational (I&R). Just north of the Specific Plan area is zoned Planned Development Residential–High Density (PDR-HD), with a small amount of Planned Development Residential–Medium Density (PDR-HD) near Fair Drive. The areas beyond the adjacent zoning designations include:
R1, Single-Family Residential: intended to promote the development of single-family detached units on lots with a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet and a maximum
density of 7.26 dwelling units per gross acre.
R2-MD Multiple-Family Residential, Medium Density:
intended to promote the development of multi-family
rental as well as ownership properties on lots with a
minimum size of 12,000 square feet; the maximum
density allowed is 12 dwelling units per gross acre, and lots with a minimum lot area of 6,000 to 7,260 square
feet are allowed two dwelling units.
R3, Multiple-Family Residential: intended to promote
the development of multi-family rental as well as
ownership dwelling units; the required minimum lot size is 12,000 square feet, and the maximum density allowed
is 20 dwelling units per gross acre.
C1, Local Business: aims to cater to the community's
business needs by offering a diverse range of goods and services in various locations, to minimize impacts on
surrounding properties, particularly in areas with
residential use nearby, through permitted and
conditional uses.
C2, General Business: intended to offer a wide range of goods and services that are generally less compatible
with sensitive land uses of a residential or institutional nature.
643
Chapter 2: Introduction
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026 2-9
Figure 2-4: Current Zoning (2025)
644
Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan
2-10 Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026
2.3.3 Proposed General Plan
and Zoning Designation for
FDC and SREOC Site
Adoption of this Specific Plan requires approval of an
amendment to the City's General Plan. The amendment
includes text and map changes to the Land Use Element for consistency with this Plan and the Housing Element. As shown in Figure 2-5, Proposed General Plan Land Use, the land use designation for the FDCSP site has been updated to FDCSP, and the SREOC site is Public and Institutional. The
amendment was adopted byResolution No. 2026-52.
Similarly, this Specific Plan replaced the current zoning designation. This Plan contains development standards,
permitted uses, and administrative processes for any future development on the site and serves as the implementation tool for the plan area. The City's Zoning Code and Zoning Map were updated to designate the property as the FDCSP and zone the SREOC site as Institutional Recreational by
Ordinance2026-08, as shown in Figure 2-6, Proposed Zoning. 645
Chapter 2: Introduction
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026 2-11
Figure 2-5: Proposed General Plan Land Use
646
Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan
2-12 Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026
Figure 2-6: Proposed Zoning
647
Chapter 2: Introduction
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026 2-13
2.4 Plan Authority
This Specific Plan was prepared in conformance with
California Government Code Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 3, Article 8, Section 65450 et seq.; the City of Costa Mesa General Plan; and the Costa Mesa Municipal Code (CMMC), and has been adopted by Ordinance No. 2026-08.
The FDCSP serves as the zoning for the Plan area. The
Plan addresses general provisions, permitted uses,
development and design standards, and mobility and
infrastructure improvements. Proposed development plans, tentative tract or parcel maps, and any other development approval pertaining to land or property governed by this Plan must be consistent with this Specific Plan.
The Plan supersedes the otherwise applicable City of Costa Mesa development standards, municipal code, and zoning
code and regulations unless otherwise stated herein.
Whenever the requirements and standards conflict with the CMMC—including the zoning code—this Plan shall take
precedence. Where the Plan is silent, the CMMC shall apply, using the context and objectives of the FDCSP as a guide.
It is intended that public works projects, design review plans, detailed site plans, grading permits and building permits, or any other action requiring ministerial or discretionary approval applicable to this area be consistent with this Specific Plan.
What is a specific plan?
A specific plan is a land use tool that local governments use to regulate development in a focused area of the community.
A city's general plan is the guide for growth and
development citywide; a specific plan implements a general plan by focusing on the unique characteristics of a special area. Customized standards and land use regulations
replace traditional zoning for that area. California
Government Code, Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 3, Article 8, Sections 65450 through 65457, allows cities and counties to prepare specific plans to develop policies, programs,
regulations, and guidelines to implement the jurisdiction’s adopted general plan. As prescribed by law, a specific plan includes text and diagrams that generally describe:
The distribution, location, and extent of all land uses. The standards and criteria by which new
development will proceed.
The proposed distribution, location, extent, and
intensity of major components of public
infrastructure, such as transportation and utility
systems.
A program of implementation measures, such as
financing options, policies, regulations, and public
works projects.
The FDCSP provides a Master Developer, City staff, the
public, and decision makers with information on the overall intent for the FDCSP area, design standards to facilitate implementation, and any future changes.
648
Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan
2-14 Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026
2.5 Relationship to
Other Plans
This Specific Plan is consistent with the City of Costa Mesa’s local planning documents. The following describes the regulatory setting of other planning documents and programs or agencies with regulatory oversight that influenced this Plan and should continue to be consulted throughout implementation of this Plan, or as may be amended.
City of Costa Mesa General Plan, 2016
City of Costa Mesa Housing Element, 2023
City of Costa Mesa Municipal Code
City of Costa Mesa Arts & Culture Master Plan, 2021
City of Costa Mesa Parks, Recreation, and Open Space
Master Plan, 2018, Draft
City of Costa Mesa Active Transportation Plan
(ATP), 2018
City of Costa Mesa Pedestrian Master Plan (PMP), 2024 City of Costa Mesa Climate Action & Adaptation Plan
Orange County Transportation Authority Long Range
Transportation Plan (LRTP), 2045
Southern California Association of Governments,
Connect SoCal: 2020-2045 Regional Transportation
Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy
Airport Land Use Commission, Airport Environs Land
Use Plan for John Wayne Airport, 2008
City of Costa Mesa General Plan, 2016
State law requires that each jurisdiction adopt a general plan that serves as a long-term
framework to guide future
development, public investment,
and community programs based
on the community’s vision. The
General Plan establishes goals
and policies related to land use,
mobility, community design,
housing, open space,
conservation, noise, and safety,
all of which directly informed the
development of this Specific
Plan. The Specific Plan is an
implementation tool of the
General Plan to guide future
development for the area.
City of Costa Mesa Housing Element, 2023
The Housing Element identifies the City’s housing needs and establishes programs to facilitate production of housing across income levels, consistent with State requirements and the RHNA. As a major opportunity site identified in the Housing Element, the FDC site plays a key role in helping the City meet its RHNA obligations for the 2021–2029
planning period.
649
Chapter 2: Introduction
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026 2-15
This Specific Plan incorporates a
range of housing types and
densities envisioned in the
Housing Element and provides
zoning, development standards,
and implementation processes
that directly support the City’s
housing production strategies. The
Plan’s focus on walkability,
proximity to services, and
multimodal transportation
connections also advances
Housing Element objectives
related to fair housing, sustainable
development patterns, and
reducing barriers to housing for all community members.
City of Costa Mesa Municipal Code
The Costa Mesa Planning, Zoning and Development Code
(Title 13 of the Municipal Code) governs property development in the City. As the primary regulatory document for development in the project, the Specific Plan establishes regulations that may differ from the Zoning Code requirements where necessary to effectively implement the General Plan and the Specific Plan vision. Where inconsistencies between the Zoning Code and Specific Plan occur, the Specific Plan shall prevail.
City of Costa Mesa Arts & Culture Master Plan,
2021
The Arts & Culture Master Plan sets a citywide vision for expanding public art, supporting creative expression, and strengthening Costa Mesa’s identity as the “City of the Arts.” The Specific Plan advances these goals by incorporating opportunities for public art, culturally oriented gathering spaces, and design features that celebrate local creativity. The Plan’s emphasis on walkability and community spaces helps extend arts and cultural experiences throughout the project area which further strengthens Costa Mesa’s identity and ensures that future development enriches the community’s creative and cultural landscape.
City of Costa Mesa Parks, Recreation, and Open
Space Master Plan, 2018, Draft
Although in draft form, the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan provides guidance for how improvements and
expansions of recreational facilities, open spaces, and trail connections are implemented citywide. It emphasizes
accessible, high-quality parks that support community health, outdoor activity, and environmental sustainability. This Specific Plan aligns with the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan by providing a connected network of parks, greenways, and multi-use paths within the project area. The Specific Plan’s open space framework enhances local recreation opportunities, improves connectivity, and supports the City’s broader goals for The Costa Mesa Municipal Code can be found at: equitable and resilient outdoor environments. https://ecode360.com/CO4918
650
Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan
2-16 Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026
City of Costa Mesa Active Transportation Plan,
2018
The Active Transportation Plan (ATP) provides goals, programs, and actions to improve non-motorized travel infrastructure, increase safety, and promote cycling and walking as viable travel modes. This Specific Plan is consistent with the ATP’s objectives by encouraging pedestrian and bicycle connectivity within the project area and with surrounding neighborhoods, transit facilities, and commercial areas. Design elements such as sidewalks, multi-use paths, bike lanes, and trail connections will implement the ATP’s recommended network improvements.
Proposed non-motorized facilities are integrated into the broader active transportation network.
City of Costa Mesa Pedestrian Master Plan, 2024
The Pedestrian Master Plan (PMP) provides goals, objectives, and policies to enhance the pedestrian environment where pedestrian activities occur. The PMP identifies pedestrian opportunity zones throughout Costa Mesa. Although the FDC site and adjacent right-of-way along Harbor Boulevard are not identified as a pedestrian opportunity zone, this Plan prioritizes a pedestrian environment and meets the goals of the PMP.
City of Costa Mesa Climate Action & Adaptation
Plan
The City of Costa Mesa is developing its Climate Action & Adaptation Plan (CAAP), a comprehensive roadmap to reduce GHG emissions from both community-wide and municipal
sources. The plan will establish GHG emission reduction targets and outline a pathway to align with California’s statewide climate goals.
Orange County Transportation Authority, Long
Range Transportation Plan, 2045
The Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) is a countywide planning document that identifies strategies and projects to meet Orange County’s mobility needs through 2045. While the LRTP is currently being updated, this Specific Plan recognizes the importance of coordinating with OCTA’s planning efforts to ensure consistency with regional transportation priorities, including roadway improvements, transit service expansion, and multimodal connectivity. Proposed transportation
improvements will be designed to support OCTA’s objectives by enhancing access to transit corridors, accommodating
projected traffic volumes, and contributing to regional mobility goals. Continued consultation with OCTA will ensure that project implementation aligns with evolving LRTP
recommendations and potential future connections to the site.
Southern California Association of Governments,
Connect SoCal: 2020-2045 Regional
Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities
Strategy
Connect SoCal is a long-range regional plan that balances future mobility and housing needs with economic,
environmental, and climate-related goals. This Specific Plan supports the Connect SoCal vision by promoting transitoriented development, multimodal access, and infrastructure that accommodates growth consistent with regional
sustainability objectives. Project design elements, including 651
Chapter 2: Introduction
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026 2-17
housing, employment, and transportation connections, are intended to align with SCAG’s growth forecasts, reduce vehicle miles traveled, and enhance access to regional transit and active transportation networks. Coordination with SCAG
ensures that the project contributes to regional goals for smart growth, air quality improvement, and climate adaptation strategies.
Airport Land Use Commission, Airport Environs
Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport, 2008
State law Section 65302.3 requires a city’s general plan and specific plans to maintain consistency with the county’s airport environs land use plan (AELUP). The AELUP establishes
policies intended to protect public health and safety in areas surrounding airports and to support the long-term viability of airport operations. Infill development in an AELUP planning area must demonstrate compliance with all relevant policies and mitigation measures, including but not limited to sound attenuation requirements, height limitations, and occupancy restrictions.
The FDCSP site is located approximately 2.5 miles west of John Wayne Airport (JWA), placing it outside of any noise contours, but within the notification area for the airport; see Figure 2-7, John Wayne Aiport (JWA) Noise Contours 2026 (dBL CNEL), and 2-8, John Wayne Aiport (JWA)Obstruction and Notification Zones. Notification zones are delineated areas where developers and property owners are required to notify tenants or buyers of the nearby aircraft operations. Fair Drive, the primary entrance into the FDCSP site, also falls within one of the obstruction contours. These are the areas that have height restrictions to ensure safe aircraft operations.
ALUC staff reviewed the Plan with respect to compliance with the AELUP for JWA, including review of noise, height
restrictions, safety, overflight and imaginary surfaces and found that future development under the FDCSP that exceeds the 100:1 Notification Surface will be required to file Form 7460-1 with the FAA.
John Wayne Airport Notification Area, Airport Land Use Commission Airport Environs Land Use Plan, 2008.
652
Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan
2-18 Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026
Figure 2-7: John Wayne Aiport (JWA) Noise Contours 2026 (dBL CNEL) 653
Chapter 2: Introduction
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026 2-19
Figure 2-8: John Wayne Aiport (JWA) Obstruction and Notification Zones 654
Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan
2-20 Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026
2.6 The Planning
Process
The planning process is the foundation for this Specific Plan. It involved a series of community outreach events, a market study, and discussions with both Local and State agencies. Through this process, a direction for the site was reached, rooted in public input, as well as economic feasibility.
2.6.1 Community Outreach
Community participation was integral to creating a plan for the FDC that reflects Costa Mesa’s values and vision. Outreach began in 2023 with the first series of workshops. In the fourth workshop, participants were offered the opportunity to take a Land Use Concept Survey, which was used to inform the land use plan (see Chapter 4). Other activities included decisionmaker study sessions with both City Council and Planning Commission, stakeholder interviews, a dedicated project website, www.fdcplan.com, and the use of a variety of
advertising solutions (newspaper ads, citywide mailers, and social media posts) for greater community reach. Feedback received through these efforts informed this Specific Plan.
Summaries for each event can be found in Appendix B.
Community Workshops and Open
Houses
The project held a series of five workshops/open houses, with two in-person meetings and one virtual meeting per workshop.
Presentations and materials were provided in both English and Outreach process poster from the Workshop 3 Series
655
Chapter 2: Introduction
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026 2-21
Spanish. Detailed summaries and materials can be found in Appendix B, Outreach Materials. A brief overview of each workshop and their related activities is provided here.
Workshop #1: November 2nd, November 3rd, November 6th, 2023 Approximately 114 attendees participated in the first workshop at the Costa Mesa Senior Center and Zoom meeting, with 65 on the first night, 10 on the second, and 39 on the third. The first meeting night was held in English, the second was in Spanish, and last provided both English and Spanish online. The meeting began with introductions of City staff and consultants and a presentation outlining the project, site context, and other obligations, such as meeting Housing Element requirements. Time was given for questions from participants.
Next, a group activity engaged attendees, asking them “What are the ingredients of a great neighborhood?” Around the room, community members worked in small groups, writing their responses and ideas on posters. Each group reported out, and a discussion of recurring themes followed. Participants were notified of the next workshop, and the project’s website was promoted.
Workshop #2: January 23rd, January 25th, January 29th, 2024 Approximately 129 attendees participated in the second workshop at the Costa Mesa Senior Center and Zoom meeting, with 87 on the first night, 9 on the second, and 33 on the third. The first night was held in English, the second was in Spanish, and the last night was held in both English and Spanish online. The meeting began with team introductions, followed by a presentation providing project background, timeline, and a summary of Workshop 1, while allowing time for questions from participants. The presentation included the draft Vision and Guiding Principles, and an open house with community members followed. Next, draft Circulation and Open Space Concepts were presented, with a poll for in-person participants and break-out room discussion for virtual participants for feedback. Comment cards were also used to gather community feedback. Lastly, Cal OES presented plans for the Emergency Operations Center. Participants were notified of the next workshop, and the project’s website and StoryMap of existing conditions were promoted.
656
Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan
2-22 Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026
Workshop #3: February 29th, March 4th, March 6th, 2024
Workshop #3 was held as an open house, with approximately 176 attendees participating over three nights. The first night was hosted close to the FDC site at the Costa Mesa Country Club and had 57 attendees The second night was hosted at Harbor Iglesia Church with 94 people in attendance. The third night offered 25 participants a virtual opportunity to participate via Zoom. Each meeting was in both English and Spanish. The meeting offered five interactive stations for participants to learn about the project: Open House Information, Housing, Mobility and Traffic, Parks and Open Space, and Infrastructure.
Participants had the opportunity to ask questions and engage in different activities at each station. Comment cards were also collected for additional feedback.
Workshop #4: July 24th, July 25th, July 31st, 2024
Workshop #4 was held as an open house. Approximately 58 attendees came to the fourth workshop at the Costa Mesa Senior Center—24 at the first, 19 at the second, and 15 at the third. Each meeting was in both English and Spanish. This open house reviewed and discussed three land use concepts for the Specific Plan: Fairview Promenade, Fairview Fields, and Fairview Commons. The meeting began with a presentation in English and Spanish explaining the project process, main factors, and the three land use concepts. The open house included five interactive stations for participants to learn about the three concepts: Project Information and Land Use Concepts, Housing, Mobility and Traffic, Open Space and Parks, and Infrastructure and Site Development. A land use survey and comment cards were utilized to receive feedback from the community. The workshop concluded with next steps and project timeline, including notification of pop-up events, survey results, and presentation dates to Planning Commission and City Council.
657
Chapter 2: Introduction
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026 2-23
Workshop #5: March 24th, March 26th, March 30th, 2026
Workshop #5 was held as an open house. Approximately 121 attendees came to the fifth workshop. Materials were provided in both English and Spanish, including live translation. This workshop was held to share the draft specific plan document with the public. Attendees were encouraged to ask questions and provide their thoughts on the plan to the project team. Each event began with a brief presentation to provide some background information on the project.
Attendees were then invited to visit six stations, each focused on an individual aspect of the Plan: Overview, Land Use, Development Standards, Mobility, Open Space, and Infrastructure and Public Services. The in-person open houses also had a seventh station with an Open Space Block Activity, where participants were invited to arrange wood blocks and park amenities on a scaled base map to explore different site configurations and trade-offs between development and open space. The draft specific plan document was available for a 30-day comment period from March 16, through April 15, 2026. The community could submit written comments at any time on individual components of the draft or on the entire draft plan, via email or through a web-based comment collector on the project website.
Planning Commission and City Council Meetings
There were seven City Council and Planning Commission Meetings that either focused on or had sections about the FDCSP. These meetings informed participants and allowed for public comment. Presentation materials can be found in Appendix B.
Website and Social Media
A dedicated project website, www.fdcplan.com, provided a platform for community members and stakeholders to learn about the FDCSP. The website outlined the project and vision, summarized outreach efforts, documented existing conditions in an interactive mapping tool, and provided project resources. The website and social media posts were used to notify community members of upcoming outreach events and project updates. 658
Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan
2-24 Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026
2.6.2 FDCSP Market Study (2024)
As part of the FDCSP process, PlaceWorks prepared a market study for Costa Mesa. This analysis was produced in January 2024 to gain a better understanding of the market demands for the area. This study provides a general overview of the drivers of the current market and projections for market conditions in the future to guide public discussion while developing the Plan.
The full market study can be found in Appendix C, and an overview of the findings used to inform the planning process and the Specific Plan is provided here.
Overview and Findings
The City’s 2021-2029 Housing Element currently envisions that the redevelopment of the FDC will result in 2,300 new housing units, of which 575 would be very low-income housing units, 345 low-income housing units, and 690 moderate-income housing units. Given the limited supply and high demand for housing as well as State and City priorities for residential development on the FDC site, meeting and/or exceeding the Housing Element allocation is reasonable for future development. To support future households, the analysis also finds that between 29,500 to 55,900 square feet of gross floor area for retail businesses and another 76,500 square feet of gross floor area for other commercial businesses (such as office uses) could be
accommodated. For the purposes of this Specific Plan,
approximately 35,000 square feet of retail businesses and another 76,500 square feet of gross floor area for other commercial businesses (such as office uses) could be
accommodated.
Housing Demand
Costa Mesa is largely made up of single-family detached and attached housing units, reflecting the historic trend of a population largely made up of family households with children.
While the other significant portion of the City's housing supply is made up of multi-family units, the study indicates that most current, recent, and future households in the City will not have children and will generally include three people or fewer.
At a national and regional level, trends show that families are shrinking, and the number of births and fertility rate have both been declining since 2007. This is reflected in the decrease in households of married couples with children under 18 and households with children under 18 regardless of marital status.
Additionally, the number of single people who live alone is increasing. Figure 2-9: Type of Household by Share of Total Number of Households, 1970-2021 shows this trend.
In many areas across the United States, including California, housing supply is not meeting housing demand. The number of new housing units built between 2009 and 2019 was
substantially lower than the number of units needed per year and has only recently returned to the average annual housing production rates needed to keep pace with population shifts.
Furthermore, housing units have been increasing in size since 1971, with single family households increasing 71 percent since then and multifamily units increasing 29 percent.
659
Chapter 2: Introduction
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026 2-25
Figure 2-9: Type of Household by Share of
Total Number of Households, 1970–2021
Source: PlaceWorks, 2023, using data from the US Census Bureau, 2021 Public Use Microdata Set
Figure 2-10: Real Average Sales Price and
Real Estate Average Sales per Square
Foot for New Single Family Housing,
1971–2021
Source: PlaceWorks, 2023, using data from the US Census Bureau, 2021 Public Use Microdata Set
660
Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan
2-26 Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026
While the numbers of new housing units are climbing back to an adequate level per year, there is now a mismatch in living arrangements and housing production, as the market continues to build predominantly larger, single-family detached housing units although there is a decline in households with children and smaller average household sizes. While a solution to this mismatch and unaffordable housing prices is building smaller housing units, there is a financial incentive to build larger units if the market continues to support it. As a result, housing process continue to rise, as displayed by the data in Figure 2-10.
In Costa Mesa and the surrounding market area, which includes Fountain Valley and other nearby cities such as Huntington Beach and Newport Beach, there has been a slight decrease in household sizes since 2013 and a decrease in households with children. A majority of households are one- or two-person households. Many different housing characteristics of Costa Mesa households are described in the market study (see
Appendix C), including incomes, household types, tenure, household sizes, multi-generational households, etc. These characteristics highlight three main implications for the overall market area, and more specifically, for development in the Specific Plan area.
1. Smaller Households: The Specific Plan should facilitate units with fewer bedrooms to accommodate the smaller
households moving into the area and the overall trend
for these housing types.
2. Overcrowding and Overpayment: The Specific Plan
should provide options for existing over-paying and
overcrowded households.
3. Housing and Age: The Specific Plan should take into
consideration the housing needs of those aged 65 and
older as well as the needs of children.
The redevelopment of the FDC is expected to create new market demand above and beyond that expected based on current
trends for both rental housing and ownership housing. This will help to alleviate overcrowding and provide affordable housing with easy access to nearby job centers and transit corridors.
Costa Mesa is one of the main job centers in Orange County, with a combined net inflow of almost 39,000 workers across all economic sectors.
Non-residential Demand
The market study also looked at the marked demand for nonresidential uses. Due to the location of the site and its lack of visibility from Harbor Boulevard, it would be challenging to develop commercial uses that rely on attracting consumers, such as comparison goods retail. However, the future
development would be able to support some amount of
convenience goods and services that could be utilized by households residing in the Specific Plan area. The analysis outlined that the leasable area for retail businesses could be used for a range of commercial uses, including both
comparison goods and convenience goods. The study found that the Specific Plan area would have greater potential for accommodating convenience goods and services, which
include things like small grocery stores and restaurants (see Table 2-1).
661
Chapter 2: Introduction
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026 2-27
The study also supports the inclusion of approximately 76,760 square feet of gross floor area for other commercial uses and non-commercial uses, including medical offices, professional offices, and personal care services.
The study suggests that only a limited amount of nonresidential space is appropriate in the Specific Plan area, and it would mainly be supported by the households living there.
Although a limited amount of non-residential uses are required in the development, the study notes that additional commercial areas could be included if desired. However, expanding
commercial activity may bring other implications, such as increased traffic impacts or the need to attract customers from outside the Specific Plan area. The market study informed the land uses included in Table 4-3 of the Specific Plan.
Table 2-1: Retail Market Potential in Square
Feet of Gross Floor Area
Store Type
Recommended
Plan Area Retail
(Square Feet)
CONVENIENCE GOODS & SERVICES
Grocery stores 10,000 to 14,000
Specialty food stores Up to 1,000
Beer, wine, and liquor stores Up to 2,400
Health and personal care stores 10,000 to 12,500
Gasoline stations 2,000 to 3,000
Drinking places (alcoholic beverages) Up to 1,500
Restaurants and other eating places 2,500 to 5,000
COMPARISON GOODS
Home furnishings stores Up to 1,000
Clothing stores 2,000 to 3,000
Other general merchandise stores (NAICS
4523) Up to 10,000
Other miscellaneous store retailers (NAICS
4539) 1,000 to 1,500
TOTAL 29,500 to 55,900
Comparison Goods
Items that are purchased
more infrequently.
Convenience
Goods & Services
Items that people need
on a regular basis.
Source: PlaceWorks, 2023, using retail spending estimates from Claritas 662
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026
.
663
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026
3 Vision &
Guiding Principles
664
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026
665
Chapter 3: Vision & Guiding Principles
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026 3-3
3.1 Purpose
A vision is a forward-looking and aspirational statement that expresses the desired future state of a specific area or region.
It serves as a guide for the planning and development of the land, encapsulating the long-term goals and values of the community. It is a reference point to ensure the land use plan reflects the collective vision and values of the community while achieving important housing goals set by the City and State.
Overall, a vision statement paints a picture of what the specific plan hopes to achieve in terms of physical development, sustainability, connectivity, cultural and social integration, economic vitality, adaptability, and quality of life. This chapter presents the Vision and Guiding Principles that will guide future development when implementing this Plan.
3.2 Vision Statement
A distinctive place in Costa Mesa, the former Fairview
Developmental Center will be transformed into a collection of new neighborhoods that meets the community’s diverse housing needs. Surrounded primarily by the municipal golf course, the site will be planned to reflect what matters most to Costa Mesa—creating an affordable, desirable, and
inclusive place to live for families, young adults, and seniors.
Residents of all backgrounds and age groups will have
access to high-quality homes, in a welcoming environment that supports a strong sense of belonging. A variety of housing types and architectural styles will accommodate a broad range of incomes, household types, life stages, and special needs. Buildings will be sustainably designed with durable, high-quality, and innovative materials, while
infrastructure and open spaces will take advantage of
opportunities to design with nature and support
environmental protection.
The community will be inviting and active, offering abundant and accessible outdoor amenities that support relaxation, social interaction, exercise, and play for residents and visitors alike. Streets will prioritize safety and encourage walking, bicycling, while reducing reliance on automobiles.
The Shelley Trail and internal paseo network will provide additional pedestrian and bicycle connections throughout the site and link to surrounding trail systems.
Through this transformation, the redevelopment of the
Fairview Developmental Center will become a valued
addition to Costa Mesa, grounded in the community’s
shared values and reflective of the quality of life enjoyed by its residents.
Developing the Vision
The vision was developed using feedback from a series
of events and meetings, including:
Community and Stakeholder Interviews
Community Workshops (English and Spanish)
Planning Commission and City Council
Study Sessions
The community offers valuable perspectives on the City
and project area, drawing from their first-hand
experiences of engaging with local spaces. For more
information on these events, see Chapter 2 and Appendix 666
Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan
3-4 Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026
3.3 Guiding Principles
The following principles shall guide the design and
development of the FDC site:
Principle #1: Advance Costa Mesa’s housing
goals.
Residential development will be required to meet the City’s housing goals and objectives, identified in the City’s 2021- 2029 Housing Element, and any future adopted Housing
Element, for the FDC site. This will include the residential units built by the Master Developer as well as the planned housing to be developed by the Department of Developmental Services. Affordable housing may be provided as stand-alone buildings or integrated with market-rate housing. The
architectural design, construction quality, and materials used for affordable housing shall be comparable to those used for market-rate housing.
Principle #2: Create a network of connected
gathering places and vibrant, accessible open
spaces.
A comprehensive system of public open spaces and
recreation areas, including parks, paseos, and trails, will be distributed throughout the site. The Shelley Circle Trail will run along the edge of the property, adjacent to the golf course, with a connection to the Tanager Trail. One or more paseos will provide off-road walking and biking routes that connect neighborhoods to parks and the Shelley Circle Trail. Public park land, park improvements, and park in-lieu fees will be provided, as outlined in the CMMC Title 12, Chapter XII, Article 4.
Public parks will offer a variety of community-serving
amenities, for all ages and abilities, such as, sport courts, multipurpose fields, walking paths, playgrounds, and seating areas. Gathering places will reflect the diversity and culture of Costa Mesa and be designed to be attractive, welcoming, and accessible to all, supporting physical and mental well-being.
Private and common open space amenities within residential areas will complement the public open space network.
Principle #3: Provide neighborhood-serving retail
and community amenities.
The Specific Plan will allow for and encourage neighborhoodserving retail and community amenities that meet the daily needs of current and future residents. Such uses may be incorporated within mixed-use buildings with ground-floor commercial spaces with residential uses above, or within small-scale centers that are easily accessible by the
neighborhoods. Other community amenities, such as a library, 667
Chapter 3: Vision & Guiding Principles
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026 3-5
art studio, fitness center, places of worship, or similar uses, are also encouraged to provide social interactions.
Principle #4: Prioritize multimodal transportation
and safety.
Walking, bicycling, and public transit should be the most convenient and attractive ways to travel within and to the Specific Plan area. An interconnected network of streets, trails, and smaller block sizes will improve connectivity, accessibility and travel efficiency for users of all ages and abilities. Safety features such as high-visibility crosswalks, buffered bike lanes, and convenient bus stops, will further support these modes. Car sharing and electric vehicle sharing options will be encouraged to reduce reliance on personal vehicles. Site design for all uses must also include adequate curbside pick-up and drop-off areas.
Principle #5: Integrate the natural and built
environment to support long-term fiscal and
environmental sustainability.
Redeveloping the FDC site creates an opportunity for a
holistic approach to buildings, open spaces, and infrastructure that is sustainable, healthy, and resilient. Design should integrate nature through passive heating and cooling, green infrastructure, sustainable materials, and outdoor spaces that mitigate heat, restore native plants and trees. Development should also advance long-term fiscal sustainability by using resources efficiently and contributing, where feasible, to the infrastructure and services it requires. This balanced
approach supports environmental stewardship, reduces
impacts on existing taxpayers, and promotes a high quality of life for the community.
668
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026
669
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026
4 Land Use &
Urban Design
670
Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan
4-2 Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026
4.1 Purpose
This chapter establishes the land use, development, and design regulations for redevelopment of the Fairview
Developmental Center Specific Plan (FDCSP) area. This
chapter must be used with chapters 5, 6, and 7, which provide details on mobility, open space, and infrastructure. Once selected, the Master Developer will provide more detailed plans demonstrating how the components of this Plan will be
implemented. Consistent with the guiding principles in Chapter 3, objectives are included throughout this chapter to support interpretation and implementation related to land use, urban design, and housing.
4.2 Land Use Plan
The land use plan establishes the uses and buildout range for the Specific Plan area. Developed with input from the
community and City decision makers, (see Chapter 2), the plan envisions a mixed-use community that allows for both vertical and horizontal integration of uses. While some uses offer implementation flexibility, others, such as DDS Housing, include identified planning areas. The sections below define the land uses, buildout, and the regulatory framework, also known as zoning. These land uses and their locations support the following objectives:
1. Encourage residential and commercial projects that
actively engage streets, parks, and other public open
spaces.
2. Create diverse mixed-use, mixed-income
neighborhoods.
3. Locate parks and open space amenities throughout the FDC plan area to provide an inviting, comfortable, and
activated outdoor experience for all ages and abilities.
4. Design a land use plan and circulation network that
prioritizes pedestrians and provides safe access to the FDC area for all modes of transportation.
A variety of housing types, including townhomes, are expected to be developed throughout the Specific Plan area.
671
Chapter 4: Land Use & Urban Design
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026 4-3
Figure 4-1: Conceptual Land Use Plan
NOTE: This graphic is conceptual and represents potential roadway configurations and does not pre-commit the use of the City Municipal Golf Course for road access. Merrimac Way has and will maintain sidewalks that can serve walking and bicycle access. 672
Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan
4-4 Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026
4.2.1 Land Use Designations
and Buildout
Figure 4-1 provides the conceptual land use plan for the Specific Plan area with some flexibility in the final roadway alignments, location of commercial/ retail uses, and distribution of public open space. Table 4-1, Statistical Summary, provides the range of housing units, maximum non-residential square feet, and minimum open space requirement for the site. To supplement this section, Figure 4-2, Conceptual Site Plan, is an illustrative depicting possible implementation of the conceptual land use plan.
Buildout
As shown in Table 4-1, Land Use Statistical Summary,
minimum and maximum buildout are provided for the site with a range of opportunities for both residential and commercial use.
Publicly accessible open space has a minimum requirement and is also regulated by Chapter 6. Residential uses are further broken down into income requirements that must be met to implement the Plan. This buildout was informed by the City’s Housing Element, State legislation, and the market study summarized in Chapter 2 and provided in Appendix C.
Land Use Designations
The following land use designations define the identified uses of the conceptual land use plan shown in Figure 4-1.
Department of Developmental Services (DDS) Housing. This designation includes approximately 15 acres to be retained by the State Department of Developmental Services for the
development of housing for the developmentally disabled (very low income) and housing for moderate and above moderate households. Development in this designation is anticipated to be built at a lower density and scale (height and mass) than the rest of the site to create a transition between the former FDC site and adjacent Harbor Village Apartments. See Section 4.4 for more information on the DDS site. On Figure 4-1, this
designation is fixed and must be implemented in the area shown for DDS housing.
Residential. This land use designation is intended to allow for a wide range of housing types available to a variety of income levels. The Residential category also allows for a range of senior living options, including independent and assisted living.
Public and private recreational uses, daycare, and
neighborhood-serving amenities are allowed. On Figure 4-1, Conceptual Land Use Plan, this designation is implemented by the Residential areas.
Mixed-Use / Commercial. Neighborhood-serving nonresidential uses are encouraged in either a stand-alone or mixed-use configuration, including uses such as restaurants, coffee shops, small grocery and retail stores, pharmacies, studio and fitness facilities, and small office uses, including small scale medical office. This land use designation is flexible and floats across the site depending on the final roadway and open space design. Figure 4-1 depicts possible locations with high visibility and community accessibility that would be ideal for commercial retail uses.
Publicly Accessible Open Space. The Open Space
designation is intended for various parks and open space uses that are open to the general public, including neighborhood parks, recreation centers and cultural facilities, and smaller pocket parks as well as trails for pedestrians and bicyclists. 673
Chapter 4: Land Use & Urban Design
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026 4-5
Table 4-1: Land Use Statistical Summary
Land Use Development Minimum Development Maximum
RESIDENTIAL¹
Very Low Income 575 units² -
Low Income 345 units -
Moderate Income 690 units -
Above Moderate Income 690 units -
TOTAL UNITS⁴,8 2,300 units6
COMMERCIAL⁵ 15,000 square feet 35,000 square feet
PUBLIC OPEN SPACE³ 25 acres No maximum
NOTES:
1. Very low, low, moderate, and above moderate income categories are defined in Chapter 2, Section B (2.), of the City’s 2021-2029 Housing Element. The income category percentages are shown in Table 4-2. The mix of affordable units may be modified when submitting an Affordable Housing Plan; see Chapter 8, Administration and Implementation.
2. Very Low income units shall include 200 Permanent Supportive Housing Units in accordance with State Code Section 14670.31. Housing developed on-site by DDS may count toward meeting this requirement.
3. Public Open Space includes public parks, trails, plazas, and other types of open spaces available to the general public. It does not include private space that is considered an on-site amenity for multifamily housing and is primarily accessible by the residents of the development. For additional criteria, see Chapter 6, Open Space.
4. Total units include the residential development within the 15 acres of land retained by DDS.
5. Per Section 4.2.1, can be provided in a mixed-use or stand-alone building.
6. The maximum number of units does not preclude density bonus or other state laws that promote and streamline housing development.
7. A developer may propose an alternative means of compliance with the minimum requirements in this table by providing a different mix of very low, low, and moderate income housing as long as the overall number of affordable units is met. Alternatively, a developer may propose a lower number of total affordable units if the mix proposes deeper levels of affordability (e.g. there is an increase in extremely low, very low, or low income categories). Compliance will be reviewed as part of the submitted affordable housing plan and determination made by the Community Development Director or designee (see Chapter 8).
8. At least 10 –20 percent of the affordable units shall be set aside for households who live or work in Costa Mesa with a priorty for households that are first responders, teachers, public service employees, or seniors. 674
Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan
4-6 Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026
Flexibility in the final location and configuration of publicly accessible open space is defined in Section 6.2, Open Space and Trails Plan. Figure 4-1 shows conceptual locations for implementing this designation.
4.3 Urban Design
Urban design includes several key elements that develop the character of a place. These include, but are not limited to, urban form, views, open space, activity nodes, architectural character, streetscape, and the surrounding environment.
When implementing the “Plans”—land use, housing, open
space, mobility, and infrastructure—of this chapter, a Master Developer’s ultimate site and development plan shall
implement the objectives of Section 4.1. Additionally, the final location and site design shall meet the following objectives:
1. Locate community amenities such as commercial retail uses along a primary street frontage. (As noted in
Section 4.2.1, the commercial/retail component may be
in a stand-alone building or group of buildings,
incorporated on the ground floor of a residential building, or both.) These amenities shall also be easily accessible to residents by either walking or riding a bicycle.
2. Design publicly accessible open space to create
gathering areas for the neighborhoods, with outdoor
amenities and spaces for dining, socializing, events, and other activities.
3. Design buildings so that uses open onto a street, plaza, or park, with parking on the street, side, or rear of the lot.
4. Allow for future expansion and flexibility in terms of use mix.
5. Provide a safe pedestrian experience to and from all the uses in the project.
6. Design loading and unloading areas to ensure that they do not interfere with pedestrian, bicycle, or primary
vehicle circulation.
7. Design parks and other open space areas to allow for natural surveillance or “eyes on the street” by
maximizing the visibility of people, parking, and building entrances.
8. Incorporate existing, healthy trees as a design feature in landscaped areas or outdoor amenity spaces where
feasible.
9. Incorporate trees and shade elements to minimize heat impacts and provide a comfortable pedestrian
environment.
A visual representation that depicts the implementation of these objectives is shown on Figure 4-2, Conceptual Site Plan.
Additional design objectives are incorporated in applicable sections throughout the rest of this chapter.
675
Chapter 4: Land Use & Urban Design
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026 4-7
Figure 4-2: Conceptual Site Plan
NOTE: This graphic is conceptual and represents potential roadway configurations and does not pre-commit the use of the City Municipal Golf Course for road access. 676
Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan
4-8 Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026
4.4 Housing Plan
Housing—that is, residential uses—is the primary land use for the Specific Plan area. Housing is identified as a priority by the City’s General Plan, 2021-2029 Housing Element, and in
various State legislation described in Chapter 2. Adequate housing supply is also one of City Council’s strategic priorities.
As depicted in Figure 4-2, a variety of housing product types are suitable for development in the Specific Plan area. These housing types, also described in Section 4.1.1, were supported by the market study conducted as part of this Plan. Additionally, this Plan requires that a certain number of affordable units be provided, as identified in Table 4-1, Statistical Summary. The affordability for income categories is dependent on the annual median family income (MFI) for Orange County, as determined by the State Department of Housing and Community
Development. Table 4-2 provides the income category by
percentage of MFI. Tracking requirements for the Housing Plan are provided in Chapter 8, Administration and Implementation.
Future DDS housing will contribute to the total number of units for the Specific Plan area. The changing model of care, as discussed in Chapter 1, will require that units meet the needs of the disabled community. DDS will be responsible for the development of this portion of the property and may work with the Master Developer or choose a different approach for implementation.
The design of residential projects (market-rate and affordable) shall meet the following objectives:
1. Design buildings to front onto streets, parks, the golf course, or common open spaces, except where
properties front along the edge of the SREOC.
2. Future buildings are designed and oriented so that all residents and visitors can see and experience the golf
course, paseo, parks, or open space features.
3. Orient buildings and design landscaping for energy
efficiency (e.g., to capture day lighting, minimize heat gain, take advantage of prevailing breezes, and for
natural ventilation).
4. Architecturally treat all sides of a building to reflect a coherent architectural style through the use of materials, massing, articulation, and scale.
5. Promote pedestrian activity by placing entrances at or above street level and locating stairs near the building’s entrance.
6. Activate the ground floor of residential buildings with building amenities, such as recreation areas, co-working spaces, or other services.
7. Provide convenient pedestrian and bike access from
homes to adjacent streets or paseos.
8. Utilize alleys and/or side streets for driveway access where feasible to avoid curb cuts along backbone roads.
9. Screen parking structures with residential or commercial uses, landscaping, murals, or other architectural
treatment.
10.Locate windows, balconies, and courtyards to offer
views of sidewalks, open space areas, or other
amenities.
677
Chapter 4: Land Use & Urban Design
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026 4-9
4.4.1 Housing Types
The FDCSP has specific housing requirements as identified in the City’s 2021-2029 Housing Element and Table 4-1. Guiding principle #1—Ensure that Costa Mesa’s housing goals are met for the FDC site—stresses the importance of housing for the Plan area. To meet these housing needs, a variety of housing and unit types are permitted and encouraged to foster a vibrant mixed-use/ mixed-income neighborhood. These include but are not limited to:
Townhomes
Multi-family dwellings
Age-restricted buildings/units
Income restricted buildings/units
Permanent supportive housing units
Single room occupancy units
Mixed-use buildings
Single family homes
Duplex buildings/units
Future development shall include for-sale and for-rent units.
Units that qualify as affordable housing shall also comply with the tracking requirements of Chapter 8, Administration and Implementation.
The City encourages the development of for-sale housing and will consider certain concessions or incentives. Any
concessions will need to be negotiated as part of an agreement and may include: the delay in payment of park in-lieu fees until certificate of occupancy; the delay or reduction in other City fees; and other types of incentives.
Table 4-2: Income Categories
Income Category¹ % Range of Median
Family Income
Very Low Income2 0–50%
Low Income 51–80%
Moderate Income 81–120%
Above Moderate Income Greater than 120%
Source: City of Costa Mesa 2021-2029 Housing Element
NOTES
1. See Table 4-1, Statistical Summary, for minimum unit requirement by Income Category.
2. Includes Extremely Low Income and Acutely Low Income, as defined by HSC § 50106.
678
Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan
4-10 Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026
4.5 Uses
As identified in the State’s disposition process and bolstered by the Plan’s vision and guiding principle discussed in Section
4.4.1, residential uses shall be the predominant allowed use for the Plan area (as stated in Government Code Section
14670.31 and discussed in Section 1.2.2).
Table 4-3, Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Uses,
identifies the land uses that are permitted, require a Minor Conditional Use Permit, or are not permitted. Definitions of allowed land uses are provided in Appendix A, Definitions.
Any use not listed in Table 4-3 shall be prohibited unless deemed to be similar in nature to an allowable use, as
determined by the Community Development Director, or
designee through the provisions of Chapter 8, Administration and Implementation.
Housing is prioritized for the FDCSP area, with many uses—including temporary events—permitted to support residents and create a vibrant community.
679
Chapter 4: Land Use & Urban Design
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026 4-11
Table 4-3: Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Uses
P - Permitted | MC - Minor Conditional Use Permit | N - Not Permitted TUP - Temporary Use Permit Notes
RESIDENTIAL
Multi-family Residences2 P
Permanent Supportive Housing P
Common Interest Developments P
Single-Family Residence (attached and detached) P
Townhomes P
Single Room Occupancy Units P
Senior Housing P
OFFICE
Administrative P
Professional P
Medical (less than 10,000 sq ft) P
RETAIL
Artisan Studio (includes retail sales, and display on-site) P Active Entertainment (less than 5,000 sq ft) P
Grocery Store (less than 10,000 sq ft) P
Liquor Store MC
Restaurant (with or without outdoor dining) P
680
Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan
4-12 Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026
P - Permitted | MC - Minor Conditional Use Permit | N - Not Permitted TUP - Temporary Use Permit Notes
Retail P
Personal Services P
Personal Service with Group Instruction/Setting (less than 10,000 sq ft) P Studios: Small Fitness Facilities, etc. P
Tasting Room/Wine Bar/Neighborhood Bar (may include small batch brewery) MC Other Community Serving Uses1 MC
OTHER
Mixed-Use Buildings P
Home Occupations P/MC Per CMMC Section 13-164
Residential Care Facility (seven or more) MC
Child Daycare Center, including tutoring and tutoring centers P Drive Thru Associated with Any Business N
School (public or private) P
Public Facilities for Fire and Safety (fire station, police substation, etc.) P Short-Term Rental N
Hotel or Motel N
RECREATIONAL AND SPECIAL EVENTS
Community Clubhouse (for residents only) P
Community Facilities/Library/Parks/Playground/Sports Fields (public) P 681
Chapter 4: Land Use & Urban Design
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026 4-13
P - Permitted | MC - Minor Conditional Use Permit | N - Not Permitted TUP - Temporary Use Permit Notes
Temporary Small Performance Area (in publicly accessible open space area) TUP Temporary Outdoor Market (farmers, holiday, vintage, etc.) TUP See Sections 4.5.1 and 4.5.2 Public Events, including City-sponsored events, in conjunction with open space area, public right of way, or any other public common areas P See Sections 4.5.1 and 4.5.2 Food Trucks (associated with a special event) P See Sections 4.5.1 and 4.5.2
INTERIM USES
Temporary Real Estate and Construction Offices P
Recreational Uses or Other Uses as Described in Section 4.5.1 P
ACCESSORY USES
Accessory Dwelling and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units P Per CMMC Section 13-35 NOTES:
1. Any use not specifically permitted, or permitted with a minor conditional use permit per this table, shall be reviewed by the Community Development Director to determine its similarity to another listed use. If no substantial similarity exists, the unlisted use shall require approval of a minor conditional use permit prior to establishment of the use. If there is a conflict between Table 13-30 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code and this table, the Specific Plan shall prevail. See also Chapter 8, Administration and Implementation.
2. Multi-family Residences are defined as 2 or more units. 682
Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan
4-14 Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026
4.5.1 Temporary Uses and
Special Events
In support of guiding principle #2—Create vibrant and
accessible open spaces—temporary uses and special events are expected and encouraged to activate public and private open space areas. Uses may include but are not limited to performances, fitness classes, food festivals, farmers markets, and holiday events. Temporary uses and special events may occur within open spaces and on roadways, including the Promenade, which may be temporarily closed to vehicular traffic for approved events. These uses must apply and pay fees for a special event permit per Section 10-386 of the CMMC. Temporary vending at these events is subject to
Section 10-368 of the CMMC. Temporary use permits may be approved for up to three years with up to 2 one-year
extensions. Temporary use permits for longer than five years may be approved through the minor conditional use permit process.
4.5.2 Food Trucks, Carts, and
Kiosks
Food trucks, carts, and kiosks are permitted in conjunction with special events, subject to the requirements of Section 4.5.1., or may be allowed pursuant to Title 10, Chapter XXI of the Municipal Code. A special event plan that characterizes the location of carts, kiosks, and/or food trucks shall be submitted.
The special event plan shall document ADA clear paths of travel, unobstructed pedestrian flow, and demonstrate that there is no identifiable health and safety risk.
4.5.3 Outdoor Dining
Outdoor dining areas are permitted in the FDCSP area as part of a restaurant, cafe, or other type of eating and/or drinking establishment and are subject to the provisions of the CMMC, Chapter V, Article 4, Establishments Where Food or Beverages Are Served, Section 13-48. Outdoor dining areas are not permitted within any parking area of the FDCSP site. These areas may encroach into the setback along the Promenade. 683
Chapter 4: Land Use & Urban Design
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026 4-15
4.6 Development and
Design Standards
This section provides development and design standards
specific to the FDCSP area; these standards supersede Title 13, Chapter V, Development Standards, of the CMMC, or any future citywide design standards. If this Plan is silent on a topic, the CMMC, or any future citywide design standards shall apply.
The following sections outline the standards for buildings, parking, and open space areas. All buildings shall comply with California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (or future equivalent building code). These development and design standards provide greater detail for implementing the
objectives outlined in Sections 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4 of this Plan. Development and design standards show the form of the building and how buildings interact with the public realm.
684
Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan
4-16 Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026
4.6.1 Building Form, Scale,
and Massing
Building form and scale shall be regulated through height, density (dwelling units per acre), floor area ratio (FAR), and massing. Table 4-4 establishes the allowable density, FAR, and height standards for development in the FDCSP area.
Stepbacks and variations in massing shall be used to frame public spaces, transition to adjacent uses, and provide architectural variety. Multiple buildings with varying heights and massing are encouraged to support a human-scaled
neighborhood environment. Figure 4-3, Building Massing, demonstrates how the standards of this section can be met.
SREOC Building Height Limitations
Building height shall be subject to limitations imposed by the communication tower on the SREOC, as detailed in
Appendix E. Development within the radio frequency path of the communication tower shall reduce building height or incorporate stepbacks to comply with the allowable height. This section supersedes the heights identified in Table 4-4. The communication tower requires a width of approximately 30 to 50 feet of clearance at certain height levels for direct line-ofsight communication with other towers, as described in Appendix E. Figure 4-4 provides a simplified guide for areas impacted by the height restrictions. Future development must demonstrate that buildings and trees within the antenna clearance zone comply with the requirements through the application processes of Chapter 8.
The building height, massing, and scale contribute to its character. 685
Chapter 4: Land Use & Urban Design
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026 4-17
Table 4-4: Building Form, Scale, and Massing
Standard Minimum Maximum Notes
DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY
Floor Area Ratio (FAR)1 - 0.40
DDS Housing Density 32 du/ac - Units are included in the total maximum in Table 4-1.
Density - - See Table 4-1 for maximum number of units.
BUILDING HEIGHT 2
Residential - 100 feet Maximum height may be exceeded by 35 feet for two buildings.
DDS Housing - 50 feet
Mixed-Use - 135 feet
Commercial (stand-alone) - 35 feet
Parking Structure - - Equal to the height of the building(s) it serves3
GROUND FLOOR HEIGHT
Residential 10 feet -
Mixed-Use 12 feet -
Commercial 25 feet -
BUILDING SEPARATION
Primary Buildings 10 feet - Between 2 or more primary structures.
NOTES:
1. FAR requirements shall apply to commercial uses only.
2. Building heights shall comply with height limitations associated with the Southern Regional Emergency Operations Center communication tower. See Figure 4-3 and Appendix E.
3. If part of a wrap-style building, the height of a parking structure may not exceed height of the residential portion of the building. 686
Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan
4-18 Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026
Figure 4-3: Building Form, Scale, and Massing
687
Chapter 4: Land Use & Urban Design
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026 4-19
Figure 4-4: SREOC Tower Location and Antenna Clearance
NOTE: This graphic is conceptual and represents potential roadway configurations and does not pre-commit the use of the City Municipal Golf Course for road access. 688
Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan
4-20 Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026
4.6.2 Building Orientation
To foster a pedestrian environment, main building entries in the FDCSP area shall be oriented to the Promenade, a street, plaza, paseo, or park.
Residential
For residential buildings adjacent to the Promenade, primary ground-floor common entries or individual-dwelling-unit entries shall be oriented to the street.
For residential buildings adjacent to all other road types, primary ground-floor common entries or individual-dwelling-unit entries may be oriented to the street, paseo, or private drive.
Commercial and Mixed Use
Main building entries shall be oriented to a street, plaza area, or park unless a corner entry is required, as defined below.
Corner Treatment for All Uses
Corners at key intersections identified on Figure 4-5 shall provide entries or design features. Design features shall have a distinct but complementary design to the overall mass of the building. Corner design features may include:
Increased building height at the corner by up to 10 feet; if applicable, the height must comply with Appendix E.
Open space in the form of a plaza or entry court.
Enhanced canopies, awnings, or marquees.
Building entries.
Figure 4-5: Key Intersections1
1. The key intersections are flexible in their location and are currently placed where the Concept Land Use Plan shows mixed-use.
NOTE: This graphic is conceptual and represents potential roadway configurations and does not pre-commit the use of the City Municipal Golf Course for road access.
689
Chapter 4: Land Use & Urban Design
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026 4-21
Figure 4-6: Building Orientation
690
Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan
4-22 Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026
4.6.3 Setbacks
Setbacks define the minimum distance between buildings and streets, creating areas that contribute to the public realm.
Required setbacks are established in Table 4-5.
Within required setback areas, the following are allowed:
Landscaping/ hardscape
Outdoor dining and seating
City-approved public art
Pedestrian paths
Green infrastructure (e.g. bioswales)
Lighting
Street furniture
Publicly accessible open space
Wayfinding signs
Bike racks
All required setback areas shall be maintained.
4.6.4 Encroachments and
Projections
Architectural elements, building stoops, and signs may
encroach into a required setback area or public right-of-way subject to design review per Chapter 8, and may require an encroachment permit subject to Section 15-13 of the CMMC.
Encroachments shall not interfere with required ADA
accessibility or emergency or fire access.
Projections such as roof or eave overhangs, awnings, open unenclosed stairways, and chimneys and fireplaces are
allowed to encroach into a required setback or public right-ofway, and must comply with Section 13-32 of the CMMC. 691
Chapter 4: Land Use & Urban Design
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026 4-23
Table 4-5: Setbacks
Type Minimum Maximum
BUILDING SETBACKS
The Promenade1 5 feet 15 feet
Local Roads1,2 10 feet 10 feet
Private Drives1 10 feet -
Alley1 5 feet -
Regional Emergency
Operations Center3 25 feet -
Golf Course 20 feet -
Paseo 5 feet -
Parking Structures1,4 5 feet -
NOTES:
1. Measured from back of sidewalk.
2. Applies to public roads, including Shelley Circle.
3. Measured from property line.
4. Setback must be landscaped.
The setback areas may contain landscaping and planters, street furniture, lighting, and outdoor dining.
692
Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan
4-24 Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026
4.6.5 Frontages and Entries
A building frontage is the portion of the building facing a street.
How the frontage is designed contributes to the neighborhood character and the extent to which a pedestrian-oriented environment is created.
Common entries to a residential or mixed-use building shall provide at least two of the following:
Pedestrian-level articulation using materials (as defined in the callout box to the left).
Ground-floor activation through leasing offices, common spaces, or recreation areas.
Common entrances at building corners.
Individual-dwelling-unit entries facing the street shall include at least two of the following:
Access through a courtyard with minimum dimensions
sufficient for pedestrian circulation and unit access,
generally no less than 12 feet in width and 25 feet in
length, or equivalent area.
A minimum grade separation of 2 feet from the existing grade to the finished floor, excluding units designed to meet ADA requirements.
An entry patio, porch, or stoop with enclosure walls
and/or railing. See minimum open space dimensions in
Chapter 6.
The ground floor of a building’s frontage shall provide a minimum amount of transparency as follows:
Residential Units: 30 percent.
Non-residential and Common Residential Spaces: 60
percent.
Architectural Materials:
Textured masonry like brick or stone
Wood or engineered wood accents or slats, shade
canopies
Windows
Smooth or lightly textured stucco
Cast-in-place concrete
Fiber-cement panel systems
Metal accent elements
Green walls and other natural materials
Other materials as approved by the Planning
Division
Ground Floor Transparency: Area of a façade that
consists of windows or other glazed surface that permits light and visibility into a structure.
693
Chapter 4: Land Use & Urban Design
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026 4-25
Figure 4-7: Building Frontage
694
Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan
4-26 Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026
4.6.6 Lighting
Lighting shall be designed to enhance safety and visibility while minimizing glare and light spillover.
Pedestrian-scale lighting shall be provided along streets, paseos, open spaces, and building entrances.
Lighting shall be directed downward and shielded to
minimize impacts from light spillage on adjacent
properties.
Illuminators shall be integrated with the architectural design/theme of the buildings.
Outdoor lighting for streets, open space areas (such as fields), and commercial areas shall be placed to
minimize visual nuisance and maximize safety,
specifically adjacent to residential areas.
Shielding shall be used to mitigate outdoor lighting glare from adjacent properties, uses, buildings, and roadways. Outdoor lighting shall not project above the roofline of the building on which it is mounted.
Time-control devices shall be utilized on exterior lighting sources.
Outdoor security lighting for construction purposes shall be either directed away from or located away from
existing residential areas.
4.6.7 Trash, Recycling and
Utility Enclosures
Trash and recycling facilities and utilities shall be designed to minimize visual and operational impacts and shall not impede vehicle, bicycle, or pedestrian accessibility.
All trash enclosures and utilities shall be screened from public streets, alleys, and adjacent properties.
Outdoor trash enclosures shall be screened on at least three sides by a solid wall not less than six feet in height and feature a solid gate or door. Refuse areas shall be located so that the doors do not interfere or block
circulation when open and shall also have a roof.
Indoor trash enclosures or trash rooms shall be built per the latest Building Code standards and a will-serve letter from the refuse service shall be provided in contract with the City.
Trash enclosures and utility areas shall be physically integrated into the project and shall include an off-street loading area and other requirements of the Costa Mesa
Sanitary District or utility provider.
Storage areas for utilities that are visible from the upper stories or adjacent structures shall have an opaque or
semi-opaque horizontal cover/screen to mitigate
unsightly views. The horizontal screen/cover shall be
integrated into the enclosure design.
Storage areas for trash or utilities shall not be closer than 20 feet from doors or operable windows of adjacent structures.
695
Chapter 4: Land Use & Urban Design
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026 4-27
Trash enclosure areas shall comply with Section 13-73 of the CMMC.
Utilities shall comply with Section 13-71 of the CMMC.
4.6.8 Fences, Walls, Netting,
and Safety
Fences and walls shall be designed for safety while
contributing to the overall design character of the area. All fences and walls shall comply with Section 13-75 of the CMMC.
Gated neighborhoods are prohibited.
Perimeter fencing and netting for golf course safety shall be installed consistent with an errant ball analysis that shall identify the location and type of netting, or fencing required for safety purposes. Final location for netting shall be approved by the Community Development
Department, who will confer with the golf course
operator and developer prior to determining final
location.
The developer shall coordinate with Costa Mesa Police Department to implement cameras at all entrances to
the FDCSP site (see Chapter 8, Administration and
Implementation), if necessary.
4.6.9 Signage
Submittal of a planned signing program (PSP) is required for the FDCSP site. A cohesive exterior sign program shall
establish the placement and design criteria for all on-site signs.
Sign types may include, but are not limited to:
Freestanding signs.
Wall signs.
Projecting signs.
Monument signs.
Building identification.
Tenant identification.
Landmark signage or interpretive signage
acknowledging history of the site.
The PSP shall also include the following for each sign type:
Sign size, area, letter size, font style, and color palette. Sign construction materials and illumination method
and/or type of lighting.
General location requirements.
Note of other architectural or environmental
considerations.
Section 13-116, Signs Adjacent to Residential Zones, and Section 13-117, Maintenance of Permanent Signs, of CMMC Article 3, Sign Regulations, shall apply.
696
Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan
4-28 Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026
Interpretive panels can provide historic photos and tell the story of an area’s previous use, significance, or history in the community.
4.6.10 Historic Requirements
As part of the State’s disposition process and through the preparation of this Specific Plan and accompanying EIR, a Historical Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report were conducted for the site. Under the National Register of Historic Places criteria, the FDCSP qualified as an eligible historic landscape or historic district. The proposed Specific Plan project will include removal of all or a significant portion of the FDC, which will impact the site’s historic district designation.
Qualifying under NRHP/CRHR Criteria A/1, the district has significance at the local level for the important role it played in the evolution of public institutional mental health care. At the state level, it also qualified under NRHP/CRHR Criteria C/3 as a representative example of a post-war state hospital campus.
However, it was found that neither the FDC as a whole nor any individual resources within the FDC meet the eligibility requirements to be a California Historical Landmark.
Requirements for the historic district designation are:
Prior to any ground-disturbing activities or alterations that may impact the FDC complex, Historic American
Buildings Survey–style documentation shall be
completed by a qualified architectural historian. The
documentation should include a historical narrative,
physical description of the historic district, scaled district map, and high-resolution digital photographs. The final documentation should be submitted to the City and a
local archive or publicly accessible repository for
archival purposes and should be approved by the City
prior to demolition of the FDC.
At least two interpretive panels shall be installed along the multi-use trail within the FDCSP area. The panels
should contain material documenting the history of the
FDC, its place in the broader history of the City of Costa Mesa, and the place of state developmental centers in
the general history of the State of California and its
people. The two panels should address different topics
relevant to the above themes and should include both
pictures and explanatory text.
697
Chapter 4: Land Use & Urban Design
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026 4-29
This page left intentionally blank.
698
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026
699
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026
5 Mobility
700
Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan
5-2 Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026
5.1 Purpose
This chapter provides the context and standards for connecting the future community to the existing street network.
Redevelopment will include a new internal network of on-street and off-street facilities that provide access throughout the site.
The mobility plan also outlines how all modes of transportation will be accommodated consistent with the guiding principles in Chapter 3.
5.2 Mobility Plan
The mobility plan and overall roadway network for the Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan (FDCSP) area were
designed with input from the community and industry best practices. The following objectives have been established to guide implementation:
1. Provide an interconnected network of streets composed of smaller blocks that create a walkable grid pattern.
Blocks can be designed with mid-block alleys and
paseos to further enhance mobility and access,
especially for pedestrians and bicyclists.
2. Allow shared use of mid-block alleys by pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists, as appropriate. These throughconnections should be designed to encourage slow vehicle speeds and clearly signed for shared use with
pedestrians and bicyclists.
3. Avoid cul-de-sacs unless physical conditions provide no practical alternative.
4. Incorporate existing, healthy trees within the streetscape to the extent possible.
5. Incorporate a native-focused street tree palette that provides shade and variety of shapes and colors.
6. Design all streets for slow speeds to ensure safety and comfort of all road users and support an active
pedestrian environment. Curtail speeding by keeping
lane widths as narrow as possible and incorporating
road calming treatments.
7. Design curb lanes for multiple uses where possible,
including passenger pick-up/drop-off, shuttle or bus
boardings where applicable, bicycle or scooter parking, and loading zones.
8. Provide a network of bike facilities throughout the site, with connections to the off-street bike path along Harbor Boulevard and to the Tanager and Joann Street Bicycle
Trails.
9. Provide dedicated pedestrian crossings in high-traffic areas to ensure the safety, comfort and convenience of
walkers.
10.Design streets to accommodate community events, such as farmers markets and seasonal celebrations, through
temporary street closures to be used as programmable
open space.
The following sections describe how the mobility plan’s existing and proposed elements implement these objectives. See also Section 8.3.5, Transportation Demand Management, which
701
Chapter 5: Mobility
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026 5-3
further supports these objectives and citywide efforts to mitigate traffic impacts.
5.2.1 Circulation Standards
The circulation system in the Specific Plan area shall support a safe, connected, and multimodal environment that prioritizes pedestrians and cyclists while accommodating vehicles,
emergency access, and service functions.
Streets shall be designed to encourage slow speeds and foster a pedestrian friendly environment.
Streets shall be designed to support all modes of travel, including pedestrians, bicycles, vehicles, and transit, if applicable.
Emergency vehicle access shall be provided to all
buildings and shall comply with the Costa Mesa Fire &
Rescue requirements.
Street design shall be consistent with the street
typologies identified in this chapter.
Mid-block alleys may be used to provide access to
parking and other building services.
Street trees shall be provided along private and public streets per Section 6.3.
702
Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan
5-4 Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026
5.2.2 Existing Roadway
Network
The existing roadway network provides the context for
designing a new circulation network for the Plan area. This network is provided on Figure 5-1, Existing Roadway Network, which shows the existing area roadway infrastructure in the vicinity of the site. The major roadways closest to the Specific Plan area are described below:
State Route (SR-55)
The closest regional highway is State Route 55 (SR-55), east of the Specific Plan area. It is an eight-lane (four in each direction), north-south freeway route from Yorba Linda to the coastal cities in Orange County. The closest interchanges are at Fair Drive and Victoria Street.
Harbor Boulevard
Harbor Boulevard is a north-south major arterial roadway running just east of the Specific Plan area. It is six lanes (three in each direction), with a center median providing turn lanes into commercial developments along the roadway, where
appropriate. In the project vicinity, there are signalized intersections at Merrimac Way, Fair Drive, the Harbor Center Shopping Center, and Wilson Street.
Fair Drive
Fair Drive is the main entrance into the Specific Plan Area. It is an east-west primary arterial. East of Harbor Boulevard, it is four lanes (two in each direction) with a center two-way left-turn lane. West of Harbor Boulevard, the road narrows to a two-lane local street that connects to the current FDC site. This will remain the primary entrance into the Specific Plan area.
Merrimac Way
Merrimac Way is a two-lane, east-west primary arterial east of Harbor Boulevard. West of Harbor Boulevard, it is a two-lane private road that leads to the Harbor Village Apartments and ends at the FDC site. While this roadway currently provides access to the FDC site, its use will only be for emergency access in the future. See Section 5.2.3 for more information on the proposed roadways into and throughout the site as part of this Specific Plan.
Shelley Circle
Currently, internal circulation on the FDC site is accommodated by Shelley Circle, a primary local roadway with two lanes, one in each direction. A sidewalk lines the inner portion of the circle.
Shelley Circle can be accessed at two points: Fair Drive and Merrimac Way. This roadway loops around the FDC site, with smaller private roadways extending from it to provide
circulation between existing buildings. Shelley Circle has recently been improved through the Southern Regional
Emergency Operations Center project and will be maintained, but connections to the internal roadway system will be adjusted with future development. See Section 5.2.3 for more
information on the proposed roadways into and throughout the site as part of this Specific Plan.
703
Chapter 5: Mobility
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026 5-5
Figure 5-1: Existing Roadway Network
704
Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan
5-6 Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026
5.2.3 Proposed Roadways
Network
The proposed roadways for the Specific Plan area provide various types of streets to accommodate safe travel for all modes of transportation. Street trees shall be provided along private and public streets per Section 6.3. Figure 5-2, Proposed Roadway Network, depicts the proposed roadway network.
Street classifications specific to the Specific Plan site include:
Promenade
Local Road
Shelley Circle
Secondary Access
A grand entry via a Promenade from Fair Drive welcomes
pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists into the community.
Shelley Circle provides another prominent connection, with access from the Promenade south to the Southern Regional Emergency Operations Center (SREOC).
Internal connections are through local roads that create walkable blocks and form a gridded street network. These streets may be public or private.
A secondary access road will be required for additional safe ingress and egress for development of 2,300 residential units or more. If a secondary access road is proposed as part of the FDC Development Review Application, then the requirements set forth in Chapter 8 shall apply. Merrimac Way is a private drive and will only provide future emergency access through the Harbor Village Apartments, as well as bike and pedestrian access on existing sidewalks. In the event that a new lease agreement between the State and Village Investments (Harbor Village) allows for the use of Merrimac Way as an additional access road, then an additional access road through the golf course may not be necessary.
The mobility plan is flexible as long as its objectives are met and pedestrians are prioritized. The only fixed elements are the paseo and the backbone roadways shown in Figure 5-3,
Backbone Roadway Network, which includes the SREOC route and form the foundation of the Plan. The specific location of other streets in the grid may vary based on the final block layout. All streets and trails shall comply with the cross-sections provided on Figures 5-4 through 5-11, subject to review by the Public Works Director. These cross sections illustrate how pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle infrastructure supports safe circulation for all users. Cross-sections are provided for the Promenade, secondary access road, Shelley Circle, and two local roadway options: one with on-street parking and one without. These cross sections may be modified if greater pedestrian and bicycle safety features are proposed, subject to approval by the Public Works Director, or designee. Additional details on connectivity and intersection control are described in the sections below.
705
Chapter 5: Mobility
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026 5-7
Figure 5-2: Proposed Roadway Network
NOTE: This graphic is conceptual and represents potential roadway configurations and does not pre-commit the use of the City Municipal Golf Course for road access. 706
Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan
5-8 Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026
Figure 5-3: Backbone Roadway Network
NOTE: This graphic is conceptual and represents potential roadway configurations and does not pre-commit the use of the City Municipal Golf Course for road access. 707
Chapter 5: Mobility
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026 5-9
Figure 5-4: Promenade Street Section Option 1
708
Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan
5-10 Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026
Figure 5-5: Promenade Street Section Option 2
709
Chapter 5: Mobility
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026 5-11
Figure 5-6: Shelley Circle Street Section
NOTE: Trees and landscape areas may be
allowed within the on-street parking shoulder to
further enhance the pedestrian paths/sidewalks.
See section 6.3.
710
Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan
5-12 Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026
Figure 5-7: Secondary Access through the Golf Course Option 1 NOTE: This graphic is conceptual and represents potential roadway configurations and does not pre-commit the use of the City Municipal Golf Course for road access. 711
Chapter 5: Mobility
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026 5-13
Figure 5-8: Secondary Access through the Golf Course Option 2 NOTE: This graphic is conceptual and represents potential roadway configurations and does not pre-commit the use of the City Municipal Golf Course for road access. 712
Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan
5-14 Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026
Figure 5-9: Local Road, No Parking Street Section
713
Chapter 5: Mobility
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026 5-15
Figure 5-10: Local Road with Parking Street Section
NOTE: Trees and landscape areas may be
allowed within the on-street parking shoulder to
further enhance the pedestrian paths/sidewalks.
See section 6.3.
714
Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan
5-16 Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026
Figure 5-11: Multi-Use Trail Section 5.2.4 Pedestrian Connectivity The Specific Plan area is intended to be a pedestrian-oriented community. A strong pedestrian network is crucial for ensuring that community members and visitors of all ages can move throughout the Specific Plan area in a safe, convenient and comfortable manner. New pedestrian infrastructure shall connect to the existing network in the surrounding area, enhancing the environment through a range of improvements, including multi-use paths, The Promenade, paseos, and
sidewalks.
Existing
Many of the streets near the site have existing pedestrian infrastructure, such as sidewalks and crosswalks. Traditional sidewalks—generally ranging between three and seven feet in width—line both sides of many nearby streets, including Harbor Boulevard, Victoria Street, Wilson Street, Fair Drive, Mesa Verde Drive East, Adams Avenue, Placentia Avenue, and most of Merrimac Way. Approximately one to two miles west of the Specific Plan site is the Santa Ana River Trail, a multi-use trail that follows along the Santa Ana River and provides regional connectivity. Pedestrians and cyclists can use this trail to access well-known open space areas in the City such as
Fairview Park, Talbert Nature Preserve, and Talbert Regional Park.
Within the FDC site is a narrow sidewalk along the south side of Merrimac Way, from Harbor Boulevard leading to Shelley Circle. Shelley Circle is lined internally with a single sidewalk for most of the roadway. An interim sidewalk will be added to Shelley Circle as infrastructure and roadway improvements are 715
Chapter 5: Mobility
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026 5-17
made for the SREOC. Additional pedestrian enhancements are required for the area as described below.
Proposed
As a pedestrian-first community, the Specific Plan prioritizes safety, convenience and comfort for pedestrians. This includes ample eight-foot sidewalks, a central paseo, street trees and shade, and a separated multi-use trail along Shelley Circle.
Additional standards for lighting and landscaping are provided in Chapter 4, Land Use and Urban Design and Chapter 6,
Open Space, Landscaping and Public Art. As identified on the Street Sections in Figures 5-4 through 5-11, pedestrians will have connections both on-street and off-street, making it easy to walk to parks, retail, and restaurants in the community. To increase pedestrian safety, the following features may be included in crosswalk designs:
Raised Crosswalks
Decorative Paving, or other visual breaks
Bulb-outs
High Visibility Crosswalks
The parkways identified within the street sections shall be allowed to incorporate street furniture that includes, and is not limited to:
Benches
Bike Racks
Shade Canopies
Public Art
Lighting Standards
Trash Receptacles
Pedestrians will have multiple options for circulation throughout the area; sidewalks, trails, and a central paseo are key components of this Plan. 716
Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan
5-18 Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026
5.2.5 Bicycle Connectivity
Many people in Costa Mesa already use bicycles as a means of transportation, and this Specific Plan further encourages residents and visitors to do so. Existing bike infrastructure facilitates safe circulation throughout the City and proposed infrastructure in the Specific Plan will enhance the existing network to and within the Specific Plan area.
Existing
Costa Mesa maintains an extensive network of bicycle
infrastructure throughout the City, allowing bicycles to be safely used as a means of transportation across the City and to major nearby destinations. Much of the existing bikeway
infrastructure also connects to regional infrastructure, such as the Santa Ana River Trail. The City of Costa Mesa adopted an Active Transportation Plan (ATP) in 2018 to guide
improvements to the existing circulation network and outline proposed improvements to the City’s bike infrastructure network. This can be seen in Figure 5-12, Existing and
Proposed Surrounding Bicycle Network. Bicycle infrastructure is classified into four categories, established by the Caltrans Bicycle Infrastructure Classification System and reaffirmed in the City’s ATP.
Class I: Off Street Paved Bicycle Paths and/or Trails Class II: On-Street Striped and Signed Bicycle Lanes
Class III: On-Street Shared-Lane Signed Bicycle Routes (includes designation for route and boulevard)
Class IV: On-Street and Separate Bikeway (Cycle Track) Class I bike lanes currently exist to the north, east, and south of the site along the southern boundary of the Costa Mesa Country Club; along Harbor Boulevard; and parallel to Tanager Drive from the Harbor Boulevard intersection to Golf Course Drive. Many of the trails throughout the community are
anticipated to be multi-use paths, providing additional connectivity for pedestrians and bicyclists.
Proposed
The Specific Plan proposes a network of bikeways that provide safe bicycling options throughout the area and connect to the City’s existing bikeway network. The bicycle network for this Specific Plan consists of on-street and off-street facilities, including Classes I, III, and IV options, as depicted on Figure 5-13, Proposed Bicycle Network. Class IV paths are provided on Shelley Circle along a separated multi-use path that connects around the boundary of the site up to the Tanager Trail. An on-site multi-purpose paseo provides a central connection through the new neighborhood. Off-site facilities include the southbound Class II bike lane on Harbor Boulevard connecting to the Joann Trail. Heading east toward Placentia Avenue on Joann Trail provides access to Estancia High
School, Fairview Park, and the Santa Ana River Trail. To the west, Merrimac Way and Fair Drive both provide Class II bike lanes that connect to the nearby campus of Orange Coast College and the OC Fairgrounds and Event Center.
717
Chapter 5: Mobility
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026 5-19
Figure 5-12: Existing and Proposed Surrounding Bicycle Network 718
Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan
5-20 Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026
Figure 5-13: Proposed Bicycle Network
NOTE: This graphic is conceptual and represents potential roadway configurations. 719
Chapter 5: Mobility
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026 5-21
5.2.6 Intersections
On-site and off-site improvements are required to ensure efficient movement of traffic for the FDC buildout. Figure 5-14 shows the necessary intersection improvements at the existing intersection and potential new intersection with Harbor Boulevard, all of which can be accommodated within the
existing right-of-way. As previously discussed, the secondary access road through the golf course is a new roadway that will connect to the existing intersection with the Harbor Shopping Center, also shown on Figure 5-14.
Roadway design must also accommodate vehicles accessing the SREOC. The backbone roadway network in Figure 5-3
identifies Shelley Circle as a required access route, and Figure 5-15, SREOC Turning Radius Vehicle Size, provides the
turning radius standards for SREOC vehicles.
On-site intersections must accommodate all modes of
transportation. Proposed intersection controls could include roundabouts or four-way stops, or other alternatives, that will be evaluated through project review and are subject to
approval by the Public Works Department. Given the proximity to Harbor Boulevard, design attention should ensure safe and efficient operation for the neighborhood and ingress and egress for Cornerstone Lane residents.
Figure 5-14: Intersection Improvements
720
Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan
5-22 Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026
Figure 5-15: SREOC Turning Radius
Vehicle Size
Source: Caltrans, Highway Design Manual, 7th edition, Chapter 400.
5.2.7 Public Transit
Public transit services in the City of Costa Mesa are provided by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), which operates both fixed route and paratransit service across all cities in Orange County. Figure 5-16, Bus Stops and Transit Routes, shows the bus routes operating near the Specific Plan area and nearby bus stops. Relevant information about the nearby routes can be seen below in Table 5-1, Bus Routes.
Paratransit services are also provided by OCTA through OC ACCESS. This service provides transit options for residents who are unable to use traditional fixed-route transit services due to physical or cognitive limitations. OC ACCESS provides service within ¾ mile of traditional fixed routes, which includes the full site. The City of Costa Mesa had been testing Let’s Go Costa Mesa, a three-year grant-funded pilot microtransit program. The grant funding will conclude around October 2027, and the continuation of the program will be evaluated by City Council.
As the Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan is
implemented and population and transit demand increase, the City and Master Developer will work with OCTA to provide relevant service and/or stops for the area.
Table 5-1: Bus Routes
Bus
Route Nearest Stop Starting Location
Ending
Location
43 Harbor & Merrimac Fullerton Costa Mesa
47 Wilson & Harbor Fullerton Balboa
178 Adams & Harbor Huntington Beach Irvine
721
Chapter 5: Mobility
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026 5-23
Figure 5-16: Bus Stops and Transit Routes
722
Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan
5-24 Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026
5.2.8 Parking Standards
Parking in the FDCSP area shall be designed to support
development needs while minimizing visual impacts and
reinforcing a pedestrian-oriented environment, and shall be provided in accordance with Table 5-2.
Surface parking shall not be located between a
residential building and its primary street frontage.
Parking structures shall be screened from public streets through building placement, architectural treatment, or landscaping.
Bicycle parking shall be provided consistent with
Table 5-2.
A Parking Management Plan with parking study shall be submitted for the FDC area addressing the following:
shared parking between residential and commercial,
curb side drop-off and pick-up locations, and EV
chargers, and may include other measures that
demonstrate adequate parking would be provided for all
uses identified in Table 5-2.
All modes of transportation should be planned for throughout the Specific Plan area.
723
Chapter 5: Mobility
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026 5-25
Table 5-2: Parking Requirements
Use/Unit Type Minimum Number of Parking Spaces¹ Unit
COMMERCIAL
Retail, Office, Food & Beverage² 4 Per 1,000 sf
RESIDENTIAL
Affordable and Market Rate3 No minimum Per Unit
EV CHARGING
EV Capable 0.10 Per Total Spaces
EV Ready 0.25 Per Total Spaces
OPEN SPACE
Public Parks (including playgrounds)4 5 Per Acre
Courts4 2 Per Court
Fields4 30 Per Field
BICYCLE PARKING5
Residential – Long Term 0.5 Per unit
Residential – Short Term 1 Per 10,000 sf6
Retail and Commercial 5% of required vehicle parking % Per Total Vehicle Spaces Public Parks and Trails 2 Per 0.5 acre of Park/ Trail
NOTES:
1. Parking rates may be superseded by State legislation, including AB 2097 and State Density Bonus Law (Gov Code § 65915) .
2. Outdoor dining associated with food and beverage establishments are excluded from parking requirements.
3. Affordable includes Very Low, Low, Moderate, Senior, Permanent Supportive, and Special Needs.
4. On-street parking may be used to satisfy and/or contribute to this requirement.
5. Or as otherwise required by California Building Code and CalGreen Code.
6. Minimum of 2 spaces shall be provided, regardless of size. 724
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026
725
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026
6 Open Space,
Landscaping &
Public Art
726
Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan
6-2 Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026
6.1 Purpose
Open space is an essential part of the community, providing areas for active and passive recreation, fostering social interaction, and supporting community events. This chapter outlines the open space plan elements, standards, and direction for Open Space, Trails, Landscaping, and Public Art for the Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan (FDCSP) area, consistent with the guiding principles in Chapter 3.
6.2 Open Space and
Trails Plan
The open space and trails plan establishes standards that are foundational for creating attractive, usable, and sustainable open spaces. The standards were developed based on
feedback from the community and industry best practices. The following design objectives shall guide the final open space and trails network:
1. Locate and configure park sites to be easily accessed by residents of all ages via sidewalks, bicycle paths, and trails.
2. Link trails to create a fitness loop within and around the Specific Plan area.
3. Link on-site trails to off-site trails, including the Tanager Trail and the Joann Street Trail.
4. Create unique places within parks and other open space areas through landscape design, art, and/or
programming.
5. On-street parking (including diagonal parking) may be used where feasible to meet off-street parking
requirements for public parks to maximize the available land area for open space and park amenities.
6. Community-serving uses or programming shall be
provided and coordinated with the City’s Parks and
Community Services Department and any current or
future adopted Park’s Master Plan.
7. Direct noise and lighting impacts from sports fields and other park amenities away from homes to the extent
feasible.
8. Design publicly accessible and common open space
amenities, including plazas and other outdoor gathering areas, with ample shade, seating, lighting, and native
plantings.
9. Preserve or reuse existing trees where feasible.
10.Locate and incorporate restaurant patios adjacent to publicly accessible open space areas to encourage the
enjoyment of open space facilities.
11.Any trees removed shall be replaced consistent with City requirements at a 3:1 ratio (three new trees for each tree removed).
12.Utilize creative options such as programmable streets to increase the amount of public open space available for
special events.
727
Chapter 6: Open Space, Landscaping & Public Art
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026 6-3
Figure 6-1: Conceptual Site with Open Space
NOTE: This graphic is conceptual and represents potential roadway configurations and does not pre-commit the use of the City Municipal Golf Course for road access. 728
Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan
6-4 Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026
The open space plan includes multiple categories of open space. These categories are defined below but are not shown on a figure because a Master Developer, with City approval, will provide additional detail regarding where and what type of open space will be developed in a development application (see Chapter 8). The minimum amount of publicly accessible open space required, as shown in Table 6-1, shall be provided, and the requirements of this chapter can be met through a combination of the types of spaces as described in this Chapter. Figure 6-1 illustrates how future open space could be designed and distributed throughout the plan area. Section
6.2.1 provides the standards for each type of open space.
Common Open Space. These open space areas are privately owned and maintained but are shared spaces and can be
accessible to the public. Examples include but are not limited to courtyards, plazas, pool areas, rooftop decks, community garden, dog park or dog run, and playgrounds.
Public Open Space. These open space areas are publicly
accessible but could be maintained by the City or property owner. Anyone living in the community or visiting the Specific Plan area would have access. Examples include trails,
pedestrian paths, parks, community garden, dog park or dog run, and temporary open spaces such as street closures.
Private Open Space. These open space areas are private and only accessible to the property owner or lessee. Examples include balconies, enclosed patios, and rooftop amenities.
Paseo. One paseo generally east-west through the site has been identified in the Plan to provide a centralized pedestrian amenity in the heart of the community. Different from a trail this community-centered connection should have buildings or open space on either side. The paseo will have special paving and pedestrian-scaled lighting and provide amenities such as landscaping and/or planters, seating, and possibly public art.
Pedestrian Paths. A linear open space for non-vehicular use between buildings or blocks, providing walkable connections.
May be in a setback area.
Trails. Multi-Use Trails provide connections to the surrounding Costa Mesa Community from the FDCSP site. See Section
6.2.2 and Chapter 5 for more details.
Figure 6-2, Proposed Open Space and Trails Plan, provides a conceptual layout depicting the minimum requirement for publicly accessible open space, including a central paseo consistent with Chapter 4, Land Use and Urban Design.
729
Chapter 6: Open Space, Landscaping & Public Art
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026 6-5
Figure 6-2: Proposed Open Space and Trails Plan
NOTE: This graphic is conceptual and represents potential roadway configurations and does not pre-commit the use of the City Municipal Golf Course for road access. 730
Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan
6-6 Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026
6.2.1 Open Space Standards
Open space areas are an important part of community building and general site design for the Specific Plan area. Open space shall be distributed throughout the plan area and can be categorized into three general types: Common, Private, and Public. A reciprocal access easement for ingress and egress may be required to facilitate the ease of pedestrian and bicycle access throughout privately owned-publicly accessible open space. A fourth type, the Paseo, shall serve as a key element of the public open space network and is further defined in this section. All open space shall comply with the standards of this section and Table 6-1. Figures 6-3 and 6-4 provides a visual reference for what these categories of open space could look like and how they could be designed in future development.
Public Open Space
Public open space may be dedicated and owned by the
City or privately owned and maintained with a public
access agreement, and shall require approval by the
Parks and Community Services Department, or
designee.
Shall be consistent with the city’s adopted and future updates to the Parks Master Plan.
Public open space may contain active and/or passive
recreational uses.
Public open space shall include areas dedicated for all ages, including children and elderly.
A minimum of 25 acres of publicly accessible open
space shall be provided in the Specific Plan area.
Stand-alone commercial centers shall include a privately owned, publicly accessible gathering area, with outdoor amenities and spaces for dining, socializing, events, and other activities. The minimum size shall be 5,000 square feet.
Public open spaces shall be consistent with any adopted or future adopted Parks Master Plan.
Any lighting that is proposed in a publicly accessible sports field shall require a lighting study and potential environmental analysis.
Table 6-1: Open Space Requirements
Minimum
OPEN SPACE
Residential 90 sq feet per unit1
Commercial 5,000 sq feet2
Public3 4.26 acres per 1,000 people
NOTES:
1. May consist of outdoor/indoor common areas; private open space; and privately owned, publicly accessible open space, such as park areas and plazas.
2. If commercial is provided in a stand-alone configuration.
3. Can be met through land dedication, park improvements, and in-lieu fees; however, no less than 25 acres of publicly accessible open space shall be provided for the Specific Plan site (see also Chapter 4). May also count privately owned, publicly accessible open spaces toward this requirement, as approved by the Community Development Director.
731
Chapter 6: Open Space, Landscaping & Public Art
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026 6-7
Common Open Space
Common or shared open spaces within multifamily
projects may be on roofs, upper decks, parking
podiums, or at ground level.
Common open space shall have a minimum dimension
of 15 feet in all direction.
Indoor common open spaces may include
recreation/fitness facilities, event rooms or gathering areas, shared workspaces, and similar indoor uses.
Pedestrian walkways shall connect common open
spaces to building entrances, private drives, or public streets.
Rooftop amenities may include shade structures that
exceed the building height by 10 feet.
Private Open Space
Balconies shall have a minimum area of 60 square feet with a minimum dimension of 6 feet in each direction.
Balconies shall be recessed a minimum of one foot into the building facade.
No balcony shall overhang the public right-of-way.
Private patios or porches shall have a minimum area of 80 square feet, shall be contiguous to the unit served, and when used, fencing shall have a maximum height
of six feet.
Rooftop amenities may include shade structures that
exceed the building height by 10 feet.
Open space areas should provide active and passive opportunities for community engagement.
732
Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan
6-8 Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026
Pedestrian Paths
The minimum clear width of a pedestrian path shall be 16 feet.
Lighting shall be provided consistent with Chapter 4 of this Specific Plan.
Paseo
Paseos shall be open to the public and designed
primarily for pedestrian use.
Where a paseo is required to provide Fire Department
access to buildings with portions of the building more
than 150 feet from an approved fire access point, the
minimum clear width shall be increased to 20 feet, as
required per California Fire Code.
Paseos shall connect to streets, open spaces, trails, plazas, and building entrances where feasible.
Lighting, shade, landscaping, and seating shall be
provided to enhance safety and comfort. Seating along a paseo shall be provided at a ratio of one bench for every 150 feet of continuous linear pathway.
Ground-floor uses adjacent to a paseo shall include
active uses, residential entries, common spaces, or
patios where feasible.
Public art shall be implemented, where feasible, as
described in Section 6.4.
Active and passive open space amenities shall include
amenities such as sports fields, trails, a central paseo, playgrounds, and landscaped areas with benches and a
peaceful view of the golf course.
733
Chapter 6: Open Space, Landscaping & Public Art
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026 6-9
Figure 6-3: Paseo
734
Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan
6-10 Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026
Figure 6-4: Open Space Illustrative
735
Chapter 6: Open Space, Landscaping & Public Art
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026 6-11
6.2.2 Trails
On-site and off-site trails for active transportation travel will provide connections to the rest of the Costa Mesa community, integrating this new neighborhood with the rest of the City.
Existing connections include the Tanager Drive Trail to the north and Joann Street Bicycle Trail to the south, as shown on Figure 6-2. These two trails can also connect via existing and planned bikeways on Placentia Avenue, Fair Drive, Wilson Street, Mesa Verde Drive East, Harla Avenue, Merrimac Way, Golf Course Drive, and Harbor Boulevard. Bikeways are
described in more detail in Chapter 5.
Multi-use trails are encouraged throughout the Specific Plan site, and the final location for many connections will be identified through the Master Developer’s site plan application.
The multi-use trail, as depicted on Figure 6-2 and further detailed in the street sections in Chapter 5, is a requirement for implementation of this plan.
Multi-use trails are an important part of the open space plan and mobility plan for the FDCSP area.
736
Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan
6-12 Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026
6.2.3 Nearby City Parks
The Costa Mesa Parks and Community Services Department
manages many of the recreation facilities, programs, and services in Costa Mesa, including the public parks. There are 32 parks across the City, ranging from under one acre to over 200 acres. See Figure 6-5, Nearby City Parks and Open
Space, for those near the Specific Plan site. Publicly accessible open space will be provided through implementation of this Plan. Section 6.2 outlines the open space and recreation plan for the Specific Plan area.
Nearby city parks provide open space and recreation facilities available for the public to use.
737
Chapter 6: Open Space, Landscaping & Public Art
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026 6-13
Figure 6-5: Nearby City Parks and Open Space
738
Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan
6-14 Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026
6.3 Landscaping and
Trees
Landscaping shall be provided throughout the Specific Plan area to enhance aesthetics, provide shade, manage
stormwater, and pursuant to Section 13-105 of the CMMC, contribute to environmental quality.
The Master Developer shall prepare a program for
preservation, relocation, and replacement of existing onsite and impacted off-site trees, demonstrating all applicable requirements of the FDCSP. Relocated trees
may be used for streetscape, parks, paseo, publicly
accessible open space, private outdoor areas, and
within setback.
Existing trees removed during development shall be
replaced on-site at a ratio of three new trees for every one tree that is removed.
Existing trees may be boxed and relocated on-site.
Relocation must be performed by qualified personnel
following recognized ISA Best Management Practices,
including proper root pruning, secure anchoring,
supplemental irrigation, and soil preparation. After
relocation trees must be monitored, irrigated, maintained and inspected to promote establishment and long-term
survival. See Appendix F for an inventory of the trees on the FDC site.
Tree preservation may include tree extraction, staging, and relocation within the Specific Plan area.
Landscape features could include street furniture such as integrated seat walls and benches.
739
Chapter 6: Open Space, Landscaping & Public Art
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026 6-15
Replacement trees shall be boxed/contained trees from local, quality, native and non-native nursery tree stock. Landscaping, trees, and other plant material shall
comply with Section 13-106 of the CMMC.
Street trees shall be provided along all public and
private streets.
Landscaping shall be used to screen parking areas,
utilities, and services through the use of planting islands and perimeter landscaping.
Landscaping shall comply with applicable water
efficiency standards and City requirements per Section
13-107 of the CMMC.
Pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code, removal of any trees, shrubs, or any other potential nesting habitat shall be conducted outside of the avian nesting season. The nesting season generally extends from early February through August.
Fruit trees may be permitted in public areas provided that they are maintained by the future owner and do not
create a pest problem.
6.3.1 Hardscape, Outdoor
Furnishings and Amenities
Special paving treatments shall be used at pedestrian crossings, plazas, and entry points to reinforce walkability and visibility.
Hardscape elements such as walls, planters, and seat
edges shall be designed with durable materials that
complement surrounding architecture.
Universal accessibility shall be thoughtfully integrated into all public areas.
Parks, plazas, and open spaces shall include site
furnishings appropriate for the type, size, and character of the amenity or feature.
Furnishings include, seating, tables, shade elements, waste, recycling, and compost receptacles, bicycle
parking, lighting, and other features.
Site lighting shall be provided for safety, to identify ingress and egress, and be integrated into the overall landscape design.
740
Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan
6-16 Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026
6.4 Public Art
Public art contributes significantly to the public experience and identity of a place. It stimulates creativity and imagination and can add a unique human quality to the outdoor environment.
Costa Mesa is the City of Arts and, consistent with the City’s motto redevelopment of the Fairview Developmental Center property shall integrate art and art education. The following guidelines address the development, placement, and selection of artwork:
Public art within the Plan area is subject to the
requirements of the City’s adopted Arts & Culture Master Plan and subsequent updates.
Public art associated with commercial uses should invite interaction, reflect local context, and contribute to
placemaking in public spaces and along key pedestrian
routes.
The design and placement of public art shall consider its physical impact on its surroundings, such as buildings, open spaces, and pedestrian circulation, to ensure
compatibility and visibility.
Artwork should be sited so as not to obstruct pedestrian movement, compete with storefront visibility, or impede vehicular sightlines.
Murals, bas-relief, or integrated art elements should be used to enhance building facades and activate
otherwise blank walls.
Public art shall be constructed of durable materials
suitable for outdoor conditions and should be
appropriately lit to ensure visibility during evening hours.
Art can create a sense of place by adding an interesting element to an outdoor area.
741
Chapter 6: Open Space, Landscaping & Public Art
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026 6-17
This page left intentionally blank.
742
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026
743
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026
7 Infrastructure &
Public Services
744
Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan
7-2 Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026
7.1 Purpose
This chapter describes the infrastructure and utilities that previously supported the FDC, and identifies the improvements needed for redevelopment under this Specific Plan. It also outlines nearby public services that will provide facilities and support to the community.
7.2 Infrastructure,
Utilities and Public
Services
Adequate infrastructure is required to support redevelopment for residents and businesses. This section discusses the existing utilities and infrastructure currently servicing the FDC site, as well as the new, upgraded infrastructure that will be required to accommodate the redevelopment proposed in this Specific Plan. In this plan, utilities and infrastructure refer to dry utilities such as electricity and gas in addition to wet utilities such as water, sewer, and drainage.
7.2.1 Electricity and Natural
Gas
Electrical service to support the current buildings on the FDC site is provided by Southern California Edison (SCE). The existing system feeds an on-site central “power plant.” From there, electrical power is distributed through transformers in and around on-site buildings for service. Redevelopment proposed by this Specific Plan will require updated
infrastructure. None of the existing supporting utilities are feasible to keep on-site and the systems will all need to be modernized to meet current code requirements. SCE
previously confirmed that it has the capacity in the area to service the redevelopment, and it will oversee the installation of typical facilities needed for electrical service around the property. This will require further coordination between the Master Developer and SCE to reconfirm capacity remains
available and to determine exact points of connection for new infrastructure.
Natural gas service is currently provided by Southern California Gas Company (SoCal Gas). Similar to the electrical services, natural gas is provided by a single meter and then distributed across the site. All distribution lines and appurtenances beyond this gas meter are owned by the State. Also similar to the electrical services, all facilities supporting the current gas system will need to be removed and replaced with a typical system. In coordination with the selected Master Developer, it is anticipated that SoCal Gas will remove the existing facilities and require a new, typical gas service system to support redevelopment. The new system will connect to the existing high pressure distribution system found in Harbor Boulevard.
The Master Developer shall coordinate with SoCalGas to verify service availability for the proposed development within the plan area.
In conclusion, new infrastructure for all dry utilities will need to be installed throughout the site to support redevelopment. The selected Master Developer will coordinate with the gas and electric companies for related utility infrastructure needs at 745
Chapter 7: Infrastructure & Public Services
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026 7-3
the site. This Specific Plan encourages the Master Developer to fully rely upon electric power for redevelopment of the site.
7.2.2 Water and Sewer
Water
Water service in Costa Mesa is provided by the Mesa Water District (MWD), which uses groundwater from the local Orange County Groundwater Basin and recycled water from the
Orange County Water District (OCWD). In emergencies, MWD will obtain potable water from the regional wholesaler, Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC). The
Specific Plan site currently receives water from a main water line that runs under Harbor Boulevard, which then enters an on-site system of smaller water lines (see Figure 7-1, Existing Water System Facilities). The system currently provides service to existing uses and has no major issues in terms of supply, pressure, or fire flows; however, future development will require project-specific evaluation of domestic demand and fire protection needs. Final infrastructure sizing, looping, hydrant spacing, and pressure/flow performance shall be confirmed through detailed engineering and coordination with the MWD and Costa Mesa Fire & Rescue during subsequent planning, mapping, and building permit phases.
MWD prepared a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) and a
hydraulic analysis for the FDC buildout. The WSA concluded that adequate water supply is available for the maximum buildout described in Chapter 4. The hydraulic analysis found that maximum peak demand could affect one of the District’s reservoirs and, any required modifications will be determined during the Master Developer’s project review. The Master Developer will be responsible for coordinating with MWD to identify the necessary improvements. Both studies are included in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
The existing on-site water system will be demolished and replaced with a new 8- to 12-inch polyvinyl chloride (PVC) system. The new system will connect at Fair Drive and the future roadway to Fair Drive to create a looped network (see Figure 7-2, Proposed Water System Facilities). Additionally, development of the SREOC property will include a new 10-inch domestic line dedicated to its water needs, connecting from an existing main at Fair Drive and Harbor Boulevard.
746
Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan
7-4 Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026
Wastewater
The Costa Mesa Sanitary District (CMSD) maintains 224 miles of gravity sewers citywide (see Figure 7-3, Existing Sewer Facilities). The FDC site currently uses a private on-site sewer system that connects to a CMSD sewer main via a private line in Merrimac Way. Data collected during the monitoring of the two nearby manholes along Harbor Boulevard indicates that the sewer system is in good condition with ample capacity.
Wastewater flows north in the CMSD sewer system to the
Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) trunk sewer facility at Baker Street, where it is treated and recycled. As of December 2025, OCSD confirmed sufficient capacity to
accommodate the estimated wastewater flows from the
Specific Plan’s maximum buildout.
Development of the Specific Plan area will require the following improvements:
Upsize one of the two existing parallel 15-inch sewer lines between Fair Drive to Merrimac Way to 18- inches
or greater (approximately 1,860 Linear Feet (LF)).
Upsize the existing 18-inch line between Merrimac Way and Baker Street to 21- inches or greater (approximately 4,240 LF).
Total estimated lineal feet of sewer replacement or
upsizing is 6,100 LF.
Existing capacity in the sewer system can support 1,600 residential units before full upgrades are required, based on conservative generation factors.
Further evaluation and coordination with CMSD will be required to confirm final sizing and cost-sharing
responsibilities. The Master Developer will be
responsible for coordinating this with CMSD and the
City.
The on-site sewer system will be demolished and replaced with a new 8- to 12-inch system sized to accommodate Specific Plan buildout (see Figure 7-4, Proposed Sewer Facilities). The new on-site system will continue to discharge at the existing Fair Drive connection point. Additionally, the SREOC property will install a new dedicated 8-inch sewer line running east-west and connecting to the CMSD sewer system in Harbor
Boulevard, designed and installed to avoid conflicts with future Specific Plan development areas.
747
Chapter 7: Infrastructure & Public Services
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026 7-5
7.2.3 Storm Drain
The City of Costa Mesa has approximately 42 miles of storm drains and over 1,100 catch basins across the community. The storm drain system is maintained by the City, including clearing blocked drains, removing debris from drains/basins, and repairing any damaged pipes. On the FDC site, the system primarily discharges via surface flow to the Costa Mesa Country Club (golf course) to the west. Runoff at the golf course is then collected through a network of inlets that lead to the City storm drain systems (see Figure 7-5, Existing Storm Drain Facilities).
Prior to construction on the FDC site, the City will require the following studies and improvements (see Chapter 8; some conditions may be phased):
1. Pipe condition analysis, using closed-circuit television (CCTV), of the existing 36-inch storm drain that accepts drainage from the FDC site.
2. Replacement of the corrugated metal pipe (CMP)
portion of the storm drain with reinforced-concrete pipe (RCP).
3. Realignment of the 36-inch RCP storm drain to avoid the lake (on golf course).
4. Future study to determine capacity of the existing 36- inch storm drain.
5. Balance proposed condition 25-year peak flow to match existing 25-year peak flow, including on-site detention if necessary.
6. Prepare detailed hydrology and hydraulics report for City review and approval based on the approved Tentative
Tract Map.
7. Prioritization of green stormwater infrastructure to capture and reuse water on-site and minimize impacts to the citywide storm drain system.
These changes and infrastructure upgrades will create a new storm drain network (see Figure 7-6, Proposed Storm Drain Facilities) that can accommodate the development levels proposed in this Specific Plan. Prior to any connections to the storm drain facilities, the Master Developer shall also submit an application for review to Orange County Public Works (OCPW). 748
Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan
7-6 Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026
Figure 7-1: Existing Water System Facilities
749
Chapter 7: Infrastructure & Public Services
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026 7-7
Figure 7-2: Proposed Water System Facilities
750
Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan
7-8 Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026
Figure 7-3: Existing Sewer Facilities
751
Chapter 7: Infrastructure & Public Services
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026 7-9
Figure 7-4: Proposed Sewer Facilities
752
Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan
7-10 Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026
Figure 7-5: Existing Storm Drain Facilities
753
Chapter 7: Infrastructure & Public Services
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026 7-11
Figure 7-6: Proposed Storm Drain Facilities
754
Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan
7-12 Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026
7.2.4 Waste Management and
Recycling
Waste management and recycling services are required for construction and demolition as well as for ongoing service once new housing and commercial businesses are built. The City of Costa Mesa has requirements for both types of waste.
Construction and Demolition Waste
The City’s Municipal Code requires that all project-related construction and demolition divert 65 percent of nonhazardous project waste from the landfill by recycling or salvage. Asphalt, concrete, excavated soil, and land-clearing debris can all be diverted. Other materials include but are not limited to cardboard, plastic, lumber, drywall, concrete, brick, and other masonry. The City offers options for waste hauling, either through a franchise waste hauler or self-hauling. Coordination with the City’s Public Works Department is required prior to issuance of a building permit.
Residential and Commercial Waste
Multi-family properties of five or more units and commercial businesses may select a waste collection and recycling hauler from the City’s approved list. Single-family residential service and multi-family properties of four units or less are managed by the Costa Mesa Sanitary District—the current provider is CR&R. See Chapter 4, Section 4.6.7, for trash and recycling enclosure requirements.
7.2.5 Public Services
It is important for new developments in Costa Mesa to have access to the public services that are readily available to residents. These include, but are not limited to, fire protection, police services, schools, and libraries. These services can be seen in Figure 7-7, Public Services. It is important to note that this Specific Plan does not identify or propose new public safety facility sites but also does not preclude the siting of future public safety facilities or support functions within the Specific Plan area. A nexus study which calculates the new increment of development, estimates the portion of an
improvement project attributable to that increment of growth, and allocates the fee for the FDC, shall be required of the Master Developer (see Section 8.3.3 and Table 8-3). If a future need is identified, such facilities will be accommodated, consistent with applicable City review and implementation actions.
Police
Police services are provided by the Costa Mesa Police
Department. The Costa Mesa Police Department headquarters is at 99 Fair Drive, approximately 0.85 miles east of the Plan area. Due to the distance from the Police headquarters and the proximity to Harbor Boulevard, a substation is needed within the Specific Plan area, either separate from or connected to a Fire Department substation. This is due to an increase in population from the residential and commercial uses at the site that will necessitate additional personnel commensurate to the current ratio of Police personnel to the population.
755
Chapter 7: Infrastructure & Public Services
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026 7-13
Fire and Emergency Services
Fire protection and emergency services are provided by the Costa Mesa Fire & Rescue Department. The department has six fire stations around the City, and the three closest stations to the Plan area are:
Fire Station 1 (1570 Adams Avenue): approximately 0.9 miles from the Specific Plan entrance at Harbor
Boulevard and Fair Drive and 1.7 miles from the
proposed SREOC site.
Fire Station 5 (2450 Vanguard Way): approximately 0.9 miles from the Specific Plan entrance at Harbor
Boulevard and Fair Drive and 1.7 miles from the
proposed SREOC site.
Fire Station 4 (2300 Placentia Avenue): approximately
1.4 miles from the Specific Plan entrance at Harbor
Boulevard and Fair Drive and 2.2 miles from the proposed SREOC site.
As redevelopment occurs, fire protection and emergency
services needs may evolve due to changes in population, building intensity, roadway network conditions, and travel patterns. The Master Developer shall coordinate with Costa Mesa Fire & Rescue and applicable agencies to confirm
emergency access, fire lane geometry, turning radii, vertical clearances, hydrant spacing, and required fire flows. Project phasing shall incorporate any identified fire protection improvements needed to maintain effective emergency
response and public safety, up to and including the placement of a fire station on-site or another acceptable location.
Schools
The Specific Plan area is in the Newport-Mesa Unified School District (NMUSD). NMUSD oversees 44 schools—12
preschools, 22 elementary schools, an independent study school, an intermediate school (grades 7-8), a middle school (grades 7-8), 2 middle/high schools (grades 7-12), 4 high schools (grades 9-12), and an adult education program, across the cities of Costa Mesa, Newport Beach, and Corona del Mar.
The schools near the Specific Plan area that could serve future residents are:
Adams Elementary School (2850 Clubhouse Road):
approximately 1.6 miles to the Specific Plan entrance.
TeWinkle Middle School (3224 California Avenue):
approximately 2.0 miles to the Specific Plan entrance.
Estancia High School (2323 Placentia Avenue):
approximately 1.6 miles to the Specific Plan entrance.
Library
Libraries in Costa Mesa are operated as part of the Orange County Public Libraries. Two branch libraries are in the City:
The Donald Dungan Library (1855 Park Avenue):
approximately 1.9 miles to the Specific Plan entrance.
The Mesa Verde Library (2969 Mesa Verde Drive):
approximately 1.6 miles to the Specific Plan entrance.
In addition to book and media check-out programs, the libraries also provide additional services and resources, including:
hotspots, laptops and charger kiosks, public computers, Wi-Fi, wireless printing, private study rooms, and technology tutoring. 756
Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan
7-14 Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026
Figure 7-7: Public Services
757
Chapter 7: Infrastructure & Public Services
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026 7-15
This page left intentionally blank.
758
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026
759
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026
8 Administration &
Implementation
760
Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan
8-2 Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026
8.1 Purpose
A specific plan is required to contain a program of
implementation measures consisting of, but not limited to, regulations, programs, infrastructure projects, and financing measures. This chapter outlines the requirements and actions for administering and implementing the Fairview
Developmental Center Specific Plan (FDCSP). Administration of the Plan includes review, approval processes, and
modification and amendment procedures. It also describes the implementation actions and conceptual phasing for short-, mid- , and long-term development, as well as the financing
measures needed for development and capital improvements.
8.2 Administration
8.2.1 Adoption and Applicability
This Plan was prepared in conformance with California
Government Code Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 3, Article 8, Section 65450 et seq.; the City of Costa Mesa General Plan; and the Zoning Code (Costa Mesa Municipal Code (CMMC)
Title 13) and has been adopted by Ordinance No. 2026-08.
Under the Zoning Code, individual specific plans may establish additional or separate provisions and standards for the plan area; and may adopt zones and amend the Zoning Map. This Specific Plan establishes the land uses and zoning for the Plan area, and addresses general provisions, permitted uses, development and design standards, and mobility and
infrastructure improvements. Unless otherwise specified, where the provisions of this Specific Plan differ from those in the Zoning Code and City regulations, including the citywide objective design standards, the provisions of this Specific Plan shall control. Where the Specific Plan is silent on a subject, the requirements of the Zoning Code (Title 13), shall remain applicable. This Specific Plan is subject to the requirements of state law, including but not limited to the Housing Accountability Act. To the extent that the provisions of this Specific Plan conflict with applicable state law, state law shall control.
8.2.2 Responsibility and
Enforcement
The City of Costa Mesa Community Development Department, its Director, or designees, shall be responsible for administering the Plan in accordance with the requirements of this document, all governing and applicable State and federal laws, the City of Costa Mesa’s General Plan, and the CMMC.
8.2.3 Severability
If any portion of this Plan and its regulations are declared invalid or ineffective in whole or in part by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Plan.
8.2.4 Interpretation
In the event of ambiguity concerning the content or application of the Plan, the ambiguity shall be determined by the
Community Development Director, or designee(s). Such
761
Chapter 8: Administration & Implementation
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026 8-3
interpretations shall be consistent with the vision, guiding principles, purposes, objectives, and intent established in this Plan. See also “Specific Plan Conformity and Minor Conditional Use Approvals” in Section 8.2.7. Any appeals of interpretations shall go forward to Planning Commission.
8.2.5 Environmental Review
The FDCSP was adopted in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (California Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.). Pursuant to Section 15168(c), Use with Later Activities, of the CEQA Guidelines, later activities in the program, such as those implementing the Plan, can be approved as being within the scope of the project covered by the Program EIR and
associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and no new environmental document would be required, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. If a later activity causes substantial changes or would have effects that were not examined in the Program EIR, a new initial study may need to be prepared, leading to either an EIR or a Negative
Declaration. That later analysis may tier from the Program EIR as provided in CEQA Guidelines Section 15152.
In addition to the CEQA provisions noted above, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, later projects that are consistent with the development density established by the Specific Plan and/or General Plan shall not require additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to
examine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site.
8.2.6 Application Review and
Processing
This section provides the review and approval authority for the implementation of the Specific Plan, as authorized by CMMC Title 13, Planning, Zoning and Development, Chapter III, Planning Applications. All development applications must be consistent with the Vision, Guiding Principles, purpose, intent, objectives, development and design standards of this Specific Plan. In the event an application that is not identified in this section is submitted to the City for review, a subsequent FDC Development Review Application shall be submitted.
8.2.6.A FDC Development Review
Application
Prior to a formal Tentative Map submittal, the Master Developer shall submit an FDC development review application to the Community Development Department, in a form developed and approved by the Department, that includes a conceptual map and supporting documentation to demonstrate conformance with the Specific Plan. The conceptual map shall divide the FDCSP site into Planning Subareas detailing the development program and phase. Details in the preliminary review
application shall include, but not be limited to:
1. Legal description (metes and bounds) of the overall
Planning Area boundary and graphic depiction of each
Planning Subarea, if applicable.
2. The general location, acreage and type of land use for each Planning Subarea.
762
Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan
8-4 Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026
3. Proposed maximum number of dwelling units for each
Planning Subarea.
4. Proposed maximum number of gross and net acres for
non-residential land uses, including community facilities and service stations, if applicable.
5. Identification of applicable project design features, mitigation measures, and any Development Agreement
stipulations (if applicable) unique to the Planning Area.
6. Residential development typologies and the unit count by lot or block shall be provided, including the location and affordability levels of affordable housing. A broad color palette for the exterior walls and roofing materials for future homes and businesses shall also be included.
7. Backbone circulation and location of local roads.
8. A traffic study shall be required to identify if an additional access road is necessary, and if necessary, what unit
count will trigger the additional access road.
9. Draft Transportation Demand Management Plan and
Climate Action and Adaptation Plan compliance.
10.Estimated acres of park, recreation and other open
space uses and location of parks, paseo, and trails.
11.Construction phasing/staging, including demolition and remediation.
12.General phasing of infrastructure for the entire planning area, including roadway locations (including secondary
and collector arterials, if appropriate and known), sewer, storm drainage and a Runoff Management Plan
(ROMP), Master Plan of Drainage (MPD), including the
location of water quality facilities.
13.Preliminary conceptual grading at 10-foot contours.
14.Historic American Buildings Survey Report (see Section
4.7.10).
15.Other relevant programs, policies, and guidelines
contained in The Plan, as may be required for
consideration, together with a description of how they
are being implemented by the Planning Subareas.
16.Any proposed changes to the Costa Mesa Country Club
Golf Course to accommodate additional site access
shall be accompanied by an outreach plan.
17.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;
763
Chapter 8: Administration & Implementation
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026 8-5
The agreement may be a standalone agreement or
in combination with another agreement.
The Master Developer may submit additional materials that further demonstrate their conformance to this Plan. Additional focused studies may be required as part of this application and will be included in an application submittal checklist developed by the Community Development Department.
8.2.6.B Tentative Map Application
A Tentative Map shall be required for the site area controlled by the Master Developer, in accordance with Title 13, Chapter XI, Subdivisions, of the CMMC, and shall be consistent with the preliminary review application. The Tentative Map is subject to the review authority identified in Table 8-1.
Minor Map Amendment (MMA)
This Specific Plan establishes a process to authorize limited modifications to an approved Tentative Map that remains in substantial conformance with the conditions of approval and does not increase the project’s environmental impacts. The Community Development Director, or designee, has the sole discretion to determine whether an MMA is the appropriate process for proposed tentative map or phasing plan changes prior to final map recordation. An MMA shall only be used to process changes to the project for an increase or decrease of no more than 10 percent.
An MMA may be applied for minor changes that include, but are not limited to:
1. Moving units from one phase to another with no increase or decrease in overall unit count.
2. Minor shifting of lot lines in any direction that does not result in safety impacts to the infrastructure or roadway network.
3. Minor pad elevation height changes.
4. Minor changes in project grading that do not result in a significant environmental impact.
5. Minor shifts in alignment of local roadways or the
required Backbone Roads.
6. Revising private roadways such that they are shown as separate lots or including them within lots.
7. Changes to residential product type or building footprint within a lot, as long as the change is consistent with the development standards and there is no increase in unit
count for that particular lot.
8.2.6.C Specific Plan Conformity
The FDC development review application process included in Section 8.2.6.A describes the process for initiating an application for the development’s consistency with this Specific Plan. The Vision and Guiding Principles (Chapter 3) shall be used to determine conformance to the Specific Plan.
764
Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan
8-6 Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026
8.2.6.D Minor Conditional Use
Approvals
The Vision and Guiding Principles (Chapter 3) shall be
consulted when a use determination and/or interpretation (Section 8.2.4) is being made. Any use requiring a Minor Conditional Use Permit (Table 4-3) shall be reviewed by the Planning Manager to determine its similarity to another listed use and the use’s suitability within the Specific Plan area.
Additional approvals, such as granting Modifications, as described below (Section 8.2.6.F), require demonstrated compatibility and conformance.
8.2.6.E Affordable Housing Plan and
Density Bonus Program
Affordable housing requirements for the Specific Plan area are provided in Chapter 4, Table 4-1, and further described in Section 4.4. Tracking requirements are provided in Section 8.3.
Development in the Specific Plan area is exempt from the City’s Affordable Housing Inclusionary Ordinance pursuant to Section 13-329, Chapter XVII, of the CMMC. Density bonus projects are subject to Government Code Section 65915, et seq. and CMMC Title 13, Chapter IX, Article 4, Density Bonus and other Incentives.
Conformance with the FDCSP requires that the minimum
number of affordable housing units per income category is met, as identified in Table 4-1. The Master Developer shall submit an Affordable Housing Plan detailing how the requirements of this Specific Plan will be implemented. The Plan shall include but is not limited to the following information:
1. The location, structure, tenure (to be detailed within the Affordable Housing Plan), and size of the proposed
market rate and affordable units, including bedroom
count.
2. The affordable units shall be comparable to the market rate units in terms of materials used and bedroom count and shall be proportionate in terms of unit mix.
3. The total number of affordable units to be provided per development application.
4. A floor plan and site plan depicting the location of the affordable units.
5. The affordable housing agreement shall specify the
number, type, location, size and phasing of all affordable units, provisions for income certification and screening of potential purchasers or renters of units, and resale control mechanisms, including the financing of ongoing
administrative and monitoring costs, consistent with the approved affordable housing plan, as determined by the
Community Development Director.
6. A fair housing marketing plan for the process by which qualified households will be reviewed and selected to
rent or own affordable units. 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.
7. Construction phasing plan schedule with the anticipated dates for building permit issuance, certificate of
occupancy, completion, and opening date. This
765
Chapter 8: Administration & Implementation
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026 8-7
schedule may be modified with approval by the
Community Development Director, or designee.
Affordable Housing Agreement Requirements
Prior to approval of any final parcel map or issuance of any building permit, whichever occurs first, the developer shall execute and record an affordable housing agreement in a form approved by the city attorney that at a minimum specifies: the number, type, location, size, and phasing of all affordable units; provisions for income certification; and screening of potential renters of the affordable units, consistent with this Specific Plan. Site preparation and remediation may begin prior to establishment of this agreement.
Alternative Means of Compliance
A developer may propose an alternative means of compliance with the minimum requirements in Table 4-1 by providing a different mix of very low, low, and moderate income housing as long as the overall number of affordable units is met.
Alternatively, a developer may propose a lower number of total affordable units if the mix proposes deeper levels of
affordability (e.g. there is an increase in extremely low, very low, or low income categories). Any proposed alternative means of compliance will be reviewed as part of the submitted affordable housing plan and determination made by the
Community Development Director, or designee. The
Community Development Director may refer the alternative means of compliance to the Planning Commission, at their sole discretion.
Affordable Housing Plan Modifications
If a change to the required affordable housing cannot be met through an alternate means of compliance and a Master
Developer proposes a deviation from the affordable housing units identified in Table 4-1, the Community Development Director may approve the modification to the number and income level of units as long as the following are met:
The total number of housing units does not exceed
the total maximum number of units in Table 4-1.
The total number of housing units is not less than the minimum number of units in Table 4-1.
Very low, low, and moderate Income units can be
accommodated elsewhere in the City, and the change would result in “no net loss.”
Table 8-1: Development Application
Process and Review Authority
Review
Authority Application Type1 Appeal Authority
Planning
Division
Use Approval
Reasonable Accommodation
Zoning
Administrator
Community
Development
Director
Affordable Housing Plan
Minor Modification
Minor Conditional Use Permit
Major Modification/ Variance
Specific Plan Conformity
Phasing Plan Adjustment
Planned Sign Program
Density Bonus Request
Planning
Commission
766
Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan
8-8 Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026
Review
Authority Application Type1 Appeal Authority
Tentative Parcel Map
Minor Map Amendment
Planning
Commission
Conditional Use Permit
Tentative Tract Map
FDC Development Review
Application, except the secondary
access road shall be reviewed by
the City Council
City Council
City Council
Development Agreement
Final Tract Map
Specific Plan Amendment
None
NOTE:
1. When required, mailed notices shall comply with Title 13, Chapter III Planning Applications, Section 13-29(d)(1), of the CMMC.
8.2.6.F Modifications
Concurrent with the submittal of the FDC Development Review Application or the Tentative Map, an application requesting a minor or major modification, as described below, must be submitted to the Planning Division for review and to refer the application to the appropriate review authority identified in Table 8-1. Such submittals must be accompanied by supporting technical studies and documentation to make the applicable findings described in this section.
Minor Modifications
A minor modification is a deviation from the development and/or design standards of this Specific Plan (Chapter 4) that may be granted by the Community Development Director, or designee. A list of Minor Modifications is provided in Table 8-2.
Major Modifications/ Variance
A major modification is a deviation from this Specific Plan, that is not an interpretation (Section 8.2.4) or minor modification (Table 8-2) and does not warrant a Specific Plan Amendment.
Major Modifications may be granted by the Community
Development Director, or designee, but has authority to defer decision to the Planning Commission. Major Modifications include:
A deviation in a development or design standard at a
percentage greater than what is allowed under a
Minor Modification (Table 8-2), but shall not exceed
20 percent.
767
Chapter 8: Administration & Implementation
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026 8-9
Any proposed change determined by the Director to be a Major Modification.
Findings
When granting approval of Minor or Major Modifications for a development project, as specified above, the final review authority shall find that the evidence presented in the administrative record substantially meets all required findings listed here:
1. Granting the deviation and/or modification will not allow a use, density, or intensity which is not in accordance with the Housing Element and this Specific Plan.
2. Granting the modification 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.
Table 8-2: Minor Modifications
Minor Modifications
Adjustments to development and design standards by no more than 10 percent.
Adjustments to parking standards by no more than 10 percent.
Adjustments to the Affordable Housing Plan; see Section 8.2.6.E, Affordable Housing Requirements/ Program.
Adjustments to allowable projections and encroachments if consistent with the building code.
Addition or update of information to this Specific Plan—text and/or map changes—for the purposes of clarification provided that the edit is still consistent with the intent of the Plan and does not constitute a major modification or amendment.
Certain adjustments to the Mobility Plan, including ultimate roadway alignment for non-backbone roads, lane configuration, bike lanes, sidewalks and trails, and traffic controls, also requires approval by the Public Works Department, Transportation Services Manager.
Use determinations for land uses not specified in Section 4.5 Uses, but similar in intent and character subject to interpretation by the Director, as specified in Section 8.2.4, Interpretation. 768
Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan
8-10 Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026
8.2.6.G Specific Plan Amendments
A Specific Plan Amendment may be initiated by the Master Developer, City Council, Planning Commission, or City Staff in the event of the following:
1. A proposed reduction in the minimum open space per
Table 4-1.
2. A proposed change to the maximum allowable number
of dwelling units and/or non-residential square feet
(Table 4-1).
3. A proposed decrease to the total number of very lowand low-income affordable housing units identified in (Table 4-1) that cannot be met through a minor
modification (Table 8-2) or an alternative means of
compliance.
4. A change in use not allowed in the FDCSP that cannot be addressed through Section 8.2.4.
5. Proposed change to the backbone roadway network not
identified in Chapter 5, Mobility.
6. A proposed new additional access road.
7. A proposed change to the Specific Plan area boundary.
A Specific Plan Amendment may require additional studies or analysis, as requested by the City and/or required by CEQA.
8.3 Implementation
8.3.1 Site Preparation
It is anticipated that the State will leave the FDC property with the existing buildings still standing on the site, including parking lots, utilities, walkways, and landscape areas. Several Stateinitiated reports indicate that buildings constructed in the 1950s and 1960s have considerable lead- and asbestos-containing materials that will need to be remediated with demolition. The site likely contains hazardous materials from the existing utility infrastructure and expected contaminated soils. Prior to beginning demolition, the owner, beneficiary, or trustee shall contact the South Coast Air Quality Management District.
Additionally, the owner, beneficiary, or trustee shall provide an Erosion Control Plan that addresses Best Management
Practices. It is anticipated that site preparation and remediation efforts, in addition to grading, will adequately prepare the site for new development. Infrastructure improvements related to mobility and utilities are provided in Chapter 5, Mobility, and Chapter 7, Infrastructure and Public Services, and specific tasks are identified in Table 8-3.
769
Chapter 8: Administration & Implementation
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026 8-11
8.3.2 Interim Conditions and
Requirements During
Construction
All portions of the Specific Plan area are subject to the following operational standards. Any vacant land or portions of the Specific Plan area under active construction, including demolition, grading and excavation, and above-ground building activities, shall be maintained in a visually attractive manner with the following criteria.
Fencing and Screening. The owner, beneficiary or trustee shall install a minimum six-foot-high fence with dust control covers adjacent to the property boundaries, or other alternative fencing acceptable to the City’s Building Official or Code Enforcement Manager that is adequate to protect the public health, and welfare, unless the City officials determine that the installation of such fencing will be detrimental to the public safety and welfare.
Any fencing required under this section may
additionally require screening if deemed necessary
to protect the safety, adjacent properties from dust,
the streetscape, and overall appearance of the site.
The Building Official or Code Enforcement Manager
may enforce fencing standards for vacant areas
consistent with this section.
If fencing is proposed for long-term vacant sites (for example, vacancy anticipated for more than 12
months vs. active construction sites) with no berms,
then fencing shall be permanently installed into the
ground and set back three feet to provide for
landscaping to be installed and maintained in the
front.
Any decorative or graphic elements on fencing must
be approved by the City and shall not contain any
advertising but may include graphics and visuals that
promote the project and the City of Costa Mesa.
Stormwater. A stormwater pollution prevention plan shall be approved by the Public Works Division, and Best Management Practices must be effectively implemented at all times to prevent soil, debris, or runoff from affecting right-of-way through erosion or other means.
Storage. Open storage is prohibited on a vacant lot or site within the Specific Plan area. Vehicle storage, such as cars, trucks, vans, motorcycles, and buses, is not permitted. Vacant lots are permitted to be used for construction staging, construction parking, and site security trailers while any portion of the site is under construction. A Construction Staging Plan may be required by the Building Official.
Property Maintenance. The Specific Plan area shall be kept clear of debris, litter, rubbish, overgrown weeds, graffiti, and other elements that contribute to blight.
Lighting. Exterior security lighting shall illuminate areas with visibility from a street or alley; however, the lights shall be shielded to avoid lighting adjacent properties.
Public Information. The Master Developer shall establish and maintain a public website which provides updates in the development activity. The website will serve as notification to the community about project status and shall include contact information for the public.
770
Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan
8-12 Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026
8.3.3 Development Impact Fees
A future FDCSP impact fee program may be initiated in
addition to citywide development impact fees. Development impact fees are a potential funding source for maintenance of parks, recreational open space, public services, and other services that impact City resources. These fees will be paid by a developer and may only be used to pay for improvements necessitated by implementation of the FDCSP and only in an amount proportionate to the new development’s share of the benefit. The fees can be combined with other funding sources to pay for an improvement that serves both new and existing residents or businesses. A nexus study—which calculates the new increment of development, estimates the portion of an improvement project attributable to that increment of growth, and allocates the fee for the FDC—is required by state law for implementation. Cities can, and usually do, have more than one impact fee, with each fee dedicated to an individual category of improvements, such as public safety, facilities, parks, etc.
At a minimum, the following fees will be required to be paid prior to building permit issuance. Additional fees, as determined or adopted by the City, may also be required.
Traffic Impact Fees
Park Development Fees
Drainage Fee
Fire System Development Fees
School Fees
Sewer Fees
8.3.4 Transportation Demand
Management
Development projects meeting the qualification criteria below shall implement Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
measures to support the Specific Plan’s mobility objectives in Chapter 5.
A draft TDM plan shall be submitted concurrent with an FDC Development Review Application, with the final plan submitted concurrently for each TTM. The approved TDM Plan shall
demonstrate consistency with the mobility goals and trip reduction targets of the Specific Plan and citywide CAAP goals, and shall be implemented and maintained throughout project occupancy. The TDM Plan shall include:
Trip reduction goals.
Required TDM measures.
Incentives for walking, biking, and/or use of transit including, but not limited to, bicycle facilities,
rideshare programs, and transit ridership supportive
measures.
Monitoring and reporting procedures.
Responsible party for implementation.
Corrective measures if performance targets are not met. 771
Chapter 8: Administration & Implementation
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026 8-13
.
8.3.5 Conceptual Phasing and
Financing
Buildout of the Specific Plan area is anticipated to take place in multiple phases, potentially over a 15- to 20-year horizon. The Community Development Director, or designee, has the
authority to approve an adjustment to the phasing plan.
Adjustments are not considered a modification or an
amendment to the specific plan unless otherwise stated in an executed Development Agreement. A phasing plan shall be submitted by the Master Developer to the Director, or designee, and be kept on file with the Planning Division. If a Development Agreement is in place for the property, all aspects of the phasing plan shall comply with the terms of the agreement including, but not limited to, affordable housing, infrastructure and other site improvements. Conceptual phasing for
implementation of development on the FDC site is identified in Table 8-3.
8.3.5.A Funding and Financing
Redevelopment of the FDC site is expected to be privately financed by the Master Developer. Through the State disposition process, as outlined by State Department of General Services (DGS) on their State Commercial Opportunities Portal
(www.dgs.ca.gov/RESD/Projects/Page-Content/Projects-ListFolder/State-Commercial-Opportunities-Portal), the Master Developer will need to meet the following:
Accept the property in its current “as-is” condition, without warranties from the State.
Enter into a long-term ground lease or purchase
agreement with the State.
Secure all necessary financing, conduct all due
diligence, and obtain all necessary permits,
entitlements and utility approvals from relevant
authorities.
Cover all on-site and off-site development costs,
including security, maintenance, remediation,
construction, management, and operations.
Pay prevailing wages to the extent required by State
law.
Comply with CEQA.
Pay any applicable development fees, including but
not limited to fees for permitting and applicable
impact fees.
Meet all contractual milestones established in the
final agreement with DGS.
Additionally, a developer must submit a statement of financial capacity and strategy to determine whether the proposed project is not only financially viable, but likely to succeed. DGS will seek to understand how pre-development costs will be addressed, as well as the likelihood that development costs can be covered through the proposed means. The statement shall include:
772
Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan
8-14 Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026
A listing of the estimates related to both predevelopment and development costs. A clear financing strategy, detailing sources and
amounts of capital (equity, debt, etc.) for both predevelopment and development costs. Analysis of how the project will support local financial sustainability.
Any material assumptions that impact financial
feasibility (e.g., location of connections for municipal utilities).
The Specific Plan is intended to provide a sufficient amount of market-rate development to enable the master developer to finance the infrastructure and other public facilities and services, including donation of land for affordable housing development. Nevertheless, market conditions change over time. The City may consider utilizing one or more of the following funding and financing tools and sources, when, in the sole discretion and opinion of the City, it is necessary to facilitate development and build out of the Specific Plan.
Community Facilities District. Creation of a CFD could be used to finance infrastructure investments through municipalrate bonds. Although initiated by the City, the developer would still be responsible for paying off the debt. Properties with 100 percent affordable housing would be exempt from the CFD property tax levy.
Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District. This type of district may be used for maintenance and servicing
landscaping and lighting through annual assessments on
benefiting properties. Assessment districts may also be used to fund and maintain parks.
Parking Districts. The City may consider establishing one or more parking districts if requested by the master developer to coordinate, own, and/or operate shared parking lots and parking structures. While parking districts would not fund implementation of this Plan, paid parking could be used to offset ongoing maintenance and operating costs for the
Plan area.
Grant and Loan Programs. Although the Specific Plan does not explicitly call for using grant and loan programs to implement the public realm improvements, the City may utilize various federal, state, local, and private grants to provide additional funding for public improvements. In particular, objectives such as promoting pedestrian- and bike-friendly environments, and relieving traffic congestion may help improvements qualify for various grants dedicated to advancing these goals. The City may submit proposals for this type of funding, but implementation of the Specific Plan is not reliant on grant funds.
See also Section 8.3.3 regarding Development Impact Fees.
Table 8-3, Implementation and Conceptual Phasing, identifies each phase of development, specific action items, timing, responsible party, and the anticipated funding source.
773
Chapter 8: Administration & Implementation
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026 8-15
Table 8-3: Implementation and Conceptual Phasing
Action Items Timing1 Responsible
Party2 Funding
PRELIMINARY
Prepare Nexus Study, Establish and Adopt
FDCSP Development Fee(s) Short-term City
City General
Fund or State
Grant
Preliminary and Development Review
Applications Short-term Master Developer Private
Coordination with John Wayne/County Airport
Land Use Commission Short-term Master Developer Private PHASE I: SITE PREPARATION
Construction Fencing Short-term Master Developer Private Building Demolition Short-term and likely completed in stages Master Developer Private Soil Remediation Short-term and likely completed in stages Master Developer Private Additional Tree Study and Removal Corresponds with other site preparation actions Master Developer Private Grading (and associated storm drain
improvements and erosion control)
Short-term and likely completed in stages with
building demolition/remediation Master Developer Private PHASE II: BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE
Relocation or Abandonment of State Storm
Drain through Golf Course (off-site)
Expect to be concurrent with initial grading
operations Master Developer Private
Stormwater System Concurrent with grading Master Developer Private Sewer System Concurrent with grading Master Developer Private Water System Concurrent with grading Master Developer Private Backbone Road Network (Per Mobility Plan,
Chapter 5), including all improvements (onstreet parking, bike lanes, sidewalks, etc.)After grading and wet utility installation Master Developer Private 774
Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan
8-16 Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026
Action Items Timing1 Responsible
Party2 Funding
Other Local Roads, including all improvements
(on-street parking, bike lanes, side-walks, etc.)
As needed to support the delivery of pads to
homebuilders Master Developer Private
Electricity Concurrent with roadways Utility/Master Developer Private Natural Gas (For Commercial Areas Only) Concurrent with the delivery of commercial pad(s) Utility/Master Developer Private
Relocation of REOC Shelley Circle Detention/
Retention Areas
Concurrent with final improvements to Shelley
Circle Master Developer Private
Secondary Access Road and Golf Course Hole
Relocation
Triggered by total number of Proposed Units -
May be implemented in later phase of
development
Master Developer Private
Intersection Improvements Harbor Boulevard
and Fair Drive Mid-term Master Developer Private
Intersection Improvements Harbor Boulevard
and Shopping Center/Secondary Access
Triggered by total number of Proposed Units -
May be implemented in later phase of
development
Master Developer Private
PHASE III: DEVELOPMENT AREAS
Deliver Development Pads for Affordable and
DDS Housing (Per VTTM)
Stages concurrent with grading, roads, and
infrastructure improvements Master Developer Private
Deliver Parcels to Homebuilders Stages concurrent with grading, roads, and infrastructure improvements Master Developer Private
On-Site Parks and Trails (including historic
interpretive panels) Based on final Conditions of Approval Master Developer Private Off-Site Multi-Use Trail connecting to Tanager
Trail Based on final Conditions of Approval Master Developer Private NOTES:
1. Short-term: 1 to 5 years | Mid-term: 5 to 10 years | Long-term: 10 to 20 years.
2. Responsibility may be passed to individual builders in the event that not all development is built by the Master Developer. 775
Chapter 8: Administration & Implementation
Public Hearing DRAFT | October 2026 8-17
Table 8-4: Ongoing Ownership, Maintenance, and Funding
Improvement Funding1 Ownership Maintenance1
Water System (potable and
nonpotable)
Developer Private/Water District Water District
Sewer System Developer Sanitation District Sanitation District Stormwater System
Backbone
Developer Private/City Association/City
Other Offsite Developer City Association
Private Internal Streets Developer Private Association
Public Streets Developer City City
Landscaping on Public Streets Developer City City
Landscaping on Private Internal
Streets/Drives
Developer Private Association
Private and Common Open Space/
Recreation Areas for Residential
Developer Private Association
Publicly Accessible Open Space
Areas
Developer Private/City Association
NOTES:
1. Could include public funding received to support improvements, such as a grant or District Assessment. .
776
777
A
Definitions
APPENDIX
778
Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan
Use Definitions
Affordable Housing.
Housing which is deed-restricted for individuals or households qualifying as low-income. Low-income households are
identified as households making 50 – 80% of the Median
Family Income (MFI).
Approval, discretionary.
Approval of permits which require a greater level of scrutiny and discretion when determining issuance, involving a longer review process, public input, and often CEQA review.
Approval, ministerial.
Approval of permits which require no discretion, so long as certain clear requirements are met. Ministerial approvals generally do not require CEQA review.
CEQA Review.
A state-mandated environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requiring public agencies to evaluate and disclose the potential environmental impacts of a proposed project.
Community Clubhouse.
A building which provides facilities and equipment for
recreational purposes to residents of a community.
Density (Residential).
The number of housing units within a specific area, generally per acre.
Density Bonus.
An incentive provided to developers allowing a development to have a greater density than the allowable gross residential density permitted by local regulations.
Design Guidelines.
A series of recommendations providing direction for applying established design principles to new developments.
Development Agreement.
A voluntary contract between a property owner or developer and local government agency which outlines conditions, rules, and requirements for the development of a specific property.
Development and Design Standards.
A set of mandatory, quantifiable requirements for developments in an area that ensure consistency with established design principles.
Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
A detailed report which documents the potential environmental effects of a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
779
Appendix A: Definitions
Floor-Area Ratio (FAR).
The ratio of the floor area of a building in relation to the land area that is it on.
General Plan Amendment.
A formal adjustment or change to the city’s General Plan which is approved by the local legislative body.
General Plan.
A long-term planning document that guides a jurisdictions future growth and development by providing policy direction through an established vision and subsequent goals,
objectives, and policies.
Goods and Services, Convenience.
Retail items and services which people need on a regular basis, generally encouraging them to be located throughout areas and close to households.
Goods, Comparison.
Retail items that consumers purchase more infrequently or rarely, promoting larger-scale retailers and concentration of these retailers.
Ground Floor Transparency
Area of a façade that consists of windows or other glazed surface that permits light and visibility into a structure.
Home Occupation.
A secondary commercial use activity within a dwelling unit, incidental to the residential use, for the purpose of producing income.
Housing, Multifamily.
Housing which contains two (2) or more dwelling units
designed for the independent occupancy of two (2) or more households.
Housing, Single-Family.
A detached, free-standing residential building located on its own land which is generally occupied by a single household or family.
Market-Rate Housing.
Housing which is non-subsidized and priced according to the areas existing supply and demand, including moderate income and above moderate income priced housing.
Master Developer.
A developer who is in charge of leading and managing the construction of large-scale developments, generally including multiple projects.
Master Plan.
A long-term strategic planning document guiding development within a certain area, ensuring growth that aligns with a community’s vision.
780
Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan
Medical Use.
Any building used for the practice of any type of medicine, including, but not limited to, medical clinics and offices, dentist offices, and urgent care facilities.
Mixed-use development.
The development of lot(s) or structure(s) with two or more different land uses such as, but not limited to a combination of residential, office, retail, public, or entertainment in a single or physically integrated group of structures.
Modification, Major.
A discretionary entitlement, usually granted by the planning commission, which permits departure from the strict application of the development standards contained in this Specific Plan, based on specified findings (See Chapter 7).
Modification, Minor.
A discretionary entitlement which permits limited deviation from the strict application of the development standards contained in this Specific Plan, based on specified findings (See Chapter 7).
Open space.
May consist of common, private, and public areas set aside for active and passive use by residents and visitors to the community. May also include paseos and trails.
Open space, common.
An area of land or contained within a building reserved primarily for the leisure and recreational use of all residents of a development or common interest development and owned in common by them, generally through a homeowners’
association.
Open space, private.
An area of land located adjacent to an individual dwelling unit, owned or leased and maintained by its residents, and reserved exclusively for their use.
Parkway.
The area of a street that lies between the curb and the adjacent property line or physical boundary definition, which is used for landscaping and/or passive recreational purposes.
Permanent Supportive Housing.
Permanent housing which provides housing assistance and supportive services to households in which at least one member lives with a disability.
Permitted use.
Any use allowed in a land use designation without requiring a discretionary approval, and subject to the provisions applicable to that district.
Permitted Uses.
Land uses which are legally permitted within a specified district as designated by this Specific Plan.
781
Appendix A: Definitions
Regional Center.
Community-based, non-profit agencies that provide
assessments and coordinate services for individuals with developmental disabilities, overseen by the California
Department of Developmental Services.
Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA).
A state-mandated process in California which requires
jurisdictions to plan for a determined number of new housing units at various income levels. This allocation is updated every six to eight years and aids in planning for the housing needs across the state.
Residential Care Facility.
Facilities which provide care and non-medical support to individuals requiring aid for daily activities. These are commonly referred to as assisted living homes or board and care homes.
Senior Housing.
Housing which is designated for seniors (generally above the age of 55) and provides living options that include additional services and activities for aging adults.
Setback.
The required minimum distance between a building and the lot line, or another structure.
Single Room Occupancy Units.
Small, affordable dwelling units within a larger building, often with less restrictive requirements and ranging amenities.
Specific Plan.
A land use tool used to implement a city’s general plan, establishing a link between the implementing policies of the general plan and future development for a defined area of the city.
Zoning.
The way in which municipalities regulate land uses by
identifying what land can be developed, what purposes the land can serve, and what development standards must be
followed, typically included part of a jurisdiction’s Municipal Code.
782
APPENDIX
Outreach
To see more information about outreach, please visit:
https://fdcplan.com/participate/
B
783
APPENDIX
Market
Study
C
784
Market Study
Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan
DRAFT January 2024, revised 11/2024
785
Prepared for:
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
714-754-5000
www.costamesaca.gov
Prepared by:
3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100
Santa Ana CA 92707
714-966-9220
placeworks.com
786
DRAFT January 2024, revised 11/2024 Page i
Contents
1. Contents
1. Introduction ........................................................................ 1
2. National and Regional Housing Market Context....................... 3 Long-Term Demographic Trends ............................................................3 Generational Dynamics......................................................................3 Age Distribution in California ..............................................................4 Household Changes ..........................................................................5 Households by Size...........................................................................6 Average Household Size ....................................................................7 Life Transitions .................................................................................8 Residential Development Trends ............................................................9 US Housing Production .....................................................................9 California Housing Production ..........................................................11 Housing Unit Size ...........................................................................11 Sales Price for New Single-Family Houses .........................................12 Implications of Long-term National Trends ............................................13 Generational Waves ........................................................................13 Mismatch Between Household Living Arrangements and National Housing Production .....................................................................................13 Housing Market Not Producing Enough Housing ................................14 Larger Housing Units Increase Housing Costs.....................................14
3. Costa Mesa Housing Market ............................................... 15 Market Area Analysis ..........................................................................15 Household Characteristics ...................................................................16 Household Size...............................................................................16 Household Size and Household Income.............................................16 Household Type..............................................................................17 Multigenerational Households...........................................................17 Length of Time at Current Residence .................................................18 Age of Householder.........................................................................19 Housing Characteristics.......................................................................20 Type of Housing .............................................................................20 Tenure ...........................................................................................21 Household Size...............................................................................21 Housing Overpayment .....................................................................22 Characteristics of Households That Moved to The Market Area in the prior year..................................................................................................23 Household Size...............................................................................23 Housing Type .................................................................................24 Household Income ..........................................................................24 City-Level Changes .............................................................................25 Housing Type .................................................................................25 Overcrowding .................................................................................26 Households With Children................................................................26 Household Type..............................................................................27 Implications of Market Characteristics ...................................................27 787
Page ii Fairview Developmental Center Market Study
Smaller Households ........................................................................27 Overcrowding and Overpayment .......................................................27 Housing and Age ............................................................................28
4. Residential Market Demand Projections ............................... 29 Background.......................................................................................29 Past Growth ...................................................................................29 RHNA Housing Needs.....................................................................29 Market Demand Projections .............................................................29 Comparison of Household Projections...................................................30 Local Trend Projection.....................................................................30 SCAG Forecast................................................................................31 Department of Finance Projection .....................................................31 Projections Summary ......................................................................32 Household Forecast............................................................................33 Households by Income .......................................................................34 Market Demand for Ownership Housing................................................36 Market Demand for Rental Housing......................................................37 Market Demand from Overcrowding .....................................................38 Market Demand from In-Commuting Workers ........................................40 Estimated Price Points ........................................................................42
5. Non-Residential Market Potential ........................................ 45 Market Analysis Basics .......................................................................45 Retail Types ...................................................................................45 Consumer Spending ........................................................................46 Estimated Retail Sales .....................................................................46 Sales Efficiency...............................................................................46 Supportable Retail Building Space........................................................46 Retail Recommendations ................................................................. 49 Supportable Building Space for Other Commercial Uses ..........................50 Planning Implications for Non-Residential Uses .....................................50 List of Figures
Figure 1: Number of Live Births, Fertility Rates, and Approximate Generational Labels, United States, 2009 to 2022 ................................. 3 Figure 2: Population by Age Group and Sex as a Percentage of Total Population, California and the US, 2021 ...............................................4 Figure 3: Type of Household by Share of Total Number of Households, United States, 1970 to 2021 ...............................................................6 Figure 4: Average Number of Persons per Household, United States, 1970 to 2022.............................................................................................7 Figure 5: Median Age at First Marriage and Mean Female Age at First Birth, United States, 1959 to 2021 (Birth) and 2022 (Marriage)..............8 Figure 6: Monthly Number of Housing Units Completed, United States, January 1968 to May 2023...............................................................10 788
Figure 7: Net Annual Increase in Housing, California, 1990 to 2023...........11 Figure 8: Average Unit Size for Single-family Detached Housing and Multifamily Housing Completions, Actual and Trend, United States, 1971 through 2022..........................................................................12 Figure 9: Real Average Sales Price and Real Average Sales Price per Square Foot for New Single-family Housing, United States, 1971 to 2022 ..............................................................................................13 Figure 10: Market Area Extent................................................................. 15 Figure 11: Average Household Size, Market Area Cities, 2013 and 2023.....16 Figure 12: Length of Time at Current Residence by Income Category, Market Area, 2021 ...........................................................................18 Figure 13: Age Distribution of Householders by Income Category, Costa Mesa–Fountain Valley Market Area, 2021............................................19 Figure 14: Percentage of Households by Income Category and by Type of Housing, Costa Mesa–Fountain Valley Market Area, 2021 .....................20 Figure 15: Homeownership Rate by Housing Unit Type and Income Category, Costa Mesa–Fountain Valley Market Area, 2021.....................21 Figure 16: Average Household Size by Housing Type and Income Category, Costa Mesa–Fountain Valley Market Area, 2021...................................21 Figure 17: Housing Overpayment by Housing Unit Type, Tenure, and Income Category, Costa Mesa–Fountain Valley Market Area, 2021 .........22 Figure 18: Tenure by Number of Persons in Household, Costa Mesa– Fountain Valley Market Area, 2021.....................................................23 Figure 19: Tenure by Housing Unit Type, Costa Mesa–Fountain Valley Market Area, 2021 ...........................................................................24 Figure 20: Tenure by Household Income Category, Costa Mesa–Fountain Valley Market Area, 2021 ..................................................................24 Figure 21: Share of Market Area Housing Growth by Type of Housing, Costa Mesa, Huntington Bach, and Newport Beach., 2012 to 2022.......25 Figure 22: Percentage of Households with Children under the Age of 18, Costa Mesa, Huntington Beach, and Newport Beach, 2012 to 2022 ......26 Figure 23: Three or More Person Households as a Share of Total Households, Costa Mesa, Huntington Beach, and Newport Beach, 2013 and 2023 ...............................................................................27 Figure 24: Total Number of Households, Actual 2004–2023 and Trend Projections 2024–2044, Costa Mesa ..................................................31 Figure 25: Total Number of Households, Actual and Comparison of Three Projections, Costa Mesa, 1990 to 2044 ..............................................32 Figure 26: Total Number of Households, Actual and Forecast, Costa Mesa, 1990 to 2044..................................................................................33 List of Tables
Table 1: Change in the Number of Households by the Number of Persons in Household, United States, 1970 and 2022........................................7 Table 2: Average Annual Housing Unit Production During Economic Expansions, United States, December 1970 through May 2023...............9 Table 3: Household Size by Income Category, Costa Mesa–Fountain Valley Market Area, 2023............................................................................16 789
Page iv Fairview Developmental Center Market Study
Table 4: Household Type and Presence of Children under the Age of 18 by Income Category, Costa Mesa–Fountain Valley Market Area, 2021 .........17 Table 5: Multigenerational Households as a Share of Total Households and Share of Population by Income Category, Costa Mesa–Fountain Valley Market Area, 2021 ...........................................................................18 Table 6: SCAG and DOF Forecasts and the Resulting Projections for Household Growth in Costa Mesa, 2024 to 2044................................. 32 Table 7: Change in Number of Households by Household Income Category: Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley, Huntington Beach, and Santa Ana, 2012 and 2022........................................................................35 Table 8: Market Demand for Ownership Housing by Income Category, Costa Mesa, 2024 to 2043 ...............................................................36 Table 9: Total Number of Households and Overcrowded Households by Number of Persons and Presence of Subfamilies; Costa Mesa; 2022 ......39 Table 10: Number of Jobs and Employed Residents in Costa Mesa and Estimated Average Hourly Wage in Orange County, by Economic Sector; 2024 ..............................................................................................41 Table 11:Affordable Rents and Home Purchase Prices by Household Income, Costa Mesa, 2023................................................................43 Table 12: Retail Market Potential in Square Feet of Gross Floor Area ...........47 Table 13: Supportable Gross Floor Area (sq. ft.) for Other Commercial Uses . 51 790
DRAFT January 2024, revised 11/2024 Page v
Summary
Summary
The City of Costa Mesa is preparing a specific plan to guide the redevelopment of the currently state-owned Fairview Developmental Center. Although the state intends to solicit a master developer to purchase and redevelop the site, the specific plan provides an opportunity for the community to weigh-in on the type of development—the uses, the scale, the amenities, and so forth.
This report describes the market demand for housing and non-residential uses.
Its purpose is to support public discussion about desired types of development and to support the preparation of the specific plan. Market demand is not the only consideration in planning; certainly, community values and aspirations should influence future development. Nevertheless, a plan for development that does not build on market demand is a plan that cannot be developed. Thus, this report is intended to provide a basic overview of the key drivers of market demand.
As currently envisioned in the city’s General Plan, the redevelopment will result in 2,300 new housing units, with a majority of these offered to income-qualified households at an affordable rent or sales price. It is also currently envisioned that the plan would provide commercial uses and amenities that serve the community that develops in the plan area.
CHANGES IN HOUSING
Costa Mesa was mostly built-out in an earlier era, primarily characterized by single-family detached housing and family households with kids. As discussed in this report, the majority of households living in the city today, the majority of households that have moved into the city in the past year, and the majority (but not all) of households expected to make up market demand for new housing in the plan area will not have children. Most will be one-, two-, and threeperson households, although there will also be some larger families.
These changes in households are the result of decades of slow, incremental change. Nevertheless, they indicate that the housing market will need fewer bedrooms, smaller units, and more multifamily and single-family attached housing.
HOUSING NEEDS FOR MODERATE-INCOME AND LOWER
HOUSEHOLDS
The analysis presented in this report shows that, over the past ten years, the number of very low income and extremely low-income households has decreased, while the number of acutely low income (the lowest income category), low income, and moderate-income households has increased in Costa Mesa. It is not clear why there has been a decline in the number of extremely low and very low-income households (and this out migration has happened countywide too), but the report shows that overcrowding and unaffordable housing costs are problems faced by many households across these income groups.
The currently envisioned development of 575 very low-income housing units, 345 low-income housing units, and 690 moderate-income housing units provides an opportunity to address both the expected growth in these households as well as the existing conditions of overcrowding and unaffordable housing costs.
791
Page vi Fairview Developmental Center Market Study
HOUSING NEEDS FOR ABOVE MODERATE-INCOME
HOUSEHOLDS
The currently envisioned development also includes 690 housing units for households with above moderate incomes. These households represent the majority of expected growth in the city. Furthermore, this housing provides the opportunity for a master developer to offset some of the costs of land and infrastructure for affordable housing. The analysis suggests that households with above moderate income could account for 800 new households per year in Costa Mesa during the period when new housing will be available for rent or purchase in the plan area.
NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Finally, the plan area could also provide retail and other commercial development to serve the needs of the new residents in the plan area. The analysis recommends that the plan accommodate 29,500 to 55,900 square feet of gross floor area for retail businesses and another 76,500 square feet of gross floor area for other commercial businesses, such as a fitness center and medical and professional offices.
The plan does not necessarily need to accommodate non-residential uses, which will reduce the land area available for housing. However, eliminating the non-residential uses could increase traffic as plan area residents have to leave to purchase basic goods and services. The city is likely to receive a similar amount of sales tax, whether households shop in the plan area or patronize businesses along Harbor Boulevard and elsewhere in Costa Mesa. Similarly, the plan could accommodate more non-residential uses, but this, too, could increase traffic as these businesses would need to attract more customers from outside of the plan area.
TRADEOFFS
The specific plan will represent a collection of tradeoffs, from the number of subsidized affordable housing units to the number of market rate housing units that help subsidize the affordable housing development; from the amount of retail floor area to the amount of landscaped open space. This report helps highlight the market demand to inform the necessary discussion about tradeoffs and the community’s vision for the future of the Fairview Developmental Center. 792
DRAFT January 2024, revised 11/2024 Page 1
1. Introduction
1. Introduction
This report describes the long-term demand for housing and nonresidential uses that may drive redevelopment of the Fairview Developmental Center. The report is intended to inform public discussion during the planning process and provide guidance for the ultimate land use plan.
The analysis primarily focuses on the overall demand for market rate housing development in Costa Mesa, the economic and market conditions underpinning that demand, and the types of housing that are needed. Market rate housing will generate the revenue that will enable a master developer to provide infrastructure and community amenities to support the development of affordable housing and the development of housing to further the CA Department of Developmental Services Mission. Thus, the report also addresses affordable housing because the development of affordable housing is a fundamental component of the redevelopment of the Fairview Developmental Center. As discussed in the report, nonresidential uses for the plan area will likely be ancillary to the residential components, and the demand will be driven by the households living in the plan area.
The study begins with an overview of the national and state context for housing development. This broad overview is important because many of the market factors that are analyzed for the residential market area reflect long-term demographic and social changes. The decreasing average size of households, for example, has been occurring across the US for decades. This is not something that city policy can change, but it is something that the Specific Plan must account for.
Cities play a critical role in housing development: they regulate the locations where new housing can be developed and the density and other development standards with which new housing development must comply. In so doing, cities influence the price of land and the financial feasibility of new development.
However, an individual city’s influence and its ability to promote housing production are very limited relative to everything else that goes into making a housing development happen, such as the acceptable risk and necessary rate of return required by the equity investors and banks that fund new development, the availability of construction workers to do the actual construction, the availability and cost of construction materials, or the interest rates that determine how much households can pay to purchase new housing.
After the national context overview, the study provides detailed data and analysis about the factors that determine the long-term demand for housing and the types of housing. This section also looks at the difference in these market factors for households with incomes above moderate (i.e., above 120 percent of the area median income) and households with moderate incomes (i.e., 80 to 120 percent of the area median income) or below. In preparing this study, the consultants interviewed housing industry stakeholders, including market rate developers and affordable housing developers. Their insights are reflected in the analysis.
The study projects demand for new housing units by type and price point. As discussed in the report, it will likely be several years before on-site housing production begins and before new housing is available on the market. A project of this size could easily be a 10- to 20-year development. Thus, the focus of the projections is this longer-term demand rather than demand over the next two to 793