Planning commission directs environmental review for Fairview Developmental Center; adds study of extra access point, sends recommendation to council

On Aug. 25, 2025, the Costa Mesa Planning Commission voted 5-1 to recommend that the City Council authorize environmental review (an EIR) for a draft preferred land-use plan for the Fairview Developmental Center (FDC) specific plan. Commissioner Dixon made the motion; Commissioner Andrade seconded. Vice Chair Zick cast the lone no vote. The commission's recommendation identifies a study envelope (the project description for the EIR) that includes a minimum of 2,300 dwelling units (the site's capacity in the adopted housing element) and directs staff to study up to 4,000 dwelling units for environmental purposes; it also specifies a minimum of 12 acres of publicly accessible open space, a maximum of 35,000 square feet of mixed-use commercial, and retains flexibility in the plan's standards. Commissioners additionally asked staff to analyze a potential third access point from the Shelley Circle/Placentia direction to help evaluate circulation and mitigation options.

What staff presented: Carrie Tai (City director assigned to the project) and the consultant team, including Suzanne Schwab and Karen Gully, summarized outreach to date, prior study-session feedback, and the reasons for a broad project-description envelope. Staff cited three recurring public concerns: development range (number of dwelling units), development pattern and connectivity, and open space/community amenities. Staff and consultants described work to date on a golf-course redesign with Origins Golf Design to evaluate impacts from any secondary access that would cross the municipal golf course; they said about six holes would be affected and that mitigation concepts are underway. Staff also summarized a financial feasibility study that indicated the housing-element minimum of 2,300 units (with a roughly 40% affordable-unit assumption carried in that analysis) is unlikely to be financially feasible without substantial subsidy; the study identified a higher development range as producing a market-rate return closer to an industry-standard internal rate of return (about 15 percent). Staff emphasized that the project description for environmental review is for study only and does not commit the City to any decision.

Why the study envelope matters: The EIR's project description sets the maximum extent of impacts that may be studied and mitigated without additional environmental analysis; if a later approval exceeds what the EIR studied, supplementary environmental review would normally be required. Commissioners asked repeated questions about how state density bonus law and other incentives might affect the ultimate unit count, and how those laws interact with the specific plan and environmental review. Staff said the specific plan is the regulatory document that will set development standards and that any project-level proposals must fall within the EIR and specific-plan limits or face additional environmental review.

DDS and supportive housing: Staff explained that the State Department of General Services (DGS) and the Department of Developmental Services (DDS) retain interest in portions of the property. DDS has indicated intent to retain about 15 acres to provide supportive and integrated housing similar to its nearby Harbor Village model; staff said earlier work suggested roughly 480 units could be expected on the DDS portion (at ~32 units/acre) and that 200 permanent supportive units are required by state direction for the overall site. Staff and consultants cautioned that operational details and tenant-selection processes for future affordable or supportive units are governed by their providers or funders and are not set by the specific plan.

Public comment and stakeholder positions: Dozens of speakers addressed the commission. Several affordable-housing advocates and providers urged higher-density study and stronger affordability targets, including Habitat for Humanity of Orange County (Michael Valentine), the Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition (Kathy Espahani and Linda), the Kennedy Commission (Cesar Guadrubias), and other neighborhood advocates. Speakers asked for an emphasis on family- and workforce housing and for the City to maximize the affordable yield on state-owned land. Labor representatives (Jimmy Elrod for the Carpenters) urged local-hire and prevailing-wage or apprenticeship standards for construction. Golf-course users and other residents urged caution about secondary access and potential impacts to playability and operations; presenters encouraged parallel study of a Harbor-frontage land strategy to reduce golf-course impacts and to improve public access.

Vote and next steps: The commission's motion (as amended during debate) forwarded the draft preferred land-use plan as the project description for an EIR and asked staff to include an alternative or study of an additional access alignment from the Shelley Circle/Placentia side. Commissioner Martinez moved and the commission accepted a substitute to raise the maximum studied unit envelope to 4,000 units for EIR purposes; that change was accepted and the motion carried 5-1 (Vice Chair Zick opposed). Staff said that the next formal step is for the City Council to consider the recommendation and, if council concurs, staff will issue a Notice of Preparation and hold CEQA scoping to solicit public input on the EIR's scope.