Public debate grows over Fairview Development Center plan as commission seeks preferred land‑use approach

City planners and residents on June 23 debated the future of the 95‑acre Fairview Development Center (FDC) site as staff sought Planning Commission input on a preferred land‑use plan and the financial analysis underpinning it.

Staff described the city’s role — leading the land‑use planning, financial feasibility study and the environmental review — while the state will remain the landowner and select a master developer to implement the final specific plan. The presentation summarized outreach to hundreds of residents, three land‑use concepts that were tested for financial feasibility and the ways state density‑bonus law could affect the total number of units a developer may propose.

The city’s consultant and staff said they tested three concepts: a 2,300‑unit scenario (the figure used in the city’s housing element), a scenario accounting for state density‑bonus allowances, and a high‑capacity 4,000‑unit scenario that reflects physical development capacity on the site. Staff explained the financial feasibility analysis to estimate what a future master developer could reasonably submit and said a feasible development range likely falls between roughly 2,300 and about 3,500–3,800 units depending on assumptions about affordability and density bonuses.

The commission and an audience of many residents raised several recurring concerns. Dozens of residents urged the city to safeguard the Coastie golf courses, to designate significant publicly accessible athletic fields and active open space for youth sports, and to avoid making the future neighborhood an isolated “island” cut off from the rest of the city. Speakers asked the commission to prioritize utility fields and lit fields, to require that open space be built in early phases, and to avoid routing a secondary access road across the Mesa Linda golf course unless necessary. Several commenters called for a land‑swap approach that would shift development frontage to Harbor Boulevard and preserve the golf course more intact.

Commissioners focused questions on key tradeoffs: how many units would trigger the need for a second access road; how state density bonus law (which can increase housing yield through concessions and waivers) changes the feasible unit count; and whether the city can write minimum affordable‑housing percentages and minimum open‑space/field acreage into a specific plan. Staff said that under state density bonus law a master developer could request concessions and waivers that may require the city to demonstrate health and safety reasons to deny them; staff cautioned that some denials are difficult under state law. Staff also confirmed that current agreements and state agency plans expect the Department of Developmental Services (DDS) to build housing for its clients on part of the site and to retain certain facilities, including an Emergency Operations Center (EOC) and state housing.

Public safety and circulation questions dominated some discussion. Commissioners asked whether the existing single access off Fair Drive could support a given unit count; staff said the primary single access is adequate for the 2,300‑unit baseline but that any build‑out above that threshold would require a second access. Residents proposed alternate routes and asked staff to study connections other than a road across the golf course. Staff said Shelley Circle construction, including a portion adjacent to the golf course, is already moving forward for the EOC area and that additional design work on a potential secondary access is ongoing.

Several residents urged the city to require specific guarantees in the specific plan rather than leaving items to negotiation with a future master developer. Suggestions included a written minimum number of affordable units (some speakers recommended embedding the housing element’s 40% low/very‑low target into the specific plan), phase‑for‑phase requirements that would require open space and athletic fields to be built in early phases, and explicit language protecting the golf course. Staff said the city could include minimums for affordable units and minimum amounts and types of open space in the specific plan draft and will continue to refine tradeoffs before returning to the commission.

At the end of the session the commission voted 7‑0 to “receive and file” the study session materials and asked staff to return in July with a recommended preferred land‑use plan to advance to city council. Staff said drafting of the specific plan has already begun and an environmental review (EIR) would follow once a preferred plan and project description are confirmed. Staff is discussing an extension with state partners to allow more time for detailed work on the plan and outreach.

What happened (actions) • Planning Commission motion to "receive and file" the Fairview Development Center study session materials — Motion: Vice Chair Zick; Second: Commissioner Dixon; Vote: 7‑0.

What’s next • Staff plans to return in July with a recommended preferred land‑use plan for Planning Commission review, then to seek City Council action on a preferred plan before issuing a Notice of Preparation to start the environmental review process. Staff said it is pursuing a schedule extension with the state to allow additional public outreach and technical work.

Key documents and terms mentioned in the meeting • Financial feasibility analysis (city‑commissioned) — tested 2,300 units, a density‑bonus scenario, and a 4,000‑unit capacity scenario. • State density bonus law — may allow a master developer to seek concessions or waivers that could increase the unit count beyond baseline plan limits; the commission discussed the practical implications of density bonus eligibility. • Department of Developmental Services (DDS) and Emergency Operations Center (EOC) — state‑led site elements already planned on part of the site; the EOC construction and Shelley Circle roadway work were described as in active preparation.

Community concerns recorded in the hearing • Strong public interest in preserving the Costa Mesa golf courses and avoiding routing a major new access road across the Mesa Linda golf course. • Requests for minimum acreage of active athletic fields (utility fields, lit fields) and for field construction to be phased early in the project build‑out. • Requests to enshrine affordability minimums in the specific plan and not defer them to a developer negotiation.