Planning commission reviews Fairview Developmental Center specific‑plan concepts; staff proposes 600–800‑unit preferred band and recommends minimum public‑open‑

Staff and consultants on Tuesday presented updated land‑use concepts for the Fairview Developmental Center (FDC) redevelopment area and sought Planning Commission input on a preferred development band and the components to carry forward into a specific plan and environmental review.

What staff presented

Planning Manager Anna McGill and consultant team PlaceWorks outlined three illustrative land‑use concepts that tested different tradeoffs among housing capacity, publicly accessible open space and infrastructure cost. The presentation and supporting analysis incorporated input from the state agencies that control parts of the site: the California Department of General Services (DGS) — which oversees disposition of the property and the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) parcel — and the Department of Developmental Services (DDS), which will continue to operate and provide housing for some of its clients on parts of the campus.

Key points staff reported

- Project footprint and state‑controlled parcels: staff said approximately 80 acres of the site are under active planning consideration after accounting for the EOC (DGS‑selected, about 15 acres) and portions the state will retain or lease for DDS uses (including a roughly 5‑acre complex‑needs housing area within Harper Village). DDS has indicated a preference to consolidate some of its housing needs on the site adjacent to existing Harbor Village rather than the previously discussed “Shannon’s Mountain” parcel.

- Three concepts tested: the concepts ranged from a lower‑unit, more open‑space plan (concept 1, ~2,300 units as a city/housing element base) to higher‑capacity plans (concepts 2 and 3, up to 3,450–4,000 units). Concept 2 emphasized larger contiguous fields and parks (roughly 18 acres of public open space in staff’s testing), while concepts 1 and 3 used more distributed parks and paseos.

- Financial feasibility: PlaceWorks and consultants presented a developer‑level pro forma and infrastructure cost model. The analysis concluded concept 1 (lower density, more open space under the tested assumptions) was not financially feasible for a master developer as modeled (a large shortfall relative to required returns). Concept 2 produced a near‑feasible internal rate of return (approximately 14.6 percent under the study assumptions). Concept 3 (the highest unit count with least open space) reached a modeled developer return in the range consultants judged workable (approximately 16.7 percent). Staff said these results suggested a financially plausible band lies between concepts 2 and 3; staff recommended evaluating a preferred range of roughly 600–800 dwelling units per the specific‑plan approach (this is staff’s recommended banding for public‑plan policy consideration, not an entitlement).

- Infrastructure and phasing: the master developer would likely undertake site‑wide demolition, abatement and grading, then install primary utilities (water, sewer, storm drain, power). Consultants estimated multi‑hundred million‑dollar infrastructure and construction costs; schedules in consultant workstreams ranged from roughly 10 to 18 years depending on total unit count and phasing assumptions.

- Open space and public access: staff proposed a minimum of 10–12 acres of publicly accessible open space distributed across the site (paseos, plazas, parks) while accommodating DDS program needs and the EOC parcel. The commission and members of the public asked whether more open space could be achieved by alternative strategies (for example, a land swap with the golf course), but staff said the state had declined to pursue a swap at this time and also noted deed restrictions and lease arrangements that constrain some golf‑course parcels.

- State coordination and constraints: staff described ongoing coordination with DGS and DDS; Turner Construction has been selected for the EOC work and has begun site preparations. DDS clarified it expects to retain or directly control certain access drives (for example, Merrimack Way/Harbor Village access) to maintain security for its group homes; that will shape where the specific plan can place public streets and two‑way access for the new neighborhood.

What commissioners and public asked

Commissioners probed the housing counts, the model assumptions in the feasibility analysis (cost per hole for golf course reconfiguration, park construction costs, off‑site improvements), circulation and second‑access alignments across the golf course, and how a master developer procurement (request for bids) process would work in practice. Multiple speakers from the public urged more open space and stronger local control (some asked the city to seek legislative or political help in Sacramento to limit state control over the site).

Formal action and next steps

After the presentation and public comment, the Planning Commission voted to receive and file the study‑session materials and asked staff to return June 9 with a refined preferred land‑use concept, a draft vision and guiding principles, and answers to outstanding questions. Motion to receive and file: Commissioner Martinez; second Commissioner Dixon. Vote: 7–0.

Staff said that, if Planning Commission and City Council schedules permit, the city would release a Notice of Preparation for an EIR in August 2025 and proceed with the specific‑plan drafting and environmental review after City Council adopts a preferred land‑use concept. Staff advised the commission that substantial questions remain about infrastructure costs, the precise alignment and width of a required secondary access road through the golf course, and how to ensure the affordable housing portion can be financed given parking and structure costs.

Ending note: commissioners asked for more detail on circulation cross‑sections, distributed mixed‑use or ground‑floor retail concepts, a clearer list of permitted uses and development standards (fixed vs. flexible), and a clearer exposition of financial‑feasibility assumptions ahead of the June 9 meeting.