Public commenters, planners clash over growth and airpark as Fairfield postpones general-plan adoption

Fairfield opened a public hearing on its draft general plan and heard several speakers urge divergent priorities: long‑time residents urged limits on growth and removal of a public‑access designation for a privately owned spring, while airport representatives asked that the plan restore the airport and its associated residential components to the land‑use map.

Sean Hill, a city planner with GSBS, summarized the plan’s process and content: the draft seeks to preserve Fairfield’s small‑town character, emphasize large‑lot residential in the core, concentrate higher‑intensity economic development along the town’s industrial/airpark corridor, and keep the town center quiet. Hill said the general plan has six components, including transportation, infrastructure, economic development, conservation, local food and waste management.

Public commenters raised concerns. Resident Darwin (last name Bundy in public comments) said the draft appeared internally inconsistent: while some paragraphs emphasize keeping Fairfield small, other sections discuss partnering with authorities to attract broad economic development. He also disputed a statement in the draft about water treatment and said the town has a chlorination station already. He told the commission the draft’s growth assumptions appeared aggressive and said he opposed encouraging development.

Representatives of the West Desert AirPark urged clearer, accurate treatment of the airport in the plan. Scott Hazard, representing Mark and Alina (airpark stakeholders), said the airport is a public airstrip constructed with state funds and should be accurately described; he recommended revisiting the transportation alignment so road corridors do not endanger aviation safety. Alina Pringle, identifying herself as a resident and business owner and referencing past approvals, asked the commission to “restore West Desert Airport to the general plan, including the residential components already approved in 02/2023 and 02/2024” and said the airpark supports small aircraft and potential air‑taxi services.

Another public speaker, attorney Andrew Rollins, raised an ownership concern: he said the draft had shown a portion of property — springs owned by Darwin Bundy’s family — as public space and that the family had not authorized such a designation. Mayor McKinney and staff said they believed the plan text already had removed that notation after speaking with the landowner and that the draft would not claim ownership of the springs.

Commissioners and the consultant also discussed more technical plan elements: roadway alignment and coordination with neighboring jurisdictions’ transportation plans, and whether the plan should contain finer detail on road corridors or be kept conceptual. Several commissioners urged that Fairfield align its road plan with a regional MAG (Metropolitan Area) map and with developer/engineer proposals so future construction is coordinated.

Given the substantive comments and several outstanding edits—including removal of a public‑access designation for the Bundy spring, additional photos to illustrate local assets, and verification of road alignments with regional plans—commissioners decided to continue work on the general plan and not adopt it at this meeting. Sean Hill said his role was to collect comments and return a revised draft for the commission’s next review.

The planning commission did not take a final vote to adopt the general plan; staff and the consultant will incorporate public comments and coordinate with regional road plans before the next review.