PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: August 25, 2025 ITEM NUMBER: PH-2 SUBJECT: FAIRVIEW DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE PLAN – REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION
FROM: ECONOMIC AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT /
PLANNING DIVISION
PRESENTATION BY: CARRIE TAI , ECONOMIC AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
DIRECTOR AND KAREN GULLEY / SUZANNE SCHWAB, PLACEWORKS
FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
MELINDA DACEY
(714) 754-5611
[email protected]
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff r
ecommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution to recommend to the City Council a scop e of environmental study in the form of the Draft Preferred Land Use P lan for the F airview Developmental Center Specific Plan , without committing the City to a spec ific course of action on the Spe cific Plan. Planning Commission comments on the Draft Preferred Land Use Plan will be forwarded to City Council for consideration.
APPLICANT OR AUTHORIZED AGENT:
City
of Costa Mesa
BACKGROUND:
The Fa
irview Developmental Center (FDC) is a 115-acre property located at 2501 Harbor Boulevard in the City of Costa Mesa. Owned by the State of California, the site was historically developed and operated as a residential care facility for individuals with developmental disabilities. Th rough extended negotiations, the State will retain ownership of 20 acres for the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) and Department of Developmental Services (DDS) complex needs housing, which will not be included in the Specific Plan area. T he proposed Specific Plan boundary encompasses ATTACHMENT 3
-1-
approximately 95 acres. Of this, DDS will retain 15 a cres for housing similar to Harbor Village Apartments, leaving approximately 80 acres available for future development.
To prepare a viable Specific Plan and conduct environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act, the City is responsible for evaluat ing a land use concept that is both physically and financially viable and reasonably expected. The City can then ensure a Specific Plan that achieves a balance of community desires and key public benefits -such as affordable housing, open space, and community amenities- as well as plan elements that are reasonably expected to be seen as part of a future project proposal based on feasibility.
In accordance with the FDC project agreement with the State , the process has now progressed to the Preferred Plan Framework and environmental review.
This process
entails Planning Commission input on components to include on a Preferred Plan .
The purpose is to commence the environmental review step anticipated in the City- State agree ment, and for which the City approved a contract with an consultant to prepare. Th e purpose of environmental review is to evaluate a project d escription and identify significant impacts and corresponding mitigation measures to inform the decision-making for the eventual Specific Plan.
Planning Commission Discussion: Prior Study Sessions
The Planning Commission conducted two meetings on the Preferred Plan Framework on May 27, 2025 and June 23, 2025, with the following summaries of both P lanning Commission and public input. The May 27, 2025, FDC Study Session Staff Report and materials are included as Attachment 1 to this report. The June 23, 2025 FDC S tudy Session Staff Report and Materials are included as Attachment 2 to this report.
At its June 23, 2025 meeting, staff also presented and the Planning Commission discussed a comprehensive background on the City and State r oles in the Fairview Development Center (FDC) Specific Plan process to date, the findings of the Financial Feasibility Study, components of a Specific Plan, development realities of State housing laws, and environmental review.
Below is a summary of comments and input received from Planning Commissioners at both meetings:
a. Residential Development Range a
nd Affordability Targets
May 27, 2025: Input was received on target residential development ranges for the Specific Plan, with some acknowledgement that the community voiced support to stay closer to the Housing Element target (2,300 units), some input to increase the target to what is financially feasibl e but not go beyond this point and some input to study the maximum density for the purposes of the EIR (4,000 units) and provide a -2-
target range that is financially feasible in the Specific Plan. There seemed to be consensus amongst the Commission to encourage meeting the Housing Element’s target of 40% affordable units for the FDC site.
June 2 3, 2025: Commissioners discussed the challenge of meeting the 40% affordability targe ts, requested clarification on the types of a ffordable housing, and acknowledged that financial feasibility affected the development range.
Current Status: As previously mentioned, not accounting for a reasonably expected level of development would risk the City potentially inadequately planning for the infrastructure and public service requirements to support future development. Staff recommends setting a minimum residential development of 2,300 units and a maximum residential development of 3,800 units (i.e., the Planning Commission would recommend a number within this range to be set as the maximu m). The minimum residential development is to ensure that the FDC Specific Plan meets the affordability goals that were outlined in the City’s adopted Housing Element. The maximum range is to ensure that rea sonable expected development “p ays its way” if the Specific Plan ultimately allows for the maximum and it indeed occurs.
b. Development Pattern / Co
nnectivity / and Uses
May 27, 2025: The Commission requested additional information on the development patterns considered within the Specific plan, including permitted use types under each land use designation and some additional clarity about density, height, and other potential objective standards. Some Commissioners voiced support for including other community amenity type uses, such as a library or a community room. Some comment ed that the land use plan doesn’t feel “unique” or like a neighborhood at this stage and would like some additi onal information to help visualize what the Specific Plan will entail.
June 23, 2025: Commissioners expressed concerns about the relative isolation of the FDC site, leading to mention of connectivity of the site to Harbor Boulevard.
Current Status: A range of community amenity uses will be included as allowable uses in planning areas within the Specific Plan.
c. Circulation Network
May 27, 2025: The Planning Commission requested more detail on the components within the grand promenade, including size and look of sidewalks, planting areas and the adjacent development patterns (i.e. mixed -use development , housing or any commercial component). The Planning Commission acknowledged that while the promenade was supported during public outreach, further refinement was needed to -3-
enhance its connectivity, reinforce sense of place and promote walkability across the development.
June 23 , 2025: Several Com missioners discussed the secondary access road and proposed alternate secondary access points. Commissioners also discussed concerns about planning for public transit . In addition to requesting refinement on the g rand promenade, Commissioners also mentioned pedestrian connectivity and paseos were desired.
Current Status: Staff and the consultant team has refined the promenade concept for review ( discussed further below). Staff and the consultant team recounted pr ior discussions explaining the infeasibility of the alternate suggestions of secondary access points.
d. Open Space and Community Amenities
May 27 , 202 5: Planning Commission supported open space overall and questioned how the Specific Plan would incorporate the City’s General Plan open space goals citywide and for the FDC site.
June 23, 2025: Planning Commission received significant input from members of the public pertaining to the importance of retaining the golf course and the allocation of open space to accommodate for youth sports. Commissioners stressed the importance of open space, including providing required General Plan standards at 4.26 acres per 1,000 people, and supporting field space (includ ing increasing h ousing density into other planning areas). Discussions ranged from the demographics of golf course users and percentage of golf course users that are City residents, and implications for population underserved by public open space amenities.
Current Status: Staff will incorporate input about open space into the Specific P lan provisions to ensure a minimum of 12 acres of publicly accessible open spac e, but incorporate levers to increase open space amounts unless public amenities or affordable housing features are included. Furthermore, the City’s Public Works and Parks and Recreation Department have been continually engaged in potential impacts to the golf course from the secondary access road. Preliminary indications are that six holes would need to be configured, however City staff continue to evaluate to ensure that any greater impacts are also mitigated through requirements in the Specific Plan.
Since the secondary access road is located on City -owned land, staff will include a requirement in the Specific Plan that a negotiation process occur should the secondary access be desired by a future developer.
e. Co
mmercial Development
-4-
May 27, 2025: Staff received input regarding the commercial components of the plan and heard support for distribution of commercial space within the Specific Plan, as well as options for both mixed use configurations and standalone retail configurations.
June 23, 2025: Commissioners continued to express preference for commercial development to be in more flexible locations, including in mixed-use configurations.
Current Status: The draft ed working Preferred Lan d Use P lan reflects commercial planning areas distributed into the planning areas.
f. Harbor Fr
ontage (portion of golf course between Harbor Boulevard and FDC site)
May 27, 2025: Some commissioners queried the DDS letter dated June 28, 2024, included in the staff materials, and asked if there was still an opportunity to explore a land swap concept as part of the project . At the meeting, staff explained that this concept had previously been discussed with the Department of General Services (DGS), who did not express interest at the time in pursuing the concept.
June 23, 2025: Four Com missioners expr essed interest in pursuin g the Harbor Frontage concept for a variety of reasons, including open space, commercial, and housing. Several Commission ers also discussed the effects to the golf course as a result of the proposed secondary access.
Current status: Staff will forward Planning Commission’s sentiment to the City Council for di scussion. The Harbor Frontage land is City-owned and the City Council is the decision-maker on efforts involving Ci ty-owned land. However, if City Council elects to continue to explore this option, staff will continue to engage in discussions with the State about its viability and the potential steps (including the current deed restrictions on the use of the golf course land and potential legislation needed) to consider a land swap option. One additional consideration is that the golf course areas outside the FDC site were not included as part of the City’s Measure K process, which means a major land use designation change would require a vote of the people.
g. Community Engagement
May 27, 2025: Several Commissioners expressed concerns over the results of the community survey conducted when compared to the viable land use options under the financial feasibility analysis and suggested slowing down the process and conducting additional community outreach.
June 23, 2025: Commissioners discussed additional outreach opportunities with different segments of the communi ty and stressed coordination with public agencies like the school district, water district, and Orange County Transportation Authority.
-5-
Current S tatus: St aff reaffi rmed that there would be additional opportunities for public engagement on the Specific Plan as well as the environmental review.
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS:
Following community input and financial feasibility analysis , the City’s planning effort progressed to the development of land use alternatives and from those alternatives, a preferred land use plan. At the May 27, 2025 and June 23, 2025 m eetings, the Planning Commission provided guidance about various components in the preferred land use plan.
Working Draf
t FDC Preferred Land Use Concept Map
The revised working draft preferred plan incorporates the input from the Planning Commission from the past two meetings . The draft plan shown below could accommodate the following:
• 2,300 housing units minimum; 3,800 housing units maximum • Up to 35,000 square feet of commercial use (can be mi xed-use configuration with a flexible location)
• a grand promenade
• 12 acres minimum publicly-accessible open space
• pedestrian trails and a street network that can accommodate all modes of transportation (vehicles, bicycle lanes and pedestrian routes), • secondary access route from Harbor Boulevard.
In response to Planning Commission comments, staff also revised the working draft of the preferred plan to identify integration and additional locations for potential commercial and mixed-use development, along the grand promenade and dispersed throughout the plan. The draft plan also maintains flexibility to be memorialized into the Specific Plan to accommodate changing market conditions, evolving housing products and a range of potential housing developers depending on the State’s disposition process.
-6-
Working Draft FDC Preferred Land Use Concept Map
Circulation Network: Grand Promenade and Secondary Access Road
The revised land use concept map still includes a Grand Promenade or gran d entryway to create an identity for this project. This idea has received strong community support. Staff has provided some additional illustrations to further identify the types of uses that would be encouraged and allowed along the promenade including commercial uses, housing, mixed use development, open space, widened sidewalks and bicycle lanes (including in the illustrations provided within Attachment 3). Additionally, Attachment 5 provides a recommended street cross section for the potential Grand Promenade, as well as other internal roadway configurations being considered for the Specific Plan. The promenade is intended to serve as the site’s primary spine, enhancing connectivity, reinforcing a sense of place, and promoting walkability across the development.
Open Space: 12 acres (minimum) of Publicly Accessible Open Space
-7-
Staff proposes a minimum of 12 acres based on input from the Planning C ommission and the community. While this minimum does not meet the current General Plan policies for the City and FDC site, the developer would provide a combination of land, improvements to the parks and trails, and park impact fees consistent with the City’s Local Park Ordinance. A defined minimum amount of publicly accessible open space sets the minimum parameter to meet local and State parkland standards and provide accessible recreational opportunities for future residents and visitors. In addition, staff will include incentives in the Specific Plan that will further encourage the provision of publicly accessible open space beyond the minimum requirement.
In response to the discussion pertaining to the relationship between open space and the need to accommodate housing on the site, staff proposes in corporating requirements into the Spe cific Plan to requ ire the State and General Plan amounts of open space, and providing incentives to reduce the amounts if increased affordability or public amen ities are incorporated. However, for purposes of environmental review, staff would assume the minimum amount of open space as that represents the most conservative approach for evaluating environmental impacts.
Specific Plan Land Use Plan and Development Standards:
The Specific Plan will ensure that infrastructure and public services associated with future development of the FDC site are provided . The Plan will also provide flexibility to accommodate evolving housing products , as the market conditions change over time while maintaining community input and certainty around the plan. This includes adaptable land use designations (including a minimum of 10,000 and a maximum of 35,000 square feet of commercial and/or retail space) and phasing strategies while maintaining the plan’s core principles and community objectives.
FDC Specific Plan and its Components
During the June 23, 2025 Study Session , the P
lanning Commission and public
requested additional information on the Specific Plan process. Staff presented the outline and components of the Specific Plan would implement the land use plan by setting forth regul ations and requirements to ensure that the FDC site has adequate infrastructure and community benefits to support buildout levels.
The land use plan itself is intended to be more high -level, with designated land use type and key components of the plan. The land use map identifies potential areas for housing development but does not describe the maximum density or height at these locations. The Specific Plan will then evolve this land use plan further with specific land use types, maximum densities, heights, and additional details, requirements, and timing considerations.
-8-
The FDC Specific Plan will serve as the land use regulato ry (zoning) document for all future development applications on the site. Future developers will be required to comply with the adopted Specific Plan , but could utilize other permitted housing state legislation, including State Density Bonus Law (SDBL) provisions, as part of their project applications to the City.
The proposed FDC Specific Plan will include existing conditions, v isions and guiding principles, the main components of the plan and administration and implementation requirements for how future projects under the project will be processed. Specific Plans typically include the following Chapters:
• Introduction
• Existing Conditions and History of the FDC Site
• Vision and Guiding Principles
• The Plan (italics represents items to be included).
o Land Use Plan (including permitted land use categories such as housing/affordable housing, commercial, community amenities, etc.) Allow community amenity uses (library, school, etc.)
o Mobility and Circulation (including roadway and network layout, street sections, bicycle, and pedestrian path and access requirements, etc.) Secondary access acquisition process (City-owned land), including community engagement
Construction phasing of “backbone” paths and streets
o Open Space (including minimum required open space, types of open space permitted and possible locations for open space, recreational amenities, dedications, fees to be paid, construction and maintenance responsibilities)
Require State/General Plan designated amount of open space Use Open Space requirements as a lever to achieve additional affordability or publicly-available amenities
Accommodate active sports fields that are open to the public, with the uses to be determined by the City’s Park Master Plan -9-
Golf course reconfiguration and improvement requirements, including phasing
Pedestrian connection to Fairview Park
o Infrastructure (including infrastructure requirements for the plan such as water, storm drain, sewer and drain utilities for both master development and individual project development)
Construction phasing of “backbone” infrastructure
o Public Services (including additional requirements for public services such as police and fire facilities, as well as storm drainage to accommodate the need of additional residents and services) Construction phasing to ensure public services are available to service future residents
• Administration and Implementation
o Review processes, including applications and decision bodies Future development
Specific Plan amendments
o Monitoring requirements
o Development impact fee provisions
Public and Planning Commission/City Council input rec eived over the course of the Specific Plan process, as well as input received on the draft preferred plan , will be used to shape and memorialize the requirements in the Specific Plan. The FDC Specific Plan will serve as the regulatory and policy document guiding the site’s development over time. Therefore, the overall goal of the project description is to set maximum development parameters that can be studied and can anticipate possible environmental impacts. This process ensures transparency for the public during future City project review processes.
Project Description Considerations for Environmental Review The project d escription described herein will serv e as the basis for environmental review. Th e thresholds and parameters for the project description will be studied under the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This project description will be included in the -10-
Notice of Preparation (NOP) and used to initiate the environmental review, leading to the preparation of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR).
It is commonplace for the project description, as studied under CEQA, to include maximum development capacity and thresholds, so that the City can accurately study and anticipate all possible environmental impacts. One example of this is studying up to 4,000 units as part of the EIR, even though the Specific Plan may set a maximum residential unit threshold lower than this number (e.g. 3,600-3,800 units). The higher threshold is chosen for CEQA purposes because it was shown in land use concepts and is therefore reasonably assumed that a future application may propose up that threshold. Studying this maximum threshold also ensures that the City accurately studies all potential environmental impacts and discloses them to the public. Another example of this threshold would be to study a maximum height threshold within the EIR project description, even though the Specific Plan may set different height maximums for varying parcels within the plan. Additionally, CEQA alternatives are used as a tool to study other potential scenarios under CEQA. Typically, these consist of a project alternative that would be seen to provide reduced environmental impacts (e.g., a smaller-scale or lower intensity project).
GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE:
The City’s 2021–2029 Housing Element identifies the site as a Housing Opportunity Site and allocates 2,300 residential units, with 40% of those units expected to be affordable to very low - and low -income households. To implement this vision, a General Plan Amendment will be required to reconcile the current MUC land use designation with the housing capacity and policy direction in the Housing Element.
The Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan will serve as the guiding p lanning document to implement these goals and provide a co mprehensive framework for future development.
PUBLIC NOTICE:
There is no public notice requirement for the Planning Commission Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan Study Session. However, to encourage public engagement, the City provided the following announcements:
• Newspaper publication ad.
• The date and time of the study session were posted on the project website. • Information about the study session was shared via the City’s social media channels and distributed to the project email list and citywide email lists (which includes over 8,000 email addresses).
-11-
As of the date of this report, no written public comments have been received . Any public comments received prior to August 25, 2025, Planning Commission meeting will be forwarded separately to the Planning Commission.
NEXT STEPS:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution to recommend to the City Council a scope of environmental study for the F airview Developmental Center Specific Plan, without committing the City to a specific course of action on the Specific Plan. Planning Commission comments on the Draft Preferred Land Use Plan will be forwarded to City Council for consideration.
Following this meeting, staff will pursue two separate but parallel tracks:
1) Continued progress of the FDC Developmental Center Specific Plan. The City Council will consider the aforementioned materials, along with the Planning Commission’s recommendation, and provide direction on the Preferred Land Use Plan and project description at a future meeting (likely in September/October).
Following the City Council meeting, staff will proceed with the environmental review process. A Notice of Preparation (NOP) will be issued to initiate the environmental review, leading to the preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). During the DEIR public review period, the public will be able to evaluate and understand the environmental impacts and continue to provide input that will refine the preferred plan and the Specific Plan components.
Concurrently, staff will continue to refine proposed Specific Plan policies, development standards, and objective design guidelines. Community outreach will be conducted to present the study plan and DEIR to the community for feedback. A follow -up study session with the Planning Commission and City Council will also be held on the draft Specific Plan, with additional opportunity for discussion and refinement. Once input is received and refinements are made, the City would create a final draft Specific Plan a nd initiate the formal public hearing process to consider adoption of the Specific Plan and associated project approvals.
Concurrently, following completion of the DEIR public review period, DGS anticipates releasing a request for proposals to identify a Master Developer.
2) Discussion about Harbor Frontage. Four members of the Planning Com mission indicated interest in discussing land use concepts for the City-owned land between Harbor Boulevard and the FDC east boundary , including a possible land swap. Since this City -owned area is currently o ccupied by a portion of the golf -12-
course, staff will present this discussion to the City Council as a sep arate-but- related item and receive direction from the City Council.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Resolution (including Preferred Land Use Concept / Project Description)
2. May 27, 2025, FDC Study Session Staff Report
3. June 23, 2025, FDC Study Session Staff Report
4. FDC Specific Plan Revised Street Sections (under separate cover)
-13-
RESOLUTION NO. PC-2025- ##
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDATION
ON FAIRVIEW DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN
DRAFT LAND USE CONCEPT, AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
FOR PURPOSE OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
TH
E PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA , CALIFORNIA FINDS AND DECLARES AS FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS, the Fairview Developmental Center located at 2501 Harbor Boulevard is owned by the State of California and was formerly used as a state-run residential facility for individuals with developmental disabilities; and
WHEREAS, the residents of the Fairview Developmental Center main campus have been relocated; and
WHEREAS, in recognition of California’s acute affordable housing crisis, the State has prioritized the development of affordable housing in the disposition of the Fairview Developmental Center property; and
WHEREAS, o n June 30, 2022, the State enacted Senate Bill 188, codified in Government Code Section 14670.31, establishing the framework for the planning and disposition of the Fairview Developmental Center site; and WHEREAS, on December 29 , 2022, pursuant to Government Code Section 14670.31, the Department of Developmental Services (DDS), Department of General Services (DGS), and the City of Costa Mesa entered into a formal agreement to plan for the future redevelopment of the Fairview Developmental Center; and WHEREAS, under this agreement , the City is responsible for managing the land use planning process, while the DGS is responsible for overseeing the property’s eventual disposition; and
WHEREAS, in September 2023, the City initiated the land use planning process and has since conducted multiple community outreach events to gather input on -14-
neighborhood design, vision and guiding principles, and identifying community priorities; and
WHEREAS, representatives from the City, DGS, and DDS have continued to meet regularly to coordinate planning efforts and ensure that the Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan aligns with the intent of the enabling legislation and supports both State and City goals; and
WHEREAS, these goals include: the planning for the construction and operation of a California Office of Emergency Services Regional Emergency Operations Center; the development of DDS housing consistent with Government Code Sections 14670.36, 14670.31, and 14670.35(e); and the City’s adopted Housing Element objectives; and WHEREAS, it is essential that the Specific Plan include a land use framework and supporting policies that balance financial feasibility, State requirements —including provisions for affordable housing an d DDS housing—and community priorities such as open space and accessibility, in order to create a viable plan to guide future development; and
WHEREAS, in order to prepare a feasible Specific Plan and conduct environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City must evaluate a version of the project that is both physically and financially viable; and WHEREAS, the Financial Feasibility Analysis served as a critical step in this process by evaluating whether each land use concept could offset the costs of demolition, infrastructure, DDS and affordable housing site preparation, while still generating a return sufficient to attract private investment—thereby ensuring the plan’s feasibility and ability to deliver key public benefits such as affordable housing, open space, and community amenities; and
WHEREAS, the results of the Financial Feasibility Analysis informed staff’s recommendation for a Preferred Plan and serve as a foundational element in the drafting of the Specific Plan; and
-15-
WHEREAS, on M ay 27, 2025, the City conducted a Planning Commission Study Session to provide the Commission and the public with a comprehensive update on the FDC Specific Plan project, and to offer an opportunity for the Commission to review and discuss land use concepts and key plan components prior to making a recommendation to the City Council on a preferred land use plan; and
WHEREAS, on June 23, 2025, the City conducted a second Planning Commission Study Session to provide a comprehensive recap of the City and State roles in the Fairview Development Center (FDC) Specific Plan process to date, the findings of the Financial Feasibility Study, components of a Specific Plan, development realities of State housing laws, and environmental review; and
WHEREAS, based on the feedback provided by the public and Planning Commission during the Study Session, City staff presented an updated recommendation to the Planning Commission on August 25, 2025; and
WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing held by the Planning Commission on August 25, 2025 with all persons having the opportunity to speak for and against the proposal; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be prepared for the project in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, based on the direction received on the preferred land use plan and defined project description and draft preferred land use plan; and NOW, THEREFORE, based on the evidence in the record and the recommended project description, draft preferred land use plan, included in Exhibit A, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council considers its recommendation with respect to the property described above, with the clarification that this recommendation is for the purpose of environmental review only and does not commit the City to a specific course of action; and
-16-
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED , that the Costa Mesa Planning Commission does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly for the purpose of scoping environmental review, as described in the staff report and supporting materials referenced in Exhibit A, and in compliance of all applicable federal, state, and local laws.
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 25th day of August, 2025.
Jeffrey Harlan, Chair
Costa Mesa Planning Commission
-17-
STA
TE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE )ss
CITY OF COSTA MESA )
I, Car
rie Tai, Secretary to the Planning Commission of the City of Costa Mesa, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. PC-2025- __ was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City of Costa Mesa Planning Commission held on August 25, 2025 by the following votes:
AYES: C
OMMISSIONERS
NO
ES: COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT
: COMMISSIONERS
ABSTAI
N: COMMISSIONERS
Car rie Tai, Acting Secretary
Costa Mesa Planning Commission
Res
olution No. PC-2025-_
-18-
EXHIBIT A
Recommendation on the environmental scope of study on the FDC Preferred Plan 95 Ac
re Property Boundary
• 2,300 Dw
elling Units Minimum (per Housing Element)
• 3,800 Dwelling Units Maximum
• 35,000 square foot Commercial maximum – flexible location – could be standalone or in mixed-use configuration in any building • 12 acres minimum dedicated publicly accessible open space (plus improvements and impact fees)
• 2 access points from Harbor Boulevard
• (Off-site) Partial golf course reconfiguration due to secondary access road 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 2,300 units minimum 3,800 units maximum
Commercial 10,000 sf minimum 35,000 sf maximum
Public Open Space3 12 acres minimum No maximum
NOT
ES:
1. The definition of Very Low, Low, Moderate, and Above Moderate-income categories is defined in Section X of the City’s Housing Element.
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 towards meeting this requirement.
3. Public Open Space includes areas planned for possible use of the following, including but not limited to: public parks, trails, plazas, and other types of open spaces available to the general public. It does not include private and common open space that is considered an on-site amenity for housing and is primarily accessible by the residents of the housing development.
4. Total units include the residential development within the 15-acres of land retained by DDS.
5. The Project also includes the construction of a secondary access on the southeast corner of the site that would run through the golf course. This would require the reconfiguration of up to six holes.
-19-
Conceptual Land Use as of 7/24/2025
Sp
ecific Plan Designations:
Res
idential. The Residential land use category is intended to allow for a wide range of housing types, including two-and -three story walk -up townhomes, courtyard or motorcourt products, stacked flats, and buildings up to 12 stories in height. This category is also i ntended to satisfy the City’s 6 th Cycle RHNA obligation for the FDC property in terms of providing Very Low, Low, Moderate, and Above Moderate-Income Housing.
The
Residential category will also allow for a range of senior living options including independent and assisted living. Public and private recreational uses, daycare, and community and neighborhood-serving amenities will also be allowed.
Th
is category also includes approximately 15 -acres of property to be retained by the State Department of Developmental Services (DDS) for the development of housing for the developmentally disabled (Very Low Income), and housing for moderate and above moderate households.
-20-
Commercial. The Commercial land use category is intended to allow for neighborhood-serving retail and service uses in either a stand -alone or mixed -use configuration, including restaurants, coffee shops, small grocery and retail stores, pharmacies, studio and fitness facilities, and small office uses, including medical office, in either a mixed -use or stand -alone configuration. Ancillary community supporting uses, such as day care, are also allowed.
Pu
blicly Accessible Open Space. The Open Space category is intended for various parks and open space uses that are open to the general public, including neighborhood parks, recreation centers and cultural facilities, smaller pocket parks, and trails for pedestrians and bicyclists. Fl exibility in the final location and configuration of publicly accessible open space is provided in the Specific Plan.
Mi
nimum Specific Plan Provisions to Carry out the Preferred Land Use Plan:
• The Plan (italics represent items in addition to items in the heading parenthetical).
o Land Use Plan (including permitted land use categories such as housing/affordable housing, commercial, community amenities, etc.) Allow community amenity uses (library, school, etc.)
o Mobility and Circulation (including roadway and network layout, street sections, bicycle, and pedestrian path and access requirements, etc.) Secondary access acquisition process (City-owned land), including community engagement
Construction phasing of “backbone” paths and streets
o Open Space (including minimum required open space, types of open space permitted and possible locations for open space, recreational amenities, dedications, fees to be paid, construction and maintenance responsibilities)
Require State/General Plan designated amount of open space Use Open Space requirements as a lever to achieve additional affordability or publicly-available amenities
Accommodate active sports fields that are open to the public, with the uses to be determined by the City’s Park Master Plan Golf course reconfiguration and improvement requirements, including phasing
-21-
Pedestrian connection to Fairview Park
o Infrastructure (including infrastructure requirements for the plan such as water, storm drain, sewer and drain utilities for both master development and individual project development)
Construction phasing of “backbone” infrastructure
o Public Services (including additional requirements for public services such as police and fire facilities, as well as storm drainage to accommodate the need of additional residents and services) Construction phasing to ensure public services are available to service future residents
• Administration and Implementation
o Review processes, including applications and decision bodies Future development
Specific Plan amendments
o Monitoring requirements
o Development impact fee provisions
-22-
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: MAY 27, 2025 ITEM NUMBER: NB-2 SUBJECT: STUDY SESSION REGARDING THE FAIRVIEW DEVELOPMENTAL
CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE PLAN
FROM: ECONOMIC AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT /
PLANNING DIVISION
PRESENTATION BY: ANNA MCGILL, PLANNING AND SUSTAINABLE
DEVELEOPMENT MANAGER, PHAYVANH NANTHAVONGDOUANGSY,
PRINCIPAL PLANNER, KAREN GULLEY, PLACEWORKS, SUZANNE SCHWAB,
PLACEWORKS, STEVE GUNNELLS, PLACEWORKS
FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
PHAYVANH NANTHAVONGDOUANGSY
(714) 754-5611
[email protected]
RE
COMMENDATION:
Staf
f r ecommends the Planning Commission receive the staff presentation and provide feedback on community variables that will shape the land use plan for the Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan.
APPL
ICANT OR AUTHORIZED AGENT:
Ci
ty of Costa Mesa
PU
RPOSE OF THE STUDY SESSION:
Th
e purpose of this study session is to provide the Planning Commission and the public with a comprehensive update on the progress of the Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan (FDC-SP) project . and offer an opportunity for the Planning Commission to review and discuss the land use concepts and key components of the plan prior to providing a recommendation on the preferred land use plan and its components to the City Council . The Cit y developed three land use concepts that were studied and presented to the public to solicit input (detailed later in the report).
The purpose of the land use concepts was to test housing unit thresholds and other -23-
plan components (such as circulation network, open space, commercial square footage, etc.).
Ove
r t he past several months, City staff —working in partnership with the State —has made pro gress on addressing State requirements and factors influencing the land use plan, while incorporating com munity input and preliminary findings of the financial feasibility analysis. This work has provided a perspective on the act ual feasibility of the conceptual land use plans and project components.
Th
e preferred plan is intended to comprise of the preferred components from all concepts studied , coupled wit h the likelihood that the plan is desirable from a development standpoint. At this stage, the information presented will also help define the scope of the project to initiate the environmental review process pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Addition al discussion is under the “Recommendations for the Preferred Land Use Plan” section of this report.
Th
is study session is intended to set the stage for a formal recommendation by the Planning Commission to the City Council in July 2025. While no formal action will be taken at this meeting , s taff respectfully requests feedback from the Planning Commission on the draft land use concepts and project components presented in this report. Input is particularly encouraged on the proposed land use distribution, open space framework, circulation network, and overall site organization. This feedback will inform the refinement of the project description, support the creation of a preferred land use plan, and shape the environmental analysis moving forward.
Follo
wing tonigh t’s study session, staff will return on June 9, 2025, with a refined Preferred Plan, updated project description, and a set of draft vision and guiding principles. The Planning Commission will be asked at that time to make a formal recommendation to the City Council, enabling the City to begin the CEQA process and continue advancing the FDC Specific Plan project.
Once
the City Council selects a preferred land use plan, staff will begin a formal environmental analysis in accordance with CEQA. The City will assess potential environmental impacts —such as traffic, noise, air quality, and biological resources — and identify feasible ways to avoid or minimize those impacts. Based on the findings of this analysis, the Preferred Plan may be refined to ensure that future development aligns with State environmental standards and community goals.
In
parallel with the CEQA process , staff will continue community outreach efforts to help shape and finalize the development standards and policie s that will be memorialized in the Specific Plan.
-24-
BACKGROUND:
The Fairview Developmental Center (FDC) is a 115 -acre property located at 2501 Harbor Boulevard in the City of Costa Mesa. Owned by the State of California, the site was historically developed and operated as a residential care facility for individuals with developmental disabilities. Today, the facility is largely unoccupied and in a “warm shutdown” phase, meaning it is no longer serving its original residential function. The State has reloca ted all remaining residents to community -based homes and has acknowledged that it does not intend to follow the traditional State surplus property process for this site.
Over
the years, the future of the FDC property has been the subject of considerable interest and discussion among local and state agencies. In 2020, the Costa Mesa City Council created an Ad Hoc Committee to advise staff and provide recommendations related to the FDC. That same year, the Council adopted a vision for the site supporting app roximately 1,500 mixed -use, mixed -income housing units —including workforce, veterans, and permanent supportive housing. The Council directed staff to collaborate with the State to preserve local input and influence over future development decisions and land use outcomes.
Th
e FDC site is one of the largest housing opportunity sites identified in the City’s Housing Elemen t, adopted on February 1, 2022. The Hous ing Element anticipated accommodating approximately 2,300 units on this site and includes a specifi c program directing the City to pursue a Specific Plan for residential development, in partnership with the State. The Housing Element plan for the site became Concept 1.
In J
une 2022, the State Legislature approved Government Code Section 14670.31, which provides a framework for the reuse of the FDC property. The legislation codifies a partnership between the Department of General Services (DGS), the Department of Developmental Services (DDS), and the City of Costa Mesa, with defined roles for each enti ty. While the site is owned and controlled by the State, under th is framework, the City is responsible for leading the land use planning process, which includes preparation of a Specific Plan, identifying and defining public benefits, amending the G eneral Plan, updating the zoning regulations, and conducting the CEQA review . Defining key components of the plan -such as affordable housing, open space, and community -serving amenities- is a key effort of the Specific Plan Process and will help ensure that redevelopment of the site aligns with local priorities and State policy goals. In parallel, the State —through DGS —will lead the property disposition process, as property owner, which will include either sale or lease of the land to a master developer, for the purposes of building a project in compliance with the City’s Specific Plan.
To
support this effort, the legislation allocated $3.5 million in State funding to the City to develop a Specific Plan, conduct necessary studies, and manage a community - -25-
based plann ing process. The law also expresses the Legislature’s intent that the property be redeveloped as a mixed -use project, prioritizing affordable housing to the greatest extent feasib le, including a minimum of 200 units of permanent supportive housing, open space, and housing for individuals with developmental disabilities.
Th
e FDC -SP project will implement the provisions of Government Code Section 14670.31. As outlined in the agreement between the City and State, the final development plan must align with bo th the City’s adopted vision and the State’s interests. While the City will guide the planning process with opportunities for community engagement and transparency, the ultimate di sposition of the property will be made by DGS, based on terms and conditions deemed to be in the best interests of the State.
HO
USING ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION – HOUSING PROGRAM 3B
Th
e approved 6 th Cycle Housing Element identifies the property as a housing opportunity site that may accommodate 2,300 future residential units. Appro ximately 40% of the residential units projected for this site will meet a portion of the City ’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) shortfall for low - and very- low-income households. As such, the Housing Element Program 3B outlines the implementation objectives for the FDC site to accommodate future housing development. This project, which includes the development of a Specific Plan (SP), and the disposition of the FDC site, requires a coordinated planning effort with the State Department of General Services (DGS), Office of Emergency Services (OES), and Department of Developmental Services (DDS).
-26-
Figure 1: Site Location
In Au
gust 2023, the City retained PlaceWorks to complete the community outreach, land use planning and environmental review process for this project.
PR
OJECT PROGRESS:
This
section outlines the key milestones that informed the development of the land use concepts, which illustrate a range of site design, circulation, and housing scenarios that will shape a future neighborhood . The land use concepts were formulated utilizing feedback solicited from the community engagement events, public meetings held at City Council and Planning Commission, ongoing coordination meetings with state agencies, and input from housing developers and affordable housing advocates.
Com
munity Workshops
Launched in October 2023, the project’s community engagement program was -27-
designed to optimize public participation and encourage the public to provide input at critical stages of the plan development. The community engagement process will continue to be dynamic and improve as the project progresses forward. The project’s website, www.fdcplan.plan, is continually updated to share project information and encourage participation at upcoming events. The City has held 18 community outreach events thus far for this project.
The o
utreach events have included in-person and virtual workshops, pop-up events, and study sessions. Materials for all workshop and pop-up events were provided both in English and Spanish , with Spanish interpreters available to assist attendees when needed. For in-person meetings, the City’s Parks and Community Services Department provided activities for children to enable parents to engage more fully in the outreach process.
The
w orkshops focused on drafting the community vision and guiding principles , as well as gathering input on the conceptual plans. A summary of the workshops and all related outreach materials are available online a t: https://fdcplan.com/participate/.
The results of the fourth workshop is described i n the “Land Use Concepts Outreach” section of this report.
FDC P
roject Updates at City Council and Planning Commission
In
addition to the community outreach events, project updates for the FDC Specific Plan were presented to the City Council on December 12, 2023, and Planning Commission on March 25, 2024.
• The
City Council Meeting (December 12, 2023): Staff provided an overview of the planning process, the historic background of the FDC site, potential housing types (including both market -rate and affo rdable options), and considerations for future development. The staff report and attachments are available online at:
https://costamesa.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=1141509&GUID=345AA 40A-863E-4705-8AC0-6F703488A2F9
• The
Planning Commission Meeting (March 25, 2024): In addition to the Council update, this presentation included a summary of the public workshops and outlined the upcoming steps in the planning process. The staff report and attachments are available online at:
https://costamesa.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=6600445&GUID=BE5 C5BFB-7FF3-4EC5-B6A4-16240D272894
At bo
th meetings, staff and PlaceWorks presented detailed information on the economic and market considerations for affordable housing development. Topics included financing strategies, eligibility requirements, and the trade- offs needed to achieve feasibility. As part of the research and analysis, PlaceWorks conducted -28-
interviews with affordable and market-rate housing developers, advocacy groups, and industry experts familiar with the Orange County housing trends. These interviews explored preferences related to housing types, supportive services, private and public open space amenities, and neighborhood design. Insights gathered have directly informed the market demand and market feasibility analysis, the outcomes of which are included in this report to guide the development of a preferred land use plan.
Sta
te Agencies Coordination Meetings
Th
e City held weekly coordination meetings with the State DGS and DDS Representatives from April 2024 through August 2024 and has continued to meet on an as- needed basis thereafter. T hese meeti ngs focus on aligning future land use planning with State legislat ive requirements, DDS housing needs, and the development of the future Regional Emergency Operations Center (EOC) to ensure that the land use s are compatible and occur in a coordinated manner . Key State factors influencing the land use concepts include Senate Bill (SB) 82, SB 188, SB 138, and SB 166, along with the State agencies programmatic and operational requirements. A summary of these factors is provided as Attachment 1.
As a r
esult of the meetings, the original project boundary was modified to remove the plant operations area, the segment of Merrimac Way running through Harbor Village Apartments, and the Mark Lane residential development . These areas are owned, operated, and maintained by DDS and management company. T he revised Specific Plan boundary now encompasses approximately 95 acres. Of this, the State will retain ownership of 20 acres for the EOC and DDS complex needs housing which are not included in the Specific Plan area. D DS will reta in 15 acres for housing similar to Harbor Village Apartments, leaving approximately 80 acres available for the Master Developer, as shown in Figure 2.
Ea
ch of the land use concepts has been designed to meet the needs of DDS housing programs and the EOC operations. In accordance with SB 138, the existing 5 -acre plant operations site will be redeveloped for residential use serving adolescents and adults with complex needs. Additionally, approximately 15 acres shown in Figure 2 will be used for DDS State housing consistent with SB 82. DDS anticipates developing up to 480 residential units adjacent to the existing Harbor Village Apartments, with 20% of the units dedicated to individuals with developmental disabilities, similar to the Harbor Village model. This 15-acre portion of the property will be included in the Specific Plan area.
Whi
le t he land use concepts identify approximate planning areas for DDS housing , the final boundaries will be determined by the State, potentially through future legislation. The Specific Plan’s land use policies will ensure that future planning areas support the State’s DDS housing goals.
-29-
DDS also expressed opposition to the inclusion of large open space areas that could support a regional sports and recreation complex. In its letter dated June 28, 2024, submitted in response to the proposed land use concepts, DDS stated that the primary focus of the plan should be to maximize the provision of affordable housing, and that large open space areas are incompatible with this objective. The letter is included as Attachment 2.
Th
e State DGS is also moving forward with construction of the EOC . Additional information is available online at: https://buildcaloessreoc.turnersocal.com/.
Following the development of the land use concepts used and the launch of the summer workshop series, the State agreed to align Shelley Circle with the southeast corner of the project boundary. This revised alignment, shown as a dashed red line in Figure 2, will be incorporated in the preferred land use plan.
Figur
e 2 also identifies the location of the EOC Communication Tower, which stands approximately 120 feet tall. To ensure a clear line of sight with other State communication towers, height restrictions will appl y to development located directly north and east of EOC site. In these areas, buildings will be limited to approximately six to eight stories to preserve the operational effectiveness of the communication system.
Figu
re 2: FDC Remaining Area for City Process
LA
ND USE CONCEPTS:
Th
is report presents three land use concepts, each representing a distinct development scenario based on input from the community , while aligning with State requirements. The concepts explore variations in urban design, circulation networks, and distribution of open space recreational areas. The y were created to evaluate a range of residential densities and affordability levels. The conceptual illustrations and associated acreages in cluded in this section were originally prepared for the Plant Operations
(Complex Housing)
-30-
community outreach efforts and were developed prior to the State’s final decision to redevelop the plant operations area for the complex needs housing and before the final alignment of Shelley Circle was confirmed. This section includes the illustrations that were presented to the community in summer 2024 during outreach events. The feedback received from these outreach events have been incorporated into the draft preferred land use plan shown later in this staff report.
Sin
ce summer 2024, each concept has been analyzed for its market and development feasibility, traffic and circulation impacts, consistency with City and State goals, and potential funding sources and implementation timelines. The conceptual plan names are provided for ease of reference. The planning areas configuration are illustrative and intended to demonstrate different development patterns . The analysis provided in this report will help identify and prioritize trade -offs of various land use components that will shape the preferred land use plan and form the foundation for the Specific Plan. The Land Use Concepts are provided as Attachment 3.
Conc
ept 1: Fairview Promenade (Housing Element)
Conc
ept 1 reflects the Housing Element household income distribution assumptions for this site: 25% Very Low -Income, 15% Low -Income, 30% Moderate -Income, and 30% Above Moderate -Income. The land use configuration might feature a central grand boulevard or signature street that defines the char acter of the site and provides a strong visual and functional connection to the secondary road network.
The corridor could include a wide landscape d median with pedestrian pathways, integrated public art, or streetscape treatments that enhances the identity of the development along the sidewalks and pathways.
-31-
This concept would accommodate 2,300 residential units with an average density of 39 dwelling units per acre. H igher-density residential development would be concentrated toward the center of the si te, with lower -density areas positioned along the edges, particularly near H arbor Boulevard. Planning Areas 1 through 5, totaling 20 acres and located adjacent to the existing Harbor Village Apartments, are designated to accommodate 483 DDS units . This includes three ( 3) complex needs units, 99 very low-income units, and 384 moderate-income units.
Op
en space areas would be distributed throughout the project area, with individual park areas ranging from 1.6 to 3.5 acres. The open space network would include greenways and trails designed to connect residential neighborhoods to recreational areas. Park facilities may support a variety of active uses such as soccer and baseball fields, and other recreational uses. To reduce traffic circulation through the stie, open space and commercial uses would be strategically located near the Habor Boulevard - Fair Drive entrance.
Conc
ept 2: Fairview Fields
Con
cept 2 features a more formal grid street pattern, with slightly smaller blocks than Concept 1, which enhan ces walkability and connectivity throughout the site.
This scenario assumes that a future developer would utilize the S tate Density Bonus Law to increase the number of above moderate units to subsidize the affordable requirements.
Fo
r this scenario, the base residential capacity in the Specific Plan would be 1,725 units. However, by applying a 50% density bonus for both V ery Low- and Moderate- income units —as permi tted by State Density Bonus Law —100% total density bonus -32-
could be achieved, resulting in a m aximum of 3,450 residential units. This would include the base units and an assumed bonus of 1,725 units. Approximately 20 acres adjacent to Harbor Village Apartments would be reserved to meet DDS housing needs.
Th
ere would be two access roads, one at Fair Drive and another via a new roadway extension through the golf course, connecting to the Harbor Shopping Center. Open space would be concentrated into large, centralized neighborhood park designed to support various active recreational uses, including sports fields and other community amenities.
Conc
ept 3: Fairview Commons
Co
ncept 3 represents the highest reasonable level of residential development across the Planning Areas. All Planning Areas would be designated for high-density residential uses, with the exception of the southeast corner, which is envisioned for high-end townhomes. Th is concept would accommodate the income distribution projected in the Housing Element for Very Low, Low, and Moderate, which totals 1,610 units—or 40% of the total units—to meet the City’s affordability housing goals for this site. The remaining 2,390 units (60%) would be allocated to the Above Moderate category, which help subsidize affordable housing.
Th
is scenario assumes the City would enter into a Development Agreement with the master developer to secure the final housing mix. Concept 3 supports the highest residential yield a nd allows for a variety of housing types , including townhomes, apartments, and condo miniums. To accommodate the increased density and -33-
improve site circulation, this concept would also require a secondary access point to Harbor Boulevard.
FIN
ANCIAL FEASIBILITY:
As re
quired by the agreement with the State, a Financial F easibility Analysis was conducted for each land use concept and provides a detailed summary of the cost to develop each planning area —excluding the cost that affordable housing developers will pay to build and operate their projects. The analysis also include s project-wide infrastructure costs—demolition, roads, water, and sewer into the equation. Feasibility alternatives (i.e., changes in the assumptions for each land use alternative that would make each alternative more feasible) are included to identify adjustments that cou ld make the overall project financially feasible. The Financial Feasibility Analysis i s attached to the report as Attachment 6.
The
financial feasibility is prepared and analyzed from the perspective of a potential master developer : do the concepts provide for a sufficient number of market rate housing units to offset the costs to support the affordable housing, the DDS housing, and other amenities, such as parks and recreation facilities. The A nalysis is a ‘snapshot’ of t he current market and its considerations. It can be used to predict the potential feasibility of a project with the most accurate information at hand at the time the analysis is conducted. While these analyses try to anticipate future market trends, unforeseen trends or market factors could adjust identified feasibility when the master d eveloper is ready to construct. The Financial Feasibility Analysis evaluates the three concepts to determine whether a developer could redevelop the site, achieve a 15% inte rnal rate of return (an industry standard for determination of project feasibility) and potentially have enough surplus provide the public benefits the State is looking for and the benefits that the City and community may expect.
Th
e State intends to dispose of the site by turning the property over to a master developer, excluding certa in portions that will be retained by the State. The master developer would demolish the existing buildings, remediate any contamination, and construct the necessary infrastructure to support the ultimate buildout allowable under the specific plan.
A s
izeable number of the new housing units constructed would be restricted to households qualified as lower income. The master developer might develop this affordable housing, but they are more likely to turn the prepared land over to an affordable housing developer. Another sizeable number of housing units would be constructed separately for and under contract to the state’s DDS. However, the master developer would prepare the sit es for the DDS housing. The remainder of the housing units would be construct ed by the master developer to be rented or sold at market rates. The intent is that the specific plan would allow the number of market -34-
rate housing units that would generate sufficient profit to compensate for the demolition, the site preparation, and the infrastructure that will support the affordable housing units and the DDS housing units.
To
prepare a viable Specific Plan and conduct environmental review under CEQA, the City must evaluate a version of the project that is both physically and financially viable. The Financial Feasibility Analysis was a critical step in this process. It evaluated whether each land use concept could cover the costs of demolition, infrastructure, DDS and affordable housing site preparation, and still generate a sufficient return to attract private investment. This ensures the plan can be implemented and that key public benefits—such as affordable housing, open space, and community amenities — can be d elivered. The analysis informed staff’s recommendation on a Preferred Plan and provides a foundation for drafting the Specific Plan.
Infr
astructure and Site Development
Eac
h of the three land use concepts will require significant infrastructure upgrades, including new sewer, storm drain, water, and utility improvements. All concepts a lso involve site demolition and environmental remediation, with associated costs varying by concept.
The
cost estimates for each scenario are summarized in the table below and include site preparation, impact fees, soft costs (such as engineering, environmental review, and bonding), infrastructure improvements, and a standard contingency. It is important to note that higher development costs do not necessarily determine a concept’s financial feasibility. These considerations are incorporated and addressed in the financial feasibility analysis that follows.
Tab
le 3: Total Development Costs
Concept 1 Concept 2 Concept 3
Total Planning Area
Development Cost
$434,300,000 $776,100,000 $1,046,400,000
Project-wide site
Development Cost
$130,300,000 $174,600,000 $148,500,000
Offsite improvement Cost $13,420,000 $18,400,000 $18,400,000 Total project
development cost
$578,100,000 $959,100,000 $1,213,000,000
In
evaluating the three land use concepts, this analysis estimates whether or not the market rate development would generate a fifteen percent (15%) Internal Rate of Return (IRR) for the equity investment needed for the project. This rate is an industry standard and is conside red the minimum return to entice outside investors to invest -35-
equity in a development project. The table below is a summary of the results of the financial feasibility analysis:
Table 1: Total Cash Flow and Annual Internal Rate of Return Concept 1 Concept 2 Concept 3
Cash Flow Sums with Financing and Cost/Revenue Escalation Total Cash Inflow $810,300,000 $2,148,000,000 $2,905,000,000 Total Cash Outflow -$962,700,000 -$1,779,000,000 -$2,235,000,000 Total Net Cash Flow -$152,360,000 $369,100,000 $669,8900,000 Financial Feasibility Metrics
Annual Internal Rate of Return
(IRR)
-20% 14.6% 16.7%
Feasibility Surplus/(Gap) ($233,000,000) ($5,020,000) $26,700,000 Not
e: The total cash inflow and outflow is a simple sum of the monthly estimates. The data are not discounted and thus do not reflect the tim e value of money. However, the IRR does account for the timing of inflows versus out-flows.
Base
d on the analysis above, Concept 1 would cost more to develop than it would generate in income. This concept would need additional funding of over $233 million to be feasible at a 15.0 percent IRR. Concept 2, which showing slightly less than the industry standard IRR of 1 5% would still be considered financially feasible as it is anticipated a developer could make minor adjustments to their own pro forma or to the project to bring it to the 15% rate that would make the project viable. Finally, Concept 3 is financially feasible, with an IRR of 16.7% and would generate $26.7 million in residual land value that could be used for additional public benefits.
Tr
affic and Mobility
All three land use concepts will require improvement to the intersection at Fair Drive and Harbor Boulevard. Concept 1 relies solely on the existing access point at this intersection, while Concepts 2 and 3 introduce a secondary access road through the golf course connecting to Harbor Boulevard. D ue to its higher housing capacity, Concept 3 is expected to generate the most traffic and may require additional offsite improvements such as added lanes and signal timing adjustments.
Whil
e Level of Service (LOS) is no longer required to be studied under CEQA for significance thresholds, the City continues to study LOS for public transparency and as part of its City requirements. The City has adopted Level of Service (LOS) D as the acceptable thr eshold for intersection performance. Each land use concept was analyzed for its impact on traffic, with LOS ratings ranging from LOS A (free -flowing -36-
conditions) to LOS F (significant delays requiring multiple signal cycles ). The table below summarizes projected daily trip generation and LOS for each concept.
Tab
le 4: Traffic and Level of Service
Concept 1 Concept 2 Concept 3
Access Points to Harbor
Boulevard
1 2 2
Daily Trip Generation 11,342 16,640 18,501
Morning Peak Hour Trips 842 1,229 1,407
Evening Peak Hour Trips 997 1,449 1,639
Level Of Service With No
Improvements:
• Morning Peak:
LOS C
• Evening Peak:
LOS D
With No
Improvements:
• Morning Peak:
LOS C
• Evening Peak:
LOS E
With No
Improvements
• Morning Peak:
LOS C
• Evening Peak:
LOS E
With
Improvements:
• Morning Peak:
LOS A
• Evening Peak:
LOS C
With
Improvements
• Morning Peak:
LOS B
• Evening Peak:
LOS D
With
Improvements:
• Morning Peak:
LOS B
• Evening Peak:
LOS D
If
a secondary roadway is constructed through the Mesa Linda Golf Course, it will result in operational impacts as future development phases are implemented. Based on the land use concepts and phasing assumptions, it is anticipated that this roadway may not be needed until residential development exceeds 2,300 units, which could ta ke approximately 10 to 12 years. While this connection may affect current golf course operations, it also presents an opportunity to improve the course layout and enhance the overall user experience.
To e
valuate this opportunity, the City engaged Todd Eckenrode Origins Golf Design, a local golf course architect firm, to evaluate potential design adjustments to the golf course in order to accommodate the secondary access route . Origins Golf Design developed preliminary concepts that reimagine the driving range and nearby areas in a way that maintains functionality and elevates the golfing experience. The associated costs for this design enhancement are included in the financial feasibility analysis, ensuring that long-term planning reflects both the infrastructure needs of the project and the ongoing success of the golf course as a valued community amenity. This information will be used to inform and memorialize the Specific Plan if the City Council proceeds with a maximum unit count above 2,300 units. It is anticipated that it may be further refined once a master developer submits to the City for entitlements. -37-
Additionally, each concept incorporates an interconnected network of pedestrian and bicycle paths. These facilities are designed to link residential areas with parks, community amenities, and key destinations within the project area and the broader City, promoting active transportation and reducing reliance on cars.
Park
s and Open Space
The three land use concepts offer different approaches to open space distribution.
Concept 1 features a linear park with open space dispersed throughout the site.
Concept 2 concentrates parkland into a larger, centralized area, while Concept 3 prioritizes housing and provides the least amount of park/open space.
Stat
e Government Code Section 66477, known as the Quimby Act, authorizes cities to require the dedication of parkland or payment of in- lieu fees from residential subdivisions to support the development of park and recreational facilities. The law sets a baseline requirement of up to 3.0 acres per 1,000 residents . It also allows jurisdictions to adopt higher local standards if supported by their General Plan and local ordinance.
In a
ccordance with this authority, the City has established a local parkland dedication standard of 4.26 acres per 1,000 residents, as outlined in General Plan Policy OSR-1.18.
This requirement is implemented through the City’s Park and Recreation Dedi cations Ordinance (Municipal Code Title 13, Chapter XI, Article 5). Based on projected population levels, none of the land use concepts currently meet the 4.26 -acre standard.
Tab
le 2: Recreational/Open Space
Concept 1 Concept 2 Concept 3
Dedicated Recreational/Open
Space Areas (acres)
14.1 18 4.9
Population Projection1 5,744 7,816 10,232
Required Open Space based on
Policy OSR-1.18
~22 acres of
open space
~36 acres of
open space
~42 acres of
open space
NOTES:
1. Persons Per Household: 2.64, Source: American Community Survey 2022.
Includes estimated 480 DDS units for each concept (mix of 20% Very Low and 80% Moderate income). Assumes 1 person per household for Very Low and permanent supportive units.
Th
e current General Plan Land Use Designation for the Fairview Developmental Center site is Mixed -Use Center (MUC). The MUC designation —unique to this site —also includes an open space goal requiring that at least 25% of the site be preserved as open space. Based on the 80 acres available for development, this equates to a minimum of approximately 22 acres.
-38-
While none of the current land use concepts fully meet the open space goal of preserving 25% of the site as required under th e existing MUC designation, a component of the project is a General Plan Amendment to align the designation with the Specific Plan’s final land use and open space framework. This amendment will update the MUC land use designation to reflect the allowable uses and revised open space standards established through the Specific Plan.
As t
he planning process progresses, the Specific Plan will define a realistic and implementable open space goal—supported by future land dedication and developer- funded improvements—that will guide how open space is integrated into the site's long-term development. It is anticipated that the open space goal will be met during implementation through a combination of land dedication, in -lieu fees, development impacts fee and/or developer-funded improvements as part of the future development agreement.
LA
ND USE CONCEPTS OUTREACH
Su
rvey Details and Structure
To g
ather community input on the three land use concepts, the City conducted public outreach throughout July and August 2024. Engagement activities included in-person and virtual workshops, pop-up events, and an online survey available from July 24 to August 30, 2024. All materials and events were offered in both English and Spanish, and paper surveys were made available at in-person events (see Attachment 4). In total, the City received 719 survey responses, along with 10 emails and 8 comment cards submitted during the outreach events.
To e
ncourage broad participation, the online survey did not require responses to every question, resulting in varying response rates. The survey was hosted on the Social Pinpoint platform and was designed to reflect the same information presented at public workshops, allowing participants who could not attend in person to access an equivalent level of detail. The survey featured the following informational tabs:
• Int
roduction – Included instructions for navigating the survey, explained the purpose and development of land use concepts for the FDC Specific Plan, and outlined the survey’s goals.
• Land Use Concepts – Provided detailed descriptions of each concept, results from traffic and infrastructure studies, and an interactive map. • Summary – Offered side -by-side comparisons of the concepts, including the results of the traffic and infrastructure studies. The summary also provided an overall comparison of the concepts int ended to inform participants about the various tradeoffs between each concept.
-39-
Survey Outreach
Th
e survey was promoted extensively during Workshop 4 open-house series and at pop-up events hosted by the City.
• We
dnesday, July 24, 2024 - Open House/Workshop Night 1 , 6-8 p.m., Norma Hertzog Community Center, 1845 Park Avenue
• Thursday, July 25, 2024 - Open House/Workshop Night 2, 6-8 p.m., Saint John Paul the Baptist Church, 1021 Baker Street
• Wednesday, July 31, 2024 - Virtual Open House/Workshop Night 3, 6-8 p.m., hosted via Zoom.
The
City publicized the survey through the following media and print forms:
• Dire
ct mailer to 40,000 households via USPS
• Social Media (Instagram and Facebook) –~1,000 average reach • City Manager’s Weekly Newsletter (Snapshot) – 12,000 subscribers • Costa Mesa Minute Video (broadcast on CMTV and social media) • Three pop-up events: Harbor Iglesia Church, Music in the Park, Northgate Mercado Gonzalez
• Announced at City Council meeting
• Project Website: fdcplan.com
• Flyers at City Facilities
Sur
vey Results
Th
e survey results are provided in Attachment 5. Below is a summary of key findings:
• A t
otal of 719 survey responses were received. Additional feedback included ten emails and eight comment cards submitted during in-person events. • The physical layout of Concept 1 was the most preferred among respondents. • Open Space configuration most influenced a participant’s preference when selecting a preferred layout.
• 52% of respondents support adding a secondary access road; 32% opposed it, and 16% indicated they need more information.
• 65% of respondents are supportive of 2,300 dwelling units in the plan. About 20% support 3,450 units, while 13.5% support a higher density of 4,000 units. -40-
• 66% of respondents believe the plan should maintain the 920 affordable dwelling units (Very low - and Low-income categories) designate d in the City’s Housing Element.
• A majority of the respondents were primarily unsupportive of reducing open space/park space for more housing.
• Over 315 open-ended comments were submitted , covering a wide range of topics including strong support of affordable housing, concerns about increased traffic, and importance of preserving open space.
Considerations for the Preferred Land Use Plan
The land use concepts analysis—including financial feasibility findings—identifies several considerations to inform the development of a preferred land use plan:
1. Ensuring Financial Viability
A sufficient number of market -rate housing units will be necessary to generate revenue to fund critical project components, including demolition, infrastructure, open space improvements, and the preparation of sites for DDS and affordable housing.
2. Balance Land Use Components
The preferred plan will need to strike an appropriate balance between affordable housing, market -rate housing, and open space to meet community goals, financial feasibility, and State expectations.
3. Support the Delivery of Affordable Housing
If there is a desire to increase the likelihood and shorten the time frame for developing affordable housing, a sufficient number of market rate units are needed to help pay the cost of structured parking.
4. Plan for Long-Term Flexibility
Incorporating residual land value into the planning approach will help maintain project feasibility in the face of potential changes in economic and market conditions over the anticipated 10- to 18-year buildout period.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE PREFERRED LAND USE PLAN:
The land use concept analysis and the financial feasibility findings, staff recommends the following key elements and considerations for the preferred land use plan:
-41-
1. Residential Development range from 3,600-3,800 units
This range strikes a balance between market feasibility and achieving City and State housing goals. It also provides flexibility for detailed site planning, phasing, and housing mix adjustments as the project progresses.
2. Circulation Network: Grand Promenade
The plan includes a central Grand Promenade that has received strong community support. It should serve as the site’s primary spine, enhancing connectivity, reinforcing a sense of place, and promoting walkability across the development.
3. Open Space: Minimum Publicly Accessible Open space of 10-12 acres
A defined amount of minimum publicly accessible open space is essential to ensure a high quality of life, meet local and State parkland standards, and provide accessible recreational opportunities for future residents and visitors.
In addition, staff will look at including incentives into the Specific Plan that will further encourage the provision of publicly accessible open space.
4. Specific Plan Land Use Plan and Development Standards: Built-in flexibility for future Master Developer with certainty for the community
The Specific Plan should be designed with flexibility to accommodate changing market conditions and evolving housing products , while no t compromising on community decisions and certainty around the plan. This includes adaptable land use designations (including a maximum of 35,000 square feet of commercial and/or retail space) and phasing strategies while maintaining the plan’s core principles and community objectives.
5. Working Draft FDC Preferred Land Use Concept Map
Figure 3 illustrates the working draft preferred plan that incorporates the staff recommendations outlined in this section. The draft plan can accommodate a maximum unit ran ge of 3,600-3,800 units, a grand boulevard, minimum open space of at least 10 acres and pedestrian trails and a street network that can accommodate all modes of transportation (vehicles, bicycle lanes and pedestrian routes), including a secondary access route from Harbor Boulevard.
The draft plan also maintains flexibility to be memorialized into the Specific Plan to accommodate changing market conditions, evolving housing products and a range of potential housing developers depending on the State’s disposition process.
-42-
Figure 3: Working Draft FDC Preferred Land Use Concept Map
GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE:
The City’s 2021–2029 Housing Element identifies the site as a Housing Opportunity Site and allocates 2,300 residential units, with 40% of those units expected to be affordable to very low - and low -income households. To implement this vision, a General Plan Amendment will be required to reconcile the current MUC land use designation with the housing capacity and policy direction in the Housing Element.
The Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan will serve as the guiding planni ng document to implement these goals and provide a comprehensive framework for future development.
-43-
Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment and Environmental Review Process
The Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan is being prepared to establish detailed land use designations, development standards, infrastructure improvements, and design guidelines for the site. A Specific Plan is a planning tool authorized under California Government Code Sections 65450–65457 that allows cities to implement General P lan policies within a defined area. Once adopted, the Specific Plan will govern all future development proposals for the site, and any development must conform to its requirements.
Following Planning Commission and City Council input on the land use concepts presented in this report, staff will begin drafting the Specific Plan, along with the associated General Plan Amendment. While the City Council will not take formal action or select a final land use concept at this stage, their input —along with feedback from the Planning Commission and community —will help inform a preferred land use plan and define the scope of the environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Once the project description and land use plan is refined , a Notice of Preparation (NOP) will be issued to initiate the CEQA process. A Scoping Meeting will be held to gather public input on the scope of the Draft Environmental Impa ct Report (DEIR), which will be prepared and circulated for public review. The Specific Plan, General Plan Amendments, and DEIR will be prepared concurrently over the course of several months. The Planning Commission and City Council will consider these documents during future public hearings. Additional community meetings will also be held to share the draft plan and gather further input prior to formal consideration.
PUBLIC NOTICE:
There is no public notice requirement for the Planning Commission Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan Study Session. However, to encourage public engagement, the City provided the following informal outreach:
• The date and time of the study session were posted on the project website. • Information about the study session was shared via the City’s social media channels and distributed to the project email list.
NEXT STEPS:
The redevelopment of the Fairview Developmental Center offers a unique opportunity to transform an underutilized site into a vibrant, mixed -use commun ity that reflects the City’s goals for sustainability, open space, and active tr ansportation. -44-
The Planning Commission’s feedback is a critical step in shaping the vision and structure of the Specific Plan.
Staff will present a summary of the Planning Commission’s input , including a refined preferred land use along, draft project description, draft vision statement, draft guiding principles and any additional information requested, back to the Planning Commission at their June 9, 2025, meeting for further review and a formal recommendation of the Preferred Plan to the City Council. Following this meeting, the City Council will consider the aforementioned materials, along with the Planning Commission’s recommendation and t o provide direction o n the preferred plan use project, project description, vision statement and guiding principles at their July 15, 2025, meeting.
Following input from the City Council, staff will proceed with the environmental review process. A Notice of Preparation (NOP) will be issue d to initiate the environmental review, leading to the preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). Concurrently, staff will continue to de velop proposed Specific Plan policies, development standards, and objective design guidelines. An outreach event will be held to present the proposed plan and DEIR to the community for feedback. A follow-up study session with the Planning Commission and City Council will be held on the draft Specific Plan, with additional opportunity for discussion and refinement .
Upon completion of the DEIR public review period, the City will initiate the formal public hearing process to consider adoption of the Specific Plan and associated project approvals. In addition, following completion of the DEIR public review period, DGS anticipates release a request for proposals for a Master Developer.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. State Factors
2. Department of Developmental Services (DDS) June 28, 2024 Letter
3. Land Use Concepts for Survey
4. Land Use Concepts Survey
5. Survey Results
6. Financial Feasibility Analysis
-45-
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: June 23, 2025 ITEM NUMBER: OB-1 SUBJECT: FAIRVIEW DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE PLAN – REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION
FROM: ECONOMIC AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT /
PLANNING DIVISION
PRESENTATION BY: ANNA MCGILL, PLANNING & SUSTAINABILITY
DEVELEOPMENT MANAGER, KAREN GULLEY, PLACEWORKS, SUZANNE
SCHWAB, PLACEWORKS, STEVE GUNNELLS, PLACEWORKS
FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
ANNA MCGILL
(714) 754-5609
[email protected]
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission receive the staff presentation and provide feedback on community variables and plan components that will shape the land use plan for the Fairview Developmental Center (FDC) Specific Plan.
APPLICANT OR AUTHORIZED AGENT:
City of Costa Mesa
BACKGROUND:
City and State Roles in the FDC Specific Plan Process
The 115-acre FDC site located at 2501 Harbor Boulevard in the City of Costa Mesa includes several interested entities, uses and state legislation. These factors create a n opportunity for a planning process to guide the future redevelopment of the land.
Extensive early coordination between the City and the State has resulted in this planning process being a collaboration. This section of the staff report outlines the state legislation that dictates the overall planning process and describes the City’s and State entities’ roles in guiding the development of the FDC site. -46-
In June 2022, the State Legislature through Senate Bill (SB) 188 approved Government Code Section 14670.31, which provides a framework for the reuse of the FDC property. The legislation codifies a partnership between the Department of General Services (DGS), the Department of Developmental Services (DDS), and the City of Costa Mesa, with defined roles for each entity.
To support this effort, the State allocated $3.5 million in State funding to the City to develop a Specific Plan, conduct necessary studies, and manage a community -based planning process. The Legislature’s intent is for the redevelopment of the FDC site to prioritize affordable housing to the greatest extent feasib le, including a minimum of 200 units of permanent supportive housing, open space, and housing for individuals with developmental disabilities. The City will create a Specific Plan for the FDC site that implements the provisions of Government Code Section 14670.31.
Agreement
: The City and the State executed an agreement in December 2022 consistent with SB 188. The agreement envisioned that the City’s planning work for FDC would be completed by December 2025 and include the following deliverables:
• Robust Community Engagement Strategy (and implementation thereof); • Comprehensive Conditions Report on the property and its setting; • Economic Market Demand Report;
• Water Supply Assessment and coordination among Water Agencies; • Project Conceptual Alternatives & a Preferred Plan Framework; • Draft Specific Plan with Implementation Strategies;
• Public Draft Initial Study and Notice of Preparation, if required; • Public Draft Environmental Impact Report;
• Draft Final Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program;
• Final Draft Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report; and • Public hearings for EIR certification and Specific Plan adoption, including any General Plan and Zoning amendments identified as necessary for consistency.
As outlined in the agreement between the City and State, the final development plan must align with both the City’s adopted vision and the State’s interests .
While the site
is owned and controlled by the State (DGS), the agreement outlines the City ’s responsibilities for leading the land use planning process.
City’s Role: The regulatory framework for this planning process includes preparation of a Specific Plan, identifying and defining public benefits, amending the G eneral Plan, updating the zoning regulations, and conducting the environmental review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Although the City does not own the land, the City maintains zoning authority over the land. This is s ame authority by which the City regulates all land that is not public right-of-way (streets, etc).
In the case of FDC, the City has benefit of a working relationship with the State and -47-
understands the State intentions on securing a private master developer (as opposed to the State itself) to develop the site.
One unique element of the agreement requires the City to conduct an analysis to help determine project scenarios that will be financially feasible for a future master developer. Preparation of financial feasibility analyses is typically undertaken by the property owner or a developer to assess realistic development scenarios to pursue. This information, while used by developers to decide whether to pursue a project, is often not known to a jurisdiction (city or county) during planning efforts. In the case of FDC, the City benefits from understanding the financial feasibility analysis, which identifies the range for reasonable expected development. This information is also needed by DGS to inform their disposition process and select a master developer.
State’s (DGS) Role: T he State DGS, acting as the property owner, will lead the property disposition process, which will include either sale or lease of the land to a master developer, for the purposes of pursuing one or more projects in compliance with the City’s Specific Plan. As part of this process, the State will release a Request for Proposals (RFP) and select a master developer with a proposal that most closely reflects State and City goals and regulations for the site. DGS has expressed that they will likely start the disposition process and release the RFP after the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) public review period is complete. This ensures that the State’s disposition process can include with a clearly defined scope of development, Specific Plan regulations, and a detailed understanding of the environmental impacts associated with the site. Note that any project proposal would be processed through the applicable application types identified in the Specific Plan.
State (DDS) Role: DDS is the second state agency that has an active role in the FDC site planning process. DDS provides a wide variety of development disability services to Californians, which can include projects that build additional affordable and/or supportive housing. In accordance with SB 82, and demonstrated in the three developed land use concepts, DDS will retain 15 acres for housing that will be developed in a manner similar to the Harbor Village Apartments. DDS anticipates developing up to 480 residential units adjacent to the existing Harbor Village Apartments, with 20% of the units dedicated to individuals with developmental disabilities, like the Harbor Village model. Any units constructed by DDS as part of the FDC site will count towards the City’s fulfilling its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) obligation. This 15- acre portion of the property will be included in the Specific Plan area and studied under the EIR. DDS has committed to developing their portion of the site in accordance with the City’s Specific Plan, and continue to meet and collaborate with the City to ensure that the Specific Plan’s land use policies support the State’s DDS housing goals and interests.
State’s Role in Emergency Operations Center (EOC): DGS is also overseeing and responsible for the construction of the Emergency Operations Center (EOC). -48-
Additional information is available online at:
https://buildcaloessreoc.turnersocal.com/. The May 27, 2025, staff report included additional information on decisions made between the City and State regarding this project, including the revised alignment of Shelley Circle and the identified location of the EOC community tower, which will impose height restrictions located directly north and east of the EOC site. These decisions will be reflected and memorialized in the Specific Plan.
City and State Coordination: The City and State entities (DGS, EOC development team and DDS) hold bi -weekly coordination meetings to discuss the progress of the Specific Plan, EOC project, anticipated DDS housing and DGS disposition process.
These continued meetings are critical in ensuring shared information, goals, and interests as they relate to the overall FDC site.
Community Outreach and Input
The City launched the c ommunity outreach component of the FDC Specific Plan process in 2023. The goal was to optimize public participation and encourage public input on the plan development. Many comments on the types and amount of housing, on the internal circulation and connectivity to the surrounding community, and parks and opens spaces were gathered and summarized. Outreach events have included in -person and virtual workshops, pop -up events, and study sessions.
Materials for all workshop and pop -up events were provided in both English and Spanish, with Spanish interpreters available to assist attendees as needed. For in - person meetings, the City’s Parks and Community Services Department provided activities and childcare resources to enable parents to attend and more fully engage in the outreach process.
Workshop 1 : The first workshop, which consisted of three workshop meetings, conducted in November 2023, focused on idea generation for the ingredients of great neighborhood which was used to inform a draft vision statement and set of guiding principles. The summary of the input received is available on the FDC website, through this link: https://fdcplan.com/wp-
content/uploads/2023/11/Workshop-1_Summary_DRAFT_Revised_11.28.23.pdf
Workshop 2: The second workshop was conducted in January 2024, consisting of three workshop meetings, and focused on the draft Vision and Guiding Principles, based on the feedback from the first workshop series. The summary of the input received is available on the FDC website, through this link: https://fdcplan.com/wp- content/uploads/Workshop-2_Summary_FINAL.pdf
Workshop 3: Held across 3 workshop meetings in February and March 2024, the third workshop series provided an open house format which gave the community opportunity to walk through various stations and learn more about a variety of topics -49-
related to the FDC Specific Plan. The summary of the input received is available on the FDC website, through this link: https://fdcplan.com/wp-content/uploads/Open- House-3_Summary_English.pdf
The first three workshop series were advertised across a range of media and print forms (detailed on each workshop summary) and documented input from 419 attendees.
Workshop 4: The input received on the first three workshops was used to inform and shape the three Project Conceptual Alternatives, which incorporated key community features identified by the public. Held across three workshop meetings in July and August, 2024, the fourth workshop focused on the draft Land Use Concepts . The summary of the input received is available on the FDC website, through this link:
https://fdcplan.com/wp-content/uploads/Open-House-4_Summary_ENGLISH.pdf
Throughout the fourth workshop outreach events , the City received 719 survey responses, along with 10 emails and 8 comment cards . A summary of the input received on the land use concepts was included as an attachment in the May 27, 2025, staff report.
Financial Feasibility Recap
As required by the agreement with the State, the City oversaw preparation of a Financial Feasibility Analysis (“Analysis”) for the FDC site, using three land use concepts as test cases. The three land use concepts included different unit counts, at 2,300 units, 3,450 units, and 4,000 units, along with land use components identified during public outreach. Incorporating market demand and pricing, t he Analysis provides a detailed summary of the development cost at the FDC site — excluding the cost that affordable housing developers will pay to build and operate their projects.
The analysis also includes project -wide infrastructure costs—demolition, roads, water, and sewer , along with public safety and open space needs for the level of development. Feasibility alternatives (i.e., changes in the assumptions for each land use concept that would make each concept more feasible) were included to identify adjustments that could make the overall project financially feasible. The Analysis was provided as an attachment to the May 27, 2025, staff report.
Financial feasibility analyses are prepared and analyzed from the perspective of potential developers and ask the question : do the concepts provide for a sufficient number of market rate housing units to offset the costs to support the affordable housing, the DDS housing, and other amenities, such as public safety and parks and recreation facilities. It can be used to predict the potential feasibility of a project with the most accurate information at hand at the time the analysis is conducted. While these analyses try to anticipate future market trends, unforeseen trends or market factors could adjust identified feasibility when the master developer is ready to -50-
construct. The Analysis is a ‘snapshot’ of the current market and its considerations.
For FDC, the Analysis evaluated the three concepts to determine how and whether a developer could redevelop the site and achieve an industry standard internal rate of return for project feasibility (15%).
In evaluating the three land use concepts, this analysis estimates the cost to develop several land use concepts along with an Internal Rate of Return (IRR). Th e industry standard deems 15% to be the minimum return that outside investors expect to invest equity in a development project. The table below is a summary of the results of the financial feasibility analysis:
Table 1: Total Cash Flow and Annual Internal Rate of Return Concept 1 Concept 2 Concept 3
Cash Flow Sums with Financing and Cost/Revenue Escalation Total Cash Inflow $810,300,000 $2,148,000,000 $2,905,000,000 Total Cash Outflow -$962,700,000 -$1,779,000,000 -$2,235,000,000 Total Net Cash Flow -$152,360,000 $369,100,000 $669,8900,000 Financial Feasibility Metrics
Annual Internal Rate of
Return (IRR)
-20% 14.6% 16.7%
Feasibility Surplus/(Gap) ($233,000,000) ($5,020,000) $26,700,000
Note: The total cash inflow and outflow is a simple sum of the monthly estimates. The data are not discounted and thus do not reflect the time value of money. However, the IRR does account for the timing of inflows versus out-flows.
Based on the analysis above, Concept 1 would cost more to develop than it would generate in income. This concept would need additional subsidy of over $233 million to be feasible at a 15.0 percent IRR. Absent a subsidy, it is highly unlikely that this development scenario would come to fruition. Concept 2, which showing slightly less than the industry standard IRR of 15% would still be considered financially feasible as it is anticipated a developer could make minor adjustments to their own pro forma or to the project to bring it to the 15% rate that would make the project viable. Finally, Concept 3 is financially feasible, with an IRR of 16.7%.
While normally unavailable to the City as part of a Specific Plan development process, the Financial Feasibility Analysis results are significant in that they provide an indication of what a master developer is likely to propose on the FDC site as the range of units. This allows the City to more clearly forecast estimated population growth and needs, along with infrastructure and public service needs to support development at the FDC site. The Analysis points to the reasonable expected development level to more clearly reflect Concept 3 than Concept 1 . To achieve an -51-
IRR at the industry standard of 15%, it is estimated that the unit range could be approximately 3,600 to 3,800 units.
To prepare a viable Specific Plan and conduct environmental review under CEQA, the City is responsible for evaluat ing a land use concept that is both physically and financially viable and reasonably expected. The City can then ensure a Specific Plan that achieves a balance of community desires and key public benefits -such as affordable housing, open space, and community amenities - as well as plan elements that are reasonably expected to be seen as part of a future project proposal based on feasibility.
In accordance with the FDC project agreement, the process has now progressed to the Preferred Plan Framework.
This process entails Planning Commission input on
components to include on a Preferred Plan . These components are based on input received from the community survey and the Vision and Guiding Principles for the Specific Plan. Collectively, the Planning Commission and public input will provide a foundation for components of the Specific Plan.
Planning Commission Input: May 27, 2025, Study Session
Based on the Financial Feasibility Analysis of the land use concepts , staff presented a Study Session on the Preferred Plan Framework to the Planning Commission at a study session item on May 27, 2025. The session included a comprehensive presentation covering land use concepts, varying residential densities — including affordable housing—commercial uses, circulation networks, and open space planning.
Commissioners also were provided with an overview of the community outreach and feedback, financial feasibility findings, and necessary site and infrastructure improvements. The purpose of the study session was to gather input from the Planning Commission to help refine the project description, shape the Preferred Plan Framework, and inform the scope of environmental review required under the CEQA. The May 27, 2025, FDC Study Session Staff Report and Materials are included as Attachment 1 to this report. Below is a high -level s ummary of comments and input received from the Planning Commission at this meeting:
a. Residential Development Range and Affordability Targets
A range of input was received on target residential development ranges for the Specific Plan, with some acknowledgement that the community voiced support to stay closer to the Housing Element target (2,300 units), some input to increase the target to what is financially feasible but not go beyond this point and some input to study the maximum density for the purposes of the EIR (4,000 units) and provide a target range that is financially feasible in the Specific Plan. A few Commissioners asked about a potential land swap concept (further discussed in other input received below) and the possibility of using City -owned land between Fair Drive and the -52-
proposed secondary access road adjacent to Harbor Boulevard to provide additional housing and/or open space. There seemed to be consensus amongst the Commission to encourage meeting the Housing Element’s target of 40% affordable units for the FDC site.
b. Development Pattern
The Commission requested additional information on the development patterns considered within the Specific plan, including permitted use types under each land use designation and some additional clarity about density, height, and other potential objective standards. Some Commissioners voiced support for including other community amenity type uses, such as a library or a community room. Some commented that the land use plan doesn’t feel “unique” or like a neighborhood at this stage and would like some additional information to help visual ize what the Specific Plan will entail.
c. Circulation Network
There was some input received on the grand promenade , mainly requesting more detail on the components within the promenade, including size and look of sidewalks, planting areas and the adjacent development patterns (i.e. mixed -use development, housing or any commercial component). The Planning Commission acknowledged that while the promenade was supported during public outreach, further refinement was needed to enhance its connectivity, reinforce sense of place and promote walkability across the development.
d. Open Space and Community Amenities
While the re was no specific Planning Commission direction on the minimum open space desired, they did support open space overall and questioned how the Specific Plan can incorporate the City’s General Plan open space goals citywide and for th e FDC site. While the staff recommended minimum open space for the Specific Plan that is lower than the Citywide or FDC specific goals in the General Plan, the amount suggested assumed that these goals would be met through dedication of land, the cost of improvements to the land and additional park impact fees that the master developer would pay in accordance with the City’s Local Park Ordinance . The components for meeting the open space requirements will be further discussed in the analysis of the staff report. Finally, staff received input regarding the commercial components of the plan and heard support for distribution of commercial space within the Specific Plan, as well as options for both mixed use configurations and standalone retail configurations.
e. Other Input Received
-53-
Additional input from the Planning Commission was received and is summarized below:
• Land Swap concept: Some commissioners queried the DDS letter dated June 28, 2024, included in the staff materials, and asked if there was still an opportunity to explore a land swap concept as part of the project . At the meeting, staff explained that this concept was further discussed with the Department of General Services (DGS), who did not express interest at the time in pursuing the concept. However, if a consensus is received amongst both the Planning Commission and City Council to continue to explore this option, staff will continue to engage in discussions with the state and assembly members about its viability as an option and the potential steps (including the current deed restrictions on the use of the golf course land and potential legislation needed) to consider a land swap option. One additional consideration is that the golf course areas outside the FDC site were not included as part of the City’s Measure K process, which means a major land use designation change would require a vote of the people.
• Further community outreach : some C ommissioners expressed concerns over the results of the community survey conducted when compared to the viable land use options under the financial feasibility analysis and suggested slowing down the process and conducting additional community outreach.
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS:
Recommendations for the Vision Statement and Guiding Principles
The Planning Commission requested a summary of the vision statement and guideline principles to evaluate conceptual land use plan framework. Th e draft vision statement and guiding principles have been included as Attachment 2.
A vision statement is an aspirational description of the desired future for a specific area. It reflects the community’s long -term goals and values and serves as a foundation for land use decisions, physical development, and policy direction. In a Specific Plan, the vision ensures that future growth aligns with local priorities while supporting broader city and state goals such as housing production, sustainability, and livability . Guiding principles are the core values that support the vision. They provide a decision -making framework and help shape the plan’s development by emphasizing priorities like connectivity, inclusivity, adaptability, and economic vitality.
For the Fairview Developmental Center (FDC) Specific Plan, the vision guides the planning process and unifies input from stakeholders and the community. Feedback from outreach events (Workshops 1 and 2) and study sessions informed the draft vision and guiding principles, which reflect both community perspectives and -54-
broader planning goals. These drafts will continue to evolve and will be included in the final Specific Plan to guide future development of the site.
FDC Specific Plan and its Components
A Specific Plan is a tool used by jurisdictions to implement the General Plan in a defined area within the City. The required content is established by Sections 65450 – 65457 of the California Government Code. A Specific Plan incorporates the elements of the community vision into a Preferred Land Use Plan, and planning control, detailed standards and design direction that may supplement and/or differ from a City’s traditional zoning regulations. In addition to establishing a land use plan and development regulations, a Specific Plan must also provide conceptual plans for circulation and infrastructure improvements needed to support the intended land uses. It must also address the phasing of development, financing, and how development applications will be processed.
The City’s responsibility and due diligence is to create a specific plan for the FDC site that ensures that future development provides all required infrastructure, public services, open space, public safety services, and appropriate development impact fees to fund services that cannot be constructed. Because specific plans, unlike the zoning ordinance, govern a defined geographic area, jurisdictions will establish a scope of development that is anticipated to evaluate infrastructure and land use needs. Understanding the needs guides the development requirements that are included in the specific plan. As such, it is important for a jurisdiction to identify the most realistically expectable level of development to ensure adequate requirements are in place to support that development and broader public needs.
The FDC Specific Plan will be the basis for all future development applications on the site. The developer(s) selected by the State will be required to comply with the adopted Specific Plan , but could utilize other permitted housing state legislation, including State Density Bonus Law (SDBL) provisions, as part of their entitlement requests and application to the City.
Key Chapters and Components of a Specific Plan will typically include existing conditions, visions and guiding principles, the main components of the plan and administration and implementation requirements for how future projects under the project will be processed. Specific Plans typically include the following Chapters:
• Introduction
• Existing Conditions and History of the FDC Site
• Vision and Guiding Principles
• The Plan
-55-
o Land Use Plan (including permitted uses under each land use category such as housing/affordable housing, commercial, community amenities, etc.)
o Mobility and Circulation (including roadway and network layout, street sections, bicycle, and pedestrian path and access requirements, etc.) o Open Space (including minimum required open space, types of open space permitted and possible locations for open space, recreational amenities, dedications, fees to be paid, construction and maintenance responsibilities)
o Infrastructure (including infrastructure requirements for the plan such as water, storm drain, sewer and drain utilities)
o Public Services (including additional requirements for public services such as police and fire facilities, as well as drainage to accommodate the need of additional residents and services)
• Administration and Implementation
More detailed examples of the components of the Specific Plan, including some visual representations of possible requirements, will be included in the staff presentation. While the Specific Plan will include clear standards to ensure that infrastructure and public needs are accommodated, it will also include flexibility to accommodate factors such as evolving housing products. The City’s goal is to ensure that development at the FDC site implements community infrastructure and public needs that are met by a developer as they pursue a reasonably expected development plan. To facilitate the City’s housing goals, the Specific Plan is not intended to predict development scenarios or overly dictate requirements.
The FDC Specific Plan will serve as the regulatory and policy document guiding the site’s transformation over time. It will also support the State’s future solicitation of a Master Developer to implement the vision in alignment with the City’s goals and community input. Therefore, the overall goal of the project description is to set maximum development parameters that can be studied and can anticipate possible environmental impacts. This process ensures transparency for the public and will help the master developer with a transparent and efficient entitlement process for future City review.
DEVELOPMENT OF THE PREFERRED LAND USE PLAN:
Following community input and financial feasibility analysis , the City’s planning effort contemplated the development of land use alternatives and from those alternatives, a -56-
preferred land use plan. Staff is requesting that the Planning Commission provide guidance about components that should be included in a preferred land use plan.
To assist in the Planning Commission efforts and public input, the consultant team developed potential land use alternatives as starting points for discussion. The goal in developing these alternatives was to incorporate components of the studied land use concepts that were desired by the community as well as incorporate aspects of good planning design with consideration of the results of the financial feasibility analysis.
These alternatives , shown below, were vetted, and discussed with City staff across multiple divisions/departments and used to formulate the preferred land use plan that was shown to the Planning Commission at the May 27, 2025, hearing. All land use plans considered can accommodate the staff recommended components of the preferred plan that was shared with the Planning Commission at the last study session (housing target range, minimum amount of open space dispersed through the site, commercial space, grand promenade, and flexibility for a future master developer).
All alternatives are within a development unit range that is considered reasonably expected, based on the financial feasibility analysis.
Staff recommends setting a
minimum residential development of 2,300 units and a maximum residential development of between 3,600 -3,800 units (i.e., the Planning Commission would recommend a number within this range to set as the maximum). The minimum residential development is to ensure that the FDC Specific Plan meets the affordability goals that were outlined in the City’s adopted Housing Element.
State Density Bonus Law now allows additional density on all housing development projects that provide a certain level of affordable housing. Density bonuses can range from 5% to 80% of the number of base units. For example, a development with 100 base units can earn up to an 80% density bonus (180 units) if all the units are affordable (very -low, low, or moderate -income levels). In another example, a development with 100 units base units can earn up to a 50% bonus (150 units) if 40% of the units are restricted to a very-low income level.
The reason for a maximum number is to accommodate for the reasonable expectation that a master developer will pursue a financially feasible development scenario. This ensure s that the City studies all developmentally feasible options and ensures that future projects meet the Specific Plan and adequately fulfill infrastructure and public service requirements to support the approximate level of development.
These recommendations seek to strike a balance between the City planning for the reasonably expectable range of development, achieving City and State housing goals, and ensuring that development “pays its way.”
Considered Land Use Plan Alternative 1
-57-
The first considered land use plan included dispersed open space, with large portions strategically place within eh communication tower height limitation area. The plan also included lower density development along the proposed promenade and a curved secondary road, though this feature was not preferred due to restricted turning radius for larger vehicles and that is created awkward shaped parcels that may be difficult to develop. Finally, commercial was placed near the secondary access to minimize neighborhood traffic and convenience, placed adjacent to open space to create opportunities for outdoor dining and other indoor/outdoor retail opportunities.
Figure 1: Considered Land Use Concept Map 1
-58-
Considered Land Use Plan Alternative 2
The second considered land use plan incorporated open space near Fair Drive to minimize traffic into the community and provide open space adjacent to the golf course. The plan also incorporated lower density development along the promenade and near the EOC site due to the communication tower height limitations. The secondary access road coming into the bottom of the Specific Plan was considered, but ultimately rejected as it did not meet EOC requirements.
Figure 2: Considered Land Use Concept Map 2
Considered Land Use Plan Alternative 3
-59-
Considered Land Use Plan 3 included the same open space near Fair Drive and lower density development along the promenade and adjacent to the EOC site. The plan adjusted the secondary access road to meet EOC requirements and adjacent to commercial space to accommodate convenient access and minimize neighborhood traffic. This considered land use concept most closely reflects the staff recommendation preferred land use plan that was shown to the Planning Commission at the May 27
th Study Session.
Figure 3: Considered Land Use Concept Map 3
-60-
During the May 27 th Study Session, the commission and public requested additional information on the Specific Plan process, which has been provided above and will be included in a more detailed visual form in the staff presentation. The land use plan is intended to be more high -level, with designated land use type and key components of the plan. The land use map identifies potential areas for housing development but does not describe the maximum density or height at these locations, allowing flexibility for the master developer as part of the entitlement process. The Specific Plan will then evolve this land use plan further with additional details, requirements, and considerations. As part of the City’s obligation to plan the FDC site to accommodate a reasonably expected level of development , staff has reached a critical point in the project to complete an initial draft the Specific Plan based on the received input. It could also be seen as a study plan that can continue to be refined once a draft Specific Plan is available for review but will be used to study the environmental impacts under CEQA before a final draft Specific Plan is realized . As mentioned above, not accounting for a reasonably expected level of development will result in the City in adequately planning for the infrastructure and public service requirements to support the development.
Key considerations for a preferred land use plan were included in the May 27 staff report including balancing land use components, supporting delivery of affordable housing, ensuring financial viability, and planning for long-term flexibility. Based on the feedback received from the Planning Commission , staff have made certain revision to the key elements below for continued Planning Commission considerations on the working draft preferred land use plan, as outlined below:
1. Residential Development range
Based on the input from the Planning Commission and public, as well as the need to adequately plan for a realistic development scenario, the Planning Commission could consider setting a minimum residential development of 2,300 units and a maximum residential development of between 3,600-3,800 units (i.e., the Planning Commission could recommend a number within this range to set as the maximum).
2. Circulation Network: Grand Promenade
The revised land use concept map still includes a Grand Promenade or grand entryway to create an identity for this project. This idea has received strong community support. Staff has provided some additional illustrati ons to further identify the types of uses that would be encouraged and allowed along the promenade including commercial uses, housing, mixed use development, open space, widened sidewalks and bicycle lanes (including in the illustrations -61-
provided within Attachment 3). Additionally, Attachment 4 provides street cross sections for the potential Grand Promenade, as well as other internal roadway configurations being considered for the Specific Plan. The promenade is intended to serve as the site’s primary spine, enhancing connectivity, reinforcing a sense of place, and promoting walkability across the development.
3. Open Space: 12 acres (minimum) of Publicly Accessible Open Space
While staff originally proposed a minimum open space of 10 -12 acres, the staff propose consideration of a minimum of 12 acres based on input from the commission and the community. While this minimum does not meet the current General Plan policies for the City and FDC site, the developer would provide a combination of land, improvements to the parks and trails, and park impact fees consistent with the City’s Local Park Ordinance. A defined minimum amount of publicly accessible open space sets the minimum parameter to meet local and State parkland standards and provide accessible recreational opportunities for future residents and visitors. In addition, staff will consider including incentives in the Specific Plan that will further encourage the provision of publicly accessible open space beyond the minimum requirement.
4. Specific Plan Land Use Plan and Development Standards: Built-in flexibility for future Master Developer with certainty for the community
The Specific Plan should be designed to ensure that infrastructure and public services associated with development of the FDC site are provided as part of future project. The Plan will also provide flexibility to accommodate evolving housing products , as the market conditions change over time while maintaining community input and certainty around the plan. This includes adaptable land use designations (including a minimum of 10,000 and a maximum of 35,000 square feet of commercial and/or retail space) and phasing strategies while maintaining the plan’s core principles and community objectives. Staff also revised the land use map figure, to identify additional locations for potential commercial and mixed -use development, along the grand promenade and dispersed throughout the plan.
5. Working Draft FDC Preferred Land Use Concept Map
Figure 4 illustrates the revised working draft preferred plan that incorporates the input from the Planning Commission. It is included in the staff report to provide something for the Planning Commission to react to and continue to provide input on. The draft plan shown below could accommodate a minimum unit range of 2,300 units and a range of housing units (up to 4,000 units ), a -62-
grand promenade, minimum open space of at least 1 2 acres and pedestrian trails and a street network that can accommodate all modes of transportation (vehicles, bicycle lanes and pedestrian routes), including a secondary access route from Harbor Boulevard. Commercial and mixed-use configurations have been added to the land use map, distributed across the site, with some focus on potential options along the grand promenade and within the interior of the plan. The draft plan also maintains flexibility to be memorialized into the Specific Plan to accommodate changing market conditions, evolving housing products and a range of potential housing developers depending on the State’s disposition process.
Figure 4: Working Draft FDC Preferred Land Use Concept Map
Project Description Considerations for CEQA
Public and Planning Commission/City Council input received over the course of the Specific Plan process, as well as input received on the draft preferred plan , will be used to shape and memorialize the requirements in the Specific Plan. It will also be used to set the thresholds and parameters for the project description that ultimately -63-
gets studied under the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This project description will be included in the Notice of Preparation (NOP) and used to initiate the environmental review, leading to the preparation of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR).
It is commonplace for the project description, as studied under CEQA, to include maximum development capacity and thresholds, so that the City can accurately study and anticipate all possible environmental impacts. One example of this is studying up to 4,000 units as part of the EIR, even though the Specific Plan may set a maximum residential unit threshold lower than this number (e.g. 3,600-3,800 units). The higher threshold is chosen for CEQA purposes because it was shown in land use concepts and is therefore reasonably assumed that a future application may propose up that threshold. Studying this maximum threshold also ensures that the City accurately studies all potential environmental impacts and discloses them to the public. Another example of this threshold would be to study a maximum height threshold within the EIR project description, even though the Specific Plan may set different height maximums for varying parcels within the plan. Additionally, CEQA alternatives are used as a tool to study other potential scenarios under CEQA. Typically, these consist of a project alternative that would be seen to provide reduced environmental impacts (e.g., a smaller-scale or lower intensity project).
GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE:
The City’s 2021–2029 Housing Element identifies the site as a Housing Opportunity Site and allocates 2,300 residential units, with 40% of those units expected to be affordable to very low - and low -income households. To implement this vision, a General Plan Amendment will be required to reconcile the current MUC land use designation with the housing capacity and policy direction in the Housing Element.
The Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan will serve as the guiding planning document to implement these goals and provide a comprehensive framework for future development.
PUBLIC NOTICE:
There is no public notice requirement for the Planning Commission Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan Study Session. However, to encourage public engagement, the City provided the following informal outreach:
• The date and time of the study session were posted on the project website. • Information about the study session was shared via the City’s social media channels and distributed to the project email list and citywide email lists (which includes over 8,000 email addresses).
-64-
As of the date of this report, no written public comments have been received . Any public comments received prior to the June 23, 2025, Planning Commission meeting will be forwarded separately to the Planning Commission.
NEXT STEPS:
Following this meeting, staff will return to the Planning Commission with a refined preferred land use plan and draft project description to a future Planning Commission meeting this summer for further review and a recommendation of the Preferred Plan to the City Council.
Following this, the City Council will consider the aforementioned materials, along with the Planning Commission’s recommendation and to provide direction o n the preferred plan use project, project description, vision statement and guiding principles at a future meeting (likely in August/September) . The goal is to receive direction on some of the main topic areas discussed.
Following direction from the City Council, staff will proceed with the environmental review process. A Notice of Preparation (NOP) will be issued to initiate the environmental review, leading to the preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). Concurrently, staff will continue to refine proposed Specific Plan policies, development standards, and objective design guidelines. Community outreach will be conducted to present the study plan and DEIR to the community for feedback. A follow -up study session with the Planning Commission and City Council will also be held on the draft Specific Plan, with additional opportunity for discussion and refinement. During the DEIR public review period, the public will be able to evaluate and understand the environmental impacts and continue to provide input that will refine the preferred plan and the Specific Plan components. Once input is received and refinements are made, the City would create a final draft Specific Plan and initiate the formal public hearing process to consider adoption of the Specific Plan and associated project approvals. Concurrently, following completion of the DEIR public review period, DGS anticipates releasing a request for proposals to select a Master Developer.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. May 27, 2025, FDC Study Session Staff Report
2. FDC Vision and Guiding Principles
3. Land Use Concept Illustrations
4. FDC Specific Plan Draft Street Sections
-65-
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
To: Planning Commission
From: Carrie Tai, AICP, Economic and Development Services Director
Date: August 21, 2025
Subject: August 25, 2025 Planning Commission Meeting - Agenda Item PH-2
The staff report for Agenda Item PH-2 for the Fairview Development Center Specific Plan indicated that Attachment 4 would be provided under separate cover.
Please see Attachment 4 to the staff report to Agenda Item PH-2. We will print hard copies for the Commissioners for distribution at the meeting. Thank you.
Attachment:
Agenda Item PH-2 Attachment 4 – Street Cross Sections
-66-
Promenade Option 1: (25 mph), Total Width: 110’
Vehicle
Lane
Shoulder 1-Way Class I
Bike Path
Vehicle
Lane
12’12’
ParkwayParkway Parkway
7’
1-Way Class I
Bike Path
7’
Sidewalk
8’ 8’
Parkway
8’8’ 5’5’ 8’
Shoulder
8’
Median
Street Width
14’
54’
ROW Width
110’
Sidewalk
-67-
Promenade Option 2: (25 mph), Total Width: 100’
Vehicle
Lane
Shoulder 1-Way Class I
Bike Path
Vehicle
Lane
11’11’
ParkwayParkway Parkway
7’
1-Way Class I
Bike Path
7’
Sidewalk
8’ 8’
Parkway
8’8’ 8’8’ 8’
Shoulder
8’
Street Width
38’
ROW Width
100’
Sidewalk
-68-
Fence
Vehicle
Lane
8’
Multi-use concrete path Golf Course
12’-16’
Sidewalk
8’
On-Street
Parking
Shoulder
On-Street
Parking
Shoulder
8’ 11’
Vehicle
Lane
11’
Street Width
38’
ROW Width
58’ - 62’
Shelley Circle (25 mph); Total Width: 58’ - 62’
-69-
Fence
Fence
Vehicle
Lane
12’12’ 5’ 12’
Vehicle
Lane
12’
Street Width
24’
ROW Width
58’
Class I
Multi-Use Path
Class I
Multi-Use PathParkway
Parkway
5’
Secondary Access through the Golf Course, Option 1: (25 mph); Total Width: 58’ Golf CourseGolf Course
-70-
Fence
Fence
Secondary Access through the Golf Course, Option 2: (25 mph); Total Width: 64’ Vehicle
Lane
12’12’ 5’6’ 12’
Vehicle
Lane
12’
Street Width
24’
ROW Width
64’
Class I
Multi-Use Path
Class I
Multi-Use PathParkwayDG Path
Parkway
5’
Golf CourseGolf Course
-71-
Vehicle
Lane
Sidewalk
8’
Sidewalk
8’12’
Vehicle
Lane
12’
Street Width
24’
ROW Width
40’
Local Road With Class III and No On-Street Parking (25 mph); Total Width: 40’ -72-
Vehicle
Lane
Sidewalk
8’
Sidewalk
8’
On-Street
Parking
Shoulder
On-Street
Parking
Shoulder
11’8’ 8’
Vehicle
Lane
11’
Street Width
38’
ROW Width
54’
Local Road With Class III and On-Street Parking (25 mph); Total Width: 54’ -73-