I attended two meetings of Workshop No. 4 for the Fairview Developmental Center (FDC) Specific Plan. The first was at the Norma Herzog Community Center on Wednesday evening and consisted of a slide presentation in English and Spanish. That was followed by an opportunity to view about a dozen posters and ask questions of City Staff and consultants. Surprisingly, there were no stickers, but there is a survey, which can be submitted online (more on that below). It was attended by about 30 residents and there were also quite a few Staff members and consultants, along with a City Council member, City Commissioners and Committee members. We certainly enjoyed the air conditioning!
The following night was the second meeting at St John’s Catholic Church (also attended by about the same number of folks). I also attended that meeting because after trying to digest what I saw and heard the prior night I still had many questions for Staff and the consultant. Unfortunately, many of my questions remain unanswered, but that is not due to Staff or the consultant, but rather the State of California. Here is a link to the webpage where you can find the slide deck and the posters. https://fdcplan.com/participate/#wkshp-4
FYI, I am not in agreement with any of the concepts that were presented, and after doing more research on what was presented, I have grave concerns about the site conditions, the allocation of the density bonus units, and the concepts in general. I suggest you read what is written here because it is in furtherance of the mission of Costa Mesa First: “Costa Mesa First brings people together to create a great place to live, work and visit. Our mission is to educate Costa Mesans about planning policies in Costa Mesa so they make knowledgeable choices when voting. We encourage residents to choose walkable, bikeable and inclusive neighborhoods, and the land use and transportation policies and investments needed to make Costa Mesa flourish. Our primary objective is to require Costa Mesa's leaders to put the residents of Costa Mesa first.”
That said, this is what I do know:
THREE CONCEPTS FOR LAND USE. Currently, three concepts exist for the use of what remains of the property. I say what remains because not only has the State taken 15 acres of prime developable property of FDC to build a new Emergency Operations Center (EOC), but we learned Tuesday night that the State intends to earmark another 20 or so acres for about 480 residential units for persons with special needs, and three additional units for those with complex needs.
According to the City’s website: “SB 138, passed in 2023, authorizes the State Department of Developmental Services to construct up to three complex needs homes (5 persons per home, 15 people max) that would require 24/7 staffing. The State budget includes up to $10.5 million to construct the homes. These homes would house individuals for up to 18 months before they transition to another community-based setting.” Further, “SB 82, passed in 2015, allows up to 20 acres of the plan area to be used for new housing for the developmentally disabled. The potential project permitted by the bill is Mixed-Income State Housing and is formerly known as ‘Shannon’s Mountain.’ While the bill allows for supportive housing on site, development options include integration with new housing throughout the specific plan.” None of the three concepts allows for integration. In addition, despite reducing the acreage of the land the City has to develop, the State has not reduced our RHNA allocation.
The State has not provided the final criteria for its units, which makes planning by the City for the approximately 80 remaining acres of FDC exceedingly difficult. I was told that the one constant in the State’s mind is the three complex needs units, which the State wants to put on five acres of land. You can pick out those three units on the depictions as they are surrounded by a lot of green space, but don’t confuse that green space with parkland because it will not be open to the public.
It is believed that the State would retain ownership of the 20+ acres and lease it on a long-term basis to a company that would manage the property, as it has done with Harbor Village. Due to the terms of the current lease with the operator of Harbor Village, Merrimac Way will be authorized for emergency access to all of the FDC parcel, but otherwise will be restricted to use only by the residents of the State-controlled property. In addition, two of the three land use options do not place the new roadway required by the State for the EOC where the State designated it to go. The State wants that roadway to bisect the most southeasterly lot (represented by a dotted line in most of the depictions), which would mostly preclude using that lot as a location for golf course view homes or a dedicated sports complex.
The City has assumed that the existing maintenance yard surrounded by Harbor Village will be used by the State for medium-density housing (three to four stories). The location of other State housing is up in the air and each one of the three concepts puts it in a different location. This, along with street design, means the property boundary changes for each concept, resulting in a minor change of acreage.
In addition, the State has prescribed that none of the buildings can be tall enough to impede the radio transmissions of the 120-foot transmission tower located at the EOC. That implies we likely won’t see anything like the eyesore Tower on 19th Street. We will, however, see a few blocks or more of high-density units in the range of 80 dwelling units per acre (about the size of One Metro West). How many blocks of that depends on which concept you look at.
The parking for the housing would be a combination of surface parking, wrap parking, and podium style (where the housing sits atop the parking), according to housing density.
None of the options for open space achieves the 25% open space desired by the residents, nor does it do anything to satisfy the park level of service prescribed by the City of 4.26 acres per 1,000 residents.
The three options presented at the meetings are draft concepts and subject to change, but any planning by the City is subject to change anyway (more on that below).
CONCEPT 1 – FAIRVIEW PROMENADE (See Photos 1a and 1b). This concept was designed to meet the Housing Element (HE) goal of 2,300 dwelling units at specific income levels (575 units for very low-income households, 345 units for low-income households, 690 units for moderate-income households, and 690 units for above-moderate income households). Included in those income levels are the 483 units on 20.32 acres that are required by the State. Which of the income levels are those units? We don’t know because the State hasn’t provided that information, so the City cannot determine if this will meet the HE goals, but it is likely close.
The zoning would be some medium-density (three to four stories) and more high-density (four to six stories). In this scenario, the land used by the State is across the northernmost part of FDC, with the exception of a small amount of parkland. The commercial space (25,000 square feet) and most of the approximately 14 acres of open space would be located on or near Harbor Boulevard along with a few oddly placed strips of parkland between the buildings.
Concept 1 widens and extends Fair Drive, including a rotary that might be large enough for park space in the middle of it, in addition to what is labeled parkland in the median (think of Broadway in New York City) but that park space likely won’t be used much due to the speed and closeness of traffic. There is a chunk of green space at the end of the Fair Drive extension. I don’t consider this new, wider roadway a “promenade.”
The single entry/exit of Fair Drive discourages residents from outside the FDC Specific Plan area from entering the redeveloped space. This means the community won’t satisfy the request that it become an amenity that all of Costa Mesa can enjoy. The new neighborhood needs to connect with the rest of Costa Mesa, both physically and socially. The active transportation facilities should connect to the Harbor and Joann trails. It needs a central gathering place to meet societal needs. There is no commercial development near the parks (the only gathering places). Because of the parkland deficiency, the strange layout of buildings and streets, the oddly placed commercial, and the lack of social amenities and connection to the rest of the city, Concept 1 gets a “NO” vote from me.
CONCEPT 2 – FAIRVIEW FIELDS (See Photos 2a and 2b). By the way, I don’t understand the names assigned to the concepts since they don’t exactly align with the amenities proposed. My better half says that housing projects are always named after the thing they destroy, so keep that in mind. This one introduces the concept of a density bonus (again, more about this below). The number of dwelling units would be 3,450 which, despite the increase, misses the target in the HE in the low-income and moderate-income categories but bounces up the above-moderate income substantially because the density bonus is going there (575 units for very low-income households, 325 units (misses the target by 20) for low-income households, 325 units (misses by 325) for moderate-income households, and 2,225 units for above-moderate income households). It includes 213 units of senior housing contained in an eight to nine story building. The State housing would consume the entirety of the northernmost portion of the property.
This concept is laid out with a gridwork of tree-lined streets, which makes the neighborhoods more walk and bike friendly. In addition to the Fair Drive entrance, a second entrance located across from the main entrance to Home Depot would be added to accommodate the additional traffic generated by the extra moderate-income housing units. That entrance would cut across the golf course to a new roadway on the perimeter of the southeast corner of the property. This new roadway would require realignment of a fairway.
The parkland has increased to 18 acres, which is 22% of the 80 acres. The City has noted that its calculation excludes the projected population for the State-owned land, but it could meet the park level of service if an exemption for density bonus units was used, but otherwise the developer would need to subsidize it by the payment of fees. That sort of mentality is what has made Costa Mesa park deficient. Harbor Village does not have easy access to park space and the residents there will want to use the new park facilities, so a mathematical trick won’t help.
This plan shows most of the park space being located in the lower southeast corner of the property, next to the EOC. It is large enough to accommodate a sports complex, particularly if the proposed roadway by the State is relocated at the perimeter of the property. The remaining parkland would be located in two areas near the north and west of the parcel. The 25,000 square feet of commercial would be located in the buildings off of Harbor Boulevard that parallel the largest chunk of parkland.
My guess is this concept is (1) designed to satisfy the public’s desire for sports fields, and (2) favored by developers because it gives them the ability to sell more market-rate homes, which would help them recoup the costs of the “affordable” housing. This is an improvement over Concept 1, but still has many of the same problems. Due to the fact the density bonus is used only for higher-income units, this concept fails to address the fact that Costa Mesa needs more housing for lower-income residents. That, along with the parkland issue and the odd location of commercial development, means I’m giving it a thumbs down.
CONCEPT 3 – FAIRVIEW COMMONS (See Photos 3a and 3b). This concept has the least amount of parkland (7.9 acres) the most housing units (4,000), none of which are designed for seniors, and commercial development (35,000 square feet), and would only make sense to a developer. It contains the two entry/exit points from Harbor Boulevard, but this version preserves the location of the roadway requested by the State for the EOC. The increase in commercial might include an office/medical building, which would alter the peak traffic counts. More land (22.7 acres) would be set aside for the housing the State wants. Almost all the housing is high-density (four to eight stories). I have a dreadful feeling this is some developer’s first choice that they want pushed through, but it is an absolute nonstarter for me for many of the same reasons I rejected Concepts 1 and 2.
OH, WE MIGHT HAVE TROUBLE. RIGHT HERE IN FDC. WITH A CAPITAL T THAT RHYMES WITH E FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS. The State commissioned two environmental assessments of the property. It is not unusual to obtain a Phase I assessment for a property that has a prior use, and many lenders require it before even thinking about making a loan secured by what might be a problematic plot of land. However, the State also commissioned a Phase II assessment, which is a more invasive assessment as it includes drilling for soil and groundwater samples. Is there contamination? I have requested copies of the reports from the State. This could mean a costly cleanup for the master developer as the State hasn’t offered to help (if this were a transaction between private parties, you could bet the seller would be contributing to, if not paying for all, the remediation).
The City/consultant did a pro forma analysis of anticipated costs for demolition, remediation and site preparation (See Photo 4). While they allowed $8.6 million for site cleaning, note the $37-46 million for contingencies. That Phase II might be the reason for the high contingency allowance. If something were found in the soil, it could impact surrounding neighborhoods during grading, requiring steps to prevent the movement of dust, along with other mitigation actions, such as the installation of vapor barriers.
SONOMA AND THE NEED FOR TRANSPARENCY ABOUT DENSITY BONUSES. The consultant made a comment during her presentation that they learned a lesson from Sonoma about density bonuses. That prompted me to catch up on the lawsuit against the County of Sonoma. That County government was in charge of the planning of the redevelopment of FDC’s sister developmental center in the city of Eldridge.
As background, California law provides that land being sold by the government and converted to housing, as FDC is, must set aside a certain percentage of the residences as deed-restricted, affordable units. When the master developer satisfies that requirement, it automatically qualifies to add a “density bonus” and can boost the overall housing units up to 50%. Density bonuses are supposed to increase the number of affordable units. Yet, what we see in Concept 2 above does anything but that.
That situation came before the Sonoma County supervisors recently. The sups, who I’m sure are gun shy from losing their pants in a lawsuit filed against the County over the environmental impact report (EIR) for the Sonoma Developmental Center Specific Plan, now have to decide if the increase in units requested by the master developer can be justified. So far, the public has not been receptive to the idea of adding more units that don’t address affordable housing needs. But that issue has been put on hold while the County deals with revising its EIR for the Specific Plan. Why?
In 2023, two citizen groups in Sonoma County filed a lawsuit to block the specific plan for the former Sonoma Developmental Center. The lawsuit challenged the Specific Plan's EIR and argued that it failed to address concerns about wildfire evacuation, environmental conservation, and wildlife corridor protection. The groups said the EIR did not account for the area's history of wildfires or limited roadways. The lawsuit also claimed that the Specific Plan lacked mitigation measures and a monitoring plan and did not adequately analyze project alternatives. In April 2024, a Sonoma County Superior Court judge ruled in favor of the citizen groups, finding that the plan violated the California Environmental Quality Act. Further, the judge criticized the plan's lack of measurable performance standards and called its mitigation measures "vague, facially toothless, and limited to hopeful intentions." He also rejected the County's argument that the plan was "self-mitigating," meaning it would include policies to prevent harm to the environment and community. So, it is back to the drawing board for Sonoma County for a new EIR that addresses the judge’s concerns.
Oh, and that master developer? He is a former business partner of Governor Newsom. Hmm…did that relationship have anything to do with the award to it of the right to purchase the Sonoma Developmental Center property?
INFRASTRUCTURE. None of the concepts contemplates saving any infrastructure at FDC.
All water, sewer and stormwater lines will be replaced. In addition, an underground detention tank for runoff/stormwater is required due to the increase in impervious surfaces. Currently, the site drains onto the golf course, but during one heavy rain this winter the golf course overflowed onto Harbor Boulevard.
All of the concepts increase traffic, but improvements to Fair Drive (the State requires widening the intersection at Harbor for the EOC) and adding an entrance/exit near Home Depot will ease the situation. Since most of the project is residential, the morning and evening peak-hour traffic will be spread out. However, increasing commercial development to 35,000 square feet, including office/medical building(s), would alter peak-hour traffic. Active transportation and/or public transportation improvements in this area will be needed. This community requires more connections to the rest of the city than one or two roads. Multiuser paths connecting to Joann, Tanager and Harbor paths are needed in order to encourage active transportation.
HOW AFFORDABLE IS AFFORDABLE? According to the US Dept of Housing and Urban Development, “affordable housing” is housing on which the occupant is paying no more than 30% of gross income for housing costs, including utilities. Policymakers consider households that spend more than 30% of their income on housing costs to be housing cost-burdened. Consider this:
Will any of the housing in the FDC Specific Plan be for sale affordable housing? I am told that the City is planning for that. That will need to be included in the Development Agreement between the City and the master developer since our current proposed affordable housing ordinance does not require it. Keep in mind that not only does the developer get the benefit of a density bonus, but it also receives a federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credit.
WHAT IS MISSING? The focus has been on housing and playing fields. But what happened to the things the public wanted? Daycare center? Preservation of historic trees? City facilities (like an art center and community garden)? Ensuring a high ratio of very low- and low-income affordable housing? Bike and ped connections? Mixed-use housing? Central community gathering place? Some of those items were contained in the draft “guiding principles,” (see https://fdcplan.com/wp-content/uploads/DRAFTVisioning-Guiding-Principles_REVISED_20240116.pdf) which still need revision. Yes, we need to go there again.
NOTHING IS PERMANENT . . . The biggest problem facing the plans by the City is the State not defining what and where it wants its housing built. It told the City it has to plan to build housing, but it has done nothing but throw roadblocks in the way of putting it at FDC. Another problem is that the City can plan all it wants, but the State is the one who ultimately decides who will become the master developer, something it is supposed to do this year. And don’t be surprised if that master developer, like the one for the Sonoma Developmental Center Specific Plan area, comes to the City and requests amendment to the FDC Specific Plan that doesn’t comport with the City or the residents’ vision of what should be built there.
A FEW MORE THOUGHTS. Why is all the commercial out near Harbor Boulevard? I was told the City wants it there to draw everyone into the businesses. Since it is hidden behind the golf course, that isn’t likely to happen. In addition, that location doesn’t serve the residents of the area well, as it is not within walking distance for many seniors or those residing in the State housing. While it may be tempting to place more commercial in this area, more peak-hour traffic will come with it, so the City needs to be careful.
WHAT IS NEXT? The State will pick a master developer sometime this year. After that, in 2025 the City will prepare a draft EIR and the specific plan document. That work will also require a financial analysis of the project. We can anticipate that each unit of housing will add 2.5 persons to the population of Costa Mesa, along with an increase in motor vehicle traffic. That is important because in 2016 when it was determined that providing services to any building taller than four stories was going to cost the City more than the taxes it collected to provide those services, it caused the City to downsize its plans for high-density housing below the 405 freeway). In 2026 the master developer and City will start “implementation” of the Specific Plan. That work will include a Development Agreement, and I’ll bet the master developer requests changes to the Specific Plan as part of that process.
THE SURVEY. As mentioned in the beginning, the City is conducting a survey. https://www.myinput.com/fdcplan It is short, limited, and multiple choice. My answer to the first question was not one of the options, but rather “None,” so I couldn’t continue the survey. If you are like me, I suggest you send an email to FDCHousingPlan@costamesaca.gov (copy the City Council citycouncil@costamesaca.gov) with your comments about the three proposed concepts, but do so by August 8.
IF NONE OF THE OPTIONS ARE GOOD, THEN WHAT? Some of you may ask if I don’t like the three concepts, then what do I like? I don’t have a brilliant vision for FDC. I recognize that the State has placed constraints on the City’s ability to plan for housing on the property, but I suspect there are options that haven’t been explored.
Most of FDC is hidden behind the golf course and all of the concepts place the EOC and the proposed State housing in the same place. Any increase in traffic, whether it be from housing or the State’s EOC, will require mitigation efforts in the form of widening intersections or new roadways, which we can see because two of the concepts put a new roadway across the golf course. In addition, none of the commercial will be visible from Harbor Boulevard (unless it is large such as Concept 3), and it doesn’t serve many of the residents of the new community, or the folks in the State-owned housing, because it may be hard to reach on foot or wheelchair.
One proposal I have is a land swap between the State and the City. Put the EOC out on Harbor Boulevard and take the EOC parcel and make that golf course property. There could be a private entrance and cueing lane for the EOC off of Harbor that would not intrude into prime developable land. If the City really wants the commercial development on Harbor, then it gets better visibility than it would behind the golf course. If some of the FDC residential buildings had some commercial in them, that would be better. In addition, providing new bike and pedestrian access across the golf course as part of its realignment would alleviate some of the traffic issues.
This is an opportunity for the City to make a dent in satisfying its RHNA allocation. While any housing is needed, the greatest need is for lower-income housing (housing for seniors, veterans, young workers, struggling families, etc.). The City needs to focus on better serving the needs of the Costa Mesa community, not the needs of the master developer. Believe me, the master developer will take care of itself.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE. While I have my ideas, you also have yours. It doesn’t seem that the input given by the citizens at the first few meetings has had much impact on the planning. What is needed here is an advisory committee comprised of residents, advocates for the disabled, seniors, and affordable housing, representatives of youth and sports groups, along with builders and developers. That group can be guided by professional urban planning staff, and City Council members and Planning Commission members can act as liaisons. The more the community is engaged in the planning process, the better!
Comments