THE FINAL SERIES OF WORKSHOPS ON THE FAIRVIEW DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN: WHAT WE LEARNED—AND WHAT STILL WORRIES ME
- Cynthia McDonald
- 5 days ago
- 8 min read
Monday, March 30, 2026 at 6:00 p.m. marks the final workshop for the City of Costa Mesa’s Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan (FDCSP). This last meeting will be virtual, and you can attend via Zoom here: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/83371215287
The first two workshops were, in some ways, alike—and in other ways, very different.
Golfers Show Up. Seniors and Others, Not So Much.
Tuesday’s workshop at the City Golf Course was well attended, largely by golfers. It was hard to get a head count because the golfers kept moving around the room, but there were about 50 people in attendance. Councilmembers Buley, Marr and Reynolds, and Planning Commissioner Zich came to watch. Planning Commissioner Martinez attended the second meeting. Each evening there was a brief presentation.
The golfers’ concern is straightforward and legitimate: the proposed road across the golf course that “may” be required if unit counts increase—which they almost certainly will—cuts directly through active play on several holes. Depending on how the City handles screening, this could either ruin those holes or result in shattered windshields.
And frankly, they’re right to be concerned.
Even if the City requires the Master Developer to hire a golf course consultant to redesign the affected holes, there’s no guarantee the result will be an improvement. One golfer told me the course could use modernization—but will the developer pay for a meaningful redesign? Or will we get the cheapest possible fix? More on that later.
In the meantime, the golfers filled the room and did an excellent job of polishing off the sandwiches the City provided. 😊
Thursday’s workshop at the Senior Center, by contrast, was sparsely attended—so sparsely that Staff appeared to outnumber residents. That smaller crowd had an upside, though: it allowed my better half and me to have deeper, more candid conversations with Staff and the City’s consultant, Placeworks.
Two Questions That Always Matter: Physical Impacts and Financial Impacts
Every real estate development project boils down to two fundamental questions for residents:
1. What are the physical impacts?
2. What are the financial impacts—and who pays?
Many of those answers are buried in the draft Specific Plan.
For example, we learned that both the Police and Fire Departments want substations within the project. Typically, those would be provided by the developer as a community benefit. But here’s the bigger issue: if the roughly 17,000+ units in the Housing Element—and however many more might be allowed under Measure K—are fully built out, the City estimates we’ll need two to three additional fire stations.
Yikes!
Who pays to build those stations? And who pays to staff them—forever?
The Land Deal: Free Land, Costly Cleanup
A Master Developer has not yet been selected, but bids are currently being accepted by the State. According to Staff and Placeworks, the developer will either:
Pay nothing (or virtually nothing—$1) for the land and assume responsibility for site cleanup, or
Enter into a long-term ground lease, typically 99 years.
The financial analysis assumes the developer pays nothing for the land. That implies the remediation costs must be extremely high since the project doesn’t “pencil out” until roughly 3,500 units are built.
Those cleanup estimates are based on what the State paid to remediate the Emergency Operations Center site. However, having reviewed the environmental reports for FDC, we know most contamination was concentrated in the maintenance yard and, secondarily, the central kitchen.
Here’s the problem:
The State is retaining the dirty maintenance yard for low-income housing.
The contaminated kitchen site is left to the Master Developer.
The most recent Phase II environmental report was never finalized, likely because consultants raised concerns that contamination from the maintenance yard could be migrating toward nearby apartments.
So, what happens if cleanup costs are lower—or much higher—than assumed? No one knows unless and until a full, updated Phase II environmental report is completed.
And if the developer opts for a ground lease instead of purchasing the land, who pays for cleanup then? The State? The City?
Enquiring minds would really like an answer.
Meanwhile, the City expects 18–20 years of cleanup and construction. That’s two decades of disruption.
Infrastructure, Parks, and the Risk to the City Budget
Then there’s infrastructure: streets, storm drains, sewer, utilities—and parks.
Will the developer dedicate streets, utilities, and parks to the City? If so, long-term maintenance and repair costs shift to the City unless an assessment district is created. That would push costs onto future residents—assuming the assessments are high enough to cover real costs decades from now. What if they aren’t?
Will all parks be public and dedicated to the City? Or will some be private or semi-private, like One Metro West? The answer matters, and it should be clearly locked into a development agreement that protects the City.
The Golf Course Problem—And a Lack of Leverage
This brings us back to the golf course.
We asked how the City intends to compel the Master Developer to redesign the course in a way that actually works. The Specific Plan says “golf course hole relocation” is the responsibility of the developer—but it does not say the redesign must be done to the City’s satisfaction, nor does it tie the work to a development agreement.
That’s troubling.
The contract between the State and the City gives the City the right to review a development agreement—but not the right to draft it or grant final approval. And since the Specific Plan is largely silent on golf course redesign and doesn’t even reference a development agreement, that should make everyone uncomfortable.
When we asked about this, Staff said there would actually be two development agreements:
1. One between the State and the Master Developer
2. One between the City and the Master Developer
That only raises more questions. How does the City prevent the State from cutting a deal that leaves Costa Mesa holding the bag—financially and operationally—on infrastructure, community benefits, or a half-baked golf course redesign?
Density, Open Space, and Reality vs. Renderings
You may have seen the attractive renderings of a car‑free paseo lined with trees and café tables. But when you look beyond the marketing images and study the actual density diagrams, reality sets in.
The massing diagrams show tall buildings packed closely together, creating a canyon effect rather than an inviting pedestrian space. The decorative paving shown in the renderings may photograph well, but anyone who has ever walked in stiletto heels knows how impractical—and exclusionary—that surface can be in real life.
On the left side of the depiction are large apartment blocks wrapped around parking structures, with long, hotel‑style interior corridors. On the far right, near the so‑called “Multi‑Use Trail,” stands a senior tower that could reach the height of The Tower on 19th—up to 18 stories.
City staff explained that this height is permitted because it does not interfere with the Emergency Operations Center radio tower.
In the image below, the depiction has been rotated 90 degrees, placing the senior tower at the upper left—but its scale remains the same.
And it’s important to remember that whatever density the City signals in these diagrams is not necessarily the final word. Under California’s State Density Bonus Law, a developer can increase the number of units beyond what is shown and receive up to five waivers, including increased height, reduced setbacks, and reduced parking requirements.
Notably absent from the two public meetings was any clear discussion of affordability. The Master Developer—or any developer who later acquires a parcel from the Master Developer—may use the Density Bonus law to add affordable units and, in the process, significantly increase overall density. The Housing Element anticipated approximately 2,300 units on the FDC site, with the following breakdown: 575 very low‑income units, 345 low‑income units, 690 moderate‑income units, and 690 above‑moderate units.
But what happens if that total grows to 3,800 units? Or 4,000? Or whatever number a developer is able to push through? How does that affect affordability requirements? Based on a footnote in the materials, the City does not appear to be holding firm to the 40%/60% affordability ratio. Instead, those decisions may be left largely to the developer.
Despite this level of density, the Specific Plan defines only a minimum amount of open space—and does not clearly state what qualifies as open space. It is also unclear whether the paseo itself, which will double as emergency access, will be counted. If so, we risk conflating circulation space with true parkland.
The result could be more density paired with less usable green space. Even under the minimum requirements, the amount of open space falls well below half of the 4.26 acres per 1,000 residents called for in the General Plan. That should give us pause.
We were told that if density increases without a corresponding increase in unit count, parkland could increase as well. That’s a big “if”—and not a reassuring one.
Traffic: A Blind Spot the Size of the OC Fair
We still don’t know the full traffic impacts—those won’t be disclosed until the City’s Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is released. But one exchange was especially concerning.
I asked the traffic consultant whether they were accounting for OC Fair traffic. The answer was no—they’re only analyzing “daily operations” of the FDCSP.
Jiminy Christmas!
The Fair runs for four weeks every summer and heavily impacts Harbor Boulevard and Fair Drive, not to mention beach-bound traffic. Any traffic study in Costa Mesa that ignores that reality is incomplete.
Stickers, Blocks, and Missed Opportunities
I didn’t think we could get more juvenile than playing with stickers, but then came the block exercise. Without any sense of scale, it was meaningless. I even brought a toy police car to help illustrate building height—but Staff wouldn’t let me leave it on the table. ☹
What’s Next?
City staff will review the public comments received on the Specific Plan and revise the document accordingly. The deadline for comments in April 15 by 5:00 p.m. If you don’t want to navigate the plan online—or print out more than 300 pages—you can review a physical copy at City Hall. I’ve also requested that copies be made available at each of the city libraries, so check there if that’s more convenient. The document can be found here: https://fdcplan.com/wp-content/uploads/FDCSP_PublicReviewDraft_wAppendices_20260316.pdf
Try to look past the grammatical and usage errors, the long and confusing run‑on sentences, and the repetitive filler text. The document relies heavily on passive language—words like “may” and “might.” That kind of ambiguity is inappropriate for a governing document, which should instead use clear, enforceable terms like “shall” and “must.” Focus on what is actually required, not what is merely suggested.
If you do not have time or patience to read the entire document, I recommend starting with the Executive Summary, then focus on:
Chapter 4: Land Use & Urban Design
Chapter 5: Mobility
Chapter 6: Open Space, Landscaping, and Public Art
And if that isn’t enough, the last two chapters that focus on infrastructure, public services, and how the plan will be implemented are somewhat interesting. The Market Study is incomplete and inadequate, so don’t bother.
Public participation at this stage is critical. This draft will shape what is ultimately proposed for one of the largest and most consequential development sites in Costa Mesa.
The City’s EIR is expected to be released next (hopefully soon) and will be open for a 45‑day public review period before it is revised.
Once finalized, both the Specific Plan and the EIR will be presented to the Planning Commission. After Planning Commission approval, the documents will move on to the City Council for final consideration.
Final Thoughts—and a Call for Transparency
There was a lot to learn at these meetings, and I genuinely appreciate the time Staff and the consultant spent answering questions.
That said, at Tuesday’s meeting, former Vice Mayor Jay Humphrey pointedly asked whether there would be a town hall. When the consultant said no, about ten people immediately shouted that they wanted one.
If the City doesn’t hold a true town hall—where residents can ask questions and hear answers—it’s hard to argue that this process is transparent or responsive.
Finally, a small but telling point: the City really needs a better name than the unwieldy “Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan.” Given its central location, “Heart of the City” comes to mind—but that name helped spark a backlash in Redondo Beach that led to a ballot measure (the model for Measure Y).
The City may want to avoid it—but nothing’s stopping you and me from using it. 😉
Comments