THE FUTURE OF THE FDC - THE RESIDENT'S CONCERNS

I MISSED THE POINT!

Good grief!  Late last night I finally posted my long, long, long screed about the meeting held Thursday night at the Costa Mesa Senior Center concerning the future of the Fairview Developmental Center (FDC) site. (HERE)  I blathered on and on and on about the consultant’s presentation, the small crowd (50), but completely neglected to talk about what those folks who took time out of their very busy lives to attend this meeting were concerned about.  Of course, that was the whole reason for the meeting!

IN NO PARTICULAR ORDER

I’m going to attempt to present to you some of those concerns as expressed during the Q & A segment and as described in the individual table wrap-ups.  I won’t give you every comment and may not give you proper attribution to each because some folks didn’t identify themselves… here we go…

HELIPAD

As I mentioned in my earlier post, I expressed concern that, if a helipad is included in the scheme to carve out 15 acres for the Emergency Operations Center (EOC), that would be a deal breaker because nobody will want to live adjacent to a helipad designed for large military-style choppers.

SONOMA SPECIFIC PLAN

Cynthia McDonald and her hubby, Rick Huffman, lugged with them the binder for the Sonoma Specific Plan.  This is, as they described it, a “sister” site to the FDC and, according to them, was done very well.

MIXED USE

Former Councilman Jay Humphrey was concerned about the mix of residential and business uses on the site.

TRAFFIC AND ACCESS

Several attendees expressed concern about the traffic generated by the new residential uses at the site.  They were concerned about ingress and egress and how our existing transportation infrastructure could handle the increase.

HARBOR VILLAGE

Some residents were concerned about the future of Harbor Village because of the proximity to this site.

HOW BIG IS THE ACTUAL SITE?

Concern was expressed about how much land would actually be left for residential development if the EOC is included.  The number seemed to be amorphous.

COMMUNICATION/NOTIFICATON

Several people expressed concern about the apparent lack of communication about this issue.  They said they had just heard about this meeting the day before.  The small turnout supports that concern.  One speaker expressed concern that there was no video record being made of this meeting, either by The City or private sources.

PLAYING FIELDS

One speaker expressed an opinion that part of this site should be used for dedicated Little League fields, citing that The City has only one field and must depend on the Joint Use Agreement with the Newport Mesa Unified School District for playing space.

WHO CONTROLS THE PROPERTY?

Concern was expressed about just who controls the property in the future.  And who pays for it?  Should the city underwrite the cost?

PUBLIC SAFETY

Concern was expressed for the ability of our Police and Fire organizations to properly protect this property when it’s built-out.

THE PROCESS

In a bit of irony, former mayor, Sandy Genis, brought her wealth of knowledge and experience to this meeting and, among other things, spoke about her concern for “the process”, stating she was hoping for a healthy exchange of ideas - which she said while engaging in a healthy exchange of ideas.  I smiled...

SHANNON’S MOUNTAIN

Former councilwoman Wendy Leece expressed concern for “Shannon’s Mountain”, the planning for which seems to have fallen by the wayside.

AFFORDABILITY

Several attendees expressed concern for the affordability of housing on this site, stating things like, “Our kids cannot afford to live in the city where they grew up.”

THE EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER

Several attendees expressed the opinion/concern that the proposed EOC is incompatible with the other residential uses planned for the site.  This was emphasized by the fact that there is a MUCH BETTER alternative site located in Tustin.  It’s bigger, (24 acres) in a commercial zone and is close to 3 freeways.

RETENTION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES

A few people felt some of the existing structures - the auditorium, pool, etc., - should be retained and re-purposed.  Others felt MOST of the existing structures should be re-used to save money.

RV PARKING

An opinion was given that the site could be used as a safe place for folks living on the streets in RVs to park their rigs safely - at least until construction begins in a few years.

PARKS, PLAYGROUNDS AND TREES

Opinions were expressed that significant outdoor recreation sites should be included in any plan - parks, playing fields, walking and bike paths.  Opinions were expressed about retaining as much of the existing tree canopy as possible.

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

Concern was expressed about the lack of access to public transportation.  There needs to be a “transit hub” for this site.

SCHOOLS

Some folks thought there should be planning for a school within the footprint of the site.

VETERAN AND SENIOR HOUSING

Several people spoke supporting the use of the site for housing for senior citizens and veterans.

WORKFORCE HOUSING

The project should include affordable housing for those folks who actually work in Costa Mesa, reducing long commutes from home to work.

RETENTION AND EXPANSION OF BIKE PATHS

Some speakers requested consideration be given to expanding existing bike paths nearby.

SUBSIDIZE EMPLOYEE HOUSING

The City should subsidize housing costs for employees who would reside on this site.

WATER USE

Concerns were expressed about the amount of water this site would require.

THAT’S ALL, FOLKS

There you have it, dredged from my chicken-scratch notes from the evening.  Clearly, there is plenty of concern about this project.  If you want another take on this meeting visit the entry on the Goat Hill Rodeo blog, (HERE)

AFTER THOUGHT

Considering that this meeting moved briskly and still used up the allotted time, I wonder how it would have gone if, in fact, a couple hundred people had showed up?  Would we still be there, asking and answering questions?  And, would there have been enough cookies to go around?