Fairview Park meeting grows heated

Jennifer Kho

COSTA MESA -- Residents with property that extends into Fairview Park

are interested in buying the little bits of land, but the city may not be

able to legally sell them.

Residents with views from both sides of the park’s property line met

Tuesday at City Hall for what turned into a heated discussion about homes

that encroach into the park.

“All of you, as private owners, wouldn’t buy a house without a deed,”

said Bill Morris, public services director for the city. “If there’s some

written documentation, please let us see it because, if you’ve got the

rights to that property, we’re wasting your time and ours. At this point,

we’re assuming that it is city property.”

About 20 of 32 backyards on Swan Drive, west of Placentia Avenue,

illegally encroach on the public park, Morris said.

Some of the Fairview Park encroachments, which take the form of

planter boxes, walls and patio furniture, are less than a foot out of

bounds, while others jut nearly 20 feet into the park.

Tim Cromwell, a Swan Drive resident who led the opposition against

paved trails at Fairview Park earlier this year, said he would like to

buy the parkland behind his backyard.

“I would like us to, one, buy the property and, two, form some sort of

association and get some sort of encroachment permit,” he said. “I can

move my tiki bar really simply, but I don’t want to move the 2 1/2 feet

of block wall that I didn’t know was an encroachment when I bought it.”

However, the city may be legally prohibited from allowing

encroachments at Fairview Park or from selling it for private use.

One requirement of the 1986 purchase agreement, under which the

previously county-owned park was sold to the city at a reduced cost, is

that Costa Mesa must retain the parkland “as recreational open space in

perpetuity for the benefit of the public.”

“To me, that’s pretty clear,” said former Mayor Sandy Genis, who

reported the encroachments to the city. “As a little kid, you learn you

don’t take what doesn’t belong to you. Some of you ended up with what

doesn’t belong to you unbeknownst to you, and that’s not right.”

Morris said from his standpoint, the city would be unreasonable to go

after encroachments of 2 inches and less, but that property owners will

be responsible for removing bigger encroachments if the city decides they

need to.

Residents strongly said they didn’t think it should be their

responsibility, however.

“The city owns the property, so why is it encumbered upon me to remove

the encroachment?” asked Vernon Layne, a Swan Drive resident. “I only

moved here two months ago. I didn’t put the encroachment up, so why would

it be up to me?”

Ali Haghjoo, another Swan Drive resident, said he is worried about the

security of the area and about wildlife.

“Once a kid threw a rock at me in my backyard and missed me by one

foot,” he said. “People are talking about putting grass in that area and

trails going nowhere, but right now it’s used as a nesting place for

egrets and it’s pretty nice.

“It would also be nice to see a uniform property line, but I think one

of the dangers of making people remove the encroachments is all the

lawsuits, with people suing the people who originally put the

encroachments there. I think just removing the more serious violations

should be enough,” he added.

The parks and recreation commission is tentatively scheduled to

consider the encroachment issue in March or April, Morris said.