FAIRVIEW PARK MASTER PLAN UPDATE: WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE OCTOBER 30 PARKS AND COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
- Cynthia McDonald
- Nov 16
- 16 min read
Updated: Nov 18
All Commissioners were present, except for Jake Husen (District 1) and Cristian Garcia Arcos (District 4). At this meeting, the only item acted on was the Draft Fairview Park Master Plan Update (MPU) Recommendations. The meeting lasted more than four hours and drew significant public interest.
Chair Kelly Brown (District 5) thanked the public for written comments and spoke at length about the reasons why she requested that the Commission review this item. She said she values the work of the Fairview Park Steering Committee (Steering Committee) and noted that the Steering Committee was not allowed to weigh in on the MPU.
Why This Meeting Was Important: Fairview Park is one of Costa Mesa’s most unique ecological and cultural assets. The MPU aims to:
Protect sensitive habitats and species
Address cultural and archeological resources
Balance recreational use with conservation
Incorporate new technical studies since the original 1998 plan
Presentation. Brian Gruner, Parks and Community Services Director, introduced Kelly Dalton, the Fairview Park Administrator, and Travis Brooks, the consultant from Land IQ. Dalton spoke about the history of the project, which started in January 2018 under the guidance of Cynthia D’Agosta, the former Fairview Park Administrator.
He talked about the purpose and scope of the work:
In addition to the MPU document, three technical reports written by experts were prepared:
Biological resources
Vegetation map and habitat restoration opportunities
Cultural, tribal, and paleontological resources
The four documents are augmentations of the Fairview Park Master Plan adopted in 1998 (Original Plan) and subsequently revised. It is important to read the Original Plan, along with the four new documents, to understand the MPU. Since the last update of the Original Plan in 2008, new species have been identified in the park, and the technical reports contain new information.
Travis Brooks took over the presentation and spoke about the unique features and species of the park, such as the vernal pools, which are rare in Southern California.
He also spoke about the federally documented archeological sites in Fairview Park, which was the location of several precolonial indigenous communities. Brooks dug deeper into the technical reports to explain the changes to the Original Plan.
Brooks spoke about the exceptional number of trails in the park, which is rare in natural settings like Fairview Park. However, public access is creating threats to sensitive biological resources, some of which are protected by federal, state, and local laws. Brooks also covered the outreach meetings and workshops. Here is a list of what the community said was needed in the MPU:
And here are the topics covering the recommendations of the experts who drafted the MPU:
The Big Controversy: Dalton spoke about the recommendations from the governmental authorities and from the Steering Committee. He covered the State Department of Fish and Wildlife’s letter in late September that specifically stated the HSS flying field should be removed from its current location. Note: CDFW did not specify a new location. Because the current location impacts the vernal pools, the fairy shrimp in the pools, and the apian and avian species near the flying field, CDFW considers this a “take” and would require a permit that the City currently does not have. He showed a matrix of the recommendations, their location in the documents, and whether they were in the Original Plan. A link to those recommendations is below.
Next Steps:
Present to City Council and receive Project Definition for CEQA analysis
Draft the Initial Study/Negative Declaration or full Environmental Impact Report if findings require one
30 Day CEQA public/federal/state agency review and comment period for IS/ND
MPU adoption in early 2026
Commissioners’ Initial Questions: Brandice Leger (District 2) asked if the public is aware of the archeological sites in the park. The answer is “Yes.”
Shayanne Wright (At Large) asked to be educated on Measure AA. She was concerned about the triggering of AA. It’s rather disconcerting to me that a Parks Commissioner is not familiar enough with Measure AA; she should have read it as part of her homework. Dalton gave her a basic description of how Measure AA would not impact the MPU because it will maintain, restore, protect (including public safety), and preserve Fairview Park. She asked if the MPU’s goal was to avoid triggering AA. She clearly doesn’t understand that Measure AA is the critical ordinance that upholds the Master Plan. It isn’t the other way around. Dalton explained that the City would prefer not to bring a project to a public vote due to the cost and delay involved. Brooks added that anything in the MPU document would be considered a net gain to the habitat quality. He said it would be difficult for anyone who has really looked at the document to make an argument to the contrary. Wright said, “Yeah, uh, I think a few people would disagree with that in regards to moving the fly field, but we’ll hear from them later.” She asked about the Concerts in the Park not being mentioned in the MPU. Dalton explained that a master plan doesn’t always identify every historical use, but rather proposes changes to uses. Wright’s response was “Yeah, yeah, I think I understand that, um, angle; it’s just hard not to think about that use.”
Chair Kelly Brown (District 5) asked about moving the fly field and the fill to the Eastside. Specifically, was everyone on board? Dalton said that the City has a good working relationship with Orange County Model Engineers (OCME), and OCME felt they didn’t want to be adversely impacted, but that they would be willing to cooperate with scheduling the use of that part of the park. Brown asked for a definition of “passive use,” which appears in several places in the MPU. Dalton said it was used differently by the experts writing the report, but from the City’s point of view, it meant “passing through” a site, such as running, biking, or dog walking through the park, versus stopping and participating in a sport at a single location for a long period of time. Brown asked that a definition be added to the plan. She then asked if there are benefits if the City moves in the direction of calling it a nature preserve. Brooks said that it would educate the public on the ecological and cultural diversity of the park and how to think about recreational use of the park. He said it would reduce the conflicts with state and federal wildlife agencies, and it would help with funding for mitigation efforts.
Public Comment. For nearly one hour, the comments voiced strong opinions that were split on the MPU; here is a summary:
Several comments about OCME being a docent for the park, but that accommodating the Harbor Soaring Society (HSS) would take coordination, and that OCME should be included in any negotiations
Concern that a youth would have a difficult time getting to another fly field on bicycle
Multiple speakers in support of HSS remaining in its current location. and concern that moving the fly field to the East side might trigger AA
Several requests that the name be changed to Fairview Nature Park or Nature Preserve to correctly reflect the qualities and characteristics of the park, and to be able to take advantage of funding for restoration projects
Repair of the damage caused by the fly field use is part of the MPU, which conforms to Measure AA
Better education would solve many problems in the park
Comment that the public is confused about what the MPU accomplishes (doesn’t remove essential trails, dog walking, or stop bicycling, except where public safety and preservation warrant its restriction)
Request that the Commission recommend adoption of the MPU, but strengthen it to include clear language on removing the fly field to meet legal obligations, no loud amplified music or drones, adopt a strong protection plan that includes limiting mowing, and advocate for funding for enforcement that will curb off-trail biking and unleashed dogs
Support of the MPU, but the fly field be moved out of the park; said Staff can show the Commissioners photos of the damage to the bluffs that was caused by the flyers when they flew planes off the bluffs and had to retrieve the planes that crashed; the damage to the bluffs is going to cost more than $1 million to repair
Request that the MPU not paraphrase the regulatory agencies’ requests, but rather quote the agencies verbatim
Leave the history of HSS out of the document, as it doesn’t add anything
Add a staircase to Talbert Park at the south end of the park
Desire to remove restricted bicycle access to the park (bikes are only allowed on certain trails) and add more trails. This speaker falsely stated that Randall Preserve will have full access to all trails in the park. THAT HAS NOT BEEN DECIDED AND THERE IS RESISTANCE TO DOING THAT
Comment about the importance of the availability of the unrefined nature for the students of the Waldorf School of Orange County, and preserving the park through the MPU
Claim that HSS has not met with the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife (USFW)
Statement that USFW has instructed the City to cease the activities of HSS until the MPU can evaluate its impacts
What the speaker was referring to is this email from earlier this year:
From: Medak, Christine <Christine_Medak@fws.gov>
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2025 11:38 AM
To: DALTON, KELLY M. <KELLY.DALTON@costamesaca.gov>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] RE: Harbor Soaring Society at Fairview Park
Thank-you for the update.
For the record, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service does not support activities by the Harbor Soaring Society that impact either federally listed or sensitive biological resources within Fairview Park. It appears the measures we previously provided have not been fully implemented and there are resources in the vicinity of the flying field that were not previously considered (e.g., burrowing owl, bumblebee, and tarplant). We recommend that activities with the potential to impact federally listed/sensitive species are discontinued until the City can complete a full evaluation of potential impacts as part of the master plan update.
Christine L. Medak
Fish and Wildlife Biologist
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
2177 Salk Avenue, Suite 250
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Office: 760-431-9440, ext 298
Statement that the City has to conform to what the regulatory agencies ask
Claim that the planes aren’t endangering the birds and that moving the fly field near Placentia Avenue is not acceptable
Happiness that we finally have an MPU! It is a good one; follow the recommendations of the Steering Committee
Testimony to HSS trampling the habitat to retrieve plans
Request for a viewing platform
Unsupportive of the current draft; request to balance the uses for all people
Question about using park impact fees to fund the MPU since those are supposed to be used to expand parks
Commissioner Comments and Further Questions. It was now 8:15 p.m.
Elizabeth Dorn Parker (District 3) first spoke about her history of living in Costa Mesa and seeing the City change, the Back Bay evolve into a nature preserve, and her desire to do better for the City. In her comments, she asked if HSS had to be at Fairview Park. She said that Fairview Park is too precious and unique to risk “having it all.” She asked about the outreach work and if more could have been done. Dalton responded that the City is doing more outreach now that the MPU is available, including signs at the park and pop-up events. Parker spoke about the wetland area and how it is a financial drain on the City, and that she thinks OCTA should pay more towards the expense of maintaining it. She also spoke about how that area is not safe for a single person to be alone.
Parker advocated for making changes that would improve the experience in the park, such as signage that provided educational information. She thinks that public safety needs to be boosted by curbing the dogs off the leash, requiring that poop be picked up, and prohibiting ebikes in the park. She said the Concerts in the Park need to be moved to a more suitable location, such as Orange Coast College. She said the current location isn’t suitable because the parking is insufficient and it is difficult to get to from the Eastside. She then returned to voicing her support for moving HSS out of the park, restoring that area, and providing fencing that shows people where they can be.
Dalton then responded to some of Parker’s questions and comments. He said the wetlands area was a multiphase project involving the Army Corps of Engineers and OCTA. The mosquito problem that was prevalent a few years ago has been addressed, and now the City has a robust maintenance and monitoring program. He cited a design or construction issue that didn’t allow Orange County Vector Control to have permanent access to apply mosquito treatments. Staff is looking into safety issues in the wetlands area, and they would like more ranger presence to help with the issue. He added that camera systems would act as a deterrent. He acknowledged an issue with the Active Transportation Plan map on page 75 and will get an updated map. Dalton said the fencing would be low-key and not visually intrusive. Parker asked that information about the fencing and security be included in an addendum.
Jason Komala (District 6) said what he heard from the public is that we want balance. He said real progress happens when there is compromise. He thinks that the MPU is a guiding document, but it isn’t legally binding because the City will be making adaptations. He expressed a desire to balance the needs of HSS with the needs of the diverse species found in Fairview Park. He asked about more park ranger coverage to deal with problems such as illegal ebikes and off-trail usage. He cited the habitat management plan's reliance on funding, the requirement to do biological monitoring, and asked where is the funding to meet the mandates? Dalton said it isn’t a component of the MPU, but that it will be cited as a need in the upcoming budget cycles. Dalton also stated that the public requested this. Gruner said that the City is hiring two more rangers, but there would still be a shortage if the City wanted a full-time ranger in Fairview Park.
Komala asked about the removal of the inappropriate fill material, specifically, about indigenous peoples’ support for the removal. Dalton said the bad fill was recognized in 1998 as an issue and that care would need to be taken not to disturb or remove the native soil over the sensitive cultural resources in the remediation process. The removal will be monitored by a qualified biologist, a habitat restoration expert, a qualified archeologist, and an engineer to ensure there are no significant impacts created by the work. There will be long-term benefits of conservation, as well as preservation of the subsurface resources that are being degraded by concrete and inappropriate material that was dumped there.
Komala asked if there were projects, such as a natural play area, that might trigger a vote of the citizens under Measure AA. Dalton said that is being analyzed and that Measure AA didn’t contemplate certain impacts of its rigidity, even though those projects will fulfill some of the desires of Measure AA in terms of preservation and restoration.
Brandice Leger (District 2) spoke about her history with the park. She wanted to know if HSS was paying for the use of the park. No contract that I’ve seen has HSS paying anything to the City. She said the HSS has threatened to sue the City if it requires the fly field to be moved. She asked if the fly field is moved to the Eastside, are there vernal pools there that would be impacted? Dalton said that the vernal pools on the Eastside are not near the potential location of the fly field, which would be in a low biological sensitivity area, and there is no potential to form a vernal pool there. Note that a Burrowing Owl was sighted on the Eastside a few years back, and that the Crotch’s bumblebee flies wherever it wants.
Gruner said he has spent many hours with HSS trying to find a balance between the needs of HSS and the need to preserve and protect Fairview Park. He and Mat Garcia, the President of HSS, looked at other areas and parks in the City to find an appropriate location. Gruner said there are potential options to relocate the fly field.
Shayanne Wright (At Large) said she supports the investment in trails and fencing. She supports making the park ADA accessible. She backs the nature play activation and building of structures from natural materials. She said better signage in multiple languages is needed. She hopes the MPU will unlock future funding opportunities. She supports the comments on bike trails made by the Costa Mesa Alliance for Better Streets (CMABS). She said the big controversy is HSS and the alleged environmental impacts that they cause. The impacts are well documented by the state and federal agencies, as well as the City itself, so they are far from being “alleged.” She says something doesn’t sit right with her. She thinks that people are blaming HSS for the environmental problems in the park. She says there are greater impacts created by the concerts in the park, dogs, bikes, and the trains are all in high use in the park at times. She thinks those uses don’t get the same debate that we do by “constantly” examining HSS’s activities. She said that over and over again, the City Council has voted in support of HSS. She says that HSS has compromised. She thinks HSS is being picked on.
Wright said the reporting agencies' communications seemed very vague to her, and she doesn’t have a full picture. She said she was surprised that the reporting agencies haven’t commented on the other intense uses. Well, one problem was that the USFW couldn’t comment during the US government shutdown. She thinks that Measure AA protects glider flying. But then she went on to say that moving it to the Eastside would be detrimental to the environment over there. She said it is hard to weigh all these things and the community members' opinions. Wright said she values everyone’s commitment to making this the best it can possibly be for their groups. Then she said that she thinks there is a moral superiority that gets put on caring about the environment, but that a local government position means you have to think about the people and the positions of the community. She supports the current place for the fly field and terms of operation. Her closing thought was, if the City were to call Fairview Park a nature preserve, then she would want all of the intensive uses to be looked at as well. She didn’t have any questions.
Wright seems very confused. I get the feeling she did not read the Original Plan or the technical reports prepared by the experts, and was relying on the advice of members of the public, particularly HSS and CMABS.
Chair Kelly Brown (District 5) asked what the regulatory impacts of keeping the fly field where it is. Brooks said that the City is required to get permits. For example, the CDFW would require an “incidental take permit”. The take permit requires an application, an additional study, and the suggestion by applicant of mitigation and monitoring measures for the species impacted by the take of the site. There would need to be additional monitoring for migratory species, such as the Western Burrowing Owl and Crotch’s Bumblebee. If the State decides to issue the incidental take permit, there will be additional annual monitoring required. If there were impacts to federally protected species, such as the San Diego and Riverside Fairy Shrimp and Burrowing Owl, there will be an additional permit required from the federal government. The feds may want a habitat conservation plan, which would require similar mitigation and monitoring to the CDFW.
HERE IS THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION OF THE EVENING:
Brown asked about the cost for permits and the cost for additional monitoring. She added, “What if the City just ignored it?” In other words, what would happen if the City just left the flying field where it was and went on without any mitigation or monitoring? Brooks answered the last question first. He said, looking at the recent technical reports and older reports, and the history of violations by the City, this is a high-visibility item. Notwithstanding the ethical issues and the fact that the City was charged with the duty to be a steward of ecological resources, CDFW and USFW could use their enforcement authorities and fine the City. For each permit, there is a range of costs depending on what is required; it will start at about $50,000 but won’t exceed $100,000. On top of a ranger assigned to monitor the park (at whatever the cost of that employee is to the City), there would be the cost of hiring a certified biologist to provide a report, and that would be $10,000 plus annually for every year the fly field is in the park.
Brown asked about the limitation on bicycle usage. Dalton responded that the Original Plan does not allow bicycling on unpaved trails in the park. The City has not enforced that, but consideration needs to be given to the impact of bicycles on cultural resources that are found in the park, which is more impacted by bike traffic than foot traffic. The map below shows the intended location of the trails after restoration work is completed. Staff will work with the Transportation Department to make sure that the path along the Fairview Channel and the path starting at the Canary stairs is in alignment with the Active Transportation Plan. Not all of the paths shown on the map below are contained in the Active Transportation Plan. The map used in the MPU was from the draft Active Transportation Plan, not the final adopted map that was updated to remove trails.
Brown inquired as to whether tribal groups had been consulted about the MPU. Dalton responded that the tribal groups had been consulted and that the site is very important. The tribal members who participated in meetings were disappointed in the City’s historical lack of management in allowing unauthorized damage and the disrespectful use of the land where ancestral remains are buried. They emphasized repeatedly that this site is the most important cultural site in the region for their tribes. The groups provided new context to the City about the history of the site and its importance to creating a community for their groups.
Brown said that we are all hungry for the details of the recommendations by the regulatory agencies. She found the signage in the MPU to be too generic. She wants the City to focus on the uniqueness of Fairview Park. She said she was very concerned about the regulatory impacts of keeping HSS where they are, moving them to the Eastside causes other issues, and if the City values the work of HSS, it is time to find them another location. Keeping HSS in place is going to cause a substantial investment and continual cost to the City.
She said it is apparent that the City needs to make some changes to protect Fairview Park, and the regulatory agencies are backing that up. She believes in the expert advice and supports it.
Brown said that we do need to find a balance for the ecological, social, and physical elements of the park. She is sympathetic to those who use the park in many different ways. She struggles with the fact that Concerts in the Park brings a lot of people to Fairview Park who may not have visited it, and now they can see its biodiversity. She said she would support moving the park into more of a nature preserve, where we are protecting the space and the species. She noted that the species in Fairview Park cannot come into the Council Chambers to speak and that the scientists speaking for them matters.
Recommendations. Nearly three and one-half hours into the meeting, the Commissioners turned to the task of their recommendations, which were fashioned from the Steering Committee’s recommendations, which had been built off the consultants’ recommendations.
The Steering Committee recommendations can be found here.
The consultants’ recommendations, including the pages where they are incorporated into the MPU and whether those recommendations are already in the Original Plan, can be found here.
Unless otherwise listed below, the Commissioners accepted the consultants’ recommendations:
Rec. 1: Include language to align trails with the Active Transportation Plan
Rec. 6: Three Commissioners (Parker, Leger, and Brown) voted to relocate the fly field, whether at Fairview Park or to another park. Two Commissioners voted not to relocate: Komala and Wright.
Rec. 9: Create a more robust plan for signage.
Rec. 16: Broaden scope to address safety and enforcement using adequate staffing and/or technology.
Rec. 18: add: including an invitation to participate and provide communications telling the past, present, and future of Fairview Park.
There was discussion about adding a recommendation to amend Measure AA so that the MPU could be fully implemented. The Commissioners drafted a new recommendation, but since it was not displayed on the screen for the public to view, and has not been provided in the City Council meeting materials, I can only summarize:
Rec: 26: Consider the impacts of the MPU as it relates to Measure AA and the possibility of a ballot measure to allow the City to fully implement the MPU.
THE CITY COUNCIL MEETS ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, AT 6:00 P.M. ON THIS MATTER. BE THERE AND LET YOUR VOICE BE HEARD ON THE MASTER PLAN UPDATE.
Comments