SPECIAL UPDATE: NOVEMBER 18 CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 🍃FAIRVIEW PARK MASTER PLAN UPDATE🍃
- Cynthia McDonald
- 6 days ago
- 29 min read
The November 18 City Council meeting focused almost exclusively on the Fairview Park Master Plan Update. All Councilmembers were present, with Manuel Chavez joining remotely via Zoom from Mexico. The meeting lasted nearly five and a half hours.
The Council Chambers were filled to capacity, with overflow seating in the Community Room. Pastor Christine Nolf of Redemption Church delivered the opening prayer, describing it as a lament to remind decision-makers of the impact their choices have on the most vulnerable. She read from Psalm 22.
CITY ATTORNEY CLOSED SESSION REPORT. Kimberly Hall Barlow reported that no reportable action. The City Council gave direction to Staff.
PUBLIC COMMENT. Nine speakers addressed a range of issues:
Noise Complaints: Excessively loud early-morning noise from “The 12” gym at 140 East 17th Street.
Road Repairs: Appreciation for fixing roadway dips; questions about unequal public comment time allocations.
Veteran Recognition & Governance: Thanks for honoring veterans and praise for Councilmembers Marr, Reynolds, Chavez, and Stephens for leadership on homelessness, budget balancing, and community safety.
Parking Enforcement: Ongoing confusion about short driveways on Manistee and related citations.
Rental & Food Assistance: Requests for updates on funding, replenishment, and better public outreach; concerns about police not taking harassment reports; calls for “Know Your Rights” information to be more visible.
Traffic Safety: Status of crosswalk at Placentia and Center Street; complaints about hit-and-run crashes; requests for speed humps.
Housing Programs: Questions about rental registry and eviction tracking.
Food Assistance: Requests that City publicize the availability of this assistance.
Police Department Complaint: Failure of police department to take a report of harassment, and request that “know your rights” information be prominently displayed and promoted.
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS.
Jeff Pettis (District 6): Expressed gratitude for serving and noted increased awareness of community needs.
Mike Buley (District 1): Raised concerns about Jamboree Housing Corp.’s (JHC) financial challenges and requested updates on its progress on obtaining financing and on the Costa Mesa Senior Center project in general.
Loren Gameros (District 2): Highlighted volunteer needs at Someone Cares Soup Kitchen.
Andrea Marr (District 3): Reported that the Enough for All Fund to date has supported 65 families with $116,000; requested updates on immigration assistance, report from Someone Cares Soup Kitchen, status of Ethics Policy, Rental Registry, and JHC project; praised Fairview Road safety improvement project and recognized Neat Coffee’s 10th anniversary.
Arlis Reynolds (District 5): Urged finalization of the Ethics Policy this year; emphasized visibility of assistance programs; noted issues with crash data collection; promoted Safe Routes to School survey https://costamesasrts.org/interactive-map-and-survey/ and IKEA food drive (ends Dec. 6); Center Street crosswalk going out to bid early next year.
Manuel Chavez (District 4): Mentioned Estancia students’ Snoopy House decorations; discussed mixed feedback on 19th Street lane changes; called for audits of both Someone Cares Soup Kitchen and Enough for All Fund.
John Stephens (Mayor): Requested staff follow-up on promoting assistance programs and “Know Your Rights;” announced Basket Brigade drive at City Hall on Nov. 23.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS. Cecilia Gallardo-Daly reminded residents about sandbag availability (fill and load yourself); noted senior food assistance and local food bank resources.
CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS. Kimberly Hall Barlow reported referrals underway for immigration legal defense and rental assistance programs; awaiting data as programs ramp up; confirmed JHC will provide updated financials on the Senior Center project.
CONSENT CALENDAR. Marr pulled Item No. 6. Gameros had to be recused from Item 3, the Warrant Register, because his wife works for one of the vendors, Priceless Pets. A motion to approve the remaining items was made by Reynolds, seconded by Marr. The vote was unanimous.
6. Adoption of Ordinance Amending Title 5: Buildings And Structures And Title 7: Fire Protection and Prevention of Costa Mesa Municipal Code; Adopting by Reference 2025 California Building Standards Code, Including Specified Appendices And Local Amendments, and Adopting Orange County Grading and Excavation Code and Associated Supplements. Marr pulled this because the changes that were discussed in the last meeting didn’t appear in the Section she had specified. The City Attorney said it was a clerical error and that the change should have been made to all sections covering electrical disconnects.
Public Comment. None.
Motion and Vote. Marr moved to have the clerical error corrected, which was seconded by Stephens. The motion passed unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARINGS: None.
OLD BUSINESS: None.
NEW BUSINESS: Agenda Item: Review and Discussion of the Draft Fairview Park Master Plan Update, with Approval of Recommendations. The Council’s role was to provide direction for finalizing the updated Master Plan, enabling staff and consultants to begin work required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Presentation Format: Mayor Stephens announced that after Staff’s presentation, two parties would deliver 10-minute presentations:
Kohl Crecelious – Fairview Park Steering Committee (FPSC)
Mat Garcia – Harbor Soaring Society (HSS)
Originally, seven organizations were scheduled to present, but five invitations were withdrawn by the Mayor. All other speakers were allotted three minutes each, subject to adjustment by Stephens. He noted that, in addition to a packed Council Chamber, about 20 people were in the Community Room, with more participants joining via Zoom.
Staff Presentation: Brian Gruner, Director of Parks and Community Services, began with an overview of the project background:
Gruner spoke about the Project Purpose and Objectives:
He turned the presentation over to Travis Brooks, the consultant from Land IQ. Brooks spoke about technical data, such as the regional context of where Fairview Park is located in relation to other parks, the resources in the park, and how the park is significant. He also said that these unique features need to be preserved and, in some cases, restored.
He covered the regulatory framework, including our local Measure AA:
And the State and Federal laws:
Please note the notation that the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) had sent correspondence. Some of that correspondence was buried in the nearly 300 pages of public comments, and some had not been provided to the City Council or the public. Why would correspondence from a regulatory agency be buried in public comments? This important guidance needs to be displayed front and center as part of the Agenda Report!!
Jenni Zell of Moore, Iacofano, Goltsman, Inc. (MIG) took over the presentation and spoke about recreational elements, the Master Plan Update process, and community outreach. She spoke about the findings of the three technical studies:
and
Zell turned to the recommendations by the experts who drafted the MPU:
and
Gruner continued the presentation by outlining the recommendations from the Fairview Park Steering Committee (FPSC). He noted that two of these recommendations were not included in the Draft Master Plan Update:
1. Relocating the fly field outside of Fairview Park
2. Renaming the park to “Fairview Nature Park” or a similar name
Gruner explained that these omissions were based on prior Council direction given at the January 28 City Council meeting. When Staff revisited the fly field recommendation with the Committee in April 2025, the FPSC—now with new members—voted to retain its recommendation to relocate the fly field outside of Fairview Park.
Next, Gruner presented the recommendations from the Parks and Community Services Commission (PACS):
He said that MPU builds upon the original Master Plan. Later in the meeting, Staff said that the MPU replaces the original Master Plan, something that everyone should have known to avoid confusion.
Next Steps:
Finalize the MPU per Council direction
Draft the CEQA Documentation—Programmatic Initial Study/Negative Declaration
30 Day CEQA public/federal/state agency review and comment period for IS/ND
Adopt a final plan in early 2026
Presentations by FPSC and HSS:
FPSC: Chair Kohl Crecelious delivered the FPSC presentation, speaking with clarity and sincerity. He began by acknowledging that the fly field dominates discussions about Fairview Park and would therefore be a major focus of his remarks. Over the past nine months, Crecelious studied the issue extensively, gathered new information, and visited the fly field, stating he now feels well-equipped to address the topic.
Crecelious emphasized that biologists have clearly indicated the fly field’s presence in Fairview Park is incompatible with the goals of the Master Plan Update (MPU). He also referenced input from regulatory agencies and their experts, reinforcing this position.
He also referenced input from regulatory agencies and their experts, reinforcing this position.
Both FPSC and the Parks and Community Services Commission (PACS) recommended relocating the fly field. FPSC’s recommendation was to move it completely out of the park. The City investigated and tested four potential alternative sites.
He very quickly ran through slides about the tested sites. Here is one:
He noted that City staff has invested significant time and resources—meeting with HSS, conducting surveys, and evaluating alternatives—to avoid conflicts with regulatory agencies. All of this is for two Costa Mesa residents who are members of HSS and hold City-issued permits.
Crecelious then addressed the cost of keeping the fly field in Fairview Park, stating:
“The real cost of this process is being paid by the rest of our city’s residents, who are not getting the park they deserve.”
He displayed a slide listing other projects that FPSC, PACS, and staff could prioritize—projects that would deliver broader benefits to the community.
While acknowledging the positive contributions of HSS, he asked what could be gained by relocating the fly field:
More flying time
Ability to use motorized planes again
Greater visibility and engagement for the club within the community
This was his concluding slide:
Crecelious concluded by urging the City to be transparent about the costs of retaining the fly field and weigh those against the lost opportunities to provide amenities and services for the wider Costa Mesa community.
HSS: Mat Garcia, representing HSS, opened his remarks by addressing the question of permitted flyers. He stated that the City had not required HSS to obtain permits in 2025, implying that the City does not have current data. However, Garcia did not provide the number of Costa Mesa residents who are HSS members, leaving that question unanswered.
Garcia then criticized the Biological Resources Technical Report (Appendix B of the MPU), calling it “inaccurate, incomplete, and misleading.” He argued that the current fly field is already in the best possible location and cited older reports—some more than 25 years old—that have since been superseded by updated studies with new information about Fairview Park. He also asserted that the MPU itself is not a scientific study and therefore should not be considered authoritative. (Note: Garcia is not a biologist.)
Garcia claimed that City staff has adopted an overly restrictive approach, designed to maximize grant eligibility while limiting park use. He questioned the justification for updating the Master Plan and reiterated that the fly field has remained in the same location since the 1960s. One of the next steps in the MPU process is the preparation of a CEQA analysis, which must be a worst-case scenario, and is the reason Staff is taking a restrictive posture.
Turning to regulatory agencies, Garcia asserted that U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and CDFW have never raised concerns about HSS activities. He accused City staff of attempting to solicit negative feedback from these agencies. The City must receive comments from concerned agencies about the MPU as part of the CEQA process.
Finally, Garcia referenced a 2014 letter from USFWS, noting that it contained no mention of the fly field. He is correct there, because the sole focus of that letter related to the infamous “Steve’s Path,” a decomposed granite path that then Councilmember Steve Mensinger had Staff lay through a vernal pool so he could drive a golf cart from the parking lot of the Waldorf School over to Scott Stadium.
He listed the things HSS must do to comply with the requests of USFWS and CDFW:
Garcia asserted that HSS already performs these activities. He then resumed his criticism of the consultants who prepared the MPU and its appendices, questioning their credibility and findings. Garcia escalated his remarks by accusing City staff of attempting to shut down the fly field altogether. At this point, all the wild claims against Staff, the consultants, and the regulatory agencies were starting to sound like a paranoid rant to me. He failed to include in his list of correspondence this important email from USFWS:
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
Staff was acting in accordance with guidance from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). From my observation, Staff consistently sought a compromise that would allow HSS to remain in Fairview Park, while resisting public pressure to recommend relocating the fly field to another park.
Garcia continued using a triangulation approach in an attempt to undermine the credibility of both staff and the consultants. At around eight minutes into his ten-minute slot, he shifted to promoting HSS. Garcia argued that remaining in the current location without requiring a take permit is feasible. He reiterated his criticism of the MPU, claiming it lacks new science or updated information. Finally, he moved to his request:
Councilmember Questions.
Loren Gameros (District 2) opened the Q&A but began with a comment:
“I know there is somewhat of an impact to what they are doing, but there isn’t much impact.”
Mayor Stephens interrupted, reminding him that this was the time for questions and that discussion could follow once a motion was on the floor. Gameros agreed but never asked any questions.
Mike Buley (District 1):
Recommendations and Background: Buley began by asking whether the recommendations provided in the Council packet originated after the MPU studies. Kelly Dalton, Fairview Park Administrator, explained that those are the recommendations that are reflected in the MPU, many of which were part of the original Master Plan. The accompanying matrix indicated whether each recommendation was new, revised, or restated. Buley commended staff for their excellent work.
He then requested background on Measure AA and asked if, should the MPU not be approved, the original Master Plan and Measure AA ordinance would remain in effect. The answer: Yes. Buley also asked if the tension surrounding park activities stems from efforts to protect endangered species. Again, the answer was Yes.
Scientific Studies and Wildlife: Buley inquired about pre-2020 scientific studies for comparison, but Dalton noted there are none suitable for comparing pre-COVID bird counts to current data. Bird counts vary annually due to changing conditions. Brooks added that the last fairy shrimp analysis was in 2017 and has not been repeated due to lack of rain. Surveys only note presence, not population counts. He explained that species such as the endangered California gnatcatcher relocate nesting sites yearly, and the cactus wren has been absent from Fairview Park for about a decade. Brooks emphasized that focused surveys have not been conducted. If the City did them, it may trigger mitigation requirements from USFWS and CDFW. He referenced a CDFW letter outlining required measures and the need for an incidental take permit.
Buley asked why endangered species still exist in the park despite HSS’s long presence. Brooks responded that while birds are resilient, populations may be stressed or depressed. He reiterated that CDFW will dictate mitigation steps and noted he has discussed these issues extensively with Garcia.
Buley attempted to link reduced HSS operating hours to increased species populations, but Brooks only confirmed the reduction in hours. When Buley suggested Fairview Park’s habitat is similar to Talbert Park and Randall Preserve, Brooks corrected him, stating Fairview Park is unique.
Recommendations and Measure AA Implications: Buley observed that most recommendations date back to the 2008 Master Plan, with exceptions such as relocating the fly field (an approved use in 2008), creating a native plant nursery, developing a maintenance plan, and tribal coordination. He asked whether these recommendations require Council approval for funding—many do. The Concerts in the Park were discussed, but there was no recommendation by FPSC or PACS; mitigation measures have been implemented.
Regarding relocating the fly field to the east side of the park, Buley asked about Measure AA implications. The City Attorney advised that such a move would be considered restoration and remediation of the vernal pool watershed and would not require a public vote—though a court might disagree. I don’t think she had seen the latest letter from CDFW because she may not have characterized the move that way.
CEQA Considerations: Zell cautioned that separating projects from the MPU could be considered “piecemealing,” which is not permissible under CEQA. The City Attorney recommended evaluating all projects under CEQA and removing any undesired projects before adopting the final MPU.
John Stephens (Mayor): BMX Mound: Stephens asked about the dirt mound near the grassy area that BMX riders use for jumps. Brooks explained that the mound consists of improper fill containing trash and is unsuitable for protecting the archaeological resource beneath it. The original Master Plan recommended its removal, which would help restore the vernal pool and its watershed. The area would be fenced off due to its cultural significance. Brooks added that part of the lawn could potentially be converted into a nature play area. The mound is a safety hazard that generates many complaints.
Stephens questioned the removal, prompting Fairview Park Administrator Kelly Dalton to clarify that the mound has long been identified as culturally significant. Stephens then asked about the cost of relocating the mound to another area. Brooks did not have a cost estimate but suggested delaying removal until a suitable alternative could be provided.
Arlis Reynolds (District 5) asked Gruner about the cost of a replacement since he had previously researched it. Gruner stated that renting a temporary BMX track would cost approximately $14,000 for a two- to three-week rental.
Andrea Marr (District 3):
Recommendations and Public Access: Marr began by noting that the recommendations in the MPU appear significantly different from those in the original Master Plan, with more substantive detail. She referenced the updated matrix provided to the Council on Monday, which outlined how recommendations evolved. Marr asked whether the public had access to this revised matrix. Staff confirmed that it was available, though Marr observed that it was not included in the original agenda materials. She commented that when she first accessed the agenda, the matrix was missing.
Measure AA and Relocating the Fly Field: Marr asked the City Attorney to clarify her position on whether moving the fly field to the east side of the park would trigger a public vote under Measure AA. The City Attorney responded cautiously, stating she would “never say never.” She explained that the memo sent to Council that day was confidential, but reiterated her view that relocating the fly field would be considered protective and restorative, thus falling under the ordinance’s exemptions. After a pause, she added:
“Could somebody challenge that and win? Yes.”
Her tone suggested limited confidence in her opinion.
Risk of Inaction and Regulatory Oversight: Marr asked about the risks of doing nothing. The City Attorney warned that regulatory agencies could view inaction as a biological “take,” potentially resulting in directives and fines. Marr then asked the consultant about the likelihood and consequences of such a declaration. Brooks advised reviewing the letter submitted to the City and noted that while USFWS had been quiet, they were expected to comment soon. In fact, Christine Medak of USFWS had already emailed a response concurring with CDFW’s November 13 letter and adding further requests—though this was buried in public comments and not mentioned during the discussion.
Compliance and Vernal Pool Significance: Marr asked about HSS’s compliance and when biological analysis was conducted. Brooks explained that Hamilton Biological’s report addressed birds and other resources, while his own report focused on vegetation. He noted past grading and mowing within the vernal pool watershed was inappropriate and suggested Garcia consider moving flying activities to the lawn area. Marr requested an explanation of the vernal pool watershed’s importance. Brooks described an evolving understanding:
Vernal pools function as an interconnected complex, not isolated features.
Heavy rainfall can cause overflow between pools, expanding their footprint.
Fencing only the main pool is now considered inadequate; protecting a larger area supports pollinators and bird species.
He emphasized that earlier piecemeal approaches, once endorsed in a 2014 USFWS letter, are no longer best practice.
Other Topics:
Bluff Maintenance: Marr asked if this would require a Measure AA vote. Dalton said the design will be low intensity, using minimal concrete, and aligns with Measure AA’s preservation goals. Marr asked why not take these projects to voters; the City Attorney replied that doing so is always an option.
Active Transportation Plan (ATP): Marr asked about its integration into the MPU. Dalton confirmed that several ATP segments will be incorporated and that the current map will be updated.
Enforcement: Marr raised concerns about enforcement. Gruner acknowledged limited ranger availability and expressed interest in dedicating a ranger to Fairview Park. Marr suggested installing cameras.
On Council Conduct: Marr cautioned that some Councilmembers had publicly expressed opinions on HSS and the upcoming vote. She stressed that decisions should be made independently and with full consideration of public input. Marr stated she had not made up her mind and urged her colleagues to adopt the same posture. She asked the City Attorney to flag any inappropriate conduct. Note Gamero’s “posture” below. This is right after Marr’s comment.
Jeff Pettis (District 6): Pettis asked the City Clerk to provide a count of written comments for and against the MPU. This is a poor way to gauge public opinion—especially since he had not yet heard the oral public comments. Additionally, several written comments were submitted after the noon cutoff, including one from Costa Mesa First. While the City Clerk worked to compile the numbers, Mayor Stephens interjected, stating that as of noon, most comments were opposed.
Arlis Reynolds (District 5): Reynolds began by noting that many written comments appeared to be identical, originating from a widely circulated letter. She characterized the letter as “incomplete, inaccurate, and misleading,” and questioned whether those who submitted it had actually read the MPU or its technical reports. Reynolds stressed the importance of considering all information in the MPU, including community outreach and public meetings, rather than making decisions based on what she called a “popularity contest.” She acknowledged the pressure created by last-minute information pushes but urged the Council to weigh the full scope of input and data.
Expressing frustration, Reynolds remarked that discussions about Fairview Park often feel negative, even though it is one of the most exciting things in our community. Mayor Stephens interrupted, reminding her to ask questions, and Reynolds replied that she was getting to them.
Tribal Advisory Group and Cultural Resources: Reynolds asked whether recommendations from the tribal advisory group could be shared publicly, noting that the MPU only briefly mentions this engagement. She wanted more detail on cultural significance and the need to view the site as a unified landscape. Zell explained that the City created a separate tribal advisory group to respect sovereign nations, and meetings were private. Recommendations—found on page 11 of the MPU—focused on stopping damage to cultural resources, preventing erosion, and curbing off-trail activities. Zell added that tribes expressed sadness over visible damage during site visits but stopped short of sharing specifics to honor confidentiality. She referenced the archaeological resource assessment (Appendix D), which includes a monitoring plan.
Reynolds asked whether trail restrictions were due to cultural resource damage or vegetation loss. The City Attorney clarified that the City is legally prohibited from disclosing locations of cultural resources. Any changes to recommendations would be reviewed during CEQA, and while the Council could override tribal considerations, doing so would expose the City to legal risk.
Regulatory Compliance and “Take” Concerns: Reynolds asked about the consequences if a project were deemed a “take” by regulatory agencies. Brooks explained that the City would need to consult with the relevant agency. Options include obtaining an incidental take permit, which would allow the project to proceed with mitigation measures such as monitoring, timing adjustments, or modified vegetation clearing. However, agencies could also reject the project entirely if impacts were deemed too severe.
Reynolds confirmed her understanding and then asked what happens if the City ignores agency directives. Brooks replied that enforcement depends on the agency’s willingness to act, but in his view, the State of California is currently more likely to intervene than the federal government.
While all the comments were going on there was the passing back and forth of papers between the City Clerk and Staff, and then papers being handed up to the City Council dais. As a member of the audience, I had to wonder what the heck was going on that we, the public, weren’t being told about?! At one point the CDFW letterhead could be seen. This was likely the new letter dated November 13, 2025.
Reynolds asked about the trail plan, specifically its goal to maintain authorized trails while restoring and revegetating unauthorized ones. She also inquired about the placement of benches; Staff noted that specific locations have not yet been determined.
I could see the other Councilmembers who had read the CDFW letter starting to react.
Manuel Chavez (District 5): Chavez asked how much time and money had been spent studying the fly field and HSS throughout this process. Brian Gruner responded that a park warden monitors flying activity for about 12 hours per month and that staff has invested significant time trying to understand HSS’s perspective. Pressing further, Chavez learned that since the agreement with HSS was signed in 2020, staff has devoted approximately 200 hours, with Gruner himself contributing around 80 hours. Gruner estimated the total cost at $150,000 to $200,000, prompting an audible gasp from the audience.
Chavez then asked how many Costa Mesa residents use the fly field. Gruner replied: five in 2024. Finally, Chavez asked the consultants whether anything in the MPU fails to accurately reflect their recommendations. Their answer: “No.”
John Stephens (Mayor):
Process and Documentation: Stephens began by asking whether the MPU would replace the 2008 Master Plan as an amended and restated version. Gruner confirmed that the MPU supersedes the original plan last amended in 2008.
Stephens then noted that the Council had received three key documents:
1. USFWS Letter (July 24, 2014) – Regarding “Steve’s Path.” Stephens asked if it mentioned HSS. Brooks clarified that the letter addressed a City violation and contained nothing about HSS activities.
2. CDFW Letter (September 25, 2025) – Initial comments on MPU appendices (before the MPU itself was released).
3. CDFW Letter (November 13, 2025) – Recommendations on relocating the fly field, endangered species sightings near the proposed Eastside location, and potential need for a take permit, among other issues.
Stephens questioned why the November 13 letter had not been provided to the Council before the meeting. Why had it not been given to the public?! The City Clerk told Gruner it had been provided, which Gruner repeated to Stephens. Marr interjected, noting it was not included in the agenda packet, and asked if the public had access. The City Clerk responded that it was posted on the website under public comments.
At 6:30 p.m., I checked the website to see if the Costa Mesa First letter had posted. It had not. There were 289 pages of comments. I checked again at 7:00 p.m. Still 289 pages. The November 13 letter was 11 pages long. It was now 9:05 p.m. I checked the website again. 289 pages. The first time I noticed the page count changing was the next morning, when it was 300 pages. Exactly 11 pages difference, the length of the November 13 letter. I found the letter near the top of the public comments, after the letter from Coastal Corridor Alliance. I would have seen it if it had been there earlier. There were copies in the back of the Chambers for the public. Most of the audience got up to get a copy. Stephens declared a break, after which he would resume his questions and then go to the public for comment.
During the break, Pettis, Buley, and Gameros got together for a pow wow.
Stephens’ Follow-Up Questions After the Break: Stephens resumed his questions by asking about HSS’s operating hours. Before the pandemic, HSS was permitted to fly dawn to dusk, seven days a week.
He then asked the City Attorney whether the City had ever been sued by USFWS or CDFW. The answer: No. Stephens followed up, asking if the City had ever received a formal demand letter from either agency. The response: “No, but the September 25 and November 13 letters are as close to a demand letter as we’ve received. They are clearly advocating for a move of the flying field.” Stephens pressed:
“Are they demand letters?”
City Attorney Barlow replied: “They are not.”
Stephens then read the definition of “take” from the USFWS letter dated July 24, 2014, which remains consistent today:
“The term ‘take’ means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.”
He asked whether HSS had ever engaged in such actions. The answer: No.
As noted in the USFWS email of January 27, HSS has mowed, graded, and removed southern tarplant, a threatened species. This has been documented, as evidenced by USFWS’s concerns expressed in the January email and again on November 17, where it referenced “ongoing documented impacts to biological resources associated with the existing glider area.”
PUBLIC COMMENT. It was now nearly 9:30 p.m. The comments lasted TWO HOURS, some voicing strong opinions. Here is a rundown; the tally of the comments was 30 in favor, 19 against, and 3 neutral:
Resident that likes the Concerts in the Park and thinks that they are being discontinued along with flying model plans and bike riding
Likes Fairview Park the way it is; likes to ride bikes and fly gliders
Likes riding bike to Fairview Park and glider flying
Loves Fairview Park; thinks he won’t be able to ride his bike there anymore; supports HSS; save the park for the people
Speaker on behalf of the 318 members of the Orange County Model Engineers (OCME); volunteering to help with MPU in any way possible
Opposition to MPU because it changes the active uses in the park; wants to keep active uses
Resident and member of FPSC in favor of the MPU because of unique features and preservation of cultural resources; safety improvements are needed; move fly field to Eastside
Representative from Coastal Corridor Alliance that supports the adoption of the MPU, along with the requirements of CDFW and USFWS; the flyer that was distributed by someone supporting HSS was false information; in reality, the MPU does not have major changes that the flyer says there are; the only changes will protect the habitat; the restoration work that CCA has done in Fairview Park has made it possible for native plants and animals to return to the park, including the California gnatcatcher
Support for the MPU because of the scientific evidence it presents; the public input has driven most of the recommendations; the consultants are excellent; it is time for the City Council to embrace the advice of consultants
Tribal Secretary of the Juaneño Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation, which was the indigenous tribe that served as stewards of the land for thousands of years, in support of the MPU, including the recommendation to move the fly field out of Fairview Park; her band was never contacted for consultation and would like to participate; no one would accept someone riding a bike over graves in a marked cemetery, yet this is what is happening in Fairview Park
Representative of Sea and Sage Audubon Society, which has a volunteer bird survey program in the park, providing a quarterly report to the City; also provides field trips to park for birders; City must rely on the expert advice; supports the MPU
Resident spoke about reason for Measure AA; Fairview Park is a passive use park; thinks the passive use was changed to eliminate bicycling; certain trails don’t allow bicycles (only paved trails allow cycles)
Resident in favor of keeping Fairview Park natural; supports the CCA’s points in its letter to the City
Resident and member of HSS who is against MPU because he thinks people haven’t seen HSS in action; HSS is a steward of the park
Resident and Chair of Parks and Community Services Commission; spoke about process that evening where the recommendations of FPSC and PACS supporting the FPU and moving the fly field have been recognized; please ask hard questions about fiscal responsibility and find out what the true cost of keeping the fly field in the park (permitting, mitigation, annual operating costs for required reporting) and what happens if the City can’t get permit
Resident and HSS member against the FPU; moving the field to the Eastside would mean planes would be launching in the direction of Placentia Avenue
Resident in support of the FPU to protect habitats, keep trails for passive recreation, and fund enforcement to stop illegal use
Resident in favor of keeping the fly field in its current location because HSS can get more members by being next to the path; accused Staff of supplying false information to CDFW
Resident who supports low-impact use of the park; supports the recommendations of the FPSC, the consultant’s studies, and the MPU; wants the name of the park changed to one that reflects the fact that we are stewards of the park; concerned that Mayor Stephens seems biased against the MPU; wants fly field moved to another park; give HSS some funds to move
Park user who is confused about trail closure; wants to be able to use the unapproved trails; wants to know why fences are there There is a restoration project currently going on that requires temporary fencing of the restoration area; there is also signage about the project in the park.
Resident who appreciates the restoration work done in the park and wants more; supports the FPU; has seen damage to the park by unauthorized use
Long-time resident requested that the City Council let science guide its decision; she quoted Maya Angelou: “Do the best you can until you know better. Then, when you know better, do better”; remarked about the success of the recent restoration work; supports the requests in the letter by CCA
Resident since birth who supports the FPU; support for restoration work and fencing off of sensitive habitat; spoke about the temporary fencing of the restoration project, a project that will make the park better; please see this as an opportunity for the betterment of Costa Mesa for generations to come; requests that the City Council vote in favor of the FPU
Resident of Huntington Beach and landscape architect who uses Fairview Park; advocated for sustainable use of the land; supports moving the fly field because of new knowledge; advocated for protection of vernal pools and watersheds; follow recommendations of biological consultants and regulatory agencies; move fly field, remove off-trail activities and illegal trails
Representative of Fairview Park Alliance; listed the FPA’s recommendations; supports the consultant’s recommendations and the FPU; spoke about the dubious claims by HSS; referred to January 27, 2025 email from Christine Medak of USFWS
HSS member opposing the FPU; claim that Staff lied to CDFW; wants better management; said moving the fly field wouldn’t improve the conditions for migratory species; asks for the protection of human uses; wants Staff to collaborate with resource agencies on mitigation
Resident and member of FPSC remarked at full chamber and the fact that at 10:20 p.m. the City Council was still hearing public comments; thanked Staff and the consultants have provided important information; Fairview Park is an asset that few cities have; please consider there will be changes in the future and what impacts of change may be; the fly field needs to relocate out of the park; please change the name to reflect the natural aspect of the park
Resident and OCME member urged a science based approach and support of the MPU; describe the human impacts as low, medium and high; in describing HSS, he said that “rectality is its own award”; he said that the OCME engineers are stewards of the park and they don’t use a rail line if a bird is nesting on it; he added that it would behoove HSS if it were more aware of what is going on; he called out Stephens and Buley for their comments that there hasn’t been any science done on the park and he thinks that science should be a priority
I gave a photo presentation of features and wildlife found in the park, damage caused by HSS, and spoke about the reasons to move the fly field out of the park, focusing on the incredible expense it is for the City; I also spoke about Garcia using almost all his presentation time to attack Staff and the consultants HSS should be able to stand on its own merits; as it is, it only tried to triangulate itself with Staff and the consultants, a tactic that I feel largely failed to gain support
Resident who felt that the City should have talked to the Juaneño Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation; doesn’t like natural state of park; wants to allow bicycles in park; wants better education about the park
Resident who supports the MPU and the CCA letter with suggested improvements; protect the fragile habitat of the park; supports moving the fly field out of Fairview Park
Resident and former FPSC member who supports the MPU and the Staff and consultants that worked on it; said it would be shame to throw out the baby with the bath water; agrees with the PACS chair who spoke about fiduciary responsibility; supports moving the fly field out of the park altogether; listed the history of all the locations where HSS has flown its gliders, including the Back Bay, Mile Square Park, Estancia High School, and the fact that they didn’t have a landing strip for many years and now a grass area or dirt road would suffice
A member of OCME who spoke in favor of giving kids opportunities that we had as kids
HSS member in favor of sharing the park space
Fairview Park Advocate and long-time supporter of natural parks; helped write Measure AA, and plans to stick to his guns in supporting keeping the park natural; supports the majority of the FPU
Resident and PACS commissioner and member of horticulture society; he relies on experts; the community feels scared, stressed, and depressed, and that reflects how the environment feels too; he supports FPU, but he would like to see more Spanish speakers speaking up; he hopes the City Council makes the best decision in their hearts;
Representative of CCA requesting they adopt the FPU, including the recommendations by FPSC and PACS; spoke about the misrepresentations by the HSS representative, such as CDFW did visit the site; citing a 30 year study when science has advanced since that time isn’t good practice; we now know that the fly field is in the middle of the vernal pool complex; witness to the gliders disrupting the flying of raptors and other words; even the best pilot crashes and when the plane is in the middle of a vernal pool complex, retrieving it is damaging to sensitive habitat; HSS starting flying in Costa Mesa when the population was one-third of what it is today and they are a victim of our own human sprawl, a problem they and we created
Resident and parent of Waldorf School student; spoke of uniqueness of Waldorf School; Fairview Park is a big part of the curriculum of the school; families of Waldorf School support the MPU
Resident who wanted to know the analysis of the removal of the fly field from the park; referring to the CDFW letter and its desire to move the fly field out of the park, will CDFW then turn its sights on the railroad and ask the same of it; remarked about the disproportionate time spent on HSS and the fact that CDFW said a take permit may be necessary if the City moved the fly field to the Eastside because of Crotch’s bumblebee and the burrowing owl
Resident and administrator of Waldorf School; students are taught to revere and to be stewards of the park; spoke about the 500 signatures that were delivered to the City in support of the MPU, and those voices should be considered
Resident and former member of FPSC requesting that the park is exceptional but could be better; nurture the nature; remove the fly field and adopt the FPU; asks that the second paragraph of the section about the glider launching be struck; put the fly field in another park; nurture the nature!
HSS member spoke in favor of keeping the fly field in the park
Resident who says the feeling in the room was exhaustion; he questioned the he-said-she-said situation and that there needs to be some principles about appreciating the science about the park; attention needs to be given to relevant information, and the vote should not be on feelings; being a part of the land is just AS important as STEAM and kids learning science
Costa Mesa Alliance for Better Streets member who wants to keep bicycle usage on primary pedestrian trails; wants to include the trail along with flood channel on the Eastside of the park That land is not City land, but rather owned and controlled by the Army Corp of Engineers, as are most flood control channels in Costa Mesa. It was a hope that the City could negotiate that trail, but nothing has come to fruition yet.
Resident who opposes the current draft and wants unspecified changes, but wants the Council to remember the comments submitted earlier
Resident who wants approval of the MPU; HSS has alternatives, the habitat and animals in the park do not; HSS’s presentation was selfish; the City Council is a steward of the park and the matter needs to be put to rest; listen to the experts and regulatory agencies; this is money down the rabbit hole; protect the park
Speaker in support of HSS, cited residents who said that restoration efforts are bringing back wildlife; thinks that HSS hasn’t impeded that
Resident who supports HSS and is against the FPU
Resident supportive of the FPU and the regulatory agencies directive to move the fly field; protect the wildlife and vegetation; read from CDFW letter about ramifications if the City does not follow its requests
CCA Stewardship Consultant supportive of the FPU; spoke on importance and uniqueness of the vernal pool complex; pointed out the City has unresolved violations and a continuing investigation that remains open; the letters from the agencies are some of the strongest that she has seen; the impact of having these agencies unhappy with the City is an ongoing risk; the penalties include fines and possible imprisonment if the City does not comply;
Chair of Parks and Recreation Commission of Santa Ana supporting the FPSC and PACS; supports moving the fly field
Member of HSS spoke about history of group; says raptors and Canadian geese don’t care about the model planes, but other birds may
Resident who doesn’t support MPU; wants more balance; thinks HSS is getting attacked; thinks that bicycle access and Concerts in the Park will be discontinued
Motion to Continue Hearing. Stephens moved to pause the hearing and bring the item back as Old Business Item 1 at the December 2, 2025 City Council meeting. He cited the late hour—nearly 11:30 p.m.—and the importance of allowing the public to watch deliberations at a reasonable time. Marr seconded the motion for discussion.
Stephens noted that the Council had received a significant amount of information and needed time to review it thoroughly. He also mentioned that the December 2 agenda is already full, including:
An appeal of the Ohio House sober living home permit (expected to be lengthy)
A public hearing on development and traffic impact fees
Resolutions for three collective bargaining groups
Marr agreed, stating she has a “visceral reaction” to making decisions late at night and wants another meeting with Staff. She supported the motion. Reynolds also supported it and asked if she could go directly to Staff for more information. Marr emphasized that Councilmembers should take responsibility for reviewing their own binders of materials.
The City Attorney clarified that if new materials are submitted to the Council, they must also be made available to the public, and public comment would need to be taken on those materials. Otherwise, additional public comment at the December 2 meeting would not be required. Stephens added that if new materials are introduced, the City will evaluate the need for public comment and comply with the law. I hope so. I’ve had enough Brown Act violations by this group!
NEXT STEPS: Mark your calendars for December 2 at 6:00 p.m. I’ll post the agenda when it becomes available.
Comments