Costa Mesa City Council
November 18, 2025

DRAFT FAIRVIEW PARK

MASTER PLAN UPDATE
November 18, 2025
City Council Meeting
1 Presentation Outline

1. Project Background

2. Fairview Park Site Overview

3. Existing Conditions

4. Master Plan Update Process

5. Community Feedback

6. Key Findings

7. Recommendations

8. Committee/Commission/Council Input

9. Next Steps
2 Project Background
• 1986 – City purchased Fairview Park site from County of Orange • 1998 – City adopted the Fairview Park Master Plan
• 2008 – Master Plan last revised
• 2016 – Ballot Measure AA passed and codified
• 2019 – City Council allocated funding in CIP Budget for Master Plan Update • 2023 – Consultant contract awarded to MIG for the Master Plan Update 3 Project Purpose and Objectives
• Restore and preserve the park as an environmental resource • Manage the park as a passive recreational asset and educational resource • Recognize completed improvements, identify ongoing needs • Engage the local community in planning the park’s future • Update existing conditions reports, integrate regulatory updates, and prepare environmental documentation
• Utilize current technology and tools to support informed, sustainable park planning and management
4 4
Regional Context
5 6
Site Overview
6 Defining Features:
• Mesa
• Bluffs
• Wetlands
• Vernal Pools
• Lawn Area
• East Side
Existing Conditions:

Vegetation Map
7 7
Regionally Significant Cultural Site
Cultural & Historical Resources
• Indigenous Village Site, Genga
• 2 Nationally Registered Cultural
Resource Historic Sites
Koerper, H. C., Mason, R. D., & Peterson, M. L. 1994. Complexity, demography, and change in Late Holocene orange county. ENVIRONMENT, 77. 8 Biodiversity Hotspot
• 197 Plant Species
• 10 Rare Plant Species
• 18 Vegetation Community Alliances
• Habitat for Protected Species, including
Least Bell’s Vireo, Coastal California
Gnatcatcher, & Crotch’s Bumblebee
• 20 Butterfly Species
• 220 Species of Birds
• Wildlife Corridor
Regionally Significant Ecological Site
Coastal California Gnatcatcher
Photo Credit: Robb Hamilton
9 Regionally Significant Ecological Site
Vernal Pools
• Federally Protected Vernal Pool Habitat
for San Diego and Riverside Fairy
Shrimp
• 8 Special Status Vernal Pool Plants
Vernal Pool Watershed
on Mesa
Improper Fill
Material
Placement in
Vernal Pool
Watershed
Vernal Pools East of
Placentia Ave.
10 Regulatory Framework: Local
Improper Fill
Material
Placement in
Vernal Pool
Watershed
Vernal Pools East of
Placentia Ave.
11 • Ballot Measure AA Passed in 2016
• Codified into Costa Mesa Municipal Code
• Requires that significant changes and new constructed facilities in Fairview Park be subject to voter approval, with exceptions for:
 Restoration purposes
 Preservation purposes
 Maintenance
 Public Safety
• Defines what is a “Significant Change” including expansion and intensification of uses, and expansion or addition of amenities Regulatory Framework: State/Federal
Improper Fill
Material
Placement in
Vernal Pool
Watershed
Vernal Pools East of
Placentia Ave.
12 • AB 52 – Tribal Cultural Resource consultation
• California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
• National Historic Preservation Act
• California Fish and Game Code
• State and Federal Endangered Species Act
• CDFW/USFWS Correspondence Received
• State and Federal Clean Water Act provisions
Recreational Elements: Existing Uses
• Walking, jogging, hiking
• Open play
• Biking, Santa Ana River Trail gateway
• Bird watching, nature exploration, educational hub
• Community based restoration, volunteering
• Unique hobbyist activities: Model train riding, model glider flying 13 Master Plan Update Process
• Historical documentation review
• Field investigations and site assessment
• Legal and regulatory analysis
• Community outreach and tribal engagement
• Technical report preparation
• Development of findings and recommendations
• Draft Master Plan update preparation
14 14

Community Engagement
• Community workshops and informational meetings
• Fairview Park Steering Committee meetings
• Parks and Community Services Commission meetings
• Tribal Advisory Group meetings
• City Council meetings
• Informal outreach, website, pop ups, special event booths, etc. 15 Community Feedback Themes

1. Conservation and Education: Emphasize educating the public to protect sensitive biological and cultural resources.

2. Trail Management and Public Access: Participants supported consolidating and maintaining well-defined trails while limiting off- trail use using fencing, natural barriers, and clear signage.

3. Resource Protection Measures: Strong support expressed for protecting vernal pools, sensitive flora and fauna, and cultural sites.

4. Enhanced Park Operations and Amenities: Feedback highlighted the need for increased ranger/staff presence, ADA-accessible furnishings, additional dog waste receptacles, and improved trails.

5. Opinions of Recreational Activities: Variety of input on ongoing recreational uses and future recreational park opportunities. 16 Draft Master Plan Update: Key Findings

1. Informed Planning: Findings from the technical investigations serve as a valuable tool for informed decision-making.

2. Regional Biodiversity Hotspot: The park includes critical habitat and documented protected species. Discovery of the vernal pool’s expansive watershed area was unknown before.

3. Tribal Cultural Stewardship: The entire park is an extremely sensitive Native American cultural area with two nationally registered historic sites requiring priority protection.
17 Draft Master Plan Update: Key Findings

4. Exceptional Public Access: Fairview Park offers seven miles of passive recreational trails around unique ecological and cultural areas, a level of access rarely provided at comparable sites.

5. Threat Mitigation: Human activities threaten sensitive biological and cultural resources.

6. Regulatory Protections: Fairview Park’s biological, cultural, and paleontological resources are protected under a comprehensive regulatory framework at federal, state, and local levels. 18 Draft Master Plan Update: Overview
of Recommendations

1. Recognize and protect Fairview Park as a unified Tribal cultural landscape.

2. Prevent further damage to cultural resources through site management.

3. Honor Tribal stewardship and ensure respectful handling of cultural materials.

4. Prevent Resource Degradation.
19 Draft Master Plan Update: Overview
of Recommendations

5. Restore and Enhance Habitat.

6. Define and Manage Trails.

7. Enhance Public Amenities and Accessibility.

8. Manage Recreational Activities to Reduce Impacts to Sensitive Resources
• Off-trail bikes/pedestrians
• Location of fly field
• Dogs on leash
20 21
Draft Master Plan: Committee,
Commission and Council Input
21 Fairview Park Steering Committee
22 Background
• Formed in 2017 after the passing of Measure AA
• City Council tasked the Committee with:
• Provide advice to the City Council regarding the implementation of the Fairview Park Master Plan
• Provide advice to the City Council regarding the impacts of Measure AA on Capital Improvement Program projects, maintenance and activities • Recommend approval of grant applications, partnerships, and volunteer activities for the implementation of the Fairview Park Master Plan
• In 2018-2019, the Committee worked with staff and the City Council to secure funding for the Master Plan Update
Fairview Park Steering Committee
23 • Closely involved in the development of the Draft Master Plan • Master Plan meeting in June 2023
• Discussed Recommendations in July and October 2024
Recommendations
• 23 of the 25 recommendations are reflected in the Draft Master Plan Update
• Two recommendations not included in the Draft Master Plan:
• Relocate the fly field outside Fairview Park.
• Modify the park’s name i.e. “Fairview Nature Park” or similar.

Parks and Community Services
Commission
24 Recommendation
• June 2024 presentation
• Commission provided input and feedback
• October 2025 Recommendations on the Draft Master Plan Update • Include language to adhere to City’s Active Transportation Plan, include south bluff stairs
• Explore fly field options outside of Fairview Park
• Add multi-language signage
• Address public safety concerns
• Continue further tribal coordination and public engagement City Council
January 2025 Special Meeting
• Council discussed the Master Plan Update and provided feedback to staff:
• Balance resource protection and public use.
• Maintain access to the public while preserving sensitive resources. • Provide ample time for public review period on the Draft. • Ensure the website contains up to date information on the Draft. 25 Draft Master Plan Update
The Draft Master Plan Update builds upon the original Master Plan, within the framework of Measure AA, and balances resource protection with public use while reflecting the interests of the community and the City. 26 Next Steps
• Finalize Draft per City Council Direction
• CEQA Documentation – Programmatic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND)
• 30 Day CEQA Public Review Period
• City Council Master Plan adoption meeting in early 2026 27 Staff Recommendation

1. Review and discuss Draft Fairview Park Master Plan Update (Attachment 1) prepared by consultant Moore, Iacofano, Goltsman, Inc. (MIG)

2. Provide direction on the Fairview Park Master Plan Update for inclusion in the final Fairview Park Master Plan Update for adoption. 28 29
Questions?
29 Docusign Envelope ID: 547450Dl-4D15-4C8B-9E9E-F611B64CEB4A State of California - Natural Resources Aqencv

DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
South Coast Region
3883 Ruffin Road
San Diego, CA 92al23
www.wildlife.ca.qov
November 13, 2025
Brenda Green
City Clerk's Office
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
[email protected]
GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor
CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director
Subject: DRAFT FAIRVIEW PARK MASTER PLAN UPDATE, COSTA MESA, CA Dear Brenda Green:

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) has reviewed the Draft Fairview Park Master Plan Update (Plan) and associated technical reports from the City of Costa Mesa (City). Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and recommendations to the City Council regarding those activities that may affect California fish and wildlife.

Likewise, CDFW appreciates the opportunity to provide comments regarding those aspects of the Plan that CDFW, by law, may be required to carry out or approve through the exercise of its own regulatory authority under the Fish and Game Code.

CDFW ROLE
CDFW is California's Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources and holds those resources in trust by statute for all the people of the State, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelinesl(Fish & Game Code, §§ 711.7, subd. (a) & 1 802; Pub. Resources Code, § 21 070; CEQA Guidelines § 15386, subd. (a)). CDFW, in its trustee capacity, has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species (Fish & G. Code, § 1802).

Similarly, for purposes of CEQA, CDFW is charged by law to provide, as available, biological expertise during public agency environmental review efforts, focusing specifically on projects and related activities that have the potential to adversely affect fish and wildlife resources.

CDFW may also act as a Responsible Agency under CEQA. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21 069; CEQA Guidelines, § 15381 ). CDFW expects that it may need to exercise regulatory authority as provided by the Fish and Game Code. As proposed, for example, the Project may be subject to CDFW's lake and streambed alteration regulatory authority (Fish & G. Code, § 1600 et seq.). Likewise, to the extent ' CEQA is codified in the California Public Resources Code in section 21000 et seq. The "CEQA Guidelines" are found in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, commencing with section 15000.

Cortserving Califorrtia's Wi[dlife Since 1870
Docusign Envelope ID: 547450Dl-4D15-4C8B-9E9E-F611B64CEB4A Brenda Green
City of Costa Mesa
November 13, 2025

implementation of the Project as proposed may result in "take" as defined by State law2 of any species protected under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA; Fish & G. Code, § 2050 et seq.) or the Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA; Fish & G. Code, §1900 et seq.), the City may seek related take authorization as provided by the Fish and Game Code.

CDFW also administers the Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) program, a California regional habitat conservation planning program (Fish & G. Code, § 2800 et seq.). The City is a participating landowner under the Central/Coastal Orange County NCCP/Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP).

PLAN DESCRIPTION SUMMARY
Objective: According to the Fairview Park Master Plan Update (Plan), the essential purpose of updating the Plan is to reflect the vested interests of the community and the City to balance resource protection and public use. The Plan update aims to address critical needs for a Long-term Management Plan that conserves cultural and biological resources, including rare vernal pool habitats. It outlines goals to protect, preserve, and enhance natural resources through community education, stewardship, and management or the park for passive recreational uses (i.e. walking, running, walking of leashed dogs, flying glider planes, model railroading, flying kites, picnics, and other small group functions). From a natural resources perspective, the Plan will incorporate updated biological assessments with an assessment of current land uses considering recent changes in state environmental regulations/policies. It will be a Toundational document for planning, habitat restoration, wetland and riparian habitat remediation, and long-term habitat management. A Trails Plan will also be adopted in association with the Plan.

Location: Fairview Park is in the City, and its address is 2525 Placentia Avenue. It is bordered by residential areas to the north and east, Talbert Regional Park to the south, and the Santa Ana River to the west. The park itself is bisected by Placentia Avenue, which runs north/south.

Biological Setting: The regional biological significance of Fairview Park cannot be overstated. The Park is the northernmost parcel of a rare, contiguous undeveloped natural open space, which stretches from Fairview Park southward through Talbert Regiona! Park and terminates at the Randall Preserve. The 208-acre, topographically diverse Park contains a multitude of habitat types and micro-habitats, including one of the last coastal terrace vernal pools complexes in Orange County (USFWS 2007) on its mesa. Vernal pools in Fairview Park also support several plant species that are locally rare (City 2008 and Chung 2010). The artificial ponds in the lowlands provide nesting and foraging habitat for riparian species. Other natural and sensitive habitats include 2 "Take" is defined in Section 86 of the Fish and Game Code as "hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill."
Docusign Envelope ID: 547450D1-4D15-4C8B-9E9E-F611B64CEB4A Brenda Green
City of Costa Mesa
November 13, 2025

native grasslands, coastal bluff scrub, alluvial scrub, riparian woodlands, and coastal sage scrub. These habitats serve as foraging and reproductive habitat, providing refugia for many sensitive species in an otherwise developed watershed. Approximately 'l 2- acres of the Park are landscaped.

According to the Biological Technical Report (BTR; Hamilton Biological 2025), 222 vascular plants and over 262 wildlife species have been documented in the Park, a remarkable number of flora and fauna for an area with just under 200 acres of habitat.

Several listed species have been observed on site or have high or moderate potential to occur on site which include:

Invertebrates
San Diego fairy shrimp (Branchinecta sandiegonensis; Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed endangered),
Crotch's bumble bee (Bombus crotchii; CESA Candidate for Threatened or Endangered Listing; CBB),
Birds
Coastal California gnatcatcher (:Polioptila californica californica; ESA- listed threatened; CDFW Species of Special Concern (SSC); gnatcatcher], Least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus; ESA-listed endangered; CESA-listed endangered; vireo),
White-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus; CDFW Fully Protected Species), Belding's Savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi; CESA-listed endangered),
Western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia; SSC; CESA Candidate for Threatened or Endangered Listing),
Coastal cactus wren (Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus sandiegensis; SSC), Coopers hawk (Astur cooperii; SSC),
Plants
San Diego button celery (Eryngium aristulatum var. parishii; CESA-listed Endangered, California Native Plant Society Rare Plant Rank 1 B.1 ), and, Southern tarplant (Centromadia parrryi ssp. australis; California Native Plant Society Rare Plant Rank 1 B.1 ).

Prior CDFW Engagement: CDFW has a long history of engaging with the City on natural resources matters at Fairview Park, most notably vernal pool complex management issues, historic violations, and ongoing impacts to areas subject to Fish and Game Code 1600 et seq. Additionally, fulfillment of outstanding mitigation obligations regarding compensatory mitigation obligations at Fairview Park for off-site projects with the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), the u.s. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), and the Department of Toxic Substances Control continue to languish and remain incomplete (OCTA 2018 and CDFW 2019). While we appreciate that our working partnership appears to be gradually improving, our attempts to Docusign Envelope ID: 547450D1 -4D1 5-4C8B-9E9E-F61I B64CEB4A Brenda Green
City of Costa Mesa
November 13, 2025

partner with the City on these outstanding issues have been largely ineffective. As outlined below, many of these obligations are incomplete or their status is unknown.

In 2014, CDFW partnered with the u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to provide comments on vernal pool restoration affer the installation of a path in the Park that was routed within and adjacent to vernal pools occupied by the federally endangered San Diego fairy shrimp (USFWS 2014). Impacts to these pools from the installation of paths and parking areas, improvements to Estancia High School stadium, and the operation of motorized vehicles during the wet season were mitigated through restoration efforts at pools 2, 5, 6, and 7 (Glen Lukos Associates 2015). It is unclear to CDFW and the USFWS (hereaffer referred to as the Wildlife Agencies) as to whether the stated mitigation and restoration efforts were achieved in full.

In 2016, CDFW investigated the City's fill or Little Canyon as a possible violation of Fish and Game Code, section 1602, when soil stockpiles from the artificial pond creation were used to fill Little Canyon for purposes of trail creation and realignment. CDFW concluded the unauthorized activities were subject to Fish and Game Code; however, the statute of limitations to issue a Notice of Violation had passed and no action was taken (City 2015).

In 2018, the City contacted CDFW regarding clearing of vegetation in and around the artificial pond complex during the nesting season for coastal California gnatcatcher. At that time, CDFW communicated that a Routine Maintenance Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSAA) per our Lake and Streambed Alteration program was required to move forward with the clearing. To date the City does not have a Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement to authorize the work in those areas (Comment 3). On October 8, 2025, affer CDFW issued a comment letter on the Plan Update's technical documents (CDFW 2025), the City and CDFW met to discuss the City's progress regarding their Incomplete notification for a Routine Maintenance LSAA. In that meeting, the City reaffirmed their commitment to providing a complete notification for their LSAA in early 2026.

In 2019, the Wildlife Agencies and OCTA met with the City several times to discuss their outstanding mitigation obligations to OCTA and ACOE (OCTA 2018). Since our comment letter on the Plan Update's technical documents (CDFW 2025) was issued, the City has adopted the Flower Fields Restoration Project, which will restore habitat and satisfy outstanding mitigation obligations to OCTA (Comment 7).

COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CDFW offers the comments and recommendations below to assist the City in finalizing the Plan and strengthening the stated goals; namely, aligning the existing Plan with current biological assessments, land uses, and environmental regulations and policies, while adequately identifying and/or mitigating the Plan's significant, or potentially significant, direct and indirect impacts on fish and wi!dlife (biological) resources.

1. Fly Field Relocation. In alignment with the Wildlife Agencies' recommendation, and the recommendations of many other natural resources-focused entities, the fly field Docusign Envelope ID: 547450D1-4D15-4C8B-9E9E-F611B64CEB4A Brenda Green
City of Costa Mesa
November 13, 2025

relocation represents a well-considered and balanced approach to habitat protection and recreation. CDFW strongly supports the relocation because it places fly field and glider operations within an already developed and actively used recreation area, well separated from the highly rare and sensitive vernal pool complex. This will substantially reduce the potential for unauthorized trail creation, fully avoid vernal pool habitat degradation, and minimize likelihood unauthorized take of state and/or federally listed species that reside on the Mesa.

The relocation and reduced maintenance activities within the vernal pool complex are a proactive step toward long-term species and habitat protection, regulatory compliance, and responsible recreation planning; this is in part because the Plan commits to restoring vernal pools and removing fill soils from the northern part of the Mesa. A portion of the Mesa restoration will include coastal sage scrub and flower fields to fulfill mitigation obligations, improve conditions for native wildlife, and reinforce the City's commitment to the Master Plan (at pp. 71, City of Costa Mesa, 2025). Importantly, the Plan's objectives for Strategic Habitat Restoration Project 1.

Mesa Habitat Restoration and Indigenous Village Site Protection (pp. 82, City of Costa Mesa, 2025) specifically call for elimination of incompatible uses such as mowing within the vernal pool complex. Relocation of the fly field directly supports these objectives by removing maintenance activities that currently threaten and degrade sensitive vernal pool habitat.

2. CESA Candidate Species. CDFW emphasizes that the fly field relocation is the biologically superior option and represents a dramatically lower regulatory burden for the City, in that impacts to CESA-listed and CESA candidate species would be smal!er, and mitigation requirements associated with authorized incidental take would be significant!y lower. Additionally, relocation would avoid the necessity to notify CDFW under Fish and Game Code section 1600 et seq. and avoid the need for consultation with the USFWS for San Diego fairy shrimp. However, based on recent survey data brought to CDFW's attention, operation and maintenance of the fly field in its new location may still require take authorization under CESA. a. Western burrowinq owl. According to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB, Online Field Survey Form), there is a 2020 occurrence record of a western burrowing owl adjacent to the proposed fly field. Creation, use, and maintenance of the new fly field location may disturb, distress, or lead to take of individual western burrowing owls.

On October I 5, 2024, the Fish and Game Commission published a Notice of Findings that designates western burrowing owl as a CESA candidate species.

As a candidate species, western burrowing owls are granted full protection of a threatened or endangered species under CESA. If any activities could result in take, appropriate CESA authorization (i.e., Incidental Take Permit under Fish and Game Code section 2081 or Restoration Management Permit under Fish and Game Code section 1670 et seq.) should be obtained prior to commencement of Project activities. Take of any endangered, threatened, or candidate species that results from the Project is prohibited, except as authorized by State law (Fish & Docusign Envelope ID: 547450D1-4D15-4C8B-9E9E-F611B64CEB4A Brenda Green
City of Costa Mesa
November 13, 2025

G. Code, §§ 86, 1670, 2062, 2067, 2068, 2080, 2085; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 786.9). Take of individual burrowing owls and their nests is defined by Fish and Game Code section 86, and prohibited by sections 3503, 3503.5 and 3513. b. Crotch's bumble bee. Creation, use, and maintenance of the fly field could also impact Crotch's bumble bee or floristic resources upon which the species relies.

Crotch's bumble bee often nests underground, sometimes occupying abandoned rodent burrows along with many other microhabitats (Hatfield et al., 2015). If Crotch's bumble bee are using burrows on the relocation site for nesting, direct impacts could result from ground-disturbing activities, which could lead to death or injury of adults, eggs, and larva, burrow collapse, nest abandonment, and reduced nest success. Indirect impacts may occur from loss of foraging resources.

The California Fish and Game Commission accepted a petition to list the Crotch's bumble bee as threatened or endangered under CESA, determining the listing "may be warranted" and advancing the species to the candidacy stage of the CESA listing process. Crotch's bumble bee is granted full protection under CESA. Take of any endangered, threatened, candidate species that results from the Project is prohibited, except as authorized by State law (Fish & G. Code, §§ 86, 2062, 2067, 2068, 2080, 2085; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 786.9). In addition, Crotch's bumble bee has a State ranking of S1/S2. This means that Crotch's bumble bee is considered critically imperiled or imperiled and is extremely rare (often five or fewer populations). Crotch's bumble bee is also listed as an invertebrate of conservation priority under the California Terrestrial and Vernal Pool Invertebrates or Conservation Priority List (CDFW 2024).

CDFW welcomes coordination with the City to determine if take authorization can be circumvented at the relocation site through modifications in the proposed design, based upon avoidance of suitable habitat.

3. CESA-Listed Species. Fairview Park contains multiple records of CESA-listed species, including least Bell's vireo, Belding's savannah sparrow, and San Diego button celery. CDFW considers adverse impacts to a species protected by CESA to be significant. Take of any endangered, threatened, candidate species, or NPPA- listed p!ant species that resu!ts from the Project is prohibited, except as authorized by state law (Fish & G. Code §§ 1670, 2080, 2085; Cal. Code Regs., tit. I 4, §786.9).

Consequently, if the Project or any Project-related activity will result in take of a species designated as endangered or threatened, or a candidate for listing under CESA, CDFW recommends that the Project proponent seek appropriate take authorization under CESA prior to implementing the Project. Appropriate authorization from CDFW may include an Incidental Take Permit (ITP), Restoration Management Permit (RMP) or a consistency determination in certain circumstances, among other options (Fish & G. Code, §§ 1670, 2080.1, 2081, subds. (b) and (c)).

Early consultation is encouraged, as significant modification to a future project and mitigation measures may be required to obtain a CESA Permit. To ensure CDFW will be able to use the Master Plan and associated CEQA document For the issuance Docusign Envelope ID: 547450D1-4D15-4C8B-9E9E-F611B64CEB4A Brenda Green
City of Costa Mesa
November 13, 2025

of any CESA-issued permits, the Plan's CEQA document should address all future project impacts to CESA-listed species and specify a mitigation, monitoring, and reporting program that will meet the requirements of an ITP or RMP.

4. Cutting the Green Tape Program. CDFW acknowledges the City's continued work to restore and manage natural resources within Fairview Park and recognizes the City's efforts to advance several restoration initiatives under the draft Master Plan Update. As such, we encourage the City to leverage our Cutting the Green Tape Program where appropriate. A Restoration Management Permit (RMP) issued through the Cutting the Green Tape Program provides a unified, efficient CDFW permitting mechanism for restoration, enhancement, and species recovery projects that simplifies the permitting process while maintaining strong species and habitat protection measures. The RMP provides up to five separate CDFW authorizations in a single permit designed for beneficial management, recovery, and restoration activities: I ) take of CESA threatened, endangered, or candidate species; 2) take of Fully Protected Species; 3) take of plant species designated as "rare" under the NPPA; 4) take of other species including mammals, birds, fish, amphibians, or reptiles; and 5) authorization of impacts to rivers, streams, and lakes that would otherwise be subject to a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement. More information on this program can be found at Cuttinq the Green Tape"'.

5. Wetland Impacts. CDFW appreciates the efforts to include the vernal pool complex as subject to Fish and Game Code section 1600 et seq. (pp. 27, City or Costa Mesa, 2025). For any such activities, the Project applicant (or "entity") must provide written notification to CDFW pursuant to section 1600 et seq. of the Fish and Game Code.

Based on this notification and other information, CDFW determines whether a Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSAA) with the applicant is required prior to conducting the proposed activities. CDFW's issuance of an LSAA for a Project that is subject to CEQA will require CEQA compliance actions by CDFW as a Responsib!e Agency. To minimize additional requirements by CDFW pursuant to section 1600 et seq. and/or under CEQA, the Plan should fully identify the potential impacts to the stream or riparian resources and provide adequate avoidance, mitigation, monitoring, and reporting commitments for issuance or the LSAA. CDFW recommends the Applicant submit a Lake and Streambed Alteration Notification to CDFW. Notifications can be submitted through CDFW's Environmental Permit Information Manaqement System (EPIMS)4.

6. Trail Design. The Trails Plan provided in the larger Plan Update appropriately emphasizes connected habitats, removing unauthorized trails, and reducing human intrusion within sensitive habitats. It also distinguishes between primary and secondary pedestrian trails. These secondary pedestrian trails are redundant recreation paths that further fragment the sensitive habitats throughout the park. 3 https://wildlife.ca.qov/Conservation/Cuttinq-Green-Tape 4 https://epims.wildlife.ca.qov/index.do
Docusign Envelope ID: 547450D1-4D15-4C8B-9E9E-F611B64CEB4A Brenda Green
City of Costa Mesa
November"l3, 2025

CDFW recommends the following items in the Trails Plan are resolved prior to adopting the Plan Update:
a. The Trails Plan proposes constructing an elevated boardwalk along the existing trail that runs diagonally from the north terminus of Canyon Drive southwest to Pacific Avenue. While CDFW agrees that an elevated boardwalk could provide protection for the vernal pool complex, the Trails Plan figure does not delineate where the proposed boardwalk would be located, nor does it clearly correspond with the Trail Type/Mode of Travel tab!e (pp. 97-98, City of Costa Mesa, 2025).

Based on the text description, the boardwalk appears to have a "primary pedestrian trail" designation, but this is not clearly depicted in the figure. Per the Habitat Restoration Opportunities Figure (pp. 60, City of Costa Mesa, 2025), the proposed boardwalk would overlap the Vernal Pool 4 Restoration (2002 to 2009). b. A secondary pedestrian trail is currently proposed to bisect the vernal pool complex immediately adjacent to Vernal Pool 1 Restoration, per the Habitat Restoration Opportunities figure (pp. 60, City of Costa Mesa, 2025). It can be assumed that this specific trail would be fenced using low-disturbance methods such as gabion baskets or stacked wood fencing to minimize ground disturbance and prevent soil penetration within the vernal pool watershed. However, these fencing methods provide less certainty in keeping trail users on designated paths and out of sensitive habitats. Additionally, the table does not specify the materials nor surface treatments for this specific trail. If the trail is not struck from the Trails Plan, these specifics should be added.
c. Given the sensitivity of the vernal pool complex and the potential for off-trail intrusion, CDFW recommends that the secondary pedestrian trail bisecting the Mesa be eliminated from the Trail Plan and that other secondary trails be reduced to the greatest extent possible. Secondary pedestrian trails are also sited throughout the Wetlands and Riparian Phase 2 (OCTA) (2012 to Present) site and the Community-Led Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS) Restoration (On-going) site, per the Habitat Restoration Opportunities figure (pp. 60, City of Costa Mesa, 2025).
d. Wildlife Agency approved Fairview Park CSS and Flower Fields Habitat Restoration and Monitoring Plan. The Trail Plan as currently designed may authorize trails that will significantly bisect and cause indirect effects to the future CSS and Flower Fields Restoration Project (Land IQ, 2024). In the absence of a clearly defined and enforceable public access management program, the potential for habitat disturbance remains high. The City should provide further discussion of the proposed means to enforce pedestrian access restrictions and ensure long-term protection of sensitive biological resources. e. The Trails Plan should include an inventory and mapping of all existing authorized and unauthorized trails, access points, and areas of sensitive biological resources.

Docusign Envelope ID: 547450D1-4D15-4C8B-9E9E-F611B64CEB4A Brenda Green
City of Costa Mesa
November 13, 2025

7. Enforcement. CDFW appreciates that the Plan discusses the need for increased park ranger presence and enforcement efforts; however, the Plan does not reference specific regulations, enTorcement mechanisms, nor management actions that will achieve this objective. Without clearly defined operation protocols, staffing commitments, or regulatory measures (such as posted restrictions, penalties, or monitoring programs), it remains uncertain how the City intends to ensure compliance and effectively deter unauthorized trail creation and unauthorized vehicle access. The Plan should include a more detailed description of enforcement strategies and corresponding resources allocations to demonstrate the City's capacity to maintain long-term protection of sensitive habitats and recreational infrastructure.

8. OCTA Mitigation Obligations. The Fairview Park Mesa Restoration Project was nominated by the City in 2010 For Tunding consideration From the OCTA. Upon completion and Wildlife Agency approval, the restored habitat will be eligible for use by OCTA as mitigation credits under the OCTA Measure 2 NCCP/HCP, contingent upon establishment of a recorded conservation easement or other approved conservation mechanism to ensure the long-term protection of the site.

The Plan's current objectives for the Strategic Habitat Restoration Projects (pp. 84, City of Costa Mesa, 2025) directly advance fulfillment of the City's outstanding obligations to OCTA and demonstrate renewed commitment to successful restoration outcomes. Notably, the City's adoption of the CSS and Flower Fields Restoration Project represents meaningful progress in implementing the City's restoration vision. CDFW acknowledges the City's coordination with the Cutting the Green Tape initiative to streamline permitting and regulatory alignment for these efforts. We look forward to working with the City to complete a conservation easement to fulfill the City's obligations under the original Restoration Project.

Establishing this instrument will ensure the perpetual protection and management of restored habitats and allow OCTA to apply the resulting credits toward their mitigation obligations.

CDFW remains committed to working collaboratively with the City and OCTA to authorize restoration projects that demonstrate sustained ecological uplift, consistent with state conservation priorities and the goals of the existing OCTA Measure 2 NCCP/HCP. We look Forward to advancing a complete Restoration Management Permit application package to facilitate timely implementation of these future projects.

Docusign Envelope ID: 547450DI-4D15-4C8B-9E9E-F611B64CEB4A Brenda Green
City of Costa Mesa
November I 3, 2025

CONCLUSION
CDFW appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Drafi Fairview Park Master Plan Update to advise the City of Costa Mesa in identifying and mitigating the Master Plan's impacts on biological resources. Questions regarding this letter or further coordination should be directed to Paola Perez"', Environmental Scientist.

Sincerely,
rsl(lned by:
-AD7DO70BCB68468
Glen M. Lubcke
Environmental Program Manager
South Coast Region
ec: California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Jennifer Turner, Senior Environmental Scientist (Supervisory) Cindy Hailey, Staff Services Analyst
u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service
Christine Medak
Office of Planninq and Research
[email protected]
City of Costa Mesa Council Members
[email protected]

REFERENCES
CDFW. 2019. RE: Remedial Action Plan for Ascon Landfill Site Project, Huntington Beach, CA (SCH# 2013041010). Electronic mail received by X. Zhai from J.

Turner on April I 7, 2019. On file at CDFW.

CDFW. 2023. EPIMS-ORA-38510-R5. Lake and Streambed Notification. Submitted by the City of Costa Mesa on June 26, 2023. On file at CDFW.

CDFW. 2024. California Terrestrial and Vernal Pool Invertebrates of Conservation Priority List. On file at CDFW.

CDFW. 2025. Incomp!ete Notification of Routine Maintenance Agreement No.

EPIMSORA-38510-R5, Fairview Park Wetlands Maintenance Project. Issued Ju!y 3, 2024 to the City of Costa Mesa. On file at CDFW.

CDFW. 2025. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). Available at:
https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB
ACOE. 2010. Personal Communication. Electronic mail received by C. Medak from J.

Chung on April 16, 2010. On file at Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office. 5 [email protected]
Docusign Envelope ID: 547450Dl-4D15-4C8B-9E9E-F611B64CEB4A Brenda Green
City of Costa Mesa
November 13, 2025

City of Costa Mesa. 2025. Fairview Park Master Plan Update DRAFT. September 29, 2025. Available at https://www.costamesaca.qov/community/fairview- park/fairview-park-master-p!an
City of Costa Mesa. 2008. Fairview Park Master Plan March 1998, Revised February 2001 and November 2002, Updated November 2008. Available at https://www.costamesaca.qov/community/fairview-park/fairview-park-master-plan City of Costa Mesa. 2015. Fairview Park. Electronic mail received by J. Edwards from B. Mejia on September 24, 2015. On file at CDFW.

Ellenberg, Ursula, Thomas Mattern, and Philip J Seddon. 2013. "Heart Rate Responses Provide an Objective Eva!uation or Human Disturbance Stimuli in Breeding Birds." Conservation Physiology. doi:10.1093/conphys/cotOl3.

Glen Lukos Associates. 2015. Fairview Park Vernal Pool Restoration Plan for Restoration of Areas Within the Jurisdiction of the USFWS Pursuant to the Endangered Species Act. Prepared for the City of Costa Mesa. Costa Mesa CA.

Greer, K., K. Day, and S. McCutcheon. 2017. Efficacy and perception of trail use enforcement in an urban natural reserve in San Diego, California. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism I 8:56-64.

Hamilton Biological. 2025. Biological Resources Technical Report, Fairview Park, City of Costa Mesa. Prepared for the City of Costa Mesa. Online at https://www.costamesaca.qov/home/showpublisheddocumenU60543/638865317 803 900000.

Hatfield, R., Jepsen, s., Thorp, R., Richardson, L. & Colla, S. 2015. Bombus crotchii.

The ICUN Red List of Threatened Species. 2015: e.T44937582A464402l1.

Land IQ. July 23, 2024. Fairview Park Coastal Sage Scrub and Flower Fields Habitat Restoration and Monitoring Plan. Prepared for the City of Costa Mesa. On file at CDFW.

OCTA. 2018. RE: Fairview Park Wetlands. Electronic mail received by J. Turner from L.

Hill on December I 1, 2018. On file at CDFW.

United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Ecological Services
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office
2177 Salk Avenue, Suite 250
Carlsbad, Califomia 92008
u&
W &a
gERVRJ
In Reply Refer To:

FWS-OR-13BO443-14T AO229
JUL 2 4 2a!
Mr. Baltazar Mejia
Senior Engineer, Public Services Department
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, Califomia 92626
Subject: Restoration, Management, and Protection of Vernal Pools within Fairview Park, City of Costa Mesa, Orange County, California
Dear Mr. Mejia:

This letter has been prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) to provide the City of Costa Mesa (City) with information on the actions needed to restore, protect, and manage vemal pool habitat and associated species within the City at Fairview Park, Orange County, California. This information is provided in response to: (1) the installation of a path in Fairview Park that was routed within and adjacent to vernal pools occupied by the federally endangered San Diego fairy shrimp (Brarichinecta sandiegonensis), (2) your written request received September 4, 2013, for our review of restoration alternatives for vernal pools impacted by the installation of the path (LSA 2013), and (3) recommendations provided by Finium Environmental (2013) following removal of the path.

Although the City's primary focus is on restoration of vernal pools impacted by the path, this letter includes actions the Service considers necessary to protect all vernal pool habitat and associated species within Fairview Park. This letter addresses future actions the City may take; it does not address or resolve issues relating to past actions, including the path construction, or the "take"' of listed species associated with those past actions. This letter does not constitute authorization for future "take" of listed species.

Background
San Diego fairy shrimp were first identified in Fairview Park in 1994 (Michael Brandman Associates 1995), 3 years prior to the Federal listing of the species (62 FR 4933). Seven vernal pool basins (numbered l through 7) and a "vemal marsh" were delineated in 1995 (Michael Brandman and Associates 1995) (Figure 1). San Diego fairy shrimp have since been identified in all but Basin 7 ' Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act and associated regulations prohibit the take of endangered and threatened species without special exemption. Take is defined as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. Harm is fiirther defined by the Fish and Wildlife Service to include significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing essential behavior patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering.

Mar. Baltazar Mejia (FWS-OR-13BO443-14TAO229) 2
(City 2008, Appendix C, Simovich 2005). Three additional vernal pools were observed in Fairview Park, east of Placentia Avenue in 2002 (Glenn Lukos 2002 in LSA 2007). To our knowledge, no surveys for fairy shrimp have been completed in these pools. 0 at}
l: -
i4
Thk P
Figure 1. Location of vernal pool basins at Fairview Park.

Source: Michael Brandman Associated (1995) and Fairview Master Plan (November 2002 revision).

Pool basins relabeled for clarity.

Restoration projects to improve the quality of habitat for San Diego fairy shrimp and sensitive plant species were completed in Fairview Park as mitigation for impacts to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers jurisdictional waters of the United States (Michael Brandman Associates 2002; Glenn Lukos Associates 2006). As a result of these projects, Basins 1, 2, and 3 were combined (Restored Basin l), and Basin 4 and the "vernal marsh" were restored into a vernal pool complex (Restored Complex 4).

Mr. Baltazar Mejia (FWS-OR-13BO443-14TAO229) 3
In above average rainfall years, it is likely that the watersheds of Restored Basin 1 and Restored Complex 4 are connected across the path that artificially separates the watersheds (Figure 2). It is also likely that Basins 5, 6, and 7 are pait of a vernal pool complex with a shared hydrological connection during high rainfall years. Monitoring during previous restoration efforts identified the connection between Basins 5 and 6 (Michael Brandman Associates 2002), and the boundary between the watersheds of Basin 5 and 7 was coincident with a row of logs that have since been removed (Finium Environmental 2013).

Restored Complex #4
.li
Restored Basin #l
Boardwalk
Fence
Figure 2. Vernal pools in Fairview Park during an above average rainfall year (facing south). Paths bisect the basins in several locations, and the fencing is in the water.

Photo soiu'ce: http://www.savefairviewpark.org/documents/fpcac-pack-5-29-13.zip. Labels added.

Fairview Park supports one of the last coastal terrace vemal pools complexes in Orange County (Service 2007). Conservation and management of the San Diego fairy shrimp and its habitat in Fairview Park and other vemal pool complexes in the Los Angeles Basin-Orange Management Area is one of the criteria identified for recovery of the San Diego fairy shp in the Service's Recovery Plan for Vemal Pools of Southern California (Service 1998). Vemal pools in Fairview Park also support several plant species that are locally rare (City 2008; Chung 2010).

Mr. Baltazar Mejia (FWS-OR-13BO443-14TAO229) 4
In the past, the City has supported restoration of the vernal pools and other sensitive habitat in Fairview Park, and tlie Fairview Park Master Plan (City 2008) includes a comi'nitment that "the pools and basins [in Faii'view Park] are to be retained, restored, and protected." Specific actions in the plan anticipated to benefit the San Diego fairy shrimp include, but are not limited to: (1) restoration of vernal pool habitat; (2) development of a fox-malized path system to avoid sensitive areas to the extent feasible; (3) installation of educational signage and observation platforms in the vernal pool restoration area; (4) installation of fencing to protect tlie vemal pools; and (5) cessation of mowing within tl'ie vernal pools or, if necessary, mowing only late in the season after annual forbs and grasses have set seed.

We agree that the general measures identified in the Master Plan are appropriate to maintain the vernal pools. We are concerned, however, tliat some measures have not been implemented and otliers have been implemented in ways that may liave impacted tlie San Diego fairy shrimp. More specific details are needed to ensure that the San Diego fairy shrimp and its habitat are protected.

Activities that may liave impacted or have the potential to impact the San Diego fairy shrimp and its habitat at Fairview Park include the following:

Installation of paths and parking areas: A path was installed in late 2013 tliat may have resulted in direct and indirect impacts to San Diego faiiy shrimp, as described in our letter, dated November 14, 2013 (13BO443-14TAOO39). While the path has been removed, grading associated with path installation altered the hydrology of the watershed suppoiting Basins 5 and 6 so that water may not pond to the extent it did historically (Finium Environmental 2013). As a result, fairy sbrimp cysts may not l'iatcli to their liistorical capacities until changes in topography are corrected (Finium Environmental 2013). The portion of the watershed supporting Basin 7 (including the basin area) has been rised as a temporary parking area, and logs were placed in the watershed to delineate the parking boundaiy. A portion of the watershed of Restored Complex 4 was impacted by the installation of permanent parking along Canyon Drive. Grading for the parlang area changed the topography so that water now ponds in the parking area (Figure 2).

Improvements to Estancia High School Stadium: The installation of fencing and a field events area impacted a significant portion of the watershed area supporting Basin 6 and altered the hydrology by re-grading the site. The changes in topography may limit the potential for the City to restore the basin within the boundaries of Fairview Park.

Pedestrians, dogs, and bicycles: While substantial resources have been focused on restoring and protecting Restored Basin 1, the unfenced nortliern end has informal paths leading directly into the basin and allowing bicycle access. Bicycle tracks and paths encroach within the northem end of the basin. Because the fencing was installed only around the restored basin area, the paths leading to the boardwalk are within the watershed of the basin. In January 2011 (an above average rainfall year), it was apparent that several paths and tlie fence are located in the basin (Figure 2). Restored Complex 4 has mriltiple paths running through it and shows signs of frequent use by dogs.

Operation of motorized vehicles during the wet season: In Restored Complex 4, deep tire tracks are evident due to motorized vehicle encroachment when the basins were inundated. The deep tracks may have altered the hydrology of the basins by causing water to pool first in the tracks, potentially concentrating fairy sbrimp cysts within smaller portions of each basin.

Mr. Baltazar Mejia (FWS-OR-13BO443-14TAO229) 5
Installation of landscaping and associated inigation systems: Ornamental landscaping and turf areas border Basins 5 and 6 to the north, south, and east. Irrigation systems installed to support the landscaping are contributing to conversion of the vegetation communities within the watershed where water is now available throughout the year. The perennial water source is supporting wetland species such as mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia), curly dock (Rumex crispus), and sedges (Cyperus sp.) (FiniumEnvironmental20l3). Theconversionofthevei'nalpoolhabitattowetlandcanresultinthe permanent loss of habitat for San Diego fairy shrimp.

Mowing and pesticide and herbicide application: We have little infortnation regarding the cui'rent timing and location of mowing activities or the application of pesticides and herbicides, but these activities have the potential to impact San Diego fairy shrimp and their habitat. Mowing equipment can Cl-LISII cysts, spread invasive plant species, and cause iuts if mowing is conducted when the grorind is damp. Pesticides and herbicides could potentially harm San Diego faii'y shrimp cysts and adults.

Restoration, protection, and management of vernal pools in Fairview Park While accommodating priblic uses within Fairview Park, it is the City's responsibility to ensure that its actions comply with the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). In consideration of the degraded condition and management needs of the vernal pool habitat within Fairview Park, implementation by the City of the following measures would help ensure that the San Diego fairy shrimp population within the coastal terrace vernal pools at Faii'view P:ark remains viable. Some of tliese restoration actions can be implemented immediately without fuither authorization under the Act, but others have the potential to result in take of listed species for which additional autliorization under the Act worild be required. To ensure that the City's future actions are appropriately authorized under the Act, we recommend tl'iat the City coordinate closely with our office to ensure that any incidental take associated with these actions is appropriately exempted under tlie Act. As indicated above, tliis letter does not exempt future take of listed species.

Tlie following measures apply to Restored Basin 1, Restored Complex 4, and the vei'nal pool complex consisting of Basins 5, 6, and 7.

1. Watershed Restoration - Prepare and implement a restoration plan to address damages to the hydrological function of the vernal pool watersheds. The plan should be prepared by a biologist with a minimum of 5 years of experience restoring vernal pools in southern Califoi'nia and should identify actions that are necessary to restore hydrological function to the vernal pools. The plan should be reviewed and approved by the Service prior to implementation. Measures that should be included in the restoration plan include, but are not limited to:
a. Corrections to the watershed topography, as necessary, to ensure the basins will pond for a sufficient duration during an average rainfall year to support the life history of the San Diego fairy shrimp.
b. Management of the irrigation systems to prevent iunoff from entering the watershed of Basins 5, 6, and 7. The City should coordinate with Newport-Mesa Unified School Mr. Baltazar Mejia (FWS-OR-13BO443-14TAO229) 6
District to ensure ii'igation supporting landscaping at Estancia High School Stadium does not enter Fairview Park. We are available to assist tlie City with this coordination, as necessary.
c. Removal of landscaping, turf, and non-vemal pool associated wetland plants (e.g., mulefat, curly dock) that were supported by irrigation systems in the watersheds and replacement witli appropriate native vegetation. d. Removal of non-native plant species (e.g., annual grasslands and mustards) if needed to re-establish hydrological function.
e. Restoration of native vegetation around the vemal pool basins and along infonnal and unautl'iorized paths, as appropriate (e.g., outside the basin area). f. Removal of trash or other debris from the vernal pool waterslied.

2. Permanent Protection - Record a conservatioi'i easement over the vernal pool basins and watersheds. Consistent with the Fairview Park Master Plan, the conservation easement should provide for the protection of the San Diego fairy shrimp and its habitat while allowing appropriate public access and enjoyment of the park.

3. Fencing and Paths - The Service generally recommends fencing a sufficiently large habitat buffer (i.e., at least 100 feet from the outer edge of tlie watershed in most cases) to reduce encroachment by pedestrians and off-road vehicles, trash accumulation and dumping, and other indirect effects of development (Service 2008). A large buffer is necessary to account for natural changes in the basin dimensions over time in response to varying hydrological conditions and to prevent alterations to the watershed that could impact the diu'ation and extent of ponding. To ensure the watersheds in Fairview Park are protected, the fencing should limit entry to the majority of the watershed area. Pets should be kept on leash in the park to prevent entiy into fenced areas. Formal paths that will pass through the watershed of vemal pools should be placed on boardwalks, above the water surface elevation of the basins, to minimize changes in hydrology and the introduction of contaminants into the basins.

Suggested locations for fencing are provided for discussion purposes (Figure 3).

4. Public Education - The Service would like to partner with the City to develop educational materials and signs that can highlight the importance of biological resources in Fairview Park. The presei'vation of remaining coastal terrace pools in the City of Costa Mesa should be considered a source of pride for tl'ie City and its citizens. Educational signs, located along primary access routes (e.g., Figure 3), can help to enhance and contribute to the public's use and enjoyment of the vernal pool area. A "nature path" with stopping points where users can learn more about vernal pools and the plants and animals they support can highlight species that are not readily seen and can maintain a public awareness of the rarity of these biological resources for generations to come.
)lp!AApJe08p90llal2i
qlEAApJEO9 2
u%rO-%
9:)u;1I C:J
)lJEd MOIAJIE!d gituoxpo apeqsiao aogz
[9i@.'
(b;xzov.tt=tct=t=oqcx-ao-smg) p'i!'gn -rpzmtpu 'JW
Mr. Baltazar Mejia (FWS-OR-13BO443-14TAO229) 8

5. Trash - Provide trash receptacles and pet waste stations in convenient locations to minimize the potential for trash to be discarded in the vemal pool watersheds.

6. Mowing, Weed Control, and Pesticide Use - Mowing should be conducted outside the limits of the vernal pool basins to avoid direct impacts to San Diego fairy shrimp. In addition, we recominend that mowing be restricted within approximately 50 feet of the basin area to avoid restored habitat and sensitive plant species sunounding the basin area. Tlie mowing limits should be periodically reevaluated to compensate for changes in tlie size and location of the basin area and corresponding zone of sensitive plant species. Please coordinate with the Service regarding use of pesticides and herbicides witliin tlie vernal pool watersheds to ensure chemicals l"iarmful to San Diego faiiy shrimp are avoided.

7. En'iployee Education - Provide an on-site education program for cui'rent and new employees of the City that will have assigned duties in Fairview Park to review sensitive biological resource areas and the City's responsibilities for management of these areas.

8. Patrol - Include as part of regular patrol duties, inspection of the fencing surrounding the watersheds and reporting of any damage to the fences or signs of encroachment within the fenced boundary.

9. Biolozical Monitoring - Regular biological monitoring is necessary to determine the efficacy of management measures to preserve and protect the San Diego fairy shrimp. Biological monitoring should include:
a. Annual watershed inspection - A biologist WIIO lias experience witli San Diego fairy shrimp and its habitat should prepare a brief summary of the status of the habitat and a list of any additional management actions needed to protect and/or restore damages to the habitat.
b. Surveys for fairy shrimp - Tlie City should conduct periodic surveys once every 5 years when there is sufficient rainfall to document the status of the San Diego fairy shrimp in each of the pools in Fairview Park.

10. Adaptive Management -Review tl'ie effectiveness of management actions annually to determine if additional measures are needed to protect San Diego fairy shrimp from harm.

Cable wire fencing is proposed in the Fairview Park Master Plan to protect the pool basins.

If this type of fencing is not adequate to prevent the public from regularly entering the basin areas, additional fencing or a different type of fencing may be required. If the degradation of the pools has already impacted the viability of the San Diego fairy shrimp, additional inoculation of the pools with cysts may be necessary.

Three additional vemal pool areas, located east of Placentia Avenue, require additional surveys to determine if San Diego faiiy shrimp and/or sensitive vei'nal plant species are present. We recommend the City delineate the watershed of tlie three pools in the near future and avoid impacts to the watershed areas until protocol surveys (Service 1996) can be completed. Positive survey results may require changes in management actions to address Mr. Baltazar Mejia (FWS-OR-13BO443-1 4TAO229) 9
San Diego fairy shrimp. The City should coordinate adaptive management with the Service prior to implementation.

11. Fairview Park Master Plan Update - Include in an update to the Fairview Park Master Plan specific and ongoirig management actions that will be implemented to ensure high quality habitat for San Diego fairy shrimp is maintained and that the species is protected.

These are the measures that are needed to protect San Diego fairy shrimp and their habitat in Fairview Park and are not intended to offset the damage caused by path construction, Issues relating to take that may have been caused by path construction remain under investigation by the Service at this time and will be addressed separately in the future.

We look forward to meeting with the City to further refine the details and timing of restoration, protection, and management actions. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Christine Medak of this office at 760-431-9440, extension 298.

Sincerely,
@a,,g,0
Karen A. Goebel
Assistant Field Supervisor
Marilyn Fluharty, California Department of Fish and Wildlife Mr. Baltazar Mejia (FWS-OR-13BO443-14TAO229) 10
Literature Cited
City of Costa Mesa. 2008. Fairview Park Master Plan March 1998, Revised Febiuaiy 2001 and November 2002, Updated November 2008.

Finium Environmental. 2013. Re: Results of consti'uction monitoring activities for the trail and log removal at Fairview Park located in tlie City of Costa Mesa, County of Orange, Califoi'nia.

Prepared for the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, Carlsbad, Califoinia.

Glenn Lukos Associates. 2002. Evaluation of biological resources associated with expansion of model railroad facility at Fairview Park. Report prepared for the City of Costa Mesa.

Glenn Lukos Associates. 2006. Fairview Park vernal pool restoration program, tliird annual monitoring repoit for impacts associated with the Ikea portion of the Home Rancli Project.

Prepared for C. J. Segerstrom and Sons, Costa Mesa, Califoi'i'iia.

LSA. 2007. Update to the biological constraints and information for the Fairview Park Master Plan, City of Costa Mesa, County of Orange, California. June 28.

LSA. 2013. Fairview Park site assessment ofvernal pools 4 through 7 and A, B, and C; Restoration alternatives assessment of vernal pools 5 and 6. Prepared for tlie City of Costa Mesa, Orange County, California.

MichaelBrandmanAssociates. 1995. JurisdictionaldelineationofFairviewParkvernalpools, Costa Mesa, Orange County, California. Prepared for the Director of Community Services, City of Costa Mesa, California.

Michael Brandman Associates. 2002. Fairview Park vernal pool restoration program fifth annual restoration monitoring report for impacts associated witli University Research Park and The Bonita Village Project vernal pool/seasonal wetland habitats. Prepared for The Irvine Company, Newport, California.

Service (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1996. Interim Survey Guidelines to Permittees for Recoveiy Permits under Section 10(a)( l )(A) of the Endangered Species Act for the Listed Vernal Pool Branchiopods
Service (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1998. Vernal pools of southem California recovery plan. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon.

Service (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2007. Endangered and tmeatened wildlife and plants; Designation of critical habitat for the San Diego fairy shrimp (Branchinecta sandiegonensis). Federal Register 72:70648-70714.

Service (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2008. San Diego fairy shrimp (Branchinecta sandiegonensis) 5-Year Review: Suriunaiy and Evaluation. Prepared by the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, Carlsbad, California.

Mr. Baltazar Mejia (FWS-OR-13BO443-14TAO229) 11
Simovich, M. 2005. Collecting repoit for 2004 for collecting peri'nit TE87037-2. Prepared for U. S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad, Califomia.

Personal Comi'nunication
Chung, J. 2010. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, electronic mail received by C. Medak, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, April 16, 2010.
5/20/25, 11 :12 AM
• Outlook
Fwd: Fairview Park birds
From Mike Costello <[email protected]>
Date Tue 8/9/2022 6:41 PM
To Mat Garcia <[email protected]>
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Mike Costello < [email protected] >
Date: Fri, May 21, 2021, 3:40 PM
Subject: Fwd: Fairview Park birds
To: Henry Smith <[email protected] >
---------- Forwarded message --------­
From: Scott <[email protected] >
Date: Tue, Nov 17, 2020, 8:08 PM
Subject: RE: Fairview Park birds
To: mikeftre <[email protected] >
Mail - Mathew Garcia - Outlook
Cc: Susan Sheakley <[email protected] >, Bettina Eastman <[email protected] > Hi Mike,
I apologize for taking so long to respond.

In order to answer your question I need to set the stage a bit to put things in context. Fairview Park is designated as a nature park with an emphasis on passive recreation. The challenge for us is that model aircraft flying is neither a typical, nor a passive use for an urban park, so the interferences (disturbances) are difficult to access. What we do know is that some birds are definitely disturbed at some level by aircraft flying over or through their territories . We would like to see the fly field continue at some level, so with that I have to respond to your questions with this question in mind; are there measures that can be taken in regards to timing and seasons to reduce disturbances? The breeding season is when most birds are the most vulnerable and the most important part of the year for most wildlife. That season is long for birds in southern California. Owls began nesting as early as February and many other species do not stop until mid-August. The brunt of breeding occurs from https://outlook.office.com/mail/sentitems/id/AQQkADAwATMwMAltYWNjADYtNjVjYwAtMDACLTAwCgAQAlz2In%2BXAKpLpedadhSRlwk%3D?native... 1/3 5/20/25, 11 :12 AM Mail - Mathew Garcia - Outlook
about mid-March to mid-July. And, there are a few species that can breed almost year round. The White-tailed Kites using the park nested into late September in 2020 On a daily basis, many bird species are more active in the early mornings and late afternoon. This can change quite a bit during the breeding season when adults have to feed growing young almost all day long, and some birds feed all day no matter what time of year.

There are likely more than 100 species of birds that use Fairview Park, all with different needs and life histories, so I can only answer in generalities and there are a lots of variables. It's hard to say exactly which mitigation measure or any combination of mitigation measures would have the best effect, other than ceasing the activity all together, but I think there are some things that could be worth considering.

Unfortunately, if we mapped all the important times for all the birds and try to avoid them all, we might only have a few months when flying had only a small impact, so we suggested in our last correspondence to the steering committee some compromise measures to be considered. In addressing the same questions you raised, we proposed; limiting fly times from 2 hours after sunrise to 2 hours before sunset, giving the birds and habitats days off, such as limiting flying to 5 days a week. And, there would have to be provisions that if the park staff or their contracted biologist(s) determine that if unforeseen and significant disturbances occurred, all parties would work to find and implement new management solutions, including as a worst case, suspending fly operations if that was all that could be done.

I know that's a little more than you asked, but I didn't want to answer in a vacuum. Please let me know if we can be of further assistance.

Thanks for reaching out to us,
Scott
(949) 293-2915
(I copied a few others in our organization that have been engaged at the park) https://outlook.office.com/mail/sentitems/id/AQQkADAwATMwMAltYWNjADYtNjVjYwAtMDACLTAwCgAQAlz2In%2BXAKpLpedadhSRlwk%3D?native... 2/3 5/20/25, 11 :12 AM
From: mikeftre < [email protected] >
Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2020 5:02 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Fairview Park birds
Scott,
Mail - Mathew Garcia - Outlook
I am the incoming president of Harbor Soaring Society, which flies model airplanes at Fairview Park in Costa Mesa. I am in the process of drafting a new use agreement with the city.

One of the city's concerns is the potential for interference between our model planes and the park's bird life. Are there seasons when the birds are more or less vulnerable? Are there times of day? Thanks,
Mike
Mike Costello
714-875-7994
[email protected]
https://outlook.office.com/mail/sentitems/id/AQQkADAwATMwMAltYWNjADYtNjVjYwAtMDACLTAwCgAQAlz2In%2BXAKpLpedadhSRlwk%3D?native... 3/3

CITY OF COSTA MESA

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND COMMUNITY SERVICES

SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM
TO: THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: BRIAN GRUNER, PARKS AND COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR DATE: NOVEMBER 17, 2025
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM NO. NB-1: DRAFT FAIRVIEW PARK MASTER PLAN UPDATE: DISCUSSION AND APPROVAL OF RECOMMENDATIONS
For Agenda Item No. NB -1, attached is a supplemental recommendation m atrix that outlines t he recommendations fro m the Co nsultant (MIG), the Fairview Par k Steering Committee and the Parks and Community Serv ices Commission. The matrix provides clarity to the recommendations and how they were formulated during the development of the Fairview Park Master Plan Draft. The matrix will also be available to the public prior to tomorrow's Council meeting.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

C Cecilia Gallardo Dally, City Manager
Brenda Green, City Clerk
Rec.
#
Consultant Team Rec.
;:ƵŶĞϮϬϮϰͿ
Fairview Park Steering
Committee Rec͘;KĐƚ͘ϮϬϮϰͿ.

Parks and Community Services
Commission Rec.;KĐƚ͘ϮϬϮϱͿ
Location referenced in the
Oct. 2025 Draft
Present in existing Master
Plan (revised 2008)
1 Provide clearly defined trails and establish a
designated trail system for the park. As-is.

Include language to adhere trails plan to
City’s adopted Active Transportation Plan
and south bluff stairs. Pages 11, 64, 75-76
Yes, described in graphic master
plan and environmental
documentation.
2 Adopt design standards for the designated
trail system, including widths, materials, and
designated modes of travel by trail type. As-is.

As-is.

Pages 75-76, 96-99 Yes.
3 Finalize and adopt the habitat restoration
and enhancement opportunities technical
report for Fairview Park. As-is.

As-is.

Appendix C, Pages 78-85
Partially. Habitat restoration
opportunities are described
generally in the high value
conservation areas including the
vernal pools and associated
grasslands.
4 Establish a boardwalk or similar pedestrian
pathway allowing for pedestrian access in
both wet and dry seasons from the north end
of Pacific Avenue to the north end of Canyon
Drive. The pathway shall be planned and
designed in a manner that protects the
integrity of the vernal pools and the vernal
pool watersheds.

Establish functional and pedestrian
pathways allowing for pedestrian access in
both wet and dry seasons for approved
trails (see Rec 1), including from the north
end of Pacific Avenue to the north end of
Canyon Drive. The pathway shall be
planned and designed in a manner that
protects the integrity of the vernal pools
and the vernal pool watersheds.

As-is.

Pages 76, 82, 98
Yes, partially. Seasonal ponding and
drainage issues are described
generally in the area, and potential
improvements are discussed to
maintain use/access.
5 Provide for long-term preservation of the
vernal pools and their associated watersheds
using suitable fencing, interpretive displays,
and the removal of unauthorized user-
defined trails that have formed through the
vernal pool watersheds. As-is.

As-is.

B
Yes, partially. Fencing and other
physical protective barriers are
described in the 2008 master plan
and adopted as mitigation measures
in CEQA environmental
documentation.
6 Relocate the fly field activity currently
located within the vernal pool watershed,
due to detrimental impacts to sensitive
biological resources associated with the
activity and required maintenance of the fly
field. Staff is working with the model flying
club to identify potential alternative flying
sites for the activity.

Relocate the fly field activity currently
located within the vernal pool watershed
to outside Fairview Park, due to
detrimental impacts to sensitive biological
resources associated with the activity and
required maintenance of the fly field.

As is. Revise to exploring outside of
Fairview Park. (3-2) Page 69, Appendix B
The 2008 Master Plan does not use
the term "fly field", but refers to the
"silent flyer launch/land site", which
is to be adjacent to the restroom
facility in the lawn area.
7 Revegetate and restore excessive areas of
barren ground and exposed soil using
ecologically appropriate native vegetation. As-is.

As-is.

Pages 50, 102
Yes. Fill removal and native plant
revegetation are identified in 2008
Master Plan and are adopted as a
mitigation measure in the CEQA
documentation.
8 Provide for a potential native plant growing
space on the east side of Fairview Park in a
location that avoids impacts to native
habitat. The growing space shall be planned
and designed in consultation with a qualified
restoration ecologist. As-is.

As-is.

Pages 11, 100, 102 No.
9 Provide for improved and updated signage
and interpretive materials to highlight the
exceptional conservation value of the site,
and the importance of local and global
biodiversity preservation. As-is.

Add multi-language content, accessibility,
all ages, and diversity of cultural
perspectives. Pages 12, 18, 55, 64, 67, 69, 73, 77,
100
Yes, partially. Interpretive
opportunities are described in the
2008 Master Plan.
10 Utilize the site to enhance community
education about the nexus between human
mental and physical health, and ecological
health and conservation of natural open
spaces.

Utilize the site to enhance community
education about the nexus between (1)
human health and (2) ecological health
and conservation of natural open spaces.

As is
Pages 77, 99
Yes, this theme is discussed partially
in the 2008 plan.
11 Provide for improved and updated signage
and interpretive materials to highlight the
cultural history of the site, indigenous
ecology, and to recognize the site’s
significance to tribal communities. As-is.

As is
Pages 12, 55, 58, 64, 69, 73, 77, 100
Yes, partially. Interpretive
opportunities are described in the
2008 Master Plan.
12 Provide for an on-site maintenance and
storage facility, or designated area on the
east side for efficient storage and use of
Fairview Park restoration tools and
equipment, and to support the operations of
the native plant growing space. As-is.

As is
Pages 100, 102
Yes, partially. A museum/multi-
purpose building is shown on the
east side of Placentia Ave.
13 Continue the current Master Plan
recommendation that calls for unsuitable fill
removal and restoration of the Fairview Park
mesa.

Continue the current Master Plan
recommendation that calls for the removal
of unsuitable fill material (imported fill
material placed on the Mesa in the late
1980s), protection of culturally sensitive
resources, and habitat restoration of the
Fairview Park mesa.

As is
Pages 11, 56, 65, 69, 71-72, 82, 87,
100, 102, Appendix C
Yes, fill removal is recognized in the
2008 Master Plan, which calls for the
City to prepare a phasing plan to
remove the unsuitable fill in a
manner that protects the vernal
pools, sensitive biological resources,
and prevents damage to the cultural
resources site.
14 Continue the current Master Plan
recommendation that calls for stabilization
and restoration
of the Fairview Park west bluffs.

Continue the current Master Plan
recommendation that calls for stabilization
and habitat restoration of the Fairview
Park west bluffs to protect natural
resources and public safety.

As is
Pages 64, 71, 83, 88-89, Appendix C Yes.
15 Continue the operation of the model train
railroad facilities, and integrate
environmental interpretive content and
ecological enhancements along the model
train network to provide educational
opportunities to the youth while onboard
the model train circuit.

Continue the operation of the model train
railroad facilities, and integrate
environmental interpretive content and
ecological enhancements along the model
train network to provide educational
opportunities to all ages while onboard
the model train circuit.

As is
Pages 3, 57, 59, 67, 73 Yes.
16 Adopt the Maintenance, Operations, and
Management Plan for Fairview Park,
including the Invasive Species Management
Plan for Fairview Park.

Develop and adopt the Maintenance,
Operations, and Management Plan for
Fairview Park, including the Invasive Plant
Species Management Plan for Fairview
Park.

Broaden scope to address public safety,
enforcement with adequate staffing
resources and/or technology.

Pages 81-86, Appendix C
No. No O&M plan was prepared at
the time of the 2008 Master Plan.

Fairview Park Master Plan Update Recommendations
Rec.
# Consultant Team Rec.

Fairview Park Steering Committee
Rec.

Parks and Community Services
Commission Rec.

Location referenced in the
Oct. 2025 Draft
Present in existing Master
Plan (revised 2008)
17 Continue to build community partnerships
with local organizations invested in
environmental conservation, and expand
opportunities to participate in community-
based restoration, stewardship, and nature-
based educational activities.

Continue to build partnerships with
organizations invested in environmental
conservation, and expand opportunities to
participate in community-based
restoration, stewardship, and nature-
based educational activities.

As is.

18 Provide continuing opportunities for tribal
coordination and participation in the
implementation of the Updated Fairview
Park Master Plan. As-is.

Revise to include participation in public
facing communications around historical
storytelling. Pages 10-11, 39-40, 82, Appendix D No.
19 Provide an ADA-accessible pathway from the
main parking lot to the existing paved multi-
purpose path west of the main parking lot.

Provide ADA-accessible pathway(s) from
the main parking lot to the existing paved
multipurpose path west of the main
parking lot.

As is.

Pages 96, 98 No.
20 Provide a service and emergency vehicular
access point into the park from Pacific
Avenue, to be accessible only by authorized
public safety vehicles and maintenance
vehicles.

Provide an emergency and service
vehicular access point into the park from
Pacific Avenue. Develop protocol
guidelines for vehicular use of this access
point.

As is.

Partially. 2008 Master Plan calls for a
small parking lot at the northern
terminus of Pacific Ave.
21 Provide for the incorporation of a central
interpretive area. As-is.

As is.

Partially. The 2008 Master Plan
reflects multiple small interpretive
areas in the park.
22 Incorporate viewing platforms and scenic
viewpoint features to enhance
environmental interpretive opportunities
while preserving sensitive features. As-is.

As is.

23 Incorporate a nature play area near the
central interpretive area.

Incorporate nature play elements
throughout the park and a nature play
area within the existing lawn area.

As is

Partially. The 2008 Master Plan
shows a small play area on the south
end of the park near Canyon Drive,
but not in the lawn area.
24 Incorporate a native pollinator area to
attract butterflies and other pollinators. The
native pollinator area would replace the
ornamental vegetation including invasive
species currently located in the planter area. As-is.

As is
Pages 68, 100
No. The 2008 Master Plan shows a
small play area on the south end of
the park.
25 Based on community input - consider
renaming the site to reflect the site's natural
and cultural resources.

Modify and refine the name of the
Fairview Park site to a more nature-
oriented name, such as “Fairview Nature
Park” to reflect the site’s exceptional
natural resources, significant conservation
value, and lasting legacy as Costa Mesa’s
premier natural open space asset.

As is
N/A No.
26 Request City Council to consider the
impact of Measure AA and the possibility
that elements of the Master Plan Update
may need a public vote.

Note: On October 15, 2025 the Fairview Park Steering Committee reviewed the Fairview Park Master Plan Draft. Discussion ensued with no formal vote and/or recommendation changes. The Committee verbally re-emphasized their recommendation that Fairview Park should be renamed and that the fly field should be relocated out of Fairview Park.

Ballot Measures-AA 7
Section
Ballot Measures-AA 7
Section
AA
City of Costa Mesa, An Initiative Requiring Changes in
Use at Fairview Park be Subject to Voter Approval
Shall an ordinance requiring voter approval for 1) construction of playgrounds, athletic fields, platforms/retaining walls for vista overlook, stairways to provide access to bluffs, new restrooms, parking lots, museum/multipurpose building, boardwalk and pedestrian bridges; 2) extended park hours for community events; 3) installation of parking lot lighting; or 4) other permanent structures at Fairview Park be adopted? What your vote means
YES NO
A “Yes” vote is a vote to require certain changes in use at Fairview Park, as defined in the ordinance, including 1) construction of playgrounds, athletic fields, platforms/ retaining walls for vista overlook, stairways to provide access to bluffs, new restrooms, parking lots, museum/
multipurpose building, boardwalk and pedestrian
bridges; 2) extended park hours for community events; 3) installation of parking lot lighting; or 4) other permanent structures be subject to voter approval.

A “No” vote is a vote to continue implementing the
existing Fairview Park Master Plan.

For and against

FOR AGAINST
Richard Mehren
President, Fairview Park Preservation Alliance
Katrina Foley
Member, Costa Mesa City Council
Business Attorney
Andy Campbell
Geologist, Water Resources Planner
Larry Courter
Founder, Fairview Park Advocates
Sandra Genis
Member, Costa Mesa City Council
Land Use Planner
Jim Righeimer
Mayor Pro Tem, City of Costa Mesa
Gordon Bowley
President, Costa Mesa United
Ethan Temianka
Vice President, Mesa Water District
Brett Eckles
Chairman, Parks & Recreation Commission
Ron Amburgey
Former Committee Member, Fairview Park Citizens
Advisory Committee
Ballot Measures-AA 7
Section
Full Text of Measure AA
City of Costa Mesa
The people of Costa Mesa declare the following:

1. Parks, wildlife habitat, and open-space lands are vital to maintaining the quality of life in Costa Mesa. As the City’s population increases, it is of growing importance to provide parks and recreational opportunities to the residents of Costa Mesa.

2. Preservation of Costa Mesa’s unique natural heritage is in the interest of all Costa Mesa residents and visitors.

3. Fairview Park is a unique recreational resource and should be preserved and restored as such, in perpetuity, for the public to enjoy.

4. The intent of the City of Costa Mesa in its purchase of Fairview Park as documented in the 1986 purchase agreement and grant deed, and demonstrated by the development and implementation of the Fairview Park Master Plan was to preserve and protect the last of Costa Mesa’s natural open space.

5. There is a need to protect Fairview Park from alterations that reduce the tangible and intangible benefits to the public while visiting and exploring this natural, open space.

6. Fairview Park is a passive use park, developed to promote activities such as walking, hiking, jogging, running, bicycling, glider flying, kite flying, dog walking, picnicking, small group physical activities and similar uses.

7. Fairview Park, historically, has not been a site for organized sports activities that require amenities to be developed or built to meet the general need of those sports activities.

8. Currently, Fairview Park provides essential habitat for species of special significance, some of which are federally protected species which are in danger of extinction. The Park contains plants and animals, archeologically sensitive sites, and extremely rare vernal pools which need to be protected for future generations.

9. Once a change is instituted, and the natural land is unnaturally altered, it will be lost for future generations.

10. The registered voters of Costa Mesa should have the right to decide whether a change in Fairview Park as previously or currently proposed, but not constructed, should be allowed.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Sec.___1. Code Amendment. This Ordinance is added to and amends the Costa Mesa Municipal Code as follows and supersedes any provisions that are inconsistent with this ordinance.

Sec.___2. Purpose. The purpose of this ordinance is to:

A. Keep Fairview Park as a natural and open space as documented in the Fairview Park Master Plan as defined below.

B. Give the citizens of Costa Mesa a voice in determining whether the development of a project beyond the As Built condition of Fairview Park shall be allowed or not.

C. Ensure that the Costa Mesa officials provide timely, accurate and unbiased review of any such proposed development or change to Fairview Park.

D. Ensure that the Citizens of Costa Mesa receive all necessary and accurate environmental and relevant information needed to cast an informed vote on any such proposed development or change.

Sec.___3. Definitions.

The definitions set forth in this section apply to the provisions of this ordinance only and do not affect any other provisions of law.

A. “Significant Change” means:

1. any of the following activities within Fairview Park:
i. expansion or intensification of uses, or
ii. expansion of current amenities, or
iii. addition of new amenities, or
iv. expansion of park hours, or
v. grading, or
vi. expansion of any parking lot’s footprint, or
vii. laying of foundations, or
viii. building of permanent Structures, or,
ix. installation of water, electric, gas, or sewer lines or delivery systems, or x. installation of additional lighting, or,
xi. alterations that use geotechnical or structural analyses.

2. The following shall not be considered a “Significant Change” under this ordinance:
i. installation of trash cans, park benches, picnic tables, or, ii. installation of a concrete pad applied to any such trash cans, park benches, or picnic tables, used to provide stability and/ or theft deterrence, so long as the upper surface area of such pad does not substantially exceed the outer footprint dimensions of said trash can, park bench or picnic table, or iii. installation of ADA compliant rest areas along existing trails and any level concrete pads needed for those rest area as long as the coverage area of those concrete pads are not in excess of the minimum required dimensions for ADA compliance and are spaced from other such pads a minimum of one hundred (100) linear feet or per ADA required Ballot Measures-AA 7
Section
spacing intervals.

B. “ As-Built Condition” means the amenities and alterations that have been built in Fairview Park as of the effective date of this ordinance.

C. “Fairview Park” means that area as defined by the City of Costa Mesa in the November 2008 Fairview Park Master Plan, encompassing all parts of the park area designated as “Fairview Park” and any lands currently included in Talbert Park (also known as Talbert Regional Park and Talbert Nature Preserve) if ever acquired by the City of Costa Mesa.

D. “Fairview Park Master Plan” means the document and its amendments approved by the City of Costa Mesa to guide the continuing and future alterations to Fairview Park that have been in effect since November 2008.

E. “Preservation” or “Preservation efforts” means any activity whose purpose is to protect the natural state of Fairview Park. Those activities could include, but are not limited to, improved signage of an educational or warning nature, educational activities, and activities intended to protect vernal pools, archaeological sites, habitat or biological resources, including installation of protective fencing.

F. “Restoration” means any act or activity whose purpose is to restore any part of Fairview Park to its natural non-developed state.

Those activities could include: the removal of non-native or invasive plants, replanting of native habitat areas utilizing the on site collection of seeds and native plant materials, and improvement of the watersheds to enhance the proper flow of water in support of endangered species of plants or animals and the habitat that supports their survival.

G. “Maintenance” means any activity whose purpose is to keep the park amenities in a neat, clean, serviceable and safe condition for the public’s use. Those activities would include, but are not limited to: mowing of turf areas, painting, replacement of broken lights and bulbs, repair of restroom facilities, rehabilitation and restriping of existing roads and parking lots, repair of any existing Structures, and maintenance of existing paths or trails to allow safe access and use by emergency response vehicles.

H. “Natural Lands” means an area of relatively undeveloped land which:

1. has substantially retained its characteristics as provided by nature or has been substantially restored, or which can be restored, to a near-natural condition, and which has valuable wildlife, scenic, open-space, or park resources, or a combination thereof, or

2. meets the definition of open-space land in Section 65560 of the California State Government Code.

I. “Park” means a tract of land with outstanding scenic, natural, open-space, or recreational aspects, set apart to conserve natural, scenic, cultural, or ecological resources for present and future generations, and to be used by the public as a place for rest, recreation, education, exercise, inspiration, or enjoyment.

J. “Structure” means something constructed for occupancy or use, whether installed on, above or below ground and any connected fixtures. Examples of structures include, but are not limited to:

1. buildings and any above ground or below ground electrical, water, gas, or sewage facilities or delivery systems needed or used by those buildings, or

2. roads paved with concrete or asphalt, or

3. curbs constructed of concrete or asphalt, or

4. lamp stands or poles, or

5. pergolas, or gazebos, or

6. parking lots,

7. retaining walls, or

8. microwave or communication towers.

Sec.___4. Effective Date, Applicability.

A. This ordinance shall be binding and effective as of the earliest date allowed by law (the “Effective Date”). At its first public meeting following completion of the canvass of votes, the Costa Mesa City Council shall pass the resolution required by Elections Code Section 9266. The following day, the elections official of Costa Mesa shall cause a copy of the complete text of the adopted measure to be filed with the Secretary of State pursuant to Government Code Sections 34459 and 34460.

B. Pursuant to Elections Code Section 9205, all alterations to Fairview Park after notice of intention to circulate the initiative petition adding this ordinance to the City Municipal Code shall be subject to the provisions of this ordinance.

Sec.___5. Vote of the Costa Mesa Electorate on any alteration to Fairview Park.

A. Any Significant Change, except those listed in Sec. 6 below, to Fairview Park shall be put to a vote of the Costa Mesa Electorate, provided, however, that no such Significant Change shall be submitted to the Costa Mesa electorate unless it has first been approved by the appropriate governing body. A Significant Change to Fairview Park shall become effective only after approval by the appropriate governing body and a majority of the Costa Mesa electorate who are participating in an election proposing such Significant Change, An advisory election does not satisfy the voter approval requirement.

B. The sample ballot materials mailed to the registered voters of Costa Mesa prior to an election shall describe any Significant Change to Fairview Park in a manner that clearly discloses both the scope and main features of the entire proposal (including any development or construction phases) that the Significant Change to Fairview Park includes, consists of or depends on, and the location and the acreage that will be affected by the Significant Change. The description shall clearly compare the proposal to the As-Built condition. Easily readable maps shall be provided to assist the voters in understanding the description of the proposed Significant Change. All of the information called for by this subdivision shall be posted on Costa Mesa’s website no later than thirty (30) days prior to an electorate election to approve or deny said change.

Ballot Measures-AA 7
Section
C. The popular vote required by this ordinance shall be in addition to all other applicable review and approval requirements for such Significant Change, including environmental review in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA ”).

Sec.___6. Exceptions.

A. This ordinance shall not apply to any Significant Changes to Fairview Park that are made for:

1. restoration purposes, or;

2. preservation purposes, or;

3. maintenance purposes, or;

4. public safety, or;

5. to expand the size of Fairview Park, such as by City acquisition of lands currently contained in Talbert Park; or

6. Significant Changes as directed in the Fairview Park Master Plan, that is in effect as of January 1, 2015, as long as that direction does not require the construction of any permanent structure.

B. This ordinance shall not apply to any Significant Change to Fairview Park that is legally approved and completed prior to the effective date of this ordinance.

Sec.___7. Relationship to Municipal Code. If any provision of this ordinance conflicts with other provisions contained in the Costa Mesa Municipal Code, the provisions of this ordinance shall supersede any other conflicting provision.

Sec.___8. Amendments. No provision of this ordinance may be amended or repealed except by a vote of the People of Costa Mesa.

Sec.___9. Judicial Enforcement. Any aggrieved person shall have the right to bring an action to enjoin any violation of this ordinance or to enforce the duties imposed on Costa Mesa by this ordinance.

Sec.__10. Construction
. This ordinance shall be liberally construed to accomplish its purposes. Nothing herein shall be construed to make illegal any lawful use being made of any land in accordance with the Fairview Park Master Plan and City land use and zoning regulations in force before the effective date of this ordinance, or to prohibit any activities required by State or Federal Law.

Sec.__11. Consistency with Other Ballot Measures. If another ballot measure is placed on the same ballot as this measure and deals with the same subject matter, and if both measures pass, the voters intend that both measures shall be put into effect, except to the extent that specific provisions of the measures are in direct conflict. In the event of a direct conflict, the measure which obtained more votes will control as to the directly conflicting provisions only. The voters expressly declare this to be their intent, regardless of any contrary language in any other ballot measure.

Sec.__12. Severability. If any section, subdivision, clause, sentence, phrase or portion of this ordinance is declared invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining sections, subdivisions clauses, sentences, phrases and portions shall remain valid and enforceable. The voters declare that they would have passed all sections, subdivisions, clauses, sentences, phrases and portions of this ordinance without the section, subdivision, clause, sentence, phrase or portion declared invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction.

Sec.__13. Acts Beyond Control. Nothing in this ordinance shall be construed to bring action against the City for any injury to or change resulting from any natural cause beyond the control of the City, including without limitation, fire, flood, storm and earth movement.

Sec.__14. Prohibited Uses: Any activity or use of Fairview Park inconsistent with the purpose of this ordinance is prohibited.

Ballot Measures-AA 7
Section
Impartial Analysis
City of Costa Mesa
Measure AA
Measure AA, known as “ An Initiative Requiring Changes in Use at Fairview Park be Subject to Voter Approval,” (“Measure”) would amend the Costa Mesa Municipal Code to require certain changes to Fairview Park, as defined, be subject to voter approval.

If adopted, the Measure would prohibit the following facilities currently authorized under the Fairview Park Master Plan from being constructed without first obtaining voter approval:
• To the east of Placentia Avenue, platforms and retaining walls for vista overlook area; a museum and/or multipurpose building; two paved parking lots to accommodate a total of 131 cars; and a playground. • To the west of Placentia Avenue, covered picnic areas; a bus turnaround; stairs to allow bluff access; grading bluffs to prevent erosion; new rest- rooms; playground; and boardwalk and pedestrian bridge on new trail.

Other facilities or activities that would be prohibited unless approved by the voters include completing structures that were under construction when the initiative became effective; installation of concrete curbs; expansion of existing buildings; installation of additional lighting; expanding park hours; new trails not currently listed in the Fairview Park Master Plan; installation of water, electric, gas or sewer lines; expansion of parking lots; construction of retaining walls; an increase in the number of community events such as concerts-in-the-park, seasonal festivals or races; increased staffing to facilitate a greater number of park visitors; installation of pergolas and/or gazebos; and rest areas along trails that are larger than the minimum required by law, or are within 100 feet of one another.

The Measure would not require voter approval for habitat restoration, preservation, maintenance, public safety, expanding Fairview Park’s size, improvements pursuant to the Fairview Park Master Plan which do not require installing permanent structures, and “significant changes” approved and built before the Measure’s effective date.

The Measure requires specific information in any sample ballot measure mailed to voters prior to an election proposing any change at Fairview Park.

The voter approval requirements are in addition to all other City review and approval requirements including review under the California Environmental Quality Act that may be applicable to the specific change. The change cannot be submitted to the voters until it has first been approved by the appropriate governing body. Any amendment or repeal of the ordinance must be approved by a vote of the electorate.

This Measure was placed on the ballot by a petition signed by the requisite number of voters.

The above statement is an impartial analysis of Measure AA. If you desire a copy of the measure, please call the elections official’s office at 714-754-5225 and a copy will be mailed at no cost to you.

Ballot Measures-AA 7
Section
Argument in Favor of Measure AA
Measure AA is about protecting Fairview Park for your children and their children. The park has been under attack for years by groups who want to take over portions of the park for their own interests. Measure AA keeps capricious choices of three council members from changing Fairview Park unless the people of Costa Mesa agree.

The city dumped tons of dirt in a canyon providing habitat for endangered birds. Truckloads of gravel were dumped in rare, vernal wetlands, in clear violation of federal laws. None of this was given a public hearing. The decisions were made behind closed doors.

Measure AA is needed to protect the unique resources of Fairview Park, including the model railroad enjoyed by generations of children and families.

Fairview Park is home for rare plants and animals. It is on the National Register of Historic Places and is a sacred burial ground for Native Americans who inhabited Fairview Park for thousands of years.

Costa Mesa taxpayers bought Fairview Park to head off Orange County’s plans for a more intensive, active use park. Measure AA guarantees that Fairview Park will remain a nature park unless you, the voter, decide to change it.

Fairview Park provides a rare opportunity to “get away from it all” here in Costa Mesa—without getting on a freeway.

Voter approval will not be needed for any changes required by the federal government for ADA compliance or for habitat restoration, maintenance, education, or safety.

But Measure AA assures no major changes to Fairview Park will occur unless the citizens of Costa Mesa give their okay.

Measure AA ensures we won’t lose the beauty and quiet tranquility of this natural open space.

VOTE YES ON MEASURE AA
http://www.fairviewparkalliance.org
Fairview Park Preservation Alliance on Facebook.
s/ Richard Mehren
President, Fairview Park Preservation Alliance
s/ Katrina Foley
Member, Costa Mesa City Council
Business Attorney
s/ Andy Campbell
Geologist, Water Resources Planner
s/ Larry Courter
Founder, Fairview Park Advocates
s/ Sandra Genis
Member, Costa Mesa City Council
Land Use Planner
Rebuttal to Argument in Favor of Measure AA
Dear Costa Mesa Resident,
My name is Scott Voigts. Twelve years ago I was paralyzed in a construction accident.

Now I use a motorized wheel chair to get around. I have a loving wife and we are raising two wonderful teenage girls.

I don’t complain. I thank God every day that I am alive and can enjoy my family and the outdoors.

Fairview Park is a regional treasure but I’m concerned that Measure AA won’t allow for the necessary improvements to the park for the handicapped.

I am able to drive but need reasonable facilities like a parking lot and lights to enjoy the park that might be rejected under Measure AA.

Measure AA requires a public vote for basic improvement like trails or additional concerts in the park. Some of Fairview’s trails are too steep for wheel chairs or folks on crutches.

Basic facilities like handicapped restrooms might require a public vote before they’re constructed. Such a requirement could result in a lawsuit under the American’s With Disabilities Act.

I am a city councilman and know how expensive ADA lawsuits can be for the taxpayers.

I know the residents of Costa Mesa are compassionate people that would never do anything to hurt the handicapped. That’s why I don’t understand the goals of Measure AA.

I see a political motivation behind Measure AA not the preservation of Fairview Park.

Measure AA is mean spirited and could expose Costa Mesa to massive lawsuits. Vote No.

Sincerely,
Scott Voigts
s/ James Righeimer
Mayor Pro Tem, City of Costa Mesa
s/ Ethan Temianka
Vice President, Mesa Water
s/ Ron Amburgey
Former Committee Member
Fairview Park Citizens Advisory Committee
s/ Gordon Bowley
President, Costa Mesa United
s/ Brett Eckles
Chairman, Costa Mesa Parks and Recreation Commission
Ballot Measures-AA 7
Section
Argument Against Measure AA
Measure AA is a solution looking for a problem. It should be rejected, it’s a cynical political ploy.

After hundreds of hours of citizens’ involvement and numerous public meetings, the Fairview Master Plan was adopted.

It protects Fairview Park in its natural state and already forbids construction of baseball diamonds, football fields, and other physical improvements to the park.

Despite the existing ban on developing the park, the political opportunists in town are using Fairview Park as an election ploy to benefit their city council campaign.

When collecting signatures the supporters misled residents by telling them Measure AA would stop condo’s development at Fairview Park.

There has never been a plan to develop anything at Fairview Park. That didn’t stop them from lying.

MEASURE AA LIKEL Y VIOLATES FEDERAL LAW
The Americans With Disabilities Act requires those with handicaps unfettered access public and private property, including parks.

We believe Measure AA violates the Americans With Disabilities Act and will be found unconstitutional, costing Costa Mesa’s taxpayers a bundle.

WHY DO THE SUPPORTERS WANT TO HURT THE HANDICAPPED?
Fairview Park is for everyone, not just the few that use it today. As written the measure’s supporters have foreclosed on the necessary public health facilities required for all segments of the population, including the handicapped. Bathroom remodeling, trails, picnic areas, and changes in hours of operation will require a citywide vote.

COULD COST US $800,000 IN OPEN SPACE GRANTS
The City is in line for an $800,000 open space grant from the Orange County Transportation Authority. It likely will lose this grant because of this measure because it is earmarked for improving bicycle trails at Fairview Park. This improvement will require a citywide vote.

Vote No on Measure AA. It hurts the handicapped, likely violates Federal law, and costs us $800,000 in grant money.
s/ Jim Righeimer
Mayor Pro Tem, City of Costa Mesa
s/ Gordon Bowley
President, Costa Mesa United
s/ Ethan Temianka
Vice President, Mesa Water District
s/ Brett Eckles
Chairman, Parks & Recreation Commission
s/ Ron Amburgey
Former Committee Member, Fairview Park Citizens Advisory Committee Rebuttal to Argument Against Measure AA
Measure AA is the only measure on this ballot guaranteeing that Fairview Park will be kept natural unless Costa Mesa voters decide otherwise.

It gives you, the Costa Mesa voter, the final voice on any significant change to Fairview Park.

Measure AA will protect the unique resources of Fairview Park, including endangered species and their habitat, cultural resources thousands of years old, and the only large open and natural space for miles around.

Measure AA :
• Is compliant with ADA
• Is Constitutional.

No agency has requested its grant money back because of Measure AA.

Don’t be misled by council majority propaganda. Check the facts yourself.

Measure AA allows, without a vote:
• Activities for restoration of habitat or amenities maintenance (Measure AA Section 6.A.1 through 3).
• Public safety improvements (Section 6.A.4).
• Improvements necessary for handicapped access (Section

3.A.2.iii)
• Any activities required by State or Federal Law (Section 10) Measure AA will prevent, without a vote:
• Changes in the park that will irretrievably alter the character of Fairview Park.
• The type of damage inflicted on Fairview Park by city officials— damage that’s resulted in a Federal investigation.
• Athletic fields, golf facilities, roads through Fairview Park, rave festivals, and night lighting.

Don’t let the whims of a City Council (or Park Commission) majority dictate the future of Fairview Park.

Let’s make sure Fairview Park is truly the crown jewel of Costa Mesa, for now and for generations to come.

Vote Yes on Measure AA. It respects the handicapped, respects Federal law, and supports getting open space grants.

Learn more: http://www.fairviewparkalliance.org/ and
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1626485264275535/.
s/ Kelley Sigel
Educator - NMUSD
s/ John Stephens
Attorney/Business owner
s/ Jay Humphrey
Former Costa Mesa City Council Member and Vice Mayor
s/ Terry Welsh
Member, Save Banning Ranch
s/ Jack Ross
Former Member, Costa Mesa Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors

OFFICIAL MINUTES – PACS SPECIAL MEETING – OCTOBER 30, 2025 – PAGE 1

THE COSTA MESA PARKS & COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION

OCTOBER 30, 2025
6:00 P.M. – OFFICIAL MINUTES

CALL TO ORDER by Chair Brown at 6:00 PM.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE by Commissioner Leger.

ROLL CALL
☒ = Present ☐ = Absent
Commissioners City Staff
☐ Cristian Garcia Arcos ☒ Brian Gruner, Parks and Community Services Director ☐ Jake Husen ☒ Monique Villasenor, Recreation Manager
☒ Jason Komala ☒ Robert Ryan, Public Works Maintenance Manager ☒ Brandine Leger ☒ Kelly Dalton, Fairview Park Administrator ☒ Elizabeth Dorn Parker ☒ Laura Fautua, Executive Assistant ☒ Shayanne Wright, Vice Chair ☒ Kathia Viteri, Recreation Specialist ☒ Kelly Brown, Chair

SPECIAL BUSINESS ITEM:

1. DRAFT FAIRVIEW PARK MASTER PLAN UPDATE: DISCUSSION AND

APPROVAL OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Parks and Community Services Director, Brian Gruner, Fairview Park Administrator, Kelly Dalton, and Travis Brooks from Land IQ presented.

Chair Brown thanked attendees and those who submitted comments, emphasized the importance of public engagement, and explained the meeting structure to prioritize public input. She highlighted Fairview Park’s significance as the city’s largest park, the need for PACS Commissio n involvement, and encouraged using the Commission’s values document to guide recommendations to City Council.

Commissioner Leger asked whether community outreach efforts informed residents about the tribal cultural areas in Fairview Park, recalling personal memories of learning about the site’s archaeology.

Vice Chair Wright thanked staff and requested clarification on Measure AA and its possible implications for the plan, questioned the omission of “Concerts in the Park” from the draft Master Plan Update, and emphasized the event’s significance to community identity and park use.

Chair Brown asked about community engagement with groups on the east side regarding the proposed fly field relocation, requested clarification of the term “passive use” in the plan, and inquired about potential city benefits—financial and otherwise— if Fairview Park were managed more as a preserve than a park.

Correspondence received.

OFFICIAL MINUTES – PACS SPECIAL MEETING – OCTOBER 30, 2025 – PAGE 2 Public Comment:

Josh G uesman: Orange County Model Engineers (OCME) president thanked the Commission, expressed OCME’s support for most of the draft Master Plan Update, and requested that the organization be formally included in future decisions affecting the east side of Fairview Park.

Nick: Opposed the draft Master Plan, stating it unfairly displaced the model flyers and raised concerns about Measure AA and accessibility for youth.

Marcus: Opposed the draft Master Plan Update, saying Harbor Soaring Society (HSS) provided valuable engineering and educational experiences that should not be taken away.

Hank Castignetti : OCME Treasurer and Fairview Park Steering Committee liaison supported inclusion of OCME in future discussions, noting the group’s long stewardship of the east side and prior outreach to HSS about relocation.

Dan Vizanalik: HSS Member o pposes the draft Master Plan Update, cited potential Measure AA restrictions, unsuitable conditions on the east side, and the long-standing coexistence of HSS with the park’s natural habitat.

Michael August OCME Vice President of Facilities supported the draft Master Plan Update and emphasized OCME’s role as volunteer docents who educate thousands of visitors about Fairview Park’s wildlife and environment.

Carrie: Opposed the draft Master Plan Update, arguing that residents need spaces for active recreation and educational activities alongside natural areas.

Jay Humphrey: Submitted written comments and recommended renaming Fairview Park to reflect its natural preservation goals, while questioning the logic of retaining the fly field in a sensitive habitat area.

Daiquiri Shear: Supported HSS and advocated for environmental education rather than increased fencing, emphasizing that teaching youth respect for nature better protects Fairview Park.

Dr. Adam E reth: Explained that Measure AA allows glider flying and that relocating the fly field could be considered new construction requiring voter approval, cautioning against triggering Measure AA.

Jake Underwood: Supported keeping glider flying at Fairview Park, calling it a quiet, low-impact hobby and urging balance between recreation and preservation.

Angely Andrade Vallerta: Supported designating Fairview Park as a nature preserve, citing environmental and cultural significance, federal compliance needs, and the value of long-term ecological stewardship.

Mike Costello: Opposed eliminating glider flying, referencing expert advice that limited flying schedules were sufficient to protect wildlife without banning the activity.

OFFICIAL MINUTES – PACS SPECIAL MEETING – OCTOBER 30, 2025 – PAGE 3 Cynthia McDonald: Urged relocating the fly field outside Fairview Park to comply with environmental laws and strengthen habitat protections while maintaining balanced public access.

Andy Campbell: Supported the draft Master Plan Update and regulatory recommendations, cited erosion damage from glider use, and suggested refining the park history, adding a staircase, and emphasizing preservation.

David Martinez: Recommended allowing bicycles on Fairview Park’s primary trails for consistency with other city parks and aligning with Costa Mesa’s circulation plan.

Henry Smith: Defended HSS, noting no grading had occurred for over a decade and minimal mowing, arguing wildlife had adapted to glider activity.

Sarah Rodelo: Spoke as an educator in support of preserving Fairview Park’s natural areas for students’ outdoor learning, mental health, and environmental education.

Andrew Ineguez: Supported maintaining Fairview Park’s accessibility for families and encouraged balance between natural preservation and community use.

Scott Smith: Model flyer and opposed the draft Master Plan Update in regards to the fly field.

Mat Garcia: President of HSS and read a US Fish and Wildlife letter from 2014.

Kim Hendricks: shared a PowerPoint showing Fairview Park wildlife, sunset views, and encouraging nature education.

Kohl Crecelius: Chair of the Fairview Park Steering Committee and w ould like to see recreation, preservation, and conservation within the park . Commends the different passions the public expresses for the park use.

Don Wittenberg: HSS member and the value the fly field brings regarding aviation education.

Rick Huffman: Plan has been a long- time coming and tells a great story of a nature preserve and accessible for all types of community. Would like to see the relocation of the fly field as it impacts sensitive species/habitat.

Jon Rittenhouse: 50-year resident and HSS member and explain why the park location is best for the hobby.

Terri Fuqua: Expressed concern of gliders landing into park habitat.

Priscilla Rocco: Spoke about Council decision concerns based on community input rather than scientific expert recommendation. Advocated for restoration and relocation of the fly field and assign additional Park Ranger at the park.

Ben B: Spoke in favor of the draft Master Plan Update. Hopes for stronger policy and e-bikes restrictions.

OFFICIAL MINUTES – PACS SPECIAL MEETING – OCTOBER 30, 2025 – PAGE 4 Rob: Does not support the draft Master Plan Update. Wants to see a balance of diverse groups within the park.

Patrick Flynn: Would like to see clear access to trails without taking away amenities/events.

James Robertson: Not in support of moving the fly field.

Jim Erickson: Cited Measure AA definitions to argue relocating the fly field conflicts with its intent, emphasized gliders’ lack of noise, and urged a balanced interpretation of park uses.

Jennifer Tanaka: Echoed concerns about Measure AA compliance and bicycle access, questioned use of park impact fees for a plan reducing active recreation, and urged caution over potential legal risks.

Andreas A.: Supported keeping Fairview Park as a balanced, family -friendly space where children can explore nature safely without losing recreational access.

Brief recess occurred from 8:07 PM to 8:13 PM.

Commissioner Dorn Parker spoke about Back Bay’s evolution to argue Fairview Park was too unique and fragile to continue “as is,” supported stronger restoration, education, signage, fencing and public safety, and urged exploring relocation of the fly field to another park while moving forward quickly with a flexible master plan.

Commissioner Komala emphasized that “balance” between resource protection and public access had to guide the plan, treated the master plan as a first step rather than final word, and asked detailed questions about funding for rangers, handling contaminated fill and archaeology , and designing interpretive and play features to remain passive and Measure AA-compliant.

Commissioner Leger reflected on growing up playing in Fairview Park, acknowledged any decision would upset some users, raised safety and regulatory concerns about the current fly field, and asked whether relocation would change flying limits, generate revenue, affect vernal pools, and how concerts in the park and a potential name change to a preserve would be handled.

Vice Chair Wright supported investments in trails, fencing, ADA access, nature play and robust interpretive signage, backed CMABS’ bicycle trail recommendations, and argued that HSS was being unfairly singled out compared to other high- impact uses, stating support for keeping the fly field under the current limited, permitted operation unless the park were fully redefined as a strict nature preserve with all high- impact uses reconsidered.

OFFICIAL MINUTES – PACS SPECIAL MEETING – OCTOBER 30, 2025 – PAGE 5 Chair Brown asked staff to spell out the regulatory, financial and legal consequences of keeping or ignoring directives about the fly field, sought clarity on bike restrictions and tribal engagement, and then stressed Fairview Park’s unique sensitive habitat, expressed concern about long-term regulatory risk of keeping HSS in place, signaled openness to relocating the club outside the park, and framed her position around scientific expertise, species protection, and a nuanced concept of ecological and social balance.

Commissioner Dorn Parker urged City Council to consider a future ballot measure to update Measure AA so the city could add interpretive facilities, shade, and other protective/educational features at Fairview Park, framing it as a necessary long- term step to truly protect and responsibly enjoy the open space.

Commissioner Leger stated that she supported the draft master plan as presented and did not find any issues with it.

Chair Brown praised the educational value and public engagement of the process but noted she felt rushed, and recommended earlier involvement of PACS and the Fairview Park Steering Committee, better tools like matrices, and simple summary “cheat sheets” to help more community members understand and participate.

Commissioner reviewed the recommendation and drafted commission comments. (Attachment 1)

MOTION: To accept the draft values as written with additional edits as discussed.

MOVED/SECOND: Commissioner Leger / Commissioner Dorn Parker The motion carried by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Commissioner Dorn Parker, Commissioner Komala, Commissioner Leger, Vice Chair Wright, Chair Brown
Nays: none

Absent: Commissioner Husen, Commissioner Garcia Arcos
Motion Carried: 5 – 0

ADJOURNMENT by Chair Brown at 10:06PM.

UNOFFICIAL MINUTES – FAIRVIEW PARK STEERING COMMITTEE– JUNE 11, 2025 – PAGE 1

THE COSTA MESA FAIRVIEW PARK STEERING COMMITTEE

OCTOBER 15, 2025
6:00 P.M. – UNOFFICIAL MINUTES

CALL TO ORDER by Vice Chair Glover at 6:02 P.M.

ROLL CALL
☒ = Present ☐ = Absent
Committee Member Liaisons and City Staff
☒ Daniel Baume ☐ Councilmember Arlis Reynolds
☒ Terri Fuqua ☒ Hank Castignetti, Orange County Model Engineers (OCME) ☒ Edwin “Bo” Glover, Vice
Chair
☒ Jason Komala, Parks & Community Services (PACS)
Commission
☒ Jay Humphrey ☒ Kelly Dalton, Fairview Park Administrator ☒ Jennifer Thomas ☒ Seung Yang, City Engineer
☒ Kohl Crecelius, Chair ☒ Monique Villasenor, Parks and Community Services Manager ☐ Jose L. Toscano ☒ Kathia Viteri, Recreation Specialist ☒ Diana Terreros, Recreation Specialist

*Councilmember Reynolds arrived at 6:03 P.M.

1. SPECIAL ITEM
A. DRAFT FAIRVIEW PARK MASTER PLAN UPDATE DISCUSSION
Mr. Dalton presented.

Humphry: Questioned if public comment should be first.

Crecelius: Explained procedures for public comment and committee member questionnaires, and asked about the draft’s finalization and whether the writing was primarily by MIG consultants or a collaboration with City staff.

Dalton: Noted the draft has been in development for many years, starting with reviewing applicable updates to the 2008 plan, involving extensive meetings, review of reports and regulatory communications, and input from community members and the Steering Committee. He highlighted efforts by staff and consultants to create an accessible and understandable document.

Crecelius: Asked whether MIG synthesized all outreach information and whether the material had been presented to Council or received feedback.

Dalton: Described initial draft reviews by staff and consultants prior to full release.

Crecelius: Inquired about additional review periods after Council review and the timeline for plan adoption.

Dalton: Notified members of a 30- day review period as part of CEQA following the Council meeting in November.

UNOFFICIAL MINUTES – FAIRVIEW PARK STEERING COMMITTEE– JUNE 11, 2025 – PAGE 2

Crecelius: Referred to the letter received from CDFW and emphasized the public’s interest in viewing documentation . Asked whether the letter influenced the plan or technical reports.

Dalton: Confirmed letter was received prior to the draft master plan release, and was prepared in response to the released technical reports for the Master Plan Update.

The city will consider the CDFW letter and assess whether the plan addresses the comments sufficiently.

Baume: Inquired about the future of concerts in the park at Fairview.

Villasenor: Explained that concerts are coordinated with the Costa Mesa Foundation (CMF) and may be hosted at Fairview or other parks. No final decisions have been made; discussions will begin in November.

Baume: Asked whether the city budget covers employee staffing or park maintenance costs from concerts.

Villasenor: Noted the city had taken a larger role in planning in current year, including pre- and post-event park walkthroughs to assess maintenance needs and ensure the lawn area remained usable and intact.

Baume: Pointed out the master plan does not address potential sound impacts if concerts remain at Fairview per CMF and city discretion.

Villasenor: Confirmed that NBS sound tests are conducted before each concert and precautions are taken as needed; final concert location may vary year to year and decisions are still pending.

Thomas: Questioned where FVPSC recommendations appear in the plan.

Dalton: Confirmed recommendations are contained in the outreach summary and integrated throughout the document. The City will clearly include recommendations from the two FVPSC meetings on the Master Plan, with a final list of 25 recommendations provided as an attachment.

Thomas: Reiterated the request to identify the location of committee and commission recommendations.

Dalton: Explained how committee recommendations were embedded in the draft.

Indicated that the committee recommendations will be made clear to the City Council when presented.

Thomas: Noted a recommendation on page 69 regarding relocation of gliders to the east side, pointing out that the wording does not reflect the committee’s recommendation.

Dalton: Stated that the final product is vetted by the City staff considering all input including the stated feedback from the City Council in January 2025. Draft

UNOFFICIAL MINUTES – FAIRVIEW PARK STEERING COMMITTEE– JUNE 11, 2025 – PAGE 3 recommendations by the consultant were based on past Council feedback to find a compromise and keep gliders in Fairview Park. To balance both perspectives, the item was left open-ended for the City Council’s decision.

Thomas: Inquired about costs and logistics for relocating the fly area, including whether the City or HSS would bear expenses and concerns about placing a new fly area within an archaeological site.

Dalton: Described the proposed alternative fly site and studies supporting the proposal’s feasibility; detailed costs have not yet been determined.

Humphry: Questioned why the plan includes no recommendation to rename the park to align with its goal of identifying it as a natural resource and preserve.

Dalton: Acknowledged that renaming the park was an approved committee recommendation and would be presented to Council as their recommendation, but it is not included in the draft pending further direction.

Villasenor: Stated she believes that there is a formal council policy that oversees the formal process of renaming parks . This could be considered if requested by the City Council.

Humphry: Believes document should list all recommendations in the draft and forwarded for Council approval, including funding and budget considerations.

Dalton: Noted that funding is not committed in the plan; however the plan serves as a tool to help secure future funding. Construction costs and implementation costs may vary over time.

Humphry: Asked about a storage shed and growing space facilities , as well as discussions regarding outside properties and any related reports.

Dalton: Confirmed the grow space remains a committee recommendation but no specific location has been finalized. Expanding into the golf course or bike path complicates the process and is likely not viable; keeping the space on the east side of the park is currently most feasible.

Baume: Noted the committee has voted against relocating gliders . Requested a motion to remove the east -side relocation recommendation and reaffirm the committee’s position.

Reynolds: Clarified that any motions should occur after public comment.

Glover: Questioned if Mr. Dalton had identified any deficiencies in the plan.

Dalton: Acknowledged the document functions as a general guiding plan and a vision, offering some flexibility in spec ific details that would be evaluated during specific projects. Shared observations made upon document review included: minimal description of the relationship and connectivity with Talbert; insufficient detail regarding efforts made to improve connectivity and establish adequate access points;

UNOFFICIAL MINUTES – FAIRVIEW PARK STEERING COMMITTEE– JUNE 11, 2025 – PAGE 4 and the need for further definition of the relationship with tribal partners, including coordination of events, community educational programming, and support for tribal ceremonies and cultural activities.

Fuqua: Shared concerns about concerts being hosted at the park, noting frequent presence at the site.

Castignetti: Suggested OCME be included in discussions if the fly field is relocated to the east side, given the organization’s role in activating and maintaining the area, and requested to be briefed on related plans.

Dalton: Confirmed that relocation proposals stem from previous Council feedback and staff will continue to consult with OCME if the final direction is to relocate.

Villasenor: Reported no formal vote could occur as the agenda did not list the item as actionable, but staff w ould still present the committee’s 2024 recommendations and 2025 feedback.

Crecelius: Requested a matrix of all committee’s recommendations to be presented to Council.

Kelly: Acknowledged the request.

Thomas: Asked about pending sewer project.

Dalton: Confirmed no plan is currently in place for new sewer facilities, that the language about sewer main is likely in reference to existing facilities, but noted drainage improvements are needed near the south end of the park.

Thomas: Asked whether BMX riding should be removed from the park, citing vague verbiage regarding the activity.

Dalton: Noted that the issue requires attention for safety and environmental concerns, and despite activity still being observed at some locations, it is prohibited. Described activity to be characterized as a prohibited use the City intends to address it.

PUBLIC COMMENTS
Kim Hendricks: Referenced a 2005 attachment, stated concerts should not have been hosted at the park, and suggested the Foundation lead other projects, such as the DG path installation in Vernal Pool 5. Opposed relocation of the fly field due to potential impacts on birds and recommended the plan and technical reports be presented together.

Richard Huffman: Supported the draft plan and its thoroughness, encouraging review of the plan and all attachments. Highlighted the document’s comprehensive coverage of plants and sensitive species.

Cynthia MacDonald: Supported prior comments, requested emerging recommendations be incorporated, and expressed support for removing the fly field.

Emphasized that any new location should undergo environmental review, raised

UNOFFICIAL MINUTES – FAIRVIEW PARK STEERING COMMITTEE– JUNE 11, 2025 – PAGE 5 questions about funding responsibilities, and expressed strong opposition to the City using City or taxpayer funds for these purposes.

Andy Campbell: Expressed overall support for the master plan, noting minor inadequacies. Recommended that references to “resource agencies” be more specific, including identification of the agencies and direct quotations. Suggested utilizing AI tools to review the master plan and generate questions.

Betsy Dansmore: Expressed enthusiasm for the plan and acknowledged its significance. Requested a timeline or prioritization framework post-adoption, identified relocation of the fly field and removal of berms and fill as priorities , and emphasized the importance of flood control along the southern.

Erik Roberts: Introduced himself as former Chair, Vice Chair, and member of the committee. Supported committee members’ recommendations to omit amplified music and large congregations from the park. Agreed with the removal of the fly field from the park. Emphasized the importance of preserving the park’s natural and ecological character.

COMMITTEE MEMBER and LIAISON COMMENTS

Crecelius: Reminded the public to provide input during the 30- day review period and instructed the committee to discuss and make recommendations.

Thomas: Highlighted public comment ideas, including referencing resource agencies and developing prioritization.

Baume: Recommend that permitting responsibilities and costs for a relocated fly field be absorbed by HSS.

Castignetti: Inquired about opportunities for committee members and liaisons to provide input outside of formal meetings.

Crecelius: Recognized the document effectively reflects the extensive work leading up to its development, with broad pride in the outcome, notwithstanding a few deviations from the committee’s recommendations. Spoke specifically to the fly field, noting prior discuss ions with HSS and City staff. Expressed a personal perspective while acknowledging it may not represent the full committee. Emphasized the desire for HSS to have a permanent home, noting increasing challenges and regulatory guidance indicating t he current location is unsuitable. Expressed concern that relocation to the east side is not a sustainable long-term solution due to cultural sites, presence of protected species, and anticipated ecological improvements in the park.

Believes all parties must be open to coming to a solution. Stated the plan does not fully communicate measures ensuring long-term park enjoyment.

Glover: Applauded the process and expressed pride in the City for undertaking it.

Commended the document produced to date. Emphasized the committee’s role as stewards of the land and noted the master plan should guide future restoration rather than “sit on a shelf.” Highlighted a note from page 95 as an example that careful attention will be required as items within the docum ent are developed to ensure

UNOFFICIAL MINUTES – FAIRVIEW PARK STEERING COMMITTEE– JUNE 11, 2025 – PAGE 6 guidelines are followed. Anticipates the park becoming a valued community asset.

Hank: Shared concerns regarding recent nitrous oxide canister issues experienced at the park and conversations with the mayor.

Reynolds: Expressed gratitude for level of engagement on the plan and appreciates being involved and participating in the process. Thanked the committee.

Villasenor: Thanked the committee and Mr. Dalton. C ommending staff member’s dedication and collaboration.

Baume: Asked about next steps following the November 18th Council meeting.

Dalton: Confirmed Council will provide direction on plan implementation.

Humphry: Confirmed committee must submit all recommendations at present meeting.

Dalton: Confirmed the plan is on track. Welcomed feedback but noted that substantive changes cannot be made prior to November Council meeting. Committee recommendations from July and October 2024 remain, with minor adjustments and feedback possible before Council presentation.

Humphry: Questioned the value of public comments at the Council meeting.

Dalton: Explained staff could still receive direction from Council to make changes , based on Committee input.

Crecelius: Requested that all committee recommendations since October 2024 be included in materials presented to Council, with a matrix to track them, since the plan alone does not fully reflect the committee’s work.

Dalton: Confirmed recommendations will be clearly highlighted in the staff report or as an attachment and apologized for lack of clarity in the draft.

Komala: Suggested the matrix be used as a tool during the PACS meeting to guide the plan review discussion.

Thomas: Asked how committee recommendations will be presented to council.

Dalton: Confirmed that a table or list of comments will be provided to the council as an attachment.

A. ADJOURNMENT by Chair Crecelius at 7:53pm