From: G Moses
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: public comment for City Council
Date: Sunday, September 27, 2026 2:58:30 PM
I urge Costa Mesa to continue to use the Westminster Adoption Group (WAGS), one of the best-run, effective, and compassionate shelter in Southern California.
I hope Costa Mesa will stay out of the blight of Orange County Animal Care. You did see that the Director of Orange County Animal Care appears to maintain permanent residence in Texas, haven’t you? What does that tell you? And what about the opacity in their budget?
Related news:
Voice of OC, September 14, 2026
County Government Wants Your Input on a Budget It Won’t Show You https://voiceofoc.org/2026/09/mavrovouniotis-county-government-wants-yourinput-on-a-budget-it-wont-show-you/ Orange County has opened a public comment period on its next five-year financial plan. But it has not opened its books. The OC budget is thick in paper and theatrical outreach, but thin on substance.
Animal Politics with Ed Boks, August 26, 2026
Why California’s Shelter-Oversight Debate Matters
Orange County Animal Care: A Case Study in California’s Oversight Vacuum https://animalpolitics.substack.com/p/why-californias-shelter-oversight [Ed Boks is a former Executive Director of the New York City, Los Angeles, and Maricopa County Animal Care & Control Departments. His work has been published in the LA Times, New York Times, Newsweek, Real Clear Policy, Sentient Media, and now on Animal Politics with Ed Boks.]
Voice of OC, July 30, 2026
Does Orange County’s Animal Care Director Live in California? https://voiceofoc.org/2026/07/does-orange-countys-animal-care-director-live-incalifornia/ The head of Orange County’s embattled animal shelter is facing questions over remote work, with questions about how much time she spends between Texas and California.
Excerpts:
There are growing questions over how much time the director of Orange County Animal Care spends in California since she claims a home in Texas as her primary residence under penalty of perjury but also claims to work full time in office in Orange County.
Schmidt took over as the agency’s director in 2024, their third in five years after previous directors left amid protests and scandals over how they treated animals in the shelter.
According to the Harris County Central Appraisal District’s website, Schmidt takes what’s dubbed the residential homestead exemption for her property tax, which helps lower the total amount of property taxes paid on the house for state residents.
According to Transparent California, Schmidt was paid over $373,000 by Orange County taxpayers that year between her salary and benefits package.
Schmidt also was seen regularly driving a car with Texas plates to her job at OC Animal Care in Tustin, despite the fact that California law requires new vehicles to be registered within 20 days and to get new plates according to the DMV’s website.
After several activists began to question those license plates, Schmidt began driving a different car to work with California plates.
OC Register, June 5, 2026
Adoption fees waived at 150 animal shelters in Southern California on June 6 https://www.ocregister.com/2026/06/05/adoption-fees-waived-at-150-animalshelters-in-southern-california-saturday/ Excerpts:
“Adoption promotion works,” said Michael Mavrovouniotis, an animal activist and statistics whiz who has watched OCAC closely. “And it’s more efficient if you do it with big adoption events like this one! My own research shows that shelters have room to increase adoptions.”
Things are getting better at Orange County Animal Care, which faced blistering criticism for its policies during and after the pandemic. “The shelter is in much better shape now than in the dark days of 2022-2023,” Mavrovouniotis said. But he still wants to see playgroups to socialize large dogs — the majority of shelter residents — and worries about “selective intake,” when shelters turn away owner-surrendered dogs saying the kennels are full. “We need clarity,” he said. “What is the policy, exactly? At what number does the shelter say it’s full? When and how did the shelter change the policy? Did the cities that contract with the shelter approve this?”
The cat situation, though, keeps OC’s overall save rate stuck in the low 80s, a smidge below the state average. This is where things are getting worse.
Orange County ended a trap-neuter-release program for homeless cats (to stop them from creating more homeless cats) in the wake of legal action that argued it’s inhumane to release cats to the street, even if that’s where they were found. So our feral cat population grows. Which means more death.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
From: Charlene
To: CITY COUNCIL; CONSTITUENT SERVICES
Cc: CITY CLERK
Subject: It may be "Walktober" but walking with these current temps need to be reconsidered! Date: Monday, October 5, 2026 9:43:53 AM
Dear Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem and membes of the City Council:
At the height of a 96-degree scorcher in Costa Mesa, I was flat on my back, melting on the floor, doing the only thing possible without air conditioning: watching the NFL games.
I was shaken from my stupor by a phone call from a friend who was seeking help for an elderly man suffering from the extreme temperatures. He was struggling to cross the street at Wilson, so she jumped into action, directed him to the Flame Broiler, met him there, gave him water, and bought him a cold drink.
"Where is there a cooling station nearby?" she asked me. I gave her information on the Senior Center's Cooling Station. But this man had no way to get there and he wouldn't make in there on foot. My friend offered to drive him there, but he declined.
Not everyone would, could or should be so generous.
But this raises the questions: how do people who don't have phones, social media, or support find this information, and how can we help? Can our bus shelter advertise Cooling Shelter services? Can our bus shelters provide shade and seating?
Can we provide more water refill stations throughout the city? Can we provide more cooling stations?
Do we call the police if we witness a situation when someone may be in need? How do we advertise the Neighborhood Hotline #, and how will they respond? Can the City's emergency text messaging system be activated? Is the Costa Mesa shuttle system available to those who are impacted by the extreme temperatures? Can we make our city sidewalks truly safer for all?
It may be WALKTOBER Month, but walking in the current temps is not possible.
Thank you for considering how we can be the best city for all.
With respect and appreciation,
Charlene M. Ashendorf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
From: debra marsteller
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Moon Park meeting
Date: Thursday, September 24, 2026 6:52:04 PM
Dear City Council,
Thank you so much for all of the staff and the mayor for coming to Moon Park supporting our community. I just want to point out a few things:
1. Doing nothing is an option and should’ve been pointed out
2. Fencing the children’s area rather than the entire part is a much better idea. Every bike race, 10 K, marathon that goes down the bike trail includes water stations here at Moon Park.
Fencing is not necessary nor aesthetically pleasing. It’s fine the way it is. If toddler parents want a fenced Park they could go around the corner to suburbia two.
3. Save the moon. We do not want anything, but perhaps more trees in the park. If you want to take down the fence around the moon and put seating as in our second option, that is the lesser of two evils. We do not need more cement or fences. This is a sweet tiny park that brings joy to a lot of people. It’s peaceful and lovely and it brings great joy to hear the children running and playing on the hills or volleyball players on Saturday afternoons.
Thank you again to everyone that work so hard to make Costa Mesa such a wonderful place to live.
Debbie Marsteller
3374 California St., Costa Mesa, CA
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
From: debra marsteller
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Moon Park Fencing issue
Date: Monday, September 28, 2026 12:28:46 AM
To whom it may concern;
I just thought of another problem with any fencing that closes off Moon Park and the bike trail for any length of time. The closest bus stop is at Harbor and Sunflower and a number of working. People would access that bus stop through the park and if the park park is closed until seven in the morning, this would interfere with peoples ability to get through and get to work in a timely fashion.
I just don’t think the people that are talking about the need for Any kind of fencing at Moon Park are thinking of people who use the bike trail for access to employment. A number of people working in the industrial parks on the other side of the freeway, cut through Moon Park. I’ve also seen housekeepers/nannies and caregivers using this as a cut through. The fences are a solution to a nonexistent problem and create hardship where it’s not necessary.
I hope this can be shared with not only our city council, but with all of the decision makers in this process.
We went from thinking we needed to get upgraded play equipment to just changing the whole of Moon Park.
We don’t want or need any more fences, any more concrete or any extraordinary changes to our little tiny park. Again the park around the corner, suburbia 2, is completely fenced on 3 sides for people that like fences.
Leave our park open and put some more trees if we need anything -trees are always nice.
Water stations for runners and bike riders and access to the bike trail for workers, hobbyists and Dilly Dallying belong at Moon Park
Debbie Marsteller
3374 California St., Costa Mesa
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
From: Mat Garcia
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: FW: HSS Public Comments on the Fairview Park Recirculated IS/MND Date: Tuesday, October 6, 2026 12:00:10 PM
Attachments: 2026-08-28-HSS-Public-Comment-with-Attachments-A-and-B.pdf City Clerk,
Please include this email and the attached PDF as a written public comment for tonight’s City Council meeting.
Thank you,
Mat
From: Mat Garcia <[email protected]>
Date: Friday, August 28, 2026 at 5:14 PM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; CITY CLERK <[email protected]>
Subject: HSS Public Comments on the Fairview Park Recirculated IS/MND Mayor, Members of the City Council, and City Staff,
Attached for submission are Harbor Soaring Society’s comments on the July 2026 recirculated IS/MND for the Fairview Park Master Plan Update. Please include the attached PDF in full in the project’s administrative record and confirm receipt.
Thank you,
Mat Garcia
Harbor Soaring Society | President
a 501(c)(3) organization | www.1hss.org
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
Harbor Soaring Society
A 501(c)(3) nonprofit Page 1 of 16 [email protected] May 29, 2026
Re: Harbor Soaring Society Comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Fairview Park Master Plan Update
SCH No. 2026041370
Dear Mayor, City Council Members, and City StaƯ:
Harbor Soaring Society (“HSS”) submits these comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) for the Fairview Park Master Plan Update (“FPMPU” or “Master Plan Update”).
HSS is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit model aviation organization and longstanding user group at Fairview Park. HSS and its members have operated a model glider flying field at Fairview Park since 1964. For decades, the flying field has been an established recreational use within Fairview Park. Prior to the COVID-19 closure in March 2020, HSS historically operated at the existing west side location on a regular basis under City rules and HSS safety practices.
HSS supports responsible stewardship of Fairview Park’s environmental and cultural resources. HSS also supports reasonable operational controls, coordination with City staƯ, and continued safe operation of the historic flying field. However, HSS objects to the IS/MND and Master Plan Update because they rely on unsupported assumptions, fail to accurately describe existing HSS operations, assume relocation of the flying field without adequate analysis, and fail to evaluate the recreational, operational, safety, environmental, and process impacts of removing HSS from its historic west side location.
For the reasons stated below, the City should not adopt the IS/MND or approve the Master Plan Update in its current form. At minimum, the City should extend the public comment period and/or recirculate a revised environmental document after disclosing all fly-fieldrelated technical reports, consultant communications, agency communications, public records, and supporting materials.
Executive Summary
HSS respectfully requests that the City not adopt the IS/MND or approve the Fairview Park Master Plan Update in its current form. The IS/MND assumes relocation of the historic HSS flying field from its west side location to the east side of Fairview Park, but the City has not Harbor Soaring Society
A 501(c)(3) nonprofit Page 2 of 16 [email protected] adequately analyzed whether relocation is feasible, necessary, less impactful, compatible with OCME operations, or capable of preserving HSS’s longstanding recreational use.
The City also did not timely disclose material technical documents relevant to the proposed relocation. Most notably, the Hamilton Biological technical memorandum regarding the “HSS Flying Field Relocation Project” is dated May 13, 2025, but was not released to HSS, OCME, the public, or Council during the Draft Master Plan process, the November/December 2025 Council discussions, or with the IS/MND appendices. HSS first saw that memorandum late in the IS/MND comment period, after repeatedly requesting the supporting studies and analyses.
The IS/MND also fails to account for HSS’s current operations and corrective measures. In 2026, HSS has completed five flight days with zero oƯ-runway landings, and HSS confirms the landing log with the City observer at the end of each flight day. The City has not identified any specific record, observation, or information contradicting HSS’s 2026 landing log.
The IS/MND further fails to reconcile the City’s current relocation narrative with prior vernal pool documentation, including the history of Vernal Pools 5, 6, and 7 and the 2014 USFWS correspondence. Those materials evaluated impacts to vernal pools and vernal pool watersheds but, to HSS’s knowledge, did not identify the HSS flying field as a potential impact requiring relocation, closure, or elimination.
For these reasons, the IS/MND should be revised and recirculated after full disclosure of the relevant technical materials, public records, agency communications, and consultant reports. The City should also conduct a joint HSS/OCME/City field meeting and analyze continued operation at the historic west side flying field with reasonable operational controls.
1. The City did not timely disclose a material technical report regarding the proposed fly field relocation.
The City recently posted the Hamilton Biological technical memorandum titled “Biological Technical Memorandum, CEQA Analysis, HSS Flying Field Relocation Project,” dated May 13, 2025 (“Hamilton Report”). This report specifically evaluates the proposed relocation of the HSS flying field from the west side of Fairview Park to the east side and describes a defined relocation concept, including a runway, pilot stations/pit area, storage shed, information kiosk, access, and related improvements.
On May 28, 2026, Parks and Community Services Director Brian Gruner confirmed by email that “the east side fly field feasibility study was not released,” while stating that its findings were discussed at meetings. HSS disagrees that the findings were meaningfully disclosed.
Harbor Soaring Society
A 501(c)(3) nonprofit Page 3 of 16 [email protected] Neither the existence of the study, Hamilton Biological’s role, nor the report’s assumptions, maps, proposed relocation footprint, analysis, or conclusions were disclosed to HSS, OCME, the public, or Council in a manner that allowed meaningful review.
This omission is significant. The Hamilton Report is dated May 13, 2025, meaning it appears to have been available before release of the Draft Master Plan Update, before the November/December 2025 Council discussions, and before circulation of the IS/MND. Yet the report was not included with the Draft Master Plan materials, was not included in the IS/MND appendices, and was not made publicly available until late in the IS/MND comment period, after HSS repeatedly requested the studies and analyses supporting the proposed east side relocation.
General discussion of an east side relocation concept is not a substitute for disclosure of the actual technical memorandum. HSS, OCME, the public, and decisionmakers were entitled to review the actual report, including its assumptions, limitations, maps, proposed project components, biological conclusions, and recommendations.
The City should not proceed with adoption of the Master Plan Update or IS/MND where a material technical report regarding one of the most controversial project components was not timely disclosed to the public or included in the environmental review materials.
2. The IS/MND treats HSS relocation as a project component and mitigation measure without adequate disclosure or analysis.
The IS/MND states that the Master Plan Update proposes relocating the fly field to the eastern portion of Fairview Park to eliminate current impacts to habitat areas. It also states that the City would help fund relocation activities and work closely with HSS and the Orange County Model Engineers (“OCME”) to complete the east side relocation in a coordinated, timely, and cost-eƯective manner.
However, that coordinated process has not occurred. During the entire Master Plan Update process, there has not been a single joint stakeholder field meeting with HSS, OCME, and City staƯ to evaluate the proposed east side relocation. HSS and OCME are the two user groups directly aƯected by the proposed relocation. City staƯ previously indicated that such a meeting would occur earlier in 2026, but it did not occur before circulation of the IS/MND.
Instead, the IS/MND assumes relocation as part of the project and as mitigation, while the aƯected stakeholders have not jointly evaluated the basic requirements and constraints of the proposed east side location.
Harbor Soaring Society
A 501(c)(3) nonprofit Page 4 of 16 [email protected] That is a fundamental process failure. The City cannot reasonably conclude that relocation is feasible, environmentally superior, operationally safe, cost-eƯective, or compatible with OCME without first engaging both aƯected user groups together in the field.
3. HSS is a longstanding existing recreational use at Fairview Park.
The IS/MND acknowledges that HSS has used the Fairview Park flying field since the early 1960s and that the flying field has remained in the southern part of the western mesa, even though its exact configuration has varied over time. The IS/MND also acknowledges that a reconfigured fly field was graded in 2005 and used by HSS with City permission until the COVID-19 closure in March 2020.
That history matters. The flying field is not a new proposed use. It is a historic, established recreational use at Fairview Park. The IS/MND should analyze it as such.
Instead, the IS/MND treats relocation as a mitigation measure and planning assumption, while failing to evaluate whether continued operation at the existing location—with appropriate operational controls—is feasible, less impactful, and more consistent with the park’s historic recreational use.
4. The IS/MND relies on an artificially constrained operating baseline.
The IS/MND describes current flying as limited to non-powered gliders on the first and third Saturdays of the month. That statement may describe the current restricted operating condition, but it does not accurately reflect the historic baseline of HSS operations at Fairview Park.
HSS operated for decades at Fairview Park before the COVID-19 closure. The post-COVID reopening conditions were imposed after a temporary closure and years of limited access.
Those restrictions should not be used to redefine the flying field as a minor, provisional, or expendable use.
The IS/MND should disclose and analyze:
HSS’s operation at Fairview Park since 1964;
the pre-COVID operational history of the flying field; the COVID-19 closure in March 2020;
the limited reopening in 2023;
the operational changes HSS has implemented in response to City concerns; and the feasibility of continued operation at the historic west side location.
Without that analysis, the IS/MND presents an incomplete and misleading picture of the existing recreational baseline.
Harbor Soaring Society
A 501(c)(3) nonprofit Page 5 of 16 [email protected]
5. HSS’s 2026 landing log demonstrates that operational controls are working.
HSS has maintained and submitted an oƯ-runway landings log. HSS also confirms the log with the City observer at the end of each flight day.
For 2026, HSS has completed five flight days with zero oƯ-runway landings:
Flight Day City Observer OƯ-Runway Landings Landing Location 5/16/26 Josh 0 100% on the runway
5/2/26 Bequi 0 100% on the runway
4/25/26 Bequi 0 100% on the runway
4/18/26 Josh 0 100% on the runway
3/21/26 Bequi (AM), Josh (PM) 0 100% on the runway
This is important because the City and its consultants have repeatedly identified oƯrunway retrieval, oƯ-trail access, and landing outside the runway as alleged operational concerns. HSS responded by communicating directly with pilots, adjusting operations, and emphasizing that landings should occur on the runway.
The IS/MND does not meaningfully evaluate these operational changes. It does not analyze whether current HSS practices reduce or eliminate the alleged impacts. It does not explain why continued operation at the historic west side location, subject to operational controls, is infeasible. It simply assumes relocation.
That is not adequate environmental analysis.
6. The City has not identified any specific inaccuracy in HSS’s 2026 landing log.
HSS asked the City to identify any records, observations, or information inconsistent with the 2026 landing log. The City did not identify any specific discrepancy.
In response, Brian Gruner stated that the City “can’t confirm nor deny” that all glider landings were within the runway because the City does not monitor each flight. That response does not identify any inconsistency in the HSS log. HSS continues to confirm the landing log with the City observer at the end of each flight day so any issue can be reconciled promptly.
If the City has contrary information, it should identify it. Otherwise, the IS/MND should not continue to rely on generalized assumptions about oƯ-runway landings and retrieval as though HSS has not corrected the issue.
Harbor Soaring Society
A 501(c)(3) nonprofit Page 6 of 16 [email protected]
7. The proposed east side relocation is not adequately defined or analyzed.
The east side relocation raises numerous unresolved practical and environmental questions, including:
runway length and orientation;
launch area;
landing area;
pilot station and pit area;
safety buƯers;
glider retrieval;
public access and spectator safety;
proximity to trails, Placentia Avenue, Estancia High School, the golf course, and OCME operations;
interaction with train tracks and train ride operations; storage and maintenance requirements;
emergency access;
grading and surface treatment;
environmental constraints;
cost;
and long-term operational suitability.
The IS/MND does not adequately analyze these issues.
Although City staƯ referred to the Hamilton Report as an “east side fly field feasibility study,” the document is a biological technical memorandum. It is not a complete operational, safety, engineering, cost, construction, public access, or OCME compatibility feasibility study. It does not demonstrate that the proposed east side location can safely and functionally support HSS operations.
The Hamilton Report assumes a proposed runway of approximately 300 feet by 50 feet, with only 150 feet consisting of decomposed granite and the remainder periodically cleared of vegetation. That assumption must be evaluated against actual HSS glider operations, approach paths, launch methods, wind conditions, pilot safety, public safety, OCME operations, and retrieval needs. The IS/MND does not do that.
8. The City has not answered Council’s practical “can of worms” question.
During the Council process, Councilmember Gameros asked, in substance, to understand what the “can of worms” looked like regarding relocating the flying field to the east side.
That question has not been answered.
Harbor Soaring Society
A 501(c)(3) nonprofit Page 7 of 16 [email protected] The Hamilton Report is a biological technical memorandum. It does not resolve operational, safety, engineering, cost, construction, public access, long-term management, or OCME compatibility issues. It does not establish that HSS can safely and functionally operate at the proposed location.
A late-posted biological memorandum is not a complete relocation feasibility study. The City should not move forward with Master Plan adoption until Council, HSS, OCME, and the public have been provided a complete and transparent evaluation of the relocation concept.
9. The public records response deadline was extended to the same day CEQA comments are due.
HSS submitted a public records request seeking studies, assessments, cost estimates, technical analyses, site evaluations, maps, consultant communications, resource agency communications, and other records related to alleged fly field impacts and proposed east side relocation.
The City Clerk’s oƯice extended the deadline to respond to May 29, 2026—the same day IS/MND comments are due—citing the need to search for and examine a voluminous amount of records.
This creates a serious fairness and transparency problem. The City is asking HSS and the public to comment on the IS/MND by May 29 while withholding or delaying production of the underlying records until the same date. Those records appear directly relevant to the relocation analysis and alleged fly field impacts.
The City should extend the IS/MND public comment period and recirculate the document after all relevant fly-field-related records, consultant reports, resource agency communications, and technical materials have been made available.
10. The IS/MND relies on unsupported and disputed assumptions regarding existing fly field impacts.
The IS/MND asserts that the existing fly field causes or contributes to biological impacts.
HSS disputes the factual basis for many of these claims.
HSS previously reviewed City-prepared materials concerning alleged fly field impacts and identified factual inaccuracies and operational misunderstandings. HSS provided corrections to the City. The IS/MND does not disclose those corrections, evaluate them, or explain why they were rejected.
Harbor Soaring Society
A 501(c)(3) nonprofit Page 8 of 16 [email protected] The IS/MND should not rely on one-sided or inaccurate descriptions of HSS operations. At minimum, the City must disclose and evaluate:
HSS’s corrections to City-prepared summaries;
HSS’s landing logs;
HSS’s operational changes;
City observer records;
the absence of oƯ-runway landings in 2026;
the distinction between actual HSS operations and generalized public oƯ-trail access;
and the fact that resource agency comments appear to have been based on information provided by City staƯ rather than direct field meetings with HSS.
The IS/MND does not provide a balanced or reliable evidentiary basis for concluding that relocation is necessary or that continued operation at the current location cannot be managed with reasonable operational controls.
11. The IS/MND fails to reconcile the Vernal Pools 5, 6, and 7 history with the current relocation narrative.
Vernal Pools 5, 6, and 7 are directly relevant to the City’s current claims regarding the flying field because they are located directly across the asphalt path from the existing HSS runway and pilot area.
Beginning around 2014, the City and federal resource agencies were actively evaluating impacts to vernal pools and vernal pool watersheds at Fairview Park. The 2014 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service correspondence regarding Fairview Park is especially important because it has been treated as a foundational document in the Master Plan Update process and subsequent biological analysis.
That 2014 USFWS correspondence identified potential impacts to vernal pools and vernal pool watersheds at Fairview Park. However, to HSS’s knowledge, it did not identify the HSS flying field as a potential impact to the vernal pools or their watersheds, nor did it identify relocation or elimination of the flying field as a required or recommended corrective measure.
This omission is significant. If the flying field were understood at that time to be a significant or even potential impact to vernal pool resources, one would expect the 2014 USFWS correspondence and related environmental documentation to identify it. Instead, the record focused on other impacts, including the City’s own installation of a decomposed granite path near Vernal Pools 5, 6, and 7.
Harbor Soaring Society
A 501(c)(3) nonprofit Page 9 of 16 [email protected] To HSS’s understanding, the restoration of Vernal Pools 5, 6, and 7 arose from agency concerns regarding the City’s installation of that decomposed granite path along or near the vernal pool area. The City was required to remove the path and restore the aƯected vernal pool area. During the years when that restoration issue was analyzed, planned, and implemented, the HSS flying field remained immediately adjacent to the area and was an active, longstanding use of Fairview Park.
The documentation and environmental analysis associated with Vernal Pools 5, 6, and 7 did not identify the HSS flying field as an impact requiring relocation, closure, or elimination, even though the flying field was operating at the west side location during that period. This directly undermines the current narrative that relocation of the flying field is necessary to protect vernal pool resources.
The IS/MND does not address this history. It does not explain why the flying field was not identified as a potential impact in the 2014 USFWS correspondence or the Vernal Pools 5, 6, and 7 restoration documentation, but is now treated as an impact requiring relocation. It also does not reconcile that earlier record with the current claim that the flying field must be relocated to protect habitat.
This issue is especially important because the Master Plan Update and IS/MND appear to rely on later summaries and interpretations of the 2014 USFWS correspondence. HSS is concerned that those later summaries have overstated or mischaracterized the 2014 USFWS letter by using it to support flying field relocation even though the letter itself did not identify the flying field as a potential vernal pool impact.
The City should not rely on a later reinterpretation of the 2014 USFWS correspondence to justify relocation of the flying field. If the City contends that the 2014 USFWS letter supports relocation, the City should identify the specific language in that letter that identifies the HSS flying field as a potential impact or recommends relocation. Otherwise, the IS/MND should be revised to accurately reflect that the foundational vernal pool correspondence did not identify the flying field as a potential impact.
The failure to address this history is a material omission. The IS/MND treats relocation as a mitigation measure, yet it does not disclose or analyze prior agency documentation that evaluated vernal pool impacts without identifying the flying field as a problem. This creates an incomplete and potentially misleading environmental record. The City should revise and recirculate the IS/MND to accurately address the 2014 USFWS correspondence, the Vernal Pools 5, 6, and 7 restoration history, and the absence of any prior agency finding that the HSS flying field required relocation.
Harbor Soaring Society
A 501(c)(3) nonprofit Page 10 of 16 [email protected] HSS requests that the City include the 2014 USFWS correspondence and the Vernal Pools 5, 6, and 7 restoration documentation in the administrative record and identify where, if anywhere, those documents identify the HSS flying field as a potential impact.
12. The IS/MND conflates HSS operations with general unauthorized public access.
The IS/MND and related consultant materials identify unauthorized access, oƯ-trail use, bicyclists, e-bikes, oƯ-leash dogs, and other public intrusion as ongoing problems at Fairview Park.
HSS does not dispute that unauthorized public access can harm sensitive resources.
However, those impacts should not be attributed to HSS without evidence. HSS operates under organized rules, specified flight days, City observer presence, and direct pilot communication.
General public-access impacts should not be used to justify relocating or eliminating a managed, historic recreational use that can be controlled through rules, communication, and City oversight.
13. The burrowing owl analysis does not support permanent relocation of the flying field.
The burrowing owl-related materials do not support permanent relocation of the flying field. At most, they appear to identify potential seasonal concerns and recommend access controls, fencing, signage, monitoring, and temporary operational measures.
As with the Hamilton Report, HSS did not receive the burrowing owl report through the Master Plan Update process or as part of meaningful stakeholder coordination. HSS obtained it only through a public records request. That is a recurring problem: reports used to support biological concerns about the flying field have not been timely disclosed to HSS, OCME, the public, or Council in a manner that allows meaningful review before key Master Plan and CEQA decisions.
HSS has also received comments from a local environmental professional raising concerns about the adequacy and clarity of the burrowing owl report. Those concerns include, but are not limited to, the following:
the report does not clearly describe the survey methodology; it is unclear how long each survey lasted;
it is unclear how far apart the surveys were conducted; it is unclear whether the survey consisted only of checking known burrows or whether the surveyors systematically swept the site for owls in other areas; Harbor Soaring Society
A 501(c)(3) nonprofit Page 11 of 16 [email protected] it is unclear whether owls were actually observed during each relevant survey or whether the report relies on indirect signs such as whitewash; the map is confusing because it appears to include both 2024 and 2025 locations without clearly explaining whether those locations are burrows, owl observations, or both;
the report does not clearly explain when City staƯ observed owls, whether all three reported owls were observed simultaneously, whether any owls were banded, or how individual owls were distinguished from one another; because burrowing owls can move among multiple burrows within a single season, the report should explain how it determined the number of individual owls present.
These methodological questions matter. If the City intends to rely on burrowing owl observations or burrow locations to justify permanent relocation of a historic recreational use, the underlying report should clearly document the survey methods, timing, duration, observation criteria, location data, and basis for distinguishing individual owls.
The IS/MND does not do that. It also does not evaluate whether seasonal operational controls, observer coordination, fencing, signage, temporary winter restrictions, or pilot procedures would reduce potential impacts while preserving the historic flying field.
Therefore, the burrowing owl materials do not provide substantial evidence supporting permanent relocation of the HSS flying field. At most, they support further study and consideration of targeted seasonal management measures, if warranted by site-specific evidence.
14.Relocation to the east side may itself create biological impacts.
The Hamilton Report acknowledges that relocation to the east side may involve potential “take” of Crotch’s bumble bee and recommends that the City consult with CDFW prior to undertaking ground disturbance, placement of decomposed granite, or vegetation clearance that may require incidental take authorization.
That is important because one of the City’s asserted reasons for relocating HSS is to reduce regulatory risk and avoid impacts at the current location. Yet the City’s own technical memorandum acknowledges potential take risk at the proposed relocation site.
Relocation is therefore not impact-free. It may simply move the regulatory and biological issues to a new location, while also creating recreational, safety, operational, and OCME compatibility impacts that the IS/MND does not adequately analyze.
15. The IS/MND does not show that relocation reduces regulatory risk.
Harbor Soaring Society
A 501(c)(3) nonprofit Page 12 of 16 [email protected] The IS/MND appears to assume that relocating the flying field to the east side would reduce regulatory risk associated with listed or candidate species. However, the City has not demonstrated that continued operation of the historic west side flying field would require an Incidental Take Permit (“ITP”), particularly if HSS continues to operate under reasonable controls such as runway-only landings, observer coordination, seasonal adjustments if warranted, defined retrieval procedures, and avoidance of sensitive areas.
The flying field is a longstanding existing use at Fairview Park. The IS/MND acknowledges that HSS has used the flying field since the early 1960s and that the flying field remained in the southern portion of the western mesa over time. The City should analyze whether continued operation of this existing use, with operational controls, would avoid take and avoid the need for an ITP before assuming that relocation is required.
Further, the City’s own Hamilton Report does not support the conclusion that relocation avoids take-related regulatory risk. The Hamilton Report states that relocation to the east side may involve potential “take” of Crotch’s bumble bee and recommends CDFW consultation before ground disturbance, decomposed granite placement, or vegetation clearance that may require incidental take authorization.
Therefore, relocation does not eliminate the potential need for take authorization. It may simply move the potential regulatory issue to a new location while also creating additional costs and risks associated with construction, access, grading, decomposed granite placement, vegetation clearance, OCME coordination, public safety, and the possible loss of a historic recreational use.
Before relying on potential ITP cost or regulatory liability as a reason to relocate the flying field, the City should provide a comparative analysis of:
whether continued west side operation with operational controls would actually require take authorization;
whether east side construction and operation would require take authorization; the likely cost and timing of each regulatory path;
the likelihood of CDFW approval for each path;
mitigation obligations for each path;
and whether relocation creates greater total cost, liability, or environmental disturbance than maintaining the historic west side location.
Without that analysis, the IS/MND cannot support the conclusion that relocation is the lower-risk, lower-cost, or environmentally superior option.
16. MM-BIO-3 is not an adequate mitigation measure.
Harbor Soaring Society
A 501(c)(3) nonprofit Page 13 of 16 [email protected] MM-BIO-3 requires relocation of the existing RC fly field to the east side of Fairview Park. It states that the exact location shall be selected in consultation with CDFW to minimize impacts to burrowing owl and Crotch’s bumble bee and possibly prevent the need for take authorization.
That mitigation measure is inadequate because:
it does not identify the exact relocation location;
it does not establish objective feasibility criteria; it does not analyze operational suitability;
it does not analyze compatibility with OCME;
it does not define required runway dimensions, buƯers, or safety areas; it does not provide a timeline;
it does not disclose cost;
it does not analyze whether HSS can safely operate there; and it does not resolve the potential take issue identified in the Hamilton Report.
A mitigation measure cannot simply defer core feasibility and impact analysis until after project approval. If relocation is part of the project and a mitigation measure, then the City must analyze relocation now.
17. The IS/MND fails to adequately analyze recreation impacts.
The flying field is a recreational facility and historic community use. Relocating it—or eƯectively eliminating it—would reduce recreational opportunities at Fairview Park.
The IS/MND does not adequately analyze this impact. It does not evaluate whether east side relocation would allow continued HSS operations. It does not evaluate whether the proposed east side location is compatible with OCME. It does not evaluate whether loss of the west side flying field would displace users to other parks or eliminate the use entirely.
The IS/MND also fails to account for the unique nature of HSS’s use. A model glider flying field is not interchangeable with a general open grass area, trail, picnic area, or another park. It requires appropriate airspace, runway orientation, wind conditions, launch and landing area, pilot control area, safe retrieval practices, and public separation.
The City cannot conclude that recreation impacts are less than significant without analyzing whether the proposed relocation is actually feasible and whether HSS can continue operating.
18. The IS/MND fails to analyze impacts to OCME operations.
Harbor Soaring Society
A 501(c)(3) nonprofit Page 14 of 16 [email protected] The proposed east side relocation would place HSS operations in the vicinity of OCME’s model railroad facilities. OCME is another longstanding, highly valued Fairview Park user group.
The IS/MND does not adequately analyze whether HSS operations can safely coexist with OCME operations in the proposed east side location. It does not evaluate conflicts with train tracks, train ride operations, spectators, maintenance areas, station facilities, access routes, or the public event environment.
HSS and OCME should have been brought together with City staƯ before the IS/MND assumed relocation. That did not happen. The City cannot reasonably conclude that relocation is feasible when it has not conducted a joint field evaluation with both aƯected user groups.
19.A joint meeting held after IS/MND circulation does not cure the defect.
HSS is willing to participate in a joint field meeting with the City and OCME. However, a meeting held after circulation of the IS/MND and after preparation of the Hamilton Report does not cure the failure to conduct meaningful stakeholder coordination before the Master Plan Update and IS/MND assumed relocation as a project component and mitigation measure.
The City should conduct the meeting, but it should be treated as a feasibility, requirements, and constraints meeting—not as transition planning or an agreement that relocation is feasible.
20. The IS/MND should analyze continued operation at the historic west side location.
The IS/MND should evaluate continued operation at the existing west side flying field as a feasible option, including reasonable operational controls such as:
runway-only landings;
continued landing-log documentation;
confirmation with City observers;
pilot briefings;
seasonal adjustments if warranted by site-specific evidence; fencing and signage improvements;
defined retrieval procedures;
limits on access to sensitive areas;
and continued coordination with City staƯ.
Harbor Soaring Society
A 501(c)(3) nonprofit Page 15 of 16 [email protected] The 2026 landing log demonstrates that operational controls are working. The City should analyze these measures rather than assuming relocation is necessary.
21.Requested action.
HSS respectfully requests that the City:
1. Not adopt the IS/MND or approve the Master Plan Update in its current form.
2. Extend the IS/MND comment period and/or recirculate a revised IS/MND after all relevant fly-field-related records, consultant reports, agency communications, and technical materials have been disclosed.
3. Include the Hamilton Report in the administrative record and environmental review materials.
4. Produce all relocation-related public records before further Council action.
5. Conduct a joint HSS/OCME/City field meeting before any further Council action on the Master Plan Update.
6. Analyze continued operation at the historic west side flying field as a feasible option, including reasonable operational controls, seasonal measures if warranted, fencing/signage improvements, continued City observer coordination, and ongoing landing-log documentation.
7. Remove or revise MM-BIO-3 unless and until relocation is fully defined, analyzed, feasible, and supported by substantial evidence.
8. Correct the public record regarding inaccurate or unsupported statements about HSS operations and alleged impacts.
9. Maintain the existing west side flying field unless and until the City demonstrates, based on substantial evidence and a transparent public process, that relocation is feasible, necessary, lawful, and less impactful.
Conclusion
HSS supports environmental stewardship, public safety, and responsible management of Fairview Park. HSS also supports preserving Fairview Park’s historic recreational uses, including model glider flying and model railroading.
The current IS/MND does not adequately analyze the proposed relocation of the HSS flying field. It relies on disputed assumptions, omits relevant history, fails to evaluate operational feasibility, does not adequately analyze recreation impacts, and fails to disclose and incorporate key technical materials in a timely manner.
For these reasons, the City should not adopt the IS/MND or approve the Master Plan Update as currently proposed. The City should maintain the status quo at the historic west side flying field while conducting a transparent, fact-based, stakeholder-inclusive process.
Harbor Soaring Society
A 501(c)(3) nonprofit Page 16 of 16 [email protected] Sincerely,
Mat Garcia
President
Harbor Soaring Society
A 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization
Attached Exhibits
Exhibit 1 – USFWS Letter Re: Restoration, Management, and Protection of Vernal Pools within Fairview Park, dated July 24, 2014
Exhibit 2 – Fairview Park Vernal Pool Restoration and Long Term Maintenance Plan for Vernal Pools 5 and 6, dated June 8, 2018
Exhibit 3 – Fairview Park Restoration Project – Vernal Pools 5, 6, & 7 Restoration/Planting Plan
Exhibit 4 – Hamilton Biological Technical Memorandum, CEQA Analysis, HSS Flying Field Relocation Project, dated May 13, 2025
Exhibit 5 – Western Burrowing Owl Monitoring Program Report – Fairview Park Exhibit 6 – May 28, 2026 Brian Gruner Email Confirming East Side Fly Field Feasibility Study Was Not Released
Exhibit 7 – May 15, 2026 Public Records Request #578 Response Re: Fly Field Relocation
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Ecological Services
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office
2177 Salk A venue, Suite 250
Carlsbad, California 92008
In Reply Refer To:
FWS-OR-13B0443-14TA0229
Mr. Baltazar Mejia
Senior Engineer, Public Services Department
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, California 92626
JUL 2 4 2014
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 vernal 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 (Branchinecta 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" 1 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 1 through 7) and a "vernal 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 1 Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act and associated regulations prohibit the take of endangered and threatened species without special exemption. Take is defmed as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. Harm is further 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.
Mr. Baltazar Mejia (FWS-OR-13B0443-14TA0229) 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.
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 1), and Basin 4 and the “vernal marsh” were restored into a vernal pool complex (Restored Complex 4).
BASINS #1, 2, 3
(RESTORED BASIN 1)
BASIN #5
BASIN #6
BASIN #4 AND VERNAL MARSHES
(RESTORED COMPLEX 4)
BASIN #7
Mr. Baltazar Mejia (FWS-OR-13B0443-14TA0229) 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 part 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).
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 source: http://www.savefairviewpark.org/documents/fpcac-pack-5-29-13.zip. Labels added.
Fairview Park supports one of the last coastal terrace vernal pools complexes in Orange County (Service 2007). Conservation and management of the San Diego fairy shrimp and its habitat in Fairview Park and other vernal pool complexes in the Los Angeles Basin-Orange Management Area is one of the criteria identified for recovery of the San Diego fairy shrimp in the Service’s Recovery Plan for Vernal Pools of Southern California (Service 1998). Vernal pools in Fairview Park also support several plant species that are locally rare (City 2008; Chung 2010).
Boardwalk
Fence
Restored Basin #1
Restored Complex #4
Mr. Baltazar Mejia (FWS-OR-13B0443-14TA0229) 4
In the past, the City has supported restoration of the vernal pools and other sensitive habitat in Fairview Park, and the Fairview Park Master Plan (City 2008) includes a commitment that “the pools and basins [in Fairview 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 formalized 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 the vernal pools; and (5) cessation of mowing within the 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, that some measures have not been implemented and others have been implemented in ways that may have impacted the 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 have 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 that may have resulted in direct and indirect impacts to San Diego fairy shrimp, as described in our letter, dated November 14, 2013 (13B0443-14TA0039). While the path has been removed, grading associated with path installation altered the hydrology of the watershed supporting Basins 5 and 6 so that water may not pond to the extent it did historically (Finium Environmental 2013). As a result, fairy shrimp cysts may not hatch to their historical capacities until changes in topography are corrected (Finium Environmental 2013). The portion of the watershed supporting Basin 7 (including the basin area) has been used as a temporary parking area, and logs were placed in the watershed to delineate the parking boundary. A portion of the watershed of Restored Complex 4 was impacted by the installation of permanent parking along Canyon Drive. Grading for the parking 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 northern end has informal paths leading directly into the basin and allowing bicycle access. Bicycle tracks and paths encroach within the northern 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 the fence are located in the basin (Figure 2). Restored Complex 4 has multiple 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 shrimp cysts within smaller portions of each basin.
Mr. Baltazar Mejia (FWS-OR-13B0443-14TA0229) 5
Installation of landscaping and associated irrigation 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.) (Finium Environmental 2013). The conversion of the vernal pool habitat to wetland can result in the permanent loss of habitat for San Diego fairy shrimp.
Mowing and pesticide and herbicide application: We have little information regarding the current 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 crush cysts, spread invasive plant species, and cause ruts if mowing is conducted when the ground is damp. Pesticides and herbicides could potentially harm San Diego fairy shrimp cysts and adults.
Restoration, protection, and management of vernal pools in Fairview Park
While accommodating public 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 Fairview Park remains viable. Some of these restoration actions can be implemented immediately without further authorization under the Act, but others have the potential to result in take of listed species for which additional authorization under the Act would be required. To ensure that the City’s future actions are appropriately authorized under the Act, we recommend that the City coordinate closely with our office to ensure that any incidental take associated with these actions is appropriately exempted under the Act. As indicated above, this letter does not exempt future take of listed species.
The following measures apply to Restored Basin 1, Restored Complex 4, and the vernal 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 California 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 runoff from entering the watershed of Basins 5, 6, and 7. The City should coordinate with Newport-Mesa Unified School Mr. Baltazar Mejia (FWS-OR-13B0443-14TA0229) 6
District to ensure irrigation supporting landscaping at Estancia High School Stadium does not enter Fairview Park. We are available to assist the City with this coordination, as necessary.
c. Removal of landscaping, turf, and non-vernal pool associated wetland plants (e.g., mulefat, curly dock) that were supported by irrigation systems in the watersheds and replacement with 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 vernal pool basins and along informal and unauthorized paths, as appropriate (e.g., outside the basin area). f. Removal of trash or other debris from the vernal pool watershed.
2. Permanent Protection – Record a conservation 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 the 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 duration 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 entry into fenced areas. Formal paths that will pass through the watershed of vernal 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 preservation of remaining coastal terrace pools in the City of Costa Mesa should be considered a source of pride for the 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.
Mr. Baltazar Mejia (FWS-OR-13B0443-14TA0229) 7
Mr. Baltazar Mejia (FWS-OR-13B0443-14TA0229) 8
5. Trash – Provide trash receptacles and pet waste stations in convenient locations to minimize the potential for trash to be discarded in the vernal 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 recommend that mowing be restricted within approximately 50 feet of the basin area to avoid restored habitat and sensitive plant species surrounding the basin area. The mowing limits should be periodically reevaluated to compensate for changes in the 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 within the vernal pool watersheds to ensure chemicals harmful to San Diego fairy shrimp are avoided.
7. Employee Education – Provide an on-site education program for current 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. Biological 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 who has experience with 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 – The 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 the 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 vernal pool areas, located east of Placentia Avenue, require additional surveys to determine if San Diego fairy shrimp and/or sensitive vernal plant species are present. We recommend the City delineate the watershed of the 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-13B0443-14TA0229)
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 ongoing management actions that will be implemented to ensure high quality habitat for San Diego fairy shrimp is maintained and that the species is protected. 9 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 ofthis office at 760-431-9440, extension 298. cc:
Sincerely,
Karen A. Goebel
Assistant Field Supervisor
Marilyn Fluharty, California Department ofFish and Wildlife Mr. Baltazar Mejia (FWS-OR-13B0443-14TA0229) 10
Literature Cited
City of Costa Mesa. 2008. Fairview Park Master Plan March 1998, Revised February 2001 and November 2002, Updated November 2008.
Finium Environmental. 2013. Re: Results of construction monitoring activities for the trail and log removal at Fairview Park located in the City of Costa Mesa, County of Orange, California.
Prepared for the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, Carlsbad, California.
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, third annual monitoring report for impacts associated with the Ikea portion of the Home Ranch Project.
Prepared for C. J. Segerstrom and Sons, Costa Mesa, California.
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 of vernal pools 4 through 7 and A, B, and C; Restoration alternatives assessment of vernal pools 5 and 6. Prepared for the City of Costa Mesa, Orange County, California.
Michael Brandman Associates. 1995. Jurisdictional delineation of Fairview Park vernal pools, 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 with 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 Recovery Permits under Section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act for the Listed Vernal Pool Branchiopods
Service (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1998. Vernal pools of southern California recovery plan. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon.
Service (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2007. Endangered and threatened 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: Summary and Evaluation. Prepared by the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, Carlsbad, California.
Mr. Baltazar Mejia (FWS-OR-13B0443-14TA0229) 11
Simovich, M. 2005. Collecting report for 2004 for collecting permit TE87037-2. Prepared for U. S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad, California.
Personal Communication
Chung, J. 2010. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, electronic mail received by C. Medak, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, April 16, 2010.
ATTACHMENT 3
%,
%,
%,
%,
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Legend
%, Signage Locations Fence
Existing Fencing
New Exclusion Fencing
Site Access
Telephone Pole Indentation (209 ft)
Stockpile/Staging Area
Watershed Breaks
Non-Native Vegetation to be Removed (0.08 ac)
Foot Path Restoration (0.062 ac)
Turf Removal and CSS Establishment (0.65 ac)
Vernal Pool
Vernal Pool Six Reestablishment Area (0.01 ac)
Native Grassland Establishment (2.97 ac)
±
0 37.5 75 150
Feet
VP 5
VP 6
Feature 7
X:\0363-THE REST\0493-06MANA\493-6_GIS\493-6SurveyAreaMapWorking.mxd
FAIRVIEW PARK RESTORATION PROJECT
Restoration/Planting Plan
Fairview Park
Vernal Pools 5, 6, & 7 Restoration Plan
ATTACHMENT 4
316 Monrovia Avenue Long Beach, CA 90803 562-477-2181 [email protected]
HAMILTON BIOLOGICAL
May 13, 2025
Ms. Jennifer Zell
MIG
360 East Second Street, Suite 675
Los Angeles, California 90012
SUBJECT: BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
CEQA ANALYSIS, HSS FLYING FIELD RELOCATION PROJECT
CITY OF COSTA MESA, ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Dear Ms. Zell,
At your request, Robert Hamilton, President of Hamilton Biological, Inc., has prepared this biological technical memorandum for a project proposed by the City of Costa Mesa (the City) that consists of relocating the existing Harbor Soaring Society (HSS) flying field from the west side of Fairview Park to the east side of the park, with the goal of reducing ongoing impacts to sensitive biological resources, most of which occur on the west side of the park. Figures 1–3 on the following pages show the location of Fairview Park as well as the existing and proposed flying field locations.
The proposed actions involve establishing new facilities, including a glider launch area and runway; pilot stations/pit area; storage shed; information kiosk; power requirements; and a low post-and-cable barrier around the northern portion of the east-side vernal pool watershed, consistent with the existing barrier that protects the southern portion of this watershed. The relocated flying field impact footprint will be approximately 0.5 acre, compared with 1.62 acres for the existing flying field.
This technical memorandum has the following goals:
1. To describe the existing conditions at the current flying field location and at the selected relocation site, including the vegetation present in each area and the existing uses of these areas.
2. To identify the plant and wildlife species present, or potentially occurring, in the current and proposed flying field sites, including listed and otherwise sensitive species.
Biological Technical Memorandum, Fairview Flying Field Relocation Project Hamilton Biological, Inc.
May 13, 2025 Page 2 of 28
3. To analyze the potential effects of the proposed relocation project on biological resources, with an understanding that the City will utilize this analysis as part of its CEQA review process for the project.
Biological Technical Memorandum, Fairview Flying Field Relocation Project Hamilton Biological, Inc.
May 13, 2025 Page 3 of 28
Figure 1, Regional Location of Fairview Park Source: Land IQ (2024) Biological Technical Memorandum, Fairview Flying Field Relocation Project Hamilton Biological, Inc.
May 13, 2025 Page 4 of 28
Figure 2, Fairview Park Boundary Source: Land IQ (2024) Biological Technical Memorandum, Fairview Flying Field Relocation Project Hamilton Biological, Inc.
May 13, 2025 Page 5 of 28
Figure 3. Showing the general locations of the existing flying field site, west of Placentia Avenue, in red, and the proposed flying field site, east of Placentia Avenue, in green. The actual location of the existing flying field shifts somewhat from year to year. NOTE: For detailed depiction of proposed actions at the relocation site, see Figure 10 on page 22. Aerial imagery dated January 22, 2020. Imagery Source: Google Earth Pro.
METHODS
As part of this analysis, I reviewed two recent biological reports prepared part of the current update to the Fairview Park Master Plan, incorporating relevant information into this technical memorandum:
• Land IQ. 2024. 2023 Vegetation map and habitat restoration opportunities for Fairview Park, Costa Mesa, California. Report dated March 22, 2024, prepared for MIG. • Hamilton Biological, Inc. 2025. Biological Resources Technical Report, Fairview Park, City of Costa Mesa. Report dated May 8, 2025, prepared for MIG.
On April 30, 2025, I conducted a field visit from 7:05 to 9:30 a.m. The temperature was 58–61° F, skies were 100 percent overcast, and winds were 1–3 miles per hour. I walked both the existing and proposed flying field sites and recorded the dominant plant species present in each area. I also recorded all wildlife species detected in and around these areas.
On May 11, 2025, I reviewed the State of California’s Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List and Special Animals List, as well as a list of sensitive species recorded in Scale 1 inch = 550 feet
Hamilton Biological, Inc.
Figure 3. Existing and Proposed Sites
Biological Technical Memorandum, Fairview Flying Field Relocation Project Hamilton Biological, Inc.
May 13, 2025 Page 6 of 28
the U.S. Geologic Survey’s Newport Beach 7.5’ topographic quadrangle (California Natural Diversity Data Base (2025a, 2025b, 2025c).
RESULTS
Topography and Soils
Both the existing flying field and the proposed relocation site occupy nearly flat, open ground at elevations of approximately 75 to 85 feet above mean sea level. As shown in Figure 4, below, the existing flying field is in the southern part of the western mesa, along the edge of a large area where fill soils were placed during the 1980s, and entirely within the watershed of the park’s largest vernal pool, with smaller pools to the east and south. The proposed flying field site, east of Placentia Avenue, is in another area where fill appears to have been placed in the past (but not mapped). This determination was made in the field by noting a rise in the ground level of approximately 1–3 feet accompanied by an abrupt shift in vegetation from annual grassland to dense mustard.
Figure 4. Existing and proposed flying field sites in relation to vernal pools and the mapped area of improper fill material on the western mesa. The existing flying field is at the edge of the mapped fill area, and within the mapped watershed of the main vernal pool. Smaller vernal pool features are located to the east and south. The proposed flying field, east of Placentia Avenue, is in another area where fill appears to have been placed in the past (but not mapped). The proposed flying field avoids the mapped watershed of the vernal pool complex on the Biological Technical Memorandum, Fairview Flying Field Relocation Project Hamilton Biological, Inc.
May 13, 2025 Page 7 of 28
east side of the park. NOTE: For detailed depiction of proposed actions at the relocation site, see Figure 10 on page
22. Base Map Source: Land IQ 2023 (Figure 2-21).
Biological Technical Memorandum, Fairview Flying Field Relocation Project Hamilton Biological, Inc.
May 13, 2025 Page 8 of 28
As shown on Figure 5, on the following page, native soils at both the existing and proposed flying field sites are mapped as Cropley Clay, 2 to 9 percent slopes. The Cropley Clay series is found on alluvial fans, floodplains, and small basins with smooth slopes at elevations of 10 to 2,100 feet. They are moderately well-drained to well-drained, with medium to very high runoff and slow permeability. Carbonate masses are found at depths of 32 to 51 inches, and the mean annual soil temperature at 20 inches is 59 to 64°F. Cropley soils contain 40 to 60% clay and 0 to 10% rock fragments. Smectitic mineralogy is present, and organic matter ranges from 1 to 3% in the top 10 inches. The soil moisture control zone is typically dry from May to October. These soils exhibit reversible surface cracks up to 2 inches wide and slickensides in the Bss horizon, ranging from 10 to 40 inches or more. Slopes are simple, ranging from 0 to 15%.
Figure 5. Soil Series Mapped in Fairview Park (USDA 1978). Soils at the existing and proposed flying field sites are mapped as Cropley Clay, 2 to 9 percent slopes. Because the soil survey was completed in 1978, the soils map does Biological Technical Memorandum, Fairview Flying Field Relocation Project Hamilton Biological, Inc.
May 13, 2025 Page 9 of 28
not show areas of fill placed in subsequent years. Source: Land IQ 2023 (Figure 2-27).
Plant Communities
Figure 6, below, shows Fairview Park’s plant communities, as recently mapped by Land IQ (2023).
Figure 6. Plant Communities Mapped in Fairview Park (Land IQ 2023). The existing (red line) and proposed (green line) flying field sites are both in areas mapped as Wild Oats and Annual Brome Grasslands (a form of non-native annual grassland). As determined in the field in April 2025, the proposed site currently matches the description of Upland Black Mustard and Tocalote Fields, a ruderal (weedy) association established in parts of the park where fill was placed in the past. Source: Land IQ 2023 (Figure 3-1).
When Land IQ mapped the park’s plant communities in 2023, the prevalence of black mustard (Brassica nigra) in the area proposed for the flying field may have been Biological Technical Memorandum, Fairview Flying Field Relocation Project Hamilton Biological, Inc.
May 13, 2025 Page 10 of 28
obscured by mowing for weed control, which the City regularly undertakes on the east side of the park.
The following plant community descriptions are adapted from those provided by Land IQ (2023).
Wild Oats and Annual Brome Grasslands: Avena spp. – Bromus spp. Herbaceous Semi-Natural Alliance
On the mesa west of Placentia Avenue, including the area of the existing flying field, nonnative grasslands occur on soils that have been historically disturbed, including areas impacted by grading for the fly field and numerous informal paths. Nonnative cover exceeds 75 percent, with wild oats, annual bromes, and redstem filaree (Erodium cicutarium) being dominant throughout. Nonnative weeds occurring in patches include fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), black mustard (Brassica nigra), wild radish (Raphanus sativus), cheeseweed mallow (Malva parviflora), and tocalote (Centaurea melitensis). Clustered tarplant (Deinandra fasciculata), a disturbance-tolerant native herb, also occurs commonly in these grasslands with scattered shrubs of coast goldenbush (Isocoma menziesii), big saltbush (Atriplex lentiformis), mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia), and California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum).
Curly dock (Rumex crispus), a perennial broadleaf weed, is locally common, especially in areas with soils that become seasonally saturated or ponded during winter rainfall events. The native species that characterize these ephemeral ponding features include neckweed (Veronica peregrina ssp. xalapensis), Cooper’s popcorn flower (Plagiobothrys collinus), clustered tarweed, mulefat, pale spike rush (Eleocharis macrostachya), American pillwort (Pilularia americana), and common fiddleneck (Amsinckia intermedia).
The extent of the existing flying field varies over time, but for purposes of this report is taken to measure approximately 470’ × 150’ (Land IQ 2023; 99), which equates to approximately 1.62 acres of Wild Oats and Annual Brome Grasslands.
Upland Black Mustard and Tocalote Fields: Brassica nigra – Centaurea melitensis Herbaceous Semi-Natural Alliance
Where fill material has been placed on relatively flat ground, west and east of Placentia Avenue, vegetation is dominated by invasive herbaceous weeds, including black mustard, tocalote, crown daisy (Glebionis coronata), nonnative grasses (Bromus spp. and Avena spp.), and devil’s thorn (Emex spinosa). Patches of invasive perennial weeds, such as fennel and tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca), may also be present. Very low cover of natives occurs, including low wooly marbles (Psilocarphus brevissimus), clustered tarplant, coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), coast goldenbush, California buckwheat, and big saltbush.
The proposed flying field (which for purposes of this report is taken to measure approximately 300’ × 50’), plus associated improvements (e.g., pilot stations/pit area), would Biological Technical Memorandum, Fairview Flying Field Relocation Project Hamilton Biological, Inc.
May 13, 2025 Page 11 of 28
occupy approximately 0.5 acre on the east side of the park that currently supports Upland Black Mustard and Tocalote Fields.
Biological Technical Memorandum, Fairview Flying Field Relocation Project Hamilton Biological, Inc.
May 13, 2025 Page 12 of 28
Wildlife
The following discussions of wildlife known or likely to utilize the existing and proposed flying field areas are adapted from those provided by Hamilton Biological (2025).
In June and July, 2024, focused surveys were conducted for Crotch’s Bumble Bee (Bombas crotchii), a candidate for listing under the California Endangered Species Act, across
16.5 acres planned for habitat restoration in Fairview Park (Endemic Environmental Services 2024). These surveys produced photographic records of 13 Crotch’s Bumble Bees utilizing a variety of native and non-native shrubs and forbs. Although these surveys did not include the sites of the existing or proposed flying fields, the results showed that the species occurs widely across Fairview Park, including areas of the western mesa dominated by mustards and other non-native vegetation. As such, it is expected that Crotch’s Bumble Bee forages in both the existing and proposed sites, with potential to overwinter and nest at both sites (e.g. in rodent holes).
Twenty species of butterfly were seen in Fairview Park during 2023, including the monarch (Danaus plexippus), a candidate for listing by the federal government. Given that the sites of the existing and proposed flying fields lack milkweeds (Asclepias spp.) they are not expected to provide important habitat for the monarch.
Five native species of amphibian have been reported in Fairview Park: Western toad (Anaxyrus boreas), California tree frog (Pseudacris cadaverina), Baja California tree frog (Pseudacris hypochondriaca), black-bellied slender salamander (Batrachoseps nigriventris), and southern California slender salamander (Batrachoseps major). These species could occur at existing and proposed flying field sites.
Three species of snake and five species of lizard have been reported in Fairview Park:
California kingsnake (Lampropeltis californiae), gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer), southern pacific rattlesnake (Crotalus oreganus), southern alligator lizard (Elgaria multicarinata), western fence lizard (Sceloperus occidentalis), common side-blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana), western skink (Plestiodon skiltonianus), and western whiptail (Aspidoscelis tigris). These species could occur at existing and proposed flying field sites.
Birds are the most conspicuous forms of wildlife at Fairview Park. Grasslands and mustard stands on either side of Placentia Avenue, including the existing and proposed flying field sites, provide foraging habitat for several species of raptor, including Burrowing Owls (up to three wintering in 2024/2025; Endemic Environmental Services 2025), Northern Harriers, White-tailed Kites, Red-shouldered Hawks, and Red-tailed Hawks. Insectivores using these habitats include Vermilion Flycatchers, Ash-throated Flycatchers, Western Kingbirds, Cassin’s Kingbirds, Black Phoebes, and Say’s Phoebes. Wintering species include various sparrows, such as White-crowned and Savannah, along with American Pipits, Western Meadowlarks, and other open-country species. Stands of non-native mustard provide Biological Technical Memorandum, Fairview Flying Field Relocation Project Hamilton Biological, Inc.
May 13, 2025 Page 13 of 28
nesting habitat for such species as Red-winged Blackbirds, Song Sparrows, and Common Yellowthroats.
Mammals found in Fairview Park are species adapted to human presence, such as the Virginia Opossum (Didelphus virginiana), Desert Cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii), California Ground Squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi), Coyote (Canis latrans), and Northern Raccoon (Procyon lotor), and fossorial species, such as Botta’s Pocket Gopher (Thomomys bottae) and California Vole (Microtis californicus). The Blacktailed Jackrabbit (Lepus californicus), a California Species of Special Concern that requires large open areas to persist, occurred historically but appears to have been extirpated from the park and other areas along the lower Santa Ana River.
SENSITIVE SPECIES
Sensitive Biological Resources
Federal, state, and local regulations exist to protect and conserve sensitive biological resources. For purposes of this report, a biologically sensitive resource refers to any of the following:
• A natural community recognized as having special-status by federal, State, and/or local governments, and requiring a permit or agreement prior to its disturbance. • A plant or animal species identified by federal or state governments as endangered, threatened, rare, protected, sensitive, vulnerable, or a Species of Special Concern. • A plant or animal that listed by a state or federal agency as a candidate species or proposed for state or federal listing.
Sensitive Natural Communities
The State of California (CDFW 2023) identifies vernal pools as a “Sensitive” natural community that occurs in the portions of Fairview Park potentially affected by the proposed relocation of the flying field. The project has been designed to remove the existing flying field from the large vernal pool watershed on the west side of the park and to completely avoid the vernal pool watershed on the east side of the park.
Special-Status Species
In the following Table B, special-status plants and wildlife that occur in Fairview Park’s open grasslands and/or mustard stands, or that have realistic potential to occur there, are identified and briefly discussed. Table B indicates whether the species could occur at the existing flying field site, the proposed relocation site, or both sites. Table B uses the following abbreviations:
• C Candidate for Listing (State or Federal governments). • E Endangered (listed by State or Federal governments). “Take” of the species Biological Technical Memorandum, Fairview Flying Field Relocation Project Hamilton Biological, Inc.
May 13, 2025 Page 14 of 28
or disturbance of occupied habitat are prohibited unless authorized. • FP Fully Protected by the State of California. These species may not be taken or possessed at any time, although take may be authorized for necessary scientific research.
• T Threatened (listed by State or Federal governments). “Take” of the species or disturbance of occupied habitat are prohibited unless authorized. • PT Proposed Threatened. Species recently proposed to be listed as threatened by State or Federal governments.
• SSC Species of Special Concern. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife has designated certain vertebrate species as Species of Special Concern because declining population levels, limited ranges, and/or continuing threats have made them vulnerable to extinction. The goal of designating species as Species of Special Concern is to halt or reverse their decline by calling attention to their plight and addressing the issues of concern early enough to secure their long term viability.
Some wildlife species are considered “sensitive” only during certain parts of their annual cycle—usually on the nesting grounds. Such species are considered “sensitive” at Fairview Park only if they have potential to occur at the park during that specific time of the year (e.g., those occurring strictly as migrants would not be included).
California Native Plant Society (CNPS). Table B includes plant taxa assigned the following ranks by CNPS:
• 1A, referring to taxa CNPS presumes to be extirpated in California and either rare or extinct elsewhere. • 1B.1, referring to taxa CNPS considers to be rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere; seriously threatened in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened / high degree and immediacy of threat). • 1B.2, referring to taxa CNPS considers to be rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere; moderately threatened in California (20-80% of occurrences threatened / moderate degree and immediacy of threat). • 1B.3, referring to taxa CNPS considers to be rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere; not very threatened in California (less than 20% of occurrences threatened / moderate degree and immediacy of threat).
• 2B.2, referring to taxa CNPS considers to be rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere; moderately threatened in California (20-80% occurrences threatened / moderate degree and immediacy of threat).
Biological Technical Memorandum, Fairview Flying Field Relocation Project Hamilton Biological, Inc.
May 13, 2025 Page 15 of 28
• 3.1, referring to taxa for which CNPS lacks the necessary information to assign them to one of the other ranks or to reject them; taxonomy is typically uncertain. • 4.1, referring to taxa of limited distribution or infrequent throughout a broader area in California, whose status should be monitored regularly; moderately threatened in California (>80% occurrences threatened / moderate degree and immediacy of threat). • 4.2, referring to taxa of limited distribution or infrequent throughout a broader area in California, whose status should be monitored regularly; moderately threatened in California (20-80% occurrences threatened / moderate degree and immediacy of threat). • 4.3, referring to taxa of limited distribution or infrequent throughout a broader area in California, whose status should be monitored regularly; not very threatened in California (less than 20% of occurrences threatened / low degree and immediacy of threat or no current threats known).
NatureServe Element Rankings. In some cases, species have not been granted special status by state or federal agencies, but they may be recognized as ecologically sensitive by the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), which uses a ranking methodology maintained by NatureServe. Species are given a Global rank (G-rank) that applies to the taxon’s entire distribution, and a State rank (S-rank) that applies to the taxon’s state distribution. For subspecies and varieties, there is also a “T” rank describing the global rank for the subspecies or variety, and “TX” refers to a subspecies or variety presumed to be extinct. “Q” denotes questionable taxonomy.
Taxa with rankings of G1, G2, G3, S1, S2, or S3 may be considered “sensitive” and potentially worthy of special consideration in resource planning. Taxa with higher rankings (G4, G5, S4, S5) are considered “apparently secure” or “secure” and therefore are not considered “sensitive” for purposes of this report. NatureServe Element Rankings are identified in Table B only for taxa that have no other federal or state special status. NatureServe Ranks:
• G1, Critically Imperiled, referring to taxa at very high risk of extinction due to extreme rarity (often 5 or fewer populations), very steep declines, or other factors. • G2, Imperiled, referring to taxa at high risk of extinction due to very restricted range, very few populations (often 20 or fewer), steep declines, or other factors. • G3, Vulnerable, referring to taxa at moderate risk of extinction due to a restricted range, relatively few populations (often 80 or fewer), recent and widespread declines, or other factors.
• S1, Critically Imperiled, referring to taxa critically imperiled in the state because of extreme rarity (often 5 or fewer populations) or because of factor(s) such as very steep declines making it especially vulnerable to extirpation from the state. • S2, Imperiled, referring to taxa imperiled in the state because of rarity due to very restricted range, very few populations (often 20 or fewer), steep declines, or other factors making it very vulnerable to extirpation from the state.
Biological Technical Memorandum, Fairview Flying Field Relocation Project Hamilton Biological, Inc.
May 13, 2025 Page 16 of 28
• S3, Vulnerable, referring to taxa vulnerable in the state due to a restricted range, relatively few populations (often 80 or fewer), recent and widespread declines, or other factors making it vulnerable to extirpation from the state.
Potential to Occur Criteria. The last column of Table B indicates the perceived likelihood of the species occurring in Fairview Park:
• Present. Species reliably recorded in Fairview Park during the current survey effort or previous survey efforts, or reported in credible online sources, such as Calflora (www.calflora.org), eBird (www.ebird.org), or iNaturalist (www.inaturalist.org); if the local population is no longer believed to be extant, the potential to occur is stated as Extirpated or Possibly Extirpated, with explanation. • High. Species considered likely to occur at Fairview Park based upon the pattern of records in surrounding areas and the presence of suitable habitat resources at the park.
Species may be inconspicuous and/or little-studied, and therefore subject to being overlooked even when present. • Moderate. Species considered neither likely nor highly unlikely to occur at Fairview Park, because the park lies within the species’ known range and adequate suitable habitat is present. Species may be inconspicuous and/or little-studied, and therefore subject to being overlooked even when present.
• Low. Species not known from Fairview Park, and considered highly unlikely to occur there, except as a rare transient, because the park lies outside of the species’ known range and/or required habitat is of marginal or low quality. • None. Fairview Park lies well outside of the species’ range, but potential for confusion exists due to changes in taxonomy, erroneous reports, etc.
Biological Technical Memorandum, Fairview Flying Field Relocation Project Hamilton Biological, Inc.
May 13, 2025 Page 17 of 28
Table B. Special-Status Species
Latin name
Common name Fed.
Global/
State CNPS Habitat/Regional Status
Potential to Occur,
Existing or Proposed Sites
Plants
Atriplex coulteri
Coulter’s Saltbush — G3/S1S2 1B.2
Clay soils on bluffs, mesas and
open coastal areas. San Luis
Obispo County south.
Low (existing site only). Occurs within 5-10 miles of park; suitable habitat present at the
existing flying field, but occurrence very unlikely due to extensive disturbance.
Atriplex pacifica
South Coast Saltscale — G4/S2 1B.2
Clay soils on bluffs, mesas and
open coastal areas. Santa Barbara County south.
Low (existing site only). Historically occurred within 5-10 miles of park; suitable habitat
present at the existing flying
field, but occurrence very unlikely due to extensive disturbance.
Camissoniopsis lewisii
Lewis’s Evening-Primrose — G4/S4 3
Sandy or clay soils on bluffs,
mesas, and open coastal areas. San Luis Obispo County
south.
Low (existing site only). Scattered small populations occur in Fairview Park, along trail
margins and other open areas. Suitable habitat present at the existing flying field, but
occurrence unlikely due to extensive disturbance.
Centromadia parryi ssp. australis
Southern Tarplant
— G3T2/S2 1B.1
Disturbed ground in saltmarshes and coastal sage
scrub. Santa Barbara County
south.
Low (either site). Occurs in
Fairview Park along disturbed
margins of trails. Potentially
suitable habitat present at either site, but this plant has not been recorded at either
site.
Hordeum intercedens
Vernal Barley — G3G4/
S3S4 3.2
Grasslands and vernal pools.
Santa Barbara County south;
scattered populations in the
Central Valley.
Moderate (existing site). Occurs at Fairview Park in grasslands and vernal pools. Moderate potential to occur at the existing flying field site.
Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulteri
Coulter’s Goldfields
— G4T2/S2 1B.1
Alkali soils and vernal pools.
San Luis Obispo County south;
scattered populations in the
Central Valley.
Moderate (existing site).
Pools 5 and 6 in the western
par hold the County’s largest
population, with 100s to
1000s of plants; smaller numbers occur in a vernally wet half-pipe feature in the central mesa, adjacent to a large disturbed area. Scattered
plants could occur in the area
of the existing flying field, especially during wet winters.
Microseris douglasii ssp.
platycarpha
Small-flowered Microseris
— G4T4/S4 4.2
Vernal pools and seasonally
wet plains. Los Angeles
County south; one record
from southern Central Valley.
High (either site). Occurs in
vernal pools and grasslands
on both sides of Placentia Avenue. More likely at the existing site.
Biological Technical Memorandum, Fairview Flying Field Relocation Project Hamilton Biological, Inc.
May 13, 2025 Page 18 of 28
Latin name
Common name Fed.
Global/
State CNPS Habitat/Regional Status
Potential to Occur,
Existing or Proposed Sites
Navarretia prostrata
Prostrate Vernal Pool Navarretia— G2/S2 1B.2
Seasonally wet alkali soil and
vernal pools. Central Valley;
coastal slope from Alameda
County south; one of two Orange County populations is at Fairview Park.
Moderate (existing site). Occurs around the margins of Pool 1 and could occur at the
flying field site, especially during wet winters.
Invertebrates
San Diego Fairy Shrimp
Branchinecta sandiegonensisE G2/S1
Vernal pools and other
ephemeral wetlands. Orange
County south.
Present (existing site). Documented in seasonal pools on both sides of Placentia Avenue. Actions affecting runoff into occupied pools could affect this listed species. Relocation project avoids the vernal pool watershed on the east
side.
Riverside Fairy Shrimp
Streptocephalus woottoni E G1G2/S2
Vernal pools and other
ephemeral wetlands. Ventura
County south.
Present (existing site). Documented in seasonal pools on west side of Placentia Avenue.
Actions affecting runoff into
occupied pools could affect
this listed species.
Bombus crotchii
Crotch’s Bumble Bee — C/S1S2 —
Many habitats. California and
northwestern Baja California;
most records from southern
California.
High (both sites). Uses native
and non-native flowering habitats in the park. Nests in burrows, tufts of vegetation, cavities, rock piles, etc. Could forage and/or nest at either site.
Danaus plexippus
Monarch C G4T1T2Q
/S2 —
Breeds in areas with milkweed from Mendocino
County south. In southern
California, overwinters mainly
in large stands of eucalyptus
near the coast.
Present (both sites). Occurs
as a transient; not known to
breed or overwinter in the
park.
Helminthoglypta traskii
traskii
Trask Shoulderband
— G1G2T1/
S2S3 — Many habitats. Coastal slope
from Ventura County south.
Moderate (both sites). Likely
occurs in the less disturbed
parts of the park; potential to
occur at either site considered
moderate due to disturbed
conditions.
Amphibians
Spea hammondii
Western Spadefoot PT SSC —
Seasonal pools with nearby
uplands suitable for aestivation. Shasta County south, excluding deserts.
Low (existing site). The species likely occurred at Fairview Park historically, because suitable habitat is present, but no records exist.
Biological Technical Memorandum, Fairview Flying Field Relocation Project Hamilton Biological, Inc.
May 13, 2025 Page 19 of 28
Latin name
Common name Fed.
Global/
State CNPS Habitat/Regional Status
Potential to Occur,
Existing or Proposed Sites
Birds
Plegadis chihi
White-faced Ibis — G5/S3S4 —
Various freshwater habitats.
Breeding range includes most
of western North America;
winters south to Central
America.
High (existing site). Up to several dozen non-breeders occur in the park in fall, winter, spring. Regularly forages at
vernal pools, when full, and
could also use the existing flying field under wet conditions.
Elanus leucurus
White-tailed Kite — FP —
Nests in trees within expansive open space areas; more widespread during migration
and winter. Forages in rangelands and marshy areas.
Range includes large parts of
North and South America.
High (both sites). Forages regularly in the park, and could do so at either the existing or
proposed sites.
Aquila chrysaetos
Golden Eagle — FP —
Extensive open areas across a
cosmopolitan range; nests on
cliffs and in tall trees away
from settlements. In Orange
County, occurs mainly in the
foothills and mountains.
Low (both sites). Transients
could occur rarely.
Circus hudsonius
Northern Harrier — SSC —
Nests on the ground in expansive open space areas; more widespread during migration
and winter. Range includes
most of North America.
High (both sites). Small numbers regularly forage in the park’s grassland and scrub
habitats in fall, winter, and
spring. Could possibly nest in
the local area.
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Bald Eagle — E —
Nests in tall trees, usually
near water; forages in lakes,
rivers, and marine environments. Range includes most
of North America.
Present (both sites). Occurs
rarely as a transient.
Buteo regalis
Ferruginous Hawk — G4/S3S4 —
Breeds in central North America and winters mainly in expansive rangelands and agricultural areas to the south.
Present (both sites). Occurs
rarely as a transient.
Buteo swainsoni
Swainson’s Hawk — G5/S4 —
Breeds in Canada and western North America and winters from western Mexico to southern South America.
Present (both sites). Occurs
rarely as a transient.
Athene cunicularia
Burrowing Owl — C/SSC —
Occurs across large parts of
North America; nesting population west of the deserts
nearly extirpated. Rare winter
visitor in coastal southern California.
Present (both sites). Up to
three often winter in Fairview
Park, using open habitats on
either side of Placentia Avenue. Not known to nest in the park.
Asio flammeus
Short-eared Owl — SSC —
Extensive open areas across a
cosmopolitan range; nests in
northern North America. Very
rare fall/winter visitor across
most of southern California.
Present (both sites). Occurs
rarely as a transient.
Biological Technical Memorandum, Fairview Flying Field Relocation Project Hamilton Biological, Inc.
May 13, 2025 Page 20 of 28
Latin name
Common name Fed.
Global/
State CNPS Habitat/Regional Status
Potential to Occur,
Existing or Proposed Sites
Pyrocephalus rubinus
Vermilion Flycatcher — SSC —
Open country with trees. Formerly nested in the desert Southwest and into Mexico;
now nests sparingly across
southern California, including
Orange County.
Present (both sites). Now apparently resident in small numbers; courtship behavior
by a pair near the existing flying field on 3/25/25.
Lanius ludovicianus
Loggerhead Shrike — SSC —
Occurs in open habitats
across most of North America; nesting population on
coastal slope of southern California nearly extirpated. Rare winter visitor in coastal southern California.
Present (both sites). Occurs
rarely in fall and winter; does
not nest.
Ammodramus savannarum
Grasshopper Sparrow — SSC —
Nests in expansive grasslands
and rangelands across most
of North America. In Orange
County, breeds mainly in the
San Joaquin Hills and Lomas
de Santiago; occurs rarely in
fall and winter.
Low (both sites). Occurs
rarely as a transient or winter
visitor. Nesting unlikely, but
possible, east of Placentia Avenue.
Pooecetes gramineus
affinis
Oregon Vesper Sparrow
— SSC —
Breeds in the Pacific Northwest and winters mainly in
expansive open areas on the
coastal slope of California.
High (both sites). Vesper
Sparrows of unknown subspecies recorded in the park; P. g. affinis likely to occur occasionally in fall and winter.
Passerculus sandwichensis
rostratus
Large-billed Savannah Sparrow
— SSC —
Breeds in the northern Gulf of
California; winters on the
coast of southern California.
Moderate (both sites). Occurs
rarely in fall and winter along
the coast; could occur at either site.
Agelaius tricolor
Tricolored Blackbird — T —
Nests in wetlands near expansive grasslands and rangelands required for foraging, mainly in California. Winters
in rangelands and parks.
Low (both sites). Could occur
rarely at either site as a transient or winter visitor.
Xanthocephalus
xanthocephalus
Yellow-headed Blackbird
— SSC —
Nests in wetlands with tall
emergent vegetation across
much of central and western
North America. Winters
mainly in Mexico.
Low (both sites). Could occur
rarely at either site as a transient or winter visitor.
Setophaga petechia
Yellow Warbler — SSC —
Nests in woodlands across
most of North America. Winters mainly from Mexico to
South America.
Present (both sites). Migrants
could occur at either site.
Breeding habitat in the park is
limited to riparian woodlands.
Mammals
Lepus californicus
bennettii
San Diego Black-tailed
Jackrabbit
— SSC —
Occurs in various open settings, usually in expansive
open space areas, from Santa
Barbara County south.
Extirpated (both sites). Formerly recorded in the park and elsewhere along the
lower Santa Ana River, but no
recent observations known.
Biological Technical Memorandum, Fairview Flying Field Relocation Project Hamilton Biological, Inc.
May 13, 2025 Page 21 of 28
Latin name
Common name Fed.
Global/
State CNPS Habitat/Regional Status
Potential to Occur,
Existing or Proposed Sites
Lasiurus frantzii
Western Red Bat — SSC —
Roosts in foliage of many
types of tree; feeds over a
wide variety of habitats, often
close to water in coastal lowlands. Widespread from western North America south to northern South America.
Moderate (both sites). Riparian woodlands in the park appear suitable for roosting; could forage over either site.
Antrozous
pallidus
Pallid Bat
— SSC —
Widespread in western North
America, in chaparral and
similar habitats. Forages on
the ground and in vegetation.
Roosts in rock crevices and
under tree bark.
Low (either site). Fairview
Park lacks extensive rocky areas or oak woodlands that would provide suitable roosting habitat, but Pallid Bats from other areas could potentially forage at either site.
Taxidea taxus
American Badger — SSC —
Occurs in expansive open
space areas across most of
western and central North
America. In Orange County,
recent records from the
mountains and foothills.
Low (both sites). American
Badgers have not been recorded at Fairview Park or elsewhere along the lower Santa Ana River. It is likely that the
natural habitat is too reduced
and fragmented to support a
population.
Biological Technical Memorandum, Fairview Flying Field Relocation Project Hamilton Biological, Inc.
May 13, 2025 Page 22 of 28
WILDLIFE MOVEMENT
Both the existing flying field site and the proposed relocation site lie within flat, open areas of the park. Although neither site lies within any identified wildlife movement corridor, the existing flying field site is surrounded by vernal pools and thus may be seen to occupy a habitat linkage for wildlife occupying these ephemeral wetland habitats. Figure 7, below, shows the position of the existing flying field, between the main vernal pool to the west (referred to as Feature 1) and restored vernal pool habitat to the east (referred to as Features 5, 6, 7). The use and maintenance of the fly field compacts the soil, prevents growth and reproduction of native vegetation, decreases biodiversity, and increases bare ground and topsoil erosion in the area between the sensitive vernal pool habitats (Land IQ 2023; 99). Taken together, these ongoing processes of habitat degradation may diminish the capacity of some terrestrial wildlife species to move freely throughout the park’s main vernal pool complex.
Figure 7. Existing Flying Field in Relation to Vernal Pools. Oblique drone image taken on March 3, 2023, facing to the southwest. As shown, the existing flying field (red line) occupies a position between the park’s main vernal pool (Feature 1, west of the flying field) and restored vernal pool habitat (Features 5, 6, 7, east of the flying field). NOTE:
Figure 9 on page 21 shows the appearance of the existing flying field shortly after grading (date unspecified). Image Source: City of Costa Mesa, Land IQ (2023).
Figure 8, on the next page, shows the proposed flying field relocation site. This is one of the least ecologically sensitive areas in the park, being located on fill material and surrounded by the model railroad track, with walking paths to west, north, and east. A runway 300 feet long can be accommodated without encroaching on the delineated vernal pool watershed to the south.
Biological Technical Memorandum, Fairview Flying Field Relocation Project Hamilton Biological, Inc.
May 13, 2025 Page 23 of 28
Figure 8. Proposed Flying Field in Relation to East-side Vernal Pool Watershed. As shown, the proposed flying field (green line) would avoid the watershed of a small vernal pool complex on the east side of Placentia (yellow screen).
Surrounded by the model railroad track and existing pathways, the flying field would not substantially inhibit movement of wildlife through the area. NOTE: For detailed depiction of proposed actions at the relocation site, see Figure 10 on page 22. Source: Land IQ 2023 (Figure 2-21).
USE OF THE EXISTING FLYING FIELD
Model aircraft enthusiasts have been flying model aircraft at Fairview Park since the early 1960s (City of Costa Mesa 2020). Review of historical aerial imagery shows that the area devoted to the flying field has varied considerably from year to year, but has remained in the southern part of the western mesa, as generally depicted in this technical memorandum. As described by the City of Costa Mesa (2020; 7), the flying field was moved away from the bluffs to its current location in 2005, when the City graded an area measuring approximately 470 feet long × 150 feet wide (approximately 1.62 acre of impact to Wild Oats and Annual Brome Grasslands).
The Harbor Soaring Society used the flying field with City’s permission until the COVID-19 pandemic led to temporary closure of the park in March of 2020 with the City provisionally re-opening the flying field for use on weekends starting in 2023 (Land IQ 2023; 99). Currently, flying is limited to non-powered gliders on the first and third Saturdays of the month (https://www.harborsoaringsociety.org/hss-airfield).
Figure 9, on the next page, is an aerial image showing the existing flying field, freshly graded and chalked, on an unspecified date.
Scale 1 inch = 210 feet
Hamilton Biological, Inc.
Figure 8. Vernal Pool Watershed
Biological Technical Memorandum, Fairview Flying Field Relocation Project Hamilton Biological, Inc.
May 13, 2025 Page 24 of 28
Figure 9. Oblique drone image, date unspecified, showing the existing flying field as viewed facing southwest. The flying field has not been this well-defined in recent years, due largely to concerns about the potential effects of grading within the watershed of the park’s largest vernal pool. Source: City of Costa Mesa (2020; 2).
CEQA IMPACT ANALYSIS
For purposes of this analysis, the existing flying field measures approximately 470 feet long by 150 feet wide (1.62 acres) in an area classified as Wild Oats and Annual Brome Grasslands within the watershed of the park’s largest vernal pool (i.e., Vernal Pool Feature 1). The proposed actions involve abandoning the existing flying field and establishing a new flying field on the east side of the park. Figure 10, on the next page, shows the components of the relocated flying field:
• Runway measuring approximately 300 feet long × 50 feet wide, 150 feet of which will consist of decomposed granite, with the remainder to be periodically cleared of vegetation.
• Post-and-cable barrier around the northern portion of the east-side vernal pool watershed, consistent with the existing low barrier that protects the southern portion of this watershed.
• Pilot stations/pit area.
• Storage shed.
• Information kiosk.
• Parking would be at the existing lot for the train station. • Site access would be via an existing maintenance road.
These project actions will impact approximately 0.5 acres of Upland Black Mustard and Tocalote Fields, and a small area of the existing parking lot (for the storage shed and information kiosk). All impacts will be outside of the delineated vernal pool watershed.
Biological Technical Memorandum, Fairview Flying Field Relocation Project Hamilton Biological, Inc.
May 13, 2025 Page 25 of 28
Figure 10. Proposed Actions. As shown, part of the relocated fly path (150’ × 25’) would consist of decomposed granite; the remainder would be periodically cleared of vegetation. Also shown are the pilot stations and pit areas, information kiosk, and storage container. Access from the existing parking lot would be via an existing maintenance path. As shown, all project components would avoid the vernal pool watershed, which will be delineated with a low, post-and-cable barrier comparable to the existing barrier around the southern vernal pool watershed (next to the parking lot).
Source: MIG.
Scale 1 inch = 85 feet
Hamilton Biological, Inc.
Figure 10. Proposed Actions
Biological Technical Memorandum, Fairview Flying Field Relocation Project Hamilton Biological, Inc.
May 13, 2025 Page 26 of 28
This impact analysis identifies the following existing and ongoing biological impacts as baseline conditions:
• Compaction of soil in the west-side vernal pool watershed, which prevents growth and reproduction of native vegetation, including vernal pool-associated plant species, and which may hinder movement of some wildlife species among the vernal pools.
• Periodic grading and clearing of vegetation of the existing flying field increases the prevalence of disturbance-adapted weed species, which can be spread to other parts of the park through various means, including dispersal by people walking into sensitive areas to retrieve model planes.
• Erosion associated with periodic grading, clearing, and trampling of vegetation in and around the existing flying field results in increased siltation of the park’s largest vernal pool, with potential adverse effects upon the federally listed San Diego fairy shrimp and Riverside fairy shrimp and multiple rare plant species that occupy this pool and associated grasslands (e.g., prostrate vernal pool navarretia, vernal barley, small-flowered microseris). • Periodic grading of the existing flying field may result in small, isolated seasonal ponds that can be colonized by the widespread, non-listed versatile fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lindahli), a process of homogenization that can lead to the breakdown of species boundaries and negatively impact the genetic diversity of the listed San Diego fairy shrimp (Simovich et al. 2013).
• Periodic compaction of soil associated with grading of the existing flying field may result in mortality of wildlife, potentially including nesting individuals of Crotch’s bumble bee, a candidate for listing under the California Endangered Species Act.
The proposed actions, involving relocation of the flying field to the proposed site on the east side of the park, will eliminate or substantially reduce these existing, ongoing impacts to biologically sensitive resources on the west side of Fairview Park, and allow for the potential future restoration of the extensive west-side vernal pool complex.
The proposed actions will not exceed the existing flying field’s area of impact, and will not impact vernal pools or other sensitive plant communities. The proposed actions will not impact any special-status wildlife species to an extent greater than does the existing flying field, and in most cases will reduce the current level of impact. As such, the proposed actions will not result in any significant impacts to biological resources and no mitigation measures are required.
Biological Technical Memorandum, Fairview Flying Field Relocation Project Hamilton Biological, Inc.
May 13, 2025 Page 27 of 28
Any potential restoration of the abandoned flying field on the west side of the park that might be implemented in the future would represent a stand-alone project and not a measure required as mitigation for the current relocation project.
Because the proposed actions involve potential “take” of Crotch’s bumble bee, a candidate for State listing, it is recommended that the City consult with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife prior to undertaking any action (e.g., ground disturbance, placement of decomposed granite, vegetation clearance) that may require an incidental take permit to ensure compliance with the California Endangered Species Act. Consultation should take into consideration (a) the permanent loss of approximately 0.1 acre of Upland Black Mustard and Tocalote Fields for placement of decomposed granite and placement of barrier posts, and (b) periodic clearance of approximately 0.4 acre of Black Mustard and Tocalote Fields that will be required to maintain and operate the relocated flying field. Because these potential impacts to the bumble bee represent a reduction from the baseline level of potential impact (i.e., approximately 1.62 acres of ongoing impact to periodically grade, maintain, and operate the existing flying field), the proposed actions do not constitute a significant impact to the species.
CONCLUSION
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this technical memorandum evaluating the potential effects of the proposed flying field relocation project. If you have questions or wish to discuss any matters, please send e-mail to [email protected] or call me at 562-477-2181.
Sincerely,
Robert A. Hamilton
President, Hamilton Biological, Inc.
LITERATURE CITED
California Natural Diversity Database. 2025a. Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List. Current list of vegetative taxa considered to be rare, threatened, endangered, or otherwise “sensitive” by the State of California. List dated April 2025.
California Natural Diversity Database. 2025b. Special Animals List. Current list of wildlife taxa considered to be rare, threatened, endangered, or otherwise “sensitive” by the State of California. List dated April 2025.
Biological Technical Memorandum, Fairview Flying Field Relocation Project Hamilton Biological, Inc.
May 13, 2025 Page 28 of 28
California Natural Diversity Data Base. 2020b. Rarefind data and BIOS accessed online in May 2025, for the U.S. Geologic Survey’s Newport Beach 7.5’ topographic quadrangle, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Biogeographic Data Branch.
City of Costa Mesa. 2020. Draft Fairview Park fly field compatibility evaluation. Draft report dated March 6, 2020, prepared by the Parks and Community Services Department, Fairview Park Administrator.
Endemic Environmental Services. 2024. Crotch’s Bumble Bee photo-only survey report for the Fairview Park Wetland and Riparian Habitat Project – Phase 2 Project located in the City of Costa Mesa, California. Technical report submitted to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Endemic Environmental Services. 2025. Western Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) monitoring program report. Undated draft report prepared for the City of Costa Mesa.
Hamilton Biological, Inc. 2025. Biological Resources Technical Report, Fairview Park, City of Costa Mesa. Final report dated May 8, 2025, prepared for MIG, Los Angeles, CA.
Land IQ. 2024. 2023 Vegetation map and habitat restoration opportunities for Fairview Park, Costa Mesa, California. Report dated March 22, 2024, prepared for MIG, Los Angeles, CA.
Simovich, M., K. B. Davis, and A. J. Bohonak, 2013. Landscape homogenization threatens the genetic integrity of the endangered San Diego fairy shrimp Branchinecta sandiegonensis (Branchiopoda: Anostraca). Journal of Crustacean Biology 33(5):730– 740.
Western Burrowing Owl
(Athene cunicularia hypugaea)
Monitoring Program Report
FAIRVIEW PARK
Costa Mesa, California
Prepared For:
City of Costa Mesa
Prepared By:
Joshua Ball, Project Manager
and
Barry Nerhus, President/Senior Biologist
Endemic Environmental Services, Inc.
P.O. Box 3747
Fullerton, CA 92834
P: (714) -519-8277
[email protected]
Western Burrowing Owl Monitoring Program Report - 2025
2025
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction 3
2.0 Monitoring Location 3
3.0 Project Description 3
3.1 Western Burrowing Owl background 3
4.0 Methods 3
5.0 Results 3
5.1 Observations 3
5.2 Disturbances 4
6.0 Recommendations 4
7.0 References 4
8.0 Appendix 5
2 Western Burrowing Owl Monitoring Program Report - 2025
1.0 Introduction
The goal of the western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) monitoring effort at Fairview park is to determine the wintering burrowing owl population within the park and Orange County. As a result, this program should contribute to an increase in restoration efforts to have ideal habitat and ultimately, an increase in wintering burrowing owl population size, which are currently present at Fairview Park. This report presents the results of the western burrowing owl monitoring program conducted by Endemic Environmental Services, Inc. (EES) at Fairview Park, Costa Mesa, California, for the City of Costa Mesa.
2.0 Monitoring Location
The monitoring program location is at Fairview Park in the City of Costa Mesa, Orange County, California. Historical observations have been recorded by the Goathill Junction traintracks and Vernal Pool 1, and the Air Field.
3.0 Project Description
3.1 Western Burrowing Owl background
Western burrowing owls are small, terrestrial owls native to open areas in North America.
The Western burrowing owl population in Orange County was once described as abundant due to ample suitable habitat (Center for Biological Diversity). Burrowing owls were considered inherent to the coastal environment. After decades of habitat loss and urbanization, the last breeding pair was recorded in 2014. Since then, their populations have continued to decrease throughout the state. With under 2,000 breeding pairs left, we can expect to see their imminent extirpation: the complete loss of the species in California (Bloom, 2023). Burrowing owls are now winter-only residents in Orange County with few historical visitors at Fairview Park.
4.0 Methods
EES biologists surveyed the historical sites 2-4 times a month looking for signs of burrowing owl presence. Burrows that have the potential of being used as shelter by the owls are mapped for future survey efforts. A burrow is deemed active if heavy white-wash presence is observed and pellets are dispersed near the burrow entrance.
Surveys are conducted in 2-hour intervals.
3 Western Burrowing Owl Monitoring Program Report - 2025
5.0 Results
5.1 Observations
The burrowing owl surveys were conducted this season between October 23 until Present. 17 surveys were conducted, with one active burrow found by Vernal Pool 1, and two active burrows found by the Air Field. At the time surveys were conducted, only one burrowing owl was reported as present. After further communication with the City’s restoration department, up to three owls have been observed.
5.2 Disturbances
Unauthorized access remains a significant challenge for the park’s monitoring program and the success of increasing burrowing owl populations. The public trail leading to Vernal Pool 1 is closed and marked with signage by the city, yet some locals continue to disregard the restrictions. Additionally, off-leash dogs have been observed entering the sensitive vernal pool habitat, further disrupting the ecosystem. The Air Field also remains accessible to local model airplane flyers, with planes frequently flown near active burrows, causing potential disturbance and stress that can lead to their displacement in habitat.
6.0 Recommendations
The western burrowing owl monitoring program contributes to establishing their wintering populations within Fairview Park. It is recommended to have more effective fencing or signage to deter the public from accessing the closed trails. The current signs are easily avoidable and often fall over due to wind or vandalism. It is also recommended to have the air field temporarily closed for the winter season to reduce the stress and disturbance it may impose on burrowing owls.
7.0 References
Bloom, Peter H. "Extirpation of Orange County, California, Breeding Burrowing Owl Population: The Convergence of Philopatry, Habitat Fragmentation, and Allee Effects." Journal of Raptor Research, vol. 57, no. 3, 15 June 2023, pp. 475-84, https://doi.org/10.3356/JRR-22-90.
Petition before the State of California Fish and Game Commission to List California Populations of the Western Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) as Endangered or Threatened Under the California Endangered Species Act. Center for Biological Diversity, 2024,
4 Western Burrowing Owl Monitoring Program Report - 2025 http://www.endangeredspecieslawandpolicy.com/assets/htmldocuments/NewBlogs/Endan geredSpecies/CA-Burrowing-Owl-Petition-3-5-24.pdf.
5 Western Burrowing Owl Monitoring Program Report - 2025
8.0 Appendix
Figure 1. Burrowing Owl sighting locations during 2024 and 2025 surveys conducted 6 From: Mat Garcia
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: FW: HSS Public Comment Letter on IS NMD for FVPMPU 2026-05-29 Date: Tuesday, October 6, 2026 11:47:01 AM
Attachments: HSS Public Comment Letter on IS NMD for FVPMPU 2026-05-29.pdf City Clerk,
Please include this email and the attached PDF as HSS’ second written public comment for tonight’s City Council meeting.
Please confirm receipt of our two written public comments when you have a chance.
Thank you,
Mat
From: Mat Garcia <[email protected]>
Date: Friday, May 29, 2026 at 5:26 PM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; CITY CLERK <[email protected]>; GALLARDO DALY, CECILIA
<[email protected]>
Subject: HSS Public Comment Letter on IS NMD for FVPMPU 2026-05-29 Dear Mayor, City Council Members, and City Staff,
Please accept the attached letter from Harbor Soaring Society as HSS’s formal public comment on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Fairview Park Master Plan Update, SCH No. 2026041370.
HSS respectfully requests that the City not adopt the IS/MND or approve the Master Plan Update in its current form. At minimum, the City should extend the public comment period and/or recirculate a revised environmental document after disclosing all fly-fieldrelated technical reports, consultant communications, agency communications, public records, and supporting materials.
Thank you,
Mat Garcia
Harbor Soaring Society | President | +1 949-264-2624
A 501(c)(3) nonprofit | [email protected]
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
HARBOR SOARING SOCIETY | FAIRVIEW PARK RECIRCULATED IS/MND COMMENTS August 28, 2026 SCH No. 2026041370 Page 1 of 22
Harbor Soaring Society Comments on the Recirculated
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Fairview Park Master Plan Update — SCH No. 2026041370
Submitted August 28, 2026
Mayor and Members of the Costa Mesa City Council
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, California 92626
Re: Harbor Soaring Society comments on the July 2026 Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Fairview Park Master Plan Update
Mayor and Members of the City Council:
On behalf of Harbor Soaring Society (HSS), I urge the Council to decline to adopt the recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (recirculated IS/MND), disapprove the proposed Fairview Park Master Plan Update (Update), and instead leave the existing 2008 Fairview Park Master Plan (2008 Plan) in place.
The recirculated IS/MND does not cure the original document. Moving the fly field to the east side doesn’t solve the biological impacts problem – it just moves the same problem, plus adds a whole host of new problems. The recirculated IS/MND adds a particular relocation concept, but it does not establish that the concept is environmentally supportable, operationally feasible, adequately funded, compatible with the Orange County Model Engineers’ operations, or implementable under Measure AA. For Crotch’s bumble bee specifically, the recirculated document acknowledges potential take and finds the east-side impact not significant principally because approximately 0.5 acre is smaller than the assumed 1.62-acre existing baseline. For the identified burrowing-owl effect, the analysis directs readers to MM-BIO-2, while MM-BIO-3 separately defers exact siting and avoidance to later CDFW consultation. Those distinct rationales leave separate unresolved gaps. A smaller footprint may support a comparative preference. It does not, by itself, answer whether east-site effects on individuals, nesting habitat, or foraging resources may be substantial under the City’s significance threshold.
The recirculated IS/MND presents the east-side fly field concept as the solution while leaving the essential work until after approval. It does not complete the site-specific biological surveys; explain how its less-than-significant conclusion accounts for CDFW’s site-specific take warnings and general significance position; disclose the hydrologic basis for “complete avoidance”; provide an enforceable funding and construction commitment; demonstrate operational feasibility; resolve OCME compatibility; transparently connect the specific relocation to the cultural-resources and air-quality appendices; or complete the Measure AA analysis. It also does not use the more than 37 months of experience under the current operating program to establish that permanent relocation is necessary.
The Council is not required to approve this discretionary Update. Rejecting it is a lawful and practical outcome.
The 2008 Plan would remain in place, restoration and monitoring could continue, future projects could receive project-specific environmental review, and the City could continue to apply current scientific information and current law. The City should not approve an inadequately defined and environmentally unresolved relocation merely because years have already been spent developing it. The City has a viable plan in place. The existing 2008 Plan will continue to support habitat restoration, substantial outside funding, public access, and compatible passive recreation while allowing current science and law to be applied through specific projects and management decisions.
For these reasons, HSS respectfully requests that the Council disapprove the proposed Fairview Park Master Plan Update, decline to adopt the recirculated IS/MND, and retain the 2008 Fairview Park Master Plan. If the City later chooses to pursue relocation, it should return only after defining a feasible project, completing the necessary analysis, adopting enforceable mitigation, resolving Measure AA and OCME issues, and providing any voter approval that the law requires.
HARBOR SOARING SOCIETY | FAIRVIEW PARK RECIRCULATED IS/MND COMMENTS August 28, 2026 SCH No. 2026041370 Page 2 of 22
These are timely comments on the new relocation information and the May 13, 2025 Hamilton Biological memorandum added to the July 2026 recirculated IS/MND. Every issue below concerns the proposed east-side flying-field location, the environmental and operational consequences of constructing and operating that facility, the revised project description, or Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-3. HSS incorporates by reference its comments on the April 2026 IS/MND and requests that this submission, the documents cited and linked here, and HSS’s earlier comments be included in the administrative record. HSS also re-submits with these comments its August 19, 2025 email transmittal and 40-page technical-comment package as Attachment B so that those materials are expressly included in the present CEQA record. The City’s recirculation notice states that comments on the recirculated material will be included in its Response to Comments Memorandum. HSS requests a specific written response to each material environmental issue and information request presented below. Please see the details of these comments provided in Attachment A.
HSS remains available for a transparent, on-site operational evaluation with City staff, OCME, and a qualified model-aviation expert. That willingness to cooperate should not be treated as a basis for approving an untested relocation now.
Respectfully submitted,
Mat Garcia, President, Harbor Soaring Society
Attachments:
1. Attachment A — HSS Comments on July 2026 Recirculated IS/MND for FPMP Update
2. Attachment B — August 19, 2025 HSS Submission Concerning the Fairview Park Master Plan Technical Reports
HARBOR SOARING SOCIETY | FAIRVIEW PARK RECIRCULATED IS/MND COMMENTS August 28, 2026 SCH No. 2026041370 Page 3 of 22
Attachment A
HSS Comments on July 2026 Recirculated IS/MND for FPMP Update How a temporary COVID-19 closure became mandatory relocation To understand why HSS is asking the Council to stop this process, begin in March 2020. Like other park users subject to the City’s COVID-19 restrictions, HSS stopped operating. The flying field closed as part of a temporary public-health response. When the City later reconsidered the field’s status, however, the issue expanded from how to reopen a longstanding public use responsibly into a series of proposals to close or relocate it permanently.
• March 2020 — temporary closure. Fairview Park and the flying field closed under COVID-19 restrictions.
Model-aircraft flying had operated at Fairview Park since the early 1960s. The public-health closure did not itself amend the 2008 Master Plan or determine the field’s long-term land-use status. • September 2021 — reopening, relocation, or permanent closure. Staff presented three paths: reopen the west-side field with modified procedures, study an east-side relocation, or close the west-side field permanently. Staff acknowledged that the science concerning aircraft interference with birds was “not conclusive” and that closure-period bird counts could support a comparative analysis if flying resumed. The Council directed that future activity be temporarily limited to gliders while the activity is evaluated through the Master Plan process. The same report said east-side feasibility should be established first, through a 12-to-18-month process costing approximately $80,000 to $100,000, before planning and design were incorporated into the Update. September 21, 2021 staff report. • March–July 2023 — staff sought permanent closure; the Council did not adopt it. Staff recommended that the Council permanently close the field and terminate the individual permit system. A later report recommended continuing the suspension while consultants evaluated whether flying could resume “if possible.” The Council did not adopt permanent closure, and HSS resumed operations on July 15, 2023 under a restricted program limited to gliders on two Saturdays per month. March 21, 2023 staff report; May 2, 2023 staff report.
• March 2024 — Land IQ wrote its flying-field recommendation before consulting HSS. Appendix C-1, dated March 22, 2024, concluded that flying-field mowing and fine grading were in “direct conflict” with the City’s resource responsibilities and recommended that the City stop maintaining the field. HSS’s records show that Land IQ’s first meeting with HSS occurred on March 1, 2025, nearly one year after the report was dated. Appendix C-1 identifies no earlier consultation with HSS. • May–August 2025 — a specific replacement concept was analyzed without the intended operator, while HSS tried to correct the technical record. At MIG’s request, Hamilton evaluated a specific eastside concept supplied for analysis through MIG for the City-proposed relocation, comprising a runway, pilot and pit areas, storage, a kiosk, use of the existing train-station parking lot and maintenance access, and barriers. HSS was not invited to participate in that analysis or provide its operational requirements.
Promptly after the technical reports were released, and before the Draft Master Plan was released for public comment, HSS sent the Council its August 19, 2025 letter and supporting technical package so that identified factual and methodological problems could be corrected before the reports were carried forward.
The publicly circulated Land IQ report remains dated March 22, 2024, retains the conflicting 2005 and 2015 chronology statements, and contains no errata or correction notice. • The 2025 public review and April 2026 IS/MND omitted the site-specific relocation analysis. The Draft Master Plan recommended relocation generally and described an approximately 300-by-50-foot facility with a partially surfaced runway and pilot stations. It did not include the May 2025 Hamilton memorandum or disclose the site-specific analysis underlying the selected east-side location. The original April 2026 IS/MND likewise omitted the additional study and specific relocation site, as the City’s recirculation notice now acknowledges.
HARBOR SOARING SOCIETY | FAIRVIEW PARK RECIRCULATED IS/MND COMMENTS August 28, 2026 SCH No. 2026041370 Page 4 of 22
• July 2026 — the previously omitted site and technical analysis became mandatory mitigation. The recirculated IS/MND added Hamilton’s memorandum as Appendix B-3, disclosed the specific east-side location, and made east-side relocation mandatory through MM-BIO-3. Yet it still asks the Council to approve relocation before completing CDFW consultation and any focused surveys required for the final site, determining whether take authorization or regulatory compensation will be required, securing a committed funding source, resolving compatibility with OCME, or demonstrating that the replacement can function as a model-glider field.
This chronology does not establish anyone’s subjective intent, and HSS does not ask the Council to decide motive. It does, however, show a consistent direction of travel. A temporary public-health closure became a prolonged suspension; staff later recommended permanent closure; consultant recommendations were written before operational consultation; a specific replacement was analyzed without HSS; and that site-specific concept was ultimately converted into mandatory CEQA mitigation while fundamental environmental, financial, contractual, and operational questions remained unresolved.
HSS repeatedly participated on the understanding that the next study, consultation, or public document would address those unresolved questions. Instead, consequential recommendations appeared before the intended operator had been consulted, and HSS then had to work backward to obtain the supporting evidence, correct the technical record, and explain operational requirements that should have been gathered at the outset.
Whatever the City’s intent, that is not a fair or reliable process for making a permanent decision affecting a nonprofit community partner and a public use that has existed for more than sixty years.
Executive Summary
The recirculated IS/MND cannot support the findings required for adoption Before adopting an MND, the Council must find, based on the whole record, that no substantial evidence supports a fair argument that the project may have a significant environmental effect. The record here includes affirmative expert evidence from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) that creation, use, and maintenance of the proposed east-side field may disturb, distress, or take western burrowing owls; may affect Crotch’s bumble bee and its foraging resources; and may still require authorization under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). CDFW separately states, as its general significance position, that it considers adverse impacts to a CESA-protected species significant and that the CEQA document should address all future project impacts and specify mitigation, monitoring, and reporting adequate for the necessary permits.
The recirculated IS/MND does not resolve that evidence. It leaves focused surveys, the take determination, agency consultation, and any regulatory compensation or other protective mechanisms until later. MM-BIO-3 contains no clear site-specific performance standard, completion deadline, operational-validation requirement, or unequivocal City obligation to construct and fund a usable replacement. The recirculated IS/MND does not explain how the Council can make the finding required by CEQA Guidelines § 15074(b) after accounting for CDFW’s evidence and the unresolved mitigation details. Taken together, CDFW’s site-specific occurrence information and expert opinions support a fair argument that construction, use, and maintenance of the eastside facility may significantly affect CESA-protected species. Unless enforceable project revisions eliminate that potential effect, CEQA Guidelines § 15064(f)(1) requires preparation of an environmental impact report (EIR).
The project-description and mitigation defects independently require correction and any legally required further circulation.
The project description and MM-BIO-3 leave material ambiguity concerning the binding project scope and implementation obligations
The Project Description states that the City “will help install” a new launch area and runway, pilot stations and pit area, storage shed, kiosk, and power; that it “will work closely” with HSS and the Orange County Model Engineers (OCME); and that the overall facility footprint will be approximately 0.5 acre. Within MM-BIO-3 itself, the City’s express mandatory obligation is only to “help provide support and/or funding.” The location and design will be “as generally described” in “Section 3, Project Description,” even though the Project Description HARBOR SOARING SOCIETY | FAIRVIEW PARK RECIRCULATED IS/MND COMMENTS August 28, 2026 SCH No. 2026041370 Page 5 of 22
is Section 2, not Section 3. The final approval and mitigation-monitoring program must identify which components and obligations are binding.
MM-BIO-3 also postpones focused-survey decisions and any compensation or other mechanisms for listed or sensitive species until consultation after approval. The biological discussion says the existing field should not be removed until the replacement is operational, but that sequencing protection is not stated as an enforceable requirement of MM-BIO-3, and “operational” is not defined. These are not clerical details. They determine what the City is approving, what it is promising to build, when it must be completed, and what environmental protections must occur before disturbance begins.
The east side is comparatively preferable to the agencies, but it is not environmentally cleared HSS acknowledges the full agency record. Hamilton and CDFW consider the smaller east-side site biologically preferable, principally because the concept is mapped outside the vernal-pool watershed and would disturb less acreage. CDFW calls it the biologically superior option and a dramatically lower regulatory burden.
That comparative judgment does not cure the recirculated IS/MND. The same record identifies a 2020 burrowing-owl occurrence adjacent to the proposed location, high potential for Crotch’s bumble bee at both sites, and possible take arising from creation, use, and maintenance of the east-side field. The focused 2024 bumble-bee surveys did not include either flying-field location. Hamilton recommends CDFW consultation before ground disturbance, decomposed-granite placement, or vegetation clearance that may require an incidental take permit. The east-side location therefore changes the biological risk profile; it does not eliminate protected-species, survey, permitting, or take risk.
The recirculated IS/MND’s mitigation cross-references compound the problem. Its page 61 reference to MMBIO-1 is facially inapplicable because MM-BIO-1 is limited to habitat west of Placentia Avenue. The document separately cites MM-BIO-2 for burrowing owl, but MM-BIO-2 is a construction-period active-nest measure keyed to the ordinary February 1–September 1 nesting season; it does not clearly address wintering or nonnesting owls or ongoing use and maintenance. For Crotch’s bumble bee, the document cites MM-BIO-3 and MM-BIO-4, but MM-BIO-4 concerns southwest vernal-pool rehabilitation and contains no east-field or bumblebee requirement. The City must correct the cross-references and identify the measure that applies to each east-side impact.
The document has not demonstrated that relocation is necessary CEQA does not require proof of a completed take or past injury before a potential effect may be significant.
Expert opinion supported by facts can be substantial evidence. HSS’s narrower point is that a permanent relocation imposed as mitigation should be supported by a record that distinguishes historical grading and City maintenance, existing physical conditions, observed effects, predicted effects, unauthorized activity, and effects attributed specifically to current permitted HSS operations.
The City’s own 2021 staff report said the science concerning model-aircraft interference with birds was “not conclusive” and stated that bird counts gathered while the field was closed could be used in a comparative analysis if flying resumed. HSS resumed flying on July 15, 2023 under the City’s revised program. More than 37 months have elapsed. The published record does not disclose the contemplated flight-day/non-flight-day comparison or another completed analysis of the current program.
To HSS’s knowledge, during that period HSS has received no citation for violating an operating rule, no written warning or corrective directive, no instruction from the City to suspend flying because of biological conditions, and no notice identifying a specific authorized HSS flight as causing documented injury, mortality, nest abandonment, or another incident alleged to constitute take. If the City possesses contrary records, it should identify and disclose them. This operating history does not prove impacts are impossible. It is relevant realworld evidence that the recirculated IS/MND should analyze before making permanent relocation mandatory.
The proposed field has not been demonstrated to be a usable replacement HSS has flown at Fairview Park since the early 1960s and has been an Academy of Model Aeronauticschartered Costa Mesa club since 1964. That history does not exempt HSS from environmental law. It does give HSS direct expertise concerning what a model-glider field must safely accommodate: prevailing winds, runway HARBOR SOARING SOCIETY | FAIRVIEW PARK RECIRCULATED IS/MND COMMENTS August 28, 2026 SCH No. 2026041370 Page 6 of 22
orientation, launch and landing approaches, usable flight envelope, instruction, emergency and off-runway landings, aircraft retrieval, and separation from visitors and other activities.
The concept identifies a 300-by-50-foot field within an approximately 0.5-acre overall footprint, compared with an existing 470-by-150-foot, 1.62-acre field. A 300-by-50-foot rectangle is approximately 0.34 acre. Appendix B-3 attributes the balance to associated improvements, but it does not separately quantify the area, clearance, or disturbance associated with each component. Figure 10 identifies a 150-by-25-foot decomposed-granite surface within the 300-by-50-foot field. The new site is inside the model-railroad loop, approximately 300 feet northwest of Goat Hill Junction Station, and would use the station parking lot and an access route through an existing track crossing.
The published record identifies no evaluation by a qualified model-aviation expert and no operational field test.
HSS did not participate in Hamilton’s May 2025 analysis, was not asked to supply the operating requirements for the proposed layout, and has not been asked to validate the concept during 2026. The recirculated IS/MND’s own Section 6.2, “Persons and Organizations Consulted,” states “N/A.” General workshops and opportunities to submit comments are not operational-design consultation. A biological memorandum placing a rectangle on a map is not a flying-feasibility or safety analysis.
Measure AA and OCME compatibility remain unresolved feasibility issues Measure AA recognizes glider flying as a passive Fairview Park use and establishes the park’s physical as-built condition as the operative baseline. When the ordinance took effect, the existing flying field was west of Placentia Avenue, and the 2008 Plan also mapped the use there. The east-side concept would construct a new runway surface, pilot and pit areas, a storage shed or container, a kiosk, the Project Description’s undefined “power requirements,” use of the existing maintenance path and track crossing, any access work ultimately required, and barriers at a different location. These components plainly raise Measure AA’s new-amenity and grading provisions and may also implicate foundations, permanent structures, and electrical or other utility service, depending on the final design. Calling model aviation an existing use does not make newly built facilities at a new site existing amenities.
Measure AA contains exceptions, including provisions concerning restoration, preservation, maintenance, public safety, and certain changes directed by the Master Plan in effect on January 1, 2015. The City must therefore identify, component by component, whether each improvement is not a significant change or falls within a particular exception, and whether voter approval is required. The recirculated IS/MND does not provide that analysis and does not reconcile its conclusion with staff’s 2021 statement that infrastructure changes at Fairview Park would require a ballot measure.
The relationship to OCME is similarly unresolved. The recirculated IS/MND says no changes are proposed to model-railroad facilities, while placing another organized activity inside the railroad loop, using railroad-area parking and access, and locating HSS facilities in part of the station lot. The posted OCME agreement does not include a sufficiently usable boundary map to determine the precise overlap. The City should disclose the boundary, OCME’s position, any necessary consent or amendment, and the operational plan for parking, crossings, utilities, supervision, schedules, and safety. Until those matters are resolved, the City has not shown that relocation is feasible.
Current science can be applied without replacing the 2008 Plan Staff has cited changes in science, technology, and regulation as a reason to replace the 2008 Plan. HSS agrees that Fairview Park should be managed using current information. But newer information is a reason to update surveys, permits, restoration designs, monitoring, and site-specific management—not automatically a reason to discard a policy framework that already calls for scientifically informed restoration, current federal and state compliance, biological monitoring, and adaptive management.
The 2014 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) letter agreed that the 2008 Plan’s general measures were appropriate, while identifying implementation concerns and recommending more specific, ongoing management actions in a future update. That recommendation deserves a candid response. It supports stronger and more specific management. It does not state that the flying field must be relocated or that the City must adopt this particular Update.
HARBOR SOARING SOCIETY | FAIRVIEW PARK RECIRCULATED IS/MND COMMENTS August 28, 2026 SCH No. 2026041370 Page 7 of 22
If staff contends that current science requires replacement of the 2008 Plan, it should identify the precise scientific finding, the specific provision of the 2008 Plan that prevents the City from acting on it, and why project-specific review, monitoring, restoration planning, or adaptive management cannot address it. The recirculated record does not make that showing. Nor does it identify a law or grant condition requiring adoption.
Official records instead show that substantial habitat work and more than $7.7 million in documented postadoption outside awards or contributions have been secured while the 2008 Plan and west-side flying field remained in place.
Requested action
HSS asks the Council to:
1. Decline to adopt the recirculated IS/MND;
2. Disapprove the proposed Fairview Park Master Plan Update;
3. Retain the 2008 Fairview Park Master Plan; and
4. Continue targeted restoration, monitoring, enforcement, and project-specific resource management under the existing plan.
HSS is not asking the Council to send this Update back for another cosmetic rewrite or another round of consultant work. After years of process, the threshold questions remain unresolved. The prudent course is to end this discretionary project and direct public resources to actual restoration, maintenance, monitoring, and management within the existing plan.
Detailed Comments on the Recirculated IS/MND
I. Scope of these comments and applicable CEQA standard The Notice of Availability states that recirculated comments will be accepted only on the new information concerning the specific flying-field location. The recirculated IS/MND likewise states that it adds a specific relocation site and one additional technical study. These comments stay within that scope. They address the new site and facilities described on pages 8–10; the new Hamilton memorandum; the revised biological analysis on pages 59–62; the revised MM-BIO-3 on pages 143–144; and the new location’s consequences for mitigation feasibility, watershed conclusions, protected species, operations, OCME, Measure AA, funding, and the decision whether relocation is necessary.
HSS also preserves its objection to the Notice’s statement that comments “will only be accepted” concerning the new location. CEQA Guidelines § 15073.5 contains no express scope-limiting provision comparable to the provision governing recirculated EIRs in § 15088.5(f). In any event, every issue presented here concerns the newly disclosed location, the new comparison of the two locations, or the feasibility and environmental sufficiency of revised MM-BIO-3, and therefore falls within even the City’s stated scope.
The Council may adopt the MND only if, based on the whole record—including public comments—it finds no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant environmental effect. CEQA Guidelines § 15074(b).
Substantial evidence includes facts, reasonable assumptions predicated on facts, and expert opinion supported by facts. Argument, speculation, or an unanswered question alone is not substantial evidence. Public Resources Code §§ 21080(c)–(e) and § 21082.2.
HSS therefore does not rely merely on missing information. Affirmative record evidence includes CDFW’s sitespecific possible-take warnings; the adjacent burrowing-owl occurrence; high potential for Crotch’s bumble bee; construction, vegetation clearance, decomposed-granite placement, and ongoing maintenance within potential habitat; and CDFW’s separate general position that adverse impacts to CESA-protected species are significant.
Taken together, those facts and expert opinions support a fair argument that the east-side facility may have a significant effect. Unless enforceable project revisions eliminate that potential effect, an EIR is required even if the record contains contrary evidence. CEQA Guidelines § 15064(f)(1).
Separately, the inconsistencies and omissions discussed below concern whether the City has adequately described the project, analyzed its effects, and adopted enforceable mitigation. These defects may require project revision and further CEQA review even apart from the fair-argument issue. The simpler lawful option HARBOR SOARING SOCIETY | FAIRVIEW PARK RECIRCULATED IS/MND COMMENTS August 28, 2026 SCH No. 2026041370 Page 8 of 22
remains disapproval. CEQA does not apply to projects a public agency rejects or disapproves. CEQA Guidelines § 15270(a).
HSS transmitted detailed notice of these defects before they entered the IS/MND On August 19, 2025, HSS emailed the full Council and senior City staff a detailed technical submission concerning the consultants’ work, particularly Land IQ’s March 22, 2024 report. At that point, staff had released the technical reports, but the Draft Master Plan had not yet been released for public comment. HSS submitted the package at the earliest practical opportunity because it wanted the factual, methodological, and consultation record corrected as quickly as possible—and while there was still time for the City and its consultants to correct their work before it was repeated or relied upon in later planning and environmental documents. The publicly circulated Appendix C-1 remains dated March 22, 2024, retains both chronology statements, and contains no errata or correction notice. The submission was not included in a public meeting agenda or agenda packet and was not placed in a publicly available meeting record. HSS therefore re-submits the transmittal and complete package now as Attachment B, not on the theory that it was already part of the CEQA record, but to place both the prior notice and the supporting materials into this record expressly. See Attachment B, transmittal and technical-comment package pages 1–12.
The present comment restates the material environmental grounds and supplies HSS’s current, refined position. To the extent the August 2025 advocacy letter used shorthand or a broader factual or legal characterization inconsistent with this submission, this submission clarifies and supersedes that characterization. Attachment B remains relevant as proof of what HSS transmitted before the public draft, as a record of the technical information requested, and as a collection of the underlying historical and agency materials.
The August 2025 submission asked for the topographic and hydrologic data used to create the watershed maps; the status of fairy-shrimp surveys; the dates and responsibility for flying-field mowing and grading; the consultant’s source materials and stakeholder meetings; the basis for Land IQ’s vegetation classifications; and clarification of where Land IQ’s own recommendations went beyond the 2014 USFWS letter. It also identified Land IQ’s conflicting 2005 and 2015 dates for the same 150-by-470-foot field. Those were concrete requests to correct the consultants’ work before it became an environmental-review premise.
The recirculated IS/MND now carries that work forward. Hamilton adopts Land IQ’s watershed polygon to support a new conclusion of “complete avoidance,” while the biological analysis relies on the same historicalimpact narrative to justify permanent relocation. Yet the recirculated record still does not disclose the underlying hydrologic delineation, source GIS data, as-built topography, maintenance history, or a response to the chronology discrepancy. These are not newly invented objections or an attempt to expand the scope of recirculation. They are unresolved defects that HSS identified before the consultant work was incorporated into the IS/MND and that now bear directly on the new relocation analysis.
II. The Project Description and MM-BIO-3 leave material ambiguity concerning the binding project and its implementation
The new relocation information is not a peripheral detail. Relocation is both a central physical component of the proposed Update and the measure selected to address claimed effects associated with the existing field. CEQA allows a project revision to function as mitigation. The City must, however, consistently define, analyze, approve, and enforce the same project.
A. The document uses materially different commitments
The Project Description, pages 8–10, states that:
• The City “will help install” a glider launch area and runway, pilot stations and pit area, storage shed, information kiosk, and power requirements;
• The City “will work closely” with HSS and OCME to complete relocation in a coordinated, timely, and costeffective manner; • The proposed field will be approximately 300 by 50 feet with an overall footprint of approximately 0.5 acre; HARBOR SOARING SOCIETY | FAIRVIEW PARK RECIRCULATED IS/MND COMMENTS August 28, 2026 SCH No. 2026041370 Page 9 of 22
• A portion will be decomposed granite and the remainder will be periodically cleared; • Parking will use the existing train-station lot, access will use an existing maintenance road, and a portion of the lot will contain HSS facilities; and
• A post-and-cable barrier will be installed around the northern portion of the east-side vernal-pool watershed.
MM-BIO-3 does not repeat those commitments. It says the City shall only “help provide support and/or funding” for relocation, and it describes only a launch and landing site, storage relocation, and a sign. It does not expressly require the City to construct every Project Description component, complete the facility by a date certain, validate it operationally, or keep the existing field available until a usable replacement is open.
The final approval and mitigation-monitoring program must identify which components and obligations are binding. A reliable and enforceable relocation commitment should identify the City’s obligation, the responsible party, the required facilities, the completion standard, the implementation schedule, and the outcome if outside funding never materializes. The recirculated IS/MND identifies no complete relocation cost, committed funding source, or enforceable completion deadline. Page 17 says Master Plan improvements would be implemented over approximately five to ten years as funding, staff, equipment, and permits become available.
B. MM-BIO-3 contains an incorrect cross-reference and an indefinite design standard The revised measure states that the location and design will be “as generally described in Section 3, Project Description.” The Project Description is Section 2. Section 3 is not the Project Description. More importantly, “generally described” does not identify how far the final site may move, which dimensions and facilities are mandatory, what environmental envelope was analyzed, or what changes would require additional review.
The recirculated draft visibly deletes the earlier sentence providing for later selection of an exact location with CDFW. That deletion avoids one inconsistency, but it does not convert the conceptual exhibit into a precise, enforceable site plan. The Project Description calls the layout “conceptual,” the mitigation measure calls it “general,” and regulatory details remain open. The City should identify a fixed impact envelope and commit to a site and design that remain within it.
C. Core biological decisions remain for later consultation MM-BIO-3 states that the City will consult CDFW later about the need for and types of focused surveys and will comply with later-determined compensation or other mechanisms if sensitive species are present. That language does not specify:
• Which species must be surveyed;
• The survey protocols, seasons, timing, or qualifications; • The environmental performance standard that must be achieved; • The avoidance hierarchy that controls design changes; • The types or ratios of compensation that may be required; • Whether take authorization is a condition precedent to construction and operation; • Who decides whether redesign is required;
• How compliance will be monitored and reported; or
• What happens if permits cannot be obtained for the concept approved by Council.
CEQA permits details to be developed after approval only when it is impractical or infeasible to include them during environmental review and the agency commits to mitigation, adopts specific performance standards, and identifies the types of feasible actions that will achieve those standards. CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(1)(B) and (a)(2). MM-BIO-3 should explain why site-specific surveys and standards cannot be completed now, before the City approves a specific site.
HARBOR SOARING SOCIETY | FAIRVIEW PARK RECIRCULATED IS/MND COMMENTS August 28, 2026 SCH No. 2026041370 Page 10 of 22
D. The “replacement first” sequence is not placed in a binding measure The biological discussion on page 60 says rehabilitation or removal of the existing field “should not take place until the new relocated fly field site is operational.” That is narrative, not the text of MM-BIO-3. “Should” is not “shall,” and “operational” is undefined.
The page 60 “replacement first” assurance is not stated in MM-BIO-3 or another binding condition. If continuation of model aviation is part of the approved project—as the Project Description represents—the City should place the sequence and the definition of “operational” in the approval conditions and mitigationmonitoring program. Otherwise, the document analyzes an operational relocation while the approval could result in closure without a usable replacement.
III. The east-side biological analysis admits potential take but does not resolve significance
A. A smaller footprint does not by itself establish a less-than-significant impact The recirculated IS/MND states that the east-side field will permanently disturb approximately 0.1 acre and require periodic clearance of approximately 0.4 acre. It acknowledges potential take of Crotch’s bumble bee, but concludes that the impact is not significant because the affected area is smaller than the 1.62-acre baseline area of “ongoing impact” at the existing field. Recirculated IS/MND, page 60.
The significance conclusion relies principally on a net-acreage comparison and qualitative habitat characterization. It does not disclose a species-specific threshold or quantitative basis for determining that potential take or habitat effects at the east site are less than significant. A smaller footprint may support comparative preference, but it does not by itself answer whether east-site effects on individuals, nesting habitat, or foraging resources may be substantial under the City’s significance threshold.
The baseline reasoning also assumes that the entire existing 1.62-acre field constitutes an ongoing biological impact of the same type and intensity as the proposed east-side disturbance. The record contains professional opinions about the existing field, but the recirculated IS/MND does not disclose a measurement establishing that all 1.62 acres currently function as a continuous impact to Crotch’s bumble bee or that subtracting acreage supplies the appropriate significance method. The City should identify the scientific or regulatory basis for that methodology.
B. CDFW’s east-side warnings are affirmative expert evidence CDFW strongly supports relocation and calls the east-side location biologically superior. HSS does not omit that conclusion. CDFW also states:
• Operation and maintenance at the new location may still require CESA take authorization; • A 2020 western burrowing-owl occurrence is adjacent to the proposed site; • Creation, use, and maintenance may disturb, distress, or take individual burrowing owls; • Creation, use, and maintenance could affect Crotch’s bumble bee or its floristic resources; • If Crotch’s bumble bees are using burrows at the relocation site, ground disturbance could kill or injure adults, eggs, or larvae, collapse burrows, cause nest abandonment, and reduce nest success; and • CDFW separately states, as its general significance position, that it considers adverse impacts to CESAprotected species significant.
CDFW further advised that the CEQA document should address all future impacts to listed species and specify mitigation, monitoring, and reporting that will satisfy permitting requirements. CDFW letter dated November 13, 2025, pages 5–7.
The recirculated IS/MND does not explain how a general commitment to consult later answers those comments. It does not state that take will be avoided, does not set a no-take performance standard, does not complete the surveys, and does not specify permit-level mitigation. The Council must explain how its less-thansignificant conclusion applies CDFW’s general significance position to the site-specific take risks. CDFW also states that design modifications may avoid suitable habitat and potentially avoid the need for take authorization; HARBOR SOARING SOCIETY | FAIRVIEW PARK RECIRCULATED IS/MND COMMENTS August 28, 2026 SCH No. 2026041370 Page 11 of 22
the recirculated IS/MND does not identify those modifications, establish avoidance criteria, or require redesign if focused surveys confirm habitat use.
C. The biological discussion relies on inapplicable or incomplete mitigation cross-references After discussing CDFW’s east-side comments, the recirculated IS/MND states: “Therefore, Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-1 is recommended to assure CESA candidate species are adequately protected.” Recirculated IS/MND, page 61.
MM-BIO-1 expressly applies to “all existing and new habitat areas within the portion of the park west of Placentia Avenue.” The relocation site is east of Placentia Avenue. MM-BIO-1 cannot assure protection at a site outside its geographic scope. This is a facial mismatch between the impact analysis and the measure cited to address it.
The document separately cites MM-BIO-2 for burrowing owl. MM-BIO-2, however, is a construction-period active-nest measure keyed to the ordinary February 1–September 1 nesting season. It does not clearly address wintering or non-nesting burrowing owls, or disturbance arising from ongoing use and maintenance after construction. For Crotch’s bumble bee, the document cites MM-BIO-3 and MM-BIO-4. MM-BIO-4 concerns rehabilitation of southwest vernal pools and contains no east-field or bumble-bee requirement.
The City must correct the cross-references, identify the measure that actually protects each east-side species and habitat, state its site-specific requirements, and demonstrate that it reduces each identified impact below significance.
D. The focused bumble-bee surveys do not cover either field location The recirculated IS/MND acknowledges that the focused 2024 bumble-bee surveys did not include either the existing or proposed field. Hamilton nevertheless rates the potential for Crotch’s bumble bee “High” at both sites. That may be a reasonable habitat-based opinion, but it is not a substitute for the site-specific surveys on which final avoidance, permitting, and mitigation decisions depend.
Because the City has selected and circulated a specific relocation site, it should complete the relevant focused surveys during environmental review or explain why doing so is impractical. Deferring the surveys prevents the public and Council from knowing whether redesign, take authorization, or compensatory mitigation will be required and whether the 0.5-acre concept remains feasible after those requirements are applied.
E. The biological discussion contains material source and cross-reference errors The page 59 biological discussion attributes a paragraph concerning grading, mowing, off-area aircraft retrieval, and potential take to CDFW. That discussion appears in Hamilton’s Appendix B-1, pages 25–26, rather than CDFW’s Appendix B-2 letter. The same section refers to a “2023 Hamilton Biological Report (MIG 2023a),” although the Hamilton report in Appendix B-1 is dated May 8, 2025. These errors matter because the document should distinguish the City’s consultant’s analysis from the resource agency’s statements and allow the public to trace each conclusion to its actual source. The City should correct the attribution and date and reevaluate any conclusion that depended on the mistaken citation trail.
IV. The record does not disclose the hydrologic basis for “complete avoidance” The recirculated IS/MND repeatedly states that the east-side project will “completely avoid” the delineated vernal-pool watershed. That conclusion depends on the polygon shown in Land IQ Figure 2-21 and reproduced in Hamilton Figure 8.
Appendix C-1 states that MIG evaluated vernal-pool hydrology, but it does not present MIG’s hydrologic analysis or explain who created the polygon. Land IQ’s disclosed methodology concerns vegetation mapping using aerial imagery, two-foot contours, historical materials, and vegetation field checks. The published appendix does not identify those methods as the basis for the watershed boundary or provide the source geographic information system (GIS) layer, metadata, terrain-model resolution, flow-direction analysis, fieldverification protocol, accuracy, or margin of error for the polygon.
HARBOR SOARING SOCIETY | FAIRVIEW PARK RECIRCULATED IS/MND COMMENTS August 28, 2026 SCH No. 2026041370 Page 12 of 22
Appendix C-1 states that the vegetation-mapping results were delivered to the City in a geodatabase. It does not state whether the Figure 2-21 watershed polygon was included in that geodatabase, identify who created the polygon, or disclose the layer, metadata, or delineation method supporting it.
The label—“Vernal Pool Watershed for Habitat Restoration, Enhancement, and Protection According to a LongTerm Management Plan”—does not disclose whether the polygon is a hydrologically delineated catchment, a restoration and protective-management area, or both. Before using it to conclude both that the existing field is within the west-side watershed and that the east-side project completely avoids its watershed, the City should disclose the source layer and hydrologic basis, including drainage divides, flow paths, terrain model, field verification, swales, depressions, culverts, metadata, and accuracy.
The 2018 Pools 5, 6, and 7 restoration plan demonstrates why precision matters. It treats elevation changes of only several inches as hydrologically consequential and requires level measurements, final contours, and asbuilt topographic reporting to USFWS. Neither Land IQ nor Hamilton states whether those as-built materials were obtained or reviewed. Hamilton also reports that one to three feet of fill appeared to have been placed in the past but was not mapped; he did not map its extent or analyze how that fill may have changed drainage.
The 2014 USFWS letter also stated that three vernal-pool areas east of Placentia Avenue required additional surveys and watershed delineation and recommended avoiding impacts to those watershed areas until protocol surveys were completed. It recommended periodic protocol surveys for fairy shrimp once every five years when rainfall was sufficient. See Attachment B, pages 19 and 25–26. The recirculated IS/MND’s background identifies wet-season branchiopod or fairy-shrimp surveys in 2017 and 2019 and states that San Diego fairy shrimp were last observed in January 2026, citing “Glen Lukos Associates 2026.” That recent observation partially answers HSS’s August 2025 request for current status, but the cited 2026 material is not identified in the bibliography or supplied with the recirculated document. The text provides no protocol, pool location, identification basis, abundance, trend information, or raw results. The City should provide the cited 2026 material and identify which later protocol surveys and watershed delineations cover the east-of-Placentia pools.
The same unexplained polygon therefore supports two consequential conclusions: the existing field is treated as being within the west-side watershed, and the east-side site is declared to avoid its watershed completely.
HSS requested the underlying topography and mapping methods in August 2025. The recirculated IS/MND converts the same undisclosed inputs into a categorical avoidance conclusion without answering that request.
The City may ultimately substantiate its conclusions, but the disclosed record does not allow the public to test them. The technical basis must be disclosed and validated before the City relies on “complete avoidance” as a central reason for finding the east-side impact less than significant.
The hydrology citation trail does not supply the missing site-specific support The recirculated IS/MND’s broader hydrology section does not cure this gap. It says the site’s principal drainage deficiency was identified through a “qualitative evaluation.” It repeatedly cites “MBI 2025” for hydrologic and other City facts, but the bibliography identifies that source as the *HIVE LIVE Environmental Impact Report* (SCH No. 2024060115), a separate-project EIR rather than a Fairview Park hydrology study.
The bibliography also contains Department of Toxic Substances Control and GeoTracker map queries for the “city of duarte,” rather than Costa Mesa.
These citation defects do not by themselves prove that a watershed boundary is wrong. They do show that the disclosed citation trail does not provide the site-specific hydrologic basis needed to verify a categorical “complete avoidance” conclusion. The City should correct the references, identify the actual Fairview Park hydrologic sources, and provide the underlying delineation and data before relying on that conclusion.
V. The record does not establish that permanent relocation is necessary A. The earlier agency and restoration record supports targeted management, not a stated relocation requirement
The July 24, 2014 USFWS letter identifies activities that had affected or could affect Fairview Park’s vernal pools, including paths, parking, stadium work, pedestrians, dogs, bicycles, wet-season vehicles, landscaping, irrigation, mowing, and chemical use. It does not identify HSS, model aviation, the runway, aircraft retrieval, or runway maintenance by name as a specific impact source.
HARBOR SOARING SOCIETY | FAIRVIEW PARK RECIRCULATED IS/MND COMMENTS August 28, 2026 SCH No. 2026041370 Page 13 of 22
USFWS did identify mowing generally as a potential impact because it lacked information about mowing locations and timing. It recommended mowing outside pool basins, restrictions within approximately 50 feet of basin areas, permanent protection of basins and watersheds, fencing, monitoring, and adaptive management. It also agreed that the general measures in the 2008 Plan were appropriate and recommended adding specific ongoing management actions in a future update.
That record supports specific management and implementation measures. It does not state that the field must be relocated. The City may adopt project-specific restoration plans, operating measures, fencing, monitoring, or adaptive management under the existing plan without committing to this Update.
HSS’s August 2025 package also supplied an August 25, 2014 follow-up email from USFWS biologist Christine Medak to HSS. After meeting with HSS, Medak acknowledged the group’s awareness of and respect for sensitive resources and summarized possible measures to accommodate continued operations: fencing designed around the winch turnaround, wet-season avoidance, a defined maintenance footprint, more specific permit conditions, and continued cooperation among HSS, the City, and USFWS. The email was not a permit or formal agency determination, but it is contemporaneous agency correspondence showing that managed coexistence at the existing location was being evaluated. It did not identify relocation of the glider runway as the only scientifically acceptable approach. See Attachment B, page 30.
Attachment B also includes the 1995 Michael Brandman Associates report, which concluded at that time that existing recreational uses, “in particular flying model airplanes,” could coexist with healthy vernal-pool habitat and stated that years of model-airplane use, including mowing of runway areas, had not contributed to the degradation it observed. See Attachment B, pages 14 and 16. That historical conclusion does not establish present conditions. The recirculated IS/MND nevertheless says the current investigations build on the 1995 biological field work while omitting this contrary conclusion. Because later consultants rely on historical land-use chronology to characterize the same use as conflicting with resource protection, the City should acknowledge the conclusion and explain what later site-specific evidence supersedes it.
The 2018 restoration plan for Pools 5, 6, and 7 identifies the runway as an adjacent land use. It lists the projectspecific disturbances to be addressed, including a former footpath, vehicle parking, pole indentations, irrigation runoff, nonnative vegetation, entry, fencing, and trash. It does not list model aviation or runway maintenance as a cause of degradation being remediated. That silence does not prove no effect is possible; it does show that relocation was not identified as a required component of that approved restoration effort.
B. Land IQ reaches a runway-specific conclusion without disclosing a corresponding field-specific causal analysis
Land IQ cites both the 2014 USFWS letter and the 2018 restoration plan. It then reaches a runway-specific conclusion that neither cited source states: flying-field mowing and fine grading are in “direct conflict” with the City’s habitat-protection responsibilities and should stop.
That is Land IQ’s professional opinion, supported by vegetation mapping, aerial imagery, historical review, and field observations. Its report does not, however, disclose runway-specific soil-compaction testing, erosion or sediment measurements, hydrologic monitoring, or a before-and-after comparison tying current permitted operations to measured effects on a pool or protected species. Nor does it explain how its conclusion is reconciled with the 2018 plan’s treatment of the runway as an adjacent land use.
Land IQ contains an internal chronology discrepancy. Section 1.1.3, “Need for Master Plan Update,” page 4, states that the field was graded in 2015; Section 3.10.1, page 99, states 2005. The recirculated IS/MND now acknowledges that model aviation has occurred on the Mesa since the early 1960s and describes a reconfigured field in 2005. That correction is appropriate. The record does not disclose whether the 2015 date was treated as a typographical error or whether any rationale, analysis, or recommendation materially dependent on the date was revisited.
This discrepancy was not discovered for the first time during recirculation. HSS identified it for Council and staff in August 2025, promptly after the technical reports were released and before the Draft Master Plan was released for public comment. HSS’s purpose was to correct the technical record as quickly as possible, while the errors and omissions could still be addressed before the consultants’ work was incorporated into later planning and environmental documents. The August package also requested the field’s actual mowing and grading history, the topographic basis for the watershed mapping, and a clear separation between USFWS HARBOR SOARING SOCIETY | FAIRVIEW PARK RECIRCULATED IS/MND COMMENTS August 28, 2026 SCH No. 2026041370 Page 14 of 22
recommendations and Land IQ’s additional conclusions. The publicly circulated Appendix C-1 remains dated March 22, 2024, retains both chronology statements, and contains no errata or correction notice. Correcting the date in the recirculated IS/MND improves the historical description, but it does not supply the requested supporting data, correct the source report, or explain whether conclusions affected by the discrepancy were reevaluated.
C. The record contains important opinions but incomplete supporting data concerning current operations
The 2019 USFWS correspondence raises concrete concerns about possible nesting-bird disturbance, noise, flight or landing in sensitive areas, wet-season access, and the City’s responsibility if permitted activity causes take. At the same time, USFWS states that it did not know the precise noise threshold different bird species could tolerate and that a quantitative evaluation would require comparing bird behavior during flying and nonflying periods. The correspondence reports no Fairview Park sound measurement, nest abandonment, injury, mortality, or documented take.
The February 24, 2023 Nerhus email is the principal published document affirmatively attributing impacts to flying. It reports weekly crashes, retrievals from sensitive areas, noise from many high-performance aircraft, and a student field exercise in which small birds were reportedly absent while aircraft were flying. The published email does not include the study or its dates, protocols, control periods, species identifications, counts, sample sizes, raw data, analysis, crash or retrieval records, photographs, or sound-meter readings.
The Nerhus email also predates the present operating program. It was written while the field remained closed and months before HSS resumed authorized operations on July 15, 2023. Its assertion of “weekly” crashes therefore cannot describe the current permitted program.
For the Appendix B-3 relocation analysis, Hamilton reports one April 30, 2025 site visit, from 7:05 to 9:30 a.m., during which he walked both field locations. He does not report observing HSS flying. Although the memorandum makes several definite statements concerning existing impacts, many ecological consequences are expressed as effects that “may” occur or have “potential” consequences. It reports no site-specific compaction, erosion, sediment, noise, hydrologic, or wildlife-behavior measurements and no comparative analysis tied to the current permitted program.
Again, CEQA does not require the City to wait for a completed take before acting. The point is proportionality and causation. Before selecting permanent relocation as the mandatory response, the City should identify the current activity producing the effect, the evidence supporting that attribution, and why a less disruptive sitespecific measure cannot address it.
D. The City has more than 37 months of current operating experience but discloses no comparative analysis
In 2021, City staff stated that the science concerning aircraft interference with birds was “not conclusive” and that bird counts collected during closure could be used for future comparative analysis after reopening.
September 21, 2021 staff report.
HSS resumed flying on July 15, 2023. As of this submission, more than 37 months of experience exist under the current City-regulated program. The recirculated IS/MND does not disclose the comparison staff contemplated or another completed analysis distinguishing current authorized HSS operations from historical conditions, City maintenance, and unauthorized activity.
HSS has received no citation, written warning, corrective directive, or City instruction to pause operations during that period. HSS also has received no notice identifying a specific authorized HSS flight as causing a documented injury, mortality, nest abandonment, or other biological incident alleged to constitute take. If the City’s records show otherwise, they should be disclosed with the date, operator, whether the operator was authorized by HSS, observer, species or resource, rule or permit provision, City response, and supporting documentation.
The recirculated IS/MND should not disregard the only multi-year record of the current program while relying on claims that predate it. The City’s failure to disclose the comparison it said could be performed is particularly consequential when relocation is framed as necessary mitigation.
HARBOR SOARING SOCIETY | FAIRVIEW PARK RECIRCULATED IS/MND COMMENTS August 28, 2026 SCH No. 2026041370 Page 15 of 22
E. Site-specific management has not been shown infeasible The record does not evaluate whether potential impacts could be addressed at the existing field through monitoring, targeted operating conditions, temporary or seasonal measures supported by observed conditions, enforcement against unauthorized activity, and adaptive management. HSS is not asking the City to ignore environmental concerns. It is asking the City to use evidence-based measures proportionate to demonstrated effects.
HSS has cooperated with temporary biological protections and established with the City a notification procedure for conditions requiring a pause. HSS was not instructed by the City to stop flying during the recent burrowingowl matter. If a consultant made a recommendation that staff did not communicate to HSS, the record should distinguish the consultant’s recommendation, the City’s implementation decision, and the direction actually given to HSS. It should not portray HSS as having disregarded an instruction it never received.
The November 2020 correspondence labeled “Audubon Email” in Attachment B similarly stated that the organization wished to see the flying field continue at some level and proposed time-of-day limits, days without flying, and adaptive measures—including suspension if significant unforeseen disturbance were actually observed. See Attachment B, pages 38–39. The current nonmotorized-glider program, limited to two Saturdays per month, is materially more restrictive than the five-days-per-week compromise discussed in that correspondence. The email is not dispositive, but it reinforces that targeted operating conditions and adaptive management were recognized as serious alternatives. The recirculated IS/MND does not demonstrate that those tools were tried and failed or could not address a documented effect at the existing field.
VI. The proposed replacement has not been operationally validated A. The City appears to have skipped the first step of its own described process The September 21, 2021 staff report described a two-step process: first, a 12-to-18-month, $80,000-to- $100,000 evaluation of both flying feasibility and environmental suitability; only if the east side proved feasible would planning and design be incorporated into the Master Plan.
The March 21, 2023 staff report did not recommend pursuing the east side, citing vernal pools, trails, sensitive biological resources, and the staff resources needed to evaluate flying feasibility. It confirms that Council had directed staff to evaluate flying and alternative locations during the Update.
The published record identifies no operational-feasibility scope, qualified model-aviation expert, field test, wind or approach study, work product, or formal finding completed before the May 2025 concept was selected. The process therefore appears to have incorporated a facility into the Update without first establishing that it can function.
B. The concept does not analyze the actual operational requirements The Hamilton memorandum is a biological comparison. Its stated scope contains no model-aviation methodology. Neither it nor the recirculated IS/MND evaluates:
• Prevailing winds and seasonal wind variability;
• Runway and launch orientation;
• Launch and landing approaches;
• Usable flight envelope and separation distances;
• Glider categories and the range of permitted HSS activities; • Flight instruction and novice operations;
• Emergency and off-runway landings;
• Aircraft retrieval routes and response time;
• Conflicts with pedestrians, trains, station users, or maintenance crews; • Parking, restrooms, power, storage, and accessibility; HARBOR SOARING SOCIETY | FAIRVIEW PARK RECIRCULATED IS/MND COMMENTS August 28, 2026 SCH No. 2026041370 Page 16 of 22
• Train-day and HSS operating schedules; or
• A protocol for resolving operational conflicts.
Based on HSS’s more than 60 years of model-glider experience at Fairview Park, HSS concludes that the published 300-by-50-foot concept has not been shown to provide a functional and safe replacement for the current field. The City materials reviewed by HSS identify no qualified contrary operational opinion.
C. HSS was excluded from site-specific operational design and validation The consultation problem predates Hamilton. HSS informed Council and staff in August 2025 that Land IQ’s report was dated March 22, 2024, while HSS’s records show that Land IQ’s first meeting with HSS occurred on March 1, 2025—nearly one year later. Appendix C-1 identifies no earlier HSS consultation. The report’s flyingfield conclusions were therefore written before the consultation reflected in HSS’s records. If the City or consultant has a record of earlier HSS consultation, it should identify the date, participants, information exchanged, and resulting revisions.
The Hamilton document is titled “CEQA Analysis, HSS Flying Field Relocation Project,” but HSS did not participate in its preparation, was not invited to the May 2025 site visit, was not interviewed about operating requirements, and was not asked to review or validate the layout before it entered the recirculated IS/MND.
HSS also has not been consulted during 2026 concerning the field’s location, dimensions, assumptions, or safety requirements.
The recirculated IS/MND confirms the omission in its own administrative disclosures. Section 6.2, “Persons and Organizations Consulted,” lists “N/A.” That entry is difficult to reconcile with a Project Description that promises the City “will work closely” with HSS and OCME after selecting and circulating the site. The intended operator and the neighboring organized use were not identified as consulted organizations before the City asked Council to approve a relocation that depends on both of them.
The Project Description now says the City “will work closely” with HSS and OCME. Future consultation cannot substitute for feasibility analysis before project approval. If consultation later shows that the concept must expand, rotate, move, add infrastructure, alter access, or intrude into mapped habitat, the environmental analysis before Council will not describe the facility actually needed.
VII. OCME compatibility and recreation effects have not been analyzed The recirculated IS/MND says the Update proposes “no changes or additions” to model-railroad facilities. It then locates the new field inside the railroad loop, approximately 300 feet northwest of Goat Hill Junction Station, assigns station parking to field users, places HSS storage and a kiosk in a portion of the lot, and routes access along a road reached through an existing track crossing.
The 2018 OCME License Agreement addresses OCME’s licensed premises, operating schedule, supervision, improvements, maintenance, compatibility, and safety. The publicly posted Exhibit A is not sufficiently usable to determine the precise relationship between the proposed field and the licensed premises. HSS therefore does not assert that a contractual breach has already been established. The absence of a usable boundary and compatibility analysis is itself the problem.
Before treating relocation as feasible, the City should publish a legible boundary map, disclose whether OCME has agreed in writing, state whether consent or amendment is required, and analyze train operations, pedestrian crossings, flight paths, parking, restrooms, power, maintenance, supervision, and the two organizations’ schedules.
The recirculated IS/MND’s recreation analysis does not perform that work. Its cumulative discussion simply states that the Update would improve the park and balance public uses. It does not analyze whether a field within the railroad loop would create conflicts, displace OCME parking or facilities, increase physical demands on railroad-area amenities, or operate safely on public train days. A conclusion that public uses are “balanced” is not a substitute for analysis of the specific relocation added during recirculation.
HSS’s August 2025 submission also asked why Land IQ mapped model-railroad infrastructure as “Urban/Disturbed” while treating the longstanding flying-field area differently. HSS does not contend that the two uses have identical physical or biological effects. The point is disclosure and consistency. The new HARBOR SOARING SOCIETY | FAIRVIEW PARK RECIRCULATED IS/MND COMMENTS August 28, 2026 SCH No. 2026041370 Page 17 of 22
relocation would put the flying field inside the railroad loop and rely on railroad-area infrastructure, making the classifications and assumptions more relevant, not less. The City should explain the different mapping treatment and analyze the combined physical and operational effects at the new location.
Land IQ also treated approximately 24 acres within the railroad network as unsuitable for restoration because of the existing use and maintenance regime and proposed managing that area in place for native cover and weed reduction. HSS asked in August 2025 why a comparable existing-use and adaptive-management analysis was not applied to the flying field. The City may identify a valid biological distinction, but it should disclose the objective criterion rather than applying different management logic without explanation.
VIII. The later-disclosed relocation is not transparently evaluated in Appendices D and E
A. Appendix D does not disclose a site-specific cultural-resources review of the east-side concept Appendix D is dated November 2024 and evaluates the 208-acre Master Plan at a general level. It refers to model-aircraft flying as an existing park use, but it does not identify or analyze the later May 2025 east-side concept: a decomposed-granite runway, pilot and pit areas, storage shed or container, kiosk, the Project Description’s undefined power requirements, use of the maintenance path and track crossing, associated vegetation clearance, and barriers.
That omission matters because Appendix D concludes that all of Fairview Park is extremely sensitive for tribal cultural resources and that the park should be considered a unified Native American cultural landscape.
Appendix D quotes the 2008 Plan as stating that P-30-000506 exists in the northern vicinity of model-railroad operations and that new heavy construction in that area requires monitoring and study by a certified archaeologist. It also reports approximately five-percent ground visibility in surveyed portions of P-30-000058 and P-30-000506 and states that the eastern edge of P-30-000506 could not be accessed because of fencing and vegetation. Appendix D and the IS/MND include cultural-resource monitoring, testing, treatment, and accidental-discovery measures, but the disclosed record does not show how the specific relocation footprint and each associated improvement were compared with the mapped resources and areas that could not be adequately inspected.
HSS does not assert, without a usable overlay, that the proposed field overlaps a recorded resource. The City should disclose the exact relationship between the complete relocation impact envelope and the culturalresource boundaries, identify any field verification performed after the concept was developed, and explain whether Appendix D’s conclusions and mitigation were reviewed for this particular site.
B. Appendix E does not identify the relocation facilities in its air-quality and energy inputs Appendix E models a 25-acre “City Park” input described as “Restoration,” a two-mile “Road Construction” input described as “New Trails,” and zero building area. Its input descriptions contain no separate flying-field, runway, decomposed-granite, storage, kiosk, barrier, vegetation-clearance, or power entry. The operational electricity and natural-gas entries are zero. The disclosed model therefore does not allow the public to determine which, if any, assumptions capture construction and operation of the later-disclosed relocation concept.
The schedule also requires reconciliation. Appendix E places every modeled construction phase between January 1 and June 11, 2026. The IS/MND states that emissions were estimated over a worst-case six-year period and labels its maximum daily emissions “Winter 2026–2032” and “Summer 2026–2032.” This discrepancy does not establish that an air-quality or energy threshold would be exceeded. It does prevent verification that the appendix models the same project and schedule described in the environmental document.
The City should identify the inputs assigned to each relocation component, explain the schedule conversion, and rerun or document the analysis if the specific concept was omitted.
HARBOR SOARING SOCIETY | FAIRVIEW PARK RECIRCULATED IS/MND COMMENTS August 28, 2026 SCH No. 2026041370 Page 18 of 22
IX. Measure AA issues independently undermine the assumed feasibility of relocation
Measure AA expressly recognizes glider flying as a passive Fairview Park use. Its “As-Built Condition” is defined by the amenities and alterations physically present when the ordinance took effect. At that time, the flying field was west of Placentia Avenue, and the 2008 Plan mapped the launch and landing area there.
The east-side relocation would construct a new runway surface, grading and vegetation-clearance area, pilot and pit areas, a storage shed or container, a kiosk, the Project Description’s undefined “power requirements,” use of the existing maintenance path and track crossing, any access work ultimately required, and barriers at a new location. These components plainly raise Measure AA’s new-amenity and grading provisions and may also implicate foundations, permanent structures, and electrical or other utility service, depending on the final design.
Measure AA also contains exceptions for restoration, preservation, maintenance, public safety, and certain changes directed by the Master Plan in effect on January 1, 2015. The City must analyze the text it asks the voters and courts to apply. For each component, the City should state whether it contends that the component is not a significant change or falls within a specific exception, identify the factual and legal basis, and explain whether voter approval is required before implementation.
The recirculated IS/MND instead treats relocation as maintenance of an existing use. Its Measure AA analysis says the Update proposes “no new buildings or permanent facilities” and that relocation is not “a new facility.” Recirculated IS/MND, page 72. That characterization cannot be reconciled with the Project Description, which adds a storage shed or container, kiosk, power requirements, runway surface, pilot and pit areas, use of the maintenance path and track crossing, any access work ultimately required, and barriers. Moving model aviation does not transform newly constructed facilities at a different site into existing amenities. A Council-adopted plan also cannot enlarge Measure AA’s definition of maintenance or eliminate voter approval that the ordinance requires.
In 2021, staff stated that changes to Fairview Park infrastructure would require a ballot measure under Measure AA. That statement is not legally controlling, but the City should reconcile it with the current position. Until the component-and-exception analysis is complete, the recirculated IS/MND has not shown that the proposed mitigation can lawfully be implemented without a public vote. That uncertainty bears directly on feasibility.
X. “Modern science” does not establish a need to replace the 2008 Plan The City’s January 2025 staff report describes the Update as appropriate because time has passed and science, technology, and regulations have changed. No one disputes that biological knowledge and regulatory status change. Western burrowing owl and Crotch’s bumble bee candidacy illustrate that point. The question is what those changes require the City to do.
The 2008 Fairview Park Master Plan already requires restoration plans to be based on scientific recommendations and the best available information concerning pre-existing habitat. It calls for compliance with federal and state restrictions, biological monitoring, detailed resource-management plans prepared with restoration documents, and adaptive management activities that monitor species and habitat conditions. It simultaneously directs continuation of model railroading, model airplane flying, and model glider flying and states that the park’s scale permits those uses without compromising its passive character.
This is not a static scientific rulebook frozen in 2008. It is a policy framework that anticipates later technical work and current regulatory compliance. The City has used it while developing restoration plans, obtaining permits, monitoring species, and completing grant-funded work. A current survey, new species listing, revised restoration design, or new permit can be applied through project-specific decisions without replacing every policy in the plan.
The 2014 USFWS letter is especially important because the current reports repeatedly cite it. USFWS agreed that the 2008 Plan’s general measures were appropriate. It identified implementation deficiencies, supplied specific management recommendations, required monitoring and adaptive management, and recommended that ongoing actions be included in a future Master Plan update. That is a recommendation for greater HARBOR SOARING SOCIETY | FAIRVIEW PARK RECIRCULATED IS/MND COMMENTS August 28, 2026 SCH No. 2026041370 Page 19 of 22
specificity, not a finding that the 2008 Plan blocks current science. The letter does not require relocation of the flying field or adoption of the present Update.
Nor is the technical foundation described in the recirculated record uniformly new. Land IQ repeatedly relies on the 2014 USFWS letter and the 2018 restoration plan. Those sources may remain scientifically useful; sound science does not expire merely because a document is several years old. But age cannot be used selectively. If the 2014 letter remains reliable enough to support the Update, the City must explain why the 2008 Plan’s adaptive, science-based framework is obsolete—especially when the same 2014 letter says the Plan’s general measures are appropriate. The relevant question is the content and continuing validity of the information, not the date printed on the cover.
The City should therefore answer three direct questions:
1. What precise new scientific finding requires relocation of model aviation rather than site-specific management?
2. What specific provision of the 2008 Plan prevents the City from applying that finding?
3. Why can the issue not be addressed through monitoring, project-specific review, restoration planning, permitting, enforcement, or adaptive management under the existing plan? Without those answers, “science has changed” is a slogan, not an evidentiary reason to approve this project.
XI. The grant record does not show that the existing field has impaired funding Protecting grants and remaining competitive for future funding are legitimate objectives. But claimed grant risk must be tied to a particular agreement term or published scoring criterion.
Official City and State records identify at least $7.375 million in outside public awards secured after adoption of the 2008 Plan: $2 million from the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) M2 Environmental Mitigation Program; $500,000 from the Transportation Enhancement Fund; a $225,000 Habitat Conservation Fund award; a separate $150,000 Habitat Conservation Fund award for vernal-pool restoration; and a $4.5 million State Fairview Park Restoration award. City records also document $350,000 from the MiOcean Foundation and approximately $41,000 from OCRP, Inc. These are award and contribution amounts, not a representation that every dollar has already been reimbursed or spent.
Earlier funding also supported projects implemented while the field operated, including $1,409,900 from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, a $230,000 Habitat Conservation Fund award, and a $256,000 Recreational Trails Program award. Most significantly, the City’s 2014 annual report documents implementation of grantfunded restoration while also reporting approximately 220 model-aircraft permits that year. That establishes coexistence; it does not claim that a grant agency affirmatively approved the field.
Supporting records include the City’s 2009 Fairview Park annual report, 2011 Phase II award report, 2014 Fairview Park annual report, the State’s $4.5 million Fairview Park restoration record, and City File 24-135 concerning the $150,000 vernal-pool award, City match, and deed restriction.
The March 2023 staff report says continued flying “poses the risk” of jeopardizing future grant funds, but it identifies no denial, reduced award, withheld reimbursement, default notice, or grant term requiring relocation.
An April 2026 staff report confirms that the $2 million OCTA agreement remains active and that the Mesa Restoration Project is fully funded from the State grant, with approximately $1.77 million then remaining in the uncommitted balance. It does not state that the flying field caused a default or loss of funding.
This history does not establish that no future grant could consider park activities or impose conditions. It does show that the City has repeatedly secured substantial outside support while the 2008 Plan and permitted field remained in operation. If grant risk is being relied upon to justify relocation, staff should identify the specific current agreement provision or published future-grant criterion creating that risk.
XII. The General Plan requires an actual balance of habitat and public recreation The General Plan Open Space and Recreation Element recognizes Fairview Park as both protected open space and a place for passive public use. It expressly identifies special events, model aircraft, and the model HARBOR SOARING SOCIETY | FAIRVIEW PARK RECIRCULATED IS/MND COMMENTS August 28, 2026 SCH No. 2026041370 Page 20 of 22
railroad among Fairview Park activities, calls for varied active and passive opportunities, and directs consultation with nonprofit recreational groups.
Those policies do not override habitat protection. They require the City to evaluate both parts of its adopted policy. A nominal field that has not been shown operationally usable does not preserve model aviation. A relocation that may impair railroad operations does not balance the two organized uses. A process that develops the HSS replacement without operational input from HSS does not satisfy the policy objective of meaningful consultation.
The recirculated IS/MND should explain how the specific east-side concept preserves a functional recreational use, how it avoids shifting unresolved impacts to OCME, and how it remains consistent with the General Plan’s combined habitat and recreation policies.
XIII. Specific comments and requests requiring response HSS requests written responses and supporting documents addressing the following:
1. Project definition. What exact site, boundaries, dimensions, facilities, and impact envelope is the Council being asked to approve? Which Project Description elements are mandatory, and how far may the final location or design vary without additional CEQA review?
2. Incorrect cross-reference. Why does MM-BIO-3 refer to “Section 3, Project Description” when the Project Description is Section 2? Please correct the reference and explain what document and design control.
3. City commitment. Is the City legally obligated to fund and construct the entire replacement field, or merely to “help” with support or funding? Identify the responsible party, complete scope, completion standard, enforcement mechanism, funding obligation, implementation schedule, and outcome if outside funding never materializes.
4. Replacement-first sequence. Will the existing field remain available until the replacement is fully funded, permitted, constructed, opened, and operationally validated? If continuation of model aviation is part of the approved project, place that sequence and a definition of “operational” in the approval conditions and mitigation-monitoring program.
5. Deferred surveys and mitigation. What species will be surveyed, under what protocols and seasons, and before what activity? What performance standard, avoidance hierarchy, compensation framework, monitoring, reporting, and enforcement will apply? Why was it impractical to complete site-specific surveys before approving a specific site?
6. Fair-argument finding. What is the City’s basis under CEQA Guidelines §§ 15064(f)(1) and 15074(b) for finding no fair argument of a significant effect in light of CDFW’s specific east-side possible-take warnings and its general position concerning adverse impacts to CESA-protected species?
7. Acreage/significance method. What scientific or regulatory method supports finding east-side Crotch’s bumble bee impacts less than significant because approximately 0.5 acre is smaller than an assumed 1.62 acres of existing impact? How were the type, intensity, habitat function, and species use at the two locations compared?
8. Mitigation cross-references. How can MM-BIO-1 protect CESA candidate species at the east-side field when its text applies only west of Placentia Avenue? How does MM-BIO-2 address wintering or nonnesting burrowing owls and ongoing use or maintenance when it is a construction-period active-nest measure keyed to the ordinary February 1–September 1 nesting season? How does MM-BIO-4 protect east-side bumble bees when it concerns southwest vernal-pool rehabilitation? Correct the references and identify the enforceable measure that addresses each east-side impact.
9. CDFW permit-level requirements. How does MM-BIO-3 satisfy CDFW’s request that the CEQA document address all future impacts and specify mitigation, monitoring, and reporting sufficient for an Incidental Take Permit or Restoration Management Permit?
10. Watershed delineation. Who created the polygon used in Land IQ Figure 2-21 and Hamilton Figure 8, when, and for what purpose? Does it represent a hydrologic catchment, a management boundary, or both? Provide the source GIS layer, metadata, terrain model, elevations, flow-direction analysis, field-verification method, accuracy, and margin of error.
HARBOR SOARING SOCIETY | FAIRVIEW PARK RECIRCULATED IS/MND COMMENTS August 28, 2026 SCH No. 2026041370 Page 21 of 22
11. Agency concurrence on hydrology. Have USFWS or CDFW reviewed the delineation methodology, source layer, and accuracy of this particular polygon—not merely the relocation concept—and concurred in writing that it supports “complete avoidance”? If so, provide that technical review.
12. As-built topography and fill. Provide the post-restoration as-built topographic plan required by the 2018 restoration plan. Explain whether Land IQ or Hamilton reviewed it and how the east-side analysis accounts for Hamilton’s observation of one to three feet of apparently unmapped fill.
13. Current operating evidence. Since July 15, 2023, what date-specific evidence has the City collected concerning the current program? Identify every reported or observed HSS or authorized-pilot rule violation, warning, citation, corrective directive, pause instruction, off-area landing or retrieval, biological incident, hydrologic effect, erosion, or sedimentation attributed to an authorized operation. For each, provide the date, operator and authorization status, observer, method, species or resource, City response, and underlying record.
14. Comparative study. Provide the flight-day/non-flight-day comparative analysis contemplated in the September 2021 staff report. If none was completed, explain why the City is imposing permanent relocation without using the post-reopening record it said could inform the issue.
15. Underlying flying-impact data. Identify the field-specific facts, observations, analyses, and supported expert opinions underlying the conclusion that current permitted operations are causing or may cause effects to sensitive species or vernal-pool function. Provide the student bird study, survey protocols and data, incident and retrieval records, photographs, noise measurements, soil-compaction information, hydrologic analysis, erosion or sediment information, species observations, and causation analysis.
Distinguish historical grading, City maintenance, current authorized HSS operations, unauthorized activity, observed conditions, and predicted effects.
16. Operational analysis. What analysis establishes that the 300-by-50-foot concept can safely support prevailing winds, launch and landing approaches, usable flight envelope, instruction, emergency landings, retrieval, and the current range of HSS activities? Identify the qualified model-aviation expert, methodology, field testing, work product, and conclusions.
17. HSS consultation. Why does Section 6.2 identify the persons and organizations consulted as “N/A”? Identify every date on which HSS, OCME, or a qualified model-aviation expert was consulted specifically about the east-side layout, participants, operating requirements provided, and how each requirement was incorporated. Distinguish general public workshops and comment opportunities from operational-design consultation.
18. 2021/2023 process. Was the 12-to-18-month flying-feasibility and environmental-suitability process described in 2021 completed? If so, provide its scope, contract, cost, participants, work product, and findings. If not, explain what changed between the March 2023 recommendation and the May 2025 concept.
19. OCME boundary and consent. Provide a legible map of OCME’s licensed premises. Has OCME consented in writing? Is an agreement amendment or other authorization required? Explain how the City will address train operations, track crossings, flight paths, parking, restrooms, utilities, supervision, maintenance, and schedules.
20. Recreation analysis. How does the recirculated IS/MND support its conclusion that public uses are balanced when it contains no operational-compatibility analysis for the two organized uses at the east-side location?
21. Measure AA. For each component—the runway surface, grading or vegetation clearance, pilot and pit areas, storage shed or container, kiosk, the Project Description’s undefined power requirements, use of the existing maintenance path and track crossing, any access work ultimately required, and barriers—does the City contend it is not a “Significant Change,” or that it falls within a particular Measure AA exception? State the factual and legal basis for each conclusion, whether voter approval is required, and how the conclusion is reconciled with staff’s 2021 infrastructure statement.
22. Current science. What current scientific finding requires relocation, what provision of the 2008 Plan prevents the City from acting on it, and why cannot it be implemented through a site-specific project, monitoring, permitting, restoration plan, enforcement, or adaptive management? HARBOR SOARING SOCIETY | FAIRVIEW PARK RECIRCULATED IS/MND COMMENTS August 28, 2026 SCH No. 2026041370 Page 22 of 22
23. Grant risk. What current grant or funding agreement does staff contend is adversely affected by the existing field? Identify the provision, funded-project boundary, amount allegedly at risk, and written agency communication concerning default, reimbursement, recapture, or relocation. Has the City received any notice attributing a denial, reduction, adverse score, or compliance concern to the field? What published future-grant criterion requires or rewards adoption of this Update or relocation?
24. General Plan balance. How does the specific concept preserve a functional model-aviation use, avoid impairment to model-railroad operations, and satisfy the General Plan’s combined habitat-protection, recreation, and nonprofit-consultation policies?
25. Why replace the plan? What problem has the 2008 Plan prevented the City from solving, and why should the City assume the legal, environmental, operational, contractual, and financial risks of this Update rather than continue targeted restoration and current-science management under the existing plan?
26. Unanswered August 2025 technical comments. For each factual or methodological issue in Attachment B, identify whether and where the City or its consultants responded before incorporating the technical work into the IS/MND. Provide the requested watershed and topographic data; the cited January 2026 fairyshrimp material, latest protocol survey, pool-by-pool methods and results, and explanation of compliance with USFWS’s five-year recommendation; mowing and grading dates and responsible party; consultant meeting records; vegetation-classification basis; source-attribution explanation; and analysis of whether the 2005/2015 chronology discrepancy affected any conclusion or recommendation. Explain why the publicly circulated Appendix C-1 still retains both dates and contains no errata or correction notice, identify any addendum or written response addressing HSS’s submission, and state how the identified issues were addressed before Land IQ’s work was relied upon in the Draft Master Plan and recirculated IS/MND.
27. Hydrology source errors. Why does the hydrology section cite the separate-project HIVE LIVE EIR as “MBI 2025,” and how does that source support facts stated about Fairview Park? Why do the bibliography’s DTSC and GeoTracker links query the City of Duarte? Correct the citations and identify the actual sitespecific sources supporting Fairview Park drainage, watershed, and complete-avoidance conclusions.
28. Biological source-attribution errors. Why does page 59 attribute the grading, mowing, off-area aircraftretrieval, and potential-take discussion to CDFW when that text appears in Hamilton’s Appendix B-1, pages 25–26? Why does page 58 cite a “2023 Hamilton Biological Report (MIG 2023a)” when Appendix B-1 is dated May 8, 2025? Correct the source trail and explain whether either error affected the analysis or response to CDFW.
29. Appendix D and the east-side footprint. What is the exact relationship between the complete relocation impact envelope and P-30-000506, the other recorded cultural resources, and any area Appendix D could not adequately inspect? Identify any project-specific field verification performed after the May 2025 concept was developed and explain how Appendix D’s mitigation applies to every relocation component.
30. Appendix E project inputs and schedule. Which Appendix E inputs capture the decomposed-granite runway, pilot and pit areas, storage shed or container, kiosk, barriers, vegetation clearance, access activity, and power requirements? Why does Appendix E model a 25-acre City Park input labeled “Restoration,” a two-mile Road Construction input labeled “New Trails,” zero building area, and zero operational electricity and natural gas, without identifying the flying-field components? Reconcile Appendix E’s January 1–June 11, 2026 construction phases with the IS/MND’s six-year estimate and “2026–2032” table labels.
31. Runway and disturbance dimensions. Provide an area accounting for the approximately 0.5-acre overall footprint, beginning with the approximately 0.34 acre represented by Appendix B-3’s 300-by-50-foot field and separately quantifying the area, clearance, and disturbance for every associated improvement.
Confirm that the decomposed-granite surface shown in Figure 10 is 150 by 25 feet within the 300-by-50- foot field.
HARBOR SOARING SOCIETY
ATTACHMENT B
August 19, 2025 HSS Submission Concerning the
Fairview Park Master Plan Technical Reports
This attachment contains the letter, technical comments, and supporting materials transmitted by Harbor Soaring Society on August 19, 2025. It is included with the present comments to place HSS’s prior notice of the identified factual and methodological issues, together with the supporting materials, expressly into the record.
Citations to Attachment B in the accompanying comment letter refer to the original pagination within this attachment.
Attachment B
August 19, 2025
Dear City Council Members,
HSS takes issue with several items in the Master Plan Update technical reports, particularly the March 22, 2024 LandIQ technical report.
The justifications for the Master Plan as cited by the technical reports are weak, insuƯicient, and/or inaccurate. The foundational argument for why the flying field deserves intense scrutiny during the Master Plan process is false. Lastly, the technical reports as part of the Master Plan Update are inconsistent in their treatment of similar activities (planes and trains).
Many issues with the technical reports could have been avoided with stakeholder engagement. Unfortunately, engagement with community stakeholders was minimal throughout the process, or when it did occur at public forums, the input from the community was not considered. For example, the March 22, 2024, technical report written by LandIQ is dated almost one full year before LandIQ had their first meeting with HSS, which occurred on March 1, 2025.
(Section 1.1.3). Reason #2 is that: “In 2015, a new fly field (approximately 150-ft by 470-ft) was graded within the existing vernal pool watershed, which the HSS used with City’s permission until the COVID-19 pandemic led to temporary closure of the park in March of 2020. In July 2023, the City provisionally re-opened the fly field to non-motorized gliders on two Saturdays per month.”
The report’s author justifies that this action taking place after the 2008 FVPMP is the reason that the flying field deserves intense scrutiny in the current Master Plan Update. However, “a new fly field” was NOT created in 2015. The consultant identifies the size of the flying field as 150-ft by 470-ft, which is the exact size the consultant lists as being created in 2005 (see below page 107 of 283). The consultant’s own cited satellite maps show that the flying field has been in the same place for decades.
Pg. 12 of 283
Pg. 107 of 283:
The remaining three reasons identified as the need for a Master Plan Update are weak reasons to spend the time and money performing the Master Plan Update. In fact, reason #3 one could argue not to update the Master Plan as Measure AA specifically defines the Fairview Park Master Plan as the 2008 revision of the Fairview Park Master Plan.
Pg. 12 of 283:
Three of the five reasons are weak, and one is false. How does the consultant justify those reasons?
In summary:
The flying field is incorrectly presented as “new” in 2015 when in fact it has existed in the same location since the ‘1960’s. That undermines the credibility of the argument.
Administrative changes (creation of a Park Administrator role and Steering Committee) do not themselves create a need for a new Master Plan; they simply provide oversight and management for the existing one.
Measure AA legally defines the Fairview Park Master Plan as the 2008 revision, approved by voters. Any attempt to update or rewrite the plan risks conflicting with Measure AA and could be seen as overriding voter intent. Instead of replacing the 2008 plan, the City should focus on implementing it faithfully in compliance with Measure AA.
The only strong reason for an update is the ecological restoration and management challenges (Reason 1). However, those issues can be addressed through targeted habitat management plans, not a wholesale Master Plan rewrite. The other reasons are either factually inaccurate (flying field), administrative (staƯ/committee), or already resolved by law (Measure AA).
Therefore, the case for a full Master Plan Update is weak. The City should continue managing Fairview Park under the 2008 Master Plan, as defined by Measure AA, and focus on implementing project-specific solutions within that framework rather than pursuing an unnecessary and potentially controversial update.
Questions for the Master Plan Consultants:
The topo maps provided in the Master Plan Update are suƯiciently vague or out-dated (p. 50 & 51 of 2083). Was a topology study done as part of the Master Plan Update? Topo Maps from the report, pg. 50 & 51 of 283:
Can you provide any additional topo maps or data used to generate the watershed maps produced in the reports?
What other methods were employed?
What is the current state of health of the fairy shrimp located in Fairview Park? Did fairy shrimp sampling occur at any time over the last 5 years? How many times has the flying field been mowed in the last 5 years? On what dates? Did LandIQ have this information before they wrote their report? (HSS answer: They did not.) Why are the train tracks and the variety of engines that run on them, including steam engines, that are within 10’s of feet from known locations of federally protected, endangered San Diego Fairy Shrimp not scrutinized the same way the flying field, which is approximately 250-ft from Vernal Pool Complex 1’s basin? (see map below) Pg. 114 of 283
How many times was the flying field graded in the last 10 years? What fencing did the USFWS 2014 letter to the City recommend? Barry Nerhus, President of Endemic Environmental Services, has been retained by the City of Costa Mesa for over a decade to identify impacts and potential impacts to the sensitive wildlife in Fairview Park and perform restoration.
Besides his email to the City of Costa Mesa dated February 24, 2023, where he talked about his concerns regarding the flying field, at the request of Park Administrator Dalton, were any of Barry Nerhus’ past reports submitted to the City studied during the Master Plan Update?
Were Barry Nerhus’ reports from 2015 and 2016 provided to the Master Plan Update consultant?
How many times did LandIQ meet with HSS during the Master Plan Update? On what dates? (HSS met with Travis Brooks once on March 1, 2025, at Fairview Park. Kelly Dalton and Brian Gruner were also present.)
Why was the flying field not identified as “Urban/Disturbed” like the train infrastructure (see images below)?
Why does LandIQ recommend fencing the entire mesa as opposed to what USFWS recommended in their 2014 Letter to the City?
LandIQ places this recommendation within the recommendations made by USFWS. This is not recommended by USFWS but is recommended by LandIQ. LandIQ blurs the recommendations from two diƯerent sources. This issue emphasizes the point that the Master Plan Update did not factor in community input and impacts into the technical reports recommendations.
Pg. 7 of 11 of the USFWS 2014 Letter to the City:
Recommended fencing:
LandIQ does the same thing on page 15 of 283 at the end of the section that primarily discusses the 2014 USFWS Letter. This again makes it seem as though USFWS is the source for recommending that the flying field is incompatible when this is not the case at all. Please see the 2014 USFWS Letter and the 2014 email conversation that follows it between USFWS and HSS.
Why was the flying field not included in this list (see image below)? Pg. 113 of 283:
Why was this logic not applied to the flying field (see below)? Pg. 134 & 135 of 283:
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Mat Garcia
HSS President
Relevant Attachments:
1. 1995 Brandman Report_summary.pdf
2. 2014-July USFWS Fairview Park Letter.pdf
3. August 2014 USFWS meeting with Harbor Soaring Society.pdf
4. 2019-June USFWS Correspondence - Flying Field Recommendations.pdf
5. 2020-Nov Audubon Email to HSS.pdf
Attachment 1 - 1995 Brandman Report_summary.pdf
Attachment 2 - 2014-July USFWS Fairview Park Letter.pdf Lists all environmental concerns and potential impacts to ALL vernal pools in Fairview Park. Does not list the trains or the flying field as a concern or potential impact.
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Ecological Services
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office
2177 Salk A venue, Suite 250
Carlsbad, California 92008
In Reply Refer To:
FWS-OR-13B0443-14TA0229
Mr. Baltazar Mejia
Senior Engineer, Public Services Department
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, California 92626
JUL 2 4 2014
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 vernal 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 (Branchinecta 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" 1 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 1 through 7) and a "vernal 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 1 Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act and associated regulations prohibit the take of endangered and threatened species without special exemption. Take is defmed as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. Harm is further 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.
Mr. Baltazar Mejia (FWS-OR-13B0443-14TA0229) 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.
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 1), and Basin 4 and the “vernal marsh” were restored into a vernal pool complex (Restored Complex 4).
BASINS #1, 2, 3
(RESTORED BASIN 1)
BASIN #5
BASIN #6
BASIN #4 AND VERNAL MARSHES
(RESTORED COMPLEX 4)
BASIN #7
Mr. Baltazar Mejia (FWS-OR-13B0443-14TA0229) 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 part 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).
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 source: http://www.savefairviewpark.org/documents/fpcac-pack-5-29-13.zip. Labels added.
Fairview Park supports one of the last coastal terrace vernal pools complexes in Orange County (Service 2007). Conservation and management of the San Diego fairy shrimp and its habitat in Fairview Park and other vernal pool complexes in the Los Angeles Basin-Orange Management Area is one of the criteria identified for recovery of the San Diego fairy shrimp in the Service’s Recovery Plan for Vernal Pools of Southern California (Service 1998). Vernal pools in Fairview Park also support several plant species that are locally rare (City 2008; Chung 2010).
Boardwalk
Fence
Restored Basin #1
Restored Complex #4
Mr. Baltazar Mejia (FWS-OR-13B0443-14TA0229) 4
In the past, the City has supported restoration of the vernal pools and other sensitive habitat in Fairview Park, and the Fairview Park Master Plan (City 2008) includes a commitment that “the pools and basins [in Fairview 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 formalized 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 the vernal pools; and (5) cessation of mowing within the 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, that some measures have not been implemented and others have been implemented in ways that may have impacted the 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 have 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 that may have resulted in direct and indirect impacts to San Diego fairy shrimp, as described in our letter, dated November 14, 2013 (13B0443-14TA0039). While the path has been removed, grading associated with path installation altered the hydrology of the watershed supporting Basins 5 and 6 so that water may not pond to the extent it did historically (Finium Environmental 2013). As a result, fairy shrimp cysts may not hatch to their historical capacities until changes in topography are corrected (Finium Environmental 2013). The portion of the watershed supporting Basin 7 (including the basin area) has been used as a temporary parking area, and logs were placed in the watershed to delineate the parking boundary. A portion of the watershed of Restored Complex 4 was impacted by the installation of permanent parking along Canyon Drive. Grading for the parking 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 northern end has informal paths leading directly into the basin and allowing bicycle access. Bicycle tracks and paths encroach within the northern 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 the fence are located in the basin (Figure 2). Restored Complex 4 has multiple 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 shrimp cysts within smaller portions of each basin.
Mr. Baltazar Mejia (FWS-OR-13B0443-14TA0229) 5
Installation of landscaping and associated irrigation 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.) (Finium Environmental 2013). The conversion of the vernal pool habitat to wetland can result in the permanent loss of habitat for San Diego fairy shrimp.
Mowing and pesticide and herbicide application: We have little information regarding the current 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 crush cysts, spread invasive plant species, and cause ruts if mowing is conducted when the ground is damp. Pesticides and herbicides could potentially harm San Diego fairy shrimp cysts and adults.
Restoration, protection, and management of vernal pools in Fairview Park
While accommodating public 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 Fairview Park remains viable. Some of these restoration actions can be implemented immediately without further authorization under the Act, but others have the potential to result in take of listed species for which additional authorization under the Act would be required. To ensure that the City’s future actions are appropriately authorized under the Act, we recommend that the City coordinate closely with our office to ensure that any incidental take associated with these actions is appropriately exempted under the Act. As indicated above, this letter does not exempt future take of listed species.
The following measures apply to Restored Basin 1, Restored Complex 4, and the vernal 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 California 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 runoff from entering the watershed of Basins 5, 6, and 7. The City should coordinate with Newport-Mesa Unified School Mr. Baltazar Mejia (FWS-OR-13B0443-14TA0229) 6
District to ensure irrigation supporting landscaping at Estancia High School Stadium does not enter Fairview Park. We are available to assist the City with this coordination, as necessary.
c. Removal of landscaping, turf, and non-vernal pool associated wetland plants (e.g., mulefat, curly dock) that were supported by irrigation systems in the watersheds and replacement with 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 vernal pool basins and along informal and unauthorized paths, as appropriate (e.g., outside the basin area). f. Removal of trash or other debris from the vernal pool watershed.
2. Permanent Protection – Record a conservation 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 the 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 duration 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 entry into fenced areas. Formal paths that will pass through the watershed of vernal 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 preservation of remaining coastal terrace pools in the City of Costa Mesa should be considered a source of pride for the 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.
Mr. Baltazar Mejia (FWS-OR-13B0443-14TA0229) 7
Mr. Baltazar Mejia (FWS-OR-13B0443-14TA0229) 8
5. Trash – Provide trash receptacles and pet waste stations in convenient locations to minimize the potential for trash to be discarded in the vernal 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 recommend that mowing be restricted within approximately 50 feet of the basin area to avoid restored habitat and sensitive plant species surrounding the basin area. The mowing limits should be periodically reevaluated to compensate for changes in the 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 within the vernal pool watersheds to ensure chemicals harmful to San Diego fairy shrimp are avoided.
7. Employee Education – Provide an on-site education program for current 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. Biological 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 who has experience with 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 – The 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 the 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 vernal pool areas, located east of Placentia Avenue, require additional surveys to determine if San Diego fairy shrimp and/or sensitive vernal plant species are present. We recommend the City delineate the watershed of the 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-13B0443-14TA0229)
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 ongoing management actions that will be implemented to ensure high quality habitat for San Diego fairy shrimp is maintained and that the species is protected. 9 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 ofthis office at 760-431-9440, extension 298. cc:
Sincerely,
Karen A. Goebel
Assistant Field Supervisor
Marilyn Fluharty, California Department ofFish and Wildlife Mr. Baltazar Mejia (FWS-OR-13B0443-14TA0229) 10
Literature Cited
City of Costa Mesa. 2008. Fairview Park Master Plan March 1998, Revised February 2001 and November 2002, Updated November 2008.
Finium Environmental. 2013. Re: Results of construction monitoring activities for the trail and log removal at Fairview Park located in the City of Costa Mesa, County of Orange, California.
Prepared for the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, Carlsbad, California.
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, third annual monitoring report for impacts associated with the Ikea portion of the Home Ranch Project.
Prepared for C. J. Segerstrom and Sons, Costa Mesa, California.
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 of vernal pools 4 through 7 and A, B, and C; Restoration alternatives assessment of vernal pools 5 and 6. Prepared for the City of Costa Mesa, Orange County, California.
Michael Brandman Associates. 1995. Jurisdictional delineation of Fairview Park vernal pools, 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 with 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 Recovery Permits under Section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act for the Listed Vernal Pool Branchiopods
Service (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1998. Vernal pools of southern California recovery plan. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon.
Service (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2007. Endangered and threatened 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: Summary and Evaluation. Prepared by the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, Carlsbad, California.
Mr. Baltazar Mejia (FWS-OR-13B0443-14TA0229) 11
Simovich, M. 2005. Collecting report for 2004 for collecting permit TE87037-2. Prepared for U. S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad, California.
Personal Communication
Chung, J. 2010. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, electronic mail received by C. Medak, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, April 16, 2010.
Attachment 3 - August 2014 USFWS meeting with Harbor Soaring Society.pdf 6/26/2019 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail - Re: Delivery Status Notification (Failure) https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=09ac94aaaa&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1477175636491454682%7Cmsg-f%3A1477458798363… 1/3 Medak, Christine <[email protected]>
Re: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)
1 message
John Anderson <[email protected]> Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 5:55 PM To: "Medak, Christine" <[email protected]>
Cc: "henry.smith.3" <[email protected]>
Thanks Christine,
In you well written memo, you have provided a thoughtful and balanced approach to peaceful coexistence! Speaking for myself, I'm sure that we fliers look forward to successfully working out the details with you as the process unfolds -
in a way that assures the preservation of the species and a mutually beneficial outcome.
Again thanks for your very professional and gracious leadership.
John A.
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 5:06 PM, Medak, Christine <[email protected]> wrote:
John and Henry,
I appreciated the opportunity to meet you both last Friday and to discuss the concerns of the Harbor Soaring Society and its ongoing uses within Fairview Park. Based on our discussion, it is clear your group is aware of and has a respect for the sensitive environmental resources within the park. We acknowledge your efforts to protect these resources by posting signs around the large vernal pool and participating in trash collecting events on a regular basis.
Here is a summary of the ideas we discussed to address your concerns regarding proposed fencing locations included in our letter to the City of Costa Mesa dated July 24, 2014 and to minimize impacts to sensitive resources in Fairview park :
-designing fencing at the end of the runway to accommodate continued operation of the winch turnaround and to minimize potential collisions with fencing (i.e., fence no more than about 3 feet with a removable section for winch operation)
-avoiding entering the vernal pools when the ground is wet (either not operating the winch during this period or determining if the winch can be operated without entering the wetted area). -relocating the model helicopter use area to another location within the park where the need to enter vernal pool basins to retrieve the helicopter is minimized.
-defining the frequency and extent of maintenance required for continued Harbor Soaring Society uses (i.e., define the size, location, and maintenance requirements of the runway and winch system) for potential inclusion in the Fairview Park Masterplan. This will ensure a consistent footprint of disturbance over time. -working with the City to include more specific requirements in the permits they issue to allow model plane operation within the park (e.g., a map of sensitive areas that need to be avoided when the ground it wet). We welcome the Harbor Soaring Society's assistance as we work with the City to develop appropriate permit conditions.
Another issue that we did not have an opportunity to discuss is the type of planes that should be allowed in the park.
We have received complaints from concerns citizens about the noise generated by the planes and their potential to disturb birds and other wildlife within the park. I am hoping the Harbor Soaring Society can assist in my understanding of what types of planes may be the cause for concern and appropriate limitations based on the noise generated by certain models/classes of planes. We may also be able to define certain times of the year when use of louder planes will have less of an impact on wildlife (i.e., birds are more sensitive to disturbance during their breeding seasons (generally early spring and summer for most species).
I look forward to our continued cooperation on the balance of human and wildlife uses within Fairview Park.
Christine L. Medak
Fish and Wildlife Biologist
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
2177 Salk Avenue, Suite 250
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Phone: (760) 431-9440 ext. 298
6/26/2019 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail - Re: Delivery Status Notification (Failure) https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=09ac94aaaa&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1477175636491454682%7Cmsg-f%3A1477458798363… 2/3 Fax: (760) 431-9624
http://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/
Follow us on Facebook at http://facebook.com/USFWSPacificSouthwest Follow us on Twitter at http://twitter.com/USFWSPacSWest "I'd like to offer a plug for actually having the natural processes instead of having to simulate them." — Nadav Nur, PRBO Conservation Science
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 2:54 PM, John Anderson <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Chris,
Thanks for our positive meeting this am
I'm sure we will find a mutually beneficial path forward John
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <[email protected]> Date: Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 2:49 PM
Subject: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)
To: [email protected]
Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:
[email protected]
Technical details of permanent failure:
Google tried to deliver your message, but it was rejected by the server for the recipient domain fws.org by smtp.secureserver.net. [68.178.213.203].
The error that the other server returned was:
550 5.1.1 <[email protected]> Recipient not found. <http://x.co/irbounce> ----- Original message -----
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type;
bh=LsCyIm2SRuDkyN+WLWYz106b0L2bTZNuar1IUCn/UgE=;
b=sAE9zeY5jP7xzvZCDEUlcxhIVabfxg47Qwr7i7GqqjrgoUKqTHJ4yzC+AQkaJ9R1/N NoH+Zp2F707C+GhwR8e+89Mw4TCbZLHOjFijrDLJ2SlzQ1A1ZiREduKW0O2J9gIOkKG3 SQjwM/ScK0WKdkwnwfDGbFB9IX2YFdW9qfmKr2tP3QIsdISLuKXHyH27pvtE1hS2ZetI 81syvN4ISkBkLwkjU7o+6fYnzjmXmtTldS8SOmZIzvMLlAA9bd1l0rUPt0B5r/jnQIsL p21yysMS5h1ClNCdjYiiab9eFbPNeJGAizBhJmGuhcZX//Apim1YOgS/+nj7zZiF0ACq RJGA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.28.230 with SMTP id e6mr7035996lah.62.1408744157521; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 14:49:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.75.229 with HTTP; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 14:49:17 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> References: <[email protected]> Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 14:49:17 -0700
Message-ID: <CANPaJgskvY2gk0SdS6HxugsoMEinJG=uiAbe5EO-ua=FpPH5zA@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Fwd: Scans
From: John Anderson <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=089e0160b79a17b67205013ecfa3 Hi Chris,
Thanks for our productive meeting this am.
Looking forward to a mutually beneficial path forward.
6/26/2019 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail - Re: Delivery Status Notification (Failure) https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=09ac94aaaa&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1477175636491454682%7Cmsg-f%3A1477458798363… 3/3 Here's that Orange Coast River Park piece that I did several years ago.
I'd welcome your corrections/comments.
John A
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Henry Smith <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 2:43 PM
Subject: Scans
To: John Anderson <[email protected]>
John,
Here are your scans.
Henry Smith
[email protected]
Attachment 4 - 2019-June USFWS Correspondence - Flying Field Recommendations.pdf From: Medak, Christine [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2019 4:13 PM
To: Ian Hendricks <[email protected]>
Cc: D'AGOSTA, CYNTHIA <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Jonathan Snyder <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Fairview Park and Harbor Soaring Society Agreement Hi Kim,
Unfortunately by the time I received the information from the City about the permit (one week before the meeting). I had too many other projects on my plate to be able to complete a detailed review of the ordinances for the USFWS; however, I did talk directly to Cynthia D'Agosta and Scott Thomas (Sea and Sage Audubon) before the meeting and shared the following concerns/recommendations verbally with them:
1) Because the City is issuing permits to allow the operation of model planes within the park they will also be responsible should take of Federally listed species occur in association with these activities. For example, if the planes cause disturbance to nesting gnatcatchers in a manner that results in abandonment of an active nest then we would consider this a potential violation of Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act that can be referred to our Law Enforcement Division.
It was my understanding that the permits would explicitly limit planes from flying over the canyon area where the gnatcatcher was most recently found nesting, but I do not see this stated in the permit. It is not clear how the permit holders will know which resources they need to avoid because only a portion of the park is shown on the figure that I was provided by the City and it does not properly show the hydrological connnection between vernal pools 1 and 4. 2) We recommended that the City provide sufficient policing to ensure the permit conditions are followed. We also recommended that the permit holders clearly display the permits (i.e., like a fishing license) so that the City can ensure only permitted individuals, that are aware of the locations of sensitive resources, are allowed to fly model planes in the park. 3) Although we do not know the exact limit of noise that can be tolerated by various bird species, we do know that loud noises cause disturbance to birds. We recommended that the City discuss with the Harbor Soaring Society the best method for determining which planes should be limited up front (e.g., limit planes to those that emit less than x decibels). It is our understanding that the City plans to conduct a study of the behavior of birds in response to various types of planes and we asked for an opportunity to review the proposed study. We remain concerned that it will be difficult to evaluate the disturbances and determine which planes are appropriate on a quantitative basis, unless a study is also conducted of the behavior of birds when no planes are flying.
4) We pointed out that while the ordinance is silent on the presence of sensitive resources in the park. We recommended that the ordinance acknowledge the presence of sensitive resources and clarify the need to avoid flying over or landing in sensitive resource areas (e.g., vernal pools, coastal sage scrub, wetlands/riparian vegetation).
5) We recommended that the specific area allowed for launching planes is designated on a map and that disturbance is limited to the minimum area necessary to launch the permitted planes.
This area should not be within wetland habitat (i.e., both because it is difficult to use a launch pad full of water and because of the impacts to aquatic resources) and should provide the maximum buffer possible from the basin of Vernal Pool 1. I am not familiar with the amount of area that is needed so I cannot speak to a particular size. Please see the attached figure for the previous area that we approved to be cleared by the Harbor Soaring Society. 6) In the past we have discussed with both the Harbor Soaring Society and the City that it is important to stay out of the vernal pools when they are wet due to the potential for trampling listed species and the alteration of hydrology that occurs when walking on wet ground (see attached email correspondence). For this reason, we specifically requested that the Soaring Society not have access to the winch (which is located within vernal pool 1) during the wet season. We discussed fencing this area off and only allowing access during the dry period of the year. I do not see any mention of this in the permit language.
While impacts to biological resources continue as a result of both authorized and unauthorized activities within Fairview Park, we would be hesitant to go down the path of developing a Habitat Conservation Plan and providing an incidental take permit to the City, as suggested by Sea and Sage. The City has accepted mitigation and grant funding to restore habitats in the park for the benefit of Federally Listed Species. Mitigation was provided in the park to offset impacts to resources that occurred somewhere else. It would not be appropriate to then permit uses that are expected to degrade those mitigation sites within the park.
We agree that the actions of the City do not align with the Master Plan; however, our plan is to continue to coordinate with the City to improve the condition of park resources. It is our understanding that vernal pools 5 and 6 will be restored this year. We are hopeful that the public perception of the park will change as conditions of resources improve and as the public is educated about the rarity of the resources in the park (e.g., through educational signs and nature tours).
Please feel free to call if you have any questions regarding this message.
Christine L. Medak
Fish and Wildlife Biologist
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
2177 Salk Avenue, Suite 250
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Phone: (760) 431-9440 ext. 298
Fax: (760) 431-9624
http://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/
Follow us on Facebook at http://facebook.com/USFWSPacificSouthwest Follow us on Twitter at http://twitter.com/USFWSPacSWest "I'd like to offer a plug for actually having the natural processes instead of having to simulate them."
— Nadav Nur, PRBO Conservation Science
On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 12:01 PM Ian Hendricks <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Christine,
Big disappointment for me last night regarding the Harbor Soaring Society agreement being passed by city council. I kind of expected it based on the city's usual actions in Fairview Park.
One thing that came up last night was that USFW had not given any official response regarding the agreement. A city council member asked the Fairview Park Administrator if USFW had given an official response regarding the agreement and the answer was, "No". Is this true? If so, why not?
Have you seen that the runway was graded next to a vernal pool (250 feet according to city measurements last night). It has been graded multiple times since 2005. I sent you the pictures but can send them again if you'd like.
Also, did you know that the runway isn't even supposed to be where it currently is? The Fairview Park Master Plan (FPMP) indicates the Silent Glider Land/Launch site to be next to the bathrooms near the lawn. It isn't. Doesn't the FPMP still hold some meaning for USFW? It doesn't seem to have that much importance with the city, in fact, they completely ignored the location being wrong last night. I did bring it up. The FP Administrator said she had been talking with USFW but nothing official - she didn't say that it wasn't even liked by USFW. Is it okay to keep flying, taking off and landing next to the vernal pools. Also, next to vernal pool 7 more space has been graded as well as a result of where they took out the wrongly placed cement posts from last year.
Please tell me what USFW thinks - it was presented like it was no big deal and USFW is talking with the administrator and everything is okay. It doesn't look okay out there.
Thank you,
Kim Hendricks
You can watch that part of the city council meeting on YouTube if you'd like to hear what was said by the FP Administrator.
Attachment 5 - 2020-Nov Audubon Email to HSS.pdf
• Outlook
Fwd: Fairview Park birds
From Mike Costello <[email protected]>
Date Tue 2023-06-27 09:45
To Mat Garcia <[email protected]>
Scott's recommendations are in his last big paragraph.
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Scott <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 8:08 PM
Subject: RE: Fairview Park birds
To: mikeftre < [email protected] >
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 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) From: mikeftre <[email protected] >
Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2020 5:02 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Fairview Park birds
Scott,
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]
Thanks,
Mike
Mike Costello
714-875-7994
[email protected]
October 6, 2026
Costa Mesa City Council
Raja Sethuraman, Public Works Director
Brian Gruner, Parks and Community Services Director
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
[email protected]
[email protected]
Re: CMABS Support for Agenda Items — October 6, 2026 City Council Meeting Dear Members of the City Council, Director Sethuraman, and Director Gruner:
On behalf of the Costa Mesa Alliance for Better Streets (CMABS), we are writing to support three items on tomorrow's agenda and to thank staff for the work behind each of them. Together, they demonstrate that the city is serious about making its streets safer and more pleasant for everyone: people who walk, bike, ride transit, or need to drive.
Senior Mobility Program EMSD grant application (Consent Calendar Item 9). We are thrilled to see that our city supports people who need to access medical appointments but cannot drive.
The Senior Mobility Program is a lifeline for many older residents. This OCTA grant would let the program expand rides at a relatively modest local cost. We encourage the City Council to adopt the resolution and commit the 20% match.
School zone speed limits under AB 382 (New Business Item 2). We appreciate staff's initiative in adopting the 20 mph school zone limit now rather than waiting until 2031. As staff notes, a 25 mph school zone on a 25 mph residential street asks nothing of drivers. Lowering speeds near schools protects kids who walk and bike to class and makes their journeys far more pleasant. We also support giving staff the flexibility to go to 15 mph where conditions warrant. We are excited to learn what new “tools in the toolbox” these changes may allow in terms of better street design around schools.
In addition, we encourage the City to use the alternative school zone signing options the California MUTCD allows, such as posted time periods or "When Flashing" beacons, in place of the standard "When Children Are Present" plaque. That standard leaves drivers to guess when the lower limit applies. Flashing beacons in particular remove that guesswork and have the highest rate of driver compliance with school zone speed limits.
Once the state's limit takes effect, we'd also encourage the City to take a close look at the arterials near schools.
Fair Drive for All (New Business Item #3). Fair Drive connects City Hall, Vanguard, the Fairgrounds, Neth Park, and the College Park neighborhood, but it doesn't feel safe to walk or bike along or across. A couple of years ago, CMABS joined Council Member Arlis Reynolds for a community ride that started and ended at City Hall, and we needed a police escort to keep riders safe on Fair Drive and Fairview Road. Residents shouldn't need an escort to bike to their own City Hall. College Park families have been asking for a safe crossing at Fordham Drive for years, and we're glad to see it built into the project's scope.
We'd also ask for the scope to include the connection across Newport Boulevard to Del Mar Avenue on the Eastside, with the long-term goal of creating a truly safe crossing for people walking and biking. Without it, the corridor stops short at one of the hardest crossings in the city. We're encouraged by the planned coordination with the Active Transportation Committee and the commitment to robust community engagement. With the award-winning Fairview Road improvements just next door, this project can extend that momentum. We support awarding the contract to Kimley-Horn and look forward to taking part in the outreach.
Thank you to the Public Works and Parks and Community Services teams for bringing these items forward.
Sincerely,
The Board of the Costa Mesa Alliance for Better Streets Alec Daigle
Kathryn Hoist
Mike Lingle
Flo Martin
David Martinez
Ralph Taboada
Jenn Tanaka
Russell Toler
Marc Vukcevich
CC:
Cecilia Gallardo-Daly, City Manager
Paul Martin, Transportation Services Manager
Brett Attencio Thomas, Active Transportation Coordinator
BRANCART & BRANCART
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Christopher Brancart P. O. BOX 686 Telephone (650) 879-0141 Elizabeth Brancart PESCADERO, CA 94060 Facsimile (650) 879-1103 www.brancart.com
Street Address
8205 Pescadero Road
Loma Mar, California 94021
October 1, 2026
Via Email and Facsimile
Hon. John Stephens, Mayor
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Fax: (714) 754-5028
[email protected]
Brenda Green, City Clerk
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Fax: (714) 754-5028
[email protected]
Carrie Tai, Development Services
Director
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
[email protected]
Kim Barlow, City Attorney
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
[email protected]
Re: City Council Meeting, October 6, 2026
Item #: 25-555: Reasonable Accommodation Appeal Hearing Dear Gentlepersons:
On behalf of The Ohio House, LLC and residents George Castaneda, Diego Blake, Garey Miller, Kayl McReynolds, and Robert Palmer, the applicants and appellants in Item # 25-555, an appeal set for hearing on October 6, 2026, I write to advise the City Council that the applicants and appellants support the recommendation in the Staff Report:
That the City Council remand this matter back to the Director to reconsider Ohio House’s request accordingly, act to reconsider the applicant’s CUP request, and direct staff to notice a public hearing for that purpose on October 20, 2026.
Thank you for your consideration.
/s/ Christopher Brancart
[email protected]
From: Allison Lin
To: CITY CLERK
Subject: Public comment email submission
Date: Monday, October 5, 2026 6:51:11 PM
Hi City Clerk
Please accept this as my public comment for new business item 4 (APPROVAL FOR THE
PURCHASE OF THREE DOCKING STATIONS AND DRONE WITH AXON
ENTERPRISE INC. (SKYDIO INC.))
Good evening council,
This is Allison from district 4. I cannot be in attendance tonight but would like to express my concerns with this agenda item.
Drone as First Responder (DFR) programs risk expanding mass surveillance , eroding privacy rights, and straining community trust.
DFR would be a major change to our city’s approach to policing. It demands full transparency from the city and getting engagement and consent from the community, not just a purchase contract buried in an agenda item with little notice. This matches an undemocratic (and unlawful) process in which the city acquired the Flock contract, which has received strong public scrutiny and disapproval.
Give the police misuse of Flock by Costa Mesa police officer Josette, which demonstrated the PD’s lack of strict guardrails, and it’s refusal to be transparent on producing audit logs in response to public record requests, this agenda item lacks transparent policies for how long flight footage or bystander video is stored, shared, or deleted.
Moreover, there is significant concern over potential misuse during public protests, political gatherings, and lawful demonstrations, especially in light of the prior police misuse and lack of accountability and transparency.
As such, the community demands:
a) city council move this item to a future time to give residents a chance to engage, and b) hold a public town hall meeting to discuss the broader context of policing tools and transparency: use of autonomous tools, data policies for both city and privately managed tools, etc.
Thank you
Allison
--
Allison Lin
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any From: Anne Stenton
To: CITY CLERK; CITY COUNCIL
Subject: 10/6/26 Public Comment on Agenda Item #4 APPROVAL FOR THE PURCHASE OF THREE DOCKING STATIONS AND DRONE WITH AXON ENTERPRISE INC. (SKYDIO INC)”
Date: Monday, October 5, 2026 7:54:36 PM
Attachments: image (6).png
image (7).png
CLJC_DFR_PAB_Presentation__2_.pdf
Dear Mayor Stephens, Mayor Pro Tem Chavez, and Council Members, I am writing to respectfully request Council postpone the vote on Agenda Item #4 regarding “APPROVAL FOR THE PURCHASE OF THREE DOCKING STATIONS AND DRONE WITH AXON ENTERPRISE INC. (SKYDIO INC)” in order to conduct further research and public outreach on this issue.
I was frankly surprised to see this item on the agenda over the weekend, given the concerns expressed by the public in July regarding similar surveillance technology in the form of AI Powered ALPRs like Flock. I was unaware that our City was even considering a move to a “Drone as First Responder” policing approach at this time. From my understanding, this is a significant shift from our current approach to community police work and deserves more opportunity to gather input from citizens and additional review before implementation.
For example, the Berkeley Police Department’s Police Accountability Board “requested that the UC Berkeley Criminal Law and Justice Center (CLJC) conduct an independent policy review” prior to considering adoption of a DFR program. The summary of that review is attached to this email. I believe the citizens of the City of Costa Mesa deserve the same consideration before any votes are made on this topic.
In addition to the concerns raised above regarding transparency, I have serious misgivings related to the ambiguous nature of staff recommendation #3:
Staff recommends the City Council: 1. Approve the purchase of three (3) drone docking stations and one (1) Skydio X-10 drone, including service and software through a cooperative agreement with Omnia Contract No. 3544-21-4615 in the amount of $292,144.59 for a term of two years. 2. Authorize a contingency in the amount of $7,855.41 for unforeseen costs. 3. Authorize the City Manager and City Clerk to execute an agreement with Axon Enterprise, Inc. (Skydio Inc.), and any future amendments, in a form approved by the City Attorney My questions are summarized below:
1) Changing our City's approach to policing to a “Drone as First Responder” (DFR) is a major shift. Where was the public outreach on this?
2) Re: the 3rd staff recommendation, why wouldn't residents be allowed to offer input on future amendments to this contract with surveillance technology? This does not provide the transparency the community is seeking.
3) I believe we already have 7 drones. Why do we need more? Has there been some spike in crime? What data supports this as a “need,” instead of a want?
4) San Francisco's Skydio drone footage was leaked this year on to the internet for all to see. Is this breach of privacy and the undermining of our 4th amendment rights worth the 3-5 minute improved response time? https://www.wired.com/story/sfpd-drone-video-leak-surveillance/ It's not just that the City is moving towards this ever increasing and wide reaching surveillance technology, it's how it engages, or chooses not to engage, with citizens before deciding on policy governing its use.
Below is an excerpt from the review prepared by UC Berkeley's Criminal Law & Justice Center's for the Police Accountability Board regarding Berkeley Police Department (BPD). The Review’s key findings led the CLJC to recommend against DFR procurement for reasons including: lack of peer-reviewed evidence that DFR programs reduce crime or increase crime clearance, lack of evidence to support the claims that it led to de-escalation or increased safety, significant threats to the 1st and 4th amendments, and mission creep.
I see many of the same potential concerns here with this existing staff recommendation to approve the contract for Skydio.
Please postpone this vote until the proper outreach and research is completed.
Thank you for the work you do.
Sincerely,
Anne Stenton
Costa Mesa Resident
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.