UPDATE FROM COSTA MESA FIRST FOR JANUARY 2025

The City Council had two meetings in January and the Planning Commission only had one meeting, each with light agendas.

JANUARY 21 CITY COUNCIL MEETING.  You’d think with a short agenda, this meeting would not have run over four and one-half hours but it did. The City Attorney report on the Closed Session was there was no information to impart to the public. Following that was a presentation by Laura Young the Manager of the Orange County Vector Control District, who was introduced by Bill Turpit, a Costa Mesa resident who serves on the District. The report covered the vectors in our area and the programs the District is using to control them. Note: they expect more urban mosquitos (aka ankle biters) this year, despite the drought, due to watering by residents. Please empty any pots that accumulate water!

Public Comment (Non-Agenda Items).  Thirteen members of the public made comments. There were a variety of items: the need for lights in the parking lot near the Costa Mesa Tennis Center; traffic safety; the lack of affordable housing despite the passage of Measure K; fears of deportation in the Spanish-speaking community; the need to preserve, restore and protect Fairview Park; a request for town-hall meeting about fire protection; and the new daylighting parking law that prohibits parking to close to street corners, to name a few.

Councilmember Comments.  Loren Gameros (District 2) was first up. After thanking the firefighters for their help in the LA County fires, he said that the police are enforcing e-bike towing, and then launched into a word salad about the harmonious efforts of three organizations restoring Fairview Park that was absolute nonsense. I suspect he was trying to defend the Harbor Soaring Society, but it was a hard landing that spewed parts everywhere.

Andrea Marr (District 3) spoke about fire preparedness, both as a city and as residents, the fact that residents shouldn’t fear the police and feel comfortable to report crimes (without being deported).

Arlis Reynolds (District 5) requested information about using Nixle (the alert system that only gets used sporadically by the City), said that the Mobile Home Park committee had met but didn’t say what transpired, spoke on the Talbert Park Master Plan comment period, and speeding on Victoria Street.

Jeff Pettis (District 6) talked about getting updates from the Police and Fire Chiefs, attending ribbon cuttings, and thanked the first responders.

Mike Buley (District 1) spoke about his appreciation of Staff and briefly mentioned SB54. He didn’t explain this, but SB54, the Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act, covers recycling of certain single-use packaging and plastic single-use food service ware. He also spoke about Jake Knapp, a PGA player from Costa Mesa.

Manuel Chavez (District 4) thanked our firefighters for helping with the LA County fires and their association for an event they sponsor each year at IKEA. He also spoke about other events held by organizations in the community. He also touched on not fearing the police and asked the police for an update on Costa Mesa laws in this regard. He then spoke about the passing of his father, his father’s life, and his philosophy in very loving terms.

John Stephens (Mayor) spoke about attending the Mayor’s conference in Washington, D.C., events during the holiday season, and some upcoming events that week. He also talked about our firefighters helping with the LA County fires. Stephens stated that saving lives is the top priority, and that saving property is secondary. He said that the number of people evacuated was remarkable. He then announced there would be a quarterly meeting on Friday morning with the City, Water District, and Sanitary District representatives and fire issues would be discussed. If anyone attended that meeting, I would appreciate hearing what happened as I was unable to be there.

City Manager Comments.  Lori Ann Farrell Harrison welcomed new members Pettis and Buley, thanked the firefighters, spoke on Nixle and Alert OC, on artificial intelligence capabilities, and announced a City Council Study Session on January 28th about the Fairview Park Master Plan update.

CONSENT CALENDAR.  At nearly two hours into the meeting, attention turned to the Consent Calendar items. Two items were pulled by members of the public. Neither one of the pulled items was given a presentation by Staff. The first pulled item was the Mayor’s appointments to OCTA and the Vector Control District. A member of the public who pulled the item spoke about license plate covers and blurring devices, and the money lost in toll collections, violations, etc. While this comment wasn’t on topic, it was interesting to the Mayor so he let it go.

The second item was a contract to develop a Facilities Master Plan (FMP) for City-owned facilities. This is about a $300k contract, with an additional 10% contingency for cost overruns. This should not have been in the Consent Calendar. Ralph Taboada, a long-time member of the City’s Finance and Pension Advisory Committee pointed out that the City has a five-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) that covers maintenance and expansion of City facilities. The CIP lists all the facilities in the contract, but goes further because it also lists projects, prioritizes them, and includes cost estimates, which is part of the work in the FMP contract. The other part of the contract is analyzing space requirements and staffing needs. Mr. Taboada asked how those requirements and needs will be determined? He then said that before you can answer that question, the public needs to know what is the vision for the City, 10, 20, or 30 years from now? That’s a question many of us have asked because the answer is critical in understanding the planning processes and the ultimate goals. It also helps explain why the City and City Council adopt laws and promote projects. Mr. Taboada went on to ask how building more housing units will impact us, such as the need for more police and fire personnel, more parks and recreation staff, and improvements to information technology? Mr. Taboada explained he feels that the final two phases of the FMP seem premature. He suggested that the City Council and Staff, with public input, develop a strategic plan considering population growth, economic trends, and service needs, which will determine staffing and space requirements. He asked the Council to defer its decision. ALL HIS QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS WERE SPOT ON!

We never seem to get a glimpse of the City or City Council’s vision. Do they not have one? Or is it that the vision isn’t determined by the City, but rather developers that live in Newport Beach, Santa Monica, and New York?

It was unusual that Stephens actually asked Staff about Mr. Taboada’s questions and comments, and whether it was wise to move forward with the contract. Raja Sethuramen, the City’s Public Works director, argued that the contract is needed for an assessment of all the city facilities and that while the CIP has projects, the City doesn’t know about all the possible projects, whether the priorities are right and while some staffing needs are known, some facilities improvements and repairs are known, that there may be more and they need to be “optimized”.  If that’s true, how is the City producing the CIP and the budget for projects right now? Throwing darts at a board?

Sethuramen said that there aren’t enough facilities for Staff right now and when the City is fully staffed, the City will need to have more room for Staff. He didn’t disclose it, but the City is leasing space over by the airport. I believe it is for planning staff, but I could be wrong.

Reynolds asked the City Manager for a description of broader planning by the City. The City Manager said that the discussion was involving two different types of planning and that this contract revolves around what do we have now, what condition are the facilities in, and how to maintain them. The City has $300m in assets and the City needs a list of them, an understanding of their useful lifespans, and a plan to maintain and repair. She says that the CIP is a pittance and a mere fraction of what it costs to maintain our facilities. Farrell-Harrison also said that the City needs to be funding the cost of future maintenance and improvements by budgeting for them each year. So, is the current budget produced using the dartboard method too?

None of the statements made by Staff or the City Manager were very comforting to me. If we don’t currently know the condition of facilities and we are just doing emergency repairs, that doesn’t show good management. If the economy turns downward (the City saw a drop in sales tax collections last year), how well prepared is the City to suffer through another recession? Moreover, why is the scope of work in the contract something that is already in the CIP? Are we paying twice for the same work (once by Staff and once again by the consultant)?

The City Council approved each of the Consent Calendar items with a 7-0 vote. I certainly hope that this discussion had an impact on each of the Councilmembers. Will we ever know what the vision of the City is for 10, 20 or 30 years from now? Don’t hold your breath!

PUBLIC HEARINGS:  Public Hearings are supposed to start at 7:00 p.m., but that rarely happens. At this point, it was 8:30 p.m. and the two public hearings were just starting:

1.     Review of the Planning Commission’s Decision on Westend Minor Conditional Use Permit and Outdoor Dining Permit. Don Harper appealed this project to the City Council before his departure. The Planning Commission reviewed the expansion of this bar/restaurant in October 2024, but didn’t make any substantial changes in the expansion plans. The operational manager of Westend, Kayleigh Brunner, gave an overview of the project. There had been lots of complaints about the parking plan. The manager said that Westend had arranged for more parking from the Electric Bike Company around the corner. Note she did not say that the parking agreement would be an easement that would continue so long as the CUP was in effect. Another statement by Brunner was that Westend didn’t want to back down from having live outdoor entertainment until 2:00 a.m.

Marr asked whether any of the other local alcohol-serving establishments had outdoor entertainment until 2:00 a.m. Semi-Tropic Wines does until midnight, but others nearby have indoor entertainment.

Pettis questioned how the City deals with noise complaints after hours. The City Manager responded that those complaints are handled by the police.

Chavez asked why parking wasn’t a problem. City Staff answered that our outdoor dining ordinance doesn’t require it. Chavez also asked how the City’s noise ordinance applied (it does and it is for all the nearby businesses).

Buley enquired about the parking agreement and the applicant’s representative said she had an email she could provide.

Reynolds asked about the six-month review period being a precedent. Actually, it is not. The Arena OC bar (formerly the Commissary) also has the six-month review period on its ability to serve minors nonalcoholic drinks while serving alcohol to those over 21. She also asked about the time it takes to revoke a CUP. Staff said it might be thirty days or less, depending on the issue.

Stephens said the place has good food and that he goes there. He asked about the plan to buffer sound. He let the applicant answer one question, but then proceeded to lead her with descriptions of the walls that buffer sound. If this was a court of law, the opposing lawyer would say “Objection, your honor! Counsel is leading the witness!” and I’m pretty certain a judge would sustain it. But it’s not a court, and he takes advantage of that. He said he goes to the bars on 19th Street often and then confessed to parking in the center across the street.

Public comments were mostly in support, the exception being the representative from the shopping center across the street. Almost every Councilmember talked about supporting small businesses. Stephens made a motion, which was seconded by Gameros, to approve the MCUP, but remove the review period and limitation on hours of operation that were put in place by the Planning Commission. Andrea Marr offered a substitute motion that would have limited the outdoor music to midnight, but it died due to a lack of a second. The original motion passed on a vote of 6-1, with Marr voting “No.”

2.     Second Reading of Beekeeping Ordinance. This went faster than the other hearings and had a lot of public support. Motion was made by Chavez to approve Staff’s recommendation and seconded by Marr. The ordinance was approved unanimously. It will now cost $75 to obtain a permit, and $75 to renew it after two years.

NEW BUSINESS:

1.     Safe Routes to School Action Plan.  Brett Atencio Thomas, the City’s Active Transportation Coordinator gave a presentation. This contract is for $541,774 plus a 10% contingency. The project is to update our “suggested” routes to school and is funded by a grant. The consultant will not only identify the routes, but any impediments to those safe routes. A motion was made by Reynolds, and seconded by Stephens, to approve Staff’s recommendation, with the addition of the following:

• Add the four Newport Beach schools: Newport Harbor, Ensign Intermediate, Mariners Elementary, and Newport Heights;

• Increase the budget to provide for those additional schools; and

• Add the condition that the item is immediately brought back to the City Council should there be any issues with funding.

• 
  

The motion passed unanimously.

2.     Appointments to Arts, Parks and Community Services, and Planning Commissions.  Here are the appointees:

Arts Commission: Deborah Wondercheck (expiring 1/27), Allison Mann, Brendan Ford, and Fisher Dederian (all expiring 1/29)

Parks and CommunityServices: Shayanne Wright and Elizabeth Dorn Parker (expiring 1/27), Jake Husen, Jason Komala, and Brandice Lea Leger (expiring 1/29)

Planning Commission: Jeff Harlan (expiring 1/27), Johnny Rojas, Jon Zich, and Rob Dickson (expiring 1/29)

JANUARY 27 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.  The first part of the meeting was run by Assistant Development Services Director, Scott Drapkin. After public comment, attention was focused on swearing in new Commissioners and electing a chair and vice chair. Jeff Harlan was nominated for Chair, which motion was seconded, and Rob Dickson then nominated Jon Zich, but that did not receive a second. Harlan was voted in as Chair by a 6-1 vote (Zich voting “No”), and Zich was unanimously voted in as Vice Chair.

Presentation.  After a short break where the Commissioners were reseated in their new chair positions, a presentation was given by Dan Inloes, Economic Director, about the TESSA system. TESSA is an application that is supposed to simplify the process for permitting projects and for locating information on the City’s website. It has had some hiccups, but the City continues to work on improving it.

After the presentation, the first Commissioner to comment was Martinez, who immediately reminded the Chair to take public comment on the item. Martinez has apparently familiarized himself with the Brown Act! He then asked if Inloes was familiar with ZIMAS, the City of Los Angeles’s application that has much more information, and if we are heading towards having that information on our system. Inloes said yes. He didn’t say when though.

Zich asked about how a customer gives feedback about the system. You can only give feedback in person, or by email or phone. There is no survey that pops up after a session, nor is one sent by email. FAIL!

Dickson’s questions and comments focuses mainly on performance reporting, which is tracked internally, but isn’t something that is released to the public.

Public Comment. First to make a public comment was a contractor who spoke about his experience with TESSA. Some of the issues were major problems, such as unclosed permits, which caused issues to the builder/homeowner. Then came former Commissioner Jim Fitzpatrick who has great difficulty speaking on the matter at hand and likes to wander off into topics like DOGE politics, but never misses an opportunity to talk about himself. He gave examples of two problems. His mantra was “the process is broken,” and he repeated it several times, but didn’t offer much in the way of a fix, other than the City having a meeting with heavy users of TESSA. I assume this would be one where he sucks all the air out of the room.

Planning Commissioner Comments.  Former Commissioner Russell Toler congratulated the new Commissioners. David Martinez spoke about the City Council meeting the following night that was changed to a Special Meeting, meaning there was more on the agenda than the Fairview Park Master Plan update. He also mentioned the OC Parks meeting on Talbert Park that was held earlier in the month. More on that below. Zich expressed his desire that more of the public be engaged and attend civic meetings.

Consent Calendar.  The Consent Calendar had one item on it, but it was for the approval of the Minutes for the December 9, 2024, meeting. Chair Harlan abstained because he was not on the Commission at that time. Upon motion by Zich, seconded by Andrade, the motion passed 5-0 (with Harlan and Dickson abstaining).

Public Hearings.  There was only one public hearing:

1.     Update of City’s Accessory Dwelling Unit and Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance.  Chris Yeager, Senior Planner, gave a presentation. He mentioned that there was a letter from the California Housing Defense fund that was received late in the day, but that letter has not been posted in the public comment column of the City’s webpage for Council and Commission meetings. If the Commissioner’s received a copy at the meeting, it should have been posted to the City’s website to comply with the Brown Act. I do note that it is included in the Agenda for the February 24 Planning Commission meeting. It is technical and points out some issues with our ordinance conflicting with State law.

I applaud the City for providing a draft with marked changes from the current ordinance. The changes are required to conform to State law and for clarification. Some other changes were to address a letter received from the California Department of Housing and Community Development last Fall.

Commissioner Questions. Martinez (who had the most questions, so I’ve cherrypicked some) asked about the number of ADUS were permitted last year (128), and how many nonADU units were permitted (234), and other questions about the timing of permitting. He asked about converting a live-work unit into an ADU. Yeager responded that only the conversion of freestanding live-works was allowed. Dickson caught some clerical errors that needed correction. Andrade asked about how ADUs will help us meet RHNA. The answer was the City doesn’t know but will survey owners.

Public Comment. Something was yelled from the back of the Chambers, but it was unintelligible. The call-in speaker spoke about his experience of building an ADU and that he doesn’t think they will be recognized as affordable housing by the State.

Harlan then noted that the suggestion by Staff was to receive and file. He didn’t ask for a motion or a vote, so that ended the hearing.

JANUARY 28, 2025, CITY COUNCIL MEETING. This was a special meeting that began at 5:00 p.m. Mayor Stephens clarified there would be three minutes to speak on each of the two items.

1.     Temporary Suspension of Short-Term Rental Prohibition. There was a presentation by the City Attorney, Kim Hall-Barlow. Short-Term Rentals are prohibited, except for owner home sharing situations. In light of the destruction of homes in the Pacific Palisades and Alta Dena areas, the Mayor requested that the City look at lifting the prohibition. Stephens explained his reasoning for a temporary suspension of our ordinance.

Councilmembers then asked questions of the City Attorney and Staff, mostly about hotel availability and if there was a need expressed by the public. Public comment was next, all of which were in opposition.

Stephens moved to adopt the ordinance with the limitation to those living in areas impacted by the fires, to require platforms to verify, and for the landlords to provide information when requested. He didn’t want to include anything about price gouging because he felt there were other agencies handling that. The only regulations I could find on price gouging didn’t seem to apply to hotels and motels and didn’t mention short-term rentals, such Air BNB and VRBO. In addition, the prohibition was only for 30 days unless specified otherwise. He solicited a second and got it from Chavez, who tried to speak but was cut off so that Stephens could continue.

Once Chavez was able to speak, he asked that the temporary suspension be brought back to the next City Council meeting. Stephens said, “if it is going to die, let it die” and suggested that Chavez make a substitute motion. Reynolds made a substitute motion to take no action (deny or receive and file), with a second by Marr. The motion passed by a vote of 5-2, with Stephens and Pettis voting “No.”

2.     Fairview Park Master Plan Update (Part 1). A presentation was made by Brian Gruner, Parks and Community Services Director. This session focused on an overview of the park, its history and condition, and what efforts have been made to protect and restore it to date. The consultants present were Jennifer Zell of MIG (Project Manager), Travis Brooks of Land IQ (Biologist/Restoration Ecologist), and Robb Hamilton of Hamilton Biological (expert Biologist and the guy who knows more about local birds than anyone). A copy of the presentation is available on the City’s website at: https://costamesa.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=E2&ID=1274702&GUID=6EA8406A-8603-4B03-8C18-96BA5E4055B5 

If you’ve attended the Fairview Park Steering Committee meetings, much of this was old information. If you haven’t, you may want to watch the video of this part of the meeting.

The key goal that has been carried throughout the iterations of the Master Plan is to protect, preserve, and enhance Fairview Park as a passive open space park. The consultants all touched on the unique habitat and critters that live or migrate through Fairview Park, along with how folks are using iNaturalist and other apps to document the wildlife in the park. They also spoke about what the public was asking for in Fairview Park, such as seating, fencing, delineated and maintained trails and bikeways, and signage and displays.

Part of the presentation was about the flora and fauna that make Fairview Park home, including 220 species of birds. Besides the San Diego Fairy Shrimp, other endangered species, such as the burrowing owl, migrate through. One of the newest full-time residents is the Crotch’s Bumblebee, a candidate species under the California Endangered Species Act. Unfortunately, due to the bee’s presence, any restoration work on the park (including the issuance of an RFP for contractors or submitted grant applications) requires a “take permit” from the State of California and that has halted some efforts for the moment.

What was missing was the draft report. According to Ms. Zell, it is over 200 pages and won’t be released until the City Council Study Session for Part 2, which was supposed to happen in February, so hopefully in March? Once it is released, the public will only get 30 days to review and comment on it. The long-range goal would be for the City Council to adopt the updated Master Plan in early May, but it will be June or later.

Because the Master Plan update has not been completed, the City Manager granted an extension of the use agreement with the Harbor Soaring Society. At one point, only the City Council could do that, but somewhere in the past few years, the City Manager somehow acquired that privilege.

Council Questions and Comments. Councilmembers then asked questions of Staff and the consultants. The questions should have been about the presentation, but this is where the meeting went off course, and Stephens didn’t try to rein it in.

Gameros read, with difficulty, a statement about rewriting the use agreements with Harbor Soaring Society (HSS) and the other groups working in the park. He thinks all the agreements should be similar to the Orange County Model Engineer’s (ME) agreement, as to create a “harmonization between these two organizations that we can create a long-term and integral part of the community to have a harmonious, accessible community asset that works together to include these partnerships . . . ”. Say what?? I think he was trying to say HSS and ME work well together, but they don’t work together at all, since they are on opposite sides of Placentia Avenue. I don’t perceive a big battle between HSS and the ME (but note that there’s no love lost between them), but I do see a full out war between the public and HSS. HSS, in my opinion, has been a bad steward of the park and needs to go elsewhere. In Gameros’s case, his garbled words are garbage in, garbage out. His premise is wrong; therefore, his conclusion is wrong too.

Several of the Councilmembers asked about or spoke on the iNaturalist app. It’s a fun way to track species that you encounter. There is a nature challenge each year and this year’s event will be at the end of April. Buley asked about the fuel modification. Fire management plans will be part of the report.

Chavez asked why Fairview Park is so special. He was there for the presentation, so was he not listening? Brooks reiterated that the vernal pools are very unique. He had stated earlier that the largest vernal pool complex west of the Mississippi. Our vernal pools are just right for our San Diego Fairy Shrimp, which is found only a in few other places. Hamilton spoke on the history of identifying the vernal pool and also mentioned there are endangered plants in Fairview Park. Chavez also asked about HSS and how is that they could be flying planes above and around endangered species. Hamilton pointed out that HSS was doing that before the vernal pools were identified, so the City likely didn’t consider the danger to those endangered species, but also said that this raises the question “Is HSS a compatible use now that we know about the resources?” Chavez asked about the risk that the City will be cited for breaking State and Federal laws and Hamilton’s response was “It’s possible.”

Chavez then asked about whether having HSS continue to operate in the park, perhaps at another location, would be possible. Brooks responded that that was a management question, but that the consultants had already determined that maintenance of the flying field was incompatible with the nearby vernal pools. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFW) has already told the City the same thing.

Then Chavez asked about the park being a dumping ground. He was referring to the construction debris and fill was used to cap some ORAs back in the 80s. The preservation and restoration efforts will include removal of unsuitable materials that cause problems with the vernal pools and are a supply of invasive plants, and replacement with appropriate material. Chavez then asked what the biggest ecological problem is in Fairview Park. Brooks answered that it was continuing to provide access to the public while preserving and conserving the resources. For all the questions he asked, Chavez must not be attending the Fairview Park Steering Committee meetings very often. He is a liaison to that Committee but looking at the minutes, he rarely attends.

Marr asked about the area between the HSS flying field and the vernal pool. Brooks explained that it isn’t just the vernal pool, but also the watershed area beyond the vernal pool and if the grading activity by HSS disturbs the watershed, it ultimately has an impact on the vernal pool. She also asked about the vernal pool on the East side of Placentia where the ME train tracks cross it. Brooks explained that those are “vernal pool features” that were recently mapped. Because it is hilly on that side of the park, the water tends to drain, rather than pool as we see on the Southwest sector of the park.

That spurred Gameros back into action. He asked if the aqua colored freehand shape on one slide had been “painted” blue or was it a satellite view. Well, there are hashmarks all over the photo, along with arrows and text, so it is pretty obvious that someone edited the photo to call out certain areas.

He tried to get Brooks to say that the ME co-exists with the vernal pools. Brooks wouldn’t go do that and said there are areas within the boundaries of Fairview Park that have been altered and it is likely that vernal pools have unintentionally been covered up. Gameros asked, prefacing it with the statement that Brooks didn’t have to answer the question because he just said that he couldn’t, if the ME could co-exist with the vernal pools. He followed up with whether HSS could co-exist with the vernal pools. The audience yelled “No!” to the HSS part of the question.

Stephens then had to interrupt Gameros, who was getting frustrated because he wasn’t getting the answer he was trying to bully out of the consultant, the same question that he told the consultant he didn’t have to answer. Gameros left off with “How do you make eggs without cracking shells?” Well, you can put a pinhole in each end and blow the egg out, but that requires care and finesse, something he apparently lacks.

Stephens then gave direction to Staff and the consultants to come back with the reason for discontinuing “a beloved use of 60 years,” the flying fields, because of its impact on the vernal pools, and then preserve another impact, the HE, that cuts through a vernal pool. How can we keep one and eliminate the other? Well, that track for the HE may have to be relocated since now we know the vernal pool boundaries are much larger, and it may be on the City’s dime since it allowed the track in the first place. Just as a reminder, USFW made the City remediate Steve Mensinger’s decomposed granite path and has told the City to relocate the flyers out of Fairview Park. Stephens just stepped into the doodoo the City is in with USFW.

Gameros took back his time and then directed Staff to bring back photos of pooling of water over by the railroad. He reiterated his desire for a harmonious resolution to the HSS problem. He stated, “We can’t just push the smallest dog off the cliff.” He wants a solution that works for everybody and one that is negotiated. Will USFW be included in those negotiations?

Zell asked Gameros for clarification. She asked if he wanted to know the methodology for determining the boundaries of the vernal pools. He then went back to his desire for a harmonious resolution and that he can’t understand why this couldn’t happen. I don’t think that was in the Scope of Work for any of the consultant contracts.

The City Manager, sensing Gameros’s frustration, gave some directions to Staff to look at other options. She did mention there are regulatory agencies the City has to deal with.

Reynolds then cautioned the Council and City Manager to wait for the actual recommendations of the Fairview Park Steering Committee and the report before they start making decisions.

Public Comments. After a break which brought the time to about 7:30 p.m., Stephens finally opened the hearing for public comment. Nearly 50 members of the public spoke. There were a range of comments, many in support of either the ME or HSS, and others in support of the natural state of the park. Some requested policy changes, including prohibiting e-bikes in the park. Several speakers suggested reviewing the letter from USFW. Others suggested a full-time park ranger, better maintenance of the park and educating neighbors about the detrimental effects of using pesticides. None of the speakers spoke against updating the Master Plan. One speaker had a slide deck, but for some reason the City didn’t show the slides, and they aren’t included in the public comments on the City’s webpage.

Councilmember Comments.  Pettis explained that he is a hunter and a nature lover, and spoke how contentious the subject of the use of Fairview Park by HSS is, and how if there can’t be a way to keep HSS and the ME in the park, if it is all or nothing on one side, then he’s not going to support this. This? Meaning the update of the Master Plan? Reynolds requested that the City Council receive the draft updated Master Plan early enough to review it before the next Study Session. That would be great because the Brown Act requires that it be released to the public at the same time the Council receives it, so we will be able to review it too. Stephens requested that the consultants and the other City Councilmembers watch HSS in action.

ONE OTHER MEETING – TALBERT PARK MASTER PLAN UPDATE.  On January 15, 2025, there was a public outreach meeting by OC Parks for the Talbert Regional Park Master Plan. The first draft of the Master Plan was available for review. It is very professionally done and can be reviewed here: https://ocparks.com/sites/ocparks/files/2025-01/Talbert%20Regional%20Park%20Master%20Plan%20First%20Draft_01_13_2025.pdf A couple of takeaways:

• No additional parking will be added to the park;

• There will be some improvements, such as trail improvements, wayfinding signage, and increasing safety, most of the work will focus on preservation, protection and restoration of habitat;

• A Nature Center near the existing restrooms will be added (but no more information is available);

• The entrance off of Balboa Boulevard will be improved;

• Policing and fire management will continue to be done by Costa Mesa police and fire personnel; and

• Drones will be prohibited.

This was a well-attended and informative meeting. Much of the time was spent taking public comment. Several members of the public requested full-time on-site park rangers. While the public comment period on the draft Master Plan has closed, the draft Environmental Impact Report has not been released and there will be an opportunity to comment on the EIR.