The Parks and Community Services Commission voted Oct. 30 to transmit the draft Fairview Park Master Plan update and a set of recommended edits to City Council after a four‑hour meeting that included a lengthy presentation by city staff and consultants and more than two hours of public testimony. Chair Brown said, "Public comment is really important. Public engagement is something that I care very deeply about," and framed the meeting as the commission's chance to provide a single set of recommendations to the council.

The draft master plan update, prepared by MIG (presentation delivered by consultant Travis Brooks), summarizes new technical studies and community outreach completed during a multiyear project. Brooks told the commission the park covers "208 acres" and described Fairview Park as "a natural and cultural treasure within the city," noting updated vegetation mapping, roughly 197 plant species (including 10 rare species), rare vernal‑pool habitat and two federally registered archaeological sites. Brooks summarized community input gathered in 2023–24 and said the principal themes were support for protecting biological and cultural resources, consolidating and maintaining well‑defined trails, funding for ADA access and park amenities, and divided opinions about high‑impact recreational uses such as BMX/dirt‑bike features and model‑aircraft activity.

City staff provided additional context. Kelly Dalton, Fairview Park administrator, told the commission that the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) had sent late‑September correspondence recommending the relocation of the model‑aircraft activity from its current mesa location "due to concerns over impacts to state protected resources," citing burrowing owls, candidate pollinators and sensitive vegetation near the existing field. Dalton summarized the planning schedule: the draft was released Oct. 3 for a 30‑day public review; staff will present to City Council on Nov. 18; CEQA documentation is expected to be an initial study/negative declaration unless new impacts require an environmental impact report; and adoption is anticipated in early 2026 pending the CEQA process.

Commissioners asked a series of high‑level questions before public comment that shaped later discussion. Vice Chair Wright pressed staff on the effects of Measure AA (the 2016 ballot measure enacted into Costa Mesa's municipal code), which requires voter approval for certain park changes; Director Gruner and staff said projects that add new amenities or expand footprints could trigger AA and that the city attorney would provide formal opinions as proposals are refined. Commissioners also asked why large public events such as "Concerts in the Park" were not emphasized in the draft; staff said some historic uses are active but the plan focuses on recommended physical improvements and stewardship.

Public comment ran for more than two hours and revealed sharp division. Members and leaders of the Harbor Soaring Society (HSS), which operates the long‑established model glider field, and the Orange County Model Engineers (OCME), which runs a narrow‑gauge train, urged the city to retain scheduled, limited activity and to work collaboratively on mitigation or relocation. Josh Gessman, president of OCME, said his group "love[s] the park" and wants to remain involved in any relocation planning. HSS leaders and members described decades of informal use, youth education and stewardship; Matt Garcia (HSS president) read from a U.S. Fish and Wildlife letter acknowledging efforts to protect pools while asking for defined operational requirements.

Environmental advocates, tribal representatives and several scientific commenters urged stronger protections and, in some cases, relocation of the model‑aircraft activity from the mesa. Several speakers cited CDFW and U.S. Fish and Wildlife correspondence and technical findings that identified trampling, repeated maintenance (mowing), and retrieval of aircraft from sensitive areas as potential sources of harm to vernal‑pool species, burrowing owls and rare pollinators. Cole Kreiselius, chair of the Fairview Park steering committee, described the planning process and said regulatory agency input and biological evidence had to be treated as central to the plan.

Commission debate after public comment focused on a finite set of edits and clarifications the commission wanted the draft to carry forward to City Council. The commission asked staff and consultants to (1) align trail and bicycle designations with the city's adopted Active Transportation Plan; (2) add a more robust, multilingual interpretive‑signage and education program, developed with tribal partners and scientific experts; (3) list public‑safety and enforcement features in the operations and maintenance plan (including staffing goals and technology options such as site cameras and targeted enforcement, subject to legal review); (4) include a southern bluff access/stair option and clarify bluff‑stabilization work already funded; and (5) flag that certain plan components (for example a central interpretive facility, permanent shade structures or construction that increases the park footprint) could require a public vote under Measure AA before the city could implement them.

On the central point of the model‑aircraft fly field, commissioners expressed differing views while agreeing to forward a single package to council. During the meeting several commissioners favored relocating the activity off the mesa or outside Fairview Park (three commissioners expressed that preference in the discussion), while two commissioners supported retaining the limited, permitted use at its current location. Commission voting on the final motion (to forward the draft and the commission's recommendations to council) was unanimous: 5–0 to transmit the package to the City Council for consideration.

Actions and next steps listed in staff materials include a Nov. 18 City Council presentation; subsequent CEQA documentation and a public CEQA comment period; and an anticipated adoption hearing in early 2026 if CEQA requirements are satisfied. Dalton told the commission staff will provide a recommendation matrix showing where steering‑committee items are reflected in the draft and where additional edits were requested by PACS.

What the decision means and what remains open: the commission's action forwards a substantially developed draft but does not adopt the plan or change on‑the‑ground uses. Whether the model‑aircraft activity remains in its current mesa location or moves will depend on next steps: whether the City Council adopts the commission's recommendations, whether the city pursues permits required by state or federal wildlife agencies to authorize continued activity, whether a relocation is identified and funded, and whether any proposed construction or new permanent facilities trigger Measure AA or additional CEQA review. Staff and the commission repeatedly said that agency comments and the technical record will drive final mitigation and any permits needed.

The commission vote sends City Council a detailed packet of technical findings, the steering committee's recommendations and PACS' edits for council direction. City staff told the commission they will prepare the CEQA package and a formal project description after council direction and will list estimated implementation funding needs with the next budget or capital improvement processes.

Ending: The commission closed the meeting after the vote and adjourned at about 10:06 p.m. City staff will present the draft and the PACS recommendations to City Council on Nov. 18.