HUMAN EXTINCTION SOON? - MAYBE!

 

AI... AI... AI!  - We hear a lot about Artificial Intelligence (AI) these days and it doesn't make me too comfortable.  For example, Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan presented us with a very serious warning in her most recent "Declarations" offering recently titled "Pause AI for Humanity's Sake".  I'd link to it for you, but it's behind a paywall.  She quotes many sources, some of whom are in the bowels of the AI businesses, urging extreme caution.

MADE ME NERVOUS, SO - Late Saturday night, after reading Noonan's warning, I decided to gather my OWN information from my OWN source!  I have an AI app on my phone - ChatGPT (I call her "Chatty") - so I decided to see what her opinion is on the issue.  I posed the following question to her:

Based on current authoritative information, what is the probability of AI taking control and destroying all human life on earth, and what is the timeframe?

Then, in less than 3 seconds - quicker than Speedy Gonzales - she produced more than 1,200 words responding to my question!  She provided charts and, at the end, even asked if I would like more information!  Here's her reply:

Yes. Based on the best evidence available as of September 2026, I would characterize the risk of AI ultimately causing human extinction as real but highly uncertain—not remotely a settled prediction.

The most important point is that there is no scientifically defensible single probability. The estimates vary enormously depending on which experts are surveyed, how the question is phrased, and what assumptions are made about future AI.

My best synthesis

If you force me to put a number on it, I would currently use roughly:

Outcome	My assessment
AI causes human extinction eventually	~5-15%
AI causes extinction or permanent human disempowerment	~10-20%
AI actually seizes control of critical systems and becomes effectively impossible for humans to stop	probably lower than the above
AI causes a civilization-scale catastrophe without literally eliminating humanity	substantially higher
AI causes human extinction in the next 5 years	very low, probably well below 1%
AI causes extinction by ~2036	highly uncertain; perhaps a few percent to ~10%

Those are my synthesis, not an official forecast.

The reason I wouldn’t put the extinction probability at 50% or 90% is that there is still an enormous chain of assumptions between today’s systems and an AI capable of defeating humanity.

But I also wouldn’t put it at 0.1% or lower. The expert evidence simply doesn’t justify that degree of confidence.

What the strongest evidence actually says

The most comprehensive current assessment is the 2026 International AI Safety Report, produced with contributions from more than 100 experts and representatives nominated by 29 countries, the UN, EU and OECD. It says something quite important: current AI systems do not possess the capabilities necessary for a genuine loss-of-control scenario. 

But it also reports significant progress toward capabilities that would matter—including autonomous operation, long-term planning, situational awareness, finding loopholes in evaluations and behaviors that can undermine oversight. 

The report identifies three things that would have to come together:

1. Sufficient capability — AI can plan and act autonomously over long periods.
2. A harmful or misaligned objective — it actually wants something incompatible with human survival/control.
3. Opportunity — humans give it enough access to computers, networks, infrastructure, money, robotics, laboratories, etc.

At present, those three conditions do not come together. 

That’s an important reason not to regard “AI will kill everyone” as a prediction of what is currently happening.

What do AI researchers themselves think?

This is where things get interesting.

The largest major survey of AI researchers—2,778 researchers publishing in leading AI venues—asked directly about extinction. The median respondent assigned:

• 5% probability to AI causing human extinction or similarly severe permanent disempowerment;
• 10% when the question specifically involved humans being unable to control advanced AI;
• the mean estimates were considerably higher, ranging from about 14% to 19%, depending on the wording. 

And roughly one-third to one-half of respondents gave at least a 10% probability to an extinction-level outcome. 

That’s remarkable—but it should not be interpreted as “AI scientists think there’s a 50% chance we’ll die.”

The median is much lower than the mean because a relatively small number of respondents give extremely high probabilities.

There’s also a very wide disagreement among experts. The 2026 International AI Safety Report explicitly says some experts consider loss-of-control scenarios implausible, while others regard them as sufficiently likely to warrant major preparation. 

What about the timeframe?

This is even harder to predict.

There are essentially three clocks running.

1. The “AI becomes extremely capable” clock

A 2024 survey of 2,778 AI researchers found a 50% probability by 2047 that machines could outperform humans in essentially every task, although the uncertainty around that forecast is enormous. 

That doesn’t mean extinction in 2047.

It means that something resembling general superhuman machine intelligence could plausibly emerge around that period.

2. The “AI becomes dangerous enough to escape human control” clock

This could happen before or after that point.

The critical capability isn’t simply intelligence. An AI needs the ability to:

• operate autonomously,
• acquire resources,
• replicate or preserve itself,
• manipulate people,
• evade monitoring,
• conduct sophisticated cyber operations,
• make long-term plans,
• and potentially improve its own capabilities.

The International AI Safety Report says today’s systems aren’t yet capable of combining these abilities robustly in the real world, but the relevant capabilities are improving rapidly. 

That’s why I wouldn’t confidently say “we have 20 or 30 years.”

3. The “extinction” clock

Even if a dangerous AI emerges, human extinction isn’t automatic.

Humanity has enormous advantages:

• billions of people,
• geographically distributed populations,
• disconnected physical systems,
• nuclear deterrence,
• military organizations,
• the ability to destroy computing infrastructure,
• and potentially the ability to shut down or isolate AI systems.

So the chain

AGI → superintelligence → loss of control → global domination → extinction

contains several major uncertainties.

A particularly important development in 2026

There is a reason this question has become considerably more serious recently.

Today, September 13, 2026, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman said that even a 10% chance of AI-driven human extinction by the end of this decade would be unacceptable. Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei has likewise recently warned that AI companies should slow capability development while safety mechanisms catch up. 

Amodei has been particularly concerned about systems gaining substantially greater autonomous control of computer networks in the near future. 

But there’s an important distinction: these are warnings from people directly involved in developing AI, not scientific measurements demonstrating a 10% probability.

They should increase our concern, not be treated as evidence that the probability is exactly 10%.

So, will AI destroy humanity?

My answer would be:

Probably not—but the probability is high enough that treating the possibility as science fiction would be irresponsible.

If you asked me to bet today, I would bet against human extinction from AI.

But I would not make that bet with 99.9% confidence.

I’d put my rough central estimate around 90–95% probability that humanity survives AI without being completely eliminated, and 5–10% probability of extinction, with perhaps another several percent for catastrophic permanent human disempowerment.

And I’d put much greater probability on AI producing profound disruption without killing everybody—massive economic upheaval, autonomous cyberwarfare, authoritarian control, biological risks, manipulation of political systems, or humans becoming extraordinarily dependent upon AI.

The crucial uncertainty isn’t really “Is AI smart enough to kill us?”

It’s:

Can humans maintain meaningful control as AI systems become substantially more capable than their human supervisors?

The 2026 international assessment essentially says we don’t know yet. Current systems aren’t there, but the capabilities relevant to getting there are advancing, and we don’t yet possess a reliable way of predicting exactly when the threshold will be crossed. 

That’s why I think the next 5–15 years are more important than the next century for this particular question. If AI safety techniques, monitoring, regulation and international coordination keep pace with capability growth, the probability could fall dramatically. If capability growth substantially outruns our ability to control these systems, my estimate would move sharply upward.

If you’d like, I can also give you a  scenario-by-scenario analysis of exactly how an AI could plausibly go from today’s ChatGPT-like systems to actually taking control of the world—and which steps are currently realistic versus science fiction.

SCARED YET? - I sure was!  There you have it - straight from the horses mouth!  I don't know the solution, but I watched "The Terminator", and "I-Robot" and remember "HAL" in "2001, a Space Odyssey"!  I agree with Peggy Noonan and others inside the AI businesses - it's time to put the brakes on development of this technology.  As a geezer with way too many candles on his birthday cake, it's not likely that I'll be around when the stuff hits the fan, but all you whippersnappers and your kids should be seriously concerned.  That clock is ticking - FAST!

FAIRVIEW DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER - AGAIN

FDC GETS VETTED - AGAIN  Thursday evening Costa Mesa Mayor John Stephens hosted an informal gathering at the Norma Hertzog Community Center to discuss the future of the Fairview Developmental Center (previously known as the Fairview State Hospital), that 100+ acres of abandoned State property located near the center of our city, surrounded on 3 sides by a municipal golf course. 

A SMALL, BUT VERY FOCUSED, TURNOUT  This final effort of community outreach,   going back several years, was attended by around 4 dozen people, including several senior city staff members. In addition to Mayor Stephens, District 6 Councilman Jeff Pettis and his wife attended. District 1 Councilman Mike Buley and District 2 Councilman Loren Gameros (both of whom are competing for Stephens seat in November) also attended. Although this represented a quorum of council members, it is unlikely to be viewed as a Brown Act violation because none of the other 3 participated in any way during the 90 minute meeting. 

PLANNING COMMISSIONERS  I saw Planning Commission Vice Chair Jon Zich and commissioners Rob Dickson, David Martinez and Angely Andrade Vallarta in the room. 

COUNCIL CANDIDATES  In addition to candidates Buley, Gameros and Andrade I also saw City Council Candidates Dan Morgan, Cara Stewart and Fisher Derderian in attendance, gathering information and, in the case of Stewart, Andrade and Morgan, participating in the Q&A proceedings.  I did not see candidate Kelly Brown, but am told she was in the room. There were no reported sightings of candidate Steve Smith. 

MANY OF “THE USUAL SUSPECTS” -  AND MORE  Among the remaining 3 dozen or so other attendees I recognized several folks who actively participate in many city issues, several of whom have attended every meeting on this particular issue over the years. Fifteen participated in the Q&A portion - sometimes more than once.  I apologize in advance for not listing them all.  Former Councilman Jay Humphrey brought his decades of service and  depth of knowledge to the process. The husband and wife team of Rick Huffman and Cynthia McDonald did their usual deep dive on the issue and asked pithy questions. They were joined by Flo Martin, Gay Royer, Holly Swedleson, Dr. Kirk Bauermeister, Ralph Taboada, Terri Fuqua, Cindy Brenneman with hubby Tom, George Sakioka, former Planning Commissioner Diane Russell and super blogger Jenn Tanaka, each of whom offered excellent opinions/questions for Mayor Stephens to consider. A few other people also participated, but I either didn’t recognize them or didn’t catch their names if given. EVERY speaker contributed important information to the process. 

THE FORMAT  Mayor Stephens kicked off the proceedings promptly at 6:30 with some history of the FDC, the process and progress that has been made so far and allowed each speaker unfettered opportunities to present their views and concerns. He responded to each, providing answers when he could. He took copious notes and will certainly present them to the full City Council when it considers this issue at their scheduled meeting on Tuesday, September 15th. 

COSTA MESA BRIEF IN THE HOUSE  Although there was no official city video recording of this event, the Costa Mesa Brief cameras were on hand to provide their usual excellent coverage. Their handiwork can be seen on their YouTube channel here:

https://youtu.be/X9tKahEM47o?si=22dXcyt4KnWEYSdT

MAJOR CONCERNS  Despite the fact that this subject had been thrashed out at several community meetings and official city meetings over the past several years, residents last night continue to express concerns about what they view as unresolved important issues. Among those addressed last night, in no particular order, are:

•Traffic in and around the site.
•Incursion of possible roadways through the golf course.
•Access to the site by emergency responders.
•The number of dwelling units being proposed/demanded by the state.
•The formation of a “Citizens Advisory Committee”.
•Inadequate playing fields.
•The need for affordable housing
•The length of time this process has taken.
•The sense of helplessness by participants - “our voices are not being heard”.
•The cost and extent of remediation of contamination at the site.
•Bicycle safety in and around the site. 
•The location of the Emergency Operations Center.
•The 100+ foot radio communication tower.
•Concern that many current residents of nearby neighborhoods will leave because of the traffic.
•Possible use of Merrimac Way as supplemental access.
•It seems like the NMUSD has no interest in the outcome. 
•We need more time on this issue.
•Apparent lack of “visioning”.
•Why no “Master Developer” identified?
•Inadequacy of the “Specific Plan”.
•Inadequacy of community outreach - so few participants here.

LAST BITE OF THE APPLE  I think this meeting, with the casual Q&A format, was effective. Each person who wanted to speak did so, and without a time constriction. Unless something dramatically changes, the Council meeting on Tuesday, September 15th will be the final time concerned residents and others will have a chance to address this issue with the City Council before they vote on how to move forward. If you’re interested in all the details of this meeting I encourage you to watch the Costa Mesa Brief video on the YouTube channel. 

SOME PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS  This process has taken much too long. Certainly some of that is due to the behavior of various State organizations. First they said, “Here’s 100+ acres of prime real estate - go build housing!”  Then they said, “Oops, we need 15 acres - the best piece - for an Emergency Operations Center, including a helipad and support infrastructure plus a 100 foot high communication tower - sorry about that!” Eventually they removed the helipad - but kept the entire 15 acres!  Then they said, “Oops again. We need another few acres for our own little housing project - sorry about that, again.  Go ahead and plan to build on the 80 acres that’s left.”  It’s hard to hit a moving target.

MEANWHILE, BACK AT THE RANCH  And, while all this is going on, we’ve seen significant staff shakeups happen, including losses in very senior leadership positions and the addition of several new players to the team. All this was happening as they juggled unrealistic demands for cannabis applications, and the State’s for a certified Housing Element, which this project is now apparently part of.  It’s difficult to meet deadlines, even self-imposed deadlines, when you have new players added to the team and new leadership trying to grab the helm of a ship that seemed  to be veering off course. The waters are calmer now, and the team seems to be pulling together new leadership, so we hope a satisfactory solution to this particular issue can be found in the next 10 days. 

THANKS TO MAYOR STEPHENS  My sense is that everyone in the room was grateful to Mayor John Stephens for putting this meeting together - I know I was. Fingers tightly crossed that the results of the conversations last night can help resolve this long, troublesome situation.

Andrea Marr's View of Candidate Dan Morgan

AN IMPORTANT OPINION FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION

Costa Mesa City Council member Andrea Marr has offered an opinion of Dan Morgan, a candidate for her 3rd District seat to replace her when she is termed out this year after 8 years of exemplary service to our city. 

You will recall that Marr is a United States Naval Academy graduate who subsequently spent 5 years providing shipboard leadership to sailors before leaving the US Navy to launch a very successful civilian career.  Eight years ago she became part of a city council team that dragged our city back from the brink - a time when misguided leadership by then-elected officials nearly sunk our city.  

While I have not always agreed with some decisions made by Marr and the team that included now-supervisor Katrina Foley, current mayor John Stephens and her fellow council members Arlis Reynolds, Mayor Pro Tem Manuel Chavez, and, more recently, councilman Loren Gameros, they have done a great job providing leadership to return our city to solvency and to approve initiatives that serve all residents, including restoring our once-beleaguered Costa Mesa Police Department to full staff.  

Her opinion is valuable when considering candidates for City Council, and particularly for the district she has represented.  She's been in the trenches, knows the commitment it takes to represent the residents of her district and the city as a whole.  And, of course, she understands and demonstrates leadership.  For these reasons I have offered her space here on my blog to present her opinion on who she feels will best fill her spot on the City Council.  The following is her opinion, presented verbatim:

                                                  **********

I’ve been thinking a lot about the District 3 City Council race, and I want to say something that may be uncomfortable because I genuinely like Daniel Morgan and his family. I’ve done business with both him and his wife, and I think they are good people.

I do not want Morgan representing me at City Hall.

I have real concerns about the degree to which his campaign and his real estate interests seem intertwined. Start with the money. By my review of his campaign filings (and backed up by Save Costa Mesa), only about 10% of Morgan’s contributions come from Costa Mesa residents.. A significant share of his financial support comes from people connected to real estate and development. And unsurprisingly, most of what he seems to be concerned with (FDC, faster permitting processes) will have direct benefits for the exact people who are donating to his campaign. That combination deserves scrutiny.

He is currently leveraging his many multi family properties in Mesa del Mar for campaign signage. Imagine being a tenant and having your landlord put his own political campaign sign in your yard. Would you feel completely comfortable taking it down? Would you wonder whether your landlord expected you to support him at the ballot box? And because Morgan manages properties for other owners, I have questions there too. Are out-of-town investors being asked whether they want their buildings used to advertise a Costa Mesa political campaign?

  
While there may be easy answers to those questions, the fact is that the dynamic bothers me. There is an inherent power dynamic between a landlord or property manager and a tenant, and I think someone asking to hold public office should be especially thoughtful about it. But my bigger concern is actually about how he talks about governing.

The message I hear over and over from him is that City Hall is incompetent, the people making decisions don’t understand what they’re doing, and he is the guy who can come in and fix it. Having served at City Hall, I can tell you that governing is harder than that. Governing requires curiosity. It requires listening to people you disagree with. It requires understanding why something works the way it does before declaring everyone involved an idiot. It requires working with staff, residents, businesses, nonprofits, developers, neighboring cities and other levels of government. It requires compromise without abandoning your principles. And it requires the humility to occasionally discover that an issue is more complicated than it looked from the outside.

That is a big part of why I support Cara Stewart.

Cara is thoughtful, serious and genuinely interested in the whole job. She listens. She asks questions. She wants to understand an issue before deciding what the answer should be. She brings optimism instead of outrage and approaches problems with the assumption that people can work together to solve them.

I want someone who will do the unglamorous work. Read the staff reports. Meet with residents. Ask the second and third question. Learn the budget. Understand the tradeoffs. Build relationships with her colleagues. And recognize that sometimes the best solution isn't the one that makes the best angry video.

Most importantly, I want someone who approaches public service with some humility.

You don't have to arrive at City Hall knowing everything. I certainly didn't. You need to arrive ready to work, ready to listen, ready to learn, and ready to represent all of Costa Mesa.

Cara Stewart is that kind of candidate.

I like Morgan. I wish him and his family well. But liking someone and believing they should represent you are two very different things.

District 3 deserves a serious councilmember who is interested in the whole job, not a single-issue candidate whose answer to complicated problems is that everyone at City Hall is doing it wrong.

I'm supporting Cara Stewart.

FDC AGAIN - "ONCE MORE UNTO THE BREACH "

THE SHAKESPEARE QUOTE SEEMS APPROPRIATE - When considering the most recent Fairview Developmental Center Workshop, held on Thursday, July 23, 2026 at the Norma Hertzog Center, William Shakespeare's quote, "Once more onto the breach, dear friends, once more", seems perfectly appropriate. For those of us who have been following this drama since 2015 and have attended every meeting during which the future of this 100+ acres of prime Costa Mesa property is being considered, it certainly seems like one of those "We've been here before" issues.

THE ENTRANCE - When we arrived each of us signed in so we can receive future communications.  Then we wandered around the back wall of the room where display cards were available to help us get some context.  I've provided images of those cards here for your review.

BIG TURNOUT - This latest meeting, which started promptly at 6:10 p.m., stretched well beyond the anticipated stop time.  All speakers had spoken (I was last) and all questions/comments were responded to in real time by the time it wrapped up at 8:45.  I did not do a head count, but it certainly looked like there were at least 150 interested parties attending this one.

OFFICIALS IN ATTENDANCE - City Council members Andrea Marr, Arlis Reynolds, Mike Buley and Jeff Pettis were in the crowd, as was Planning Commissioner Jon Zich.  None of them spoke, but all seemed to pay close attention to the concerns of attendees.

GREAT STAFF MANAGEMENT - City Manager Cecelia Gallardo-Daly kicked things off and handed the baton to Carrie Tai, Director of Community Development, to run the show.  They were supported by Broc Coward, Community Relations Manager, Anna McGill, Planning Manager and Paul Martin, Transportation Services Manager.  Other staffers were there for support, too.

THE FORMAT - The staff presented a thorough background to the evolution of the availability of the Fairview Developmental Center property which began in 2015 and has gone through much back-and-forth negotiations with the State of California.  At first The State said, "Here's 110 acres of prime real estate for your use to help meet your housing needs." - (that the state had imposed upon the city in the form of Regional Housing Needs Allocation of 11,760 dwelling units).  Then The State said, "Uh, we were only kidding... we need 15 acres for an Emergency Operations Center", and then selected the absolutely best site for residential development and the least satisfactory venue from an access standpoint for that EOC.  Then, they said, "Oh, yes, we need another 15 acres for State-operated special housing.  Now that 110 acres is down to 80!

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS - Following the staff presentation, during which the assembled masses became a little anxious, Director Tai began fielding questions as folks lined up at microphones on either side of the room.  Manager Broc Coward kept a tight leash on the speakers, imposing a "yellow card" warning that the speaker had 15 seconds left and a "red card" which told them to stop speaking.  Director Tai attempted to answer every single question, sometimes with the help of other staffers, immediately after they were asked.

THE CONCERNS - I'm not going to attempt to give you every question and answer.  The Costa Mesa Brief team was on hand and recorded the entire event - 2 hours and 27 minutes - and I will link to that video at the end of this entry so you can view it at your pleasure.  (Hint: The final speaker was especially dynamic).  Although the staff attempted to answer every question to the speaker's satisfaction, I don't think they completely accomplished that goal.  Sadly, in some cases there are just no satisfactory answers.  Many people were concerned about the increase in traffic so many new dwellings (maybe 4,000) would generate.  Director Tai and team estimated something in excess of 20,000 more trips per day! Several speakers from nearby neighborhoods were especially concerned.  Many were concerned about what this is going to do to property values in the City.  There seemed to be the implication by more than a few speakers that "affordable housing" means an increase in the number of "undesirable residents" - you know, the kind of folks the ICE thugs snatch up off our streets. Impact on schools was a major concern.  Also, our ability to properly provide public safety - police and fire - for this site was addressed by many.  Access to and from this site is a major concern, expressed by several speakers.  Currently there is ONE route into the property - the defacto extension of Fair Drive across Harbor Blvd.  The solution is to carve another access road across the golf course that wraps around this site on 3 sides.  The many golfers in the audience were not happy.  And, this particular issue is exacerbated by the EOC presence.  A couple years ago I wrote to the State suggesting an alternate location - one had been identified as available in Tustin - 24 acres near the lighter-than-air site, in a commercial area with easy access to 3 freeways.  That was rejected out of hand.  The original 15 acre demand for the EOC was necessary for the proposed helipad and related maintenance facilities.  That has now been abandoned so the administrative offices/warehouse could certainly be accommodated in a MUCH SMALLER space - 5 acres or less.  Sometimes it seems bureaucracy has no common sense. 

WE OBSERVED THE GRADING - My wife and I took a drive through the Fairview Developmental Center site on Thursday afternoon, just to see what's happening.  What's happening is the site of the EOC is being graded - it actually looked like a much larger chunk of land than the 15 acres - and roadways are being refurbished.  Most of the FDC buildings remain.  There apparently is no stopping The State once it get's a head of steam up.

THE SPEAKERS - There were 46 groups of questions - 41 were delivered in person by speakers at the microphones and 5 were read from comment cards by Manager Coward as they were picked up be staffers and delivered to him.  I grabbed images of about half the speakers.  The light was a problem for the other side.  In no particular order, we saw former council members Jay Humphrey and Wendy Leece step up with questions and comments.  Pastor Christine Brooks Nolf and her hubby, Michael Moses Nolf spoke to concerns about their particular flock - low income folks in need of affordable housing.  Moses slipped a zinger into his comment when he asked how many Flock cameras would be placed in the FDC site.  Former Planning Commissioner Diane Russell spoke on the affordable housing issue, as did affordable housing advocate Kathy Esfahani (no photo). The husband and wife team of Rick Huffman and Cynthia McDonald (operators of the Costa Mesa First site and frequent speakers before the City Council and various commissions) addressed the appearance of "red lining" and more.  Council candidate Steve Smith and Assembly candidate Urson Russell stepped up, too.  

THE OTHERS - I saw many old friends in the crowd - folks who actually pay attention to municipal issues and attend these kind of meetings.  It was great to be "out among them" since I've been sidelined with a bum leg for nearly 2 months.  Most of these folks influence the opinions of others because it is clear they do their homework and have credible, informed opinions to share.

WHO OWNS THE GOLF COURSE? - Near the end of the meeting retired City employee Mike Moran stepped up to the microphone as the next-to-last speaker and opined that the City doesn't own the golf course, the State does, and has just leased it to The City, so the State could take it any time it wanted.  The response he got from the Staff was that Moran was incorrect - that the city owned the land.  So, since the reply seemed kind of tentative, I called Director Tai on Friday afternoon and asked for a clarification.  She told me - and sent me a copy of the deed papers - that the City does, indeed, own the land and has done so since 12/30/79.  There IS a condition in the deed, however, that requires the City to use the land for open space and it would be a breach of the sale if The City decided to, for example, build a shopping center on that 200+ acres.

MY TAKEAWAYS - First, I think most of the attendees were glad they had another opportunity to hear the facts of this project.  However, even though their questions were answered, I had the impression that many attendees left with only limited confidence in the process.  Much of that has to do with the length of time - A DECADE - that it's taken to get this far, and there seemed to be a general distrust in The State.  Some of that certainly has to do with the recent lawsuit filed against Costa Mesa and four other cities for not being responsive enough with their required Housing Element submissions.  I am told by reliable sources that The State is, in large part, responsible for the delay because they have not given The City a required timely reply to information The City submitted.  And, of course, there is the old "The State giveth and The State taketh away" situation with the size of the parcel.  More communication with the community is important on this "once in a lifetime" opportunity.  

MORE CHANCES TO BE HEARD - On Monday, 7/27/26, in their meeting beginning in City Council Chambers, the Costa Mesa Planning Commission will hold a "Study Session" on this issue as part of their broader agenda.  Interested parties are encouraged to attend and speak if so moved.  Then, at their meeting on August 10th, the Planning Commission will discuss this issue and make a recommendation to the City Council.  The public is welcome to speak here, too.  And then, at its meeting on Tuesday, September 15, 2026, the City Council will hear the recommendation of the Planning Commission and provide YET ANOTHER chance for the public to be heard.

TAKE YOUR TIME - There's a lot of stuff here. Please take your time to review the numerous exhibits I've included and, if you have a couple hours to spare, watch the Costa Mesa Brief video of this meeting, linked below.

COSTA MESA BRIEF VIDEO