Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
08 - PH-1 - 2015-2035 General Plan and Draft Environ - 5/17/2016
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: MAY 17, 2016 ITEM NUMBER: PH -1 SUBJECT: 2015-2035 GENERAL PLAN AND DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (DEIR) - SCH# 2015111068 DATE: MAY 5, 2016 FROM: PLANNING DIVISION/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PRESENTATION BY: CLAIRE FLYNN, AICP AND LAURA STETSON AICP, MIG FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: MINOO ASHABI, PRINCIPAL PLANNER (714) 754-5610 minoo.ashabi@costamesaca.gov RECOMMENDATION • Receive overview presentation of General Plan and Draft EIR and public comments; and, • Continue to City Council Meeting of June 7, 2016. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project involves the following: • 2015-2035 General Plan — an update to current General Plan including all ten elements with the incorporation of the 2013-2021 Housing Element which was adopted in 2014. The proposed amendments are related to: Land Use, Circulation, Growth Management, Conservation Element, Open Space and Recreation, Noise, Safety, Community Design, and Historical and Cultural Resources. • Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) - This is a Program EIR prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15168, which allows for the preparation of a Program EIR for a series of actions that can be characterized as a single project. BACKGROUND The State of California requires every city and county to prepare and adopt a comprehensive general plan that is "an integrated, internally consistent, and compatible statement of policies" to address all issues that affect the physical development of the community, as well as land outside its boundaries that potentially affect long-term planning (Government Code Section 65300 et seq.). The role of a general plan is to act as a "constitution" for development, the foundation upon which all land use and related decisions are based. Bicycle Master Plan One of the outcomes of the workshops in 2015 was the formation of the Bikeway and Walkability Committee, composed of 13 members appointed by the City Council. The Committee was tasked with crafting the goals, objectives, policies, and programs for the City's first Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. Community members and decision makers involved in the process expressed that Costa Mesa should have transportation and recreational infrastructure that easily accommodates bicyclists and pedestrians. A conceptual Bike Master Plan has been developed that is included in the draft Circulation Element. Following a detailed analysis and public review of the proposed facilities, a final Bicycle Master Plan will be incorporated into the Circulation Element. New bicycle facilities and amenities will be added to complement the established bicycle network. Direction from City Council on October 6, 2015 On October 6, 2015, the City Council considered the proposed land use alternatives and provided direction on the proposed land uses. Minutes of the City Council meeting with specific votes on each item could be accessed at the following link: http://www.costamesaca.gov/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=19968 Four Planning Commission Hearings On March 14, 2016, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the General Plan and received public comments on the proposed draft 2015-2035 General Plan and DER. The meeting was continued to March 28, 2016 to allow additional consideration of the proposed General Plan. On March 28, 2016, the Planning Commission held a second public hearing and received additional public comments. The meeting was continued to April 11, 2016 for further review. A detailed discussion of public comments was included. On April 11, 2016, the Planning Commission held a third public hearing. Issues discussed at the meeting are included with more detail in this report. On April 25, 2016, the Planning Commission held a fourth public hearing and recommended that the City Council certify the DER and adopt the 2015-2035 General Plan. Previous Planning Commission reports could be accessed at the following links: http://www. costamesaca.gov/ftp/planningcommission/agenda/2016/2016-03-14/PH-1.Of http://www. costamesaca.gov/ftp/planningcommission/agenda/2016/2016-03-28/PH-1.Of http://www.costamesaca.gov/ftp/planninqcommission/agenda/2016/2016-04-11 /PH-1.pdf http://www.costamesaca.gov/ftp/planninqcommission/agenda/2016/2016-04-25/PH-3.pdf ANAI YSIS 2015-2035 General Plan The proposed amendments includes revisions to all elements of the 2000 General Plan except the 2013-2021 Housing Element which was adopted in 2014. Those elements affected are Land Use, Circulation, Growth Management, Conservation Element, Open Space and Recreation, Noise, Safety, Community Design, and Historic and Cultural Resources. The primary focus of the General Plan Amendments is to: 1) update the Land Use Policy Map to target revitalization efforts; 2) ensure that the Circulation Element comports with the amended land use plan, incorporates "complete streets" strategies, and addresses all current planning laws; and 3) update all other elements to incorporate provisions that respond to State laws adopted since 2002 (the adoption date of the current General Plan). The City has established 2035 as the horizon year for the amended General Plan, meaning that 2035 represents the year by which the City would expect that the General Plan's policies and programs would be realized and a new comprehensive review of the plan may be warranted. The following land use changes are proposed that affect four percent of the overall land uses in the City: ■ A new land use designation (Multi -Use Center) that applies to the Fairview Development Center ■ Two new land use overlays (Residential Incentive Overlay Zone and Harbor Mixed Use)) ■ Site-specific FAR of 0.64 for the Segerstrom Home Ranch site ■ Site-specific density of 80 dwelling units per acre for Sakioka Lot 2 ■ Amended General Plan designation of Commercial Center and site specific FAR of 0.54 to 0.64 for the LA Times site For these focus areas, the proposed project description and land use changes are included as Attachment 1. Key Topics The following is a summary of key issues discussed during public hearings: 1) When did the General Plan Update Process start, and what's been done so far? The City's General Plan was adopted in January 2002. The City entered into a contract with Hogle Ireland/ MIG in 2012. During 2012-2015, the City conducted an in-depth community engagement process "The Great Reach" that involved a broad and diverse constituency to refine the community vision and to identify where targeted change was warranted and desired. Great Reach events included 10 community workshops held early in the General Plan development process and widely attended by residents, property owners, the development community, and social service interests. The topics discussed varied by workshop, with intensive sessions focused on land use, parks and open spaces, traffic, bicycling, and community safety. From these workshops, the exchange of ideas helped identify strongly held community values and aspirations. The Great Reach included a series of workshops and study sessions held in 2014 and 2015: three joint City Council/Planning Commission workshops, three study sessions with City Council, and one study session with Planning Commission. From the workshops and study sessions, the community decided upon a refined Vision statement which emphasized the widely held desire to resolve targeted land use and mobility issues as the anchoring point for the 2035 General Plan. The vision statements are included in the Introduction Chapter of the 2015-2035 General Plan. A summary of all events and public input is available on the City's Website at this link: http://www.costamesaca.gov/index.aspx?page=1994 2) The original focus areas for change for the General Plan Update comprised what extent of the City? Approximately 20 percent of the City area was studied for land use changes at the beginning. Through the public hearing process and as directed by City Council, the final draft includes areas relating to about 4 percent of the land in the City. These changes are focused primary on the north side of 405 Freeway and along Harbor Blvd. and Newport Blvd. corridors. 3) When were the final draft General Plan and DEIR released for public review? The Draft 2015-2035 General Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Report was released for a 45 -day public review on March 4th. The public review comment period for the DEIR was completed on April 18th; however, City Council could receive additional comments on the General Plan during public hearings. The Final Responses to Comments document is pending and will be available at the next Council meeting for review/consideration. 4) How many comment letters were received and how were the questions and comments addressed? At the time of the Planning Commission hearing on April 25, 2016, staff received a total of 43 comment letters on the Draft General Plan that are included as Attachment 1. Comments that were directly related to the DEIR were included in the DRAFT Response to Comments document included as Attachment 2. Staff is in the process of identifying any comment letters that may have been transmitted through the City's website but unfortunately not delivered (or received) due to technical computer issues. Any letters received on the Draft EIR during the comment period will be responded by the planning consultants. 5) Is Fairview Park being "repurposed" as part of General Plan Update? All references to Fairview Park being repurposed have been removed from the Draft General Plan. The 2015-2035 General Plan includes Fairview Park under Open Space Land Use as currently assigned and does not change the current land use designation or the Fairview Park Master Plan. The Fairview Park Master Plan was adopted by City Council as a tool for the orderly implementation of the approved improvements for Fairview Park. Changes to the Fairview Park Master Plan are considered in compliance with City Council Policy 500-11, Implementation Procedures for the Fairview Park Master Plan. The Fairview Park Citizens Advisory Committee reviews the Master Plan and recommends revisions or changes to the Master Plan. The Committee is currently on -hold pending the completion of the update of the City's Open Space Master Plan of Parks and Recreation. The demand for sports fields will continue to be an issue now and in the future as will other key issues described in the Open Space Element. The City's Open Space Master Plan of Parks and Recreation (OSMP) is a document that is based on the adopted General Plan. It answers, among an extensive number of parks and recreation questions, questions relative to the current and future demands for sports fields. The OSMP needs to be updated regularly to take into account population and use changes. The OSMP is currently being updated and will utilize a number of tools to determine the needs of the community including telephone surveys, community meetings, stakeholder interviews and public meetings. 6) How is "Park Level of Service" and "Park Accessibility" determined? Several residential neighborhoods in Costa Mesa are more than one-quarter and one -half -mile pedestrian walking distance to public neighborhood and community parks. These neighborhoods include the Westside residential district generally along Victoria Street and Placentia Avenue, the Eastside residential district along 19th and 20th Streets, the residential area northeast of the Mesa Verde Country Club, and the Halecrest residential neighborhood. The Halecrest area does include a private park, Halecrest Park, which requires a membership to access the recreation facilities. These areas should be considered priorities areas for future parks. Other small underserved areas should also be considered as well. Additionally, large apartment and condominium complexes provide private recreational facilities for their residents and are maintained under management groups or homeowner associations. Figure OSR-2 of the Draft Open Space Element differs from the current General Plan in that it provides a more accurate representation of access/proximity to parks based on actual walking distance of a park user. The map does not depict distance "as the crow flies." This map shows the half and quarter mile in walking distance vs. a radius map since there may be physical barriers in place (walls, etc.). 7) Is there a requirement to provide affordable units? The proposed 2015-2035 does not include mandates for affordable housing. Advocates of affordable housing propose that the increased densities in the Residential Incentives Overlays and the Fairview Park Multi -Use Center designation should be allowed in exchange for a percentage of affordable housing. As a policy decision, the City Council may choose to recommend new land use policies related to affordable housing and consider an affordable housing component as part of the Residential Incentive Overlays. 8) What is planned for Fairview Developmental Center? The proposed Multi -Use Center Urban Plan allows a site-specific density up to 25 du/acre for Shannon's Mountain and a maximum 15 du/acre for the remaining site area for housing development. The City Council was aware of the October 6, 2015 letter from the State Department of General Services at the time the draft land use plan was recommended for inclusion in the Draft General Plan and direction was provided to prepare the Draft EIR based upon the recommended land use plan. The State DGS has indicated that a Request for Proposals for a potential home builder is still pending for Shannon's Mountain. Higher densities were not considered in the traffic report for the Draft General Plan and DEIR, and any increase in density could have traffic implications that would need further study, both in terms of access and trip generation. 9) What are the maximum densities proposed for overlay districts and incentive zones? • 40 dwelling units per acre: The Residential Incentive Overlay creates opportunities for residential development at strategic locations along Harbor Boulevard and Newport Boulevard. Housing within the Residential Incentive Overlay is limited to a maximum density of 40 units per acre. • 20 dwelling units per acre within a mixed-use development: The Harbor Mixed - Use Overlay Zone promotes mixed-use development along select locations of Harbor Boulevard. A maximum of 20 dwelling units per acre would be allowed for the residential component within a mixed-use development. 10) How can the apparent loss or miscalculation of approximately 5,000 units of low density housing be accounted for? Staff verified that the housing estimates in the General Plan Update are accurate and consistent with data provided by the Center of Demographic Research and the State Department of Finance. The overall total number of housing units is correct; the discrepancy appears to be associated with the identification of single-family and multi -family units. The current General Plan used the Low Density zoning designation to estimate the number of single family units, and this methodology overstated the number of single-family residences. With the proposed General Plan, more accurate aerial and GIS data was used to count the actual existing dwelling units by parcel and by type (single family versus multi -family units). 11) How was the Traffic Study conducted and how much increase in traffic is expected with the proposed 2015-20135 General Plan? For the General Plan update, two future land use scenarios were analyzed, one based on the current General Plan Land Use Element and the other based on the proposed General Plan update. The land use database is applied in the traffic model to produce AM peak hour, PM peak hour and daily vehicle traffic generation estimates. The traffic generation estimates are based on the type of land use (e.g., housing, retail, office, hotel, schools, recreational, etc.) and organized by defined zones to account for the specific location of each type of land use in the city. The comparison of the current General Plan buildout condition to the proposed land uses shows an increase of approximately one percent as noted in the table below. Land Use Type Existing Conditions Previous General Plan Buildout Proposed General Plan Buildout Amount Daily Tris Amount Daily Tris Amount Daily Trips Residential 42,623 DU 329,083 48,859 DU 372,815 51,894 DU 393,297 Increase vs. Exis?1ng 6,236 DU 43,732 9,271 DU 64,214 Commercial a 31,847 TSF 593,164 37,139 TSF 733,690 37,446 TSF 740,071 Increase vs. Exis?ing 5,292 TSF 140,526 5,599 TSF 146,907 Miscellaneous b -- 96,543 -- 122,620 -- 110,772 Increase vs. Existing 26,077 14,229 Total Daily Trips 1,018,790 1,229,125 1,244,140 Increase vs. Existing 210,335 +21 % 225,350 +22% (a) Includes retail, office and industrial land uses. Abbreviations: DU - dwelling unit (b) Includes schools, colleges, hotels, motels, hospitals, TSF -thousand square feet churches, qolf courses, parks, fair rounds, a riculture, etc. 12) Is the proposed 2015-2035 General Plan financially feasible? A market analysis was prepared by The Natelson Dale Group Inc. (TNDG) to address the following questions: • Will there be enough market demand for the development amounts proposed in the General Plan to actually be built over the next 20 years? • And will there be a balance between cost of City services and projected revenues? For residential, industrial and hotel development, there will be enough market demand to fully "build out" the General Plan capacity by 2035. For retail development, TNDG projects that the City will reach 85% of the potential development capacity by 2035. For office development, TNDG projects that the City will reach 78% of the potential development capacity by 2035. The primary purpose of the of the Fiscal Impact Model was to ensure that the proposed General Plan update will result in a Citywide land use mix that is fiscally balanced for the City. Based on the General Plan land use mix TNDG projects that the General Fund will achieve a surplus of $3.1 million per year at buildout. 13) Are the traffic assumptions in the Fiscal Impact Report consistent with the Citywide traffic analysis prepared for the Circulation Element? The land use assumptions in the traffic model and the Fiscal Model were aligned and are consistent. The Planning Commission received a Revised Financial Feasibility report from The Natelson Dale Group Inc. (TNDG) with respect to traffic data on April 25, 2016. The discrepancies between trip generation considered in the traffic analysis and the Fiscal Analysis Report were addressed and the revised report and the consultant's bio are included as Attachment 4. Stantec provided clarification on the one percent overall increase on ADTs and the methodology used to run the traffic model which is included as Attachment 5. 14) CEQA requires that an EIR examine alternatives to the project that are capable of reducing or eliminating the unavoidable significant effects. What were the alternatives considered with the DEIR? In addition to the proposed land uses, the Draft EIR evaluates four project alternatives: • Alternative No. 1 - No Project/No Build Alternative (current General Plan) • Alternative No. 2 — Fairview Development Center site remaining as a Public/Institutional land use • Alternative No. 3 - LA Times site remaining an Industrial Park land use Projected Percentage Budget at Change FY 2014-2015 Buildout Through General Fund Actual (2015$) Buildout Total Revenues $113.0 million $128.1 million 13% Total Expenditures $109.4 million $125.0 million 14% Net Fiscal Cash Flow $3.6 million $3.1 million 13) Are the traffic assumptions in the Fiscal Impact Report consistent with the Citywide traffic analysis prepared for the Circulation Element? The land use assumptions in the traffic model and the Fiscal Model were aligned and are consistent. The Planning Commission received a Revised Financial Feasibility report from The Natelson Dale Group Inc. (TNDG) with respect to traffic data on April 25, 2016. The discrepancies between trip generation considered in the traffic analysis and the Fiscal Analysis Report were addressed and the revised report and the consultant's bio are included as Attachment 4. Stantec provided clarification on the one percent overall increase on ADTs and the methodology used to run the traffic model which is included as Attachment 5. 14) CEQA requires that an EIR examine alternatives to the project that are capable of reducing or eliminating the unavoidable significant effects. What were the alternatives considered with the DEIR? In addition to the proposed land uses, the Draft EIR evaluates four project alternatives: • Alternative No. 1 - No Project/No Build Alternative (current General Plan) • Alternative No. 2 — Fairview Development Center site remaining as a Public/Institutional land use • Alternative No. 3 - LA Times site remaining an Industrial Park land use • Alternative No. 4 - Segerstrom Home Ranch site remaining at the current development capacity of 0.40 Floor Area Ratio The analysis indicates that Alternative 1 could result in the elimination of the significant air quality and greenhouse gas impacts associated with the General Plan Amendments. However, as required by the State CEQA Guidelines, if the No Project alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, another alternative must be identified. Alternative 2 has the potential to result in marginally reduced environmental impacts relative to those associated with the proposed project. None of the four alternatives fully achieves the objectives of the proposed project. Public Comments The following includes the public and Planning Commission comments and staff responses provided during Planning Commission hearings: 15) Were sports fields within school properties considered in meeting community needs? Response: Consistent with previous assessments, the sports fields that are under a current joint use agreement with the City were considered; if these agreements become null and void, these facilities will no longer be available. 16) Affordable housing at Fairview Developmental Center Site — The proposed density of 25 du/acre at the Fairview Developmental Center will not provide for affordable housing projects. A high density of 40 du/acre should be considered to allow greater opportunities for affordable housing. Based on letter dated October 6, 2015 from State Department of General Services, the State is requesting that the City allow a maximum density of 40 du/acre for Shannon's Mountain project. Response: Based on direction from the City Council, the proposed Multi -Use Center Urban Plan allows a site-specific density up to 25 du/acre for Shannon's Mountain and a maximum 15 du/acre for the remaining site area for housing development. The City Council was aware of the October 6, 2015 letter at the time the draft land use plan was recommended for inclusion in the Draft General Plan and direction was provided to prepare the Draft EIR based upon the recommended land use plan. The State DGS has indicated that a Request for Proposals for a potential home builder is still pending for Shannon's Mountain. Higher densities were not considered in the traffic report for the Draft General Plan and DEIR, and any increase in density could have traffic implications that would need further study, both in terms of access and trip generation. Inclusionary Housing Requirements — To address affordable housing issues, the City should be requiring affordable housing for lower incomes in conjunction with the incentives overlays proposed for Harbor Boulevard and Newport Boulevard that allow higher densities. Not providing affordable housing and removing motel rooms that are the last housing choice for lower income groups could lead to more homelessness in the City. Response: An affordable housing requirement would require policy direction from the City Council in order to be included in the General Plan. With regard to transitional housing, according to the CEO's office, the City has been funding three (3) non-profit organizations over the last few years which are providing transitional and rapid re -housing services to the homeless and low income community. Mercy House, Collette's Children's Home and Families Forward serve populations as diverse as single men who are in recovery, as well as emergency and transitional shelters for families with children. Over the past three (3) years, 102 households have been assisted with this type of housing. The City has committed to funding these sorts of housing projects with CDBG funds for over 25 years. These organizations also take direct referrals from city Outreach Workers to ensure that a streamlined service delivery system exists so that the most vulnerable have access to outreach services on a priority basis. 17) Proposed Land Uses - There was a request to show the comparison of the Proposed General Plan to the Current General Plan in relationship to the overall change by land use types within the City. Response: The following shows the comparison of the current conditions in relation to existing and proposed General Plan update: Land Use Units Existing Current GP Proposed GP 1. Low Density Residential DU 14,210 14,788 14,791 2. Medium Density Residential DU 4,370 4,791 4,992 3. High Density Residential DU 23,593 28,830 31,661 5. Age Qualified Housing DU 450 450 450 6. General Office TSF 7,112 8,820 10,675 7. Medical Office TSF 112 112 112 8. General Commercial TSF 5,601 7,337 7,299 9. Regional Commercial TSF 4,140 4,640 4,640 10. Light Industrial TSF 13,087 13,108 12,704 11. Golf Course Acre 535 535 535 12. Elementary/Middle School Student 7,385 8,067 8,067 13. High School Student 4,590 4,998 4,998 14. College/University Student 25,990 26,286 26,286 15. Public Facility Acre 176 176 228 16. Fairgrounds Acre 150 150 150 17. Storage TSF 1,171 877 530 18. City Hall TSF 133 133 133 19. Performance Theater TSF 585 691 691 20. Convalescent Care Bed 448 448 448 21. Hospital Bed 472 472 122 22. Hotel Room 1,877 2,077 2,077 23. Motel Room 2,272 2,272 946 24. Auto Dealership TSF 491 491 491 25. Passive Park Acre 592 592 618 Land Use Units Existing Current GP Proposed GP 26. Agriculture Acre 72 0 0 27. Religious Facility TSF 555 555 555 28. Vacant Acre 18 6 6 29. Museum TSF 140 140 30. Home Ranch Trip Cap TSF 759 0 31. Sakioka Lot 2 TSF 862 862 32. OCC Master plan SG 100 100 Total DU 42,623 48,859 51,894 TSF 32,987 38,525 38,832 ACRE 1543 1459 1537 STUDENT 37,965 39,351 39,351 BED 920 920 570 ROOM 4,149 4,349 3,023 SG 100 100 18) Open Space Element — the following items were noted by one speaker: • OSR Pages 14 — Clarification of the underserved areas that appear to be inaccurately represented with extended radius beyond a 1/4 mile is requested. This issue was also included in the March 14, 2016 Planning Commission report. Response: This comment was addressed with the March 14, 2016 staff report, Figure OSR-2 is accurate and differs from the current General Plan in that it provides a more accurate representation of access/proximity to parks based on actual walking distance of a park user. The map does not depict distance "as the crow flies." This map shows the half and quarter mile in walking distance vs. a radius map since there may be physical barriers in place (walls, etc.). Therefore, the underserved areas are accurately depicted and the parkland per person ratio is accurately calculated. 19) Cultural Resources Element — the following were requested: • Add section 11.2 of the current General Plan referred to as Relationship to Other General Plan Elements. Response: The Introduction chapter of the Draft General Plan, on page 1-2, states the requirement under State law for the internal consistency of the General Plan, which means that the Historical and Cultural Resources Element relates to and is consistent with all other elements, even given the optional nature of this particular element. • Remove LACM-3267 and JDC- CM -2 sites from the list of paleontological resources. Response: The member of the public making this comment did not provide specific reasons why these resources should be eliminated from the inventories. Staff will follow up appropriately to determine whether the resources should continue to be included or not. Such determination would not have any bearing on the element's goals and policies. • With the 1999 survey approximately 60 properties were documented on the State Inventory Forms (DPR523 forms); however, only 29 are identified as significant federal, state and/or local historic resources. Consider adding all noted 60 properties to the list of significant resources. Response: The City welcomes additional information from the public that would enable staff to update the list. • Add previously noted Objectives HCR- 1A.2 through HCR -1A.6 to the Cultural Resources Element — these are correctly noted in the DEIR. Keep the policies that require monitoring of the site during construction for sites that are reasonably suspected to contain resources. Response: The mitigation measures cited are routinely included as conditions of project approval. If directed by the City Council, these measures could be included as General Plan policies. 20) Traffic Studies — Clarification regarding the validity and current timing of traffic data in the traffic reports was requested. Response: Major new traffic studies were conducted for the General Plan update. The General Plan is prepared for the next 20 years and includes development potential for important areas of the City such as the 19th Street and Newport Blvd. intersection which is considered the downtown area. 21) Cumulative Impacts — The cumulative impacts of the proposed densities should be considered; projects may also increase additional density with density bonus provisions. Response: Over time, project applicants may request density bonuses for development projects. However, the City receives few such requests even though the legislation providing for density bonuses has been in effect for many years. To include an estimation as to the number of additional units that could be provided as density bonus units over the 20 -year lifetime of the General Plan would involve speculation. As stated in Section 15145 (Speculation) of the CEQA Guidelines, if a particular impact is too speculative for evaluation, that condition should be noted and no further analysis is required. This circumstance applies to including density bonus units as part of the EIR analysis. 22) General Plan Land Use Policy for maximum four stories height — Reference to current Policy LU -11C.2 that allows a maximum of four stories, except for special purpose housing such as elderly, affordable or student housing. The proposed Policy LU -2.8 has added language as underlined below: "Limit building height to four stories above grade south of the 1-405 Freeway, except for special purpose housing, such as elderly, affordable, or student housing, unless otherwise approved bV a General Plan amendment. (A four-story/five-level parking structure with roof deck parking on the fifth level is considered a four-story structure.)" Response: A new building height can be proposed and approved via a General Plan amendment at any time. This language does not promote or encourage amendments but merely notes a fact that could happen through a future general plan amendment. 23) Required Amenities for three and four story townhomes — It was recommended that the new three and four story homes be required to: 1) install elevators or dumbwaiters for moving groceries, etc. to upper levels, 2) include a central vacuum system, and 3) provide a private roof deck to suffice for private open space. The General Plan does not include detailed requirements for developments in Urban Plan areas. These could be considered as recommended amenities to be included in the Urban Plans or conditions of approval as deemed appropriate per project. DRAFT 2015-2035 GENERAL PLAN The proposed amendments include revisions to all elements of the 2000 General Plan except the 2013-2021 Housing Element which was adopted in 2014. Those elements affected are Land Use, Circulation, Growth Management, Conservation Element, Open Space and Recreation, Noise, Safety, Community Design, and Historic and Cultural Resources. The primary focus of the General Plan Amendments is to: 1) update the Land Use Policy Map to target revitalization efforts; 2) ensure that the Circulation Element comports with the amended land use plan, incorporates "complete streets" strategies, and addresses all current planning laws; and 3) update all other elements to incorporate provisions that respond to State laws adopted since 2002 (the adoption date of the current General Plan). The City has established 2035 as the horizon year for the amended General Plan, meaning that 2035 represents the year by which the City would expect that the General Plan's policies and programs would be realized and a new comprehensive review of the plan may be warranted. Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) - SCH# 2015111068 This DEIR has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., § 15000 et seq.). This DEIR is a Program EIR prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15168. Section 15168 allows for the preparation of a Program EIR for a series of actions that can be characterized as a single project. The Draft EIR includes an analysis of potential environmental impacts associated with the long-term implementation of the updated General Plan in relation to the following environmental topics. • Aesthetics • Noise • Air Quality • Population and Housing • Cultural Resources • Public Services • Geology and Soils • Recreation • Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Transportation/Circulation • Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Utilities and Service Systems • Hydrology and Water Quality • Land Use and Planning Unavoidable significant impacts have been identified with regard to air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. Sites exist within the City that are listed as hazardous waste facilities, hazardous waste properties, and/or hazardous waste disposal sites, as enumerated under California Government Code 65962.5. PUBLIC COMMENTS The Notice of Preparation was released on November 16, 2015. All public comments received during the 30 -day review period is accessible at the following link: http://www.costamesaca.gov/ftp/generalplan20l 5-2035/Appendix%20B%20- %20Notice%20of%20Preparation.pdf Responses to Comments - Draft EIR Public Comment Period On March 4, 2016, the City released the draft 2015-2035 General Plan and DEIR for a 45 - day public review until April 18, 2016. Both documents were available on the City's Website at the following link: http://www.costamesaca.gov/index.aspx?page=1994 As required by CEQA, all public hearing comments and correspondence received during the 45 -day public review period are included in Attachment 3, and addressed in the draft "Response to comments" document included as Attachment 2. CONCLUSION The General Plan update process started in 2012. During the past three years, there were many workshops and study sessions that provided opportunities to obtain public input and discuss major land use and traffic issues. The draft 2015-2035 General Plan is a compilation of the revisions approved by the Council and updates in compliance with the latest state and regional requirements such as the Complete Street component. Most goals, policies and objectives have remained unchanged. The major land use changes are proposed for four percent of the City's overall area, which if implemented, is anticipated to be supported by the circulation improvements within the General Plan time frame. MINOO ASHABI, AIA Principal Planner CLAIRE FLYNN, AICP Assistant Director Development Services GARY ARMSTRONG, AICP Director of Economic Development & Development Services / Deputy CEO Attachments: 1. Draft General Plan including all Errata (under separate cover) 2. Draft Response to Comments (under separate cover) 3. Correspondence Submitted on General Plan and DEIR 4. Memos from The Natelson Dale Group 5. Memo from Stantec 6. Verbal Comments at Planning Commission Hearings ATTACHMENT 1 2015-2035 ][)raft (�-eneral Plan City of Costa Mesa 2ND FL, Development Services Department 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 714 754 5245 Hmd4,2016 UPDATED MAY 6, 2016 City of Costa Mesa 2015-2035 General Plan �-: •R - Lead Agency City of Costa Mesa • - �,.� d Attn: Development Services Department/Planning Division 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, California 92628-1200 (714) 754-5245 City Staff Contacts Gary Armstrong, AICP, Deputy CEO Claire Flynn, AICP, Assistant Director of Development Services Ernesto Munoz, Public Services Director Raja Sethuraman, Transportation Manager rnne, Jt=ntc MIG Stantec Veronica Tam and Associates, Inc. City Council Mayor Stephen Mensinger Mayor Pro Tem Jim Righeimer Council Member Katrina Foley Council Member Sandra Genis Council Member Gary Monahan Plannine Commission Chair Robert Dickson Vice Chair Jeff Mathews Commissioner Colin McCarthy Commissioner Tim Sesler Commissioner Stephan Andranian Table of Contents Table of Contents Chapter 1: Introduction Costa Mesa: Moving Forward ............................................................................................ I-1 Community Engagement: The Great Reach..............................................................................................I-3 CommunityProfile................................................................................................................................................I-7 Organization of the General Plan.................................................................................................................1-12 Chapter 2: Land Use Element Introduction.................................................................................................................................................... LU -1 LandUse Context (2015)................................................................................................................................LU-4 LandUse Plan...................................................................................................................................................LU-20 General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Consistency............................................................................. LU -69 Housing and Employment Projections........................................................... ..LU -71 ..................................... Goals, Objectives, and Policies.................................................................................................................. LU -73 Chapter 3: Circulation Element Introduction............................................................................................................................................................ C-1 BaselineConditions - 2015...............................................................................................................................0-3 CirculationPlan.....................................................................................................................................................0-8 Goals, Objectives, and Policies.....................................................................................................................0-33 Chapter 4: Growth Management Element Introduction........................................................................................................................................................GM-1 Creating Synergy Between Land Use and Circulation......................................................................GM-9 Development Phasing and Performance Monitoring Program....................................................GM-9 Goals, Objectives, and Policies................................................................................................................. GM -10 Chapter 5: Housing Element Housing Element Adopted January 21, 2014. Chapter 6: Conservation Element Introduction..................................................................................................................................................... CON -1 BaselineConditions - 2015........................................................................................................................ CON -2 Costa Mesa General Plan 1 3 Table of Contents Goals, Objectives, and Policies............................................................................................................... CON -33 Chapter 7: Noise Element Introduction...........................................................................................................................................................N-1 NoisePlan............................................................................................................................................................. N-21 Goals, Objectives, and Policies.....................................................................................................................N-23 Chapter 8: Safety Element Introduction........................................................................................................................................................S-1 BaselineConditions - 2015...................................................................................... ..........................S-2 Goals, Objectives, and Policies......................................................................................................................S-28 Chapter 9: Community Design Element Introduction...... ..............................................................................::.:..........:................................:.................... CD -1 ExistingConditions (2015)........................................................................................................... .. CD -2 Goals, Objectives, and Policies ....................................... :................................. ::.......... :::........................... CD -23 Chapter 10: Open Space and Recreation Element Introduction..................................................................................................................................................... OSR-1 Parkand Recreation System..................................................................................................................... OSR-2 Recreational Facilities and Programs..................................................................................................OSR-21 OpenSpace......................................................................................................................................................OSR-24 Cultural Arts Resources.............................................................................................................................OSR-28 Goals, Objectives, and Policies................................................................................................................OSR-30 Chapter 11: Historical and Cultural Resources Element Introduction..............................................................................................................,........................... HCR -1 Historical Context: Costa Mesa's Past ............................................. :................................. :............ ...;.... HCR -3 Historical, Archaeological, and Paleontological Resources...—.. .............................. ............. —... HCR -8 Goals, Objectives, and Policies........................................................ ........................................ :................... HCR -21 Chapter 12: Glossary General Plan Glossary of Terms ...:..:....................... :............:.:............. :_:..:;...:..:.............. :..::.... :....... :..:.... GL -1 41 Costa Mesa General Plan Table of Contents List of Tables Table1-1: General Plan Structure....:::...........................:,..,,,.,.:..,.,,.,,,,,..,,.,.,,,,....,,.,..,,.,:,...,.,..,,.,......,,,,,.,.1-3 Table LU -1: Public and Institutional Lands ................................... ........._...,.,........... ,................ ................. LU -9 Table LU -2: Established Land Uses (2015) ................................... .........:...:..........,...,.... ........... I ......... I.,... LU -11 Table LU -3: Land Use Designations (2015). ....... ................ ................. LU -12 Table LU -4: Housing, Population, and Employment............................................................................. LU -13 Table LU -5: Non -Residential Maximum Floor -Area Ratios................................................................... LU -22 Table LU -6: Land Use Density and Intensity Summary......................................................................... LU -27 Table LU -7: Commercial Floor -Area Ratio ......................... ........... ,,............. ,.......... ......... ..,....... ,............ LU -32 Table LU -8: Segerstrom Home Ranch.........................................:......................................................... LU -38 Table LU -9: Los Angeles Times Site................................................,,.....................................,.............,...... LU -40 Table LU -10: Trip Budget for South Coast Plaza ................... ......... ............................................. ,........... LU -41 Table LU -11: Urban Center Major Developments................................................................................. LU -43 Table LU -12: Town Center Intensity...................................................................................................... LU -46 Table LU -13: Industrial Floor -Area Ratio.............................................................................:...:..:........... LU -47 Table LU -14: Multi -Use Center Designation...................................,....................................................... LU -57 Table LU -15: Overlay and Urban Plan Residential Density................................................................... LU -59 Table LU -16: Residential Incentive Overlay .............................. :.............. :............ :............ ::.::............. ,.. LU -60 Table LU -17: SoBECA Mixed -Use Overlay............................................................................................. LU -63 Table LU -18: Harbor Mixed -Use Overlay.............................................................................................. LU -65 Table LU -19: General Plan and Zoning Consistency.............................................................................. LU -70 Table LU -20: General Plan Land Use 2035 ................................... .............,............................. ,,.............. LU -72 Table C-1: Master Plan of Streets and Highways............................................................... ................. :.., C-10 Table C-2: Street and Intersection Improvements for Pedestrian Safety .............................................. C-27 Table CON -1: Plant Communities............................................,.,........................ ................................. CON -7 Table CON -2: Plants of the Sage Scrub Community,,...,........................................................................ CON -8 Table CON -3: Plants of the Riparian Community................................................................................ CON -9 Table CON -4: Air Basin Attainment Status........................................................................................ CON -30 TableN-1: Typical Sound Levels............................................................................................................... N-4 Table N-2: Residential Exterior and Interior Standards............................................................................. N-6 Table N-3. Noise and Land Use Compatibility Matrix............................................................................... N-8 Table N-4: Orange County Fairgrounds Modified Noise Ordinance....................................................... N-11 Table N-5: Pacific Amphitheater Court Order Current Noise Restriction (1990 Order)............ ............. N-12 Table N-6: Field Noise Measurements — 2015 Ambient Noise Levels .................................,..........,:.,...., N-15 Table CD-1(Labeled as Ta_ble_CD-2): Landmarks........................................,...._.....,.,.............................. CD -17 I Table CD-2(Labeled as Table CD -3): Elements and Materials..: ............................. .... ; .......................... CD -30 Table OSR-1: Park and Open Space Inventory .........................., ..................I........................................I OSR-2 Costa Mesa General Plan 1 5 Table of Contents Table OSR-2: Neighborhood and Community Parks Inventory, ............... ...... ., ........ 1-1. OSR-7 Table OSR-3: School Recreational Facilities.......................................................................................... OSR-9 Table OSR-4: 2015 Park/Population Ratios ................. ............... .............. .................. .,...,...,.,........... , ".OSR-16 Table HCR -1: Historical Resources Eligibility Inventory...................................................................... HCR -12 List of Figures Figure 1-1: Planning Area................................................................................. 1-7 Figure1-1: Regional Location.......................................................................................................................1-8 Figure1-2: Planning Areas...........................................................................................................................1-9 Figure 1-3: Regulating Use of Property .......... ............ ............. ............ ___ .......... ___ ... .................... .........1-15 FigureLU -1: Planning Area...................................................................................................................... LU -3 Figure LU -2: Density and Floor -Area Ratio (FAR).................................................................................. LU -21 Figure LU -3: Land Use Policy Map......................................................................................................... LU -25 Figure LU -4: Segerstrom Home Ranch................................................................................................. LU -37 Figure LU -5: Los Angeles Times Site..................................................................................................... LU -39 Figure LU -6: Sakioka Lot 2.................................................................................................................... LU -42 FigureLU -7: Fairgrounds....................................................................................................................... LU -51 Figure LU -8: Multi -Use Center.............................................................................................................. LU -56 Figure LU -9: Overlays and Urban Plans................................................................................................. LU -58 Fi ure LU -10: Res identiai Incentive Ove rlay: Harbor Sou levard........................................................... LU -61 Figure LU -11: Residential Incentive Overlay: Newport Boulevard........................................................ LU -62 Figure LU -12: 5o Seca Ove Hay.............................................................................................................. LU -64 Figure LU -13: Harbor Mixed -Use Overlay............................................................................................. LU -66 Figure LU -14: Westside Urban Plans..................................................................................................... LU -68 FigureC-1: Roadway Typical Cross Sections ..................... :....... :.............. ..................... :..... :...... :.............. C-9 Figure C-2: Master Plan of Streets and Highways ............................ ................... .................. .......... ....,.... C-12 Figure C-3: Conceptual Bicycle Master Plan ............. ......... ,....,................................................................. C-16 Figure C-4: Bike Cross Sections Class I and Class II...................................................................................0-17 Figure C-5: Bike Cross Sections Class III and Class IV ........................................................... ............. ....... C-18 Figure C-6: Pedestrian Opportunity Zones ............................ ......................................... ....... ................... C-24 FigureC-7: Sidewalk Zones........................................................................................................................0-26 Figure C-8: Transit Corridors..................................................... ....,....................................... .....................0-29 Figure CON -1: Biological Resources ......................................... .................... ......................... I.............. CON -5 Figure CON -2: Coastal Zones.............................................................................................................. CON -11 Figure CON -3: Coastal Zone Properties in Costa Mesa, ........................................................ ............ CON -12 Figure CON -4: Water Districts....................................................,....................................................... CON -19 Figure CON -5: Groundwater Basins.................................................................................................... CON -20 Figure N-1: Noise Monitoring Locations................................................................................................. N-14 Figure N-2: Existing Noise Contours — 2015............................................................................................ N-17 Figure N-3; Future Noise Contours — 2035........................._................................................................... N-18 61 Costa Mesa General Plan Table of Contents FigureS-1: Geologic Map........................................................................................................................... S-4 FigureS-2: Soil Types..................................................................................................................................5=5 FigureS-3: Regional Faults......................................................................................................................... S-88 Figure S-4: local Seismic Hazards.............................................................................................................5-11 Figure S-5: Local Flooding Hazards........................................................................................................... 5-14 Figure S-6: Dam Inundation Areas............................................................................................................S-15 Figure S-7: Tsunami and Sea Level Rise Hazard Areas............................................................................. 5-17 Figure S-8: John Wayne Airport Safety Zones... ........................... ........................................................... S-20 Figure S-9: Public Safety Facilities and Emergency Evacuation Routes...................................................5-22 FigureCD -1: Paths................................................................................................................................... CD -4 FigureCD -2: Corridors..................................................................................................... CD -5 FigureCD -3: Districts.................................................................................................... ...................... CD -9 FigureCD -4: Nodes.................................................................................................................................. CD -15 Figure CD -5: Destinations and Landmarks.............................................................................................. CD -16 FigureCD -6: Edges .............................................. ..... .... .......... .....................-... ... CD -18 Figure OSR-1: Parks and Recreation................................................................ OSR-3 FigureOSR-2: Park Access................................................................................................................... OSR-15 Figure OSR-3: Planning Areas and Underserved Park Areas....................:....................:.....................OSR-18 Figure HCR -1: Historical Eligibility Sites............................................................................................ HCR -11 Costa Mesa General Plan 1 7 Table of Contents This page intentionally left blank. 81 Costa Mesa General Plan Looking west along 191h Street with Newport Boulevard in the foreground. Chapter is Introduction Costa Mesa: Moving Forward This Costa Mesa General Plan establishes the long-range planning and policy direction that guides change and preserves the qualities that define our community. The 2035 General Plan sets forth the Vision for Costa Mesa for the next two decades. This Vision recognizes that Costa Mesa's focus remains on protecting and enhancing our diverse residential neighborhoods, accommodating an array of businesses that both serve local needs and attract regional and international spending, and continuing to provide cultural, educational, social, and recreational amenities that contribute to the quality of life in the community. Over the long term, General Plan implementation will ensure that development decisions and improvements to public and private infrastructure are consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies contained in this Plan. Costa Mesa General Plan I I-1 Introduction The City adopted its first General Plan in 1957, four years after incorporation and before State law required such plans. This forthrightness illustrated the community's resolve to plan a City structure that creates success, rather than simply react to development proposals. The second General Plan was prepared in 1970 to set the course of anticipated development of the quickly disappearing agricultural lands. The Plan was comprehensively amended in 1981, 1992, and 2002. This General Plan 2035 largely incorporates the goals, policies, and objectives set forth in the 2002 General Plan, with focused changes made to create a more multimodal circulation network and encourage reinvestment in districts and neighborhoods where it is most needed. Purpose The State of California requires every city and county to prepare and adopt a comprehensive general plan that is "an integrated, internally consistent, and compatible statement of policies" to address all issues that affect the physical development of the community, as well as land outside its boundaries that potentially affect long-term planning (Government Code Section 65300 et seq.). The role of a general plan is to act as a "constitution" for development, the foundation upon which all land use and related decisions are based. All general plans must meet minimum requirements stipulated in the Government Code. Most specifically, the general plan is required to address the following topics, or "elements:" Land Use, Housing, Circulation, Open Space, Conservation, Noise, and Safety. Each jurisdiction has the authority to include additional elements for issues important to the long-term development of the community, such as, for example, historic preservation, air quality, or arts and culture. Under the law, any optional elements have the same weight as the mandatory elements regarding adopted policy. Also, every jurisdiction has flexibility in determining how to organize its general plan, provided all required components specified in the Government Code area addressed. The Costa Mesa General Plan consists of 10 elements, identified in Table 1-1. 1-2 1 Costa Mesa General Plan Introduction Table I-1: General Plan Structure --------- Required by Costa Mesa General Plan Elements State Law Land Use Element G Optional Circulation Element G Housing Element a Conservation Element G Noise Element 13 Safety Element G Open Space and Recreation Element G Growth Management Element G Community Design Element p Historical and Cultural Resources Element 0 Community Engagement: The Great Reach During 2012-2015, the City conducted an in-depth community engagement process— "The Great Reach" —that involved a broad and diverse constituency to refine the community vision and to identify where targeted change was warranted and desired. Great Reach events included 10 community workshops held early in the General Plan development process and widely attended by residents, property owners, the development community, and social service interests. The topics discussed varied by workshop, with intensive sessions focused on topics of the greatest and immediate public concerns: parks and open spaces, traffic, bicycling, and community safety. From these workshops, the exchange of ideas helped identify strongly held community values and aspirations. Planning Commission and City Council Involvement The Great Reach extended to the City Council and Planning Commission in a series of workshops and study sessions held in 2014 and 2015: three joint City Costa Mesa General Plan 1 I-3 Introduction Council/Planning Commission workshops, three study sessions with City Council, and one study session with Planning Commission. From the workshops and study sessions, the community decided upon a refined Vision statement which emphasized the widely held desire to resolve targeted land use and mobility issues as the anchoring point for the 2035 General Plan. Bikeway and Walkability Committee One of the outcomes of the workshops in 2015 was the formation of the Bikeway and Walkability Committee, composed of 13 members appointed by the City Council. The Committee was tasked with crafting the goals, objectives, policies, and programs for the City's first Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. Community members and decision makers involved in the process expressed that Costa Mesa should have transportation and recreational infrastructure that easily accommodates bicyclists and pedestrians. I-4 1 Costa Mesa General Plan The Great Reach General Plan public workshops included 10 meetings held at various locations and times to maximize participation by residents and stakeholders Introduction General Plan Vision Through the Great Reach process, the community participants helped craft this refined Vision for Costa Mesa. Costa Mesa: A Vision for Land Use and Mobility Costa Mesa is a vibrant community where residents and visitors can enjoy all that our City has to offer. From the youthful and eclectic to the established and historical, our community features opportunities that are unparalleled in Southern California. Our neighborhoods are diverse, distinctive, and safe. Our commercial districts offer world-class shopping and are home to thriving businesses —from the creative class to technology and automotive ventures. Every day, hundreds of children and adults enjoy our abundant parks and open spaces. The City offers exciting and unique cultural opportunities that draw visitors from all over Southern California and enrich the lives of our residents. The founding principles that established our community as a great place to live and own a business are still in place. We anticipate, adapt, and plan ahead. As a result, we are able to respond to regional influences in ways that will continue to move Costa Mesa in positive directions. The City ensures that new development is economically and environmentally sustainable, and is compatible in scale and character with our neighborhoods. Housing Our Residents We pride ourselves in being inclusive, multi -generational, and economically and culturally diverse. Our neighborhoods reflect this diversity, both in terms of the range of available housing types and household composition. From single-family homes to apartments to live/work units, residents have many choices of creative living spaces. As our community grows and develops, we aim to increase homeownership opportunities. Sustaining Our Economy A healthy economy leads to a thriving community. We foster conditions that support a modern and diverse economy—one that retains and attracts new businesses and industries and cultivates innovation. Costa Mesa's reputation as a well-known shopping destination represents just one part of our economic base. Local businesses, industrial districts, and urban -scale office complexes thrive in our business -friendly culture. This robust economy attracts investment and provides employment for all skills and educational Costa Mesa General Plan 1 I-5 Introduction levels. A healthy tax base sustains the ability of the City to provide high-quality services. Providing Great Open Spaces Parks and open spaces contribute to the health of our residents, ecosystems, and the environment. We plan for sensible growth while preserving natural open spaces. These natural open spaces are protected to continue to provide valuable functions as habitat, resource conservation/protection, and places of education. The City's commitment to well-maintained parks will ensure that the residents can continue to enjoy them. At the same time, we are committed to providing spaces for residents in all life stages within these parks for flexible new gathering spaces adaptable to evolving needs. Celebrating Cultural Life Costa Mesa is a City of the Arts; we are "the place" to experience and enjoy visual and performing arts and cultural events. We treasure learning and education and express this through enhancement of traditional and non- traditional learning environments, including our libraries, parks, and open spaces. The City supports intellectual and artistic creativity and celebrates Costa Mesa's historical assets. Through these, we continue to cultivate cultural enrichment and lifelong learning. Moving in and around the City As a city served by freeways and regional travel corridors, Costa Mesa recognizes that vehicles moving through Costa Mesa can be headed to other destinations. We create improvements that channel this traffic so that our businesses have easy access, our neighborhoods are protected, and bicycles and pedestrians can move freely. To achieve this, we place transit, bicycle, and pedestrian connectivity on par with traditional roadway improvements. We plan accordingly so that our residents can get around easily without a car, and recreational cyclists have many opportunities to enjoy the outdoors. We manage land use intensity so that vehicle demand never exceeds planned capacity. I-6 1 Costa Mesa General Plan Overlooking the South Const Metro skyline Introduction Community Profile Location and Setting Costa Mesa is located in central Orange County, adjacent to the Santa Ana River and just one mile from the Pacific Ocean. Figure 1-1 identifies the City's regional location in Orange County. The City connects easily to the region via several freeways: the San Diego Freeway (1-405), which bisects the northerly portion of the City; the Costa Mesa Freeway (SR -55), which travels north to south and terminates at 19th Street; and the Corona del Mar Freeway (SR -73), which starts at 1-405 and extends southeast to south Orange County. The neighboring cities of Santa Ana, Irvine, Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, and Fountain Valley share the regional arterial roadway network that services Costa Mesa. Orange County John Wayne Airport, located along the eastern edge of Costa Mesa, provides easy connections beyond the region. The corporate City limits encompass 15.8 square miles. The General Plan Planning Area consists of the incorporated City limits and unincorporated areas—the so-called sphere of influence—which are under Orange County's authority but have a bearing on Costa Mesa due to immediate proximity. The Planning Area total is approximately 16.2 square miles (nearly 10,368 acres). Figure 1-2 identifies the Planning Area. Photo source: Amoeba Blog (http://www.amoeba.com/) Costa Mesa General Plan 1 I-7 Introduction r` S Whittier r�LosAn elesCouunty j (,h1310 Hills `� Yr La Mirada' o.an9e County ` r� La Habra �JL Brea F,.�y. Norwalk f Fullerton Q iar �. Anaheim � �— Anaheim �y. Long Beach , Cypress �. ,!, r Orange l _ Garden •`�� r SeaPBeach ! • �� �. Santa Ana lam, Tustin ti r >r el in ;_ Ca Huntington Irvin+ Lake ' Beach IlAisilan F`'` Lagunai Newport Beach Hills PadlrcOcean Laguna Beach Laguna ,Q MiesNiguel 0 0 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 Figure I-1: Regional Location 1-8 1 Costa Mesa General Plan i Ellis Ave. i Gadi@Id Ave. t City of Huntington Beach Ave. J Fairview �V i ICity of Newport Beach SI. City Boundaries Costa Mesa City Boundary Costa Mesa Sphere of Influence Introduction $e�ffirs7`am Ave. `O 3 MacArthur Blvd °' c LL City of Santa Ana Su;flowar Ave. Sor h _ Coast .r�imn vd. rWS ; =WV! TEvent OC Fair& 7 /5 Conte City of Newport Beach a, NMI Source: City of Costa Mesa, 2015 Feet 00 1,000 2000 4.000 8:000 8,000 Figure I-2: Planning Areas Costa Mesa General Plan 1 I-9 Introduction Historical Perspective Located on the "coastal tableland" above Newport Bay, Costa Mesa was once grazing grounds for cattle belonging to the Mission San Juan Capistrano. At the beginning of the 19th century, missionaries built the adobe "Estancia," a waystation for the cattle drivers who tended the herds. This structure still stands and was restored and transformed by the City into a museum at 1900 Adams Avenue. In 1810, this same area was a part of the Spanish land grant of Santiago Del Santa Ana made to Jose Antonio Yorba. By 1880, settlers had begun buying portions of the rancho from Yorba's heirs and in the same decade, established the town of Fairview. A schoolhouse and church were built near the present intersection of Harbor Boulevard and Adams Avenue, and a 25 -room hotel accommodated visitors to the nearby hot sulfur springs. In early 1889, a storm washed out the railroad and brought financial disaster to the community, which soon reverted back to farming. By this time, the little town of Harper, named after a nearby rancher, had emerged on a siding of the Santa Ana and Newport Railroad. Its first business, Ozmen's General Store, stood on the corner of Newport Boulevard and 18th Street and contained the City's first post office, established in 1909. On May 11, 1920, Harper officially changed its name to Costa Mesa, which means "coastal tableland" in Spanish, and continued as an agricultural community, growing sweet potatoes, corn, tomatoes, strawberries, and apples. Building and oil drilling industries were just beginning to bring new growth to the City when the depression hit Southern California. Industries collapsed and the local bank closed. More disaster followed when the 1933 Long Beach earthquake shook the town, damaging businesses and the Main School. World War II brought many thousands of people to the area for training at the Santa Ana Army Air Base, located on what are now the Orange County Fairgrounds, Orange Coast College, and the Civic Center. When the war ended, many returned with their families to begin the population boom. On June 29, 1953, the City incorporated with a City Council -Manager form of government. The new City had an area of 3.5 square miles and a population of I-10 1 Costa Mesa General Plan Introduction 16,840. By 2015, the population had risen to 113,4551 and the area to 15.8 square miles. Costa Mesa Today Costa Mesa is a major commercial and cultural hub in Orange County. The City is home of South Coast Plaza, a luxury shopping institution known across the country and internationally. The robust retail, professional office, and industrial businesses in Costa Mesa provide more than 87,000 jobs. The Orange County Fair & Event Center hosts the Orange County Fair every summer, among other events. The Pacific Amphitheater and Centennial Farm host events and community programs year-round. In the South Coast Metro Center area north of 1-405, the Segerstrom Centers for the Arts—which consists of the Renee and Henry Segerstrom Concert Hall, Samueli Theater, Segerstrom Hall, Judy Morr Theater, and the Arts Plaza—is a 14 -acre cultural and arts complex that bustles with public art, cultural performances, and open spaces. A wide array of community facilities contribute to the community's quality of life, including over 29 parks, 25 public schools, Orange Coast College, Vanguard University, several private colleges, three recreational community centers, two public libraries, two community gardens, a municipal golf course, and a senior center. Foremost, residential neighborhoods define the community. Neighborhoods cover more than 50 percent of the land area and extend into all areas of City, with the exception of the business park between SR -55 and John Wayne Airport. Residents live in single-family neighborhoods like Mesa Verde and the Eastside, as well as townhomes, apartments, and live/work units that provide places for people to live near commercial activity centers, to which they can easily walk and bike. 1 As reported by the California State University, Fullerton Center for Demographic Research, September 2015. Costa Mesa General Plan I I-11 Introduction Organization of the General Plan The Elements Land Use Element The Land Use Element serves as the long-range planning guide for development in the City by indicating the location and extent of development allowed. More than the other elements, the Land Use Element has a major impact on the form and character of Costa Mesa. Land use policies and land use designations aim to maintain both an exceptional quality of life for residents and a thriving local economy for commerce. Circulation Element The Circulation Element establishes a mobility network designed to accommodate all modes of travel and the mobility needs consistent with the Land Use Element. The Circulation Element calls for implementing a "Complete Streets" approach to moving people within and through Costa Mesa, with streets designed and managed to meet the needs of pedestrians, cyclists, and transit users equal to the needs of motorists. The element includes Costa Mesa's first comprehensive Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, influenced by the work of a dedicated committee of residents. Integral to circulation planning is the City's use of a traffic model created to forecast long-range traffic volumes compatible with the Orange County Transportation Analysis Model (OCTAM). City staff uses this model to establish and manage trip budgets for defined geographic areas, thus regulating the volumes of new vehicle trips produced and added to already strained road segments. Growth Management Element In 1991, Orange County voters approved Measure M to fund regional transportation improvements. The initiative included a requirement for cities to adopt Growth Management Elements to illustrate how they would regulate growth consistent with Measure M plans for mobility improvements. With the sunset of Measure M in 2011, Measure M2 took its place, authorizing 1-12 1 Costa Mesa General Plan Introduction continuance of the program through 2041. While Measure M2 no longer requires cities to maintain Growth Management Elements, the Costa Mesa General Plan maintains its strong commitment to balance physical growth with the ability of the local road network to support it. The element is designed to minimize duplication between Measure M2 and regional Congestion Management Program requirements. Housing Element The Housing Element provides programs and policies that assist the State and region in meeting comprehensive goals to provide suitable housing for all socioeconomic segments of the population. This element identifies specific actions the City will take to accommodate its regional fair -share housing allocation for all income groups, addresses the needs of at -risk and special needs populations, and responds to emerging housing trends. The Housing Element set forth policies and programs that promote preservation, improvement, and development of diverse types of housing throughout Costa Mesa. Conservation Element The Conservation Element identifies and establishes policies relative to the identification, establishment, preservation, and management of natural resources. This element discusses air quality, biological resources, coastal resources, energy and water resources, wastewater, water quality, and waste management. Critically, the element identifies: ■ Areas in Costa Mesa with substantial natural resources that require management to prevent waste, destruction, or neglect ■ Policies related to permissible uses and development standards within conservation areas, as well as programs to ensure the conservation of resources ■ Desired courses of action/strategies to implement the City's conservation policies Open Space and Recreation Element The Open Space and Recreation Element outlines a strategy to preserve open space areas and to meet residents' evolving recreation needs. Open spaces include neighborhood and community parks, community centers, open space easements, and golf courses. Additional resources include County -owned Costa Mesa General Plan 1 1-13 Introduction regional facilities within and adjacent to the City and acres of institutional land. Safety Element The Safety Element guides the City Council, all City departments, and individuals in understanding the natural and human -caused hazards confronting Costa Mesa. The Safety Element establishes policies aimed at reducing death, injuries, property damage, and economic and social dislocation resulting from these hazards: geologic and seismic conditions, flooding, urban and wildland fire, crime, and hazardous materials. Noise Element The Noise Element identifies projected noise levels associated with many noise sources in the community and includes strategies to limit exposure of the community to excessive noise levels. The baseline and projected noise levels adjacent to freeways, arterial roadways, and areas impacted by John Wayne Airport operations are depicted, and projected noise levels are used to guide future land use decisions. Community Design Element The Community Design Element promotes quality design for buildings, districts, landmarks, natural features, and significant landscaping. While this element does not outline specific design guidelines, it does establish a framework of sufficient design review processes focused on ensuring projects meeting the community's expectations for design and development quality. Historical and Cultural Resources Element The Historical and Cultural Resources Element provides the regulatory framework for identifying, maintaining, and restoring the City's historical and cultural resources. The element promotes the identification and protection of resources and defines adequate measures for use and improvements of such buildings, structures, sites and natural features with significant historical, archaeological, cultural, architectural, and community value. Administering the General Plan The City Council will implement this General Plan by establishing annual planning and budgeting goals based on the Plan, and by adopting implementing ordinances and regulations. City departments will use General I-14 1 Costa Mesa General Plan Introduction Plan policies to guide their programming and planning and importantly, to review development applications for consistency with the City's Vision. Once adopted, the General Plan will not remain static, and the Vision will continue to inform considerations to amend the Land Use Plan or any goals, objectives, or policies. Over time, the City may determine that it is necessary to revise portions of the text or add policies or programs to reflect changing circumstances or philosophy. State law provides direction on how cities can maintain the general plan as a contemporary policy guide. The State requires each planning department to report annually to its City Council on "the status of the plan and progress in its implementation" (§65400(b]). Moreover, it is the policy of the City Council to review the General Plan periodically to maintain the currency of its goals and policies, as well as its background and technical information. This General Plan has been adopted pursuant to this policy. The City regulates the use of property within its jurisdiction through the General Plan in conjunction with the zoning, subdivision, and building codes; specific plans; and urban plans (see Figure 1-3: Regulating Use of Property.) The General Plan is the basis of all of these land use regulations. Following adoption of the General Plan, any regulations in zoning, subdivision, building, and other ordinances that are not consistent with the General Plan will be amended to ensure consistency. Figure I-3: Regulating Use of Property Municipal Code Land Use Plans Zoning Code Specific Plans Subdivisions Urban Plans Building Code Costa Mesa General Plan I I-15 Looking southeast over Costa Mesa's Westside District Chapter 2 Land Use Element Introduction The Land Use Element is the keystone element of the Costa Mesa General Plan. This Element unifies the other elements by providing an overall policy context for future physical change. Goals and policies define the community's desired balance among social, environmental, and economic considerations, while maintaining those characteristics of the community that reinforce quality neighborhoods and viable business districts. As Costa Mesa implements this General Plan, the City aspires to keep Costa Mesa an eclectic community with welcoming public spaces; attractive, walkable residential neighborhoods; exceptional parks and community services; and a diverse economy that meets the needs of local residents while also attracting investment and spending from regional and international markets. Costa Mesa General Plan I LU -1 Land Use Element Purpose The Land Use Element shapes new physical development in the City and its sphere of influence and provides strategies to preserve, protect, and enhance established neighborhoods and districts consistent with the community's vision. Through implementation of the Land Use Element, the City seeks to accomplish the following: ■ Target new development opportunities at key locations while ensuring compatibility with established neighborhoods • Increase homeownership opportunities in the City ■ Establish and maintain an orderly pattern of development in the City ■ Establish a land use classification system that implements land use policies ■ Identify acceptable land uses and their general location ■ Promote consistency with standards for residential density and non- residential building intensity for existing and future development ■ Accommodate a diversity of businesses to provide a solid tax base and ample employment opportunities, to attract visitor/tourist spending, and to hedge against periodic downturns in business sectors ■ Provide open space, park areas, and public spaces where residents can enjoy passive and active recreational pursuits ■ Ensure that new development is economically and environmentally sustainable The Land Use Element serves as the long-range planning guide for development in the City by indicating the location and extent of development to be allowed. More than any other element, the Land Use Element will have a major impact on the form and character of Costa Mesa over the next 20 years. The Land Use Element applies to all properties within the corporate City limits, as well as properties within Costa Mesa's sphere of influence, as established by the Orange County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). Together, these areas comprise the "planning area." Figure LU -1 illustrates the planning area boundaries in Chapter 1, Introduction. LU -2 I Costa Mesa General Plan Land Use Element City Boundaries 3owce:City ofCosta Me" 2015 Costa Mesa City Boundary Costa Mesa Sphere of Influence Feet 0 1000 2.000 4,000 "0000 8,000 Figure LU -1: Planning Area Costa Mesa General Plan I LU -3 Land Use Element Land Use Context (2015) The City has implemented strategic efforts over the years to provide a sustainable balance of residential, commercial, industrial, and public and institutional uses. Land use planning ensures that compatible and complementary uses are arranged in patterns that achieve efficiencies for projected growth, mobility, and commerce. This Land Use section describes the general location, type, and intensity of development throughout Costa Mesa in baseline year 2015. Planning Context Development History Costa Mesa's incorporated city limits encompass approximately 8,080 acres, or approximately 15.8 square miles. The City lies on an elevated mesa landform just one mile from the Pacific Ocean. The Spanish name Costa Mesa means coastal tableland, Like throughout much of Southern California, the earliest settlers were Native Americans who fished and farmed. Spanish land grants in the 1800s brought Europeans into the area, with additional growth facilitated by extension of the railroad and, later, discovery of oil. Until the 1950s, agriculture remained the most important economic component of Orange County, and Costa Mesa was home to thousands of acres of sweet potato, corn, tomato, and strawberry crops. Remnants of this agricultural heritage remained through 2015 on properties north of Interstate 405, amid the urban development of South Coast Plaza and the Segerstrom Center for the ArtsPeFfa zing Arts G pte During World War II, the U.S. military established a number of bases in Orange County, including the Santa Ana Army Air Base in Costa Mesa (now the Orange County Fairgrounds). In the years following World War II, the surge in population and demand for affordable homes soared as returning veterans with new families looked to buy homes. The accelerated demand for suburban homes resulted in the conversion of thousands of agricultural acres to large single-family housing tracts. Today, this use remains predominant in Costa Mesa. LU -4 I Costa Mesa General Plan Mesa Verde residential neighborhood with a mixture of single-family and multi family units, as well as parks and schools Land Use Element ObiFiFigFrom the 1970s through 1990s, Costa Mesa experienced significant growth in retail and office development, with development of regional shopping malls and high-rise office buildings north of 1-405. Investment in the industrial district south of West 191h Street included a substantial presence of surfing and similar action sports businesses, several of which have grown to be multi-million dollar international brands. Established Land Uses (2 015) Costa Mesa is 99 percent built out, with the largest vacant parcels located in the North Costa Mesa area. The two largest available properties—both in agriculture production as of 2015—lie north of 1-405: the 31 -acre Segerstrom Home Ranch and the 33 -acre Sakioka Lot 2 sites. The North Costa Mesa Specific Plan regulates land uses on these properties. Residential As of 2015, approximately 47 percent of land in the planning area consisted of residential neighborhoods. Single-family neighborhoods cover approximately 30 percent of the land in the City. There are a greater number of multi -family units (24,000 units) than single-family homes (18,500 homes). Costa Mesa contains a number of distinct residential neighborhoods, including: 1) Eastside, 2) Westside, 3) Mesa Verde, 4) College Park, 5) North Costa Mesa/Mesa Del Mar/Halecrest Hall of Fame, 6) Bristol/Paularino, and 7) South Coast/Wimbledon Village. Opportunity for new large-scale, single-family development is limited due to the built -out nature of the City's residential areas and limited acreage of Costa Mesa General Plan I LU -5 Land Use Element vacant land. The accelerated demand for suburban homes experienced in the mid-1950s and 1960s resulted in the conversion of thousands of agricultural acres to large single-family housing tracts. Single-family residential construction primarily consists of infill development, particularly in Eastside and Westside Costa Mesa. From 2012 to 2016, new small lot subdivisions have been approved in multi -family zones in Eastside Costa Mesa. Medium - and High -Density Residential land uses account for 18 percent of the net acreage. Medium -Density Residential areas are distributed throughout the City. High -Density neighborhoods are clustered around Orange Coast College, along Mesa Verde Drive East, along Adams Avenue, around Vanguard University, in the northeast portion of the South Coast Metro area, in Downtown, and in the southeast portion of the City. Because m a ny residential units were constructed Prior to C ity incur oration particularly on the Eastside, iexisting residential densities in the Medium- and High -Density land use designations may exceed the current allowed number of dwelling units per acre. Commercial Uses Costa Mesa contains six distinct commercial districts: 1) South Coast Metro District, 2) Harbor Boulevard Corridor, 3) Downtown/The Trianglee, 4) East 17th Street Corridor, 5) Newport Boulevard Corridor, and 6) Bristol Street Corridor. Commercial land use designations encompass 14 percent of the land area, or 1,210 acres. LU -6 I Costa Mesa General Plan Costa Mesa Downtown and The Triangie Squer-a-consists of a mixture of neighborhood and community -serving commercial uses. Land Use Element South Coast Plaza contains the largest single concentration of retail uses in the City and accounts for 30 percent of the commercial square footage; the adjacent Town Center area accounts for nearly 20 percent of the area planned for office space throughout the City. The Harbor Boulevard commercial district accounts for almost one-third of commercial land. Businesses along the boulevard account for 40 percent of the City's total retail sales, indicating that Harbor Boulevard's trade area is of a regional scale. The major factor for this is the concentration of auto dealerships on Harbor Boulevard. The 92 -acre East 17th Street commercial district contains a variety of commercial uses, including retail, service, and office. The area generally serves local residences and businesses. Major retail centers other than South Coast Plaza include the CAMP, the LAB Anti -Mall, South Coast Collection (SOCO), Metro Pointe, and The Trian Ee°'"; . Each offers its own unique mix of shopping and dining experiences aeras well as entertainment for the citizens of Costa Mesa and Orange County at large. Industrial Uses Industrial land use designations encompass approximately 10 percent of land and are primarily concentrated in three major districts: the Westside District, the John Wayne Airport Industrial District, and the North Costa Mesa Industrial District. The Westside District is the City's oldest industrial area; it covers approximately 312 acres and represents 88 percent of land area designated for Light Industrial. The remaining 12 percent of Light Industrial uses are located in areas along Baker Street. Light Industrial uses consist of small manufacturing and service industries, as well as larger industrial operations. The Westside District contains several large manufacturing firms and a high percentage of smaller industrial operations, frequently in multi -tenant structures. The Southwest District is one of Costa Mesa's major employment centers, providing about one-fourth of all local manufacturing -related jobs. The 390 -acre Airport Industrial Area is a component of the much larger Irvine Business and Industrial Complex, which extends into the cities of Irvine and Tustin. This area is characterized by large parcels and wide landscaped Costa Mesa General Plan I LU -7 Land Use Element building setbacks. Several firms have located their main or regional headquarters in the area and are often the single tenants in large structures. Industrial space directly adjacent to John Wayne Airport provides opportunities to airport -related industries. Some of these properties include hangars with access to the tarmac and runway. The third industrial area is the 323 -acre North Industrial/Business Park located within the north part of Costa Mesa, northeast of 1-405 and the Santa Ana River. This district is a part of a larger industrial area extending northward into the city of Santa Ana. The primary users of this industrial area (Harbor Gateway) are large single -tenant manufacturing firms and corporate offices. Included within this district is a 14.5 -acre portion of the Home Ranch area property and the unique "lifestyle" South Coast Collection (SOCO) shopping center. SOCO includes over 300,000 square feet of design showrooms, creative studios, specialty retail and food stores, a weekly farmers' market, and outdoor gathering spaces. The OC Mix, located in SOCO, is a marketplace for gourmet foods, coffee, wine, and over 30 owner -operated retail and specialty shops under one roof. Public/Institutional, Golf Course, and Fairground Uses The Public/Institutional designation applies to publicly and privately owned properties that provide recreation, open space, health, and educational opportunities, as well as uses that provide a service to the public. A major land acquisition by the State in 1950 was responsible for the public ownership of the Costa Mesa Golf Course and Country Club and Fairview Park. LU -8 I Costa Mesa General Plan The Airport Industrial/ Business Park District includes a concentration of industrial, office, and commercial uses. Orange Coast College, founded in 1947, includes over 80 academic program areas and over 50 career and technical programs. Land Use Element I„F�- -.i�, 7CfS -, ori f--,�.}iy.�fin., MnA 44., Cti4.,i.., .. Acquisitions by the City and County have expanded this area to include the County's Talbert Regional Park4te—adjacent to the Santa Ana River and the City's adjoining City -Canyon Park. See Table LU -1: Public and Institutional Land Acquisitions, for various public and institution uses government land acquisitions. As of 2015, a total of3-,24G491 acres are designated Public/Institutional. When combined with the Costa Mesa Golf Course and Orange County Fair & Event Center, these uses constitute 2-5-19.5 percent of the planning area. This high percentage of land area designated for public and institutional use primarily reflects past and current use by various governmental agencies: the Santa Ana Army Air Base during World War ll, the original 750 -acre land acquisition by the State of California, and land acquisitions by the City and Orange County. Table LU -1: Public and Institutional Lands Santa Ana Army Air Base Orange Coast College, Costa Mesa High School, Davis Middle School, Presidio Elementary School, TeWinkle Park, the National Guard Armory, Orange County Fairgrounds, Costa Mesa Farm Soccer Complex, Civic Center Park, City Hall, and Vanguard University Costa Mesa General Plan I LU -9 Land Use Element 750 -acre land (1950) Costa Mesa Golf Course and Country Club and Fairview Park, Fairview Developmental Center! (see Multi -Use Center designation) City and County expansion Talbert Regional Park and -City Canyon Park Source: City of Costa Mesa, 2015. of 2015.the r 'e ", Deujwwn t Ceir ter is in cagm tip&but h 5 at Caflf )mia has rniti{ed cite process for the closure of the focill y- This Land Use l'iemenC desrgrtates the slte as Multi Use Center that cr[Jnw_&r institt�ttiortrt nye3t s}uace. and residential iags&1g r to the Multi -Use Center- stiscussionfor the &irview ❑c veluprttetLCentir= The golf course designation includes the Mesa Verde and Santa Ana Country Clubs (both private) and the City -owned Costa Mesa Golf Course and Country Club. The Fairgrounds property includes the 150 -acre Orange County Fair & Event Center, which is owned by the 32nd District Agricultural Association, a state special-purpose district in the Division of Fairs and Expositions of the California Department of Food and Agriculture formed in 1949. Its board is appointed by the Governor of California. Table LU -2: Established Land Uses (2015), summarizes the existing land uses in Costa Mesa that were surveyed in 2015, including number of acres, residential units, building square feet, hotel and motel rooms, and estimated employees. Orange Coast College Vision 2020 Facilities Master Plan Costa Mesa is home to Orange Coast College, which is one of three colleges in the Coast Community College District. Orange Coast College is located at 2701 Fairview Road in the central portion of Costa Mesa. The District has been involved in preparing the Orange Coast College Vision 2020 Facilities Master Plan, which involves construction of new academic, administrative, residential, and parking facilities on the campus. In November 2015, the Coast Community College District Board of Trustees approved the Final Orange Coast College Vision 2020 Facilities Master Plan Program EIR. The proposed Master Plan involves following improvements: ■ Renovation of two existing buildings, totaling approximately 54,000 assignable square feet (ASF) and demolition of approximately 200,900 ASF LU -10 1 Costa Mesa General Plan Land Use Element Table LU -2: Established Land Uses (2015) Single -Family • 'Building Population 2,314 28.8 14,210 45,287 SquareLodging - - -- Multi-Family 1,402 17.4 28,413 64,469 - — 100 Office 332 4.1 -- 7,224,000 - 24,000 Commercial 770 9.6 — 11,403,000 — 23,400 Lodging: Motel/Hotel 60 0.8 — Motel: 2,272 Hotel: 1,877 1,400 Industrial 841 10.5 -- 13,087,000 - 27,300 Public Facilities/ Institutional 491 6.1 - 6,2005 Schools/Colleges 525 6.5 -- -- - 4,300 Golf 553 6.9 -- 100 Parks/Recreation 592 7.4 - Z Agriculture 72 0.9 - -- 200 Other`' 70 0.9 - 555,000 300 Vacant Lands 20 0.3 - -- -- -- Total 8,044 100.0% 42,623 110,524 32,269,000 4,149 87,3003 Sources: City of Costa Nlesa, Stantec7 and XllG, 2015. 1 . Note: 1. Net acres includes all private property land areas for the entire Planning Area, excluding all public right-of-way. 2. Park employment is counted under Public Facilities 3. Employees is calculated using building square footage and employinentgeneration rates by land use category. Center for Demographic Research, California State University, Fullerton identifies 87,097 jobs for 2015 based on 2014 projections. 4. Other land uses refers to religious institutions, utilities, railroad properties, and other classifications that are not classified under the existing land use categories. 5,. Refer to the Nlulti-Use Center discussion for the Fairview Developmental Center site. Costa Mesa General Plan I LU -11 Land Use Element Table LU -3: Land Use Designations (2015) Residential Low -Density Residential <8 du/ac 0.15/1-ligh Traffic 0.30/Moderate Traffic 2,087.4 0.8 2,088.2 25.7% Medium -Density <12 du/ac 858.1 1.1 859.1 10.6% Residential - 0.40/Low Traffic 0.75/Very Low Traffic 0.40/Low Traffic High -Density Residential) -2 <20 du/ac 842.9 2.9 845.8 10.4% Non -Residential Notes: 1, Within the itiledium and High Density Residential designation, existing residential units legally built in excess of the dwelling units per acre standard may be rebuilt at the some higher density subject to other zoning code standards. The allowable density or number of units to be redeveloped would be limited to the 1990 General Plan density with a 25% incentive bonus for Medium - Density or a 50°% incentive bonus for High Density or the existing number of units, whichever is less. 2, See High Density Residential text regarding areas in North Costa Xlesa where the density allowance exceeds 20 units per acre. 3. See Commercial Center, Regional Commercial, and Urban Center Commercial text for site specific density and FAR. 4. See text forMixPdHm& Use Development and Cultural arts Center provisions for additional discussion. LU -12 1 Costa Mesa General Plan 0.20/High Traffic Commercial -Residential <17.4 du/ac 0.30/Moderate Traffic 47.9 0.0 47.9 0.6% 0.40/Low Traffic 0.15/1-ligh Traffic 0. 25/Moderate Traffic Neighborhood Commercial <20 du/ac - 0.35/Low Traffic 40.3 0.2 40.5 0.5% 0.75/Very Low Traffic 0.20/1-ligh Traffic 0.30/Moderate Traffic0.40/Low General Commercial <20 du/ac Traffic 607.8 8.5 616.3 7.6% 0.75/Very Low Traffic 0.25/High Traffic 0.35/Moderate Traffic Commercial Center 3, <20 du/ac 54.1 0.3 54.4 0.7% - 0.45/Low Traffic 0.75/Very Low Traffic 0.50/High Traffic0.60/Moderate Urban Center Commercial3 20 to 80 du/ac 101.1 66.6 167.7 2.1% Traffic Cultural Arts Center Varies4 1.77" 57.3 0.0 57.3 0.7% Regional Commercial <20 du/ac 0.652/0.894 147.9 0.0 147.9 1.8% 0.20/High Traffic 0.30/Moderate Traffic Industrial Park <20 du/ac - 0.40/Low Traffic 669.1 2.4 671.5 8.3% 0.75/Very Low Traffic 0.15/1-ligh Traffic 0.25/Moderate Traffic Light Industrial6 <20 du/ac 374.2 4,0 378.1 4.7% - 0.35/Low Traffic 0.75/Very Low Traffic Public and Institutional - 0.25 1,263.2 0.3 1,263.4 15.7 Golf Course <0.01 553.7 0.0 553.7 6.9% Fairgrounds -- <0.10 150.0 0.0 150.0 1.9% 15 to 25 du/aci Multi -Use Center4 <4fAFAR 102.6 0.0 102.6 ° 1.3/° Varies -0.2� Totals 7,957.5 87.0 8,044.5 100% Notes: 1, Within the itiledium and High Density Residential designation, existing residential units legally built in excess of the dwelling units per acre standard may be rebuilt at the some higher density subject to other zoning code standards. The allowable density or number of units to be redeveloped would be limited to the 1990 General Plan density with a 25% incentive bonus for Medium - Density or a 50°% incentive bonus for High Density or the existing number of units, whichever is less. 2, See High Density Residential text regarding areas in North Costa Xlesa where the density allowance exceeds 20 units per acre. 3. See Commercial Center, Regional Commercial, and Urban Center Commercial text for site specific density and FAR. 4. See text forMixPdHm& Use Development and Cultural arts Center provisions for additional discussion. LU -12 1 Costa Mesa General Plan Land Use Element ■ A new Planetarium and an 818 -bed student housing project would be added to the campus; the proposed project would also involve improvements to the pedestrian circulation network in and around campus, and the enhancement of open -space areas through landscape and pedestrian plaza improvements ■ Reconfiguration of existing parking lots and vehicular entryways, and the addition of a parking structure in the Adams Avenue parking lot on campus Jobs/Housing Relationship The variety and distribution of land uses in Costa Mesa enable people to live near their jobs, to shop within a reasonable distance from their homes or work, to use the City's parks and recreational facilities, and to carry out other daily activities conveniently. Information from the 2010 Census indicates that 32 percent of residents work in the City. Fifty-one percent work within 20 minutes of their homes. The City recognizes the importance of providing both job and housing opportunities to reduce vehicle trips and overall, create a higher quality of life. Table LU -4: Housing, Population, and Employment, presents historical data for Costa Mesa's population, number of housing units, and employment opportunities, and includes projections to the year 2040. The table is based upon OCP -2015 Projections and data from the U.S Census. Table LU -4: Housing, Population, and Employment Housing 40,406 42,120 42,496 43,484 44,359 Population 108,724 109,929 111,276 112,001 113,332 Employment 88,294 N/A 87,097 89,590 93,222 Sources: 1. 2000 U.S. Census; 2. 2010 U.S. Census; 3. Center for Demographic Research, California State University, Fullerton, 2014. Costa Mesa General Plan I LU -13 Land Use Element Key Land Use Issues Residential Neighborhood Compatibility Early subdivisions in Costa Mesa established patterns that markedly affect the design of current developments. Prior to the City's incorporation, residential development—particularly in the Eastside and Westside neighborhoods— consisted of subdivisions with long, narrow lots. As residential developmented occurred, construction on these narrow, deep lots often took the form of small -lot subdivisions usually consisting of a row of detached or attached residential units on one side of the parcel and the driveway access for the residential units on the opposite side. In 2013 the Small Lot Ordinance was adopted to promote affordable ownership housing by providing more flexible development standards and maintenance mechanisms for underutilized multi -family residential lots within the densities allowed by the General Plan. The Small Lot Ordinance allowed new homeownership opportunities in the form of detached single-family residential development on small lots with a maximum of 15 dwelling units. Promotion of Home Ownership According to the 2010 Census data, Costa Mesa's renter -occupied units consisted of 58 -percent of the total occupied units, whereas owner -occupied units consisted of 42 percent of the total occupied units, a difference of nearly 16 percent. Most owner -occupied units consist of single-family homes and condominiums, and the majority of renter -occupied residences consist of apartments. The City strives to improve the balance of owner -occupied and renter -occupied units to create more stability in terms of property maintenance and residents' social investment in their neighborhoods and the community. Revitalization of Commercial Districts Although most of the issues experienced with small parcels and narrow, deep parcels are related to residential development, several commercial districts face similar constraints. While large retail developments like the Triangle have resulted from lot consolidation, smaller commercial lots along Newport Boulevard and 191h Street, for example, pose challenges for new businesses due to substandard parking facilities. Along the east side of Newport Boulevard, many small parcels retain the original residential structures that LU -14 I Costa Mesa General Plan Land Use Element have been converted to commercial use. Additionally, along Newport Boulevard, north of 19th Street, commercial uses have more limited exposure and visibility due to the one-way traffic flow and wide separation from land uses to the west. Newport Boulevard's one-way traffic flow, diversity of ownership patterns, and eclectic mix of uses contribute to its lack of unity and identity, which in turn makes it difficult to attract new development proposals and/or compatible businesses. The City will need to continue to monitor activity on Newport Boulevard, Harbor Boulevard, and other commercial districts with similar challenging circumstances to determine if additional adjustments to land use policy and zoning regulations are needed to incentivize reinvestment. Live/Work Development in Industrial areas The Westside has long supported an intertwined mix of industrial, commercial, and residential uses. Industrial uses have predominated at the southwest corner of the City, including many that once supported the marine industry. In 2005, the City adopted a mixed-use overlay zones within the Westside and SoBECA Urban Plans. The Urban Plans do not promote any major intensification of land uses. The emphasis is on improving the Urban Plan area by providing visual enhancement and encouraging the development of live/work units or residential lots with the plan area,• -thereby revitalizing marginal properties and creating opportunities for home ownership. The objectives of the Urban Plans include: ■ Encourage the construction of Live/Work Units that combine residential and nonresidential uses in the same unit without exceeding the development capacity of the General Plan transportation system. ■ Attract more residents and merchants by allowing mixed-use development in the form of a live/work loft, which offers first floor retail/office uses and upper story living spaces in the same unit, ■ Encourage adaptive reuse of existing industrial or commercial structures, which would result in rehabilitated buildings with unique architecture and a wider array of complementary uses. 01 Stimulate improvement in the Urban Plan area through well-designed and integrated urban residential development that is nontraditional in Costa Mesa General Plan I LU -15 Land Use Element form and design with flexible open floor plans and which complements the surrounding existing development. ■ Meet demand for a new housing type to satisfy a diverse residential population comprised of artists, designers, craftspeople, professionals and small-business entrepreneurs. ■ Promote new type of urban housing that would be target -marketed to people seeking alternative housing choices in an industrial area. An urban loft would be an alternative to a traditional single-family residence, tract home, or small -lot subdivision. Costa Mesa values the opportunities the Westside provides to support enterprising industry and entrepreneurs. Land use regulations need to be crafted in way that furthers economic development and business support while allowing residential development in the right locations in the Westside. Mixed -Use Districts The Westside and South Bristol Entertainment and Cultural Arts (SoBECA) areas contain eclectic uses that have emerged organically. In other areas of Costa Mesa, including Planned Development Commercial areas and the Harbor Mixed -Use Overlay District, the City encourages mixed-use urban environments that include purposeful combinations of entertainment, retail, office, hospitality, and residential uses. Mixed-use development creates a productive use of space that adds vitality to urban areas and conserves land resources by allowing for shared parking and public spaces. Airport Considerations Both the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County have concern for the safety of air navigation around John Wayne Airport. Under Part 77 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR), the FAA requires notice of proposed construction in excess of certain heights, which may affect the safety of aircraft operations. The authority of the FAA in these matters extends only as far as issuing a notice of hazard to air navigation; the FAA does not have jurisdiction to prohibit construction. The issuance of a hazard notice, however, may adversely affect the ability of a developer to obtain financing and insurance. The FAA standard that is of most of concern in Costa Mesa is the horizontal surface for John Wayne Airport. This surface is 203.68 feet above mean sea level and extends nearly two miles From the airport. LU -16 1 Costa Mesa General Plan Land Use Element The South Coast Plaza Town Center Master Plan (the area east of Bristol Street and north of the 1-405) was approved subject to the condition that building height be limited to that specified by FAR Part 77 unless evidence is presented that the structure will not pose a hazard to air navigation nor interfere with instrument guidance systems. Evidence may be in the form of an FAA determination of no hazard. A number of Town Center structures and proposed mid -rise and high-rise residential buildings have received City approval although they encroach beyond the established horizontal surface elevation. In all cases obstruction lighting was required, and in some cases minor adjustments to seldom -used flight patterns were necessitated, but the safety of aircraft operations in the airport vicinity has not been compromised. The horizontal surface established by the FAA places restrictions on future development proposals similar in scale to the Town Center buildings. These developments will also be required to provide mitigation for potential hazards to air safety. The California Public Utilities Code provides for creation of countywide commissions to work towards achieving compatible land uses in the vicinity of airports. Commissions are required to formulate comprehensive land use plans, which may include acceptable uses, height restrictions, and other building standards, such as noise insulation. The Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County (ALUC) has established a planning area surrounding John Wayne Airport which sets forth standards for acceptable land uses and provides for review of development plans for properties within its planning area. The Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP), adopted by the Airport Land Use Commission, specifies acceptable uses proximate to the airport. These are defined as uses that will not subject people to adverse noise impacts, will not concentrate people in areas with high potential for aircraft accidents, and will not adversely affect navigable airspace or aircraft operations. The AELUP for Heliports establishes regulations and restrictions for the siting of heliports and helipads/helistops. The purpose of the AELUP for Heliports is to protect the public from the adverse effects of aircraft noise by ensuring that heliports/heli pads are sited in areas of compatible land use. Costa Mesa General Plan I LU -17 Land Use Element A heliport is a small airport suitable only for use by helicopters, typically containing one or more helipads. A helipad or helistop is a designated area, including any buildings or facilities, intended to be used for the landing and takeoff of helicopters. Helipads/helistops may or may not be located within heliports. Refueling and overnight maintenance of helicopters are permitted on heliports but prohibited on helipads/helistops. The City will ensure that each applicant, seeking a conditional use permit or similar approval for the construction or operation of a heliport or helistop, complies fully with the state permit procedure provided by law and with all conditions of approval imposed or recommended by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), by the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County (ALUC) and by Caltrans/Division of Aeronautics. This requirement shall be in addition to all other City development requirements. The City will also ensure that development proposals including the construction or alteration of a structure more than 200 feet above ground level, reference North American Vertical Datum 1988 (NAVD88), must fully comply with procedures provided by Federal and State law, including with the referral requirements of the ALUC, and filing a Notice of Landing Area Proposal (Form7480-1). This requirement shall be in addition to all other City development requirements. Land Availability As of 2015, of the 8,032 net acres in the City of Costa Mesa, only 88 acres—or 1.1 percent—were either vacant or support agricultural production. The agricultural uses are temporary, as the lands are entitled for development by the North Costa !Mesa Specific Plan. Thus, new development will take the form of infill development, particularly on underutilized sites. The primary challenge for land use planning will be to determine the best use and development approach for remaining infill properties. A second challenge will be to guide re -use of aging commercial properties for long-term community and property owner benefit. Sustainable Development Practices Costa Mesa residents recognize the relationship between the use of resources to fuel a vibrant community (energy, water, air, land) and nonsustainable energy consumption can have long-term environmental consequences. Both the Federal and State governments have established a myriad of laws aimed LU -18 I Costa Mesa General Plan Land Use Element at environmental protection and enhancement, and many of these regulations are being implemented through development practices that are far more sustainable than practices of a generation ago. The Orange County region historically has had an imbalance of land uses (availability of high paying jobs, but shortfall of affordable housing') and roadway infrastructure primarily dedicated to the automobile. These historical development patterns and practices has adversely affected Costa Mesa in terms of traffic congestion, high housing costs, increased air pollution, and disproportional impacts on the young, elderly, and disabled. While many laws require the City to adopt new ways of planning and conducting day-to-day operations—such as the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) and Executive Order S-3-05'—the City has broad latitude to establish local procedures and practices for addressing sustainability. 1 The New Economy and lobs/Housing Balance in Southern California. Southern California Association of Governments, April 2001. 1-1 The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) and Executive Order S-3-05 set a target to reduce California's greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by year 2020 and by 80 percent below the 1990 levels by year 2050. Costa Mesa General Plan I LU -19 Land Use Element Land Use Plan The Land Use Plan Map (Figure LU -2) presents a pictorial representation of the land use and development policies set forth in this element. The colored land use designations indicate the type and nature of development allowed on all properties within the City of Costa Mesa and its sphere of influence. The map shows 14 land use designations and six overlays that largely reflect long- established land use patterns and development intensities, with the overlays indicating where targeted efforts are planned to encourage reuse and revitalization. The City will use the land use designation descriptions and the trip budget limitations described below—together with the Land Use Element Goals, Objectives, and Policies—to evaluate proposed development and land use projects. General Plan users are advised to refer to all components when evaluating proposed development and improvement projects. Density/Intensity and Trip Budgets Density and intensity are quantitative measures used to describe how much development may occur on a property. The City will use both density/intensity and the trip budget metric to determine the carrying capacity of each individual property or group of properties. Density The term density is used for residential uses and refers to the development and population capacity of residential land. Density is described in terms of dwelling units per acre of land (du/ac). Floor -Area Ratio For non-residential land use categories, the term intensity is used. Development intensity refers to the amount of development on a parcel of land or lot based on building characteristics such as building height, bulk, floor -area ratio, and/or percent of lot coverage. The development intensity standard used for most non-residential development is f4eer aFeafloor area ratio (FAR), which is the ratio of the total gross floor area of all buildings on a lot to the total area of the lot. For example, a 21,780 -square -foot building on a 43,560 -square -foot lot (one acre) yields an FAR of 0.50. A 0.50 FAR allows a single -story building, which covers half the lot, or a two-story building with reduced lot coverage. Figure LU -2 illustrates an example of density and FAR. LU -20 1 Costa Mesa General Plan Land Use Element Figure LU -2: Density and Floor -Area Ratio Residential Density Apartmentslcondomin turns: i - up to 40 unitsiacre Maximum 4 stories Attached housing: 12 to 20 unitsiacie _ I to 3 stories - • i. Single-family homes: 4 to 8 units/acre 1 to 2 stories - yr Sample Density Calculation half -acre lot (0 5 acrei with a 20 units/acre allowance: 20 units/acre X 0.5 acres = 10 units Floor -Area Ratio 1.50 FAR: - 1 to 2 Stories -100% Lot Coverage 0.50 FAR: I Story - 50% Lot Coverage `J 0.25 FAR: - 1 Story - 2536 Lot Coverage t Sample Intensity Calculation one -acre lot with a 0 50 FAR allowance: 0 50 FAR X 1 acre (43,560 square feet) = 21,780 square foot building The determination of development density or intensity at which a proposed project can occur is a function of: 1) General Plan policies intended to maximize public safety, achieve high-quality site planning and design, retain significant natural resources, and ensure compatibility between uses; and 2) development standards contained in the Zoning Code, public works standards, and other regulations. Trip Budgets Building intensity can also be measured by the traffic impacts generated by a particular development. Because of the potential for significant traffic generation from major site developments, trip budgets are established to regulate development in terms of both building intensities and trip generation. Proposed development intensity with traffic generation allows the allocation of development based on current and planned roadway improvements and capacity. The trip budget is expressed in terms of morning (A.M.) and afternoon (P.M.) peak -hour traffic volumes. The trip budget for each of the major land use Costa Mesa General Plan I LU -21 Land Use Element designations is based upon the commercial trip rates and FAR standard used in the Costa Mesa Traffic Model. The allowable FAR and trip budget are applied on a project -planning rather than parcel -specific basis. This approach allows for consideration of multi - phased or multi -lot projects as a whole development rather than individual pieces of the whole. Graduated FAR standards divide non-residential uses into four broad categories based upon traffic generation characteristics, as shown in Table LU -5: Non -Residential Maximum Floor -Area Ratios. Table LU -5: Non -Residential Maximum Floor -Area Ratios Commercial Residential 0.20 0.30 0.40 Neighborhood Commercial 0.75 0.35 0.25 0.15 General Commercial 0.75 0.40 0.30 0.20 Commercial Center 0.75 0.45 0.35 0.30 Regional Commercials -- 0.652/0.89 - Urban Center Commercials -- 0.60 0.50 Multi -Use Center!!- 0.25 for public/institutional uses and minimum 25 percent oarklandlypen space Light Industry 0.75 0.35 0.25 0.15 Industrial Park 0.75 0.40 0.30 0.20 Public/Semi-Public 0.25 and 0.01 for golf courses Fairgrounds 0.10 Notes: 1. For commercial designations, high traffic usesgenerate more than 75 daily trip ends per 1,000 square feet ofgross floor area. For industrial designations, high traffic uses generate more than 15 daily trip ends per 1,000 square feet ofgross floor area. 2. For commercial designations, moderate traffic usesgenerate between 20 and 75 daily trip ends per 1,000 square feet ofgrossfloor area. For industrial designations, moderate traffic usesgenerate between 8 and 15 daily trip ends per 1,000 square feet ofgross floor area. 3. For commercial designations, low traffic usesgenerote between three and 20 daily trip ends per 1,000 square feet ofgross floor area For industrial designations, low traffic usesgenerate between three and eight daily trip ends per 1,000 square feet ofgross floor• area. 4. For commercial and industrial designations, very low traffic usesgenerate less than three daily trip ends per 1,000 square feet ofgross floor area. S. Maximum FAR standards in the Regional Commercial and Urban Center Commercial designations shall be further limited by the maximum :i.,w. peak hour and peak hour LU -22 1 Costa Mesa General Plan Land Use Element trip budget as established in the General Plan and North Costa Hesa Specific Plan, as applicable. -5�6_Site-specific FAR standards are separately established for the Home Ranch and LA Times sites. 7. This Table does not specify FAR standards as allowed in mixed-use overlay zo n es. �8..5ee M��f�i-Use Cenrer desr�n ttor dor �t esc i�Cian Qf'residentiat uses, Trip Budget Transfers The trip budgets established at the Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ)3 level in the Costa Mesa Traffic Model can be combined or transferred between TAZs in a specified area of the City and under certain conditions to account for large planned developments which contain multiple TAZs. Likewise, trips can be combined or transferred between individual parcels within single TAZs. Combinations and/or transfers shall only be allowed for projects which meet the following conditions: ■ The combination and/or transfer of trips shall only be allowed in the area of the City that is north of the 1-405 and east of Harbor Boulevard, and shall be limited to parcels within a one -mile radius of each other. + Trip budget transfers shall be evaluated in the review and approval of a planned development or master plan projects. Sufficient conditions of approval shall be applied to the master plan or development plan to ensure long-range control over subsequent phases of development. + The combination and/or transfer of trips shall not result in any greater impacts on the surrounding circulation system than would occur if each Traffic Analysis Zone was developed independently. • For the combination and/or transfer of trips between TAZs, such combination and/or transfer of trips shall not exceed the total trip budget of all parcels involved if each were developed independently according to the floor -area ratio and trip generation rates provided herein. V Traffic analysis zones (TAZs) are the basic geographic unit for inventorying demographic data and land use within a study area. Costa Mesa General Plan I LU -23 Land Use Element +� The combination and/or transfer of trips shall not allow development intensities, which result in abrupt changes in scale or intensity within the project or between the project and surrounding land uses. ■ Approval of the master plan or development plan shall be conditioned to ensure compliance with the above criteria and to preclude future over -development on portions of the project or properties from which trips were transferred. ■ Trip budget transfers shall be recorded against the properties. Land Use Designations The Land Use Policy Map (Figure LU -3) graphically represents General Plan goals and policies. The following land use designations correspond to the categories shown on the Land Use Policy Map. See Table 6: Land Use Density and Intensity Summary, for a summary of the land use residential densities and commercial intensities. The Land Use Element contains 16 land use designations and five overlays as follows. Residential Designations Costa Mesa's residential designations are divided into Low-, Medium-, and High -Density Residential designations. Low -Density Residential Low -Density Residential areas generally are intended to accommodate detached single-family residences. Other housing types include attached housing that provide a greater portion of recreation or open space than typically found in multi -family developments and clustered housing which affords the retention of significant open space. Low -Density Residential areas are intended to accommodate outdoor living activities (front yards and backyards) in open space adjacent to dwellings. To avoid land use conflicts, these areas should be located away from or protected from the more intense nonresidential areas and major travel corridors. LU -24 1 Costa Mesa General Plan Land Use Element General Plan Lard Uses Land Use Overlays Boundaries Lox Density Residential is du/ac) Multi Use Center (15 to 25 du/ac) a Residential Incentive Overlay (40 du/ac) —"— City Boundary •� Medium Density Resldendal(12 du/ac) .n Urban Center Commercial `� Harbor Mixed -Use overlay (20 du/ac: 125 FAR) Soh�e MtnaueaM High Density Residential (20 du/ac) lssss� Cultural Ads Center i. _ SoBECAMixed-Use Overlay (40 du/ac)' Commercial-Residenlrel (174 du/ac) Light Industrial' Not l* exceed 450 unds Neigh borhood Commercial ' MMklWti pelk Urban Plans and Specific Plan General Commercial Gdf Course — 1 19 West Urban Plan — Commercial Center Fang ounds .-.---ry wtuatuft0bePUP �— Regional Commercial WYbrxktsseraalel (��� Mesa West Residential 7Feet Nath Costa Mesa Speofw Plan (l) Segersbom Home Ranch o l,omp z.omm 9 000 a 000 6.000 (2) Sakioka Site (Lot 21 Source City of Coeta Mees 2016 0.1. March 2016 Figure LU -3: Land Use Policy Map Costa Mesa General Plan I LU -25 Land Use Element This page intentionally left blank. LU•26 I Costa Mesa General Plan Table LU -6: Land Use Density and Intensity Summary Residential Low -Density Residential -- 8 du/ac 26 p/ac - - Medium -Density Residential -- 12 du/ac 38 p/ac 0.15 to 0.75 FAR 27 e/ac High -Density Residential -- 20 du/ac 50 p/ac - -- Non-Residential or Multi -Use Commercial -Residential -- 12 to 17.4 du/ac 40 p/ac 0.20 to 0.40 FAR 27 e/ac Neighborhood Commercial -- 20 du/ac 50 p/ac 0.15 to 0.75 FAR 27 e/ac General Commercial -- 20 du/ac 50 p/ac 0.20 to 0.75 FAR 27 e/ac Commercial Center4 -- 20 du/ac 50 p/ac 0.25 to 0.75 FAR 27 e/ac Urban Center Commercial' 660 20 to 80 du/ac 50 to 210 p/ac 0.50 to 0.79 FAR 27 e/ac Cultural Arts Center' 535 20 du/ac 25 p/ac 1.77 FAR 275 e/ac Regional Commercial 20 du/ac 50 p/ac 0.652 to 0.89 FAR 53 p/ac Industrial Park - 20 du/ac 50 p/ac 0.20 to 0.75 FAR 58 e/ac Light Industrial -- 20 du/ac 50 p/ac 0.15 to 0.75 FAR 58 e/ac Public and Institutional -- - 0.25 FAR 44 e/ac Golf Course -- - - 0.01 FAR Fairgrounds - - - 0.10 FAR 14 e/ac Multi -Use Centers 500 15 to 25 du/ac 58 p/ac 0.25FAR 4 to 15 e/ac Overlays and Urban Plans Residential Incentive -- 40 du/ac 110 p/ac 0.20 to 0.75 FAR 27 e/ac O_vVerlayl So6ECA Mixed -Use Gver4ay 450 40 du/ac 110 p/ac 1.00/1.25 FAR 27 to 44 e/ac Urban Plan 1 Harbor Mixed -Use Overlay' 20 du/ac 55 p/ac 1.00/1.25 FAR 27 to 44 e/ac Westside Urban Plans' -- 20 du/ac 55 p/ac 1.00/1.25 FAR 27 to 44 e/ac Notes: 1. Increase in FAR from 1.00 to 1.25 may be allowed for mixed-use plans exhibiting design excellence. 2. Please refer to the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan for detailed density/intensity and trip budgets for specific sites. 3. The Home Ranch site has a site-specific FAR of 0.64 for office development; Re6idpntiol-residential development is not permitted due to the site-specific FAR. 4. For the LA Times site, 0.54 FAR applies to commercial development and 0.64 applies to office development; residential development is not permitted due to the site-specific FAR. 5. Residential development is not permitted due to the site-specific FARs. 6. South Coast Plaza, west of Bear Street applies a 0.89 FAR and east of Bear Street applies a 0.652 FAR. 7. Of the 500 units, 300 would be designated at 25 du/ac and 200 designated for 15 du/ac. Costa Mesa General Plan I LU -27 Land Use Element Costa Mesa contains seven distinct residential neighborhoods: 1) Eastside, 2) Westside, 3) Mesa Verde, 4) College Park, 5) North Costa Mesa/Mesa Del Mar/Halecrest Hall of Fame, 6) Bristol/Paularino, and 7) South Coast/Wimbledon Village. These existing, stable single-family neighborhoods should be preserved and maintained. The establishment of attached or clustered housing through the planned development concept can be allowed in appropriate Low -Density Residential areas as a means to encourage the consolidation of parcels or to make more efficient use of larger parcels. The establishment of attached or clustered housing through the planned development concept can be allowed in appropriate Low -Density Residential areas as a means to encourage the consolidation of parcels or to make more efficient use of larger parcels. Nonresidential uses that complement and serve the surrounding residential neighborhood are also appropriate within this designation. These uses typically include schools, parks, churches, libraries, and other public facilities. Medium -Density Residential The Medium -Density Residential designation is intended to support single -and multi -family developments with a density of up to 12 units to the acre. The 12 units to the acre standard can be exceeded for legal, non -conforming Medium -Density Residential lots of a certain size that existed as of March 16, 1992. These lots must be between 6,000 sa.ft. and 7,260 sa,ft. in size. less Wye , detisity .,le 'AieR f;ae ioR n a1 to er eater than 1_65 units per_aeFe t-911'Ary The 12 dwelling units per acre standard is exceeded by approximately 53 percent of the existing Medium -Density development. Existing nonconforming units that are voluntarily demolished may be rebuilt to the same density, subject to other standards of the zoning code and the following: t4e-The allowable density or number of units to be redeveloped is limited to the General Plan density plus a 25 percent density incentive bonus or the existing number of units, whichever is less. Because of the location and intensity of development, Medium -Density Residential areas are also appropriate for quasi -residential uses such as convalescent hospitals and group residential homes. Schools, churches, parks, libraries, and related public facilities are also appropriate. LU -28 I Costa Mesa General Plan Land Use Element Complementary commercial uses within this designation may be allowed in planned development projects, provided the commercial uses will have FARs that are the same as the Neighborhood Commercial land use designation. High -Density Residential Areas designated as High -Density Residential are intended for residential development with a density of up to 20 units to the acre with some exceptions as described in this section. Density bonuses shall be granted by the City when a project is designed to provide housing for individuals and families with specialized requirements (e.g., senior citizens, handicapped, very -low, low-income, and moderate income households with needs not sufficiently accommodated by conventional housing) or provide other facilities or land as required by State law. The City may also grant additional incentives or concessions pursuant to State law. Sakioka Lot 1, a 41 -acre vaoaRt parcel, located in the Town Center area of the City adjacent to Anton Boulevard (Area 87 of the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan), has a #fgay � acFa �_�� .tea m ^, „ a �^" ^F c�'�' ^�.density limit of 22 du/acre with a total number of 890 units. The two -acre property at 580 Anton Boulevard in the Lakes Area (Area 5 of the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan) has a site-specific density of 125 units/acre. This equates to a maximum of 250 units on the sitewith + Additionally, a resident -serving commercial/retail use component is permitted provided that minimal traffic - generation characteristics of this retail component can be demonstrated in review and approval of a master plan. Additional development standards for this planned development are contained in the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan. A three -acre property at 3350 Avenue of the Arts is located north of Anton Boulevard along the east side of Avenue of the Arts in The Lakes area (Area 5 of the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan). The following standards have been established: (1) a site-specific density of a maximum 44 units/acre for a mixed-use development comprised of a boutique hotel and high-rise residential building and (2) a maximum nonresidential FAR of 2.12 FAR which includes the hotel use and ancillary commercial uses. However, subject to comparable traffic generation characteristics, t -he North Costa Mesa Specific Costa Mesa General Plan I LU -29 Land Use Element Plan contains provisions allowing development flexibility related to the maximum overall development of dwelling units, hotel rooms, and resident - serving retail/commercial uses. For example, the expansion of the existing hotel may be allowed provided that the traffic generation characteristics are comparable to this development option. Additional development standards for this planned development, including maximum allowable building height and mix of dwelling units and hotel rooms, are contained in the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan. In 2014, a site-specific density of 58 units/acre and site-specific building height of Five and six stories were established for a 4.17 -acre site at 125 East Baker Street. The project featured a five -story, 240 -unit apartment building and six - story parking structure. In 2015, a 224 -unit apartment building on a 4.15 -acre property at 2277 Harbor Boulevard was approved. The project involved: (1) change of the land use designation from General Commercial to High Density Residential; (2) site- specific base density of 40 du/acre with a development incentive for an additional 58 dwelling units, for an overall site-specific density of 54 du/acre; (3) site specific building height for a S -level parking structure. The density incentive program involved a proposed base density of 166 units (40 du/acre) with a density incentive for an additional 58 dwelling units. The density incentive was justified by (a) PaaLrovision of 20 affordable units for moderate -income households and (b) Q4+ipk�te- complete demolition of the Costa Mesa Motor Inn and revitalization of the marginal property. Rezone R- 14-04 from C1 (Local Business District) to PDR -HD (Planned Development Residential — High Density) was also approved. In order to encourage the development of additional residential ownership opportunities in the Westside, City Council designated an overlay area by adoption of the Mesa West Residential Ownership urban plan. For existing developments that exceed 20 dwelling units per acre, the Mesa West Residential Ownership urban plan may allow redevelopment of residential projects to existing densities provided that certain development standards are met for encouraging ownership housing. In the High --Density Residential designation, existing non -conforming developments, that are voluntarily destroyed, may be rebuilt to the original density subject to other standards of the zoning code and the following: the LU -30 1 Costa Mesa General Plan Land Use Element allowable density or number of units to be redeveloped would be limited to the General Plan density plus a 50 percent density incentive bonus or the existing number of units, whichever is less. High_ density areas should be located in proximity to transportation routes, especially those served by public transit, and also within convenient distances to shopping and employment centers. Although proximity to the above uses and transportation routes often results in a residential development being subject to adverse impacts, High -Density Residential development can be less susceptible to impacts than lower densities if visual and acoustical shielding techniques are incorporated into the project. In addition to the above locational preferences, viable �•hi�h density development is also dependent upon site characteristics. A site should be of appropriate size and dimension before the higher densities within this designation are allowed. Because of their location and intensity of development, High -Density Residential areas are also appropriate for quasi -residential uses (e.g., convalescent hospitals, and group residential homes). Schools, churches, parks, libraries, and related public facilities are also appropriate. Complementary commercial uses within this designation may be allowed in planned development projects provided that the commercial uses will have Floor Area Ratios that are the same as the Neighborhood Commercial land use designation. Mixed-use development projects are intended to provide additional housing opportunities in the City by combining residential and nonresidential uses in an integrated development. Additionally, this type of development is intended to revitalize areas of the city (such as the Westside) without exceeding the capacity of the General Plan transportation system. Mixed-use developments shall be implemented through an adopted urban plan (such as the 19 West Urban Plan) and shall be identified on the City's Zoning Map by designating either the R2 -HD and R-3 base zoning districts with the mixed-use overlay district. The mix of uses can occur in either a vertical or horizontal design, up to four stories in height. Product types shall be identified in the applicable urban plan and may include live/work units and commercial/residential units where the residential uses are located above or Costa Mesa General Plan I LU -31 Land Use Element adjacent to the nonresidential component. Nonresidential uses may include office, retail, business services, personal service, public spaces and uses, and other community amenities. In conjunction with areas that are designated with the mixed-use zoning overlay district, the maximum FAR is 1.0. An increase to 1.25 FAR may be allowed for mixed-use plans exhibiting design excellence. In a mixed-use overlay district area, this FAR includes both residential and non-residential components, and the maximum number of stories is four. Major Hi^",,.g thigh density neighborhoods are clustered around Orange Coast College; along Mesa Verde Drive East; between Adams and Harbor; around Vanguard University; in the northeast portion of the South Coast Metro area, in the Downtown Redevelopment area; and the southeast portion of the City. Commercial Designations Seven commercial land use designations are established. These designations vary in location and intensity to accommodate the full range of commercial activity present and desired in Costa Mesa. Development intensity potential is measured using FAR in relation to the amount of traffic expected (see Table LU -7, Commercial Floor -Area Ratio). Table LU -7: Commercial Floor -Area Ratio Commercial -Residential 0.40 0.30 0.20 Neighborhood Commercial 2 0.75 0.35 0.25 0.15 General Commercial 2 0.75 0.40 0.30 0.20 Commercial Center 1,2,3 0.72 0.45 0.353 0.30 0.652/0.890 FAR. Regional Commercial Refer to Regional Commercial discussion 0.50 FAR for Retail, 0.60 FAR for Office, 0.79 FAR for S.C. Metro Center. Refer to Urban Center Urban Center Commercial Commercial discussion and the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan for additional discussion. 1.77 FAR. Refer to Cultural Arts Center discussion Cultural Arts Center and the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan for additional discussion. LU -32 1 Costa Mesa General Plan Land Use Element Notes: 0.25 FAR for Institutional/Recreational Uses. 1. Refer to Commercial Center discussion forsite-specificFARs on certain properties. 2. With application of the mixed-use overlay district, the FAR may range from 1.0 to 1.25. Refer to appropriate land use designation discussion. 3. Los Angeles Times Site has a 0.54 (commercial) to 0.64 (office) FAR. 4. Refer to Multi -Use Center discussion for description of other uses allowed within this designation. Commercial -Residential The Commercial -Residential designation is intended to be applied to a limited area on the eastside of Newport Boulevard between Walnut Weet East 191 Street and Mesa Drive. It is the intent of this land use designation to allow a complementary mix of commercial and residential zoning along Newport Boulevard. It is anticipated that individual parcels will be developed as either a commercial or residential use. A mix of both commercial and residential uses on one parcel should only be allowed as a Planned Development. Residential development is encouraged provided that certain development standards are met pursuant to the adopted Newport Boulevard Specific Plan. Residential Density ranges from 12 units per acre to 17.4 units per acre. It will be necessary to ensure adequate buffering between the residential development and non-residential uses. Allowable floor area ratios are 0.20 for high traffic generating uses, 0.30 for moderate traffic generating uses, and 0.40 for low traffic generating uses as shown on Table LU -6. Residential and non-residential uses may be integrated into a single development through the Planned Development process. Residential densities in planned development projects shall not exceed 17.4 units per acre pursuant to the development standards in the Newport Boulevard Specific Plan. Noncommercial uses would be subject to the same floor area standards as commercial uses in this designation. Institutional uses are also appropriate in this designation, provided that land use compatibility and traffic issues have been addressed. Institutional uses would require discretionary approval. Costa Mesa General Plan I LU -33 Land Use Element Neighborhood Commercial The Neighborhood Commercial designation is intended to serve convenience shopping and service needs of local residents. Appropriate uses include markets, drug stores, retail shops, financial institutions, service establishments, and support office uses. Restaurants, hotels, and motels may be appropriate if properly located, designed, and operated to avoid adverse impacts to surrounding uses. Since Neighborhood Commercial uses are intended to serve nearby residential neighborhoods, the uses permitted should be among the least intense of the commercial uses. General Commercial The General Commercial designation is intended to permit a wide range of commercial uses that serve both local and regional needs. These areas should have exposure and access to major transportation routes since significant traffic can be generated. General Commercial areas should be insulated from the most sensitive land uses either through buffers of less -sensitive uses or on-site design features. The most intense commercial uses should be encouraged to locate on sites of adequate size to avoid compatibility issues with surrounding uses. Appropriate uses include those found in the Neighborhood Commercial designation plus smaller retail stores, theaters, restaurants, hotels and motels, and automobile sales and service establishments. In areas designated General Commercial, development typically will result in combinations of one- and two-story commercial buildings. Buildings in excess of two stories may be permitted in select areas via discretionary approval where the additional height would not impact surrounding uses. As complementary uses, residential and other noncommercial uses may be allowed through the Planned Development process. Residential densities in planned development projects shall not exceed 20 dwelling units per acre. Noncommercial uses would be subject to the same FAR standards as commercial uses. Institutional uses are also appropriate in the General Commercial designation, provided that land use compatibility and traffic issues have been addressed. Institutional uses would require discretionary approval. LU -34 1 Costa Mesa General Plan Land Use Element For a 4.4 -acre site at 1626/1640 Newport Boulevard, a site-specific FAR of 0.40 and trip budget of 186 AM peak hour trips and 281 PM peak hour trips was established. These two standards allowed the development of medical office uses or similar "moderate -traffic" generating uses provided that the site-specific trip budget is not exceeded. Commercial Center The Commercial Center designation is intended for large areas with a concentration of diverse or intense commercial uses serving local and regional needs. Appropriate uses include a wide variety and scale of retail stores, professional offices, restaurants, hotels and theaters. Intense service uses, such as automobile repair and service, should be discouraged. Because of the large service area, direct access to major transportation corridors is essential. Development within this designation is intended for a variety of intensities ranging from one- to four-story buildings. The allowable floor area ratios are 0.25 for high traffic generating uses, 0.35 for moderate traffic generating uses, 0.45 for low traffic generating uses, and 0.75 for very -low traffic generating uses. In conjunction with areas that are designated with the mixed-use zoning overlay district, the maximum FAR is 1.0. An increase to 1.25 FAR may be allowed for mixed-use plans exhibiting design excellence. In a mixed-use overlay district area, this FAR includes both residential and non-residential components, and the maximum number of stories is four. Mixed-use development projects are intended to provide additional housing opportunities in the City (such as the Westside) by combining residential and nonresidential uses in an integrated development. Additionally, this type of development is intended to revitalize areas of the city, without exceeding the capacity of the General Plan transportation system. Mixed-use developments shall be implemented through an adopted urban plan (such as the 19 West Urban Plan) and shall be identified on the City's Zoning Map by designating either the CL, C1 and/or C2 base zoning districts with the mixed-use overlay district. The mix of uses can occur in either a vertical or horizontal design, up to four stories in height. Product types shall be identified in the applicable urban plan and may include live/work units and commercial/residential units where the residential uses are located above or adjacent to the nonresidential Costa Mesa General Plan I LU -35 Land Use Element component. Nonresidential uses may include office, retail, business services, personal service, public spaces and uses, and other community amenities. Institutional uses are also appropriate in this commercial designation provided that land use compatibility and traffic issues have been addressed. Institutional uses require discretionary approval. As complementary uses, residential and other noncommercial uses may be allowed through the Planned Development process. Residential densities in planned development projects should not exceed 20 dwelling units per acre. The corresponding population density range is up to 50 persons per acre. A site-specific residential density of 40 du/ac was approved for 1901 Newport Boulevard. The corresponding density range for the project is 100 persons per acre. A site-specific FAR of 0.70 and a site-specific density of 40 units/acre was established for the property located at 1901 Newport Boulevard, a 7.79 -acre site located on the northwest corner of W. 19th Street and Newport Boulevard. The General Plan amendment recognized the existing development intensity of the 1901 Newport Plaza commercial building (127,500 sq. ft.) and allowed additional development of 145 multi -family units with a site-specific building height allowed for a five -level parking structure. Segerstrom Home Ranch The Segerstrom Home Ranch is a 93.34 -acre located at 3315 Fairview Road, and has a base land use designation of Commercial Center and is a part of the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan. In conjunction with approval of Home Ranch Alternative A, a site-specific FAR of 0.41 was established for the 17.2 -acre IKEA site. (IKEA is a large retail/warehouse use.) This property is located at the southeast corner of South Coast Drive and Harbor Boulevard. A maximum allowable FAR of 0.40 for office uses was established for the 14.5 -acre Industrial Park parcel located to the north of South Coast Drive. In 2016, a specific site FAR allowed a maximum of 0.64 FAR on the 44 -acre subarea of Segerstrom Home Ranch, located south of South Coast Drive. Maximum building height varies from 2 stories to 5 stories/75 feet within this subarea. Although the Planned Development Commercial zoning may allow mixed-use development (i.e. housing as a complementary use), housing is not permitted on this property due to the site-specific FAR allowance. LU -36 1 Costa Mesa General Plan K. General Plan Key M; Land Use Element General Plan Designations Low Density Residential (8 du/ac) Medium Density Residential (12 dulac) a� High Density Residential (20 du/ac) General Commercial Commercial Center Urban Center Commercial tib Industrial Park lommft Public/Institutional Baseline (2015) Square Feet...............0 Total Area . ............ 43-6 acres Land Use Plan Office Square feet...............1,200,000 FAR ................................. 0.64 FAR' ' Building intensity shall not exceed maximum allowable development set forth by the trip budget in the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan. Figure LU -4: Segerstrom Home Ranch Costa Mesa General Plan I LU -37 Land Use Element The established trip budgets for this subarea of Home Ranch is 1,860 AM and 1,788 PM. See Table 8 and Figure 4. The North Costa Mesa Specific Plan provides FAeFeadditional FAR, building height, and trip budget information for Segerstrom Home Ranch (Area 1). Table LU -8: Segerstrom Home Ranch 0.64 Maximum trip budget for this subarea of Segerstrom Floor -Area Ratio N/A Home Ranch is 1,860 AM and 1,788 PM. (FAR) Building intensity shall not exceed maximum allowable development set forth by the trip budget in the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan Building Square N/A 1,200,000 Feet Source: City of Costa Mesa, 2015, Los Angeles Times Site The Los Angeles Times Site is a 24 -acre site located at 1375 West Sunflower Avenue, near the intersection of Harbor Boulevard and South Coast Drive. The intent is to create opportunities for either office or commercial retail development at a strategic location. Office development project is allowed at a maximum 0.64 FAR (up to 655,000 square feet office). Commercial/retail development is allowed at a maximum 0.54 FAR of 0.54 (up to 553,000 square feet). Maximum allowable building height is 5 stories/75 feet. Although the Planned Development Commercial zoning may allow mixed-use development (i.e. housing as a complementary use), housing is not permitted on this property due to the site-specific FAR allowance. The maximum trip budget established for the LA Times site is 1,015 AM and 976 PM peak hour trips. See Table LU- 9 and Figure LU -5. LU -38 1 Costa Mesa General Plan Aerial Key Map Land Use Element General Plan General Plan Designations e Industrial Park � General Commercial � Commercial Center Baseline (2015) Land Use ..................Manufacturing, Private Open Space Square Feet...............374,000 sq. ft. Total Area...............23.5 acres Land Use Recommendation Land Use.....................Office or Retail FAR.............................0.64 FAR for Office FAR.............................0.54 FAR for Retail Square Feet . ............... 553,000 to 655,000 Figure LU -5: Los Angeles Times Site Costa Mesa General Plan I LU -39 Land Use Element Table LU -9: Los Angeles Times Site Source: City of Costa rblesa, 2015 Regional Commercial The Regional Commercial designation is intended to apply to large concentrated shopping centers of regional scale and importance. The intended uses within this designation include major department stores, specialty retail outlets, restaurants, offices, hotel and other complementary uses. Application of the Regional Commercial designation is limited to the existing South Coast Plaza sites. This includes the original 97 -acre site between Bristol and Bear Street and the additional 18 -acre site located west of Bear Street. This designation and locational criteria recognizes the evolution of South Coast Plaza as a regionally significant retail trade center served by major regional transportation facilities and services. The Costa Mesa General Plan assigns a trip budget for the original South Coast Plaza site of 1,166 AM peak hour trips and 5,036 PM peak hour trips. The trip budget for the site west of Bear Street is 293 AM peak hour trips and 1,264 PM peak hour trips. Complementary residential uses within this designation are allowed through the Planned Development process. The maximum allowable residential density shall be 20 dwelling units per acre. The trip budget for South Coast Plaza is identified in Table LU -10: Trip Budgetfor South Coast Plaza, and in the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan. LU -40 I Costa Mesa General Plan 0.64 FAR for office development 0.54 FAR for commercial/retail Floor -Area N/A Maximum trip budget is 1,015 AM and 976 PM. Ratio (FAR) Building intensity shall not exceed maximum allowable development set forth by the trip budget. Building 655,000 sq.ft. for office development Square S Feet q 374,000 553,000 sq.ft. for commercial/retail Source: City of Costa rblesa, 2015 Regional Commercial The Regional Commercial designation is intended to apply to large concentrated shopping centers of regional scale and importance. The intended uses within this designation include major department stores, specialty retail outlets, restaurants, offices, hotel and other complementary uses. Application of the Regional Commercial designation is limited to the existing South Coast Plaza sites. This includes the original 97 -acre site between Bristol and Bear Street and the additional 18 -acre site located west of Bear Street. This designation and locational criteria recognizes the evolution of South Coast Plaza as a regionally significant retail trade center served by major regional transportation facilities and services. The Costa Mesa General Plan assigns a trip budget for the original South Coast Plaza site of 1,166 AM peak hour trips and 5,036 PM peak hour trips. The trip budget for the site west of Bear Street is 293 AM peak hour trips and 1,264 PM peak hour trips. Complementary residential uses within this designation are allowed through the Planned Development process. The maximum allowable residential density shall be 20 dwelling units per acre. The trip budget for South Coast Plaza is identified in Table LU -10: Trip Budgetfor South Coast Plaza, and in the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan. LU -40 I Costa Mesa General Plan Land Use Element Table LU -10: Trip Budget for South Coast Plaza West of Bear Street East of Bear Street Urban Center Commercial The Urban Center Commercial designation is intended to allow high-intensity mixed-use commercial development within a limited area. Developments within this designation can range from one- and two-story office and retail buildings to mid- and high-rise buildings of four to approximately 25 stories, provided the maximum building height set forth in the North Costa Mesa Specific Pion is not exceeded. Appropriate uses include offices, retail shops, restaurants, residential, and hotels. For mixed-use projects that include separate or distinct components, the nonresidential FAR standard and the residential density standard shall apply to each of the respective components, not the entire project site. For mixed- use projects that do not include distinct elements or include mixed-use buildings, the overall level of intensity shall be governed by the allowable nonresidential FAR and the maximum number of residential units identified in this designation for a specific project site. Developments shall also comply with the established trip budget standards and comply with the most restrictive standard. Complementary residential uses within this designation may be allowed through the Planned Development zone process. The maximum allowable residential density within this designation shall be 20 dwelling units per acre, unless otherwise specified in the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan. The Urban Center Commercial designation includes the following major developments: ■ Automobile Club of Southern California ■ Metro Pointe ■ South Coast Metro Center/Experian ■ Sakioka Lot 2 (As of 2015, unbuilt) Costa Mesa General Plan I LU -41 Land Use Element Aerial Key Map General Plan LU -42 I Costa Mesa General Plan General Plan Designations f� High Density Residential (20 du/ac) Urban Center Commercial Baseline (2015) Square Feet...............0.0 Total Area-...... ........... 33 acres Land Use Plan Residential Units ................. 660 Density................................80 DUTAC FAR.. • -........ .................1.00 FAR* Maximum Building Height ..... 12 stones Building intensity shall not exceed maximum allowable development set forth by the trip budget in the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan. Figure LU -6: Sakioka Lot 2 Land Use Element All of these four properties had development agreements with the City of Costa Mesa that vested maximum development square footages, floor area ratios, trip budgets, and allowed uses. Provided in Table LU -11: Urban Center Major Developments, is a summary of the various land use standards that apply to these major developments. Please refer to the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan for additional information related to these properties. See Figure LU -6 for Sakioka Lot 2 land use plan. Table LU -11: Urban Center Major Developments Notes: 1. An established development agreement specifies the maximum building square footage and floor area ratio, which is consistent with the North Costa itilesa Specific Plan and General Plan. 2. Vehicle trips per hour 3. This maximum peak hour trip budget may be increased to no more than 5,180 a.m. peak hour trips in direct relation to the decrease in the maximum number of high-rise residential units. Costa Mesa General Plan I LU -43 North CostaSpecificAllowable Mesa Units AppliesResidential Plan Automobile Club of 967,000 sq. ft. Southern 43 0.56 FAR 0 1,1902 1,5762 No California' 592,287 sq. ft. Metro Pointe' 34 0 7292 9652 Yes 0.48 FAR Residential Option: Residential South Coast 1,335,386 sq. ft. Residential Option: Metro 0.69 FAR Residential Option: 1,9312 1,976' Center/ 45 Non -Residential Option: Non- Non- Yes Experian' Option: 484 units Residential Residential 1,546,180 sq. ft. Option: 1,886' Option: 0.79 FAR 1,9942 Non -Residential: Residential 863,000 sq. ft. Option: Sakioka Lot 2' 33 0.50 retail FAR 660 units 1,0622 1,4072 Yes 0.60 office FAR 80 du acre Notes: 1. An established development agreement specifies the maximum building square footage and floor area ratio, which is consistent with the North Costa itilesa Specific Plan and General Plan. 2. Vehicle trips per hour 3. This maximum peak hour trip budget may be increased to no more than 5,180 a.m. peak hour trips in direct relation to the decrease in the maximum number of high-rise residential units. Costa Mesa General Plan I LU -43 Land Use Element Automobile Club of Southern California Processing Center This 39.2 -acre site is comprised of two parcels and is located on the southwest corner of Sunflower Avenue and Fairview Road. The primary site contains 29.5 acres and is located west of Fairview Road, between South Coast Drive and Sunflower Avenue. The second parcel contains approximately 9.7 acres and is located across the adjacent flood control channel to the west, just north of South Coast Drive. As of 2000, the site was developed with 717,000 sq. ft. of office and support service uses. An additional 250,000 sq. ft. of development is allowed pursuant to a development agreement for a total of 967,000 square feet; the resultant maximum FAR is 0.56. Future construction will be developed in phases during the 30 -year term of the agreement. Metro Pointe Metro Pointe includes two office building sites located north of South Coast Drive at its intersection with Greenbrook Drive and approximately 28.5 acres of land located south of South Coast Drive along the San Diego Freeway. A development agreement approved in 1994 addresses the site south of South Coast Drive. The development agreement vests the property owner with the ability to construct 592,281 square feet of office and commercial uses with a resultant floor area ratio of 0.48. This property is also located in the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan area. South Const Metro Center/E,rperian The 44.72 -acre South Coast Metro Center/Experian sites are located south of Anton Boulevard and east of Avenue of the Arts. Upon completion, the site will include nearly 1,546,180 square feet of office and commercial development. A site-specific FAR of 0.79 was established for the combined South Coast Metro Center and Experian sites. In 2006, a site-specific residential density increase for a 4.86 -acre site portion of this development was approved as an optional development scenario for this property. The maximum density allowed is 100 units/acre with integrated ancillary retail uses. This equates to a maximum density of 484 high-rise units at 100 units/acre. The residential development option results in a corresponding decrease in the maximum allowable floor area ratio and building square footages for non-residential buildings in order to be similar to the a.m. and p.m. trip budgets established for the South Coast Metro LU -44 I Costa Mesa General Plan Land Use Element Center/Experian sites with strictly -a non-residential development. The North Costa Mesa Specific Plan provides further detail for these properties. Sakioka Got 2 The 33 -acre Sakioka Lot 2 is located south and east of Anton Boulevard. This site is undeveloped except for farmhouses and farm operation facilities. Pursuant to a development agreement, the maximum allowable building square footage is of 863,000 square feet with a corresponding maximum floor area ratio of 0.50 retail/0.60 office. The maximum residential density shall be 28 dwelling units per acre for the residential component of a mixed-use development (See "Mixed -Use" discussion of the Specific Plan) or a maximum of 80 dwelling units per acre if the entire site is developed as an independent residential community including affordable housing (See "Affordable Housing / Density Bonus discussion of the Specific Plan). Future development on Sakioka Lot 2 is subject to the trip budget limitation, applicable development standards of the PDC zone, and consistency with the both the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan and the General Plan. A maximum 1.0 FAR shall be applied for nonresidential development. Cultural Arts Center The Cultural Arts Center designation is applied to the 54 acres that comprise South Coast Plaza Town Center. This area is generally bounded by Sunflower Avenue to the north, Bristol Street to the west, Avenue of the Arts to the east, and the San Diego (1-405) Freeway to the south. This designation is limited to this geographical area, and it is not intended to be applied to other locations in the City. The Cultural Arts Center designation allows intensely developed mixed commercial and cultural uses within a limited area. The intended uses within this designation include mid- to high-rise offices, hotels, restaurants, retail and cultural uses (theater, art museum or academy, etc.), as well as mid- to high-rise residential units in limited areas that are defined in the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan. It serves as the cultural center of the community and provides a focus to the arts -related uses, with the complement of nearby employment and shopping opportunities. Costa Mesa General Plan I LU -45 Land Use Element The overall allowable FAR standard for this designation is 1.77. Included in this FAR calculation is the land dedicated or reserved in 2000 for the Avenue of the Arts off -ramp and associated flood control channel improvements. The 1.77 FAR may be exceeded on individual parcels within South Coast Plaza Town Center provided that over the entire 54 -acre site the 1.77 FAR is not exceeded. Further delineation of the allocation within South Coast Plaza Town Center of the floor area ratio and trip budget is provided in the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan. In 2006, a high-rise residential development option for each of the three sub- areas in South Coast Plaza Town Center was approved. The maximum number of residential units allowed in the entire South Coast Plaza Town Center is 535 units. The high-rise residential development option is further detailed in the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan. As shown in the following table (Table LU -12 Town Center Intensity), this scenario results in a corresponding decrease in the maximum allowable floor area ratio and building square footages for non- residential buildings in order to maintain the a.m. and p.m. trip budgets established for the South Coast Plaza Town Center. Table LU -12: Town Center Intensity Residential Option Non -Residential Option Notes: 1. This maximum FAR may be increased to no more than 1.77 in direct relation to the decrease in the maximum number of high-rise residential units, Z. This maximum peak hour trip budget may be increased to no more than 5,180 a.m. peak hour trips in direct relation to the decrease in the maximum number of high-rise residential units. 3. This alternative includes the 80 high-rise residential units associated with the museum site in Segerstrom Center for the Arts; see North Costa Mesa Specific Plan. 4. This maximum FAR may not be increased if the 80 -unit residential component is not constructed; see North Costa Mesa Specific Plan. LU -46 I Costa Mesa General Plan Land Use Element Industrial Designations Two industrial land use designations apply to over 1,000 acres. These designations accommodate a variety of industrial and compatible office uses, as well as limited and supportive commercial uses. Development intensity potential is measured using FAR in relation to the amount of traffic expected, as shown in Table LU -13: Industrial Floor -Area Ratio. Table LU -13: Industrial Floor -Area Ratio Light Industry 0.75 0.35 0.25 0.15 Industrial Park 0.75 0.40 0.30 0.20 Note: 1. With an application of the mixed-use overlay district the FAR may range from 1.0 to 1.25. Refer to Mixed Use discussion and Table LU -I1, Mixed -Use Residential Density. Light Industry The Light Industry designation applies to areas intended for a variety of light and general industrial uses. Uses are limited to small manufacturing and service industries, as well as larger industrial operations that can demonstrate design features or restricted operations that limit disruptions to surrounding uses. Although the uses within Light Industry areas are intended to be less intense than those allowed in Industrial Parks, the frequent lack of a physical separation between Light Industry areas and residential development necessitates design features that limit disturbances between uses. Access to industrial areas should be provided in a manner that directs industrial traffic away from more sensitive uses. Development within this designation would be characterized by a combination of one- and two-story buildings. Because of the location of Light Industry areas and their proximity to residential uses, higher buildings should be restricted to areas that will not disrupt the surrounding residential uses. Certain commercial uses may be allowed, provided that the commercial use is determined to be complementary to the industrial area. Commercial recreational uses may also be appropriate under the same condition. Costa Mesa General Plan I LU -47 Land Use Element Institutional uses may also be appropriate, provided that land use compatibility and traffic issues have been addressed. Institutional uses would require discretionary review. Combinations of residential, institutional, and commercial uses may be allowed through the Planned Development process. FARs and population densities for commercial projects would be similar to the Neighborhood Commercial land use designation. Residential densities in Planned Development projects are not to exceed 20 dwelling units per acre. Mixed-use development projects in overlay zones are intended to provide additional housing opportunities in the City (such as the Westside) by combining residential and nonresidential uses in an integrated development. Additionally, this type of development is intended to revitalize areas of the city, without exceeding the capacity of the General Plan transportation system. Mixed-use developments shall be implemented through an adopted urban plan (such as the 19 West and Mesa West Bluff Urban Plan) and shall be identified on the City's Zoning Map by designating the MG base zoning district with the mixed-use overlay district. The mix of uses can occur in either a vertical or horizontal design, up to four stories in height. Product types shall be identified in the applicable urban plans and may include live/work units and commercial/residential units where the residential uses are located above or adjacent to the nonresidential component. Nonresidential uses may include office, retail, business services, personal service, public spaces and uses, and other community amenities. Residential development may be allowed in conjunction with the mixed-use overlay district for Mesa West Bluff Urban Plan area at density that does not exceed 13 units per acre. The required Mesa West Bluff; -Urban Plan shall include development standards to ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses. Industrial Park The Industrial Park designation is intended to apply to large districts that contain a variety of industrial and compatible office and support commercial uses. Industrial parks are characterized by large parcels and landscaped setbacks which create a campus -like environment. Industrial parks must have proximity to freeways and other major transportation routes to provide the accessibility they require. An internal circulation system consisting of lesser highways is also necessary to accommodate the vehicle demands created. LU -48 I Costa Mesa General Plan Land Use Element Industrial parks have major physical separations from areas designated for other uses to maintain their distinctiveness and avoid potential land use incompatibilities. Development within this designation would consist of one- and two-story buildings. Additional height may be permitted when compatible with adjacent development and provided uses are consistent with other constraints, such as height limits and use restrictions within John Wayne Airport influence area, as identified in the Safety Element. The Industrial Park portion of the Home Ranch site may include buildings up to five stories in height near the center of the development. The North Costa Mesa Specific Plan provides specific building height information for the Segerstrom Home Ranch (Area 1). Commercial uses may be allowed, provided that the use is determined to be complementary to the industrial area. Commercial recreational uses may also be appropriate under the same condition. Institutional uses may also be appropriate, provided that land use compatibility and traffic issues have been addressed. Institutional uses shall require discretionary approval. Proposed Industrial development must be analyzed for potential significant impacts to air quality, aesthetics, land use, and other environmental issues. Combinations of residential, institutional, and commercial uses may be allowed through the Planned Development process. FARs and population densities for commercial projects would be similar to the Neighborhood Commercial land use designation. Residential densities in planned development projects shall not exceed 20 dwelling units per acre. Institutional and Open Space Costa Mesa has thousands of acres of land set aside for public, semi-public, and open space type uses, all identified by one of three land use designations: Public/Institutional, Golf Course, and Fairgrounds, and Fairview Developmental Center. See "Multi -Use Center" discussion for the Fairview Developmental Center site. Public/Institutional The Public/Institutional designation applies to both publicly and privately owned land that provides recreation, open space, health, and educational opportunities, as well as uses that provide a service to the public. Since this Costa Mesa General Plan I LU -49 Land Use Element designation includes many different types of land uses, the Land Use Plan is labeled to identify the individual uses. Areas included in this designation are park sites, health care facilities, educational institutions, religious facilities, fairgrounds, and public facilities. Since many of the uses are recreational and open space in nature, levels of building intensity are minimal. Golf Course Three golf courses are located within the City's planning area. Two of these, the Costa Mesa Golf Course and Mesa Verde Country Club, lies within4 e City limits. Santa Ana Country Club is in the unincorporated area east of Newport Boulevard. Because of the large area devoted to open space, the building intensity for this designation is 0.01 FAR. Fairgrounds The Fairgrounds land use designation is applicable to only one property known as the Orange County Fair & Event Center (OCFEC) in the City of Costa Mesa. The Fairgrounds is a 150 -acre site located at 88 Fair Drive. This designation is intended to: ■ Ensure continued development of the property as an integrated complex that is composed of recreational, agriculture -related educational institutions, open space, farmland, equestrian, and commercial uses,,—hand ■ Promote the continued and sustained use of the property for the annual Orange County Fair in recognition of its value as a regionally significant resource in the City of Costa Mesa. Home to the annual Orange County Fair since 1949, the site is bounded by Arlington Drive (north boundary), Fair Drive (south), Fairview Road (west), and Newport Boulevard (east). Regional access is primarily provided to the site by State Route 55 (SR -55) at the interchanges of Fair Drive/Del Mar Avenue and 22nd Street/Victoria Street. Access from Interstate 405 (1-405), which is approximately one -mile north of the Fairgrounds, is provided via interchanges at Bristol Street, Fairview Road, and Harbor Boulevard. See Figure LU -7. The site was formerly a portion of the Santa Ana Army Air Base, and in 1949 the California 32nd District Agricultural Association (DAA) acquired the LU -50 1 Costa Mesa General Plan OL �. ~ �, "f +cif •. �t y't : a Jack Hammett Sports Comp1 9 '4 - .... r . s ti. ► °. �CoS r r AiWlAkie Park r w _ is gno .. Hr ,: ►,. � J ^Y - ��' err'• i f• GrantAfthd v . • .iii +. Administratip,f Festival Arena fifCds Grass Eq - Park Shpw Ring -� '7r . + . � � raker r - " r"�• �� � � � Rage - ,% •j ' t A heat ' V!lltennimli Barn a �^Np ..Mnguard University df +�[ % &c War X.50uth C�erniaxf _ZZ k ...� .gym -, tam w .. A Mm GPC _ • -VY r T ll yy Land Use Element property from the Federal Government. Since that time, the annual Orange County Fair has occurred at this location. Through the years the 32nd DAA has expanded the use of the property into a year-round exhibition, conference, equestrian, activity, and event center; these uses compose collectively the OCFEC. The 32nd DAA Fair Board adopted the current OCFEC Master Plan in 2003. Given that the 32nd DAA is a state entity for administration of the Orange County Fair, Costa Mesa has limited land use and permitting authority over the property while it is controlled by the State. If in the future, if the State no longer controls the property, any proposed new development or change of use shall be subject to review for consistency with the City's General Plan and zoning regulations. The new property owner/operator may continue to operate the Fairgrounds as it existed at the time of sale as a legal nonconforming use and development. The property's legal nonconforming status will remain in effect until such time as the property owner submits and receives approval of a master plan by Costa Mesa. The Fairgrounds site contains approximately 400,000 square feet of buildings, including: * Pacific Amphitheater 0 Arlington Theater X Grandstand Arena ■ Equestrian GenteFcenter Exhibit and ,.d.,.,mmis�fatieF administration buildings 4wkkogs * Concession and Restwerast restaurant Buildinig buildings ■ Memorial Gardens Centennial Farms * Livestock BaFnsbarns The Fairgrounds designation recognizes the existing fairground and event center uses associated with this site. The General Plan traffic model does not take into account the trip generation from the annual OC Fair or weeknight/weekend special event uses (i.e. Orange County Marketplace) because peak vehicle trips to the site occur outside normal business timeframes. However, further development of the Fairgrounds will need to LU -52 1 Costa Mesa General Plan Land Use Element be balanced with the development capacity of the City's transportation system and with the protection of surrounding neighborhoods. Permitted uses include ancillary office uses, exposition/conference uses, equestrian uses, agricultural/livestock activities, restaurants, temporary specialty retail sales (including vehicle sales), outdoor marketplace, emergency operational uses, and concerts/live entertainment uses. Complementary uses to the fairground and event center uses may include botanical gardens, animal exhibits, museum, art/historical artifacts gallery, and performance art theaters that are supportive of the fairground uses. Uses that are not supportive of fairground and event center uses are expressly prohibited. Prohibited uses include, but are not limited to, casinos/gambling venues, shopping centers, hotel/motels, residential uses, self -storage facilities, hospitals, and medical uses. In addition, exclusive use or dedicated athletic sports facilities and educational uses that are unrelated to the OCFEC are prohibited. As a State-owned property, the Fairgrounds is not normally subject to the City's Noise Ordinance. However, pursuant to a 1990 Court Order (Case Nos. 42 07 28 and 55 65 08), exterior noise standards comparable to the City's noise regulations have been applied to the property. Noise sensitive uses include neighboring residences, Davis Intermediate School, and Costa Mesa High School. The court-ordered noise restrictions apply to the operation of the Pacific Amphitheater. Development within the Fairgrounds designation is intended for buildings ranging from one- to four-story structures. The maximum allowable floor area ratio for this designation shall be 0.10. Multi -Use Center Fairview Developmental Center On January 5, 1959, the Fairview Developmental Center opened as a State hospital originally occupying 752 acres. Fairview Developmental Center had an initial bed capacity of 2,622 and was intended to house some 4,125 residents. The population at the facilities peaked in 1967 and have been declining since. The current population is 275 persons, and the downward trend is expected to continue due to the restructuring of the State of California's approach to providing institutionalized care for the developmentally disabled. In the past decade, the State has been focusing on residential care options (as opposed to institutional care) for these disabled individuals. Costa Mesa General Plan I LU -53 Land Use Element A large portion of the original land was transferred in 1979 to the City of Costa Mesa and now encompasses Fairview Park and the golf course. In 1985, the City granted a General Plan amendment and rezone of 54 acres of surplus land immediately to the north of the hospital facilities for high density residential uses. In 2004 and 2006, other parcels were converted to residential uses. These areas are planned developments with one-story, single-family residences, a two-story, small -lot residential subdivisions, and two-story apartment buildings (Harbor Village Apartments). In February 2016, the State of California Department of Development Services initiated the process for the closure of the Fairview Developmental Center. Multi -use refers to the integration of a variety of land uses and intensities. This land use category includes uses which are low to moderate intensity and urban in character. The Multi -Use Center designation is applicable only to the Fairview Developmental Center property at 2501 Harbor Boulevard. The compatible zoning district is Institutional & Recreational - Multi-tseUse District (I&R-MLT). The allowable land uses are as follows: ■ 0.25 FAR Institutional & Recreational Uses ■ 25 percent minimum requirement for parkland and open space purposes (approximately 25.6 acres). ■ Maximum cap of 500 dwelling units for the entire site at 15 dwelling units per acre. Exception: 300 dwelling units at 25 dwelling units per acre allowed for the Shannon's Mountain site (12 -acre development area at Shannon's Mountain) In anticipation of the future closure of the Fairview Development Center, this property is assigned a unique General Plan land use plan designation. The Multi -Use Center designation is comprised of a variety of residential, open space, and institutional uses. These multi -uses are to be complementary to the Costa Mesa Golf Course and surrounding residential neighborhoods. The maximum residential density for the Fairview Developmental Center property would be a maximum density of 15 dwelling units per acre, with a maximum number of 500 residential units for the entire site. However, a maximum of 300 dwelling units at a maximum density of 25 dwelling units per acre may be allowed at the Shannon Mountain's site within the Fairview Developmental Center. Under these density limitations, the overall cap in total housing buildout shall not exceed 500 units for the entire Fairview Developmental Center site. Additional housing units may be built, as long as they meet the density bonus provisions LU -54 1 Costa Mesa General Plan Land Use Element pursuant to State law (Government Code Section 65915- 65918). At least 25 percent of the site shall be dedicated to open space. A maximum 0.25 FAR for institutional/recreational uses would be allowed for undeveloped area not assigned to housing or permanent open space. See Table LU -14: Multi -Use Center re w � ;n6-9seDesignotion. Permitted uses include: ■ Institutional uses, such as public and private recreational facilities, dedicated athletic fields, athletic complex, sports parks, community centers, and public facilities. ■ Hospital, medical, dental, physical therapy, in-patient care, psychiatric facilities, administrative offices and facilities for the developmentally disabled. ti Residential uses, such single-family detached housing, apartments, condominiums, and townhouses. • Open space uses, such as active play fields, recreational areas, parkland, and botanical gardens. Uses that are industrial or commercial in nature are expressly prohibited. Prohibited uses include, but are not limited to, corporate office parks, casinos/gambling venues, shopping centers, concerts/entertainment venues, hotel/motels, 9;(pes+tia exposition/conference uses, shopping center, and swap meet. The maximum 0.25 FAR for institutional development within the Multi -Use Center designation is intended for buildings ranging from one- to four-story structures. Residential uses shall also be limited to a maximum height of four stories. The Multi -Use Center General Plan land use designation (and corresponding Zoning District) will require a Master Plan for any future development project, whether or not the State retains the property or sells to a private entity. A Master Plan is required to be approved by the City Council if the property is owned by a non -State entity or if the State elects to participate in the City's planning process for Master Plan adoption. The City will require the dedicated parkland component in order to activate a master plan for new development. The 25 percent open space requirement would apply; and, therefore, future development would need to include a specific acreage of active park uses for sports fields or the master plan cannot be considered in conformance with t4e-this unique General Plan land use designation. Costa Mesa General Plan I LU -55 Land Use Element Aerial Key Map General ' • Use Designation �S IiI - - f•,IGlf 44 4612; 1, «ted. �.... •• --: .fir-= LU -56 1 Costa Mesa General Plan General Plan Designations Low Density Residential (8 du/ac) Medium Density Residential (12 dulac) High Density Residential (20 du/ac) N� General Commercial Neighborhood Commercial Multi -Use Center Golf Course Baseline (2015) Beds.............300 Total Area ......102 6 Acres Land Use Plan Land Use Designation .............Multi -Use Center Total Residential Units.............500 Units at 25 du/ac.......300 (12.0 acres) Units at 15 du/ac._ .....200 (13.3 acres) Open Space Acres ................. 25.6 acres (25%) Public/Institutional Acres .......... 51.6 acres (50%) Figure LU -8: Multi -Use Center Land Use Element The maximum 0.25 FAR for institutional development within the Multi -Use Center designation is intended for buildings ranging from one- to four-story structures. Residential uses shall also be limited to a maximum height of four stories. Table LU -14: Multi -Use Center Designation Categories Baseline (2015) Multi -Use Center Designation 300 residential units at 25 DU/AC Density (DU/AC) N/A 200 residential units at 15 DU/AC Total Units N/A 500 Floor -Area Ratio (FAR) N/A 0.25 Public Facilities/Institutional/ Recreational Building Square Feet N/A N/A 25.6 acres of Open Space Dedicated Open Space N/A Source: City of Costa itilesa, 2015. Land Use Overlays and Urban Plans The City has adopted land use overlays that are intended to encourage reuse and revitalization of underutilized properties. The incentives provided expand land uses, provide development flexibility, stimulate economic growth, and create integrated areas complementary to the surrounding environs. Refer to Figure LU -9 for the location of the Overlay and Urban Plan boundaries. Mixed -Use Overlay Zone/Urban Plan Areas Mixed-use development projects are intended to provide additional housing opportunities in the City by combining residential and nonresidential uses in an integrated development. Additionally, this type of development is intended to revitalize areas of the City without exceeding the capacity of the General Plan transportation system. Mixed-use developments shall be implemented through an adopted urban plan and shall be identified on the Zoning Map with the mixed-use overlay district. The mix of uses can occur in either a vertical or horizontal design. Costa Mesa General Plan I LU -57 Land Use Element Overlays Westside Urban Plans Source: City of Costa Mesa: 2015 L_ Residential Incentive Overlay 19 West Urban Plan __–_- Y Lam_.......... Fee[ SOBECA Mixed -Use Overlay L_–_ Mesa West Bluffs Urban Plan 0 1:000 2000 4-000 5,000 8.000 Harbor Mixed -Use Overlay [ ____ Mesa West Residential Figure LU -9: Overlays and Urban Plans LU -58 1 Costa Mesa General Plan I Sagslfum Ave i ` taloa t Ava _C7 N ; City of 76aCarlhiu 910. m m o LL – Santa Ana 1 Ellis Ave • StOlmyr Ave. South J Coast P7ar,r atlion plm Garfield Ave- ;Islet Avg. ••�0. � r®.r � SerkorSi � �s0 City of — 1 Huntington ' Y'F�yN, Beach I Adams Ave � S f Orango Coast _ r � Cattega Arlington Or •� �❑�� (j _ 2 I Fairviewr\ `. OC Fair & ir I — \ % Event Center r r .. ralhnrt •Rugianal Park W15on 51 e— jy G 1 I r r r r la f it J r I 1..11 r 1 1 1 J�4VIpDR f —t BCdG1 t_� i Il - i I'•r _ !'y City of tia Newport �• s Beach ,Ye 151h SL V 's� si i Overlays Westside Urban Plans Source: City of Costa Mesa: 2015 L_ Residential Incentive Overlay 19 West Urban Plan __–_- Y Lam_.......... Fee[ SOBECA Mixed -Use Overlay L_–_ Mesa West Bluffs Urban Plan 0 1:000 2000 4-000 5,000 8.000 Harbor Mixed -Use Overlay [ ____ Mesa West Residential Figure LU -9: Overlays and Urban Plans LU -58 1 Costa Mesa General Plan Land Use Element Product types shall be identified in the applicable urban plan and may include live/work units and commercial/residential units, where the residential uses are located above or adjacent to the nonresidential component. Nonresidential uses may include office, retail, business services, personal service, public spaces and uses, and other community amenities. In conjunction with areas that are designated with the mixed-use zoning overlay district, the maximum FAR is 1.0. An increase to 1.25 FAR may be allowed for mixed-use plans exhibiting design excellence. In a mixed-use overlay district area, the FAR includes both residential and non-residential components. Table LU -15: Overlay and Urban Plan Residential Density, lists the appropriate land uses and the necessary base zoning district where mixed- use development is permitted. Table LU -15: Overlay and Urban Plan Residential Density No tes: 1. The SoBECA Overlay has a maximum capacity of 450 residential units over the entire district, with individual projects having a maximum density of 40 dwelling units per acre. 2- Under the Westside Urban Plans, a maximum FAR of 1.0 is allowed for mixed -used projects that include a residential component. An increase to 1.25 FAR may be allowed for mixed-use plans exhibiting design excellence. FAR calculations are based on the total site area (subarea) of the commercial component and do not include the residential site area. 3. The 80 dwelling units per acre only applies to the Sakioka Site 2, with a residential unit cap of 660. Please refer to the North Costa Meso Specific Plan for additional information. 4. See Nlulti-Use Center discussion for density and FAR standards for the Fairview Park Developmental Centersite. Costa Mesa General Plan I LU -59 .. Commercial -Residential 40D/A -- -- -- Neighborhood Commercial -- - 1.00/z 1.25 FAR General Commercial 40 D/A 20 DU/A 40 D/Al Light Industry 40 D/Al Commercial Center No tes: 1. The SoBECA Overlay has a maximum capacity of 450 residential units over the entire district, with individual projects having a maximum density of 40 dwelling units per acre. 2- Under the Westside Urban Plans, a maximum FAR of 1.0 is allowed for mixed -used projects that include a residential component. An increase to 1.25 FAR may be allowed for mixed-use plans exhibiting design excellence. FAR calculations are based on the total site area (subarea) of the commercial component and do not include the residential site area. 3. The 80 dwelling units per acre only applies to the Sakioka Site 2, with a residential unit cap of 660. Please refer to the North Costa Meso Specific Plan for additional information. 4. See Nlulti-Use Center discussion for density and FAR standards for the Fairview Park Developmental Centersite. Costa Mesa General Plan I LU -59 Land Use Element Residential incentive Overlay The Residential Incentive Overlay creates opportunities for residential development at strategic locations along Harbor Boulevard and Newport Boulevard. This designation allows for new higher -density residential uses in areas where limited residential with lower densities are allowed. Small -lot single-family subdivisions would be appropriate as well. The Residential Incentive Overlay also expands development opportunities on commercial properties not developed to their full potential or supporting outdated buildings and underperforming uses. Maximum building height is four stories, provided privacy concerns of adjacent established residential neighborhoods are adequately addressed through the setback of upper stories or other design approaches. Housing within the Residential Incentive Overlay is limited to a maximum density of 40 units per acre. See Table LU -16: Residential Incentive Overlay and Figure 10 and 11. Table LU -16: Residential Incentive Overlay Categories Baseline (2015) Residential Incen ve Overlay A Density (DU/AC) N/A 40 Harbor Boulevard 84 1,063 Units Newport Boulevard 237 1,210 Total Units 321 2,273 Floor -Area Ratio (FAR) Building Harbor Boulevard 356,800 178,400 Square Feet Newport Boulevard 582,000 291,100 Total Building Square Feet 938,800 469,500 Source: City of Costa Mesa, 201 S. South Bristol Entertainment & Cultural Arts (SoBECA) igve 4^ , Urban Plan The Mixed -Use SeBECFOverlay District applies to properties within the SoBECA Urban Plan. Allowed uses include a mix of housing and retail/service commercial businesses, light industrial uses, creative studios, retail campuses, and LU -60 I Costa Mesa General Plan N• Y � � ,,� i_.rr iiltllllll w� 1 POI w. IF ♦ +`a •G �' iyrk+*■ � 1]y�i ► r 1[rrtlllllfl` a' A 11 r$ IAlNllill- � fall ti � Ly, � , � IIN1lirljy ..f f 'r so. s IrriRlilRe 1lrrrffrY � ^ �� nr.= P. tisiy? EIS r Ili am - !RR[lRR - � IirRRRR Iriilfl r � � A. A- ri r f liu eu n p, le[r„I, RN W Illllr -. ul lArr +rh �/ .iiltr i ' 111111 S�/Irll Ai -. ftAllr� . � ay NA611Niga Nlllir �IH �a w4 r- Ell w �w.sjr�j frileF[ Inn.11 1! IPllriii! � 111It ” • Ilile` • _ Land Use Element Aerial General Plan: Overlay Key Map LU -62 I Costa Mesa General Plan Land use Dotignations Low Density Residential (8 du/ac) Medium Density Residential (12 du/ac) mmmmll High Density Residential (20 du/ac) Commercial Residential (174 dulac) General Commercial Neighborhood Commercial Light Industrial tai Publicllnstitutional Golf Course Baseline (2015) Newport Total Area ............ 30.3 acres Residential Units .............237 Commercial Square Feet..... 582,200 Land Use Plan Density................................40 DU/AC Residential Units................1,210 Commercial Square Feet..... 291,100 Figure LU -11: Residential Incentive Overlay: Newport Boulevard Land Use Element entertainment and restaurant uses that attract local residents and visitors. Permitted development approaches are mixed-use development that combines residential and commercial uses, as well as stand-alone commercial and residential uses. This designation emphasizes commercial uses and aims to expand the established innovative, eclectic, and unique uses that support homegrown and incubator -type businesses that are important to the local economy. The integration of innovative public spaces and "hangout" areas for special events are highly encouraged. The maximum residential density within the SoBECA overlay is 40 units per acre. A maximum 1.25 FAR applies to mixed-use buildings that integrate residential and commercial uses. Stand-alone commercial or industrial buildings have a maximum 1.0 FAR. The maximum building height for all projects is four stories. The maximum number of residential units allowed within the entire SoBECA Urban Plan area is 450 units, see Table LU -17: SoBECA Overlay and Urban Plan. See also Figure LU -12: SoBECA Mixed -Use Overlay. Table LU -17: SoBECA Mixed -Use Overlay Source: City of Costa Hesa, 2015. Costa Mesa General Plan I LU -63 SoBECACategories Baseline (2015) Density (DU/AC) N/A 40 DU/AC Not to exceed 450 units for Overlay Units 0 450 Floor -Area Ratio (FAR) N/A 1.00 to 1.25 Building Square Feet 491,000 420,360 Source: City of Costa Hesa, 2015. Costa Mesa General Plan I LU -63 Land Use Element Aerial General Plan: Overlay LU -64 I Costa Mesa General Plan Key Map General Plan Designations Low Density Residential (8 du/ac) Medium Density Residential (12 du/ac) High Density Residential (20 du/ac) t General Commercial Light Industrial Public/Institutional SoBECA Overlay General Plan land use overlay that allows a maximum of 450 units. Individual residential projects cannot exceed 40 dwelling units per acre. Baseline (2015) Units ................0 Square Feet..... 491,000 Acres.. ... ..... ... 39.2 Acres Land Use Plan Units ....................450 Maximum Square Feet ..... ....... 420,359 FAR ........ .... ......... 1.00 to 1.25 FAR Density.....................40 DU/AC* * Not to exceed 450 units for area Figure LU -12: SoBECA Overlay Land Use Element Harbor Mixed -Use Overlay The Harbor Mixed -Use Overlay applies to select areas along Harbor Boulevard, between Wilson Street and 19th Street. The intent is to introduce a diverse mix of uses, with the objective of creating a much more integrated, walkable, and complementary balance of creative industrial and office spaces, neighborhood -serving retail and commercial services, and residential uses along the southern portion of Harbor Boulevard that intersects with 19th Street. The designation allows residential development at up to 20 dwelling units per acre. A maximum 1.25 FAR applies to projects that consist of both residential and commercial mixed uses; a44X-FA4"aPlieS t9 StaAd aR'^^^ Maximum building height is four stories. See Table LU - 17: Harbor Mixed -Use Overlay and Figure LU -13. Table LU -18-7: Harbor Mixed -Use Overlay Source: City of Costa Xlesa, 2015. Westside Urban Plans In April 2006, the City adopted three Westside urban plans that created overlay zones in designated areas of the Westside: the 19 West Urban Plan, the Mesa West Bluffs Urban Plan, and the Mesa West Residential Ownership Urban Plan. Development proposed within the Westside Urban Plans requires approval of a Master Plan pursuant to the City of Costa Mesa Municipal Code. 19 West Urban Plan The 19 West Urban Plan provides commercial and residential mixed-use opportunities primarily along 191h Street and Harbor Boulevard, at a cluster of properties between Newport Boulevard and Superior Avenue, and at the south corner of Victoria Street and Placentia Avenue. This mixed-use overlay zone (over the Commercial and Industrial base districts) is intended to promote commercial/residential mixed-use development, encourage adaptive reuse, stimulate private investments and improvements, promote new Costa Mesa General Plan I LU -65 Density (DU/AC) Baseline (2015) N/A HarborCategories 20 DU/AC Units 13 491 Floor -Area Ratio (FAR) N/A 1.00 to 1.25 Building Square Feet 337,300 321,000 of Commercial Source: City of Costa Xlesa, 2015. Westside Urban Plans In April 2006, the City adopted three Westside urban plans that created overlay zones in designated areas of the Westside: the 19 West Urban Plan, the Mesa West Bluffs Urban Plan, and the Mesa West Residential Ownership Urban Plan. Development proposed within the Westside Urban Plans requires approval of a Master Plan pursuant to the City of Costa Mesa Municipal Code. 19 West Urban Plan The 19 West Urban Plan provides commercial and residential mixed-use opportunities primarily along 191h Street and Harbor Boulevard, at a cluster of properties between Newport Boulevard and Superior Avenue, and at the south corner of Victoria Street and Placentia Avenue. This mixed-use overlay zone (over the Commercial and Industrial base districts) is intended to promote commercial/residential mixed-use development, encourage adaptive reuse, stimulate private investments and improvements, promote new Costa Mesa General Plan I LU -65 Land Use Element Aerial General Plan: Overlay LU -66 j Costa Mesa General Plan Key Map General Plan Designations Low Density Residential (8 du/ac) Medium Density Residential (12 du/ac) nNElk-. High Density Residentlal (20 du/ac) � General Commercial Harbor Mixed -Use Overlay General Plan land use overlay that allows a maximum residential density of 20 dwelling units per acre. Mixed-use projects that do not include residential components can be developed at a 1.00 FAR. Mixed-use projects with both residential and commerical components can be developed at 1.25 FAR. Baseline (2015) Residential Units ..................... .......13 Commercial Square Feet.. .. ...... 337,300 Total Area ................................. ....24 6 acres Land Use Plan Residential Units................................491 Commercial Square Feet... _.........321,000 321,000 Density.............................................20 DU/AC FAR ........... ........................................1.00 to 1.25 FAR Figure LU -13: Harbor Mixed -Use Overlay Land Use Element housing types, and meet housing demand. Development is subject to the trip budget established in the zoning code. Mesa West Bluffs Urban Plan The Mesa West Bluffs Urban Plan encompasses approximately 277 acres and was adopted to provide an overlay zone encouraging the development of live/work units or residential development, with the goal of revitalizing and attracting new high-quality residences. The Mesa West Bluffs Urban Plan applies to industrial properties predominantly south of 18th Street, north of 16th Street, and along Placentia Avenue. The Urban Plan intends to stimulate live/work and residential development without exceeding the development capacity of the General Plan transportation system. With regard to industrial uses, established industrial uses may continue and expand. New residential development must recognize long-established industrial uses and be designed to minimize conflicts. Within a live/work or mixed-use development in the Urban Plan area, nNew creative industrial workspace is permitted, provided that activities limit or confine noise, dust, and vibration impacts. Mesa West Residential Ownership Urban Plan The Mesa West Residential Ownership Urban Plan encompasses approximately 238 acres located between Victoria Street and 17th Street, east west of SR -55. The objective of the Mesa West Residential Ownership Urban Plan is to promote economic viability in existing medium -density and high- density residential areas, encourage the conversion of existing rental apartments to residential common -interest development (i.e., condominiums, planned unit development, and cooperatives), and encourage new residential common -interest development to improve the balance between rental and ownership opportunities. The Mesa West Residential Ownership Urban Plan provides flexible development regulations to create additional incentives for new development. See LU -14: Westside Urban Plans, for the location and boundaries for each Westside Urban Plan. Costa Mesa General Plan I LU -67 Land Use Element General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Consistency The relationship between the General Plan land use designations and zoning districts is shown in Table LU -19: General Plan and Zoning Consistency. This l table indicates how properties will be zoned to be consistent with the General Plan Land Use Plan. The Zoning Ordinance has the following Zoning Districts: ■ Single -Family Residential (R1) ■ Multiple -Family Residential, Medium Density (132 -MD) ■ Multiple -Family Residential, High Density (R2 -HD) Multiple -Family Residential (R3) ■ Administrative and Professional (AP) • Commercial Limited (CL) ■ Local Business (C1) ■ General Business (C2) ■ Shopping Center (C1 -S) ■ Town Center (TC) ■ Off -Street Parking (P) ■ Institutional and Recreational (I & R) * Institutional and Recreational - School (I & R -S) • Institutional and Recreational - Multi -Use (I &R -MLT) ■ General Industrial (MG) • Industrial Park (MP) ■ Planned Development Residential (PDR) ■ Planned Development Commercial (PDC) ■ Planned Development Industrial (PDI) ■ Mixed -Use Overlay District (MU) • Residential Incentive Overlay District (RIO) Costa Mesa General Plan I LU -69 Land Use Element Table LU -19: General Plan and Zoning Consistency Land Use Plan Designations Low Density Consistent Zoning Classification R1, PDR -LD, I&R, I&R-S Medium Density R1, R2 -MD, PDR -MD, I&R, I&R-S, MU`RIO High Density R2 -MD, R2 -HD, R3, PDRHD, PDR -NCM, I&R, I&R-S, MU, RIO Commercial -Residential AP, CL, C1, P, PDC, R2 -MD, R2 -HD, PDR -MD, PDR -HD, RIO Neighborhood Commercial CL, C1, AP, P General Commercial CL, C1, C2, C1 -S, PDC, AP, P, RIO, MU Commercial Center C1, C2, C1 -S, PDC, AP, PDC, P Regional Commercial PDC Urban Center Commercial PDC Cultural Arts Center TC Multi -Use Center I&R-MLT Industrial Park MG, PDI, CL Light Industrial MP, PDI, CL Public and Institutional I&R, I&R-S, P Golf Course I&R Fairgrounds I&R Fairview R2 -MD, R2 -HD, R3, I&R Source: City of Costa Mesa, 2015. LU -70 I Costa Mesa General Plan Land Use Element Housing and Employment Proj ections Providing a land use arrangement that encourages a correlation of employment and housing opportunities is a local and regional responsibility. Providing sufficient commercial land to support residential development is primarily a local responsibility, although commercial uses serving regional needs are provided as well. Sufficient land must also be established to meet the recreational needs of the local community, although regional needs are often accommodated by land within individual cities. Table LU -20: General Plan Land Use 2035, identifies the projected future growth and implications of the Land Use Plan. Costa Mesa General Plan I LU -71 Land Use Element Table LU -20: General Plan Land Use 2035 Residential Single -Family 2,088.2 14,210 14,791 543,000 Multi -Family 1,705.0 28,413 37,103 Non -Residential Commercial -Residential 47.9 - 543,000 455,200 Neighborhood Commercial 40.5 338,000 472,100 General Commercial 616.3 - 7,065,300 8,556,100 Commercial Center 54.4 733,000 522,800 Urban Center Commercial 167.7 - — 4,550,700 6,134,200 Cultural Arts Center 57.3 — 2,673,300 4,869,800 Regional Commercial 147.9 -- 2,723,700 3,260,800 Industrial Park 671.5 8,684,500 10,240,000 Light Industrial 378.1 - — 4,402,500 2,838,000 Public and Institutional 1,263.4 -- 1,989,000 3,970,700 Golf Course 553.7 84,200 243,900 Fairgrounds 150.0 128,800 427,400 Multi -Use Center 102.6 —500 - 562,000 Totals 8,044.5 42,623 51,894 33,916,000 42,553,000 Notes: 1. Includes Low -Density Residential General Plan land use designation. 2. Includes Medium -Density, Fligh-Density, and Commercial -Residential, Overlays General Plan land use designations. LU -72 1 Costa Mesa General Plan Land Use Element Goals, Objectives, and Policies Maintaining and enhancing the great quality of life in Costa Mesa is the foundation of this General Plan. The City will look towards focusing future change within targeted growth areas. Some of these areas already have a mix of commercial, office, hotel, and residential uses, and are located along roadways that will be enhanced with "Complete Streets" features (see Circulation Element), improved landscaping, and expanded public spaces (such as parks and plazas). In turn, the City will also protect and enhance neighborhoods throughout Costa Mesa to ensure these largely residential areas continue to provide value to residents and the community as whole. Foremost, attention will be given to protecting the character and quality of residential neighborhoods, including those features that distinguish an area, such as building scale, historical structures, well-maintained rental housing, mature vegetation, and attractive streetscapes. The goals, objectives, and policies that address land use are as follows.. Goal LU -1: A Balanced Community with a Mix of Land Uses to Meet Resident and Business Needs Objective LU -1A. Establish and maintain a balance of land uses throughout the community to preserve the residential character of the City at a level no greater than can be supported by the infrastructure. Policy LU -1.1 Provide for the development of a mix and balance of housing opportunities, commercial goods and services, and employment opportunities in consideration of the needs of the business and residential segments of the community. Policy LU -1.2 Balance economic gains from new development while preserving the character and densities of residential neighborhoods. Costa Mesa General Plan ( LU -73 Land Use Element Policy LU -1.3 Strongly encourage the development of residential uses and owner -occupied housing (single-family detached residences, condominiums, townhouses) where feasible to improve the balance between rental and ownership housing opportunities. Policy LU -1.4 Promote housing and employment opportunities within planned development areas to the extent feasible. Policy LU -1.5 Maintain a land use structure that strives to balance jobs and housing with available infrastructure and public and human services. Goal LU -2: Preserve and Protect Residential Neighborhoods Objective LU -2. Promote land use patterns and development that contribute to community and neighborhood identity. Policy LU -2.1 In the event of damage or destruction, allow any legal conforming use in existence at the time of adoption of the General Plan that is located in a nonconforming development to be rebuilt to its original building intensity, as long as any such rebuilding would not increase the development's nonconformity, and the damage or destruction was in no way brought about by intentional acts of any owner of such use or property. Policy LU -2.2 Pursue maximum use of utility company funds and resources in undergrounding existing overhead lines, and encourage undergrounding of utilities in the public right- of-way for residential development consisting of five units or more, to the extent feasible and practical. Policy LU -2.3 Develop standards, policies, and other methods to encourage the grouping of individual parcels to eliminate obsolete subdivision patterns and to provide improved living environments while being consistent with the neighborhood character of the surrounding community. Policy LU -2.4 Do not allow "rounding up" when calculating the number of permitted residential units, except for lots existing as of March 16, 1992, zoned R2 -MD that have less than 7,260 LU -74 1 Costa Mesa General Plan Land Use Element Costa Mesa General Plan I LU -75 square feet in area, and no less than 6,000 square feet, where density calculation fractions of 1.65 or greater may be rounded_uP to two units. Policy LU -2.5 Allow creation of parcels without street frontage if sufficient easements are provided for planned developments or common -interest developments consistent with the neighborhood character. This policy does not apply to small lot subdivisions. Policy LU -2.6 Encourage increased private market investment in declining or deteriorating neighborhoods. Policy LU -2.7 Permit the construction of buildings over two stories or 30 feet only when it can be shown that the construction of such structures will not adversely impact surrounding developments and deprive existing land uses of adequate light, air, privacy, and solar access. Policy LU -2.8 Limit building height to four stories above grade south of the 1-405 Freeway, except for special purpose housing, such as elderly, affordable, or student housing, unless otherwise approved by a General Plan amendment. (A four-story/five-level parking structure with roof deck parking on the fifth level is considered a four-story structure.) Policy LU -2.9 Require appropriate building setbacks, structure orientation, and the placement of windows to consider the privacy of adjacent residential structures within the same project and on adjacent properties. Policy LU -2.10 Promote lot consolidation of residential properties to the extent feasible and practical, including the creation of larger single-family residential lots that exceed the minimum 6,000 square foot requirement in neighborhoods where the prevailing residential subdivision pattern features larger -sized residential lots. Policy LU -2.11 Ensure adequate noise attenuation in urban design, such as walls for sound attenuation, development of landscaped greenbelts, provision of landscape berms, etc. Costa Mesa General Plan I LU -75 Land Use Element Goal LU -3: Development that Maintains Neighborhood Integrity and Character Objective LU -3. Establish policies, standards, and procedures to minimize blighting influences, and maintain the integrity of stable neighborhoods. Policy LU -3.1 Protect existing stabilized residential neighborhoods, including mobile home parks (and manufactured housing parks), from the encroachment of incompatible or potentially disruptive land uses and/or activities. Policy LU -3.2 Actively enforce existing regulations regarding derelict or abandoned vehicles, outdoor storage, and substandard or illegal buildings, and establish regulations to abate weed - filled yards when any of the above are deemed to constitute a health, safety, or fire hazard. Policy LU -3.3 Continue code enforcement as a high priority with regard LU -76 I Costa Mesa General Plan to the regulation of property maintenance standards citywide and group homes and sober living homes in the single-family and multi -family residential areas. Policy LU -3.4 Ensure that residential densities can be supported by the infrastructure and are compatible with existing residential neighborhoods in the surrounding area. Policy LU -3.5 Provide opportunities for the development of well- planned and designed projects which, through vertical or horizontal integration, provide for the development of compatible residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, or public uses within a single project or neighborhood. Policy LU -3.6 Facilitate revitalization of aging commercial centers by working with property owners, developers, local businesses, and other community organizations to coordinate efforts. Policy LU -3.7 Promote development/design flexibility that encourages older or poorly maintained high-density residential uses to be rehabilitated. Policy LU -3.8 Ensure that new development reflects existing design standards, qualities, and features that are in context with LU -76 I Costa Mesa General Plan Land Use Element nearby development and surrounding residential neighborhoods. Policy LU -3.9 Locate high-intensity developments or high traffic generating uses away from low-density residential in order to buffer the more sensitive land uses from the potentially adverse impacts of the more intense development or uses. Policy LU -3.10 Minimize effects of new development on the privacy and character of surrounding neighborhoods. Policy LU -3.11 Promote small lot residential development on long, narrow, single parcels or combined residential lots. Policy LU -3.12 Ensure that new development reflects existing design standards, qualities, and features that are in context with nearby development. Policy LU -3.13 Prohibit construction of buildings which would present a hazard to air navigation, as determined by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Goal LU -4: New Development that Is Sensitive to Costa Mesa's Environmental Resources Objective LU -4. Encourage new development and redevelopment that protects and improves the quality of Costa Mesa's natural environment and resources. Policy LU -4.1 Ensure that appropriate watershed protection activities are applied to all new development and significant redevelopment projects that are subject to the NPDES Stormwater Permit during the planning, project review, and permitting processes. Policy LU -4.2 Avoid conversion of areas particularly susceptible to erosion and sediment loss (e.g., steep slopes) and/or establish development guidelines that identifies these areas and protects them from erosion and sediment loss. Costa Mesa General Plan I LU -77 Land Use Element Policy LU -4.3 Preserve or restore areas that provide water quality benefits and/or are necessary to maintain riparian and aquatic biota. Policy LU -4.4 Promote site development that limits impact on and protects the natural integrity of topography, drainage systems, and water bodies, and protect the integrity of the bluff crest. Policy LU -4.5 Promote integration of stormwater quality protection into construction and post -construction activities, as required by the NPDES Stormwater Permit and the City's Local Implementation Plan, Policy LU -4.6 Incorporate the principles of sustainability into land use planning, infrastructure, and development processes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions consistent with State goals. Goal LU -5: Adequate Community Services, Transportation System, and Infrastructure to Meet Growth Objective LU -5. Ensure availability of adequate community facilities and provision of the highest level of public services possible, taking into consideration budgetary constraints and effects on the surrounding area. Policy LU -5.1 Pursue annexation of certain areas within the City's Sphere of Influence to provide land use regulation and city services within its jurisdiction. Policy LU -5.2 Strongly encourage protection and preservation of existing, but underutilized, school sites for future recreational, social, or educational uses. Policy LU -5.3 As appropriate and timely, consider the establishment of development impact fee program(s) to fund additional fire and police personnel, library facilities, and related equipment to meet the demands of additional growth in the City. LU -78 1 Costa Mesa General Plan Land Use Element Policy LU -5.4 Require appropriate site and environmental analysis for future fire and police station site locations or for the relocation or closure of existing fire and police facilities. Policy LU -5.5 Ensure that new development pays its fair share for parkland impacts and traffic impacts. This includes fees related to community services (police protection services and fire emergency response services) or library facilities, once adopted and applicable. Policy LU -5.6 Promote development of revenue -generating land uses that help defray the costs of high quality public services. Policy LU -5.7 Encourage new development that is organized around compact, walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods and districts to conserve open space resources, minimize infrastructure costs, and reduce reliance on the automobile. Policy LU -5.8 Include an evaluation of impacts on utility systems and infrastructure in EIRs for all major general plan amendment, rezone, and development applications. Policy LU -5.9 Phase or restrict future development in the City to that which can be accommodated by infrastructure at the time of completion of each phase of a multi -phased project. Policy LU -5.10 Building densities/intensities for proposed new development projects shall not exceed the trip budget for applicable land use classifications, as identified in the Land Use Element. Building intensities for proposed new development projects shall not exceed the applicable floor area standards, except for the following conditions: (a) Limited deviations from the graduated floor area ratio standards for the commercial and industrial land use designations may be approved through a discretionary review process. No deviation shall exceed a 0.05 increase in the FAR in the moderate traffic category, and no deviation shall be allowed in the very -low, low, and high traffic categories. Deviations from the FAR standards shall not cause the daily trip generation for the property to be exceeded when compared to the existing daily trip generation for the site without the proposed project or maximum allowable traffic generation for Costa Mesa General Plan I LU -79 Land Use Element the Moderate Traffic FAR category, whichever is greater. (b) Additions to existing nonconforming non-residential developments may be allowed if the additions do not affect the overall traffic generation characteristics of the development, and, if the additions do not substantially affect the existing height and bulk of the development. Additions to non-residential developments shall be limited to those land uses with traffic generation rates based on variables other than building area square footage. Examples of such additions include, but are not limited to: 1) Hotels/Motels: increases in the size of hotel rooms or lobbies where no increase in the total number of rooms is proposed; 2) Theaters: increases to "back -stage" support areas or lobbies where no increase in the total number of seats is proposed. (c) In the above conditions, the new development shall be compatible with surrounding land uses. Additional criteria for approving deviations from the FAR standards may be established by policy of the City Council. Policy LU -5.11 Development Plans shall be required for all phased development and approvals and shall be approved by the Planning and Transportation Services Divisions prior to the issuance of building permits. Policy LU -5.12 Development Plans shall include an overall buildout plan, which can demonstrate the ability of the circulation system to support the proposed level of development. Policy LU -5.13 The City shall continue its annual preparation of the Development Phasing and Performance Monitoring Program. The annual review will specifically address major intersection operations in any mixed-use overlay area. LU -80 I Costa Mesa General Plan Land Use Element Goal LU -6: Economically Viable and Productive Land Uses that Increase the City's Tax Base Objective LU -6: Ensure the long term productivity and viability of the community's economic base. Policy LU -6.1 Encourage a mixed of land uses that maintain and Policy LU -6.8 Provide efficient and timely review of development proposals while maintaining quality customer service standards for the business, development, and residential community. Policy LU -6.9 Support the retention and growth of Class A office tenants, including corporate headquarters for the action sports industry, pharmaceuticals, and high technology companies within the City. Costa Mesa General Plan I LU -81 improve the City's long-term fiscal health. Policy LU -6.2 Continue to promote and support the vitality of commercial uses to meet the needs of local residents and that support regional -serving commercial centers. Policy LU -6.3 Continue to prioritize commercial and industrial park use of properties north of 1-405 and within the Airport Industrial District. Policy LU -6.4 Support the continued presence of incubator businesses in the action sports industry and jobs -producing businesses in the Westside. Policy LU -6.5 Encourage revitalization of existing, older commercial and industrial areas in the Westside with new mixed-use development consisting of ownership housing stock and live/work units. Policy LU -6.6 Continue to encourage and retain land uses that generate sustainable sales and property tax revenues, including regional commercial destinations and automobile dealerships. Policy LU -6.7 Encourage new and retain existing businesses that provide local shopping and services. Policy LU -6.8 Provide efficient and timely review of development proposals while maintaining quality customer service standards for the business, development, and residential community. Policy LU -6.9 Support the retention and growth of Class A office tenants, including corporate headquarters for the action sports industry, pharmaceuticals, and high technology companies within the City. Costa Mesa General Plan I LU -81 Land Use Element Objective LU -6B: Encourage and facilitate activities that expand the City's Policy LU -6.19 Provide flexibility and support for development or residential, office, small retail centers, and similar uses that would serve local residents and would also benefit from the high visibility along major corridors outside of significant commercial or industrial nodes. LU -82 I Costa Mesa General Plan revenue base. Policy LU -6.10 Encourage a broad range of business uses that provide employment at all income levels and that make a positive contribution to the City's tax base. Policy LU -6.11 Provide opportunities for mixed-use, office, manufacturing, and retail development that respond to market and community needs in terms of size, location, and cost. Policy LU -6.12 Track retail trends and tailor regulations to respond to market changes, maximize revenue, and maintain the appropriate the business mix. Policy LU -6.13 Encourage new development along major corridors that are pedestrian oriented and includes a mixture of retail/service, residential, and office uses. Policy LU -6.14 Improve ease and accessibility to information to capture opportunities for businesses to establish in Costa Mesa and bring high -skill and professional jobs and new revenue sources into the community. Policy LU -6.15 Promote unique and specialized commercial and industrial districts within the City which allow for incubation of new or growing businesses and industries. Policy LU -6.16 Examine options for the development of new infrastructure for new technologies and businesses that use those technologies. Objective LU -6C: Retain and expand the City's diverse employment base, including office, retail/service, restaurants, high-tech, action sports, boutique or prototype manufacturing, and industrial businesses. Policy LU -6.17 Engage in activities that promote Costa Mesa as a geed great place to live, work, and develop a business. Policy LU -6.18 Continue to work with surrounding cities to strengthen regional economic development. Policy LU -6.19 Provide flexibility and support for development or residential, office, small retail centers, and similar uses that would serve local residents and would also benefit from the high visibility along major corridors outside of significant commercial or industrial nodes. LU -82 I Costa Mesa General Plan Land Use Element Goal LU -7: A Sound Local Sustainable Economy that Attracts Investment, Creates Educational Opportunities, and Generates Employment Opportunities Policy LU -7.1 Endeavor to create mixture of employment opportunities for all economic levels of residents and businesses. Policy LU -7.2 Support linkages between local educational institutions and local industries and businesses. Foster training, collaboration with employers, and new innovative programs that increase job opportunities for residents and students attending school locally. Policy LU -7.3 Foster and provide useful and efficient partnerships to implement economic opportunities with private, non- profit, or other public agencies. Policy LU -7.4 Cultivate an entrepreneurial and academic environment that fosters innovation through non-traditional housing developments, flexible office spaces, experiential development, and ensuring the diversity of retail/service throughout the urban districts. Policy LU -7.5 Support and provide flexibility for development projects and businesses which produce, care, and maintain material goods or fixed assets meant to support the production of market goods, especially for niche industries within the City of Costa Mesa. Policy LU -7.6 Seek out opportunities to attract primary businesses within stable industries or industries that already exist within the City. Policy LU -7.7 Explore economic and employment opportunities to retain and strengthen the unique industry niches along Bristol and Paularino, in the Westside, on 17th Street, and throughout North Costa Mesa. Policy LU -7.8 Support the development of pedestrian plazas and gathering places, and institutional spaces as well as the more efficient use of existing spaces to support economic growth and branding of existing industries within the City. Costa Mesa General Plan I LU -83 Land Use Element Goal LU -8: Promote a range of multiple uses at the Fairview Developmental Center site Policy LU -8.1 In anticipation of the potential closure or repurposing of the Fairview Development Center site, the City will work with appropriate State agencies or private entity (if the property is sold) to plan for a complementary mix of low - scale residential, institutional, public facilities, open spaces, and recreational uses within a campus setting. Goal LU -9: Ensure that Fairgrounds uses are consistent with the General Plan designation Policy LU -9.1 Disee Fage riha,.ges in the Promote allowable uses as specified in the Fairgrounds General Plan land use designation for the Orange County Fair & Event Center property. Ensure that amendments to the Fairgrounds is General Plan designation are approved by the electorate. LU -84 I Costa Mesa General Plan Bicyclists traveling along 17h Street Chapter 3: Circulation Element Introduction Costa Mesa's transportation system consists of a comprehensive network of sidewalks, bicycle routes, trails, bus transit facilities, local streets, major roadways, and freeways. This integrated system supports connectivity among the major activity areas and residential neighborhoods, and brings people to and through the City. Although the established street system moves many people every day to local and regional destinations, the system—not unlike most road systems in Southern California established long ago—has been designed primarily for automobiles. This Circulation Element changes the paradigm for transportation planning by giving equal attention to planning and building systems that accommodate all mobility means, including on foot, by bicycle, and via transit. This element includes goals, objectives, and policies that the City will use to make decisions regarding transportation improvements that significantly Costa Mesa General Plan I C-1 Circulation Element expand bicycle and pedestrian travel capabilities, manage the established roadway system efficiently and effectively, enhance transit facilities, and implement "complete street" strategies that ensure all users and mobility options are addressed in future street improvements. Purpose Costa Mesa will pursue strategies and programs that not only address relieving vehicular congestion but also create local conditions that emphasize active transportation. With its mild climate and flat terrain, Costa Mesa should be a place where people can easily bike and walk. The transportation system described in this element is a balanced multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users of streets, roads, and highways for safe and convenient travel. Those users include children, cyclists of all ages, pedestrians, persons with disabilities, motorists, movers of commercial goods, transit riders, and seniors. The City's aim is to balance the ability of this varied circulation network to accommodate planned growth in a manner that minimizes delay, creates efficiencies, and supports the community's environmental and economic goals. The Circulation Element establishes policies governing the system of roadways, intersections, bike paths, pedestrian ways, and other components of the circulations system, which collectively provide for the movement of persons and goods throughout Costa Mesa. Most significantly, the element: • Applies "Complete Streets" strategies for street improvements • Defines active transportation improvements that will create improved conditions for walking and cycling • Coordinates land use planning and transportation improvements to effectively manage and improve the established roadway system ■ Identifies linkages and connectivity among all transportation modes C-2 I Costa Mesa General Plan Circulation Element Baseline Conditions - 2015 Established Roadways Regional Transportation Costa Mesa is centrally located in Orange County near the Pacific Coast and is well served by the regional freeway system consisting of: • San Diego Freeway (1-405), which traverses east -west across the northern portion of the City • Corona del Mar Freeway (SR -73), which begins at 1-405 between Fairview Road and Bear Street and extends southeast, where it becomes the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor • Costa Mesa Freeway (SR -55), which enters at the northeast corner of the City and extends southwest, transitioning into Newport Boulevard south of 191h Street These freeways provide regional access throughout Orange County and points beyond, which is convenient but also can be ire -provoking during weekday and weekend peak -hour periods, when travelers frequently experience severe congestion. Street System North/south arterial roadways serving the City include Harbor Boulevard, Fairview Road, Bear Street, and Bristol Street, all of which are six -lane facilities; and Placentia Avenue and Red Hill Avenue, both of which are four - lane facilities. East -west arterial roadways serving the City include Anton Boulevard and Adams Avenue, which are six -lane facilities; Sunflower Avenue, which is a six -lane facility east of Bear Street and a four -lane facility west of Bear Street; and South Coast Drive, Baker Street, Fair Drive, Wilson Street, Victoria Street, West 191h Street and 17th Street, all four -lane facilities. Costa Mesa General Plan I C-3 Circulation Element East -west access to Costa Mesa is constrained by the Santa Ana River on the west and on the east by John Wayne Airport and Upper Newport Bay. The Santa Ana River runs along the entire western City boundary, with crossings only at Adams Avenue and Victoria Street. Besides 1-405, these two roadways represent the only locations where Costa Mesa residents can travel to Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley. Although a crossing had one time been planned via 19th Street, the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) amended its Master Plan of Arterial Highways' in 2014 to remove this connection. To the east, the airport and Upper Newport Bay entirely constrain surface street connections extending east, except via Pacific Coast Highway to the south, Bristol Street parallel to SR -73, and MacArthur Boulevard north of 1-405. The circulation system layout is notable for its two grid patterns, Streets east of and including Newport Boulevard were constructed at approximately 45 degree angles from the traditional north/south streets in north Orange County. This results in odd -angled intersections along Newport Boulevard. West of Newport Boulevard, the streets are generally in a more traditional grid pattern. ' Cities throughout Orange County must ensure that their own circulation master plans are consistent with OCTA's Master Plan of Arterial Highways to remain eligible for M2 funds, as described later in this element. C-4 I Costa Mesa General Plan Looking north on Bristol Streetfrom the pedestrian bridge connecting South Coast Plaza and the Segerstrom Center for the Arts The San Diego Freeway (1-105) in Orange County Circulation Element Long -Term Regional Transportation Projects 1-405 Improvement Project In 2015, 1-405 through Orange County carried as many as 370,000 vehicles per day, making it one of the busiest roadways in the nation. OCTA, in cooperation with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), plans to widen the 16 -mile length of 1-405 between 1-605 and SR -73 to handle forecasted vehicle volumes and to address ongoing congestion challenges. Project improvements include widening the freeway to include a general purpose lane and an express lane, improved overcrossings at Fairview Road and Santa Ana River, and a new bridge that will connect 1-405 and SR -73. Several freeway ramps will be reconstructed; adjacent roads will be configured to accommodate the widening, and new sound walls will be built where necessary. State Route 55 (SR -55) Freeway Extension Alternatives One of the keystone projects for alleviating congestion are the planned improvements for SR-55/Newport Boulevard. At the terminus of the Costa Mesa Freeway at 19th Street, in 2015 close to 100,000 vehicles passed through this area every day. OCTA has examined several alternatives of a freeway extension of SR -55 to address congestion resulting from the terminus of SR -55 at 19th Street in Costa Mesa. Alternatives include transportation systems management and traffic synchronization, construction of a single lane elevated structure at 17th Street, and a cut -and -cover tunnel that would run below SR-55/Newport Boulevard from 19th Street to Industrial Way. The cut - and -cover strategy offers the most benefits to Costa Mesa; in addition to Costa Mesa General Plan I C-5 Circulation Element completely removing freeway traffic from the local road network, it would allow the City to repurpose Newport Boulevard, including possibly using excess right-of-way for enhancing the downtown experience by adding landscaping and facilities that support other modes of transportation. This General Plan assumes that the cut -and -cover approach, which the City supports, will not occur within the year 2035 planning horizon due to the significant costs and planning required. Key Issues Freeway Congestion Interstate 405, between 1-605 and SR -73, is one of the most congested freeways in Southern California during commute hours. In addition to particularly heavy traffic volumes, 1-405 suffers from a lack of alternative routes plus closely spaced on- and off -ramps that interfere with smoothly flowing vehicle movements. The congestion impacts Costa Mesa by pushing non -local trips onto City streets and hindering easy access to commercial districts. Traffic congestion at the terminus of SR -55 is caused by local and regional commuters. Through trips to Newport Beach and other coastal areas use capacity that would better serve local residents and businesses; these trips also clog intersections that affects east -west travel within the City. Local Traffic Conditions Residents cite congestion on local streets as a key concern. Due to the City's geographic location, accessibility from freeways, proximity to Orange County beaches, and popular attractions and destinations, many local streets experience frequent heavy traffic loads. Need for a Comprehensive Bicycle System While Costa Mesa has long had several Class I bicycle paths such as the Santa Ana River Trail, Banning Channel Trail, Victoria Street path, and the Joann Street Bike Trail, connectivity has been limited. Gaps in the bicycle network create challenges for cross-town travel and easy access to major activity areas and residential neighborhoods. While Costa Mesa's weather and terrain make for great biking, the lack of efficient and safe bike routes and supporting C-6 I Costa Mesa General Plan Circulation Element bike infrastructure have made it difficult for bicycling to be a good alternative travel mode. Accommodating Pedestrians Many residential neighborhoods in Costa Mesa are near shopping districts, schools, and parks. Pedestrian access improvements including attractive streetscape and landscape features, lighting, decorative crosswalks, enhanced traffic signal timing, and other amenities will attract higher use of pedestrian facilities. Neighborhood Cut -Through Traffic Three major freeways and several regional arterials provide access to the City and adjacent jurisdictions. As a result, some neighborhood streets are affected by cut -through traffic, resulting in higher than normal traffic volumes at higher speeds. Additionally, due to limited vehicle access routes over the Santa Ana River, a significant number of vehicles converge along Adams Avenue and Victoria Street to get to Huntington Beach. Many neighborhood streets in proximity to these streets are affected by cut -through traffic, especially by vehicles attempting quicker routes via Costa Mesa streets. Mobile technologies such as smart phone apps that alert motorist of congested streets and suggest alternative routes through residential neighborhoods compound the issue. Costa Mesa General Plan I C-7 Circulation Element Circulation Plan Efficient movement within and through Costa Mesa and the region will be facilitated by developing and maintaining a well-designed and integrated multimodal transportation network for all users. Easy and convenient access to transit, pedestrian, and bicycle options within the City are essential to an efficient network. Streets are the backbone of Costa Mesa's circulation system. They lend identity to our neighborhoods and have always served as a determining force in the shape, form, and function of the City. Streets should be considered as places with many functions beyond moving people and goods, such as connecting neighborhoods, providing social spaces, and serving as statements of civic pride. Master Plan of Streets and Highways (MPSH) The City of Costa Mesa MPSH defines the existing and future roadway system in the City. One of the objectives of the MPSH is to maintain consistency with the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH). OCTA administers the MPAH, including the review and approval of amendments requested by local agencies. In order for Costa Mesa to receive funding from Orange County M2 funds for planned local road network improvements, the City's MPSH must be consistent with the County's MPAH. Roadway Classifications Roadway classifications are designated on the MPSH as a general guideline for arterial highway right-of-way requirements. Additional right-of-way beyond the typical sections may be required for any classification when an arterial highway coincides with an adopted route for an additional public facility (e.g., special transit facilities, bikeways, wider landscaped parkways, wider sidewalks, or riding and hiking trails), or a scenic highway. Figure C -1 -Road Typical Crass Sections, shows typical cross-sections for the arterial roadway designations on the MPSH, and Table C-1 Master Plano Streets and Highways, lists the daily number of vehicles that can be accommodated by each type of arterial roadway. C-8 I Costa Mesa General Plan Major Arterial 100' 84' Circulation Element 8' 12' 11' I 12' 14' 1 10' J 12' 1 11' 1 12' I 8' Primary Arterial I 7' 12' I 11' 4' Secondary Arterial 74' 60' WL 10' 1 11' 1 12' 1 7' Collector 60' 40' 10' I 8' 12' 12' 8' } 10' Notes: 1. Additional right -of way maybe required at intersectionsfor accommodating turn lanes. 2. Additional right-of=way may be required along streets that are planned to included future bicycle facilities, consistent with the Geneeptual Bicycle Master Plan (Figure C-3) Figure C-1: Roadway Typical Cross Sections Costa Mesa General Plan I C-9 68' 56' f I � a 6' 12' 11 10' 11 I 12' 6' Collector 60' 40' 10' I 8' 12' 12' 8' } 10' Notes: 1. Additional right -of way maybe required at intersectionsfor accommodating turn lanes. 2. Additional right-of=way may be required along streets that are planned to included future bicycle facilities, consistent with the Geneeptual Bicycle Master Plan (Figure C-3) Figure C-1: Roadway Typical Cross Sections Costa Mesa General Plan I C-9 Circulation Element Table C-1: Master Plan of Streets and Highways Arterials Major Six -lane divided (median) TypicalDaily ••Trips 100 Feet Accommodated 56,000-68,000 Primary Four -lane divided (median) 74 Feet 38,000-45,000 Secondary Four -lane undivided (no median) 68 Feet 25,000-30,000 Divided Collector Two-lane divided (continuous two-way left -turn lane) 68 Feet 22,000 Collector Two-lane undivided (no median) 60 Feet 12,500 Source: City of Costa Mesa, 2015. Major Arterial A Major Arterial highway is a six -lane divided (raised or painted median) roadway. A Major Arterial may be designed with emphasis for automobile, goods movement, and/or transit. Major Arterials carry a large volume of regional through traffic not handled by the freeway system. Primary Arterial A Primary Arterial highway is a four -lane divided (raised or painted median) roadway. A Primary Arterial may be designed with emphasis for automobile, goods movement, transit, and/or bicycle. A Primary Arterial's function is similar to that of a Major Arterial. The principal difference between the two classifications is capacity. Secondary Arterial A Secondary Arterial highway is a four -lane undivided (no median) roadway. A Secondary Arterial may be designed with emphasis for automobile and/or bicycle. A Secondary Arterial serves as a connector, distributing traffic between local streets and Major and Primary Arterials. Although some Secondary Arterials serve as through routes, most provide direct access to surrounding land uses. Divided Collector Arterial A Divided Collector Arterial is a modified Secondary Arterial with a reallocation of pavement width to emphasize bicycle and pedestrian use. It provides one bicycle lane per direction on bicycle corridors and one through C-10 1 Costa Mesa General Plan Circulation Element vehicle lane per direction. The two directions of travel are divided by a continuous two-way left -turn lane. Collector Arterial A Collector Arterial is a two-lane undivided (no median), unrestricted access roadway. Collector Arterials differ from local collector streets in their ability to handle through traffic movements between two arterials. Roadway Plan The Costa Mesa MPSH is shown in Figure C-2 Master Plan of Streets and Nrghways.---Prior traffic studies and the General Plan analysis ^ t�.,c�udy ...,l1w. ted �R 2915 36 to evaluated a number of potential modifications that are now either included in the MPSH or could be considered based on coordination with OCTA. Those modifications are discussed below. Santa Ana River Crossings A cooperative study was carried out by the cities of Costa Mesa, Newport Beach, Fountain Valley, and Huntington Beach and OCTA to support OCTA's amendment to the Orange County MPAH to downgrade the Gisler Avenue/Garfield Avenue crossing of the Santa Ana River to a "Right -of -Way Reserve" status and to delete the West 191h Street crossing of the Santa Ana River from the MPAH. To maintain consistency with the amended MPAH, the cities of Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley, and Huntington Beach have subsequently changed the designation of the Gisler Avenue/Garfield Avenue crossing to "Right -of -Way Reserve" status in their respective General Plan Circulation Element roadway systems, including the Costa Mesa MPSH presented here. The City of Huntington Beach has subsequently deleted the West 191h Street crossing from its General Plan circulation system. With this deletion, there is no possible connection for a vehicular bridge from Costa Mesa towards Huntington Beach. The Costa Mesa General Plan traffic study concluded that the future traffic demand in Costa Mesa can be adequately served without the West 19th Street crossing. Therefore, the West 19th Street crossing over the Santa Ana River has been deleted from the Costa Mesa MPSH. Costa Mesa General Plan l C-11 Circulation Element s Miles Map prepared by Stan tec, Inc. N Figure C-2: Master Plan of Streets and Highways C-12 I Costa Mesa General Plan Circulation Element West 19th Street Downgrade West 19th Street west of Placentia Avenue "a�:rcould be downgraded from a Primary Arterial to a Divided Collector Arterial on the MPSH, a downgrade that is supported by the results of the General Plan traffic study. This roadway is designated as a Primary Arterial on the Orange County MPAH. To maintain consistency with the MPAH, the City of Costa Mesa will initiate an MPAH amendment process with OCTA to downgrade this roadway to a Divided Collector Arterial. West 17th Street Downgrade West 17th Street west of Placentia Avenue has been could be downgraded from a Secondary Arterial to a Divided Collector Arterial on the MPSH, a downgrade that is supported by the results of the General Plan traffic study. This roadway is designated as a Secondary Arterial on the Orange County MPAH. To maintain consistency with the MPAH, the City of Costa Mesa will initiate an MPAH amendment process with OCTA to downgrade this roadway to a Divided Collector Arterial on the MPAH. East 22nd Street Downgrade East 22nd Street between northbound Newport Boulevard and Orange Avenue has been downgraded from a Secondary Arterial to a Collector Arterial on the MPSH. This downgrade is supported by earlier studies as well asps the General Plan traffic study, and the Orange County MPAH has been amended by OCTA to incorporate this downgrade. Baker Street Downgrade Baker Street between Mesa Verde Drive and Royal Palm Drive ",�Tcould be downgraded from a Secondary Arterial to a Collector Arterial on the MPSH, a downgrade that is supported by the results of the General Plan traffic study. This roadway is designated as a Secondary Arterial on the Orange County MPAH. To maintain consistency with the MPAH, Costa Mesa will initiate an MPAH amendment process with OCTA to downgrade this roadway to a Collector Arterial on the MPAH. Bluff Road Deletion The previous Costa Mesa MPSH included Bluff Road between Victoria Street and West 191h Street as a Major Arterial. The General Plan traffic study concluded that the future traffic demand in Costa Mesa can be adequately Costa Mesa General Plan I C-13 Circulation Element served without this roadway. Therefore, Bluff Road between Victoria Street and West 19th Street could be deleted from the MPSH. To maintain consistency with the MPAH, Costa Mesa will initiate an MPAH amendment process with OCTA to delete this roadway from the MPAH. Balanced Approach to Complete Streets The California Complete Streets Act (2008) places the planning, designing, and building of "Complete Streets" into the larger planning framework of the General Plan by requiring jurisdictions to plan for multimodal transportation networks. Complete Streets are designed and operated to enable safe access for all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, the disabled, motorists, seniors, users of public transportation, and movers of commercial goods. These networks allow people to effectively travel to key destinations within their community and the larger region. In addition, all transportation projects should be evaluated as to their ability to improve safety, access, and mobility for all travelers and to recognize pedestrian, bicycle, and transit modes as integral elements of their transportation system. Costa Mesa has already begun the work of reviewing the existing street network and looking for opportunities to improve alternative modes of transportation through the construction of bike lanes paths, such as the Joann Street Bicycle Trail. The goals, objectives, and policies in this element continue the work of making enhancements to the transportation network to accommodate all modes of mobility. Active Transportation "Active transportation" refers to non -motorized travel modes such as walking, biking, or skateboarding. Because everyone uses a mode of active transportation at some point in a trip, such as walking to a bus stop or from a parking lot to work or school, active transportation is a critical component of a Complete Streets network. The Active Transportation Plan—divided in this element into a bicycle component and pedestrian component—responds to direct comments from residents for more active transportation facilities and increased connectivity throughout Costa Mesa and regional destinations. C-14 1 Costa Mesa General Plan Circulation Element Bicycle Master Plan A transportation system that incorporates a well-designed bicycle network results in fewer motorized vehicle trips and miles of vehicle travel (and related pollutant emissions) while providing an option for healthful physical activity. Costa Mesa is committed to improving the bicycle experience with implementation of the comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan. The Conceptual Bicycle Master Plan is shown in Figure C-3. Following a detailed analysis and public review of the proposed facilities, a final Bicycle Master Plan will be incorporated into the Circulation Element. New bicycle facilities and amenities will be added to complement the established bicycle network. Costa Mesa follows Caltrans' standards and recognizes four classes of bicycle facilities: Class I — Bike Paths or Bike Trails, Class II - Bike Lanes, Class III - Bike Routes (On -Street), and Class IV - Protected Bike Lanes. Figures C-4 and C-5 illustrate typical cross sections for each bicycle classification. Class I: Off -Street Paved Bike Paths This class provides a pathway exclusive to bicycles and other active transportation modes, with no motor vehicle use of the roadway. Costa Mesa has extensive Class I bike routes within and adjacent to the City boundaries. Examples of Class I trails include, Joann Street Bicycle Trail, Harbor Boulevard Bicycle Trail, Victoria Street Bicycle Trail, Fairview Channel Trail, Santa Ana River Trail, Greenville -Banning Channel Bikeway, and Back Bay Trail. Class II: On -Street Striped and Signed Bicycle Lanes Most of the functional bicycle trips in Costa Mesa are on Class II bicycle lanes on many of the arterial and collector streets in the City. The lanes are striped and signed for exclusive use of bicycles and are located adjacent to curb. The lanes use existing rights-of-way and share roadways with motor vehicles. Class II can be found along Placentia Avenue, Newport Boulevard, Santa Ana Avenue, Fairview Road, and South Coast Drive. Class III: On -Street Shared -Lane Signed Bicycle Routes Similar to Class II bicycle lanes, Class III routes are multimodal but generally are located on low -traffic residential streets; they are identified as bikeways through signage only. On these routes, several short -distance "Bicycle Boulevards" are planned to connect the eastside and westside Class II bike lanes. Costa Mesa General Plan I C-15 Circulation Element ........... .w •�* ��Sq r�>p� 0. ....t •.y: Netypart - y,� Pyck'@ay f �410 .... .. ....... r� k •- �.. s- .�: j,... .. •` o ..s..,y• '.' .y Legend Ottyw QCt y City of Costa Mesa g�a* -~ Bea ''�� Existing Facilities 15TH -Class l dye $��[� • -Class II { ` t' HnsPITAI, r -Class III !pT- r �.• Proposed Facilities = _ •••-• Class 1 p :: Sl �� / S -----Class II C� 32ND �, •••Classlll (Route) ,s c i f i c Ocean.....Class III (Blvd.) yrs � .-. •Classly 15 Nlap prepared by Stantec, Inc. N Figure C-3: Conceptual Bicycle Master Plan C-16 Costa Mesa General Plan t ! i T rl.J 111 jail ! SLATER AYER SEGERS7ttOM k, ALTON TALOERT _ l •. i�Sani.a An�'�1 ELLIS x F,� �••.. AAS i A '. til (iARFIELt]; ►i!ilw.• 1 . I . �.. :74K I 4. ADAMS' •ti. rl1'7��lT�Tt7f' �....•i ���� w_LIN� X FAR cFeumus kill •. ��' �� I.1 ........... .w •�* ��Sq r�>p� 0. ....t •.y: Netypart - y,� Pyck'@ay f �410 .... .. ....... r� k •- �.. s- .�: j,... .. •` o ..s..,y• '.' .y Legend Ottyw QCt y City of Costa Mesa g�a* -~ Bea ''�� Existing Facilities 15TH -Class l dye $��[� • -Class II { ` t' HnsPITAI, r -Class III !pT- r �.• Proposed Facilities = _ •••-• Class 1 p :: Sl �� / S -----Class II C� 32ND �, •••Classlll (Route) ,s c i f i c Ocean.....Class III (Blvd.) yrs � .-. •Classly 15 Nlap prepared by Stantec, Inc. N Figure C-3: Conceptual Bicycle Master Plan C-16 Costa Mesa General Plan Class I: Off -Street Paved Bike Paths Bike Path Sidewalk (Dedicated Right -0f -way) Class II: On -Street Striped and Signed Bicycle Lanes Sidewalk Bike Lane (with stencil and striping) Circulation Element Figure C-4: Bike Cross Sections Class I and Class II Costa Mesa General Plan I C-17 Circulation Element Class III: On -Street Shared -Lane Signed Bicycle Routes Sidewalk Shared Lane (Vehicle and Bike) Class IV: Protected Bike Lanes (Cycle Tracks), an On -Street and Separated Bike Lane Sidewalk Protected Bike Lane Figure C-5: Bike Cross Sections Class III and Class IV C-18 I Costa Mesa General Plan Circulation Element Bicycle Boulevards are achieved mostly through signage, pavement markings, landscaping, and other vehicular traffic -calming measure to optimize bicycle travel. They never require widening of streets or removal of curb parking. Santa Ana Avenue between 22nd Street and 21ST Street is a Class III bicycle facility. Class IV: Protected Bike Lanes (Cycle Tracks) - On -Street and Separated Bike Lane A cycle track is marked out by a separate bike lane, or multidirectional bike lane, that protects it from other traffic—vehicular, transit, and pedestrian—by a physical barrier such as a curb, planters, or parked cars. Cycle tracks can be configured either for one-way travel (with a lane on each side of the street) or for two-way travel (with each lane on one side of the street). The lane is for exclusive use by bicycles. Physical separation can also be vertical, with the bike lane raised aboveground (i.e., bicycle freeway). When cycle tracks are built, they tend to attract even more bicycle riders, as they are perceived to be safer. In this manner, cycle tracks can increase cycling as a share of the overall mode of travel and address roadway safety by minimizing collisions between vehicles and cyclists. No Class IV facilities are currently located in Costa Mesa. Framework Bicycle Facilities Long-established bicycle assets in Costa Mesa that the Conceptual Bicycle Master Plan builds upon include the Santa Ana River Bicycle Trail, Greenville - Banning Channel Bikeway, Joann Street Bicycle Trail, and Victoria Street Bicycle Trail. Santa Ana River Bicycle Trail and Banning Channel Bikeway The Santa Ana River Trail is a dedicated bike path along the banks of the Santa Ana River. As a segment of the OC Loop, the Santa Ana River Trail provides bicycle access to Orange County beaches, as well as to Fairview Park, Talbert Nature Preserve, and Talbert Regional Park. A bridge over the Santa Ana River near Fairview Park and Talbert Nature Preserve provides pedestrian and bicycle access to both sides of the Santa Ana River Trail and the Banning Channel Bikeway. Costa Mesa General Plan I C-19 Circulation Element The Greenville -Banning Channel Bikeway is located on the eastern bank of the Santa Ana River and merges into the Santa Ana River Trail just south of Adams Avenue. Joann Street Bike Trail The Joann Street Bike Trail is a Class I bike path located along the southern edge of the Costa Mesa Golf Course and the western side of Harbor Boulevard. The trail connects Placentia Avenue and Tanager Drive. Victoria Street Bike Trail The Victoria Street Bike Trail is a Class I bike path located along the northern side of Victoria Street, between Canyon Drive and Placentia Avenue. Bicycle Infrastructure to Increase Bicycling This Circulation Element recognizes that a complete bicycle network must include infrastructure improvements and amenities for bicyclists that add comfort and convenience for commuters and recreational bicyclists. Recommendations to implement Safe Routes Stfeets-to School programs, provide bike lockers, require new developments to provide adequate bicycle parking, and implement a bicycle sharing system will all contribute to the complementary infrastructure necessary for completing Costa Mesa's planned comprehensive bicycle network. C-20 1 Costa Mesa General Plan The Joann Street bicycle Trail along the southern boundary of the Costa Mesa Golf Course. Bike racks: from the simple to the artistic to the whimsical. They all serve the Baine intended purpose. Circulation Element Bicycle Parking Facilities Safe and convenient bike parking is an essential component of a comprehensive bicycle network. Bike racks are required to be provided in most new development projects. However, larger bicycle parking facilities should be located at schools and colleges, major activity centers and venues, parks and community centers, office complexes, and major shopping centers. Examples of bicycle parking facilities can include: ■ Bike racks, lockers, and shelters. A bicycle rack is a device to which. bicycles can be securely attached for parking purposes. A bike rack may be attached to the ground or some stationary object such as a building. A bicycle locker is a box in which a single bicycle can be placed and locked in. They are usually provided at places where numerous cyclists need bike parking for extended times, yet where the bikes might otherwise get damaged or stolen. Bicycle shelters typically include bike racks that are covered by a permanent structure to protect against the elements. ■ Secure bicycle parking areas. Secure bicycle parking areas are enclosures for storing bicycles. They are commonly located in larger residential complexes or at colleges. They typically include 24-hour controlled access to limit bicycle theft and vandalism. ■ Attended bicycle stations. Bike stations provide indoor bike parking served by an attendant. Stations can include various services, including valet parking, day -use lockers, self -repair stations, bike rentals, professional bike repair, classes, and events. Bicycle Boulevards Bicycle boulevards are low -traffic streets that have been optimized for use by cyclists. A variety of traffic -calming elements and signage are used to reduce car volumes and speeds, thus fostering a safe bicycling environment. Bicycle boulevards often include features that allow cyclists to travel farther without stop controls or intersection treatments that allow cyclists to continue through intersections, while cars are forced to turn. Bike boulevards often make use of "sharrows"— shared -lane markings—that communicate the presence of bicyclists to drivers. Costa Mesa General Plan I C-21 Circulation Element Colored Bicycle Lanes and Boxes Bike boxes, painted at intersections, allow cyclists to move in front of the travel lane in order to be more visible to cars and avoid turning conflicts. Bicycle lanes are another technique to provide dedicated space in the street for cyclists and to increase driver awareness to the presence of cyclists. Increasingly, cities are using colored pavement treatments to designate bike lanes, either by coloring the beginning of the lane or the entire lane. Bicycle Programs Developing a healthy bicycling environment and culture is an important part of supporting good bicycle access. Building a strong and lasting bicycling constituency requires a multifaceted approach that provides required infrastructure and makes cyclists feel they are part of a broad and growing community. Safety Campaigns Bicycle safety campaigns and programs are critical to creating a bicycle - friendly culture. Safe travels by bicyclists can be actively integrated into traffic safety programs such as training law enforcements officers on bicyclists' rights and responsibilities, promoting efficient reporting mechanisms for behaviors that endanger bicyclists, employing traffic safety officers to educate, and correcting bicyclists' traffic violations. Celebrating Bicycling Programs and activities can stimulate community spirit toward cycling, such as events that celebrate those who ride or allow families to ride safely together. Common events include organized and supported rides, where local streets C-22 1 Costa Mesa General Plan An example of a painted bicycle box at an intersection An example of a cyclovio in Southern California Circulation Element are closed to cars and cyclists are free to ride; bike commute month (or week), where local companies can compete for the highest cycling rates; or events that showcase numerous types of cycling. All these events can help to build a cycling culture. Accommodating Pedestrians Walkability, access, and connections are essential components of a circulation system that accommodates pedestrians. Walkability includes design features such as wide sidewalks, safe street crossings, treatments that encourage cautious driving, and comfortable and safe walking environments. Comfortable sidewalks, well-designed pedestrian crossings, pathways, and pedestrian shortcuts allow people to get from one destination point to another with ease. The City supports the integration of pedestrian -oriented improvements and amenities within the circulation system to improve walkability. Figure C-6 Pedestrian Opportunity Zones identifies the primary pedestrian districts in Costa Mesa that will receive focused attention. Costa Mesa General Plan I C-23 Circulation Element Sidewalks and Sidewalk Zones Sidewalks are not merely places for pedestrians to move about. As public spaces, sidewalks serve as the front steps to the City, activating streets socially and economically. Safe, accessible, and well-maintained sidewalks can enhance general public health and create vibrant social settings. In districts with heavy pedestrian activity—such in the Westside, SoBECA and South Coast Plaza/Orange County Performing Arts districts—sidewalks should have several zones that accommodate pedestrians. The zones should include a frontage zone, pedestrian -through zone, street furniture zone, and enhancement/buffer zone. Figure C-7: Sidewalk Zones, provides an example. C-24 I Costa Mesa General Plan An example of pedestrian - friendly streets with wide sidewalks, streetfirniture, and lighting that illuminates the sidewalk Circulation Element N.City of New,00 Beach 1ltn 't f City of NIg. Newport r ' _ ` y v' Beach 15th Sl ' �% Pedestrian Priority Areas City Boundaries Source: City of Costa Mesa. 2015. = Pedestrian Priority Areas --- City Boundary Feet ------ Suggested Route to School -------- Sphere of Influence 0 1.000 2,000 4000 6.000 3.000 Parks and Schools Parks and Open Spaces — Schools and Colleges Figure C-6: Pedestrian Opportunity Zones Costa Mesa General Plan I C-25 .r 5 drstri]m Ave -- — T rAvo. I 3 lrrl+dhur Blvd. m LL x Cityof _ Santa Ana Brs ave li I I _ : _ .. "Sinllh C6ast 4rL - South Coast Anton BN� :�� Ave �+Garfield 1'.Hsr ?v r--7�—{ 6w4.- � 1 City of r� '�r;? Huntington Beach +..� rr I I ..--+ . ■ , �'r. iUrY 11 'Adaror. Ave j 1' ---.mow►— r � f ti_ -�—+ g m Fairview ' • ` Park a' f OC Fair & 4 Event Center a I Regfonil 1� �i+irnn'i—'"' ~ 1 �•� —�— � Pari, I '�ti � 1 � N.City of New,00 Beach 1ltn 't f City of NIg. Newport r ' _ ` y v' Beach 15th Sl ' �% Pedestrian Priority Areas City Boundaries Source: City of Costa Mesa. 2015. = Pedestrian Priority Areas --- City Boundary Feet ------ Suggested Route to School -------- Sphere of Influence 0 1.000 2,000 4000 6.000 3.000 Parks and Schools Parks and Open Spaces — Schools and Colleges Figure C-6: Pedestrian Opportunity Zones Costa Mesa General Plan I C-25 Circulation Element Building Frontage f Pedestrian I Street Enhancementl I Street Zone Through ; Furniture Buffer Zone Zone Zone (Cycle Track) Frontage Zone The frontage zone is that section of the sidewalk that functions as an extension of the building, whether through entryways and doors or sidewalk cafes and sandwich boards. The frontage zone consists of both the structure and the facade of the building fronting the street, as well as the space immediately adjacent to the building. Street Furniture Zone Pedestrian through Zone The pedestrian through zone is the primary, accessible pathway that runs parallel to the street. The through zone ensures that pedestrians have a safe and adequate place to walk and should be five to seven feet wide in residential settings and eight to 12 feet wide in downtown or commercial areas. Enhancement/Buffer Zone The street furniture zone is defined as the The enhancement/buffer zone is the space section of the sidewalk between the curb immediately next to the sidewalk that may and the pedestrian through zone in which consist of a variety of different elements. street furniture and amenities, such as These include curb extensions, parklets, lighting, benches, newspaper kiosks, utility stormwater management features (e.g, poles, tree pits, and bicycle parking are bioswales), parking, bike racks, bike share provided. stations, and curbside bike lanes or cycle tracks. Figure C-7: Sidewalk Zones C-26 ) Costa Mesa General Plan Circulation Element Crosswalks and Markings Properly designed, marked, and signed crossings contribute to higher levels of motorist courtesy toward pedestrians. The City supports the provision of marked crosswalks at protected (signalized or stop -controlled) intersections, if their presence minimizes pedestrian -auto conflicts. The City has prioritized improving intersections near schools to create enhanced pedestrian -friendly environments under the suggested Safe Routes to School program. Figure C-6: Pedestrian Opportunity Zones, identifies areas where the City will pursue enhancements to streets and crossings to create pedestrian -friendly environments. Table C-2: Street and Intersection Improvements -far Pedestrian Safety, outlines the types of design improvements that create safer streets and intersections for pedestrians. Table C-2: Street and Intersection Improvements for Pedestrian Safety • Traffic Signal • Advance Stop and Yield Lines ■ Stop Sign ■ Flashing Lights and Beacons ■ High -Visibility Crosswalks • Special Intersection Paving • Mid -Block Crosswalks • Raised Crosswalk and Intersections ■ Pedestrian Refuge Islands I • RRFP and HAWKS that is used at. husy crosswalks. The beacon is activated to solid red foHowerl day flash irw red when pedestrian button is12 ushed, 1tRFB - Rectaayu gr Ragid Na_ch Bggwns gra used at mitt -&c& pedestrian crossiraas to increase drive rawar•erwm ofpoten tial pedestria11 cora flicts. They use ir•regalar flash pattern when activated 6 y pedestriara to Qet driver - attention. Costa Mesa has approved several projects under its Capital Improvement Programs that invest in all neighborhoods with proven methods to enhance pedestrian safety, including: • Implementation of traffic -calming devices • Illuminated crosswalks • New landscaped parkways and medians to both address pedestrian - orientation and provide effective visual cue to slow traffic Costa Mesa General Plan I C-27 Circulation Element a Completion of sidewalks and curbs ■ Extensive traffic signal synchronization Transit Services Transit services—which includes buses, trains, commuter shuttles, paratransit, and emerging forms of multi -passenger transport—offer a mobility alternative for residents, employees, students, and visitors who either do not have access to, or prefer not to use, a car. OCTA provides local bus and paratransit services within Orange County, with several routes in Costa Mesa. One of the primary goals of this element is the increased use of transit as a more viable option for both work and non -work trips. Accomplishing this goal will require an improved transit system capable of providing faster and more frequent trips while maintaining safe, clean, and dependable service. As OCTA and the City continue to enhance public transit, the City will also prioritize these activities, particularly when it comes to improvements and investments made in street design and land uses that take into account transit transportation. Figure C-8 Transit Corri_dorsidentifies Transit Corridors in Costa Mesa that will receive focused transit improvement attention. Transit Corridors feature improvements such as enhanced signal coordination, transit amenities, bicycle accommodations, and improved pedestrian experience. Limited -Stop Bus Service: Bravo! A limited -stop bus service route is a service that stops less frequently than local service. OCTA operates Bravo!, a limited -stop bus route (Route 543) along Harbor Boulevard, with buses making stops every 10 to 15 minutes. Bravo! extends from the Fullerton Transportation Center through Anaheim, Garden Grove and Santa Ana, ending at MacArthur Boulevard at the Costa Mesa city limit. C-28 1 Costa Mesa General Plan Circulation Element Map prepared by Stan tec, Inc. N Figure C-8: Transit Corridors Costa Mesa General Plan I C-29 Circulation Element Paratransit Through OCTA's Senior Mobility Program and ACCESS, the City supports discounted bus fares to seniors and flexible paratransit shuttles. ACCESS is OCTA's shared -ride service for people who are unable to use the regular fixed - route bus service because of functional limitations caused by a disability. OCTA's Senior Mobility Program is designed to fill the gap between local fixed - route buses and ADA paratransit by providing local transportation services to seniors. Improving Vehicular Travel Traffic congestion impacts many of Costa Mesa's roadways. This results in driver frustration, added pollution from idling vehicles, and residents constrained as they try to get to work, school, and other local destinations. Costa Mesa is committed to improving local traffic conditions both to address the harmful effects of congestion and to support of the Orange County Congestion Management Plan (CMP) goals of: 1. Achieving regional mobility and air quality objectives 2. Providing a mechanism for coordinating land use and development decisions that support the regional economy 3. Determining gas tax fund eligibility In 2013, Governor Jerry Brown signed SB 743, a law that introduced Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as the replacement to Level of Service (LOS) as the C-30 1 Costa Mesa General Plan Circulation Element primary metric of transportation system performance. The law specifically requires that the new metric be used when analyzing the impacts of a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and will go into effect in 2017 when new CEQA guidelines are adopted. While the law specifies that VMT will be the baseline metric for future CEQA analysis, it allows the local agencies to continue using LOS for purposes of long-term transportation planning. Consistent with current State law, Costa Mesa continues to use LOS as the performance metric for land use and circulation planning, although the City supports policies that would reduce VMTs primarily through the implementation of a transportation demand management and the active transportation and transit strategies. Overall, the City's goal is to prevent the deterioration of LOS at key intersections within the City. The City will pursue a broad array of projects that will help maintain and improve of LOS for vehicular travel. Concurrent with the project -specific transportation system LOS improvements, the City will: ■ Complete and annually maintain a needs assessment for traffic service levels and traffic safety + Develop and annually update a priority list of improvement projects + Regularly assess peak -hour traffic volumes at critical intersections ■ Minimize circulation improvements that will necessitate the taking of developed private property ■ Pursue programs that reduce vehicle speeds and cut -through traffic on local streets • Develop a program to regularly evaluate traffic collision data Transportation Demand Management Transportation Demand Management, or TDM, is a general term for strategies that promote the efficient use of transportation systems without adding physical capacity (additional lanes or widening) on the roadway system. TDM strategies can help address a variety of traffic problems and provide secondary economic, social, and environmental benefits. When all are considered, TDM strategies are often the most cost-effective way to improve transportation. Examples of TDM include: • Telecommuting Costa Mesa General Plan I C-31 Circulation Element • Bike/Transit Integration ■ Carpool/Vanpool • Pedestrian Facility Improvements ■ Transit Improvements/Transit Pass Subsidy ■ Encouraging Walking and Cycling ■ Parking Management and Pricing * Bicycle Parking/Facilities ■ Alternative Work Schedules ■ Flexible Work Hours To implement these strategies and support regional air quality objectives, the City has adopted a Transportation Demand Management Ordinance. The City will continue to work with major employers to implement TDM strategies. Neighborhood Traffic Management Managing traffic in neighborhoods that are most affected by congestion and cars traveling at unsafe speeds requires the multiple -prong approach that Costa Mesa has practiced for many years, such as installing traffic -calming infrastructure, reclassifying minor streets, and deploying Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS). The added strategy of implementing Complete Streets plans will augment past and ongoing efforts to protect residential neighborhoods from the ill effects of cut -through traffic. C-32 1 Costa Mesa General Plan Circulation Element Goals, Objectives, and Policies The following goals, objectives, and policies work in concert with those in the Land Use Element. Under Goals 7 through 12, proposals developed by the Bikeway & Walkability Committee are stated as recommendations rather than policies. Goal C-1: Implement "Complete Streets" Policies on Roadways in Costa Mesa Plan, develop, and implement a comprehensive transportation system that serves all users and modes of travel. Objective C -1.A: Create a transportation network that meets the mobility needs of all Costa Mesa residents, businesses, and visitors. Policy C -1.A.1: Update the City's engineering standards for public and private streets to provide for safe, comfortable, and attractive access and travel for pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and transit users of all ages, abilities, and travel mode preferences. Policy C -1.A.2: Allow for flexible use of public rights-of-way to accommodate all users of the street system while maintaining safety standards. Policy C -1.A.3: Complete and annually maintain a needs assessment for traffic service levels and traffic safety. Develop and annually update a priority list of improvement projects, with priorities based on: 1) correcting identified hazards; 2) accommodating multimodal trips; 3) improving and/or maintaining peak -hour traffic volumes at critical intersections; 4) improving efficiency of existing infrastructure utilization; and 5) intergovernmental coordination. Policy C -1.A.4: Pursue downgrade of arterials that no longer have the demand requiring their buildout to planned capacity. Policy C -1.A.5: Implement road diets on street segments with excess capacity to enhance bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Costa Mesa General Plan I C-33 Circulation Element Policy C -1.A.6: Encourage the conversion of excess on -street parking spaces for expanded sidewalk gathering places or landscaping. Policy C -1.A.7: Encourage community participation in City processes and programs focused on improving mobility and transportation facilities. Objective C -1.B: Preserve the character of our residential neighborhoods Policy C-1.6.1: Implement traffic calming measures that discourage speeding and cut -through traffic on residential streets. Policy C-1.13.2: Encourage non -motorized transportation in residential areas by providing sidewalks and implementing bicycle friendly design of local streets. Policy C-1.13.3: Reduce or eliminate intrusion of traffic related to non- residential development on local streets in residential neighborhoods. Policy C-1.13.4: Prioritize intersection improvements which improve through traffic flow on Major, Primary, and Secondary Arterials, and reduce impacts on local neighborhood streets with emphasis on pedestrian safety. Policy C-1.13.5: Promote engineering improvements such as physical measures constructed to lower speeds, improve safety, and otherwise reduce the impacts of motor vehicles. Policy C-1.13.6: Design and Implement transportation projects to meet local and regional system capacity needs in accordance with the Master Plan of Streets and Highways. Policy C-1.13.7: Implement neighborhood approved traffic -calming measures in residential neighborhoods and appropriate commercial areas, such as street narrowing, curb extensions, roundabouts, landscaped medians, and radar speed feedback signs. Policy C-1.13.8: Establish priority -ranking system to evaluate traffic - calming requests for implementation throughout the City. Policy C-1.13.9: Pursue programs that reduce vehicle speeds and cut - through traffic on local streets. C-34 1 Costa Mesa General Plan Circulation Element Goal C-2: Effectively Manage and Improve the Roadway System Develop and maintain a robust and efficient vehicular circulation network. Objective C -2.A: Implement policies that encourage and accommodate all users while maintaining the efficiency of the circulation system. Policy C -2.A.1: Establish a citywide crosswalk policy to address installation, maintenance, removal, and enhancements of crosswalks at intersections and mid -block locations. Crosswalk locations and treatment will be based on criteria including, but not limited to safety, traffic volume, and concentration of pedestrian activity. Potential enhancements may include leading pedestrian intervals at signalized intersections, bulb -outs, and median refuges to reduce crossing distances. Policy C -2.A.2: Avoid creation of frequent driveways for new development access in active pedestrian areas that create conflict points between pedestrians and vehicles. Policy C -2.A.3: Encourage property owners to use shared driveway access and interconnected roads within blocks, where feasible. Require driveway access closures or consolidations, or both when a site is remodeled or redeveloped. Policy C -2.A.4: Collaborate with law enforcement and public safety organizations to coordinate policies and programs that would reduce injuries and deaths on the roadways. Policy C -2.A.5: Designate routes for truck traffic to minimize potential conflicts between trucks and cars, pedestrians, bicycles, transit, and vehicle access and circulation. Establish by ordinance a truck map that depicts allowable truck routes within the City. Policy C -2.A.6: Periodically review and update traffic signal timing at all signalized intersections to maintain traffic signal coordination and to accommodate bicycle and pedestrian needs. Costa Mesa General Plan I C-35 Circulation Element Policy C -2.A.7: Develop new traffic level of services criteria in accordance with SB 743 to meet the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Policy C -2.A.8: Continue the use of the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology to address local traffic level of service and impacts, with Level of Service "D" as the threshold for meeting the City's significance criteria. Objective C -2.B: Construct street improvements and apply congestion management tools to obtain efficient performance of the transportation system. Policy C-2.6.1: Incorporate the street system improvements identified in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) into the Capital Improvement Program. Policy C-2.6.2: Continue to deploy intelligent transportation systems (ITS) strategies—such as adaptive signal controls, fiber optic communication equipment, closed circuit television cameras, real-time transit information, and real- time parking availability information—to reduce traffic delays, lower greenhouse gas emissions, improve travel times, and enhance safety for drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists. Policy C-2.13.3: Investigate all operational measures, including the use of one-way streets, to improve traffic circulation and to minimize congestion for all travel modes. Policy C-2.6.4: Investigate and utilize state-of-the-art transportation system management technology and industry practices to address recurring and non-recurring traffic events (i.e., special events, incident/emergency management). Policy C-2.13.5: Continue to evaluate and pursue design and operational improvements (medians, driveway closures, signal synchronization or phasing, parking or turn restrictions, etc.) to improve the efficiency of intersections. C-36 1 Costa Mesa General Plan Circulation Element Goal C-3: Enhance Regional Mobility and Coordination Encourage development of a regional transportation network that addresses regional mobility needs for all modes of travel. Objective C -3.A: Promote development of transportation projects along regional corridors. Policy C -3.A.1: Maintain compliance with Orange County Congestion Management Plan (CMP) requirements, including consistency with CMP level of service standards, adoption of a seven-year capital improvement program, analysis of impacts of land use decisions on the CMP highway system, and adoption and implementation of deficiency plans when intersections do not meet adopted performance standards. Policy C -3.A.2: Support the goals and objectives of the Orange County Long Range Transportation Plan, including expansion of transportation system choices, improvement of transportation system performance, and sustainability of transportation infrastructure. Policy C -3.A.3: Support the goals and objectives of the SCAG Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), including expansion of transportation system choices, improvement of transportation system performance, and sustainability of transportation infrastructure. Policy C -3.A.4: Coordinate signal timing on all major arterials with a local signal synchronization program consistent with the Orange County Traffic Signal Synchronization Master Plan (TSSM P). Policy C -3.A.5: Ensure Costa Mesa's input, participation, and discretionary review of applicable region -wide transportation system policies, programs, and construction. Policy C -3.A.6: Develop short-term and long-term improvements to the SR -55 corridor in coordination with Caltrans and OCTA to address regional mobility needs. Costa Mesa General Plan I C-37 Circulation Element Policy C -3.A.7: Promote the City's preferred alternative of undergrounding the SR -55 freeway south of 191h Street within the City limits. Objective C-3.8: Coordinate and partner with local and regional agencies to promote projects and polices that improve regional mobility. Policy C-3.6.1: Coordinate with adjacent jurisdictions to maintain or improve mobility within the City to achieve a standard Level of Service no worse than "D" at all intersections under State or joint control. Intersection Level of Service analyses for General Plan conditions for locations under State orjoint control will be updated periodically and presented to the City Council. Policy C-3.6.2: Consult with Caltrans and OCTA regarding the 1-405 widening project to minimize adverse impacts to Costa Mesa's neighborhoods, businesses, and streets. Policy C-3.13.3: Coordinate with OCTA and other jurisdictions to remove Gisler Avenue Bridge over the Santa Ana River from the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways and County's Master Plan of Arterial Highways. Policy C-3.13.4: Collaborate with Caltrans and neighboring jurisdiction to improve signal timing and coordination along major arterials across jurisdictional boundaries. Policy C-3.13.5: Work closely with the State of California and other government agencies to control traffic—related impacts of uses on State- or other agency -owned land (i.e., Orange County Fairgrounds, Orange Coast College, etc.). Policy C-3.13.6: Coordinate with other responsible agencies the planning, funding, prioritization, and implementation of bicycle, pedestrian, and transit programs and supporting infrastructure. C-38 1 Costa Mesa General Plan Circulation Element Goal C-4: Promote Transportation Demand Management, Transit, and Efficiency Utilize Transportation Demand Management strategies to manage demand and maximize available capacity. Objective C -4.A: Encourage greater utilization of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies to reduce dependence on single -occupancy vehicles. Policy C -4.A.1: Support South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) trip reduction programs, including park and ride lots, transit subsidies, carpool and vanpool programs, flexible working hours, bicycle facilities, and other traffic reduction strategies. Policy C -4.A.2: Support local and multi -jurisdictional car -sharing and bike -sharing programs. Policy C -4.A.3: Consider implementing park -once approaches for multiuse districts and regional destinations areas. Policy C -4.A.4: Embrace innovative parking solutions that reduce the required spaced needed for parking, such as automated parking lifts and elevators. Policy C -4.A.5: Encourage and provide incentives for commercial, office, and industrial development to provide preferred parking for carpools, vanpools, electric vehicles, and flex cars. Policy C -4.A.6: Encourage and support programs that increase vehicle occupancy, including the provision of traveler information, shuttles, preferential parking for ca rpools/va n pools, transit pass subsidies, and other methods. Policy C -4.A.7: Promote the combination of TDM measures as much more effective than any single measure. Costa Mesa General Plan I C-39 Circulation Element Policy C -4.A.8: Require discussion of transportation system management (TSM) and TDM measures in all EIRs prepared for major projects. Policy C -4.A.9: Encourage the integration of compatible land uses and housing into major development projects to reduce vehicle use. Policy C -4.A.10: Allow the application of transportation management rideshare programs, integration of complementary land uses, and other methods to reduce project related average daily and peak hour vehicle trips to achieve consistency with allocated trip budgets. Objective C -4.B: Promote regional and local transit services as an alternative to automobile travel. Policy C -4.B.1: Ensure that roadways designated as transit routes can accommodate transit vehicle circulation and convenient pedestrian access to and from transit stops. Policy C-4.6.2: Review all capital improvement projects to ensure improvements located on existing and planned transit routes include modification of street, curb, and sidewalk configurations to allow for easier and more efficient transit operations and improved passenger access. Policy C-4.13.1 Provide transit stop amenities that facilitate access to and from transit stops and transfer locations. These may include pedestrian pathways approaching stops, high- quality benches and shelters, traveler information systems (real-time transit arrival information), and bike storage and bicycle connections. Bus stops should accommodate timed transfers between buses and other transit services where necessary. Policy C -4.B.4: Encourage new development along major transit corridors to provide efficient and safe access to transit stops and public sidewalks. C-40 I Costa Mesa General Plan Circulation Element Policy C-4.13.5: Support and participate with OCTA ACCESS Service in providing transportation assistance to senior citizens and the handicapped. Policy C-4.13.6: Consult with OCTA for transit services, such as changes to bus routes, bus stops, and hours of operation. Additionally, coordinate with OCTA for changes to transit services provided for seniors, the disabled, and transit dependent populations. Policy C-4.13.7: Consult with the Newport -Mesa Unified School District to maintain school bus services provided for local schoolchildren. Policy C-4.13.8: Coordinate with OCTA to improve transit services in the City, including strategies such as bus rapid transit, express services, community circulators, and other strategies. Policy C-4.13.9: Encourage new local transit programs in coordination with OCTA, consisting of shuttle services to local and regional destinations. Policy C-4.13.10: Coordinate with OCTA to construct bus turnouts at appropriate locations, with attractive shelters designed for safe and comfortable use. Policy C-4.13.11: Require discussion of transit service needs and site design amenities for transit ridership in EIR for major projects. Goal C-5: Ensure Coordination between the Land Use and Circulation Systems Facilitate close coordination between development of land use and circulation system. Objective C -5.A: Coordinate land use policies and development activities that support a sustainable transportation system. Policy C -5.A.1: Ensure that new development projects are consistent with the vehicular trip budgets, where adopted. Costa Mesa General Plan I C-41 Circulation Element Policy C -5.A.2: Require that large developments and redevelopments provide short-term and long-term vehicular traffic impact studies. Policy C -5.A.3: Encourage permitted General Plan land uses which generate high traffic volumes to be located near major transit and transportation corridors to minimize vehicle use, congestion, and delay. Policy C -5.A.4: Maintain balance between land use and circulation systems by phasing new developments to levels that can be accommodated by roadways existing or planned to exist at the time of completion of each phase of the project. Policy C -5.A.5: Promote development of mixed-use projects to reduce number of vehicle trips. Policy C -5.A.6: Coordinate the design and improvement of pedestrian and bicycle ways in major residential, shopping and employment centers, parks, schools, other public facilities, public transportation facilities, and bicycle networks with adjacent cities. Policy C -5.A.7: Require dedication of right-of-way, in an equitable manner, for development that increases the intensity of land use. Policy C -5.A.8: Minimize circulation improvements that will necessitate the taking of private property on existing developed properties. Policy C -5.A.9: Require that circulation necessary to provide or attain the minimum traffic level of service standard at an intersection to which a development project contributes measureable traffic be completed within three years of issuance of the first building permit for such development project, unless additional right-of-way or coordination with other government agencies is required to complete the improvement. Improvements may be required sooner if, because of extraordinary traffic generation characteristics of the project or extraordinary impacts to the surrounding circulation system, such improvements are necessary to prevent significant adverse impacts. C-42 I Costa Mesa General Plan Circulation Element Policy C -5.A.10: Allow for construction of circulation improvements for a phased development project to be constructed commensurate with the project construction, based upon the findings of a traffic study approved by the City of Costa Mesa. Policy C -5.A.11: Maintain balance between land use and circulation systems by phasing new development to levels that can be accommodated by roadways existing or planned to exist at the time of completion of each phase of the project. Policy C -5.A.12: Support consistency with the Orange County Sustainable Communities Strategy (OC SCS) and SCAG RTP/SCS by providing an integrated land use and transportation plan to meet mandated emissions reduction targets consistent with SB 375. Objective C-5.8: Establish strategies and processes that allow large developments to analyze and mitigate traffic impacts and infrastructure needs. Policy C-5.6.1: Require that new development projects improve access to and accommodations for multimodal transportation. Policy C-5.13.2: Require developers of new building and redevelopment/reuse projects as part of the project development review process that are located along bus routes to pay a designated fair share of the cost of providing improved bus stop facilities and related street furniture or, where appropriate, dedicate land for improved bus stop facilities. Policy C-5.13.3: Consider the needs of the transportation and infrastructure system early for large developments and coordinate with developers to design projects that minimize traffic impacts and infrastructure demands, and implement complete streets wherever feasible. Alternatively, address transportation and infrastructure system impacts through the implementation of development agreements. Costa Mesa General Plan I C-43 Circulation Element Goal C-6: Fund and Evaluate the City's Transportation Network Explore opportunities to secure funding for enhancing the circulation system. Objective C -6.A: Pursue funding sources to maintain and enhance the transportation and infrastructure system. Policy C -6.A.1: Evaluate traffic collision data regularly, and identify top collision locations for automobiles, bicycles, pedestrians, transit in Costa Mesa. Develop appropriate countermeasures and pursue funding from all available sources to implement them. Policy C-6.A.I Continue to develop and maintain long-range capital improvement programs consistent with the General Plan and M2 eligibility requirements. Policy C -6.A.3: Coordinate with OCTA to fund, develop, and maintain a Master Plan of Streets and Highways consistent with the Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH). Policy C -6.A.4: Require a locally collected and administered traffic mitigation fee program to guarantee that new development pays for its fair share toward improvements resulting in reductions in air pollutant and GHG emissions and traffic impacts generated by the development. Policy C -6.A.5: Actively pursue local, State, and federal funding to implement, maintain, and evaluate the transportation and infrastructure system. Policy C -6.A.6: Balance funding from annual fees or assessments on existing and new development with grants and other nonlocal sources. Policy C -6.A.7: Develop strategies to implement an infrastructure and transportation system to be consistent with State policies on resiliency and sustainability. Policy C -6.A.8: Amend the General Plan, if necessary, to be responsive to evolving funding requirements and to comply with State and federal regulations affecting the goals and policies of the Circulation Element. C-44 I Costa Mesa General Plan Circulation Element Policy C -6.A.9: Coordinate with OCTA and Caltrans to seek funding and implementation solutions to improve Newport Boulevard at the terminus of the State Route 55 freeway to relieve congestion from regional traffic. Policy C -6.A.10: Review the City's transportation impact fee program on a regular basis, and adjust fees as needed to ensure that funding is available for planned transportation improvements that will benefit all travel modes. Policy C -6.A.11: Prioritize funding and timing for implementing transportation improvements. Consider prioritizing multimodal projects that provide the most benefit to all users. Policy C -6.A.12: Require that every new development project pay its share of costs associated with the mitigation of project generated impacts. Policy C -6.A.13: Measure M2 sales tax revenues shall not be used to replace private developer funding which has been committed for any project. Policy C -6.A.14: The City's seven-year capital improvement program shall be adopted and maintained in conformance with the provisions of Measure M2 for the purpose of maintaining the established level of service standard. Policy C -6.A.15: Maintain a traffic impact fee for circulation system improvements to the Master Plan of Streets and Highways; review and update fees on a regular basis. Objective C-6.8: Evaluate the transportation system to ensure that it meets the City's circulation goals. Policy C-6.13.1: Provide an annual Capital Improvement Program General Plan consistency report. Policy C-6.6.2: Provide annual public review of implementation status reports of goals, policies, and objectives stated in the Circulation Element. Policy C-6.6.3: Adopt and seek out methods and processes that provide appropriate and accurate data for evaluating the Costa Mesa General Plan I C-45 Circulation Element performance of the transportation and infrastructure system. Goal C-7: Promote a Friendly Active Transportation System in Costa Mesa Create a bicycle and pedestrian friendly environment throughout Costa Mesa for all types of users and all trip purposes in accordance with the five "Es:" Education, Encouragement, Enforcement, Engineering, and Evaluation. Objective C -7.A: Expand, enhance, and protect the existing bicycle and pedestrian network to provide a comprehensive, system of Class 1, Class It, Class Ill, and Class IV facilities to increase connectivity between homes, jobs, schools transit, and recreational resources in Costa Mesa. Bikeways and Pedestrian Paths Recommendation C -7.A.1: Develop an extensive bicycle and pedestrian backbone network through the use of standard and appropriate innovative treatments. Recommendation C -7.A.2: Plan and install new bicycle lanes on Major Arterials, where feasible and appropriate. Recommendation C -7.A.3: Plan and install shared lane markings ("sharrows") and signage on appropriate existing and planned bicycle routes where bicycle lane implementation is demonstrated to be not feasible. Recommendation C -7.A.4: Where feasible, Class I shared -use paths should be a priority for future developments. Recommendation C -7.A.5: Plan and install new shared -use paths in utility corridors and/or along flood control channels, and extend existing bicycle and shared -use paths. C-46 I Costa Mesa General Plan The following recommendations are aimed at providing the maximum flexibility in meeting the goals and policies in this Circulation Element. Circulation Element Recommendation C -7.A.6: Plan and complete north/south multi-purpose and bicycle routes through the City to augment the east/west route. Recommendation C -7.A.7: Consider the identification and feasibility of potential Class IV cycle tracks. Recommendation C -7.A.8: When feasible, implement the completion through regional coordination of the Costa Mesa roadway and trail segments of regional bikeway plans. Recommendation C -7.A.9: Encourage reallocation of roadway rights-of- way where appropriate to accommodate shared -use path and bicycle facilities, while preserving and respecting the character of each adjacent neighborhood. Recommendation C -7.A.9: Support bicycle improvement projects that close gaps in the regional bicycle network either by implementing specific projects recommended in the Plan or through other treatments. Recommendation C -7.A.10: Encourage bicycle projects that connect local facilities and neighborhoods to major bicycle corridors. Recommendation C -7.A.11: Work cooperatively with adjoining jurisdictions and local/regional agencies to coordinate bicycle planning, and implementation activities. Where required, develop consistent active transportation plans and policies with regional and adjacent agencies. Recommendation C -7.A.12: Prioritize safe access to major regional trails such as the OC Loop/Santa Ana River Trail and the Newport Back Bay Trail System. Where feasible, plan and provide a continuous low - stress Class I and/or Class IV facility from east to west across the city between these facilities. Recommendation C -7.A.13: Explore favorable opportunities to remove parking to accommodate bicycle lanes. Costa Mesa General Plan I C-47 Circulation Element Recommendation C -7.A.14: Identify favorable opportunities to retain parallel parking adjacent to sidewalks to maintain pedestrian safety. Recommendation C -7.A.15: Consider every street in Costa Mesa as a street that cyclists could use. Recommendation C -7.A.16: Link on -road and off-road bicycle and pedestrian facilities within Costa Mesa to existing and planned facilities in adjacent and regional jurisdictions. Recommendation C -7.A.17: Low -stress design techniques should be considered where necessary to attract a wide variety of users. Recommendation C -7.A.18: Establish designated safe routes to schools for biking and walking. Recommendation C -7.A.19: Designate walkable districts in the City. Bike and Pedestrian Facilities Objective C-7.8: Provide end -of -trip facilities that support the bicycle network. Recommendation C-7.13.1: Provide bike parking and bike -related amenities at public facilities and along public rights-of- way. Recommendation C-7.13.2: Pursue public-private partnerships to furnish local businesses with secure bike parking and other related amenities. Recommendation C-7.13.3: Develop and adopt bicycle parking equipment standards for bicycle parking to be installed within the public right-of-way and post on the City website. Recommendation C-7.13.4: Work with local schools and colleges to provide ample and secure bike parking and other related amenities for students and employees. Recommendation C -7.B.5: Work with OCTA to maximize bicycle amenities, such as bus stop solar lighting and bicycle lockers, at high-volume transit stops. Recommendation C-7.6.6: Prioritize the installation of bicycle -scale and/or pedestrian -scale lighting. C-48 I Costa Mesa General Plan Circulation Element Recommendation C-7.6.7: Encourage and incentivize providing attended bicycle parking services, such as a bicycle valet, at major City events, OC Fair, Farmers' Markets, holiday festivals, and other community events. Recommendation C-7.6.8: Prioritize schools with the highest auto traffic volume during peak hours and insufficient parking for staff and parents. Plan and install bicycle facilities adjacent those schools. Recommendation C-7.6.9: Provide bike parking and bike -related amenities at public facilities and along public right-of-way. "First and Last Mile" Programs Objective C-7. C. Encourage sustainable modes of transportation to fill gaps between the first and last miles of trips (walking, biking, ride sharing, transit, taxi and car -sharing). Recommendation C -7.C.10: Identify citywide infrastructure needed to create the interconnected multi -trail system. Recommendation C -7.C.11: Improve the quality, aesthetics, and safety of high -use pedestrian corridors. Recommendation C -7.C.12: Development and implement a bicycle sharing system. Recommendation C -7.C.13: Proposed new mode split goals: ■ 50 percent motor vehicles 0 10 percent transit ■ 10 percent bicycles ■ 20 percent walking • 10 percent carpools, taxi, transportation network company services, and car sharing Recommendation C -7.C.14: Establish a goal for all trips of less than three miles to be 30 percent by bicycle, and establish a goal of less than 1 mile to be 30 percent by walking. Recommendation C -7.C.15: Consider implementing a small-scale transportation system to encourage mode shift to popular destinations as defined by users. Costa Mesa General Plan I C-49 Circulation Element Goal C-8: Create a Safer Place to Walk and Ride a Bicycle Provide a safe, convenient, and attractive bicycling and pedestrian environment. Apply design standards, enforcement of traffic laws, maintenance practices, and safety awareness campaigns to encourage and increate the use of bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Design and Way -finding Objective C -8.A: Develop bicycle and pedestrian facilities with approved uniform design standards, and implementation of way finding signage providing information on various destinations. Recommendation C -8.A.1: Require that all facilities be designed in accordance with the latest federal, state, and local standards. Recommendation C -8.A.2: Provide and maintain bicycle and pedestrian signal detectors, informational signage, and lighting, along City bikeways. Recommendation C -8.A.3: Develop, install and maintain a bicycle and pedestrian way -finding signage program to indicate route turns, the presence of intersecting bikeways, streets and distances to nearby local and major destinations. Recommendation C -8.A.4: Develop a list of acceptable plant materials for shared use paths that will not damage, create security problems or hazards for bicyclists. Incorporate canopy trees and native, drought - tolerant landscaping as a standard Class I facility (shared use path) feature. Encourage the use of sustainable drainage designs, such as bio- swales. Recommendation C -8.A.5: Utilize Complete Streets elements as demonstrated in most recent versions of National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) Urban Street Design Guide and Bikeway Design Guide. C-50 I Costa Mesa General Plan Circulation Element Recommendation C -8.A.6: Crosswalks will include high visibility crossing treatments. Recommendation C -8.A.7: Paint direction arrows on all bike lanes and bike paths to reduce the risk of collisions. Safety Enforcement and Reporting Objective C-8.8: Continue and expand enforcement activities that enhance safety of bicyclists on bike paths and roadways. Recommendation C-8.6.1: Enforce laws that reduce bicycle/pedestrian/motor vehicle incidents and conflicts. Recommendation C-8.6.2: Train police officers on bicyclists' rights and responsibilities and bicycle/pedestrian/vehicle collision evaluation. Recommendation C-8.6.3: Utilize the City's bicycle -mounted patrol officer program to educate and enforce pedestrian and bicycle user violations not necessarily to punish, but to correct. Recommendation C-8.13.4: Promote efficient reporting mechanisms for behaviors that endanger cyclists and pedestrians. Recommendation C-8.13.5: Develop a partnership with the school community to establish and update suggested routes to schools for biking and walking. Safe Roadway Conditions Objective C -8.C: Maintain bicycle and pedestrian facilities that are clear of debris and provide safe conditions for all users. Recommendation C -8.C.1: Establish routine maintenance schedule/standards for bicycle and pedestrian facilities for sweeping, litter removal, landscaping, repainting of striping, signage, and signal actuation devices. Recommendation C -8.C.2: Encourage and empower citizens to report maintenance issues that impact bicyclist and pedestrian safety including, but not limited to, Costa Mesa General Plan I C-51 Circulation Element potholes, sidewalk lifting, and overgrown vegetation. Recommendation C -8.C.3: Establish procedures for responding to citizen reports in a timely manner. Recommendation C -8.C.4: Where feasible reduce or eliminate conflict points such as driveways that cross the sidewalk. Safety Education Objective C -8.D: Increase education of bicycle and pedestrian safety through programs and training of school children and public. Recommendation C-8.13.1: Create, fund, and implement bicycle -safety curricula and provide to the public, tourists, various ethnic groups, diverse ages and disadvantaged communities. Recommendation C -8.D.2: Provide multilingual bicycle -safety maps and brochures (print and electronic versions) in languages that are widely used in Costa Mesa. Recommendation C-8.13.3: Encourage schools to develop and provide bicycle -safety curricula for use in elementary, middle, and high schools, such as the Bicycle Rodeo events. Recommendation C -8.D.4: Support marketing and public awareness campaigns aimed at improving bicycle and pedestrian safety. Recommendation C -8.D.5: Provide a user education program developed and promoted to encourage proper trail use and etiquette. Recommendation C -8.D.6: Work with local bicycle advocacy organizations to develop, promote and support a series of bicycle education classes. Include information on bicycle safety, maintenance, and security. Recommendation C -8.D.7: Develop and distribute education material regarding bicycle and pedestrian responsibilities and laws. C-52 I Costa Mesa General Plan Circulation Element Safety Data Objective C -8.E. Monitor and analyze bicycle and pedestrian safety. Recommendation C -8.E.1: Request bicycle and pedestrian collision reports from local law enforcement periodically and consider improvements to address problem areas. Recommendation C -8.E.2: Establish an expedited process to report maintenance and safety concerns, e.g. pavement markings (sharrows, missing bike lane lines), ramps, curb cut-outs, broken walk/bike signal buttons, signage, minor maintenance of bike lanes/paths (street/path sweeping, minor surface patching, inoperable traffic signal bicycle detection). Recommendation C -8.E.3: Conduct Roadside Safety Audits (RSAs) on a regular basis to provide periodic snapshots of roadway safety, including bicycle, pedestrian, equestrian, skateboard, and other non - motorized modes of travel. Goal C-9: Integrate Active Transportation Elements into Circulation System and Land Use Planning Provide bikeway and walkway facilities that are integrated with other transportation systems and land use planning decisions. Land Use Planning Decisions and Active Transportation Objective C -9.A: Consider bicycle and pedestrian facilities during land use planning process. Recommendation C -9.A.1: Incorporate the Costa Mesa Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan into the City's General Plan. Recommendation C -9.A.2: Ensure that all current and proposed land use planning is consistent with the Costa Mesa Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. Costa Mesa General Plan I C-53 Circulation Element Recommendation C -9.A.3: Require new developments provide adequate bicycle parking and pedestrian access. Recommendation C -9.A.4: Collaborate with property owners to increase bicycle parking overtime. Recommendation C -9.A.5: Encourage the integration of compatible land uses and housing into major development projects to reduce vehicle use. Recommendation C -9.A.6: Provide a fully integrated network of modern active transportation facilities to and from major activity centers and residential centers. Recommendation C -9.A.7: Identify areas where an increase in the need for active transportation can reasonably be anticipated due to housing/business growth. Recommendation C -9.A.8: Make commercial and recreational areas more enjoyable for pedestrians by implementing measures such as providing shade, planting trees, eliminating visible parking lots and vacant land, and minimizing long stretches of building fagade. Recommendation C -9.A.9: Develop creative, artistic, and functional bicycle parking solutions, and install them throughout the City as a standard. Active Transportation in Developments Objective C-9.8: Integrate bicycle and pedestrian facility improvements during planning, design and implementation of transportation projects. Recommendation C-9.13.1: Promote the preservation of bicycle access within all roadway rights-of-way, as well as the development of innovative, safety -enhanced on -street facilities, such as bicycle boulevards and cycle tracks. Recommendation C-9.13.2: Establish bike boulevards on streets with low traffic volumes and slow speeds to encourage bicycling. Recommendation C-9.13.3: Proactively seek new opportunities for acquisition of abandoned rights-of-way and other lands for the development of new multi - C -54 I Costa Mesa General Plan Circulation Element use pathways that integrate with the planned network. Recommendation C-9.6.4: Improve the safety of all road users through the implementation of neighborhood traffic - calming treatments. Recommendation C-9.13.1 Detours through or around construction zones should be designed for safety, and convenience, and with adequate signage for cyclists and pedestrians. Recommendation C-9.13.5: Provide opportunity for public input prior to the removal of an existing bicycle or pedestrian facility or the approval of any development or street improvement that would preclude these planned facilities. Goal C-10: Promote an Active Transportation Culture Develop educational and promotional programs to increase bicycle and pedestrian usage that respects and accommodates all users to foster a more balanced transportation system. An Active Transportation Culture Objective C -10.A. Encourage more people to walk and bicycle by supporting programs that foster community support for bicycling and walking, and raise public awareness about active transportation. Recommendation C -10.A.1: Support marketing and public awareness campaigns through a variety of media aimed at promoting bicycling and walking as a safe, healthy, cost-effective, environmentally friendly transportation choice. Recommendation C -10.A.2: Support programs aimed at increasing bicycle and walk trips by providing incentives, recognition, or services that make bicycling and walking a more convenient transportation mode. Recommendation C -10.A.3: Promote bicycling and walking at City - sponsored and public events, such as Earth Day, Costa Mesa General Plan I C-55 Circulation Element Bike to Work Day/Month, farmers' markets, public health fairs, art walks, craft fairs, and civic events. Recommendation C -10.A.4: Encourage and promote bicycle related businesses within Costa Mesa including, but not limited to, involvement of civic clubs and organizations. Recommendation C -10.A.5: Promote active transportation events in Costa Mesa to raise awareness and encourage bicycling, including, but not limited to, those that may involve temporary road closures, bike to work/school, senior walks, historic walks, and ciclovias. Recommendation C -10.A.6: Encourage major employment centers and employers to promote commuting by bicycle including the use of flex -time work schedules to support non -rush bicycle commuting. Build a coalition with City, businesses, schools, and residents to promote active transportation. Recommendation C -10.A.7: Encourage participation in bicycle and pedestrian promotion activities by education facilities, arts programs, active transportation clubs, and entertainment providers. Recommendation C -10.A.8: Achieve "Silver Level Bicycle Friendly Community" by League of American Bicyclists by 2025. Recommendation C -10.A.9: Achieve "Walk Friendly Community" status from WalkFriendly.org by 2025. Recommendation C -10.A.10: Achieve "HEAL City" designation by 2017. Goal C-11: Promote the Positive Air Quality, Health, and Economic Benefits of Active Transportation Encourage active transportation by promoting air quality, health, and economic benefits, and by pursuing multiple sources of funding for active transportation programs and facilities. C-56 I Costa Mesa General Plan Circulation Element Improving the Environment with Active Transportation Objective C -11.A. Improve air quality and public health and reduce ambient noise by promoting Active Transportation programs. Recommendation C -11.A.1: Determine baseline emissions levels, then track and communicate changes in emissions as modes of transportation trips shift to encourage more walking and biking. Recommendation C -11.A.2: Improve the quality of life in Costa Mesa by reducing neighborhood traffic and noise. Recommendation C -11.A.3: Increase pedestrian and bicycle trips, thereby reducing vehicle trips and vehicle miles Traveled. Recommendation C -11.A.4: Coordinate with appropriate federal, state, and county health agencies on active transportation programs to achieve health benefits. Economic and Other Incentives Objective C -11.B: Provide economic incentives for expanding and enhancing bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Recommendation C-11.6.1: Incentivize the business community to support pedestrians and bicycle users in tangible ways. Recommendation C-11.13.2: Partner with the business and school communities to create a marketing strategy to encourage individual businesses to market Costa Mesa as a bicycle -friendly City. Recommendation C-11.13.3: Encourage developers to include features, amenities and programs that are proven to increase walking and/or bicycling. Recommendation C-11.13.4: Offer incentives for businesses whose employees walk or bike to work. Recommendation C-11.13.5: Encourage the Chamber of Commerce and the business community to promote active transportation in commercial areas to stimulate economic vitality. Costa Mesa General Plan I C-57 Circulation Element Goal C-12: Monitor, Evaluate, and Pursue Funding for Implementation of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Objective 12.A: Continuously monitor and evaluate Costa Mesa's implementation progress on the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan policies, programs, and projects. Recommendation C -12.A.1: Establish a monitoring program to measure the effectiveness and benefits of the Costa Mesa Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. Recommendation C -12.A.2: Track citywide trends in active transportation through the use of Census data, bicycle and pedestrian counts, travel surveys, and online surveys as part of annual reviews of the General Plan. Recommendation C -12.A.3: Ensure that Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan programs and projects are implemented in an equitable manner, geographically, socioeconomically, and serving disadvantaged communities. Fund the Plans Objective C-12.8: Pursue grants and other sources of funding for bicycle and pedestrian projects. Recommendation C-12.13.1: Strategize use of resources on developing effective and efficient grant application and program administration. Recommendation C-12.13.2: Pursue multiple sources of funding and support efforts to maintain or increase federal, state and local funding for the implementation of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. Recommendation C-12.13.3: Consider designating a portion of development traffic impact fees to fund bicycle and pedestrian facilities. C-58 1 Costa Mesa General Plan Looking east along Victoria Street with Victoria Vista Park on the left. Chapter 4: Growth Manaament Element Introduction In 1990, Orange County voters approved Measure M to fund regional transportation improvements. The initiative included a requirement for cities to adopt Growth Management Elements to illustrate how they would regulate growth consistent with Measure M plans for mobility improvements. With the sunset of Measure M in 2011, Measure M2 took its place, authorizing continuance of the program through 2041, While Measure M2 no longer requires cities to maintain Growth Management Elements, Costa Mesa provides this element to exhibit its commitment to balance physical growth with the ability of the local road network to support it, as well as goals on how to account for continual growth, both physical and economic, with minimum impact on existing infrastructure. Also, the City's goal is to participate in on-going county -wide efforts addressing regional traffic issues and sensible growth. Costa Mesa General Plan I fijLL-U--1 Growth Management Element Relationship to Other Elements The Circulation and Land Use Elements provide most of the foundation for the Growth Management Element. The Circulation Element establishes the City's goals, objectives, and policies regarding the transportation network, foremost by using a "Complete Streets" approach to mobility planning and including regional coordination. The Land Use Element establishes the City's goals, objectives, and policies regarding the use of property, foremost by ensuring that compatible if not synergistic relationships exist between properties that have significant physical, visual, or proximity relationships. The major goal of the Growth Management Element is to ensure that the planning, management, and implementation of traffic improvements and infrastructure meet the current and projected needs of the City. While this goal is a high priority, it must be achieved while maintaining internal consistency among the other elements of the General Plan, as required by State law. Therefore, the Growth Management Element does not replace or supersede any of the other General Plan elements; instead, the Growth Management Element addresses, amplifies, and supports traffic level of service and public facility standards included in the other General Plan elements and establishes new standards, where necessary. Related Plans and Programs Various federal, State, regional, and Orange County plans and laws affect growth management: • Orange County Growth Management Element • Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Growth Management Plan ■ SCAG Sustainable Communities Strategy and Regional Transportation Plan (SCS/RTP) • South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) • State Assembly Bill 471 (Proposition 111- Congestion Management) ■ Measure M2 (Orange County) ■ Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (SB 375) ■ Complete Streets Act of 2008 GM -2 I Costa Mesa General Plan Growth Management Element Orange County Growth Management Element The stated purpose of the Orange County Growth Management Element is to ensure that planning, management, and implementation of traffic improvements and public facilities are adequate to meet the current and projected needs of Orange County. The plan sets forth goals, objectives, policies, and implementation programs for growth management. The goals of the plan are summarized as follows: "... to reduce traffic congestion, ensure that adequate transportation facilities, public facilities, equipment and services are provided for existing and future residents and to protect the natural environment of Orange County." Of the seven major policies in the Plan, the following five apply to Costa Mesa- • Development Phasing: Development will be phased according to Comprehensive Phasing Plans adopted by the County. Phasing will be linked to roadway and public facility capacities. ■ Balanced Community Development: Development will be balanced to encourage employment of local residents in employment and employee housing, in the County generally. ■ Traffic Level of Service: This policy requires developers to make improvements to intersections significantly impacted by development. A Level of Service "D" must be attained at affected intersections. A "significant impact' is generally defined in terms of increases in intersection capacity utilization and levels of service. The policy also establishes a "deficient intersections list' and establishes a developer fee program to pay for improving affected intersections on pro -rata basis. ■ Traffic Improvement Programs: The Plan provides for the establishment of a comprehensive traffic improvement program to ensure that all new development provides necessary transportation facilities and intersection improvements as a condition of development approval. ■ Public Facility Plans: The Plan requires comprehensive public facility plans for fire, sheriff/police, and library services. New development is required to participate on a pro -rata basis. Costa Mesa General Plan I GM -3 Growth Management Element The Orange County Growth Management Plan further provides that additional implementation programs may be developed as deemed necessary by the County. Southern California Association of Government (SCAG) Growth Management Plan The SCAG Growth Management Plan recommends ways to redirect the region's growth to minimize congestion and protect the environment. While SCAG has no authority to mandate implementation of its Growth Management Plan, some of the Plan's principal goals (such as improved jobs/housing balance) are implemented through the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) under the authority of the South Coast Air Quality Management District. Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Community Strategy The 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Community Strategy/(RTP/SCS) blends the primary goal of enhancing mobility for the region's residents and visitors with a commitment to reduce emissions from transportation sources to comply with SB 375, improve public health, and meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards established by the federal Clean Air Act. This document recognizes the crucial linkages and interrelationships between the economy, the regional transportation system, and land use. The 2016 RTP/SCS has the following major themes: Integrating strategies for land use and transportation, increasing capacity through improved system management, giving people more transportation choices, leveraging technology, responding to demographic and housing market changes, supporting commerce and economic growth, striving for sustainability, and protecting and preserving transportation infrastructure. South CoastAir Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) The AQMP mandates a variety of measures to reduce traffic congestion and improve air quality. Each iteration of the plan is an update of the previous plan and has a 20 -year horizon. The 1997 Air Quality Management Plan was adopted by the Governing Board on November 15, 1996, and represents the current policy for achieving clean air objectives. A 2003 Draft Air Quality GM -4 I Costa Mesa General Plan Growth Management Element Management Plan is currently under review. The City is subject to all AQMD requirements for local jurisdictions. State Assembly Bill 471 Assembly Bill (AB) 471, as subsequently modified by Assembly Bill 1791, requires every urbanized city and county with a population of 50,000 or more to adopt a Congestion Management Plan (CMP) to reduce traffic congestion. A city or county that does not comply with the CMP requirement will lose gasoline sales tax revenues to which it would otherwise be entitled. The CMP requirements include traffic level of service (LOS) standards, a trip reduction program, and a seven-year capital improvement program for traffic and transit. Many of the AB 471 requirements are the same as or similar to the requirements of Measure M2 (discussed below). The County has attempted to reconcile overlapping requirements through the Measure M2 implementation guidelines in the County -wide Growth Management Program Revised Traffic Improvement and Growth Management Ordinance Implementation Manual. Measure M2 (Orange County) Measure M2 is a renewal of Measure M, Orange County's half -cent sales tax for transportation improvements. Initially approved in 1990 for a 20 -year period, the renewal was approved by the voters in 2006 for another 30 years. The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) administers Measure M2, adopting the M2020 plan in 2011 to delineate how to meet goals such as freeway improvements, expansion of roadway capacity, protection of pavement conditions, traffic signal synchronization, expanding and improving rail facilities, funding fixed -guideway connections to Metrolink, expanding mobility choices for seniors and the disabled, stabilizing bus fares, encouraging local community transit services, and improving streets and road conditions. Costa Mesa General Plan I GM -5 Growth Management Element rl 1 A totar of 5% of M2 Freeway Program funds vs aitocated to ttv 6it.,4, fay [Aviresvivnial Milig lmn Progrdrn 46 A tot<af of 2'6 of 11w ovvecall M2 Pfograin }ends is ar!ocated to lhti Enwronfnental Cleanup Program Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) Chart of planned uses of 1111easure 11112 funds by the Orange County Transportation Authority ($IS,S billion through 2041) AB 32, California's Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, In response to these concerns, California enacted AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. The law seeks to reverse climate change through a comprehensive program reducing GHG emissions for virtually all sources statewide. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is responsible for implementation of AB32. Nine discrete early action measures; 35 additional measures were adopted in October 2007 and are now enforceable. The discrete early actions include a low carbon fuel standard, landfill methane capture regulations, reductions in HFCs from mobile air conditioning systems, fluorinated gas emissions from semiconductor manufacturing, sulfur hexafluoride from some industrial processes, high GWP gases in consumer products, and emissions from diesel auxiliary engines on ships at California Ports, improved fuel efficiency in heavy-duty diesel vehicles, and new tire pressure regulations. The early action programs form part of California's comprehensive strategy for achieving the GHG reduction targets. AB 32 requires CARB to develop regulations and market mechanisms to achieve technologically feasible and cost-effective measures that will reduce emissions to 1990 levels by 2020—a 25 percent reduction statewide. In 2008, CARB approved a comprehensive plan "Scoping Plan" which is to be updated every five years. The first update was approved in 2014. GM -6 j Costa Mesa General Plan Growth Management Element Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (SB 375) Senate Bill (SB) 375, the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008, provides key support to achieve the goals of AB 32. SB 375 is intended to encourage regional planning that integrates land use and transportation policy in a way that reduces GHG emissions from passenger vehicles. This legislation endeavors to control the emissions by curbing sprawl (the unplanned, uncontrolled spread of urban development). The legislation encourages compact development patterns that reduce the need to drive, thereby reducing air pollution from car exhaust, conserving water, and protecting habitat, among other benefits. To achieve these goals, this law is designed to align regional land use, housing, and transportation plans with greenhouse gas reduction targets for 2020 and 2035. SB 375 tasks CARB to set greenhouse gas reduction targets for each of California's 18 regional Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), Each MPO is required to prepare a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) as part of their Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). In August 2010, CARB released the proposed GHG reduction targets for the MPOs to be adopted in September 2010. The proposed reduction targets for the SCAG region were eight percent by year 2020 and 13 percent by year 2035. Complete Streets Act of 2008 In 2008, the State of California passed a law requiring that, as of January 1, 2011, any substantive revision of the circulation element of the General Plan undertaken by any county or city include a plan for a balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of and provides safe access for, all users including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit vehicles, truckers, and motorists. Each complete street can look different, according to its context, community preference, the types of road users, and their needs. Costa Mesa General Plan I GM -7 Growth Management Element Key Issues With Costa Mesa essentially in a built -out condition, the City's objective is to continue to balance land use changes with infrastructure capacity. A significant portion of transportation problems in Orange County stem from the inability of the freeway system to service peak -period travel demands. Given the City's location amid a network of freeway interchanges—and most significantly, the termination of SR -55 at 19th Street—Costa Mesans feel the effects of regional vehicular traffic on daily basis. While arterial highways such as Harbor and Newport Boulevards are intended to handle the majority of intra -regional traffic and complement the freeway system, residents expect that they should be able to move easily about their city during most times of day. In addition to vehicular traffic, Costa Mesa needs to improve alternative modes of transportation. With this key concern in mind, priority will be placed on: • Maintaining and enforcing standards (e.g., level of service, trip budgets) to ensure that the necessary transportation infrastructure is adequately provided • Appropriately phasing transportation infrastructure enhancements with the timing of new development ■ Ensuring that transportation infrastructure is adequately funded it Monitoring and evaluating the progress of population, employment, and development to ensure that adequate development patterns occur within the timing of the General Plan GM -8 I Costa Mesa General Plan Growth Management Element Creating Synergy Between Land Use and Circulation Given that less than two percent of developable land in Costa Mesa is vacant, the predominant issue when dealing with future growth is not quantity but quality and tactical placement of development or uses within the City. Future growth must be directed by the strategic placement of development or uses to minimize the impact of growth on our circulation system. This includes but is not limited to approving development projects and uses that create a synergistic relationship with the neighboring developments and uses so that additional demand on the circulation system is reduced. Development decisions need to look for a balance of uses within the individual neighborhood communities of Costa Mesa to minimize length of trips traveled, or cluster of complementary uses to condense multiple trips into one. Future development and uses must be connected and provide easy access to multiple modes of transportation and/or off -set hours of neighboring uses to maximize the efficiency of land used for parking spaces. Development Phasing and Performance Monitoring Program The City has prepared a development phasing and performance monitoring program based on OCTA timetables. This program establishes a system for periodic evaluation of compliance with newly approved development phasing allocations. Under this program, roadway and other transportation facility improvements or funding must actually be provided in order for new development to continue. The program provides a periodic evaluation of the maintenance of transportation service levels. Periodic traffic reports prepared under this program will continue to utilize data collected within three months of preparation of the report. In the event that the program identifies one or more service level deficiencies, measures will be implemented to correct identified deficiencies. Costa Mesa General Plan I GM -9 Growth Management Element Goals, Objectives, and Policies The following goals, objectives, and policies work in concert with those in the Land Use and Circulation Elements. Goal GM -1: Interjurisdictional Coordination Objective GM -1.A: Coordinate land use and transportation planning policies with State, regional, and local growth management efforts. Policy GM -1.A. J.: Cooperate with the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) and other jurisdictions on development, GM -10 1 Costa Mesa General Plan all future regional transportation plans, and land use planning on a countywide basis. Policy GM -1.A.28: Coordinate population, housing, and employment projections with the State Department of Finance, Southern California Association of Governments, Center for Demographic Research, Newport -Mesa Unified School District, and County of Orange agencies in terms of infrastructure planning. Policy GM -1.A.349: Work with interjurisdictional forums such as the City - County Coordinating Committee to make sure that the City's fees are consistent with minimally acceptable impact fees in the region. lPolicy GM-1.AAD: Participate in interjurisdictional planning forums to discuss implementation of traffic improvements, cooperative land use planning, and appropriate mitigation measures for developments with multijurisdictional impacts. Policy GM -1.A.5€: Continue to require that any new large developments prepare a master plan and environmental impact analysis. This allows the City to anticipate the impacts of large projects prior to development of any portion and permits more time to plan for public services and facilities needed to support the project. GM -10 1 Costa Mesa General Plan Growth Management Element Goal GM -2: Integration of Land Use and Transportation Planning Objective GM -2.A: Maintain the Level of Service standards by integration of land use and transportation planning Policy GM -2.R._1: Ensure that land use designations are reflected in the sub -regional county model and SCAG's model through consistent assumptions and methodologies. Policy GM-2.RA.N: Coordinate with State, county, and local agencies for planning and construction of public utilities to minimize negative impacts on the circulation system. Policy GM-2.A_3G: Use the Development Phasing and Performance Monitoring Program to assess the impact of existing and new development on the circulation system. Policy GM-2.A.4D: Support uses and development which create synergistic relationships with neighboring uses and development, especially those whose addition does not create mutually exclusive additional vehicular trips but adds to the value of the destination by any potential visitor. Policy GM-2.A_SE: Support creative and flexible solutions that provide for additional economic or physical growth within the City but does not place greater impact on the circulation system. These would include shared parking agreements, offset hours of operation, and clustering of harmonious and supportive uses. Costa Mesa General Plan I GM -11 ** 'N rXd.1�' Fairview Park natural habitat and open spaces Chapter 6: Conservation Element Introduction Costa Mesa residents benefit from the city's favorable location, with cool ocean breezes and coastal bluffs that provide a diversity of natural habitats. Costa Mesa's natural resources include the Santa Ana River, which provides flood control and open space connectivity, and Fairview Park and Talbert Regional Park, which support wildlife diversity. Purpose The purpose of the Conservation Element is to preserve, protect, and replenish the limited natural resources in the City, including water, open space, and sensitive habitats. In addition, this element addresses the management of energy resources and opportunities to integrate sustainability considerations into City policies. This element establishes a policy framework that: Costa Mesa General Plan I CON -1 Conservation Element + Identifies areas in Costa Mesa with substantial natural resources that the City is committed to manage and prevent from waste, destruction, and neglect ■ Provides for programs aimed at resource conservation for the benefit of future generations The Conservation Element meets the requirements of State law, which states that Conservation Elements must address the protection and maintenance of California's natural resources. In Costa Mesa, natural resources of concern are: ■ Air quality ■ Biological resources ■ Energy + Water resources + Wastewater + Water quality ■ Water management Baseline Conditions - 2015 The City has actively pursued improving natural conditions through conservation and protection programs since the early 2000s. Substantial progress has been made both to educate the community and achieve measurable results. To provide a baseline to gauge future progress, this section provides a snapshot of environmental conditions in 2015. Coastal Wildlife Habitat Areas Santa Ana River Parks and Riparian Areas The Santa Ana River and riparian areas are important to local wildlife, not only for the habitat they provide but for the open space connectivity they create between isolated areas where animals live and forage, as well as for migration corridors. Riparian areas, such as the Fairview Park wetlands and riparian habitat areas, play an important role in the ecosystem by sorting and filtering sediment, recharging groundwater aquifers, and reducing flood potential. For residents, these systems provide valuable connections to natural areas and create opportunities for recreation, education, and awareness. A portion of the Santa Ana River lowlands is a key such area and has been preserved as a multiuse CON -2 I Costa Mesa General Plan Fairview Park Wetlands and Riparian Habitat Project includes nearly 23 acres of native riparian habitat and wetland ponds within the north section of Fairview Park. The project also educates the public on the benefits of wetlands and their contribution to the ecology of the coastal area. Conservation Element regional park, Talbert Regional Park/Nature Preserve, which is owned and maintained by the County of Orange. Public recreation amenities at the park include hiking and running trails and bird -watching areas. In addition, sensitive wetlands and paleontological resources within the park provide opportunities for education. Fairview Park The City's Fairview Park lies immediately adjacent to Talbert Regional Park and is linked with the Santa Ana River system of trails and parks. Fairview Park includes open space consisting of bluffs, vernal pools, trails, native plant communities, and wildlife. Within the park, the City has pursued riparian habitat restoration through a system of wetland ponds and streams with riparian and coastal plants, native habitat plantings, and an irrigation system. The creation of wetlands and riparian habitat provides many benefits. Dry weather urban runoff and stormwater are diverted from flood control to the wetlands, where plants and ultraviolet rays naturally remove impurities, thus preventing pollutants from reaching the ocean or having to be otherwise treated. The restored wetlands create a wildlife recreational area in an urban setting, where local residents and visitors can observe wildlife and learn about the broader ecosystem. Fairview Park is part of the larger natural open space/habitat preservation system immediately adjacent to the Orange County Central/Coastal Subregional Natural Communities Conservation Plan and Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP) lands. Within the upper mesa of Fairview Park are several vernal pools, which are seasonal pools of water that provide habitat for distinctive plants and animals. Vernal pools are considered dynamic micro -ecosystems. They are considered to Costa Mesa General Plan I CON -3 Conservation Element be a distinctive type of wetland usually devoid of fish, and thus allow the safe development of natal amphibian, such as the San Diego fairy shrimp (Branchinecta sandiegonensis) and insect species. Vernal pools are protected by State and federal laws. Talbert Regional Park/Nature Preserve Talbert Regional Park encompasses approximately 180 acres on Victoria Street between Pacific Avenue and the Santa Ana River, see Figure CON -1: Biological Resources. Within this compact area, the park supports six distinct introduced and native plant zones that respond to changing conditions along the river. The introduced zones are intended to accommodate more active human use and provide a visual screen. Native zones include the "Coastal Strand," which consists of gentle slopes and dunes, a habitat now largely absent due to urbanization. The "Native Grassland" zone is the largest zone in the park and provides wildlife habitat. The "Alluvial Woodland" zone contains a wide variety of plant and animal life and is the most secluded area in the park. Finally, the "Wetland Zone" consists of the southern 14.8 acres of the park and contains elements of riparian woodland and mulefat scrub. Talbert Regional Park/Nature Preserve has been identified as an area providing important biodiversity habitat and is part of the open space and natural habitat reserve system of the Orange County Central/Coastal NCCP/HCP. The 37,000 - acre reserve system permanently protects a broad range of plant and animal populations that are within the Central and Coastal Subregion. The Nature Reserve of Orange County, a nonprofit corporation, manages the Orange County Central/Coastal NCCP/HCP and coordinates land management activities, conducts wildlife and habitat research and monitoring, and restores disturbed habitats within the reserve system. Orange Coast River Park, Inc. The Orange Coast River Park, Inc., a nonprofit committee founded by the Friends of Harbors, Beaches & Parks, coordinates and manages projects across multiple boundaries to help coordinate a mosaic of more than 1,000 acres of open space along the Santa Ana River, including the Talbert Nature Preserve and Fairview Park. The organization's mission is to realize a master plan of parks and open space that meets the diverse needs of the urban population and provides seamless passageways to the coast from inland while also allowing for conservation and preservation of valuable habitats. CON -4 I Costa Mesa General Plan Conservation Element Segi rslr7:n Ave k Tlbw Avtt. I R • ?A3G4rlhuf Ulvd- 0 ►' City of 1 i -- -- SanlaAna Ellis Ave- • S*ower Ave. r • South Coast dr- South J ' ' — - Coast Arllon BIW- ` Plaza `/ Garfield Ave tea;=f We � 9eker•Sr City of m Huntington Wayrrg, Beach•rAir U r` Adams A ( U Cranrgo Coast 8 +�r+r College Arllrig ' OC Fair & m Event Center r + Fav ❑[- i 1 a[Gryi Wilson jl r r vwtcj" St- + r r a City of Newport Beach City of i Newport �.�~-I• t�. Beach j 151:1131 Sr L Parks and Open Spaces Biological Resources Q Fairview Park V/ZZZZZZ10 Riparian — Talbert Regional Park Vernal Pools ® Santa Ana River Greenbelt Park and Recreational Facilities Golf Courses Source: City of Costa Mesa 2015. Feet 0 1.000 2,000 4.000 5.000 8.000 Figure CON -1: Biological Resources Costa Mesa General Plan I CON -5 Conservation Element Coastal Plants and Wildlife Prior to development of Costa Mesa, the natural landscape consisted of native grasses, sage scrub, and riparian plant life. Examples of these habitats are extant in the City, primarily within Talbert and Fairview Parks (Figure CON -1, Biological Resources). The grasslands generally can be found at lower elevations that have a deep layer of clay -bearing soil. Sage scrub communities occur at elevations lower than 3,000 feet on foothills and coastal bluffs and in canyons. Riparian vegetation is found around springs, streams, seeps, and ponds. The natural habitats remaining support diverse plant species, including several sensitive species listed as threatened or endangered according to federal and State criteria. Whether or not specific species are present in particular habitats is determined through site -focused studies. However, sensitive or protected species of concern within the planning area may include: • San Diego button -celery (Eryngium aristulatum var. parishii) • Big -leaved crownbeard (Verbesina dissita) ■ Gambel's water cress (Nasturtium gambelii) • Ventura Marsh milk -vetch (Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus) • Salt marsh bird's -beak (Chloropyron maritimum ssp. Maritimum) ■ California Orcutt grass (Orcuttia californica) ■ Santa Ana River woollystar (Eriastrum densifolium ssp. Sanctorum)1 The following tables inventory plant species found in the grassland, sage scrub, and riparian communities in Costa Mesa. 1 California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), Biogeographic Information & Observation System (BIOS) Viewer, Department of Fish & Wildlife, April 2015. CON -6 I Costa Mesa General Plan Conservation Element Table CON -1: Plant Communities Name Desert needlegrass Scientific Name Achnatherum speciosum Confirmed ObservationCommon Status (A) X Possibly Red -skinned onion Allium haematochiton - X Southwestern beardgrass Andropogon glomeratus X California sagebrush Artemesia californica X Coulter's saltbush Atriplex coulteri CNPS 113 X Slender wild oat Avena barbata - X Wild oat Avena fotua - X Black mustard Brassica nigra X Red brome Bromus rubens X Poverty brome Bromus sterilis X Prostrate spineflower Chorizanthe procumbens CNPS 4 Wild hyacinth Dichelostemma pulchellum - X Shooting stars Dodecatheon clevelandii X California buckwheat Eriogonum fasciculatum X White -stemmed filaree Erodium moschatum X California poppy Eschscholzia californica X California Chocolate lily Fritilloria biflora - X Southern tarplant Hemixonia Parryi ssp. Australis CNPS 113, FSC X Vernal barley Hordeum intercedens CNPS 3 X Wild barley Hordeum murinum X Goldentop grass Lamorckia aurea X Coulter's goldfields Lasthenia glabrata ssp. Coulteri CNPS 113, FSC X (Historic) Hairy peppergrass Lepidium nitidum X Small -flowered microseris Microseris douglasii var. platycarpha CNPS 4 X Coastal prickly -pear Opuntia littorolis X California buttercup Ranunculus californicus X Johnson grass Sorghum halepense - X Johnny jump -ups Viola pendunculata - X Note: A) CLAPS 1 B: California Native Plant Society List for Plants Rare or Endangered in California and Elsewhere; CNPS 3: California Native Plan Society List for Plants About Which We Need More Information - A Review List; CNPS 4: California Native Plan Society List for Plants of Limited Distribution - A Watch List,- FSC: Federal Species of Concern. Source: Bon Terra Consulting, May 22, 2000. Costa Mesa General Plan I CON -7 Conservation Element Table CON -2: Plants of the Sage Scrub Community Common Name Scientific Name Status (A) Red -skinned wild onion Allium hoematochiton Confirmed Observation X Possibly Aphanisma Aphanismo blitoides CNPS 1B, FSC X California sagebrush Artemesia californica X Coulter'ssaltbush Atriplexcoulteri CNPS 1B X South coast saltscale Atriplexpacifica CNPS 1B, FSC X Parish'sbrittlescale Atriplexparishii CNPS 1B, FSC X Davidson's saltscale Atriplex serenana var. dovidsonii CNPS 1B X Slender wild oat Avena barbata X Wild oat Avena fatua X Goldenstar Bloomeria crocea X Wavy -leaved soap plant Chlorogolum pomeridianum X Buckwheat Eriogonum fosciculatum X Decumbent golden rush Isocomo menziesii var. decumbens CNPS 16 X Robinson's pepper -grass Lepidium virginicum vor. Robinsonii CNPS 1B X Deerweed Lotus scop arius X Laurel sumac Malosma lourina X Melic grass Melica frutescens X Lemonadeberry Rhus integrifolia X California wild rose Rosa californica X White sage Salvia opiana X Purple sage Salvio leucophylla X Black sage Salvia mellifera X Hedge mustard Sisymbrium officinale X Note: A) CNPS 1 B: California Native Plant Society List for Plants Rare or Endangered in California and Elsewhere; FSC.- Federal SC:Federal Species of Concern Source: BonTerra Constilting, Nlay22, 2000. CON -8 I Costa Mesa General Plan Conservation Element Table CON -3: Plants of the Riparian Community Common Name Scientific Name Big -leaf maple Acer macrophyllum Big -leaf PossiblyConfirmed . - Observation Present X White alder Alnus rhombifolia X Mule fat Baccharissalicifolia X Santa Barbara morning-glory Calystegia sepium ssp. binghamiae CNPS 1B X (Historic) Salt marsh bird's -beak Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. maritimus FE, SE X (Historic) Los Angeles sunflower Helianthus nuttallii ssp. parishii FSC X (Historic) Western sycamore Plantanus racemosa X Sword fern Polystichum munitum X Fremont cottonwood Populus fremontii X Canyon oak Quercus chrysolepis X Castor bean Ricinus communis X Arroyo willow Salixlasiolepis X Mexican elderberry Sambucus mexicana X Coastal bulrush Scirpus robustus X Poison oak Toxicodendron diversilobum X Broad-leaved cattail Typha latifolia X California bay laurel Umbellulariscalifornica X Desert wild grape Vitis giardiana X Note: A) FE: Federally -listed endangered FSC: Federal Species of Concern SE: State -listed endangered; CNPS 1 B: California Native Plant Society List for Plants Rare or Endangered in California and Elsewhere; Source: Bon Terra Consulting, Allay 22, 2000. Costa Mesa General Plan I CON -9 Conservation Element In prehistoric times, wildlife roaming Orange County included bison, jaguars, camels, wolves, ground sloths, bears, saber -tooth cats, and shrews. Today, wildlife is much smaller and less threatening, with species consisting of those that have adapted to close human contact, such as squirrels, voles, white -tail kites, red -tail hawks, and coyotes. Some species of special interest that inhabit open spaces within the City include the burrowing owl (Speotyto cuniculara), an indigenous species that uses abandoned rodent burrows for nests; the San Diego fairy shrimp (Branchinecta sandiegonensis) which occupies vernal pools in Fairview Park; the Belding's savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi) which resides year-round in coastal salt marshes of Southern California, and the Least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) which inhabits riparian and terrestrial fields, shrubland, chaparral, and woodlands. Coastal Zone Management California's coastal zone generally extends 1,000 yards inland from the mean high tide line. In significant coastal estuarine habitat and recreational areas, the zone extends inland to the first major ridgeline or five miles from the mean high tide line, whichever is less. Subsequent to the City's 1979 request to remove 13 acres, the coastal zone in Costa Mesa encompasses the Santa Ana River lowlands and Talbert Regional Park south of Victoria Street, approximately 76 percent of Canyon Park, and 0.23 acres of Tract 12067 (see Figure CON -2: Coastal Zones). Santa Ana River Lowlands The coastal zone encompasses the central segment of the Santa Ana River lowlands, which extends inland from the coastline to the northern boundary of Fairview Park in Costa Mesa and includes the City of Newport Beach and the County of Orange. Costa Mesa's Local Coastal Plan (LCP) is coordinated with both jurisdictions for the lowland properties to the south and with the City of Huntington Beach due to the close proximity and the interrelationship of coastal issues. All of the river lowlands between Pacific Coast Highway and Fairview Regional Park are included in the Santa Ana River/Santiago Creek Greenbelt Corridor. The Greenbelt Implementation Plan designates this area as a Water - Related Recreation and Conservation Area. Although the implementation plan does not propose a specific use for these properties, it does require recreational use to be compatible with the overall greenbelt and provide access to the river trails network. CON -10 I Costa Mesa General Plan Talbert Regional Park provides natural habitat and hiking trails adjacent to the Santa Ana River. Conservation Element Parks and Open Space within the Coastal Zone As described above, the County of Orange operates Talbert Regional Park; approximately 97 acres lie within the coastal zone. The land use designation for the park is Open Space Reserve (OSR). The OSR designation applies to lands of scenic and natural attraction and areas of ecological, cultural, historical, and recreational significance permanently preserved as and restricted to open space and compatible uses. Canyon Park is City -owned and designated Public/Institution. This designation applies to publicly and privately owned lands that provide recreation, open space, health and educational opportunities, and uses that provide a service to the public. Approximately 27 acres of the 36 -acre Canyon Park are within the coastal zone. Costa Mesa General Plan I CON -11 Conservation Element — — 1 — — Fan t7r. Sadrstrhre Ave. Talbert Tnitefll Ave lRagtonal *san St. iu, N _ 1 `Al:10fia St. c MdhufGlacA 1 City of ' l 191h St�� Santa Ana t Ellis Ave SUnllower Ave NeWp�t 2 I I 30wh Coast:dr. 8eactt litl SI. J — a� city of I South --' Newport 1%6 Beach ► \\ 15th St Coast a�tton 9hrd. % \� \ TSV. .v.� .� — \ Plaza Garfield Ave. Gisler Ave. 1 y 1 i I \ r BakerGt. City of Httnlinglon 4yay!t�, B®aCh 4irr F Adaw� Ave `' Orange Coast U I ❑ !f r Cottage Arlington Dc Fairview ~, ; m` Part l Event Center $ Coastal Zone ------ California Coastal Commission Coastal Zone Boundary Coastal Zone Affecting Costa Mesa Coastal Zone Outside of Costa Mesa CON -12 I Costa Mesa General Plan Source: City of Costa Mesa, 2015 f Feet D 1 000 2,000 4,000 0,000 0,000 Figure CON -2: Coastal Zones Fan t7r. Talbert lRagtonal *san St. Palk _ 1 `Al:10fia St. • �, 191h St�� NeWp�t 2 I I 1 8eactt litl SI. a� city of I \� --' Newport 1%6 Beach ► \\ 15th St V % \� \ TSV. .v.� .� — \ ` V � 1 y 1 i I \ r Coastal Zone ------ California Coastal Commission Coastal Zone Boundary Coastal Zone Affecting Costa Mesa Coastal Zone Outside of Costa Mesa CON -12 I Costa Mesa General Plan Source: City of Costa Mesa, 2015 f Feet D 1 000 2,000 4,000 0,000 0,000 Figure CON -2: Coastal Zones . w • - n r • R.t.�.. ..e :ar spry Not r •{�'-"'+�" Talbert Regional Park `s'' [+-; s# ,r x' "r (Orange County) • r• v r > � Cti 1 f�1. `~a ♦ alt 7•• fir•;' ?7 Q N ►. si a al W to L aParI��r �... (Costa Mesa) � ■� AW 4tk Canyo Park 0 Talbert Regional.... City of I (Costa A r` (Orange County) Newport I _� v ,eTra t!1 2 "06 7r�� +r.� • • SL'CiCf7 L1 x Y!�� r f V FJ (Candorniniurn6) u►.ytrifi Y City of Costa Mesa ff f r Warma 19kTi5[ Il YIeW Banning Ranch , Parks ar"lutt xW � o lNewport Bea(h) ' �' _ festa Mesa)'i C7 C 1 . Y • ����� Sr�lS * r ' e CU � �1 f •• 1�� ��N sns� 'k'�•• i■irr 1, is -it" .ice aIV #vAo 'm1 Wow i r. l _ .. _ !�•^ rm7 .mJti Conservation Element Tract 12067 The coastal zone also encompasses the northerly 0.23 acres of a 2.3 -acre privately owned residential condominium development built in 1986 (known as Tract 12067). The property is zoned PDR -LD and designated Low Density Residential. Local Coastal Program (LCP) The California Coastal Act of 1976 is the permanent enacting law approved by the State legislature. The Coastal Act establishes policies, boundary lines, and permitting procedures. Further, it provides for the transfer of permitting authority, with certain limitations reserved for the State, to local governments through adoption and certification of Local Coastal Programs (LCP) by the Coastal Commission. All local governments in the coastal zone must prepare LCPs. Development in the coastal zone must be evaluated through a permit review process for consistency with the LCPs where they are certified, or the Coastal Act where the Commission may retain permitting jurisdiction. This portion of the General Plan fulfills the City's responsibilities to address and protect its coastal resources and integrates the necessary coastal policies and programs. Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act contains policies regarding future development in the coastal zone that must be addressed in the LCP process. Key Coastal Wildlife HabitatArea Issues Loss of Coastal Habitat to Support Wildlife The City commits to preserving and protecting, to the greatest extent possible, open space areas devoted to the preservation of natural resources, sensitive habitat and wildlife species, managed production of resources, outdoor recreation, and open space buffer areas for public health and safety. There are no plans to convert any of the open spaces identified in the General Plan. Protection of Sensitive Species Sensitive habitat areas, such as the vernal pools and wetland areas at Fairview Park, are constantly threatened daily by human impact, household pets, storm runoff, pollution and trash, and herbicides and pesticides. The limited natural habitat areas in Costa Mesa are critical, as they are home to sensitive plant and wildlife species. CON -14 I Costa Mesa General Plan Conservation Element Environmental Sustainability Energy Resources Southern California Edison is the primary supplier of electricity in Costa Mesa, and the Southern California Gas Company supplies natural gas. Land Use and Transportation Planning The reduction in automobile usage and vehicle miles traveled will lower energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, thus producing further public health benefits. Costa Mesa has adopted land use and transportation policies and practices that recognize the importance of coordinating land use, housing, economic development, and transportation planning. Refer to both Chapters 2 (Land Use Element) and 3 (Circulation Element). Energy Efficiency California residents and institutions have many years of experience practicing energy efficiency. While national per capita energy consumption has increased 50 percent over the past 30 years, per capita consumption in California has remained the same over this period. This is due to many factors, including efficiency and conservation campaigns conducted by private citizens, businesses, and utility companies, in addition to regulations adopted by State and local governments. Residents, the business community, and institutions can continue to maintain relatively lower energy consumption rates. Because the City of Costa Mesa does not operate any local energy-related utility, it does not directly influence local energy use practices (other than leading by example). However, the City is a committed partner to energy providers, supports local small energy systems such as solar and wind, and promulgates sustainable practices through local regulations. Renewable Energy Resources Renewable energy sources capture energy from natural processes such as sunlight, wind, flowing water, biological processes, and geothermal heat flows. Renewable energy resources may be used directly or used to create other, more convenient forms of energy. Examples of direct use include passive solar design for heating. Examples of indirect use are electricity generation through photovoltaic cells (solar panels) and wind turbines, or the production of fuels such as ethanol from biomass. To encourage the use of renewable energy Costa Mesa General Plan I CON -15 Conservation Element sources, the City initiated the "Go Green Program," which waives the permit fees for residential solar installations and electric vehicle charging stations. Green and Sustainable Building Practices In 2007, the City of Costa Mesa implemented a voluntary "green building" program that expedited permitting process and waive certain fees for LEED' certification, and became the first city in California to require that all new municipal construction be LEED Gold certified. Additionally, conformance to green building standards are encouraged with project applications. A "green building" is a design approach that focuses on minimizing a building's negative impacts on the environment and building occupants. Green buildings provide many tangible benefits, including improved worker productivity, recruitment, and retention; minimized energy and water costs, construction, and operations; waste minimization; and pollution prevention. This integrated, interdisciplinary approach to design and construction promotes investments in resource -efficient materials, technology, and the use of low -emitting and recycled content materials. Green building practices include the following: • Healthy buildings and sustainable building design aim to create buildings that are not harmful to occupants or the environment and help improve employee productivity. An important emphasis is on indoor environmental quality, especially indoor air quality. • Low -impact materials are used, such as non-toxic, sustainably produced, and recycled building and construction materials that require little energy to process. • Quality and durability are valued, leading to longer -lasting and better - functioning products that require less -frequent replacement, thus reducing the impacts of producing replacements. • Operators of buildings use a life -cycle assessment approach when making design and purchasing decisions. • Local, regional, or sustainably managed renewable sources are used and, whenever possible, composted at the end of their useful lives. Z LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) is a building certification program run under the auspices of the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC). LEED concentrates its efforts on improving performance across five key areas of environmental and human health: energy efficiency, indoor environmental quality, materials selection, sustainable site development and water savings. CON -16 1 Costa Mesa General Plan Conservation Element Green Building Strategy In 1978, California established the Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations) in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California's energy consumption. The State updates these standards approximately every three years to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. For example, the 2013 energy standards were projected to save 25 percent more energy relative to the 2008 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. The standards apply to newly constructed buildings, as well as additions and alterations for existing buildings. All standards in Title 24, Part 6 must be followed as part of the City's building permit process. The City encourages applying green building standards beyond what is required in Title 24 for all new development projects. Waste Management and Recycling Residential trash and recycling collection services are designated functions of the Costa Mesa Sanitary District. The Costa Mesa Sanitary District has developed innovative programs and processes to reduce the waste stream heading to landfills. One example is the Organics Recycling Program, which allows residents to deposit yard and kitchen waste into the organics cart, where these materials will be transported to an anaerobic digestion facility and converted into fertilizers and natural gas. Other recycling programs include the Large Item Collection Program; Electronic and Universal Waste; Sharps Disposal Recycling Program; and Residential Fats, Oils, and Grease (FOG) Recycling Program. The Costa Mesa Sanitary District continues to pursue innovative reduce, reuse, and recycling strategies that allow Costa Mesa residents to make responsible choices in disposal of waste products, but to also protect the environment. The Costa Mesa Sanitary District and the City of Costa Mesa also continue to collaborate in providing quality services to its customers and residents. Key Environmental Sustainability Issues Energy Consumption In addition to promoting sustainable practices, reduced energy consumption and associated lower costs benefit local residents and businesses. As energy demand grows over time and nonrenewable energy resources become more limited, more aggressive conservation measures and increased use of innovative new technologies will be of greater necessity. Costa Mesa General Plan I CON -17 Conservation Element Encouraging More Green Building Practices Builders are sometimes reluctant to integrate green building strategies within their project, mostly due to upfront cost associated with the design and technologies. "Green" is often viewed as an add-on to current building practices. However, what builders do not often consider is what can be changed, modified, improved, or eliminated from the typical building practices and replaced with better, proven technologies and practices, typically resulting in lower overall cost of construction, as well savings in long-term operation and maintenance costs. Recycling and Waste Management Convenient landfill space will diminish in Southern California, and costs to haul waste greater distances for disposal will drive efforts for increased waste reduction, reuse, recycling, and composting. The City should continue efforts to expand recycling and source reduction programs to minimize the volume of trash entering landfills, conserve resources, and protect the environment from the negative impacts associated with landfills. Water Resources Water Supply Domestic water service to Costa Mesa residents and businesses is provided by two agencies: the Mesa Water District (MWD) and Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD). MWD service area encompasses approximately 18 square miles, covering most of Costa Mesa, part of Newport Beach, and John Wayne Airport, (see Figure CON -4, Water Districts). IRWD has an approximate 181 -square -mile service area and includes a portion of properties in Costa Mesa located southeast of Newport Boulevard (between 23 d Street and Bristol Street), as well as all of the city of Irvine and portions of Tustin, Santa Ana, Orange, Lake Forest, Newport Beach, and unincorporated areas in Orange County. Natural water supplies in Orange County are limited to groundwater, surface flows in the Santa Ana River (which originate in the San Bernardino Mountains), and local precipitation. Since the demand for water generally exceeds the rate of replenishment of these natural water sources, the majority of communities in Orange County are dependent upon water imported from sources outside Orange County. The two primary sources for imported water are the Colorado River Aqueduct and the State Water Project. The Colorado River Aqueduct transports water from Lake Havasu (in Nevada) to Lake Mathews (in Riverside CON -18 1 Costa Mesa General Plan Conservation Element County), and then to points in Orange County. The State Water Project carries water from the Upper Feather River in Northern California to Lake Castaic (in Los Angeles County). From Lake Castaic, water is transported and distributed to customers in Orange County. In Costa Mesa, groundwater collects in underground aquifers that are approximately 2,500 feet beneath the ground surface. MWD owns and operates eight groundwater production wells that pump water from the Orange County Groundwater Basin, which underlies north -central Orange County from Irvine to the Los Angeles County border and from Yorba Linda to the Pacific Ocean (see Figure CON -5, Groundwater Basins). This groundwater basin is managed by the Orange County Water District (OCWD) and is replenished in three ways: 1) by water from the Santa Ana River, 2) from imported water from Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan) through the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC), and 3) via a groundwater replenishment program that injects purified sewer water into two of OCWD's recharge basins in the city of Anaheim. The eight wells have a total design capacity of approximately 14,000 gallons per minute (as of 2015). However, since Costa Mesa depends upon imported water for a portion of its water supply, the potential impacts of water supply and demand extend beyond the boundaries of the City and its two serving agencies. The availability of imported water is directly related to the water supply conditions in the source watersheds, as well as demand for water throughout the State. Recurring dry years can also significantly affect Southern California's water allotment. Mesa Water District In 1986, MWD introduced a Master Plan designed to meet the long-term growing needs of its customers. The plan defined ways to improve water delivery systems, create additional local storage facilities, drought -proof the service area, and develop new sources of water. One of MWD's primary focuses is to decrease dependence on high cost imported water by upgrading the Mesa Water Reliability water treatment facility's filtration treatment technology and expand the water filtration capacity. Subsequent to completion of the Mesa Water Reliability Facility Improvement Project, MWD's water supply mix is comprised of 94 percent groundwater and 6 percent recycled water, with no imported water needed, Costa Mesa General Plan I CON -19 Conservation Element Irvine Ranch Water District IRWD prepares two planning documents to guide water supply decision-making: the Water Resources Master Plan (WRMP) and the Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). The WRMP is a comprehensive document that IRWD uses for its planning needs. The UWMP is based on the WRMP; it examines historic and current water use projections and compares water supplies with demands over the next 20 years. These plans identify the imported and local water supplies that will meet future demand—including groundwater recovery and water recycling— as well as IRWD's planned conservation measures to ensure a reliable supply of high-quality water. For many years, IRWD received almost all of its water from imported sources. To alleviate the dependency on costly imported water, in the late 1970s IRWD began building a network of groundwater wells. Today, approximately 50 percent of IRWD water supply comes from groundwater wells located within the Orange County Groundwater Basin. IRWD meets approximately 23 percent of its total demands with recycled water and the remaining 27 percent potable water imported through MWD. To further reduce reliance upon imported water and ultimately increase supply reliability and water quality, IRWD has creatively partnered with the Rosedale - Rio Bravo Water Storage District to construct 502 acres of groundwater recharge ponds in Kern County. This arrangement allows available surface water to percolate into distant groundwater basins for later use during dry periods to offset potential reductions in supply from its normal sources. IRWD's partnership with Rosedale provides long-term equity ownership of water banking capacity of up to 50,000 acre-feet of water. CON -20 I Costa Mesa General Plan Conservation Element Sagdr5lri]rn Ave Talkie t Ave. i MacArthur Blvd. — City of Ellis Ave Sugflower Ave � �r'nilh •.;ea;[ 7r South Coastrall�7r1 alvq — Plaza Garfield Ave � ;d�gr Ave. r 5 25 Aa Gaajr 31 . City of Huntington f+ r yGa1?re, Beach f �S �rrV(0(' „r1ui; F , 0mrf9rr Coast 1_Wage Arlr Os1,rr1 Or,. r �. Fairview Park OC Fair S ti.i.A f��l� �Y411f 1.'dfliR7 r lid �^ `• ��falhR+t Rcrr,ona! 'NrYt7n •oo!prin z5 t np a' City of Newport Beach z City of Newport—�• Beach r `� S11r s1 c: a sr L Water Districts Source: City of Costa Mesa 2015 Mesa Consolidated Water District � Feel l Irvine Ranch Water District 0 1.000 2.000 4,000 0.000 81000 Figure CON -4: Water Districts Costa Mesa General Plan I CON -21 Conservation Element Coastal Plain of ±osAnryales Cet tty Non-Waterbeanng c?rungeCoitt�Cy Formations �L Los Angeles County 4 rr Fit Nan-Waterbearing Tt ` Formations i-' 41 C®astalPiainef ' 1 Orange County '►� ti Costa Mesa ! t Groundwater Basins Coastal Plain of Los Angeles Coastal Plain of Orange County San Gabriel Valley Upper Santa Ana Valley Jurisdictional Boundaries Orange County Water District ] City Boundary Po(K..01(tor: Mies IRW 2 4 NW-Waterbim ing Fommtions Eat SOLItees Esri, USGS, NOAA Figure CON -5: Groundwater Basins CON -22 1 Costa Mesa General Plan Conservation Element Water Resources Master Plan Per the California Urban Water Management Planning Act of 1983, all urban water suppliers must prepare an updated UWMP every five years for review by the California Department of Water Resources. The purpose of UWMPs is to ensure that urban water suppliers have adequate water supplies for existing and future demands. Plans must identify and discuss various factors affecting current and projected water supplies and demand, and must identify steps to ensure the availability and reliability of future supplies. Furthermore, effective 2010, UWMPs were required to incorporate the Water Conservation Act of 2009 (SBx7- 7), which established even stricter reduction targets. With the continued drought years during the 2000s, additional reduction targets were mandated by Executive Order B-29-15 in 2015. As retail water suppliers, MWD and IRWD have the option of complying with SBx7-7 individually or participating in a Regional Alliance. Both districts have chosen to participate in a Regional Alliance with the Metropolitan Water District of Orange County (MWDOC). In the event that the region does not comply with the regional target, an agency may still be in compliance if it meets its own individual target. Water Conservation The importance of water conservation has been highlighted during several periods of extended drought in California. In response, MWD and IRWD have adopted water conservation policies, as has the City of Costa Mesa, which require new development projects to incorporate water conservation measures. The water agencies and the City continually evaluate policies and programs to maximize water savings and modify them to integrate the latest water efficient technologies and practices. The City, in cooperation with MWD and IRWD, educates homeowners and business owners of the importance of installing water -conserving fixtures and appliances, repairing leaking fixtures, planting drought -tolerant landscaping, and avoiding unnecessary water use. In addition, the City enforces its Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance consistent with the State requirements to maximize use of drought tolerant plants, improve irrigation efficiency, and minimize use of turf. Water Quality and Urban and Stormwater Runoff The quality of water in our natural and domestic water systems affects the health of wildlife, habitat, and people. Most water pollution comes from untreated Costa Mesa General Plan I CON -23 Conservation Element storm flows and urban runoff that runs across streets, yards, and parking lots before draining into creeks, marshes, and the ocean. This untreated water can contain a variety of pollutants harmful to the environment, including heavy metals, excessive sediment, petroleum hydrocarbons, domestic sewage, pesticides, and trash. Urban runoff is the result of human -caused activities, such as the overwatering of lawns or the washing of vehicles in driveways. Stormwater runoff refers to water generated during storm events, particularly with an initial rain event as water pollution entering storm drains in areas with high proportions of impervious surfaces is typically more concentrated of toxic materials compared to the remainder of the storm. Federal, State, and local regulations set standards to protect water quality. In particular, the State Regional Water Quality Control Board mandates control of urban runoff to reduce the percolation of pollutants from surface runoff into groundwater supplies. At the local level, Costa Mesa implements regulations consistent with fOederal and State requirements, most notably through the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Wastewater/Recycled Water Recycled water has become an important resource for Costa Mesa and will become increasingly important as other sources of water become less reliable and more costly. Recycled water is wastewater (sewage) that has been treated to remove solids and certain impurities, and is available for non -potable water uses. The use of recycled water extends potable water supplies, reduces the need for CON -24 I Costa Mesa General Plan Bioswales were included in the parking lot in the redevelopmen t of David Magnet School. Storinwaterrunoffcan enter the swale and filter out pollutants and toxins that would have otherwise entered local streams and eventually the Pacific Ocean. Collected water can also infiltrate into the ground below, recharging underground water basins. Conservation Element additional potable water facilities, reduces the amount of treated wastewater discharged into the ocean, reduces reliance on costly imported water supplies, and increases Costa Mesa's water supply reliability. The Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) processes over 200 million gallons of collected wastewater daily at treatment plants in Fountain Valley and Huntington Beach. As described above, millions of gallons of treated effluent are injected into the groundwater basins or used for irrigation, and actually results in improved basin water quality due to the high treatment standards required of the recycled water. Key Water Resources Issues Water Supply and Reoccurring Droughts Water is an essential resource. A stable and reliable water supply must be identified if the community desires growth. With drought conditions ever present in California, even during relatively wet periods, the City recognizes that conservation measures and education put in place today will have long-lasting effects. In 2010, the City adopted the State -mandated Model Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance. As a response to the ongoing drought, the State revised the Model Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance with Costa Mesa adopting the revised ordinance in 2016. Working with MWD and IR`vVD, the City must continually advance programs and measures that promote wise water use and ensure continued recharge of local groundwater basins. Water Quality and Storm Runoff Urban runoff from streets, sidewalks, parking lots, and roofs washes urban -based pollutants into the watershed system and into the Santa Ana River, Upper Newport Bay, and ultimately to the Pacific Ocean. Consistent with federal and State law, Costa Mesa must take local actions to protect the quality of the regional water supply. Atmosphere and Climate Air Quality Costa Mesa is located in the South Coast Air Basin, which is an approximately 6,600 -square mile area bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west; the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains to the north and east; and the San Diego County line to the south. The Basin includes all of Orange County Costa Mesa General Plan I CON -25 Conservation Element and the non -desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. Basin air quality is influenced by stationary (point source), area -wide, and mobile sources that generate pollutants which contribute to the formation of smog and other poor air quality conditions. Point sources are emission sources located at a single location, while area -wide sources are many smaller point sources that are widely distributed. Examples of point and area -wide sources include manufacturing plants, lawnmowers, fireplaces, and painting operations. Mobile sources, as their name implies, are not stationary: they are motor vehicles, trains, and aircraft. The climate within the Basin varies considerably from the coastal zone to the inland valleys, mountain areas, and deserts. Most of the Basin is relatively arid, with very little rainfall and abundant sunshine during the summer months. Factors such as wind, sunlight, and temperature all affect the accumulation and/or dispersion of pollutants throughout the Basin. The extent and severity of the air pollution problem is a function of the area's natural physical characteristics and as well as human -caused influences, e.g., development patterns and lifestyle. Wind One of the most important factors affecting climate in the Basin is the direction and intensity of the prevailing winds. The Basin has a limited capability to disperse air contaminants due to light average wind speeds. Winds generally blow from the coast inland, where temperature inversions (and the mountains) trap pollutants. As a result, the movement or stagnation of air during the morning and evening hours determines the pollution level on any given day. Costa Mesa's coastal location provides for relatively good air quality due to wind patterns. However, the highest pollution levels in Costa Mesa are often associated with Santa Ana wind conditions that reverse the dominant wind patterns. CON -26 I Costa Mesa General Plan Clear skies over Costa Meso with the OC Fair & Event Center in the center and the Pacific Ocean in the background Conservation Element Sunlight The presence and intensity of sunlight is another important factor that results in the formation of smog in the Basin. Due to ultraviolet radiation from sunlight, primary pollutants (mainly reactive hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen) react to form secondary pollutants (e.g., oxidants). Since this process is time dependent, secondary pollutants can be formed many miles downwind from the emission sources. As a result of the prevailing daytime winds and time -delayed nature of smog, oxidant concentrations are highest in the inland areas of Southern California. However, smog can settle in the City on days with early morning easterly winds. Temperature Inversions Temperature inversion is a reversal in the decrease of temperature as altitude increases. In most parts of the United States, air near ground level is warmer than the air above it. However, Southern California's daily summertime sunshine and high barometric pressure reverse that pattern, creating warmer air at higher elevations. As a result, temperature inversion traps pollutants by preventing cooler air from rising to the upper atmosphere. Although temperature inversion can occur throughout the year, the summer months of July, August, and September generally account for higher occurrences of this phenomenon. Costa Mesa General Plan I CON -27 Conservation Element Ambient Air Quality Standards Ambient air quality standards are the levels of air pollutant concentration considered "safe" with regard to public health and welfare. The federal Clean Air Act (CAA) establishes the framework for regulating national air quality standards and the means to achieve them. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) is responsible for enforcing the Federal CAA and for establishing the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). California has adopted more stringent regulations under the California CAA, which are administered by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The CARB, which is part of the California Environmental Protection Agency, is responsible for meeting the State requirements of the federal CAA, administering the California CAA, and establishing the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). Both State and federal ambient air quality standards have been established for the following six pollutants: ozone (03), particulate matter (PMio and PM2.$), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (S02), and lead (Pb). The CAAQS generally are more stringent than the corresponding federal standards and incorporate additional standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, and visibility reducing particles. Ozone (03), a key ingredient of smog, is a highly reactive and unstable gas capable of damaging the linings of the respiratory tract. This pollutant forms in the atmosphere through complex reactions between chemicals directly emitted from vehicles, industrial plants, and many other sources. PM2.5and PMlo are particles that easily penetrate into the airways and lungs where they may produce harmful health effects such as the worsening of heart and lung diseases. The risk of these health effects is greatest in the elderly and the very young. Exposure to elevated concentrations of PM is also associated with increased hospital and doctor visits and increased numbers of premature deaths. Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless gas. It results from the incomplete combustion of carbon -containing fuels such as gasoline or wood, and is emitted by a wide variety of combustion sources. Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) is a reactive, oxidizing gas capable of damaging cells lining the respiratory tract. This pollutant is also an essential ingredient in the formation of ground -level ozone pollution. NO2 is one of the nitrogen oxides CON -28 1 Costa Mesa General Plan Conservation Element emitted from high-temperature combustion processes, such as those occurring in trucks, cars, and power plants. In the presence of sunlight, complex reactions of nitrogen oxides with ozone and other air pollutants produce the majority of NO2 in the atmosphere. Indoors, home heaters and gas stoves also produce substantial amounts of NO2. Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is a gaseous compound of sulfur and oxygen. SO2 is formed when sulfur -containing fuel is burned by mobile sources, such as locomotives, ships, and off-road diesel equipment. Lead (Pb) is a relatively soft and chemically resistant metal. Lead forms compounds with both organic and inorganic substances. As an air pollutant, lead is present in small particles. Sources of lead emissions in California include a variety of industrial activities. Because it was emitted in large amounts from vehicles when leaded gasoline was used, lead is present in many soils (especially urban soils) and can be reintroduced into the air by grading activities. Sulfates (SO42) are the fully oxidized ionic form of sulfur. Sulfates occur in combination with metal and/or hydrogen ions. In California, emissions of sulfur compounds occur primarily from the combustion of petroleum -derived fuels (e.g., gasoline and diesel fuel) that contain sulfur. This sulfur is oxidized to sulfur dioxide (SO2) during the combustion process and subsequently converted to sulfate compounds in the atmosphere. The conversion of SO2 to sulfates takes place comparatively rapidly and completely in urban areas of California due to regional meteorological features. Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) is a colorless gas with the odor of rotten eggs. It is formed during bacterial decomposition of sulfur -containing organic substances. Also, hydrogen sulfide can be present in sewer gas and some natural gas, and can be emitted as the result of geothermal energy exploitation. Vinyl chloride (chloroethene), a chlorinated hydrocarbon, is a colorless gas with a mild, sweet odor. Vinyl chloride largely is used to make polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastic and vinyl products. Vinyl chloride has been detected near landfills, sewage plants, and hazardous waste sites due to microbial breakdown of chlorinated solvents. Visibility -reducing particles consist of suspended particulate matter, which is a complex mixture of tiny particles that consists of dry solid fragments, solid cores Costa Mesa General Plan I CON -29 Conservation Element with liquid coatings, and small droplets of liquid. These particles vary greatly in shape, size and chemical composition, and can be made up of many different materials such as metals, soot, soil, dust, and salt. Areas that do not violate ambient air quality standards are considered to have attained the standards. Violations of ambient air quality standards are based on air pollutant monitoring data and are judged for each air pollutant. The clean air effort still has a long way to go. In 2005, the federal one-hour ozone standard was replaced by a stricter eight-hour standard that was further strengthened in 2008. Even though air quality continues to improve in South Coast Air Basin, pollutant levels in the Basin persistently exceed the federal eight- hour standard for ozone almost one-third of the year. Due to tougher federal air quality standards for particulates and ozone issued in 2006 and 2008, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) estimates it will take until at least 2020 to meet the 24-hour average particulate standard and until 2030 to meet the eight-hour ozone standard. The status of attainment for the criteria pollutants discussed above for the Basin in year 2014 is presented in Table CON - 4. Table CON -4: Air Basin Attainment Status Pollutant Oa (1 -hr) Federal Nonattainment Oa (8 -hr) Nonattainment Nonattainment PM10 Attainment Nonattainment PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment CO Attainment Attainment NO2 Attainment Nonattainment SO2 Attainment Attainment Pb Nonattainment Nonattainment VRP Unclassified SO4 -- Attainment H2S -- Unclassified Source: California Air Resources Board 2014 CON -30 1 Costa Mesa General Plan Conservation Element Regional air quality is regulated by the SCAQMD. SCAQMD tests and regulates stationary sources such as refineries and heavy industry, monitors regional air pollutant levels, develops air quality control strategies, and conducts public awareness programs. SCAQMD continuously monitors air quality at numerous locations throughout the four -county area. Costa Mesa is located within Source Receptor Area 18. Climate Change Global climate change is an increasingly acknowledged environmental problem caused as greenhouse gases (GHGs) are released into the atmosphere faster than the Earth's natural systems can re -absorb them. The primary GHGs emitted into the atmosphere are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), and nitrogen trifluoride (NF3). Collectively, these gases trap heat in the atmosphere and intensify the natural greenhouse effect, thus causing the global average surface temperature to rise, which in turn affects global climate patterns. Other compounds—including some aerosols—can also have a strong heat -forcing effect on the atmosphere. This includes black carbon, which consists of microscopic particles emitted from the incomplete combustion of biomass and fossil fuels. In response to these concerns, California enacted AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. The law seeks to reverse climate change through a comprehensive program reducing GHG emissions for virtually all sources statewide. AB 32 requires CARB to develop regulations and market mechanisms to achieve technologically feasible and cost-effective measures that will reduce emissions to 1990 levels by 2020—a 25 percent reduction statewide. In 2008, CARB approved a comprehensive plan "Scoping Plan" which is to be updated every five years. The first update was approved in 2014. Senate Bill (SB) 375, the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008, provides key support to achieve the goals of AB 32. SB 375 is intended to encourage regional planning that integrates land use and transportation policy in a way that reduces GHG emissions from passenger vehicles. This legislation endeavors to control the emissions by curbing sprawl (the unplanned, uncontrolled spread of urban development). The legislation encourages compact development patterns that reduce the need to drive, thereby reducing air pollution from car exhaust, conserving water, and protecting habitat, among Costa Mesa General Plan j CON -31 Conservation Element other benefits. To achieve these goals, this law is designed to align regional land use, housing, and transportation plans with greenhouse gas reduction targets for 2020 and 2035, The City recognizes the importance of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, enhancing our environment and economic sustainability, and preserving a high quality of life and safety for generations to come. Many actions undertaken by the City directly or indirectly improve air quality. These include implementing the Build Green Incentive Program, pursuing mixed-use development and live -work housing that will reduce vehicle miles traveled, implementing energy efficiency programs, supporting transit use, developing bicycle routes and trails, minimizing landfill waste, and supporting the use of alternative fuel vehicles in the City's fleet and in the community. Considering air quality issues in the decision-making process will ensure that new development minimizes new emissions. Key Atmosphere and Climate Condition Issues Air Pollution Breathing polluted air can cause eye irritation and nose burn, and long-term effects including chronic respiratory ailments. Air pollution can irritate throats and make breathing difficult. In fact, pollutants like tiny airborne particles and ground level ozone can trigger respiratory problems, especially for people with asthma. Air pollution can also be damaging to the natural environment by impacting trees, plants, water bodies, and wildlife. Greenhouse Gases Within Costa Mesa, as in most urban areas, fossil fuels are the number one source of energy consumed by residents, government, industry, and commercial activities, thus leading to increase in greenhouse gases. Vehicles are the single largest consumer of fossil fuels, followed by buildings that use large amounts of energy for heating and cooling. These activities have contributed to the elevated concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, in turn is causing the Earth's temperature to rise. A warmer Earth may lead to changes in rainfall patterns, smaller polar ice caps, a rise in sea level, and a wide range of impacts on plants, wildlife, and humans. CON -32 I Costa Mesa General Plan Conservation Element Goals, Objectives, and Policies The following goals, objectives, and policies mandate or encourage specific actions the City, residents, the business community, and local institutions will pursue to achieve objectives relative to resource conservation. Goal CON -1: Preserved and Restored Natural Coastal Habitat and Landforms It is the goal of the City of Costa Mesa to provide residents with a high-quality environment through the conservation of resources, including land, water, wildlife, and vegetation; and protection of areas of unique natural beauty. Objective CON -1: Evaluate existing biotic resources and preserve them in ecologically viable and natural conditions, where possible; and/or restore and integrate these resources into the urban environment, where feasible. Habitat and Biological Resources Protection and Restoration Policy CON -1.A: Natural habitat is essential to ensuring biodiversity and protecting sensitive biological resources. Protect these areas and consult with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Orange County Water District, Orange County Parks, and other regional agencies to identify areas for special protection, and establish appropriate protection measures for these areas. Policy CON -1.6: Contribute to regional biodiversity and the preservation of rare, unique, and sensitive biological resources by maintaining functional wildlife corridors and habitat linkages. Policy CON -1.C: Coordinate with the United States Fish and Wildlife service, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and other regulatory agencies to mitigate project impacts affecting open and natural spaces. Policy CON -1.1): Promote and protect native plant species within Fairview Park, and remove and control the spread of invasive species, including plants, animals, and fungi. Costa Mesa General Plan I CON -33 Conservation Element Policy CON -2.E: Ensure that all future development is reviewed with regard to protecting natural topography and bluffs to preserve and enhance Costa Mesa's natural beauty. Policy CON -2.F: Minimize soil depletion and erosion in development projects. Prevent erosion caused by construction activities, and encourage preservation of natural vegetation and topography. Access to Large -Scale Natural Areas Policy CON -2.G: Improve access to large-scale natural areas in the City. These areas should be open for controlled access to improve public enjoyment. Access should be limited where natural habitat is extremely sensitive. Work with transit agencies to improve connections and access to open space and recreation facilities from all Costa Mesa neighborhoods. Policy CON -2.H: Require the provision of adequate visitor -serving on-site parking facilities that do no impact sensitive resources within the Coastal Zone. Policy CON -2.1: Coordinate the development of plans, policies, and design standards for projects within the Coastal Zone with appropriate local, regional, and federal agencies. Goal CON -2: Conserved Natural Resources through Environmental Sustainability Reduce the City's carbon footprints and manage resources wisely to meet the needs of a growing population and economy. Base community planning decisions on sustainable practices that reduce environmental pollutants, conserve resources, and minimize waste, Encourage the design of energy-efficient buildings, use renewable energy, and promote alternative methods of transportation. Objective CON -2: Work to conserve energy resources in existing and new buildings, utilities, and infrastructure. Energy Efficiency and Conservation Policy CON -2.A: Promote efficient use of energy and conservation of available resources in the design, construction, maintenance, CON -34 I Costa Mesa General Plan Conservation Element and operation of public and private facilities, infrastructure, and equipment. Policy CON -2.B: Consult with regional agencies and utility companies to pursue energy efficiency goals. Expand renewable energy strategies to reach zero net energy for both residential and commercial new construction. Policy CON -2.C: Continue to develop partnerships with participating jurisdictions to promote energy efficiency, energy conservation, and renewable energy resource development by leveraging the abilities of local governments to strengthen and reinforce the capacity of energy efficiency efforts. Policy CON -2.D: Encourage new development to take advantage of Costa Mesa's optimal climate in the warming and cooling of buildings, including use of heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) systems. Green Building Sustainable Development Practices Policy CON -2.E: Promote environmentally sustainable development principles for buildings, master planned communities, neighborhoods, and infrastructure. Policy CON -2.F: Encourage construction and building development practices that reduce resource expenditures throughout the lifecycle of a structure. Policy CON -2.G: Continue to require all City facilities and services to incorporate energy and resource conservation standards and practices and the new municipal facilities be built within the LEED Gold standards or equivalent. Policy CON -2.H: Continue City green initiatives in purchases, equipment, and agreements that favor sustainable products and practices. Solid Waste Reduction and Recycling Policy CON -2.J: Encourage waste management programs that promote waste reduction and recycling to minimize materials sent to landfills. Maintain robust programs encourage residents and businesses to reduce, reuse, recycle, and compost. Policy CON -2.K: Support waste management practices that provide recycling programs. Promote organic recycling, landfill diversion, zero waste goals, proper hazardous waste collections, composting, and the continuance of recycling centers. Costa Mesa General Plan I CON -35 Conservation Element Policy CON -21: Continue construction and demolition programs that require recycling and minimize waste in haul trips. Goal CON -3: Improved Nater Supply and Quality Pursue a multijurisdictional approach to protecting, maintaining, and improving water quality and the overall health of the watershed. A comprehensive, integrated approach will ensure compliance with federal and State standards, and will address a range of interconnected priorities, including water quality and runoff; stormwater capture, storage and flood management techniques that focus on natural drainage; natural filtration and groundwater recharge through green infrastructure and habitat restoration; and water recycling and conservation. Objective CON -3: Work towards the protection and conservation of existing and future water resources by recognizing water as a limited resource that requires conservation. Water Supply Policy CON -3.6: Continue to consult with local water districts and the Orange County Water District to ensure reliable, adequate, and high- quality sources of water supply at a reasonable cost. Water Conservation Policy CON -3.C: Encourage residents, public facilities, businesses, and industry to minimize water consumption, especially during drought years. Policy CON -3.D: Restrict use of turf in new construction and landscape reinstallation that requires high irrigation demands, except for area parks and schools, and encourage the use of drought -tolerant landscaping. Water Recycling Policy CON -3.E: Consult with local water districts and the Orange County Water District to advance water recycling program for new and existing developments, including the use of treated wastewater to irrigate parks, golf courses, roadway landscaping, and other intensive irrigation consumers. CON -36 I Costa Mesa General Plan Conservation Element Water Quality and Urban Runoff Policy CON -3.F: Work with public and private property owners to reduce stormwater runoff in urban areas to protect water quality in storm drainage channels, Santa Ana River, and other local water courses that lead to the Pacific Ocean. Policy CON -3.G: Continue to develop strategies to promote stormwater management techniques and storm drain diversion programs that collectively and naturally filter urban runoff. Policy CON -3.H: Continue to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Program (NPDES) by participating in the Countywide Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP), which stipulates water quality requirements for minimizing urban runoff and discharge from new development and requires the provisions of applicable Best Management Practices (BMP). Policy CON -3.1: Require all applicable development project be reviewed with regards to requirements of on-site Water Quality Management Plan and State requirements for runoff and obtaining a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) permit. Municipal Sewer System Policy CON -3.K: Continue to consult with the Costa Mesa Sanitation District and the Orange County Sanitation District to modernize wastewater treatment facilities to avoid overflows of untreated sewage. Goal CON -4: Improved Air Quality Take steps to improve and maintain air quality for the benefit of the health and vitality of residents and the local economy. In alignment with State emissions reduction goals and in cooperation with the South Coast Air Quality Management District, pursue regional collaboration to reduce emissions from all sources. Costa Mesa General Plan I CON -37 Conservation Element Objective CON -4.A: Pursue the prevention of the significant deterioration of local and regional air quality. Air Quality Policy CON -4.A: Support regional policies and efforts that improve air quality to protect human and environmental health, and minimize disproportionate impacts on sensitive population groups. Policy CON -4.6: Encourage businesses, industries and residents to reduce the impact of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of stationary and non -stationary pollution sources. Policy CON -4.C: Require that sensitive uses such as schools, childcare centers, parks and playgrounds, housing, and community gathering places are protected from adverse impacts of emissions. Policy CON -4.D: Continue to participate in regional planning efforts with the Southern California Association of Governments, nearby jurisdictions, and the South Coast Air Quality Management District to meet or exceed air quality standards. Climate Change Policy CON -4.E: Encourage compact development, infill development, and a mix of uses that are in proximity to transit, pedestrian, and bicycling infrastructures. Policy CON -4.F: Enhance bicycling and walking infrastructure, and support public bus service, pursuant to the Circulation Element's goals, objectives, and policies. Policy CON -4.H: Encourage installation of renewable energy devices for businesses and facilities and strive to reduce community- wide energy consumption. Policy CON -4.1: Develop long-term, communitywide strategies and programs that work at the local level to reduce greenhouse gases and Costa Mesa's "carbon footprint". CON -38 I Costa Mesa General Plan 0 Chapter 7: Noise Element Introduction MEOW; 1701 Street and SuperiorAvenue Costa Mesa residents enjoy the diversity of their neighborhoods. With the pleasant, ocean -influenced climate, they find many reasons to spend o u rd oo rs,��e. Be se. While some level of noise is part of the urban environment— with noise conditions varying depending upon the type and density of development—residents desire to keep Costa Mesa a relatively quiet place. This Noise Element establishes goals focused on creating a local noise environment that contributes to positive community health and minimizes exposure of residents to adverse noise conditions. Federal and State statutes define noise to be an environmental pollutant that can affect the quality of life and human health by causing annoyance and disrupting everyday activities. Many laws are in place to protect people from excessive noise at their workplaces and in their homes. In Costa Mesa, significant noise sources include 1-405, SR -73 and SR -55; major arterials such Costa Mesa General Plan I N-1 Noise Element as Harbor Boulevard and 17th Street; the Orange County Fairgrounds and Pacific Amphitheater; John Wayne Airport; and the activities of local industrial businesses. While the City does not have jurisdiction to control how most of these noise sources affects the community, it can direct land use policy and work with responsible agencies to minimize noise impacts on residents. Purpose The purpose of the Noise Element is to identify noise sources in Costa Mesa and define strategies for reducing the negative impact of noise on the community. The Noise Element identifies maps baseline and projected noise levels so that this information can guide future land use decisions in a manner that limit noises and its effects on the community. Legal Requirement State Law (Section 65302[f] of the California Government Code) requires that general plans include a Noise Element that identifies and appraises noise problems in the community. The Noise Element follows the revised State guidelines in Section 46050.1 of the Health and Safety Code that require the Element analyze and quantify—to the extent practical—baseline and projected noise levels for the following sources: • Highways and freeways • Primary arterials and major local streets ■ Passenger and freight on-line railroad operations and ground rapid transit systems ■ Commercial, general aviation, heliport, helistop, military airport operations, aircraft overflights, jet engine test stands, and all other ground facilities and maintenance functions related to airport operation • Local industrial plants, including, but not limited to, railroad classification yards ■ Other ground stationary noise sources identified by local agencies as contributing to the community noise environment State law is fairly specific as to how local noise conditions are presented. The 24-hour noise environment typically is expressed in terms of noise contour maps, which display average noise levels over a 24-hour period. They resemble topographic maps, which illustrate varying ground elevations. The N-2 I Costa Mesa General Plan Noise Element noise contour maps indicate an aggregation of noise from all sources, and state the noise levels in terms of Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) or Day -Night Average Level (Lan); these terms are described below. The noise contours establish a guide for establishing a pattern of land uses in the Land Use Element to minimize exposure of residents to excessive noise. State law specifies that the Noise Element is to include implementation measures to address existing and foreseeable noise problems and importantly, to serve as a guideline for compliance with the State's noise insulation standards. Noise Metrics Noise—in its most simplistic terms—is defined as unwanted sound. While sound can be defined easily using scientific standards, noise has qualities that require more complex treatment. Sound is measured and expressed by decibels (dB), with an adjustment referred to as the A -weighted measure (dBA) to correct for the relative frequency response of the human ear. Decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale, representing points on a sharply rising curve. For example, a sound level of 10 decibels is 10 times more intense than one decibel, 20 decibels represent a noise 100 times more intense, and 30 decibels reflects a condition 1,000 times more intense. A sound as soft as human breathing is about 10 times greater than a zero decibel level. The decibel system of measuring sound gives a rough connection between the physical intensity of sound and its perceived loudness to the human ear. A 10 -decibel increase is perceived by the human ear as only doubling of the loudness. Ambient sounds in the urban environment generally range from 30 dBA (very quiet) to 100 dBA (very loud), as indicated in Table N-1: Typical Sound Levels. Because people generally are more sensitive to noise intrusions during the evening and night hours, State law requires, for planning purposes, use of such metrics as the CNEL or Lan. These metrics add an artificial decibel increment to quiet time noise levels in a 24-hour noise descriptor to account for increased sensitivity during late hours. The CNEL descriptor requires that an artificial increment of five dBA be added to the actual noise level for the hours from 7:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M., and 10 dBA for the 10:00 P.M.to 7:00 A.M. period. The Ldn descriptor uses the same methodology, except that no artificial increment is added to the hours between 7:00 A.M. and 10:00 P.M. Costa Mesa General Plan I N-3 Noise Element Table N-1: Typical Sound Levels Both descriptors yield roughly the same 24-hour level, with the CNEL being only slightly more restrictive (that is, higher). The discussion of noise requires the use of a number of technical terms. Some of the key noise -related terms used in this element include: ■ Decibel (dB). A decibel is a unit of measurement which indicates the relative amplitude of a sound. The zero on the decibel scale is based on the lowest sound level that the healthy, unimpaired human ear can detect. Sound levels in decibels are calculated on a logarithmic basis. Each 10 decibel increase in sound level is perceived as N-4 I Costa Mesa General Plan Common Indoor Activities Common Outdoor Activities Noise Level (dBA) Threshold of Pain 140 Near jet engine 130 Jet Fly -over at 1,000 feet 110 Rock band Loud auto horn 100 Gas lawnmower at 3 feet 90 Diesel truck at 50 feet at 50 mph 80 Food blender at 3 feet Noisy urban area during daytime 70 Vacuum cleaner at 10 feet Heavy traffic at 300 feet 60 Normal speech at 3 feet Quiet urban area during daytime 50 Large business office Quiet urban area during nighttime 40 Theater, large conference room (background) Quiet suburban area during nighttime 30 Library Quiet rural area during nighttime 20 Bedroom at night, concert hall (background) 10 Broadcast/recording studio Lowest threshold of human hearing 0 Lowest threshold of human hearing Both descriptors yield roughly the same 24-hour level, with the CNEL being only slightly more restrictive (that is, higher). The discussion of noise requires the use of a number of technical terms. Some of the key noise -related terms used in this element include: ■ Decibel (dB). A decibel is a unit of measurement which indicates the relative amplitude of a sound. The zero on the decibel scale is based on the lowest sound level that the healthy, unimpaired human ear can detect. Sound levels in decibels are calculated on a logarithmic basis. Each 10 decibel increase in sound level is perceived as N-4 I Costa Mesa General Plan Noise Element approximately a doubling of loudness over a fairly wide range of intensities. ■ A -weighted sound level (dBA). The A -weighted sound level is the most common method to characterize sound in California. This scale gives greater weight to the frequencies of sound to which the human ear is most sensitive. All sound levels in this chapter are A -weighted, unless reported otherwise. in Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). CNEL is the energy average of the A -weighted sound levels occurring during a 24-hour period, with 10 dB added to the A -weighted sound levels occurring between 10:00 P.m. and 7:00 A.M. and five dB added to the A - weighted sound levels occurring between 7:00 P.m. and 10:00 P.m. Energy -equivalent sound/noise level (Leq)• Leq describes the average level that has the same acoustical energy as the summation of all the time -varying events. This descriptor is useful because sound levels can vary markedly over a short period of time. The most common averaging period for Leq is hourly, but it can be of any duration. ■ Day/night average sound level (Lan). Ldn is a measure over a 24-hour period at a given location, with a 10 dB added to the A -weighted sound levels occurring between 10:00 P.m. and 7:00 A.M. Noise Standards While primary responsibility for control of noise rests with State and local governments, the United States Noise Control Act of 1972 and the Quiet Community Act of 1978 recognized the role of the federal government in addressing major commercial noise sources to provide uniform treatment of such sources. The federal government specifically preempts local control of noise emissions from aircraft, railroad, and interstate highways. The State of California's noise insulation standards are codified in the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Building Standards Administrative Code, Part 2, California Building Code. These noise standards apply to new construction for providing suitable interior noise environments. The regulations specify that acoustical studies must be prepared when noise - sensitive structures, such as residential buildings, schools, or hospitals, are located near major transportation noise sources, and where such noise Costa Mesa General Plan I N-5 Noise Element sources create an exterior noise level of 60 dBA CNEL or higher. Acoustical studies that accompany building plans must demonstrate that structures have been designed to limit interior noise in habitable rooms to acceptable noise levels. For new residential buildings, schools, and hospitals, the acceptable interior noise limit for new construction is 45 dBA CNEL. Costa Mesa has a comprehensive Noise Ordinance within the Municipal Code (Chapter XIII -Noise Control) that sets standards for noise levels citywide and provides the means to enforce the reduction of offensive noises. The noise standards in Table N-2: Residential Exterior and Interior Standards, apply to both indoor and outdoor residential areas. Between the hours of 11:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M., the noise standards are five dBA more stringent for exterior areas and 10 dBA more stringent for indoor areas. The Noise Ordinance further specifies that residential exterior residential areas such as private balconies, roof decks, and internal courtyards in a Mixed -Use Overlay District for live/work and multi -family residential development that are approved pursuant to a Master Plan, and subject to the land use regulations of an Urban Plan are exempt from the residential exterior noise standards. Similar exemption also applies to high-rise residential development in the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan. Table N-2: Residential Exterior and Interior Standards Note: These represent the basic standards applicable for time periods exceeding 15 minutes each hoar. Higher levels may be generated for specified shorter time periods. Source: Costa Mesa Zoning Code, Chapter XIII Noise Conditions and Compatibility Standards Two types of noise sources are considered in the community noise inventory: mobile sources and stationary sources. Mobile noise sources refer to cars, trucks, motorcycles, buses, aircraft, and trains. Stationary sources include industrial and construction activities (including truck loading), playgrounds, outdoor sports facilities, landscape maintenance equipment, construction N-6 I Costa Mesa General Plan Noise Element activities, and the typical sounds heard in a residential neighborhood (power tools, barking dogs, etc.). Table N-3: Noise and Land Use Compatibility Matrix presents the guidelines promulgated by federal and State agencies, modified to meet local conditions and Costa Mesa's needs. This table represents the primary tool the City will use to ensure integrated planning compatibility between land uses and outdoor noise. Costa Mesa's noise environment is dominated by vehicular traffic and aircraft operations at John Wayne Airport. To provide a description of the baseline 2015 noise environment in Costa Mesa, noise contours were obtained from the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission and quantified for highway and local street traffic. Vehicular Noise Traffic noise levels can be reliably predicted using formulas that take into account traffic volume, speed, and the percentage of trucks. Baseline 2015 noise contours were calculated for all the City's primary and major arterials, as well as the three freeways (1-405, SR -55, SR -73) that traverse the City. In addition, a number of secondary and commuter streets were modeled. Noise generation for each roadway segment was calculated, and the distance to the 60, 65, and 70 dBA CNEL contours was determined. (A noise contour is a line behind which the noise level does not exceed a certain value. For instance, the 60 dBA CNEL contour indicates that the CNEL between the street and the contour line is equal to, or greater than 60 dB; the CNEL beyond the contour line—away from the street—is less than 60 dB). Costa Mesa General Plan I N-7 Noise Element Table N-3: Noise and Land Use Compatibility Matrix No tes: No rm ally A ccep ta b le. Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements. Conditionally Acceptable. New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Conventional construction but with closed windows and fresh airsupply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice. Normally Unacceptable. New Construction or development should be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulution features included in the design. Clearly Unacceptable. New construction or development should generally not be undertaken. NA: Not Applicable Source: ILlodif ied from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Guidelines and State of California Standards. N-8 I Costa Mesa General Plan ExposureCommunity Noise Ldn or CNEL, .:. Land Use Category Acceptable ConditionallyNormally . Acceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable Residential: Low -Density 50-60 60-70 70-75 >75 Residential: Multiple Family 50-65 65-70 70-75 >75 Mixed use 50-65 65-70 70-75 >75 Transient Lodging -Motel, Hotels 50-65 65-70 70-80 >80 Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, 50-60 60-65 65-80 >80 Nursing Homes Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheaters NA 50-70 NA >80 Sports Arenas, Outdoor Spectator Sports NA 50-75 NA >80 Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks 50-67.5 NA 67.5-75 >75 Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water Recreation, Cemeteries 50-70 NA 70-80 >80 Office Buildings, Business Commercial and >85 unless Professional 50-67.5 67.5-77.5 77.5-85 appropriately insulated Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, Agriculture 50-70 70-80 80-85 NA No tes: No rm ally A ccep ta b le. Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements. Conditionally Acceptable. New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Conventional construction but with closed windows and fresh airsupply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice. Normally Unacceptable. New Construction or development should be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulution features included in the design. Clearly Unacceptable. New construction or development should generally not be undertaken. NA: Not Applicable Source: ILlodif ied from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Guidelines and State of California Standards. N-8 I Costa Mesa General Plan Aircraft Noise The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has established guidelines in the California State Noise Standard to control residential area noise levels produced by aircraft operations that use the State's airports. Under these guidelines, residential noise sensitive areas exposed to an average CNEL of greater than the 65 dBA define the noise impact area. John Wayne Airport John Wayne Airport, operated by the County of Orange, abuts industrial and commercial properties at the northeast corner of Costa Mesa. A small portion of Costa Mesa lies within the 65 dBA CNEL contour of John Wayne Airport. The northeast corner of Costa Mesa is impacted by noise from the airport. However, the majority of this area is developed with industrial uses. Approximately 107 dwelling units within the City's sphere of influence lie within the 65 dBA CNEL noise impact area south of the runway. Noise contours resulting from operations at John Wayne Airport, indicated on Figure N-1, John Wayne Airport Noise Contours, are those on file with the County of Orange Office of Noise Abatement and the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). The 2008 Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) adopted by the Airport Land Use Commission specifies acceptable uses proximate to the airport. These are defined as uses that will not subject people to adverse noise impacts. John Wayne Airport, primarily through the General Aviation Noise Ordinance (GANG), has on-going programs of noise reduction that include limits on the number of commercial airline flights, noise abatement arrival and departure procedures, admonishment of noisy operators (including private aircraft), curfew, and take -off weight limitations. The Orange County Board of Supervisors approved a master plan for the airport in February, 1985. Settlement of lawsuits concerning airport expansion was reached in December 1985 between the County, City of Newport Beach, and two community organizations. In 2003, the settlement agreement was amended which extended the agreement until 2015, allowed an increase in passengers served from 8.4 million annual passengers to 10.8 million annual passengers, allowed an increase in regular Class A flights to 85 average daily departures, and allowed facility improvements. In 2014, the Board of Supervisors authorized an increase in operational capacity and extended the terms of the settlement agreement through Costa Mesa General Plan I N-9 Noise Element December 31, 2030, with no change to curfew until December 31, 2035. Additionally, beginning on January 1, 2021, the approval allows a gradual increase in passenger count from 8.4 million average passengers to 11.8 million average passengers and 95 average daily departures. Further, on January 1, 2026, the number passengers would again be able to increase, up to 12.5 million average passengers, depending upon the actual service levels in the preceding five years. Despite the increase in air traffic from John Wayne Airport, the ultimate CN EL noise contours are considerably less than the noise contour contained in the 2008 AELUP due updated technology creating quieter fleets of commercial aircrafts. Helicopter Services The City of Costa Mesa contracts with Huntington Beach for police helicopter services on a case-by-case basis. Depending on altitude and speed, noise levels generated by the craft under normal conditions range from 61 to 65 dBA. As of 2015, four heliports were located in Costa Mesa at the following locations: ■ Costa Mesa Police Department, 99 Fair Drive ■ Former Los AngelesA Times building, 1375 West Sunflower Avenue ■ South Coast Metro Center, 555 Anton Boulevard ■ Tridair Helicopter, 3000 Airway Avenue The AELUP for Heliports establishes regulations and restrictions for the siting of heliports/helipads. The purpose of the AELUP for Heliports is to protect the public from the adverse effects of aircraft noise by ensuring that heliports/helipads are sited in areas of compatible land use. The City regulates the siting of helipads through a conditional use permit. The City requires an analysis to identify potential noise impacts and the City may regulate the hours of operation and arrival, departure/arrival routes, and type of helicopters which may use the heliport in order to minimize impacts to sensitive land uses. Heliports and helistops must comply with the all conditions of approval imposed or recommended by the Federal Aviation Administration, Orange County ALUC, and Caltrans/Division of Aeronautics. OC Fair & Event Center The OC Fair & Event Center (OCFEC) has existed at its location across from the Civic Center for over 65 years and has become a year-round exhibition, conference, and event center. The primary function of the OCFEC is to host N-10 I Costa Mesa General Plan Noise Element the annual summer fair, which includes rides, exhibits, theater, the centennial farm area, equestrian center, and amphitheater for concerts. Over 1.3 million people attend the fair during its summer run. Several noise sources exist within the fairgrounds property. A majority of the on-site stationary noise is due to the weekly Orange County Market Place, Farmers Market, Centennial Farm, and Food Truck Fare Wednesday, as well as annual events such as OC Home and Garden Show, Orange County Fair, and concerts at the Pacific Amphitheater. Parking lot activity during various fairground events also generates noise. In 1980, a modified stricter Noise Ordinance for fairground operations was established in an agreement between the 32 d District Agricultural Association and the City of Costa Mesa ("1980 Settlement Agreement"). Table N-4, Orange County Fairgrounds Modified Noise Ordinance, applies to the activities within the Orange County Fairgrounds, with the exception of the events at the Pacific Amphitheater. Table N-4: Orange County Fairgrounds Modified Noise Ordinance' Residential 1 and 2 Family Residential 50 dBA 30 min/hour 55 dBA 15 min/hour 60 dBA 5 min/hour 65 dBA 1 min/hour 70 dBA Not for any period of time PeriodNoise Time Level (CNEL) 60 dBA 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. 50 dBA 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Multiple Dwelling 60 dBA 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Residential, Public Space, 55 dBA 11:00 p.m, to 7:00 a.m. Commercial Note: 1. Does not apply to events at Pacific Amphitheater Source: City of Costa Mesa Inter Office Memorandum, August 24, 2010. Costa Mesa General Plan I N-11 Noise Element Orange County Fair The Orange County Fair operates for four weeks annually during the summer months. Noise sources during the fair events include a public address system, carnival rides, and several sound reinforcement systems used for concerts and carnival rides. Noise levels in the activity areas of a typical fair are in the range of 65 to75 dBA. Pacific Amphitheater The 8,200 -seat Pacific Amphitheater is owned and managed by the OC Fair & Event Center and provides year-round events. Prior to 1990, noise levels generated by concert events at Pacific Amphitheater exceeded the Costa Mesa Noise Ordinance, impacting surrounding residential neighborhoods. In 1990, a permanent injunction ("1990 Order") was entered against the former operators of the Amphitheater and the order set the current noise level established in Table N-5. The order specifically stated that the City's Noise Ordinance does not apply to the Pacific Amphitheatre. The amphitheater closed in 1997, but reopened in 2003 and remains subject to the noise restrictions of the 1990 Order outlined in Table N-6. Table N-5: Pacific Amphitheater Court Order Current Noise Restriction (1990 Order) Source: City of Costa Mesa Inter Office Memorandum, August 24, 2010. N-12 I Costa Mesa General Plan PeriodMaximum Time 7:00 A.M. - 10:30 P.M. Days of the Week Sunday -Thursday Noise Level 55 dBA 50 dBA 10:30 P.M.- 7:00 A.M. Sunday -Thursday 55 dBA 7:00 A.M. - 11:00 P.M. Friday -Saturday 50 dBA 11:00 P.M.- 7:00 A.M. Friday -Saturday Source: City of Costa Mesa Inter Office Memorandum, August 24, 2010. N-12 I Costa Mesa General Plan Noise Element Stationary Noise Sources Stationary noise sources in Costa Mesa include restaurants, bars, entertainment establishments, mixed-use structures, mechanical equipment, outdoor industrial and commercial activities, and use of recreational facilities. Delivery trucks, air compressors, generators, outdoor loudspeakers, and gas venting cause the primary noise sources associated with these facilities. Other significant stationary noise sources include construction activity, street sweepers, and gas -powered leaf blowers. Residential land uses and areas identified as noise -sensitive must be protected from excessive noise from stationary sources including commercial and industrial centers. These impacts are best controlled through effective land use planning and the application of the Noise Ordinance. Ambient Noise To describe the ambient or background noise level throughout the City, several noise measurement samples were taken in 2015. Noise sensitive land uses include schools, residences, churches, hospitals, and similar facilities. The locations included a mix of public schools, preschools (childcare centers), hospitals, convalescent homes and a senior housing development. The locations shown in Figure N-1: Noise Monitoring Locations, were distributed throughout the City to provide an overall understanding of the noise environment. The noise measurement locations also functioned as noise -sensitive indicators. These noise -sensitive indicators are uses, such as schools and hospitals, that have a lower tolerance for noise than do industrial and commercial activities or normal residential uses. Noise levels measured at these locations are reported in Table N-6: Field Noise Measurements. Costa Mesa General Plan I N-13 Noise Element 4 1 SBQ6(Sift]R! clue falba ,Ave t1 in d 3 e MacArthur Blvd,1 i � Cof SI%Ana I Ellis Ave. Sukower Ave. � 3rnilh st Gr South — CoastAn[o 1. Placa Garfield Ave ' r Gis:ar Ave J i r — N �d✓� D 3aRer 3! � m 1 1 City of m Huntington $ Beach a, Adams Ave orange Coast College Arlington Or g Fairview �� OC Fair & m` Park Event Center 41 Fair or. t TaGherr iRegtonat Wl[on jt- r, V Park 'n�i411d :1f F-1 a 10A 5t. r •' City QI •, Nesvpnrf i398c7i t,':n City of +► •-,- Newport Beach 1� .IV I Noise Monitoring Locations City Boundaries Source: City of Costa Mesa, 2015 0 Noise Monitoring Locations --- City Boundary Feet -------- Sphere of Influence W 0 1.000 2.000 4.000 6.000 8000 Figure N-1: Noise Monitoring Locations N-14 1 Costa Mesa General Plan Noise Element Table N-6: Field Noise Measurements - 2015 Ambient Noise Levels Note: This table displays the short-term noise measurements results that were conducted to identify the ambient noise in the City. An American National Standards Institute (ANSI Section 5141979, Type 1) Larson Davis model LxT sound level meter was used to monitor noise levels. The noise meter was programmed to record noise levels in A -weighted form. The microphone height was set atfive feet. Fifteen 15 -minute daytime noise measurements were taken on Tuesday August 4, 2015, through Thursday August 6, 2015. Source: N11G, 2015. Costa Mesa General Plan I N-15 Location Northeast corner of Anton and Avenue of the Arts site 1 Time 7:12 A.M. 67.8 84.5 Lmin 57.8 2 7:45 A.M. 77.6 102.1 55.3 Southeast corner of Bear and Paularino 3 8:12 A.M. 71.5 88.5 57.6 Northeast corner of Harbor and Adams 4 8:37 A.M. 70.2 84.3 56.2 Northwest corner of Fairview and Fair 5 9:12 A.M. 66.2 82.3 55.1 Southwest corner of South Coast and Susan 6 11:07 P.M. 68.4 80.7 45.5 Northwest corner of Mesa Verde and Adams 7 11:35 P.M. 52.5 65.2 39.1 East corner of Santa Ana and 22nd 8 7:02A. M. 67.8 84.9 46.4 North corner of Del Mar and Orange 9 7:33A. M. 61.5 75.1 45.5 East corner of Santa Ana and Cabrillo 10 7:55A. M. 73.1 86.9 57.1 Northeast corner of Harbor and 191h 11 8:21 A.M. 73.8 89.4 60.5 Northeast corner of Harbor and Victoria 12 8:47A. M. 69.4 82.5 54.3 Northeast corner of 17th and Pomona 13 9:11 A.M. 63.1 82.0 42.3 Northeast corner of 17t1 and Whittier 14 9:43A. M. 74.1 93.9 53.9 Northeast corner of Placentia & 20`h 15 10:24A. M. 69.3 85.5 56.2 South corner of Red Hill and Paularino Note: This table displays the short-term noise measurements results that were conducted to identify the ambient noise in the City. An American National Standards Institute (ANSI Section 5141979, Type 1) Larson Davis model LxT sound level meter was used to monitor noise levels. The noise meter was programmed to record noise levels in A -weighted form. The microphone height was set atfive feet. Fifteen 15 -minute daytime noise measurements were taken on Tuesday August 4, 2015, through Thursday August 6, 2015. Source: N11G, 2015. Costa Mesa General Plan I N-15 Noise Element Citywide Noise Environment Existing Noise Environment (2 015) Figure N-2: Existing Noise Contours - 2015, illustrates the existing (2015) CNEL noise contours along many of the City's major roadways in the City. CNEL contours are found by calculating distances to the 55, 60, 65, and 70 CNEL contours. Figure N-2 also depicts John Wayne Airport's CNEL noise contours prepared in 2013. Future Noise Environment (2035) The noise environment in Costa Mesa is not expected to change as a result of implementation of the General Plan. Vehicular traffic noise—the dominant source citywide—is not anticipated to change substantially along local streets or major through routes, including 1-405, SR -73 and SR -55, major arterials. Aircraft noise from John Wayne Airport, noise from events at the OC Fairground & Event Center, and non -transportation noise similarly are not anticipated to increase in the community. The projected noise exposure contours for year 2035 are indicated in Figure N-3: Future Noise Contours - 2035. The future noise contours should be considered as a guide to identifying potential land use/noise compatibility issues and will be used to determine the requirement for project specific noise studies and mitigation. Future noise CNEL for John Wayne Airport are also shown in Figure N-3, which reflect the airport's 1985 Master Plan future noise conditions. In comparison to the 2015 noise contours presented in Figure N-2, future noise levels will increase only modestly. N-16 I Costa Mesa General Plan Noise Element Existing Noise Contours John Wayne Airport Existing Source: MIG, Inc. 2016 and Mastre Greve Associates, 2013 Community Noise Equivalent Levels (CNEL) (2013) Conditions CNEL Contours 70 CNEL 75 CNEL MFe0 1.000 2.000 4000 6.000 8,000 et — 65 CNEL ' 70 CNEL 60 CNEL L____ 65 CNEL 55 CNEL 60 CNEL N-2: Existing Noise Contours - 2015 Costa Mesa General Plan I N-17 1 S vam Ave TalbertAve _ i — I I ° °' o `— g hf3C71r[hur Blva. Gtyy of 5arlta Ana His Ave r _ J � S.uiir Eoa _ ata Garfield Ave A 1 ■ r �I City of , ■ / Jor1n Huntington " Vrayre BeachAfr or{ Y' - I.Fn04 Coq$f =nino'nn Dr g Fairview m Park 4 OC Fair & ' 4 f _ � iEvanr,Cprrrer 3 r� •r Talbert i t Rogional Parr r r� - ,rJ . amity Of , New Beach •� Qf R I di 51 L ' •� / V �5 Sr } Existing Noise Contours John Wayne Airport Existing Source: MIG, Inc. 2016 and Mastre Greve Associates, 2013 Community Noise Equivalent Levels (CNEL) (2013) Conditions CNEL Contours 70 CNEL 75 CNEL MFe0 1.000 2.000 4000 6.000 8,000 et — 65 CNEL ' 70 CNEL 60 CNEL L____ 65 CNEL 55 CNEL 60 CNEL N-2: Existing Noise Contours - 2015 Costa Mesa General Plan I N-17 Noise Element _� - rslrom .ava Tal be ft Ave + 1 U) I d o l r r MacArthur Blvd m �- Ellis Ave. J r� • - Sout ' •' aaV1 r�raxn r Garfield Ave iL �-.u�,.r Ave; ef'i t � r t � City of�OR Huntington : Wlyno Beach w A - �/it61pUt '-fluoXw, Or ]rrrr9a �nASY ❑ g Fairview OC Fair B m Park r i'• Talbert RTnwlai / r icUA er, _WINr City ofr r�l�wport •, Eeaefl ., r � 8aacr, �?14 i 15111 St i ■ a$ T � Future Noise Contours John Wayne Airport Master Plan Source: MIG, Inc. -2016 and Land Use Plan for John 'NayneAirport,2008 Community Noise Equivalent Levels (CNEL) Noise Contours (CNEL) Feet 70 CNEL 60 CNEL 0 1 000 2,000 4,000 6,000 8 000 65 CNEL 1 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL N-3: Future Noise Contours - 2035 N-18 1 Costa Mesa General Plan Noise Element Key Noise Issues The key noise issues in Costa Mesa are: John Wayne Airport John Wayne Airport, a very busy airport, has some of the most restrictive restrictions related to noise in the United States. Noise from operations at John Wayne Airport affects primarily industrial and commercial properties in northeast Costa Mesa (Figures N-2 and N-3). Departures from the airport were amended in 2011 under STREL, which directed departure flights away from residences and over Newport Bay. STREL is the name provided by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to describe the Area Navigation (RNAV) departure procedure implemented in 2011, and replaced the flight departure pattern called DUUKE ONE/TWO. The County's General Aviation Noise Ordinance regulates the hours of operation and the maximum permitted noise levels associated with general aviation projects. General aviation flights are allowed, as long as aircraft comply with the General Aviation Noise Ordinance. The County has installed 10 noise -monitoring stations along the main designated departure and arrival flight routes; no noise monitoring station was located in Costa Mesa as of 2015. The FAA, under its Next Generation Air Transportation System program, also known as Southern California Metroplex project, seeks to optimize flight patterns departing out of the airport; it may affect the flight paths over Costa Mesa over the longterm. Construction Noise Construction noise could occur in almost any part of the City. However, Section 13-279 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code limits construction activity as follows: Allowable Hours Applicable Days 7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. Mondays through Fridays 9:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. Saturdays Construction is prohibited all hours on Sundays and on the following specified federal holidays: New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas Day. Costa Mesa General Plan I N-19 Noise Element Helicopter Noise Because of the nature of their operations, police helicopter noise may impact any location in the City at any time between 10:00 A.M. and 3:00 A.M. Overflights are usually brief, lasting only a few seconds. Noise exposure of several minutes may occur when circling a crime scene. Although helicopter noise levels are not extremely high in either case, they may be sufficient to cause sleep interruption during nighttime hours. The FAA does not have minimum altitude requirements for helicopters when weather, safety, and other air traffic permit. Roadway Traffic Noise Roadway traffic noise has the greatest impact on the noise environment of Costa Mesa's residential properties. Between 55 and 60 dBA CNEL contours are common along collector streets; freeways and major street expose adjacent areas to levels of 65 dBA CNEL or greater. Figures N-2 and N-3 show baseline 2015 and projected 2035 noise contours along many of the City's major and primary arterials and the three freeways that traverse the City. Noise contours for selected secondary and commuter streets are also included. The figures display the average daily traffic volume noise levels at 100 feet from the roadway centerline and the distance from the roadway centerline to the 70, 65 and 60 dBA CNEL contours. The improvements on the 1-405, SR -55, and SR -73 would produce noise impacts on immediately adjacent Costa Mesa properties Noise/Land Use Compatibility Conflicts A great proportion of mixed-use developments, typically multi -family residential or live/work units atop a leasable commercial space or loft a4 studio, are located in the Westside. The Mixed -Use Overlay District encompasses three Urban Plans that govern almost all of the Westside of Costa Mesa -19 West, Mesa West Bluffs, and Mesa West Residential Ownership. In addition, the SoBeca Urban Plan allows for mixed-use development. Residents in Westside neighborhoods have expressed some concern regarding the operational ambient noise emanating from industrial activities from truck traffic, heavy machinery, materials processing, and general worker activity. In addition, the commercial spaces below the residential portions of buildings could also generate noise. The SoBeca district has additional noise issues associated with the proximity of the SR -55 and SR - 73 freeways. N-20 I Costa Mesa General Plan Noise Element Land use development process within the context of these urban plans take into consideration noise impacts. A project application is required to include a noise study to show how compliance with noise standards will be achieved. Furthermore, as part of conditions of project approval, the required Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) must disclose the existing noise environment within and surrounding the mixed-use development. Proper design that attenuates the impact of noise is embedded in the urban plans. The plans recommend noise -reduction building design approaches such as double -pane windows, wall and ceiling insulation, and the limitation on commercial operations to minimize interaction between noise -generating business activities such as deliveries and loading. Noise Plan Typical Noise Attenuation Techniques Noise impacts can be mitigated in three ways: 1) by reducing the sound level of the noise generator, 2) by increasing the distance between the source and receiver, and 3) by insulating the receiver. Noise reduction can be accomplished by placement of walls, landscaped berms, or a combination of the two between the noise source and the receiver. Generally, effective noise shielding requires a solid barrier with a mass of at least four pounds per square -foot of surface area, which is large enough to block the line of sight between source and receiver. Variations may be appropriate in individual cases based on distance, nature and orientation of buildings behind the barrier, and a number of other factors. Garages or other buildings may be used to shield dwelling units and outdoor living areas from traffic noise. In addition to site design techniques, noise insulation can be accomplished through proper design of buildings. Nearby noise generators should be recognized in determining the location of doors, windows and vent openings. Sound -rated windows (extra thick or multi -paned) and wall insulation are also effective. However, none of these noise mitigation measures can realize their full potential unless care is taken in actual construction: doors and windows fitted properly, openings sealed, joints caulked, plumbing adequately insulated from structural members, and sound -rated doors and windows will have little effect Costa Mesa General Plan I N-21 Noise Element if left open. This may require installation of air conditioning for adequate ventilation. Noise impacts can be reduced by insulating noise -sensitive uses, such as residences, schools, libraries, hospitals, nursing homes, and some types of commercial activities. Perhaps a more efficient approach involves limiting the level of noise generation at the source. State and federal statutes have largely preempted local control over vehicular noise emissions, but commercial and industrial operations and certain residential activities provide opportunities for the City to assist in noise abatement. Although vehicular noise emissions standards are established at the State and federal levels, Costa Mesa can play a significant part in reducing traffic noise by controlling traffic volume and congestion. Traffic noise is greatest at intersections due to acceleration, deceleration, and gear shifting. Measures such as signal synchronization can help toize -reduce this problem. Likewise, reduction of congestion aids in reduction of noise. This can be accomplished through the application of traffic engineering techniques such as channelization of turning movements, parking restrictions, separation of modes (bus, auto, bicycle, pedestrian) and restrictions on truck traffic. Noise reduction through reduction of traffic volumes can also be accomplished with incentive programs for use of public transit facilities and high -occupancy vehicles, staggering of work hours, and land use controls. Vehicle trips can be turned into pedestrian trips with integration of housing and employment into the same project or area, construction of high-density, affordable housing in proximity to employment, shopping, public transit facilities, and other techniques. N-22 I Costa Mesa General Plan Noise Element Goals, Objectives, and Policies Goal N-1: Noise Hazards and Conditions The City of Costa Mesa aims to protect residents, local workers, and property from injury, damage, or destruction from noise hazards and to work toward improved noise abatement. Objective N-1: Control noise levels within the City for the protection of residential areas and other sensitive land uses from excessive and unhealthful noise. Policy N -1.A: Enforce the maximum acceptable exterior noise levels for residential areas at 65 CNEL. Policy N -1.B: Give full consideration to the existing and projected noise environment when considering alterations to the City's circulation system and Master Plan of Highways. Policy N -1.C: Encourage Caltrans to construct noise attenuation barriers along 1-405, SR -55, and SR -73 where these freeways adjoin residential and other noise -sensitive areas. Policy N -1.D: Ensure that appropriate site design measures are incorporated into residential developments, when required by an acoustical study, to obtain appropriate exterior and interior noise levels. When necessary, require field testing at the time of project completion to demonstrate compliance. Policy N -1.E: Apply the standards contained in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations as applicable to the construction of all new dwelling units. Policy N -1.F: Discourage sensitive land uses from locating within the 65 CNEL noise contour of John Wayne Airport. Should it be deemed by the City as appropriate and/or necessary for a sensitive land use to locate in the 65 CNEL noise contour, ensure that appropriate interior noise levels are met and that minimal outdoor activities are allowed. Policy N -1.G: Support alternative methods for the reduction of noise impacts at John Wayne Airport while continuing to Costa Mesa General Plan I N-23 Noise Element maintain safety and existing limitations on aircraft daily departures. Policy N -1.H: Monitor the noise levels at OC Fair and Event Center and the Pacific Amphitheater, and continue to monitor the status of legally binding noise levels on the OC Fair and the Event Center and the Pacific Amphitheater. Goal N-2: Noise and Land Use Compatibility Integrate the known impacts of excessive noise on aspects of land use planning and siting of residential and non-residential projects. Objective N-2: Plan for the reduction in noise impacts on sensitive receptors and land uses. Policy N -2.A: Require the use of sound walls, berms, interior noise insulation, double -paned windows, and other noise mitigation measures, as appropriate, in the design of new residential or other new noise sensitive land uses that are adjacent to arterials, freeways, or adjacent to industrial or commercial uses. Policy N-2.6: Require, as a part of the environmental review process, that full consideration be given to the existing and projected noise environment. Policy N -2.C: Consider s�-spiAe44e,)ta�alternative noise level standards for mixed-use projects that take into consideration the interaction of industrial operation noise impacts and the mixed-use developments planned for the Westside and SoBeca. Policy N-2.11): Require that all proposed projects are compatible with adopted noise/land use compatibility criteria Policy N -2.E: Enforce applicable interior and exterior noise standards. Policy N -2.F: Allow a higher exterior noise level standard for infill projects in existing residential areas adjacent to major arterials if it can be shown that there are no feasible mechanisms to meet the exterior noise levels. The interior standard of 45 dBA CNEL shall be enforced for any new residential project. N-24 1 Costa Mesa General Plan Noise Element Policy WIG: Encourage effective site planning in mixed-use 8reas that provides the optimal distance between source of excessive sound and residents. Policy N -2.H: Require new mixed-use developments to site loading areas, parking lots, driveways, trash enclosures, mechanical equipment, and other noise sources away from the residential portion of the development and adjacent established residential development. Policy N-2.1: Limit hours and/or require attenuation of commercial/entertainment operations adjacent to residential and other noise sensitive uses in order to minimize excessive noise to these receptors. Costa Mesa General Plan I N-25 Costa Mesa Fire & Rescue Paramedics vehicle Chapter 8: Safety Element Introduction The City of Costa Mesa emphasizes community safety as a foundation for quality neighborhoods, strong business investment, and inviting public spaces. The City fosters safe and secure environments by recognizing potential hazards and developing plans that guard against disruption and threats to the public welfare. Purpose The Safety Element identifies and evaluates public health and safety hazards, and provides measures that can reduce unreasonable risks and minimize potential losses in the event of natural or human -caused disasters. The Safety Element addresses emergency preparedness and coordinated response, police and fire protection, and emergency services by: • Reviewing the regulatory framework that guides public safety planning efforts Costa Mesa General Plan I S-1 Safety Element • Highlighting key findings and recommendations based on assessed conditions • Establishing goals with respect to public safety and welfare • Defining the policies and implementing actions to address public safety issues • Identifying lead responsibilities for each implementation action Legal Requirements Section 65302(g) of the California Government Code requires that General Plans include a Safety Element for the protection of the community from any unreasonable risks associated with wildland and urban fires, flooding, and known geologic hazards. Geologic risks are defined as those associated with geologic hazards such as seismically induced surface rupture, ground shaking, ground failure, tsunamis, seiches and dam failure, and slope instability leading to mudslides, landslides, and subsidence. Importantly, the law requires that the Safety Element address emergency response and preparedness, including evacuation routes, operations associated with military installations, peakload water supply requirements, minimum road widths, and clearance around structures. Baseline Conditions - 2015 Like most coast -adjacent urban communities in California, Costa Mesa is exposed to many natural and human -caused hazards that require attention in the planning process. The City lies approximately five miles from the Pacific Ocean and thus is susceptible to flooding from tsunamis. The Santa Ana River, which runs along the eastern boundary, also presents potential flooding hazards. Additionally, Costa Mesa is exposed to earthquakes and other seismic hazards. Human activities such as the transport and manufacturing of hazardous materials create conditions that require attention. S-2 I Costa Mesa General Plan Safety Element Geology Geologic Strycture Costa Mesa lies adjacent to the Downey and Tustin portion of the Coastal Plain, where sedimentary and volcanic rocks in the subsurface attain great thickness. These deposits are composed mainly of volcanic, marine and nonmarine sedimentary tocks overlying is basement complex of granitic and metamorphic rock. The plan is immediately underlain by a thick sequence of alluvial sediments. which overiie the older sed imentary and volcanic rocks. The main development of Costa_ Mesa_ is_priwaril)Lon an uplifted r_nesa (Newport Mesa) bounded on the west, south, and east by steep cliffs (refer to Figure S-1 Geologic Map). Newport Mesa slopes gently northward From an elevation of 80 to 110 feet above sea level at the southern crest of the mesa to less than 40 feet above sea level at the northern boundary of the City. Approximately 80 Percent of the City is located on this mesa. Newport Mesa is the most southerly of a series of a discontinuous low hills and plains that extend along the Newport -Inglewood structural zone from the Santa Monica Mountains southeast to Newport Beach. These topographic features are inferred from both the physiographic and stratigraphic evidence to be essentially contemporaneous segments of the Sangamon Age (120,000 years Before Present) deformed lower terrace of the Palos Verdes Hills. Soils Soils within Costa Mesa are variable, ranging From a predominance of clan with some silty sand in the northern half of the City to a predominance of slity sand with some sand and clay in the southern half (refer to Figure 5-2 Soil Types). These generalized units were derived from a more detailed soils map contained in the soil survey of Orang_e_Cou_n_t_y. Mineral Resources Oil Portions of Costa Mesa overlav the West Newport Oil Field, which is south of 17"' Street between Pomona and Westminster Avenues, and the West Newport Oil Field, which is west of Whittier Avenue, south of Victoria Street {refer to Figure S-1. Geologic Mop). Costa Mesa General Plan I S-3 Safety Element Talbert Ave. Ellis Ave. Adams Ave. S akam Ave. in � cd I to MacArthur Blvd. 'rr City of Santa Ana +.7unlfowor Ave South Coast Dr. South Coast Anton Blvd. Plaza Gisler Ave. - ai Baker St. Garfield Ave. n Orange Coast 1 301 College I :rl n er t Ciryof �./auq Huntington ++ Beach , Adams Ave. S akam Ave. in � cd I to MacArthur Blvd. 'rr City of Santa Ana +.7unlfowor Ave South Coast Dr. South Coast Anton Blvd. Plaza Gisler Ave. - ai Baker St. _ rY�f� •C City of Newport Beach fir. 1 Geologic Units Potentially Active Faults Oil Field Source: Department of Conservation, Division of Cd. Gas, and Geothermal Resources (Nell status), July 2015. Quaternary Accurate Location r,.•,___,__.! Newport, N7est — Miocene — — — — Approximate Location Feet - Water .......... Inferred Location 0 0 1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000 Sono LIFO-m1weall1 ' 1 S-4 1 Costa Mesa General Plan +• �; Orange Coast Wayne 301 College I :rl n er t sAA, �./auq Its OCFair&Ereac t r' Fairview ' Park Feirfh• � �*N�°9b Wlson St. •ilk fyria St. i :1 I)D � r 19th St. `� 17th St. ;farro 1 ti t. 1 �� I \•�� Z. �9a� � 15th St ` S r s •s .., l City of Newport Beach firr+Nr{haan ` _ rY�f� •C City of Newport Beach fir. 1 Geologic Units Potentially Active Faults Oil Field Source: Department of Conservation, Division of Cd. Gas, and Geothermal Resources (Nell status), July 2015. Quaternary Accurate Location r,.•,___,__.! Newport, N7est — Miocene — — — — Approximate Location Feet - Water .......... Inferred Location 0 0 1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000 Sono LIFO-m1weall1 ' 1 S-4 1 Costa Mesa General Plan t I ,John Wayne Airport I I sAA, _ rY�f� •C City of Newport Beach fir. 1 Geologic Units Potentially Active Faults Oil Field Source: Department of Conservation, Division of Cd. Gas, and Geothermal Resources (Nell status), July 2015. Quaternary Accurate Location r,.•,___,__.! Newport, N7est — Miocene — — — — Approximate Location Feet - Water .......... Inferred Location 0 0 1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000 Sono LIFO-m1weall1 ' 1 S-4 1 Costa Mesa General Plan Safety Element w, Talbettrr Ave. jF MacArthur Blvd Cl�yy of Sanaa Ana i k� Ave. r _ SuAfamlr Ave. -� 4 Smulh Const fh, Sa Wb .r Clam ton Wal \. Ffaes Garfield Ave Cilyrnr Are, CIryry or Hun6ngfon _ �. Myna. srrsch - - - GAiU - p orange as Cot i7 1��i Cofla9u WfrnAton far. qqC/I� �,. Evenf CmMor I f 4•.� ~ UppAr' ti � j Nawpo P �p lglh SL t City of • K — '� New ort Soil Types Beach � Hueneme fine sandy loam, drained Marina loamy sand, 2 to 9% slopes kletz loamy sand, moderately fine substratum 151h Sl. klyford sandy loam, 0 to 246 slopes Pym Myford sandy loam, 2 to 9% slopes Myford sandy loam. 2 to 9% slopes, eroded r� � S F%%11fl Myford sandy loam, 9 to 15% slopes klyford sandy loam, 9 to 30% slopes, eroded klyford sandy loam, thick surface, 0 to 2% slopes Omni clay, drained — Pits — Riverwash — San Andreas sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes Thapto-Histic Fluvaquents Soils Type Source: U.S DepartmentofAgriculture. Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil Suney Geographic (SSURGO) database for Orange, 2008 Bolsa silt loam Hueneme fine sandy loam 92h P Feel Bolsa silt loam, drained Water NW. 0 1,000 2.000 4000 6,000 8,000 Xeralfic arents, loamy. Bosanko clay, 15 to 30% slopes 2 to 9% slopes %�XIZ111/ Capistrano sandy loam, 2 to 9% slopes Chino silty clay loam, drained Cropley clay, 2 to 9% slopes Figure S-2: Sail Types Costa Mesa General Plan I S-5 Safety Element Currently the only active oil wells in Costa Mesa operate in the West Newport Field west of Whittier Avenue between 17th and 19th Streets. These wells produce a relatively low quality crude oil and remained in operation through the mid-1990s. Peat Deposits Peat deposits are located ad'acent to the Santa Ana River and in the vicinity of Upper Newport Bay (refer to Figure 5-3, Soil Types). The size of the deposits in Costa Mesa is not sufficient to itistify extraction. However, eat does provide an unstable base for construction and must be removed prior to development. Seismic Hazards Costa Mesa is in the vicinity of several known active and potentially active earthquake faults, including most notably the Newport -Inglewood Fault Zone and the San Joaquin Hills Fault Zone. Other faults such as the San Andreas, Whittier, Elsinore, Palos Verdes, and Puente Hills Faults are predicted to affect Costa Mesa with strong shaking but light damage. An earthquake along these faults may have more indirect impacts such as the need to provide mutual aid, an infusion of those seeking housing, and other mass care or sheltering services. Ground Shaking Ground shaking is the phenomenon most often associated with seismic activity. The intensity of ground shaking and relative earthquake damage are heightened with earthquake magnitude, proximity to faults, and the presence of deeper soft soils below the ground surface. The intensity of earthquakes is measured, or expressed, in terms of two scales: the Richter scale and the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale. The Richter scale measures the strength of an earthquake and assigns it a magnitude number using a base -10 logarithmic scale. For example, a magnitude 5.0 earthquake would result in 10 times the level of ground shaking as a magnitude 4.0 earthquake. The Modified Mercalli Intensity scale describes the intensity of an earthquake in terms of observable impacts, ranging from I (Not Felt) to XII (Extreme). The effects of ground shaking in Costa Mesa will vary considerably depending upon the distance of a seismic event relative to the city. Ground shaking from distant events (more than 40 miles away) will be of a different nature than events that occur within S-6 1 Costa Mesa General Plan Safety Element 10 miles. Also, the duration of strong ground shaking is another important factor related to seismic activity. Five regional major faults—the Newport -Inglewood, San Joaquin Hills, Whittier, San Andreas, and San Jacinto—present a seismic hazards to the City In addition, the EI Modeno, Norwalk, Palos Verdes, 4-S Ranch, and Aliso fault pose lesser seismic hazards due to their localized extent. Figure S-3, Regional Faults, locates the fault zones of concern, and the descriptions below provide details about each fault. Newport -Inglewood Fault. The Newport -Inglewood Fault extends approximately 47 miles south from the Santa Monica Mountains to Newport Beach and traverses Costa IVlesa. The fault, considered the most active in California, roughly parallels the coastline from the Santa Monica Mountains until just south of Newport Bay, where it heads offshore and becomes the or Newport -Inglewood — Rose Canyon Fault Zone. The fault is seismically active and is approximately 3.5 miles wide within the City. The largest earthquake triggered by the fault zone was the 1933 Long Beach earthquake, which had a magnitude of 6.3 (Richter scale). The earthquake resulted in strong ground shaking in Costa Mesa, as well as in other portions of Southern California. ■ San Joaquin Hills Fault. The San Joaquin Hills Fault is a recently discovered southwest -dipping blind thrust fault originating near the southern end of the Newport -Inglewood Fault near Huntington Beach at the western margins of the San Joaquin Hills. Rupture of the entire area of this blind thrust fault could generate an earthquake as large as M 7.3. In addition, a minimum average recurrence interval of between about 1,650 and 3,100 years has been estimated for moderate-sized earthquakes on this fault. S Whittier Fault. The Whittier Fault extends approximately 20 miles from the Whittier Narrows (near Whittier) to the southeast of the Santa Ana River. The fault is located approximately 20 miles northeast of Costa Mesa. The most notable seismic event associated with the Whittier Fault was the 1987 Whittier Narrows quake, measuring 5.9 on the Richter scale. Costa Mesa General Plan ( S-7 Safety Element San Gabriel fountains i Saii Bemardino Count 404 r �R V/ �� bounty' 1. � r �► � WH/TT/ ♦l.♦ it S•?4, r� 1 I r � N *o t . 00 Costa Mesa �r. P06ficoeeraar Potentially Active Faults Jurisdictional Boundaries Accurate Location —•— Costa Mesa City Boundary — — — — Approximate Location County Boundaries .......... Inferred Location National Forests S-8 I Costa Mesa General Plan Source: Department of Conservation. California Geological Survey, 1997 and 1998 Miles 0 2.5 5 10 Figure S-3: Regional Faults Safety Element While significant damage occurred in the San Gabriel Valley near the epicenter, properties in Costa Mesa did not experience substantial adverse effects. • San Andreas Fault. The 745 -mile San Andreas Fault is the best known among all California faults due to its historic seismic activity and destructive capabilities. The fault is expected to produce a probable magnitude of M 6.8-8.0. The center section of the fault ruptured the ground surface during the 1857 Fort Tejon Earthquake and caused considerable damage over thousands of square miles. The fault is located on the northeastern flank of the San Bernardino Mountains approximately 48 miles from Costa Nlesa. It is possible that the future movements along the San Andreas Fault Zone will produce simultaneous ruptures or "double earthquakes." A major earthquake occurs on this zone once every 145 years, and 2002 marked 145 years after the Fort Tejon Earthquake. * San Jacinto Fault. The San Jacinto Fault extends over 180 miles from its junction with the San Andreas Fault in San Bernardino County. It has produced several damaging earthquakes over recorded history. The most notable is the 1940 Imperial County Earthquake. The fault is located approximately 44 miles from the City. Differential Compaction or Settlement Differential ground settlement is caused by earthquake ground shaking and is potentially damaging to structures and underground utilities. Differential settlement may occur in sediments where differences in densities in adjacent materials lead to different degrees of compaction during ground shaking. Post earthquake differential settlement may occur within the known peat deposits located in the City. Liquefaction Liquefaction describes a condition whereby saturated, loose, fine-grained sediment assumes fluid-like state when subjected to intense ground shaking or other disruptive seismic events. Like landslides and mudflows, liquefaction is a form of ground failure. It can occur when susceptible soils strength and their stiffness decreases during an earthquake, which reduces the soil's ability to support foundations for buildings, bridges, or other structures. Even though Costa Mesa has been subject to strong ground shaking in the past, historical Costa Mesa General Plan I S-9 Safety Element records do not confirm an instance of liquefaction occurring in the City. However, failure due to liquefaction has been reported in the nearby cities of Huntington Beach and Newport Beach. As a result, the potential exists for liquefaction to occur in localized sections within the northwest and western portions of the City, as shown in Figure S-4, Local Seismic Hazards. Ground Cracking, Ground Lurching, Lateral Spreading, and Slope Stability Most often associated with liquefaction, ground lurching and cracking are caused by moderate to strong ground shaking. Typically, the potential for ground cracking exists within areas of Costa Mesa that have a moderate to high potential for liquefaction and in regions of known peat deposits. The conditions for ground lurching and lateral spreading may be present along the bluffs adjacent to the Santa Ana River and Newport Bay. Slope stability hazards include landslides, rock falls, mudslides, and avalanches. Since local topography consists of generally flat to gently sloping terrain, the potential for these hazards is minimal. However, the potential exists for earth movement during strong ground shaking along the bluffs along south portion of the City. Surface Faulting Surface faulting is the rupture of the ground surface along a fault. The only active fault that traverses Costa Mesa is the Newport -Inglewood Fault. Although this fault is defined as active, surface rupture does not appear to be a significant potential hazard since no historic such event has been observed. Seismically Induced Water Waves Seismically induced water waves include tsunamis and seiches. Tsunamis are generated by earthquake -induced subsea dislocations or landslides that cause large volumes of water to move in the form of ocean waves. Coastline configuration and tidal influx may cause local amplifying effects. A seiche is a low amplitude wave generated in a restricted body of water (such as a lake or reservoir) due to earthquake motions. S-10 1 Costa Mesa General Plan 73 55 Safety Element Tsunamis Costa Mesa is three-quarters of a mile inland from the Pacific Ocean at elevations ranging between 30 to 100 feet above sea level. The southern portion of the City sits on bluffs overlooking Newport Beach. Consequently, the potential for tsunamis affecting Costa Mesa is negligible. However, areas located along the Santa Ana River Channel may be susceptible to the effects of tsunamis that travel up river. Seiches The absence of any large bodies of water within Costa Mesa and the location of high bluffs adjacent to Newport Bay reduce the possibility of damage from seiche effects. Key Seismic Hazards Issues Seismic Hazards Regional and local fault zones pose significant ground shaking, ground cracking, ground lurching, lateral spreading, differential compaction, and settlement hazards that could result in widespread upset in Costa Mesa in the event of a major earthquake. Properties near the bluffs and Santa Ana River are exposed to seismically induced slope failure and instability. Liquefaction Although there is no historical evidence of structural damage to buildings as a result of liquefaction, there have been some recorded events that have occurred in Huntington Beach and Newport Beach. Liquefaction -induced structural damage is more likely to occur in buildings that place heavy loads on their foundations, such as high-rise office or multi -family buildings. Buildings with only lightly loaded foundations, such as single-family homes, or those that spread the load over a larger area, are less susceptible to damage. Liquefaction hazards can be reduced through soil mitigation and structural strengthening. A site-specific liquefaction assessment, performed by a geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist, can address the actual liquefaction potential of the soils. 5-12 I Costa Mesa General Plan Safety Element Seismically Induced Water Waves If a seismic event were to trigger a tsunami, low-lying areas along the Santa Ana River may be subject to flooding. The amount of flooding would be dependent on the size of the earthquake and strength of the tsunami. Hydrology/Drainage Flood Hazards Costa Mesa sits alongside the Santa Ana River. This regional water feature presents a potential flooding hazard, as it drains Southern California's largest watershed, originating in the San Bernardino Mountains and draining over 3,000 square miles. Significant flood control improvements have been installed along the river course, with the goal of protecting properties along its route from flooding hazards. The Flood Insurance Rate Maps prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) identify areas located within the City that are susceptible to 100 -year and 500 -year floods. In the event of a 500 -year flood, the northern and western boundaries of Costa Mesa would be susceptible to flooding, as shown in Figure S-5, Local Flooding Hazards. In the event of a 100 -year flood, minimal flooding is expected to occur within the flood channels adjacent to the Talbert i\lature Preserve. Dam Inundation The Santiago Creek Dam and Prado Dam provide flood protection for numerous cities within Orange County, including Costa Mesa. Prado Dam is located at the border of Orange and Riverside Counties, approximately 30 miles from Costa Mesa. Dam construction was completed in 1941, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers continues to make phased improvements on the structure. The height of Prado Dam has been raised to 28 feet, and a new intake tower and outlet have been added. Those improvements added 140,000 acre-feet to the basin and increased the dam's level of protection to 190 years. The Santiago Creek Dam, located near Irvine, is approximately 15 miles from the city. Dam construction occurred in 1931. In the event of a failure at either dam, portions of Costa Mesa are susceptible to potential flooding. These dam inundation areas are primarily located in the northern and western portions of the City, as shown in Figure S-6, Dam Inundation Areas. Costa Mesa General Plan I 5-13 Safety Element Flood Zones Sourre.Federal--mergency Nlanagemen[Agency (FEAIXl national F!cod insurance Prcgram Food Insurame. Rate Nflaos TIRNIS) 2009 190 -Year Flood Zone 500 -Year Flood Zone Areas of 0,2% annual chance Flood; Special flood hazard areas het areas of 1% annual chance Flood subject to inundation by the 1 % 10 0 1000 2010 1,000 6,000 3,000 with average depths of less than 1 annual chance flood foot or with drainage areas less than 1 square mile; and areas protected by levees from 1 % annual chance flood. Figure S-5: Local Flooding Hazards S-14 I Costa Mesa General Plan Safety Element Segerst'�ar N:o, � N Tidbert Ave. r r MacArthur Blvd 0 t of r, ;dnru Ilia His Avep- r r Sunflnwor qve, ' Soum CQa$! ❑r Surrlrr ;,init 1!2" Blvd, rr j ,vrorn Garfield A•re + Gisler Ave. �r - r r. 63 r1 � + � o r _ y Z Z LT Baker Sl. ,`hlrlrrrirJC7+l � ' Adlirns A.W- Orange Coast College � r r rr �. d1 OCFair& FventC:ater + - rrk rair Dr. t r Wilson St = i�r1 x Victoria St. J- r Q rf j19th St ,\ 17th St w of �Vewllarr • � --L - 8ead! a� ;lam 15th It Indundation Areas - Potential Flooding Due to Dam Failure 1111MIL-"t Santiago Creek Inundation Area Prado Dam Inundation Area V"' MSR, Inundation Areas Overlap I C ,• Source: California Department of 'Nater Resources, 2013 J Feet 1,000 2,000 4,000 5,000 3,000 Figure S-6: Dam Inundation Areas Costa Mesa General Plan I 5-15 Safety Element Drainage Facilities Local drainage facilities—storm drains, channels, and retention and detention basins—are designed to control and manage storm water and urban runoff and to protect properties from flooding. Engineers size and design local and regional drainage facilities based on historical flooding data and an understanding of how urban development affects storm flows. Master plans identify any existing and future system deficiencies, and define improvements needed to provide a high level of flood protection. The City's Master Drainage Plan identifies numerous specific projects that will improve the storm drain system. Continued implementation of the plan provides the City with appropriate control and management over local drainage concerns. Sea Level Rise Scientific data strongly suggest that long-term changes in the Earth's climate over the next century and beyond will lead to the possibility of rises in sea levels around the world. In Southern California, sea level rise could result in increased flooding in low-lying areas along the shoreline, water infiltration into sanitary sewer and storm drain systems that outlet into or near the Pacific Ocean, and an increase in storm drain back-ups. All of these effects could result in more frequent and extensive flooding. Given Costa Mesa's location near the coast and along the Santa Ana River, the City could be expected to experience the affects of sea level rise. As shown in Figure S-7, Tsunami and Sea Level Rise Hazard Areas, by 2100 areas along the Santa Ana River may be inundated by unimpeded Pacific Ocean water. S-16 I Costa Mesa General Plan Safety Element Tsunami Inundation Sea Level Rise Impact Sources: Tsunami: California Emergency ManagementAgency, California Geological Survey, and University of Southern California, 2009 ® Tsunami Hazard Zone Sea Level Rise (Year 2100) Sea -Level Rise: Califormal'acific Institute, Oakland, California, 2009 This tsunami inundation area was prepared to assist cities in identifying their tsunami hazard. It is intended for local jurisdictional, coastal evacuation planning uses only. Areas inundated by unimpeded Pacific coastal Flooding under a scenario of Feet 100 -year Flood with a 55 -inch (1.4 meters) o 1,000 2,000 4,000 5,000 3,000 sea level rise. Figure S-7, Tsunami and Sea Level Rise Hazard Areas Costa Mesa General Plan I S-17 Safety Element Key Hydrology/Drainage Issues Localized Flooding Localized flooding issues are largely addressed through the City's Master Drainage Plan. Local agencies, including Costa Mesa Public Works and the County of Orange Flood Division, must formulate disaster preparedness plans to guard against and respond to large storms that could bring widespread flooding related issues. Santa Ana River Flood Hazards and Sea Level Rise Properties along the Santa Ana River are exposed to flood hazards associated with major storm events, possibly tsunamis, and longer-term effects of unmitigated sea level rise. Dam Inundation Properties in the northern and western portions of the City lie within the inundation paths of Santiago Creek and Prado Dams. The likelihood of dam failure is very low, but cannot be discounted. Aviation Hazards John Wayne Airport, an international airport owned and operated by the County of Orange, borders Costa Mesa on the east, between SR -73 and 1-405. The airport has two runways for commercial and private aircraft. In 2015, the airport served 9,386,033 passengers and 269,189 aircraft movements. Section 21675 of the Public Utilities Code requires that counties establish an Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) to develop a comprehensive land use plan for areas surrounding airports. These plans are to contain provisions focused on protecting the public from the adverse effects of aircraft noise, ensuring that people and facilities are not concentrated in areas with aircraft accident potential, and ensuring that structures or activities do not adversely affect navigable airspace. To fulfill the purpose of this plan, the Orange County ALUC has adopted aircraft noise, ground safety, and height restriction policies for land uses in the planning areas contained within the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport. Per the AELUP, S-18 I Costa Mesa General Plan Safety Element within the Runway Protection Zone most land uses and all buildings intended for human habitation are prohibited due to severe potential for loss of life and property from accidents and aircraft operations. No portion of the City of Costa Mesa lies within the Runway Protection Zone. The Airport Safety Zone Reference Map, Figure S-8, John Wayne Airport Safety Zones, establishes compatibility zones for different land uses and development patterns, as deSG; ia^01 iA T•° -.'n S , niFPG4 HOS , Of -e+.. Key Aviation Hazards Issue John Wayne Airport Safety and Emergency Response As required by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations, the John Wayne Airport must maintain plans for evacuation, handling of hazardous materials, and emergency response. Infrastructure (e.g., fire stations and sheriff substation) and personnel are all located onsite to serve this need. In the event of an aviation hazard, pilots are instructed to navigate along Newport Bay, away from residential or developed area. In the event on an accident, response operations coordination of all available emergency services personnel is to occur. Costa Mesa General Plan I S-19 Safety Element strdm Ave, Talbert; Ave. City of j Santa Ana C \ 1 MacArthur MO. South Coast D, Gisler Ave Ofv er 3 Z if Baker Sl Adams Ave Orange Coast College a S mn Of OCiair3& Event Cancer Fair Dr. t m Wilson St. _ Victoria St, 19th SL !� 17th St. City of ` �� Newport 15th St Beach John Wayne Airport Safety Zones NNOOOO Zone 1: Runway Protection Zone — Zone 2: Inner Approach/Departure Zone l Zone 3: Inner Turning Zone Zone d: Outer Approach/Departure Zone Zone 5: Sideline Zone Zone 6: Traffic Pattern Zone South Coast Plaza 0 t ✓k 3 d q� 6 John Wayne City of Irvine 1 Source: Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport Airport Land Use Commission. Airport E iviro is, 2008. eet 0 1,000 2,000 1,000 0,, 000 9A00 Figure S-8: John Wayne Airport Safety Zones S-20 I Costa Mesa General Plan Safety Element Emergency Protection and Response Fire Protection The Costa Mesa Fire Department operates six fire stations housing almost 100 professional and civilian members. The City's fire stations are located at the following addresses, as shown on Figure S-9, Public Safety Facilities and Emergency Evacuation Routes: ■ Royal Palm Fire Station: 2803 Royal Palm Drive ■ Placentia Fire Station: 2300 Placentia Avenue ■ Baker Fire Station: 800 Baker Street ■ Civic Center Fire Station: 2450 Vanguard Way ■ Park Fire Station: 1855 Park Avenue ■ Metro Fire Station: 3350 Sakioka Drive The City's Fire Department is responsible for community risk reduction, fire prevention and education, enforcement of fire protection laws, fire suppression, rescue, emergency medical services, hazardous materials response, and weed abatement. The Fire Department seeks to balance these various services through use of built-in fire protection, such as early warning and detection systems, automatic fire sprinklers, fire -resistive design of structures and materials, fire prevention inspections, and public education. In addition, the Fire Department utilizes a variety of emergency planning and preparation strategies to ensure the efficiency of Fire and emergency services. The Fire Department also participates in the Orange County emergency warning system. Costa Mesa General Plan I 5-21 Safety Element Safety Facilities and Evacuation Routes Source: City of Costa Mesa, 2015 0 Fire Stations 0 Police Headquarters Vw o 1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000 s,000 0 Police Substations Mme== Evacuation Routes Figure S-9: Public Safety Facilities and Emergency Evacuation Routes S-22 I Costa Mesa General Plan Safety Element Wildland and Urban Fires The fire hazard severity of an area is determined based on the type and amount of vegetation (termed "fuel loading"), slope gradient, and weather. Fire hazards increase in the summer and fall when the weather is hot and dry—and especially when Santa Ana wind conditions occur. Areas identified as having a fire hazard are referred to as State Responsibility Areas (SRAs) because the State has the primary financial responsibility of preventing and suppressing fires. The agency responsible for suppressing fires in SRAs is the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire). No part of Costa Mesa is listed as an SRA or located within the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. Thus, urban fires represent and grassland fires within open space areas (such as Talbert Regional Park) represent the only fire risks in the City. Emergency Medical Services In addition to fire suppression, rescue, and community risk reduction duties, the Fire Department provides emergency medical services to the community. All fire engines in Costa Mesa double as paramedic engines and provide advanced life support. The ladder trucks are staffed with emergency medical technicians trained to provide basic life support. The program strives to satisfy the goal of responding to 80 percent of emergency calls for service requests within five minutes. Police Protection The primary responsibilities of the Costa Mesa Police Department are crime prevention, field patrol, crime investigation, and traffic enforcement. Police Department staff includes sworn officers and civilian support personnel. As of 2014, the ratio of police officers to civilians in Costa Mesa was one police officer for every 1,000 persons. The Police Department maintains headquarters at 99 Fair Drive in the Civic Center and two substations located at: ■ South Coast Plaza ■ 567 West 181h Street The Police Department currently contracts with the Huntington Beach Police Department for airborne law enforcement patrols and related services. Costa Mesa General Plan I S-23 Safety Element Emergency Response and Operations The Costa Mesa Disaster Plan serves as the community's Emergency Operations Plan (EOP), which provides guidance during emergency situations and natural disasters. The plan addresses potential large-scale disasters that require a coordinated and immediate response. The EOP identifies key personnel and agencies in the Costa Mesa Emergency Management Organization that are organized to protect life and property in the community. The EOP also identifies sources of outside support that may be provided by State and federal agencies, the private sector, and through mutual aid by other jurisdictions. In addition, the EOP specifies emergency operations to be implemented during an emergency, assigns responsibilities, and provides an explanation of how the plan is to be administered. These activities involve a number of City departments and facilities, including the Police Department, Fire Department, public health officials, and care and shelter operations. The City's emergency evacuation routes are shown in Figure S-7, Public Facility Facilities and Emergency Evacuation Routes. The Police Chief coordinates all emergency evacuation activities and issues evacuation orders based on information gathered from emergency experts. Evacuation operations are also managed by law enforcement agencies, highway/road/street departments, and public and private transportation providers. Terrorism/National Security Emergency Since the terrorist incidents of September 11, 2001 and subsequent terrorist events on U.S. soil, public concern regarding terrorist acts in the United States has understandably increased. The State and federal governments have established protocols and programs for dealing with the aftermath of a terrorist act. In 2001, the State of California published the California Terrorism Response Plan, which identifies and describes how the State and local governments are to plan for and respond to terrorism incidents. The tasks and responsibilities of emergency management are based on two terms: Crisis Management and Consequence Management. Crisis Management refers to the response to people committing an act of terrorism. Consequence Management refers to the response to the potential or actual effects of terrorism. According to the California Terrorism Response Plan, local S-24 1 Costa Mesa General Plan Safety Element governments have primary responsibility for responding to an incident to protect public health and safety (Consequence Management). The Costa Mesa EOP is the City's plan to ensure the most effective and economical allocation of resources for the maximum benefit and protection of the civilian population in time of emergency. Key Emergency Protection and Response Issues Crime Prevention and Response Costa Mesa has set high standards for public safety and protection. As a result, it is one of the safest cities of its size in the nation. To maintain these high levels of public safety, it will be important to continue to evaluate programs, meet response time goals, and support crime prevention through education and sensible project design practices. City leaders have recognized that particular land uses and poorly maintained properties create conditions conducive to criminal activity. By developing and implementing targeted efforts among all City departments to address problem properties and uses, the City can continue to demonstrate its commitment to maintain community safety standards. Fire and Medical Safety The Costa Mesa Fire Department is the first responder to medical emergencies. The request for emergency medical services is the most common response made by the Fire Department, and service demands have increased over time. As the City's population ages and new residents and employees locate in the City, adequate emergency medical response funding, staffing, and station locations will continue to require focused attention. Emergency and Disaster Preparedness The City excels in preparing for emergency or natural disaster by having clear, up-to-date plans to expedite response, together with ongoing public outreach and education regarding emergency preparedness. Continuing these efforts will mitigate adverse effects associated with natural and human -caused catastrophes. Costa Mesa General Plan I S-25 Safety Element Hazardous Materials Hazardous materials and chemicals are used daily by industries, businesses, and residents. Hazardous material sources include service stations, medical labs, drycleaners, and photo processing centers. Certain businesses may generate larger quantities of hazardous waste, such as chemical manufacturers and electroplating companies. In addition, commonly used household products such as paints, cleaners, oils, batteries, and pesticides contain potentially hazardous materials. Accidental spills or leaks, illegal dumping of hazardous waste, illegal storage, or a transportation accident also could release hazardous materials into the community. The federal government and State of California require all businesses that store hazardous materials in excess of specified quantities to report their chemical inventories in a Hazardous Materials Management Plan. Businesses are required to report releases of toxic chemicals into the air, water, and land, as well as off-site transfers of waste to another location. Facilities that store hazardous materials are also required to report on pollution prevention activities and chemical recycling. All of these businesses operate under stringent regulations governing the storage, use, manufacturing, and handling of hazardous materials. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) maintains and publishes a database of properties that handle or produce hazardous materials. The EPA defines a small quantity waste generator as one that produces between 100 and 1,000 kilograms of hazardous waste per month. Small businesses like drycleaners, auto repair shops, hospitals, and metal plating shops usually are defined as generators of small quantities of hazardous waste. As of 2014, approximately 245 small quantity generators operated in Costa Mesa, The EPA defines a large quantity generator as a business that produces over 1,000 kilograms of hazardous waste per month. Large quantity generators include large manufacturing facilities and businesses like chemical manufacturers. As of 2014, 28 large quantity generators were located in Costa Mesa. In addition, the City has four registered transporters of hazardous waste, five leaking underground storage tanks, and one incident listed on the EPA's Toxic Release Inventory database. S-26 1 Costa Mesa General Plan Safety Element Hazardous Waste Management The Costa Mesa Fire Department is the first responder for any hazardous material emergencies in the community, However, the City contracts with the County of Orange Hazardous Materials Team to respond to major hazardous materials emergencies. The City participates in a countywide interagency coalition to better utilize the expertise and equipment that exists within all participating fire districts. The City also adopted the Orange County Hazardous Waste Management Plan to respond to chemical emergencies, and utilizes collection centers operated by the County for residents to drop off household hazardous waste items. The Orange County Hazardous Waste Management Plan provides policy direction and action programs to address hazardous waste management issues that require local responsibility, The plan analyzes long-term hazardous waste generation and focuses on the development of programs to equitably site needed hazardous waste management facilities. The plan promotes on- site resource reduction, treatment, and recycling of hazardous materials; and provides for the collection and treatment of small quantity hazardous waste generators. Another important plan component is the monitoring of hazardous waste management facilities to ensure compliance with federal and State regulations. Key Hazardous Materials Issue Release of Hazards Materials The release of explosive, reactive, corrosive, toxic, and flammable materials poses a hazard to life and property and may necessitate evacuations. Federal, State, and local laws, plans, and programs are well in place to guard against upset. Emergency plans and trained personnel provide the most appropriate response to hazardous materials emergencies. Costa Mesa General Plan I S-27 Safety Element Goals, Objectives, and Policies The following policies strategic directions for City staff and partners, highlighting where time and resources should be focused. Goal S-1: Risk Management of Natural and Human -Caused Disasters Minimize the risk of injury, loss of life, property damage, and environmental degradation from seismic activity, geologic hazards, flooding, fire, and hazardous materials. Promote a sustainable approach to reduce impacts of natural disasters, such as flooding and fire. Objective S-I.A: Work to mitigate and prevent potential adverse consequences of natural and human -caused disasters. Geologic and Seismic Safety Policy S -1.A.1: Continue to incorporate geotechnical hazard data into future land use decision-making, site design, and construction standards. Policy S -1.A.2: Enforce standards, review criteria, and ensure that structures on or adjacent to bluffs are set back sufficiently to preserve the natural contours and aesthetic value of the bluff line and to provide sufficient access for fire protection. Policy S -1.A.3: Require geologic surveys of all new development located on or adjacent to bluffs. Policy S -LAA Encourage retrofitting of structures—particularly older buildings—to withstand earthquake shaking and landslides consistent with State and historical building codes. Policy S -1.A.5: Enforce applicable building codes relating to the seismic design of structures to reduce the potential for loss of life and property damage. Policy S -1.A.6: Identify through a study the issue of unreinforced masonry buildings in Costa Mesa. Provide assistance if S-28 1 Costa Mesa General Plan Safety Element necessary to unreinforced masonry building owners once those buildings have been identified. Liquefaction and Landslides Policy S -1.A.7: Continue to implement the Seismic Hazard Mapping Act, which requires sites within liquefaction hazard areas to be investigated for liquefaction susceptibility prior to building construction or human occupancy. Policy S -1.A.8: Consider site soils conditions when reviewing projects in areas subject to liquefaction or slope instability. Localized Flooding Policy S -1.A.9: Continue to consult with appropriate local, State, and federal agencies to maintain the most current flood hazard and floodplain information; use the information as a basis for project review and to guide development in accordance with federal, State, and local standards. Policy 5-1.A.10: Regularly review and update Article 10 - Floodway and Floodplain Districts of the City's Municipal Code consistent with federal and State requirements. Policy S -1.A.11: Improve and maintain local storm drainage infrastructure in a manner that reduces flood hazards. Policy S -1.A.12: Continue to development hazards preparedness plans to prepare for large storms that could bring flooding hazards and other related issues. Policy S -1.A.13: Actively promote public education, research, and information dissemination on flooding hazards. Tsunami and Sea Level Rise Policy S -1.A.13: Minimize flood hazard risks to people, property, and the environment by addressing potential damage tsunamis and sea level rise. Policy S -1.A.14: Consult with regional agencies and study strategies that employ engineering defensive methods along the Santa Ana River that limit potential flooding hazards from sea level rise. Costa Mesa General Plan I S-29 Safety Element Dam Inundation Policy S -1.A.15: Develop emergency response, early warning notification, and evacuation plans for areas that are within dam inundation areas, where feasible. Aviation Safety and Protection Policy S -1.A.16: Utilize the John Wayne Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) as a planning resource for evaluation of land use compatibility and land use intensity in areas affected by airport operations. In particular, future land use decisions within the Safety/Runway Protection Zone will be evaluated in light of the risk to life and property associated with aircraft operations. Policy S -1.A.17: Comply with Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) and the John Wayne AELUP requirements relative to Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace. Policy S -1.A.18: Use the Federal Aviation Regulations as a guideline to establish the ultimate height of structures as defined in FAR Part 77. Policy S -1.A.19: Minimize hazards to aeronautical operations by ensuring land uses do not emit excessive glare, light, steam, smoke, dust, or electronic interference in compliance with FAR regulations and the John Wayne AELUP. Goal S-2: High Level of Police and Fire Services and Emergency Preparedness Provide a high level of security in the community to prevent and reduce crime, and to minimize risks of fire to people, property, and the environment. Objective S -2.A: Plan, promote, and demonstrate a readiness to respond and reduce threats to life and property through traditional and innovative emergency services and programs. Crime Prevention and Response Policy S -2.A.1: Promote crime prevention strategies and provide a high level of response to incidents. S-30 1 Costa Mesa General Plan Safety Element Policy S -2.A.2: Emphasize and prioritize crime prevention strategies, such as pedestrian -scale lighting in targeted areas. Policy S -2.A.3: Timely response to incidents and monitoring areas with high crime rates should be part of a comprehensive strategy to reduce crime in the community. Police and Fire Level of Service Policy S-2.AA Provide a high level of police and fire service in the community. Secure adequate facilities, equipment, and personnel for police and fire. Policy S-2.A.S: Consult with neighboring jurisdictions and partner agencies to respond appropriately to emergencies and incidents in all parts of the City. Policy S -2.A.6: Require that water supply systems for development are adequate to combat structural fires in terms of location and minimum required fire -flow pressures. Policy 5-2.A.7: Require development to contribute its fair share toward funding the provision of appropriate fire and emergency medical services as determined necessary to adequately serve the project. Fire and Medical Servicers Policy S -2.A.8: Regularly update regulations that will protect the community from fire hazards. Policy S -2.A.9: Emphasize prevention and awareness of fire safety guidelines to minimize risk and potential damage to life, property, and the environment. In areas designated by the Costa Mesa Fire Department as having a high fire hazard, ensure adequate fire equipment, personnel, firebreaks, facilities, water, and access for a quick and efficient response in any area. Emergency and Disaster Preparedness Policy S -2.A.10: Maintain staff and facilities that will continue to support a coordinated and effective response to emergencies and natural disasters throughout the City. Policy S -2.A.11: Consult with neighboring jurisdictions, local employers, and industries to ensure that emergency preparedness Costa Mesa General Plan I S-31 Safety Element and disaster response programs equitably serve all parts of the City. Policy S -2.A.12: Continue to maintain adequate police and fire staffing, facilities, equipment, and maintenance sufficient to protect the community. Hazardous Materials Operations Policy S -2.A.13: Continue to consult with the County of Orange in the implementation of the Orange County Hazardous Waste Management Plan. Policy S -2.A.14: Ensure that appropriate in-depth environmental analysis is conducted for any proposed hazardous waste materials treatment, transfer, and/or disposal facility. Policy S -2.A.15: Continue to consult with the County of Orange to identify and inventory all users of hazardous materials and all hazardous waste generators, and prepare clean-up action plans for identified disposal sites. Policy S -2.A.16: Require the safe production, transportation, handling, use, and disposal of hazardous materials that may cause air, water, or soil contamination. Policy S -2.A.17: Encourage best practices in hazardous waste management, and ensure consistency with City, County, and federal guidelines, standards, and requirements. Policy 5-2.A.18: Consult with federal, State, and local agencies and law enforcement to prevent the illegal transportation and disposal of hazardous waste. S-32 1 Costa Mesa General Plan Chapter 9: Communi -11111Z •�11111Z Outdoor areas at the South Coast Collection (SOLO) and the OC Nix Design Elemen Introduction t Costa Mesa understands the value of promoting and creating a cohesive community and unique civic identity. Costa Mesa supports and nurtures smaller communities and districts within the City that seek to establish and retain their unique sense of place. This is accomplished by establishing a policy framework for design standards and guidelines the City will use to review development applications, as well as standards the City will set for itself the public realm. These policy directives will ensure that continued investment in our community will enhance vitality, context, form, and function. In Costa Mesa, the public realm includes streetscapes (trees, medians, parkways, benches, lights, signage, etc.). The private realm refers to building architecture, site planning, private landscaping, and business signage. The positive identity, functionality, and aesthetic of the City and its constituent Costa Mesa General Plan I CD -1 Community Design Element communities are elevated by interweaving the design of the public and private realms. Purpose The Community Design Element promotes quality design for every aspect of a community. Buildings, structures, paths, corridors, districts, nodes, landmarks, natural features, and significant landscaping. It ensures each development in the private or public realm enhances the sense of place for the City, district, and the site itself. The goals, objectives, and policies in this element aim to express the City's parameters for quality design and development. While this element does not dictate specific design guidelines, it does provide policies to ensure projects meet the community's expectations for quality design and development. Relationship to Other General Plan Elements The policies of the Community Design Element relate primarily to the policies in the Land Use and Open Space and Recreation Elements. Foremost, this element establishes the three-dimensional built form projection of land use objectives. Existing Conditions (2015) The main elements of Costa Mesa's physical environment include major paths and corridors; districts; entries, internal, and activity nodes; destination and landmarks; and edges. These elements contribute to the urban form and character of the City. They identify how visitors observe information about the City and understand their physical surroundings. Paths and Corridors Paths are passages (streets and sidewalks) that people use to get from one place to another. A path provides for vehicular and pedestrian movement within the community. Costa Mesa has three major types of paths: Primary Paths, Secondary Paths, and Corridors. Primary Paths are the circulation CD -2 I Costa Mesa General Plan Community Design Element passages that carry large volumes of traffic and typically cross community boundaries. Secondary Paths carry reduced traffic volumes and often originate or terminate within the City limits. Corridors are paths or sections of paths that have a concentration of a special use or activity. Figure CD -1 identifies the location of Primary and Secondary Paths. The specific corridors are discussed below and presented in Figure CD -2. Harbor Boulevard Corridor Harbor Boulevard, which extends from Costa Mesa to the City of Anaheim, serves as a primary commercial corridor, with a mix of vehicle -oriented uses, auto dealerships, neighborhood commercial centers, entertainment uses, and residences. The Land Use Element provides for the south end of the Harbor Boulevard corridor to transition to a mixed-use district. East 17`h Street Corridor The East 17`h Street corridor, while auto oriented, has a distinctive neighborhood feel. This corridor is characterized by small businesses and multi -tenant retail centers, restaurants, and offices that largely serve local residents. North Newport Boulevard Corridor This section of Newport Boulevard parallels SR -55 from 1-405 south to where SR -55 ends at 191h Street. Prior to construction of SR -55, Newport Boulevard was the primary corridor leading through Costa Mesa into Newport Beach, and its historic character as a tourist -oriented travel route are evident in the motels and auto -oriented uses lining the corridor. Costa Mesa General Plan I CD -3 Community Design Element ril � N TatheAve I �� � y Sie Arthur SINd. m i City of — SantaAna 1 1 Ellis Avew 3LJ40ver Ave soollp --. —� Coast •1m3n 31sS Frara Lj f• Garfield Ave Gisier Avp l a t' LL Aakor 31 atyor — m -- _— I—�_:_ _ Iohnnn� Huntington BeachIla,Vpr' r– U A j M..A YL T S h Orarrgo Coast Catlage Arlington Or ►. d� m FairviewrkOC Fair' •. cA Event Center ; t I 1 a V Talbert � .7+:rrnr-.i7 'hrtsun it i� Park > r' r F'] r, Q _L L Cay of Newporf Beach t:7t St i City of �;^l. - �� >b Newport Ile a Beach 15th St ' If� Primary and Secondary Paths ■■■O@ PrimaryPaths � = Secondary Paths CD -4 I Costa Mesa General Plan Source: City of Costa Mesa 2016 Feet IW 0 1,000 2.000 4.000 6,000 0,000 Figure CD -1: Paths Community Design Element rcm MacArthur Blvd 1 r, 5a ll4 A" . I Ellis Ave gy�� Avg OUtI1 _Oast South � Corridor coast Antanl8cu Plaza COrridtJr=. Garfield Ave Gisler Av8 ,. jI 4 ❑f N, °`� Bnktr Si COU Cityiy of O v 4 �p HunRngron !7 `o 8eadr U :Adams: Street Corridor = N Orange Coast4 Arlington Dr. § o- ❑ m$ Fairview m � ❑ pp _ 7 OC Fair & ' • ` 1 aU Event Center ! .M r..1 i LL r,rhon Regional 'Nilson 51 ' Park 7 Aworla 9 l . r km fi m ,. J L West 19ti► Street Corridor ,a� gym. ?❑ ��SRP `o ro Netgport ;r, to I: th .A R City of •�-� c IL o� � v tom` � m. Newport sirs{ Beech i) rk Loll l COO Corridors Source: City of Costa Mesa, 2016, Anton Boulevard Corridor wri West 19th Street Corridor ` Feet Bristol Street Corridor Civic Center Corridor ■1 0 1 000 2.000 4.000 6000 U00 0001111111m East 17th Street Corridor X11 Fairview Park Corridor = North Newport Boulevard Corridor -=NO Santa Ana Residential Corridor •� �� Harbor Boulevard Corridor John Wayne Airport Industrial Corridor =1111111001111111 South Newport Boulevard Corridor Placentia Industrial Corridor South Coast Corridor Figure CD -2: Corridors Costa Mesa General Plan I CD -5 Community Design Element While residential uses have been developed as infill with extension of SR -55, the predominant character is that of a commercial corridor. South Newport Boulevard Corridor Newport Boulevard continues south from 191h Street to 151h Street into Newport Beach. This section of Newport Boulevard has a strong pedestrian scale and commercial character, with retail frontage on the east side of Newport Boulevard directly abutting the sidewalk and the larger shopping centers on the west side of Newport Boulevard providing extensive infrastructure for the accommodation and movement of pedestrians on and off, and through the sites. Despite the breadth of Newport Boulevard and the volume this arterial supports, the collection of businesses creates a strong concentration of active uses. Bristol Street Corridor Bristol Street stretches between the Sunflower Avenue and SR -55. Located in this corridor are two unique shopping and entertainment centers/experiences: The CAMP and the LAB, which the developer/operator has defined as "anti -mall" venues. These unique centers provide small retail and restaurant spaces for start-up and edgy business, together with indoor - outdoor social areas. The CAMP has a central green gathering area surrounded by shopping, dining, and styling businesses. The operators regularly host art, film, and music events. Anton Boulevard Corridor Anton Boulevard extends from Sunflower Avenue to Bristol Street, with an entrance to South Coast Plaza. This corridor is a fusion of luxury apartments and hotels, combined with professional headquarters and multi -tenant office spaces in mid -rise settings. This includes the Experian Headquarters, Metro Center at South Coast Office complex, Plaza Tower, the Enclave Apartments, the Westin South Coast Plaza, and Costa Mesa Marriott Hotel. To the north of this corridor the 3400 Avenue of the Arts apartment complex and Wyndham Hotel are within walking distance to these major regional shopping and business destinations. The Noguchi Garden (a 1.6 -acre public art project) sits to the south of the corridor. As of 2016, a new 250 -unit luxury apartment complex is under construction within this corridor that will provide additional housing. CD -6 I Costa Mesa General Plan Community Design Element John Wayne Airport Industrial Corridor This corridor runs through the industrial district that abuts John Wayne Airport. While this district contains multiple secondary businesses that support the airport, the center of this corridor supports a much wider collection of industrial and offices uses. The scale is predominantly vehicular. Major uses include educational and religious institutions, wholesale and specialty service for automobiles, small light industrial spaces for startup businesses, boutique manufacturing, and supporting services. Placentia Industrial Corridor This is the major industrial corridor within the Westside district of the City, which encompasses Placentia Avenue south of Victoria Street and north of West 16t0 Street. This corridor historically was an enclave for yacht manufacturing. While this industry and automobile service still have a presence, new tenants along the corridor are that of action sports development and manufacturing. Development of live/work units for the creatives who find this edgy environment and its proximity to its industry suitable for their business and lifestyles has added new vibrancy. While this location will remain an industrial center, the boutique manufacturing, entrepreneurial environment, and action sports industry niches make it a unique corridor and interesting place. Fairview Park Corridor As Placentia Avenue continues north of Victoria Street, this industrial corridor transitions into a residential one. The corridor provides access to several residential communities, as well as access to Estancia High School, Fairview Park, and Estancia Park which is home of the oldest building in Costa Mesa, the Diego Sepulveda Adobe. Along this stretch of Placentia Avenue, residential and institutional uses represent the only development types from Victoria Street to Adams Avenue. West 19th Street Corridor This corridor supports a diverse mix of uses that include destination locations (public parks, amenities, and the Senior Center) and an array of local services to meet the needs of residential communities around this corridor. West 191h Street includes an eclectic collection of commercial uses which predominantly address the corridor at a pedestrian scale. Mixed-use development would Costa Mesa General Plan I CD -7 Community Design Element continue the character and vision of this central commercial corridor, which will continue to transition. Civic Center Corridor Fair Drive from Newport Boulevard to Fairview Road and Fairview Road from Fair Drive to Adams Avenue accommodate one of the densest collections of civic, institutional, and educational uses in Orange County. Within a mere 1.5 miles, you find Orange Coast Community College, Costa IVlesa High School, the Orange County Fair & Event Center, Vanguard University, Civic Center Park, the Jack R. Hammett Sports Complex, and the Civic Center. This corridor provides a collection of uses of great civic pride community and benefits students who attend one of the many education facilities along the corridor. South Coast Corridor This corridor spans from the South Coast Plaza on the east to the South Coast Collection on the west. It links two major commercial destinations and provides access to Metro Pointe at South Coast Plaza. This location has opportunity for further growth and development, as it abuts several of the few remaining large vacant lots in Costa Mesa. Santa Ana Residential Corridor Santa Ana Avenue is a residential corridor that runs through the Eastside District; development along this corridor consists largely of low -and -medium density housing, with a few traditional single-family subdivisions taking direct access. The grid -like and elongated spatial layout of the Eastside District makes Santa Ana Avenue a major path of travel for various modes of transportation heading north or south. This residential corridor remains residential all the way into Newport Beach. Districts Districts are those areas of Costa Mesa that have an identifiable character due to building architecture, neighborhood design, streetscape, and land use. A district is an integral part of a larger urban area, with common characteristics that make it unique From other areas of the community, Distinguishing features may include building type, use, activity, and/or topography. Figure CD -3: Districts illustrates these districts' fuzzy boundaries. Specific descriptions of these districts are provided below. CD -8 I Costa Mesa General Plan Community Design Element Eastside The district contains a mix of single-family and multifamily homes on large lots. Many neighborhoods have experienced substantial private redevelopment, with the original homes replaced by larger homes. In other areas, developers have purchased properties, torn down the original residence(s), and built townhomes or small -lot developments. The Land Use Element discusses issues associated with this district related to the typical narrow, deep lots and lot consolidation. Westside This area is characterized by a mix of residential, commercial, and industrial uses. The Westside District is also the origin and home for the action sports industry which incubated and matured within Costa Mesa. This district includes a variety of traditional housing, as well as non-traditional live/work developments that support the edgy creatives who desire to live in this confluence of production, design, and manufacturing. Costa Mesa General Plan I CD -9 Community Design Element Districts Airport Industrial/Business Park District fvlesa Del Mar District Civic Center District ivlesa Verde District College Park District North Costa Mesa District Downtown/ Triangle District ' SOBECA District Eastside District Thea ter Arts District Harbor Gateway District Westside District CD -10 I Costa Mesa General Plan Sourre: City of Costa.Mesa. 2016 Not 0 1 000 2.000 4.000 6.000 0 000 Figure CD -3: Districts Community Design Element Mesa Verde Mesa Verde has an eclectic mix of residential densities and housing types. Homes closer to the Mesa Verde Golf Course are much larger and at lower residential densities than those closer to Harbor Boulevard and 1-405. The commercial uses along Adams Avenue and Harbor Boulevard provide the personal service uses and retail and food spaces for residents living in this district. College Park The homes within this district are a mix of residential densities and architectural types. The majority of the units are higher residential density complexes located along Newport Boulevard, Wilson Street, and Victoria Street. This district also includes College Park, an older single-family residential tract. Mesa del Mar This district contains mostly single-family residential tracts, with higher residential densities near arterial roadways. Pockets of commercial uses have been developed along Baker Street. SoBECA This district consists of programmatic spaces that allow for experiential shopping and dining activities at the LAB and the CAMP. It is a unique area in transition, with a variety of residential housing options encircling multiple destination locations, including microbreweries, nightclubs, "anti -malls", hotels, and artisanal restaurants. North Costa Mesa This district is the major economic heart of the City. South Coast Plaza and other commercial and office establishments provide shopping, entertainment, hospitality, and high-rise office space that serve local, regional, national, and international markets. Key developments include Plaza Tower, Center Tower, South Coast Metro Center, South Coast Metro Pointe, South Coast Repertory, and the Segerstrom Center for the Arts. This district is Costa Mesa's primary commercial and cultural center. The residential areas in this district include mostly single-family residential neighborhoods, with some multi -family developments as well. Costa Mesa General Plan I CD -11 Community Design Element Theatre Arts District This well-defined district exhibits a collection of the finest theatrical venues in Orange County. This rare clustering of art venues consists of the South Coast Repertory Theater, as well as the Segerstrom Center For the Arts, which consist of five venues: Renee and Henry Segerstrom Concert Hall, Samueli Theater, Segerstrom Hall, Judy Morr Theater, and the Arts Plaza. The Theater Arts District provides access to art with art installations throughout the district, including the Noguchi Garden and the Orange County Museum of Art. Supporting uses include several professional office towers such as the Center Tower and Plaza Tower, the two tallest buildings in Costa Mesa. Downtown/Triangle The Triangle is located at one of the busiest intersections in Costa Mesa, where Newport Boulevard and Harbor Boulevard intersect. The Triangle is an activity hub intended to draw both local and regional visitors. It sits in the heart of Costa Mesa's downtown, which runs along Newport Boulevard and 191" Street. This area includes a variety of pedestrian scale retail spaces, fine restaurants, a movie theatre, and nightclubs. Harbor Gateway This district is characterized by large-sized industrial and office buildings, including the Automobile Club and Whittier Law School. It is vehicular in scale and has an office park character, with ample landscaping and large multi -story building complexes. In 2015, Vans acquired an office building in this district to become the corporate headquarters of one of the nation's top lifestyle retailers. CD -12 1 Costa Mesa -General Plan South Coast Plaza is located in the North Costa Xlesa district. Whittier Law School is located in the North industriaVRusiness Park district at the southwest corner of Sunflower Avenue and Harbor Boulevard. Community Design Element Airport Industrial/Business Park John Wayne Airport is located in unincorporated Orange County and just east of Costa Mesa. Given the presence of the airport and abutting freeways, this location provides industrial and office space with excellent access and circulation. Land uses within this area are industrial, office, and commercial in nature, housed in low -scale buildings due to the presence of the airport. Civic Center District The area is the primary cultural, educational, and civic center district of Costa Mesa. The OC Fair & Event Center which includes the OC Fairgrounds, Pacific Amphitheatre, OC Marketplace, and Centennial Farm, along with the Civic Center, and Orange Coast College, represent major institutional uses that encompass significant open spaces and active recreation area. Vanguard University, adjacent to the Civic Center, includes private open spaces on the campus. Nodes A "node" is an important point where people gather and/or where paths converge, thus providing higher -than -typical levels of activity. Costa Mesa has three classifications of nodes: 1) Entry nodes, which function as focal points of identity between Costa Mesa and adjacent cities Costa Mesa General Plan I CD -13 Community Design Element 2) Internal nodes, which identify locations of two major converging paths and destinations 3) Activity nodes, which are intersections of path, focal points of highest activity, provide immediate access to destination locations, and/or have a concentration of specialty uses All of these nodes are identified and displayed on Figure CD -4: Nodes. Destinations and Landmarks A "destination" is a particular use which generates special purpose trips and increases regional attraction. A destination can be a successful retail cluster or rare specialty use. Destination locations are shown on Figure CD -S: Destinations and Landmarks. A "landmark" is a physical element that provides a point of reference or serves as a community identity marker. A landmark can be a structure, space, or natural feature that helps identify a particular area in the City. CD -14 I Costa Mesa General Plan Community Design Element Activity and Entry Nodes Source: Cily of Costa Mesa 2016 0 Entry Node Feet 00 1 000 2000 4 000 6,000 8.000 0 Internal Entry Node Activity Node Figure CD -4: Nodes Costa Mesa General Plan I CD -15 Community Design Element Landmarks and Destinations Source: City of Costa Mesa, 2016 OLandmark Feet 00 1 000 2 OCO 4 000 6.000 8 000 Destination (See inset table for name o/ desdnafion ) Figure CD -5: Destinations and Landmarks CD -16 I Costa Mesa General Plan Community Design Element Almost all important landmarks in Costa Mesa are also destination locations (see Table CD -2: Landmarks). Table CD -2: Landmarks Landmark Sign, Covered Pedestrian Bridge, Carousel South Coast Plaza Unique and Identifiable Architecture Segerstrom Center for the Arts: Segerstrom Hall, Renee and Henry Segerstrom Concert Hall, Samueli Theater, Judy Morr Theater, Arts Plaza Unique and Identifiable Architecture South Coast Repertory Tallest Building in Costa Mesa The Center Tower Unique and Identifiable Architecture The Plaza Tower Artistic Common Space Noguchi Garden The Sign and Mall Design The Lab and The Camp The Freeway Sign and Mall Design. South Coast Collection (SOCO) Diego Sepulveda Adobe Estancia Park Clock Tower, Logo Orange Coast College Ferris Wheel, Centennial Farms, Sign OC Fair and Event Center Tower Vanguard University City Hall Civic Center The Dome and Spire The Triangle Natural Wetlands, Pedestrian Bridge, Goat Hill Train Station Fairview Park Edges Edges are linear elements that serve as a visual or physical boundary, barrier, or transition between districts and that define the boundaries of a place. Elements such as freeways, flood channels, and natural features and landforms may be considered edges (See Figure CD -6: Edges). Edges within or abutting Costa Mesa include: ■ Santa Ana River ■ San Diego Freeway (1-405) Costa Mesa General Plan I CD -17 Community Design Element IP Ellis Ave J Edges --m— Hard Edge .a+W+++ Natural Edge 3 ;WbM Auy '�10Ci•rlhur l3iY0. m City of Santa Ana �- ss Su Oawer Ave. iTh iaast South _ Coast Afto Bleu, Pt.1L3 IJ r J :r pramp Coast C`rNarr` Arlington Dc t OC fair 8 '� Event Center >! f- ur moi. & ,•/ t -d Garfield Ave r r / ♦ +r City of ao Huntington � Beach ■� s Ave r � ! r ■1. $Fairview'1►- Park S +y M ■ . ■r 1 1 1 � f f ■ ! r� City of ! 1 Ile Newport Beach 1 � � Lathers j ,a,"trauff 'alrsjo ; 1 r� f viatona 3t. S� rrr r ! L r % i * n .L r p City of Newport ff Beacn �r 1711h C r! ! 'vI V � + I �rrry ,r s� 1 rrtRr Dro-T r Edges --m— Hard Edge .a+W+++ Natural Edge 3 ;WbM Auy '�10Ci•rlhur l3iY0. m City of Santa Ana �- ss Su Oawer Ave. iTh iaast South _ Coast Afto Bleu, Pt.1L3 IJ r J :r pramp Coast C`rNarr` Arlington Dc t OC fair 8 '� Event Center >! f- ur moi. & ,•/ t -d CD -18 I Costa Mesa General Plan Source: City of Costa Mesa 2016 Feet 0 1,000 2,000 4.000 6,000 8 000 Figure CD -6: Edges z `2. / ♦ +r 1 1 4 f � f ■� r� City of f Ile Newport Beach r !J� � 1 1 rM l 1 S� rrr L ,rr+tr CD -18 I Costa Mesa General Plan Source: City of Costa Mesa 2016 Feet 0 1,000 2,000 4.000 6,000 8 000 Figure CD -6: Edges Community Design Element ■ Corona Del Mar Freeway (SR -73) • Costa Mesa Freeway (SR -55) • John Wayne Airport (Unincorporated Orange County) ■ Mesa Landforms (Costa Mesa and Newport Beach) Public Realm Focus The public realm focuses on the physical features and design that occurs on public rights-of-way, including public streets, sidewalks, medians, parks, and other public spaces. These spaces provide efficient and aesthetically pleasing paths and corridors, create context for existing districts, soften existing edges provide access to destinations and landmarks, and enrich all nodes throughout the City. The City has adopted streetscape and median development standards designed to build a public realm that is aesthetically pleasing and creates efficient paths throughout the City. This also includes the development and maintenance of welcoming signs at entry nodes and way - finding signs at internal and activity nodes. Monument sign on Newport to Blvd at 191fi Streetgreets residents and visitors to Costo - - Mesa. e;'asia Costa Mesa General Plan I CD -19 Community Design Element Design Strengths and Opportunities Design Strengths ■ Along the City's western boundary and looking south toward the Pacific Ocean, the coastline creates a distinctive visual background. Views of the Pacific coast enhance the visual quality of districts within the viewshed. ■ Talbert Regional Park and its extensive natural areas provide an important visual reminder of the local landscape prior to urbanization and create a soft western edge of the City. • Fairview Park works together with Talbert Regional Park to soften the urban landscape. The park's trails and recreational facilities are a community strength. ■ Neighborhood parks and the golf courses provide open spaces and recreational opportunities. ■ South Coast Plaza, The Triangle, and the OC Fair & Event Center are major visual landmarks. it The Segerstrom Center for the Arts and South Coast Repertory provide focal points for the local performing arts community and serve as a major culture and arts hub for all of Orange County. ■ The Santa Ana River's strength is a potential enhanced water resource. It offers recreation along the multiuse trail that extends along the western edge of the City. CD -20 1 Costa Mesa General Plan Fairview Park includes expansive open spaces accessible by trails. South Coast Metro includes a collection of high-rise office towers and the Segerstrom Centerfor the its venues. Community Design Element Design Opportunities • Streetscape enhancements (public realm) can contribute significantly to improving and maintaining the visual quality of major arterial and secondary arterial streets through implementation of the City's Streetscape and Median Development Guidelines. The Guidelines include a comprehensive street tree palette and development standards. ■ Improve the design of signs along major corridors and the public realm by adopting sign design guidelines and putting in place incentives for the removal of nonconforming signs. ■ Continue to add new gateway treatments at City entry nodes. ■ Continue to implement adopted specific plans, urban plans, design guidelines, and other policy documents that contribute to the design quality of new development. ■ Consider Preparation ofe design guidelines for new developments along major corridors and the public realm to ensure that such development contribute to the overall enhancement of Costa Mesa's image. Costa Mesa General Plan I CD -21 Community Design Element Key Issues Lack of Visual Interest Overall, Costa Mesa lacks a strong visual image in terms of definition as a distinct place. Some of the districts lack a clear identity that distinguishes them from other areas in the City. Districts should be unified through design approaches. Paths are challenged by sign clutter, blank walls, and absence of streetscape amenities. Commercial paths should have a unified identity that promotes a positive image of the City. More emphasis should be given to enhancing the image of neighborhoods that lack sufficient visual interest in building elevations, massing, landscaping, and lighting. Natural viewsheds are not optimized. Residential Transition and Neighborhood Character Within the Eastside Residential District, the transition of properties from single -story homes on large lots (with architectural styles dating to the 1950s and `60s) to two-story houses, as well as townhome developments, has changed the character of many neighborhoods. Some long-time residents have remarked that residential densities, building architecture, and massing that define the overall character of the district should be preserved. Lack of Corridor Continuity Harbor Boulevard lacks continuity of visual quality and has multiple identities. The commercial path is fragmented and contains a mix of land uses with no identifiable character. Even though new landscape medians have been installed, in several areas in the City, landscaping remains substandard along many stretches. Along many of the City's commercial corridors, inconsistent sign styles, colors, and sizes create visual obstructions and clutter. Entry Nodes The multiple entry nodes to Costa Mesa do not effectively announce arrival into Costa Mesa. The City's signage needs a conceptual redesign and evaluation of the most effective approach to entrance signage into the City. Entry nodes with currently no signage in need of enhancement include Newport Boulevard/15`" Street, Bristol Street/Sunflower Avenue, and East 17`" Street/Irvine Avenue. CD -22 1 Costa Mesa General Plan Community Design Element Industrial Properties Industrial uses, particularly on the west side of the City, occupy prominent locations with proximity to the coast. Some industrial uses are adequately maintained or participate in valued industrial niches like the Westside's action sports industry. They require this proximity to effectively conduct business. Screening and rehabilitation should be implemented in a strategic manor so as to not negatively impact this areas successful industrial niches and continue to support the maturing trend of creative enhancement to industrial districts. Goals, Objectives, and Policies Physical elements such as landscaping, architecture, signs, streets, and open spaces collectively form Costa Mesa's visual environment and character. Through the implementation of these goals, objectives, and policies, the City aims to gradually improve the visual environment and character of Costa Mesa to achieve the high level of quality desired. Goal CD -1: Vehicular and Pedestrian Corridors Strengthen the image of the City as experienced from sidewalks and roadways. Objective CD -1.1 Contribute to City beautification by enhancing the visual environment of Costa Mesa's vehicular and pedestrian paths and corridors. Policy CD -1.A Implement the City of Costa Mesa Streetscape and Median Development Guidelines in all new streetscape corridor and parkway projects. Coordinate with new development adjacent to public rights -of -ways to integrate landscape features and design elements consistent with the streetscape standards and recommendations. Policy CD -1.13 Coordinate street furniture elements (benches, bus shelters, newspaper racks, trash receptacles, kiosks, etc.) whenever possible. Develop design standards and guidelines for the street furniture within and Costa Mesa General Plan I CD -23 Community Design Element adjacent to public rights-of-way to complement the specific recommendations provided for streets in the City of Costa Mesa Streetscape and Median Development Guidelines. Policy CD -1.0 Promote treatments for walls and fences and utility cabinets along public rights-of-way that contribute to an attractive street and sidewalk environment. Require that new walls and fences complement the style and character of the local district and adjacent buildings. Newly constructed or reconstructed walls and fences adjacent to sidewalks and roadways should incorporate architectural treatments such as pilasters, masonry or wrought iron, and should integrate tiered plantings to soften their appearance. Policy CD -1.D Promote Ree a consistent landscape character along City streets to reinforce the unique qualities of each corridor and district, including the development of landscaped medians. Support implementation of the recommended street tree palette for each City street, as identified in the City of Costa Mesa Streetscape and Median Development Guidelines. Policy CD -1.E Encourage electric and communication lines to be placed underground and electrical substations and telephone facilities to be screened to minimize visual impacts from sidewalks, streets, and adjacent properties. Support utility undergrounding through conditions of project approval, preparation of under -rounding plans, and the formation of assessment districts. Objective CD -1.2. Encourage clear connections between districts within the City. Policy CD -1.F Promote linkages between separate districts using bike trails, pedestrian paths, common medians or parkway landscaping, and other location -appropriate physical improvements. Through conditions of approval, public improvement projects, and other measures, support development of new connections and the enhancement of existing connections between districts. CD -24 I Costa Mesa General Plan Community Design Element Goal CD -2: Cohesive and Identifiable Districts Enhance the existing character and strengthen the identity of Costa Mesa's districts. Objective CD -2.1 Encourage future development and redevelopment to reinforce district scale, identity, and urban form. Policy CD -2.A Consider -Adept urban design guidelines for each identified district in Costa Mesa that recognizes, maintains, and enhances the character and identity of each district; integrate existing specific plans' policies and design guidelines as applicable. Policy CD -2.13 Support and seek land uses and development that correspond or enrich our existing districts. Costa Mesa General Plan I CD -25 Community Design Element Districts should include identifiable and consistent design themes through architecture, landscaping, and signage. P Goal CD -3: High Quality and Visually Interesting Nodes N Heighten the design quality and visual interest of nodes within Costa Mesa. Objective CD -3.1. Create a sense of arrival to Costa Mesa, and develop prominent community focal points at key nodes within the City. Policy CD -3.A Introduce entry monument signs at key gateway locations, as identified in Figure CD -4. Utilize the standard design specifications for entry signs included in the City of Costa Mesa Streetscape and Median Development Guidelines. CD -26 I Costa Mesa General Plan Community Design Element Policy CD -3.13 Reinforce a sense of arrival into the City by promoting architecturally significant development and significant landscape plantings at key nodes. Undertake a visioning process to develop specific design guidelines that articulate the desired character for each node within Costa Mesa. Policy CD -3.0 Design and development of entry and internal way I finding signage to be located throughout the City that corresponds to the existing nodes and districts. Goal CD -4: Identifiable and Protected City Landmarks. Objective CD -4.1. Promote the maintenance, use, and improvement of landmarks to enhance the visual image and identity of Costa Mesa. Policy CD -4.A Support efforts to introduce new monuments and landmarks, and preserve, maintain, and improve the condition of Costa Mesa landmarks. Goal CD -S: Edges Utilize Costa Mesa's edges as opportunities to enhance the City's image along its boundaries. Objective CD -5.1. Develop and implement programs that preserve and enhance City edges. Policy CD -5.A Preserve and optimize natural views and open spaces in Costa Mesa. Policy CD -5.13 Control the visual impacts of new development on natural views of the coast and the wetlands. Policy CD -5.0 Develop open space corridors and trails along the edges of Costa Mesa where feasible. Policy CD -5.D Continue to preserve natural open space, including restoration of the natural areas of Talbert Regional Park. Costa Mesa General Plan I CD -27 Community Design Element Policy CD -5.E Continue protection of Fairview Park as an open space and recreation area. Policy CD -5.F Continue to wWork with Caltrans to improve the design quality of freeway edges. Goal CD -6: Image Enhance opportunities for new development and redevelopment to contribute to a positive visual image for the City of Costa Mesa and consistent with district image. Objective CD -6.1. Establish development policies and design guidelines that create an aesthetically pleasing and functional environment. Policy CD -6.A Encourage the inclusion of public art and attractive, functional architecture into new development that will have the effect of promoting Costa Mesa as the "City of the Arts." Policy CD -6.6 Encourage the use of creative and well-designed signs that establish a distinctive image for the City. Policy CD -6.0 Continue to work with Code Enforcement to ensure continued maintenance of properties and compliance with adopted development standards. Goal CD -7: Quality Residential Promote and protect the unique identity of Costa Mesa's residential neighborhoods. Objective CD -7.1 Encourage excellence in architectural design. Policy CD -7.A Ensure that new and remodeled structures are designed in architectural styles that reflect the City's eclectic quality, yet are compatible in scale and character with existing buildings and the natural surroundings within residential neighborhoods. Continue to update and maintain the Costa Mesa Residential Guidelines. CD -28 1 Costa Mesa General Plan Community Design Element Policy CD -7.13 Preserve the character and scale of Costa Mesa's established residential neighborhoods where possible; when new residential development is proposed, entourAgLFequ4L-that the new structures are consistent with the prevailing character of existing development in the immediate vicinity, and that new development does not have a substantial adverse impact on adjacent areas. Objective CD -7.2. Encourage the use of native plant palettes in the creation of landscaping plans used to establish a sense of place in neighborhood identification efforts. Policy CD -7.0 Ensure that California native plants are used to support the local ecology and save water. Develop landscaping guidelines that reflect the local community. Goal CD -8: Quality Commercial Development Achieve a high level of design quality for commercial development. Objective CD -8.1. Encourage high level of architectural and site design quality. Policy CD -8.A Require that new and remodeled commercial development stFw .*wes and prGpeFfies be designed to reflect architectural diversity, yet be compatible with the scale and character of the district. Policy CD -8.13 Use distinctive commercial architectural styles to reinforce a positive sense of place. Commercial architectural design elements and materials must be of high quality and style as well as suitable for long- term maintenance. Consistent architectural design should be considered in choosing materials, finishes, decorative details, color, accent features and include the following elements and materials appropriate for their context (see Table CD -3: Elements and Materials): Costa Mesa General Plan I CD -29 Community Design Element Table CD -3: Elements and Materials ■ Simple, multi -planed pitched roofs • Open rafters/tails with large overhangs ■ Appearance of "thick" walls ■ Courtyards, arcades, and intimate spaces ■ Tile details ■ Deep-set window and door openings ■ Offset wall planes ■ Fountains and other unique details + Building masses with the incorporation of one and two story architecture • Sequencing of enclosed space/arches ■ Stucco, smooth, sand or light lace finish ■ Wood, as an exposed structural material ■ Clay or concrete roof tiles • Native fieldstone ■ Wood window casements • Wood, as an accent material • Brick, as an accent material • Wrought iron (rust proof; anodized aluminum) ■ Tile, as an accent material • Slumpstone garden walls CD -30 1 Costa Mesa General Plan Commercial spaces should promote pedestrian amenities, including outdoor dining areas. Community Design Element Policy CD -8.0 Encourage the use of entrance patios, courtyards, plazas, arcades, fountains, porches, tower elements, covered walks, and other features in commercial areas. Promote pedestrian amenities. Policy CD -8.D Ensure that common areas, walkways, driveways, and parking spaces be landscaped consistent with landscaping standards contained in the Planning, Zoning, and Development Code. Utilize landscaping to provide project amenities for new and remodeled commercial uses, and to screen parking and equipment areas. Landscaped areas generally should incorporate planting utilizing a three -tiered system: 1) grasses and ground covers, 2) shrubs and vines, and 3) trees. Policy CD -8.E Ensure that site access, parking, and circulation for commercial uses are designed in a logical, safe manner. Parking should not dominate the site in areas adjacent to street, and should be well landscaped with a clear hierarchy of circulation. Wherever possible, parking lots should be divided into a series of connected smaller lots utilizing walkways and raised landscape strips. Parking lots should also include landscaping that accents the importance of driveways from the street, frames the major circulation aisles, and highlights pedestrian pathways. Policy CD -8.F Require that areas for outside equipment, trash receptacles, storage, and loading areas be located in the least conspicuous part of the site. Utility and mechanical equipment (e.g. electric and gas meters, electrical panels, and junction boxes) should be concealed from view from public streets, neighboring properties, and nearby higher buildings. Trash enclosures should be architecturally compatible with the project. Landscaping should be incorporated into the design of trash enclosures to deter graffiti. Policy CD -8.G Encourage decorative paving treatments to be incorporated throughout commercial developments, including driveway entries, pedestrian walkways, plazas, and other areas. The design, materials, and colors of decorative paving treatments (e.g., stamped Costa Mesa General Plan I CD -31 Community Design Element concrete, stone, brick or granite pavers, exposed aggregate, or colored concrete) should complement the architectural style of the primary buildings and make a positive contribution to the aesthetic and function of the site. Policy CD -8.H Require that exterior lighting on commercial properties be consistent with the architectural style of the commercial building. On each commercial site, all lighting fixtures should be from the same family of fixtures with respect to design, materials, color, fixture, and color of light. Lighting sources should be shielded, diffused or indirect to avoid spillover on adjacent properties, nighttime sky light pollution, and glare to pedestrians and motorists. To minimize the total number of freestanding light standards, wall - mounted and pathway lights should be utilized to the greatest extent possible. Objective CD -8.2. Preserve the scale and character of established neighborhoods near commercial uses. Policy CD -8.1 Ensure that new commercial development utilize site planning and design features that optimize compatibility with adjacent residential neighborhoods. The following guidance should be considered: When adjacent residential and nonresidential uses can mutually benefit from connection, appropriate linkages (e.g., walkways, common landscape areas, and building orientation) are encouraged. Successful interaction between commercial and residential uses may be achieved through adequate setbacks, landscape buffers, screening, decorative masonry walls, berms, building orientation, and limitations of commercial activities. • Loading areas, access and circulation driveways, trash and storage areas, and rooftop equipment should be located as far as possible from adjacent residences. CD -32 ) Costa Mesa General Plan Community Design Element ■ Building orientation and landscaping of commercial buildings should minimize direct lines of sight into adjacent residential private open space. Goal CD -9: Mixed Use Promote development of mixed-use projects that seamlessly integrate multiple uses both functionally and aesthetically. Objective CD -9.1. Design mixed use development projects to achieve a high quality character. Policy CD -9.A Require that mixed-use development projects be designed to mitigate potential conflicts between uses. Consider noise, lighting, and security. Policy CD -9.13 Provide adequate parking, open space and recreational facilities to serve residents in mixed-use development projects. Design parking and other areas to acknowledge different users (residents versus shoppers) and to be compatible with the architectural character of the building(s). Objective CD -9.2. Provide for the development of projects that integrate housing with commercial uses and other compatible uses. Policy CD -9.0 Encourage mixed-use development along the east side of Newport Boulevard between Mesa Drive and Walnut Street. Establish incentives for the development of projects in planned development zones that integrate housing with retail and office uses. Policy CD -9.13 Encourage the development of mixed-use urban villages along specified areas of West 17th Street, West 191h Street, and Superior Avenue that integrates residential with office, retail, business services, personal services, public spaces and uses, and other community amenities in a single building (vertical mixed-use development) or in proximity on the same site (horizontal mixed-use development). Costa Mesa General Plan I CD -33 Community Design Element Policy CD -9.E Promote new types of urban housing that could be target - marketed to people seeking alternative housing choices in proximity to a major commercial area. Policy CD -9.F Support efforts to mix compatible uses and activities. Encourage the sitting of community -oriented services, businesses, and amenities in and near mixed-use neighborhoods, including schools, libraries, open space and parks including "tot lots," and commercial uses. Goal CD -10: Industrial and Business Parks Promote quality design approaches for the redevelopment of existing industrial buildings, encourage the design to incorporate or provide flexibility for the needs of emerging types of industrial uses, and strive to match design with overall character of node, corridor, or district if applicable, Objective CD -10.1. Require that industrial and business park projects CD -34 I Costa Mesa General Plan meet high-quality design standards. Policy CD -10.A Require that industrial projects be designed to convey visual interest and a positive image. Architectural qualities and design elements for industrial uses encouraged are: • Building modulation indentations and architectural details • Building entry accentuation ■ Screening of equipment and storage areas ■ Landscaping to soften building exteriors and to serve as a buffer between uses Policy CD -10.6 Encourage that the design of industrial buildings consider the visual and physical relationship to adjacent uses. An industrial structure which dominates its surrounding environment by its relative size shall generally be discouraged. Policy CD -10.0 Encourage adaptive reuse of existing industrial structures which results in rehabilitated buildings with distinctive and attractive architecture. Policy CD -10.1) Promote the use of materials and colors that produce diversity and visual interest in industrial buildings. The CD -34 I Costa Mesa General Plan Community Design Element use of various siding materials (i.e., masonry, concrete Goal CD -11: Attractive Signs that Reflect Costa Mesa Ensure that signs contribute positively to Costa IVlesa's image and overall economic development. Objective CD -11.1. Facilitate the installation of signs that contribute to a positive image of the public realm. Costa Mesa General Plan I CD -35 texturing, cement or plaster) can produce effects of texture and relief that provide architectural interest. Policy CD -10.E Require that landscaping be used to define areas such as entrances to industrial buildings and parking lots; define the edges of developments; provide transition between neighboring properties; and provide screening for outdoor storage, loading, and equipment areas. Landscaping should be in scale with adjacent buildings and be of an appropriate size at maturity to accomplish its intended purpose. Policy CD -10.F Require that the design of lighting fixtures and their structural support be of a scale and architectural design compatible with on-site industrial buildings. Large areas should be illuminated to minimize the visual impact and amount of spillover light onto surrounding projects. Objective CD -10.2 Ensure that the development of industrial projects are positive additions to the City's community setting and do not result in adverse impacts with adjacent uses. Policy CD -10.G Require industrial projects to incorporate landscape setbacks, screening walls, and/or other elements that mitigate negative impacts with adjacent uses. Policy CD -10.H Protect transitional areas between industrial and other uses. Policy CD -10.1 Storage yards, parking areas, and service areas should be screened from public view. Goal CD -11: Attractive Signs that Reflect Costa Mesa Ensure that signs contribute positively to Costa IVlesa's image and overall economic development. Objective CD -11.1. Facilitate the installation of signs that contribute to a positive image of the public realm. Costa Mesa General Plan I CD -35 Community Design Element Policy CD -11.A Encourage homeowners' associations and neighborhoods to maintain housing tract entrance signs in an attractive condition, and encourage the placement of such signs at the entrance of major developments which do not have such identification. Policy CD -11.6 Encourage the use of common design elements in signs for commercial and industrial centers through the development of planned sign programs to improve center identity by publicizing the benefits of such programs to developers and local business operators. Policy CD -11.0 Encourage Develop citywide sign design guidelines that promote creativity and flexibility while upholding design quality. Design guidelines could include the design and placement of business signs, public street graphics, street signs, locational and directional signs, traffic signs, etc. Policy CD -11.D Introduce distinctive entry signage within the Costa Mesa Streetscape and Median Development Guidelines which effectively announces arrival to unique districts and neighborhoods. Policy CD -11.E Develop and design signage that helps with way - finding throughout the City so visitors and residents can easily access destination locations and identify landmarks. Goal CD -12: Public Safety through Design Use design approaches to enhance public safety. Objective CD -12.1. Incorporate public safety considerations into community design. Policy CD -12.A Decrease the opportunity for criminal activity by addressing high-risk circumstances (e.g., dark alley, enclosed stairwell, and dark entrances). Involve the Police and Fire Departments in reviewing and making design recommendations during the project review process. Policy CD -12.13 Continue to implement and refine development standards and/or guidelines based on Crime CD -36 1 Costa Mesa General Plan Community Design Element Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) for new development and redevelopment with emphasis on site and building design to minimize vulnerability to criminal activity. Policy CD -12.0 Continue to provide CPTED training to City staff and local planning and design professionals to optimize public safety through community design. Costa Mesa General Plan I CD -37 TeWinkle Park Chapter 10: Open Space and Recreation Element Introduction Open spaces, recreation programs, and cultural arts contribute significantly to the quality of life in Costa Mesa. With its high-quality park facilities and comprehensive community service programs, Costa Mesa offers many opportunities for residents and visitors to practice healthy living and engage in community -building activities. Parks and community -serving facilities enhance the quality of life for residents and are important components of complete and sustainable neighborhoods. Accessible parks provide places to play, exercise, spend time with friends and neighbors, orjust relax and reflect. This Open Space and Recreation Element provides the policy framework to ensure that open space and recreation Costa Mesa General Plan I OSR-1 Open Space and Recreation Element resources in the City are preserved and maintained. Open space in Costa Mesa includes neighborhood and community parks, County -owned regional recreation facilities, institutional land uses, and golf courses. Purpose The purpose of the Open Space and Recreation Element is to sustain the network of open space and recreation resources for today's residents and future generations. The goals, policies, and objectives contained in this element aim to protect, maintain, and enhance open spaces for all purposes and to meet recreation needs. This also describes how Costa Mesa can promote the City's identity as a City of the Arts. Park and Recreation System Costa Mesa's inventory of open space and recreation resources includes a diversity of facilities, ranging from highly developed, active recreation sites to low -activity, passive open spaces. The existing network of open space and recreation facilities is illustrated in Figure OSR-1, Parks and Open Space inven", and inventoried in Table OSR-1, Parks and Open Space Inventory. Table OSR-1: Park and Open Space Inventory Neighborhood and Community Parks 415.19 Regional Nature Preserve (Talbert Regional Park) 211.00 Institutional Uses 1 763.03 OC Fair & Event Center 150.04 Open Space Easements 6.19 Golf CourseS2 379.70 Total 1,925.15 Notes: 1) Includes schools, colleges, public facilities, Civic Center, Santa Ana River right-of-way, Fairview Development Center, and other public and institutional uses. 2) Includes acres ofgolf courses within the City of Costa Mesa only. Acreages do not include Santa Ana Country Club and Newport Beach Golf Course. OSR-2 ( Costa Mesa General Plan Open Space and Recreation Element I to Parks and Open Space Inventory Community Centers Source: CityofCosta Mesa, 2015 Neighborhood Parks O Senior Center Feet �0 1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 lel! Community Parks 0Community and Recreation Centers Orange County Parks City Boundaries Golf Courses --- City Boundary - Community Gardens -------- Sphere of Influence Public Facilities and Institutional Uses Figure OSR-1: Parks and Recreation Costa Mesa General Plan I OSR-3 3ai. ei:,rriM "R Fouaert Ave m .rev; i MacArlhur Blvd 0 �! City of Santa Ana Ellis Ave Sunflower Ave. - South' oast C . South: R ' Coast tksn l?Ivri Garfield Ave- Gisfer •Ave- City of Huntington ' r Beach C '.Wort t _Region = +� Park _ +hdlsan 3t M.P Number ►Ilk, 1 n.x.' [, Y. 1 a • 1A r� y -I 6 r• 9 W.n! 1a F.,r I1 IeekN 12 Gii�r.r 13 1� 5 C %C 1�/ •t 14 rrell.r is Rd., City of r .• S_ 4�(� ti SR kr.rhi 1] 1lr ' 16 uensi Newport ■ j -, City of zo M..Beach <• Newport �� Beach zl k5ean zz nwi M Slum zs Yo 15th St \ © S A I to Parks and Open Space Inventory Community Centers Source: CityofCosta Mesa, 2015 Neighborhood Parks O Senior Center Feet �0 1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 lel! Community Parks 0Community and Recreation Centers Orange County Parks City Boundaries Golf Courses --- City Boundary - Community Gardens -------- Sphere of Influence Public Facilities and Institutional Uses Figure OSR-1: Parks and Recreation Costa Mesa General Plan I OSR-3 Open Space and Recreation Element Neighborhood and Community Parks The neighborhood and community park system represents the foundation of Costa Mesa's open space and recreation network. Approximately 415 acres of developed neighborhood and community parks provide places for residents and visitors to enjoy themselves. As shown in Table OSR-1, Costa Mesa Parks Inventory, Costa Mesa has 25 neighborhood parks and seven community parks, located as shown on Figure OSR-1. The largest City -owned park is Fairview Park, encompassing approximately 210 acres. The smallest City_ owned park is Shalimar Park at 0.18 acres. Parks within the City are classified based on size. The classification system is as follows. ■ Neighborhood Parks. Neighborhood parks are 10 acres or smaller in size and are intended to serve the daily recreational needs of residents in the immediate park vicinity. Primary uses include passive and active open space, tot lots, and picnic facilities. Community gardens are also included under this classification. ■ Community Parks. Community parks are 10 acres or larger in size and are intended to provide a wide variety of recreation amenities, including lighted athletic fields and courts and other wide -serving recreational uses. Fairview Park Fairview Park is the largest park in the City encompassing approximately 210 acres. This passive open space consists of bluffs, vernal pools, trails, and native plant communities and wildlife. Visitors to the park can also enjoy special events that occur at the park, as well as take a train ride on the Goathill Junction Model Railroad. In 1998, the City Council approved the Fairview Park Master Plan. Pursuant to the Master Plan, a series of improvements to wetlands and riparian habitat were accomplished consisting of enhancement of 17 acres of riparian habitat, rehabilitation of ponds and streams, and installation of a new irrigation system. In 2013, the City restored six acres of wetland ponds, five acres of native grasslands, three acres of native oak trees, and nine acres of coastal sage scrub habitat. OSR-4 I Costa Mesa General Plan Fairview Park encompasses over 200 acres of open space and passive park areas consisting of bluffs, vernal pools, trails, native plant communities and wildlife. Park visitors also can enjoy community events fly, model aircraft, or take a train ride at Goat Hill Junction Railroad Station. Open Space and Recreation Element In April 2013, the Costa Mesa City Council voted to reconvene the Fairview Park Citizens Advisory Committee (FPAC) to examine several issues regarding the park, and to evaluate the Fairview Park Master Plan relative to the City's needs. Based on those needs, the FPAC will recommend the addition, reduction, elimination, and modification of park uses and master -planned elements. Key elements included providing various sport fields and facilities, community gardens, trail exercise stations, a nature center, and a variety of improvements to the passive open space uses. Completion of the review is anticipated in 2016. As part of the citywide Open Space Master Plan of Parks and Recreation initiated in 2015, the community will be engaged in further discussion of improvement plans for Fairview Park. Costa Mesa Community Gardens Community gardens provide opportunities for Costa Mesa residents to nurture their physical and social health. As of 2015, the City managed two community gardens. The Del Mar Community Garden has 60 plots, each measuring 15 feet by 15 feet. Hamilton Community Garden has 42 plots with the same dimensions. The City rents garden plots to residents to grow vegetables, flowers, fruits, and plants for personal consumption. Both community gardens are immensely popular and have long waiting lists for new urban farmers to participate. Costa Mesa General Plan I OSR-5 Open Space and Recreation Element Table OSR-2: Neighborhood and Community Parks Inventory Neighborhood Parks Brentwood Park 2.60 1 1 Civic Center Park 2.50 Del Mar Com. Garden 0.77 Hamilton Com. Garden 0.45 Del Mesa Park 2.47 1 1 1 1 Estancia Park 9.03 Gisler Park 4.59 1 1 Harper Park 1.06 1 Heller Park 2.61 1 1 Jordan Park 2.48 1 Ketchum-Libolt Park 0.34 Lindbergh Park 2.00 1 Marina View Park 2.29 1 1 Mesa Verde Park 2.73 1 Moon Park 1.67 1 Paularino Park 2.23 1 1 Pinkley Park 2.57 1 1 Shalimar Park 0.18 1 Shiffer Park 7.09 1 1 2 2 2 1 Smallwood Park 3.39 1 1 1 1 Suburbia Park 0.53 Tanager Park 7.41 1 1 1 2 1 Vista Park 5.92 1 1 Wilson Park 3.61 1 1 Wimbledon Park 3.29 1 1 1 1 OSR-6 I Costa Mesa General Plan Open Space and Recreation Element Table OSR-2: Neighborhood and Community Parks Inventory Community Parks Balearic Park 10.06 2 1 2 2 2 Canyon Park 35.96 1 Jack R. Hammett Sports Complex 18.50 6 Fairview Park 210.04 1 Lions Park 12.82 1 6 TeWinkle Park 43.67 1 2 1 1 12 1 1 Wakeham Park 10.33 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Community Park 341.38 1 2 9 4 3 6 12 8 2 2 Grand Total 1 415.19 1 1 3 9 13 8 25 12 10 12 5 Source: City of Costa Mesa, 2015. Parks and Recreation Commission The Parks and Recreation Commission acts in an advisory capacity to the City Council with respect to: ■ Park and recreation facility locations * Park site planning and facility design ■ Development, operation, maintenance, and redevelopment of facilities ■ Fiscal policy recommendations regarding development priorities, grants, and fees The Parks and Recreation Commission also advises the City Council on matters pertaining to the provision of quality recreational services and activities programs, as well as park and recreation matters referred to the Commission Costa Mesa General Plan I OSR-7 Open Space and Recreation Element by the City Council or brought to the Commission's attention by stakeholders. Other Recreational Facilities Institutional Uses Costa Mesa is home to many public schools, a community college, and a private university—as well as the OC Fair & Event Center—that have open space and recreational facilities. While not all facilities are available for public recreational use, the inventory of institutional uses is considerable. These facilities contribute substantially to play the citywide open space and recreation inventory, and can augment open space provided by the neighborhood and community park system. Although not a party to the use - agreements between schools and sports leagues, the City does provide support to community organizations seeking joint -use agreements and improvements to school sites. Table OSR-3, School Recreational Facilities, identifies institutional facilities located within the City operated by the Newport -Mesa Unified School District. As of 2015, the Newport -Mesa Unified School District facilities included 32 utility fields and at least 2049 baseball/softball diamonds. The City utilizes NMUSD elementary and middle school facilities for after-school programs, and all elementary, middle, and high school athletic fields, with the exception of Jim Scott Stadium, for youth and adult sports programming. OSR-8 I Costa Mesa General Plan Youth Sports. Children participating in a Pop Warner Football gome Open Space and Recreation Element Table OSR-3: School Recreational Facilities School, Adams Elementary School 10 ■ ■ Back Bay High School 6 ■ ■ • ■ California Elementary School 8 ■ 2 ■ • ■ ■ • College Park Elementary School 8 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • 2 Costa Mesa High School 50 4 ■ 3 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 8 ■ Davis School 15 ■ ■ • Early College High School 3 Estancia High School 42 2 ■ • ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 8 ■ Harper Preschool 2 2 ■ ■ ■ • Kaiser Elementary School 16 2 3 • • • • Killybrooke School 10 ■ ■ ■ ■ Paularino Elementary School 9 ■ • • • Pomona Elementary School 8 • ■ • • Rea Elementary 14 Sonora Elementary School: 10 ■ ■ • ■ TeWinkle Intermediate School 20 3 2 3 ■ 4 ■ ■ Victoria Elementary School 7 ■ ■ • ■ Waldorf School of Orange County N/A ■ ■ ■ • ■ ■ Whittier Elementary School 9 ■ • ■ ff • Wilson Elementary School: 9 ■ • Woodland Elementary School 8 • ■ ■ • • Source: City of Costa Mesa and Newport -Mesa Unified School District Note: 1) All school identified in this table are included in the Joint Use Agreement (JUA) between Newport- wlesa Unified School District (UNXID) and the City of Costa Mesa. The JUA pertains to athletic facility use, maintenance, and program oversight, and is updated periodically. Some schools are subject to third -party agreements. Costa Mesa General Plan I OSR-9 Open Space and Recreation Element Surplus School Sites Student enrollment throughout the Newport -Mesa Unified School District fluctuates over time, and NMUSD makes long-range projections for facility needs. In the past, NMUSD has closed elementary schools due to low enrollment, with the facilities available for many uses. OC Fair & Event Center In the late 1940s, the State of California obtained the current fairgrounds property, formerly occupied by the Santa Ana Army Air Base, and used the fairgrounds for over 60 years. In 2010, the County of Orange acquired the site from the State, with the core objective to preserve and promote the fairground and event uses. The OC Fair & Event Center is a major entertainment, recreational, cultural, and educational asset to Orange County. Including the OC Fair, which occurs every summer, over 100 events occur every year supporting cultural and nonprofit organizations, and attracting over 4.1 million visitors annually. The 150 -acre property includes these components: ■ Centennial Farm. An approximately 3.5 -acre outdoor agricultural and livestock area on the southwest corner of the property. This working farm includes livestock barns and fruit and vegetable gardens, and showcases educational programs for school -aged children. OSR-10 1 Costa Mesa General Plan Centennial Farm is a three -acre working farm at the OC Fair & Event Center created to educate youth about agriculture and its importance to daily life. Open Space and Recreation Element ■ Equestrian Center. Approximately 14.5 acres, the equestrian center facility provides year-round, privately operated horse boarding and training. The area includes riding arenas, hot walkers, turnout pens, storage lockers, and ample parking. Grandstand Arena. The Grandstand, per the Master Plan, is anticipated to expand to hold 10,000 seats. The area is used for rodeos, circuses, motorcycles races, and other outdoor events. ■ Orange County Market Place. A weekly outdoor swap meet held on the property's southeast corner attract people from throughout the region. ■ Pacific Amphitheatre. An outdoor arena that seats up to 8,500 patrons, this venue hosts entertainers of local, national and international renown. ■ Showroom Buildings. Buildings totaling 148,000 square feet which are rented for various shows, with the possibility of expanding to 275,000 square feet per the Master Plan. Festival Fields (Multipurpose Area). The Festival Fields consist of an outdoor theater, camping, and Kid's Carnival. ■ Mall Areas. Three areas adjacent to the outdoor area are used primarily as show areas for automobiles, outdoor social events, and other similar uses. Golf Courses Located adjacent to the Fairview Park is the Costa Mesa Country Club, a municipal golf course with two 18 -hole golf courses, a pro shop, coffee shop, banquet facility, and driving range. The Mesa Verde Mesa Verde Country Club golf course is a private facility that includes an 18 -hole golf course, tennis and pool complex, and club house. Additionally, the private Santa Ana Country Club and Newport Beach Golf Course, both located outside City limits but within the City's sphere of influence, offer additional recreation opportunities. Costa Mesa General Plan 1 0SR- 11 Open Space and Recreation Element Dog Park Bark Park is a two -acre fenced off -leash dog park located at TeWinkle Park and adjacent to the Costa Mesa Tennis Center. The park has a separate area for small, elderly, and disabled dogs. Dog park amenities include trees, benches, water dispensers for dogs, dog waste bags, and a restroom. Bark Park is administered through the non-profit Costa Mesa Bark Park Foundation. Costa Mesa Tennis Center The Costa Mesa Tennis Center is located in TeWinkle Park, 880 Junipero Drive. This special use facility includes twelve lighted courts, fifty-five parking spaces, landscaped walkways and a pro -shop with professional tennis staff. The Costa Mesa Tennis Center offers lessons, tournaments, leagues, open play and monthly classes and activities to participants of all ages. Costa Mesa Skate Park Built in 2005, the Costa Mesa Skate Park is open to skate boarders and inline skaters of all ages daily. The 15,000 square foot facility is free to the public, although all participants are required to wear their own helmet and pads. This specialty facility is located inside of TeWinkle Park. It features street elements, a kidney -shaped pool, and a bowl. Finally, the facility also hosts the City's Parks and Community Services Department skateboarding classes. OSR-12 I Costa Mesa General Plan Costa Mesa Country Club is a publicgolf course with 36 holes ofgolf, practice facility and driving range, and banquet facility. Open Space and Recreation Element Park Level of Service Level of Service is a method used to calculate the level of service standards for parks and recreation to determine if it meets the City's needs and expectations, With a changing population, the City must continually assess how park facilities satisfy the needs of a changing demographic. Park standards determine how many parkland acres the City should develop based on population levels, locations of parks, and existing parks. As on 2015, the City had a park standard of 3.66 acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents. However, the City's goal is to attain and maintain a park standard of 4.26 acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents. Pursuant to State law (State Government Code Section 66477), the City may collect up to 3.0 acres of parkland or in -lieu fees from new residential subdivisions for every 1,000 residents. Accordingly, the City adopted a Local Park Ordinance to implement its park and recreational land dedication requirements (Article 5 — Park and Recreation Dedications). However, to reach the goal of 4.26 acres per 1,000 residents, the City must pursue alternative funding sources for the additional park acreage and/or park improvements that exceed the State standard. Alternative funding sources include general fund revenues, development impact fees, federal and State grants, user group contributions, and school district joint -use contributions. Other methods for supplementing the City's park system include encouraging the development of private open space and recreational amenities (beyond public park requirements) within large residential projects, and pursuing the joint use (or ultimate use) of utility district lands, such as those owned by County of Orange Flood Control District, for parks and open space. As of 2015, the City had an estimated population of 113,984 residents. Based on the City's park standard goal of 4.26 acres for every 1,000 persons, approximately 483 acres of parkland are required to meet the City's goal. Assuming a build -out population of 134,984 residents, 575 acres would be required to achieve the goal. This total does not include private open space and recreation facilities, golf courses, the OC Fair & Event Center, or joint use of facilities at school sites. The City's policies and implementation actions emphasize the need to pursue Costa Mesa General Plan ( OSR-13 Open Space and Recreation Element all means to expand and maximize benefits of the parks and recreation system. Neighborhood and Community Park Accessibility IFigure OSR-2, ParkAccess+b4ity, utilizes the street network system to identify areas within a one -quarter -mile and one -half -mile walking distance to park pedestrian -access points (service area). The figure identifies areas within neighborhoods that do not have ready access to City parks and thus helps assist in the strategic approach to identify and prioritize locations for parkland to meet the community goals and objectives. Park Level of Service and Accessibility by Planning Area An estimate of population to park ratios has been conducted by "Planning Areas" to evaluate deficiencies in the City's allocation of parkland. Table OSR- 4, 2015 Park /Population Ratios, indicates these estimated ratios. Planning Area 2 exceeds the park -to -population standard of parkland, but includes some areas that lacks park accessibility. Planning Area 3 is the area with the most deficient neighborhood parkland with a ratio of 0.60 acres of parkland, for every 1,000 persons. Figure OSR-3, Planning Areas and Underserved Park Areas, identifies the Planning Areas. OSR-14 I Costa Mesa General Plan Open Space and Recreation Element --I— — City of A'8 Santa Ana Tauri Ave. 3 Residentia 0 Alac Arthur 81YLL served by private ar butKas 51 f not by public park served by ph f'die parks, but not by Fm Sic parks Ell Ave Su lover Ave. 5t f'r . South Court ,:10-1;.11 Blvd Plaza [ Garfield Ave, Gisler Ava. City of a I y Huntington I, t Beach C , a° 7rllherl ',Teyioual City of •, Newport > Ci of Beach Newport J Z� �® Beach Seo° i 15th St Parks and Open Space Inventory Walking Shed Analysis Source: City of Costa iMesa. 2015 'I Neighborhood Parks 1/4 Mile Walking Distance to Park da 00 feet 0 1,000 7,000 4,000 6,000 5,000 — Community Parks 1/2 Mile Walking Distance to Park 3qW Orange County Parks :1 — - aril; Residential Underserved Areas Golf Courses Pedestrian Barriers — Community Gardens Public Facilities and Institutional Uses Figure OSR-2: Park Access Costa Mesa General Plan I OSR-15 Open Space and Recreation Element Table OSR-4: 2015 Park /Population Ratios Planning Population' Area Existing Park Land Estimated Park/ (2015) pulation Ratio 54.43 2.29/1,000 1 23,820 2 24,698 248.39 10.06/1,000 3 23,451 14.09 0.60/1,000 4 27,151 75.10 2.77/1,000 5 8,753 13.62 1.56/1,000 6 6,111 9.56 1.56/1,000 Total 113,984 415.19 3.64/1,000 Notes: 1) Population based on U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 5 - Year Estimates for 2014 by Census Tract. Some variation may occur due to differences between tract boundaries and Planning Area boundaries. Source: City of Costa Heso, 2015. Planning Area 1 Planning Area 1 is unique in a number of ways. First, it is the location of major public open space features, including Canyon Community Park and the Talbert Regional Park and in close proximity to Fairview Community Park. However, these facilities are located along the easternmost boundary of the area, leaving the balance poorly served for neighborhood park service. Secondly, the area is the most densely populated and highly developed in the City, leaving very limited opportunities for sites to fulfill this service deficiency. There are several park priority areas within the Westside neighborhood, just south of Victoria Street. Planning Area 2 Planning Area 2 is well served and exceeds the park -to -population standard for neighborhood and community. Nearly 250 acres of parkland are provided in this Planning Area. However, in terms of park accessibility, the Mesa Verde neighborhood around Gisler Avenue is located more than a one-half mile from a park. The Westside neighborhood north of Victoria Street is also identified as being farther than one-half mile walking distance from a park. OSR-16 1 Costa Mesa General Plan Open Space and Recreation Element Planning Area 3 Planning Area 3 is similar to Area 1 in that it is an older neighborhood which is nearly fully developed without an adequate neighborhood park system. One advantage that the Eastside neighborhood has is the availability of operating school sites to augment the local park network, plus surplus school sites. Regarding park access, the neighborhood area east of Downtown and along 19th Street is identified as being located beyond a one -half -mile walking distance from a park. This area is both deficient in park -to -population standard and by accessibility standards. Planning Area 4 Planning Area 4, although it does not meet the park -to -population standard for parks, it is generally well served by City parks. The acquisition of the Jack R. Hammett Sports Complex helped improve the park deficiency within the entire Planning Area. However, the Halecrest and College Park neighborhoods lie beyond the desired one-half mile. Planning Area 5 Planning Area 5 is identified as park deficient. Several residential complexes are served by private on-site recreation facilities and open space easements. However, with the development of the Sakioka Farms residential site, this area is expected to have the potential for new residential development that could include new public (or private) park space. Planning Area 6 Planning Area 6, which consists of the Bristol and Paularino neighborhoods, is identified as park deficient in terms of the park -to -population standard. Park accessibility is generally good to Schiffer Park and Del Mesa Park by surrounding residential neighborhoods. Large residential complexes that are not within a one -half -mile walking distance to a public park generally have private park facilities dedicated to their residents. New residential development associated with the SoBECA Urban Plan will also increase the current population in this Planning Area and the need for additional public parks. Costa Mesa General Plan I OSR-17 Open Space and Recreation Element Ser Irst n ive. City \ SantaAna Ana rn � Tt114?rl Ave ��`, 1 3 Residential VaaVMur Blvd. �I served by private rk , but r not 4 public served by pr ate parks, bIsu not by p pr blit parks' , Ave kmave i Saut#t Mill ';09T ar South Coast "I ` ! Pura Garfield AM GiY of —� dr N Bea hon 21, Orange Coast ❑ —� rarrege Arrm ton or o m FaPrriery ��~�OC Fair&EventCerr Park ter $ Ir P # r r . F:rni`r ;+ .0.0. rarbert r C° j Regional�► .� s., Park . ► -- .'lrisonSl. A r a P a. ARL Mom � ti' � � • N City of c + Newport — •"'r, zy (i of Beach c Newport 3 Reach r, 15th St s , 'as Underserved Park Areas Source: City of Costa Mesa, 2015 Residential Underserved Areas I Feer OP Park Priority Area � o 1,000 2,000 -4,000 6,000 8,000 �■ Neighborhood Planning Areas `%i Figure OSR-3: Planning Areas and Underserved Park Areas OSR-18 I Costa Mesa General Plan Open Space and Recreation Element Key Park System Issues Limited Availability of Park Sites Costa Mesa is a mature, well-developed city with very little land available for new parkland. Few vacant parcels exist, and those that do may not be useful in terms of size, location, or other factors. The few remaining large vacant lands are located north of 1-405 and planned for urban -intensity development, as outlined in the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan. As part of any master planning process, the City has the ability to require provision of public open space for parks and similar purposes. The other major potential site for parkland is the Fairview Development Center, which the State may choose to downsize or relocate, thus making these public lands possibly available for transfer to the City. Any new parks the City acquires within established neighborhoods will be small infill parks. Several contiguous sites will need to be acquired to provide an active sports park facility to meet the community's recreational needs. Further, the demands on capital funds are highly competitive, potentially creating further limitations for acquisition of new City parkland. Balance of Passive and Active Recreation As the population in the City continues to changes, the demand for parks and open spaces will increase and change based on the population's composition. In response, the City may find it necessary to repurpose current parks and open spaces to accommodate residents' needs. As a result, preserving the established uses of parks and open spaces and balancing between passive and active recreation use may become a challenge. Oue to its size, F. iAfieW P^~'( iS However, a balance between passive and active open space opportunities within the park will continue to be a key consideration. Demand for Sports Field Organized sports programs have created a demand for more baseball, softball, and soccer fields. Many neighborhood parks provide space for organized sports but typically have insufficient parking, lighting, and facilities to meet this demand. Sports parks within neighborhoods require a balancing act for the City to meet the needs of private athletic organizations and neighborhood residents. Residents often express concerns regarding parking OSR-18 I Costa Mesa General Plan Open Space and Recreation Element spillover into neighborhoods, lighting, noise, and the general unavailability of facilities to residents. Adequate Space for Community Gardens Costa Mesa owns and operates two community garden sites in the City. As of 2015, long waiting lists to lease garden parcels to community members prevented many residents from having garden plots. As the population and popularity of gardening continues to grow, the demand community garden will grow as well. Park Level of Service As of 2015, Costa Mesa had 3.66 acres of parkland per 1,000 persons (based on population of 113,455 and 415.19 park acres), well under the 4.26 acres per 1,000 persons this element identifies as the minimum parkland ratio. With the planned population growth identified in the Land Use Element, demand per the standard will increase to 575 park acres per 1,000 persons, again below the threshold identified in this element. The City of Costa Mesa will have to acquire additional park acres to meet the citywide goal of 4.26 acres per 1,000 persons. Park Accessibility Several residential neighborhoods in Costa Mesa are more than one-quarter and one -half -mile pedestrian walking distance to public neighborhood and community parks. These neighborhoods include the Westside residential district generally along Victoria Street and Placentia Avenue, the Eastside residential district along 191" and 20`" Streets, the residential area northeast of the Mesa Verde Country Club, and the Halecrest residential neighborhood. The Halecrest area does include a private park, Halecrest Park, which requires a membership to access the recreation facilities. These areas should be considered priorities areas for future parks. Other small underserved areas should also be considered as well. Additionally, large apartment and condominium complexes provide private recreational facilities for their residents and are maintained under management groups or homeowner associations. OSR-20 I Costa Mesa General Plan Open Space and Recreation Element Recreational Facilities and Programs Community Facilities The City operates and maintains four community centers: Balearic Community Center, Downtown Recreation Center, Neighborhood Community Center, and Costa Mesa Senior Center. Each facility provides recreational activities and room rentals. ■ Balearic Community Center. Located at 1975 Balearic Drive, the facility comprises two rental rooms that can accommodate up to 100 people. Year round, these rooms are used for the City's Day Camp Program, Recreation on Campus for Kids (ROCK) program, and Early Childhood Program. Adjacent to the center is Balearic Park, which features a fenced playground with play equipment, playground, basketball courts, and a large athletic field. ■ Downtown Recreation Center. Located at 1860 Anaheim Avenue, this center includes an indoor gymnasium, gymnastics room, a 25 -yard outdoor pool, and a designated room and office for the Childs -Pace day-care program. The facility offers a multipurpose room equipped with a kitchen, and provides open gym time for youth and adult basketball. During the summer, the multipurpose room is also used as a ROCKS program site. ■ Neighborhood Community Center. Located at 1845 Park Avenue, this 24,000 -square -foot facility consists of a large multipurpose hall, stage, dance floor, and full-service kitchen. Three smaller meeting and conference rooms are available for meetings and classes. In 2015, The City approved a $34.5 million plan to build a new library building to house the new Donald Dungan Library; renovate the existing Donald Dungan library to serve as the new Neighborhood Community Center (NCC); demolish the old NCC; and proposed parking and landscape developments in several phases. A community -driven process has guided design and service plans. Costa Mesa General Plan I OSR-21 Open Space and Recreation Element ■ Costa Mesa Senior Center. Located at 695 West 191h Street the senior center, provides a day facility for Costa Mesa's older residents to gather and participate in social, recreational, and personal development programs. The facility also provides seniors access to free transportation for medical -related appointments and other transportation needs, Community Services Programs Community Services programs encompass the diverse recreational and social services activities provided by the City to residents. These programs can be classified in one of the following categories: • Recreational and Physical Activities • Action Sports ■ Cultural and Performing Arts • Youth Programs • Human Services ■ Older Adult Programs and Services The City provides a diverse selection of recreational and sports activities, programs, and services that utilize the extensive network of parks and recreation facilities. A number of nonprofit organizations within the community also provide programs and services, including the Newport -Mesa Family YMCA, Costa Mesa United, and youth sports organizations such as AYSO, Little League Baseball, and Pop Warner Football. The City facilitates the use of its facilities and as outdoor school grounds by these groups. Youth Programs The City offers a variety of recreation programs for local youth, including gymnastics, basketball, soccer, tee -ball, skateboarding, martial arts, and horseback riding. The programs aim to provide children and teenagers with effective tools to learn and grow through well-planned curriculum, activities, field trips, and socialization. Youth and teen programs include the Costa Mesa Day Camp, Early Childhood Program, ROCK, Recreation Leadership Training Program, and Teen Camp. OSR-22 I Costa Mesa General Plan Costa Mesa's Community Services Department provides a wide range of programs and activitiesforyouth and teens. Open Space and Recreation Element Human Services Human services programs provide social and financial aid to community members, and can enhance quality of life, promote civic involvement and volunteerism, foster partnerships with private organizations, and create a sense of belonging. The City coordinates with a variety of human services providers such as the Orange County Rescue Mission and the Orange County Interfaith Shelter to assist residents and their families. Older Adult Programs and Services Residents over age 50 represent a growing demographic in Costa Mesa. As a result, the City's services and programs need to address the growing demands of residents who are 50+ by providing social events, expressive arts, nutrition, fitness, and educational and recreational classes that focus on health and wellness. Older residents who face mobility, economic, and medical care challenges can find support and referrals through the programs, services, and classes held at the Costa Mesa Senior Center. The Costa Mesa Senior Center also organizes activities, trips, and special events throughout the year. Costa Mesa General Plan I OSR-23 Open Space and Recreation Element Key Recreational Facilities and Programs Issue Adequate Community Services to Serve Changing Community Historically, the City has provided high levels of recreation, community, youth and family, and older adult services that meet changing community needs. Maintaining and improving this level of service may be challenging given limited funding resources and demographic changes. Open Space Open space land, as defined by California Government Code Section 65560, is any parcel or area of land or waterthat is essentially unimproved and devoted to an open -space use, including open space for the: ■ Preservation of natural resources ■ Managed production of resources * Outdoor recreation ■ Public health and safety Preservation of open space resources, including habitat areas, wildlife, and water resources are addressed in the Conservation Element. Costa Mesa Open Spaces Canyon Park Canyon Park's name refers to its location within a canyon just north of 191" Street. This approximately 36 -acre natural open space park includes meandering trails which connect to several surrounding neighborhoods, a small playground and picnic green -space, and Talbert Regional Park. Talbert Regional Park The County of Orange preserves and maintains the 244 -acre Talbert Regional Park, which encompasses the Talbert Nature Preserve. This open space is located in the southwest portion of the City, north and south of Victoria Street along the Santa Ana River lowlands, and provides passive recreation opportunities, including walking, picnicking, and hiking. The trail system allows for observation of natural resources and links to other parks along the OSR-24 I Costa Mesa General Plan Santa Ann River Open Space includes tails and access to Costa Mesa's Fairview Park and Talbert Regional Park. Open Space and Recreation Element Santa Ana River. Group use within the habitat areas is permitted by guided walks, and individual use is facilitated by interpretive signage. When combined, Canyon Park, Fairview Park, and Talbert Regional Park provide almost 490 acres of restored and enhanced natural open space. Santa Ana River The Santa Ana River forms the western boundary of Costa Mesa. Although not included in the open space inventory, the Santa Ana River Trail provides a major recreation and circulation element that extends from the Pacific Ocean to the Inland Empire. The bikeway has been designated by Congress as a "National Recreational Trail." OC Parks owns and manages the nearly one mile of the mouth of the Santa Ana River, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers controls river area above the mouth. Open Spaces Adjacent to Costa Mesa Newport Banning Ranch Newport Banning Ranch is an approximately 401 -acre site partially located in unincorporated Orange County and partially within the City of Newport Beach, adjacent to Costa Mesa. Plans for the property include approximately 174 acres of permanent open space to be preserved and protected for l lowland and upland habitat, a nature center, vernal pool interpretive area, Costa Mesa General Plan I OSR-25 Open Space and Recreation Element and a diverse system of public interpretive trails connecting to the Talbert Nature Preserve and Santa Ana River Trail in Costa Mesa. Upper Newport Bay Upper Newport Bay is located just east of Costa Mesa in the City of Newport Beach. It is the largest of only a few remaining natural estuaries in Southern California. An estuary is a coastal wetland where saltwater from the ocean mixes with nutrient -rich fresh water from inland sources to provide a fertile feeding area for birds, fish, and other animals. The Upper Bay is a recreational and educational resource for the area, with a multipurpose traiitpiai and many wildlife viewing stations. Open Space Conservation Efforts Orange Coast River Park, Inc. is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit independent organization originally founded as a committee by the Friends of Harbors, Beaches and Parks. Orange Coast River Park's mission is to facilitate coordination among stakeholders, agencies, landowners, and the public to create a 1,000 -acre Open Space Master Plan at the mouth of the Santa Ana River between the Mesa Verde residential community in Costa Mesa and the Pacific Ocean. The organization's major goals are to "restore the historic ecological staircase, extend a seamless passageway to the coast from inland, and create access for residents and visitors to an oasis of tranquility." Key Open Space Issues Open Space Preservation and Management Open space lands within Fairview Park, Canyon Park, and Talbert Regional Park need to be managed to prevent impacts to sensitive habitat and wildlife. Wetlands, vernal pools, and other sensitive habitats need to be protected from human activity and accidental and intended damage. Invasive plant and wildlife species and hazardous material from pesticides, pollution, trash, and other toxic materials need to be controlled and/or restricted to prevent severe damage to these resources. Unauthorized trails by bicyclists and hikers can also damage sensitive habitat areas. Public agencies need to continue to provide and enforce management and educational strategies to protect, preserve, and steward these limited resources. OSR-26 1 Costa Mesa General Plan Open Space and Recreation Element Open Space Acquisition As a built -out community, Costa Mesa will face challenges acquiring new open space land due to high land costs and the limited availability of land. Open Space Access Open spaces in Costa Mesa are primarily located along the Santa Ana River. Adjoining residential neighborhoods can easily access the Santa Ana River Trail and Banning Channel Bikeway. Eastside Costa Mesa neighborhoods may encounter difficulties in accessing these open spaces through the City's established bikeway system. Talbert Regional Park is primarily accessed by surrounding residential neighborhoods can access through trail connections and access points. Careful consideration must be given to increase access to open spaces while protecting sensitive habitat. Costa Mesa General Plan I OSR-27 Open Space and Recreation Element Cultural Arts Resources Costa Mesa's motto is "City of the Arts." Over the past decades, regionally and nationally recognized organizations have established the City as their home, and they continue to grow. The Segerstrom Center for the Arts, South Coast Repertory Theater, Arts Plaza, and Noguchi Sculpture Gardens are some of the significant cultural resources based in Costa Mesa. The Costa Mesa Playhouse also thrives in the City, along with a wide array of art galleries and a contemporary music scene. Costa Mesa Theater and Arts District Plan The 54 -acre Costa Mesa Theater and Arts District includes high-rise office buildings; internationally recognized cultural facilities; and hotels, restaurants, and high-end commercial uses. Located along the Avenue of the Arts and with ready access to 1-405, the district attracts visitors from throughout Southern California and beyond. To guide the coordinated development of the district, in 2004 the City the Costa Mesa Theater & Arts District Plan was established. Cultural Arts Committee The Cultural Arts Committee coordinates with the City Council to support cultural arts programs and increase awareness of the arts to Costa Mesa residents. The Committee's overarching goal is to establish programs, organize events, and distribute information that promote arts and culture. OSR-28 1 Costa Mesa General Plan Segerstrom Hall and the Renee & Henry Segerstrom Concert Hall within the Segerstrom Center for the Arts A--pPublic art located at the main entrance of the Segerstrom Hall Open Space and Recreation Element Programs and events organized by the Committee include the Artist Showcase, Arts in the Park, Art Walk, and Youth Art Gallery. Key Cultural Arts Issue Limited Number of Public Arts Public art refers to works of art in any media located in a public setting, with the purpose of beautifying public spaces and buildings, drawing attention to the message the artwork may communicate, and educating the public. Public art can increase the intrinsic and monetary values of the places it graces; and it can express a civic and corporate pride. Many of Costa Mesa's public art pieces are located at the Segerstrom Center of the Arts, which has limited public access. Costa Mesa General Plan I OSR-29 Open Space and Recreation Element Goals, Objectives, and Policies These goals, objectives, and policies guide policy decisions regarding open space and recreation in Costa Mesa, and allow for the continued expansion, improvement, and maintenance of community facilities and services for the enjoyment of current and future residents. Additional opportunities include integrating public art throughout the community to highlight predominant themes in Costa Mesa's history. Goal OSR-1: Balanced and Accessible System of Parks and Open Spaces Provide a high-quality environment through the development of recreation resources and preservation of open space that meets community needs in Costa Mesa. Objective OSR-1: Maintain and preserve existing parks, and strive to provide additional parks, public spaces, and recreation facilities that meet the community's evolving needs. Adequate Neighborhood and Community Park Recreational Facilities Policy OSR-1.A: Maintain a system of Neighborhood and Community Parks that provide a variety of active and passive recreational opportunities throughout the City. Policy OSR-1.113: Provide parks and recreation facilities appropriate for the individual neighborhoods in which they are located and reflective of the needs and interests of the population they serve. Acquisition of New Parkland Policy OSR-1.C: Pursue the acquisition and development of pocket and neighborhood parks within park -deficient areas, as identified in Figure OSR-3: Planning Areas and Underserved Park Areas. Policy 0SR-1.D: Prioritize the acquisition of land for parks in underserved neighborhoods. OSR-30 I Costa Mesa General Plan Open Space and Recreation Element Policy 0SR-1.F: Maximize public space by requiring plazas and public gathering spaces in private developments that can serve multiple uses, including recreation and social needs. Policy OSR-1.G: Provide maximum visibility and accessibility for future public parks by locating facilities in close proximity to public streets. Policy OSR-1.1-1: Adjust and update development fee programs to accumulate funds for the acquisition and improvement of parks and recreation facilities commensurate with identified need and population growth. Balance of Passive and Active Recreation Policy OSR-1.1: Require that parks and recreation facilities reflect new trends and population changes, and are developed with facilities appropriate to all ages, including athletic fields, active play areas, passive open space, tot lots, and picnic areas. Policy 0SR-1.J: Conduct a sports facility study to review current outdoor facility locations and resources and a demographic study for future facility requirements as they relate to planned growth within the City. Policy 0SR-1.K: Pursue additional community garden lots and spaces to meet demand and need by the community. Park Maintenance and Retrofit Policy OSR-11: Perform regular maintenance of facilities to ensure proper working order of all recreation facilities and equipment. Policy 0SR-1.M: Retrofit parks and recreation facilities to provide disability access as required by law. Policy OSR-1.N: Design and reform parks to reflect the latest recreational features that respond to demographic changes and community needs. Policy OSR-1.0: Consult with law enforcement agencies, surrounding cities, community policing groups, and OC Parks to create a safe and healthy environment at Talbert Regional Park, Fairview Park, and along the Santa Ana River. Costa Mesa General Plan I OSR-31 Open Space and Recreation Element Long -Term Planning of Institutional Uses Policy 0SR-1.P: Continue to pursue opportunities to create joint -use community space at facilities owned by private organizations such as private schools, faith -based groups, service clubs, and hospitals. Policy 0SR-1.Q: Continue to coordinate with the Newport -Mesa Unified School District to supplement City park facilities through joint -use agreements. Policy OSR-1.11: Consult with Orange County Fairgrounds in implementing OC Fair & Event Center Master Plan. Level of Service and Access Policy 0SR-1.S: Provide a minimum of 4.26 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. Policy 0SR-1.T: Update the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan every 10 years, as feasible. Policy 0SR-1.U: Enhance pedestrian, bicycle, and transit linkages to meet the needs of residents and to provide better access to parks, recreation, and public spaces. Policy 0SR-1.V: Provide opportunities for public access to all open space areas, except where sensitive resources may be threatened or damaged, public health and safety may be compromised, or access would interfere with the managed production of resources. GOAL OSR-2: Community Services Programs Meeting Community Needs Enhancing the community through the delivery of innovative recreational programs, quality parks and facilities and services that promote social, physical, and emotional well-being. High-quality community services programs demonstrate the City's commitment to providing opportunities for recreational, physical, and educational activities for residents of all ages. OSR-32 I Costa Mesa General Plan Open Space and Recreation Element Objective OSR-2: Provide activities, classes, and a variety of programs to meet the year-round recreational needs of all residents: children, adult, seniors, and persons with special needs. High-quality Community Services Policy OSR-2.A: Provide high-quality community services programs that are flexible and responsive to the community's changing needs. Policy OSR-2.6: Plan and conduct citywide special events that bring residents together to create an enhanced quality of life and promote economic development. Policy OSR-2.C: Continue to consult with nonprofit sports organizations and recreational groups to support their offering of diverse recreational programs that complement and supplement those offered by the City. Policy OSR-2.D: Update existing facilities and facilities for senior citizens, youth, adult, and overall community use. Community Services to Support Community Needs Policy OSR-2.E: Monitor and research the ever-changing community services needs of the community, and develop action plans to address those needs through partnerships with service agencies. Policy OSR-2.F: Continue to provide rental opportunities at community facilities and parks for residents, nonprofit groups, and businesses to meet their recreational and professional needs. Policy OSR-2.G: Continue broad-based public outreach activities that inform residents of all available community services programs, and obtain input from the community regarding program and service needs. Policy OSR-2.H: Encourage resident input and utilize demographic data, partnerships, volunteers, and existing resources to meet the needs of community. Policy OSR-2.1: Identify innovative funding and development opportunities to support and sustain a responsive community services network. Costa Mesa General Plan 1 0SR-33 Open Space and Recreation Element Policy OSR-2.J: Continue and expand the development of community partnerships to offer both standard and innovative services to meet residents' needs. Policy OSR-2.K: Develop and implement community services programs and activities that meet the needs of specialized populations through the development of community partnerships. Policy OSR-21: Provide support for volunteer groups that conduct special activities open to the entire community. GOAL OSR-3: Conserved Open Space Costa Mesa is committed to open space conservation to ensure that the network of parklands, trails, hillsides, and undeveloped natural areas remain viable for supporting biological communities and providing sanctuary for future generations. This commitment includes expanding public access to open space, where appropriate, and acquiring additional lands where feasible. Objective OSR-3: Preserve the City's open space lands and provide additional community and neighborhood parkland in underserved areas. Open Space Preservation and Stewardship Policy OSR-3.A: Preserve open space areas along The Santa Ana River, large open space parks, and along the mesa formations to protect natural habitat and to maintain the integrity of the natural environment. Policy OSR-3.13: Encourage the preservation of coastal views from City and County parkland and public streets within Costa Mesa. Policy OSR-3.C: Identify current open space areas for protection, management, and potential enhancement to maintain and, if possible, increase its value as wildlife habitat. Management and Maintenance of Open Space Policy OSR-3.1): Encourage the long-term maintenance and management of open space lands through open space easements, development rights transfers or acquisition, zoning regulations, and other incentives. OSR-34 I Costa Mesa General Plan Open Space and Recreation Element Policy OSR-3.E: Encourage the greening and beautifying of the Santa Ana River. Policy OSR-3.F: Encourage opportunities for recreation, history, education, interpretive materials, and art associated with the Santa Ana River open spaces. Policy OSR-3.G: Promote water quality strategies to improve water quality along the Santa Ana River. Coordination and Organization Development Policy OSR-3.H: Consult with State and regional agencies regarding open space planning efforts. Policy OSR-3.1: Consult with the Orange Coast River Park, Inc. and surrounding cities and other government agencies in maintaining and rehabilitating open space lands along the Santa Ana River. Policy OSR-3.J: Consult with OC Parks over the enhancements and management of Talbert Regional Park without adversely impacting surrounding residential neighborhoods. GOAL OSR-4: Extensive Arts and Culture Programs and Services Provide comprehensive and multifaceted arts and culture programs and services that provide education and entertainment to the community and a broader audience. Objective OSR-4: Support performing and visual arts programs, facilities, and activities that stimulate the minds and intellectual thinking of community members to increase awareness of the City's motto, "The City of the Arts." Cultural Arts Venues Policy OSR-4.A: Continue to support the mission of the Segerstrom Center for the Arts and associate venues and facilities. Policy OSR-4.13: Support the development and operations of an arts museum at the Segerstrom Center for the Arts. Costa Mesa General Plan 1 0SR- 35 Open Space and Recreation Element Policy OSR-4.C: Encourage additional indoor and outdoor facility spaces citywide to display public art and host arts and culture special events. Leader in the Arts Policy OSR-4.D: Expand the City's role as a supporter of the arts. Policy OSR-4.E: Encourage financial support of the arts by supporting non-profit groups and foundations. Policy OSR-4.F: Consider preparation of an arts and culture master plan for the City. Policy OSR-4.G: Consult with local agencies and surrounding cities to address the creation and implementation of arts -friendly policies. Policy OSR-4.H: Enhance Costa Mesa's position as a leader in the arts in Southern California and its recognition nationally as a city devoted to arts institutions of superior quality. Policy OSR-4.1: Engage community members in arts activities, and utilize the arts to provide educational and cultural awareness opportunities. Policy OSR-4.J: Continue the City's commitment to its arts in cooperation with the private sector. Policy OSR-4.K: Provide opportunities for local artists to create and display their work. Arts Programs and Events Policy OSR-41: Support arts activities, programs, events, and facilities for patrons to enjoy and share experiences, and that enhance the City's economic vitality. Policy OSR-4.M: Designate Community Services Department staff with the responsibility for expanding and implementing activities related to recreational arts programming. Policy OSR-4.N: Pursue cooperative educational cultural programs enlisting the aid of public and private institutions. Arts in Public Places and in Private Development Policy OSR-4.0: Continue to review adopting an Arts in Public Places Program. OSR-36 1 Costa Mesa General Plan Open Space and Recreation Element Policy OSR-4.P: Pursue the placement of public art in prominent locations, particularly along major travel corridors to enliven and beautify the public realm . Policy OSR-4.Q: Develop incentives or programs that encourage art in new developments. Costa Mesa General Plan I OSR-37 Diego Sep Oveda Adobe at Estancia Park Chapter n: Historical and Cultural Resources Element Introduction Costa Mesa's historical and cultural resources are woven into the fabric of the community and offer a window into the City's rich and colorful past. These resources provide tangible reminders of a past, including the original indigenous inhabitants, early Spanish explorers and settlers, American pioneers and City builders, and the World War II home -front efforts in Costa Mesa. The Historical and Cultural Resources Element identifies the historical and cultural resources that celebrate Costa Mesa's story and have fostered its vibrant ethnic and cultural diversity. Costa Mesa General Plan I HCR -1 Historical and Cultural Resources Element This Historical and Cultural Resources Element: ■ Reviews the historical development of Costa Mesa ■ Describes local historical and cultural resources. ■ Identifies the preservation framework related to historical and cultural resources ■ Defines goals, objectives, and policies for preserving and maintaining historical and cultural resources Purpose Costa Mesa's historical and cultural resources provide an important connection to the past, while shaping the community's identity and direction for the future. To foster this connection, the Historical and Cultural Resources Element provides the regulatory framework for identifying, maintaining, and restoring the City's historical and cultural resources. Furthermore, the element ensures that these resources are preserved to satisfy the following objectives: ■ To safeguard the City's heritage as embodied and reflected in such resources ■ To encourage public knowledge, understanding, and appreciation of the City's past ■ To foster civic and neighborhood pride and a sense of identity based on the recognition and use of cultural resources ■ To preserve diverse and harmonious architectural styles and design preferences reflecting the phases of the City's history, and to encourage complementary contemporary design and construction ■ To enhance property values, and to increase economic and financial benefits for the City and its inhabitants ■ To protect and enhance the City's attractions for tourists and visitors HCR -2 I Costa Mesa General Plan Historical and Cultural Resources Element Historical Context: Costa Mesa's Past Costa Mesa's historical resources are physical reminders of a history dating back thousands of years, from Native American settlement, to periods when the region was under the flags of Spain and Mexico, to the World War II era. Native Americans inhabited the region for thousands of years. The location along the Santa Ana River and near the Pacific Ocean provided abundant food and other resources for Native Americans for millennia. During California's colonial era, the region became one of Southern California's great ranchos and agricultural producing areas for growing sweet potatoes, corn, tomatoes, strawberries, and apples. The convergence of water and rail transportation at the end of the 19" century led to an industrial boom in the early 20th century. During World War II, Costa Mesa became the site of the Santa Ana Army Air Base. The following summarizes significant periods in Costa Mesa's social, physical, cultural, and economic evolution. The summary also describes some of the historical sites, structures, and landmarks associated with each period. Native Americans and Early Spanish Settlers Located on the "coastal tableland" above Newport Beach, Costa Mesa's first inhabitants were Native Americans who settled on the mesa near the banks of the Santa Ana River. Discovered artifacts, including discarded shells and ceremonial and household artifacts, indicate that the riverbanks were a part of the village once known as Lukup. In 1776, Spanish explorers established Mission San Juan Capistrano approximately 22 miles southeast from present- day Costa Mesa. Occasionally, the padres from the mission would visit Lukup. In the early 1800s, when the Capistrano cattle grazed in the Costa Mesa area, provisions had to be made to shelter the herdsmen. Three adobes were built along the bluffs of Costa Mesa overlooking the Santa Ana River. The first adobe, known as the Polloreno (or Banning Adobe), was located approximately one-third of a mile south along the bluffs near Adams Avenue. The adobe fell to ruin between 1903 and 1906 after treasure hunters dug around the building looking for hidden gold. Between 1820 and 1823, the second adobe, known as the Gabe Allen Adobe (or the Estancia), was constructed. This structure still stands today. It was restored by the City and Costa Mesa General Plan I HCR -3 Historical and Cultural Resources Element now serves as a museum at 1900 Adams Avenue in Estancia Park. The third adobe, called the Rice Adobe, was located just north of Gisler Avenue. In 1919, this adobe was torn down by the owner of the property of the time, Edward Pomeroy, to keep treasure hunters off of the property. Early City Settlements The history of Costa Mesa is the story of three communities: an old boomtown called Fairview, the small farming village of Paularino, and the town of Harper, which would later be renamed Costa Mesa. The growth and blending of these communities played a significant role in the history of Orange County and California. Town of Fairview Between the fall of 1887 and summer of 1888, the town of Fairview was established. The town was centered near the present-day intersection of Adams Avenue and Harbor Boulevard. In October 1887, a syndicate of local businessmen formed to purchase and develop various tracts within the Newport District. Over the next few years, development of Fairview grew at a rapid pace. It was during this time that the Fairview Post Office was established and the Santa Ana, Fairview, and Pacific (SF&P) Railroad was founded. In addition, the discovery of hot mineral water springs in the area led to the construction of the three-story Hotel Fairview. By the spring of 1889 the town began to collapse as rapidly as it had appeared, despite attempts to promote the continuing development of Fairview. During that same year, the land boom of Southern California also declined, with many of the land transactions throughout the region falling through. In March of 1889, a severe rainstorm washed out a section of the SF&P Railroad tracks and the roadbed midway between Fairview and Santa Ana, next to the Santa Ana River. As a result, many residents began to leave the town, including the editor and owner of the local paper, town physician, butcher, and local sign painter. By 1911, all that remained of Fairview was the schoolhouse, the hotel, and a few houses. The schoolhouse closed in 1915, and the hotel was demolished in 1920. The few remaining houses located in Fairview eventually were HCR -4 I Costa Mesa General Plan Harper -Fairview Grammar School, formerly located at the northwest corner of 1911, Street and Newport Bo[devard in the early 1920s Historical and Cultural Resources Element destroyed by fire or removed to make way for new development beginning in the 1930s. Farming Communities Paularino Paularino was a typical farming community that consisted of approximately 800 acres generally bounded by the present-day location of Fairview Road to the west, Newport Boulevard to the east, 1-405 to the north, and Baker Street to the south. The Paularino community did not amount to more than a name with a few scattered farmhouses, a schoolhouse, and a railroad siding. The lack of growth of Paularino eventually led to its abandonment. Harper Harper was named after a rancher who came to the area after the Fairview land boom. Parallel with the land development, the area experienced its first oil boom, with three oil wells installed in 1906 just south of the present-day location of Newport Harbor High School. In 1907, several more wells were installed on the northern end of the Newport Heights Tract. The oil boom was short lived; within three years, the wells were abandoned. In 1920, the farming community of Harper was renamed Costa Mesa, which means coastal tableland in Spanish. In the summer of that same year, the Wayside Market (located on Newport Boulevard) opened. During 1921, several more store buildings were constructed along Newport Boulevard, including a garage shop, blacksmith shop, barber shop, and soda fountain. Costa Mesa General Plan I HCR -5 Historical and Cultural Resources Element Development continued to increase throughout Costa Mesa until January 21, 1932, when the Costa Mesa Branch of the Bank of Balboa closed. A year later, the Southern Pacific Railroad's branch line that ran along Newport Boulevard was abandoned, and the 1933 Long Beach Earthquake shook the town, damaging businesses and other structures. After the Great Depression, the town began to grow again with the opening of several commercial stores, including Sprouse -Reitz Variety (located at 1830 Newport Boulevard), Myers and Myers Department Store (located at 1816 Newport Boulevard), and the post office (located at 1809 Newport Boulevard). Costa Mesa continued to be recognized as a small town until World War II. Costa Mesa and the Santa Ana Army Air Base In response to increasing world conflicts in the 1930s and `40s, military installations were planned throughout the country. One of these military installations was the United States Air Corps Replacement Training Center, which was redesignated the Santa Ana Army Air Base (SAAAB) in 1942. The base encompassed 1,337 acres between Newport Boulevard and Harbor Boulevard and consisted of three schools: the Air Force Classification Center, the Air Force Pre -Flight School for pilots, and the Air Force Pre -Flight School for bombardiers and navigators. In 1946, the War Department announced that the SAAAB was for sale to any educational institution for the price of one dollar. That same year, the War Assets Administration sold a portion of the base to the Orange Coast Junior HCR -6 I Costa Mesa General Plan Newport Boulevard streetscape lined with cafes and businesses, as well as Ford Model T automobiles parked along the street, circa 1927 Newport Boulevard and 18Th Street circa 1965 Historical and Cultural Resources Element College District, which would later become the campus for Orange Coast College. Two years later, the Southern California Assemblies of God Churches purchased 126 acres of the base for a future campus, the Southern California Bible College. This would eventually be renamed Vanguard University. The remaining portions of the base would later be occupied by Costa Mesa High School, Davis Elementary School, the City of Costa Mesa Civic Center, Air National Guard 222nd Combat Communications Squadron, the Orange County Fairgrounds, TeWinkle Park, and several commercial and residential areas. Today, all that remains of the base are a few buildings preserved within the Orange County Fairgrounds, including the 1.4 -acre Memorial Garden and Bird Sanctuary. Modern Costa Mesa On June 29, 1953, the City of Costa Mesa incorporated. At the time, the new city encompassed approximately 3.5 square miles and had a population of 16,840. By 2010, Costa Mesa had expanded to cover approximately 17 square miles, and the population had grown to 109,960. Today, Costa Mesa is a major commercial and industrial center of Orange County. The City formally adopted the slogan "The City of the Arts" in 1999, reflecting the concentration of major regional arts venues and the presence of the Pacific Symphony and South Coast Repertory Theater. The 3,000 -seat Segerstrom Center for the Arts (previously known as Orange County Performing Arts Center) was completed in 1985. In 2006, the 2,000 -seat Renee and Henry Segerstrom Concert Hall and the 500 -seat Samueli Theater opened. Costa Mesa General Plan I HCR -7 Historical and Cultural Resources Element Historical, Archaeological, and Paleontological Resources Historical, archaeological, and paleontological resources provide knowledge of California's past. These resources also contribute to the character of Costa Mesa. Activities that result in the loss of historical, archaeological, and/or paleontological resources can result in the loss of cultural identity; loss of unique engineering, architectural, or artistic works; and loss of unique irreplaceable components that help create a sense of place and help foster the cultural environment. Costa Mesa boasts locally significant assets, as well as multiple sites eligible for national recognition. Costa Mesa's early settlement patterns and contributions to the wartime effort are recalled through these unique historical places and features, reflecting the diverse culture and people who have made Costa Mesa their home over the years. For these reasons, historical, archaeological, and paleontological resources should be protected and preserved. Historical Resources Inventory Historical resources include, but are not limited to, buildings, structures, roads, features, and objects that are: 1) 45 years old or older, and 2) are listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Properties, the California Register of Historical Resources, a local register, or otherwise designated as having historical significance by a lead agency (supported by substantial evidence as required by the California Environmental Quality Act). Costa Mesa is home to 31 historical properties, built environments, and landmarks that have been determined eligible for listing in the City's Local Register of Historic Places (see Table HCR -1: Historical Resources Eligibility Inventory). Five of these historical properties have been determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and in the California Register of Historical Resources. It is anticipated that the City's inventory of eligible listed historical properties, buildings, and structures will increase as time and resources become available to evaluate and nominate additional properties. As of 2015, the Fairview Indian Site was the only site listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Figure HCR -1, Historical Resources Eligibility Sites, HCR -8 1 Costa Mesa General Plan First United Methodist Church, built in 1928 and considered eligible for both the National Register and local register listing Historical and Cultural Resources Element identifies the general location of potentially historical sites, including those eligible for the National Register. Additionally, the following properties satisfy the requirements for listing: ■ Methodist Church: 420 West 19th Street ■ Diego Sepulveda Adobe: 1900 Adams Avenue ■ Segerstrom House: 3315 Fairview Road ■ Segerstrom Barn: 3315 Fairview Road a Station Master's House: 2150 Newport Boulevard Costa Mesa General Plan I HCR -9 Historical and Cultural Resources Element = VICICfia 51. I w' + +� a 191h Sl ��i� Vi=a•. City of - Newport , Beach 171h R 0 rip City of s Newport 0 �� yv�L Beach rI& i53ii 51. c All �S r Historic Eligibility Sites City Boundaries Source: City of Costa Mesa, 2015, O National Eligibility --- City Boundary tr�'A i� Feet O Local Register Listing -------- Sphere of Influence) 0 1,000 2.000 4,000 5.000 8.000 O Historic District Contributor Figure HCR -1: Historical Eligibility Sites HCR -10 I Costa Mesa General Plan — — SBg=MM Ave. ' Citytia tO MaCArthur Blvd. 3 c � 11 5�ana i Ellis Ave. r r Su$tkxmr Ave J — Saulh COW Or. South Coast All.., 81,1 Pb za Garfield Ave. ;isler Ave w � N Bak© r St. city of Huntington Beach e $ - - ,101)1 Nay?18, �lAir ti rl +44aons Ave. i D[uI 1I Grartge Coas L r Catfege Arlington Dr I �. h 2t Fairview Park 4: OC Fair(n Event Center t rslr pr •� \` :Reeart ronat = VICICfia 51. I w' + +� a 191h Sl ��i� Vi=a•. City of - Newport , Beach 171h R 0 rip City of s Newport 0 �� yv�L Beach rI& i53ii 51. c All �S r Historic Eligibility Sites City Boundaries Source: City of Costa Mesa, 2015, O National Eligibility --- City Boundary tr�'A i� Feet O Local Register Listing -------- Sphere of Influence) 0 1,000 2.000 4,000 5.000 8.000 O Historic District Contributor Figure HCR -1: Historical Eligibility Sites HCR -10 I Costa Mesa General Plan Table HCR -1: Historical Resources Eligibility Inventory Year Property Type' Built Sites Eligible for National Register Listing and Local Register Listing 1 420 W. 19th St. 1928 Religious Spanish Colonial/Methodist Church 2 1900 Adams Ave. c.1823 Adobe Diego Sepulveda Adobe 3 3315 Fairview Rd. 1915 SF Residential Crafts man/Segerstrom House 4 3315 Fairview Rd. 1928 Agricultural Western Style/Segerstrom Barn 5 2150 Newport Blvd. 1880 Commercial Queen Anne/Stationmaster House Sites Eligible for Local Register Listing 6 123 E. 18`h St. 1926 SF Residential ........... Spanish Colonial 7 127 E. 18" St. 1926 SF Residential Spanish Colonial 8 179 E. 18`h St. 1923 SF Residential Bungalow/Tewinkle House 9 565-7 W. 18`h St. 1950 Government Int'l. Style/Vet's Hall/Police Substation 10 1534 Adams Ave. 1963 Theater Modern/International Style 11 147 Albert Place c.1923 SF Residential Bungalow 12 195 Albert Place 1924 SF Residential Bungalow 13 1293 Baker St. 1928/30 SF Residential Spanish Colonial/McClintock House 14 1950 Church St. 1928 Religious Craftsman/Church 15 1817 Fullerton Ave. c.1909 SF Residential False Front/Blacksmith's Shop 16 137 Magnolia St. c.1920 SF Residential Bungalow/Blacksmith's House 17 200 Magnolia St. 1936 SF Residential Monterey Style/Sparke's House 18 208 Magnolia St. 1927/40 SF Residential Period Revival/Leroy Anderson 19 301 Magnolia St. I c.1923/39 Religious Church 20 2180 Newport Blvd. c.1962 Commercial International Style/Stater Brothers 21 1734 Orange Ave. c.1939/50 Religious Mesa Bible Chapel 22 1835 Orange Ave. 1930 SF Residential Craftsman/Bungalow 23 2048 Orange Ave. 1923 SF Residential Craftsman/Bungalow 24 2172 Orange Ave. 1923 SF Residential Craftsman/Pink House 25 2519 Santa Ana Ave. 1925 SF Residential Bungalow 26 1549 Tustin Ave. 1915 SF Residential Craftsman/La Perle House Costa Mesa General Plan I HCR -11 Historical and Cultural Resources Element Table HCR -1: Historical Resources Eligibility Inventory PropertyYear M Built , 27 1 20422 d St. 1907 SF Residential I Craftsman 28 1785 Newport Blvd. 1923 Commercial Former clubhouse 29 240 E. 16t1 St. c. mid SF Residential Modern/International Style 1950s Sites Eligible for Local Register Listing as Historical District Contributors 30 88 Fair Drive 1942 Military Santa Ana Army Air Base/O.C. Fairgrounds 31 2701 Fairview Rd. c.1950/55 Educational Int'I Style/Orange Coast College Source: City of Costa Mesa, 2015. Note: 1) SF: Single Family Archaeological Resources Inventory Archaeological resources are the physical remains of past human activities, and can be either prehistorical or historical in origin. Archaeological sites are locations that contain evidence of human activity. Generally, a site is defined by a significant accumulation, or presence, of one or more of the following: food remains, waste from the manufacturing of tools, tools, concentrations or alignments of stones, modification of rock surfaces, unusual discoloration or accumulation of soil, or human skeletal remains. Costa Mesa has a rich prehistoric past. The Gabrielinos (Tongva or Kizh) were the City's first settlers prior to 1,500 B.C. The Gabrielinos are Takic-speakers who lived in domed, circular shaped structures, constructed from tree branches and thatched with tule, fern, or carrizo. Villages were located near fresh water and raw material resources. Evidence, or artifacts of their occupation, have been found both on the surface and subsurface, and have included stone and bone tools, shell middens, pottery shards, and human burials. A comprehensive cultural resources assessment was conducted on the undeveloped areas of the City of Costa Mesa. The cultural assessment included a records search at the California Historical Resources Information System, which involved review of all previously conducted cultural resource HCR -12 1 Costa Mesa General Plan Historical and Cultural Resources Element studies, as well as recorded archaeological and historical resources located within the undeveloped portions of the City. Furthermore, an intensive pedestrian survey was undertaken to determine the presence or absence of exposed surficial cultural artifacts. The results of the cultural assessment indicate that within City Limits are seven previously recorded prehistorical archaeological sites and nine potential prehistorical sites requiring additional fieldwork within the City limits. The seven archaeological sites are identified as: J; CA -ORA -76 (shell midden) • CA -ORA -163 (shell midden) ■ CA -ORA -165 (lithic scatter and shell midden) ■ CA -ORA -297 (stone tools and debris) ■ CA -ORA -506/58 (habitation complex) ■ CA -ORA -687 (habitation complex with human burials) and were located on or near the bluffs overlooking the Santa Ana River and the Upper Newport Bay. Of these seven archaeological sites, CA -ORA -506/58, known as the "Fairview Indian Site," is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and on the California Register Historical Resources. Since much of the City has been urbanized by past development, it is anticipated that future development could increase the potential for discovery of archaeological and historical resources within soils depths not previously disturbed by existing or past development. Paleontological Resources Inventory Paleontological resources include fossilized remains of organisms from prehistorical environments found in geologic strata, providing evidence of pre -human activity. These resources are valued for the information they yield about the history of the earth and its past ecological settings. There are two types of resources, including vertebrate and invertebrate, and are generally found in geologic strata conducive to preservation, typically sedimentary formations. Often they are simply small outcroppings visible on the surface or sites encountered during grading. Geologic formations are the most important indicator of paleontological resources, since they may contain important fossils. Costa Mesa General Plan I HCR -13 Historical and Cultural Resources Element A comprehensive paleontological assessment of Orange County, which included the City of Costa Mesa, was undertaken in 1980. The geology of Costa Mesa was mapped out as part of the countywide assessment. The geology of Costa Mesa was determined to be part of the Palos Verdes Formation, a collection of sand and gravel deposits approximately 100,000 years old. These deposits were formed during the time when Costa Mesa was covered by the Pacific Ocean. Often referred to as the Palos Verdes Sand, these deposits contain evidence of the kinds of marine life that inhabited the area prior to the ocean receding, exposing the current terrestrial landmass of Costa Mesa. The results of the paleontological assessment identified eight unique paleontological sites consisting of a variety of gastropods (e.g., marine snails) and bivalves (e.g., clams, oysters, and mussels). These sites were singled out due to encroaching development, which could cause significant impacts to the site if left unattended. The ten paleontological sites have been classified as: + F-91 (Partial skeleton of a mastodon) ■ A-3129 (Mollusks); LACM-3267 (Mastodon or mammoth) + LACM-4219 (Mollusks, Fish, Birds, Sharks, Sea lions and Seals) + JDC-CM-1 (Bivalve, Gastropods, and Mollusks); JDC-CM-2 (Mollusks); JDC-CM-2A (Oyster shells and Mollusks) ■ JDC-CM-3 (Bay -type Sea shells) JDC-CM-4 (Marine shells • and VAC -CM -4 (Mollusks) In addition, the assessment identified more than 500 species of marine invertebrate fossils, as well as, significant numbers of non -marine vertebrate fossils including, birds, sea, and land mammals. Preservation Framework The City is committed to recognizing and preserving local historical and cultural resources using available programs, such as those described below. HCR -14 I Costa Mesa General Plan Historical and Cultural Resources Element Historical Preservation Programs National Register of Historic Places The National Register of Historic Places is the official list of the nation's historic places worthy of preservation. To be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, a district, site, building, structure, or object must possess one of the following characteristics: ■ The project is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of American history. ■ The project is associated with the lives of persons significant in the past. Is The project embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. ■ The project has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. California Register of Historical Resources The California Register of Historical Resources program has been crafted to allow the State and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify, evaluate, register, and protect historical resources. It is also the authoritative guide to the State's significant historical and archeological resources. The California Register of Historical Resources includes buildings, structures, objects, sites, and districts significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California. As of 2015, no properties located in Costa Mesa were included in the California Register of Historical Resources. However, the City contains one property designated as a California Historical Landmark: 1900 Adams Avenue — Diego Sepulveda Adobe. The Santa Ana Army Air Base site at 88 Fair Drive has been designated a California Point of Historical Interest. Mills Act In 1972, California State Senator James Mills introduced a bill, known as the Mills Act, to grant property tax relief to owners of qualified historical properties. The Mills Act is a preservation tool created by the California Costa Mesa General Plan I HCR -15 Historical and Cultural Resources Element Legislature to encourage the preservation and restoration of historical properties. The Mills Act enables cities to enter into property agreements with owners of qualifying historical properties, which results in a reduction to the owner's property taxes. The agreements also provide a benefit to cities in that they ensure preservation, guarantee authentic rehabilitations, and provide a higher level of maintenance of cultural resources that are important to communities. A few properties in Costa Mesa utilize the Mills Act. Local Program: Historic Preservation Ordinance In 1999, the City adopted its Historic Preservation Ordinance (Article 14 of the Municipal Code) to preserve designated historical and cultural resources. Pursuant to the ordinance, a local historical resource is any building, structure, natural feature, site, landscape, object, or improvement that is of significance to the people of the City, the State, or the nation. To be designated a local landmark, a historical resource must be over 50 years of age, or in special circumstances under 50 years of age, and meet one or more of the following requirements: ■ Exemplifies or reflects special elements of the City's cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering, architectural, or natural history; or ■ Is identified with persons or events significant in local, state, or natural history; or • Embodies distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period, or method of construction, or is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship; or ■ Represents the work of a notable builder, designer, or architect; or Contributes to the significance of a historical area, being a geographically definable area possessing a concentration of historical or scenic properties, or thematically related grouping of properties, which contribute to each other and are unified aesthetically by plan or physical development; or ■ Has a unique location or singular physical characteristics or is a view or vista representing an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood community or of the City; or HCR -16 I Costa Mesa General Plan Historical and Cultural Resources Element ■ Embodies elements of architectural design, detail, materials, or craftsmanship that represents a significant structural or architectural achievement or innovation; or Is similar to other distinctive properties, sites, areas, or objects based on a historical, cultural, or architectural motif; or ■ Reflects significant geographical patterns, including those associated with different eras of settlement and growth, particular transportation modes, or distinctive examples of park or community planning; or ■ Is a type of building or is associated with a business or use which was once common but is now rare; or ■ Yields, or may yield, information important in prehistory or history; or ■ Retains the integrity of those characteristics necessary to convey its significance. As of 2015, the Huscroft House (located at 2529 Santa Ana Avenue) was the only resource listed on the City's Local Register of Historic Places. In addition, 30 other properties have been evaluated as eligible to be included (see Table HCR -1 for list of these properties). Historical Districts and Neighborhood Character Areas To recognize historical communities in Costa Mesa and groupings of historical resources and places of interest, General Plan policies allow City staff to explore the creation of historical districts and/or neighborhood character areas. Costa Mesa General Plan I HCR -17 Historical and Cultural Resources Element Huscrof't House, officially listed as a local historical resource is a Craftsman -styled house built in the early 1920s and moved to r� Costa Mesa from Santa Ana in 1954 1 .` - A historical district is a definable and unified geographic area that possesses a significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of sites, buildings, structures, or objects united historically or aesthetically by plan or physical development. It can also be distinguished from surrounding areas and present the same constraints and opportunities as individually listed properties. Historical districts can be designated at the national, State, and/or local level, and each level of designation has its own specific criteria. In addition, each level of designation entails a different level of protection, triggers different levels of review, and designates the property(ies) as potentially eligible for various preservation incentives. A neighborhood character area, also commonly referred to as a conservation district, is a tool used to define a group of significant historical resources that do not retain adequate integrity to qualify as a historical district but still maintain important levels of cultural, historical, or architectural significance. The focus of a neighborhood character area includes maintaining basic community character, but not necessarily specific historical details of buildings or landscapes. Neighborhood character areas are designated as a zoning overlay, which geographically cover a neighborhood and may be coupled with other regulations. Conceptually, a neighborhood character area creates "buffer zones" to transition from historical districts to surrounding development. HCR -18 1 Costa Mesa General Plan Historical and Cultural Resources Element Key Historical Preservation Issues Loss of Historical Buildings Historical resources can be subject to decay and disrepair, As a result, continuing to develop a comprehensive preservation program implemented through the Historical Preservation Ordinance is essential to preserving the City's historical and cultural resources. As part of implementation of the preservation program, the City will update its historical resources survey to identify and inventory historical and cultural resources. The survey should be prepared and maintained periodically and be consistent with State and federal preservation standards. Through implementation of a historical resources survey, greater protection and community awareness of the resources can be achieved. New Development Compatibility and Potential Impacts Costa Mesa's historical neighborhoods have developed over many decades with a significant amount of residential neighborhoods built in the mid 1950s and 1960s, post -World War II. These residential neighborhoods established subdivision patterns and architectural design styles that are characteristic of the era. The City's "Residential Design Guidelines," last updated in 2013, promote architectural design styles that will be compatible with the character of the affected neighborhoods. As Costa Mesa continues to grow and becomes more intensely urbanized, the potential impacts from new development can create significant issues, including density, land use compatibility, scale, mass, noise, and development patterns. With sensitive and thoughtful design and development, new construction, rehabilitation, and adaptive reuse projects can enhance the historical character of the City while still meeting its contemporary needs. Preservation of Post -World War 11 Historical Resources Costa Mesa is home to post -World War II buildings and tract housing developments that have become old enough and/or developed sufficient significance to be considered historical resources. As the age threshold for determining whether or not a property is "historical" is 50 years, tract housing dating to the 1950s and '60s are beginning to present themselves as potential historical resources. Buildings may be individually eligible for the local register or may qualify for eligibility only as an intact grouping (i.e., housing tract). This Costa Mesa General Plan I HCR -19 Historical and Cultural Resources Element topic warrants exploration given that many neighborhoods, particularly east of Newport Boulevard, contain representative examples of some of the earliest tract housing development in Orange County. Interpretation of Historical Resources Interpretation of historical resources refers to the way in which historical buildings, objects, and sites are identified and presented to the public. An effective interpretation program helps preserve a sense of local history and enhances opportunities for cultural heritage tourism. The City will explore implementing an interpretation program to preserve local history. Lack of Resources for Educating Residents about Identifying and Caring for Historical Properties Property owners often unknowingly alter historical properties in a manner that causes significant loss of architectural integrity, which renders potential resources ineligible for inclusion in the local inventory. Likewise, City employees charged with preservation program implementation and code enforcement often do not have sufficient training in managing historical resources to adequately address historical preservation. HCR -20 1 Costa Mesa General Plan Blacksmith's shop built in 1909 with a false fron t facade located at the 1800 block of Fullerton Avenue Historical and Cultural Resources Element Goals, Objectives, and Policies The City aims to preserve, enhance, and promote its history and cultural resources, and to integrate these efforts with broader community goals of economic development. Costa Mesa seeks to continue its progress to actively preserve historical resources, identify economically viable uses, encourage public knowledge of resources, and foster civic pride. The potential for adaptive reuse and revitalization of existing structures, which would add to the character of Costa Mesa, is high. The City will promote the development of appropriate land uses, site design, and architectural treatments to ensure compatibility of new development with the character of surrounding historical resources. Goal HCR -1: Historical, Archeological, and Paleontological Resource Preservation The City of Costa Mesa supports focused efforts to provide residents with a sense of community and history through the protection and preservation of historical and cultural resources. Objective HCR -1: Encourage preservation and protection of the City's archaeological, paleontological, and historical resources. Preserving Historical Resources Policy HCR -1.A: Encourage protection and enhancement of the diverse range of historical sites and resources in the City for the benefit of current and future residents and visitors. Policy HCR -1.B: Encourage the preservation of significant historical resources (as identified in Table HCR -1) by developing and implementing incentives such as building and planning application permit fee waivers, Mills Act contracts, grants and loans, and implementing other incentives identified in the Historical Preservation Ordinance. Policy HCR -1.C: Promote context -sensitive design that respects and celebrates the history and historical character of sites and resources while meeting contemporary needs of the community. Costa Mesa General Plan I HCR -21 Historical and Cultural Resources Element Policy HCR -1.D: Require, as part of the environmental review procedure, an evaluation of the significance of paleontological, archaeological, and historical resources, and the impact of proposed development on those resources. Policy HCR -1.E: Continue to identify local landmarks with markers and way -finding signage. Include informational signage about local history, utilizing maps to highlight locations of other historical resources at popular historical sites. Policy HCR -1.F: Encourage development of an interpretive center for paleontological, archaeological, and historical resources at Fairview Park. The center may contain resources found in the park area as well as resources found throughout the City. Preserving Archaeological Resources Policy HCR -2.A: Require cultural resources studies (i.e, archaeological and historical investigations) for all applicable discretionary projects, in accordance with CEQA regulations. The studies should identify cultural resources (i.e., prehistorical sites, historical sites, and isolated artifacts and features) in the project area, determine their eligibility for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources, and provide mitigation measures for any resources in the project area that cannot be avoided. Cultural resources studies shall be completed by a professional archaeologist that meets the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards in prehistorical or historical archaeology. Policy HCR -2.13: Comply with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act regarding protection and recovery of archaeological resources discovered during development activities. Preserving Paleontological Resources Policy HCR -3A: Require paleontological studies for all applicable discretionary projects. The studies should identify paleontological resources in the project area, and provide mitigation measures for any resources in the project area that cannot be avoided. HCR -22 I Costa Mesa General Plan Historical and Cultural Resources Element Policy HCR -3B: Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act regarding the protection and recovery of paleontological resources during development activities. Costa Mesa General Plan I HCR -23 Chapter 12 : Glossary General Plan Glossary of Terms The terms in this glossary are adapted from the California General Plan Glossary, 1997, published by the California Planning Roundtable, the 2003 General Plan Guidelines, published by the Governor's Office of Planning and Research, the 2010 Glossary of Land Use and Planning Terms, published by the Institute for Local Government, and the Glossary section of the draft SCAG 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Community Strategy, 12.1 ABBREVIATIONS AB32: California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 ADT: Average daily trips made by vehicles or persons in a 24-hour period AELUP: Airport Environs Land Use Plan AICUZ: Air Installation Compatibility Use Zone ALUC: Airport Land Use Commission AQMD: South Coast Air Quality Management District AQMP: Air Quality Management Plan ARB: Air Resources Board BRT: Bus Rapid Transit CDBG: Community Development Block Grant Costa Mesa General Plan I GL -1 Glossary CEQA: California Environmental Quality Act CHFA: California Housing Finance Agency CIP: Capital Improvements Program CMP: Congestion Management Plan CMSD: Costa Mesa Sanitary District CNEL: Community Noise Equivalent Level COG: Council of Governments CPTED: Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design CSDOC: County Sanitation District of Orange County CSS: Coastal Sage Scrub DAMP: Drainage Area Master Plan dB: Decibel EIR: Environmental Impact Report (State) EMS: Emergency Medical Services EOP: Emergency Operations Plan EPA: Environmental Protection Agency FAA: Federal Aviation Administration FAR: Floor Area Ratio FEMA: Federal Emergency Management Agency FHBP: Friends of Harbors, Beaches and Parks FIRM: Flood Insurance Rate Map GHG: Greenhouse Gas HUD: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development GL -2 I Costa Mesa General Plan Glossary MFI: Median Family Income IRWD: Irvine Ranch Water District ISO: Independent System Operator JUA: Joint Use Agreement JWA: John Wayne Airport LAFCO: Local Agency Formation Commission LCP: Local Coastal Plan LOS: Level of Service Mesa: Mesa Consolidated Water District MPRH: Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways MPB: Costa Mesa Master Plan of Bikeways MPSH: Costa Mesa Master Plan of Street and Highways MWD: Metropolitan Water District MWDOC: Metropolitan Water District of Orange County NMUSD: Newport -Mesa Unified School District NPDES: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System OCFEC: Orange County Fair and Exposition Center OCWD: Orange County Water District OCRP: Orange Coast River Park OCTA: Orange County Transportation Authority RHNA: Regional Housing Needs Assessment RPZ: Runway Protection Zone PMP: Performance Monitoring Program Costa Mesa General Plan f GL -3 Glossary PPM: Parts Per Million PUC: Public Utilities Commission PX: Power Exchange ROCK: Recreation On Campus for Kids RTP/SCS: SCAG Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy RWQCB: Regional Water Quality Control Board SCAG: Southern California Association of Governments SoBECA: South Bristol Entertainment and Cultural Arts District SOI: Sphere of Influence SRA: State Responsibility Areas SRO: Single Room Occupancy SRRE: Source Reduction and Recycling Element SWP: State Water Project SWPP: Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan TDM: Transportation Demand Management TDR: Transportation of Development Rights TDS: Total Dissolved Solids TSM: Transportation Systems Management UBC: Uniform Building Code VMT: Vehicle Miles Traveled WQMP: Water Quality Management Plan GL -4 I Costa Mesa General Plan Glossary 12.2 TERMS AND DEFINITIONS AB 32: California's Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. The Act requires that California's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020, Acres, Gross: The total area within the lot lines of a lot of land before public streets, easements or other areas to be dedicated or reserved for public use are deducted from such lot, and not including adjacent lands already dedicated for such purposes. Acres, Net: The buildable portion of a site. The following generally are not included in the net acreage of a site: public or private road rights-of-way, public open -space, and flood ways. Active Transportation: A mode of transportation that includes walking, running, biking, skateboarding and other human powered forms of transportation. It can also include low -speed electrical devices such as motorized wheel chairs, Segways, electric -assist bicycles and neighborhood electric vehicles, such as golf carts Adaptive Reuse: Converting obsolete or historic buildings from their original or most recent use to a new use. For example, an old manufacturing site could be converted into apartments or retail space. Aging in Place: The ability to live in one's own home and community safely, independently, and comfortably, regardless of age, income, or ability level. Affordable Housing: Housing capable of being purchased or rented by a household with very low, low, or moderate income, based on a household's ability to make monthly payments necessary to obtain housing. "Affordable to low -and moderate -income households" means that at least 20 percent of the units in a development will be sold or rented to lower income households, and the remaining units to either lower or moderate income households. Housing units for lower income households must sell or rent for a monthly cost not greater than 30 percent of 60 percent of area median income as periodically established by Housing and Community Development Department of the State of California (HCD). Housing units for moderate income must sell or rent for a monthly cost not greater than 30 percent of area median income. Costa Mesa General Plan I GL -5 Glossary Agriculture: Use of land for the production of food and fiber, including the growing of crops and/or the grazing of animals on natural prime or improved pasture land. Air Rights: The right granted by a property owner to a buyer to use space above an existing right-of-way or other site, usually for development. Ambient: Surrounding on all sides; used to describe measurements of existing conditions with respect to traffic, noise, air and other environments. Annex: To incorporate a land area into an existing district or municipality. Anthropogenic. Made by people or resulting from human activities. Usually used in the context of emissions produced by human activities. Aquifer: An underground, water -bearing layer of earth, porous rock, sand, or gravel, through which water can seep or be held in natural storage. Aquifers generally hold sufficient water to be used as a water supply. Articulation: Variation in the depth of the building plane, roof line, or height of a structure that breaks up plain, monotonous areas and creates patterns of light and shadow. As -of -Right Use: A use of land that is permitted as a principal use in a zoning district. Attainment: Compliance with State and federal ambient air quality standards within an air basin. (See "Non -attainment.") Base Flood: In any given year, a 100 -year flood that has a one percent likelihood of occurring, and is recognized as a standard for acceptable risk. Benefit Assessment District: An area within a public agency's boundaries that receives a special benefit from the construction of one or more public facilities. A Benefit Assessment District has no independent life; it is strictly a financing mechanism for providing public infrastructure as allowed under various statutes. Bonds maybe issued to financethe improvements, subjectto repayment by assessments charged against the benefiting properties. Creation of a Benefit Assessment District enables property owners in a specific area to cause the construction of public facilities or to maintain them (for GL -6 I Costa Mesa General Plan Glossary example, a downtown, or the grounds and landscaping of a specific area) by contributing their fair share of the construction and/or installation and operating costs. Bicycle Boulevards: Streets with low motorized traffic volumes and speeds, designated and designed to give bicycle travel priority. Bicycle Boulevards use signs, pavement markings, and speed and volume management measures to discourage through trips by motor vehicles and create safe, convenient bicycle crossings of busy arterial streets. Bikeways: A term that encompasses bicycle lanes, bicycle paths, bicycle routes, and cycle tracks. Bikeways are divided into the following four classes pursuant to the California Department of Transportation Highway Design Manual: Class I (Bicycle Trail): A paved route not on a street or roadway and expressly reserved for bicycles traversing an otherwise unpaved area. Bicycle trails may parallel roads but typically are separated from them by landscaping. Class II (Bicycle Lane): A corridor expressly reserved for bicycles, existing on a street or roadway in addition to any lanes for use by motorized vehicles. Class III (Bicycle Route): A facility shared with motorists and identified only by signs, a bicycle route has no pavement markings or lane stripes. Class IV (Cycle Track/Separated Bikeways): A bikeway for the exclusive use of bicycles and includes a separation required between the separated bikeway and the through vehicular traffic. The separation may include, but is not limited to, grade separation, flexible posts, inflexible posts, inflexible barriers, or on -street parking. Biotic Community: A group of living organisms characterized by a distinctive combination of both animal and plant species in a particular habitat. Blight: A condition of a site, structure, or area that may cause nearby buildings and/or areas to decline in attractiveness and/or utility. The Community Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code, Sections 33031 and 33032) contains a definition of blight used to determine eligibility of proposed redevelopment project areas. Costa Mesa General Plan I GL -7 Glossary Buffer Zone: An area of land separating two distinct land uses that acts to soften or mitigate the effects of one land use on the other. Building Coverage: The amount of a lot that is covered by buildings, usually expressed as a percentage. Building Envelope: The space remaining on a site for structures after all building setback, height limit, and bulk requirements have been met. Building Intensity. For residential uses, the actual number or the allowable range of dwelling units per net or gross acre. For non-residential uses, the actual or the maximum permitted floor area ratio (FAR). See 1`1001rArca Rnio. Buildout: Development of land to its full potential or theoretical capacity as permitted under current or proposed planning or zoning designations. Bulk Regulations: Zoning or other regulations that control the height, mass, density, and location of buildings. The purpose of bulk regulations is to provide proper light, air, and open space. Some bulk regulations also are intended to reflect context -sensitive design. Business Improvement Districts: Public-private partnerships among property owners and commercial tenants who collectively contribute to the maintenance, development and promotion of their commercial district. Busway: A vehicular right-of-way or portion thereof reserved exclusively for buses California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): A State law requiring State and local agencies to regulate activities with consideration for environmental protection. If a proposed activity has the potential for a significant adverse environmental impact, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared and certified as to its adequacy before taking action on the proposed project. California Housing Finance Agency (CHFA): A State agency, established by the Housing and Home Finance Act of 1975, which is authorized to sell revenue bonds and generate funds for the development, rehabilitation, and conservation of low -and moderate -income housing. GL -8 I Costa Mesa General Plan Glossary Caltrans: California Department of Transportation. Cap -and -Trade: A market based regulation that is designed to reduce greenhouse gases (GHGs) from multiple sources. Cap -and -trade sets a firm limit or cap on GHGs and minimizes the compliance costs of achieving California's AB 32 goals. The cap will decline approximately 3 percent each year beginning in 2013. Trading creates incentives to reduce GHGs below allowable levels through investments in clean technologies. With a carbon market, a price on carbon is established for GHGs. Market forces spur technological innovation and investments in clean energy. Cap -and -trade is an environmentally effective and economically efficient response to climate change. Carbon Dioxide (CO2): A naturally occurring gas, and also a by-product of burning fossil fuels and biomass, as well as land -use changes and other industrial processes. It is the reference gas against which other greenhouse gases are measured and therefore has a Global Warming Potential of 1. Carbon dioxide represents about 84 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Capital Improvements Program (CIP): A program established by a city or county government and reviewed by its planning commission, which schedules permanent improvements, usually for a minimum of five years in the future, to fit the projected fiscal capability of the local jurisdiction. The program generally is reviewed annually, for conformance to and consistency with the general plan. Carrying Capacity: Used in determining the potential of an area to absorb development: (1) The level of land use, human activity, or development for a specific area that can be accommodated permanently without an irreversible change in the quality of air, water, land, or plant and animal habitats. (2) The upper limits of development beyond which the quality of human life, health, welfare, safety, or community character within an area will be impaired. (3) The maximum level of development allowable under current zoning. (See "Buildout.") Climate: Climate is generally defined as the "average weather" over a period of time ranging from months to thousands of years. The classical period is Costa Mesa General Plan I GL -9 Glossary three decades, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), Statistical measurements of climate most often focus on surface variables such as temperature, precipitation, and wind. See Wnthcr. Climate Change: Climate change refers to any significant change in measures of climate (such as temperature, precipitation, or wind) lasting for an extended period (decades or longer). Climate change may result from: natural factors, such as changes in the sun's intensity or slow changes in the earth's orbit around the sun; natural processes within the climate system (such as changes in ocean circulation); and human activities that change the atmosphere's composition (such as burning fossil fuels) and the land surface (such as deforestation, reforestation, urbanization or desertification). Commercial: A land use classification that permits facilities for the buying and selling of commodities and services. Community Care Facility: Housing for the elderly licensed by the Department of Social Services within the California Health and Human Services Agency, typically for residents who are frail and need supervision. Services normally include three meals daily, housekeeping, security and emergency response, a full activities program, supervision in the dispensing of medicine, personal services such as assistance in grooming and bathing, but no nursing care. These services sometimes referred to as residential care or personal care. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG): A grant program administered by the U.S, Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) on a formula basis for entitlement communities, and by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for non -entitled jurisdictions. This grant allots money to cities and counties for housing rehabilitation and community development, including public facilities and economic development. Community Facilities District: Underthe Mello -Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 (§53311, et seq.), a legislative body may create within its jurisdiction a special tax district that can finance tax-exempt bonds for the planning, design, acquisition, construction, and/or operation of public facilities, GL -10 1 Costa Mesa General Plan Glossary as well as public services for district residents. Special taxes levied solely within the district are used to repay the bonds. Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL): A 24-hour energy equivalent level derived from a variety of single -noise events, with weighting factors of 5 and 10 dBA applied to the evening (7 PM to 10 PM) and nighttime (10 PM to 7 AM) periods, respectively, to allow for the greater sensitivity to noise during these hours. Community Park: Land with full public access intended to provide recreation opportunities beyond those supplied by neighborhood parks. Community parks are larger in scale than neighborhood parks but smaller than regional parks. Complete Streets: Streets designed to accommodate all modes of travel and enable safe access for all users. Pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and bus riders of all ages and abilities are able to safely move along and across a complete street. Congestion Management Plan (CMP): A mechanism employing growth management techniques, including traffic level of service requirements, standards for public transit, trip reduction programs involving transportation systems management and jobs/housing balance strategies, and capital improvement programming, for the purpose of controlling and/or reducing the cumulative regional traffic impacts of development. Connectivity: The ease of travel between two points. The degree to which streets or areas are interconnected and easily accessible to one another by direct routes. An example of high connectivity would be a dense grid pattern in a downtown area. Consistency; Consistent With: Free from significant variation or contradiction. The various diagrams, text, goals, policies, and programs in the general plan must be consistent with each other, not contradictory or preferential. The term "consistent with" is used interchangeably with "conformity with." The courts have held that the phrase "consistent with" means "agreement with; harmonious with." Costa Mesa General Plan I GL -11 Glossary Webster defines "conformity with" as meaning harmony, agreement when used with "with." The term "conformity means in harmony therewith or agreeable to (Sec 58 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 21, 25 [19751). California State law also requires that a general plan be internally consistent and also requires consistency between a general plan and implementation measures such as the zoning ordinance. As a general rule, an action program or project is consistent with the general plan if, considering all its aspects, it will further the objectives and policies of the general plan and not obstruct their attainment. Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs): A term used to describe restrictive limitations that may be placed on property and its use, and which usually are made a condition of holding title or lease. Critical Facility: Facilities housing or serving many people, that are necessary in the event of an earthquake or flood, such as hospitals, fire, police, and emergency service facilities, utility "lifeline" facilities, such as water, electricity, and gas supply, sewage disposal, and communications and transportation facilities. Cul -de -Sac: A short street or alley with only a single means of ingress and egress at one end and with a large turnaround at its other end. Day -Night Average Sound Level (Ldn): The A -weighted average sound level for a given area (measured in decibels) during a 24-hour period with a 10 dB weighting applied to night-time sound levels. The Ldn is approximately numerically equal to the CNEL for most environmental set- tings. dB (Decibel): a unit used to express the relative intensity of a sound as it is heard by the human ear. dBA: The "A -weighted" scale for measuring sound in decibels; weighs or reduces the effects of low and high frequencies in order to simulate human hearing. Every increase of 10 dBA doubles the perceived loudness though the noise is actually ten times more intense. Dedication: The turning over by an owner or developer of private land for public use, and the acceptance of land for such use by the governmental agency having jurisdiction over the public function for which it will be used. GL -12 1 Costa Mesa General Plan Glossary Dedications for roads, parks, school sites, or other public uses often are made conditions for approval of a development by a city or county. Dedication, In lieu of: Cash payments that may be required of an owner or developer as a substitute for a dedication of land, usually calculated in dollars per lot, and referred to as in lieu fees or in lieu contributions. Defensible Space: (1) In firefighting and prevention, a 30 -foot area of non- combustible surfaces separating urban and wildland areas. (2) In urban areas, open -spaces, entry points, and pathways configured to provide maximum opportunities to rightful users and/or residents to defend themselves against intruders and criminal activity. Density Bonus: The allocation of development rights that allows a parcel to accommodate additional square footage or additional residential units be- yond the maximum for which the parcel is zoned. Under Government Code §65915, a housing development that provides 20 percent of its units for lower-income households, ten percent of its units for very -low income households, or 50 per- cent of its units for seniors is entitled to a density bonus and other concessions. Density, Residential: The number of permanent residential dwelling units per acre of land. Densities specified in the General Plan may be expressed in units per gross acre or per net developable acre. (See "Acres, Gross," and "Developable Acres, Net.") Density, Employment: A measure of the number of employed persons per specific area (for example, employees/acre). Design Review; Design Control: The comprehensive evaluation of a development and its impact on neighboring properties and the community as a whole, from the standpoint of site and landscape design, architecture, materials, colors, lighting, and signs, in accordance with a set of adopted criteria and standards. "Design Control" requires that certain specific things be done and that other things not be done. Design Control language is most often found within a zoning ordinance. "Design Review" usually refers to a system set up outside of the zoning ordinance, whereby projects are reviewed Costa Mesa General Plan I GL -13 Glossary against certain standards and criteria by a specially established design review board or committee. Detention Dam/Basin/Pond: Dams may be classified according to the broad function they serve, such asstorage, diversion, ordetention. Detention dams are constructed to retard flood runoff and minimize the effect of sudden floods. Detention dams fall into two main types. In one type, the wateris temporarily stored and released through an outlet structure at a rate that will not exceed the carrying capacity of the channel downstream. Often, the basins are planted with grass and used for open space or recreation in periods of dry weather. The other type, most often called a retention pond, allows for water to be held as long as possible and may or may not allow for the controlled release of water. In some cases, the water is allowed to seep into the permeable banks orgravel strata in the foundation. This latter type is sometimes called a water -spreading dam or dike because its main purpose is to recharge the underground water supply. Detention dams are also constructed to trap sediment. These are often called debris dams. Developable Acres, Net: The portion of a site that can be used for density calculations. Some communities calculate density based on gross acreage. Public or private road rights-of-way are not included in the net developable acreage of a site. Developable Land: Land that is suitable as a location for structures and that can be developed free of hazards to, and without disruption of, or significant impact on, natural resource areas. Development Agreement: A legislatively -approved contract between a jurisdiction and a person having legal or equitable interest in real property within the jurisdiction (California Government Code §65865 et. seq.) that "freezes" certain rules, regulations, and policies applicable to development of a property for a specified period of time, usually in exchange for certain concessions by the owner. Development Fee: Fee or charge imposed on developers to pay for the costs to the community of providing services to a new development. Development fees must not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee is charged. The most common are: (1) impact fees (such as GL -14 1 Costa Mesa General Plan Glossary parkland acquisition fees, school facilities fees, or street construction fees) related to funding public improvements which are necessitated in part or in whole by the development; (2) connection fees (such as water line fees) to cover the cost of installing public services to the development; (3) permit fees for the administrative costs of processing development plans (such as permits for building, grading, or signage); and (4) application fees for the administrative costs of reviewing and hearing development proposals. Discretionary Decision: An action taken by a governmental agency that calls for the exercise of judgment in deciding whether to approve and/or how to carry out a project. Discretionary Project: An activity which requires the public agency to exercise judgment in deciding whether or not to approve or deny a project, as opposed to an administrative action Dwelling Unit: A room or group of rooms (including sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation facilities, but not more than one kitchen), that constitutes an independent housekeeping unit, occupied or intended for occupancy by one household on a long-term basis. Easement: Usually the right to use property owned by another for specific purposes or to gain access to another property. For example, utility companies often have easements on the private property of individuals to be able to install and maintain utility facilities. Easement, Conservation: A tool for acquiring open space with less than full - fee purchase, whereby a public agency buys only certain specific rights from the land owner. These may be positive rights (providing the public with the opportunity to hunt, fish, hike, or ride over the land) or they may be restrictive rights (limiting the uses to which the land owner may devote the land in the future.) Easement, Scenic: A tool that allows a public agency to use an owner's land for scenic enhancement such as roadside landscaping orvista preservation. Costa Mesa General Plan I GL -15 Glossary Elderly Housing: Typically one- and two-bedroom apartments or condominiums designed to meet the needs of persons 62 years of age and older. Emergency Shelter: A facility that provides immediate and short-term housing and supplemental services for the homeless. Supplemental services may include food, counseling, and access to other social programs. Eminent Domain: The right of a public entity to acquire private property for public use by condemnation and the payment of just compensation. Emission Standard: The maximum amount of pollutant legally permitted to be discharged from a single source, either mobile or stationary. Endangered Species: A species of animal or plant is considered to be endangered when its prospects for survival and reproduction are in immediate jeopardy from one or more causes. Energy Intensity: The ratio of energy consumption to a measure of the demand for energy services (such as the number of buildings, total floorspace, floorspace -hours, number of employees, or constant dollar value of Gross Domestic Product). Energy -efficiency: The ratio of the useful output of services from an article of industrial equipment to the energy use by such an article; for example, vehicle miles traveled per gallon of fuel (mpg). Environment: CEQA defines environment as "the physical conditions which exist within the area which will be affected by a proposed project, including land, air, water, mineral, flora, fauna, noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance." Environmental Impact Report (EIR): A report required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act which assesses all the environmental characteristics of an area, determines what effects or impacts will result if the area is altered or disturbed by a proposed action, and identifies alternatives or other measures to avoid or reduce those impacts. (See "California Environmental Quality Act.") GL -16 I Costa Mesa General Plan Glossary Environmental Justice: The fair treatment of people of all races, cultures, and incomes with respect to the development, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies (Government Code §65040.12). Erosion: (1) The loosening and transportation of rock and soil debris by wind, rain, or running water. (2) The gradual wearing away of the upper layers of earth. Exaction: A contribution or payment required as an authorized precondition for receiving a development permit; usually refers to mandatory dedication (or fee in lieu of dedication) requirements found in many subdivision regulations. Expansive Soils: Soils that swell when they absorb water and shrink as they d ry. Expressway: Adivided multi -lane major arterial street for through traffic with partial control of access and with grade separations at major intersections. Fair Market Rent: The rent, including utility allowances, determined by HUD for purposes of administering the Section 8 Existing Housing Program. Family: One or more persons occupying one dwelling unit and living together as a single housekeeping unit. Fault: A fracture in the earth's crust forming a boundary between rock masses that have shifted. Feasible: Capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable time taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors. Fire Hazard Zone: An area where, due to slope, fuel, weather, or other fire - related conditions, the potential loss of life and property from a fire necessitates special fire protection measures and planning before development occurs. First Mile/Last Mile: Strategies designed to increase transit usage by making it more convenient and safe to walk or bike to transit stations. This Costa Mesa General Plan I GL -17 Glossary includes such strategies as wayfinding, bikeways, sidewalk repair and bike share. Fiscal Impact Analysis: A projection of the direct public costs and revenues resulting from population or employment change to the local jurisdiction(s) in which the change is taking place. Enables local governments to evaluate relative fiscal merits of general plans, specific plans, or projects. Flood, 100 -Year: The magnitude of a flood expected to occur on the average every 100 years, based on historical data. The 100 -year flood has a 1/100, or one percent, chance of occurring in any given year. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM): For each community, the official map on which the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has delineated areas of special flood hazard and the risk premium zones applicable to that community. Floodplain: The relatively level land area on either side of the banks of a stream regularly subject to flooding. That part of the floodplain subject to a one percent chance of flooding in any given year is designated as an "area of special flood hazard" by the Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration (FIMA). Floodway: The channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that must be reserved in order to discharge the "base flood" without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than one foot. No development is allowed in floodways. Floor Area Ratio (FAR): The gross floor area permitted on a site divided by the total net area of the site, expressed in decimals to one or two places. For example, on a site with 10,000 net sq. ft. of land area, a Floor Area Ratio of 1.0 will allow a maximum of 10,000 gross sq. ft. of building floor area to be built. On the same site, an FAR of 1.5 would allow 15,000 sq. ft. of floor area; an FAR of 2.0 would allow 20,000 sq. ft.; and an FAR of 0.5 would allow only 5,000 sq. ft. Also commonly used in zoning, FARs typically are applied on a parcel -by -parcel basis as opposed to an average FAR for an entire land use or zoning district. GL -18 1 Costa Mesa General Plan Glossary Freeway: A high-speed, high-capacity, limited -access road serving regional and county -wide travel. Such roads are free of tolls, as contrasted with "turnpikes" or other "toll roads" now being introduced into Southern California. Freeways generally are used for long trips between major land use generators. At Level of Service "E," they carry approximately 1,875 vehicles per lane per hour, in both directions. Major streets cross at a different grade level. Gateway: A point along a roadway where a motorist gains a sense of entering a city or county. Ground Failure: Ground movement or rupture caused by strong shaking during an earthquake. This includes landslides, lateral spreading, liquefaction, and subsidence. Ground Shaking: Ground movement resulting from the transmission of seismic waves during an earthquake. Groundwater: Water under the earth's surface, often confined to aquifers capable of supplying wells and springs. Growth Management: The use by a community of a wide range of techniques in combination to determine the amount, type, and rate of development desired by the community and to channel that growth into designated areas. Growth management policies can be implemented through growth rates, zoning, capital improvement programs, public facilities ordinances, urban limit lines, standards for levels of service, and other programs. (See "Congestion Management Plan.") Guidelines: General statements of policy direction around which specific details may be later established. Habitat: The physical location or type of environment in which an organism or biological population lives. Hazardous Material: Any substance that, because of its quantity, concentration, or physical or chemical characteristics, poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety or to the environment Costa Mesa General Plan I GL -19 Glossary if released into the workplace or the environment. The term includes, but is not limited to, hazardous substances and hazardous wastes. Highest and Best Use: The use of a property that will bring the greatest profit to its owners. In theory, the economics of the real estate market establish a maximum value for each parcel of land at any given time. However, owners are not necessarily entitled to that use, particularly when that use may have negative effects on the use and enjoyment of neighboring properties. Historic Preservation: The preservation of historically significant structures and neighborhoods until such time as, and in order to facilitate, restoration and rehabilitation of the building(s) to a former condition. Household: All those persons --related or unrelated—who occupy a single housing unit. (See "Family.") Households, Number of: The count of all year- round housing units occupied by one or more persons. The concept of household is important because the formation of new households generates the demand for housing. Each new household formed creates the need for one additional housing unit or requires that one existing housing unit be shared by two households. Thus, household formation can continue to take place even without an increase in population, thereby increasing the demand for housing. Housing and Urban Development, U.S. Department of (HUD): A cabinet -level department of the federal government that administers housing and community development programs. Housing Unit: The place of permanent or customary abode of a person or family. A housing unit may be a single-family dwelling, a multi -family dwelling, a condominium, a modular home, a mobile home, a cooperative, or any other residential unit considered real property under State law. A housing unit has, at least, cooking facilities, a bathroom, and a place to sleep. It also is a dwelling that cannot be moved without substantial damage or unreasonable cost. HOT Lane High -Occupancy Toll Lane: An HOV lane that single -occupant drivers can pay to drive in, also referred to as "Express Lanes." GL -20 1 Costa Mesa General Plan Glossary High -Occupancy Vehicle (HOV): Any vehicle other than a driver -only automobile (e.g., a vanpool, a bus, or a car carrying two or more persons). Impact Fee: A fee, also called ad eve lop me nt fee, levied on the developer of a project by a city, county, or other public agency as compensation for otherwise -unmitigated impacts the project will produce. Government Code §66000, etseq.,specifies that development fees shall not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee is charged. To lawfully impose a development fee, the public agency must verify its method of calculation and document proper restrictions on use of the fund. Impact/development fees may be used to pay for preparing and updating general plans and specific plans. Impacted Areas: Census tracts where more than 50 percent of the dwelling units house low- and very- low income households. Impervious Surface: Surface through which water cannot penetrate, such as roof, road, sidewalk, and paved parking lot. The amount of impervious surface increases with development and establishes the need for drainage facilities to carry the increased runoff. Incorporation: Creation of a new city. Incubator Space: Retail or industrial space that is affordable to new, low - margin businesses. Industrial: The manufacture, production, and processing of consumer goods. Industrial is often divided into "heavy industrial" uses, such as construction yards, quarrying, and factories; and "light industrial" uses, such as research and development and less intensive warehousing and manufacturing. Infill Development: Development of vacant land (usually individual lots or leftover properties) within areas that are already largely developed. Infrastructure: Public services and facilities, such as sewage -disposal systems, water -supply systems, other utility systems, and roads. Institutional Uses: (1) Publicly or privately owned and operated activities such as hospitals, convalescent hospitals, intermediate care facilities, nursing homes, museums, and schools and colleges; (2) churches and other religious Costa Mesa General Plan I GL -21 Glossary organizations; and (3) other non-profit activities of a welfare, educational, or philanthropic nature that cannot be considered residential, commercial, or industrial. (See "Public and Quasi -public Facilities.") Intensity, Building: For residential uses, the actual number or the allowable range of dwelling units per net or gross acre. For non-residential uses, the actual or the maximum permitted floor area ratios (FARs). Intermittent Stream: A stream that normally flows for at least thirty (30) days after the last major rain of the season and is dry a large part of the year. Issues: Important unsettled community matters or problems that are identified in a community's general plan and dealt with by the plan's objectives, policies, plan proposals, and implementation programs. Jobs/Housing Balance; Jobs/Housing Ratio: The availability of affordable housing for employees. The jobs/housing ratio divides the number of jobs in an area by the number of employed residents. A ratio of 1.0 indicates a balance. A ratio greater than 1.0 indicates a net in -commute; less than 1.0 indicates a net out -commute. Joint Powers Authority (JPA): A legal arrangement that enables two or more units of government to share authority in order to plan and carry out a specific program or set of programs that serves both units. Joint -use Agreements: Agreements between two or more entities, such as a city, county, school district, nonprofit or private organization, to share capital, operating costs and responsibilities for a facility. Examples include recreational space, meeting facilities, libraries and community centers. Landmark: (1) A building, site, object, structure, or significant tree, having historical, architectural, social, or cultural significance and marked for preservation by the local, state, or federal government. (2) A visually prominent or outstanding structure or natural feature that functions as a point of orientation or identification. Landslide: Downslope movement of soil and/or rock, which typically occurs during an earthquake or following heavy rainfall. GL -22 1 Costa Mesa General Plan Glossary Land Use Classification: A system for classifying and designating the appropriate use of properties. Lateral Spreading: Lateral movement of soil, often as a result of liquefaction during an earthquake. Ldn: Day -Night Average Sound Level. The A -weighted average sound level for a given area (measured in decibels) during a 24-hour period with a 10 dB weighting applied to night-time sound levels. The Ldn is approximately numerically equal to the CNEL for most environmental settings. LEED: An acronym for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design. LEED is a voluntary, consensus based green building rating system developed and maintained by the U.S. Green Building Council to support and certify successful green building design, construction and operations. LEED for Neighborhood Development (LEED-ND): A rating system for neighborhood design. The rating system integrates the principles of smart growth, urbanism and green building and emphasizes the creation of compact, walkable, vibrant, mixed-use neighborhoods with good connections to nearby communities. Level of Service (LOS) Standard: A standard used by government agencies to measure the quality or effectiveness of a municipal service, such as police, fire, or library, or the performance of a facility, such as a street or highway. Level of Service (Traffic): A scale that measures the amount of traffic that a roadway or intersection can accommodate, based on such factors as maneuverability, driver dissatisfaction, and delay. Level of Service A: Indicates a relatively free flow of traffic, with little or no limitation on vehicle movement or speed. Level of Service B: Describes a steady flow of traffic, with only slight delays in vehicle movement and speed. All queues clear in a single signal cycle. Level of Service C. Denotes a reasonably steady, high-volume flow of traffic, with some limitations on movement and speed, and occasional backups on critical approaches. Costa Mesa General Plan I GL -23 Glossary Level of Service D: Designates the level where traffic nears an unstable flow. Intersections still function, but short queues develop and cars may have to wait through one cycle during short peaks. Level of Service E: Represents traffic characterized by slow movement and frequent (although momentary) stoppages. This type of congestion is considered severe, but is not uncommon at peak traffic hours, with frequent stopping, long-standing queues, and blocked intersections. Level of Service F; Describes unsatisfactory stop -and -go traffic characterized by "traffic jams" and stoppages of long duration. Vehicles at signalized intersections usually have to wait through one or more signal changes, and "upstream" intersections may be blocked by the long queues. Liquefaction: The transformation of loose, wet soil from a solid to a liquid state, often as a result of ground shaking during an earthquake. Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO): A five- or seven -member commission within each county that reviews and evaluates all proposals for formation of special districts, incorporation of cities, annexation to special districts orcities, consolidation of districts, and merger of districts with cities. Each county's LAFCO is empowered to approve, disapprove, or conditionally approve such proposals. The LAFCO members generally include two county supervisors, two city council members, and one member representing the general public. Some LAFCOs include two representatives of special districts. Local Coastal Program (LCP): A combination of a local governments land use plans, zoning ordinances, zoning district maps, and (within sensitive coastal resources areas) other implementing actions that together meet the local requirements of, and implement the provisions and policies of, the California Coastal Act of 1976. Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan: The relevant portion of a local government general plan or coastal element that details type, location, and intensity of land use, applicable resource protection and development policies, and, where necessary, implementation actions. Low-income Household: A household with an annual income usually no greater than 80 percent of the area median family income adjusted by GL -24 1 Costa Mesa General Plan Glossary household size, as determined by a survey of incomes conducted by a city or a county, or in the absence of such a survey, based on the latest available eligibility limits established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the Section 8 housing program. Low-income Housing Tax Credits: Tax reductions provided by the federal and State governments for investors in housing for low-income households. L10: A statistical descriptor indicating peak noise levels—the sound level exceeded ten percent of the time. It is a commonly used descriptor of community noise, and has been used in Federal Highway Administration standards and the standards of some cities and counties. Manufactured Housing: Residential structu res that are constructed entirely in the factory and that, since June 15, 1976, have been regulated by the federal Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 underthe administration of HUD. (See "Mobilehome" and "Modular Unit.") Mean Sea Level: The average altitude of the sea surface for all tidal stages. Median Strip: The dividing area, either paved or landscaped, between opposing lanes of traffic on a roadway. Mercalli Intensity Scale: A subjective measure of the observed effects (human reactions, structural damage, geologic effects) of an earthquake. Expressed in Roman numerals from I to XII. Mineral Resource: Land on which known deposits of commercially viable mineral or aggregate deposits exist. This designation is applied to sites determined by the State Division of Mines and Geology as being a resource of regional significance, and is intended to help maintain the quarrying operations and protect them from encroachment of incompatible land uses. Mixed-use: Properties on which various uses, such as office, commercial, institutional, and residential, are combined in a single building or on a single site in an integrated development project with significant functional interrelationships and a coherent physical design. A "single site" may include contiguous properties. Costa Mesa General Plan I GL -25 Glossary Moderate -income Household: A household with an annual income between the lower income eligibility limits and 120 percent of the area median family income adjusted by household size, usually as established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the Section 8 housing program. Multimodal: A mixture of the several modes of transportation, such as transit, highways, non -motorized, etc. National Ambient Air Quality Standards: The prescribed level of pollutants in the outside air that cannot be exceeded legally during a specified time in a specified geographical area. National Flood Insurance Program: A federal program that authorizes the sale of federally subsidized flood insurance in communities where such flood insurance is not available privately. National Historic Preservation Act: A 1966 federal law that established a National Register of Historic Places and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and that authorized grants-in-aid for preserving historic properties. National Register of Historic Places: The official list, established by the National Historic Preservation Act, of sites, districts, buildings, structures, and objects significant in the nation's history or whose artistic or architectural value is unique. Neighborhood: A planning area commonly identified as such in a community's planning documents, and by the individuals residing and working within the neighborhood. Documentation may include a map prepared for planning purposes, on which the names and boundaries of the neighborhood are shown. Neighborhood Park: City- or county -owned land intended to serve the recreation needs of people living or working within one-half mile radius of the park. GL -26 1 Costa Mesa General Plan Glossary Noise: Any sound that is undesirable because it interferes with speech and hearing, or is intense enough to damage hearing, or is otherwise annoying. Noise, simply, is "unwanted sound." Noise Attenuation: Reduction of the level of a noise source using a substance, material, or surface, such as earth berms and/or solid concrete walls. Noise Contour: A line connecting points of equal noise level as measured on the same scale. Noise levels greater than the 60 Ldn contour (measured in cIBA) require noise attenuation in residential development. Non -attainment: The condition of not achieving a desired or required level of performance. Frequently used in reference to air quality. (See "Attainment.") Official County Scenic Highway: A segment of state highway identified in the Master Plan of State Highways Eligible for Official Scenic Highway Designation and designated by the Director of the Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Open Space: An area that is intended to provide light and air, and is designed for either environmental, scenic or recreational purposes. Open space may include, but is not limited to, lawns, decorative planting, walkways, active and passive recreational areas, playgrounds, fountains, swimming pools, wooded areas; first floor decks; unenclosed patios with solid or lattice roofs; water courses; and surfaces covered by not more than 5 feet in depth by projections which are at least 8 feet above grade. Open space shall not include the following: driveways; parking lots; other surfaces designed or intended for vehicular travel; and upper floor decks, balconies or areas under projections which are less than 8 feet above grade. Ordinance: A law or regulation set forth and adopted by a governmental authority, usually a city or county. Overlay: A land use designation on the General Plan Land Use Map, or a zoning designation on a zoning map, that modifies the basic underlying designation in some specific manner. Costa Mesa General Plan I GL -27 Glossary Parcel: A lot in single ownership or under single control, usually considered a unit for purposes of development. Park Land; Parkland: Land that is publicly owned or controlled for the purpose of providing parks, recreation, or open -space for public use. Parking, Shared: Apublic orprivate parking area used jointly by two or more uses. Parking Area, Public: An open area, excluding a street or other public way, used for the parking of automobiles and available to the public, whether for free or for compensation. Parks: Open -space lands whose primary purpose is recreation. Parkway:An expressway orfreewaydesignedfornon- commercial traffic only; usually located within a strip of landscaped park or natural vegetation. Parkway Strip: A piece of land located between the rear of a curb and the front of a sidewalk, usually used for planting low ground cover and/or street trees, also known as "planter strip." Performance Standards: Zoning regulations that permit uses based on a particular set of standards of operation rather than on particular type of use. Performance standards provide specific criteria limiting noise, air pollution, emissions, odors, vibration, dust, dirt, glare, heat, fire hazards, wastes, traffic impacts, and visual impact of a use. Performance Standards: Zoning regulations that permit uses based on a particular set of standards of operation rather than on particular type of use. Performance standards provide specific criteria limiting noise, air pollution, emissions, odors, vibration, dust, dirt, glare, heat, fire hazards, wastes, traffic impacts, and visual impact of a use. Planning Area: The area directly addressed by the general plan. A city's planning area typically encompasses the city limits and potentially annexable land within its sphere of influence. GL -28 1 Costa Mesa General Plan Glossary Pollution, Non -Point: Sources for pollution that are less definable and usually cover broad areas of land, such as agricultural land with fertilizers that are carried from the land by runoff, or automobiles. Pollution, Point: In reference to water quality, a discrete source from which pollution is generated before it enters receiving waters, such as a sewer outfall, a smokestack, or an industrial waste pipe. Public and Quasi -public Facilities: Institutional, academic, governmental and community service uses, either owned publicly or operated by non-profit organizations, including private hospitals and cemeteries. Reclamation: The reuse of resources, usually those present in solid wastes or sewage. Reconstruction: As used in historic preservation, the process of reproducing by new construction the exact form and detail of a vanished structure, or part thereof, as it appeared during a specific period of time. Reconstruction is often undertaken when the property to be reconstructed is essential for understanding and interpreting the value of an historic district and sufficient documentation exists to insure an exact reproduction of the original. Redevelop: To demolish existing buildings; or to increase the overall floor area existing on a property; or both; irrespective of whether a change occurs in land use. Regional: Pertaining to activities or economies at a scale greater than that of a single jurisdiction, and affecting a broad geographic area. Regional Housing Needs Plan/Share: A quantification by a COG or by HCD of existing and projected housing need, by household income group, for all localities within a region. Regional Park: A park typically 150-500 acres in size focusing on activities and natural features not included in most other types of parks and often based on a specific scenic or recreational opportunity. Rezoning: An amendment to the map and/or text of a zoning ordinance to effect a change in the nature, density, or intensity of uses allowed in a zoning district and/or on a designated parcel or land area. Costa Mesa General Plan I GL -29 Glossary Richter Scale: A measure of the size or energy release of an earthquake at its source. The scale is logarithmic; the wave amplitude of each number on the scale is 10 times greater than that of the previous whole number. Ridesourcing: A generic term coined by researchers at UC Berkeley for the act of using a Transportation Network Company such as Lyft or Uber. The term distinguishes this mode from car sharing and from taxi use. A user is "sourcing" a ride from an online community, in exchange for a brokered payment. Right-of-way: A strip of lane occupied or intended to be occupied by certain transportation and public use facilities, such as roads, railroads, and utility lines. Riparian Lands: Riparian lands are comprised of the vegetative and wildlife areas adjacent to perennial and intermittent streams. Riparian areas are delineated by the existence of plant species normally found nearfreshwater. Sanitary Landfill: The controlled placement of refuse within a limited area, followed by compaction and covering with a suitable thickness of earth and other containment material. Sanitary Sewer: A system of subterranean conduits that carries refuse liquids or waste matter to a plant where the sewage is treated, as contrasted with storm drainage systems (that carry surface water) and septic tanks or leech fields (that hold refuse liquids and waste matter onsite). Seiche: An earthquake -generated wave in an enclosed body of water such as a lake, reservoir, or bay. Seismic: Caused by or subject to earthquakes or earth vibrations. Single Room Occupancy (SRO): A single room, typically with a sink and closet, but which requires the occupant to share a communal bathroom, shower, and kitchen. Solar Access: The provision of direct sunlight to an area specified forsolar energy collection when the sun's azimuth is within 45 degrees of true south. GL -30 I Costa Mesa General Plan Glossary Solar System, Active: A system using a mechanical device, such as a pump or a fan, and energy in addition to solar energy to transport a conductive medium (air or water) between a solar collector and the interior of a building for the purpose of heating or cooling. Solar System, Passive: A system that uses direct heat transferfrom thermal mass instead of mechanical powerto distribute collected heat. Passivesystems rely on building design and materials to collect and store heat and to create natural ventilation for cooling. Solid Waste: Any unwanted or discarded material that is not a liquid or gas. Includes organic wastes, paper products, metals, glass, plastics, cloth, brick, rock, soil, leather, rubber, yard wastes, and wood, but does not include sewage and hazardous materials. Organic wastes and paper products comprise about 75 percent of typical urban solid waste. Specific Plan: A tool authorized by Government Code §65450 et sect. for the systematic implementation of the general plan for a defined portion of a community's planning area. A specific plan must specify in detail the land uses, public and private facilities needed to support the land uses, phasing of development, standards for the conservation, development, and use of natural resources, and a program of implementation measures, including financing measures. Sphere of Influence: The probable physical boundaries and service area of a local agency, as determined by the Local Agency Formation Commission of the County. SRTS Safe Routes to School: Part of a nationwide/region-wide program to increase students walking or biking to school. Includes engineering, educational and enforcement activities. Funded through the State Active Transportation Program (ATP), Standards: (1) A rule or measure establishing a level of quality or quantity that must be complied with or satisfied. Government Code §65302 requires that general plans spell out the objectives, principles, "standards," and proposals of the general plan. Examples of standards might include the number of acres of park land per 1,000 population that the community will Costa Mesa General Plan I GL -31 Glossary attempt to acquire and improve, or the "traffic Level of Service" (LOS) that the plan hopes to attain. (2) Requirements in a zoning ordinance that govern building and development as distinguished from use restrictions --for example, site -design regulations such as lot area, height limit, frontage, landscaping, and floor area ratio. Structure: Anything, including a building, located on the ground in a permanent location or attached to something having a permanent location on the ground. Subdivision: The division of a tract of land into defined lots, either improved or unimproved, which can be separately conveyed by sale or lease, and which can be altered or developed. "Subdivision" includes a condominium project as defined in Section 1350 of the California Civil Code and a community apartment project as defined in Section 11004 of the Business and Professions Code. Subregional: Pertaining to a portion of a region. Subsidence: The sudden sinking or gradual downward settling and compaction of soil and other surface material with little or no horizontal motion. Subsidence may be caused by a variety of human and natural activity, including earthquakes. Subsidize: To assist by payment of a sum of money or by the granting of terms or favors that reduce the need for monetary expenditures. Housing subsidies may take the forms of mortgage interest deductions or tax credits from federal and/or state income taxes, sale or lease at less than market value of land to be used for the construction of housing, payments to supplement a minimum affordable rent, and the like. Substandard Housing: Residential dwellings that, because of their physical condition, do not provide safe and sanitary housing. Sustainability: Community use of natural resources in a way that does not jeopardize the ability of future generations to live and prosper. Sustainable Development: Development that maintains or enhances economic opportunity and community well-being while protecting and GL -32 1 Costa Mesa General Plan Glossary restoring the natural environment upon which people and economies depend. Sustainable development meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. (Source: Minnesota State Legislature) Traffic Model: A mathematical representation of traffic movement within an area or region based on observed relationships between the kind and intensity of development in specific areas. Many traffic models operate on the theory that trips are produced by persons living in residential areas and are attracted by various non-residential land uses. Transit: The conveyance of persons or goods from one place to another by means of a local, public transportation system. Transit, Public: A system of regularly -scheduled buses and/or trains available to the public on a fee -per -ride basis. Also called "Mass Transit." Transitional Housing: Shelter provided to the homeless for an extended period, often as long as 18 months, and generally integrated with other social services and counseling programs to assistin the transition to self-sufficiency through the acquisition of a stable income and permanent housing. (See "Emergency Shelter.") Transportation Demand Management (TDM): A strategy for reducing demand on the road system by reducing the number of vehicles using the roadways and/or increasing the number of persons per vehicle. TDM attempts to reduce the number of persons who drive alone on the roadway during the commute period and to increase the number in carpools, vanpools, buses and trains, walking, and biking. TDM can be an element of TSM (see below). Transportation Systems Management (TSM): A comprehensive strategy developed to address the problems caused by additional development, increasing trips, and a shortfall in transportation capacity. Transportation Systems Management focuses on more efficiently utilizing existing highway and transit systems rather than expanding them. TSM measures are characterized by their low cost and quick implementation time frame, such as computerized traffic signals, metered freeway ramps, and one-way streets. Costa Mesa General Plan I GL -33 Glossary Trip: A one-way vehicular journey either to or from a site, or totally within the site, i.e., internal trip. Each trip has two trip ends, one at the beginning and the other at the destination. Trip Generation: The dynamics that account for people making trips in automobiles or by means of public transportation. Trip generation is the basis for estimating the level of use for a transportation system and the impact of additional development or transportation facilities on an existing, local transportation system. Trip generations of households are correlated with destinations that attract household members for specific purposes. Tsunami: A large ocean wave generated by an earthquake in or near the ocean. Uniform Building Code (UBC): A national, standard building code that sets forth minimum standards for construction. Urban: Of, relating to, characteristic of, or constituting a city. Urban areas are generally characterized by moderate and higher density residential development (i.e., three or more dwelling units per acre), commercial development, and industrial development, and the availability of public services required for that development, specifically central water and sewer, an extensive road network, public transit, and other such services (e.g., safety and emergency response). Development not providing such services may be "non -urban" or "rural." (See "Urban Land Use.") CEQA defines "urbanized area" as an area that has a population density of at least 1,000 persons per square mile - (Public Resources Code 21080.14(b)). Urban Design: The attempt to give form, in terms of both beauty and function, to selected urban areas or to whole cities. Urban design is concerned with the location, mass, and design of various urban components and combines elements of urban planning, architecture, and landscape architecture. Vehicle -Miles Traveled (VMT): A key measure of overall street and highway use. Reducing VMT is often a major objective in efforts to reduce vehicular congestion and achieve regional air quality goals. GL -34 I Costa Mesa General Plan Glossary Very -Low Income Household: A household with an annual income usually no greater than 50 percent of the area median family income adjusted by household size, as determined by a survey of incomes conducted by a city or a county, or in the absence of such a survey, based on the latest available eligibility limits established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the Section 8 housing program. View Corridor: The line of sight - identified as to height, width, and distance - of an observerlooking toward an object of significance to the community (e.g., ridgeline, river, historic building, etc.); the route that directs the viewer's attention. Viewshed: The area within view from a defined observation point. Volume -to -Capacity Ratio: A measure of the operating capacity of a roadway or intersection, in terms of the number of vehicles passing through, divided by the number of vehicles that theoretically could pass through when the roadway or intersection is operating at its designed capacity. Abbreviated as "V/C". At a V/C ratio of 1.0, the roadway or intersection is operating at capacity, If the ratio is less than 1.0, the traffic facility has additional capacity. Although ratios slightly greater than 1.0 are possible, it is more likely that the peak hour will elongate into a "peak period." Water -Efficient Landscaping: Landscaping designed to minimize water use and maximize energy efficiency. Watercourse: Natural or once natural flowing (perennially or intermittently) water including rivers, streams, and creeks. Includes natural waterways that have been channelized, but does not include manmade channels, ditches, and underground drainage and sewage systems. Watershed: The total area above a given point on a watercourse that contributes water to its flow; the entire region drained by a waterway or watercourse that drains into a lake, or reservoir. Wetlands: Transitional areas between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the surface, or the land is covered by shallow water. Under a "unified" methodology now used by all federal Costa Mesa General Plan I GL -35 Glossary agencies, wetlands are defined as "those areas meeting certain criteria for hydrology, vegetation, and soils." Wildlife Refuge: An area maintained in a natural state for the preservation of both animal and plant life. Zone, Traffic: In a mathematical traffic model the area to be studied is divided into zones, with each zone treated as producing and attracting trips. The production of trips by a zone is based on the number of trips to orfrom work or shopping, orothertrips produced per dwelling unit. Zoning: The division of a city or county by legislative regulations into areas, or zones, that specify allowable uses for real property and size restrictions for buildings within these areas; a program that implements policies of the General Plan. GL -36 1 Costa Mesa General Plan ATTACHMENT 2 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendments Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments Draft SCH No. 2015111053 April 22, 2016 Lead Agency: City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, California This document is designed for double -sided printing to conserve natural resources. Table of Contents 1 Introduction............................................................................................... 2 2 Responses to Comments.................................................................................4 Agencies.....................................................................................................6 Response A-1 — California Department of Fish and Wildlife .................................................. 6 Response A-2 — California Department of General Services .................................................. 6 Response A-3 — California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) ......................................... 7 Response A-4 — City of Newport Beach..................................................................... 8 Response A-5 — Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD)........................................................ 8 Response A-6 — Orange County Airport Land Use Commission ............................................. 9 Response A-7 — Orange County Transportation Authority ................................................... 9 Organizations............................................................................................10 Response 0-1 — Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition ................................................ 10 Response 0-2 — Orange County Fairgrounds Preservation Society ........................................ 10 Response 0-3 — Public Law Center....................................................................... 10 Response 0-4 — The Kennedy Commission............................................................... 10 Response 0-5 — Tribune Real Estate..................................................................... 10 Response0-6 — SoCalGas.......................... :............................ ........................ 10 Individuals................................................................................................11 Response1-1 — Eleanor Egan............................................................................. 11 Response 1-2 — Kim Hendricks............................................................................ 11 Response 1-3 — Cynthia McDonald........................................................................ 13 Response 1-4 — Robin Leffler.............................................................................. 15 Response 1-5 — Elaine Dethlefsen......................................................................... 15 Response 1-6 — Tamar Goldmann......................................................................... 16 Response 1-7 — Reggie Mundekis......................................................................... 16 Response 1-8 — Corrine Stover............................................................................ 16 Response 1-9 — Beth Morley.............................................................................. 16 Response 1-10 — William Harader, Laurene Keane, Lisa Lawrence, Judy Lindssay, Ralph Taboada, Anna Vrska, James Locker, Beverly Tazelaar, Janice Kressin, and Georgette Quinn ................. . ................. 17 Response 1-11 — Cindy Black, Flo Martin, and Mary Spandoni............................................. 17 List of Tables Table1 DEIR Comments ..........,.........., ............................ .................................... -....... ................ .............:.:.,...,:......,.....4 Environmental Impact Report 1 1 Introduction Introduction Section 1: Introduction This Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) has been prepared to comply with Sections 15089 and 15132 of the State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. As noted in §15089 (b) of the Guidelines, the focus of a FEIR should be on responses to comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). Accordingly, this document incorporates the Costa Mesa General Plan Amendments DEIR, Volumes I through II (State Clearinghouse No. 2015111053) by reference in its entirety. The DEIR is available for review at the City of Costa Mesa, Development Services Department, 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, California, and on the City's web site (http://www.cl.Costa Mesa.ca.us/CD_Plan.html). The contents of this FEIR include the following four sections. Section 2: Responses to Comments The City published a Notice of Availability and circulated a DEIR for public review and comment for the period of March 4, 2016 through April 18, 2016. A total of 35 different pieces of correspondences were submitted to the City during the review period, including seven letters from public agencies, six letters from organizations, and 22 letters and emails from individuals. This section includes a list of all correspondence submitted to the City of Costa Mesa, each identified by a letter for later reference, together with the authors and the dates the letters were issued. Following this list, all of the letters are presented, with numbered brackets to highlight specific comments that are responded to in the next section. Review of Environmental Documents Section 15204 of the CEQA Guidelines provides guidance to the public in reviewing CEQA documents. This section is designed not to limit the scope of comments that can be submitted by the public but to focus comments on issues that are substantive to the environmental analysis. Commenting entities should focus on the adequacy of the document in identifying and analyzing impacts to the environment and identify any areas they believe to be inadequate. The guidance indicates that comments should be submitted in a manner that: • Identifies a specific environmental effect • Supports the effect and its significance with substantial evidence Comments should include alternatives or mitigation measures to avoid or reduce identified, specific environmental effects. This section reiterates that the lead agency is bound by "reasonableness" and "good faith" in its analysis and that the lead agency is not required to respond to comments in the FEIR that do not identify significant environmental issues. Each response provided herein is coded to correspond to the individual comment/author and each of the bracketed comments in that letter. A summary table is included with each response to identify if the response introduces "new significant information" under any of the four categories identified in Section 15088 et seq. of the CEQA Guidelines. Evaluation of Comments Section 15088 et seq. of the State CEQA Guidelines provides guidance on the evaluation and response to comments received during circulation of the DEIR. To summarize: 2 • The lead agency must evaluate all comments received during the public review period and prepare a written response to comments on significant environmental issues. • The lead agency must provide the response to the commenting entity at least ten days prior to certification of the EIR. • The response must: City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendments Introduction 1 o Identify any significant environmental issues raised in the comment; o Explain, if necessary, why any recommendations provided in the comment were not accepted; and o Be supported by reasoned analysis. • Responses may be provided as direct revisions to the DEIR or as a separate section of the FEIR with marginal notes in the DEIR text indicating that it was subsequently revised. A lead agency is required to recirculate the DEIR if "significant new information" is introduced during the public comment period. "Significant new information" includes: 1. New significant impacts 2. Substantial increases in the severity of impacts 3. Feasible alternatives or mitigation that would reduce significant impacts 4. Identification of inadequacies in the analysis Recirculation is not required when new information is not significant, this includes: Revisions that clarify or amplify an adequate analysis • Insignificant modifications (such as spelling and grammar corrections) Section 3: Errata (NOT INCLUDED IN THIS DRAFT) This section identifies revisions to the DEIR to incorporate clarifications developed in response to comments on the DEIR. Additions to the text are underlined and deletions have been stricken through. No substantial revisions were made to the DEIR and recirculation of the document is not required pursuant to CEQA. Section 4: Notices and Distributions (NOT INCLUDED IN THIS DRAFT) This consists of notices concerning the release of the Draft EIR for public review and comment, and the list of agencies, groups and individuals who were sent notices and/or a copy of the Draft EIR. Environmental Impact Report 3 Z Responses to Comments The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was circulated for a 45 -day public review and comment period beginning March 4, 2016 and ending April 18, 2016. Correspondence was received from several agencies and members of the public during this time period. Correspondence that pertained only the draft General Plan Amendments is not addressed in this document. The correspondence listed in Table 1 (Draft EIR Comments Received) was submitted to the City of Costa Mesa concerning the DEIR. Written responses to each comment are subsequently provided. The following responses to comments include a summary to identify if the response will introduce "new significant information" under any of the four categories identified in Section 15088 et seq. of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines or if it does not introduce "new significant information." The four general categories are: 1. New significant impacts 2. Substantial increases in the severity of impacts 3. Feasible alternatives or mitigation that would reduce significant impacts 4. Identification of inadequacies in the analysis Table 1 Draft EIR Comments Received ID Commenting Agency Date A-1 California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4/18/2016 A-2 California Department of General Services 4/15/2016 A-3 California Department of Transportation 4/16/2016 A-4 City of Newport Beach 4/11/2016 A-5 Irvine Ranch Water District 4/14/2016 A-6 Orange County Airport Land Use Commission 4/14/2016 A-7 Orange County Transportation Authority 4/18/2016 Commenting Organization 0-1 Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition 4/18/2016 0-2 Orange County Fairgrounds Preservation Society 4/06/2016 0-3 Public Law Center 4/18/2016 0-4 The Kennedy Commission 4/11/2016 0-5 Tribune Real Estate 4/18/2016 0-6 SoCalGas 4/21/2016 Commenting Individual 1-1 Eleanor Egan 4/04/2016 1-2 Kim Hendricks 4/18/2016 1-3 Cynthia McDonald 4/18/2016 1-4 Robin Leffler 4/18/2016 1-5 Elaine Dethlefsen 4/18/2016 1-6 Tamar Goldmann 4/18/2016 1-7 Reggie Mundekis 4/18/2016 1-8 Corinne Stover 4/18/2016 Environmental Impact Report 4 Response to Comments 2 ID Commenting Agency Date 1-9 Beth Morley 4/18/2016 1-10 William Harader, Laurene Keane, Lisa Lawrence, Judy Lindssay, James Locker, Ralph Taboada, Anna Vrska, Beverly Tazelaar, Janice Kressin, Georgette Quinn Various I-11 Cindy Black, Flo Martin, Mary Spandoni Various 1-12 Wendy Leece Various I-13 Brian Burnett 4/16/16 Response Pending 1-14 Robert Hamilton 4/18/16 Response Pending Environmental Impact Report 2 Response to Comments Agencies Response A-1— California Department of Fish and Wildlife A-1.1. This comment recommends that the City conduct more recent species surveys in the project area because the data used are 16 years old. The data was deemed to be adequate for a cursory level evaluation for the General Plan since most focus areas are already heavily impacted by development or agricultural use, and actual ground -disturbing activities are not authorized by the project. A November, 2015 CNDDB report was generated for all land within the City, and the results were included in the DEIR (Table 4.4-6). The CNDDB report included new information on the southern tarplant, including a population near the Talbert Natural Preserve reported in 2014. The City will require site-specific biological surveys and impact evaluations on a project -by -project basis pursuant to CEQA, and such evaluations would include site-specific surveys and an updated CNDDB search. This response does not identify any new information. A-1.2. This comment recommends the preparation of a Biological Resources Technical Report for the FEIR. Again, because the project does not authorize any land -altering activities and projects proposed pursuant to the amended General Plan would require project -specific CEQA compliance, the need for a technical report at this point in time was deemed not to be warranted. Also see Response A-1.1. This response does not identify any new information. A-1.3. This comment requests that City involve CDFW and USFWS in the review of the Costa Mesa Parks Master, The comment is not addressing the DEIR analysis nor is it relevant to any of the threshold criteria analyzed in the DEIR. All policy questions and recommended changes will be addressed through the public hearing proces response does not identify any new information. A-1.4. This comment requests that Policy OSR-1.0 include language regarding the need to consult with the wildlife agencies also. The comment is not addressing the DEIR analysis nor is it relevant to any of the threshold criteria analyzed in the DEIR. All policy questions and recommended changes will be addressed through the public hearing process. This response does not identify any new information. A-1.5. This comment recommends addressing the Polyphagous Shot Hole Borer (SHB) and Kuroshio SHB (both invasive beetles) in the Conservation, Open Space and Recreation and other elements. The comment is not addressing the DEIR analysis nor is it relevant to any of the threshold criteria analyzed in the DEIR. All policy questions and recommended changes will be addressed through the public hearing process. This response does not address any specific issue in the DEIR. Response A-2 — California Department of General Services Response to Traffic Comments (Second and Third Full Paragraphs on Page 3): The suggestion to utiliz the Institute of Transportation Engineer's (ITE) trip rate for "Govemment Office Complex" to estimate trips for future blic facility uses is not consistent with the mix of uses currently envisioned by the General Plan for the site, which a this time does not include redevelopment as an office complex. The ITE Government Office Complex rate applies to government buildings that are similar to general office or business park uses. As stated in the General Plan, the Mixed - Use Center designation that is applied to this site will require a Master Plan for any future development project. At that time, the most appropriate trip generation rates for the proposed uses will be applied as part of the traffic analysis for a specific development project. This response does not identify any new information. M City of Costa Mesa General Plan Update Response to Comments 2 Response A-3 - California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) A-3.1. The Circulation Element of the City's General Plan is applicable only to the City's network of roadways. Caltrans facilities, such as the freeway mainline and ramps, are not a part of the Circulation Element. and changes or modifications to Caltrans facilities are not addressed by the General Plan. As such, the traffic analysis that has been prepared in support of the General Plan Amendments focuses on City roadways using City analysis methodology. Future development that may occur in the City as a result of changes to the General Plan will be subject to project - level analysis, which includes evaluation of impacts to Caltrans facilities when applicable and using analysis methodologies for those facilities that are acceptable to Caltrans such as those noted in the comment. This response does not identify any new information. A-3.2. As noted in the Response to Comment A-3.1, the Circulation Element is applicable only to the City's network of roadways, and the traffic analysis that has been prepared in support of the General Plan Amendments focuses on these City roadways using City analysis methodology. The type of analysis that has been prepared is appropriate for a long-range planning study of this time. The comment to provide queuing analysis of off -ramps and evaluation of intersection turn pockets, including identification of turn pocket storage lengths, is not appropriate for a citywide planning study of this type. Future development that may occur in the City as a result of changes to the General Plan will be subject to project level analysis, which includes evaluation of impacts to Caltrans facilities when applicable and would include the detailed geometric design analysis requested by the comment. This response does not identify any new information. A-3.3. In lieu of turning movement diagrams, peak -hour tum movement volumes for each of the intersections and scenarios that were analyzed are provided in tabular format in the ICU worksheets attached at the end of the traffic study in Appendix C of the DEI R. This response does not identify any new information. A-3.4. The buildout General Plan roadway system includes the extension of the SR 55 freeway from 1911 Street to Industrial Way and is based on a conceptual approach using cut -and -cover construction of a four -lane freeway extension. Extending the SR 55 freeway allows for reducing the number of lanes on Newport Boulevard between 19th Street and 17th Street from seven lanes to six lanes, as evidenced by the traffic volume reductions noted on Newport Boulevard under the 2035 scenarios that assume buildout of the General Plan roadway system (i.e., traffic that is diverted to the SR 55 freeway extension results in lower volumes on Newport Boulevard). The cut -and -cover approach for the SR 55 extension is not expected to be implemented by the General Plan's planning horizon of 2035. Therefore, the traffic analysis included in Appendix C of the Draft EIR includes two highway plan scenarios for the year 2035. One scenario includes the SR 55 extension along with all other future roadway improvements that are a part of the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways. The second 2035 scenario includes only those improvements certain to occur prior to 2035, which is referred to as the "constrained" network. The constrained network does not include the SR 55 extension. Therefore, the Draft EIR addresses 2035 scenarios both with and without the SR 55 extension. This response does not identify any new information. A-3.5. Class IV bikeways are described in the General Plan on page C-19 and are illustrated in Figure C-5 on page C- 18. Additionally, several potential locations for implementing future Class IV facilities are illustrated in Figure C-3 on page C-16. A reference to Class IV bikeways will be added to the EIR Section 4.16. This response does not identify any new information that has a bearing on the adequacy of the DEIR analysis. Environmental Impact Report 7 2 Response to Comments Response A-4 - City of Newport Beach A-4.1. The cut -and -cover approach for the SR 55 extension is not expected to be implemented by the General Plan's planning horizon of 2035. Therefore, the traffic analysis included in Appendix C of the Draft EIR includes two highway plan scenarios for the year 2035. One scenario includes the SR 55 extension, along with all other future roadway improvements that are a part of the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways. The second 2035 scenario includes only those improvements certain to occur prior to 2035, which is referred to as the "constrained" network, The constrained network does not include the SR 55 extension. Therefore, the Draft EIR addresses 2035 scenarios both with and without the SR 55 extension. This response does not identify any new information. A-4.2. The City of Costa Mesa will initiate an MPAH amendment process with OCTA for each of the roadway downgrades and deletions proposed in the Circulation Element (see page C-13 of the DEIR for discussion), The cooperative studies associated with the MPAH amendment will be conducted with all of the stakeholders that are affected, including the City of Newport Beach for the downgrades and deletions that are in close proximity to Newport Beach. The only exception is the East 22nd Street downgrade between Newport Boulevard and Orange Avenue. This downgrade was approved by OCTA at its September 14, 2015 Board meeting. This downgrade did not have any impact outside of the Costa Mesa limits, as it is minor segment. This response does not identify any new information. A-4.3. The study previously prepared for deletion of the 19th Street bridge included mitigation at the Newport Boulevard/17th Street intersection and the Superior Avenue/17th Street intersection. The improvement at the Newport Boulevard/17th Street intersection required addition of a fourth northbound through lane. This was implemented with the Newport Boulevard widening project. The improvements identified at the Superior Avenue/17th Street intersection are identified for future implementation based on General Plan conditions. The DEIR General Plan analysis uses the most recent land use forecasts, and no additional impacts were identified with the removal of 19th Street bridge. This response does not identify any new information. Response A-5 - Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) A-5.1. The commenter requests that the DEIR be updated with new information about the service area and facilities of the IRWD. The clarifications are herein acknowledged and are part of the FEIR administrative record. This response does not identify any new information that has a bearing on the analysis in the EIR. A-5.2. The commenter requests that instead of using the Water Resources Master Plan for the environmental analysis, the Water Supply Assessment (WSA) should have been used. In the case of this project, the WSA was not available at the time the Notice of Preparation was released in November, 2015. The NOP date establishes the baseline for existing conditions in the DEIR. The WSA was completed in early April, 2016 and thus was not available at the time of DEIR preparation. According to the WSA provided by the IRWD, "currently available supplies of potable water are adequate to meet projected annual demands for both the baseline and with -project demand projects under the normal year conditions through the year 2036. Meeting both the single- and multiple -dry year annual demands for potable water at full buildout will require the completion of 'underdevelopment' supplies. 'Underdevelopment' supplies may necessitate the preparation and completion of environmental documents, regulatory approvals, and/or contracts prior to full construction and implementation. Adequate currently available potable water supply capacity is available to meet peak - flow (maximum day) demands for all demand projections through the year 2036," The WSA further states that "currently available supplies of nonpotable water are adequate to meet projected annual demands for both the baseline and with -project demand projects under the normal year conditions through the year 2036." 0 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Update Response to Comments 2 It should be noted that the IRWD serves only approximately 15% of the City; the majority is served by the Mesa Consolidated Water District (MCWD). MCWD did not provide any comments on the DEIR. As noted in the discussion on beginning on page 4.17-12 of the DEIR, the project will increase demand for water. This analysis does not account for any long-term water savings achieved through plumbing system retrofits, increased use of drought -tolerant landscaping, and other measures. Such programs will be implemented pursuant to General Plan policies, as described on pages 4.17-13 and 4.17-14 of the DEIR. Also, it should be noted that MCWD, in its 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, assumes a flat demand in the next 25 years even with growth. This reflects MCWD's assumptions of reduced per capita consumption over time. Because MCWD's service area generally is contiguous with the corporate Costa Mesa limits (other than properties served by IRWD), the City and MCWD can continue to work cooperatively to achieve water conservation goals and assure that new development pursuant to General Plan policies, together with existing development, can be provided with adequate water supplies. This response does not identify any new information that has a bearing on the analysis in the EIR. A-5.3. The correction regarding the San Joaquin Reservoir is acknowledged. This response does not identify any new information that has a bearing on the analysis in the EIR. A-5.4. The commenter requests that the DEIR reflect that the reflect IRWD's 2010 Urban Water Management Plan applies to the Santa Ana Heights area of Costa Mesa. The clarification is herein acknowledged and is part of the FEIR administrative record. This response does not identify any new information that has a bearing on the analysis in the EIR. Response A-6 — Orange County Airport Land Use Commission A-6.1. Responses under separate cover to be proved on April 25, 2016. Response A-7 — Orange County Transportation Authority A-7.1. The Response to Paragraph 3 Comment: Figure C-8 on page C-29 will be updated with the changes noted in the 2016 Bus Service Plan and bus route numbers will be added to the map. This response does not identify any new information that has a bearing on the adequacy of the DEIR analysis. A-7.2. The Response to Paragraph 4 Comment: This comment addresses a policy in the General Plan regarding future funding of bus services. It does not reference any deficiencies in the Draft EIR. Environmental Impact Report 9 Z Response to Comments Organizations Response 0-1— Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition 0-1.1. Since there were multiple commenters that had similar concerns regarding the issue of affordable housing, a master response is being prepared that will address all comment regarding this issue. The response will be provided under separate cover to be provided on April 25, 2016. Response 0-2 — Orange County Fairgrounds Preservation Society 0-2.1. The commenter requests that the full 2012 Pacific Amphitheater Settlement Agreement be included in the DER rather than just providing reference to the 1990 Court Order. The 2012 Settlement Agreement is on file at City Hall. It is acknowledged that the 2012 Settlement Agreement in effect sets forth noise requirements for the amphitheater. These requirements will continue to apply irrespective of adoption of the General Plan Amendments. This response does not identify any new information that results in new significant impacts nor substantial increases in the severity of impacts. Response 0-3 — Public Law Center 0-3.1. See master response under 0-1.1 above. Response 0-4 — The Kennedy Commission 0-4.1. See master response under 0-1.1 above. Response 0-5 — Tribune Real Estate 0-5.1. The comment regarding property ownership is noted as part of FEIR administrative record. The errata reflects this change. This response does not identify any new information that has a bearing on the analysis in the EIR, 0-5.2. The comment regarding corrected information about leaking underground storage tanks on the site (there are none) is noted as part of FEIR administrative record. The errata reflects this change. This response does not identify any new information that has a bearing on the analysis in the EIR. 0.5.3. The comment regarding the proper proposed designation of the Los Angeles Times site as Commercial Center instead of Urban Center Commercial is noted as part of FEIR administrative record. The errata reflects this change. This response does not identify any new information that has a bearing on the analysis in the EIR. Response 0-6 — SoCalGas 0-6.1. The commenter provided information regarding SoCalGas facilities and the services provided to the City and conditions under which SoCalGas provides services. This comment does not raise any issues with regard to the DEIR. No response is necessary. 10 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Update Response to Comments 2 Individuals Response 1-1— Eleanor Egan 1-1.1. While the exterior noise standards for residential uses set forth in the City's Zoning Code specify 50 (dBA) to 55 (dBA) during certain time periods, the Costa Mesa General Plan further defines noise compatibility standards for residential uses to allow exterior noise levels at 65 CNEL. Specifically, the General Plan indicates that Costa Mesa's noise environment is dominated by vehicular traffic and aircraft operations at John Wayne Airport. To provide a baseline 2015 noise environment, noise contours were obtained from the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission and quantified for highway and local street traffic based on the General Plan traffic study. Traffic noise levels can be reliably predicted using formulas that take into account traffic volume, speed, and the percentage of trucks. Baseline 2015 noise contours were calculated for all of the City's primary and major arterials, as well as the three freeways (1-405, SR -55, SR -73). Select secondary and commuter streets were also modeled. Noise generation for each roadway segment was calculated, and the distance to the 60, 65, and 70 dBA CNEL contours was determined. Table N-3 of the General Plan provides a "Noise and Land Use Compatibility Matrix." For low-density residential uses and multi -family residential uses, community noise exposure (accounting for ambient traffic noise for example) is conditionally acceptable in the range of 60 to 70 CNEL and 65 to 75 CNEL, respectively. New construction of residential development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements and needed noise insulation features for both interior and exterior noise. Typical sound mitigation in the form of masonry sound walls may mitigate exterior noise levels to 65 dBA or lower. General Plan Policy N -1.A requires enforcement of "the maximum acceptable exterior noise levels for residential areas at 65 CNEL. Therefore, new residential development would require noise mitigation to attenuate exterior noise level of the 65 CNEL. Residential development projects in the City of Costa Mesa which have been approved since the adoption of the current General Plan in January 2002 have been found compliant with the exterior noise requirement of 65 CNEL. Exterior sound walls varying in height from six to eight feet are required in certain cases to provide the required noise mitigation. Future residential development in the proposed Residential Incentive Overlay and Harbor Mixed -Use Overlay will be required to comply with the General Plan's conditionally acceptable noise levels. This response does not identify any new information that has a bearing on the analysis in the EIR. Response 1-2 — Kim Hendricks 1-2.1. The commenter believes impacts on the burrowing owl should be considered "significant" in the DEIR rather than "less than significant with mitigation." The "less than significant with mitigation" conclusion is based on; 1) the fact that no impact will actually take place as a result of the City adopting the General Plan Amendments, and 2) the requirement of the DEIR that future development projects on both the Segarstrom Home Ranch site and the Sakioka site conduct site-specific surveys for the burrowing owl as part of CEQA review of the project prior to the City approving development on those sites. This response does not identify any new information. 1-2.2. This commenter questions why the DEIR concludes that there is no "critical habitat" in the planning area for the San Diego fairy shrimp when it is known to occur in Fairview Park and Talbert Regional Preserve. The reference to "critical habitat" refers to a formal designation applied by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service designated by a rule published in the Federal Register. Critical habitat receives protection under Section 7 of FESA through prohibition against destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat with regard to actions carried out, funded, or authorized Environmental Impact Report 11 2 Response to Comments by a Federal Agency. There is no officially designated critical habitat for the San Diego fairy shrimp in the planning area (USFWS 2000). That does not mean that there is not important habitat for the fairy shrimp in the planning area. Vernal pools are addressed in the DEIR, but amendments to the General Plan do not affect the vernal pools, This response does not identify any new information. 1-2.3. The DEIR provided a table of more common plants and animals in the planning area but was not meant to be an exhaustive list. A special status species list was included in the DEIR based on a November 2015 CNDDB search. For any projects that involve ground -disturbing activities that could affect listed species, the City would require a biological evaluation as required by CEQA. Such a survey would require species surveys and impact analysis. This response does not identify any new information. 1.2.4. Illegal grading of a canyon in Fairview Park was not the subject the DEIR; the project consists only of specific amendments to the General Plan. No wetlands are contained within the specific amendment areas addressed in the DEIR. This response does not identify any new information. 1-2.5. Illegal grading of a canyon in Fairview Park was not the subject the DEIR; the project consists only specific amendments to the General Plan. Under CEQA, a project -specific cultural resource evaluation is required for any project that includes ground -disturbing activities that have the potential to support cultural resources. This response does not identify any new information. 1-2.6. The comment is not addressing the DEIR analysis nor is it relevant to any of the threshold criteria analyzed in the DEIR. All policy questions and recommended changes will be addressed through the public hearing process. This response does not identify any new information. 1-2.7. Regarding the parks acreages, City staff has reviewed the numbers presented in Table 4.15-3, which is drawn from the draft General Plan. The General Plan will be modified to include minor adjustments based on more refined GIS data which show the Orange County Fairgrounds to encompass 150.04 acres. The City considers the Fairgrounds as a recreation use, not an institutional use, given the multifunctional aspect of the facility. With regard to Vanguard University, the acreage is approximately 37 acres; the 47.06 acres cited in Table 4.15-3 includes adjacent City Hall and its associated open space areas. Any differences between data presented in the 2000 General Plan and the proposed General Plan Amendments is attributed to the more precise method of data collection (GIS data) for the Amendments and/or rounding errors in the current General Plan. The adjustments in numbers above do not materially change the conclusion in the DEIR on page 4.15-6 that the City will experience a deficiency in parkland based on its goal of 4.26 acres per 1,000 residents. The policies in the General Plan have been crafted to address the deficiency over the longterm. This response does not identify any new information that has a bearing on, the analysis in the DEIR. 1-2.8. The comment is not addressing the DEIR analysis nor is it relevant to any of the threshold criteria analyzed in the DEIR. All policy questions and recommended changes will be addressed through the public hearing process. This response does not identify any new information. 1-2.9. The comment is not addressing the DEIR analysis nor is it relevant to any of the threshold criteria analyzed in the DEIR. All policy questions and recommended changes will be addressed through the public hearing process. This response does not identify any new information. 1-2.10. The comment is not addressing the DEIR analysis nor is it relevant to any of the threshold criteria analyzed in the DEIR. All policy questions and recommended changes will be addressed through the public hearing process. This response does not identify any new information. 1-2.11. This comment reflects the opinion of the commentor only and requires no response. 12 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Update Response to Comments 2 1-2.12. This comment GHG Commenter wants to know why greenhouse gas emissions are allowed to exceed SCAQM standards. As stated in the DEIR the interim GHG emission thresholds are not intended to be applied to the program - level (for the entire general plan area), they are more accurately applied to specific projects. However, they do provide a guidepost for comparing incremental increases in emissions guided by the proposed General Plan Amendments. So while the projected full build out of the general plan could exceed thresholds, the general Plan does incorporate policies that support cooperation with and support of GHG reduction plans as well as requiring greenhouse gas emission analysis for individual projects. Response /-3 - Cynthia McDonald 1-3.1. This comment notes that scenic vistas may be impacted by new development on the Segerstrom Home Ranch property due to allowable building heights in the amended General Plan. The General Plan does not contain any information regarding building heights; building intensity limits are stated only in terms of maximum floor area ratios (FAR). As stated in the DEIR, General Plan policies require developers to consider preserving and optimizing natural views in Costa Mesa. Such consideration of preserving views would be addressed in a project -specific CEQA document, as well as during design review of the project by the City. This response does not identify any new information. 1.3.2. This comment is not addressing the DEIR analysis nor is it relevant to any of the threshold criteria analyzed in the DEIR. All policy questions and recommended changes will be addressed through the public hearing process. This response does not identify any new information. 1.3.3. The DEIR text correction noted. This response does not identify any new information that affects the adequacy of the DEIR analysis. 1-3.4. See master response under 0-1.1 above. 1-3.5. General Plan policies while not actual mitigation are considered regulations which all projects that require City approval must comply with. As part of the CEQA process projects are assessed as to how they comply with applicable plans and policies of the City and other public agencies. Furthermore, at the CEQA stage, projects are subject to laws and regulations in affect at the time of the environmental review. Thus, future measures determined necessary to reduce air pollutants that are adopted by the City or other responsible agencies would apply to the project. Other concerns voiced about specific pollution "hot spots' are acknowledged. 1-3.6. Please refer to response 1-2.12 above which addresses a similar concern. The concern about Banning Ranch is acknowledged. 1.3.7. This comment wonders why there is no mitigation provided for pedestrians and bicyclists exposed to traffic noise and noise echoed off tall building or sound walls. CEQA includes a list of impact thresholds that must be addressed for each environmental issue. For the noise analysis, thresholds are related to exposing persons to noise that is in excess of standards established by the local jurisdiction. The City's noise standards apply to interior and exterior noise in residential areas, and to construction -related noise. Traffic noise is analyzed on how it affects nearby residences, not on how it may affect individuals who may purposefully situate themselves in high noise areas (either by walking or riding a bicycle along a busy roadway). With regard to tall buildings, the General Plan provides for new development in dispersed, focused areas. Implementation of land use policy will not result in "canyons" of tall buildings, With regard to sound walls, no sound walls are proposed by the General Plan Amendments. This response does not identify any new information. 1.3.8. The comment regarding the Residential Overlay designation proposed at location on Harbor and Newport Boulevards does not address the DEIR analysis nor is it relevant to any of the threshold criteria analyzed in the DEIR. Environmental Impact Report 13 2 Response to Comments All policy questions and recommended changes will be addressed through the public hearing process. This response does not identify any new information. 1.3.9. The City utilizes LOS D as the performance standard for intersections during the AM and PM peak hours. Since the peak hours are the time of heaviest traffic conditions, achieving LOS D during the peak hour will generally result in better conditions during the remainder of the day. The City has identified a number of improvements to maintain LOS D conditions or better with buildout of the General Plan (refer to Table 3-8 in the General Plan traffic study). Please note that this threshold is similar to those of other neighboring cities. In addition, Irvine and Huntington Beach have policies that allow LOS "E" at intersections in certain areas The comment mentions that "twenty-one (21) additional intersections that will attain LOS "D" at one or more peak hours." Based on information in Table 4.16-13, sixteen (16) additional intersections will attain LOS "D" during one or more peak hours. The current General Plan would result in fourteen (14) additional attaining LOS "D." The comment points out one of the trade-offs faced by the City when balancing the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists with the needs of motorists. Often improving level of service for motorists will worsen conditions for pedestrians and bicyclists due to increased crossing distances and the potential loss of bicycle accommodations. The City utilizes LOS D as a target level of service for motorists (as opposed to utilizing LOS C or better), which minimizes the need to expand existing roadways with additional capacity and reduces impacts to pedestrians and bicyclists. Having a threshold of LOS C will require widening of most of arterials by one or two lanes. 1.3.10. Regarding accommodation of bicyclists and pedestrians, as referenced in the DEIR, the amended General Plan includes a comprehensive bicycle master plan and a pedestrian plan specifically purposed to address the long-term needs for active transportation. Please note that "Recommendations" under Active Transportation "Goals and Objectives" reflect the City Council direction. This response does not identify any new information. 1.3.11. This and other similar policies are included to limit automobile usage and encourage walking and using local shuttle if available. The City does not have any parking districts at this time. The costs for enforcement of current parking policies are realized from the revenues from the parking tickets. It is not anticipated to add any impacts to City budget. This is not an issue that affects any environmental issue and thus is not required to be addressed in the DEI R. 1-3.12. This comment questions whether the traffic analysis incorporates pass-through trips and the potential trips associated with density bonuses that could be applied to select properties. With regard to pass-through trips, the traffic model includes regional trips from destinations outside of Costa Mesa traveling through the City. With regard to potential residential density bonuses, the traffic model accounts for build -out consistent with proposed land use policy. This is a comprehensive approach that largely assumes full build -out of parcels. In practice, development does not occur at the maximum permitted densities. Thus, the model provides capacity for some projects to include density bonuses. In practice, the City receives very few requests for density bonuses. Therefore, the analysis is considered sufficient. The trip generation estimates cited in the comment reflect the estimate of trips generated within the City of Costa Mesa itself. The roadway traffic forecasts that are reported in the General Plan traffic study include trips generated outside of the City that pass through the City. These forecasts are prepared using a traffic forecasting model that covers the entire Southern California region. The City has multiple planned roadway and intersection improvements (refer to Table 3-8 in the General Plan traffic study) that will be implemented as the City builds out over time. These improvements have been developed to maintain the City's target threshold of LOS D. 1-3.13. The "Right of Way Reserve" classification on Garfield Avenue — Gisler Avenue bridge over Santa Ana River would be revisited in a few years and a determination of whether to remove this bridge from OCTA's Master Plan would be made. It is City's expectation that this bridge will be removed from the Master Plan as the City has largely complied 14 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Update Response to Comments 2 .. ...... ..... _ . with all the mitigations required for this removal, including the widening of Harbor Boulevard — Adams Avenue. Other major projects are also in progress. It is likely that OCTA may continue to maintain the "Right of Way Reserve" for several more years or remove that designation. If the designation is removed, it does not automatically mean that a bridge would be built. OCTA and other agencies recognize that building such a bridge will require mutual agreement among all agencies, in addition to major funding allocation. The City's current analysis follows the approved policies of OCTA and other agencies. The Banning Ranch project, as originally proposed in their Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) is included in traffic forecasting model used to prepare the General Plan traffic study. Therefore, the traffic forecasts shown in the traffic study includes the traffic generated by the Banning Ranch project. 1-3.14. The proposed 2015-2035 General Plan includes Fairview Park under Open Space Land Use as currently assigned and does not change the current land use designation or the Fairview Park Master Plan. The Fairview Park Master Plan was adopted by City Council as a tool for the orderly implementation of the approved improvements for Fairview Park. Changes to the Fairview Park Master Plan are considered in compliance with City Council Policy 500- 11, Implementation Procedures for the Fairview Park Master Plan. The Fairview Park Citizens Advisory Committee has been reconvened to review the current Master Plan and to recommend revisions or changes to the Master Plan. The Committee is currently on -hold pending the completion of the update of the City's Open Space Master Plan of Parks and Recreation. 1-3.15. The current General Plan used zoning designations to estimate the number of single family units, With the proposed General Plan, more accurate aerial and GIS data was used to count the actual existing dwelling units by parcel. The discrepancy is made even greater due to the fact that the methodology used in 2000 cannot accurately compensate for the areas in the City historically down zoned. These areas are zoned for single family but have legal non -conforming higher densities units that were built before the down zoning occurred. 1-3.16. Please the response to the Irvine Ranch Water District in Response A-5. The water supplier indicates that adequate supplies are available to meet projected future demand. 1-3.17. The alternatives analyzed were developed, as required by CEQA, to address alternatives that could reduce the potential significant adverse effects associated with the project. The concern that the alternatives do not reflect concerns or wishes of residents is not an environmental issue but reflects a policy issue that will be addressed during the public hearing process. Response 1-4 — Robin Leffler 1.4.1. The current General Plan used the Low Density zoning designation to estimate the number of single-family units. With the proposed General Plan, more accurate aerial and GIS data were used to count the actual existing dwelling units by parcel. The discrepancy is made even greater due to the fact that the methodology used in 2000 cannot accurately compensate for the areas in the City historically down -zoned. These areas are zoned for single-family but have legal nonconforming higher densities that were built before the down -zoning occurred. Thus, the DEIR appropriately assesses impacts against a more accurate baseline condition. Response 1-5 — Elaine Dethlefsen 1-5.1. This comment raises general concerns about impacts on quality of life, existing neighborhoods, parking, air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, noise, water use, public services, traffic, and lack of open space, traffic congestion, and water shortages. All of these issues are responded to more specifically throughout this response to comments section. This response does not identify any new information. Environmental Impact Report 15 2 Response to Comments Response 1-6 - Tamar Goldmann 1.6.1, The commenter is concerned about water availability to serve future development and the increase in impervious surfaces that could hinder drainage percolation. The Irvine Ranch Water District provided comments on the DEIR. In the comment letter IRWD attached a March 2016 Water Supply Assessment (WSA) for the City planning area (see letter A-5 and response A-5.2 which summarizes the findings of the WSA). In summary, IRWD concluded that"currently available supplies of potable water are adequate to meet projected annual demands for both the baseline and with - project demand projects under the normal year conditions through the year 2036. Meeting both the single- and multiple - dry year annual demands for potable water at full buildout will require the completion of 'underdevelopment' supplies. 'Underdevelopment' supplies may necessitate the preparation and completion of environmental documents, regulatory approvals, and/or contracts prior to full construction and implementation. Adequate currently available potable water supply capacity is available to meet peak -flow (maximum day) demands for all demand projections through the year 2036." The full WSA is part of the FEIR. With regard to impervious surfaces, any development project that goes forward in Orange County is subject to regulation by both the Santa Ana and the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Boards (Regional Boards or RVVQCBs). The Regional Boards are responsible for implementing the Clean Water Act and the California Porter - Cologne Act. These regulations address stormwater runoff. New projects are evaluated by the City on a project -by - project basis to ensure all regulations are met. 1-6.2. The comment is not addressing the DEIR analysis nor is it relevant to any of the threshold criteria analyzed in the DEIR. All policy questions and recommended changes will be addressed through the public hearing process. This response does not identify any new information. 1-6.3. See master response under 0-1.1 above. 1-6.4. The comment is not addressing the DEIR analysis nor is it relevant to any of the threshold criteria analyzed in the DEIR. All policy questions and recommended changes will be addressed through the public hearing process. This response does not identify any new information. Response 1-7 - Reggie Mundekis 1-7.1. The new location of the Huscroft House is acknowledged and is part of FEIR administrative record. The errata reflects this change. This response does not identify any new information that has a bearing on the analysis in the EIR. Response 1-8 - Corrine Stover 1-8.1. The comment does not address the DEIR analysis nor does it question any of the threshold criteria analyzed in the DEIR. All policy questions and recommended changes will be addressed through the public hearing process. This response does not identify any new information. Response 1-9 - Beth Morley 1-9.1. This comment raises general concerns about impacts on housing density, noise, air pollution, lack of open space, traffic congestion, and water shortages. All of these issues are responded to more specifically throughout this response to comments section. This response does not identify any new information. 16 City of Costa Mesa General Plan Update Response to Comments 2 Response 1-10- William Harader, Laurene Keane, Lisa Lawrence, Judy Lindssay, Ralph Taboada, Anna Vrska, James Locker, Beverly Tazelaar, Janice Kressin, and Georgette Quinn These comment letters and emails have been grouped as they all address the same comments. 1-10.1. The comments raise general concerns about impacts on quality of life, existing neighborhoods, parking, air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, noise, water use, public services, traffic, and lack of open space, traffic congestion, and water shortages. All of these issues are responded to more specifically throughout this response to comments section. This response does not identify any new information. 1-10.2. The alternatives analyzed were developed, as required by CEQA, to address alternatives that could reduce the potential significant adverse effects associated with the project. The concern that the alternatives do not reflect concerns or wishes of residents is not an environmental issue but reflects a policy issue that will be addressed during the public hearing process. Response 1-11- Cindy Black, Flo Martin, and Mary Spandoni These comment letters and emails have been grouped as they all the issue of the timing of Planning Commission action on the DEIR and proposed General Plan Amendments. 1-111. The commenters were concerned that the City Planning Commission was going to certify the DEIR and adopt the General Plan before the end of the DEIR comment period, which was April 18, 2016. The Planning Commission hearing referenced was April 11, 2016. On that date, the Planning Commission voted to continue the hearing. Response 1-12 - Wendy Leece Comments and corrections in regards of the Safety Element and Historical and Cultural Resources Element of the General Plan. 1-12.1. Comments and corrections have been reviewed and applicable sections included as errata. The comment is not addressing the DEIR analysis nor is it relevant to any of the threshold criteria analyzed in the DEIR. All policy questions and recommended changes will be addressed through the public hearing process. Environmental Impact Report 17 State of California — Natural Resources A enc EDMUND G. BROWN JR. Gouemor .. DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director South Coast Region 3883 Ruffin Road COMMENT A-1 A San Diego, CA 92123~��` (858) 467-4201 www.wildlife.ca.gov April 18, 2016 Ms. Claire Flynn City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 claire.flynn@costamesaca.gov Subject: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the City of Costa Mesa 2015 to 2035 General Plan (SCH# 2015111068) Dear Ms. Flynn: The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department) has reviewed the draft environmental impact report (DEIR) for the City of Costa Mesa 2015 to 2035 General Plan Amendment project. The City of Costa Mesa (City) requested comments on the DEIR by April 18, 2016. The following statements and comments have been prepared pursuant to the Department's authority as Trustee Agency with jurisdiction over natural resources affected by the project (California Environmental Quality Act, [CEQA] Guidelines § 15386) and pursuant to our authority as a Responsible Agency under CEQA Guidelines section 15381 over those aspects of the proposed project that come under the purview of the California Endangered Species Act (CESA; Fish and Game Code § 2050 et seq.) and Fish and Game Code section 1600 of seq. The Department also administers the Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) program. The City is a non -participating landowner under the Central/Coastal Orange County NCCP/Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). The project area is the City's entire sphere of influence; the City is located in the County of Orange and surrounded to the north by the City of Santa Ana, to the south by the City of Newport Beach, the west by the Cities of Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley, and the east by the City of Irvine. Fairview Park and Talbert Regional Park are included in this sphere of influence; Talbert Regional Park is part of the Central Coastal NCCP/HCP Reserve. The project proposes focused amendments to several elements of its General Plan, including Land Use, Circulation, Growth Management, Conservation, Open Space and Recreation, Noise, Safety, Community Design, and Historic and Cultural Resources. The Department offers the following comments and recommendations to assist the City in avoiding or minimizing potential project impacts on biological resources. The DEIR references Table CON -1 (BonTerra Consulting, 2000) when describing plant communities present within the project area. The Department is unclear why studies 16 years old were used to aggregate this data, as this may not be adequate to analyze potentially significant impacts to biological resources, nor does it reflect the City's efforts to restore or create plant communities. For example, Table CON -1 shows that southern tarplant (Hemixonia parryi ssp. australis; California Native Plant Society Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants list 1B.1) as, "possibly present" when a population of southern tarplant was created in Fairview Park during wetlands restoration over the last several years. Conserving Caffornia's WiCdCfe Since 1870 Ms. Claire Flynn City of Costa Mesa April 18, 2016 Page 2 of 3 We recommend that tables within the Conservation Element and Table CON -1 in particular be updated with recent survey data such that impacts to these plant communities may be appropriately analyzed under CEQA. 2. A Biological Resources Technical Report was not included with the DEIR. In order to adequately review the significance of impacts to biological resources, the Department recommends that such a report be made available in the final EIR as an appendix, and that it include the following: 1) up to date surveys showing plant and wildlife communities within 2 the City; 2) a figure depicting their locations within the sphere of influence; 3) a list of observed plant and animal species, including sensitive and listed species; we recommend that the CNDDB be queried in order to obtain historical records of sensitive plant species and wildlife within the sphere of influence; and 4) a list of appropriate mitigation measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate for impacts to plant and animal species and their habitats. 3. While the Conservation Element of the DEIR states that, "there are no plans to convert any of the open spaces identified in the General Plan," (CON page 14), it also states that, °... Fairview Park is one of the parks that may be repurposed to include other public amenities," (OSR page 18). Because of the diversity of biological resources present at Fairview Park and Talbert Regional Park, including sensitive species such as California gnatcatcher (Polioptilla califomica californica; Endangered Species Act (ESA) -listed threatened and a California Species of Special Concern), least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus; ESA- and CESA-listed endangered), and southern tarplant, we request the City involve the Department in the review of the Costa Mesa Master Parks Plan when it is updated. Additionally, we suggest that the City involve the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The DEIR should be amended to include review of the Master Parks Plan by the Department and the USFWS (Wildlife Agencies). 3 4. The Department requests that Policy OSR-1.0 (OSR page 30), which currently states that, "Consult with law enforcement agencies, community policing groups, and Orange County 4 Parks to create a safe and healthy environment at Talbert Regional Park, Fairview Park, and along the Santa Ana River," be amended in the final document to include consultation with the Wildlife Agencies. 5. The Polyphagous Shot Hole Borer (SHB) and Kuroshio SHB are invasive beetles (Euwallacea sp.) that vector a disease called Fusarium Dieback (FD). The FD interrupts the transport of water and nutrients in at least 38 tree species, including several species of sycamore, willow, and cottonwood, which can lead to death of the tree. FD is caused by the fungi the beetles use as a food source. The adult female beetle (1.8-2.5 mm long) bores tunnels beyond the tree's cambium where it lays its eggs and propagates the fungi species for food. With documented occurrences throughout Southern California, including the San Diego Creek drainage (University of California, Riverside (UCR); http://eskalenlab.ucr.edu/distribution.htmi), the spread of invasive SHBs could have significant impacts in Orange County ecosystems, specifically for those under analysis in the DEIR (e.g., parks and open spaces). Therefore, we recommend the final document consider the following with regard to the Conservation, Open Space and Recreation, and other elements: a, the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts that could occur from the potential spread of invasive SHBs as a result of proposed activities in the DEIR; Ms. Claire Flynn City of Costa Mesa April 18, 2016 Page 3 of 3 b. an analysis of the likelihood of the spread of invasive SHBs as a result of the invasive species' proximity to above referenced activities; c. figures within a Biological Resources Technical Report (see comment 2) that depict potentially sensitive or susceptible vegetation communities within the project area, the known occurrences of invasive SHBs within the project area (if any), and invasive SHB's proximity to above referenced activities; and d. best management practices to reduce the spread of invasive SHBs. Examples of such BMPs and additional information can be found on the UCR's Eskalen lab website: hftp://eskalenlab.ucr.edu/avocado.htmi. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the DEIR for this project and to assist the City in further minimizing and mitigating project impacts to biological resources. If you have any questions or comments regarding this letter please contact Jennifer Edwards at (858) 467-2717 or via email at Jennifer.Edwards@wildlife.ca.gov. Gail K. Sevrens Environmental Program Manager South Coast Region ec: Christine Medak (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) Scott Morgan (State Clearinghouse) — 20 COMMENT A-2 06SGENERAL SERVICES April 15, 2016 VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS AND EMAIL Minoo Ashabi, Principal Planner City of Costa Mesa — Development Services Department 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Email: minoo.ashabi@costamesaca.gov Re Comments on Draft E1R for City of Costa Mesa Year 2015 — 2035 General Plan SCH# 2015111068 Dear Ms. Ashabi: On December 2, 2015 and January 26, 2016, the Department of General Services (DGS) provided comments on the Notice of Preparation for the City of Costa Mesa General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). Those comments focused on the City's proposed policies, plans, and intent with respect to the Fairview Developmental Center (FDC) and future development on the site. As explained in DGS's previous comments, the Department of Developmental Services (DDS) has submitted a closure plan for the FDC to the Legislature. (See http://www.dds.ca.gov/fairviewNewsn. Senate Bill 82 signed in June 2015 (adding Government Code, § 14670.36; see attachment) authorizes the Director of DGS to lease up to 20 acres of the FDC site for the purpose of developing affordable housing for individuals with developmental disabilities (Shannon's Mountain). The success of Shannon's Mountain depends in large part on being able to retain flexibility in the number of units and density in order to attract affordable housing developers to propose economically feasible development for the site. The state is concerned that the City's proposed 300 -unit cap on the number of residential units and density and located on a 12 -acre site for the Shannon's Mountain Project may unreasonably restrict the attractiveness of the site for the development that the Legislature and the Governor envisioned with SB 82 and frustrate the state's mandate to develop housing for developmentally disabled individuals. The state lauds the City's goal in its proposed Land Use Element "to create new opportunities for housing and businesses, particularly in areas well served by transit and where reinvestment could enhance neighborhoods, districts, and nodes." But that goal would not be fulfilled with the short-sighted proposal to cap residential units in the FDC at 500 units, because doing so is likely to limit future decisions regarding transit service, as well as private investment and development decisions. This would particularly affect residents with developmental disabilities, who depend on public transit to a greater degree than other City residents. The City should consider allowing a greater number of Real Estate Services Division/Asset Management Branch 1 State of California j Government Operations Agency 707 3rd Sheet, Sfh Floor 1 West Sacramento, CA 95605 1 t 916.376.1800 916.376.6219 21 Ms. Minoo Ashabi -2- April 15, 2016 units in the FDC to maximize the reuse of a valuable infill site, help the City realize fewer external vehicle trips, and reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) and other air pollutant emissions. As the DEIR concludes that impacts associated with GHG emissions are significant and unavoidable, the City has an obligation to consider changes to the General Plan through alternative land use plans or mitigation that could help to reduce these impacts. DGS believes that allowing a greater number of units in the FDC, either through higher density land use designations or designating more land for more units, would improve the vehicle -miles -traveled by future FDC -area residents, visitors and employees. A portion of the FDC is placed in the City's proposed Open Space Element; however, the FDC is already developed with 1.1 million square feet of improvements. The FDC is located in Planning Area 2, which is well -served by parks and open spaces and exceeds the park -to -population standard for neighborhood and community parks of 4.26 acres for every 1,000 persons and within 1/4- to Y2 -mile walking distance to pedestrian access points. Planning Area 2 has 10.06 acres per 1,000 residents, and this ratio likely does not even include the shared use agreement for a portion of the FDC used for soccer fields. The additional amount of open space proposed to be designated within the FDC overburdens the state's property well in excess of the City's stated desired standard. With only 500 additional residential units, as proposed by the City, the area would require a minimum of 5.20 and a maximum of 5.73 acres of parks, depending on the housing product mix, not the 26.5 acres proposed in the General Plan. The City's obligation to address its existing City-wide park service deficiency is better addressed through a wider distribution of such spaces across the City, not concentrated in the FDC area. Addressing it in the manner proposed for the FDC places a disproportionate burden on the state and future developers in this area, rather than more evenly distributing it city-wide. The FDC area is already well -served by the City - owned sports fields at the Jack Hammett Sports Complex located 1.8 miles northeast of the FDC, the private open space and recreation facilities such as the surrounding golf courses, the Orange County Fair and Event Center, and joint use of school facilities. Moreover, the City does not appear to have considered the fact that the state transferred the land for the adjacent two 18 -hole golf courses to the City and land for the Fairview Regional Park to the County of Orange that was subsequently transferred to the City nor counted the golf courses or the state-owned fairgrounds in its open space/parks metrics. The City's proposed open space policies and implementation actions emphasize the need to pursue all means to expand and maximize benefits of a parks and recreation system. Therefore it does not seem reasonable to exclude the existing golf courses, fairgrounds and joint use facilities in the City's open space/parks calculations. The proposed designation of 25 percent or 26.5 acres of state-owned land in the FDC for open space far exceeds the City's in -lieu fee program for parks. The City's parkland impact fee program indicates that a developer gets a credit for land dedicated and park improvements completed. But this fee program would also appear to apply to any proposed development in the FDC after the proposed re -designation of 25 percent of _22- Ms Minoo Ashabi -3- April 15, 2016 the FDC area as open space, further burdening future developers of the FDC and significantly impeding the state's goal of developing affordable housing for the developmentally disabled. Moreover, the City fails to consider the greater traffic impacts of concentrating so much of the City's additional recreational space in the FDC area, which increases vehicle trip lengths to this area from other areas of the City that do not have similar amenities and corresponding air pollutant and GHG emissions, as well as congestion on the roads leading to the FDC area. The traffic study prepared for the DEIR indicates that the baseline used assumes a 350 - bed hospital in the FDC; however, existing improvements already total 1.1 million square feet of buildings and supporting infrastructure. The traffic study assumes that in the future, 52 acres will be developed as public facilities and that it would generate only 434 average daily trips. Assuming a FAR of 0.25, this would support 566,000 square feet of development. A more appropriate trip generation rate would be Government Office Complex, which according to Trip Generation, 7th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Land Use 733, would generate 27.92 ADT per 1,000 square feet on weekdays, or 15,800 ADT for 566,000 square feet. The traffic study further assumes that 26 acres in the FDC will be developed as passive park use, generating only 49 trips per day. The City has indicated, however, that its interest in this area is for soccer fields and ball parks for private athletic club use. According to Trip Generation, 7th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Land Use 488, one soccer field generates ±71 weekday ADT, so 49 trips does not appear to be an accurate reflection of projected trip generation for these uses. Additionally, creating 26 acres of park and open space will require demolition some of the 1.1 million square feet of buildings and supporting infrastructure. The range of alternatives in the DEIR only considers the comparative effects of leaving certain areas of the City's land use designations unchanged, including one in which the FDC simply retains its institutional designation. In its scoping comments dated December 2, 2015, DGS requested that the City analyze an alternative that assumes a mixed density development plan for the FDC that takes advantage of the existing built infrastructure, the region's High -Quality Transit Areas (HQTA), and the planned development (consistent with SB 82) to reduce per capita vehicle miles traveled and decrease per capita greenhouse gas emissions. The alternatives analysis presented in the DEIR does not acknowledge this suggested alternative, and the alternative analyzed in the DEIR that merely assumes a continued institutional use designation does not support the above goals. DGS reiterates its request for a good faith analysis of a more feasible and environmentally beneficial development alternative for the FDC. The state believes such a plan would better fulfill both the goals of the state for successful redevelopment of this area and the City's need for VMT, GHG, and air pollutant reductions. -23— Ms. Minoo Ashabi -4. April 15, 2016 The Department desires to be a cooperative partner with the City in facilitating the implementation of a shared vision for future development of the FDC. We hope that the City will consider these comments in good faith and reevaluate both its proposed land use designations and resulting impacts analysis to better accommodate both the state's mandate to feasibly develop housing for developmentally disabled individuals and CEQA's mandate to analyze and disclose as accurately as possible the potential resulting impacts of proposed development. We would be happy to provide the City with any additional information it may require to improve its DEIR and proposed General Plan Update. We would also be pleased to meet and confer with the City prior to the issuance of the Final EIR to discuss our comments and suggestions for the FDC. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Sincerely, ROBERT W. MCKINNON Assistant Branch Chief Asset Management Branch Enclosures cc: Fariba Shahmirzadi, Assistant Deputy Director, Administrative Operations, Department of Developmental Services Marie W. Maddy, Chief, Facilities Planning and Support Section, Department of Development Services —2--4— $Tek,iE OF CALIFORNIA—CALIFORNIA STATE 'FR ANSFORTATIGN AGENCY EDM IJND G, B KQWNir Govrmor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 12 3347 MICHELSON DRIVE, SUITE 100 COMMENT A-3 IRVINE, CA 92612-8894 PHONE (949) 724-2000 FAX (949) 724-2019 TTY 711 www.dot.ca.gov RECD APR 16 2016 April 14, 2016 Ms. Minoo Ashabi Principal Planner File: IGR/CEQA 77 Fair Drive SCH4:2015111053 City of Costa Mesa IGR Log #: 4573-A Costa Mesa, CA 92626 SR: 55, SR -73, 1405 Dear Ms. Ashabi: 0 Serious Drought. Serious drought. Help save ivater! Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the City of Costa Mesa 2015-2035 General Plan Amendment Project. The City of Costa Mesa proposes the adoption of updates to Land Use, Circulation, Growth Management, Conservation, Noise, Safety, Historical & Cultural Resources, Community Design, and Open Space and Recreation Elements. The land use and Circulation Elements establish overall development capacity, serve as a policy guide for physical development and character, and provide for a balanced circulation system including "complete streets" and a bike master plan. Remaining elements updated for consistency with Land Use and Circulation Elements and to reflect current General Plan law. The 2015-2035 Plan will incorporate the Housing Element, which was previously adopted in January 2014 and is valid through 2021.The General Plan update will apply to all properties within the City of Costa Mesa and its sphere of influence. The planning area encompasses 15.7 square miles and has a total population of approximately 110, 000. The nearest State routes to the proposed sites are SR -55, SR -73 and I- 405. Caltrans is a responsible and commenting agency on this project and has the following Comments: The DEIR does not include an analysis on the State facilities' mainlines (merge, diverge, weave and basic freeway) that are within the boundaries of the City of Costa Mesa. Please submit this analysis for our review and comments. As indicated in our previous letter dated December 7, 2015: "When analyzing impacts to the traffic on the Caltrans Transportation Facilities; note, that all Intersection Capacity Analysis conducted within Caltrans Right of Way shall be performed using the most recent Highway Capacity Manual Methodology. A Queue Analysis shall be conducted for the off -ramps to determine that traffic will not spill back to the Freeway Mainline." 1 2. The traffic analysis for Caltrans facilities should include, ramps, intersections, and the 95 t" percentile queues on the off -ramps and on the left -turn lanes to the on -ramps at the I2 "Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livability" :2(:E Ms. Minoo Ashabi April 14, 2016 Page 2 signalized intersections. Also, provide a table of summary to indicate if the off -ramp and 2 left -turn vehicle storage lanes have sufficient vehicle storage lengths. 3. Please provide traffic movement diagrams for AM and PM peaks for all traffic 1 conditions, including traffic movement diagrams of trip generations only for the Current 1` 3 and the Buildout of the General Plan. 4. Traffic Study Page 2.2, Figure 2-1 and Page 3.19, Figure 3-4 Please explain the need for lane reduction on Newport Avenue segment south of 1911' Street from a 7 -lane (7M) configuration of the Existing Roadway System condition to a 6-1ane (6M) configuration for the Year 2035 Buildout Roadway System condition. 4 Traffic Study- Page 2.3, Figure 2-2, Page 3.25 Figure 3-6 and Page 3.27 Figure 3-8 Please explain the reason for reduction of ADT volumes on Newport Avenue in the vicinity of 19`h Street comparing the Existing ADT Volumes with the 2035 Current General Plan ADT Volumes and Proposed General Plan ADT Volumes. For example, Newport Avenue north of 19'h Street has 92,000 ADT volumes for the existing condition while 2035 Buildout condition will only have 55,000 ADT volumes; also, Newport Avenue south of 19`h Street has 66,000 ADT and 79,000 ADT for the Existing condition while Buildout condition will only have 31,000 ADT and 44,000 ADT volumes. Please note that the Caltrans Highway Design Manual has been updated to include a new bicycle classification; Class IV Bikeways. Caltrans recommends to include this in Section 4.16 of the DEIR and Page C-15 of the Draft General Plan. Class IV — separated 5 bikeways — Separated bikeways are for the exclusive use of bicycles and includes a separation required between the separated bikeway and the through vehicular traffic. The separation may include, but is not limited to, grade separation, flexible posts, inflexible physical barriers, or on -street parking. Please continue to keep us informed of this project and any future developments that could potentially impact State transportation facilities. If you have any questions or need to contact us, please do not hesitate to call Maryam Molavi at (949) 724-2241. Sincerely, MAUREEN EL HARAKE Branch Chief, Regional -Community -Transit Planning District 12 "Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation Mienn to enhance California's economy and livability" COMMENT A-4 SEW PoJV C� U )4d&, 2 0,141"o R�`v April 11, 2016 Via Electronic & Regular Mail minoo.ashabi costamesaca. ov Minoo Ashabi, Principal Planner City of Costa Mesa Development Services Department 77 Fair Drive, P.O. Box 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, California 92660 949 644-3200 newportbeachca,gov/communitydevelopment Rei Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the City of Costa Mesa's Year 2015 - 2035 General Plan Dear Ms. Ashabi: Thank you of the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for the City of Costa Mesa's Year 2015 - 2035 General Plan. The City of Newport Beach ("City") submits the comments below. The Circulation Element Page C-6 states that the "cut -and -cover approach" for the SR -55 extension "will not occur within the year 2035 planning horizon due to the significant costs and planning required". However, Page 4.16-27 in the Draft EIR shows that the 2035 Build -out 1 Highway Network includes the four lane cut -and -cover freeway extension. In addition, Table 4.16-11 appears to show the cut -and -cover improvements as being included in the intersection analysis for the applicable intersections along Newport Boulevard. This needs to be clarified and consistent. If the cut -and -cover is feasible from a cost and planning perspective within the planning horizon, this needs to be fully explained. In the Circulation Element Page C-13, there are several roadway downgrades being proposed. Will the City of Costa Mesa request that the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) initiate the Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) Amendment process for these roadways? 2 Will there be cooperative studies prepared for the amendments that include the adjacent stakeholder jurisdictions? In particular, Newport Beach is interested in the West 17th Street Downgrade, the East 22nd Street Downgrade, and the proposed Bluff Road Deletion. When the 19th Street Bridge study was completed, there were intersections identified as deficient in Costa Mesa. Are the recommended improvements in that study included in the Circulation Element or elsewhere in the General Plan? Good luck on your General Plan update and please feel free to contact me at (949) 644-3232 or PAifordCc@newgortbeachca.gov if you have any questions. -2-7- Sincerely, Patrick J. Alford Planning Program Manager cc: David Kiff, City Manager Kimberly Brandt, Community Development Director Brenda Wisneski, Deputy Community Development Director COMMENT A-5 iRYC+'H RA,1CH Wh1�RD�lAIC1 IIIIPL �i'1NI CH WHO DISTII,IC l 15600 Sand Canyon Ave., P.O. Box 57000, Wine, GA 52619-7000 (949) 453-5300 April 14, 2016 Minoo Ashabi Principal Planner City of Costa Mesa Development Services Department 77 Fair Drive. P.O. Box 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200 Re; Draft Environmental Impact Report for Costa Mesa's Year 2015-2435 General Plan Dear Minoo Ashabi: Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) has received and reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the City of Costa Mesa's 2015-2035 General Plan. IRWD offers the following comments. The DEIR page 4.17-2 should be revised to indicate that IRWD encompasses approximately 115,531 acres or 181 square miles in south-central Orange County. IRWD serves all of the City of Irvine and portions of Tustin, Santa Ana, Newport Beach, Lake Forest, Costa Mesa, Orange and unincorporated areas of Orange County, In 1997, IRWD began providing water service to the Santa Ana Heights community. IRWD serves a population of 380,000 and provides water to approximately 110,000 domestic connections, which includes residential, commercial, industrial, fire protection, public authorities, construction, landscape irrigation and agricultural users. For fiscal year 2013-2014, IRWD delivered 63,834 acre-feet of treated (potable) water, 2,665 acre- feet of untreated (non -potable) water and 31,932 acre-feet of recycled water for a total of 98,431 acre-feet. The DEIR page 4.17-3 should also be revised to indicate that approximately 23 percent of IRWD's water is purchased from MWD, This imported water comes from the Colorado River via the Colorado River Aqueduct and Northern California via the State Water Project. The remaining 77 percent of the supply comes from local groundwater wells. To alleviate its dependency of imported water, in 1979 IRWD began to develop a series of local wells called the Dyer Road Well Field Project. These wells, ranging from 400 to 1,200 feet in depth, extract high quality water from the Orange County Groundwater Basin. This groundwater now accounts for 77 percent of IRWD's total potable water supply. Additionally on page 4.17-3, the DEIR discusses the Water Resources Master Plan (WRMP), While WRMPs are important, they are not updated often which may result in outdated 2 information. IRWD conducts additional analysis, Water Supply Assessments (WSAs), for specific projects or areas and they are updated more frequently that WRMPs. For sections of the 2—(q — Minoo Ashabi Comment Letter Page 2 April 14, 2016 DEIR that discuss future groundwater supply and imports, IRWD recommends the City of Costa Mesa use the information presented in the most recent WSA, completed earlier this month. A 2 copy of the most recent WSA completed is attached for your reference. Please contact IRWD's Planning Division at (949) 453-5:300 for questions regarding WSAs. The DEIR on page 4.17-4 should be revised to indicate that IRWD's San Joaquin Reservoir was I 3 1 converted from potable use to recycled water in late 2004. Finally, on page 4.17-9 the DEIR should reflect that IRWD's 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) applies to the Santa Ana Heights area of Costa Mesa. IRWD, like Mesa 4 Consolidated Water District, updates its UWMP every five years and is in the process of preparing its 2015 UWMP. IRWD's 2015 UWMP is scheduled for adoption in June 2016 and will be submitted to the Department of Water Resources by the July 1, 2016 deadline. Thank you for the opportunity to review this ISNIND. Please contact either the undersigned at (949) 453-5325 or Jo Ann Corey, Engineering Technician III, at (949) 453-5326 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Fiona M. Sanchez c_ Director of Water Resources Attachment – Water Supply Assessment cc: Eric Akiyoshi, IRWD Jo Ann Corey, IRWD .— 30 COMMENT A-6 ,AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION ORANGE I CauhITY _. FOR ORANGE COUNTY 3160 Airway Avenue • Costa Mesa, California 92626 - 949.252.5170 fax: 949.252.6012 April 14, 2016 Minoo Ashabi, Principal Planner City of Costa Mesa — Development Services 77 Fair Drive, P.O. Box 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200 Subject: DEIR for the City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment (2015-2035) Dear Ms. Ashabi: Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment in the context of the Airport Environs Land Use P1017 (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport (JWA). We wish to offer the following comments and respectfully request consideration of these comments as you proceed with your DEIR and General Plan (GP) Amendment. The City of Costa Mesa is located within the AELUP Notification Area for JWA. The DEIR and GP should address height restrictions and imaginary surfaces by discussing Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 as the criteria for determining height restrictions for projects located within the airport planning area. To ensure the safe operation of aircraft activity at JWA, structures anywhere in the JWA airport planning area should not exceed the applicable elevations defined in FAR Part 77 (Objects Affecting Navigable Air Space). We recommend that the General Plan should include height policy language and a mitigation measure in the EIR that states that no new buildings will be allowed to penetrate the FAR Part 77 imaginary surfaces for JWA to ensure the protection of its airspace: Within the proposed Land Use Element, it states that the FAA standard that is of most concern in Costa Mesa is the horizontal surface for JWA. The General Plan references the old standard of 203.68 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) as the horizontal surface for JWA, but that figure should be updated to 206 feet AMSL. Also with respect to building heights, development proposals within the City, which include the construction or alteration of structures more than 200 feet above ground level, require filing with the FAA and Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) notification. Projects meeting this threshold must comply with procedures provided by Federal and State law, and with all conditions of approval imposed or recommended by FAA and ALUC including filing a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration (FAA Form 7460-1). Depending on the maximum building heights that will be allowed within the General Plan, the City may wish to consider a mitigation and condition of approval specifying this 200 feet above ground level height threshold. In addition, any project that penetrates the Notification Surface for JWA is required to file FAA ALUC Comments- DEIR Costa Mesa GP Update April 14.2016 Page 2 Form 7460-1. The proposed Land Use Element (on page LU -18) discusses the threshold stated above but, instead of referring to filing FAA Form 7460-1 Notice of Construction and Alteration, the Land Use Element refers to filing a Notice of Landing Area Proposal (Form 7480-1) which is specific to heliports. Portions of the City of Costa Mesa fall within the 60 and 65 dB(A) CNEL noise contours for JWA. The DEIR and GP Update should include policies and mitigations for development within these contours, especially if residential development is considered. Per the AELUP for JWA, all residential units within the 65 dB CNEL contour are typically inconsistent in this area unless it can be shown conclusively that such units are sufficiently sound attenuated for present and projected noise exposure so as not to exceed an interior standard of 45 dB CNEL. However, the ALUC recommends that residential uses not be permitted within the 65 dB CNEL contour. As for residential development within the 60 dB CNEL contour, the ALUC may not find residential units incompatible in this area, but would strongly recommend that residential units be limited or excluded from this area unless sufficiently sound attenuated not to exceed an interior level of 45 dB. We appreciate that the proposed Land Use Element addresses consistency with the AELUP for Helipo)-ts by including the following language to your GP Update; "The City will ensure that development proposals including the construction or operation of a heliport or helistop comply fully with permit procedures under State law, including referral of the project to the ALUC by the applicant, and with all conditions of approval imposed or recommended by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), ALUC, and Caltrans, including the filing of a Form 7480-1 (Notice of Landing Area Proposal) with the FAA. This requirement shall be in addition to all other City development requirements." Section 21676(b) of the PUC requires that prior to the amendment of a general plan or specific plan, or the adoption or approval of a zoning ordinance or building regulation within the planning boundary established by the Airport Land Use Commission pursuant to Section 21675, the local agency shall first refer the proposed action to the ALUC. To ensure land use compatibility with JWA, we recommend that the City include policy in its General Plan and a mitigation measure in the EIR, that states that the City shall refer projects to the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for Orange County as required by Section 21676 of the California Public Utilities Code to determine consistency of projects with the AELUP for JWA. With respect to project submittals, please note that the Commission wants such referrals to be submitted to the ALUC for a determination, between the Local Agency's expected Planning Commission and City Council hearings. Since the ALUC meets on the third Thursday afternoon of each month, submittals must be received in the ALUC office by the first of the month to ensure sufficient time for review, analysis, and agendizing. ALS C Comments-DEIR Costa Mesa GP Amendment April la 2,'116 Page 3 Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on the DEIR. Please contact Lea Choum at (949) 252-5123 or via email at lchnurn r�7ocair.com should any questions arise. Sincerely, le-G-�-t Kari .4. Rigoni Executive Officer _33^ COMMENT A-7 OCTA BOARD OF DIRECTORS 2 April 18, 2016 Lori Donchak Chair Michael Hennessey Ms. Minoo Ashabir Principal Planner dice Chair City of Costa Mesa Lisa A. Bartlett Development Services Department Director + 77 Fair Drive, P.O Box 1200 Andrew Do Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200 Director Steve Jones Subject: Environmental Impact Report for the City of Costa Mesa's Year 2015- Director 2035 General Plan Jim Kalapodis Director Dear Ms. Ashabi: Jeffrey Lalloway Director The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) has reviewed the above referenced Gan, Miller Director document. The following comments are provided for your consideration: AtMurrayIn February 2015, the OCTA Board of Directors approved the 2016 Bus Service Plan Director (Link: http://,,vww.octa.net/pdf/FINAL 2016 SERVICE CHA_NGE.pdf). This plan will Shaven Nelson reallocate bus service with the intention of increasing ridership. Director Miguel Director Dirrectoror Under Chapter 3: Circulation Element, Figure C-8: Transit Corridors on page C-29 provides a map with the existing OCTA bus service by service type. Please include the Tim Shaw I Director OCTA bus route numbers on the map, as well as, reflect the upcoming changes as provided in the aforementioned 2016 Bus Service Plan. Todd Spitzer Director Though the General Plan under "Goal C-4: Promote Transportation Demand Michelle Steel Director Management, Transit, and Efficiency' under Policy C-4.13.8 on Page C-41 indicates that the City will work with OCTA to improve transit services, OCTA does not have sufficient Tum Tail Director revenue to increase bus service levels. If there is additional new revenue in the future, these resources will be allocated to bus service that meets OCTA's service criteria, Frank Ury Director including: sustaining ridership and increasing transit usage. Gregory T Ninterboflom Director If you have any questions or comments, please contact me by phone at (714) 560-5907 by.email at dphu@octa.net. Ryan Chamberlainor _ — Ex-Offcio Member Sincerely, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICE Darrall Johnson Chief Executive Officer Dan Phu Manager, Environmental Programs 34—Or—34— ange County Transportation Authority Orange 550 South Main Street / P.O. Box 14184 / Orange / California 92863-1584 / (714) 560 -OCTA (6282) 2 COMMENT 0-1 Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Conliticb i April 18, 2016 Chair Robert L. Dickson, Jr. and Planning Commission Members City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 RE: Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for 2015-2035 General Plan Dear Chair Dickson and Planning Commission Members: The Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition (the Coalition) believes the DEIR is seriously deficient: It fails to report accurately and fully the negative impacts certain proposed General Plan amendments will have on the already meager supply of affordable housing available to lower income residents of our city. Specifically, the Coalition believes the proposed "residential incentive overlays" for Harbor Boulevard and Newport Boulevard (collectively, the motel zone overlays) will lead to the massive displacement of lower income motel residents. Moreover, the DEIR ignores this expected adverse impact, mischaracterizing the impact as "less than significant" and thus not requiring the construction of replacement housing. This City must correct this significant error in the "Population/Housing" section of the DEIR. The City Council majority has been very clear about its intentions in regard to the proposed motel zone overlays. Repeatedly, the Council majority has expressed the hope these overlays will "incentivize" a change of use in the motel properties located along Harbor Boulevard and Newport Boulevard which serve as last resort housing for Costa Mesa's poor. As the City well knows, these motels, collectively consisting of 789 rooms, have become a significant source of de facto affordable housing in Costa Mesa because there is such a dearth of affordable housing available for lower income households. Disregarding the housing needs of lower income motel residents, the City Council majority has proposed the motel zone overlays as a way to lure motel owners into converting their properties from their current use as de facto affordable housing into a new use: market rate, high density housing for upper income residents. Of course, virtually none of the current motel residents could afford to rent these new market rate apartments. Consequently, the conversion of motels into market rate apartments would necessarily displace hundreds, perhaps thousands of lower income motel residents. Moreover, because Costa Mesa has almost no affordable housing for these residents to move into, it is highly likely this massive displacement of motel residents will result in increased homelessness and overcrowding in the City, as well as the forced migration of motel residents from Costa Mesa to fi-nd affordable housing elsewhere. To mitigate this severe adverse impact, the Coalition has asked the City to include in the motel zone overlays a requirement that 20% of the new apartments be affordable to low and very low income residents. The Council, however, has not acted on this request. Consequently, if the Page 1 of 3 1 motel zone overlays are adopted as currently proposed, motel residents will be displaced on a 2 massive scale as motel owners take advantage of the lucrative "residential incentive" offered by the City. In a stunning denial of this reality, the DEIR states as findings under Population/Housing Impacts 4.13.13 and 4.13.0 that the proposed motel zone overlays will have "less than significant" impact, will not "result in the displacement of substantial numbers of people," and will not necessitate "the construction of replacement housing elsewhere." (Draft EIR, 4.13-8 - 4.13-10) These defective findings flow from three "pie in the sky" assumptions (fictions, really) set forth in Impacts 4.13.13 and 4.13.C. Fiction #I The DEIR states the hoped-for conversion of motels into market rate apartments will not result in a net loss of affordable housing because the increased densities offered in the city (40 units per acre in motel zone overlays, 80 units per acre in Sakioka Lot 2) will necessarily result in the construction of new affordable housing. What is the basis of this finding? The DEIR blithely assumes affordable housing will be constructed because "the City would have zoning in place to accommodate housing for lower-income households." (DEIR, 4.13-9) The fallacy in this reasoning is readily apparent from the recent example of the Costa Mesa Motor Inn. With the City's encouragement and blessing, this 236 -room motel will be demolished and replaced by new market rate apartments at a density of 54 units per acre. Of the 224 new units, not a single unit will be affordable to lower income households. Clearly, the mere fact the allowable density will "accommodate" lower income housing is no guarantee any of the resulting housing will actually be lower income housing. Unless the City requires a percentage of new units to be affordable to lower income families, the motel zone overlays will result in no new affordable housing and, instead, will cause a dramatic loss of affordable housing. Fiction #2 The DEIR states the "likelihood that motels being used as housing would be removed is speculative, and ... the potential for a `substantial number of people' being displaced is speculative." (DEIR, 4.13-9-10)– This statement is almost laughable. It ignores the fact the City is creating the motel zone overlays precisely because the Council majority believes the overlays will result in the conversion of motels intro market rate apartments—a goal the majority has long sought. Moreover, the statement ignores the powerful nature of the incentive offered. Again, the Costa Mesa Motor Inn stands as a cautionary example. The City's offer to allow the motel owner to build high density market rate apartments (at 54 units per acre) in a commercial zone was an irresistible financial windfall for the property owner. The Costa Mesa Motor Inn owner jumped at the opportunity. The other motel owners in the city are no less savvy than the owner of the Costa Mesa Motor Inn. Consequently, the following doomsday scenario is entirely predictable, not speculative: If the City adopts the motel zone overlays as proposed, with their supercharged financial incentive for converting motel properties into high density, market rate apartments, the City will lose a significant existing supply of de facto affordable housing. In fact, the City could eventually lose Page 2 of 3 3(0- 4 5 all 789 rooms. That loss would be catastrophic for the City's lower income households who rely 5 on motels as last resort housing. Fiction #3 The final bit of magical thinking in the DEIR is that private social services agencies operating in the City (including HOPE Institute, Human Options, Orange Coast Interfaith Shelter, Serving People in Need, Share Our Selves, Mercy Housing, Families Forward) will be able to meet the housing needs of displaced motel residents. Strikingly, the DEIR fails to include any discussion of the actual services these groups provide or any analysis of their ability to house the hundreds or thousands of motel residents who could be displaced if motels close and are replaced with market rate apartments. The undeniable truth is that there is no existing supply of available affordable housing in Costa Mesa that can accommodate the hundreds of households living in motels today. The need for affordable housing in our community is undeniable. Costa Mesa must act to encourage the construction of new affordable housing. Until such housing is created, the City should do nothing to accelerate the loss of existing affordable homes. But accelerating loss is exactly what the proposed motel zone overlays will do— the zones will make nearly 800 existing affordable homes vanish. There is nothing fictional or speculative about that. The City should correct the DEIR so everyone in Costa Mesa knows what is really at stake in this decision on the General Plan amendments. Sincerely, ta' d y 4-fda Lav Kathy Esfahani For The Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition Page 3 of 3 COMMENT 0-2 April 6, 201.6 Lisa Sabo, President Orange County Fairgrounds Preservation Society PO Box 4155 Orange, CA 92863 Minoo Ashabi, Principal Planner City of Costa Mesa — Development Services Department 77 Fair Drive, P.Q. Box 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200 Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report for the 2015-2035 General Plan March 4, 2016, State Clearinghouse No. 2015111o68 Dear Ms. Ashabi, The Orange County Fairgrounds Preservation Society (OCFPS) is submitting comments with regards to the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the 2015-2035 General Plan March 4, 2016, State Clearinghouse No. 2015111o68 OCFPS is a group of stakeholders including businesses and community members, of the 32°d District Agricultural Association (32°' DAA), more commonly known as the Orange County Fairgrounds and Orange County Fair and Event Center. In 2012, OCFPS reached as settlement agreement regarding the continued operation of the Pacific Amphitheatre located on the 32"' DAA property (2012 Pac Amp Settlement Agreement). The 2012 Pac Amp Settlement Agreement included existing noise standards, required the hiring and usage of a qualified sound monitor for all events in the Pacific Amphitheatre and required that all users of the Pacific Amphitheatre and talent be contractually obligated to obey the noise limits and directions of the qualified sound monitor. In Section 4 Environmental Impact Analysis, Noise 4.12, noise limits imposed by the terms of the 19go Order are incorporated as part of the above referenced draft EIR. OCFPS requests that the entire agreement 2012 Pacific Ampitheatre Settlement Agreement be incorporated in the above referenced draft EIR. A copy of the 2012 Pacific Ampitheatre Settlement Agreement is attached to this document. since], IV. ly ul-A '—c isa Sabo OCFPS President SETTLE-,IENT AND RELEASE AGREUVIENT OR, NGE COt.:-VTY F,4[RGROL VDS PRESERG'4TIONSOCIETY vs..3�-4VD DISTRICT AGRICULTL,,R,4L ASSOCL-f TION, a public agency, (Orange Count-, Superior Court, Case No. 30-2012-0053871) This Settlement and Release Agreement ('-A`reement...i is being made by and among the following Parties: H) Orange County Fairgrounds Preservation Society ("SOCIETY") and (2) 32nd District Agricultural Association. a California public agency ("ASSOCIATION"). SOCIETY and ASSOCIATION may be referred to herein indi` iduall; as a'Tarty" or collectively as `Parties." 1. BACKGROUND RECITALS I _ 1 ASSOCIATION is a California state institution that operates the Orange County Fairgrounds. 1.2 SOCIETY is a California non-profit corporation organized to preserve the Orange County Fairgrounds as a valuable public asset consistent with the rights of the surrounding residents of the City of Costa Mesa. 1.3 As part of the operation of the Orange Countv Fairgrounds, the ASSOCIATION adopted a Master Plan for the Development of the Fairgrounds ( the ",,✓Taster Plan"'j. In the fall of 201 1, the Board of Directors of the ASSOCIATION approved the initiation of a planning process for the implementation of the Master Plan with respect to the Pacific Amphitheater providing for the reengineering of the berm, the relocation of the main entry north of the existing entry and the creation of paved multi-purpose areas in the space created by the reengineered berm (the "Project"). The proposed extent of the Project is described in Exhibit A. 1.4 The parties are in disagreement with respect to whether the initiation of the planning process amounted to a project within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act - J On December 15, 2011, the Board oCDirectors of the ASSOCIATION elected to treat the implementation of the Pacific Amphitheater improvements as a project under CEQA, reconsidering its previous action and approved proceeding with the design of Project. 1.6 On December 21, "201 1, the ASSOCIATION filed a Notice of Determination with respect to the Project. 1.7 In the past there have been disputes among the ASSOCIATION, operators of the Pacific :amphitheater and homeowners living in adjacent neighborhoods with respect to the appropriate noise level standards that should apply to events at the Pacific Amphitheater. 1.8 In 1980, the City of Costa Mesa and the ASSOCIATION entered into a settlement agreement that. among other things, addressed noise related issues in residential zones. Settlement and Release Agreement I _�Sq - I.9 In 1990, the court in the matter of Concerned Citizens of Costa \Mesa, Inc. v- 32nd District A—ricultural Association (Orange County Superior Court No. 42 07 28 and 55 65 08) established certain stair step sound level standards applicable to events at the Pacific Amphitheater - 1_10 Since 2003, when the ASSOCIATION commenced conducting events in the Pacific ,Amphitheater, the ASSOCIATION has employed a sound monitor (the "Sound t\/tonitor") to monitor sound levels during Pacific Amphitheater events in the adjacent neighborhoods to ensure compliance with the Sound Level Standard. Since that time, very few complaints about noise from the Pacific Amphitheater have been received and all were resolved by the Sound Monitor by requiring the noise levels to be adjusted. 1.11 On January 20, 2012, SOCIETY filed a Petition for Frit of Mandate challenging the Project rtnder the California Environmental Quality Act (-'CEQA-), Public Resources Code, Sections 21000 ez seq , naming the ASSOCIATION as Respondent. The civil proceeding is known as Orange County Fair hounds Preservation Society v-. 32nd District Agricultural Association, a public agency, (Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2012-0053875 l ) ("Pacific Amphitheater Action'). That matter is now pending before Judge John C- GastelLlm in Department C 09, 1.12 SOCIETY and :ASSOCIA [ION desire to settle the Pacific Amphitheater Action once and for all in order to avoid the expense and delay of litigation and without any admission of liability. 1.13 The specific terms and conditions of this Agreement, as set forth in detail belovv, are a compromise and do not necessarily- reflect the Parties' views of what may be required under CEQ\ or other laws. 1.14 Before executing this Agreement, each of the Parties consulted with separate, independent attorneys of their own respective choosing in order to review the terms and provisions of this Agreement and to satisfy themselves that executing it is in their respective best interests. Against this background and for a valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is now acknoviledged, the Parties agree as follows: 2. OBLIGATIONS OF THE PARTIES 2.1 Obligations of ASSOCIATION l ltila-rkein ;.'Notice of_Complaint SysteFn. Fhe ASSOCIATION will maintain a complaint system both by telephone and internet which accepts and monitors complaints arising out of Pacific Amphitheater operations and promptly refers those complaints to the persons authorized to take remedial actions on the complaints. For sound complaints for an event at the Pacific Amphitheater, this referral shall be substantially immediate. The ASSOCIATION shall include advisements of contact information for the complaint system in its mailings to the nearby residential community including College Park, tklesa Del filar and any other residential areas which may be Settlement and Release Agreement 2 substantially impacted by operation of the Pacific Amphitheater and shall post the complaint system and contact information on its website. 2. 1 .2 Construction of Improvements. The ASSOCIATION shall cause improvements to the Pacific Amphitheater- to be in compliance v ith the Master Plan Lvhich was the .subject of the EIR Certified on August 23, 2003. The ASSOCIATION agrees that the Project shall he designed so that the sound attenuation aspects of the Pacific Amphitheater shall be at least as effective as the current configuration. Upon completion of the Project, the ASSOCIATION shall conduct appropriate analysis to confirm that this design standard has been met. The Parties agree that the Project as defined herein is consistent vvith the Master Plan. Any Further changes to the Project or the Pacific Amphitheater shall be reviewed as required by law. The ASSOCIATION shall continue to study sound attenuation for the Pacific Amphitheater in connection with any Further improvements to the Pacific Amphitheater and shall incorporate improvements and methods of operation which reasonably reduce sound levels reaching the residential neighborhoods from the Pacific Amphitheater at the discretion of the ASSOCIATION. 2.1.3 Sound Limits for Events at the Pacific Amphitheater. The residential zones sound level standards and limits applicable to the Pacific Amphitheater shall be as follows (the "Pac Amp Sound Level Standards''): (a) Pacific Amphitheater Events During the Fair Season. For the purposes of this Agreement the term "Fair Season" shall mean one week prior to and one week following the state approved schedule for the Orange County Fair. Sound Level Standards Sound Level Time Period Day of `A'eek 55 dB(A) 07:00 a.m. - 10:30 p.m. Sun. - Thur. 50 dB(A) 10:30 p.m. - 07:00 a.m, Sun. - Thur. dB(A) 07:00 a.m. - 11:00 p.m. Fri. - Sat, 50 dB(A) 1 1:00 p.m. - 07:00 a.m. Fri. - Sat, (b) Events Outside of the Fair Season Sound Level Standards Sound Level Time Period Dav of Week 50 dB(A) 07:00 a.m. - 10:30 p.m, Sun. - Thur. 45 dB(A) 10:30 p.m. - 07:00 a.m. Sun. - Thur. 50 MA) 07:00 a.m. - 11:00 p.m. Fri. - Sat. Settlement and Release Agreement 3 —41— 50 dB(A) 11:00 p.m. - 07:00 a.m. Fri. — Sat. The sound levels emanating from the Pacific :-Amphitheaters shall not exceed: 1. The applicable Sound Level Standard for a cumulative period of more than thirty (30) minutes in any hour, or ?. The applicable Sound Level Standard plus five (5) dB(A) for a cumulative period of more than Fifteen (15-) minutes in any hour, or 3. The applicable Sound Level Standard plus ten (10) dB(A) for a cumulative period of more than Five (5) minutes in any hour: or 4. The applicable Sound Level Standard plus fifteen ( 15) dB(A) for a cumulative period of more than one (1) minutes in any hour; or 5. The applicable Sound Level Standard plus twenty (20) dB(A) for any period of tune. In the event the ambient noise level exceeds any of the first four sound limit categories set forth above, the cumulative period applicable to the category shall be increased to reflect the ambient noise level. In the event the ambient sound level exceeds the fifth sound level category, the maximum allowable sound level shall be increased to the reflect the ambient noise level. 2.1.4 Sound Level Monitoring, The ASSOCIATION shall monitor compliance with the Pae Amp Sound Standard as follows: (a) The ASSOCIATION shall employ a sound professional or professionals (the -Monitor") to monitor sound levels in the surrounding residential neighborhoods during all Pacific Amphitheater events. The Monitor shall have the authority to require the sound system in the Pacific Amphitheater to be adjusted in order to comply with the Pac Amp Sound Level Standard. Prior to the first seasonal event at the Pacific Amphitheater utilizing amplified speech or music, the Monitor shall calibrate the sound system in order to comply with the Pac Amp Sound Level Standard. (b) The monitoring to be conducted shall consist of aural observations and periodic readings from sound levet meters. In the event the i�tonitor determines that the sound levels observed or measured exceed the Pac Amp Sound Standard in the Monitor's professional opinion, the Monitor shall cause the sound equipment within the Pacific Amphitheater to be adjusted in order to meet the Pac Amp Sound Standard. (c) In the event of a noise complaint received from a residential neighborhood during a Pacific Amphitheater event, the Monitor shall proceed to the location of the residence from which the complaint was received and shall reasonably Settlement and Release Agreement 4 eq 2 — promptly cause the sound equipment vvithin the Pacific Amphitheater to be adjusted in order to conform to the Pac Amp Sound Level Standard if necessary. (d) In the event SOC'IEI-Y helieves that the Pac Amp Sound Le,, -el Standard is not being met. the SOCIETY may request and. if so requested, N-lonitor shall conduct a noise level analysis (the "Compliance Analysis") at the location specified in the courts order in the case of Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa. Inc_ v. 32nd District _agricultural Association (Orange Cotunty .Superior Court No. 42 07 2S and 55 65 08), 947 Serra Way, Costa Mesa, CA. The SOCIETY shall be advised of the time and place of the Compliance Analysis, which shall occur during the next performance at the Pacific Amphitheater, and shall have the opportunity to attend and observe the Compliance Analysis. In the event the Monitor determines that no violation of the Pac Amp Sound Levet Standard is occurring and SOCIETY makes a subsequent demand for a Compliance -Analysis during the same Fair Season that also demonstrates that no violation of the Pac Amp Sound Standard is occurring. SOCIETY shall reimburse the ASSOCIATION for the cost of any such subsequent Compliance Analysis in the amount of One Thousand Dollars (S 1,000). 2.1.5 Compliance Riders and Monitoring. The ASSOCIATION shall not permit any event at the Pacific Amphitheater unless the persons stagTing and putting on the event have agreed to comply with this Agreement and the directions of the Sound Level Monitor. The ASSOCIATION shall cause any event at the Pacific Amphitheater involving amplified speech or music to be in compliance with this Agreement at its expense. This compliance effort shall include, but is not limited to, employment of the Monitor to evaluate sound levels in the adjacent neighborhoods during events at the Pacific ,amphitheater and to respond to complaints as provided in Section 2.1.4.. Any complaints and all related sound level meter recordings shall be retained, noted and summarized in a report as to the number, the observed or sound level recorded. if any. and location of any complaints and compliance with this Agreement within 30 days after each -event at the P cif"ic Amphitheater. The complaints, the record of the SOUn l level meter recordings. akid reports shall be public rewrds of the ASSOCIAT 10N, open far public inspection Upon request, and maintained by the ASSOCIATION' as required by lain as a public records. 2.1.6 .Avoidance of Simultaneous Ev.ents.. Excluding events during the Fair. Pacific .Amphitheater events shall not be scheduled during peak traffic hours or within one hour of the commencement or completion of another independent event on the Fairgrounds with a forecasted attendance of 10,000 persons or more. 2.1.7 Costs and Dees. The ASSOCIATION shall pay the Richard Spix, counsel for the SOCIETY, the stun of $7,500-00 as costs and fees. ?.? Obligations or Petitioner SOCIETY 2.2.1 Dismissal of Pacific Amphitheater Action. Not more than five (5) days after SOCIETY's attorney's receipt of the payments referenced above in Paragraph 2. LT SOCIETY shall cause a Request for Dismissal to be tiled with the Orange Superior Court Settlement and Release .Agreement � T in the Pacific amphitheater Action. requesting the Court dismiss the Pacific Amphitheater Action in its entirety as to all parties V'Vith prejudice. Upon his receipt of a conformed copy of the Request for Dismissal and entry of Dismissal from the Court. SOCIETY" -s attorney shall provide a copy of the same to ASSOCIATION. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary. ASSOCIATION's actual disbursement of the amounts referenced above in Paragraph 2.1.7 to SOCIETY's attorney is and shall be an express condition precedent to their tiling of the Request for Dismissal. 3. GENERAL PROVISIONS 3.1 Reliance on Represetit,itions" 1k'ai-rartties. Each representation and warranty made in this Agreement by any of the Parties has substantially induced the other Parties to enter into this Aureement. Each Party acknowledges and affirms that the other Parties are entitled to rely on that Party's representations and warranties without independent verification and that such reliance is reasonable under the circumstances of this Agreement. 3.2 Integration. This Agreement, including its Exhibit, which are integral and essential parts o f the Agreement, constitutes and contains the entire agreement and understanding between the Parties concerning the subject matter of this Agreement. Unless otherwise expressly stated herein, this Agreement supersedes and replaces all prior negotiations and all agreements, proposed or otherwise, whether written or oral. concerning its subject matter. Notwithstanding the foregoing, except to the extent expressly provided in this Agreement, no other agreement or policy adopted or entered into by the ASSOCIATION is intended to be modified in any way. This Agreement shall be given independent vitality notwithstanding any other agreement or policy adopted or entered into by the ASSOCIATION. 3.3 tooneration. The Parties shall cooperate in performing their obligations under this Agreement, execute all supplementary documents that may be required or convenient to the fulfillment of their obligations, and take all additional actions that may be necessary or appropriate to g1,.c full force and effect to the terms and conditions of this Agreement and that are not inconsistent with such tetras and conditions. Each Party, diligently and in good faith, shall undertake all actions and procedures reasonably required to carry out the purpose and intent of this Agreement. 3.4 Notice$.. Any and all notices or other communications required or permitted by this Agreement or by law to be served on or given to any of the Parties shall, unless otherwise required by law. be in writing and be deemed duly served and given (a) when personally delivered to the Party to whom it is directed, or (b) when deposited with the united States Postal Set -vice and sent via certified mail (return receipt requested). first-class postage prepaid. The following addresses shall be used for anv and all notices: For Orange County Preservation Society Richard L. Spix The Law Offices of Spix and Martin 105 East 17th Street, Suite 230 Santa Ana, California 92670-5 For 32nd District Agricultural Association Roger A. Grable Settlement and Release Agreement 6 Manatt. Phelps & Phillips. LLP 69� Town Center Drive, l4th Floor Costa IVlesa. California 92626 However. any Party may change the address to ��hich notices or other communications are to be given under this Agreement by sending a notice of the change to the other Parties at their last address to have been designated raider this Agreement. 3.D Mutual Drafting. Use of Titles. The Parties participated equally in negotiating and drafting this Agreement, and nothing in it shall be construed against any particular Party on the basis that this Agreement was drafted by that Party. Headings and titles are used throughout this Agreement solely for the convenience ofthe Parties and are not an integral part of it. 3.6 Severability, If any tern. condition. or application of this Agreement is held to be invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the Agreement's other terms, conditions, or applications that can be uiven effect without the invalid term. condition, or application. To this end, the Agreement is declared to be severable. 3.7 Waiver.%iulodification/Re,medv Selection. No forbearance of enforcement or waiver of any breach of any term or condition of this Agreement shall be, nor shall it be construed to be. a waiver of any other breach of this Agreement, and no waiver shall be binding unless made in writing and signed by the Party waiving the breach. No change in the terms or conditions of this Agreement shall have any force or effect unless expressed in a writing signed by the Parties. A Party's pursuit or enforcement of fewer than all available remedies in the event of any breach or default under this :Agreement shall not preclude that Party from pursuing or enforcing other or all available remedies in the event of any other breach or default under this Agreement unless otherwise prohibited by law. 3.8 Persons/Entities Bound. This Agreement shall be binding on and inure to the benefit of the Parties, jointly and severally, and to their successors. members, directors, officers, associates, employees, and agents. 3.9 Notice and Cure Procedure. Prior to initiating ajudicial proceeding arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, the objecting Party shall first notify the responding Party in writing of its purported breach or failure, giving the responding a reasonable opportunity from receipt of such notice to cure such breach or failure. If the responding Party does not (a) cure the default; or (b) provides a mutually acceptable plan to cure the default. then the complaining Party may pursue its judicial remedies in accordance with this Agreement. 3. 10 Enforcement by SOCIETY. The ASSOCIATION acknowledges that any action or proceeding arising out of this Agreement will satisfy the elements of the California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1021.~ that: the action enforces an important public right, involves a large number of persons, and that the burden of private enforcement outweighs the benefit conferred by the litigation. The ASSOCIATION further acknowledges that a breach of this Agreement constitutes irreparable harm and that damages would be inadequate within the Settlement and Release .Agreement 7 _4!5- meaning of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 527 for all purposes in any action or proceeding. 3. I 1 Fes! licacv Of C'o tit: C'00nter arts.. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, and each executed counterpart shall have the efficacy of a signed original. Photographic duplications of executed counterparts may be used, in the absence of any genuine issue as to their authenticity, in lieu of originals for any purpose. Each Party's executing signature may be transmitted to the others via facsimile, and such facsimile signature shall have the same effect as an original signature. 3.12 Effective Date. unless otherwise explicitly set forth above, this Agreement shall take effect immediately upon its having been signed by each of the Parties. 3.13 Governing Lave. This Agreement shall be governed by, and all rights and liabilities under it shall be determined in accordance with, the laws of the State of California. 3.14 Le.6yal ExpenSes_and Costs.. Except as provided in Paragraph 2.1.7, the Parties shall each bear their respective attorney fees and other legal expenses and costs incurred in connection with the Pacific Amphitheater Action through the Effective Date and incurred in connection with the negotiation and execution of this Agreement. 3.1; Authority to Bind_. Each person signing this Agreement represents that he or she has full legal authority to bind the Party on whose behalf the person signs. Settlement and Release Agreement 8 COMMENT 0-3 PUBLIC 40LAW CENTER PROVIDING ACCESS TO JUSTICE FOR ORANGE COUNTY'S LOW INCOME RESIDENTS April 18, 2016 Chair Robert Dickson, Jr. and Planning Commission Members City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92628 RE: Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for 2015-2035 General Plan Dear Chairman Robert L. Dickson, Jr. and Planning Commission Members: This letter is a comment on the 2015-2016 Draft EIR Report. This letter is written on behalf of the Costa Mesa Motel Residents Association ("CMMRA"). CMMRA consists of long-term residents that have made the motels of Costa Mesa their home. A majority of the members of CMMRA currently reside at Costa Mesa Motor Inn ("CMMI"), the location of the proposed project. In general, the members of CMMRA and the other residents of the motel are low-, very- low-, and extremely -low-income families, veterans, and other residents, many of whom are disabled. The CMMRA encourages the Planning Commission to take the following steps: The City should conduct its analyses of affordable housing development using both fixed site and scattered site models for preserving/creating affordable housing for the current motel residents who consider themselves part of the Costa Mesa community. The City can and should develop a model that integrates housing for disabled persons, elderly persons, and low-income working families into each of their proposed sites and all residential density proposals. The Commission has openly opined that they felt the motel standard of living was inadequate—they have the chance to remedy their own concerns by developing adequate, low-income housing in this instance. 2. Make provisions with preference for the low-income families who utilize motels, integrating target percentages for affordable units or homes in each proposed development. The developments should address housing types both for residents who utilize motels for their affordability and stability and for those who use motels as housing of last resort. 3. Address the dislocation of low-income motel residents who call Costa Mesa their home and include them as a concretely impacted group in the EIR report. As a result, reclassify the findings under the Population/Housing Impacts to be "significant" or "potentially significant." The report is incorrect when it says that the "specific number of persons using that particular motel for long-term occupancy" is unknown. Multiple statistical reports have been conducted and thus the city does know how many long-term occupants _4q - 601 _4q - 601 Civic Center Drive West • Santa Ana, CA 927014002 • (714) 541-1010 • Fax (714) 541-5157 are currently living in motels and would be adversely affected. Thus, they also know the scope of the likely population displacement. The City overtly acknowledges that the proposed land uses will reduce motel rooms citywide, so this negative impact on existing motel residents is not speculative, but highly likely, and the report should accurately reflect this reality. 4. Address and make provisions for relocation services and other necessary resources for those low-income residents who might be forced to move out of their units as a result of development at each site. Adopt a plan for homelessness prevention that can accommodate effected residents. It is this City's obligation to merge the interests of redevelopment and the interests of meeting the needs of its residents. The City wants these properties to be redeveloped, continually citing them as eyesores. Therefore, the City must work together with owners and affordable housing experts to redevelop these sites to include low-income housing, especially for the current long- term occupants in Costa Mesa motels. Please keep us informed of any updates to the City's General Plan Update and if you have any questions, please contact us at (741) 541-1010. Sincerely, Lili Graham Richard Walker Public Law Center Attorneys on behalf of CMMRA 601 Civic Center Drive west • Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 • (714) 541-1010 • Fax (714) 541-5157 COMMENT 0-4 www_kennedycommission.org April 11, 2016 17701 Cowan Ave., Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92614 949 250 0909 Fax 949 263 0647 Chair Robert L. Dickson, Jr. and Planning Commissioner Members City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 RE: Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for 2015-2035 General Plan Dear Chair Dickson and Planning Commission Members: The Kennedy Commission (the Commission) is a broad based coalition of residents and community organizations that advocates for the production of homes affordable for families earning less than $20,000 annually in Orange County. Formed in 2001, the Commission has been successful in partnering and working with jurisdictions in Orange County to create effective policies that has led to the new construction of homes affordable to lower income working families. As the City moves forward with the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the 2015-2035 General Plan, the Commission urges the City to consider the following: 1. Prioritize the development of affordable homes by including an additional land use alternative that specifically supports and encourages the development of homes affordable to lower income working households. 2. Re-classify the findings under Population/ Housing Impacts 4.13B and 4.13C regarding the displacement of existing housing and residents from "less than significant impact" to "potentially significant impact" necessitating the construction of replacement housing. The DEIR should be re-evaluated to acknowledge that the General Plan amendments do propose policies that will result in the displacement of substantial numbers of existing housing and numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere in the City. While the proposed land use changes do not authorize a specific construction project, the proposed changes allows for development incentives that encourages future developments to occur. These future developments can potentially result in significant and direct impacts. According to the DEIR, the proposed land use changes were identified as less than significant due to the "... likelihood that motels being used as housing would be removed is speculative, and ... the potential for a `substantial number of people' being displaced is speculative,"' However, the likelihood of removing motels that are currently being used as long term housing in the City is not speculative. The potential for a substantial number of tenants being displaced is not speculative. The proposed conversion of the Costa Mesa Motor Inn (CMMI) to multi -family residential development and the displacement of many lower income long term tenants at the CMMI is currently happening. In addition, 1 Draft Environmental Report for the City of Costa Mesa's Year 2015-2035 General Plan, p. 4.13-10, March 2016. .-- ,.Iq - Chair Dickson and Planning Commission Members April 11, 2016 Page 2 of 4 the City also acknowledges and anticipates the implementation of the proposed land uses will be utilized to reduce specific uses such as motels citywide.2 The City should re-evaluate the potential significant impacts on motel tenants who would be displaced from proposed market -rate residential developments. Generally, motels provide last resort affordable housing for many lower income households and proposed market -rate residential developments will displace many at -risk families and lead them to homelessness. According to the DEIR, the report states: "... because any specific property redevelopment would occur in the future, the specific number of person using that particular motel for long-term occupancy is not known at this time. The type of residential development that would replace existing commercial uses, including motels, is also unknown, but could include new commercial uses, including hotel or motel uses, or new residential development that includes affordable housing which, based on the densities, could accommodate and encourage development of housing for low-income persons.s3 Redevelopment of specific projects will certainly happen in the future but the City already has one specific example of a proposed development, the CMMI, that is currently benefitting from the development incentives (i.e., change in land -use and increase in density) provided by the Residential Incentive Overlay. The type of residential development replacing the CMMI will be 224 unit apartment complex at a site specific density of 54 du/ac, which notably is significantly higher than the Overlay's density of 40 du/ac. While the specific number of long-term occupants are not known at this time for fixture developments, the City has already identified that there are approximately 160 occupied rooms at the CMMI and of that, 49 rooms are occupied by 66 long-term residents .4 Because the proposed development includes zero units affordable to the lower income tenants who currently live in the CMMI, all these existing tenants will be displaced, including the 49 rooms that have been identified and grandfathered as long- term tenants. The DEIR identifies that the proposed amended Land Use Plan could increase residential development in the Focus Areas by 4,040 units.5 Of that total, 3,062 units have allowable densities of 40 du/ac which can accommodate the development of affordable housing.6 However, default densities of 30 du/ac and greater do not necessarily produce homes that are affordable to lower income working households. The proposed development at the ' Notice of Preparation City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment Program EtR, City of Costa Mesa, p.4, Novcmher 16, 2015. 3 Draft EnvRotimenlilleport for the City of Costa Mesa's Year 2015-2035 General Plan, p. 4.13-9, March 2016, City Council Agenda Report: General Plan amendment GP=14-04/ Ri=nc R -144W Zoning Code Amendment CO -14.02/ And Master Plan PA -14-27 For Costa Mesa Apartmenis at 2277 Harbor Boulevard, City of Costa Mesa, p. 5, November 3, 2015. 5 Draft Environmental Report for the City of Costa Mesa's Year 2015-2035 General Plan, p. 4.13-6, March 2016, Draft Environmental Report for the City of Costa Mesa's Year 2015-2035 General Plan, p. 4.13-6, March 2016. _50- Chair Dickson and Planning Commission Members April 11, 2016 Page 3 of 4 CMMI is a cautionary example of project utilizing the Residential Overlay and not producing affordable homes. The proposed development at the CMMI benefitted from the residential overlay and development incentives (i.e., change in land -use and increase in density) and did not set aside any homes that would be affordable to lower income households. While 20 units will be set-aside for moderate income families, the proposed rents, $1,600 - $1,800 are out -of -reach and not affordable to current CMMI tenants or potential lower income tenants in the City. 3. Fairview Developmental Center: Reinstate the General Plan land use overlay at the Fairview Developmental Center site that allows a development capacity of 1,000 du at a maximum density of 40 du/acre (not the currently proposed 500 du at 25 du/ac) as identified in the City Council/ Planning Commission Joint Study Session on September 8, 2015. Considering the state is requiring a set-aside for the developmentally disabled, the site presents the greatest potential and opportunity for the development of affordable homes. The State Department of General Services (DGS) also submitted a letter that was submitted to the Costa Mesa City Council on October 6, 2016, stating "The state requests that the City include the 20 acres specified in SB 82 in the general plan update allowing -a maximum of up to 40 units ver acre..." It is clear that DGS supports a maximum density of 40 du/ac at the Fairview site. The density of 40 du/ac is also consistent to the other proposed residential incentive overlays along Harbor Boulevard, Newport Boulevard and SoBECA. At 40 du/ac versus 25 didac, the site will construct more units that will generate more rent subsidies/ revenue needed for the developmentally disabled households living at the Fairview Developmental Center. By decreasing the density to 25 du/ac versus 40 du/ac, the potential value of the center also decreases. In addition, the City should conduct a financial analysis regarding the feasibility of proposing an affordable housing development at a lower density versus a higher density to be better informed as to which densities would facilitate a more successful development. 4. South Harbor Boulevard Mixed -Use: Approve the Harbor Mixed -Use Overlay that allows a maximum residential density of 20 du/ac ONLY IF new residential developments proposed in the overlay set-aside 20 percent of homes as affordable to lower income working households. -51- Chair Dickson and Planning Commission Members April 11, 2016 Page 4 of 4 5. Sakioka Site 2: Approve a General Plan land use overlay at Sakioka Site 2 that allows a maximum residential density at 80 du/acre for up to 660 units ONLY IF new residential developments proposed at the site set-aside 20 percent of homes as affordable to lower income working households. In the City's 2014-2021 Housing Element, the Sakioka Site 2 was identified a potential opportunity site for the development of homes affordable to lower income households.7 6. Harbor & Newport Boulevard Residential Overla : Approve a residential incentive overlay that includes new high density residential uses of up to 40 du/acre along Harbor Boulevard and Newport Boulevard ONLY IF new residential developments proposed in the overlay set-aside 20 percent of homes as affordable to lower income working households. In addition, motels located in the overlay should not be included unless any future/new residential developments that are proposed on these sites dedicate at least 20 percent of the homes to lower income working households. 7. SoBECA Overlay: Approve a maximum of 450 units at a density of 40 du/acre at the SoBECA Urban Plan Area ONLY IF new residential developments proposed in the overlay set-aside 20 percent of homes as affordable to lower income working households. S. Conduct a study to evaluate the economic impacts of the proposed development incentives (i.e., land use changes/ rezoning and density increases) in the "focus areas." 9. Collaborate with the Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition and community stakeholders to develop effective land use changes and residential incentive overlays in the General Plan Update that will increase affordable home opportunities for lower income working households. Please keep us informed of any updates to the City's General Plan Update and if you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (949) 250-0909 or cesarc@kennedycommission.org. Sincerely, Cesar Covarrubias Executive Director cc: Kathy Esfahan, Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition 7 Housing Element For the Costa Mesa General Plan 2013-2021, p. 56, January 21, 2014. oefe Sli�nerl off •% Orange County Fairgrounds Presedation society f?site.., X12 r SPF' C] 7 ,AS FC)lirvl. v��. Richard f...:Spix ' The Law Office of Spix and Martin Counsel for Change County Fairgrounds Preservation Society 1.11r;9012 .1u /1.q I ? By � � __---- ac jerk) c H [�iolaa , Ch, F 'xecuttve Ot�icer 32r;, f7ismct = bicultural Association Date: r' / 3 _, 'W € 2 Al1i OV.. A; TO FO€LI By _ _. L3ogLr � G°rable m"ItIratt. 'helps & Phillips, 1A,P Counsel for 32nd District Agricuiturai Association Date: C6._, 2012 SeMement and Release Agreement 9 —��S— COMMENT 0-5 1 Er Tribune Real Estate April 18, 2016 Minoo Ashabi, Principal Planner City of Costa Mesa — Development Services Department 77 Fair Drive, P.O. Box 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200 Re: Former LA Times Printing Press Property Draft EIR Comments Dear Ms. Ashabi, On behalf of the Joint Venture of Kearny Real Estate Company and Tribune Media, which owns the Los Angeles Times site located at 1375 Sunflower Avenue, we offer the following comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR") for the Costa Mesa Year 2015-2035 General Plan. As a general matter, we are supportive of the City's long-awaited effort to update its General Plan, and are appreciative of your efforts. To that end, we offer the following technical comments and corrections: First, the owner of the Los Angeles Times site is referred to as "Tribune Publishing" throughout the document. The current owner of the Property is in fact a joint venture of Kearny Real Estate Company and Tribune Media Company. Moreover, the ownership of the property isn't relevant to the environmental impacts of the project. We respectfully request that the ownership references be updated to simply reflect the property as the "former LA Times printing press property" for identification, and use the word "owner" with reference to the former LA Times printing press property to avoid confusion. Second, the Draft EIR, at page 4.8-6 includes the Los Angeles Times North Tanks on Table 4.8- 4 (Leaking Underground Storage Tanks). This reflects outdated and therefore inaccurate information that we respectfully request be updated to reflect current information. Specifically, there are no leaking tanks on the site, and the remedial extraction system concluded its work in April 2014. Groundwater monitoring has been occurring in accordance with Orange County Health Care Authority ("OCHCA") monitoring requirements. The OCHA is reviewing data collected to -date to determine whether the site satisfies the criteria for no further action. Groundwater sampling will continue until OCHCA so determines. The most recent monitoring data is attached for further reference. 11 2 Finally, we understand that the General Plan designates the Los Angeles Times site as Commercial Center. However, page 4.10-6, states that the Los Angeles Times site would be 3 designated as Urban Center Commercial. We request that this and all such references be corrected to reflect the proper General Plan designation of Commercial Center. 202 WEST FIRST STREET I LOS ANGELES, CA 190012 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR, and we look forward to working with you as the General Plan process moved forward. Very truly yours, A IMES A. LLC T Tribune R�-�tatc Holdings, LLC Encl. 202 WEST FIRST STREET I LOS ANGELES, CA 190012 - sS COMMENT 0-6 SoCalGas A 41 'willpla f llvfg;' W01ty April 21, 2016 City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Dr PO Box 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92628 Attn: Minoo Ashabi 1919 S, State College Blvd, Anaheim, CA 92806-6114 Subject: Environmental Impact Report for Year 2015-2035 General Plan; Costa Mesa Thank you for providing the opportunity to respond to this Environmental Document. This letter is not to be interpreted as a contractual commitment to serve the proposed project but only as an information service. Its intent is to notify you that the Southern California Gas Company has facilities in the area where the above named project is proposed. Gas facilities within the service area of the project could be installed, altered or abandoned as necessary without any significant impact on the environment. The availability of natural gas service is based upon conditions of gas supply and regulatory agencies. As a Public Utility, Southern California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission. Our ability to serve can also be affected by actions of federal regulatory agencies. Should these agencies take any action, which affect gas supply or the conditions under which service is available, gas service will be provided in accordance with the revised conditions. This letter is also provided without considering any conditions or non-utility laws and regulations (such as environmental regulations), which could affect construction of a main and/or service line extension (i.e., if hazardous wastes were encountered in the process of installing the line). The regulations can only be determined around the time contractual arrangements are made and construction has begun. Information regarding construction particulars and any costs associated with initiating service may be obtained by contacting our area Service Center at 800-427-2200. Sincerely, Katrina Regan Planning Supervisor SouthEast Region - Anaheim Planning & Engineering KR/d ERdoc 1 COMMENT I-1 April 4, 2016 TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA: PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE DEIR FOR THE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS OF 2016 TO BE INCLUDED IN THE FINAL EIR. The proposed amendments "Residential Incentive Overlay Harbor Boulevard" and "Harbor Mixed Use Overlay" and the discussion of them in the Land Use Element portion of the DEIR are inconsistent with the DEIR's Noise Element findings. All the following facts and figures are taken from the General Plan and EIR. Section 13-280 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code sets the residential exterior noise standard of 55 dB(A) from 7:00 A.M. through 11:00 P.M. and 50 dB(A) from 11:00 P.M. through 7:00 A.M. In contrast, the measured noise levels along the segment of Harbor Boulevard that is to transition to high-density residential measure 71.5 Leq at Harbor and Adams (one block north of the Azulon senior housing complex) and 73.1 Leq at Harbor and 191' Street. The maximum measured at those locations are, respectively, 88.5 and 86.9 Lmax. The EIR declares no significant impact because it states that implementing the City's Municipal Code and the proposed General Plan Amendment policies will prevent the obvious impact from occurring. But it is impossible to implement a law limiting noise to 50 or 55 dB(A) on a major traffic corridor where the measured noise level is already far higher. Policy N-1 .A says, "Enforce the maximum acceptable exterior noise levels for residential areas at 65 CNEL." Even that policy, referring to a higher noise level, cannot reconcile the high noise volume on Harbor Boulevard with a level acceptable for residential development. Therefore, implementing the City's Municipal Code and General Plan Amendment policies means necessarily prohibiting residential development along the Harbor Boulevard corridor. Therefore, the proposed "Residential Incentive Overlay Harbor Boulevard" and "Harbor Mixed Use Overlay" cannot be adopted nor implemented, and therefore, the DEIR is internally inconsistent. Respectfully submitted, Eleanor M. Egan _59— 1 COMMENT I-2 April 18, 2016 Greetings Draft Environmental Impact (DEIR) Review Staff, Here are a few of my comments on the (DEIR) and references in the DEIR that lead to the draft general plan 2016. 1 have also included a few references to the 2000EIR for comparison purposes. 1. In Costa Mesa's Draft Environmental Impact Report 2016 (DREI) , page 4.4-15 under 'Biological Resources' -Impact 4.3A states: "Impacts to special status species and their habitat would be less than significant with implementation of draft General Plan policies and Mitigation Measure 4.3.A-1". It states impacts to the burrowing owl less than significant with mitigation measures in the title yet in the body it says otherwise and concludes with "Impacts on special status species, other than the burrowing owl, are considered less than significant." (Bold type mine). Trying to make the impact appear as less than significant even with mitigation is not according to CEQA when it really is significant. The city therefore should place the burrowing owl under 'significant' instead of trying to lessen the impact by putting in under 'insignificant with mitigation'. The goal of the city should be to preserve natural resources not mitigate them. I refer you to CEQA legislature on page 1-2, item J where it states that the lead agency (City of Costa Mesa) should "Prevent the elimination ,,,,and preserve for future generations representations of all plant and animal communities and examples of the major periods of California history." Therefore, the draft eir should be corrected anywhere it states impacts to the burrowing owl 'less than significant with mitigation' and should properly state 'significant'. Where are the environmental surveys for the burrowing owl at the Segerstrom Home Ranch and Sakiota Lot 2 sites, which have potential for impacts according to page 4.4-16 of the DEIR? 1 2. This leads me into the next point of the words -'Planning area, Project, and Amendments to the General Plan Area, and in particular, the critical habitat for 2 the Endangered San Diego fairy shrimp. On pages 4. 4-10 under "San Diego Fairy Shrimp', and 4.4-12 under' Critical Habitat', it says there is no critical habitat for -- S�' . the San Diego fairy shrimp in the planning area but in other parts of the DEIR, such as page 4.4-8 when it says: "Of these, only 10 species and two natural communities are located with the planning area and all occurrences are found either in Fairview Park, Talbert Regional Park or the adjacent wildlife preserve." (and 4.4-9 )it talks about the whole of Costa Mesa (project area) as a planning area as well as many other places in the DEIR (pgs.4.14-8, 4.14-9, 4.15-1, 5-4 etc.) So, to summarize, since planning and project are used synonymously, then there IS INDEED Critical Habitat in the planning area (Costa Mesa). Also, the draft general plan, it states on OSR-18, the city's vision of repurposing Fairview Park - which is part of Costa Mesa - whatever area you want to call it. AND, vernal pools on the east side of Fairview Park have been omitted from the draft general plan on page CON -5. These vernal pools are part of the Fairview Park Master Plan (FPMP) page 129 and should be noted as such. 3. Why are so many plant and animal species that are present in Fairview Park, omitted from the DEIR? Southern Tarplant on page 4.4-10 says it is only present in Talbert Nature Preserve. There was Southern Tarplant in Fairview Park recently and the vegetative map in FPMP shows where. The city scraped the mouth of the canyon with a front loader - I have pictures - when I asked them why they were doing this, I was told it was to spread seeds. Very odd 'way of spreading seeds I thought. Why isn't the Northern Harrier included and of course, California Gnatcatcher? 4. Also page 4.4-16 IMPACT 4.3C says no impact to section 404 wetlands would occur as a result - but the 2009-2013 illegal filling/grading of the canyon in Fairview Park has affected and impacted the habitat in that riverine area of Fairview Park and should be included in the draft. It is home to the California Endangered Gnat Catcher and was filled/graded illegally by the city. (I have documents showing this). Where are the surveys for the California Gnatcatcher? 2 3 0 5. This filling/grading of the Fairview Park canyon impacted two archaeological core sites of ORA -58. (See FPMP)The city is supposed to be preserving and 5 maintaining historical and cultural resources but has failed miserably once again. 6. Page 4.6-13 - Shouldn't Costa Mesa have a URM ordinance before building all 6 these high density houses? 7. 'Open Space' Recreation Element. First of all, what happened to the 'Open Space' part of the title? There are some errors in the calculations of open space per 1,000 residents. First of all, please note on page. 4.12-11, the OC Fair and Event Center includes the OC Fairgrounds. On page 4.15-1- is says that the OC Fair and Event Center has 150.04 acres. On page 4.15-3 - it states that OC Fairgrounds has 149.47 acres. But it has been included as part of the 'Institutional Uses' acreage on page 4.15-1 AND ADDED AGAIN as the OC Fair and Event Center. This artificially increases the open space by 150.00 acres but wait that's not all. The acreage of the schools in 2000EIR to DEIR 2016 have differences which can't be accounted for as well. Most of the differences are a few acres but Van Guard University had an increase of 33.16 acres. I contacted VanGuard University and found out that no new acreage had been obtained and no change of land usage. No way to account for this increase of 33.16 acres. The acreage of open space is off by 200 acres from the 2000 EIRto this draft eir. Please note under Recreation (not open space/trails recreation like in 2000 EIR) on page 4.15-1 it says we have 1,925.15 acres of open -space recreation but in 2000EIR we had only 1,706.74 acres (pg. 4.12-1 2000EIR). Besides OC Fairgrounds being added twice, Harbor Lawn Cemetery has been included in the 2016 acreage. Also OCC went from 20 acres in 2000 to 64.40 acres in 2016. That's an increase of 44.40 more acres. Also, the school matrix does not show what types of fields are at each school like the 2000 EIR did. Most of the schools have added acreage to them and the schools I contacted had no idea why - they didn't grow or change land usage. So, this 7 actually puts Costa Mesa even further behind in their goal for having 4.26 acres of open space per 1000 residents. It's not 3.66 acres per 1,000 residents like stated on page 4.14-9 under 'Public Services' but more like 2.0 acres per 1,000 residents, so please correct his. I think the draft eir is evidence for the destruction of the city's ability to provide its residents with the proper amount of 4.26 acres of Open Space per 1000 residents and should not be allowed. 8. Page 4.15-5 Under 'Recreation' (still what happened to Open Space and Trails 8 even?) 9. Page 4.15-6 under'Policy OSR-1.C' This map of deficient park areas as outlined in Figure OSR-3 of the draft general plan 2015, has some errors. OSR-3 is based on 9 OSR-2 (page OSR-14 in draft general plan 2016) which has miscalculations. Please notice the areas designated as within 1/4 mile and 1/2 mile from a park as well as the pink areas to represent the "underserved' areas. I brought this up at the planning commission meetings and was told by Ms. Stetson that I had calculated their miscalculations based on 'how the crow flies'. She is mistaken and I am attaching the google maps to show you. I have also used other maps to make sure 9 and this is indeed WALKING not driving or'how the crow flies' as Ms. Stetson stated. This miscalculation of distance is THE FOUNDATION FOR EVEN GREATER ERRORS BECAUSE this map misrepresents the residents being served. More residents are being served than stated and there is not access problems like stated in draft general plan 2016 under Table OSR-4 Park/Population Ratios and page OSR-19. If there is disagreement again, I would like to see your maps used. 10. The miscalculation of open -space area and underserved areas is right in line with the complete lack of public representation in the draft general plan 2016. Having attended the various workshops put on by the city and reviewing the event summaries, I was pleased to see the event summaries did indeed represent what actually happened at the workshops. What happened to the draft general plan? There is no representation of what actually happened in the workshops in the draft general plan 2016. For example, residents stated over and over again that natural open space was very important to them. Fairview Park not been included in the Costa Mesa Open Spaces area but instead included in the Neighborhood Park area - there are myths perpetuated about needing sport fields throughout the OSR element. First of all, that would undermine the Open Space Survey and Field Usage Survey that was conducted and results have not been released yet. Secondly, there is a Fairview Park Master Plan that governs Fairview Park and for the city to state that Fairview Park could be repurposed for the increased demand for sport fields (OSR-18) is undermining the Fairview Park Master Plan, ignoring the publics' input for two and a half years, and perpetuating a lie with no factual basis. Secondly, not including Fairview Park as an Open Space with all of its unique biological and archaeological resources is once again trying to lessen what Fairview Park actually contains and the value it has for the community. to to As a side note to anyone reading this - this onslaught against Fairview Park didn't 11 begin with the draft eir. Our councilman Mr. Mensinger was allowed to sit as council on the Fairview Park Citizens Advisory Committee when he admitted to asking city staff to mow a path in vernal pool 6 and 7? (1 have O.C.Register article to support this) Oh By The Way, MIG still didn't get the acronym correct on OSR-5, , 11 it's FPCAC not FPAC) There are numerous other errors in the eir such as , why is Early College School not included in the draft eir but included in the draft general plan? 10. Why are the Green House Gas Emissions allowed to exceed SCAQM 12 standards? Ms. Stetson said that SCAQM just needed to update their report. I would like Costa Mesa to abide by the SCAQM standards instead of trying to redefine them. 11. The DEIR should have been done by a more reputable and honest company instead of MIG. One that would reflect the workshops and not the mayors wishes (last city council meeting - said we need more sport fields - ignoring parks and rec.'s data once again.) Sincerely, Kim Hendricks Costa Mesa Resident 2208='250 National Ave, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 to 2277-2399 Cany... https://www.google.com/maps/du/33.6552564; 117.9369954/33.6579... Google Maps Set, os It** Iq —(03- 1 —(P3- 1 of 1 4/8/2016 12:44 PM 2208-2250 National Ave, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Walk 0.4 mile, 8 min Go "gle Maps to 2277-2399 Canyon Dr, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 c dur � 2 Suntan c it Signet Gi s �w � 7• r1M ••'� n•1 rF 2277.2399 Canyon Oil " • !fancy Ln$� J.— SI Joann SI JBonn 51 @ MI" DWIe1151 Dwelt SI ct Deno Dt t7 _ g = S It, N71aon 51 .69 s e •r Wilaan SI W YYi1.4mI SI Sprit Cir 1 w � 02200-2250 National Ave ? Capdel Si Spar Cir y" b s • f, Swale SI T Senate sl ' Ile 11 Cungrea0 SC congreea SI c-OiSsSl � Congreaa St a Bi1'wHrNa 51 Gavornor St Governor Sl X GaWnDr Sl J, ? Vn tori, '7t w -'o Vici-xiD $1 7 tkren ylcWw St �• . Iwti :K1Wll Waw- e ` 3 Y . l., Y N7W 1"C e.[ Ham lion St H-01. St HemplUn .q sca010 Or a — Map data 02016 Google 500 ftl_ via W Wilson St and Canyon Dr 8 min 0.4 mile Google Maps Set, os It** Iq —(03- 1 —(P3- 1 of 1 4/8/2016 12:44 PM 858 W Wilson St, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 to 2277 Canyon Dr, Costa ... https://www.google.com/maps/dir/33.6560959,-117.9347209/33.6579... Go. gle Maps 858 W Wilson St, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 to 2277 Walk 0.5 mile,10 min Canyon Dr, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 IWno 11M1 II,an C �,dal� sem„ € _ z S19W Ck .. - .... .. m tz�gNn U S Fl Capri cAUM:e Cu 3 .J .. ., Eslauna Hrgh so.,w f , a t—, W Iti,ew - w -A4snt;1 nve 2177 C,,nyon Or[h nt Or n fhn of linwds. Y:,ncy l.n� Joomt St IoaM y Comarbmok Or U�.o Dr ,. ; to Ti. Dalrcll St , WnSI*m04 a�YI•.0 000 6 00858WWitsnn SY x n Spnt CJ r .f 'Nilam -T M.— J.— High Sat" — it Slulr Cn s ,' Ekme,gary 5chanl capitzl St - J Saltire SI �py r Conwa St cnnyaess St cMge=St '� � � { t � Sovelnor St GmeHxv Sl I;avelna Sl Vitla Foc�llc rr •'S � :,,yCt -N4ulr.1 � : - VittUna St 7-Ekve Dcl lnee i +{Y� 3 Mona HMlor a 4 7rade+Joe's + v a Verde FAm Ur i6 C ; -ell �a HnMlllnn Ave FfafllillOn Aye 'taM41wa •i�N 'i3�lllrr•1 `t Goin gle HIN a Oak St a Map data 02016 Google 500 ft via W Wilson St and Canyon Dr 10 min 0.5 mile Google Maps &A 1 of 1 4/8/2016 12:53 PM 888-890 Joann St, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 to 2277-2399 Canyon Dr, C... https://www.google.com/maps/dir/33.6575426,-117.9360083/33.6578... 888-890 Joann St, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 to Walk 0.5 mile, 10 min 2277-2399 Canyon Dr, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 via W Wilson St and Canyon Dr 10 min 0.5 mile Google Maps lofI 4/F I Of, a, utr+ea H* uhnot x W�kY,rt lcMas .� U Jrr1e �na.u� ':77.2394 Gn rryan Or j +wr,;•}•.+r B8t)�896J6ann 3P0 J6eM S1 :nwm� r R P7lnplrtt WISCii SI r F g w�K'Yll SI •\\rk •rn�r��a�rr WWfteN.lSl '.Y 'YiFinn: W'.Y�ltipe ji r fi 10min wa r+' s 4 - � z cnpinF9� m ans! SmA>r 41 'Cafvm'St conye"St C.Awfl"St Cwwlnu Si 1Wnn+W S1 cpwln¢r gl OOVMflOr 31 'PnNYM1tx $l Yinta++•+ .l S r':oara � ae+m Yrctrnw S[ V+.+nin at - x V{ntnri..M+nu Qd.1§glenj� 3 R s HaRgion St Ilemmpn BS Map data 02016 Google 500 ft, t via W Wilson St and Canyon Dr 10 min 0.5 mile Google Maps lofI 4/F I Of, 2248 Continental Ave, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 to 2277-2399 Canyon D... https://www.google,com/maps/dir/33.6559887,-117.9346565/33.6578 Got-.gle M 2248 Continental Ave, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 to Walk 0,5 mile, 9 min 2277-2399 Canyon Dr, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 W-0 HanCY 411a jow St 92 T Ej-� Vionrl. S. GOP`9 le Map data 02016 Google 500 ft, via W Wilson St and Canyon Dr 9 min 0.5 mile Google Maps 4/8/2016 12:38 PM 858 W Wilson St, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 to 2277-2399 Canyon Dr, C... https://www.google.com/maps/dir/33,656078,-117.9347423/33.657846... G0 gle Maps 858 W Wilson St, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 to Walk 0.5 mile, 10 min 2277-2399 Canyon Dr, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Off woo UF c �7 .puraofrknon f 2277-im Cmiypn 9f t a !i77Ln� Joann sl lagan 31 Joann 3f Owr W � �• � id atin ( 0.xrtll Sr Wra:R Sf - �. Uri cu i -r WnvrcnSt -w a0ai iii.li■•daa41w a go&"W,"Sam St,- ra.�. acurcu gf � caWrw sf fr.rm=xr s.row's .' ceai�atsi . Senete 9l ,� �' �Senega S( - oY r Cun9(m Sl Cdraeea 9t Eorgresa'Sl „ pWyrgas 3C km St �pMClaar St Gmerner 5t Gavea w St Victona St 7.i4yn+ NctaliaSt gv� aura V¢tY ,5 i5 � HamlFnn Sl HWailon 5l Sea BN,ff or Map data 02016 Google 500 ft f via W Wilson St and Canyon Dr 16 min ",Ile Google Maps 6`1 — 4/V2416 12:43 PM ,{o I cal Ave, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 to Estancia High Scho... https://www.google.com/maps/dir/33.6560959,-117.933133/Estancia... Google Map 2201-2275 Federal Ave, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Walk 0.5 mile, 10 min to Estancia High School �6tf pr 51mmn Cr ' - rlrxwi�lw ,4 SiOrntur g �n ,. i g Hstarwia High Sohoolp � o Cammn ev as ae 4tr�ge Rwar' i i i O�ww Or r"l� Nancy OF Joann St Ora■: A= St Joann at s 17e110181 • tlarretl.sl { N' Weaun St W wow st 22111-227S Fedmal Maa wwftonst - arrn.Mi � m� fincn•t ls.�..M.,. Capi19151 ? CiOnO f a i4t]t ; S.694. at S..k 91 , via Placentia Ave Google Maps fl Q 10 min 0.5 mile 4/8/2016 12:42 PM ' - rlrxwi�lw ,4 g Hstarwia High Sohoolp � ..�1L1tlA'aatNel � ae 4tr�ge Rwar' i i Nancy OF Joann St Ora■: A= St Joann at s 17e110181 • tlarretl.sl N' Weaun St W wow st 22111-227S Fedmal Maa wwftonst - arrn.Mi � m� fincn•t ls.�..M.,. Capi19151 ? CiOnO f S.694. at S..k 91 , Canpteu 5t Canpresa St 0—p -e .st C4ngiasa9l tlavernw Si 6avetnor St l#averrwt St Gvrenwe St, '� Vic!a1�1 SI L•r•unn ^1 LL 7•Ekren YiGYia is S[ Vlctorir ilClurnf �t••w � S Go !gle h o Hamlllanat +500 k11a11/tait St _ ~ Map data 02016 Google fts. a 10 min 0.5 mile 4/8/2016 12:42 PM COMMENT I-3 Cynthia McDonald April 18, 2016 VIA EMAIL ONLY City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Re: Comments to Draft Environmental Impact Report prepared in connection with General Plan update Ladies and Gentlemen: The following are my comments to the Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") and some, but not all, of my comments with respect to the Draft General Plan ("DGP"). Please make these comments and requests for additional information and/or modification to the DEIR and DGP part of the public record. Overall Cohesive Plan for the City The General Plan does not include a vision of how the City will develop an overall cohesive plan for the City for the next 20 years. While it contains suggestions that developers focus on creating gathering spots in their projects, there is no specific direction for that. Mention is made that the Triangle should be considered the downtown area. The closest thing we have to a central gathering place is the Neighborhood Community Center ("NCC"), which is slated to be reduced in size, rather than expanded. Walking in that area is not enjoyable and no new bike lanes are currently planned so that we can avoid automobile trips and transform the city to a bikeable/walkable city. There are no transit centers or hubs planned near the NCC or South Coast Plaza. The zoning for new housing along Harbor and Newport Boulevards is not specified to be strictly the true mixed-use type of development that would encourage people to get out of their cars and visit businesses on foot or by bike. While the most dense/intense land uses are focused away from the neighborhoods with single-family homes, the health and safety of the residents are jeopardized by the proposed changes to land use because of the impacts of increased traffic levels, air pollution and lack of adequate open space. City of Costa Mesa April 18, 2016 Page 2 Vision Statements While the vision statements are a welcome addition to the DGP, the residents suggested changes to the vision statements and requested additional statements that were ignored. What we see are vision statements that reflect the needs of developers, and not the direction that the residents want for the City. Protecting the residents is the primary responsibility of the City, and yet protecting and promoting the health, safety and quality of life of the residents is ignored. Aesthetics Impact 4. LA, 4. LB found on page 4.1-5 states: "Impacts to scenic vistas and resources would be less than significant with implementation of draft General Plan policies." In the following paragraph it further explains "As described above, scenic vistas within the City are limited to large areas of undeveloped land that offer views of scenic resources such as Upper Newport Bay, the Santa Ana River, and the Santa Ana Mountains. The proposed project will not alter scenic vistas located in existing parks or open space areas as none are subject to land use change. New development built on the Segerstrom Home Ranch and Sakioka Lot 2 sites could impact existing views of the Santa Ana Mountains since current land use policy allows buildings of heights greater than two stories; the proposed General Plan land use policies will continue this condition. However, with the implementation of the following Community Design Policies CD -5.A through CD -5.F below, potential impacts on scenic vistas and resources would be less than significant:" What follows is Policy CD -5.A which provides for the preservation and optimization of natural views and open spaces in Costa Mesa. However, there is no assurance that views can be preserved because the buildings in the Segerstrom Home Ranch project are limited only by FAR and could be anywhere from five (5) to twelve (12) stories in height. These buildings have the potential to impede the view of the Santa Ana Mountains for residents who live west of that project. This impact needs to be added to the DEIR. Land Use Element The proposed changes will have irreversible impacts on the residents, some of which result in the form of air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions and noise pollution, which are discussed below. There are also impacts to the quality of life of the residents. There is no plan for the City to create either central or neighborhood gathering spots, no inclusionary agreement for affordable housing and the proposed high-density housing is not located in walkable/bikeable areas or near — qQ— City of Costa Mesa April 18, 2016 Page 3 a transit center. Removal of height limitations for buildings south of the San Diego Freeway will degrade the quality of life for the residents. With respect to the Existing Land Use Distribution on 4.10-1 of the DEIR, the Santa Ana Colleen Street Island has already been incorporated into the City. The DEIR does not address what happens to displaced residents as a result of the rezoning of "problem motels" to high-density mixed-use residential. The City seems to think these people 4 will move elsewhere, but since so many have family in the area, including children attending Newport -Mesa schools, and a few have employment, this subject matter needs to be addressed. Further, this displacement is an intentional attempt to change the demographics of the City. Environmental Impacts Air Pollution and Greenhouse Gas Emissions i As noted on page 2.4-1 of the DEIR: + "... the updated General Plan Amendments has the potential to result in significant, unavoidable environmental effects with regard to the following environmental issue areas: ■ Air Quality Aesthetics (due to inconsistency with regional plans) Greenhouse Gas Emissions (due to inconsistency with regional plans)" On page 4.3-15 of the DEIR, we see that the proposed General Plan Amendments will have the impact of the deterioration of air quality caused by the addition of 9,271 more dwelling units, 21,166 more residents and about 5.6 million square feet of nonresidential development. That section of the DEIR says: "This could result in potentially significant impacts because air quality attainment goals could be delayed since the strategies adopted in the AQMP would not account for land use changes in the planning area." In other words, the City does not have a plan in place that can deal with the air pollution that comes with all this new development. Further, it says: "Therefore, the proposed General Plan is inconsistent with the growth projections in the RTP/SCS and would be inconsistent with the 2012 AQMP." _91- City of Costa Mesa April 18, 2016 Page 4 Despite that, the DEIR states that: "the following policies in the updated General Plan support attainment of air quality goals through assessment and mitigation of future development projects ..." What is listed after that, among other things, are policies of the General Plan that would mitigate the impacts of the proposed development, some of which came out of the proposed Active Transportation Plan ("ATP"). However, those policies in the ATP were reclassified as "recommendations" at the time the City Council approved it. Mitigation needs to be something 5 that is a concrete measure that can be taken to prevent an impact. It cannot be something that falls into the category of being a choice that might be opted for, or a wish list. Unless the City Council is going to change the DGP so that all the "recommendations" in the ATP are restored to policies, the DEIR needs to be edited to eliminate any reference to those policies/ recommendations. Not having an adequate plan to deal with air pollution puts the health of the residents at risk. I note that the monitoring station is located in an area that benefits from unimpeded breezes off the ocean due to its location near Costa Mesa Golf Course and Fairview Park and is not near the existing emission locations shown on Figure 4.3.2. There are other areas that receive a greater impact of air pollution, for example, the comer of Baker and Bear Streets which not only is impacted by the air pollution of three (3) nearby freeways, but also a busy arterial and the airport. While repurposing some of the light industrial in the SoBECA area might help air quality, it is not going to come close to eliminating the air pollution coming from the freeways, airport and the adjoining industrial park. Should the City allow a mixed-use component of 40- 50* dwelling units per acre to be introduced to that area and other areas in the city, it would be at a significant risk to the health of all residents. *50 dwelling units with a density bonus applied. There currently exists a toxic carbon monoxide "hot spot" at Hyland and MacArthur. Any increase in traffic caused by an increase in the use of land by elevating the allowable FAR in areas close to that hot spot would require mitigation. Expansion of the Los Angeles Times building is not likely to reduce that problem as it will bring an increase in traffic to that area over what currently exists. Any repurposing of the building needs to be accompanied by a plan to reduce auto and truck traffic. The adjacent rail line is an opportunity to provide pedestrian/bicycle access to that parcel and others in the area and should be incorporated into any redevelopment plan. With respect to greenhouse gases, the California Air Resources Board has identified a cap and trade program as one of the strategies it will be using to reduce greenhouse gases. The City needs to anticipate that it will be required to be a part of that program and institute a plan to 6 reduced greenhouse gases. As noted in Impact 4.7.B: "The proposed General Plan Amendments have the potential to conflict with the 2012 SCAG RTP/SCS and CARB Scoping Plan—and thereby not attain GHG reductions -qZ City of Costa Mesa April 18, 2016 Page 5 targets—because land use policy does not support the same level of population growth projected. Impacts at the program level are significant and unavoidable." [Emphasis added] 6 In addition, I note there is no mention of the impacts by the proposed Banning Ranch development. While the City is not responsible for that development, it is certain to be a part of the cumulative effects of the proposed General Plan Amendments. That cumulative impact and the impact of the proposed General Plan Amendments are unacceptable and need to be modified and a plan needs to be instituted to mitigate or eliminate those impacts. Noise In Section 4.12 of the DEIR much discussion is made to accommodating development of additional commercial, residential and mixed-use development in the specific focus areas and some attention is given to the impacts of the noise generated by that development. Mitigation includes Policy N -2-A which provides: 7 "Require the use of walls, berms, interior noise insulation, double -paned windows, and other noise mitigation measures, as appropriate, in the design of new residential or other new noise sensitive land uses that are adjacent to arterials, freeways, or adjacent to industrial or commercial uses." Page 4.12-16 contains the following explanation of Impact 4.12.C: "Future population growth within the planning area would result in increased traffic and the need for roadway and intersection improvements necessary to maintain desired levels of service, despite this increase in traffic. Increases in traffic could result in permanent increases in ambient noise levels, e.g., where a roadway segment is proposed to be expanded with additional travel lanes over the long-term to achieve level of service standards. Roadway noise could also increase on an existing roadway that will carry increasing traffic volumes. In either set of circumstances, roadway noise levels could increase to beyond the levels considered acceptable for the adjacent land uses. This issue is addressed under Impact 4.12.C." However, no mitigation is provided for pedestrians and bicyclists who are continuously exposed to these increased noise levels. Further, no explanation is given as to how the City intends to mitigate the noise that is echoed off tall buildings or the sound walls that are required to mitigate noise so that it does not travel beyond the arterial into adjacent buildings. Zoning The rezoning of selected properties along Harbor Boulevard and Newport Boulevard from 1 8 commercial to mixed-use overlay is nothing more than spot zoning in those areas, as the adjacent i 93_ City of Costa Mesa April 18, 2016 Page 6 properties will not be rezoned as well. This constitutes a targeted action by the City designed to benefit certain property owners and not others. Further, the impacts of traffic due to the eastside of Newport Boulevard being a one-way arterial will direct the traffic back into the Eastside 8 neighborhood bringing air pollution impacts noted above. In addition, in the prior General Plan + buildings south of the San Diego Freeway were limited to no taller than four (4) stories in height. The General Plan Amendments indicate that there is no limitation to which development must conform—all is needed to exceed this height is permission from the City Council. This shows a complete disregard for the wishes of the residents to retain the low profile coastal town feel. Circulation (I'irausportation and Traffic) Element At the end of Section 4.16 of the DER there is a statement that no mitigation is necessary because no impacts would result. While it is noted that an intersection is not considered to be at failure level to the City unless it is rated as a LOS of "F", we have two intersections that currently attain LOS "D" at peak hours. One of those is Newport Boulevard and 17th Street, 9 which is at "D" at both the AM and PM peak hours. The other is Newport Boulevard and 18`x' Street/Rochester Street in the PM peak hour. Many residents, myself included, feel that a LOS of "D" is unacceptable. With the proposed General Plan Amendments, Table 4.16-13 shows twenty-one (21) additional intersections that will attain LOS "D" at one or more peak hours. While some of those intersections will be "improved" to add lanes by 2035, that mitigation effort will only exacerbate the problems faced by pedestrians and bicycles trying to cross wide intersections. If bicyclists and pedestrians cannot cross a street safely, then mobility is severely limited, access is denied, and cycling and walking as a mode of travel is discouraged. More than two percent (2%) of the residents of Costa Mesa ride a bicycle to work and that 10 number is growing. It is imperative that the City reverse its decision to label the policies in the ATP recommendations. Those policies were written as a direct response from residents requesting better and safer connectivity and facilities in the City. Further, as noted above, to use those policies as mitigation for impacts, they need to be classified as such. Policy C -4.A.3 proposes implementation of "park -once approaches for multiuse districts and regional destinations areas", which are commonly known as "parking districts." While the concept of parking districts is a good one, implementation would require the hiring of additional parking enforcement personnel. On page 4.15-54 it is stated that: 11 "These policies, in conjunction with the parking supply and design standards requirements of the City's Zoning Code, would ensure that adequate parking is provided on a project -by -project basis. Impacts would be less than significant." However, since the need for additional parking enforcement personnel would be ongoing, the impact on the City budget would be significant. The DEIR does not indicate that these parking districts would be located in areas with business improvement districts that would fund the cost q-4 - City of Costa Mesa April 18, 2016 Page 7 of the additional personnel. Clarification is needed to fully assess the impacts of these parking districts. Table 4.16-6 indicates that there are currently 1,018,790 ADTs generated in the City and an estimated 1,244,140 ADT. This does not appear to include the 150,000 additional passthrough 12 trips we currently experience or whether the passthrough trips are anticipated to increase. Was a calculation made to increase the trips in accordance with a density bonus that could be applied to selected properties? Please provide that information. While mention is given to the downgrade of the Gisler Avenue/Garfield Avenue crossing of the Santa Ana River to a "Right -of -Way Reserve" status on the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways, it is not clear if this is a fait accompli. If a formal change in status has not occurred, what will be the impact(s)? Please provide more information. One glaring omission from the Circulation Element is the traffic impacts from the Banning 13 Ranch project in Newport Beach. While that project is not part of the proposed General Plan Amendments, seven (7) intersections will be impacted by the Banning Ranch project, many of which are the included in the twenty-one (21) impacted intersections show on Table 4.16-13. Will the addition of Banning Ranch traffic cause any of those seven (7) intersections to drop in level of service? Please provide a detailed answer to this, including what level of service is anticipated with the addition of Banning Ranch traffic given the current plans for that project. In looking at this data and factoring in that there will be some impacts felt by the Banning Ranch project, I believe the statement that no mitigation is necessary is false. The additional traffic that comes with the proposed General Plan Amendments is one of the greatest impacts on the quality of life for the residents of Costa Mesa and steps need to be taken to eliminate those impacts. Open Space On page 4.14-9 of the DEIR it states: "The City of Costa Mesa currently does not meet its goal of providing 4.26 acres of parkland per 1,000 persons." 14 Further down the page it is stated: "As of 2015, the City had an estimated population of 110,524 residents. Based on the City's park standard goal of 4.26 acres for every 1,000 persons, approximately 471 acres of parkland are required to meet the City's goal. Assuming a build -out population of 131,690 residents, 561 acres would need to be acquired to achieve the goal." City of Costa Mesa April 18, 2016 Page 8 On page 4.14-10 of the DER it asserts: "Given the paucity of vacant land within the planning area, it could be reasonably assumed that acquisition and provision of an additional 561 acres of parkland would not [be] feasible. However, this impact is not considered significant since 14 the possible inability of the City to meet its goal would not result in any direct or indirect environmental impact." Costa Mesa is comprised of more than just buildings and people. The most "livable" cities are as known for their open space. Having open space in cities provides many advantages: formal and informal sports and recreation, preservation of natural environments, provision of green space and even urban storm water management. Thus green space must be a key consideration in Costa Mesa if the health of a city and its residents are both considered important. There is a growing body of research showing a connection between human health and well-being and the design and structure of towns, cities and regions. It is believed that planning decisions have a key role to play in combating growing levels of obesity and helping prevent lifestyle - related diseases through facilitating physical activity and positive mental health. The health benefits associated with access to public open space and parks include better perceived general health, reduced stress levels, reduced depression and more. An evaluation of the largest 85 cities in the United States found the health savings from parks was an estimated $3.08 billion. Thus, there are significant impacts from continually falling behind on acquiring new parkland for use by the residents. The City needs to identify priority areas for new parkland and pursue the acquisition and construction of facilities on that land. Failure to do so will result in substantial deterioration of existing facilities. With respect to Fairview Park, on page OSR-18 of the DGP it states: "Due to its size, Fairview Park is one of the parks that may be repurposed to include other public amenities. However, a balance between passive and active open space opportunities within the park will continue to be a key consideration." Due to the sensitive environmental and archeological issues of Fairview Park, this park must be left in a natural state and only requires efforts with respect to remediation or enhancement of that natural state. Simply stated: leave it alone. Population and Housing 14 15 Data found on page 4.13-6 of the DEIR indicates that the City anticipates the addition of 11,078 more residents by 2035 or an increase of 9.76%. It also indicates the addition of 4,040 dwelling units by that same year (an increase of 9.48%). The increase in jobs is anticipated to be 17,147 more jobs by 2035 (19.64%). Note that some of these numbers do not comport with the numbers ,_ 9 City of Costa Mesa April 18, 2016 Page 9 found on page 4.3-15 of the DEIR. Please provide an apples -to -apples comparison or a corrected set of numbers. It is not indicated what type of industries that anticipate this increase in employment and the wage levels of these new workers. The unavailability of suitable affordable housing for employees has proven to be a problem in the past for industries in that they are not able to retain skilled employees for this reason. It is important that the City adopt an inclusionary housing ordinance for this reason. In addition, on page 4.13-6 of the DEIR it indicates there are 8,032 net acres in the City. In the second column of Table LU -2 on page LU -11 of the DGP it indicates there are 8,044. However, adding the numbers in that column, the number is actually 7,942.20. Please review the calculations in both documents and adjust for inconsistencies. Utilities and Service Systems Impact 14.d found on page 14.17-12 states: 15 "Implementation of the proposed General Plan Amendments would not require 16 new or expanded water supply entitlements to be secured, and the proposed General Plan Amendments incorporate policies aimed at conserving water supplies." This indicates that there will be no impact by the addition of 9,271 dwelling units and 21,166 more residents to the City. Residents have been required to minimize water consumption because of the current drought conditions. Our water supply has not been completely replenished by the recent rains and we have been told that we need to continue curtailing our water consumption. To say that providing water service to 21,166 new residents will have no impact to the current residents is incredible. Please provide a detailed plan and policies for how the City is going to handle the lack of water and still add water service without any impact. Alternatives None of the proposed alternatives reflect the concerns or wishes of the residents that were expressed in the outreach meetings. Those concerns include, but are not limited to acquiring more open space, maintaining neighborhood character, bikeability and walkability of public streets, safe and efficient traffic circulation, and increasing homeownership to balance the ratio between homeownership to rental housing. In addition, affordable housing is a concern, particularly with respect to housing for seniors and those who have low and very low incomes. _q(1_ Novi City of Costa Mesa April 18, 2016 Page 10 Please note that any request for information contained herein may not be my final request, as when I receive additional information that may generate more questions. Therefore, I reserve my right to make additional information requests. In addition, there are typographical, mathematical and other errors in the DGP that I will address separately when time allows. Thank you for your attention and I look forward to reviewing the City's response. /cm Very truly yours, I r � Cynthia McDonald r)S--I — COMMENT I-4 From: Robin Leffler Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 4:49 PM To: FLYNN, CLAIRE <CLAIRE.FLYNN@costamesaca.gov>; General Plan <GeneralPian@ci.costa- mesa.ca.us> Subject: Comments to the DEIR In the areas I looked at most closely there seem to be discrepancies in some of the figures presented for traffic and housing. The traffic consultant who spoke at the 4/4/16 Planning Commission said the General Plan Update would generate only 10,000 more trips than build -out of the current General Plan. During the 4/5/16 City Council meeting a different consultant, one hired to analyze impacts from the "Smart Growth" voter initiative, reported traffic would increase by 15,015 trips if the proposed General Plan Updates were fully built. I am concerned that the City Council will not know which figures to rely on, or if either is accurate. These analyses are at odds, and the discrepancy must be resolved before the EIR is deemed complete. From the 9/8/15 Joint City Council and Planning Commission Study session, the traffic analyst supplied data to the City Council, Planning Commission and Public (attachment 5, pg 41), that said Hospitals (incl. the Fairview Hospital Property) are deemed to generate 6,108 existing trips. With proposed Updates, the Property would generate 1, 579 trips, for a stated loss of -4,529 trips from current GP. The motel properties are deemed to generate 12, 793 existing trips and the same if the current GP is built out. With the proposed Updates, there would be a stated loss of -7,466 trips. Since neither Fairview Hospital or many of the Motels have been operating at peak capacity for many years the lower trip numbers are not accurate for existing conditions. The EIR should provide a more realistic view of the probable changes in traffic conditions before the EIR is deemed complete. There also seem to be approximately 5000 housing units that are missing in the final analyses. (At this point they are MIA. Please send in a recovery unit to determine if they are dead, wounded, or POW. If possible, bring them out alive... (- sorry, this stuff gets so serious, I just had to do that.)) There does appear to be an approximate 5000 unit discrepancy. Before the EIR is deemed complete, the discrepancy must be accounted for. This will also affect final traffic figures and may affect other areas such as rental/ownership ratio orjobs/housing ratios. All joking aside, it is critically important that Decision makers have an accurate idea of how traffic could change before they make their decision on the acceptability of the EIR. Thank you for your consideration, Robin Leffler Iq — 1 COMMENT I-5 From: Elaine Dethlefsen Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 12:41 PM To: ARMSTRONG, GARY <GARY_ARMSTRONGCo)ccstairie5,3ca.gC) > Subject: General Plan Impact draft I writing you to express my deep concern with the purposed General Plan Amendments. These are a few of items that concern me. By allowing more and more apartments, this will increase the transit population, and decreases the homeowner population. Apartment dwellers do not have a vested interest in the community. By not enforcing the height limitations on buildings, this has a big impact on the neighborhoods. Costa Mesa seems to be on a fast track to try and the second Los Angeles. Right now this city is a good example of very poor planning of neighborhood and business concerns. It is as if someone is throwing darts at the map of Costa Mesa, and where the dart lands, that is where the new buildings go up. There is not any mention of plans for senior living, low income, biking accommodations, and new parks. I don't mean "sports fields". Neither the city council, the planning commission, or the purposed draft address the following • Increased parking issues • Air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions • Increase noise pollution from construction, cars, and high buildings creating canyons of pollution/noise. • Increase water usage • Increase need for fire and police Please keep in mind, the crime rate in Costa Mesa if now at 33%. • Increase in traffic. Right now it is impossible to travel in Costa Mesa at certain times of the day without running into a traffic jam. • The negative impact of this unbridled building on the citizens' quality of life This unchecked building phase that the government of Costa Mesa is forcing upon the citizens of Costa Mesa has got to STOP. There are new houses going up at the end of my street right now. When I look at the houses, they do not have any yards, they are two story, and there is not any parking for the owners/guests. Can you explain where the children of these homeowners are going to play? Where are going to park? The architecture does not fit with the neighborhood. Who is the architect for these projects??? The new apartments and homes going up all over town looks like a five-year-old designed them. They are all square boxes. Thank you for your attention to this matter Elaine Dethefsen — 0U COMMENT I-6 April 18, 2016 (city general plan draft eir) City Council and Staff: The following are my comments regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Report. Please make them part of the public record. A very detailed Draft EIR still leaves several important issues in need of additional research and serious consideration. WATER: The draft EIR mentions several probable impacts of future development. I will focus on two where the problems are obvious to any educated layman: " necessity for additional water resources" and impact on "groundwater recharge by increasing impervious surfaces that could hinder percolation of drainage into subsurface aquifers." Unfortunately, what was hoped to be a short-term drought is now seen as a likely long-term and period. Several articles have recently been published warning that "Even when the epic drought ends,... California will still be losing water" (Jay Miglietti, Senior water scientist at NASA JPL. L.A. Times, April 16, 2016). Unfortunately, the reduction of permeable surfaces is already common in permitted developments with first, reduced required setbacks, and then additional variances and the allowance of rooftop decks as "open space." These practices must be stopped. In addition, any further reduction of permeable surfaces must not be permitted. The increased high density construction proposed in the draft general plan must not be allowed. "Necessity for additional water resources" is painfully obvious. Our water district has done an outstanding job managing our resources through engineering and through encouraging conservation by residents resulting in Costa Mesa meeting its goal of a 20% reduction. The EIR duly recognizes these efforts. However, it is an unacceptable premise that additional technological advances and sacrifice on the part of residents will increase to accommodate the increased population invited through the General Plan draft. Many residents have risen to the challenge. However, questions such as "Why should I take shorter showers in order to bring in excessive new population?" are increasingly voiced. There is no justification for a statement that more of the same, following the already substantial cutbacks, will reduce water consumption enough to accommodate this increasing population. In order to claim "less than significant impacts" the city is obligated to provide proof through additional studies, and not just general statements. Among other studies, average water usage per residence should be tallied, and the additional water cuts necessary per family based on the number of additional residences projected should be published. Current residents deserve to know what this increased density means in terms of less water for their families. -<9 I_ 1 In addition, credible projections for possible additional state-wide shortages must be researched and considered. RESIDENTIAL DENSITY AND RESPECT FOR CITY RESIDENTS: Current residents have spoken clearly that we wish to maintain the suburban atmosphere of Costa Mesa. Years ago, density and height limitations were discussed at length and maintenance of low-rise building south of the 405 was affirmed. More recently, a couple years ago, the city held a "Great Outreach," inviting families from all over the city. Two outcomes which should be honored but have been ignored are notable: 1. Speakers—most of whom had not spoken in a public forum before --lined up to say, essentially, "Leave the Westside alone." 2. A presentation of building types among which the attendees were supposed to choose was presented in a meeting room. The choices for style and density were, essentially choices between "bad" and "worse." Eventually there was a general rebellion on the part of the attendees saying that none of the choices were acceptable. Since that request for public opinion, however, the city councilmen have ignored the will of the people and approved development far worse that the worst that the presenters had to offer. ELIMINATION OF LOW-INCOME HOUSING VIA HARRASSMENT OF MOTEL OWNERS While addition of low-income housing is a difficult problem, the current push for elimination of such housing is unconscionable. Developers are often given incentives and/or variances to tear down modest low-rise housing and put in the crowded, intrusive developments I mentioned above. Even worse, through a concerted effort of harassment of motel owners and persistent demonizing of the motels and their residents, the limited amount of last -resort housing is being diminished. It's important to note that this housing is available through mutual agreements between the residents and the private business owners, with no demands for additional taxation or city interference. Besides the elimination of this mutually and privately agreed upon decision, the city is also interfering in private enterprise in a most unseemly manner. Until and unless reasonable alternatives become available, the current private -sector solutions should absolutely be encouraged. PARKING: Despite the repeated protestations by councilmen that "Costa Mesa" has the tightest parking requirements in the county, it is obvious that parking issues are serious and getting worse. We regularly hear requests in Council meetings for resident permit only parking. Excessive and increasing overflow parking is intruding on many neighborhoods and interfering with the "quiet enjoyment" of our homes and neighborhoods. This problem could be easily addressed, but the councilmen turn a deaf ear, and continue to make the problem worse. Sufficient resident and guest parking could easily be required of all new development—based on current parking needs -92-- 2 and habits—not those of 20 years ago. Appropriate studies and inclusion in the general plan can easily be accomplished if the council heeds the demands of the public In areas where excessive parking is already a problem, the city has some obligation to develop creative solutions. "Mitigation" is already sorely needed. Increase of this problem is inexcusable and avoidable. AIR QUALITY: Air quality seems to be an area where significant impacts are acknowledged. While hard for a resident to see or quantify, it is extremely important. Air pollution is obviously diminished with 5 increased traffic and idling at overburdened intersections. Reduction of the density which many residents are objecting to can help to protect our air quality. Thank you for your attention, and a special thank you to city staff members who work so hard to meet competing demands. Tamar Goldmann �?3 — COMMENT 0-7 From: Reggie Mundekis Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 8:32 AM To: ASHABI, MINOO <MINOO.ASHABI. costamesaca. ov> Subject: General Plan EIR Comment Please incorporate the following information into the EIR for the new General Plan. P94.5-3 and 4.5-4, Table CUL -1 City of Costa Mesa Historic Resources Inventory, Footnote 1 regarding #26 -The house formerly located at 2529 Santa Ana Ave, the Huscroft House, is listed as "relocated to a temporary location at the Orange County Fairgrounds until a permanent locations can be determined." This house is no longer at the Orange County Fairgrounds. Thank you, Reggie Mundekis 1 COMMENT I-8 From: Corinne Stover Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 11:32 AM To: ARMSTRONG, GARY <GARY.ARMSTR[7fdG(7cos_tamesaca,gov>; GREEN, BRENDA <brenda.greenpcostamesaca:gov>; FLYNN, CLAIRE <CLAIRE.FLYNN costamesaca. ov>; rdickson.cmpcCo7gmail.com; twseslerCaDgmail.com; colinkmccarthVC[Dyah oo.com; sandranianC7yahooxon aventrue[5)ca.rr.com Subject: Development Planning April 18, 2016 From: Corinne P. Stover To: Cary Armstrong City of Costa Mesa Development Department Two -hundred forty-one years ago, Paul Revere rode through the countryside warning his countrymen, "The British are coming!" (According to poet Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, anyway.) On this April 18th, your Costa Mesan "countrymen/women" hope to impress upon the Planning Department Planning Commission the need for a close look at what is being developed in this city. In a time of severe drought, the concept "less is more" applies to a need for being Qualitative about development. it is not feasible to continue building quantitatively, filling available areas with apartments! In my opinion, the live -work concept was not thoroughly "vetted" for Costa Mesa. The developer, thinking it a good idea, did not plan funding for a monitoring system for compliance! The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is not meant to stymie development. It gives parameters for quality development. Isn't that why we have criteria for compliance? Isn't it fitting for developers and planners to think first to accommodate compliance, rather than plan for modifications? Where is quality when projects continually provoke modification? This is what I see happening in Costa Mesa: minimize area bebNeen buildings, let 2nd floors overhang lower floors, rooftops as "open space." To paraphrase Longfellow, "The Developers are here!" This countrywoman wants our city's growth to be smart, waterwise, design -worthy, and allow for more mobility. Compliance begins and ends in the development department, equipped with all the concerns of its constituents from Summer, 2013. There were no hammers at those meetings! "The man with a hammer walks in search of a nail." Copies: Brenda Green Claire Flynn Planning Commissioners: Robert Dickson, Jr„ Tim Sesler, Colin McCarthy Stephan Andranian Jeff Matthews �S_ 1 COMMENT I-9 From: Beth Morley Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 1:43 PM To: General Plan<GeneralPian@ci.cost_a-mesa.ca.us> Cc: GREEN, BRENDA <brenda.green@costamesaca.gov>; ARMSTRONG, GARY <GARY.ARMSTRONG Pcostamesaca. ov> Subject: Opposed to the General Plan Ammendments To All— I am very concerned, as well as opposed to the proposed General Plan Amendments. I am a 30 year resident on the West side of Costa Mesa. My specific objections is the lack of mitigation that the impact of housing density, noise 1 and air pollution, lack of open space, enormous traffic congestion and scarcity of water will create. PLEASE the draft Environmental Impact Report General Plan Amendments need to be REWRITTEN! Thank you for your consideration— Beth Morley COMMENT I-10 From: William Harader Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 9:57 AM To: General Plan <GeneralPlan ci.costa-rnesa.ca.us> Subject: Comments to the DEIR associated with General Plan update The changes to certain parts of the City by proposed General Plan Amendments are not acceptable because of the impacts those changes will have on C.M.residents. Those impacts are the following: Additional density that does not bring more homeownership opportunities to the City, but instead brings more apartments. Need for height limitations on buildings south of 405 freeway; Displacement of residents as a result of redevelopment of selected properties without a plan to provide replacement housing; No plan to provide affordable housing for seniors and low income residents; No concrete plan to add walkability and bikeability to the City; Increased parking issues; Lowering the level of service at 21 intersections in the City to the level of congestion experienced at NB Blvd. and 17th St.; Increased air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions; Increased air noise levels as a result of the canyon effect created by tall buildings and sound attenuating walls on arterial roads; Inability to provide new parks and open space to keep up with substantial deterioration of existing facilities by the increase in use due to increase in population; and No plan to address the scarcity of water sources There are virtually none of the alternatives offered by the City to mitigate these impacts. The alternatives do not address protecting the health, safety, and quality of life of the residents. The Draft Environmental Impact Report needs to be rewritten to address the concerns of residents to acquiring more open space, maintaining neighborhood character, bikeability and walkability of public streets, safe and efficient traffic circulation, increasing homeownership to balance the ratio between homeownership to rental housing, and providing for more affordable housing. Thank you for your consideration. William C. Harader From: Laurene Keane Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 3:10 PM To: General Plan <Genera[Plan@ci.costa-mesa.ca.us>; GREEN, BRENDA <bre nda .,green@ costa mesaca.gov>; ARMSTRONG, GARY<GARY.ARMSTRONG@costamesaca.goy> Subject: General plan draft EIR resident comment- please add to the report and make part of the public record. To Whom it May Concern: Re: Draft EIR General plan -Costa Mesa The following are my comments to the Draft Environmental Impact Report. Please make them part of the public record. The changes to certain parts of the City by the proposed General Plan Amendments are unacceptable to me because of the impacts those changes will have on the residents. The impacts that concern me are as follows: Additional density that does not bring more homeownership opportunities to the City, but instead brings more apartments; Loss of height limitations on buildings south of the 405 freeway; Displacement of residents as a result of redevelopment of selected properties without a plan to provide replacement housing; No plan to provide affordable housing for seniors and low and very -low income residents; No concrete plan to add walkability and bikeability to the City; Increased parking issues; Lowering the level of service at 21 intersections in the City to the level of congestion experienced at Newport Boulevard and 171 Street; Increased air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions; Increased noise levels as a result of the canyon effect created by tail buildings and sound attenuating walls on arterial roads; Inability to provide new parks and open space to keep up with the substantial deterioration of existing facilities by the increase in use due to increase in population; and No plan to address the scarcity of water sources. None of the alternatives offered by the City mitigate these impacts. The alternatives do not address protecting the health, safety and quality of life of the residents. The Draft Environmental Impact Report needs to be rewritten to address the concerns of the residents, including acquiring more open space, maintaining neighborhood character, bikeability and walkability of public streets, safe and efficient traffic circulation, increasing homeownership to balance the ratio between homeownership to rental housing, and providing for more affordable housing. I have attended many meetings where residents have voiced their concerns, and offered suggestions 1 would like to see included in the General plan. Thank you for your consideration. Laurene Keane Costa Mesa Resident — 817• _ 2 From: Lisa Lawrence Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 12:51 PM To: General Plan <GeneralPlanC7ci.costa-mesa.ca.us> Cc: ARMSTRONG, GARY <GARY.ARMSTRONG@costamesaca.gov>; GREEN, BRENDA <brenda.jgreen @ costam esa ca.gov> Subject: Draft environmental impact report To whom it may concern, The changes to certain parts of the City by the proposed General Plan Amendments are unacceptable because of the impacts those changes will have on the residents. Those impacts are as follows: Displacement of residents as a result of redevelopment of selected properties without a plan to provide replacement housing; No plan to provide affordable housing for seniors and low and very -low income residents; No concrete plan to add walkabilityand bikeability to the City; Increased parking issues; Lowering the level of service at 21 intersections in the City to the level of congestion experienced at Newport Boulevard and 171h Street; Increased air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions; Increased noise levels as a result of the canyon effect created by tall buildings and sound attenuating walls on arterial roads; Inability to provide new parks and open space to keep up with the substantial deterioration of existing facilities by the increase in use due to increase in population; and No plan to address the scarcity of water sources. Thank you for your consideration, Sincerely. Lisa Lawrence 1 The following are my comments to the Draft Environmental Impact Report. Please make them part of the public record. The changes to certain parts of the City by the proposed General Plan Amendments are unacceptable because of the impacts those changes will have on the residents. Those impacts are as follows: Additional density that does not bring more homeownership opportunities to the City, but instead brings more apartments; Loss of height limitations on buildings south of the 405 freeway; 1 Displacement of residents as a result of redevelopment of selected properties without a plan to provide replacement housing; No plan to provide affordable housing for seniors and low and very -low income residents; No concrete plan to add walkability and bikeability to the City; Increased parking issues; Lowering the level of service at 21 intersections in the City to the level of congestion experienced at Newport Boulevard and l VhStreet; Increased air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions; Increased noise levels as a result of the canyon effect created by tall buildings and sound attenuating walls on arterial roads; Inability to provide new parks and open space to keep up with the substantial deterioration of existing facilities by the increase in use due to increase in population; and No plan to address the scarcity of water sources. None of the alternatives offered by the City mitigate these impacts. The alternatives do not address protecting the health, safety and quality of life of the residents. The Draft Environmental Impact Report 2 needs to be rewritten to address the concerns of the residents including acquiring more open space, maintaining neighborhood character, bikeability and walkability of public streets, safe and efficient traffic circulation, increasing homeownership to balance the ratio between homeownership to rental housing, and providing for more affordable housing. Thank you for your consideration. Judy Lindssay _qo- From: Ralph Taboada Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 12:01 PM To: General Plan<GeneraIPlan@ci.cos#a-mesa.ca.us> Cc: GREEN, BRENDA <brenda.green costamesaca.gav>; ARMSTRONG, GARY <tiA ii Y . A R IVi S.r RO N G @costa m esaca.gov> Subject: GP Draft EIR I have many concerns about the draft EIR. I do not believe it adequately addresses the following: 1. -- loss of height limitations on buildings especially south of the 405 freeway 2. -- no plan for replacement housing for residents displaced by redevelopment of selected properties 3. -- no plan to provide affordable housing for seniors and low and very low income residents 4. -- no concrete plan to add walkability and bikeability to the City 5. -- lowering of level of service at 21 intersections in the City to the level of congestion experienced at Newport Blvd and 17th Street. 6. -- additional density that does not bring more homeownership opportunities to the City but instead brings in more apartments 7. -- increased noise levels as a result of the canyon effect created by tall buildings 8. -- inability to provide new parks and open space to keep up with the substantial deterioration of existing facilities by the increase in use due to increase in population 9. -- increased air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions 10. -- no plan to address the scarcity of water resources The EIR needs to be revised because it does not address protecting the health, safety, and quality of life of Costa Mesa residents. The draft needs to be revised because it does not address the concerns of residents such as acquiring more open space, maintaining neighborhood character, bikeability and the walkability of public streets. Thank you Ralph Taboada April 18, 2016 Re: Environmental Impact Report General Plan Amendments CC: Brenda Green, City Clerk Gary Armstrong , Development Dep. i- LEC>r I'VLV CITY CLP" --RK 16 APR 19 AM 8: 2 7 �'� n� .•nr d er BI s ri ' The following are my comments to the Draft Environmental Impact Report. Please make them part of the public record. The changes to certain parts of the proposed General Plan Amendments are unacceptable because of the impact those changes would have on residents. Those impacts are as follows: Additional density that does not bring more home ownership opportunities to the City, but instead brings more apartments Loss of height limitations on buildings south of the 405 freeway Displacement of residents as a result of the development of selected properties without a plan to provide replacement housing. _qZ- 1 Environmental Impact Report General Plan Amendments No plan to provide affordable housing for seniors and low and very low income residents. No concrete plan to add walk ability and bike ability to the City Increased parking issues Lowering the level of service at 21 intersections in the City to the level of the congestion experience at Newport Boulevard and 17th Street Increased air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions Increased noise levels as a result of the canyon effect created by tall buildings and sound attenuating walls on arterial roads Inability to provide new parks and open space to keep up with the substantial deterioration of existing facilities by the increase in use due to the increase in population No plan to address the scarcity of water sources None of the alternatives offered by the City mitigate these impacts. The alternatives do not address protecting the health, safety and quality of life of the residents. -q3- 2 The Draft Environment Impact Report needs to be rewritten to address the concerns of the residents including acquiring more open space and maintaining the neighborhood character the concerns of the residents including acquiring more open space and maintaining neighborhood character Public streets need to be made safer with walk ability and bike ability as well as efficient traffic circulation Increasing home ownership to balance the ratio with rental housing and providing more affordable housing T.aak-you for your consideration. James Locker CM — 1 From: Anna Vrska Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 4:29 PM To: General Plan <GeneralPlan ci.costa-mesa.ca.us> Cc: GREEN, BRENDA <brenda.green@costamesaca.g>; ARMSTRONG, GARY <GARY.A RM STRON G @costa m esa ca.goy> Subject: Draft EIR Comments Good Afternoon, The following are my comments to the Draft Environmental Impact Report. Please make them part of the public record. The changes to certain parts of the City by the proposed General Plan Amendments are unacceptable because of the impacts those changes will have on residents. Those impacts are: Additional density that does not bring more homeownership opportunities to the City, but instead brings more apartments; Loss of height limitations on buildings south of the 405 freeway; Displacement of residents as a result of redevelopment of selected properties without a plan to provide replacement housing; No plan to provide affordable housing for seniors and low and very -low income residents; No concrete plan to add walkability and bikeability to the City Increased parking issues; Lowering the level of service at 21 intersections in the City to the level of congestion experienced at Newport Boulevard and 17th Street; Increased air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions; Increased noise levels as a result of the canyon effect created by tall buildings and sound attenuating walls on arterial roads; Inadequate protective measures for biological and archeological resources at Fairview Park; Inability to provide new parks and open space to keep up with the substantial deterioration of existing facilities by the increase in use due to increase in population; and No plan to address the scarcity of water sources. None of the alternatives offered by the City mitigate these impacts. The alternatives do not address protectingJ 2 the health, safety and quality of life of the residents. The Draft Environmental Impact Report needs to be rewritten to address the concerns of the residents including acquiring more open space, maintaining neighborhood character, bikeability and walkability of public streets, safe and efficient traffic circulation, increasing homeownership to balance the ratio between homeownership to rental housing, and providing for more affordable housing. Thank you. Anna Vrska —q5— April 18, 2016 Re: Environmental Impact Report General Plan Amendments CC: Brenda Green, City Clerk Gary Armstrong , Development Dep. i'lLI�E iv LJ CITY CLERIC 16 APR 19 AM 8: 2 7 i T" -- �;,/r ' u ; �i E 5 F1 !� I�1, The following are my comments to the Draft Environmental Impact Report. Please make them part of the public record. The changes to certain parts of the proposed General Plan Amendments are unacceptable because of the impact those changes would have on residents. Those impacts are as follows: Additional density that does not bring more home ownership opportunities to the City, but instead brings more apartments Loss of height limitations on buildings south of the 405 freeway Displacement of residents as a result of the development of selected properties without a plan to provide replacement housing. Page 2 Environmental Impact Report General Plan Amendments No plan to provide affordable housing for seniors and low and very low income residents. 1 No concrete plan to add walk ability and bike ability to the City Increased parking issues Lowering the level of service at 21 intersections in the City to the level of the congestion experience at Newport Boulevard and 17th Street Increased air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions Increased noise levels as a result of the canyon effect created by tall buildings and sound attenuating walls on arterial roads Inability to provide new parks and open space to keep up with the substantial deterioration of existing facilities by the increase in use due to the increase in population No plan to address the scarcity of water sources None of the alternatives offered by the City mitigate these 2 impacts. The alternatives do not address protecting the health, safety and quality of life of the residents. (qq - The Draft Environment Impact Report needs to be rewritten to address the concerns of the residents including acquiring more open space and maintaining the neighborhood character the concerns of the residents including acquiring more open space and maintaining neighborhood character Public streets need to be made safer with walk ability and bike ability as well as efficient traffic circulation Increasing home ownership to balance the ratio with rental housing and providing more affordable housing Thank you for your consideration. eves a I a r(qF5 r April 18, 2016 Re: Environmental Impact Report General Plan Amendments CC: Brenda Green, City Clerk Gary Armstrong, Development Dep. HELCI'/Lu CITY CLERK 16 APR 19 AM 8- 2 7 (y ivi���:r F` The following are my comments to the Draft Environmental Impact Report. Please make them part of the public record. 1 The changes to certain parts of the proposed General Plan Amendments are unacceptable because of the impact those changes would have on residents. Those impacts are as follows: Additional density that does not bring more home ownership opportunities to the City, but instead brings more apartments Loss of height limitations on buildings south of the 405 freeway Displacement of residents as a result of the development of selected properties without a plan to provide replacement housing. NUM Page 2 Environmental Impact Report General Plan Amendments No plan to provide affordable housing for seniors and low and very low income residents. No concrete plan to add walk ability and bike ability to the City Increased parking issues Lowering the level of service at 21 intersections in the City to the level of the congestion experience at Newport Boulevard and 17th Street Increased air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions Increased noise levels as a result of the canyon effect created by tall buildings and sound attenuating walls on arterial roads Inability to provide new parks and open space to keep up with the substantial deterioration of existing facilities by the increase in use due to the increase in population No plan to address the scarcity of water sources None of the alternatives offered by the City mitigate these 2 impacts. The alternatives do not address protecting the health, safety and quality of life of the residents. 1W, Page 3 The Draft Environment Impact Report needs to be rewritten to address the concerns of the residents including acquiring more open space and maintaining the neighborhood character 1 the concerns of the residents including acquiring more open space and maintaining neighborhood character Public streets need to be made safer with walk ability and bike ability as well as efficient traffic circulation Increasing home ownership to balance the ratio with rental housing and providing more affordable housing Thank you for your consideration. ��iceKre�ssin —101— From: Georgette Quinn Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 6:33 AM To: MONAHAN, GARY <GARY.MONAHAN costamesaca. ov>; RIGHEIMER, JIM <JIM.R1GHEIMER cOcostamesaca.-tov>; FOLEY, KATRINA <KATRINA.FOLEY costamesaca, ova; GENTS, SANDRA <SANDRA.GENIS costamesa ova; Mayor <Ma or costamesa ova Subject: General Plan Amendments Hello, I am concerned about the fact that the city council is making changes to our city without listening to the residents. We could accept change if the changes took into consideration the of making Costa Mesa a city that is livable to all. Not just cramming in wherever you can high density housing that will bring in the following impacts: Additional density that does not bring more homeownership opportunities to the City, but instead brings more apartments; Loss of height limitations on buildings south of the 405 freeway; Displacement of residents as a result of redevelopment of selected properties without a plan to provide replacement housing; • No plan to provide affordable housing for seniors and low and very -low income residents; No concrete plan to add walkability and bikeability to the City; Increased parking issues; Lowering the level of service at 21 intersections in the City to the level of congestion experienced at Newport Boulevard and 17thStreet; Increased air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions; Increased noise levels as a result of the canyon effect created by tall buildings and sound attenuating walls on arterial roads; Inability to provide new parks and open space to keep up with the substantial deterioration of existing facilities by the increase in use due to increase in population; and No plan to address the scarcity of water sources. None of the alternatives offered by the City mitigate these impacts. The alternatives do not address protecting the health, safety and quality of life of the residents. The Draft Environmental 2 Impact Report needs to be rewritten to address the concerns of the residents including acquiring more open space, maintaining neighborhood character, bikeability and walkability of public streets, safe and efficient traffic circulation, increasing homeownership to balance the ratio between homeownership to rental housing, and providing for more affordable housing. Thank you for your consideration. Cteorgette M. 646nw Ol tST- COMMENT I-11 �l1 - I April 11, 2016 TO: ROBERT L. DICKSON, JR. Chair, Costa Mesa Planning Commission JEFF MATHEWS, Vice Chair, Costa Mesa Planning Commissioner STEPHAN ANDRANIAN, Costa Mesa Planning Commissioner COLIN MCCARTHY, Costa Mesa Planning Commissioner TIM SESLER, Costa Mesa Planning Commissioner As per Page 9 of the Planning Commission's agenda for tonight's meeting, I read, "The Draft EIR and Technical Appendices will be available for review and comment for 45 [forty-five] days commencing March 4, 2016 at 8:00 am and ending on April 18, 2016 at 5:00 pm. Costa Mesa's Office of the City Clerk provided me with a CD that has the large PDF of the Proposed General Plan, the Draft EIR and all Technical Appendices. I was intending to further study this material and submit comments all during this coming week. On Page 14 of tonight's agenda, I read '._.Costa Mesa Planning Commission hereby recommends.., PASSED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of April, 2416 " I request that you not pass Item 1 of tonight's agenda. Please respect the citizens of Costa Mesa by following the letter of the law and providing us with the full 45 -day period in which to submit our comments. Respectfully submitted, Flo Martin, 49 -year resident of Costa Mesa, CA RecelVed City of Costa Mesa Development Services Department APR 112016 To: Mrs. Brenda Green, City Clerk ON RE: Planning Commission 04/11/16 c_; — C7 Fr: Public Hearing, item 1 `; F— < �5 =r ► ; rr Date: 04/11/2016 n' ti I am filing an objection to the above item. The comments and public input is, according to your documents, open for one more week. I question the ability to cut short the time for residents to make comments and submit emails and letters. Hopefully, this was a typographical error and will be corrected, forthwith. Sincerely, Mary Spadoni -104- 1 COLGAN, JULIE Subject: Violation of process of CEQA From: C B Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 4:38 PM To: GREEN, BRENDA <Brenda..oreen@costarnesaca.eov>; DUNN, MICHAEL<NIICHAEL.DUNN@costamesaca,,goy>; HATCH, THOMAS<TKOMAS. _HATC_H@costamesaca.JZOV> Subject: Violation of process of CEQA Attn: Tom Hatch City Manager/ CEO of Costa Mesa Brenda Green -City Clerk of Costa Mesa Hello, I am writing to voice my objection to what I believe a gross violation of due process of the California Enviromental Quality Act-CEQA. Listed as notice on the planning commission agenda for April 11, 2016: Agenda notice for tonights Planning Commission: Approve by adoption of Planning Commission Resolutions for the following actions: 1. Recommend that the City Council certify Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) – SCH No. 2015111068 and; 2. Recommend that the City Council adopt 201-2035 General Plan costamesaca.,gpvii ndex.aspx'?page= 1966 The DEIR cannot certify and/or adopt the General Plan prior to the close of the comment period, which was noticed as March 4 2016 through April 18 2016. "The General Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Report and Technical Appendices are available for review and comment for =13 days commencing March 'I, 2016 at 8:00 am and ending on April 18, 2016 at 5:00 pm. Written comments on the Draft EIR must be submitted by April 18, 2016 by 5:00 pm to the City of Costa Mesa." Please correct this error and clarify to the public that a mistake has been made. I also suggest that the comment period be extended as result of this error in notification. Thank you, Cindy Black 1 OS— 1 Frohn: Brian Burnett Subject: Costa Mesa General Plan Update Draft EIR Comments And Questions Date: April 16, 2016 at 12:39 AM To: generaiolam' costa iresaca.go The following are questions, comments, and requests regarding the Costa Mesa General Plan Update Draft EIR: 1. The city has surveys of confirmed observations that prove the endangered California Gnatcatcher is in the park. Local park users, photographers, amateur biologists, and professional biologists have pictures and coordinates of them There are also confirmed observations of nesting pairs. Where are the surveys including breeding surveys for California Gnatcatchers? Why were the surveys including breeding surveys not included for California Gnatcatchers? There needs to be a California Gnatcatcher survey that includes a breeding season survey. 2. There is no mention of Burrowing Owls past 2006 in the draft EIR yet there have been confirmed observations and pictures of them in the park up until 2016. Where are the surveys including breeding surveys for the Burrowing Owls? Why were surveys including breeding surveys not included for the Burrowing Owls? There needs to be a Burrowing Owl survey that includes a wintering and breeding season survey. 3. The city has inadvertently or purposely destroyed or degraded Southern Tarplant, Vernal Pool, Burrowing Owl, Riverine, Riparian, and other habitat over the years. Where is the study to shows the effects of this inadvertent or purposeful destruction or degradation of habitat in Fairview Park? There needs to be a study of past destruction and degradation of the park and what ifs effects were 4. The city knows about a nesting pair of Northern Harriers in Fairview Park. They have been residents in the park for quite some time. Where are the surveys including breeding surveys for the Northern Harriers? Why were surveys including breeding surveys not included for the Northern Harriers? There needs to be a survey including a breeding survey for Northern Harriers 5. The city had contractors restore numerous large sections of the rare, endangered, and protected Southern Tarplant over the years in Fairview Park. There status has been confirmed many times over the years and would only not be in the park unless the plants were purposely destroyed. Where are the surveys for Southern Tarplant? Why were surveys for Southern Tarplant not included? 6. Fairview Park has some of the last coastal vernal pools in California. Vernal Pool 1 is the largest coastal vernal pool west of the Mississippi Despite their federally protected status, they have been degraded by the city of Costa Mesa either inadvertently or purposely over the years Where are the surveys that document the destruction of this habitat? Where are the surveys that document the current status of the vernal pools and their recommendations to restore them? Where are the management plans to protect the vernal pools for future generations? Where is the correspondence from the USFWS regarding the vernal pools? There needs to be surveys that document previous destruction or degradation of the vernal pools to help prevent anymore destruction or degradation in the future There needs to be surveys to document the current status of the vernal pools East and West of Placentia Avenue. 7. Where is the rare or endangered plant survey? Why is there no rare or endangered plant survey? Th— --Ir to ha — cmH=nn—mri nl�nt ci—r— 10(.0— 8 Where is the vegetation mapping? Why is there no vegetation mapping? 9. Where is the long term maintenance plan? Why is there no long term maintenance plan? 10. Where is the entomological survey? Why is there no entomological survey? 11. Where is the herpetological survey? Why is there no herpetological survey? 12. Where is the pacific chorus frog survey? Why is there no pacific chorus frog survey? 13. Where is the spade foot toad survey? Why is there no spade foot toad survey? 14. Where is the biological inventory survey? Why is there no biological inventory survey? 15. Where are the surveys including breeding surveys for the Yellow Breasted Chat? Why were surveys including breeding surveys not included for the Yellow Breasted Chat? 16. Where is the trap door spider survey? Why is there no trap door spider survey? 17. Where are the surveys including breeding surveys for all of the other rare, of concern, special status, or endangered species? Why were surveys including breeding surveys not included for all of the other rare, of concern, special status, or endangered species? IOn — From: Brian Burnett Subject: Costa Mesa General Plan Update Draft EIR Comments And Questions II Date: April 16, 2016 at 12:47 AM To: generalplarj'2cos,amesaca.go,, The previous email with comments, questions, and requests for the General Plan Update Draft EIR were regarding Fairview Park in Costa Mesa. -I 0g HAMILTON BIOLOGICAL April 18, 2016 Ms. Claire Flynn Assistant Development Services Director City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, California 92626 SUBJECT: COMMENTS ON CITY OF COSTA MESA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Dear Ms. Flynn, On behalf of Hamilton Biological, Inc., I provide these comments on the Draft EIR for the City of Costa Mesa's General Plan Update. I submit these comments out of my own concern for the City and its natural resources. I am a professional biological consultant with 28 years of experience working primarily in Orange County and surrounding ju- risdictions. In 1994, I planned and initiated the volunteer restoration of coastal sage scrub in the canyon near the entrance to Fairview Park, and in 1995 I prepared the bio- logical resources section of the original Fairview Park Master Plan. Since then, I have remained interested in the biological resources of Fairview Park and the wider lower Santa Ana River ecosystem. My comments address Section 4.4, Biological Resources. I am qualified to provide this review, having prepared the biological resources section for numerous CEQA documents throughout Orange County and the wider region, and also having reviewed many such documents; my Curriculum Vitae is attached. PAGE 4-4.1: SOURCES OF INFORMATION The DEIR lists several sources of information consulted. For plants, primary sources of occurrence information should be the Consortium of California Herbaria and Calflora: http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/consortium/ http:/ /www.calflora.org/ The consortium provides a consolidated list of plant specimens collected all over the state, and maps of the locations can be accessed through Calfora. Calflora also accepts photo -documented records and maps their locations. The DEIR does cite Calflora in the accounts of special -status species recoded in Fairview Park, but Calflora and the Con- sortium should also have been consulted for the lists of plant species reported to have 316 Monrovia Avenue Long Beach, CA 90803 562-477-2181 robb@hamiltonbiological.com 1()q Review of Costa Mesa General Plan Update DEIR April 18, 2016 Hamilton Biological, Inc. Page 2 of 6 "confirmed observations" in Table 4.4-3 of the DEIR. As discussed subsequently, sever- al entries are questionable. For bird records (Table 4.4-5), it is standard for CEQA documents to utilize the eBird data base as a source of basic distribution information: http://ebird.org/ The eBird web page provides vetted, updated records of bird species recorded in vari- ous parts of Costa Mesa, including Fairview Park and many other locations. Some rec- ords in eBird may be questionable in spite of vetting, meaning that the biologist prepar- ing the CEQA document should have adequate experience to know which records are suspect. Nevertheless eBird must be consulted for any CEQA document that attempts to assemble a reasonably complete bird species list in a city the size of Costa Mesa. It is not clear whether the Fairview Park Master Plan and its supporting biological doc- uments were actually consulted as part of the descriptions of plant and wildlife species known or expected to occur in Costa Mesa. The tables of species do not reflect what is contained in the Master Plan. For example, a report prepared for the City by LSA Asso- ciates, Inc., dated June 28, 2007, entitled, "Update to the Biological Constraints and In- formation for the Fairview Park Master Plan, City of Costa Mesa, County of Orange, California," contains a considerable amount of information that is inconsistent with the information contained in the General Plan Update DEIR. The letter is available online: http: / /www.ci.costa-mesa.ca.us/ fairviewpark/ docs/ Fairview-Park-Biological- Survey.pdf This letter is referred to hereafter as (LSA 2007). TABLE 4-4.1: PLANTS OF GRASSLAND COMMUNITIES This table indicates various plant species with very limited distributions in Orange County as having been confirmed as being present in Costa Mesa. To my knowledge, most of them are very unlikely to have been recorded in Costa Mesa in modern times, if ever. Questionable species include Desert Needlegrass (Achnatherum speciosum), Red - skinned Onion (Allium haematochiton), and Southwestern Beardgrass (Andropogon glom- eratus), but many others are similarly unlikely to have been recorded in Costa Mesa. At the same time, Table 4-4.2 is missing numerous common plant species known to occur in Costa Mesa (e.g., Ripgut Brome Bromus diandrus and Short -podded Mustard Hirsch- feldia incana). Additionally, many plant species names are misspelled or represent older names no longer in use (e.g., "Hemixonia Parryi ssp. Australis" should be Centromadia parryi ssp. australis). It is requested that the EIR preparer review Table 4-4.1 against the distributional and taxonomic information available through Calflora/Consortium of California Herbaria, as well as the Fairview Park Master Plan and supporting biological reports. Species not known from Costa Mesa should be removed, all species that have been recorded in Costa Mesa should be added, and taxonomy and spelling should be 110 Review of Costa Mesa General Plan Update DEIR Hamilton Biological, Inc. April 18, 2016 Page 3 of 6 carefully reviewed in order for Table 4-4.1 to provide a valid reference. As it stands, this table is far more confusing than it is useful. TABLES 4-4.1, 4-4.2, 4-4.3 These tables indicate that various plant species have been confirmed as being present, but that seem to me very unlikely to have been recorded in Costa Mesa in modern times, if ever. Questionable species include Desert Needlegrass (Achnatherum speciosum), Red -skinned Onion (Allium haematochiton), Southwestern Beardgrass (Andropogon glom- eratus), and Chocolate Lily (Fritillaria biflora), Big -leaf Maple (Acer macrophyllum), Sword Fern (Polystichum munitum), Canyon Live Oak (Quercus chrysolepis), and California Bay Laurel (Umbellularis californica), but several others are similarly unlikely to have been recorded in Costa Mesa. At the same time, these tables are missing numerous common plant species known to occur in these communities in Costa Mesa (e.g., Ripgut Brome Bromus diandrus and Short -podded Mustard Hirschfeldia incana). Additionally, many plant species names are misspelled or represent older names no longer in use (e.g., "Hemixonia Parryi ssp. Australis" should be Centromadia parryi ssp. australis). It is re- quested that the EIR preparer review these tables against the distributional and taxo- nomic information available through Calflora/Consortium of California Herbaria, as well as the Fairview Park Master Plan and supporting biological reports. In order for these tables to provide valid reference information, species not known from Costa Mesa should be removed, species that have been recorded in Costa Mesa should be added, and taxonomy and spelling should be carefully reviewed. In addition, vernal pools represent one of the most important plant communities found in Costa Mesa. Therefore, either Table 4-4.1 should be expanded to include vernal pool plants in addition to grassland plants, or another table should be provided to include vernal pool plants. PAGE 4-4.5: LEAST BELLS VIREO This page states, "Least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii ptitsillus) which inhabits riparian and ter- restrial fields, shrubland, chaparral, and woodlands." This is not an accurate descrip- tion of the plant communities used by this listed species, which in the City of Costa Me- sa is limited to patches of riparian scrub and woodland habitat. The EIR should specify where in Costa Mesa the Least Bell's Vireo has been found in recent years. This is true of all special -status species discussed in the EIR. PAGES 4-4.5,.4-4.9: BURROWING OWL Page 4-4.5 states, "The burrowing owl is a wild indigenous species of predatory bird that uses abandoned rodent burrows for nests. It is currently on the Audubon Society Blue List of rare birds and is a California Species of Special Concern." To the best of my knowledge, the National Audubon Society has not maintained its "Blue List" for many Review of Costa Mesa General Plan Update DEIR April 18, 2016 Hamilton Biological, Inc. Page 4 of 6 years, and it is questionable whether the "Blue List" ever had any regulatory relevance for CEQA. At this point, it is inappropriate to cite the "Blue List" in a CEQA document. Page 4-4.9 states, "Although most burrowing owl breeders are migratory, both locally and long distance, Southern California populations are generally considered resident." If the EIR preparer is aware of Burrowing Owls being resident in Fairview Park, or elsewhere in Costa Mesa, the source of this information should be disclosed. It is my best understanding that this owl presently occurs only as a migrant and winter visitor (e.g. LSA 2007). PAGE 4-4.8: BELDING'S SAVANNAH SPARROW This page states, "Belding's savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi) is one of few species of birds that reside year-round in coastal salt marshes of Southern Cali- fornia. It inhabits coastal salt marshes from Santa Barbara south through San Diego County. It nests in pickleweed (Salicornia virginica) on and about the margins of tidal flats. Locally it is known from the Santa Ana River mouth." Do any Belding's Savannah Sparrows actually occur within the City of Costa Mesa, or are they limited to nearby ar- eas, such as the Santa Ana River mouth? PAGE 4-4.5: COAST HORNED LIZARD This page refers to the "Coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma loronatum)", which is currently known as Blainville's Horned Lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii). I am unaware of any rec- ords of this reptile from Costa Mesa during modern times, and would be surprised to find it, even in Fairview Park. On what basis is it reported as occurring anywhere in the City, even rarely? TABLE 4.4-4: AMPHIBIANS, REPTILES, AND MAMMALS Questions and comments: As a general comment, listing species in alphabetical order makes it difficult for biologists to review the lists. It would be greatly preferable to organize tables ac- cording to the standard scientific order. The San Diego Black -tailed Jackrabbit (Lepus californims bennetti) is a California Species of Special Concern (although not so indicated in the table). I observed this hare in the lower Santa Ana River area during the early 1990s but have not seen one there in more than 20 years. It was not reported during biological sur- veys completed in 2005 and 2006 (LSA 2007). Are there any recent records from Costa Mesa? • The Desert Woodrat (Neotoma lepida) is a California Species of Special Concern, not so indicated in the table. - 11z- Review of Costa Mesa General Plan Update DEIR April 18, 2016 Hamilton Biological, Inc. Page 5 of 6 • When was the last time a Long-tailed Weasel was recorded in Costa Mesa? ■ The Coast Patch -nosed Snake is a California Species of Special Concern, not so indicated in the table. • On what basis is the Western Terrestrial Garter Snake (Thamnophis elegans) a "confirmed observation"? The range of this species does not include Orange County. • Why is there no mention of the Southwestern Pond Turtle (Actinemys pallida)? TABLE 4.4-5: BIRDS Questions and comments: The Cactus Wren (Campylorhynchus bricnneicapillus) appears to have been extir- pated from the lower Santa Ana River ecosystem, including Fairview Park, with- in the past decade. LSA (2007) did not report any sightings from Fairview Park, and the last bird was recorded at nearby Banning Ranch in 2009. Unless the EIR preparer is aware of recent records, this species should be presumed extirpated. Why is there no mention of the Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila califor- nica californica) anywhere in the DEIR? This federally threatened species has been repeatedly documented in various parts of Fairview Park over a period of many years. Does Costa Mesa include any designated Critical Habitat for the gnat - catcher? • The Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus), a California Species of Special Concern, has been documented in Fairview Park (e.g., LSA 2007, eBird data). • The Yellow -breasted Chat (Icteric vixens), a California Species of Special Concern, has been documented in Fairview Park (e.g., LSA 2007). On what basis does the DEIR claim that the Black -chinned Sparrow (Spizella arto- gularis) has been observed in Costa Mesa? PAGE 4-4.11: SOUTHERN COASTAL SALT MARSH The DEIR discusses this plant community, but fails to identify where in Costa Mesa it occurs. Where does it occur? PAGE 4-4.11: SENSITIVE COMMUNITIES NOT DISCUSSED The DEIR fails to mention coastal sage scrub, coastal bluff scrub, vernal pools, riparian scrub, and native grasslands, all natural communities of special interest that occur in Costa Mesa. Review of Costa Mesa General Plan Update DEIR April 18, 2016 CONCLUSION Hamilton Biological, Inc. Page 6 of 6 The Biological Resources section of the DEIR shows no indication that the EIR preparer has meaningful familiarity with the natural communities present in the City of Costa Mesa, or the special -status species known/ potentially present there. The section is poor- ly organized, rife with errors, and provides little effective guidance on how decision - makers in the City should move forward to achieve some of the overarching goals in the document, such as, "Carefully balance natural lands, habitat, and protection of multiple species with the need to accommodate development." To achieve such a goal, the EIR should provide detailed and reliable information on the resources present in the City, the locations where they are found, and the planning framework needed to conserve important populations. Unfortunately, the DEIR falls far short of that goal. It would be preferable that the DEIR be revised to provide the requisite information in readable form, but beyond that perhaps the FEIR can correct some of the more egregious errors contained in the DEIR. Sincerely, Robert A. Hamilton President, Hamilton Biological, Inc. Attachment: Curriculum Vitae Robert A. Hamilton President, Hamilton Biological, Inc. Expertise Robert A. Hamilton has been providing biological Endangered Species Surveys consulting services in southern California since 1988. He General Biological Surveys spent the formative years of his career at the firm of LSA CEQA Analysis Associates in Irvine, where he was a staff biologist and Population Monitoring project manager. He has worked as an independent and Vegetation Mapping on-call consultant since 1994, incorporating his business Construction Monitoring as Hamilton Biological, Inc., in 2009. The consultancy Noise Monitoring Open Space Planning specializes in the practical application of environmental Natural Lands Management policies and regulations to land management and land use Biological Consultant, Hamilton decisions in southern California. Education A recognized authority on the status, distribution, and 1988. Bachelor of Science degree in identification of birds in California, Mr. Hamilton is the Biological Sciences, lead author of two standard references describing aspects University of California, of the state's avifauna: The Birds of Orange County: Status & Irvine Distribution and Rare Birds of California. Mr. Hamilton has also conducted extensive studies in Baja California, and for seven years edited the Baja California Peninsula regional Professional Experience reports for the journal North American Birds. He served ten 1994 to Present. Independent years on the editorial board of Western Birds and regularly Biological Consultant, Hamilton publishes in peer-reviewed journals. He is a founding Biological, Inc. member of the Coastal Cactus Wren Working Group and in 1988 to 1994. Biologist, LSA 2011 updated the Cactus Wren species account for The Associates, Inc. Birds of North America Online. Mr. Hamilton's expertise includes vegetation mapping. From 2007 to 2010 he Permits worked as an on-call biological analyst for the County of Los Angeles Department of Regional Planning. From 2010 Federal Permit No. TE -799557 to to present he has conducted construction monitoring and survey for the Coastal California focused surveys for special -status bird species on the Gnatcatcher and Southwestern Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project (TRTP). He is Willow Flycatcher a former member of the Los Angeles County Significant MOUS with the California Dept. of Ecological Areas Technical Advisory Committee (SEATAC). Fish and Game to survey for Coastal California Gnatcatcher and Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Mr. Hamilton conducts general and focused biological surveys of small and large properties as necessary to California Scientific Collecting obtain various local, state, and federal permits, Permit No. SC -001107 agreements, and clearances. He also conducts landscape - level surveys needed by land managers to monitor songbird populations. Mr. Hamilton holds the federal and state permits and MOUS listed to the left, and he is recog- nized by federal and state resource agencies as being highly qualified to survey for the Least Bell's Vireo. He also provides nest -monitoring services in compliance with the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish & Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5 and 3513. -115— Curriculum Vitae for Robert A. Hamilton Page 2 of 8 Board Memberships, Advisory Mr. Hamilton monitors noise as it relates to nesting or Positions, Etc. roosting birds using an advanced Quest SoundPro unit that Coastal Cactus Wren Working can provide second -by -second logging of noise levels at the Group (2008—present) nest; this allows documentation of the varying sound Los Angeles County Significant pressure levels that nesting birds are exposed to during Ecological Areas Technical Advisory construction and evaluation of any effects associated with Committee (SEATAC) (2010-2014) different levels. He is an expert photographer, and typically provides photo -documentation and/or video American Birding Association: Baja Calif. Peninsula Regional Editor, documentation as part of his services. North American Birds (2000-2006) Drawing upon a robust, multi -disciplinary understanding Western Field ornithologists: Associate Editor of Western Birds of the natural history and ecology of his home region, Mr. (1999-2008) Hamilton works with private and public land owners, as well as governmental agencies and interested third California Bird Records Committee parties, to apply the local, state, and federal land use (1998-2001) policies and regulations applicable to each particular Nature Reserve of orange County: situation. Mr. Hamilton has amassed extensive experience Technical Advisory Committee in the preparation and critical review of CEQA documents, (1996-2001) from relatively simple Negative Declarations to complex California Native Plant Society, supplemental and recirculated Environmental Impact Orange County Chapter: Conservation Chair (1992-2003) Reports. In addition to his knowledge of CEQA and its Guidelines, Mr. Hamilton understands how each Lead Agency brings its own interpretive variations to the CEQA Professional Affiliations review process. American Ornithologists' Union Representative Project Experience Cooper Ornithological Society Institute for Bird Populations From 2010 to present, working on-call for ICF International and Forde Biological Consulting, Mr. California Native Plant Society Hamilton has (a) conducted focused surveys and noise Southern California Academy of monitoring for Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, Least Sciences Bell's Vireo, California Gnatcatcher, and Burrowing Owl, Western Foundation of Vertebrate (b) conducted nesting bird surveys, and (c) monitored Zoology construction, for the Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project (TRTP). This large, complex project involves replacing 175 miles of transmission lines from the California deserts, over the San Gabriel Mountains, and east to San Bernardino County. Mr. Hamilton has received various forms of specialized training and is very familiar with Southern California Edison's FRED system (Field Reporting Environmental Database). He has served as a "lead biologist" for nesting birds, listed passerine species, and Burrowing Owls, and has helped to prepare the annual reports on the focused survey efforts as well as conducting many of the surveys. Mr. Hamilton has also participated in discussions with state regulators concerning the methods and results of focused surveys. ii(0— Curriculum Vitae for Robert A. Hamilton Page 3 of 8 Insurance From 2012 to 2014, under contract to Cooper Ecological $3,000,000 professional liability Monitoring, Mr. Hamilton collaborated with Dan Cooper on policy (Hanover Insurance Group) A Conservation Analysis for the Santa Monica Mountains $2,000,000 general liability policy "Coastal Zone" in Los Angeles County, and worked with Mr. (The Hartford) Cooper and the County of Los Angeles to secure a certified Coastal Program (LCP) for 52,000 acres of $1,000Local ,000 auto liability policy unincorporated County lands in the Santa Monica (State Farm) (State Mountains coastal zone. The work involved synthesizing Other Relevant Experience large volumes of existing baseline information on the biological resources of the study area, evaluating existing Field Ornithologist, San Diego land use policies, and developing new policies and Natural History Museum Scientific guidelines for future development within this large, Collecting Expedition to Central and Southern Baja California, ecologically sensitive area. A coalition of environmental October/November 1997 and organizations headed by the Surfrider Foundation selected November 2003. this project as the "Best 2014 California Coastal Field Ornithologist, Island Commission Vote" Conservation and Ecology Group (http://www.surfrider.org/images/uploads/2014CCC_Vote_Chart_FINAL.pdo. Expedition to the Tres Marfas Islands, Nayarit, Mexico, 23 January In 2010, under contract to CAA Planning, served as to 8 February 2002. principal author of the Conservation & Management Plan Field Ornithologist, Algalita Marine for Marina del Rey, Los Angeles County, California. This Research Foundation neustonic comprehensive planning document has two overarching plastic research voyages in the goals: (1) to promote the long-term conservation of all Pacific Ocean, 15 August to 4 native species that exist in, or that may be expected to September 1999 and 14 to 28 July return to, Marina del Rey, and (2) to diminish the potential 2000. for conflicts between wildlife populations and both Field Assistant, Bird Banding Study, existing and planned human uses of Marina del Rey (to the Rio Nambf Reserve, Colombia, benefit of humans and wildlife alike). After peer -review, January to March 1997. the Plan was accepted by the Coastal Commission as an appropriate response to the varied challenges posed by References colonial waterbirds and other biologically sensitive resources colonizing urban areas once thought to have Provided upon request. little resource conservation value. From 2007 to 2010, under contract to Sigma Engineering (now EORM), Mr. Hamilton worked as an on-call analyst for the County of Los Angeles Department of Regional Planning. This work involved reviewing biological technical reports, impact/mitigation analyses, landscape plans, and other environmental documents submitted to the County by project proponents, and preparing CEQA documents. Mr. Hamilton worked on more than 20 projects during this time. From 2002 to 2005, under contract to the City of Orange, prepared the Biological Resources section of a hybrid Supplemental EIR/Draft EIR for the 6,900 -acre Santiago al — Curriculum Vitae for Robert A. Hamilton Page 4 of 8 Hills II/East Orange Planned Community project in central Orange County. This complicated document covered one proposed development area that already had CEQA clearance, but that required updating for alterations to the previously approved plan, and a much larger area that was covered under an existing Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP). The SEIR/EIR was certified in November 2005. From 1995 to 2001, worked with study -design specialists and resource agency representatives to develop a long- term passerine bird monitoring program for the 37,000 - acre Nature Reserve of Orange County, and directed its implementation with subsequent contract work. Tasks included (1) annual monitoring of 40 California Gnatcatcher and Cactus Wren study sites, (2) oversight of up to 10 constant -effort bird banding stations from 1998 to 2003 under the Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship (MAPS) program, and (3) focused surveys for the Cactus Wren, and detailed mapping of cactus scrub habitat, across the NROC's coastal reserve in 2006 and 2007. Third Party Review of CEQA Documents Under contract to cities, conservation groups, homeowners' associations, and other interested parties, have reviewed EIRs and other project documentation for the following projects: • The Ranch at Laguna Beach (resort, City of Laguna Beach) • Banning Ranch (residential/commercial, City of Newport Beach) • Sunset Ridge Park (city park, City of Newport Beach) • The Ranch Plan (residential/commercial, County of Orange) • Southern Orange County Transportation Infrastructure Improvement Project (Foothill South Toll Road, County of Orange) • Gregory Canyon Landfill Restoration Plan (proposed mitigation, County of San Diego) • Montebello Hills Specific Plan EIR (residential, City of Montebello; 2009 and 2014 circulations) -I19- Curriculum Vitae for Robert A. Hamilton Page 5 of 8 • Cabrillo Mobile Home Park Violations (illegal wetland filling, City of Huntington Beach) • Newport Hyatt Regency (timeshare conversion project, City of Newport Beach) • Lower San Diego Creek "Emergency Repair Project" (flood control, County of Orange) • Tonner Hills (residential, City of Brea) • The Bridges at Santa Fe Units 6 and 7 (residential, County of San Diego) • Villages of La Costa Master Plan (residential/commercial, City of Carlsbad) • Whispering Hills (residential, City of San Juan Capistrano) • Santiago Hills II (residential/commercial, City of Orange) Rancho Potrero Leadership Academy (youth detention facility/road, County of Orange) • Saddle Creek/Saddle Crest (residential, County of Orange) • Frank G. Bonelli Regional County Park Master Plan (County of Los Angeles) Contact Information Robert A. Hamilton President, Hamilton Biological, Inc. 316 Monrovia Avenue Long Beach, CA 90803 562-477-2181 (office, mobile) robb@hamiltonbiological.com http://hamiltonbiological.com n Curriculum Vitae for Robert A. Hamilton Page 6 of 8 Selected Presentations Hamilton, R. A. and D. S. Cooper. Nesting Bird Policy: We Can Do Better. 2016. 20 -minute multimedea presentation delivered at The Wildlife Society Western Section Conference in Pomona, 26 February. Hamilton, R. A. Six Legs Good. 2012-2014. 90 -minute multimedia presentation on the identification and photography of dragonflies, damselflies, butterflies, and other invertebrates, given at various Audubon Society chapter meetings and similar gatherings. Hamilton, R. A. 2012. Identification of Focal Wildlife Species for Restoration, Coyote Creek Watershed Master Plan. Twenty -minute multimedia presentation given at the Southern California Academy of Sciences annual meeting at Occidental College, Eagle Rock, 4 May. Abstract published in the Bulletin of the Southern California Academy of Sciences No. 111(1):39. Hamilton, R. A., and Cooper, D. S. 2009-2010. Conservation & Management Plan for Marina del Rey. Twenty -minute multimedia presentation given to different governmental agencies and interest groups. Hamilton, R. A. 2008. Cactus Wren Conservation Issues, Nature Reserve of Orange County. One- hour multimedia presentation for Sea & Sage Audubon Society, Irvine, California, 25 November. Hamilton, R. A., Miller, W. B., Mitrovich, M. J. 2008. Cactus Wren Study, Nature Reserve of Orange County. Twenty -minute multimedia presentation given at the Nature Reserve of Orange County's Cactus Wren Symposium, Irvine, California, 30 April 2008. Hamilton, R. A. and K. Messer. 2006. 1999-2004 Results of Annual California Gnatcatcher and Cactus Wren Monitoring in the Nature Reserve of Orange County. Twenty -minute multimedia presentation given at the Partners In Flight meeting: Conservation and Management of Coastal Scrub and Chaparral Birds and Habitats, Starr Ranch Audubon Sanctuary, 21 August 2004; and at the Nature Reserve of Orange County 10th Anniversary Symposium, Irvine, California, 21 November. Publications Hamilton, R. A. 2014. Book review: The Sibley Guide to Birds, Second Edition. Western Birds 45:154-157. Cooper, D. S., R. A. Hamilton, and S. D. Lucas. 2012. A population census of the Cactus Wren in coastal Los Angeles County. Western Birds 43:151-163. Hamilton, R. A., J. C. Burger, and S. H. Anon. 2012. Use of artificial nesting structures by Cactus Wrens in Orange County, California. Western Birds 43:37-46. Hamilton, R. A., Proudfoot, G. A., Sherry, D. A., and Johnson, S. 2011. Cactus Wren (campylorhyn- chus brunneicapillus), in The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, ed.). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. Hamilton, R. A. 2008. Cactus Wrens in central & coastal Orange County: How will a worst-case scenario play out under the NCCP? Western Tanager 75:2-7. i 2o- Curriculum Vitae for Robert A. Hamilton Page 7 of 8 Erickson, R. A., R. A. Hamilton, R. Carmona, G. Ruiz -Campos, and Z. A. Henderson. 2008. Value of perennial archiving of data received through the North American Birds regional reporting system: Examples from the Baja California Peninsula. North American Birds 62:2-9. Erickson, R. A., R. A. Hamilton, and S. G. Mlodinow. 2008. Status review of Belding's Yellowthroat Geothlypis beldingi, and implications for its conservation. Bird Conservation International 18:219-228. Hamilton, R. A. 2008. Fulvous Whistling -Duck (Dendrocygna bicolor). Pp. 68-73 in California Bird Species of Special Concern: A ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California (Shuford, W. D. and T. Gardali, eds.). Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, CA, and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA. California Bird Records Committee (R. A. Hamilton, M. A. Patten, and R. A. Erickson, editors.). 2007. Rare Birds of California. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, CA. Hamilton, R. A., R. A. Erickson, E. Palacios, and R. Carmona. 2001-2007. North American Birds quarterly reports for the Baja California Peninsula Region, Fall 2000 through Winter 2006/2007. Hamilton, R. A. and P. A. Gaede. 2005. Pink -sided x Gray -headed Juncos. Western Birds 36:150- 152. Mlodinow, S. G. and R. A. Hamilton. 2005. Vagrancy of Painted Bunting (Passerina ciris) in the United States, Canada, and Bermuda. North American Birds 59:172-183. Erickson, R. A., R. A. Hamilton, S. Gonzalez -Guzman, G. Ruiz -Campos. 2002. Primeros registros de anidaci6n del Pato Friso (Anas strepera) en Mexico. Anales del Instituto de Biologfa, Universidad Nacional Aut6noma de Mexico, Serie Zoologia 73(1):67-71. Hamilton, R. A. and J. L. Dunn. 2002. Red-naped and Red -breasted sapsuckers. Western Birds 33:128-130. Hamilton, R. A. and S. N. G. Howell. 2002. Gnatcatcher sympatry near San Felipe, Baja California, with notes on other species. Western Birds 33:123-124. Hamilton, R. A. 2001. Book review: The Sibley Guide to Birds. Western Birds 32:95-96. Hamilton, R. A. and R. A. Erickson. 2001. Noteworthy breeding bird records from the Vizcaino Desert, Baja California Peninsula. Pp. 102-105 in Monographs in Field Ornithology No, 3. American Birding Association, Colorado Springs, CO. Hamilton, R. A. 2001. Log of bird record documentation from the Baja California Peninsula archived at the San Diego Natural History Museum. Pp. 242-253 in Monographs in Field Ornithology No. 3. American Birding Association, Colorado Springs, CO. Hamilton, R. A. 2001. Records of caged birds in Baja California. Pp. 254-257 in Monographs in Field Ornithology No. 3. American Birding Association, Colorado Springs, CO. Erickson, R. A., R. A. Hamilton, and S. N. G. Howell. 2001. New information on migrant birds in northern and central portions of the Baja California Peninsula, including species new to Mexico. Pp. 112-170 in Monographs in Field Ornithology No. 3. American Birding Association, Colorado Springs, CO. -12- Curriculum Vitae for Robert A. Hamilton Page 8 of 8 Howell, S. N. G., R. A. Erickson, R. A. Hamilton, and M. A. Patten. 2001. An annotated checklist of the birds of Baja California and Baja California Sur. Pp. 171-203 in Monographs in Field Ornithology No. 3. American Birding Association, Colorado Springs, CO. Ruiz -Campos, G., Gonzalez -Guzman, S., Erickson, R. A., and Hamilton, R. A. 2001. Notable bird specimen records from the Baja California Peninsula. Pp. 238-241 in Monographs in Field Ornithology No. 3. American Birding Association, Colorado Springs, CO. Wurster, T. E., R. A. Erickson, R. A. Hamilton, and S. N. G. Howell. 2001. Database of selected observations: an augment to new information on migrant birds in northern and central portions of the Baja California Peninsula. Pp. 204-237 in Monographs in Field Ornithology No. 3. American Birding Association, Colorado Springs, CO. Erickson, R. A. and R. A. Hamilton, 2001. Report of the California Bird Records Committee: 1998 records. Western Birds 32:13-49. Hamilton, R. A., J. E. Pike, T. E. Wurster, and K. Radamaker. 2000. First record of an Olive -backed Pipit in Mexico. Western Birds 31:117-119. Hamilton, R. A. and N. J. Schmitt. 2000. Identification of Taiga and Black Merlins. Western Birds 31:65-67. Hamilton, R. A. 1998. Book review: Atlas of Breeding Birds, Orange County, California. Western Birds 29:129-130. Hamilton, R. A. and D. R. Willick. 1996. The Birds of Orange County, California: Status and Distribution. Sea & Sage Press, Sea & Sage Audubon Society, Irvine. Hamilton, R. A. 1996-98. Photo Quizzes. Birding 27(4):298-301, 28(l):46-50,28(4):309-313, 29(1): 59-64,30(l):55-59. Erickson, R. A., and Hamilton, R. A. 1995. Geographic distribution: Lampropeltisgetula californiae (California Kingsnake) in Baja California Sur. Herpetological Review 26(4):210. Bontrager, D. R., R. A. Erickson, and R. A. Hamilton. 1995. Impacts of the October 1993 Laguna fire on California Gnatcatchers and Cactus Wrens. in J. E. Keeley and T. A. Scott (editors). Wildfires in California Brushlands: Ecology and Resource Management. International Association of Wildland Fire, Fairfield, Washington. Erickson, R. A., R. A. Hamilton, S. N. G. Howell, M. A. Patten, and P. Pyle. 1995. First record of Marbled Murrelet and third record of Ancient Murrelet for Mexico. Western Birds 26: 39- 45. Erickson, R. A., and R. A. Hamilton. 1993. Additional summer bird records for southern Mexico. Euphonia 2.(4): 81-91. Erickson, R. A., A. D. Barron, and R. A. Hamilton. 1992. A recent Black Rail record for Baja California. Euphonia 1(1): 19-21. - 12Z SoCalGas A 41Srnilua E ncrp utsl,ty April 21, 2016 City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Dr PO Box 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92628 Attn: Minoo Ashabi ATTACHMENT 3 1919 S State College Blvd Anaheim, CA 92806-6114 Subject: Environmental Impact Report for Year 2015-2035 General Plan; Costa Mesa Thank you for providing the opportunity to respond to this Environmental Document. This letter is not to be interpreted as a contractual commitment to serve the proposed project but only as an information service. Its intent is to notify you that the Southern California Gas Company has facilities in the area where the above named project is proposed. Gas facilities within the service area of the project could be installed, altered or abandoned as necessary without any significant impact on the environment. The availability of natural gas service is based upon conditions of gas supply and regulatory agencies. As a Public Utility, Southern California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission. Our ability to serve can also be affected by actions of federal regulatory agencies. Should these agencies take any action, which affect gas supply or the conditions under which service is available, gas service will be provided in accordance with the revised conditions. This letter is also provided without considering any conditions or non-utility laws and regulations (such as environmental regulations), which could affect construction of a main and/or service line extension (i.e., if hazardous wastes were encountered in the process of installing the line). The regulations can only be determined around the time contractual arrangements are made and construction has begun. Information regarding construction particulars and any costs associated with initiating service may be obtained by contacting our area Service Center at 800-427-2200. Sincerely, Katrina Regan Planning Supervisor SouthEast Region - Anaheim Planning & Engineering KBhI EIR.doc OCTA BOARD OF DIRECTORS r% 016 April 18, 2016 ppb i� Lori Donch Chair Michael Hennessey Vire Chair Ms. Minoo Ashabi, Principal Planner City of Costa Mesa Lisa A. Bartlett Director Development Services Department 77 Fair Drive, P.O Box 1200 .Andrew or Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200 Steve Jones Director Subject: Environmental Impact Report for the City of Costa Mesa's Year 2015- 2035 General Plan Jim Katapodis Director Dear Ms. Ashabi: Jeffrey Lalloway Director The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) has reviewed the above referenced Director Gary Miller document. The following comments are provided for your consideration: Al Murray In February 2015 the OCTA Board of Directors Director ry , approved the 2016 Bus Service Plan Shawn Nelson (Link: http://www.octa.nettpdf/FINAL 2016 SERVICE CHANGE.pdf). This plan will Director reallocate bus service with the intention of increasing ridership. Miguel Pulido Dirrecectoorr Under Chapter 3: Circulation Element, Figure C-8: Transit Corridors on page C-29 provides a map with the existing OCTA bus service by service type. Please include the Tim Shaw Director OCTA bus route numbers on the map, as well as, reflect the upcoming changes as Todd Spitzer provided in the aforementioned 2016 Bus Service Plan. Director Michelle Steel Though the General Plan under "Goal C-4: Promote Transportation Demand Director Management, Transit, and Efficiency" under Policy C-4.13.8 on Page C-41 indicates that Tom rail the City will work with OCTA to improve transit services, OCTA does not have sufficient Director revenue to increase bus service levels. If there is additional new revenue in the future, Frank Ury these resources will be allocated to bus service that meets OCTA's service criteria, Director including: sustaining ridership and increasing transit usage. Gregory T Winterbottom Director If you have any questions or comments, please contact me by phone at (714) 560-5907 Ryan Chamberlain or by,email at dph_u_[a)octa.net. Ex -Officio Member Sincerely, ,HIEFEXECUTIVEOFFICE Darrell Johnson Chief Executive Officer Dan Phu Manager, Environmental Programs Orange County Transportation Authority 550 South Main Street / P.O. Box 14184 / Orange r California 92863-1,584, 1714) 560 -OCTA (6282) LC'healthA= CAREAGENCY l yy OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR March 25, 2016 Amy Wall Assistant Director Department of Developmental Services Developmental Center Closure 1600 0' Street, Sacramento, CA 94244-2020 Dear Ms. Wall: MARK A. REFOWITZ DIRECTOR (714)834-6021 as r1/y�a'+VI IZ:Q7r]C�SC i I .:ani RICHARD SANCHEZ ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (714)834-2830 R�.Ch3 fd"�Sdf1G h��cl�c]c rca. c+]m 405 W. 5h STREET, 71h FLOOR SANTA ANA, CA 92701 FAX: (714) 834-5506 The Orange County Health Care Agency (HCA) supports the City of Costa Mesa's General Plan use for the Fairview Developmental Center. The multi -use plan, which is the integration of a variety of land uses and intensities, will include a variety of residential, open space, and institutional uses. HCA has given thoughtful consideration to the ongoing need for services for the developmentally disabled and behavioral health communities that will be impacted by related transitions at the current site of the Fairview Developmental Center. HCA has identified a need for a certain programs, which will demonstrate positive outcomes for those served as well as the community at -large. Services that have the greatest potential and uses include: e Health Resource Center/Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC): A satellite health clinic to treat the comorbid and complex medical conditions of clients. FQHCs must serve underserved populations and receive enhanced reimbursement for delivering services to populations in need. The benefit to the community is the availability of a clinic that serves underserved populations. The benefit to the FQHC is that it gets enhanced reimbursement, usually based on actual costs, and access to 340B discounted drug pricing, the Vaccines for Children Program, etc. This provides the opportunity to have a community-based clinic that can treat the former residents of the Fairview Developmental Center who will continue to reside in Orange County. These are complex clients who require specialized staff experienced in addressing and properly responding to their service needs. Current clinical staff of Fairview Developmental Center are potential employees of this FQHC. We anticipate that this clinic will be able to contract with CalOptima, our County -operated health system (COHS), and receive Medi -Cal reimbursement. - 2-0 Fairview Developmental Center HCA Letter of Support March 25, 2016 Page 2 of 2 Supportive Housing: Supportive housing is a combination of housing and services intended as a cost-effective way to help people live more stable, productive lives in their community. Supportive housing is a proven model for those who face the most diverse disabilities (e.g., intellectual disabilities, mobility and/or sensory impairments) or other serious challenges to a successful life. Supportive housing can be coupled with other services such as job training, life skills development, alcohol and drug abuse programs, community support services (e.g., child care, educational programs), and case management to populations in need of assistance. Supportive housing is intended to be a pragmatic solution that helps people have better lives. The primary goal of the program is to provide housing to people and to provide supportive services to assist individuals with treatment and development of the life skills necessary to remain in independent housing. My staff has met with representatives of the City of Costa Mesa and discussed potential future uses of the Fairview Developmental Center complex that are consistent with both County and City goals. I stand ready to work collaboratively with the City of Costa Mesa and the State to develop the most comprehensive plan for the use of this property while compassionately assessing how to best meet the complex, special needs of the populations currently served and ultimately impacted by transitions related to the Center's closure. Sincerely, Mark A. Refo itz HCA Director MARala 16-030 0 F V 0141 1 r o;Xk\ April 11, 2016 Via Electronic & Regular Mart minoo.ashaL@costamesaca.gov Minoo Ashabi, Principal Planner City of Costa Mesa Development Services Department 77 Fair Drive, P.O. Box 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200 ITV 01F l` EWPOR VBEACH 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, California 92660 949 644-3200 newportbeachca.gov/communitydevelopment Re: Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the City of Costa Mesa's Year 2015 - 2035 General Plan Dear Ms. Ashabi: Thank you of the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for the City of Costa Mesa's Year 2015 - 2035 General Plan. The City of Newport Beach ("City") submits the comments below. The Circulation Element Page C-6 states that the "cut -and -cover approach" for the SR -55 extension "will not occur within the year 2035 planning horizon due to the significant costs and planning required". However, Page 4.16-27 in the Draft EIR shows that the 2035 Build -out Highway Network includes the four lane cut -and -cover freeway extension. In addition, Table 4.16-11 appears to show the cut -and -cover improvements as being included in the intersection analysis for the applicable intersections along Newport Boulevard. This needs to be clarified and consistent. If the cut -and -cover is feasible from a cost and planning perspective within the planning horizon, this needs to be fully explained. In the Circulation Element Page C-13, there are several roadway downgrades being proposed. Will the City of Costa Mesa request that the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) initiate the Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) Amendment process for these roadways? Will there be cooperative studies prepared for the amendments that include the adjacent stakeholder jurisdictions? In particular, Newport Beach is interested in the West 17th Street Downgrade, the East 22nd Street Downgrade, and the proposed Bluff Road Deletion. When the 19th Street Bridge study was completed, there were intersections identified as deficient in Costa Mesa. Are the recommended improvements in that study included in the Circulation Element or elsewhere in the General Plan? Good luck on your General Plan update and please feel free to contact me at (949) 644-3232 or PAlford@newportbeachca.gov if you have any questions. — ZZ_ Sincerely, Patrick J. Alford Planning Program Manager cc: David Kiff, City Manager Kimberly Brandt, Community Development Director Brenda Wisneski, Deputy Community Development Director 23-- AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION GRANGE COUNTY FOR ORANGE COUNTY 3160 Airway Avenue • Costa Mesa, California 92626 - 949.252.5170 fax: 949.252.6012 April 14, 2016 R� Minoo Ashabi, Principal Planner RECD APR 12016 City of Costa Mesa — Development Services 77 Fair Drive, P.O. Box 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200 Subject: DEIR for the City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment (2015-2035) Dear Ms. Ashabi: Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the City of Costa Mesa General Plan Amendment in the context of the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP).for John Wayne Airport (JWA). We wish to offer the following comments and respectfully request consideration of these comments as you proceed with your DEIR and General Plan (GP) Amendment. The City of Costa Mesa is located within the AELUP Notification Area for JWA. The DEIR and GP should address height restrictions and imaginary surfaces by discussing Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 as the criteria for determining height restrictions for projects located within the airport planning area. To ensure the safe operation of aircraft activity at JWA, structures anywhere in -the JWA airport planning area should not exceed the applicable.;elevations defined in FAR Part 77 (Objects Affecting Navigable Air Space). We recommend that the General Plan should include height policy language and a mitigation measure in the EIR that states that no new buildings will be allowed to penetrate the FAR Part 77 imaginary surfaces for JWA to ensure the protection of its airspace. Within the proposed Land Use Element, it states that the FAA standard that is of most concern in Costa Mesa is the horizontal surface for J WA. 1 he General Plan references -the old standard of 203.68 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) as the horizontal surface for JWA, but that figure should be updated to 206 feet AMSL. Also with respect to building heights, development proposals within the City, which include the construction or alteration of structures more than 200 feet above ground level, require filing with the FAA and Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) notification. Projects meeting this threshold must comply with procedures provided by Federal and State law, and with all conditions of approval imposed or recommended by FAA and ALUC including filing a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration (FAA Form 7460-1). Depending on the maximum building heights that will be allowed within the General Plan, the City may wish to consider a mitigation and condition of approval specifying this 200 feet above ground level height threshold. In addition, any project that penetrates the Notification Surface for JWA is required to file FAA -24- ALUC Comments- DER Costa Mesa GP Update April 14, 2016 Page 2 Form 7460-1. The proposed Land Use Element (on page LU -18) discusses the threshold stated above but, instead of referring to filing FAA Form 7460-1 Notice of Construction and Alteration, the Land Use Element refers to filing a Notice of Landing Area Proposal (Form 7480-1) which is specific to heliports. Portions of the City of Costa Mesa fall within the 60 and 65 dB(A) CNEL noise contours for JWA. The DEIR and GP Update should include policies and mitigations for development within these contours, especially if residential development is considered. Per the AELUP for JWA, all residential units within the 65 dB CNEL contour are typically inconsistent in this area unless it can be shown conclusively that such units are sufficiently sound attenuated for present and projected noise exposure so as not to exceed an interior standard of 45 dB CNEL. However, the ALUC recommends that residential uses not be permitted within the 65 dB CNEL contour. As for residential development within the 60 dB CNEL contour, the ALUC may not find residential units incompatible in this area, but would strongly recommend that residential units be limited or excluded from this area unless sufficiently sound attenuated not to exceed an interior level of 45 dB. We appreciate that the proposed Land Use Element addresses consistency with the AEL UP for Heliports by including the following language to your GP Update: "The City will ensure that development proposals including the construction or operation of a heliport or helistop comply fully with permit procedures under State law, including referral of the project to the ALUC by the applicant, and with all conditions of approval imposed or recommended by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), ALUC, and Caltrans, including the filing of a Form 7480-1 (Notice of Landing Area Proposal) with the FAA. This requirement shall be in addition to all other City development requirements." Section 21676(b) of the PUC requires that prior to the amendment of a general plan or specific plan, or the adoption or approval of a zoning ordinance or building regulation within the planning boundary established by the Airport Land Use Commission pursuant to Section 21675, the local agency shall first refer the proposed action to the ALUC. To ensure land use compatibility w=ith JWA, we recommend that the City include policy in its General Plan and a mitigation measure in the EIR, that states that the City shall refer projects to the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for Orange County as required by Section 21676 of the California Public Utilities Code to determine consistency of projects with the AELUP for JWA. With respect to project submittals, please note that the Commission wants such referrals to be submitted to the ALUC for a determination, between the Local Agency's expected Planning Commission and City Council hearings. Since the ALUC meets on the third Thursday afternoon of each month, submittals must be received in the ALUC office by the first of the month to ensure sufficient time for review, analysis, and agendizing. -ZS ALUC Comments -DEER Costa Mesa GP Amendment April 14, 2016 Page 3 Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on the DEIR. Please contact Lea Choum at (949) 252-5123 or via email at Ichoum(@ocair.com should any questions arise. Sincerely, Kari A. Rigoni Executive Officer Z(P_ TATE QF CALIFORNIA—CAI.ICORNIA S'TA'T>;'rRANS ]R'A'TION ADEN Y DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 12 3347 MICHELSON DRIVE, SUITE 100 IRVINE, CA 92612-8894 PHONE (949) 724-2000 FAX (949) 724-2019 TTY 711 www.dot.ca.gov April 14, 2016 Ms. Minoo Ashabi Principal Planner 77 Fair Drive City of Costa Mesa Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Dear Ms. Ashabi: MUM 0 1 RECD APR 16 2016 File: IGR/CEQA SCH#:2015111053 IGR Log #: 4573-A SR: 55, SR -73,1405 0 Serious Drought. Serious drought. Kelp save water! Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the City of Costa Mesa 2015-2035 General Plan Amendment Project. The City of Costa Mesa proposes the adoption of updates to Land Use, Circulation, Growth Management, Conservation, Noise, Safety, Historical & Cultural Resources, Community Design, and Open Space and Recreation Elements. The land use and Circulation Elements establish overall development capacity, serve as a policy guide for physical development and character, and provide for a balanced circulation system including "complete streets" and a bike master plan. Remaining elements updated for consistency with Land Use and Circulation Elements and to reflect current General Plan law. The 2015-2035 Plan will incorporate the Housing Element, which was previously adopted in January 2014 and is valid through 2021.The General Plan update will apply to all properties within the City of Costa Mesa and its sphere of influence. The planning area encompasses 15.7 square miles and has a total population of approximately 110, 000. The nearest State routes to the proposed sites are SR -55, SR -73 and I- 405. Caltrans is a responsible and commenting agency on this project and has the following Comments: The DEIR does not include an analysis on the State facilities' mainlines (merge, diverge, weave and basic freeway) that are within the boundaries of the City of Costa Mesa. Please submit this analysis for our review and comments. As indicated in our previous letter dated December 7, 2015: "When analyzing impacts to the traffic on the Caltrans Transportation Facilities; note, that all Intersection Capacity Analysis conducted within Caltrans Right of Way shall be performed using the most recent Highway Capacity Manual Methodology. A Queue Analysis shall be conducted for the off -ramps to determine that traffic will not spill back to the Freeway Mainline." 2. The traffic analysis for Caltrans facilities should include, ramps, intersections, and the 95th percentile queues on the off -ramps and on the left -turn lanes to the on -ramps at the "Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livability" -21- Ms. Minoo Ashabi April 14, 2016 Page 2 signalized intersections. Also, provide a table of summary to indicate if the off -ramp and left -turn vehicle storage lanes have sufficient vehicle storage lengths. 3. Please provide traffic movement diagrams for AM and PM peaks for all traffic conditions, including traffic movement diagrams of trip generations only for the Current and the Buildout of the General Plan. 4. Traffic Study Page 2.2, Figure 2-1 and Page 3.19, Figure 3-4 Please explain the need for lane reduction on Newport Avenue segment south of 191h Street from a 7 -lane (7M) configuration of the Existing Roadway System condition to a 6 -lane (6M) configuration for the Year 2035 Buildout Roadway System condition. Traffic Study- Page 2.3, Figure 2-2, Page 3.25 Figure 3-6 and Page 3.27 Figure 3-8 Please explain the reason for reduction of ADT volumes on Newport Avenue in the vicinity of 191h Street comparing the Existing ADT Volumes with the 2035 Current General Plan ADT Volumes and Proposed General Plan ADT Volumes. For example, Newport Avenue north of 191h Street has 92,000 ADT volumes for the existing condition while 2035 Buildout condition will only have 55,000 ADT volumes; also, Newport Avenue south of 19t11 Street has 66,000 ADT and 79,000 ADT for the Existing condition while Buildout condition will only have 31,000 ADT and 44,000 ADT volumes. 5. Please note that the Caltrans Highway Design Manual has been updated to include a new bicycle classification; Class IV Bikeways. Caltrans recommends to include this in Section 4.16 of the DEIR and Page C-15 of the Draft General Plan. Class IV — separated bikeways — Separated bikeways are for the exclusive use of bicycles and includes a separation required between the separated bikeway and the through vehicular traffic. The separation may include, but is not limited to, grade separation, flexible posts, inflexible physical barriers, or on -street parking. Please continue to keep us informed of this project and any future developments that could potentially impact State transportation facilities. If you have any questions or need to contact us, please do not hesitate to call Maryam Molavi at (949) 724-2241. Sincerely, MAUREEN EL HARAKE Branch Chief, Regional -Community -Transit Planning District 12 "Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livability" 2'S- State of California — Natural Resources Agency EDMUND G. BROWN JR. Governor ~j DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director South Coast Region 3883 Ruffin Road San Diego, CA 92123 (858) 467-4201 www.wildlife.ca.gov April 18, 2016 Ms. Claire Flynn R RE%limb cl City of Costa Mesa 0 AQ 77 Fair Drive G Costa Mesa, CA 92626 claire.flynn@costamesaca.gov Subject: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the City of Costa Mesa 2015 to 2035 General Plan (SCH# 2015111068) Dear Ms. Flynn: The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department) has reviewed the draft environmental impact report (DEIR) for the City of Costa Mesa 2015 to 2035 General Plan Amendment project. The City of Costa Mesa (City) requested comments on the DEIR by April 18, 2016. The following statements and comments have been prepared pursuant to the Department's authority as Trustee Agency with jurisdiction over natural resources affected by the project (California Environmental Quality Act, [CEQA] Guidelines § 15386) and pursuant to our authority as a Responsible Agency under CEQA Guidelines section 15381 over those aspects of the proposed project that come under the purview of the California Endangered Species Act (CESA; Fish and Game Code § 2050 et seq.) and Fish and Game Code section 1600 et seq. The Department also administers the Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) program. The City is a non -participating landowner under the Central/Coastal Orange County NCCP/Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). The project area is the City's entire sphere of influence; the City is located in the County of Orange and surrounded to the north by the City of Santa Ana, to the south by the City of Newport Beach, the west by the Cities of Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley, and the east by the City of Irvine. Fairview Park and Talbert Regional Park are included in this sphere of influence; Talbert Regional Park is part of the Central Coastal NCCP/HCP Reserve. The project proposes focused amendments to several elements of its General Plan, including Land Use, Circulation, Growth Management, Conservation, Open Space and Recreation, Noise, Safety, Community Design, and Historic and Cultural Resources. The Department offers the following comments and recommendations to assist the City in avoiding or minimizing potential project impacts on biological resources. The DEIR references Table CON -1 (BonTerra Consulting, 2000) when describing plant communities present within the project area. The Department is unclear why studies 16 years old were used to aggregate this data, as this may not be adequate to analyze potentially significant impacts to biological resources, nor does it reflect the City's efforts to restore or create plant communities. For example, Table CON -1 shows that southern tarplant (Hemixonia parryi ssp. australis; California Native Plant Society Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants list 1 B.1) as, "possibly present" when a population of southern tarplant was created in Fairview Park during wetlands restoration over the last several years. Conserving California's Wildlife Since 1870 -ZCJ- Ms. Claire Flynn City of Costa Mesa April 18, 2016 Page 3 of 3 b. an analysis of the likelihood of the spread of invasive SHBs as a result of the invasive species' proximity to above referenced activities; c. figures within a Biological Resources Technical Report (see comment 2) that depict potentially sensitive or susceptible vegetation communities within the project area, the known occurrences of invasive SHBs within the project area (if any), and invasive SHB's proximity to above referenced activities; and d. best management practices to reduce the spread of invasive SHBs. Examples of such BMPs and additional information can be found on the UCR's Eskalen lab website: http://eskalenlab.ucr.edu/avocado.htm1. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the DEIR for this project and to assist the City in further minimizing and mitigating project impacts to biological resources. If you have any questions or comments regarding this letter please contact Jennifer Edwards at (858) 467-2717 or via email at Jennifer.Edwards@wildlife.ca.gov. Sincer ly, + Gail K. Sevrens Environmental Program Manager South Coast Region ec: Christine Medak (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) Scott Morgan (State Clearinghouse) 30— Orns __1_._= J.. •.1 x'71: GENERAL SERVICES Go arnor Edmund G. Brown Jr April 15, 2016 VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS AND EMAIL Minoo Ashabi, Principal Planner City of Costa Mesa — Development Services Department 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Email: minoo.ashabi cr costamesaca.gov Re: Comments on Draft EIR for City of Costa Mesa Year 2015 — 2035 General Plan SCH# 2015111068 Dear Ms. Ashabi: On December 2, 2015 and January 26, 2016, the Department of General Services (DGS) provided comments on the Notice of Preparation for the City of Costa Mesa General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). Those comments focused on the City's proposed policies, plans, and intent with respect to the Fairview Developmental Center (FDC) and future development on the site. As explained in DGS's previous comments, the Department of Developmental Services (DDS) has submitted a closure plan for the FDC to the Legislature. (See http://www.dds.ca.gov/fairviewNews/). Senate Bill 82 signed in June 2015 (adding Government Code, § 14670.36; see attachment) authorizes the Director of DGS to lease up to 20 acres of the FDC site for the purpose of developing affordable housing for individuals with developmental disabilities (Shannon's Mountain). The success of Shannon's Mountain depends in large part on being able to retain flexibility in the number of units and density in order to attract affordable housing developers to propose economically feasible development for the site. The state is concerned that the City's proposed 300 -unit cap on the number of residential units and density and located on a 12 -acre site for the Shannon's Mountain Project may unreasonably restrict the attractiveness of the site for the development that the Legislature and the Governor envisioned with SB 82 and frustrate the state's mandate to develop housing for developmentally disabled individuals. The state lauds the City's goal in its proposed Land Use Element "to create new opportunities for housing and businesses, particularly in areas well served by transit and where reinvestment could enhance neighborhoods, districts, and nodes." But that goal would not be fulfilled with the short-sighted proposal to cap residential units in the FDC at 500 units, because doing so is likely to limit future decisions regarding transit service, as well as private investment and development decisions. This would particularly affect residents with developmental disabilities, who depend on public transit to a greater degree than other City residents. The City should consider allowing a greater number of Real Estate Services Division/Asset Management Branch I Slate of California I Government Operations Agency 707 3rd Street, 5th floor I West Sacramento, CA 95,605 1 916.376.1800 F916.376.,6219 Ms. Minoo Ashabi -2- April 15, 2016 units in the FDC to maximize the reuse of a valuable infill site, help the City realize fewer external vehicle trips, and reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) and other air pollutant emissions. As the DEIR concludes that impacts associated with GHG emissions are significant and unavoidable, the City has an obligation to consider changes to the General Plan through alternative land use plans or mitigation that could help to reduce these impacts. DGS believes that allowing a greater number of units in the FDC, either through higher density land use designations or designating more land for more units, would improve the vehicle -miles -traveled by future FDC -area residents, visitors and employees. A portion of the FDC is placed in the City's proposed Open Space Element; however, the FDC is already developed with 1.1 million square feet of improvements. The FDC is located in Planning Area 2, which is well -served by parks and open spaces and exceeds the park -to -population standard for neighborhood and community parks of 4.26 acres for every 1,000 persons and within '/4- to '/z -mile walking distance to pedestrian access points. Planning Area 2 has 10.06 acres per 1,000 residents, and this ratio likely does not even include the shared use agreement for a portion of the FDC used for soccer fields. The additional amount of open space proposed to be designated within the FDC overburdens the state's property well in excess of the City's stated desired standard. With only 500 additional residential units, as proposed by the City, the area would require a minimum of 5.20 and a maximum of 5.73 acres of parks, depending on the housing product mix, not the 26.5 acres proposed in the General Plan. The City's obligation to address its existing City-wide park service deficiency is better addressed through a wider distribution of such spaces across the City, not concentrated in the FDC area. Addressing it in the manner proposed for the FDC places a disproportionate burden on the state and future developers in this area, rather than more evenly distributing it city-wide. The FDC area is already well -served by the City - owned sports fields at the Jack Hammett Sports Complex located 1.8 miles northeast of the FDC, the private open space and recreation facilities such as the surrounding golf courses, the Orange County Fair and Event Center, and joint use of school facilities. Moreover, the City does not appear to have considered the fact that the state transferred the land for the adjacent two 18 -hole golf courses to the City and land for the Fairview Regional Park to the County of Orange that was subsequently transferred to the City nor counted the golf courses or the state-owned fairgrounds in its open space/parks metrics. The City's proposed open space policies and implementation actions emphasize the need to pursue all means to expand and maximize benefits of a parks and recreation system. Therefore it does not seem reasonable to exclude the existing golf courses, fairgrounds and joint use facilities in the City's open space/parks calculations. The proposed designation of 25 percent or 26.5 acres of state-owned land in the FDC for open space far exceeds the City's in -lieu fee program for parks. The City's parkland impact fee program indicates that a developer gets a credit for land dedicated and park improvements completed. But this fee program would also appear to apply to any proposed development in the FDC after the proposed re -designation of 25 percent of -32 Ms. Minoo Ashabi -3- April 15, 2016 the FDC area as open space, further burdening future developers of the FDC and significantly impeding the state's goal of developing affordable housing for the developmentally disabled. Moreover, the City fails to consider the greater traffic impacts of concentrating so much of the City's additional recreational space in the FDC area, which increases vehicle trip lengths to this area from other areas of the City that do not have similar amenities and corresponding air pollutant and GHG emissions, as well as congestion on the roads leading to the FDC area. The traffic study prepared for the DEIR indicates that the baseline used assumes a 350 - bed hospital in the FDC; however, existing improvements already total 1.1 million square feet of buildings and supporting infrastructure. The traffic study assumes that in the future, 52 acres will be developed as public facilities and that it would generate only 434 average daily trips. Assuming a FAR of 0.25, this would support 566,000 square feet of development. A more appropriate trip generation rate would be Government Office Complex, which according to Trip Generation, 7th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Land Use 733, would generate 27.92 ADT per 1,000 square feet on weekdays, or 15,800 ADT for 566,000 square feet. The traffic study further assumes that 26 acres in the FDC will be developed as passive park use, generating only 49 trips per day. The City has indicated, however, that its interest in this area is for soccer fields and ball parks for private athletic club use. According to Trip Generation, 7th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Land Use 488, one soccer field generates ±71 weekday ADT, so 49 trips does not appear to be an accurate reflection of projected trip generation for these uses. Additionally, creating 26 acres of park and open space will require demolition some of the 1.1 million square feet of buildings and supporting infrastructure. The range of alternatives in the DEIR only considers the comparative effects of leaving certain areas of the City's land use designations unchanged, including one in which the FDC simply retains its institutional designation. In its scoping comments dated December 2, 2015, DGS requested that the City analyze an alternative that assumes a mixed density development plan for the FDC that takes advantage of the existing built infrastructure, the region's High -Quality -Transit Areas (HQTA), and the planned development (consistent with SB 82) to reduce per capita vehicle miles traveled and decrease per capita greenhouse gas emissions. The alternatives analysis presented in the DEIR does not acknowledge this suggested alternative, and the alternative analyzed in the DEIR that merely assumes a continued institutional use designation does not support the above goals. DGS reiterates its request for a good faith analysis of a more feasible and environmentally beneficial development alternative for the FDC. The state believes such a plan would better fulfill both the goals of the state for successful redevelopment of this area and the City's need for VMT, GHG, and air pollutant reductions. -33— Ms. Minoo Ashabi -4- April 15, 2016 The Department desires to be a cooperative partner with the City in facilitating the implementation of a shared vision for future development of the FDC. We hope that the City will consider these comments in good faith and reevaluate both its proposed land use designations and resulting impacts analysis to better accommodate both the state's mandate to feasibly develop housing for developmentally disabled individuals and CEQA's mandate to analyze and disclose as accurately as possible the potential resulting impacts of proposed development. We would be happy to provide the City with any additional information it may require to improve its DEIR and proposed General Plan Update. We would also be pleased to meet and confer with the City prior to the issuance of the Final EIR to discuss our comments and suggestions for the FDC. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Sincerely, ROBERT W. MCKINNON Assistant Branch Chief Asset Management Branch Enclosures cc: Fariba Shahmirzadi, Assistant Deputy Director, Administrative Operations, Department of Developmental Services Marie W. Maddy, Chief, Facilities Planning and Support Section, Department of Development Services ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS - NB -1 VIA HAND DELIVERY & ENTAIL October 6, 2015 The Honorable Stephen Mensinger Mayor of the City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 RE: City of Costa Mesa Regular City Council Meeting, October 6, 2015; Proposed General Plan Land Use Alternatives for the 2015-2025 General Plan Update, Fairview Developmental Center Dear Mayor Mensinger: In June of this year, the California Legislature approved and the Governor signed into law Senate Bill 82 [SB82] (Chapter 23, Statutes of 2015) which added section 14570 36 to the Government Code This legislation authorizes the Director the Department of General Services, with the consent of the Director of the Department of Developmental Services, to lease up to 20 acres at the Fairview Developmental Center (FDC) at a price that will permit the development of affordable housing for people with developmental disabilities (Shannon's Mountain).This legislation also requires that a minimum of twenty percent (20%) of the housing units developed shall be available and affordable to individuals with developmental disabilities served by a regional center pursuant to the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act. In addition to meeting the affordability requirements, the developer of the project will be required to comply with Section 1720 of the Labor Code, for the purpose of prevailing wage requirements. It has come to the state's attention that the city is updating their general plan and considering new land use designations for the FDC that would include a maximum of 500 dwelling units at a density of 15 dwelling units per acre (or a maximum of 25 dwelling units per acre with a density bonus). The state intends to proceed with the Shannon's Mountain project with the city as the lead agency for purposes of CEQA, building permits and inspections. However, at this time it is important to maintain maximum flexibility on the density for the Shannon's Mountain project since the project's financial feasibility will require a unit density greater than the proposed designation of 15 units per acre in order to meet the affordability goals. The state requests that the City include the 20 acres specified in SB 82 in the general plan update allowing a maximum of up to 40 units per acre, which density would be consistent with staff's initial recommendation (City Council/Planning Commission Joint Study Session on September 8, 2015) and with staff's recommendation to include the Residential Incentive Overlay into the general plan update allowing 40 dwelling units per acre for properties along Real Estate Service, Division /Asset Management Branch Sh ! n C:;1;;•xnip �.3av rnn nr c�� ra;i ;ns y r;.y 707 :,' S:._ -, �iI , ;,�w y,,. S--, ar-,=.- �n ._.a .;600 , 3 ia,.to", 'i;S- Attachments to Department of General Services Letter Dated April 15, 2016 related to SB 82 is available for review at the City Hall, Planning Division IMPT LOCH IVER DISTRICT 15600 Sand Canyon Ave., P.O. Box 57000, Irvine, CA 92619-7000 (94 9) 453-5300 April 14, 2016��� Minoo Ashabi Principal Planner City of Costa Mesa �C�s Development Services Department 77 Fair Drive, P.O. Box 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200 Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report for Costa Mesa's Year 2015-2035 General Plan Dear Minoo Ashabi: Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) has received and reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the City of Costa Mesa's 2015-2035 General Plan. IRWD offers the following comments. The DEIR page 4.17-2 should be revised to indicate that IRWD encompasses approximately 115,531 acres or 181 square miles in south-central Orange County. IRWD serves all of the City of Irvine and portions of Tustin, Santa Ana, Newport Beach, Lake Forest, Costa Mesa, Orange and unincorporated areas of Orange County. In 1997, IRWD began providing water service to the Santa Ana Heights community. IRWD serves a population of 380,000 and provides water to approximately 110,000 domestic connections, which includes residential, commercial, industrial, fire protection, public authorities, construction, landscape irrigation and agricultural users. For fiscal year 2013-2014, IRWD delivered 63,834 acre-feet of treated (potable) water, 2,665 acre- feet of untreated (non -potable) water and 31,932 acre-feet of recycled water for a total of 98,431 acre-feet. The DEIR page 4.17-3 should also be revised to indicate that approximately 23 percent of IRWD's water is purchased from MWD. This imported water comes from the Colorado River via the Colorado River Aqueduct and Northern California via the State Water Project. The remaining 77 percent of the supply comes from local groundwater wells. To alleviate its dependency of imported water, in 1979 IRWD began to develop a series of local wells called the Dyer Road Well Field Project. These wells, ranging from 400 to 1,200 feet in depth, extract high quality water from the Orange County Groundwater Basin. This groundwater now accounts for 77 percent of IRWD's total potable water supply. Additionally on page 4.17-3, the DEIR discusses the Water Resources Master Plan (WRMP). While WRMPs are important, they are not updated often which may result in outdated information. IRWD conducts additional analysis, Water Supply Assessments (WSAs), for specific projects or areas and they are updated more frequently that WRMPs. For sections of the .-3rl — Minoo Ashabi Comment Letter Page 2 April 14, 2016 DEIR that discuss future groundwater supply and imports, IRWD recommends the City of Costa Mesa use the information presented in the most recent WSA, completed earlier this month. A copy of the most recent WSA completed is attached for your reference. Please contact IRWD's Planning Division at (949) 453-5300 for questions regarding WSAs. The DEIR on page 4.17-4 should be revised to indicate that IRWD's San Joaquin Reservoir was converted from potable use to recycled water in late 2004. Finally, on page 4.17-9 the DEIR should reflect that IRWD's 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) applies to the Santa Ana Heights area of Costa Mesa. IRWD, like Mesa Consolidated Water District, updates its UWMP every five years and is in the process of preparing its 2015 UWMP. IRWD's 2015 UWMP is scheduled for adoption in June 2016 and will be submitted to the Department of Water Resources by the July 1, 2016 deadline. Thank you for the opportunity to review this IS/MND. Please contact either the undersigned at (949) 453-5325 or Jo Ann Corey, Engineering Technician III, at (949) 453-5326 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Fiona M. Sanchez Director of Water Resources Attachment — Water Supply Assessment cc: Eric Akiyoshi, IRWD Jo Ann Corey, IRWD -138, Water Supply Assessment Information Purpose of Assessment Irvine Ranch Water District ("IRWD") has been identified by the City as a public water system that will supply water service (both potable and nonpotable) to the project identified on the cover page of this assessment (the "Project"). As the public water system, IRWD is required by Section 10910 et seq. of the Water Code to provide the City with an assessment of water supply availability ("assessment") for defined types of projects. The Project has been found by the City to be a project requiring an assessment. The City is required to include this assessment in the environmental document for the Project, and, based on the record, make a determination whether projected water supplies are sufficient for the Project and existing and planned uses. Water Code Section 10910 (the "Assessment Law") contains the requirements for the information to be set forth in the assessment. Prior Water Suooly Assessments IRWD does not allocate particular supplies to any project, but identifies total supplies for its service area. Because of IRWD's aggregation of demands and supplies, each assessment completed by IRWD is expected to be generally similar to the most recent assessment, with changes as needed to take into account changes, if any, in demands and supplies, and any updated and corrected information obtained by IRWD. Previously assessed projects' water demands will be included in the baseline. A newly assessed project's water demand will have been included in previous water supply assessments for other projects (as part of IRWD's "full build -out" demand) to the extent of any land use planning or other water demand information for the project that was available to IRWD. The Project's water demand was included (as part of IRWD's "full build -out" demand) in previous water supply assessments performed by IRWD. In this water supply assessment, the project demand will be revised in accordance with updated information provided by the applicant and included in the "with project" demand. This Second Amended Assessment supersedes the Amended Assessment dated March 8, 2004, to adjust water demand figures as shown in Figures 1 through 8 based on reduced land use densities of the proposed Project development as requested by letter of the City of Orange dated April 1, 2016. Su000rtingDocumentation IRWD prepares two planning documents to guide water supply decision-making. IRWD's principal planning document is IRWD's "Water Resources Master Plan" ("WRMP"). The WRMP is a comprehensive document compiling data and analyses that IRWD considers necessary for its planning needs. IRWD also prepares an Urban Water Management Plan ("UWMP"), a document required by statute. The UWMP is based on the WRMP, but contains defined elements as listed in the statute (Water Code Section 10631, et seq.), and, as a result, is more limited than the WRMP in the treatment of supply and demand issues. Therefore, IRWD primarily relies on its most recent WRMP. The UWMP is required to be updated in years ending with "five" and "zero," and IRWD's most recent update of that document was adopted June 13, 2011. IRWD's next update of that document is anticipated in June 2016. 2 2n° Amended Water Supply Assessment — Santiago Hills 11 (4/16) ^ any) in place to move forward. These supplies are in various stages of planning, design, or construction. In general, supplies underdevelopment may necessitate the preparation and completion of environmental documents, regulatory approvals, and/or contracts prior to full construction and implementation. IRWD is also evaluating the development of additional supplies that are not included in either currently available or under -development supplies for purposes of this assessment. As outlined in the WRMP, prudent water supply and financial planning dictates that development of supplies be phased over time consistent with the growth in demand. Water supplies available to IRWD include several sources: groundwater pumped from the Orange County groundwater basin (including the Irvine Subbasin); captured local (native) surface water; recycled wastewater, and supplemental imported water supplied by MWD through the Municipal Water District of Orange County ("MWDOC"). The supply -demand comparisons in this assessment are broken down among the various sources, and are further separated into potable and nonpotable water sources. Comparison of demand and supply. The three demand projections noted above (baseline, with -project and full build -out) are compared with supplies in the following ways: ■ On a total annual quantity basis (stated in acre-feet per year (AFY)). On a peak -flow (maximum day) basis (stated in cubic feet per second (cfs)). • Under three climate conditions: base (normal) conditions and single -dry and multiple - dry year conditions. (Note: These conditions are compared for annual demands and not for peak -flow demands. Peak -flow is a measure of a water delivery system's ability to meet the highest day's demand of the fluctuating demands that will be experienced in a year's time. Peak demands occur during the hot, dry season and as a result are not appreciably changed by dry -year conditions; dry -year conditions do affect annual demand by increasing the quantity of water needed to supplement normal wet -season precipitation.) Summar/ of Results of Demand -Supply Comparisons Listed below are Figures provided in this assessment, comparing projected potable and nonpotable water supplies and demands under the three development projections: Figure 1: Normal Year Supply and Demand — Potable Water Figure 2: Single Dry -Year Supply and Demand — Potable Water Figure 3: Multiple Dry -Year Supply and Demand — Potable Water Figure 4: Maximum -Day Supply and Demand — Potable Water Figure 5: Normal Year Supply and Demand — Nonpotable Water Figure 6: Single Dry -Year Supply and Demand — Nonpotable Water Figure 7: Multiple Dry -Year Supply and Demand — Nonpotable Water Figure 8: Maximum -Day Supply and Demand — Nonpotable Water It can be observed in the Figures that IRWD's supplies remain essentially constant between normal, single -dry and multiple -dry years. This result is due to the fact that 4 2n° Amended Water Supply Assessment— Santiago Hilts li (4/16) available from these sources, based on legal entitlements, historical uses and information provided by MWD. In addition to MWD's existing regional supply assessments, this assessment has considered MWD information concerning recent events. See "Recent Actions on Delta Pumping," below. • Information provided by MWD, as the imported water supplier, concerning the adequacy of its regional supplies, summarized herein, demonstrates MWD's inclusion of reserves in its regional supply assessments. In addition to MWD's existing regional supply assessments, this assessment has considered MWD information concerning recent events. See "Recent Actions on Delta Pumping," below. • Although groundwater supply amounts shown in this assessment assume production levels within applicable basin production percentages described herein, production of groundwater can exceed applicable basin production percentages on a short-term basis, providing additional reliability during dry years or emergencies. Recent Actions on Delta Pumping. The Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta (Delta) is a vulnerable component in both the State and Federal systems to convey water from northern portions of California to areas south of the Delta. Issues associated with the Delta have generally been known for years; however, most recently, the continuing decline in the number of endangered Delta smelt resulted in the filing of litigation challenging permits for the operation of the Delta pumping facilities. On August 31, 2007, a Federal court ordered interim protective measures for the endangered Delta smelt, including operational limits on Delta pumping, which have an effect on State Water Project (SWP) operations and supplies. On June 4, 2009, a federal biological opinion imposed rules that further restrict water diversions from the Delta to protect endangered salmon and other endangered fish species. At present, several proceedings concerning Delta operations are ongoing to evaluate options to address Delta smelt impacts and other environmental concerns. In addition to the regulatory and judicial proceedings to address immediate environmental concerns, the Delta Vision process and Bay - Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) process are defining long-term solutions for the Delta. In addition, State and federal agencies and water user entities are currently engaged in the development of the BDCP/California WaterFix, which is aimed at making physical and operational improvements to the SWP system in the Delta necessary to restore and protect ecosystem health, south of Delta SWP water supplies and water quality (MWD UWMP). Prior to the 2007 court decision, MWD's Board approved a Delta Action Plan in May 2007 that described short, mid and long-term conditions and the actions to mitigate potential supply shortages and to develop and implement long-term solutions. To address uncertainties in expected SWP supplies, in -October 2007, MWD prepared 2007 IRP Implementation Report, in which MWD estimated that it could see as much as up to a 22% reduction on average of its SWP supplies based on the court order. To comprehensively address the impacts of the SWP cut back on MWD's water supply development targets, in December 2007, MWD brought to its Board a strategy and work plan to update the long-term Integrated Resources Plan (IRP). As part of its ongoing long term planning, in its 2010 IRP Update, MWD identified changes to the long-term plan and established direction to address the range of potential changes in water supply planning. The 2010 IRP also discusses dealing with uncertainties related to impacts of climate change (see additional discussion of this below), as well as actions to protect endangered fisheries. MWD's reliability goal that full-service demands at the retail level will be satisfied for all foreseeable hydrologic conditions remained unchanged in the 2010 IRP Update. The 2010 IRP Update emphasizes an evolving approach and suite of actions to address the water supply challenges that are posed by uncertain weather patterns, regulatory and environmental restrictions, water quality impacts and changes in the state and the region. 2nd Amended Water Supply Assessment— Santiago Hills 11 (4/16) As an alternative means of analyzing the effect of reduced MWD supplies on IRWD, Figures 1a, 2a, and 3a show IRWD's estimated supplies in all of the 5 -year increments (average and single and multiple dry years) under a short-term MWD allocation scenario whereby MWD declares a shortage stage under its WSAP, and a cutback is applied to IRWD's actual usage rather than its connected capacity. IRWD's evaluation of reduced MWD supplies to IRWD as shown in Figures 1 a, 2a and 3a conservatively analyzes the effect of up to a MWD level 5 Regional Shortage Level. In February 2009, IRWD updated Section 15 of its Rules and Regulations — Water Conservation and Water Supply Shortage Program and also updated its Water Shortage Contingency Plan which is a supporting document for Section 15. Section 15 of the Rules and Regulations serves as IRWD's "conservation ordinance". As stated in IRWD's Water Shortage Contingency Plan, use of local supplies, storage and other supply augmentation measures can mitigate shortages, and are assumed to be in use to the maximum extent possible during declared shortage levels. On April 14, 2015, MWD approved the implementation of its WSAP at a level 3 Regional Shortage Level and an effective 15% reduction in regional deliveries effective July 1, 2015, through June 30, 2016. As a result of IRWD's diversified water supplies, IRWD is reliant on MWD for only 20% of its total supplies. IRWD's evaluation of reduced MWD supplies to IRWD as shown in Figures 1 a, 2a and 3a for a MWD level 5 Regional Shortage Level would include MWD's 2015 actions to implement a level 3 Regional Shortage Level and 15% reduction. Under shortage scenarios, IRWD may need to supplement supplies with production of groundwater, which can exceed the applicable basin production percentage on a short-term basis, providing additional reliability during dry years or emergencies.3 In addition, IRWD has developed water banking projects in Kern County, California v,vhich may be called upon for delivery of supplemental banked water to IRWD under a short-term MWD allocation-" IRWD may also convert non -potable water uses to recycled water as a way to conserve potable water. In addition, if needed resultant net shortage levels can be addressed by demand reduction programs as described in IRWD's Water Shortage Contingency Plan. Listed below are Figures provided comparing projected potable water supplies and demands in all of the five year increments, under a temporary MWD allocation scenario: Figure 1 a: Normal Year Supply and Demand (MWD Allocated) — Potable Water Figure 2a: Single Dry -Year Supply and Demand (MWD Allocated) — Potable Water Figure 3a: Multiple Dry -Year Supply and Demand (MWD Allocated) — Potable Water 3 In these scenarios, it is anticipated that other water suppliers who produce water from the Orange County Basin will also experience cutbacks of imported supplies and will increase groundwater production and that Orange County Water District (OCWD) imported replenishment water may also be cutback. The OCWD's "2014-2015 Engineers Report on the groundwater conditions, water supply and basin utilization" references a report (OCWD Report on Evaluation of Orange County Groundwater Basin Storage and Operational Strategy) which recommends a basin management strategy that provides general guidelines for annual basin refill or storage decrease based on the level of accumulated overdraft. It states, "Although it is considered to be generally acceptable to allow the basin to decline to 500,000 AF overdraft for brief periods due to severe drought conditions and lack of supplemental water... an accumulated overdraft of 100,000 AF best represents an optimal basin management target. This optimal target level provides sufficient storage space to accommodate anticipated recharge from a single wet year while also providing water in storage for at least 2 or 3 consecutive years of drought." MWD replenishment water is a supplemental source of recharge water and OCWD estimates other main supply sources for recharge are available. 4 IRWD has developed water banking projects (Water Bank) in Kern County, California and has entered into a 30 - year water banking partnership with Rosedale -Rio Bravo Water Storage District (RRB) to operate IRWD's Strand Ranch portion of the Water Bank. The Water Bank can improve IRWD's water supply reliability by capturing lower cost water available during wet hydrologic periods for use during dry periods. The Water Bank can enhance IRWD's ability to respond to drought conditions and potential water supply interruptions. 8 2nd Amended Water Supply Assessment— Santiago Hills II (4/16) -A4 demand deliveries. In addition, MWD discusses DWR's investments in improvements on the SWP and the long term Delta plan in its UWMP (pages 3-19 to 3-22). IRWD has also addressed supply interruption planning in its WRMP and 2010 UWMP. Recent Actions Related to Drought Conditions. In response to the historically dry conditions throughout the state of California, on April 1, 2015, Governor Brown issued an Executive Order directing the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to impose restrictions to achieve an aggregate statewide 25 percent reduction in potable water use through February 2016. The Governor's Order also includes mandatory actions aimed at reducing water demands, with a particular focus on outdoor water use. On May 5, 2015, the SWRCB adopted regulations which required that IRWD achieve a 16% reduction in potable water use from the 2013 levels. On November 13, 2015, Governor Brown issued an Executive Order directing the SWRCB to extend the 2015 Emergency Regulation through October 31, 2016 if drought conditions continued. On February 2, 2016, the SWRCB adopted an extended and modified Emergency Regulation. As a result of the modification, IRWD's mandated reduction was changed from 16% to 9% effective March 1, 2016.On April 14, 2015, MWD approved actions to implement the Water Supply Allocation Plan at a level 3 Regional Shortage Level and a 15% reduction in regional deliveries effective July 1, 2015, through June 30, 2016. IRWD has and will continue to implement actions to reduce potable water demands during the drought; however, this does not affect IRWD's long-term supply capability to meet the demands. As discussed under "IRWD's Evaluation of Effect of Reduced MWD Supplies to IRWD" (see above), IRWD has effectively analyzed an imported water supply reduction up to a level 5 Regional Shortage Stage in Figures 1a, 2a, 3a. These Figures do not reflect a reduction in demands thus representing a more conservative view of IRWD's supply capability. In particular, the reduction in demand mandated by Senate Bill 7 in 2010, requiring urban retail water suppliers to establish water use targets to achieve a 20% reduction in daily per capita water use by 2020, has not been factored into the demands in this analysis. Similarly, notwithstanding the Governor's order, IRWD's conservative supply - sufficiency analysis in Figures 1 a, 2a and 3a does not include the ordered reduction in potable demands. E+ 2"d Amended Water Supply Assessment— Santiago Hills 11 (4116) 125,000 100,000 CD `m 75,000 a d CD 4 CD L_ Q 50,000 Figure 1 IRWD Normal -Year Supply & Demand - Potable Water 111110�im 25,000 0 2015 2020 2025 2030 2036 o Future Potable D MWD Imported C::= Irvine Desalter �■I� DRWF/DATS/OPA - --- Baseline Demand - - Demand with Project wRMP Build -out Demand (in acre-feet per year) 2015 2020 2025 2030 2036 Current Potable Supplies MWD Imported (EOCF#2, AMP, OCF, Baker) 41,929 41,929 41,929 41,929 41,929 DRWF/DATS/OPA 37,533 37,533 37,533 37,533 37,533 Irvine Desalter 5,309 5,309 5,309 5,309 5,309 Wells 21 & 22 6,329 6,329 6,329 6,329 6,329 Baker Water Treatment Plant (native portion) - 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 Supplies Under Development Future Potable - - 12,352 12,352 12,352 Maximum Supply Capability 91,100 95,100 107,452 107,452 107,452 Baseline Demand 63,753 70,137 77,635 81,261 84,276 Demand with Project 63,753 70,057 75,968 79,007 81,435 WRMP Build -out Demand 63,753 70,057 75,968 79,007 81,434 Reserve Supply with Project 27,347 25,043 31,484 28,445 26,017 Notes: By agreement, IRWD is required to count the production from the Irvine Subbasin in calculating available supplies for TIC developments (see Potable Supply -Groundwater). MWD Imported Supplies are shown at 16% reduction off of average connected capacity. Baker Water Treatment Plant will be supplied untreated imported water and native water from Irvine Lake. t2 125,000 100,000 L R N } 75,000 L N IZ N LL 50,000 V Ell Figure 3 IRWD Multiple Dry -Year Supply & Demand - Potable Water 25,000 0 2015 2020 2025 2030 2036 D Future Potable O MWD Imported O Irvine Desalter ti DRWFIDATSIOPA ---�--- Baseline Demand - - Demand with Project -� WRMP Build -out Demand (in acre-feet per year) 2015 2020 2025 2030 2036 Current Potable Supplies MWD Imported (EOCF#2, AMP, OCF, & 41,929 41,929 41,929 41,929 41,929 DRWF/DATS/OPA 37,533 37,533 37,533 37,533 37,533 Irvine Desalter 5,309 5,309 5,309 5,309 5,309 Wells 21 & 22 6,329 6,329 6,329 6,329 6,329 Baker Water Treatment Plant (native portic - 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Supplies Under Development Future Potable - - 12,352 12,352 12,352 Maximum Supply Capability 91,100 92,100 104,452 104,452 104,452 Baseline Demand 68,216 75,047 83,069 86,950 90,175 Demand with Project 68,216 74,960 81,285 84,538 87,136 WRMP Build -out Demand 68,216 74,960 81,285 84,538 87,135 Reserve Supply with Pmject 22,884 17,139 23,167 19,914 17,317 Notes: Supplies identical to Normal -Year based on Metropolitan's Urban Water Management Plan and usage of groundwater under drought conditions (OCWD Master Plan). Demands increased 7% from Normal -Year. By agreement, IRWD is required to count the production from the Irvine Subbasin in calculating available supplies for TIC developments (see Potable Supply -Groundwater). MWD Imported Supplies are shown at 16% reduction off of average connected capacity. Baker Water Treatment Plant will be supplied untreated imported water and native water from Irvine Lake. 14 ._gAq 60,000 tr R 40,000 SZ a.+ M IL i L v Elll 20,000 0 Figure 5 IRWD Normal -Year Supply & Demand - Nonpotable Water O Future MWRP&LAWRP © MWD Imported (Baker, ILP) �r Native Water i 2015 2020 2025 2030 2036 O Irvine Desalter Existing MWRP&LAWRP ---w--- Baseline Demand ~ - Demand with Project t WRMP Build -out Demand (in acre-feet per year) 2015 2020 2025 2030 2036 Current Nonpotable Supplies Existing MWRP&LAWRP 18,657 18,657 18,657 18,657 18,657 Future MWRP&LAWRP - 10,100 10,100 10,100 10,100 MWD Imported (Baker, ILP) 17,826 17,826 17,826 17,826 17,826 Irvine Desalter 3,514 3,514 3,514 3,514 3,514 Native Water 1,000 - - - - Maximum Supply Capability 40,997 50,097 50,097 50,097 50,097 Baseline Demand 28,381 30,013 31,010 30,625 30,540 Demand with Project 28,381 30,371 31,368 30,983 30,898 WRMP Build -out Demand 28,381 30,371 31,368 30,625 30,898 Reserve Supply with Project 12,616 19,726 18,728 19,472 19,199 Note: Downward trend reflects reduction in agricultural use over time. Native water will be treated to potable through the Baker Water Treatment Plant after 2016. MWD Imported Supplies are shown at 16% reduction off of average connected capacity. 16 60,000 L } 40,000 Q a.+ LL i v ill 20,000 0 Figure 7 IRWD Multiple Dry -Year Supply & Demand - Nonpotable Water 2015 2020 2025 2030 2036 O Future MWRP&LAWRP MWD Imported (Baker, ILP) fi Native Water D Irvine Desalter o F)dsdng MWRP&LAWRP ---r--- Baseline Demand - *-- - Demand with Project t WRMP Build -out Demand (in acre-feet per year) 2015 2020 2025 2030 2036 Current Nonpotable Supplies Existing MWRP&LAWRP 18,657 18,657 18,657 18,657 18,657 Future MWRP&LAWRP - 10,100 10,100 10,100 10,100 MWD Imported (Baker, ILP) 17,826 17,826 17,826 17,826 17,826 Irvine Desalter 3,514 3,514 3,514 3,514 3,514 Native Water 1,000 - - - - Maximum Supply Capability 40,997 51,097 50,097 50,097 50,097 Baseline Demand 30,215 31,870 32,838 32,415 31,988 Demand with Project 30,215 31,997 33,014 32,602 32,187 WRMP Build -out Demand 30,215 31,997 33,014 32,415 32,187 Reserve Supply with Project 10,781 19,100 17,083 17,495 17,910 Note: Downward trend reflects reduction in agricultural use over time. Native water will be treated to potable through the Baker Water Treatment Plant after 2016. MWD Imported Supplies are shown at 16% reduction off of average connected capacity. 18 ^lj140._ 125,000 100,000 Figure la IRWD Normal -Year Supply & Demand - Potable Water Under Temporary MWD Allocation* 75,000 n. LL N L Q 50,000 25,000 0 2015 2020 2025 2030 2036 o Future Potable 0 MWD Imported I Irvine Desalter � DRWF/DATS/OPA --i--- Baseline Demand - *- - Demand with Project ---*-- VVRMP Build -out Demand (in acre-feet per year) 2015 2020 2025 2030 2036 Current Potable Supplies MWD Imported (EOCF#2, AMP, OCF, Baker) 29,000 35,500 37,311 39,214 40,002 DRWF/DATS/OPA 37,533 37,533 37,533 37,533 37,533 Irvine Desalter 5,309 5,309 5,309 5,309 5,309 Wells 21 & 22 6,329 6,329 6,329 6,329 6,329 Baker Water Treatment Plant (native portion) - 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Supplies Under Development Future Potable - - 12,352 12,352 12,352 Maximum Supply Capability 78,170 85,670 99,834 101,737 102,525 Baseline Demand 63,753 70,137 77,635 81,261 84,276 Demand with Project 63,753 70,057 75,968 79,007 81,435 WRMP Build -out Demand 63,753 70,057 75,968 79,007 81,435 Reserve Supply with Project 14,417 15,614 23,866 22,730 21,090 `For illustration purposes, IRWD has shown MWD Imported Supplies as estimated under a short-term allocation, Shortage Stage 3 in all of the 5 -year increments. However, it is likely that such a scenario would only be temporary. Under a MWD Allocation, IRWD could supplement supplies with groundwater production which can exceed applicable basin percentages on a short-term basis or transfer water from IRWD's water bank. IRWD may also reduce demands by implementing shortage contingency measures as described in the UWMP. Under a MWD Allocation, the Baker WTP would be limited to available MWD and native water only. 20 .-A9 125,000 100,000 Figure 3a IRWD Single Dry -Year Supply & Demand - Potable Water Under Temporary MWD Allocation* 75,000 Q N 4 N L Q 50,000 25,000 0 2015 2020 2025 2030 2036 0 Future Potable O MWD Imported Irvine Desalter �■ DRWF/DATS/OPA --♦--- Baseline Demand - t - Demand with Project t WRMP Build -out Demand (in acre-feet per year) 2015 2020 2025 2030 2036 Current Potable Supplies MWD Imported (EOCF#2, AMP, OCF, Baker) 29,000 35,500 37,311 39,214 40,002 DRWF/DATS/OPA 37,533 37,533 37,533 37,533 37,533 Irvine Desalter 5,309 5,309 5,309 5,309 5,309 Wells 21_& 22 6,329 6,329 6,329 6,329 6,329 Baker Water Treatment Plant (native portion) - 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Supplies Under Development Future Potable - - 12,352 12,352 12,352 Maximum Supply Capability 78,170 85,670 99,834 101,737 102,525 Baseline Demand 68,216 75,047 83,069 86,950 90,175 Demand with Project 68,216 74,960 81,285 84,538 87,136 WRMP Build -out Demand 68,216 74,960 81,285 84,538 87,135 Reserve Supply with Project 9,955 10,710 18,548 17,199 15,389 *For illustration purposes, IRWD has shown MWD Imported Supplies as estimated under a short-term allocation, Shortage Stage 3 in all of the 5 -year increments. However, it is likely that such a scenario would only be temporary. Under a MWD Allocation, IRWD could supplement supplies with groundwater production which can exceed applicable basin percentages on a short-term basis or transfer water from IRWD's water bank. IRWD may also reduce demands by implementing shortage contingency measures as described in the UWMP. Under a MWD Allocation, the Baker WTP would be limited to available MWD and native water only. 22 -Ag- 2015 Ag (b) Required information concerning currently -available and under -development water supply entitlements, water rights and water service contracts: (1) Written contracts or other proof of entitlement.' 6 ePOTABLE SUPPLY - IMPORTED' Potable imported water service connections (currently available), (i) Potable imported water is delivered to IRWD at various service connections to the imported water delivery system of The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California ("MWD"): service connections CM -01A and OC -7 (Orange County Feeder); CM -10, CM -12, OC -38, OC -39, OC -57, OC -58, OC -63 (East Orange County Feeder No. 2); and OC -68, OC -71, OC -72, OC -73/73A, OC -74, OC -75, OC -83, OC -84, OC -87 (Allen-McColloch Pipeline). IRWD's entitlements regarding service from the MWD delivery system facilities are described in the following paragraphs and summarized in the above Table ((2)(a)(1)). IRWD receives imported water service through Municipal Water District of Orange County ("MWDOC"), a member agency of MWD. Allen-McColloch Pipeline ("AMP") (currently available). (ii) Agreement For Sale and Purchase of Allen-McColloch Pipeline, dated as of July 1, 1994 (Metropolitan Water District Agreement No. 4623) ("AMP Sale Agreement"). Under the AMP Sale Agreement, MWD purchased the Allen- McColloch Pipeline (formerly known as the "Diemer Intertie") from MWDOC, the MWDOC Water Facilities Corporation and certain agencies, including IRWD and Los Alisos Water District ("LAWD"),g identified as "Participants" therein. Section 5.02 of the AMP Sale Agreement obligates MWD to meet IRWD's and the other Participants' requests for deliveries and specified minimum hydraulic grade lines at each connection serving a Participant, subject to availability of water. MWD agrees to operate the AMP as any other MWD pipeline. MWD has the right to In some instances, the contractual and other legal entitlements referred to in the following descriptions are stated in terms of flow capacities, in cubic feet per second ("cfs"). In such instances, the cfs flows are converted to volumes of AFY for purposes of analyzing supply sufficiency in this assessment, by dividing the capacity by a peaking factor of 1.8 (potable) or 2.5 (nonpotable), consistent with maximum day peaking factors used in the WRMP. The resulting reduction in assumed available annual AFY volumes through the application of these factors recognizes that connected capacity is provided to meet peak demands and that seasonal variation in demand and limitations in local storage prevent these capacities from being utilized at peak capacity on a year-round basis. However, the application of these factors produces a conservatively low estimate of annual AFY volumes from these connections; additional volumes of water are expected to be available from these sources. 6 In the following discussion, contractual and other legal entitlements are characterized as either potable or nonpotable, according to the characterization of the source of supply. Some of the nonpotable supplies surplus to nonpotable demand could potentially be rendered potable by the addition of treatment facilities; however, except where otherwise noted, IRWD has no current plans to do so. See Imported Supply - Additional Information, below, for information concerning the availability of the MWD supply. 8 IRWD has succeeded to LAWD's interests in the AMP and other LAWD water supply facilities and rights mentioned in this assessment, by virtue of the consolidation of IRWD and LAWD on December 31, 2000. 24 UK= District), MWD, Coastal Municipal Water District ("Coastal"), Anaheim and Santa Ana. A portion of IRWD's territory is within MWDOC and the remainder is within the former Coastal (which was consolidated with MWDOC in 2001). Under the IRWD MWDOC Assignment Agreement, MWDOC assigned 41 cfs of capacity to IRWD in the reaches of EOCF#2 upstream of the point known as Coastal Junction (reaches 1 through 3), and 27 cfs in reach 4, downstream of Coastal Junction. Similarly, under the IRWD Coastal Assignment Agreement, prior to Coastal's consolidation with MWDOC, Coastal assigned to IRWD 0.4 cfs of capacity in reaches 1 through 3 and 0.6 cfs in reach 4 of EOCF#2. Delivery of water through EOCF#2 is subject to the rules and regulations of MWD and MWDOC, and is further subject to application and agreement of IRWD respecting turnouts. Orange County Feeder (currently available) (vi) Agreement, dated March 13, 1956. This 1956 Agreement between MWDOC's predecessor district and the Santa Ana Heights Water Company ("SAHWC") provides for delivery of MWD imported supply to the former SAHWC service area. SAHWC's interests were acquired on behalf of IRWD through a stock purchase and IRWD annexation of the SAHWC service area in 1997. The supply is delivered through a connection to MWD's Orange County Feeder designated as OC -7. (vii) Agreement For Transfer of Interest In Pacific Coast Highway Water Transmission and Storage Facilities From The Irvine Company To the Irvine Ranch Water District, dated April 23, 1984; Joint Powers Agreement For the Construction, Operation and Maintenance of Sections 1 a, 1 b and 2 of the Coast Supply Line, dated June 9, 1989; Agreement, dated January 13, 1955 ("1955 Agreement"). The jointly constructed facility known as the Coast Supply Line ("CSL"), extending southward from a connection with MWD's Orange County Feeder at Fernleaf Street in Newport Beach, was originally constructed pursuant to a 1952 agreement among Laguna Beach County Water District ("LBCWD"), The Irvine Company (TIC) and South Coast County Water District. Portions were later reconstructed. Under the above -referenced transfer agreement in 1984, IRWD succeeded to TIC's interests in the CSL. The CSL is presently operated under the above -referenced 1989 joint powers agreement, which reflects IRWD's ownership of 10 cfs of capacity. The 1989 agreement obligates LBCWD, as the managing agent and trustee for the CSL, to purchase water and deliver it into the CSL for IRWD. LBCWD purchases such supply, delivered by MWD to the Fernleaf connection, pursuant to the 1955 Agreement with Coastal (now MWDOC). 26 _So-- (the "DRWF Agreement"). The DRWF Agreement, among IRWD, OCWD and Santa Ana, concerns the development of IRWD's Dyer Road Wellfield ("DRWF"), within the Basin. The DRWF consists of 16 wells pumping from the non -colored water zone of the Basin and 2 wells (with colored -water treatment facilities) pumping from the deep, colored -water zone of the Basin (the colored -water portion of the DRWF is sometimes referred to as the Deep Aquifer Treatment System or "DATS".) Under the DRWF Agreement, an "equivalent" basin production percentage (BPP) has been established for the DRWF, currently 28,000 AFY of non -colored water and 8,000 AFY of colored water, provided any amount of the latter 8,000 AFY not produced results in a matching reduction of the 28,000 AFY BPP. Although typically IRWD production from the DRWF does not materially exceed the equivalent BPP, the equivalent BPP is not an extraction limitation; it results in imposition of monetary assessments on the excess production. The DRWF Agreement also establishes monthly pumping amounts for the DRWF. With the addition of the Concentrated Treatment System (CATS), IRWD has increased the yield of DATS. Irvine Subbasin / Irvine Desalter (currently available) (iv) First Amended and Restated Agreement, dated March 11, 2002, as amended June 15, 2006, restating May 5, 1988 agreement ("Irvine Subbasin Agreement"). TIC has historically pumped agricultural water from the Irvine Subbasin. (As in the rest of the Basin of which this subbasin is a part, the groundwater rights have not been adjudicated, and OCWD provides governance and management under the Act.) The 1988 agreement between IRWD and TIC provided for the joint use and management of the Irvine Subbasin. The 1988 agreement further provided that the 13,000 AFY annual yield of the Irvine Subbasin would be allocated 1,000 AFY to IRWD and 12,000 AFY to TIC. Under the restated Irvine Subbasin Agreement, the foregoing allocations were superseded as a result of TIC's commencement of the building its Northern Sphere Area project, with the effect that the Subbasin production capability, wells and other facilities, and associated rights have been transferred from TIC to IRWD, and IRWD has assumed the production from the Subbasin. In consideration of the transfer, IRWD is required to count the supplies attributable to the transferred Subbasin production in calculating available supplies for the Northern Sphere Area project and other TIC development and has agreed that they will not be counted toward non -TIC development. A portion of the existing Subbasin water production facilities produce water which is of potable quality. IRWD could treat some of the water produced from the Subbasin for potable use, by means of the Desalter and other projects. Although, as noted above, the Subbasin has not been adjudicated and is managed by OCWD, TIC reserved water rights from conveyances of its lands as development over the Subbasin has occurred, and under the Irvine Subbasin Agreement TIC has transferred its rights to IRWD. (v) Second Amended and Restated Agreement Between Orange County Water District and Irvine Ranch Water District Regarding the Irvine Desalter Project, dated June 11, 2001, and other agreements referenced therein. This agreement provides for the extraction and treatment of subpotable groundwater from the Irvine Subbasin, a portion of the Basin. As is the case with the remainder of the Basin, IRWD's entitlement to extract this water is not adjudicated, but the use of 28 supply. Water Reclamation Plant Expansion (currently available) IRWD completed construction of the Michelson Water Reclamation Plant Phase 2 Capacity Expansion Project to tertiary capacity of 28 MGD. With this expansion, IRWD increased its tertiary treatment capacity on the existing MWRP site to produce sufficient recycled water to meet the projected demand in the year 2036. Additional reclamation capacity will augment local nonpotable supplies and improve reliability. •NONPOTABLE SUPPLY - IMPORTED10 Baker Pipeline (currently available) Santiago Aqueduct Commission Joint Powers Agreement, dated September 11, 1961, as amended December 20, 1974, January 13, 1978, November 1, 1978, September 1, 1981, October 22, 1986, and July 8, 1999 (the "SAC Agreement"); Agreement Between Irvine Ranch Water District and Carma-Whiting Joint Venture Relative to Proposed Annexation of Certain Property to Irvine Ranch Water District, dated May 26, 1981 (the "Whiting Annexation Agreement"). Service connections OC -13/13A, OC -33133A. The imported untreated water pipeline initially known as the Santiago Aqueduct and now known as the Baker Pipeline was constructed under the SAC Agreement, a joint powers agreement. The Baker Pipeline is connected to MWD's Santiago Lateral. IRWD's capacity in the Baker Pipeline includes the capacity it subleases as successor to LAWD, as well as capacity rights IRWD acquired through the Whiting Annexation Agreement. (To finance the construction of AMP parallel untreated reaches which were incorporated into the Baker Pipeline, replacing original SAC untreated reaches that were made a part of the AMP potable system, it was provided that the MWDOC Water Facilities Corporation, and subsequently MWDOC, would have ownership, and the participants would be sublessees.) IRWD's original capacities in the Baker Pipeline include 52.70 cfs in the first reach, 12.50 cfs in each of the second, third and fourth reaches and 7.51 cfs in the fifth reach of the Baker Pipeline. These existing Baker Pipeline capacities have been apportioned to the Baker WTP participants based on Baker WTP capacity ownership. IRWD retains 10.5 cfs of the pipeline capacity for potable supply through the Baker WTP and retains 36 cfs in Reach 1 U of the Baker Pipeline capacity for nonpotable supply (See also footnote 10, page 27). Water is subject to availability from MWD. •NONPOTABLE SUPPLY - NATIVE Irvine Lake (currently available) (i) Permit For Diversion and Use of Water (Permit No. 19306) issued pursuant to Application No. 27503; License For Diversion and Use of Water (License 2347) resulting from Application No. 4302 and Permit No. 3238; License For Diversion See Imported Supply - Additional Information, below, for information concerning the availability of the MWD 30 �r2_ Subbasin Agreement under Potable Supply - Groundwater; paragraph (iv), above. (ii) See discussion of the Irvine Desalter project under Potable Supply - Groundwater, paragraph (v), above. The Irvine Desalter project will produce nonpotable as well as potable water. •IMPORTED SUPPLY - ADDITIONAL. INFORMATION As described above, the imported supply from MWD is contractually subject to availability. To assist local water providers in assessing the adequacy of local water supplies that are reliant in whole or in part on MWD's imported supply; MWD has provided information concerning the availability of the supplies to its entire service area. In MWD's UWMP, MWD has extended its planning timeframe out through 2040 to ensure that MWD's UWMP may be used as a source document for meeting requirements for sufficient supplies. In addition, the MWD UWMP includes "Justifications for Supply Projections" (Appendix A-3) that details the planning, legal, financial, and regulatory basis for including each source of supply in the plan. The MWD UWMP summarizes MWD's planning initiatives over the past 15 years, which includes the Integrated Resources Plan (IRP), the IRP 2015 Update, the WSDM Plan, Strategic Plan and Rate Structure. The reliability analysis in MWD's 2015 IRP Update showed that MWD can maintain reliable supplies under the conditions that have existed in past dry periods throughout the period through 2040. The MWD UWMP includes tables that show the region can provide reliable supplies under both the single driest year (1977) and multiple dry years (1990-92) through 2040. MWD has also identified buffer supplies, including additional State Water Project groundwater storage and transfers that could serve to supply the additional water needed. It is anticipated that MWD will revise its regional supply availability analysis periodically, if needed, to supplement the MWD UWMP in years when the MWD UWMP is not being updated. IRWD is permitted by the statute to rely upon the water supply information provided by the wholesaler concerning a wholesale water supply source, for use in preparing its UWMPs. In turn, the statute provides for the use of UWMP information to support water supply assessments and verifications. In accordance with these provisions, IRWD is entitled to rely upon the conclusions of the MWD UWMP. As referenced above under Summary of Results of Demand-Supoiy Comcarisons - Recent Actions on Delta Pumping, MWD has provided additional information on its imported water supply. MWD's reserve supplies, together with the fact that IRWD relies on MWD supplies as supplemental supplies that need not be used to the extent IRWD operates currently available and under -development local supplies, build a margin of safety into IRWD's supply availability. (2) Adopted capital outlay program to finance delivery of the water supplies. All necessary delivery facilities currently exist for the use of the currently available and under -development supplies assessed herein, with the exception of 32 service contractholders that receive a water supply from, or have existing water supply entitlements, water rights and water service contracts to, that source(s): Water has been received from all listed sources. A small quantity of Subbasin water is used by Woodbridge Village Association for the purpose of supplying its North and South Lakes. There are no other public water systems or water service contractholders that receive a water supply from, or have existing water supply entitlements, water rights and water service contracts to, the Irvine Subbasin. 4. Information concerning groundwater included in the supply identified for the Project: (a) Relevant information in the Urban Water Management Plan (UWMR): See Irvine Ranch Water District 2010 UWMP, sections 4-D through 4-J. (b) Description of the groundwater basin(s) from which the Proiect will be supplied - The Orange County Groundwater Basin ("Basin") is described in the Groundwater Management Plan ("GMP") 2015 Update Final Draft, dated June 17,2015 12 . The rights of the producers within the Basin vis a vis one another have not been adjudicated. The Basin is managed by the Orange County Water District (OCWD) for the benefit of municipal, agricultural and private groundwater producers. OCWD is responsible for the protection of water rights to the Santa Ana River in Orange County as well as the management and replenishment of the Basin. Current production from the Basin is approximately 331,000 AFY. The Department of Water Resources has not identified the Basin as overdrafted in its most current bulletin that characterizes the condition of the Basin, Bulletin 118 (2003). The efforts being undertaken by OCWD to eliminate long-term overdraft in the Basin are described in the OCWD MPR, including in particular, Chapters 4, 5, 6, 14 and 15 of the MPR. In addition to Orange County Water District (OCWD) reports listed in the Assessment Reference List, OCWD has also prepared a Long Term Facilities Plan ("LTFP") which was received by the OCWD Board in July 2009, and was last updated in November 2014. The LTFP Chapter 3 describes the efforts being undertaken by OCWD to eliminate long- term overdraft in the Basin. Although the water supply assessment statute (Water Code Section 10910(f)) refers to elimination of "long-term overdraft," overdraft includes conditions which may be managed for optimum basin storage, rather than eliminated. OCWD's Act defines annual groundwater overdraft to be the quantity by which production exceeds the natural replenishment of the Basin. Accumulated overdraft is defined in the OCWD Act to be the quantity of water needed in the groundwater basin forebay to prevent landward movement of seawater into the fresh groundwater body. However, seawater intrusion control facilities have been constructed by OCWD since the Act was written, and have been effective in preventing landward movement of seawater. These facilities allow greater 12 OCWD has also prepared a Long -Term Facilities Plan which was received and filed by its Board in July 2009, and last updated in November 2014. 34 —A� 2008 36,741 4,539 0 16- 2007 37,864 5,407 0 6 2006 37,046 2,825 01 268 2005 36,316 2,285 628 357 2004 30,265 1,938 3,079 101 2003 24,040 2,132 4,234 598 j 2002 25,855 2,533 5,075 744 (d) Description and analysis of the amount and location of groundwater projected to be pumped by IRWD from the Basin: IRWD has a developed groundwater supply of 35,200 AFY from its Dyer Road Wellfield (including the Deep Aquifer Treatment System), in the main portion of the Basin. Although TIC's historical production from the Subbasin declined as its use of the Subbasin for agricultural water diminished, OCWD's and other historical production records for the Subbasin show that production has been as high as 13,000 AFY. Plans are also underway to expand IRWD's main Orange County Groundwater Basin supply (characterized as under -development supplies herein). (See Section 2 (a) (1) herein). IRWD anticipates the development of additional production facilities within both the main Basin and the Irvine Subbasin. However, such additional facilities have not been included or relied upon in this assessment. Additional groundwater development will provide an additional margin of safety as well as reduce future water supply costs to IRWD. The following table summarizes future IRWD groundwater production from currently available and under -development supplies. (In AFY) Year (ending 6/30) DRWF`' Future GW t5 IDP (Potable) IDP (Wcopotable) 2020 43,300 0 5,640 3,898 2025 43,300 12,352 5,640 3,898 2035 43,300 12,352 5,640 3,898 2040 43,300 12,352 5,640 3,898 (e) If not included in the 2010 UWMP, analysis of the sufficiency of groundwater projected to be pumped by IRWD from the Basin to meet to meet the projected water demand of the Project: 14 See Potable Supply - Groundwater, paragraph (iii), above. DRWF non -colored production above 28,000 AFY and colored water production above 8,000 AFY are subject to contractually -imposed assessments. In addition, seasonal production amounts apply. This also includes 1,000 AFY for the OPA well and 6,300 for Wells 21 &22. Under development. 36 5. ® This Water Supply Assessment is being completed for a project included in a prior water supply assessment. Check all of the following that apply: ❑ Changes in the Project have substantially increased water demand. ❑ Changes in circumstances or conditions have substantially affected IRWD's ability to provide a sufficient water supply for the Project. ® Significant new information has become available which was not known and could not have been known at the date of the prior Water Supply Assessment. 6. References Water Resources Master Plan, Irvine Ranch Water District, Updated 2007 Section 15 of the Rules and Regulations — Water Conservation and Water Supply Shortage Program, Irvine Ranch Water District, February 2009 Water Shortage Contingency Plan, Irvine Ranch Water District, February 2009 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, Irvine Ranch Water District, June, 2011 Southern California's Integrated Water Resources Plan, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, March 1996 Proposed Framework for Metropolitan Water District's Delta Action Plan, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, May 8, 2007 2007 IRP Implementation Report, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, October 7, 2007 Board Letter, Action plan for updating the Integrated Resources Plan, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, December 11, 2007 2010 Integrated Resources Plan Update, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, October 2010 2015 Integrated Resources Plan Update, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, January 2016 Draft 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, March 2016 Master Plan Report, Orange County Water District, April, 1999 Groundwater Management Plan, Orange County Water District, March, 2004 Final Draft Long -Term Facilities Plan, Orange County Water District, January 2006 Long -Tenn Facilities Plan 2014 Update, Orange County Water District, November 2014 38 _�(V_. April 6, 2016 Lisa Sabo, President Orange County Fairgrounds Preservation Society PO Box 4155 Orange, CA 92863 Minoo Ashabi, Principal Planner City of Costa Mesa — Development Services Department 77 Fair Drive, P.O. Box 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200 Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report for the 2015-2035 General Plan March 4, 2o16, State Clearinghouse No. 2015111o68 Dear Ms. Ashabi, The Orange County Fairgrounds Preservation Society (OCFPS) is submitting comments with regards to the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the 2015-2035 General Plan March 4, 2016, State Clearinghouse No. 2015111o68 OCFPS is a group of stakeholders including businesses and community members, of the 32°d District Agricultural Association (32°d DAA), more commonly known as the Orange County Fairgrounds and Orange County Fair and Event Center. In 2012, OCFPS reached as settlement agreement regarding the continued operation of the Pacific Amphitheatre located on the 32"1 DAA property (2012 Pac Amp Settlement Agreement). The 2012 Pac Amp Settlement Agreement included existing noise standards, required the hiring and usage of a qualified sound monitor for all events in the Pacific Amphitheatre and required that all users of the Pacific Amphitheatre and talent be contractually obligated to obey the noise limits and directions of the qualified sound monitor. In Section 4 Environmental Impact Analysis, Noise 4.12, noise limits imposed by the terms of the 1990 Order are incorporated as part of the above referenced draft EIR. OCFPS requests that the entire agreement 2012 Pacific Ampitheatre Settlement Agreement be incorporated in the above referenced draft EIR. A copy of the 2012 Pacific Ampitheatre Settlement Agreement is attached to this document. Sincer ly, 5a Sabo OCFPS President SETTLEMENT :SND RELEASE ;kGREENIENT ORANGE C'OC AT)" VURGROUNDS PRESERV.. I TIO.1SOCIETY vs. 32ND DLSTRICT AGRICULTC WAL •-I.SSOC'II TWA-, a public a,;encti•. (Oran"e Count., Superior Court, Case No. 30-2012-0053$7il) hhi:�! Settlement and Relcase :kgreement (' .-\yreement") is being made b� and amon, the tulle ��in, Parties: (1 ) Orangc Cotton Fairgrounds Preser- ation SocietF (•'SOCIETY") and (2) i�nd DistrA-ricultal Association., a ('alifornia public agency\SSOCI:\TIOti" ict_ ur 1. SOCIETY and ASSOCL\•T•IO\ may he referr:d to herein indi�,iduall is a "Part -v" or collectkel� a",- --Parties," I. BACKGROUND RECITALS 1.1 ASSO(T [ IO `,' is a California state institution that operates the Orange COUnr\, Fairgrounds. 1.21 SOCIETY is a California non-profit corporation organized to preserNe the Orange County Fair rounds as a valuable public asset consistent with the rights of the surrounding residents of the City of Costa Mesa. f :As part ofthe operation orthe OranLe County Fair"Urounds. the ASSOCIATION adopted t Vaster Plan for the Development of the Fairgrounds ( the "\ laster Plan"). In the tall of 't11 1. the Board of Directors of the ASSOCtA rIO:N appro� ed the initiation of a planning* prrcess for the implementation ofthe Master Plan «kith respect to the Pacific Amphitheater providinv_ For the reem ineerin2 of the berm, the relocation of the main entr% north of the existin_ cntr-, and the creation of pay ed multi-purpose areas in the space created b" the reent ine red berm (the'•Prn,lect"). The proposed extent oFthe Project is described in Exhibit A. 1.4 rhe parties are in disaurreement v ith respect to whether the initiation of the planning process amounted to a project ��Ithin the meaning oCthe California En"irunmenta[ Quality .\ct.. JOn December 1 201 1, the Board of Directors of the ASSOCI ATION eleeted to treat the implementation ofthe Pacific Amphitheater improvements as a project under CEC)A. reeoruiderin<< its prck•ic)u action and appro%ed proceeding�Oth the design OF Project. 1.6 On Deccmher ' I. 01 I, the :\SSOC1A TION tiled a NOLiCe of Determination with respect tel the Project, [ In the past there have been disputes among, the ASSOCf \T•ION, operators of the Pacific Vin ph1theater Lind homeOV hers 11% Ing in adjacent neighborhoods vkith respect to the appropriatz noise le',Ll standard; that should apply to events at the Pacific :Amphitheater. I.8 In 1980, the Citi of Costa .Mesa and the .\SSOCIA KION entered into a settlement a`areement that, amonu other things. addressed noise related issue. in residential zones. Settlement and Release A,!reement 1 —56— I.O In 1`�r)t.�. the c:uurl in the natter oI U mi, rned C iri._ ns o Costa ,lesa, Inc. b. 3,2nd Dl;itrAAgrS(: Aural Association ((Vange County Superior Court 10. 42 07 28 and 55 65 08) estahl!shed ce.rtaln stair step Sound lelel :standards applicable to enC.s ai the Pacific AmpnlCiieaCc:l'. I.10 Since 200 when: the ASSOCIAT-ION co nmenced COnduCting elventS in, the Pai:itic .Amphitheater. the ASSOCLA FRA has emph A a Sound monitor (the "Sound 'Monitor") to monitor sound levels during Pacific :Amphitheater events in the adjacent neQhblyhoods to ensure compliance %with the Sound Awl Standard. Since that time, %ery Q\x complaints about noise born the Pacitic :amphitheater have been recei%ed and all were resolved i� the Sound Monkor bb requiring the noise le"els to be adjlBW 1.1 l On January 20, 2012. SOCIETY filed a Petition [or Writ of Llandate challengin,f the Project under We California Environmental QlJality Act (-,CFQA' )_ Public Resources Code. Sections 21000 w seq , naming the ASSOCIA ON as ReTundent. Lhe civil proceedino� is knllbl;n as Wange County FtlkgrOUnds Preservation Sociei �. 12nd District lZriCU!tural Association. a public agency, ( Orange Counq Superior Court. Case Tim 300012-0053875 I ) (-Pacific Atnphiiheater :fiction ). That mutter is nog% pending hCF0re Jude John C_ Gastelum in DepartiTrent C 09. 1.12 SOCIE1-Y and ASSOCIA I-l0N desire to settle the Pacific Amphitheater Action lance and for all in order to ay oid the expense and deiav of litigation and ti4ithout any admission or liability. I .1 ; The specific terms and condition, of this Agreement, as ,et Out in detail belo«, are a compromise and A not necessaril; reflect the WWI viev s Of what ma`w be required unifier CEQ_A or other lave. 1.14 Before executing tris Agreemem, each of rhe Parties consulted "A separate, independent attorney's of their o"n rnpeaive chasing in Order to review the terms and prop 1sions of this Agreement and to Satisfy them-se-kes that cAc:cuting ii is in their respectite be�I interests. Against this background and Ar'a YalU;lnl. considl:ration, the receipt and sufhcienc; of hich is no" ackno"led,eil_ the Parties agree', a follo\&;: 2. OBLIGATIONS OF THE I'AR'TtFS _'-i Ohlk_ations o, :. SSOC1.A I'lC)N. 2.1.1 %1arkIztiti Nojcec1.I CornpIaint S�stem. the AS'SOCIAI[ON v il:I maintain a complaint s tem beth by telephone and internet �4hich accept; and monitors cornplair:ts arising, out cif Pacific :Amphitheater operations and prumptl} refers those complaints to the ]ICNOl',i authoriLed to take rct-medial actions on the complaints. [or ;:.rind complaints for an vert at the Pacific ,amphitheater. this referral shall be subwntially immediate. fhe ASSO CIA -110N shall HIClude adGisement of contact w, niation (-'or the complaW sysom in its mailings t0 the nearh`v residential cornrnUnit� in::!.idM_ C'A[c"ae Park. `Mesa Del liar and any ether residential siren,, which nwa be tiett mens and Rel,.a, :\s,r•_=men: - suhst,antlal-k Impacted by operation of tIhe fLc. r- cnphleater and ,hall post the (:,)nplaim ivsLcm alld contact. information MI Its website. ,1.2 File ASSOCLA F[ON Shiddl CIUSe improwernentS to the Pacific Amphitheater to be in compt lance with the Master Plan vhich vias the ,,ubject of the FIR CertlFicd on Ausust _1001. File ASSOCIATION agrees that the Project shall he designed So that the sound attenuation aspects of the PaC11*11c Amphitheater Shall he at least as ett.-cti�e LIS the Current Confi]_TUratlon. Upon C01111--flction of the Project, the ASS(_)ClAFt()\ shall. conduct appropriate anaksi-, to COn I"irm that this design standard ha, been met. -[ he Parties a les LiLzrce that the Project as 1eFme.d herein is cor-Isistenr �,\iffi the :Master Plan. Aw, further chi MICS to the Project or the Pacific Amphitheater shall he reviewed as requtirc('l by la\,�. Fhe shall continue to stuck sound attenuation for the Pacific Amphitheater iiheater In connection with any, further improvements to the Pacific Amphitheater and shall incorporate impro,,eme,W:_-, and methock; ol'operation which reasonalhtv reduce Sound levels reaching the rcsideritia! [lei uhhorhoods Prom the Pacific -\rnphi0ieater at the discretion or the .,\SSOCIATION. 1. 1.3 SuLmd [,Amts for Evtgrits at the PIciific Amphitheater. The residential zones sound level standards and limits applicable to the Pacific AmphillIcater shall be as CC) I I 0vv S (I the .-PLIC AMP SOUIld Level Standards-): (a) Pacific Atnphltheau:-r F�erit� DUril-li-I the Fair Season. For the PLII`J_),)sCLS of this Agreement the term "Fair Season- shall mean one \,geek prior to and one ,,�eck foliowim., the state approved Schedule f6r the Oran(_,e COUtiv, Fair, Sound Level Standards Sound Le -vel Time Period Da,, of Wock dB(A) 0`00 a. II. - If".3) p_ni� Sun. - Mur. d B(. �) 10:30 p. III () 7 : () () a.m. Sun, Thur. d BiA)()7 ) 1 :0( a.ni, 1 1, - 0 () p.n: Fri Sat. JO dB( A) I p.m. (�7�00 �_I 0 - III, Fri. Sat (b) Lnls Outside ofth!L, ["'air Season 4 T - Sound lxcl slani-L di Sound 1,e%cl Time Period Da,, of Week dB(A) ()7 :00 a.m. 10:30 p.m. Sun. Thur. 4i dB(A) !(-.).30 P.nl. 07:00 Ll.rn., Sun. Thur. J B; LI ()7.()() _ a.m. I :0O P. m, V'Sat. ��W,-incntt xid 5i`) dB(A ! I :IIn p.nl. - 1)7:Iitl a, m• Fri. -Sat. I'll'e sound levels cniamiring hom the Poch!:: \nlplllthcators shall Il,t cxcucd' I. Ilse applicable Sound Leet Standard for a cumulative period of more than thirty (30) minute, in ani lu,ur: or _'. rhe applicahk Sound LeLel Standard plus rive (5) dB(.A) for a cumulative period of mare than Fi ttcen ( 1 ;) tllinutes in and , hour: or 3. rhe applicahle _Sound Level. Standard plus ten ( 10) dB( A! Ar a cumulake period of more than FVe ( >) minutes in rens. h���ur: or 4. rhe appiicahle Sound Level. Standard plus fifteen ( l>) dB(,A) ror a cunndative period of more than one ( I ) minutes ill anv hour: or 5. Fhe applicable :Sound Leve! Stan+vd plus tvv'ent� (20) dB(.-\) far any period of time. In the event the anlhicnt noise tevel exceeds akly of the first 1`OUT sound lirnit categories :;et forth ahuw_ the c,uYsuIdti"e period applicable to Mee category shall he increased to reflect the ambient noise tevA In, the event the ambient SOund level eweeds the Ffth sound level cate_my, the rnaxi.m�irn alto% ante SOUnd level shatl he increased co the retlect the ambient noise lev el. ?. l A Sound Level '\fonhoring. Ft:e ASSOCIATION ;hall monitor cramp! iance vv ith the Pac .Amp Sound Standard as tt hoo,vs: (a) 1'11e .ASS(�)CLiFIt � ,hall enlplol a sound professional or professionals (tile AVnlN)& to monitor sound leach In the sl.naKindin'„ residential neighborhoods during all ANN .\mphitl�eatere� tits. The Monitor shall hLv e the authority to require the sound system in the Pacific Amphitheater to be adjusted in order to comply v4ith the Pac Amp Sound Level Sia€ldard. Prier to the First seasonal event at the Pacific Amphitheater Iltiiizintg antptiti.-'d speech or music. the :Monitor snail calibrate the sound systern in nater to comp!; OT the Pac -vulp Sound Level Standard. (h) Ile nloWn rine to be Londucted shall consist of aural ohservatiorl; and periodic readings fr rn sou.ncf [e� I n�et�rs. In the event the Monitor determines that the sound levels observed or measured exceed the Pac Amp Sound Standard in the Monitor's professional opinion. the Monitor shall cause the sound equipment within the Pacific Amphitheater to be adjusted in order to meet the Pac Amp Sound, Standard. (c) In the event of a nok e complaint rectal;ed from a residential neighborhood during a Pacific _lnlphkheater event. the Monitor shall proceed to the to a kn of he residence from which t4,. conk.plaint;vas received and shall reasonably - W_ prumptly cause the sound equipment no -chin the Pacific Amphitheater to he adjusted in order to conform to the Pac :\mp Sound L, n: -1 Standard irnecessarti. td, In the event S()C'11 l -Y' helieves that the Pac Amp Sound Level Standard is not heing met, the SOCIETY nae reLluest and_ if so requested, iOonitor shall conduct a noise level anal -;k (the -Compliance Ana!ysis-) at the location specified in the courts order in [he case of Concerned Citizens of Costa ;Mesa. Inc. v. 32nd District. Al2,ricultural Association (Change C'ount�, Superior Court No. 42 07 28 and 55 65 08), 947 Serra Way, Costa Mcst, C.-\. The SOCIETY ;hall be advised of the time and place ol'the Compliance Andyls, which_ shell .occur durim, the next performance at the Pacific .Amphitheater, and shall have the opportut,iQ to attend and observe the Compliance Analysis, In the event the Ylonitor&termilnes that no violation of the Pac Arnp Sound Leve! Standard is occurrin, and SOCIFFY niakcs a subsequent demand for a Cornpliance Anal;si.s during the same Fair Season that also demonstrates that no violation of the Pac :\mp Sound Standard is Occurrin,. SOC IETY shall reimburse the ASSOCIATHM for the cost ofam such subsequent Compliance :Analysis in the amount Of One Thousand Dollars (.S l .00t1). 2.1.5 CAM liance Riders, and I lonitorin *. The \SSOC'l.- FION shall not permit any event at the Pacific \mphitheater unless the persons staking and putting on the event have agreed to comply with this Agreement and the directions of the Sound 1_.evelMonkor. fhe ASSOCIATION shall caiuse ane even[ at the Pacific Amphitheater involving amplified speech or music to be in compliance with this Agnemem at its expense. This compliance effort shall include. but is noL limited to. employment oftl,e 1. onhor to evaluate sound levels in the adjacent neighborhoods during events at the Pacific Amphitheater and a) respond to complaints as provided in Section 2. t.-;.. Ariv complaints and all related sound levee n<z-ter recordings :,hall he retained, noted and summarized in a report as to the number. the observed or sound level recorded, ifanv', and location of any complaints and com.ptiance utth this Agreement within 30 clays atter each event at the Pacific Amphitheater. The complaints. the record of the sound level rneter recordings. and reports shall he puhli: meow, of the .AS50C1A,TION, open for public Inspection upon request. and maintained by the .-\SOCIA fIO as required by lave as a public records. 2.1 J) Avoidance of Sirnttitanyous Event;. Fxclu hng event, during the Fair. Pacific Amphitheater events .;hall not he scheduled Burin' peal: traffic houns or within line hour of the corinvencement or conlplctiori of anotherIndependent event on the i'air,rounck vviih a Forc'asted attendanwe of 14000 pern"s or mom. 2.1.7 Casts and Fees. The AYSOCIATIOti shall pay the Richard Spix. counsel for bC SOCIF1 Y , the sum of ` -7-5.il.}MO as cost -i and fees. �.� t_)b�laatli)Ila of hetiLioner SO(JE:I. Y 2.2.1 Dismissal ofP'aci& \mphid ater Actio . Not more than Five (5) ,lays atter SOC IETVs aUorney4 receipt of the pa.vmenis referenced ahoy e in Paragraph 2 1. 7, S OC IF I Y shall Came a Request for Dismissal to be Itled -with the Or_ rn ,c ti U PC ri0r Co Sert)cmant and Re-«.-a.i �� i �rnenr .• V2 In tile. Pacitic Aniphitllc_lt'-'r fiction. reLltieStlll_' the C OLlrt dismiss the. Pacitic Amphitheater Action in it; enure[v as til all parties �,�ith prejudice. l -pon his receipt cit a C011fUrrnc(l COP'. cif Lhe Request tOr niSrnlStiat and entl-`y of Uitimrssal from the Court. c�(i('IF FY's attorilc% shall pro%ide a cul)ti i,fthe same t, ASSOC'L•1Tf0�. Nol:t,whstandln arl,,thin', ht rein to the c,"ontrLir,., ASSOC'f VTfON', actual disbursement c,t' dic ,arrlounts re"Crenced ubove in Paragraph 2. 1 ,? to k C(KAE: Y's attom4G is and shall he stn express condition precCedent to their filin__� Of the R.rluest For f)isn:is�al_ 3. GENERAL PROVISION'S �. l i�+r(iaraee can l7epr enl.3tic�n5 L['.trrtntiG�. Each representation and \Narrani_x nladc in this :Agreement by any of the Parties has substantially induced the ether Parties to enter into this Aureellic:nt, Lach Part\" acl�nil,�ledges and ::Lffirrnls that the Other Parties are entitled to rel', on that Part's representattoLlS -Ind',s,,arranties lbirhouT Independent verification, and that SLlch rehance i:- reatillnahle under the CirCtmi,rallccs of this .�L,r'�crvent. Intc-uration. This Aureetilent. including_ its Exhibit, ,0iich are inte'_ral and essentlal pard Lit Clic A`_rcement. constmi-.cS and curtain, the entire a`sreement and Understandim hcti,cerl the Parties conce.rilll'1', Clic SLIhieCt Chatter of this �,Trcement, I rnjeSS other%�ISc' eYprc'SSl4 Stated herein_ this A(.�,rcement Supersedes and repl_lces all prior ncgtotiations and all al.!reement;, proposed or other -wise, �k.hethcr' v�eitten or Oral, concerning Its subject matter. Notsclthstandine the tilrcLt)ln';, except to the :;`Ment express!,, pro% ided In this A(_'rccrnent. no other a`rreement or p()liev adopted or entered into b� the ASS(7CLU IOC is intended Lo he modified in ane vka,. Chis A,_;reemenr Shat[ be gl,,cn Independent GiCLiflt4 muL�vJtnS[atldtn'__' all,. oth:;r1_reenieat or pohcv adopted or entered into h,, the ASS' IM AT ION. 3,_ comer'atim 'nle Parties shall cooperate in perfOrmin,), their obituation Linder tilts r\'g'reenlent, execute all Stlnnlelllcntar,- docurn nts that ma', be regUirod Or con4enient to the ttllfilinlntheir obligati and iAe all additional actions that maF he necessarti Lir appropriate to L?I`,c full Hire,' and ettect Lo the tcrnlS -,Ind conditions of this A,.Treernent and that are not irnconsistent \\lth ;Lich t.:rrns and corlditiOnS. L:z_Lch Parti dili_Tently and in good faith, 511111 underrakc all 3C61011S and Or(?Cedures reaSOnabt`. regLilred to CaCC} OLlt the pUrpose and intent of this A--reement. Noti.ecs. Ani" and Ali notices or other C0111municati011s required or permitted hs this A,��,reenlent Or b'. 1a',A to be self, u (oil for gi'v'en tO Ltn� ill the Parties shall, Unless Othery ije rcll!_lir d b1' la\b, he ill '',,ruin_ and he 11 oiTiCd duly �;crled and uken (a) % hen nersonalk dellN-cred to the Part,. to vOhonl It I; !IrCCtccl: or (h) vtihen depioslt:d vith the 1 "niteu Mate, Pcltital ice and sent ,, is c.et ed mail I retort; receipt requested). first -etas postage prepaid. I'he dddre,�5es shall he Lised k"Or an% and all noticeS: For Oran��e County Preservation S(ociett For 12nd District _A,*rlCLlttUrat \ssoclarion Richard L. Spix Che L.a,.k Offices of Spix and Martin 1505 Gast 1 7th Street- Suite 2 M Santa _Ana. C'alit'ornia W -671i5 Ro,,er :A. C,rahl_ _Ind Rc!:-,$iC .- 're'emeni %Iariatt. Phelps &- Phillips. I_LP hQ5 l oven Center Drive. 14th Floor Chita Mc ,,a- California Q2626 I kmcv er. any Pay inav chan,,,e the address to "Koh nottes or other Chmmuilicarion gars to he given under this Agreement bo `ending a notice: elf the change to the either Parties at their last address to have been desin nated under this Agreement. 3.5 tilutual Drafting. I'he Parties participated equally in negotiating, and drarting, this Agreemew, and nodAng in it shall he construed agains-t ani particular Parti on the basis that this Agreement vv._as drafted by that Party. Flealings and titles are used throughout this Agreement soler for Me convenience of the Parties and are not an integgral part of it. +.h tie,rerah'ili.ty. It anv terns, condition, or application or this _Agr:ement is held to he invalid. such invalidity shall not affect the Agreements other terns, conditions. or applications that can be given effect vvithoul the Invalid term. Condition. or application, I o this end_ the -\,reemznt is declared to be se`.trahle. 3.7 Waiver Modification; Remedy Selection. No forbearance of ent )rcement or v�aiver ot`arn breach of any tenni or condition lir this -A`,reenlent Shall be, nor shall it he construed to be, a waiver sof any other breach of this :Agreement, and no nuker shall he bi dIg unless made in vtiriting and signed by the Party v%ai%&g the breach. No change in the terms or condirions of this Agreement Shall have ane force or effect Unless expressed In a writing Stencil by the Parties. ,A Party s puNit or enforcement. or Ievver Chan all available remedies in the event Of an}' breach Or default Under this :Agreement shall not preclude. that Party trona pursuing or enforcin, other or all available remedies in the event of any other breach or default under this Agreement unless otherwise prohibited by lav4. 3.8 Persons,'Entities Bound. This :A,l r�ement scall be hindin=on and inUrc to the henetit of the Parta, joinQ and severally. and to their successors. memher _ directors_ officers. asSOCiat•,',S, employees, anti agents.. `,,O[ice 'Lind C fire Procedure. Prior to initiatinz' a judicial proceedin., arising, Out Of or in connectOn bath this rAgreontent. the o1bJectin_ Party shall first notify the ri'spondbg Party in "rlting o ley purported breach or (ailurc. giving the responding_? a Oppt)rtunitb from receipt Of such notice to cure such breach or failure. If the rFapondinu Partb does not (a) cure the default, or (,h) provides a. muniaily wceptahie plan to cure the default. then the complaininu Parv. may pursue its judicial remedies in accordance vvith this :Aggreenlent. 10 Enfurcemcnt by Sf )CUT The :ASSOCI_ATI(_W acknovvledges that any action (>r proceeding ,arising out of this ,Agre:,mcnt will satisfy the elements of the CZl Rwrlia Coale of Giv it ProccdUre Sect% 102 W bar the action enforces an important public right. involve, a lar{_c number of person.. and bat the hurden of private enrorcenlent out"eighs the benefit conferred by the liti�,atilin. The .-ASSOCI.ATR)N further acknovvled�,,cs that a breach of this Agreement cunstitutcs irreparable harm and that damages veould he inadequate within the SCWZ� IllCrli atlit tzCic�l'�C r�_'�CI}1Ct f nitanrn'g o Z_'_llrt0rnIa Code or( IL II Proccdurc `'7 ['Or dl pUrpoies In ant action or rroceedin". . l I f.:lliiaca �,It C'[ }�G ('oul7re�r 1�1rt�. 1 tzis I�retiTst n[ 111Xr be exeCuted in Cuunterparts. and each Q:xt'cuted cOunterpa[rI ;hall Im%,e the erjj;_ac\, t,t'r[ signed orioinaI. Photographic illf llll'ilCltilCli llt L!CCCUCcCI Lstitl[j?LrPart lTli1� be UALA In tht: il[��CIlE t. t]( iin� .yeiELtme ItiiLle as to their in lieu oforiginats roralzv P111'p;.e. Each Pzirt�',ctecutino signature may be transmitro'd to the others , i] lrlc ;inllie, and sLlch facsimile sitan.Iture s call hai,e the same e,tTect as an originat sk,nature. 12 1_[t cti�e [)ate. ('rales; )the' se crplicitly sit f,rth abo \e, this Agreement shall take effect immediately upon its hav ink, been ;igned b� each of the Parti; s. 3.1 Cimerning Law This Agreement shall he ,werned by. and all rights and hahilities under it shall he determined in accordance �,Oth the taws of the State of California. x.14' l_.e�mll Expenses and Costs. Except as pro\,id`d in Para`,,raph'.1.7, the Parties shall each bear their respecti� e attorney fees and other le rt!l expenses and costs incurred in connection %tiith the Pacific Amphitheater Action throe gh the Effectis. Date and incurred in connection 4�ith the ncoutiation and execution of this Agreement. �.1 _ythority to Rind- Each person signin<, this Agreement represents that he or she has full fe`,al ;,Wthority to hind the Party on whose behalf the person >i«ns. Settlement and Release -1_reemenr 3 �P5_ s I de n t Ori � G-.)kmtv Cangrowr, Is Preservation soci,"Y xPF,[Ao AS FORNI Richard t, Spix The Law Dff,7 af'SpEK and Marlin Counsel for Orange Cotunty Fairgrounds P rnzm va,6on Soc-bety Da- �:0t3 By km a/ C/ ( .2 Darc 210112 &PVRo '_ I- AS TO FOP, B Roger. - G 7-.61e t' _ _r f Nfawatt, llilicl6 & Phiflips, LLP Cnunsw [or 32-n,3 DistFict Agricultural D:ve .,?- 2oi Sunleinent mid Rclease Agreemcm 9 -(P(O- April 11, 2016 Chair Robert L. Dickson, Jr City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 and Planning Commissioner Members www.kennedycommission.org 17701 Cowan Ave., Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92614 949 250 0909 Fax 949 263 0647 Received City of Costa Mesa Development Services Department RE: Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for 2015-2035 General Plan Dear Chair Dickson and Planning Commission Members: APR 112016 The Kennedy Commission (the Commission) is abroad based coalition of residents and community organizations that advocates for the production of homes affordable for families earning less than $20,000 annually in Orange County. Formed in 2001, the Commission has been successful in partnering and working with jurisdictions in Orange County to create effective policies that has led to the new construction of homes affordable to lower income working families. As the City moves forward with the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the 2015-2035 General Plan, the Commission urges the City to consider the following: 1. Prioritize the development of affordable homes by including an additional land use alternative that specifically supports and encourages the development of homes affordable to lower income working households. 2. Re-classify the findings under Population/ Housing Impacts 4.13B and 4.13C regarding the displacement of existing housing and residents from "less than significant impact" to "potentially significant impact" necessitating the construction of replacement housing. The DEIR should be re-evaluated to acknowledge that the General Plan amendments do propose policies that will result in the displacement of substantial numbers of existing housing and numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere in the City. While the proposed land use changes do not authorize a specific construction project, the proposed changes allows for development incentives that encourages future developments to occur. These future developments can potentially result in significant and direct impacts. According to the DEIR, the proposed land use changes were identified as less than significant due to the "... likelihood that motels being used as housing would be removed is speculative, and ... the potential for a 'substantial number of people' being displaced is speculative.s' However, the likelihood of removing motels that are currently being used as long term housing in the City is not speculative. The potential for a substantial number of tenants being displaced is not speculative. The proposed conversion of the Costa Mesa Motor Inn (CMMI) to multi -family residential development and the displacement of many lower income long term tenants at the CMMI is currently happening. In addition, 1 Draft Environmental Report for the City of Costa Mesa's Year 2015-2035 General Plan, p. 4.13-10, March 2016. _(0-1— Chair Dickson and Planning Commission Members April 11, 2016 Page 2 of 4 the City also acknowledges and anticipates the implementation of the proposed land uses will be utilized to reduce specific uses such as motels citywide.2 The City should re-evaluate the potential significant impacts on motel tenants who would be displaced from proposed market -rate residential developments. Generally, motels provide last resort affordable housing for many lower income households and proposed market -rate residential developments will displace many at -risk families and lead them to homelessness. According to the DEIR, the report states: "... because any specific property redevelopment would occur in the future, the specific number of person using that particular motel for long-term occupancy is not known at this time. The type of residential development that would replace existing commercial uses, including motels, is also unknown, but could include new commercial uses, including hotel or motel uses, or new residential development that includes affordable housing which, based on the densities, could accommodate and encourage development of housing for low-income persons." Redevelopment of specific projects will certainly happen in the future but the City already has one specific example of a proposed development, the CMMI, that is currently benefitting from the development incentives (i.e., change in land -use and increase in density) provided by the Residential Incentive Overlay. The type of residential development replacing the CMMI will be 224 unit apartment complex at a site specific density of 54 du/ac, which notably is significantly higher than the Overlay's density of 40 du/ac. While the specific number of long-term occupants are not known at this time for future developments, the City has already identified that there are approximately 160 occupied roolns at the CMMI and of that, 49 rooms are occupied by 66 long-term residents.4 Because the proposed development includes zero units affordable to the lower income tenants who currently live in the CMMI, all these existing tenants will be displaced, including the 49 rooms that have been identified and grandfathered as long- term tenants. The DEIR identifies that the proposed amended Land Use Plan could increase residential development in the Focus Areas by 4,040 units.5 Of that total, 3,062 units have allowable densities of 40 du/ac which can accommodate the development of affordable housing.6 However, default densities of 30 du/ac and greater do not necessarily produce homes that are affordable to lower income working households. The proposed development at the 3 Notice or Preparation City of Costa Mesa Gcn.-m! Plan Aj-ncndmanr. Program EIR, City of Costa Mesa, p. 4, November 16, 2015. 'Draft EnviranmenwrReport for the City of Costa Mesa's Ye�u 2t] 15-2035 General Plan, p. 4,13-9, March 2016. 4 City Council Agenda Report: General Plan amendment GP -14-04/ Rezone R-14-04/ Zoning Code Amendment CO -14-02/ And Master Plan PA -14-27 For Costa Mesa Apartments at 2277 Harbor Boulevard, City of Costa Mesa, p. 5, November 3, 2015. ' Draft Environmental Report for the City of Costa Mesa's Year 2015-2035 General Plan, p. 4.13-6, March 2016. Draft Environmental Report for the City of Costa Mesa's Year 2015-2035 General Plan, p. 4.13-6, March 2016. Chair Dickson and Planning Commission Members April 11, 2016 Page 3 of 4 CMMI is a cautionary example of project utilizing the Residential Overlay and not producing affordable homes. The proposed development at the CMMI benefitted from the residential overlay and development incentives (i.e., change in land -use and increase in density) and did not set aside any homes that would be affordable to lower income households. While 20 units will be set-aside for moderate income families, the proposed rents, $1,600 - $1,800 are out -of -reach and not affordable to current CMMI tenants or potential lower income tenants in the City. 3. Fairview Developmental Center: Reinstate the General Plan land use overlay at the Fairview Developmental Center site that allows a development capacity of 1,000 du at a maximum density of 40 du/acre (not the currently proposed 500 du at 25 du/ac) as identified in the City Council/ Planning Commission Joint Study Session on September 8, 2015. Considering the state is requiring a set-aside for the developmentally disabled, the site presents the greatest potential and opportunity for the development of affordable homes. The State Department of General Services (DGS) also submitted a letter that was submitted to the Costa Mesa City Council on October 6, 2016, stating "The state requests that the City include the 20 acres specified in SB 82 in the general plan update allowing a maximum of up to 40 units -per acre..." It is clear that DGS supports a maximum density of 40 du/ac at the Fairview site. The density of 40 du/ac is also consistent to the other proposed residential incentive overlays along Harbor Boulevard, Newport Boulevard and SoBECA. At 40 du/ac versus 25 du/ac, the site will construct more units that will generate more rent subsidies/ revenue needed for the developmentally disabled households living at the Fairview Developmental Center. By decreasing the density to 25 du/ac versus 40 du/ac, the potential value of the center also decreases. In addition, the City should conduct a financial analysis regarding the feasibility of proposing an affordable housing development at a lower density versus a higher density to be better informed as to which densities would facilitate a more successful development. 4. South Harbor Boulevard Mixed-use: Approve the Harbor Mixed -Use Overlay that allows a maximum residential density of 20 du/ac ONLY IF new residential developments proposed in the overlay set-aside 20 percent of homes as affordable to lower income working households. 0, Chair Dickson and Planning Commission Members April 11, 2016 Page 4 of 4 5. Sakioka Site 2: Approve a General Plan land use overlay at Sakioka Site 2 that allows a maximum residential density at 80 du/acre for up to 660 units ONLY IF new residential developments proposed at the site set-aside 20 percent of homes as affordable to lower income working households. In the City's 2014-2021 Housing Element, the Sakioka Site 2 was identified a potential opportunity site for the development of homes affordable to lower income households.? 6. Harbor & Newport Boulevard Residential Overlay: Approve a residential incentive overlay that includes new high density residential uses of up to 40 du/acre along Harbor Boulevard and Newport Boulevard ONLY IF new residential developments proposed in the overlay set-aside 20 percent of homes as affordable to lower income working households. In addition, motels located in the overlay should not be included unless any future/new residential developments that are proposed on these sites dedicate at least 20 percent of the homes to lower income working households. 7. SoBECA Overlay: Approve a maximum of 450 units at a density of 40 du/acre at the SoBECA Urban Plan Area ONLY IF new residential developments proposed in the overlay set-aside 20 percent of homes as affordable to lower income working households. 8. Conduct a study to evaluate the economic impacts of the proposed development incentives (i.e., land use changes/ rezoning and density increases) in the "focus areas." 9. Collaborate with the Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition and community stakeholders to develop effective land use changes and residential incentive overlays in the General Plan Update that will increase affordable home opportunities for lower income working households. Please keep us informed of any updates to the City's General Plan Update and if you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (949) 250-0909 or cesarc@kennedycommission.org. Sincerely, - - Cesar Covarrubias Executive Director cc: Kathy Esfahani, Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition ' Housing Element for the Costa Mesa General Plan 2013-2021, p. 56, January 21, 2014. ._'_70` 6-1 Building Industry Association of Southern California, Inc. ORANGE COUNTY CHAPTER April 11, 2016 Chair Robert Dickson and Planning Commission Members City of Costa Mesa Planning Commission 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 RE: COMMENTS ON THE GENERAL PLAN AND DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (DEIR) Dear Chair Dickson and Planning Commission Members: The Building Industry Association of Southern California, Orange County Chapter (BIA/OC) is a non-profit trade association of over 1,100 companies employing over 100,000 people affiliated with the home building industry. The Orange County Chapter represents the largest member base within BIA Southern California. Our mission is to champion housing as the foundation of vibrant and sustainable communities. As a key stakeholder in Orange County, the BIA/OC would like to offer our support for the City's General Plan update. In reviewing the document, we are pleased to see the environmentally positive land use elements being contemplated within this plan. Adding more housing in centrally located Costa Mesa, close to jobs and essential services, will help in balancing Orange County's jobs to housing ratio, assist in alleviating traffic, and contribute to State mandated environmental and regional planning policies. Over the next 25 years, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) predicts a population increase of 400,000 residents in Orange County. Additionally, according to a recent report by the California Legislative Analyst's Office, Orange County needs an additional 7,000 homes per year to meet demand. State wide, that number increases to a staggering 100,000 homes. By considering reasonable higher density housing, Costa Mesa will be adequately prepared to absorb this influx and contribute to the overall housing stock of the County and the State. i BIN PRESIDENT JIM YATES RANCHO MISSION VIEJO VICE PRESIDENT PHIL BODEM TAYLOR MORRISON TREASURER MIKE GARTLAN KB HOME SECRETARY RICK WOOD TRI POINTE HOMES IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT JOAN MARCUS-COLVIN THE NEW HOME COMPANY TRADE CONTRACTOR V.P. ALAN BOUDREAU BOUDREAU PIPELINE CORPORATION ASSOCIATE VICE PRESIDENT MARK HIMMELSTEIN NEWMEYER & DILLION, LLP MEMBER -AT -LARGE LAURA ARCHULETA JAMBOREE HOUSING MEMBER -AT -LARGE SCOTT STARKEY STARKEY COMMUNICATIONS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER MICHAEL BALSAMO As always, we remain a resource to the City on important issues that are related to the well-being of our local communities. Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration. Respectfully, Michael Balsamo Chief Executive Officer Received City of costa Mesa Development Services Department APR 112016 0 PUBLIC APLAW CENTER PROVIDING ACCESS TO JUSTICE FOR ORANGE COUNTY'S LOW INCOME RESIDENTS April 18, 2016 Chair Robert Dickson, Jr. and Planning Commission Members City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92628 RE: Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for 2015-2035 General Plan Dear Chairman Robert L. Dickson, Jr. and Planning Commission Members: This letter is a comment on the 2015-2016 Draft EIR Report. This letter is written on behalf of the Costa Mesa Motel Residents Association ("CMMRA"). CMMRA consists of long-term residents that have made the motels of Costa Mesa their home. A majority of the members of CMMRA currently reside at Costa Mesa Motor Inn ("CMMI"), the location of the proposed project. In general, the members of CMMRA and the other residents of the motel are low-, very- low-, and extremely -low-income families, veterans, and other residents, many of whom are disabled. The CMMRA encourages the Planning Commission to take the following steps: The City should conduct its analyses of affordable housing development using both fixed site and scattered site models for preserving/creating affordable housing for the current motel residents who consider themselves part of the Costa Mesa community. The City can and should develop a model that integrates housing for disabled persons, elderly persons, and low-income working families into each of their proposed sites and all residential density proposals. The Commission has openly opined that they felt the motel standard of living was inadequate—they have the chance to remedy their own concerns by developing adequate, low-income housing in this instance. 2. Make provisions with preference for the low-income families who utilize motels, integrating target percentages for affordable units or homes in each proposed development. The developments should address housing types both for residents who utilize motels for their affordability and stability and for those who use motels as housing of last resort. 3. Address the dislocation of low-income motel residents who call Costa Mesa their home and include them as a concretely impacted group in the EIR report. As a result, reclassify the findings under the Population/Housing Impacts to be "significant" or "potentially significant." The report is incorrect when it says that the "specific number of persons using that particular motel for long-term occupancy" is unknown. Multiple statistical reports have been conducted and thus the city does know how many long-term occupants .--73- 601 Civic Center Drive West • Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 • (714) 541-1010 -Fax (714) 541-5157 are currently living in motels and would be adversely affected. Thus, they also know the scope of the likely population displacement. The City overtly acknowledges that the proposed land uses will reduce motel rooms citywide, so this negative impact on existing motel residents is not speculative, but highly likely, and the report should accurately reflect this reality. 4. Address and make provisions for relocation services and other necessary resources for those low-income residents who might be forced to move out of their units as a result of development at each site. Adopt a plan for homelessness prevention that can accommodate effected residents. It is this City's obligation to merge the interests of redevelopment and the interests of meeting the needs of its residents. The City wants these properties to be redeveloped, continually citing them as eyesores. Therefore, the City must work together with owners and affordable housing experts to redevelop these sites to include low-income housing, especially for the current long- term occupants in Costa Mesa motels. Please keep us informed of any updates to the City's General Plan Update and if you have any questions, please contact us at (741) 541-1010. 'Sincerely, / ` 7 Lili Graham Richard Walker Public Law Center Attorneys on behalf of CMMRA 601 Civic Center Drive West • Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 • (714) 541-1010 • Fax (714)541-S I S7 Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition April 18, 2016 Chair Robert L. Dickson, Jr. and Planning Commission Members City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 RE: Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for 2015-2035 General Plan Dear Chair Dickson and Planning Commission Members: The Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition (the Coalition) believes the DEIR is seriously deficient: It fails to report accurately and fully the negative impacts certain proposed General Plan amendments will have on the already meager supply of affordable housing available to lower income residents of our city. Specifically, the Coalition believes the proposed "residential incentive overlays" for Harbor Boulevard and Newport Boulevard (collectively, the motel zone overlays) will lead to the massive displacement of lower income motel residents. Moreover, the DEIR ignores this expected adverse impact, mischaracterizing the impact as "less than significant" and thus not requiring the construction of replacement housing. This City must correct this significant error in the "Population/Housing" section of the DEIR. The City Council majority has been very clear about its intentions in regard to the proposed motel zone overlays. Repeatedly, the Council majority has expressed the hope these overlays will "incentivize" a change of use in the motel properties located along Harbor Boulevard and Newport Boulevard which serve as last resort housing for Costa Mesa's poor. As the City well knows, these motels, collectively consisting of 789 rooms, have become a significant source of de facto affordable housing in Costa Mesa because there is such a dearth of affordable housing available for lower income households. Disregarding the housing needs of lower income motel residents, the City Council majority has proposed the motel zone overlays as a way to lure motel owners into converting their properties from their current use as de facto affordable housing into a new use: market rate, high density housing for upper income residents. Of course, virtually none of the current motel residents could afford to rent these new market rate apartments. Consequently, the conversion of motels into market rate apartments would necessarily displace hundreds, perhaps thousands of lower income motel residents. Moreover, because Costa Mesa has almost no affordable housing for these residents to move into, it is highly likely this massive displacement of motel residents will result in increased homelessness and overcrowding in the City, as well as the forced migration of motel residents from Costa Mesa to find affordable housing elsewhere. To mitigate this severe adverse impact, the Coalition has asked the City to include in the motel zone overlays a requirement that 20% of the new apartments be affordable to low and very low income residents. The Council, however, has not acted on this request. Consequently, if the Page 1 of 3 motel zone overlays are adopted as currently proposed, motel residents will be displaced on a massive scale as motel owners take advantage of the lucrative "residential incentive" offered by the City. In a stunning denial of this reality, the DEIR states as findings under Population/Housing Impacts 4.13.B and 4.13.0 that the proposed motel zone overlays will have "less than significant" impact, will not "result in the displacement of substantial numbers of people," and will not necessitate "the construction of replacement housing elsewhere." (Draft EIR, 4.13-8 - 4.13-10) These defective findings flow from three "pie in the sky" assumptions (fictions, really) set forth in Impacts 4.133 and 4.13.C. Fiction #I The DEIR states the hoped-for conversion of motels into market rate apartments will not result in a net loss of affordable housing because the increased densities offered in the city (40 units per acre in motel zone overlays, 80 units per acre in Sakioka Lot 2) will necessarily result in the construction of new affordable housing. What is the basis of this finding? The DEIR blithely assumes affordable housing will be constructed because "the City would have zoning in place to accommodate housing for lower-income households." (DEIR, 4.13-9) The fallacy in this reasoning is readily apparent from the recent example of the Costa Mesa Motor Inn. With the City's encouragement and blessing, this 236 -room motel will be demolished and replaced by new market rate apartments at a density of 54 units per acre. Of the 224 new units, not a single unit will be affordable to lower income households. Clearly, the mere fact the allowable density will "accommodate" lower income housing is no guarantee any of the resulting housing will actually be lower income housing. Unless the City requires a percentage of new units to be affordable to lower income families, the motel zone overlays will result in no new affordable housing and, instead, will cause a dramatic loss of affordable housing. Fiction #2 The DEIR states the "likelihood that motels being used as housing would be removed is speculative, and ... the potential for a `substantial number of people' being displaced is speculative." (DEIR, 4.13-9-10)– This statement is almost laughable. It ignores the fact the City is creating the motel zone overlays precisely because the Council majority believes the overlays will result in the conversion of motels intro market rate apartments—a goal the majority has long sought. Moreover, the statement ignores the powerful nature of the incentive offered. Again, the Costa Mesa Motor Inn stands as a cautionary example. The City's offer to allow the motel owner to build high density market rate apartments (at 54 units per acre) in a commercial zone was an irresistible financial windfall for the property owner. The Costa Mesa Motor Inn owner jumped at the opportunity. The other motel owners in the city are no less savvy than the owner of the Costa Mesa Motor Inn. Consequently, the following doomsday scenario is entirely predictable, not speculative: If the City adopts the motel zone overlays as proposed, with their supercharged financial incentive for converting motel properties into high density, market rate apartments, the City will lose a significant existing supply of de facto affordable housing. In fact, the City could eventually lose Page 2 of 3 all 789 rooms. That loss would be catastrophic for the City's lower income households who rely on motels as last resort housing. Fiction #3 The final bit of magical thinking in the DEIR is that private social services agencies operating in the City (including HOPE Institute, Human Options, Orange Coast Interfaith Shelter, Serving People in Need, Share Our Selves, Mercy Housing, Families Forward) will be able to meet the housing needs of displaced motel residents. Strikingly, the DEIR fails to include any discussion of the actual services these groups provide or any analysis of their ability to house the hundreds or thousands of motel residents who could be displaced if motels close and are replaced with market rate apartments. The undeniable truth is that there is no existing supply of available affordable housing in Costa Mesa that can accommodate the hundreds of households living in motels today. The need for affordable housing in our community is undeniable. Costa Mesa must act to encourage the construction of new affordable housing. Until such housing is created, the City should do nothing to accelerate the loss of existing affordable homes. But accelerating loss is exactly what the proposed motel zone overlays will do— the zones will make nearly 800 existing affordable homes vanish. There is nothing fictional or speculative about that. The City should correct the DEIR so everyone in Costa Mesa knows what is really at stake in this decision on the General Plan amendments. Sincerely, /rat av llyf ahlyl. Kathy Esfahani For The Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition Page 3 of 3 www. kennedycornmission.org April 18, 2016 17701 Cowan Ave., Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92614 949 250 0909 Fax 949 263 0647 Ms. Minoo Ashabi City of Costa Mesa — Development Services Department 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 RE: Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for 2015-2035 General Plan Dear Ms. Ashabi: The Kennedy Commission (the Commission) is a broad based coalition of residents and community organizations that advocates for the production of homes affordable for families earning less than $20,000 annually in Orange County. Formed in 2001, the Commission has been successful in partnering and working with jurisdictions in Orange County to create effective policies that has led to the new construction of homes affordable to lower income working families. As the City moves forward with the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the 2015-2035 General Plan, the Commission urges the City to consider the following: 1. Incorporate and implement the recommendations outlined in the Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition's letter dated April 18, 2016. 2. Prioritize the development of affordable homes by including an additional land use alternative that specifically supports and encourages the development of homes affordable to lower income working households. 3. Re-classify the findings under Population/ Housing Impacts 4.13B and 4.13C regarding the displacement of existing housing and residents from "less than significant impact" to "potentially significant impact" necessitating the construction of replacement housing. The DEIR should be re-evaluated to acknowledge that the General Plan amendments do propose policies that will result in the displacement of substantial numbers of existing housing and numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere in the City. While the proposed land use changes do not authorize a specific construction project, the proposed changes allows for development incentives that encourages and facilitates future developments to occur. These future developments, encouraged by the benefits provided in the residential overlay, can potentially result in significant and direct impacts. According to the DEIR, the proposed land use changes were identified as less than significant due to the "... likelihood that motels being used as housing would be removed is speculative, and ... the potential for a `substantial number of people' being displaced is speculative."' However, the like[ihood of removing motels that are currently being used ' Draft Environmental Report for rhe City of Cosra vtesa's Year 2015-2035 General Plan, p. 4.13-10. March 2016. Working for systemic change resulting in the production of homes affordable to Orange County's extremely Iorv-income households A Ms. Minoo Ashabi April 18, 2016 Page 2 of 5 as long term housing in the City is not speculative. The potential for a substantial number of tenants being displaced is not speculative. The term "speculative" should be removed from the DEIR because these events are currently happening in the City and the leading example is the Costa Mesa Motor Inn (CMMI). The plans to convert the CMMI to a multi -family residential development has been submitted and approved by the City and the displacement of many lower income long term tenants at the CMMI is currently happening. It is also important to note that the City also acknowledges and anticipates the implementation of the proposed land uses will be utilized to reduce specific uses such as motels citywide.2 The City should re-evaluate the potential significant impacts on motel tenants who would be displaced from proposed market -rate residential developments. Generally, motels provide last resort affordable housing for many lower income households and proposed market -rate residential developments will displace many at -risk families and lead them to homelessness. According to the DEIR, the report states: .. because any specific property redevelopment would occur in the future, the specific number of person using that particular motel for long-term occupancy is not known at this time. The type of residential development that would replace existing commercial uses, including motels, is also unknown, but could include new commercial uses, including hotel or motel uses, or new residential development that includes affordable housing which, based on the densities, could accommodate and encourage development of housing for low-income persons."; Redevelopment of specific projects will certainly happen in the future but the City already has one specific example of a proposed development, the CMMI, that is currently benefitting from the development incentives (i.e., change in land -use and increase in density) provided by the Residential Incentive Overlay. The type of residential development replacing the CMMI will be 224 unit apartment complex at a site specific density of 54 du/ac, which notably is significantly higher than the Overlay's density of 40 du/ac. While the specific number of long-term occupants are not known at this time for future developments, the City has already identified that there are approximately 160 occupied rooms at the CMMI and of that, 49 rooms are occupied by 66 long-term residents. Because the proposed development includes zero units affordable to the lower income tenants who currently live in the CMMI, all these existing tenants will be displaced, including the 49 rooms that have been identified and grandfathered as long- term tenants. '- Notice of Preparation City or Costa Nlesa General Plan Amendment Program EIR, City of Costa Mesa, p. 4, November 16, 2015. 1 Draft Environmental Report for the City of Costa Mesa's Year 2015-2035 General Plan, p, 4.13-9, March 2016. a City Council Agenda Report_ General Plan amendment GP -14-041 Rezone R-14-04/ Zoning Code Amendment CG -1.4-021 And Master Plan PA -14-27 For Costa Mesa Apartments at 2277 Harbor Boulevard, City of Costa Mesa, p. 5, November 3, 2015. Ms. Minoo Ashabi April 18, 2016 Page 3 of 5 The DEIR identifies that the proposed amended Land Use Plan could increase residential development in the Focus Areas by 4,040 units.5 Of that total, 3,062 units have allowable densities of 40 du/ac which can accommodate the development of affordable housing.6 However, default densities of 30 du/ac and greater do not necessarily produce homes that are affordable to lower income working households. The proposed development at the CMMI is a cautionary example of a proposed development utilizing and benefiting from the Residential Overlay and not producing affordable homes for lower income households. The proposed CMMI development benefitted greatly from the Residential Overlay and development incentives (i.e., change in land use and increase in density) that the developer was previously not entitled to. These City approved development incentives should be considered as a form of a public subsidy because the incentives are giveaways that provide significant windfalls and increase the property value of the proposed development. The City approved incentives/ public subsidies underscore a problem that the fails to ensure the giveaways are provided in the exchange of community benefits such as the development of affordable homes for lower income households. The developer for the proposed development at the CMMI did not set aside any homes that would be affordable to lower income households. While 20 units will be set-aside for moderate income families, the proposed rents, $1,600 - $1,800 are out -of -reach and not affordable to current CMMI tenants or potential lower income tenants in the City. In addition, by increasing the existing base density at the proposed development, the City is effectively circumventing the use of a density bonus (SB 1818) for proposed projects, which would have facilitated the development of new affordable homes for lower income households in the City. The City's proposed land use changes, including the development incentives in the Residential Overlay, has significant value to it that will undoubtedly encourage and facilitate future developments. The implementation of the proposed land use changes should be thoroughly analyzed to identify all the significant impacts that will be imposed on the residents and community. Because future developers will benefit from the proposed land use changes, relocation assistance and replacement housing for displaced tenants at proposed developments should be thoroughly analyzed for significant impacts. 4. Fairview Developmental Center„ Reinstate the General Plan land use overlay at the Fairview Developmental Center site that allows a development capacity of 1,000 du at a maximum density of 40 dot/acre (not the currently proposed 500 du at 25 du/ac) as identified in the City Council/ Planning Commission Joint Study Session on September 8, s Draft Environmental Report Cor the City or Costa :Mtsa"s Year 2015-2035 General Plan, p. 4.13-6, March 2016. s Dralt Environmental Report Cor the City orCosta Muq's Year 2015-2035 General Plan, p. 4.13-6, March 201.6. Ms. Minoo Ashabi April 18, 2016 Page 4 of 5 2015. Considering the state is requiring a set-aside for the developmentally disabled, the site presents the greatest potential and opportunity for the development of affordable homes. The State Department of General Services (DGS) also submitted a letter that was submitted to the Costa Mesa City Council on October 6, 2016, stating "The state requests that the City include the 20 acres specified in SB 82 in the general plan update allowing a maximum of uv to 40 units lRer acre..." It is clear that DGS supports a maximum density of 40 du/ac at the Fairview site. The density of 40 du/ac is also consistent to the other proposed residential incentive overlays along Harbor Boulevard, Newport Boulevard and SoBECA. At 40 du/ac versus 25 du/ac, the site will construct more units that will generate more rent subsidies/ revenue needed for the developmentally disabled households living at the Fairview Developmental Center. By decreasing the density to 25 du/ac versus 40 du/ac, the potential value of the center also decreases. In addition, the City should conduct a financial analysis regarding the feasibility of proposing an affordable housing development at a lower density versus a higher density to be better informed as to which densities would facilitate a more successful development. 5. South Harbor Boulevard Mixed -Use: Approve the Harbor Mixed -Use Overlay that allows a maximum residential density of 20 du/ac ONLY IF new residential developments proposed in the overlay set-aside 20 percent of homes as affordable to lower income working households. Sakioka Site 2: Approve a General Plan land use overlay at Sakioka Site 2 that allows a maximum residential density at 80 dL /acre for up to 660 units ONLY IF new residential developments proposed at the site set-aside 20 percent of homes as affordable to lower income working households. In the City's 2014-2021 Housing Element, the Sakioka Site 2 was identified a potential opportunity site for the development of homes affordable to lower income households.' In addition, by increasing the existing base density, the City is effectively circumventing the use of a density bonus (SB 1818) for proposed projects, which would have facilitated the development of new affordable homes for lower income households in the City. 7. Harbor _& Newport Boulevard Residential Overlay*, Approve a residential incentive overlay that includes new high density residential uses of up to 40 du/acre along Harbor Boulevard and Newport Boulevard ONLY IF new residential developments proposed in the overlay set-aside 20 percent of homes as affordable to lower income working households. In addition, motels located in the overlay should not be included unless any ' E[ousin.- Element For the Costa Mesa General Plan 2013-2021, p. 56, January 21, 2014- _<S1 - Ms. Minoo Ashabi April 18, 2016 Page 5 of 5 future/new residential developments that are proposed on these sites dedicate at least 20 percent of the homes to lower income working households. In addition, by increasing the existing base density, the City is effectively circumventing the use of a density bonus (SB 1818) for proposed projects, which would have facilitated the development of new affordable homes for lower income households in the City. 8. SoBECA Overlay: Approve a maximum of 450 units at a density of 40 du/acre at the SoBECA Urban Plan Area ONLY IF new residential developments proposed in the overlay set-aside 20 percent of homes as affordable to lower income working households. In addition, by increasing the existing base density, the City is effectively circumventing the use of a density bonus (SB 1818) for proposed projects, which would have facilitated the development of new affordable homes for lower income households in the City. 9. Conduct a study to evaluate the economic impacts of the proposed development incentives (i.e., land use changes/ rezoning and density increases) in the "focus areas." 10. Collaborate with the Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition and community stakeholders to develop effective land use changes and residential incentive overlays in the General Plan Update that will increase affordable home opportunities for lower income working households. Please keep us informed of any updates to the City's General Plan Update and if you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (949) 250-0909 or cesarc@kennedycommission.org. Sincerely, Cesar Covarrubias Executive Director cc: Kathy Esfahani, Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition I IV Tribune Real Estate April 18, 2016 Minoo Ashabi, Principal Planner City of Costa Mesa — Development Services Department 77 Fair Drive, P.O. Box 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200 Re: Former LA Times Printing Press Property Draft EIR Comments Dear Ms. Ashabi, On behalf of the Joint Venture of Kearny Real Estate Company and Tribune Media, which owns the Los Angeles Times site located at 1375 Sunflower Avenue, we offer the following comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR") for the Costa Mesa Year 2015-2035 General Plan. As a general matter, we are supportive of the City's long awaited effort to update its General Plan, and are appreciative of your efforts. To that end, we offer the following technical comments and corrections: First, the owner of the Los Angeles Times site is referred to as "Tribune Publishing" throughout the document. The current owner of the Property is in fact a joint venture of Kearny Real Estate Company and Tribune Media Company. Moreover, the ownership of the property isn't relevant to the environmental impacts of the project. We respectfully request that the ownership references be updated to simply reflect the property as the "former LA Times printing press property" for identification, and use the word "owner" with reference to the former LA Times printing press property to avoid confusion. Second, the Draft EIR, at page 4.8-6 includes the Los Angeles Times North Tanks on Table 4,8- 4 (Leaking Underground Storage Tanks). This reflects outdated and therefore inaccurate information that we respectfully request be updated to reflect current information. Specifically, there are no leaking tanks on the site, and the remedial extraction system concluded its work in April 2014. Groundwater monitoring has been occurring in accordance with Orange County Health Care Authority ("OCHCA") monitoring requirements. The OCHA is reviewing data collected to -date to determine whether the site satisfies the criteria for no further action. Groundwater sampling will continue until OCHCA so determines. The most recent monitoring data is attached for further reference. Finally, we understand that the General Plan designates the Los Angeles Times site as Commercial Center. However, page 4.10-6, states that the Los Angeles Times site would be designated as Urban Center Commercial. We request that this and all such references be corrected to reflect the proper General Plan designation of Commercial Center. 202 NEST FIRST STREET I LOS ANGELES, CA 190012 83 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR, and we look forward to working with you as the General Plan process moved forward. Very truly yours, A MESA. LLC Tribune RLl-,r3--E<tatc Holdings, LLC Encl. 202 WEST FIRST STREET I LOS ANGELES, CA 190012 •I • Attachment to Tribune Real Estate Letter Dated April 18, 2016 related to Underground Tanks and Remediation status is available for review at the City Hall, Planning Division PU BLOC LAW CENTER PROVIDING ACCESS TO JUSTICE FOR ORANGE COUNTY'S LOW INCOME RESIDENTS April 18, 2016 Chair Robert Dickson, Jr. and Planning Commission Members RECT APR 212016 City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92628 RE: Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for 2015-2035 General Plan Dear Chairman Robert L. Dickson, Jr. and Planning Commission Members: This letter is a comment on the 2015-2016 Draft EIR Report. This letter is written on behalf of the Costa Mesa Motel Residents Association ("CMMRA"). CMMRA consists of long-term residents that have made the motels of Costa Mesa their home. A majority of the members of CMMRA currently reside at Costa Mesa Motor Inn ("CMMI"), the location of the proposed project. In general, the members of CMMRA and the other residents of the motel are low-, very- low-, and extremely -low-income families, veterans, and other residents, many of whom are disabled. The CMMRA encourages the Planning Commission to take the following steps: The City should conduct its analyses of affordable housing development using both fixed site and scattered site models for preserving/creating affordable housing for the current motel residents who consider themselves part of the Costa Mesa community. The City can and should develop a model that integrates housing for disabled persons, elderly persons, and low-income working families into each of their proposed sites and all residential density proposals. The Commission has openly opined that they felt the motel standard of living was inadequate—they have the chance to remedy their own concerns by developing adequate, low-income housing in this instance. 2. Make provisions with preference for the low-income families who utilize motels, integrating target percentages for affordable units or homes in each proposed development. The developments should address housing types both for residents who utilize motels for their affordability and stability and for those who use motels as housing of last resort. Address the dislocation of low-income motel residents who call Costa Mesa their home and include them as a concretely impacted group in the EIR report. As a result, reclassify the findings under the Population/Housing Impacts to be "significant" or "potentially significant." The report is incorrect when it says that the "specific number of persons using that particular motel for long-term occupancy" is unknown. Multiple statistical reports have been conducted and thus the city does know how many long-term occupants SO - 601 Civic Center Drive West • Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 • (714) 541-1010 • Fax (714) 541-5157 are currently living in motels and would be adversely affected. Thus, they also know the scope of the likely population displacement. The City overtly acknowledges that the proposed land uses will reduce motel rooms citywide, so this negative impact on existing motel residents is not speculative, but highly likely, and the report should accurately reflect this reality. 4. Address and make provisions for relocation services and other necessary resources for those low-income residents who might be forced to move out of their units as a result of development at each site. Adopt a plan for homelessness prevention that can accommodate effected residents. It is this City's obligation to merge the interests of redevelopment and the interests of meeting the needs of its residents. The City wants these properties to be redeveloped, continually citing them as eyesores. Therefore, the City must work together with owners and affordable housing experts to redevelop these sites to include low-income housing, especially for the current long- term occupants in Costa Mesa motels. Please keep us informed of any updates to the City's General Plan Update and if you have any questions, please contact us at (741) 541-1010. Sincerely, Lili Graham Richard Walker Public Law Center Attorneys on behalf of CMMRA srl 601 Civic Center Drive West • Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 • (714) 541-1010 • Fax (714) 541-5157 I am filing an objection to the above item. The comments and public input is, according to your documents, open for one more week. I question the ability to cut short the time for residents to make comments and submit emaiis and letters. Hopefully, this was a typographical error and will be corrected, forthwith. Sincerely, Mary Spadoni Costa Mesa, CA 92627 To: Mrs. Brenda Green, City Clerks Q, RE: Planning Commission 04/11/16Fm -� Public Hearing, item 1 ,7 Date: 04/11/2016 Icn �? �' I am filing an objection to the above item. The comments and public input is, according to your documents, open for one more week. I question the ability to cut short the time for residents to make comments and submit emaiis and letters. Hopefully, this was a typographical error and will be corrected, forthwith. Sincerely, Mary Spadoni Costa Mesa, CA 92627 N-1 April 11, 2016 TO: ROBERT L. DICKSON, JR. Chair, Costa Mesa Planning Commission JEFF MATHEWS, Vice Chair, Costa Mesa Planning Commissioner STEPHAN ANDRANIAN, Costa Mesa Planning Commissioner COLIN MCCARTHY, Costa Mesa Planning Commissioner TIM SESLER, Costa Mesa Planning Commissioner As per Page 9 of the Planning Commission's agenda for tonight's meeting, I read, "The Draft EIR and Technical Appendices will be available for review and comment for 45 [forty-five] days commencing March 4, 2016 at 8:00 am and ending on April 18, 2016 at 5:00 pm. Costa Mesa's Office of the City Clerk provided me with a CD that has the large PDF of the Proposed General Plan, the Draft EIR and all Technical Appendices. I was intending to further study this material and submit comments all during this coming week. On Page 14 of tonight's agenda, I read "...Costa Mesa Planning Commission hereby recommends... PASSED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of April, 2016." 1 request that you not pass Item 1 of tonight's agenda. Please respect the citizens of Costa Mesa by following the letter of the law and providing us with the full 45 -day period in which to submit our comments. Respectfully submitted, Flo Martin, 49 -year resident of Costa Mesa, CA ReCelved City of Costa Mesa Development Services Department APR 112016 a COLGAN, JULIE L Subject: Violation of process of CEQA From: C B Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 4:38 PM To: GREEN, BRENDA<brenda.trreenPcostamesaca.go%r>; DUNN, MICHAEL <MICHAEL.DUi lPl.@costamesaca.Qov>; HATCH, THOMAS <THOMAS.HATCH @costamesaca.-gov> Subject: Violation of process of CEQA Attn: Tom Hatch City Manager/CEO of Costa Mesa Brenda Green -City Clerk of Costa Mesa Hello, I am writing to voice my objection to what I believe a gross violation of due process of the California Enviromental Quality Act-CEQA. Listed as notice on the planning commission agenda for April 11, 2016: Agenda notice for tonights Planning Commission: Approve by adoption of Planning Commission Resolutions for the following actions: 1. Recommend that the City Council certify Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) — SCH No. 2015111068 and; 2. Recommend that the City Council adopt 2015-2035 General Plan http://�ywNy.costamesaca. go v!i ride.x.aspx?page=1964 The DEIR cannot certify and/or adopt the General Plan prior to the close of the comment period, which was noticed as March 4 2016 through April 18 2016. "The General Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Report and Technical Appendices are available for review and comment for 45 days commencing March 4, 2016 at 8:00 am and ending on April 18, 2016 at 5:00 pm. Written comments on the Draft EIR must be submitted by April 18, 2016 by 5:00 pm to the City of Costa Mesa." Please correct this error and clarify to the public that a mistake has been made. I also suggest that the comment period be extended as result of this error in notification. Thank you, Cindy Black _ -G0� COLGAN, JULIE a inns � i i no`iirr�i� Subject: Costa Mesa Planning Commission - April 11, 2016 agenda, Public Hearing Item No. 1 From: Cynthia McDonald Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 10:26 AM To: GREEN, BRENDA <brenda.greenClcostarne;ac�nv,> Subject: Costa Mesa Planning Commission - April 11, 2016 agenda, Public Hearing Item No. 1 I hereby object to a hearing being held on Public Hearing Item No. 1 on the agenda for the April 11, 2016 Planning Commission meeting. This item incorrectly states that the Planning Commissioners will be voting to send the Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") to the City Council, however the comment period for the DEIR has not lapsed and written comments can still be submitted. The Planning Commission cannot take action until the comment period has lapsed and all comments have been submitted. Further, the agenda states that the Planning Commissioners can recommend that the City Council adopt the General Plan. That cannot happen because we do not have a final EIR yet. Thank you for your consideration. Cynthia McDonald WNIS Cynthia McDonald April 18, 2016 VIA EMAIL ONLY City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Re: Comments to Draft Environmental Impact Report prepared in connection with General Plan update Ladies and Gentlemen: The following are my comments to the Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") and some, but not all, of my comments with respect to the Draft General Plan ("DGP"). Please make these comments and requests for additional information and/or modification to the DEIR and DGP part of the public record. Overall Cohesive Plan for the Cit -y The General Plan does not include a vision of how the City will develop an overall cohesive plan for the City for the next 20 years. While it contains suggestions that developers focus on creating gathering spots in their projects, there is no specific direction for that. Mention is made that the Triangle should be considered the downtown area. The closest thing we have to a central gathering place is the Neighborhood Community Center ("NCC"), which is slated to be reduced in size, rather than expanded. Walking in that area is not enjoyable and no new bike lanes are currently planned so that we can avoid automobile trips and transform the city to a bikeable/walkable city. There are no transit centers or hubs planned near the NCC or South Coast Plaza. The zoning for new housing along Harbor and Newport Boulevards is not specified to be strictly the true mixed-use type of development that would encourage people to get out of their cars and visit businesses on foot or by bike. While the most dense/intense land uses are focused away from the neighborhoods with single-family homes, the health and safety of the residents are jeopardized by the proposed changes to land use because of the impacts of increased traffic levels, air pollution and lack of adequate open space. qZ_ City of Costa Mesa April 18, 2016 Page 2 Vision Statements While the vision statements are a welcome addition to the DGP, the residents suggested changes to the vision statements and requested additional statements that were ignored. What we see are vision statements that reflect the needs of developers, and not the direction that the residents want for the City. Protecting the residents is the primary responsibility of the City, and yet protecting and promoting the health, safety and quality of life of the residents is ignored. Aesthetics Impact 4. LA, 4. LB found on page 4.1-5 states: "Impacts to scenic vistas and resources would be less than significant with implementation of draft General Plan policies." In the following paragraph it further explains "As described above, scenic vistas within the City are limited to large areas of undeveloped land that offer views of scenic resources such as Upper Newport Bay, the Santa Ana River, and the Santa Ana Mountains. The proposed project will not alter scenic vistas located in existing parks or open space areas as none are subject to land use change. New development built on the Segerstrom Home Ranch and Sakioka Lot 2 sites could impact existing views of the Santa Ana Mountains since current land use policy allows buildings of heights greater than two stories; the proposed General Plan land use policies will continue this condition. However, with the implementation of the following Community Design Policies CD -5.A through CD -5.F below, potential impacts on scenic vistas and resources would be less than significant:" What follows is Policy CD -5.A which provides for the preservation and optimization of natural views and open spaces in Costa Mesa. However, there is no assurance that views can be preserved because the buildings in the Segerstrom Home Ranch project are limited only by FAR and could be anywhere from five (5) to twelve (12) stories in height. These buildings have the potential to impede the view of the Santa Ana Mountains for residents who live west of that project. This impact needs to be added to the DEIR. Land Use Element The proposed changes will have irreversible impacts on the residents, some of which result in the form of air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions and noise pollution, which are discussed below. There are also impacts to the quality of life of the residents. There is no plan for the City to create either central or neighborhood gathering spots, no inclusionary agreement for affordable housing and the proposed high-density housing is not located in walkable/bikeable areas or near q,3— City of Costa Mesa April 18, 2016 Page 3 a transit center. Removal of height limitations for buildings south of the San Diego Freeway will degrade the quality of life for the residents. With respect to the Existing Land Use Distribution on 4.10-1 of the DEIR, the Santa Ana Colleen Street Island has already been incorporated into the City. The DEIR does not address what happens to displaced residents as a result of the rezoning of "problem motels" to high-density mixed-use residential. The City seems to think these people will move elsewhere, but since so many have family in the area, including children attending Newport -Mesa schools, and a few have employment, this subject matter needs to be addressed. Further, this displacement is an intentional attempt to change the demographics of the City. Environmental Impacts Air Pollution and Greenhouse Gas Emissions As noted on page 2.4-1 of the DEIR: "... the updated General Plan Amendments has the potential to result in significant, unavoidable environmental effects with regard to the following environmental issue areas: • Air Quality Aesthetics (due to inconsistency with regional plans) • Greenhouse Gas Emissions (due to inconsistency with regional plans)" On page 4.3-15 of the DEIR, we see that the proposed General Plan Amendments will have the impact of the deterioration of air quality caused by the addition of 9,271 more dwelling units, 21,166 more residents and about 5.6 million square feet of nonresidential development. That section of the DEIR says: "This could result in potentially significant impacts because air quality attainment goals could be delayed since the strategies adopted in the AQMP would not account for land use changes in the planning area." In other words, the City does not have a plan in place that can deal with the air pollution that comes with all this new development. Further, it says: "Therefore, the proposed General Plan is inconsistent with the growth projections in the RTP/SCS and would be inconsistent with the 2012 AQMP." —(q � — City of Costa Mesa April 18, 2016 Page 4 Despite that, the DEIR states that: "the following policies in the updated General Plan support attainment of air quality goals through assessment and mitigation of future development projects ..." What is listed after that, among other things, are policies of the General Plan that would mitigate the impacts of the proposed development, some of which came out of the proposed Active Transportation Plan ("ATP"). However, those policies in the ATP were reclassified as "recommendations" at the time the City Council approved it. Mitigation needs to be something that is a concrete measure that can be taken to prevent an impact. It cannot be something that falls into the category of being a choice that might be opted for, or a wish list. Unless the City Council is going to change the DGP so that all the "recommendations" in the ATP are restored to policies, the DEIR needs to be edited to eliminate any reference to those policies/ recommendations. Not having an adequate plan to deal with air pollution puts the health of the residents at risk. I note that the monitoring station is located in an area that benefits from unimpeded breezes off the ocean due to its location near Costa Mesa Golf Course and Fairview Park and is not near the existing emission locations shown on Figure 4.3.2. There are other areas that receive a greater impact of air pollution, for example, the comer of Baker and Bear Streets which not only is impacted by the air pollution of three (3) nearby freeways, but also a busy arterial and the airport. While repurposing some of the light industrial in the SoBECA area might help air quality, it is not going to come close to eliminating the air pollution coming from the freeways, airport and the adjoining industrial park. Should the City allow a mixed-use component of 40- 50* dwelling units per acre to be introduced to that area and other areas in the city, it would be at a significant risk to the health of all residents. *50 dwelling units with a density bonus applied. There currently exists a toxic carbon monoxide "hot spot" at Hyland and MacArthur. Any increase in traffic caused by an increase in the use of land by elevating the allowable FAR in areas close to that hot spot would require mitigation. Expansion of the Los Angeles Times building is not likely to reduce that problem as it will bring an increase in traffic to that area over what currently exists. Any repurposing of the building needs to be accompanied by a plan to reduce auto and truck traffic. The adjacent rail line is an opportunity to provide pedestrian/bicycle access to that parcel and others in the area and should be incorporated into any redevelopment plan. With respect to greenhouse gases, the California Air Resources Board has identified a cap and trade program as one of the strategies it will be using to reduce greenhouse gases. The City needs to anticipate that it will be required to be a part of that program and institute a plan to reduced greenhouse gases. As noted in Impact 4.7.B: "The proposed General Plan Amendments have the potential to conflict with the 2012 SCAG RTP/SCS and CARB Scoping Plan—and thereby not attain GHG reductions City of Costa Mesa April 18, 2016 Page 5 targets—because land use policy does not support the same level of population growth projected. Impacts at the prGIram level are significant and unavoidable." [Emphasis added] In addition, I note there is no mention of the impacts by the proposed Banning Ranch development. While the City is not responsible for that development, it is certain to be a part of the cumulative effects of the proposed General Plan Amendments. That cumulative impact and the impact of the proposed General Plan Amendments are unacceptable and need to be modified and a plan needs to be instituted to mitigate or eliminate those impacts. Noise In Section 4.12 of the DEIR much discussion is made to accommodating development of additional commercial, residential and mixed-use development in the specific focus areas and some attention is given to the impacts of the noise generated by that development. Mitigation includes Policy N -2-A which provides: "Require the use of walls, berms, interior noise insulation, double -paned windows, and other noise mitigation measures, as appropriate, in the design of new residential or other new noise sensitive land uses that are adjacent to arterials, freeways, or adjacent to industrial or commercial uses." Page 4.12-16 contains the following explanation of Impact 4.12.C: "Future population growth within the planning area would result in increased traffic and the need for roadway and intersection improvements necessary to maintain desired levels of service, despite this increase in traffic. Increases in traffic could result in permanent increases in ambient noise levels, e.g., where a roadway segment is proposed to be expanded with additional travel lanes over the long-term to achieve level of service standards. Roadway noise could also increase on an existing roadway that will carry increasing traffic volumes. In either set of circumstances, roadway noise levels could increase to beyond the levels considered acceptable for the adjacent land uses. This issue is addressed under Impact 4.12.C." However, no mitigation is provided for pedestrians and bicyclists who are continuously exposed to these increased noise levels. Further, no explanation is given as to how the City intends to mitigate the noise that is echoed off tall buildings or the sound walls that are required to mitigate noise so that it does not travel beyond the arterial into adjacent buildings. Zoning The rezoning of selected properties along Harbor Boulevard and Newport Boulevard from commercial to mixed-use overlay is nothing more than spot zoning in those areas, as the adjacent City of Costa Mesa April 18, 2016 Page 6 properties will not be rezoned as well. This constitutes a targeted action by the City designed to benefit certain property owners and not others. Further, the impacts of traffic due to the eastside of Newport Boulevard being a one-way arterial will direct the traffic back into the Eastside neighborhood bringing air pollution impacts noted above. In addition, in the prior General Plan buildings south of the San Diego Freeway were limited to no taller than four (4) stories in height. The General Plan Amendments indicate that there is no limitation to which development must conform—all is needed to exceed this height is permission from the City Council. This shows a complete disregard for the wishes of the residents to retain the low profile coastal town feel. Circulation {Transportation and Traffic) Element At the end of Section 4.16 of the DER there is a statement that no mitigation is necessary because no impacts would result. While it is noted that an intersection is not considered to be at failure level to the City unless it is rated as a LOS of "F", we have two intersections that currently attain LOS "D" at peak hours. One of those is Newport Boulevard and 17a' Street, which is at "D" at both the AM and PM peak hours. The other is Newport Boulevard and 18`x' Street/Rochester Street in the PM peak hour. Many residents, myself included, feel that a LOS of "D" is unacceptable. With the proposed General Plan Amendments, Table 4.16-13 shows twenty-one (21) additional intersections that will attain LOS "D" at one or more peak hours. While some of those intersections will be "improved" to add lanes by 2035, that mitigation effort will only exacerbate the problems faced by pedestrians and bicycles trying to cross wide intersections. If bicyclists and pedestrians cannot cross a street safely, then mobility is severely limited, access is denied, and cycling and walking as a mode of travel is discouraged. More than two percent (2%) of the residents of Costa Mesa ride a bicycle to work and that number is growing. It is imperative that the City reverse its decision to label the policies in the ATP recommendations. Those policies were written as a direct response from residents requesting better and safer connectivity and facilities in the City. Further, as noted above, to use those policies as mitigation for impacts, they need to be classified as such. Policy C -4.A.3 proposes implementation of "park -once approaches for multiuse districts and regional destinations areas", which are commonly known as "parking districts." While the concept of parking districts is a good one, implementation would require the hiring of additional parking enforcement personnel. On page 4.15-54 it is stated that: "These policies, in conjunction with the parking supply and design standards requirements of the City's Zoning Code, would ensure that adequate parking is provided on a project -by -project basis. Impacts would be less than significant." However, since the need for additional parking enforcement personnel would be ongoing, the impact on the City budget would be significant. The DEIR does not indicate that these parking districts would be located in areas with business improvement districts that would fund the cost —Qn— City of Costa Mesa April 18, 2016 Page 7 of the additional personnel. Clarification is needed to fully assess the impacts of these parking districts. Table 4.16-6 indicates that there are currently 1,018,790 ADTs generated in the City and an estimated 1,244,140 ADT. This does not appear to include the 150,000 additional passthrough trips we currently experience or whether the passthrough trips are anticipated to increase. Was a calculation made to increase the trips in accordance with a density bonus that could be applied to selected properties? Please provide that information. While mention is given to the downgrade of the Gisler Avenue/Garfield Avenue crossing of the Santa Ana River to a "Right -of -Way Reserve" status on the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways, it is not clear if this is a fait accompli. If a formal change in status has not occurred, what will be the impact(s)? Please provide more information. One glaring omission from the Circulation Element is the traffic impacts from the Banning Ranch project in Newport Beach. While that project is not part of the proposed General Plan Amendments, seven (7) intersections will be impacted by the Banning Ranch project, many of which are the included in the twenty-one (21) impacted intersections show on Table 4.16-13. Will the addition of Banning Ranch traffic cause any of those seven (7) intersections to drop in level of service? Please provide a detailed answer to this, including what level of service is anticipated with the addition of Banning Ranch traffic given the current plans for that project. In looking at this data and factoring in that there will be some impacts felt by the Banning Ranch project, I believe the statement that no mitigation is necessary is false. The additional traffic that comes with the proposed General Plan Amendments is one of the greatest impacts on the quality of life for the residents of Costa Mesa and steps need to be taken to eliminate those impacts. Oven Space On page 4.14-9 of the DEIR it states: "The City of Costa Mesa currently does not meet its goal of providing 4.26 acres of parkland per 1,000 persons." Further down the page it is stated: "As of 2015, the City had an estimated population of 110,524 residents. Based on the City's park standard goal of 4.26 acres for every 1,000 persons, approximately 471 acres of parkland are required to meet the City's goal. Assuming a build -out population of 131,690 residents, 561 acres would need to be acquired to achieve the goal." -q X 1' City of Costa Mesa April 18, 2016 Page 8 On page 4.14-10 of the DEIR it asserts: "Given the paucity of vacant land within the planning area, it could be reasonably assumed that acquisition and provision of an additional 561 acres of parkland would not [be] feasible. However, this impact is not considered significant since the possible inability of the City to meet its goal would not result in any direct or indirect environmental impact." Costa Mesa is comprised of more than just buildings and people. The most "livable" cities are as known for their open space. Having open space in cities provides many advantages: formal and informal sports and recreation, preservation of natural environments, provision of green space and even urban storm water management. Thus green space must be a key consideration in Costa Mesa if the health of a city and its residents are both considered important. There is a growing body of research showing a connection between human health and well-being and the design and structure of towns, cities and regions. It is believed that planning decisions have a key role to play in combating growing levels of obesity and helping prevent lifestyle - related diseases through facilitating physical activity and positive mental health. The health benefits associated with access to public open space and parks include better perceived general health, reduced stress levels, reduced depression and more. An evaluation of the largest 85 cities in the United States found the health savings from parks was an estimated $3.08 billion. Thus, there are significant impacts from continually falling behind on acquiring new parkland for use by the residents. The City needs to identify priority areas for new parkland and pursue the acquisition and construction of facilities on that land. Failure to do so will result in substantial deterioration of existing facilities. With respect to Fairview Park, on page OSR-18 of the DGP it states: "Due to its size, Fairview Park is one of the parks that may be repurposed to include other public amenities. However, a balance between passive and active open space opportunities within the park will continue to be a key consideration." Due to the sensitive environmental and archeological issues of Fairview Park, this park must be left in a natural state and only requires efforts with respect to remediation or enhancement of that natural state. Simply stated: leave it alone. Population „and Hpusina Data found on page 4.13-6 of the DEIR indicates that the City anticipates the addition of 11,078 more residents by 2035 or an increase of 9.76%. It also indicates the addition of 4,040 dwelling units by that same year (an increase of 9.48%). The increase in jobs is anticipated to be 17,147 more jobs by 2035 (19.64%). Note that some of these numbers do not comport with the numbers City of Costa Mesa April 18, 2016 Page 9 found on page 4.3-15 of the DEIR. Please provide an apples -to -apples comparison or a corrected set of numbers. It is not indicated what type of industries that anticipate this increase in employment and the wage levels of these new workers. The unavailability of suitable affordable housing for employees has proven to be a problem in the past for industries in that they are not able to retain skilled employees for this reason. It is important that the City adopt an inclusionary housing ordinance for this reason. In addition, on page 4.13-6 of the DEIR it indicates there are 8,032 net acres in the City. In the second column of Table LU -2 on page LU -11 of the DGP it indicates there are 8,044. However, adding the numbers in that column, the number is actually 7,942.20. Please review the calculations in both documents and adjust for inconsistencies. Utilities and Service Systems Impact 14.d found on page 14.17-12 states: "Implementation of the proposed General Plan Amendments would not require new or expanded water supply entitlements to be secured, and the proposed General Plan Amendments incorporate policies aimed at conserving water supplies." This indicates that there will be no impact by the addition of 9,271 dwelling units and 21,166 more residents to the City. Residents have been required to minimize water consumption because of the current drought conditions. Our water supply has not been completely replenished by the recent rains and we have been told that we need to continue curtailing our water consumption. To say that providing water service to 21,166 new residents will have no impact to the current residents is incredible. Please provide a detailed plan and policies for how the City is going to handle the lack of water and still add water service without any impact. Alternatives None of the proposed alternatives reflect the concerns or wishes of the residents that were expressed in the outreach meetings. Those concerns include, but are not limited to acquiring more open space, maintaining neighborhood character, bikeability and walkability of public streets, safe and efficient traffic circulation, and increasing homeownership to balance the ratio between homeownership to rental housing. In addition, affordable housing is a concern, particularly with respect to housing for seniors and those who have low and very low incomes. ,loo— City of Costa Mesa April 18, 2016 Page 10 Please note that any request for information contained herein may not be my final request, as when I receive additional information that may generate more questions. Therefore, I reserve my right to make additional information requests. In addition, there are typographical, mathematical and other errors in the DGP that I will address separately when time allows. Thank you for your attention and I look forward to reviewing the City's response. /cm Very truly yours, �G �Cr��•l p� Cynthia McDonald ASHABI, MINOO Subject: FW: Comments to the DEIR From: Robin Leffler Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 4:49 PM To: FLYNN, CLAIRE <CLAI RE. FLYNN (@costamesaca.gov>; General Plan<GeneralPlan@ci.costa-mesa.ca.us> Subject: Comments to the DEIR In the areas I looked at most closely there seem to be discrepancies in some of the figures presented for traffic and housing. The traffic consultant who spoke at the 4/4/16 Planning Commission said the General Plan Update would generate only 10,000 more trips than build -out of the current General Plan. During the 4/5/16 City Council meeting a different consultant, one hired to analyze impacts from the "Smart Growth" voter initiative, reported traffic would increase by 15,015 trips if the proposed General Plan Updates were fully built. I am concerned that the City Council will not know which figures to rely on, or if either is accurate. These analyses are at odds, and the discrepancy must be resolved before the EIR is deemed complete. From the 9/8/15 Joint City Council and Planning Commission Study session, the traffic analyst supplied data to the City Council, Planning Commission and Public ( attachment 5, pg 41), that said Hospitals (incl. the Fairview Hospital Property) are deemed to generate 6,108 existing trips. With proposed Updates, the Property would generate 1, 579 trips, for a stated loss of -4,529 trips from current GP. The motel properties are deemed to generate 12, 793 existing trips and the same if the current GP is built out. With the proposed Updates, there would be a stated loss of -7,466 trips. Since neither Fairview Hospital or many of the Motels have been operating at peak capacity for many years the lower trip numbers are not accurate for existing conditions. The EIR should provide a more realistic view of the probable changes in traffic conditions before the EIR is deemed complete. There also seem to be approximately 5000 housing units that are missing in the final analyses. (At this point they are MIA. Please send in a recovery unit to determine if they are dead, wounded, or POW. If possible , bring them out alive... (- sorry, this stuff gets so serious, I just had to do that.)) There does appear to be an approximate 5000 unit discrepancy. Before the EIR is deemed complete, the discrepancy must be accounted for. This will also affect final traffic figures and may affect other areas such as rental/ownership ratio or jobs/housing ratios. All joking aside, it is critically important that Decision makers have an accurate idea of how traffic could change before they make their decision on the acceptability of the EIR. Thank you for your consideration, Robin Leffler —102- - ASHABI, MINOO Subject: FW: Draft EIR Comments From: Anna Vrska Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 4:29 PM To: General Plan<GeneralPlan@ci.costa-mesa.ca.us> Cc: GREEN, BRENDA <brenda. rR een a7cpstamesaca.go� >; ARMSTRONG, GARY <GARY.ARMSTRONG costamesaca. ov> Subject: Draft EIR Comments Good Afternoon, The following are my comments to the Draft Environmental Impact Report. Please make them part of the public record. The changes to certain parts of the City by the proposed General Plan Amendments are unacceptable because of the impacts those changes will have on residents. Those impacts are. Additional density that does not bring more homeownership opportunities to the City, but instead brings more apartments; Loss of height limitations on buildings south of the 405 freeway; Displacement of residents as a result of redevelopment of selected properties without a plan to provide replacement housing; No plan to provide affordable housing for seniors and low and very -low income residents; No concrete plan to add walkability and bikeability to the City; Increased parking issues; Lowering the level of service at 21 intersections in the City to the level of congestion experienced at Newport Boulevard and 17`h Street; Increased air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions; Increased noise levels as a result of the canyon effect created by tall buildings and sound attenuating walls on arterial roads; Inadequate protective measures for biological and archeological resources at Fairview Park; Inability to provide new parks and open space to keep up with the substantial deterioration of existing facilities by the increase in use due to increase in population; and No plan to address the scarcity of water sources. None of the alternatives offered by the City mitigate these impacts. The alternatives do not address protecting the health, safety and quality of life of the residents. The Draft Environmental Impact Report needs to be rewritten to address the concerns of the residents including acquiring more open space, maintaining neighborhood character, bikeability and walkability of public streets, safe and efficient traffic circulation, _03— increasing homeownership to balance the ratio between homeownership to rental housing, and providing for more affordable housing. Thank you. Anna Vrska ASHABI, MINOO From: FLYNN, CLAIRE Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 12:13 PM To: ASHABI, MINOO; Laura Stetson; Jose M. Rodriguez Subject: FW: GP Draft EIR rom: Ralph Taboada Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 12:01 PM To: General Plan <GeneraIPlan ci.costa-mesa.ca.us> Cc: GREEN, BRENDA <brenda, reen costamesaca. o,1>; ARMSTRONG, GARY<G_A_RY.ARMSTRONG(@costamesaca.Lov> Subject: GP Draft EIR I have many concerns about the draft EIR. I do not believe it adequately addresses the following; 1. -- loss of height limitations on buildings especially south of the 405 freeway 2. -- no plan for replacement housing for residents displaced by redevelopment of selected properties 3. -- no plan to provide affordable housing for seniors and low and very low income residents 4. -- no concrete plan to add walkability and bikeability to the City 5. -- lowering of level of service at 21 intersections in the City to the level of congestion experienced at Newport Blvd and 17th Street. 6. -- additional density that does not bring more homeownership opportunities to the City but instead brings in more appartments 7. -- increased noise levels as a result of the canyon effect created by tall buildings 8. -- inability to provide new parks and open space to keep up with the substantial deterioration of existing facilities by the increase in use due to increase in population 9. -- increased air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions 10. -- no plan to address the scarcity of water resources The EIR needs to be revised because it does not address protecting the health, safety, and quality of life of Costa Mesa residents. The draft needs to be revised because it does not address the concerns of residents such as acquiring more open space, maintaining neighborhood character, bikeability and the walkability of public streets. Thank you Ralph Taboada i aS- ASHABI, MINOO Subject: FW: Draft environmental impact report From: Lisa Lawrence Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 12:51 PM To: General Plan <GeneralPian ci.costa-mesa.ca.us> Cc: ARMSTRONG, GARY <GARY.ARMSTRONG costamesaca. ov>; GREEN, BRENDA <b(-enda,green@costamesaca.goy> Subject: Draft environmental impact report To whom it may concern, The changes to certain parts of the City by the proposed General Plan Amendments are unacceptable because of the impacts those changes will have on the residents. Those impacts are as follows: Displacement of residents as a result of redevelopment of selected properties without a plan to provide replacement housing; No plan to provide affordable housing for seniors and low and very -low income residents; No concrete plan to add walkabilityand bikeability to the City; Increased parking issues; Lowering the level of service at 21 intersections in the City to the level of congestion experienced at Newport Boulevard and 17'r Street; Increased air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions; Increased noise levels as a result of the canyon effect created by tall buildings and sound attenuating walls on arterial roads; Inability to provide new parks and open space to keep up with the substantial deterioration of existing facilities by the increase in use due to increase in population; and No plan to address the scarcity of water sources. Thank you for your consideration, Sincerely, Lisa Lawrence Sent from my Whone — 110(P- ASHABI, MINOO Subject: FW: Comments to the DEIR associated with General Plan update From: William Harader Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 9:57 AM To: General Plan <GeneralPlan ci.costa-mesa.ca.us> Subject: Comments to the DEIR associated with General Plan update The changes to certain parts of the City by proposed General Plan Amendments are not acceptable because of the impacts those changes will have on C.M.residents. Those impacts are the following: Additional density that does not bring more homeownership opportunities to the City, but instead brings more apartments. Need for height limitations on buildings south of 405 freeway; Displacement of residents as a result of redevelopment of selected properties without a plan to provide replacement housing; No plan to provide affordable housing for seniors and low income residents; No concrete plan to add walkability and bikeability to the City; Increased parking issues; Lowering the level of service at 21 intersections in the City to the level of congestion experienced at NB Blvd. and 17th St.; Increased air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions; Increased air noise levels as a result of the canyon effect created by tall buildings and sound attenuating walls on arterial roads; Inability to provide new parks and open space to keep up with substantial deterioration of existing facilities by the increase in use due to increase in population; and No plan to address the scarcity of water sources. There are virtually none of the alternatives offered by the City to mitigate these impacts. The alternatives do not address protecting the health, safety, and quality of life of the residents. The Draft Environmental Impact Report needs to be rewritten to address the concerns of residents to acquiring more open space, maintaining neighborhood character, bikeability and walkability of public streets, safe and efficient traffic circulation, increasing homeownership to balance the ratio between homeownership to rental housing„ and providing for more affordable housing. Thank you for your consideration. William C. Harader -(0'1- ASHABI, MINOO Subject: FW: [BULK] Importance: Low From: Elaine Dethlefsen Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 12:39 PM To: GREEN, BRENDA <brenda.greenC7costamesaca.p> Subject: [BULK] Importance: Low I writing you to express my deep concern with the purposed General Plan Amendments. These are a few of items that concern me. By allowing more and more apartments, this will increase the transit population, and decreases the homeowner population. Apartment dwellers do not have a vested interest in the community. By not enforcing the height limitations on buildings, this has a big impact on the neighborhoods. Costa Mesa seems to be on a fast track to try and the second Los Angeles. Right now this city is a good example of very poor planning of neighborhood and business concerns. It is as if someone is throwing darts at the map of Costa Mesa, and where the dart lands, that is where the new buildings go up. There is not any mention of plans for senior living, low income, biking accommodations, and new parks. I don't mean "sports fields". Neither the city council, the planning commission, or the purposed draft address the following: Increased parking issues Air pollution and green house gas emissions Increase noise pollution from construction, cars, and high buildings creating canyons of pollution/noise. Increase water usage Increase need for fire and police Please keep in mind, the crime rate in Costa Mesa if now at 33%. Increase in traffic. Right now it is impossible to travel in Costa Mesa at certain times of the day without running into a traffic jam. The negative impact of this unbridled building on the citizens' quality of life This unchecked building phase that the government of Costa Mesa is forcing upon the citizens of Costa Mesa has got to STOP. There are new houses going up at the end of my street right now. When I look at the houses, they do not have any yards, they are two story, and there is not any parking for the owners/guests. Can you explain where the children of these homeowners are going to play? Where are going to park? The architecture does not fit with the neighborhood. Who is the architect for these projects??? The new apartments and homes going up all over town looks like a five year old designed them . They are all square boxes. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Elaine Dethefsen log— ASHABI, MINOO Subject: FW: General plan draft EIR resident comment- please add to the report and make part of the public record. From: Laurene Keane _ Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 3:10 PM To: General Plan <Genera3PlanOci.costa-mesa.ca.us>; GREEN, BRENDA <brenda. reen costamesaca. ov>; ARMSTRONG, GARY <GARY.ARMSTRONG @costa mesa ca. ov> Subject: General plan draft EIR resident comment- please add to the report and make part of the public record. To Whom it May Concern: Re: Draft EIR General plan -Costa Mesa The following are my comments to the Draft Environmental Impact Report. Please make them part of the public record. The changes to certain parts of the City by the proposed General Plan Amendments are unacceptable to me because of the impacts those changes will have on the residents. The impacts that concern me are as follows: Additional density that does not bring more homeownership opportunities to the City, but instead brings more apartments; Loss of height limitations on buildings south of the 405 freeway; Displacement of residents as a result of redevelopment of selected properties without a plan to provide replacement housing; • No plan to provide affordable housing for seniors and low and very -low income residents; No concrete plan to add walkability and bikeability to the City; • Increased parking issues; Lowering the level of service at 21 intersections in the City to the level of congestion experienced at Newport Boulevard and 17th Street; • Increased air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions; • Increased noise levels as a result of the canyon effect created by tall buildings and sound attenuating walls on arterial roads; • Inability to provide new parks and open space to keep up with the substantial deterioration of existing facilities by the increase in use due to increase in population; and No plan to address the scarcity of water sources. None of the alternatives offered by the City mitigate these impacts. The alternatives do not address protecting the health, safety and quality of life of the residents. The Draft Environmental Impact Report needs to be rewritten to address the concerns of the residents, including acquiring more open space, maintaining neighborhood character, bikeability and walkability of public streets, safe and efficient traffic circulation, increasing homeownership to balance the ratio between homeownership to rental housing, and providing for more affordable housing. I have attended many meetings where residents have voiced their concerns, and offered suggestions I would like to see included in the General plan. Thank you for your consideration. Laurene Keane Costa Mesa Resident ASHABI, MINOO Subject: FW: General Plan Amendments From: Georgette Quinn Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 6:33 AM To: M0NAHAN, GARY<G_ARY.M0NAHANPcostamesaca.gov>; RIGHEIMER, JIM <]IM.RiGHEIMER @ cos tamesaca. ov>; FOLEY, KATRINA<KATRINA. FO LEY@costamesaca.gov>; GENIS, SANDRA <SANDRA.GENIS costamesaca. ov>; Mayor <M a yo r@ costa rn esa ca„gov> Subject: General Plan Amendments Hello, I am concerned about the fact that the city council is making changes to our city without listening to the residents. We could accept change if the changes took into consideration the of making Costa Mesa a city that is livable to all. Not just cramming in wherever you can high density housing that will bring in the following impacts: Additional density that does not bring more homeownership opportunities to the City, but instead brings more apartments; Loss of height limitations on buildings south of the 405 freeway; Displacement of residents as a result of redevelopment of selected properties without a plan to provide replacement housing; No plan to provide affordable housing for seniors and low and very -low income residents; No concrete plan to add walkability and bikeability to the City; Increased parking issues; Lowering the level of service at 21 intersections in the City to the level of congestion experienced at Newport Boulevard and 17th Street; Increased air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions; Increased noise levels as a result of the canyon effect created by tall buildings and sound attenuating walls on arterial roads; Inability to provide new parks and open space to keep up with the substantial deterioration of existing facilities by the increase in use due to increase in population; and No plan to address the scarcity of water sources. None of the alternatives offered by the City mitigate these impacts. The alternatives do not address protecting the health, safety and quality of life of the residents. The Draft Environmental Impact Report needs to be rewritten to address the concerns of the residents including acquiring more open space, maintaining neighborhood character, bikeability and walkability of public streets, safe and efficient traffic circulation, increasing homeownership to balance the ratio between homeownership to rental housing, and providing for more affordable housing. Thank you for your consideration. C,eorgette M. GZ,cCvi,w OHtST ASHABI, MINOO Subject: FW: DEIR Comments On Apr 18, 2016, at 12:33 PM, Judy Lindsay - wrote: The following are my comments to the Draft Environmental Impact Report. Please make them part of the public record. The changes to certain parts of the City by the proposed General Plan Amendments are unacceptable because of the impacts those changes will have on the residents. Those impacts are as follows: Additional density that does not bring more homeownership opportunities to the City, but instead brings more apartments; Loss of height limitations on buildings south of the 405 freeway; Displacement of residents as a result of redevelopment of selected properties without a plan to provide replacement housing; No plan to provide affordable housing for seniors and low and very -low income residents; No concrete plan to add walkability and bikeability to the City; Increased parking issues; Lowering the level of service at 21 intersections in the City to the level of congestion experienced at Newport Boulevard and 171h Street; Increased air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions; Increased noise levels as a result of the canyon effect created by tall buildings and sound attenuating walls on arterial roads; Inability to provide new parks and open space to keep up with the substantial deterioration of existing facilities by the increase in use due to increase in population; and No plan to address the scarcity of water sources. None of the alternatives offered by the City mitigate these impacts. The alternatives do not address protecting the health, safety and quality of life of the residents. The Draft Environmental Impact Report needs to be rewritten to address the concerns of the residents including acquiring more open space, maintaining neighborhood character, bikeability and walkability of public streets, safe and efficient traffic circulation, increasing homeownership to balance the ratio between homeownership to rental housing, and providing for more affordable housing. Thank you for your consideration. Judy Lindssay ASHABI, MINOO Subject: FW: Development Planning From: Corinne Stover Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 11:32 AM To: ARMSTRONG, GARY <GARY.ARMSTRONG costamesaca. ov>; GREEN, BRENDA <brenda.green@costamesaca.gov>; FLYNN, CLAIRE <CLAIRE.FL_YNN costamesaca.gov>; rdickson.cmpc@gmail.com; twsesler@gmail.com;, colinkmccarth ahoo.com• sand ranian@yahoo.com; aventrue@ca_.rr.com Subject: Development Planning April 18, 2016 From: Corinne P. Stover To: Cary Armstrong City of Costa Mesa Development Department Two -hundred forty-one years ago, Paul Revere rode through the countryside warning his countrymen, "The British are coming!" (According to poet Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, anyway.) On this April 18th, your Costa Mesan "countrymen/women" hope to impress upon the Planning Department Planning Commission the need for a close look at what is being developed in this city. In a time of severe drought, the concept "less is more" applies to a need for being qualitative about development. it is not feasible to continue building quantitatively, filling available areas with apartments! In my opinion, the live -work concept was not thoroughly "vetted" for Costa Mesa. The developer, thinking it a good idea, did not plan funding for a monitoring system for compliance! The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is not meant to stymie development. It gives parameters for quality development. Isn't that why we have criteria for compliance? Isn't it fitting for developers and planners to think first to accommodate compliance, rather than plan for modifications? Where is quality when projects continually provoke modification? This is what I see happening in Costa Mesa: minimize area between buildings, let 2nd floors overhang lower floors, rooftops as "open space." To paraphrase Longfellow, "The Developers are here!" This countrywoman wants our city's growth to be smart, waterwise, design -worthy, and allow for more mobility. Compliance begins and ends in the development department, equipped with all the concerns of its constituents from Summer, 2013. There were no hammers at those meetings! "The man with a hammer walks in search of a nail." Copies: Brenda Green —112-- Claire Flynn Planning Commissioners: Robert Dickson, Jr., Tim Sesler, Colin McCarthy Stephan Andranian Jeff Matthews —113— r;E.:C+E'(VE,l., April 18, 2016 (city general plan draft eir) G [ T Y CLERK City Council and Staff: 16 APR $ PrIl a- 3 T The following are my comments regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Reo them part of the public record. F 7 AY117 _ A very detailed Draft EIR still leaves several important issues in need of additional research and serious consideration. WATER: The draft EIR mentions several probable impacts of future development. I will focus on two where the problems are obvious to any educated layman: " necessity for additional water resources" and impact on "groundwater recharge by increasing impervious surfaces that could hinder percolation of drainage into subsurface aquifers." Unfortunately, what was hoped to be a short-term drought is now seen as a likely long-term and period. Several articles have recently been published warning that "Even when the epic drought ends,... California will still be losing water" (Jay Miglietti, Senior water scientist at NASA JPL. L.A. Times, April 16, 2016). Unfortunately, the reduction of permeable surfaces is already common in permitted developments with first, reduced required setbacks, and then additional variances and the allowance of rooftop decks as "open space." These practices must be stopped. In addition, any further reduction of permeable surfaces must not be permitted. The increased high density construction proposed in the draft general plan must not be allowed. "Necessity for additional water resources" is painfully obvious. Our water district has done an outstanding job managing our resources through engineering and through encouraging conservation by residents resulting in Costa Mesa meeting its goal of a 20% reduction. The EIR duly recognizes these efforts. However, it is an unacceptable premise that additional technological advances and sacrifice on the part of residents will increase to accommodate the increased population invited through the General Plan draft. Many residents have risen to the challenge. However, questions such as "Why should I take shorter showers in order to bring in excessive new population?" are increasingly voiced. There is no justification for a statement that more of the same, following the already substantial cutbacks, will reduce water consumption enough to accommodate this increasing population. In order to claim "less than significant impacts" the city is obligated to provide proof through additional studies, and not just general statements. Among other studies, average water usage per residence should be tallied, and the additional water cuts necessary per family based on the number of additional residences projected should be published. Current residents deserve to know what this increased density means in terms of less water for their families. In addition, credible projections for possible additional state-wide shortages must be researched and considered. RESIDENTIAL DENSITY AND RESPECT FOR CITY RESIDENTS: Current residents have spoken clearly that we wish to maintain the suburban atmosphere of Costa Mesa. Years ago, density and height limitations were discussed at length and maintenance of low-rise building south of the 405 was affirmed. More recently, a couple years ago, the city held a "Great Outreach," inviting families from all over the city. Two outcomes which should be honored but have been ignored are notable: I . Speakers—most of whom had not spoken in a public forum before --lined up to say, essentially, "Leave the Westside alone." 2. A presentation of building types among which the attendees were supposed to choose was presented in a meeting room. The choices for style and density were, essentially choices between "bad" and "worse." Eventually there was a general rebellion on the part of the attendees saying that none of the choices were acceptable. Since that request for public opinion, however, the city councilmen have ignored the will of the people and approved development far worse that the worst that the presenters had to offer. ELIiMINATION OF LOW-INCOME HOUSING VIA IIARRASSMENT OF MOTEL OWNERS While addition of low-income housing is a difficult problem, the current push for elimination of such housing is unconscionable. Developers are often given incentives and/or variances to tear down modest low-rise housing and put in the crowded, intrusive developments I mentioned above. Even worse, through a concerted effort of harassment of motel owners and persistent demonizing of the motels and their residents, the limited amount of last -resort housing is being diminished. It's important to note that this housing is available through mutual agreements between the residents and the private business owners, with no demands for additional taxation or city interference. Besides the elimination of this mutually and privately agreed upon decision, the city is also interfering in private enterprise in a most unseemly manner. Until and unless reasonable alternatives become available, the current private -sector solutions should absolutely be encouraged. PARKING: Despite the repeated protestations by councilmen that "Costa Mesa" has the tightest parking requirements in the county, it is obvious that parking issues are serious and getting worse. We regularly hear requests in Council meetings for resident permit only parking. Excessive and increasing overflow parking is intruding on many neighborhoods and interfering with the "quiet enjoyment" of our homes and neighborhoods. This problem could be easily addressed, but the councilmen turn a deaf ear, and continue to make the problem worse. Sufficient resident and guest parking could easily be required of all new development—based on current parking needs and habits—not those of 20 years ago. Appropriate studies and inclusion in the general plan can easily be accomplished if the council heeds the demands of the public in areas where excessive parking is already a problem, the city has some obligation to develop creative solutions. "Mitigation" is already sorely needed. Increase of this problem is inexcusable and avoidable. AIR QUALITY: Air quality seems to be an area where significant impacts are acknowledged. While hard for a resident to see or quantify, it is extremely important. Air pollution is obviously diminished with increased traffic and idling at overburdened intersections. Reduction of the density which many residents are objecting to can help to protect our air quality. Thank you for your attention, and a special thank you to city staff members who work so hard to meet competing demands. Tamar Goldmann - I I (i3o — April 18, 2016 Greetings Draft Environmental Impact (DEIR) Review Staff, Here are a few of my comments on the (DEIR) and references in the DEIR that lead to the draft general plan 2016. 1 have also included a few references to the 2000EIR for comparison purposes. 1. In Costa Mesa's Draft Environmental Impact Report 2016 (DREZ) , page 4.4-15 under 'Biological Resources' -Impact 4.3A states: "Impacts to special status species and their habitat would be less than significant with implementation of draft General Plan policies and Mitigation Measure 4.3.A-1". It states impacts to the burrowing owl less than significant with mitigation measures in the title yet in the body it says otherwise and concludes with "Impacts on special status species, other than the burrowing owl, are considered less than significant." (Bold type mine). Trying to make the impact appear as less than significant even with mitigation is not according to CEQA when it really is significant. The city therefore should place the burrowing owl under 'significant' instead of trying to lessen the impact by putting in under 'insignificant with mitigation'. The goal of the city should be to preserve natural resources not mitigate them. I refer you to CEQA legislature on page 1-2, item J where it states that the lead agency (City of Costa Mesa) should "Prevent the elimination ,,,,and preserve for future generations representations of all plant and animal communities and examples of the major periods of California history." Therefore, the draft eir should be corrected anywhere it states impacts to the burrowing owl 'less than significant with mitigation' and should properly state 'significant'. Where are the environmental surveys for the burrowing owl at the Segerstrom Home Ranch and Sakiota Lot 2 sites, which have potential for impacts according to page 4.4-16 of the DEIR? 2. This leads me into the next point of the words -'Planning area, Project, and Amendments to the General Plan Area, and in particular, the critical habitat for the Endangered San Diego fairy shrimp. On pages 4. 4-10 under "San Diego Fairy Shrimp', and 4.4-12 under' Critical Habitat', it says there is no critical habitat for —119— the San Diego fairy shrimp in the planning area but in other parts of the DEIR, such as page 4.4-8 when it says: "Of these, only 10 species and two natural communities are located with the planning area and all occurrences are found either in Fairview Park, Talbert Regional Park or the adjacent wildlife preserve." (and 4.4-9 )it talks about the whole of Costa Mesa (project area) as a planning area as well as many other places in the DEIR (pgs.4.14-8, 4.14-9, 4.15-1, 5-4 etc.) So, to summarize, since planning and project are used synonymously, then there IS INDEED Critical Habitat in the planning area (Costa Mesa). Also, the draft general plan, it states on OSR-18, the city's vision of repurposing Fairview Park - which is part of Costa Mesa - whatever area you want to call it. AND, vernal pools on the east side of Fairview Park have been omitted from the draft general plan on page CON -5. These vernal pools are part of the Fairview Park Master Plan (FPMP) page 129 and should be noted as such. 3. Why are so many plant and animal species that are present in Fairview Park, omitted from the DEIR? Southern Tarplant on page 4.4-10 says it is only present in Talbert Nature Preserve. There was Southern Tarplant in Fairview Park recently and the vegetative map in FPMP shows where. The city scraped the mouth of the canyon with a front loader - I have pictures - when I asked them why they were doing this, I was told it was to spread seeds. Very odd way of spreading seeds I thought. Why isn't the Northern Harrier included and of course, California Gnatcatcher? 4. Also page 4.4-16 IMPACT 4.3C says no impact to section 404 wetlands would occur as a result - but the 2009-2013 illegal filling/grading of the canyon in Fairview Park has affected and impacted the habitat in that riverine area of Fairview Park and should be included in the draft. It is home to the California Endangered Gnat Catcher and was filled/graded illegally by the city. (I have documents showing this). Where are the surveys for the California Gnatcatcher? 5. This filling/grading of the Fairview Park canyon impacted two archaeological core sites of ORA -58. (See FPMP)The city is supposed to be preserving and maintaining historical and cultural resources but has failed miserably once again. 6. Page 4.6-13 - Shouldn't Costa Mesa have a URM ordinance before building all these high density houses? lI9 7. 'Open Space' Recreation Element. First of all, what happened to the 'Open Space' part of the title? There are some errors in the calculations of open space per 1,000 residents. First of all, please note on page. 4.12-11, the OC Fair and Event Center includes the OC Fairgrounds. On page 4.15-1- is says that the OC Fair and Event Center has 150.04 acres. On page 4.15-3 - it states that OC Fairgrounds has 149.47 acres. But it has been included as part of the 'Institutional Uses' acreage on page 4.15-1 AND ADDED AGAIN as the OC Fair and Event Center. This artificially increases the open space by 150.00 acres but wait that's not all. The acreage of the schools in 2000EIR to DEIR 2016 have differences which can't be accounted for as well. Most of the differences are a few acres but Van Guard University had an increase of 33.16 acres. I contacted VanGuard University and found out that no new acreage had been obtained and no change of land usage. No way to account for this increase of 33.16 acres. The acreage of open space is off by 200 acres from the 2000 EIRto this draft eir. Please note under Recreation (not open space/trails recreation like in 2000 EIR) on page 4.15-1 it says we have 1,925.15 acres of open -space recreation but in 2000EIR we had only 1,706.74 acres (pg. 4.12-1 2000EIR). Besides OC Fairgrounds being added twice, Harbor Lawn Cemetery has been included in the 2016 acreage. Also OCC went from 20 acres in 2000 to 64.40 acres in 2016. That's an increase of 44.40 more acres. Also, the school matrix does not show what types of fields are at each school like the 2000 EIR did. Most of the schools have added acreage to them and the schools I contacted had no idea why - they didn't grow or change land usage. So, this actually puts Costa Mesa even further behind in their goal for having 4.26 acres of open space per 1000 residents. It's not 3.66 acres per 1,000 residents like stated on page 4.14-9 under 'Public Services' but more like 2.0 acres per 1,000 residents, so please correct his. I think the draft eir is evidence for the destruction of the city's ability to provide its residents with the proper amount of 4.26 acres of Open Space per 1000 residents and should not be allowed. 8. Page 4.15-5 Under 'Recreation' (still what happened to Open Space and Trails even?) 9. Page 4.15-6 under 'Policy OSR-1.C' This map of deficient park areas as outlined in Figure OSR-3 of the draft general plan 2016, has some errors. OSR-3 is based on OSR-2 (page OSR-14 in draft general plan 2016) which has miscalculations. Please notice the areas designated as within 1/4 mile and 1/2 mile from a park as well as the pink areas to represent the "underserved' areas. I brought this up at the planning commission meetings and was told by Ms. Stetson that I had calculated their miscalculations based on 'how the crow flies'. She is mistaken and I am attaching the google maps to show you. I have also used other maps to make sure and this is indeed WALKING not driving or'how the crow flies' as Ms. Stetson stated. This miscalculation of distance is THE FOUNDATION FOR EVEN GREATER ERRORS BECAUSE this map misrepresents the residents being served. More residents are being served than stated and there is not access problems like stated in draft general plan 2016 under Table OSR-4 Park/Population Ratios and page OSR-19. If there is disagreement again, I would like to see your maps used. 10. The miscalculation of open -space area and underserved areas is right in line with the complete lack of public representation in the draft general plan 2016. Having attended the various workshops put on by the city and reviewing the event summaries, I was pleased to see the event summaries did indeed represent what actually happened at the workshops. What happened to the draft general plan? There is no representation of what actually happened in the workshops in the draft general plan 2016. For example, residents stated over and over again that natural open space was very important to them. Fairview Park not been included in the Costa Mesa Open Spaces area but instead included in the Neighborhood Park area - there are myths perpetuated about needing sport fields throughout the OSR element. First of all, that would undermine the Open Space Survey and Field Usage Survey that was conducted and results have not been released yet. Secondly, there is a Fairview Park Master Plan that governs Fairview Park and for the city to state that Fairview Park could be repurposed for the increased demand for sport fields (OSR-18) is undermining the Fairview Park Master Plan, ignoring the publics' input for two and a half years, and perpetuating a lie with no factual basis. Secondly, not including Fairview Park as an Open Space with all of its unique biological and archaeological resources is once again trying to lessen what Fairview Park actually contains and the value it has for the community. As a side note to anyone reading this - this onslaught against Fairview Park didn't begin with the draft eir. Our councilman Mr. Mensinger was allowed to sit as council on the Fairview Park Citizens Advisory Committee when he admitted to asking city staff to mow a path in vernal pool 6 and 7? (1 have O.C.Register article to support this) Oh By The Way, MIG still didn't get the acronym correct on OSR-S, it's FPCAC not FPAC) There are numerous other errors in the eir such as , why is Early College School not included in the draft eir but included in the draft general plan? 10. Why are the Green House Gas Emissions allowed to exceed SCAQM standards? Ms. Stetson said that SCAQM just needed to update their report. would like Costa Mesa to abide by the SCAQM standards instead of trying to redefine them. 11. The DEIR should have been done by a more reputable and honest company instead of MIG. One that would reflect the workshops and not the mayors wishes (last city council meeting - said we need more sport fields - ignoring parks and rec.'s data once again.) Sincerely, Kim Hendricks Costa Mesa Resident JO -a[ Ave, Costa Ivlesa. CA 92627 to Estancia High Scho... https://www.0000 Ie.com/maps/dir;33-6560959,-117.933133/Estancia... O gE�r�p5 2201-2275 Federal Ave, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Walk 0.5 mile, 10 min to Estancia High School j Q I O mtn � a� Suntan Cir c J!-�.• ...Y Signet Cil ya"� f • • ••� wd� _ 1 � f 5 • • .�y� rl:v: , EI Capdal Pr ' Pat"" F'40 w • • ! Estancia High School • wlk .Scnsal� • ># r �ancl Jn:alll St o • • • Joann $1 SIO. S< a Dmla DI r(� � • � UnrrMl SI F Duren SI R Split . 'v Nesun 3t Vffidnsn 51 2201-2275 federal AveO YJWri701l St Cir g$ i 47 M1'nl a4 Spar :If GI F.ke'ne{rlay 4[* rapr1p15t P '" Y Congress St uongt,.. St .:ruxlress St m Caagnmast Gnvernuf St Gnvunru S[ Davernu: Sl x Govanw4 �.1�� f ._ Crla it .n: �011a Sf :.ICf VrI Go: Jgie w a y y S < a AIWO,' 'r -• v S Ntllplltpn r,�^ Sea Nuff Dr HamlNon SI Hamrllon St - Map data 02016 Google 500 ft L via Placentia Ave 10 min 0,5 mile Google Maps 12-2 41812D16 L2:427 PM '2-4 3 Cunt inental Ave. Costa Meia, CA 92627 to 2377-2399 Canyon D... https://w%vwgoogIe -13 3.6559887,-117.9346565,33.6578,,, , xomftapsldir Go(-I,gleMapS 2211 Continental Ave, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 to Walk 0.5 mile, 9 min 2277-2399 Canyon Dr, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 777'1 Qnyun 01 "Um Aw edmaw r' V -U - Capital St c*w—:'P :Ioarml St :1 v M :f QO gle Map data 02016 Google 500 ftt via W Wilson St and Canyon Dr 9 min 0.5 01's Google Maps 44'2016 12:38 RNT 858 VA Wilson St, Costa ,1ilesa, CA 92627 to 2277-2399 Canyon Dr, C... https:/"www.google.comlrnaps/dir/33.666078,-117.9 547423!33.657846... ��� - 858 W Wilson St, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 to Walk 0.5 mile, 10 min 2277-2399 Canyon Dr, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 c { s e s $ h c 8 Sipnel CJf � i %a ElCnpilon a %.ya.��, re$i. vi pavans cwid � .^ �• HnMgi(scr.n,l � .Innen lln,r iClvlcl r A ufarye::�wny � 2277-2399 Canyon Urj • • l `Ignc/;;,a 10111y1+1 .:nano Si Joann Sl F p Onna Cf10 min De7arfe931 atll 5I 2 j ` Split: It j" p` 'YNlson St ��s9��4-47 i iiri lsl a 4 a f a 0QB$B W Wi I.—St 'N'rVilSoi St Spar Gfr v ;:,ted capital 3t , � Gapgnl Sl b t 4� iCnaIC 51 ; SCnfl[q 31 `Y 73 u Gl;nylC9S if GOnyfvRY ST 5':nfyY ii y ;gnyrn. 31 13.11 131 ("u— L ii f,ovC w St .',QaKmOI St �V �.f +f - dlr.tona il 'J !'IUILI ii -i:�!na � ? � •22] J'Ek— YfCtOIitl JT f id �fA i 3 Ypl(d. IA.+ -12 Gbogle MW s m e :lamdtwl Vie, ,'^�ct�:q.�t n S ii � Sen lluif Or 3 a�,�i �� St ` :M mdlon St Map data 92016 Google 500 ft t via W Wilson St and Canyon Dr 10 min 0 5 rile Google Maps -124 44,20 16 124 418/2016 12:43 PM 338-890 Joann St, Costa Mesa, CA 91627 to 2277-2399 Canyon Dr, C... https:ilwww.goo-le.comtmapstdir,'33,6575d26,-I 17.9360083'33.6578... Google Maps 888-890 Joann St, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 to Walk 0.5 mile, 10 main 2277-2399 Canyon Dr, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 :277.2797 Canyon 9r - ••,r -M Joann si o aoa P :water 9an.l�f 6acrgl Sl r i ! .',g.°�.. iiT al �'MiSen 7 ■ a f is a r 1 A \ / 8 / / \ f f 'f7 Y11iYn1 �.l W N�layn 3l }t 'A 'A F'w c• 10 min Elawn�.rr G.P��.vY -r r-• �x thwa IT M Congeu SS t wncyMst CwG+esf 91 1 xxc" at 00•,pmr'jl avNnrwr it 6alY!n0r 5r •, , Wl' + : •fir _,h'1 O viciwr Hv.x �' � � .F.���P. .,•::•:r•s }� ti_ an.r n. 3 � 1n I.Ilu1 $t -. Hmhan 51 Map data 02016 Google 500 ft' via W Wilson St and Canyon Dr 10 rein 0 5 aIle Google Maps loft -125— ! or, 4/f 858 W Wilson St, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 to 2277 Canyon Dr, Costa ... httPs:/,Iwww.goocle.com,,'Maps/dir/33.6560959,-117.9347209/33.6579... Go, gle Maps 858 W Wilson St, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 to 2277 Walk 0 5 mile, 10 min Canyon Dr, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 (),awn "I, loon 01 �7 0, 2277 Canyon Drj ..t D, N..Y sa laden al Joanl C-Mcitmok Ir 4 g 10 min 041.11 St `Spot C;r NtYrla;n Sl a 4;V'i m i 4 0 0 0 a• 4 a a a 0 8511 W witsaft St z;o., r ungnes'. St Cangfnss St COnv-i St A `y Goyclnnr —or St flavrmw St 1-Pd.va A ARM Ale Mcq�lk Lindm P1 via W Wilson St and Canyon Dr Google Maps .— 12(— 1r) t of I Map data 02015 Google 500 ft 1 10 min 0 5 r—n i It e 418/2016 12:53 VNI '20.3-'Z;0 National Ave. Costa Mesa. CA 9?627 to 7777-2399 Caw,— haps: www.googln.rom: rnaps: April 18, 2016 CITY CLERK 16 APR 19 AIS � 2 T M E SA Re: Environmental Impact Report General Plan Amendments CC: Brenda Green, City Clerk Gary Armstrong, Development Dep. The following are my comments to the Draft Environmental Impact Report. Please make them part of the public record. The changes to certain parts of the proposed General Plan Amendments are unacceptable because of the impact those changes would have on residents. Those impacts are as follows: Additional density that does not bring more home ownership opportunities to the City, but instead brings more apartments Loss of height limitations on buildings south of the 405 freeway Displacement of residents as a result of the development of selected properties without a plan to provide replacement housing. Environmental Impact Report General Plan Amendments No plan to provide affordable housing for seniors and low and very low income residents. No concrete plan to add walk ability and bike ability to the City Increased parking issues Lowering the level of service at 21 intersections in the City to the level of the congestion experience at Newport Boulevard and 17th Street Increased air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions Increased noise levels as a result of the canyon effect created by tall buildings and sound attenuating walls on arterial roads Inability to provide new parks and open space to keep up with the substantial deterioration of existing facilities by the increase in use due to the increase in population No plan to address the scarcity of water sources None of the alternatives offered by the City mitigate these impacts. The alternatives do not address protecting the health, safety and quality of life of the residents. The Draft Environment Impact Report needs to be rewritten to address the concerns of the residents including acquiring more open space and maintaining the neighborhood character the concerns of the residents including acquiring more open space and maintaining neighborhood character Public streets need to be made safer with walk ability and bike ability as well as efficient traffic circulation Increasing home ownership to balance the ratio with rental housing and providing more affordable housing Thank you for your consideration. nice Kress�n '130, April 18, 2016 Re: Environmental Impact Report General Plan Amendments CC: Brenda Green, City Clerk Gary Armstrong,, Development Dep. { ECE IV EL CITY CLERK 16 APR 19 AM 8: 2 7 The following are my comments to the Draft Environmental Impact Report. Please make them part of the public record. The changes to certain parts of the proposed General Plan Amendments are unacceptable because of the impact those changes would have on residents. Those impacts are as follows: Additional density that does not bring more home ownership opportunities to the City, but instead brings more apartments Loss of height limitations on buildings south of the 405 freeway Displacement of residents as a result of the development of selected properties without a plan to provide replacement housing. WPM Environmental Impact Report General Plan Amendments No plan to provide affordable housing for seniors and low and very low income residents. No concrete plan to add walk ability and bike ability to the City Increased parking issues Lowering the level of service at 21 intersections in the City to the level of the congestion experience at Newport Boulevard and 17th Street Increased air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions Increased noise levels as a result of the canyon effect created by tall buildings and sound attenuating walls on arterial roads Inability to provide new parks and open space to keep up with the substantial deterioration of existing facilities by the increase in use due to the increase in population No plan to address the scarcity of water sources None of the alternatives offered by the City mitigate these impacts. The alternatives do not address protecting the health, safety and quality of life of the residents. 132- The Draft Environment Impact Report needs to be rewritten to address the concerns of the residents including acquiring more open space and maintaining the neighborhood character the concerns of the residents including acquiring more open space and maintaining neighborhood character Public streets need to be made safer with walk ability and bike ability as well as efficient traffic circulation Increasing home ownership to balance the ratio with rental housing and providing more affordable housing Thank you for your consideration. eve a la -133- April 18, 2016 Re: Environmental Impact Report General Plan Amendments CC: Brenda Green, City Clerk Gary Armstrong., Development Dep. CITY CLERK 16 APR 19 AM 8: 2 7 CI i Y L �ikSA �1'sn The following are my comments to the Draft Environmental Impact Report. Please make them part of the public record. The changes to certain parts of the proposed General Plan Amendments are unacceptable because of the impact those changes would have on residents. Those impacts are as follows: Additional density that does not bring more home ownership opportunities to the City, but instead brings more apartments Loss of height limitations on buildings south of the 405 freeway Displacement of residents as a result of the development of selected properties without a plan to provide replacement housing. Environmental Impact Report General Plan Amendments No plan to provide affordable housing for seniors and low and very low income residents. No concrete plan to add walk ability and bike ability to the City Increased parking issues Lowering the level of service at 21 intersections in the City to the level of the congestion experience at Newport Boulevard and 17th Street Increased air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions Increased noise levels as a result of the canyon effect created by tall buildings and sound attenuating walls on arterial roads Inability to provide new parks and open space to keep up with the substantial deterioration of existing facilities by the increase in use due to the increase in population No plan to address the scarcity of water sources None of the alternatives offered by the City mitigate these impacts. The alternatives do not address protecting the health, safety and quality of life of the residents. � as — Page 3 The Draft Environment Impact Report needs to be rewritten to address the concerns of the residents including acquiring more open space and maintaining the neighborhood character the concerns of the residents including acquiring more open space and maintaining neighborhood character Public streets need to be made safer with walk ability and bike ability as well as efficient traffic circulation Increasing home ownership to balance the ratio with rental housing and providing more affordable housing T-1 a k -you for your consideration. Za �. James Locker 13(� ASHABI, MINOO Subject: FW: Opposed to the General Plan Ammendments From: Beth Morley Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 1:43 PM To: General Plan <GeneralPlan ci.costa-mesa.ca.us> Cc: GREEN, BRENDA <brenda. reen costamesaca. ov>; ARMSTRONG, GARY<GARY_ARMSTRONG@costamesaca.gov> Subject: Opposed to the General Plan Ammendments To All– I am very concerned, as well as opposed to the proposed General Plan Amendments. I am a 30 year resident on the West side of Costa Mesa. My specific objections is the lack of mitigation that the impact of housing density, noise and air pollution, lack of open space, enormous traffic congestion and scarcity of water will create. PLEASE the draft Environmental Impact Report General Plan Amendments need to be REWRITTEN! Thank you for your consideration– Beth Morley -139— April 18, 2016 Greetings Draft Environmental Impact (DEIR) Review Staff, Here are a few of my comments on the (DEIR) and references in the DEIR that lead to the draft general plan 2015. 1 have also included a few references to the 2000EIR for comparison purposes. 1. In Costa Mesa's Draft Environmental Impact Report 2016 (DREZ) , page 4.4-15 under 'Biological Resources' -Impact 4.3A states: "Impacts to special status species and their habitat would be less than significant with implementation of draft General Plan policies and Mitigation Measure 4.3.A-1". It states impacts to the burrowing owl less than significant with mitigation measures in the title yet in the body it says otherwise and concludes with "Impacts on special status species, other than the burrowing owl, are considered less than significant." (Bold type mine). Trying to make the impact appear as less than significant even with mitigation is not according to CEQA when it really is significant. The city therefore should place the burrowing owl under 'significant' instead of trying to lessen the impact by putting in under'insignificant with mitigation'. The goal of the city should be to preserve natural resources not mitigate them. I refer you to CEQA legislature on page 1-2, item J where it states that the lead agency (City of Costa Mesa) should "Prevent the elimination ,,,,and preserve for future generations representations of all plant and animal communities and examples of the major periods of California history." Therefore, the draft eir should be corrected anywhere it states impacts to the burrowing owl 'less than significant with mitigation' and should properly state 'significant'. Where are the environmental surveys for the burrowing owl at the Segerstrom Home Ranch and Sakiota Lot 2 sites, which have potential for impacts according to page 4.4-16 of the DEIR? 2. This leads me into the next point of the words -'Planning area, Project, and Amendments to the General Plan Area, and in particular, the critical habitat for the Endangered San Diego fairy shrimp. On pages 4. 4-10 under "San Diego Fairy Shrimp', and 4.4-12 under' Critical Habitat', it says there is no critical habitat for i�S- the San Diego fairy shrimp in the planning area but in other parts of the DEIR, such as page 4.4-8 when it says: "Of these, only 10 species and two natural communities are located with the planning area and all occurrences are found either in Fairview Park, Talbert Regional Park or the adjacent wildlife preserve." (and 4.4-9 )it talks about the whole of Costa Mesa (project area) as a planning area as well as many other places in the DEIR (pgs.4.14-8, 4.14-9, 4.15-1, 5-4 etc.) So, to summarize, since planning and project are used synonymously, then there IS INDEED Critical Habitat in the planning area (Costa Mesa). Also, the draft general plan, it states on OSR-18, the city's vision of repurposing Fairview Park - which is part of Costa Mesa - whatever area you want to call it. AND, vernal pools on the east side of Fairview Park have been omitted from the draft general plan on page CON -5. These vernal pools are part of the Fairview Park Master Plan (FPMP) page 129 and should be noted as such. 3. Why are so many plant and animal species that are present in Fairview Park, omitted from the DEIR? Southern Tarplant on page 4.4-10 says it is only present in Talbert Nature Preserve. There was Southern Tarplant in Fairview Park recently and the vegetative map in FPMP shows where. The city scraped the mouth of the canyon with a front loader - I have pictures - when I asked them why they were doing this, I was told it was to spread seeds. Very odd way of spreading seeds I thought. Why isn't the Northern Harrier included and of course, California Gnatcatcher? 4. Also page 4.4-16 IMPACT 4.3C says no impact to section 404 wetlands would occur as a result - but the 2009-2013 illi filling/grading of the canyon in Fairview Park has affected and impacted the habitat in that riverine area of Fairview Park and should be included in the draft. It is home to the California Endangered Gnat Catcher and was filled/graded illegally by the city. (I have documents showing this). Where are the surveys for the California Gnatcatcher? 5. This filling/grading of the Fairview Park canyon impacted two archaeological core sites of ORA -58. (See FPMP)The city is supposed to be preserving and maintaining historical and cultural resources but has failed miserably once again. 6. Page 4.6-13 - Shouldn't Costa Mesa have a URM ordinance before building all these high density houses? Ia Q ___. 7. 'Open Space' Recreation Element. First of all, what happened to the 'Open Space' part of the title? There are some errors in the calculations of open space per 1,000 residents. First of all, please note on page. 4.12-11, the OC Fair and Event Center includes the OC Fairgrounds. On page 4.15-1 - is says that the OC Fair and Event Center has 150.04 acres. On page 4.15-3 - it states that OC Fairgrounds has 149.47 acres. But it has been included as part of the 'Institutional Uses' acreage on page 4.15-1 AND ADDED AGAIN as the OC Fair and Event Center. This artificially increases the open space by 150.00 acres but wait that's not all. The acreage of the schools in 2000EIR to DEIR 2016 have differences which can't be accounted for as well. Most of the differences are a few acres but Van Guard University had an increase of 33.16 acres. I contacted VanGuard University and found out that no new acreage had been obtained and no change of land usage. No way to account for this increase of 33.16 acres. The acreage of open space is off by 200 acres from the 2000 EIRto this draft eir. Please note under Recreation (not open space/trails recreation like in 2000 EIR) on page 4.15-1 it says we have 1,925.15 acres of open -space recreation but in 2000EIR we had only 1,706.74 acres (pg. 4.12-1 2000EIR). Besides OC Fairgrounds being added twice, Harbor Lawn Cemetery has been included in the 2016 acreage. Also OCC went from 20 acres in 2000 to 64.40 acres in 2016. That's an increase of 44.40 more acres. Also, the school matrix does not show what types of fields are at each school like the 2000 EIR did. Most of the schools have added acreage to them and the schools I contacted had no idea why - they didn't grow or change land usage. So, this actually puts Costa Mesa even further behind in their goal for having 4.26 acres of open space per 1000 residents. It's not 3.66 acres per 1,000 residents like stated on page 4.14-9 under 'Public Services' but more like 2.0 acres per 1,000 residents, so please correct his. I think the draft eir is evidence for the destruction of the city's ability to provide its residents with the proper amount of 4.26 acres of Open Space per 1000 residents and should not be allowed. 8. Page 4.15-5 Under 'Recreation' (still what happened to Open Space and Trails even?) 9. Page 4.15-6 under 'Policy OSR-1.C' This map of deficient park areas as outlined in Figure OSR-3 of the draft general plan 2016, has some errors. OSR-3 is based on OSR-2 (page OSR-14 in draft general plan 2016) which has miscalculations. Please notice the areas designated as within 1/4 mile and 1/2 mile from a park as well as the pink areas to represent the "underserved' areas. I brought this up at the planning commission meetings and was told by Ms. Stetson that I had calculated their miscalculations based on 'how the crow flies'. She is mistaken and I am attaching the google maps to show you. I have also used other maps to make sure and this is indeed WALKING not driving or'how the crow flies' as Ms. Stetson stated. This miscalculation of distance is THE FOUNDATION FOR EVEN GREATER ERRORS BECAUSE this map misrepresents the residents being served. More residents are being served than stated and there is not access problems like stated in draft general plan 2016 under Table OSR-4 Park/Population Ratios and page OSR-19. If there is disagreement again, I would like to see your maps used. 10. The miscalculation of open -space area and underserved areas is right in line with the complete lack of public representation in the draft general plan 2016. Having attended the various workshops put on by the city and reviewing the event summaries, I was pleased to see the event summaries did indeed represent what actually happened at the workshops. What happened to the draft general plan? There is no representation of what actually happened in the workshops in the draft general plan 2016. For example, residents stated over and over again that natural open space was very important to them. Fairview Park not been included in the Costa Mesa Open Spaces area but instead included in the Neighborhood Park area - there are myths perpetuated about needing sport fields throughout the OSR element. First of all, that would undermine the Open Space Survey and Field Usage Survey that was conducted and results have not been released yet. Secondly, there is a Fairview Park Master Plan that governs Fairview Park and for the city to state that Fairview Park could be repurposed for the increased demand for sport fields (OSR-18) is undermining the Fairview Park Master Plan, ignoring the publics' input for two and a half years, and perpetuating a lie with no factual basis. Secondly, not including Fairview Park as an Open Space with all of its unique biological and archaeological resources is once again trying to lessen what Fairview Park actually contains and the value it has for the community. As a side note to anyone reading this - this onslaught against Fairview Park didn't begin with the draft eir. Our councilman Mr. Mensinger was allowed to sit as council on the Fairview Park Citizens Advisory Committee when he admitted to asking city staff to mow a path in vernal pool 6 and 7? (1 have O.C.Register article to support this) Oh By The Way, MIG still didn't get the acronym correct on OSR-5, it's FPCAC not FPAC) There are numerous other errors in the eir such as , why is Early College School not included in the draft eir but included in the draft general plan? 10. Why are the Green House Gas Emissions allowed to exceed SCAQM standards? Ms. Stetson said that SCAQM just needed to update their report. I would like Costa Mesa to abide by the SCAQM standards instead of trying to redefine them. 11. The DEIR should have been done by a more reputable and honest company instead of MIG. One that would reflect the workshops and not the mayors wishes (last city council meeting - said we need more sport fields - ignoring parks and rec.'s data once again.) Sincerely, Kim Hendricks Costa Mesa Resident �-e/� Lam) c 1 GL V at CHAPTER II HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES ELEMENT -1113- I Costa Mesa Gene CHAPTER 11 HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES ELEMENT 11.1 PURPOSE The Historic and Cultural Resources Element identifies the historic and cultural resources found throughout the City. Goals and supporting policies related to the preservation of these resources are described in this Section. The purpose of this Historical and Cultural Resources Element is to promote the identification protectiori�dnhancement, pe petuatior� and Gse o_-improvemen , buirdings,- structures, -sites, -districts, -neighborhoods, natural -featue _.rjnd - --r significant permanent landscaping hauin ical, archaeological, cultural, architdctural, or community value in the Ci for the foliowin reasons: ♦ To afe guard he City's heritage as embodied and reflected in such resources; - - ♦ To encourage public knowledge, understanding, and appreciation of the City's past;—�- -- ♦ To foster civic and neighborhood pride and a sense of identity based on the recognition and use of culture resources; 4 To preserve diverse and harmonious architectural S les and design preferences re- fl� - 5 o�_ e Cm's h, _ istary and to encourage camplernerifary contemporary design and construction; ♦ To enhance property values and to increase_ economic and financial benefits to the CrTy_and_Rts inhabitants; and ♦ To protect and e_nhan e--Gity's_attraction to tourists and visitors, thereby stiinulaffng business and industry. -. _I� HISTORIC/CULTURAL RESOURCES ELEMENT • PAGE ACR -1 Costa Mesa Gemieerral Flan - crowded streets soon became deserted. Formerly successful business establishments boarded up their doors and windows. By 1911, all that remained in Fairview was the town's schoolhouse, the hotel, and a few scattered houses. The first of all that remained and important part of the community to go was the Fairview public school. The Fairview school closed its doors in 1915 when it merged with the Harper District. In 1918, an earthquake cut off the flow of hot mineral water to the hotel resort. This closed the hotel almost immediately, and the structure was sold and demolished two years later. The few remaining residential houses succumbed to new development in the 1930's and 1950's or to accidents such as fire. PAULARINO Paularino was considered a typical farming community which contained approximately 800 acres bounded by today's Fairview Road to the west, Newport Boulevard on the east, the San Diego Freeway on the north, and by a boundary line approximately one-half mile south of Baker Street. The Paularino community did not amount to more than a name with a few scattered farm houses, one public school building, and a railroad siding complete with a loading platform and a warehouse. The Paularino railroad siding was located on what is now the west side of Newport Boulevard between Paularino Avenue and Baker Street. It was connected to the Santa Ana & Newport Railroad, which ran between Santa Ana and Newport Beach. The lack of growth of Paularino eventually led to its demise. HARPER Harper was named after a rancher who came to the area after the Fairview land boom. Building activity was quiet on the mesa from 1903 to 1906. Developers and oil discoveries during the next six years promoted further settlement. These two factors led to the addition of stores, schools, highways, water systems, and churches. Parallel with the land development, the area experienced its first oil boom, which served to promote and expand population. Three oil wells went up in 1906 just south of the present Newport Harbor High School location. In the latter part of 1907, several more wells were installed on the northern end of the Newport Heights Tract. The oil boom was short-lived. The oil that had been found turned out to be a thick, sticky substance and thus, very difficult to pump. Within two or three years the old derricks were abandoned. The growth and development of Harper fell back upon land development. In 1920 the farming community of Harper was renamed to Costa Mesa. In the summer of 1920, the second store on Newport Boulevard, the Wayside Market, opened for business. Several more store buildings went up along the boulevard during 1921, including a garage and blacksmith shop, barber shop and soda fountain. Development increased throughout Costa Mesa, until January 21, 1932 when the Costa Mesa Branch of the Bank of Balboa closed its doors. The Great Depression continued unabated to any extent through 1933 and 1934. In December 1933, the branch line of the Southern Pacific Railroad, which ran from Santa Ana to Newport Beach along Newport Boulevard through the heart of town, was abandoned. The tracks were pulled up some two years later. Growth continued in 1940 with the opening of several commercial stores including the new Sprouse -Reitz Variety at 1830 Newport Boulevard, the Myers & Myers Department Store at 1816 Newport Boulevard, and the Post Office at HISTORIC/CULTURAL RESOURCES ELEMENT • PAGE HCR -3 Costa Mesa General PiaT, heap of refuse - in this case shells - discarded from the kitchen or eating area of a previous civilization.) The site has been investigated on several occasions since 1938 and has yielded artifacts including hunting and food processing implements and human burials. The site has been subjected to considerable impacts due to the construction of the Country Club and adjacent homes, although portions of the site are believed to remain intact. Ca -Ora -76. This location lies approximately 2,200 feet south of Ca -Ora -163 in the area around the intersection of Adams Avenue and Placentia Avenue. Like the previous site, substantial impacts have been incurred due to construction of residences and public streets, especially Adams Avenue. There are portions of the site which are believed to remain intact, near the intersection and in the vicinity of the Estancia Adobe. The site contains a shell midden with evidence of two habitation levels. Ca -Ora -58 and Ca -Ora -506. Commonly referred to as the "Fairview Indian Site", these sites are located within the area of Fairview Park. Ca -Ora -76, described above, is believed to be a northerly extension of the same habitation complex on the bluff overlooking the Santa Ana River. Relatively minor damage has occurred in these areas as the land is largely undeveloped. The significance of these sites is indicated by the fact that they have both been placed on the National Register of Historical Places. Ca -Ora -165. Located at the intersection of Valley Road and Victoria Street, this site is comprised of shell midden containing several stone artifacts. Although the site is assumed to have been largely destroyed by residential construction in the area, portions may underlie undeveloped properties north of Victoria Street along Canyon Drive and Pacific Avenue. Ca -Ora -297. Several fragments of stone tools were found when the site, located at the northwest comer of 17th Street and Pomona Avenue, was surveyed in 1971. At that time, bulldozers were operating adjacent to and on the site, and it is assumed to have been destroyed as it is presently occupied by industrial buildings. Ca -Ora -687. This site, located south of Bristol Street and east of Santa Ana Avenue, was recorded in 1978. The site consists of two distinct locations, the more recent having been occupied some time between 500 A.D. and 1500 A.D. Prior to 1980, artifacts were salvaged from the site due_ to Impending development plans. Artifacts included fragments of stone tools and. two human rials. r �► In July and August of 1978, a systematic sdrvey was condu f the remaining undeveloped areas in the City. This project included ase of previous records and a field survey of vacant land. Besides be seven pre y recgrded sites, the survey identified at least nine additional locations W(Asil�i ar- chaeological significance based on surface observations. The actuaUgnifkance of the sites can only be determined after subsurface testing. Further Lnfofmation can be obtained from the report prepared for the City of Costa by Archeological Associates in 1978. PALEONTOLOOICAL RESOURCES Most of the paleontological resources in Costa Mesa are found in the Palos Verdes Formation - a collection of sand and gravel deposits approximately 100,000 years old. These deposits were made during the time the Costa Mesa area was ecovred by the Pacific Ocean. Often referred to as Palos Verdes Sand, these deposits contain evidence of the Wris of life that inhabited the area prior to man's arrival. HISTORIC/CULTURAL RESOURCES ELEMENT • PAGE HCR -5 Costa Mesa Gene JDC-CM-1. This is the first of four sites discovered during research for the 1980 General Plan. This locality is in the cliff on the north side of Victoria Street east of e Santa Ana River. Fragmented shell material from bivalve and gastropod ave been identified. A fifth order classification has been ass" JD -.{CAR 2—FagsiF-inoi s s occur in at east tiiv��arate inteiva7�ee�ti his fifth order s16 west-facinqblu Can on Park. �M-2A. This site occu�e-dinorth of JDC-CM-2 in a west -facing slope and contains numerous oyster shells and other molluscs. It lies stratigraphically above JDC-CM-2 and when considered together, they merit a third order priority. JDC-CM-3. A small collection of shells representative of a bay -type environment "car}-be-feund at this site located at the west end of 19th Street. The site is ranked fifth order. JDC-CM•4. Although topographically lower than JDC-CM-2 and 2A, this site is younger or more recent. The site lies south of the bluffs containing sites JDC-CM-2 and 2A and is designated as a fifth order locality. It contains marine shells that barely, if at all, qualify as fossils due to their young geologic age. VAC -CM -4. This site is located between Mesa Drive and Del Mar Avenue within the excavation for the Costa Mesa Freeway. Resources are similar to those found at LACM-4219 several hundred feet to the southwest. A wide variety of molluscs are exposed and in good condition, leading to the site's classification as third order. 11.4 HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES ISSUES AND CRITERIA HISTORICAL RESOURCES CRITERIA �- The City of Costa Mesa, through provisions cited in the Municipal Code, has established procedures for preserving its designated historic and cultural resources. The provision relative to historic preservation is documented in We k, City's Historic Preservation Ordinance (Ordinance). The Ordinance was adopted on November 1, 'E•999 by the Costa Mesa City Council. The Ordina-ne encompasses significance criteria -requirements, the obligations requ red f -historic -property ownership, and a broad range of incentives available to owns of historic properties. The Historic Preservation Ordinance states that a historic resource is any f building, structure, natural feature, site; landscapes object or improvement -which is of significance to the citizens of the City, the State, or the nation. To be designated a local landmark a historic resource must be over 50 years of age, or in special circumstances under 50 years, and meet one or more of the following: Exemplifies or reflects special elements of the City's cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering, architectural, or natural history; or ♦ Is identified with persons or events significant in local, state, or natural history; or HISTORIC/CULTURAL RESOURCES ELEMENT + PAGE HCR -7 Costa Mesa General no harm is meant, digging by unqualified persons results in disturbance -to the site, damage to artifacts .and loss of materials which might be valuable to a scientific investigation of the site. PALEONTOLOOICAL RESOURCE ISSUES The risk of impact to paleontological resources._ is -.much -the- -same_ as for archaeological resources. Development or- excavaItLoLl orr-paleantological sites can destroy or disrir Aa�s to a point thA_lhey-, are lost or valueless. Paleontological resources are deposited,in-geolo ig c strot&and re rep sent larrts a animals over a larger area - not concentrated in specific small settlements:-Forlhis reason, fossil deposits may extend beyond the perimeters of an identified site. 11.5 DESCRIPTIONF_-.�_ _CAL -AND CULTURAL � r� RESOURC ROCEDURES ' HISTORICAL RESOURCES 4 The research cor cted arl. anal sis reformed resulted -in the idenjif a Eddings that have _been evaluated a c assined according tot e Office -of Historic Preservation cafe ore n!!nh R nr�vinu_ ' cussbd. I!e io`ow ng evaCuatrt5ri odes (were found to apply la one .or pire_ surveyed properties arid appear on _ -` _. 252 Determined eligible for separate—listing-inihe NatlenaLRegister_thtough a consensus determinatipn b federaC-agency and 1he State Historic PreselvatiLn _Off'scsr 3S Appears eligible for separate listing in the National Regi ter. 5S1 Not eligible for the National Register but of local i Brest because t property is eligible for separate designation un er an existing 31ac1 ordinance- q 4r 5D1 Not eligible for the National Register but of local iArest because the property is a contributor to a fuTl9"lXi3 fjmeWAwI0dist�ct that is eligible for designation as a local historic district under an existing I cal ordinancgr 5S3 Not eligible for the National Register but of local jnteres4ecaase the „r property is not eligible for separate designation urld r an existing local '�• ■' ordinance, but is eligible for special consideration W the lor.*.�lanning process. _ -.�p...,,., 6Z1 Found ineGgytjta4arlisting in tha fuaiYonagisler With no potential for any listing. HISTORIC/CULTURAL RESOURCES ELEMENT • PAGE HCR -9 Costa Mesa General Pan PROPERTIES THAT MEET THE STANDARDS FOR. LISTING IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER r Y W. 3315 Fairview Road - Segerstrom House - Segerstrom Barn � .. -• �-' _ 1. J .:�; I � .l• _, ;-- ,� I .�� -_--yam �d� i a �-•,--• l i r �:; '�• I. . L .:- � �L..� �? , . _--_•:moi. +.... ' IFi •=- .�. '• . •'. 1800 Adams Avenue �� I •• i - Diego Sepulveda Adobe C� •.. . r r ..-1 I 2150 Newport Boulevard _ -- -- Station Mar, is Hnuse I r � 420 West I ft Street r - Methodist Church W t: S 2000 0 2000 4000 6000 Feet H:\PDATA\10100183\DWG\DLV\GP40.DWG 03/05/02 11:50 am '• 1� 1� EXHIBIT HCR -1 HISTORIC/ CULTURAL RESOURCES ELEMENT- PAGE HCR -II • Costa Mesa General Plan 4 � protection, archaeolo!ica� sites. could become integr2��arts of pu is rks. This j ynrpufd;6e'�he re fled cours�eeoof�a onr w+th the �airu ,arts Park. s, $they are p`ob- ably fhe,two most significant archaeological sites i�r Costa Mes occur over a known archaeolo icaI site, it may be possible to lace fill over the site for protection and to install the least disruptive improvements � P P P P 1 (landscaping or open parking lots) on the filled area. r * If archaeological deposits cannot be protected, it may be necessary to excavate artifacts to prevent their -toss or dariiage-. This proses of s a systematic survey """'"~�-� � �.and- delicate 5a1>=e.,. Qpugtqj2_ tome conduct ual" eck professional _. �.ambaeologists--A�mcat-gdycational institutions and c o ani4ations do not have sufficient staff or funds to undertake such operations witho 'i�I"far, financing must come from either the developer or the City. .+.Wr.•. r+�"ti� J fr Excavation is generally considered by arch@eulogists to be the last resat rtifacts cannot be preserved in situ. Preservation of the site is preferred in order tIV may be studied by future generations having greaterskilll nd more advanced rhothods and analytic abilities. W PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES- The ESOURCESThe primary value of paleontological stud! 'is.to determine he previous vii r nment at the site.- This- can- be -done through $cieii#,l` c examinn of the sit n efui collection of the fossils for further study. Disclosure oV-paleontofogtc9I'-ZcntT6hs and proper study and collectio'f of specimens prior to development are the primary results of project review. Once a site has been studied and sufficient material coltgcted, disc logic resources need not pose any further obstacle to d''dvelop t. 11.6 GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES The goals, objectives and policies that address Historic and Cultural Resources Element are as follows: GOAL HCRA: HISTORIC RESOURCE CONSERVATION It is the goal of the City of Costa Mesa to provide its citizenswitha high quality environment through the protection and conservation .of historic and cultural resources. Objective HCR -'IA. Encourage the preservation and protection of the -Ciit's natural and man-made historic resources. HCR -1A.1 equire, as part of. the environmental-- review _proeed�[e.�an evaluation of the significance of paleontological, archaeological, 0and historical resources and the impact of proposed development on those resource - 5 HISTORIC/CULTURAL RESOURCES ELEMENT 4 PAGE HCR -13 Comments City of Costa Mesa 2015 to 2035 General Plan Chapter 8 Safety Element April 18, 2016 By Wendv Leece Perhaps when the 2000 General Plan was written, citizens were concerned about the "Big One" and knowing our tax supported public safety services would be there for us in a disaster was a priority. However, today it is crime. Crime, fire and rescue, or tsunami? We are not worried about the latter but it is good the City gives us the information so our friends from Newport Beach can come up to the "Mesa". In the 2000 General Plan Page SAF -1: "Man-made hazards can result from hazardous and toxic materials, fires and crime. Ultimately the Safety Element aims at reducing death, injuries, property damage and economic and social dislocation resulting from these hazards. 1. Please edit the draft and prioritize crime and rearrange the order to put Emergency and Protection Response first in the order of Safety sections. Emergency Protect and Response needs to be moved to the front of the line before all of the earthquake, etc. information. Rationale: Most Costa Mesa citizens would expect to read in an introduction to the Safety Element that there would be a strong statement of the City's efforts to protect residents from crime as more residents and businesses are added to Costa Mesa with increased densities and traffic. Residents are aware of increasing crime with experiences of their own, Prop 47, realignment and the proliferation of sober living homes in Costa Mesa. Today's reality is that residents' property is being vandalized and cars and homes are being broken into. The Draft Safety Element has the effect of ignoring important safety issues by removing some key paragraphs from the 2000GP Safety Element, generalizing the lofty goals, etc, and prioritizing instead the effects of Seismic Hazards, Ground Shaking, Aviation hazards, listing all the faults, etc. flooding, with maps in the first 16 pages. The Costa Mesa citizen has to wade through 18 pages to begin to read what the City is going to do about crime. And a lot of what was written in the 2000 GP is for some reason omitted. To ignore this reality and pretend that these issues are not number one in the citizens' minds diminishes the importance of the safety of the public and presents an unrealistic picture to Costa Mesa citizens who want to know that their persons and property is being protected by the City. The citizens, believing that protecting the public is the number one responsibility of the City, expect to read in the introduction how the City will protect them with the increase of new residents and businesses and traffic. Seismic issues, faults, liquefaction, etc. are important issues to be addressed very thoroughly in references to planning and development. 2. On page SAF -1 2000 GP "Relationship to Other General Plan Elements: Please update and restore this paragraph about the Safety Element. Not sure why it was omitted. It presents to the citizen a sense of cohesiveness with the entire GP. Please maintain the accuracy/integrity of the 2015 GP by making sure these elements are in fact, consistent with the other elements. 3. In all references to the Costa Mesa Fire Department change to Costa Mesa Fire and Rescue Department. Other Important Issues: Review the 2000 GP and restore the paragraph on page SAF -16 Fire Protection Paragraph 3 and 4 "modern cities... regarding the ISO ratings" "Costa Mesa has achieved and maintains a protection class two....." Citizens want to know about Insurance ratings. Restore "fire suppression" information, and "hazardous materials incidents" information from the 2000 General Plan page SAF -18 Safety element. On page S-19 add "The City purchased 4 rescue ambulances in to improve the emergency rescue services to the residents or something to that effect. Police Protection See page SAF-18/2000GP please update and restore "The City of Costa Mesa Police Department is responsible for maintaining the social order within prescribed ethical and constitutional restrictions through the enforcement of local, State and Federal laws. On page SAF-19/2000GP please restore and update the two paragraphs on the top regarding how many full time personnel the City has, volunteers, where the police department is located, when it was remodeled, and the substations. (ABLE no longer applies). On page S-21/2015 GP please show the attribution for "it is one of the safest cities of its size in the nation." According to......? Citizens want to know where this information comes from since we know that crime has increased. Drainage Patterns—please update and restore "drainage patterns" 2 paragraphs from page SAF-12/2000GP because it describes a very important aspect of Costa Mesa's drainage issues and should not be omitted. Geology see page SAF-2/2000GP—restore and update "Geologic structure" which was eliminated in 2015GP. Page S-21/2015GP under "Key Emergency Protection and Response Issues" A great deal of space is spent on earthquakes, etc, yet no mention is made about the "geologic and seismic hazards which are constraints to development as mentioned on page SAF 22 of the 2000 GP. This is a "key emergency protection issue" to citizens and staff and developers must be cognizant in their planning. From SAF-22/2000GP under Key issues "Geology" :The standards for development should be carefully regulated to minimize structural damage and loss of life, given that a fault zone runs through and adjacent to the City" must be restored." Also, restore "Fire protection" "Additional development in the city will place new demands on the City of Costa Mesa Fire and Rescue Department. " Also, restore under "police protection" the effects of new growth, residents and businesses: which "may require additional police services that will be dependent upon several variables" On page S-21 "By developing and implementing targeted efforts..."How does one develop an effort? The City can continue to demonstrate its commitment to maintain community safety standards." Citizens would really like to know that we have an adequately staffed police force which addresses increasing crime and more people in Costa Mesa. Please review all of the 2000 GP 8.4 Key issues and update and restore in the 2015 GP on page S-21. Rewrite Objectives to include the words "when developing land use policies and when making public decisions relating to land development" Page SAF 23 2000 GP El Incorporate SAF 1A .5 2000GP in 2015 GP Goals Environmental and Manmade Hazard Protection: "Identify and publicize the extent of geologic and seismic hazards within Costa Mesa and advise affected residents and property owners of appropriate protection measures. Offer information regarding earthquake standards to reduce or eliminate structural damage" Add to Geologic and Seismic Safety these principles: SAF -1A.5 SAF -1A.6 SAF -1A.7 SAF -1A.8 SAF -1A.9 Update and include 2000 references to "Fire and Police Services and Public Safety Through Design" see Page SAF-24/2000GP Thank you. — I April 4, 2016 TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA: PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE DEIR FOR THE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS OF 2016 TO BE INCLUDED IN THE FINAL EIR. The proposed amendments "Residential Incentive Overlay Harbor Boulevard" and "Harbor Mixed Use Overlay" and the discussion of them in the Land Use Element portion of the DEIR are inconsistent with the DEIR's Noise Element findings. All the following facts and figures are taken from the General Plan and EIR. Section 13-280 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code sets the residential exterior noise standard of 55 dB(A) from 7:00 A.M. through 11:00 P.M. and 50 dB(A) from 11:00 P.M. through 7:00 A.M. In contrast, the measured noise levels along the segment of Harbor Boulevard that is to transition to high-density residential measure 71.5 Leq at Harbor and Adams (one block north of the Azulon senior housing complex) and 73.1 Leq at Harbor and 19`h Street. The maximum measured at those locations are, respectively, 88.5 and 86.9 Lmax. The EIR declares no significant impact because it states that implementing the City's Municipal Code and the proposed General Plan Amendment policies will prevent the obvious impact from occurring. But it is impossible to implement a law limiting noise to 50 or 55 dB(A) on a major traffic corridor where the measured noise level is already far higher. Policy N -LA says, "Enforce the maximum acceptable exterior noise levels for residential areas at 65 CNEL." Even that policy, referring to a higher noise level, cannot reconcile the high noise volume on Harbor Boulevard with a level acceptable for residential development. Therefore, implementing the City's Municipal Code and General Plan Amendment policies means necessarily prohibiting residential development along the Harbor Boulevard corridor. Therefore, the proposed "Residential Incentive Overlay Harbor Boulevard" and "Harbor Mixed Use Overlay" cannot be adopted nor implemented, and therefore, the DEIR is internally inconsistent. Respectfully submitted, Eleanor M. Egan From: Brian Burnett Sub ect: Costa Mesa General Plan Update Draft EIR Comments And Questions Cate: April 16, 2016 at 12:39 AM To g ,'�'ipi.3r 5i3m;eS3c�.u0'r The following are questions, comments, and requests regarding the Costa Mesa General Plan Update Draft EIR: 1. The city has surveys of confirmed observations that prove the endangered California Gnatcatcher is in the park Local park users, photographers, amateur biologists, and professional biologists have pictures and coordinates of them. There are also confirmed observations of nesting pairs. Where are the surveys including breeding surveys for California Gnatcatchers? Why were the surveys including breeding surveys not included for California Gnatcatchers? There needs to be a California Gnatcatcher survey that includes a breeding season survey. 2. There is no mention of Burrowing Owls past 2006 in the draft EIR yet there have been confirmed observations and pictures of them in the park up until 2016. Where are the surveys including breeding surveys for the Burrowing Owls? Why were surveys including breeding surveys not included for the Burrowing Owls? There needs to be a Burrowing Owl survey that includes a wintering and breeding season survey. 3. The city has inadvertently or purposely destroyed or degraded Southern Tarplant, Vernal Pool, Burrowing Owl, Riverine, Riparian, and other habitat over the years. Where is the study to shows the effects of this inadvertent or purposeful destruction or degradation of habitat in Fairview Park? There needs to be a study of past destruction and degradation of the park and what it's effects were. 4. The city knows about a nesting pair of Northern Harriers in Fairview Park. They have been residents in the park for quite some time Where are the surveys including breeding surveys for the Northern Harriers? Why were surveys including breeding surveys not included for the Northern Harriers? There needs to be a survey including a breeding survey for Northern Harriers. 5. The city had contractors restore numerous large sections of the rare, endangered, and protected Southern Tarplant over the years in Fairview Park. There status has been confirmed many times over the years and would only not be in the park unless the plants were purposely destroyed. Where are the surveys for Southern Tarplant? Why were surveys for Southern Tarplant not included? 6. Fairview Park has some of the last coastal vernal pools in California. Vernal Pool 1 is the largest coastal vernal pool west of the Mississippi Despite their federally protected status, they have been degraded by the city of Costa Mesa either inadvertently or purposely over the years. Where are the surveys that document the destruction of this habitat? Where are the surveys that document the current status of the vernal pools and their recommendations to restore them? Where are the management plans to protect the vernal pools for future generations? Where is the correspondence from the USFWS regarding the vernal pools? There needs to be surveys that document previous destruction or degradation of the vernal pools to help prevent anymore destruction or degradation in the future. There needs to be surveys to document the current status of the vernal pools East and West of Placentia Avenue 7. Where is the rare or endangered plant survey? Why is there no rare or endangered plant survey? Th— —Hc to ho �n nnria nnorori nl�nt a inrc�i I 8 Where is the vegetation mapping? Why is there no vegetation mapping? 9. Where is the long term maintenance plan? Why is there no long term maintenance plan? 10 Where is the entomological survey? Why is there no entomological survey? 11 Where is the herpetological survey? Why is there no herpetological survey? 12. Where is the pacific chorus frog survey? Why is there no pacific chorus frog survey? 13 Where is the spade foot toad survey? Why is there no spade foot toad survey? 14. Where is the biological inventory survey? Why is there no biological inventory survey? 15. Where are the surveys including breeding surveys for the Yellow Breasted Chat? Why were surveys including breeding surveys not included for the Yellow Breasted Chat? 16. Where is the trap door spider survey? Why is there no trap door spider survey? 17. Where are the surveys including breeding surveys for all of the other rare, of concern, special status, or endangered species? Why were surveys including breeding surveys not included for all of the other rare, of concern, special status, or endangered species? From; Brian Burnett Subject. Costa Mesa General Plan Update Draft EIR Comments And Questions II Date: April 16, 2016 at 12:47 AM To: generalpian a;uo_i?Mesaca goi The previous email with comments, questions, and requests for the General Plan Update Draft EIR were regarding Fairview Park in Costa Mesa. HAMILTON BIOLOGICAL April 18, 2016 Ms. Claire Flynn Assistant Development Services Director City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, California 92626 SUBJECT: COMMENTS ON CITY OF COSTA MESA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Dear Ms. Flynn, On behalf of Hamilton Biological, Inc., I provide these comments on the Draft EIR for the City of Costa Mesa's General Plan Update. I submit these comments out of my own concern for the City and its natural resources. I am a professional biological consultant with 28 years of experience working primarily in Orange County and surrounding ju- risdictions. In 1994, I planned and initiated the volunteer restoration of coastal sage scrub in the canyon near the entrance to Fairview Park, and in 1995 I prepared the bio- logical resources section of the original Fairview Park Master Plan. Since then, I have remained interested in the biological resources of Fairview Park and the wider lower Santa Ana River ecosystem. My comments address Section 4.4, Biological Resources. I am qualified to provide this review, having prepared the biological resources section for numerous CEQA documents throughout Orange County and the wider region, and also having reviewed many such documents; my Curriculum Vitae is attached. PAGE 4-4.1: SOURCES OF INFORMATION The DEIR lists several sources of information consulted. For plants, primary sources of occurrence information should be the Consortium of California Herbaria and Calflora: http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/consortium/ http://www.calflora.org/ The consortium provides a consolidated list of plant specimens collected all over the state, and maps of the locations can be accessed through Calf ora. Calflora also accepts photo -documented records and maps their locations. The DEIR does cite Calflora in the accounts of special -status species recoded in Fairview Park, but Calflora and the Con- sortium should also have been consulted for the lists of plant species reported to have 316 Monrovia Avenue —./ Long Beach, CA 90803 562-477-2181 robb@hamiltonbiological.com Review of Costa Mesa General Plan Update DEIR April 18, 2016 Hamilton Biological, Inc. Page 2 of 6 "confirmed observations" in Table 4.4-3 of the DEIR. As discussed subsequently, sever- al entries are questionable. For bird records (Table 4.4-5), it is standard for CEQA documents to utilize the eBird data base as a source of basic distribution information: http://ebird.org/ The eBird web page provides vetted, updated records of bird species recorded in vari- ous parts of Costa Mesa, including Fairview Park and many other locations. Some rec- ords in eBird may be questionable in spite of vetting, meaning that the biologist prepar- ing the CEQA document should have adequate experience to know which records are suspect. Nevertheless eBird must be consulted for any CEQA document that attempts to assemble a reasonably complete bird species list in a city the size of Costa Mesa. It is not clear whether the Fairview Park Master Plan and its supporting biological doc- uments were actually consulted as part of the descriptions of plant and wildlife species known or expected to occur in Costa Mesa. The tables of species do not reflect what is contained in the Master Plan. For example, a report prepared for the City by LSA Asso- ciates, Inc., dated June 28, 2007, entitled, "Update to the Biological Constraints and In- formation for the Fairview Park Master Plan, City of Costa Mesa, County of Orange, California," contains a considerable amount of information that is inconsistent with the information contained in the General Plan Update DEIR. The letter is available online: http: / / www.ci. costa -mesa. ca. us/ fairviewpark/ docs/ Fairview-Park-Biological- Survey.pdf This letter is referred to hereafter as (LSA 2007). TABLE 4-4.1: PLANTS OF GRASSLAND COMMUNITIES This table indicates various plant species with very limited distributions in Orange County as having been confirmed as being present in Costa Mesa. To my knowledge, most of them are very unlikely to have been recorded in Costa Mesa in modern times, if ever. Questionable species include Desert Needlegrass (Achnatherum speciosttm), Red - skinned Onion (Allium haematochiton), and Southwestern Beardgrass (Andropogon glom- erattcs), but many others are similarly unlikely to have been recorded in Costa Mesa. At the same time, Table 4-4.2 is missing numerous common plant species known to occur in Costa Mesa (e.g., Ripgut Brome Bromtts diandrus and Short -podded Mustard Hirsch- feldia incana). Additionally, many plant species names are misspelled or represent older names no longer in use (e.g., "Hemixonia Parryi ssp. Australis" should be Centromadia parryi ssp. atcstralis). It is requested that the EIR preparer review Table 4-4.1 against the distributional and taxonomic information available through Calflora/Consortium of California Herbaria, as well as the Fairview Park Master Plan and supporting biological reports. Species not known from Costa Mesa should be removed, all species that have been recorded in Costa Mesa should be added, and taxonomy and spelling should be Review of Costa Mesa General Plan Update DEIR Hamilton Biological, Inc. April 18, 2016 Page 3 of 6 carefully reviewed in order for Table 4-4.1 to provide a valid reference. As it stands, this table is far more confusing than it is useful. TABLES 4-4.1, 4-4.21 4-4.3 These tables indicate that various plant species have been confirmed as being present, but that seem to me very unlikely to have been recorded in Costa Mesa in modern times, if ever. Questionable species include Desert Needlegrass (Achnathertcm speciostcm), Red -skinned Onion (Allitcm haematochiton), Southwestern Beardgrass (Andropogon glom- eratus), and Chocolate Lily (Fritillaria biflora), Big -leaf Maple (Acer macrophyllum), Sword Fern (Polystichum mtcnitttm), Canyon Live Oak (Qtcerctts chrysolepis), and California Bay Laurel (Umbellularis californica), but several others are similarly unlikely to have been recorded in Costa Mesa. At the same time, these tables are missing numerous common plant species known to occur in these communities in Costa Mesa (e.g., Ripgut Brome Bromtts diandms and Short -podded Mustard Hirschfeldia incana). Additionally, many plant species names are misspelled or represent older names no longer in use (e.g., "Hemixonia Parryi ssp. Australis" should be Centromadia parryi ssp. atcstralis). It is re- quested that the EIR preparer review these tables against the distributional and taxo- nomic information available through Calflora/Consortium of California Herbaria, as well as the Fairview Park Master Plan and supporting biological reports. In order for these tables to provide valid reference information, species not known from Costa Mesa should be removed, species that have been recorded in Costa Mesa should be added, and taxonomy and spelling should be carefully reviewed. In addition, vernal pools represent one of the most important plant communities found in Costa Mesa. Therefore, either Table 4-4.1 should be expanded to include vernal pool plants in addition to grassland plants, or another table should be provided to include vernal pool plants. PAGE 4-4.5: LEAST BELLS VIREO This page states, "Least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii ptisillus) which inhabits riparian and ter- restrial fields, shrubland, chaparral, and woodlands." This is not an accurate descrip- tion of the plant communities used by this listed species, which in the City of Costa Me- sa is limited to patches of riparian scrub and woodland habitat. The EIR should specify where in Costa Mesa the Least Bell's Vireo has been found in recent years. This is true of all special -status species discussed in the EIR. PAGES 4-4.5, 4-4.9: BURROWING OWL Page 4-4.5 states, "The burrowing owl is a wild indigenous species of predatory bird that uses abandoned rodent burrows for nests. It is currently on the Audubon Society Blue List of rare birds and is a California Species of Special Concern." To the best of my knowledge, the National Audubon Society has not maintained its "Blue List" for many Review of Costa Mesa General Plan Update DEIR April 18, 2016 Hamilton Biological, Inc. Page 4 of 6 years, and it is questionable whether the "Blue List" ever had any regulatory relevance for CEQA. At this point, it is inappropriate to cite the "Blue List" in a CEQA document. Page 4-4.9 states, "Although most burrowing owl breeders are migratory, both locally and long distance, Southern. California populations are generally considered resident." If the EIR preparer is aware of Burrowing Owls being resident in Fairview Park, or elsewhere in Costa Mesa, the source of this information should be disclosed. It is my best understanding that this owl presently occurs only as a migrant and winter visitor (e.g. LSA 2007). PAGE 4-4.8: BELDING'S SAVANNAH SPARROW This page states, "Belding's savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandtvichensis beldingi) is one of few species of birds that reside year-round in coastal salt marshes of Southern Cali- fornia. It inhabits coastal salt marshes from Santa Barbara south through San Diego County. It nests in pickleweed (Salicornia virginica) on and about the margins of tidal flats. Locally it is known from the Santa Ana River mouth." Do any Belding's Savannah Sparrows actually occur within tl-le City of Costa Mesa, or are they limited to nearby ar- eas, such as the Santa Ana River mouth? PAGE 4-4.5: COAST HORNED LIZARD This page refers to the "Coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma loronatum)", which is currently known as Blainville's Horned Lizard (Phrynosorna blainvillii). I am unaware of any rec- ords of this reptile from Costa Mesa during modern times, and would be surprised to find it, even in Fairview Park. On what basis is it reported as occurring anywhere in the City, even rarely? TABLE 4.4-4: AMPHIBIANS, REPTILES, AND MAMMALS Questions and comments: As a general comment, listing species in alphabetical order makes it difficult for biologists to review the lists. It would be greatly preferable to organize tables ac- cording to the standard scientific order. The San Diego Black -tailed Jackrabbit (Lepus californicus bennetti) is a California Species of Special Concern (although not so indicated in the table). I observed this hare in the lower Santa Ana River area during the early 1990s but have not seen one there in more than 20 years. It was not reported during biological sur- veys completed in 2005 and 2006 (LSA 2007). Are there any recent records from Costa Mesa? • The Desert Woodrat (Neotoma lepida) is a California Species of Special Concern, not so indicated in the table. Review of Costa Mesa General Plan Update DEIR April 18, 2016 Hamilton Biological, Inc. Page 5 of 6 • When was the last time a Long-tailed Weasel was recorded in Costa Mesa? • The Coast Patch -nosed Snake is a California Species of Special Concern, not so indicated in the table. • On what basis is the Western Terrestrial Garter Snake (Thamnophis elegans) a "confirmed observation"? The range of this species does not include Orange County. • Why is there no mention of the Southwestern Pond Turtle (Actinemys pallida)? TABLE 4.4-5: BIRDS Questions and comments: The Cactus Wren (Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus) appears to have been extir- pated from the lower Santa Ana River ecosystem, including Fairview Park, with- in the past decade. LSA (2007) did not report any sightings from Fairview Park, and the last bird was recorded at nearby Banning Ranch in 2009. Unless the EIR preparer is aware of recent records, this species should be presumed extirpated. Why is there no mention of the Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila califor- nica californica) anywhere in the DEIR? This federally threatened species has been repeatedly documented in various parts of Fairview Park over a period of many years. Does Costa Mesa include any designated Critical Habitat for the gnat - catcher? • The Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus), a California Species of Special Concern, has been documented in Fairview Park (e.g., LSA 2007, eBird data). • The Yellow -breasted Chat (Icteria virens), a California Species of Special Concern, has been documented in Fairview Park (e.g., LSA 2007). • On what basis does the DEIR claim that the Black -chinned Sparrow (Spizella arto- gularis) has been observed in Costa Mesa? PAGE 4-4.11: SOUTHERN COASTAL SALT MARSH The DEIR discusses this plant community, but fails to identify where in Costa Mesa it occurs. Where does it occur? PAGE 4-4.11: SENSITIVE COMMUNITIES NOT DISCUSSED The DEIR fails to mention coastal sage scrub, coastal bluff scrub, vernal pools, riparian scrub, and native grasslands, all natural communities of special interest that occur in Costa Mesa. _11603— Review of Costa Mesa General Plan Update DEIR April 18, 2016 CONCLUSION Hamilton Biological, Inc. Page 6 of 6 The Biological Resources section of the DEIR shows no indication that the EIR preparer has meaningful familiarity with the natural communities present in the City of Costa Mesa, or the special -status species known/ potentially present there. The section is poor- ly organized, rife with errors, and provides little effective guidance on how decision - makers in the City should move forward to achieve some of the overarching goals in the document, such as, "Carefully balance natural lands, habitat, and protection of multiple species with the need to accommodate development." To achieve such a goal, the EIR should provide detailed and reliable information on the resources present in the City, the locations where they are found, and the planning framework needed to conserve important populations. Unfortunately, the DEIR falls far short of that goal. It would be preferable that the DEIR be revised to provide the requisite information in readable form, but beyond that perhaps the EEIR can correct some of the more egregious errors contained in the DEIR. Sincerely, E d 40, j"I Robert A. Hamilton President, Hamilton Biological, Inc. Attachment: Curriculum Vitae —(�, Education Robert A. Hamilton 1988. Bachelor of Science degree in President, Hamilton Biological, Inc. Expertise Robert A. Hamilton has been providing biological Endangered Species Surveys consulting services in southern California since 1988. He General Biological Surveys spent the formative years of his career at the firm of LSA CEQA Analysis Associates in Irvine, where he was a staff biologist and Population Monitoring project manager. He has worked as an independent and Vegetation Mapping Construction Monitoring on-call consultant since 1994, incorporating his business Noise Monitoring as Hamilton Biological, Inc., in 2009. The consultancy Open Space Planning specializes in the practical application of environmental Natural Lands Management policies and regulations to land management and land use 1988 to 1994. Biologist, LSA decisions in southern California. Education A recognized authority on the status, distribution, and 1988. Bachelor of Science degree in identification of birds in California, Mr. Hamilton is the Biological Sciences, lead author of two standard references describing aspects University of California, of the state's avifauna: The Birds of Orange County: Status & Irvine Distribution and Rare Birds of California. Mr. Hamilton has also conducted extensive studies in Baja California, and for Professional Experience seven years edited the Baja California Peninsula regional reports for the journal North American Birds. He served ten 1994 to Present. Independent years on the editorial board of Western Birds and regularly Biological Consultant, Hamilton Biological, Inc. publishes in peer-reviewed journals. He is a founding member of the Coastal Cactus Wren Working Group and in 1988 to 1994. Biologist, LSA 2011 updated the Cactus Wren species account for The Associates, Inc. Birds of North America Online. Mr. Hamilton's expertise includes vegetation mapping. From 2007 to 2010 he Permits worked as an on-call biological analyst for the County of Los Angeles Department of Regional Planning. From 2010 Federal Permit No. TE -799557 to to present he has conducted construction monitoring and survey for the Coastal California Gnatcatcher and Southwestern focused surveys for special -status bird species on the Willow Flycatcher TRTPect Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Pro He is 1 ( ). a former member of the Los Angeles County Significant MOUS with the California Dept. of Fish and Game to survey for Coastal Ecological Areas Technical Advisory Committee (SEATAC). California Gnatcatcher and Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Mr. Hamilton conducts general and focused biological California Scientific Collecting surveys of small and large properties as necessary to Permit No. SC -001107 obtain various local, state, and federal permits, agreements, and clearances. He also conducts landscape - level surveys needed by land managers to monitor songbird populations. Mr. Hamilton holds the federal and state permits and MOUS listed to the left, and he is recog- nized by federal and state resource agencies as being highly qualified to survey for the Least Bell's Vireo. He also provides nest -monitoring services in compliance with the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish & Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5 and 3513. Curriculum Vitae for Robert A. Hamilton Page 2 of 8 Board Memberships, Advisory Mr. Hamilton monitors noise as it relates to nesting or Positions, Etc. roosting birds using an advanced Quest SoundPro unit that Coastal Cactus Wren Working can provide second -by -second logging of noise levels at the Group (2008—present) nest; this allows documentation of the varying sound Los Angeles County Significant pressure levels that nesting birds are exposed to during fto.logical Areas`Technical Advisory construction and evaluation of any effects associated with (:0mmittee (SEATAC] (2010-2014) different levels. He is an expert photographer, and American Birding AssoCiation: Baja typically provides photo -documentation and/or video Calif. Peninsula Regional Editor, documentation as part of his services. North American Birds (2000-2006) Western Field Ornithologists: Drawing upon a robust, multi -disciplinary understanding Associate Editor of Western Birds of the natural history and ecology of his home region, Mr. (1999-2008) Hamilton works with private and public land owners, as California Bird Records Committee well as governmental agencies and interested third (1998-2001) parties, to apply the local, state, and federal land use Nature Reserve of Orange County: policies and regulations applicable to each particular Technical Advisory Committee situation. Mr. Hamilton has amassed extensive experience (1996-2001) in the preparation and critical review of CEQA documents, California Native Plant Society, from relatively simple Negative Declarations to complex Orange County Chapter: supplemental and recirculated Environmental Impact Conservation Chair (1992-2003) A and its Reports. In addition to his knowledge of CE g Q Guidelines, Mr. Hamilton understands how each Lead Agency brings its own interpretive variations to the CEQA Professional Affiliations review process. American Ornithologists' Union Cooper Ornithological Society Representative Project Experience Institute for Bird Populations From 2010 to present, working on-call for ICF California Native Plant Society International and Forde Biological Consulting, Mr. Hamilton has (a) conducted focused surveys and noise Southern California Academy of monitoring for Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, Least Sciences Bell's Vireo, California Gnatcatcher, and Burrowing Owl, Western Foundation of Vertebrate (b) conducted nesting bird surveys, and (c) monitored Zoology construction, for the Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project (TRTP). This large, complex project involves replacing 175 miles of transmission lines from the California deserts, over the San Gabriel Mountains, and east to San Bernardino County. Mr. Hamilton has received various forms of specialized training and is very familiar with Southern California Edison's FRED system (Field Reporting Environmental Database). He has served as a "lead biologist" for nesting birds, listed passerine species, and Burrowing Owls, and has helped to prepare the annual reports on the focused survey efforts as well as conducting many of the surveys. Mr. Hamilton has also participated in discussions with state regulators concerning the methods and results of focused surveys. Curriculum Vitae for Robert A. Hamilton Insurance $3,000,000 professional liability policy (Hanover Insurance Grocip) $2,000,000 general liability policy (The Hartford) $1,000,000 auto liability policy (State Farm) Other Relevant Experience Field Ornithologist, San Diego Natural History Museum Scientific Collecting Expedition to Central and Southern Baja California, October/November 1997 and November 2003. Field Ornithologist, Island Conservation and Ecology Group Expedition to the Tres Manas Islands, Nayarit, Mexico, 23 January to 8 February 2002. Field Ornithologist, Algalita Marine Research Foundation neustonic plastic research voyages in the Pacific Ocean, 15 August to 4 September 1999 and 14 to 28 July 2000. Field Assistant, Bird Banding Study, Rfo iVambf Reserve, Colombia, January to March 1997. References Provided upon request. Page 3 of 8 From 2012 to 2014, under contract to Cooper Ecological Monitoring, Mr. Hamilton collaborated with Dan Cooper on A Conservation Analysis for the Santa Monica Mountains "Coastal Zone" in Los Angeles County, and worked with Mr. Cooper and the County of Los Angeles to secure a certified Local Coastal Program (LCP) for 52,000 acres of unincorporated County lands in the Santa Monica Mountains coastal zone. The work involved synthesizing large volumes of existing baseline information on the biological resources of the study area, evaluating existing land use policies, and developing new policies and guidelines for future development within this large, ecologically sensitive area. A coalition of environmental organizations headed by the Surfrider Foundation selected this project as the "Best 2014 California Coastal Commission Vote" Chttp://www.surfrider.org/images/uploads/2014ccc_vote_Chart_FINAL.pdo. In 2010, under contract to CAA Planning, served as principal author of the Conservation & Management Plan for Marina del Rey, Los Angeles County, California. This comprehensive planning document has two overarching goals: (1) to promote the long-term conservation of all native species that exist in, or that may be expected to return to, Marina del Rey, and (2) to diminish the potential for conflicts between wildlife populations and both existing and planned human uses of Marina del Rey (to the benefit of humans and wildlife alike). After peer -review, the Plan was accepted by the Coastal Commission as an appropriate response to the varied challenges posed by colonial waterbirds and other biologically sensitive resources colonizing urban areas once thought to have little resource conservation value. From 2007 to 2010, under contract to Sigma Engineering (now FORM), Mr. Hamilton worked as an on-call analyst for the County of Los Angeles Department of Regional Planning. This work involved reviewing biological technical reports, impact/mitigation analyses, landscape plans, and other environmental documents submitted to the County by project proponents, and preparing CEQA documents. Mr. Hamilton worked on more than 20 projects during this time. From 2002 to 2005, cinder contract to the City of Orange, prepared the Biological Resources section of hybrid Supplemental EIR/Draft EIR for the 6,900 -acre Santiago _ I (P71 Curriculum Vitae for Robert A. Hamilton Page 4 of 8 Hills II/ East Orange Planned Community protect in central Orange County. This complicated document covered one proposed development area that already had CEQA clearance, but that required updating for alterations to the previously approved plan, and a much larger area that was covered under an existing Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP). The SEIR/EIR was certified in November 2005. From 1995 to 2001, worked with study -design specialists and resource agency representatives to develop a long- term passerine bird monitoring program for the 37,000 - acre Nature Reserve of Orange County, and directed its implementation with subsequent contract work. Tasks included (1) annual monitoring of 40 California Gnatcatcher and Cactus Wren study sites, (2) oversight of up to 10 constant -effort bird banding stations from 1998 to 2003 under the Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship (NIAPS) program, and (3) focused surveys for the Cactus Wren, and detailed mapping of cactus scrub habitat, across the NROC's coastal reserve in 2006 and 2007. Third Party Review of CEQA Documents Under contract to cities, conservation groups, homeowners' associations, and other interested parties, have reviewed EIRs and other project documentation for the following projects: • The Ranch at Laguna Beach (resort, City of Laguna Beach) • Banning Ranch (residential/commercial, City of Newport Beach) • Sunset Ridge Park (city park, City of Newport Beach) • The Ranch Plan (residential/commercial, County of Orange) • Southern Orange County Transportation Infrastructure Improvement Project (Foothill South Toll Road, County of Orange) • Gregory Canyon Landfill Restoration Plan (proposed mitigation, County of San Diego) • Montebello Hills Specific Plan EIR (residential, City of Montebello; 2009 and 2014 circulations) Curriculum Vitae for Robert A. Hamilton Page 5 of 8 • Cabrillo Mobile Home Park Violations (illegal wetland filling, City of Huntington Beach) • Newport Hyatt Regency (timeshare conversion project, City of Newport Beach) • Lower San Diego Creek "Emergency Repair Project" (flood control, County of Orange) • Tonner Hills (residential, City of Brea) • The Bridges at Santa Fe Units 6 and 7 (residential, County of San Diego) • Villages of La Costa Master Plan (residential/commercial, City of Carlsbad) • Whispering Hills (residential, City of San Juan Capistrano) • Santiago Hills II (residential/commercial, City of Orange) • Rancho Potrero Leadership Academy (youth detention facility/road, County of Orange) • Saddle Creek/Saddle Crest (residential, County of Orange) • Frank G. Bonelli Regional County Park Master Plan (County of Los Angeles) Contact Information Robert A. Hamilton President, Hamilton Biological, Inc. 316 Monrovia Avenue Long Beach, CA 90803 562-477-2181 (office, mobile) robb@hamiltonbiological.com http://hamiltonbiological.com Curriculum Vitae for Robert A. Hamilton Page 6 of 8 Selected Presentations Hamilton, R. A. and D. S. Cooper. Nesting Bird Policy: We Can Do Better. 2016. 20 -minute multimedea presentation delivered at The Wildlife Society Western Section Conference in Pomona, 26 February. Hamilton, R. A. Six Legs Good. 2012 -2014.90 -minute multimedia presentation on the identification and pliotography of dragonflies, damselflies, butterflies, and other invertebrates, given at various Audubon Society chapter meetings and similar gatherings. Hamilton, R. A. 2012. Identification of Focal Wildlife Species for Restoration, Coyote Creek Watershed Master Plan. Twenty -minute multimedia presentation given at the Southern California Academy of Sciences annual meeting at Occidental College, Eagle Rock, 4 May. Abstract publisl, d in the Bulletin of the Southern California Academy of Sciences No. 111(1):39. Hamilton, R. A., and Cooper, D. S. 2009-2010. Conservation & Management Plan for Marina del ley. Twenty -minute multimedia presentation given to different governmental agencies and interest groups. Hamilton, R. A. 2008. Cactus Wren Conservation Issues, Nature Reserve of Orange County. One- hour multimedia presentation for Sea & Sage Audubon Society, Irvine, California, 25 November. Hamilton, R. A., Miller, W. B., Mitrovich, M. J. 2008. Cactus Wren Study, Nature Reserve of Orange County. Twenty -minute multimedia presentation given at the Nature Reserve of Orange County's Cactus Wren Symposium, Irvine, California, 30 April 2008. Hamilton, R. A. and K. Messer. 2006. 1999-2004 Results of Annual California Gnatcatcher and Cactus Wren Monitoring in the Nature Reserve of Orange County. Twenty -minute multimedia presentation given at the Partners In Flight meeting: Conservation and Management of Coastal Scrub and Chaparral Birds and Habitats, Starr Ranch Audubon Sanctuary, 21 August 2004; and at the Nature Reserve of Orange County 101h Anniversary Symposium, Irvine, California, 21 November. Publications Hamilton, R. A. 2014. Book review: The Sibley Guide to Birds, Second Edition. Western Birds 45:154-157. Cooper, D. S., R. A. Hamilton, and S. D. Lucas. 2012. A population census of the Cactus Wren in coastal Los Angeles County. Western Birds 43:151-163. Hamilton, R. A., J. C. Burger, and S. H. Anon. 2012. Use of artificial nesting structures by Cactus Wrens in Orange County, California. Western Birds 43:37-46, Hamilton, R. A., Proudfoot, G. A., Sherry, D. A., and Johnson, S. 2011. Cactus Wren (Campylorhyn- chus brunneicapillus), in The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, ed.). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. Hamilton, R. A. 2008. Cactus Wrens in central & coastal Orange County: How will a worst-case scenario play out under the NCCP? Western Tanager 75:2-7. Curriculum Vitae for Robert A. Hamilton Page 7 of 8 Erickson, R. A., R. A. Hamilton, R. Carmona, G. Ruiz -Campos, and Z. A. Henderson. 2008. Value of perennial archiving of data received through the North American Birds regional reporting system: Examples from the Baja California PeninSL11a. North Jinerican Birds 62;2-9. Erickson, R. A., R. A. Hamilton, and S. G. Mlodinow. 2008. Status review of Belding's Yellowthroat Geothlypis beldingi, and implications for its conservation. Bird Conservation International 18:219-228, Hamilton, R. A. 2008. Fulvous Whistling -Duck (Dendrocygna bicolor). Pp. 68-73 in California Bird Species of Special Concern: A ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California (Shuford, W. D. and T. Gardali, eds.). Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, CA, and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA. California Bird Records Committee (R. A. Hamilton, M. A. Patten, and R. A. Erickson, editors.). 2007. Rare Birds of California. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, CA. Hamilton, R. A., R. A. Erickson, E. Palacios, and R. Carmona. 2001-2007. North American Birds quarterly reports for the Baja California Peninsula Region, Fall 2000 through Winter 2006/2007. Hamilton, R. A. and P. A. Gaede. 2005. Pink -sided x Gray -headed Juncos. Western Birds 36:150- 152. Mlodinow, S. G. and R. A. Hamilton. 2005. Vagrancy of Painted Bunting (Passerina ciris) in the United States, Canada, and Bermuda. North American Birds 59:172-183, Erickson, R. A., R. A. Hamilton, S. Gonzdlez-Guzman, G. Ruiz -Campos. 2002. Primeros registros de anidaci6n del Pato Friso (Anas strepera) en Mexico. Anales del Instituto de Biologia, Universidad Nacional Aut6noma de Mexico, Serie Zoologia 73 (1):67-71. Hamilton, R. A. and J. L. Dunn. 2002. Red-naped and Red -breasted sapsuckers. Western Birds 33:128-130. Hamilton, R. A. and S. N. G. Howell. 2002. Gnatcatcher sympatry near San Felipe, Baja California, with notes on other species. Western Birds 33:123-124, Hamilton, R. A. 2001. Book review: The Sibley Guide to Birds. Western Birds 32:95-96. Hamilton, R. A. and R. A. Erickson. 2001. Noteworthy breeding bird records from the Vizcafno Desert, Baja California Peninsula. Pp. 102-105 in Monographs in Field Ornithology No, 3. American Birding Association, Colorado Springs, CO. Hamilton, R. A. 2001. Log of bird record documentation from the Baja California Peninsula archived at the San Diego Natural History Museum. Pp. 242-253 in Monographs in Field Ornithology No. 3. American Birding Association, Colorado Springs, CO. Hamilton, R. A. 2001. Records of caged birds in Baja California. Pp. 254-257 in Monographs in Field Ornithology No. 3. American Birding Association, Colorado Springs, CO. Erickson, R. A., R. A. Hamilton, and S. N. G. Howell. 2001. New information on migrant birds in northern and central portions of the Baja California Peninsula, including species new to Mexico. Pp. 112-170 in Monographs in Field Ornithology No. 3. American Birding Association, Colorado Springs, CO. --1-11-- Curriculum Vitae for Robert A. Hamilton Page 8 of 8 Howell, S. N. G., R. A. Erickson, R. A. Hamilton, and M. A. Patten. 2001. An annotated checklist of the birds of Baja California and Baja California Sur. Pp. 171-203 in Monographs in Field Ornithology No. 3. American Birding Association, Colorado Springs, CO. Ruiz -Campos, G., Gonzalez -Guzman, S., Erickson, R. A., and Hamilton, R. A. 2001. Notable bird specimen records from the Baja California Peninsula. Pp. 238-241 in Monographs in Field Ornithology No. 3. American Birding Association, Colorado Springs, CO. Wurster, T. E., R. A. Erickson, R. A. Hamilton, and S. N. G. Howell. 2001. Database of selected observations: an augment to new information on migrant birds in northern and central portions of the Baja California Peninsula. Pp. 204-237 in Monographs in Field Ornithology No. 3. American Birding Association, Colorado Springs, CO. Erickson, R. A. and R. A. Hamilton, 2001. Report of the California Bird Records Committee: 1998 records. Western Birds 32:13-49. Hamilton, R. A., J. E. Pike, T. E. Wurster, and K. Radamaker. 2000. First record of an Olive -backed Pipit in Mexico. Western Birds 31:117-119. Hamilton, R. A. and N. J. Schmitt. 2000. Identification of Taiga and Black Merlins. Western Birds 31:65-67. Hamilton, R. A. 1998. Book review: Atlas of Breeding Birds, Orange County, California. Western Birds 29:129-130. Hamilton, R. A. and D. R. Willick. 1996. The Birds of Orange County, California: Status and Distribution. Sea & Sage Press, Sea & Sage Audubon Society, Irvine. Hamilton, R. A. 1996-98. Photo Quizzes. Birding 27(4):298-301, 28(1):46-50, 28(4):309-313, 29(1): 59-64,30(l):55-59. Erickson, R. A., and Hamilton, R. A. 1995. Geographic distribution: Lampropeltisgetula californiae (California Kingsnake) in Baja California Sur. Herpetological Review 26(4):210. Bontrager, D. R., R. A. Erickson, and R. A. Hamilton. 1995. Impacts of the October 1993 Laguna fire on California Gnatcatchers and Cactus Wrens. in J. E. Keeley and T. A. Scott (editors), Wildfires in California Brushlands: Ecology and Resource Management. International Association of Wildland Fire, Fairfield, Washington. Erickson, R. A., R. A. Hamilton, S. N. G. Howell, M. A. Patten, and P. Pyle. 1995. First record of Marbled Murrelet and third record of Ancient Murrelet for Mexico. Western Birds 26: 39- 45. Erickson, R. A., and R. A. Hamilton. 1993. Additional summer bird records for southern Mexico. Euphonia 2(4): 81-91. Erickson, R. A., A. D. Barron, and R. A. Hamilton. 1992. A recent Black Rail record for Baja California. Euphonia 1(1): 19-21. ---1 _1 z ATTACHMENT 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Daniel Inloes, AICP DATE: April 18, 2016 Senior Planner City of Costa Mesa FROM: Roger Dale, Managing Principal FILE: #4034 The Natelson Dale Group, Inc. (TNDG) SUBJECT: Costa Mesa General Plan Update — Documentation of Market Research Completed for Fiscal Impact Model TNDG's work on the General Plan update included limited market research to develop realistic factors/assumptions for the Fiscal Impact Model (FIM). This memorandum provides documentation of that research. Executive Summary As described in greater detail below, TNDG's market analyses project potential market demand for new development in Costa Mesa based on the City's established position in the Orange County and southern California real estate markets, existing and projected demographic trends (for the City and the larger region), and available land capacity. In short, the market analysis is intended to answer the question: Will there be enough market demand for the development amounts proposed in the General Plan to actually be built over the next 20 years (the timeframe of the study)? For residential, industrial and hotel development, the answer is: yes, there will be enough market demand to fully "build out" the General Plan capacity by 2035. For retail development, TNDG projects that the City will reach 85% of the potential development capacity by 2035. For office development, TNDG projects that the City will reach 78% of the potential development capacity by 2035. The market forecasts are an important input to the Fiscal Impact Analysis (FIA) completed for the General Plan update. The FIA is summarized in a separate memorandum and concludes that new development over the next 20 years will result in a mix of land uses that generates a positive fiscal balance for the City (i.e., General Fund revenues exceed General Fund costs). TNDG's market projections are briefly summarized as follows: • Housing. The City currently has a total housing stock of 42,623 dwelling units. Per the proposed General Plan update, the capacity for new housing development would be 9,271 additional units, resulting in a total of 51,894 units at buildout. As this new development would be responding to Orange County's strong demand for new housing, 24835 E. La Palma Avenue, Suite I, Yorba Linda, California 92887 Phone: (714) 692-9596 . Fax: (714) 692-9597 —1-73 Memorandum to Daniel Inloes April 18, 2015 Page 2 TNDG projects that full buildout of the General housing capacity would be reached by 2035. • Retail. The City has an existing inventory of approximately 10.2 million square feet of retail space. Based on the relatively conservative methodology used for this analysis (in which increases in retail market demand are assumed to proportionate to population growth), TNDG projects that the City could support approximately 600,000 square feet of new retail space by 2035. This would bring the City's total inventory of retail space (existing plus new) to approximately 10.8 million square feet, representing approximately 81% of the General Plan buildout capacity (12.7 million square feet). • Office. Costa Mesa has an existing inventory of 7.2 million square feet of office space. TNDG projects that the City could absorb approximately 1.4 million square feet of additional office space by 2035. This would bring the City's total inventory of office space (existing plus new) to approximately 8.6 million square feet, representing approximately 78% of the General Plan buildout capacity (11.0 million square feet). • Industrial. The City has an existing inventory of 13.1 million square feet of industrial space. Per the proposed General Plan update, there would be no additional capacity for new industrial space in the City. Thus, the City is already at 100% buildout for industrial land uses. Hotels. The City has an existing inventory of 1,877 hotel rooms. Under the proposed General Plan designations, the buildout capacity hotel facilities in the City would be 2,077 rooms (i,e., an addition of 200 rooms). TNDG believes that the incremental hotel demand of 200 rooms is likely to be readily achievable by the 2035 horizon considered in this analysis. Overview The Fiscal Impact Model (FIM) is designed to forecast City revenues and costs associated with new development as the City reaches buildout. As explained below, the FIM assumes that full buildout of the General Plan's residential development capacity will occur by 2035. For non- residential land uses, The Natelson Dale Group, Inc. (TNDG) has completed focused market research to estimate the degree to which the General Plan buildout capacities are likely to be reached by the residential buildout year of 2035. Based on the market research, TDNG has estimated "market adjustment factors' for land uses for which full buildout is not likely to occur by 2035. The market adjustment factors represent the percentage of full buildout which is likely to be achievable by 2035 based on order -of -magnitude market forecasts. The primary intent of 24835 E. La Palma Avenue, Suite I, Yorba Linda, California 92887 Phone: (714) 692-9596. Fax: (714) 692-9597 � 1 !�4w — Memorandum to Daniel lnioes April 18, 2016 Page 3 market -testing the non-residential land uses is to ensure that the FIM does not provide an overly optimistic financial forecast for the City based on unrealistic assumptions regarding the absorption of revenue -generating land uses (e.g., generation of sales taxes from new retail development). Based on TNDG's market analysis, the fiscal projections provided in the FIM reflect the following land use assumptions: Land Use Existing Development Theoretical Buildout Market Adjustment Factor Evaluated Buildout Low density residential (D U's) 14,210 14,791 100% 14,791 Medium density residential (DU's) 4,370 4,992 100% 4,992 High density residential (D U's) 23,593 31,661 100% 31,661 Age -qualified housing (DU's) 450 450 100% 450 Retail square feet 10,232,000 12,737,000 85% 1 10,826,450 Office square feet 7,224,000 11,004,000 78% 8,583,120 Industrial square feet 13,087,000 13,078,000 100% 13,078,000 Hotels (rooms) 1,877 2,077 100% 2,077 Motels (rooms) 2,272 946 100% 946 Scope and Limitations of the Research In order to develop realistic land use assumptions as inputs to the Fiscal Impact Model (FIM), TNDG completed focused market research on the following topics: • Potential sales prices of future new housing units in the City; • Total potential absorption of future new retail space; • Total potential absorption of future new office space; • Total potential absorption of future new industrial space; • Total potential absorption of future new hotel rooms. It should be emphasized that, consistent with the scope of the General Plan assignment, TNDG's market research was not intended to provide a full-blown feasibility analysis for 24835 E. La Palma Avenue, Suite I, Yorba Linda, California 92887 Phone: (714) 692-9596. Fax: (714) 692-9597 -17s— Memorandum to Daniel Inloes Aprill8, 2016 Page 4 specific, near-term development projects. The market research provided here is limited in scope and is not intended to serve as an "official forecast" of market demand in the City. Instead, the scope of TNDG's market analysis was narrowly focused on ensuring that the long- term land use assumptions in the FIM are conservative from the standpoint of potential budgetary impacts to the City. In this context, "conservative" means that the assumptions are intended to err on the side of under -estimating revenues and over -estimating costs. In this regard, TNDG's approach to defining "market tested" land use assumptions for the FIM is based on the following considerations: • The FIM assumes full buildout of the residential development capacity indicated in the General Plan. This assumption is conservative (i.e., errs on the side of overstating fiscal costs) in that it represents that maximum potential impact in terms of population growth and related demands for municipal services. For this reason, TNDG has not forecasted an absorption rate for residential development, but has focused on projecting the potential future pricing of new housing in the City. In an essentially built - out environment such as Orange County where there is strong market pressure for population growth, it is typically assumed that housing products that are competitively priced and responsive to market trends will be fully absorbed in the long term. For purposes of the fiscal impact analysis, the focus of TNDG's market research related to housing was on defining realistic price points for the housing densities (and associated product types) envisioned in the General Plan. Again with the conservative orientation in mind, it was important to ensure that the market price assumptions are not overly aggressive (which would tend to overstate the City's property tax revenue). • With respect to commercial and industrial land uses, the focus of TNDG's market analysis is to identify the potential amounts of development that could be absorbed over the next 20 years (i.e., by the 2035 buildout horizon assumed for residential development). As further described below, TNDG's non-residential market projections are essentially "reality check" comparisons to the maximum development capacities proposed in the General Plan. In this regard, the analysis generally assumes that Costa Mesa's potential for future non-residential development will generally reflect "fair shares" of regional demand based on historic trends, and will also generally mirror local/regional population and employment growth. 24835 E. La Palma Avenue, Suite I, Yorba Linda, California 92887 Phone: (714)692-9596. Fax: (714) 692-9597 Memorandum to Daniellnloes April 18, 2016 Page 5 Summary of Research by Land Use Residential Development. TNDG's market research for residential development focused on estimating average prices for new housing in the City. Three housing categories are considered: Low Density (8 DUA maximum) — $1,200,000 Medium Density (12 DUA maximum)—$950,000 High Density (20 DUA maximum) — $700,000 The estimated values are for ownership housing and are based on new projects currently selling in the City. Table A-1 provides a summary of this research. Retail5pace. The City has an existing inventory of approximately 10.2 million square feet of retail space. This space supports existing' taxable sales of $3.6 billion per year. Not surprisingly (given the extraordinary concentration of retail sales in the City), taxable sales per capita in Costa Mesa are approximately three times the Statewide average. TNDG's analysis assumes that Costa Mesa's retail sales potential will grow in proportion to projected population growth. Based on this relatively conservative methodology (in which increases in retail demand are assumed to be constrained by population growth), TNDG projects that the City could support approximately 600,000 square feet of new retail space by 2035. This would bring the City's total inventory of retail space (existing plus new) to approximately 10.8 million square feet, representing approximately 85% of the General Plan buildout capacity. Given Costa Mesa's well established status as a retail "powerhouse," it is conceivable that retail development will be added at a rate higher than population growth. However, for purposes of budget forecasting (which is inherently conservative), it would be highly speculative to predict how long it would take for the City to achieve full buildout of its retail development capacity. TNDG has therefore relied on the more conservative projection of new retail space supportable by 2035. TNDG's retail demand calculations are shown on Tables B-1 through B-3. Office and Space. TNDG's demand calculations for office space are provided on Tables C-1 through C-6. The office demand calculations are based on a top-down methodology whereby TNDG first projected potential demand for Orange County (based on projected employment ' The base year for the retail analysis is 2013 —the latest full year for which taxable sales data are available from the State Board of Equalization. 24835 E. La Palma Avenue, Suite I, Yorba Linda, California 92887 Phone: (714) 692-9596 . Fax: (714) 692-9597 — �-1-1 Memorandum to Daniel Intoes April 18, 2016 page 6 growth in industry sectors that utilize office space) and then projected the shares of countywide growth that could potentially be achieved in Costa Mesa. Costa Mesa has an existing inventory of 7.2 million square feet of office space. Based on TNDG's demand projections, the City could potentially absorb an additional 1.4 million to 2.1 million square feet of office space by 2035. To be conservative (from the standpoint of the fiscal analysis), TNDG has assumed the low end of this range (approximately 1.4 million square feet) for projection purposes. This would bring the City's total inventory of office space (existing plus new) to approximately 8.6 million square feet, representing approximately 78% of the General Plan buildout capacity. Industrial Space. The City has an existing inventory of 13.1 million square feet of industrial space. Per the proposed General Plan update, there would be no additional capacity for new industrial space in the City. Thus, the City is already at 100% buildout for industrial land uses. Hotel Rooms. The City has an existing inventory of 1,877 hotel rooms. Under the proposed General Plan designations, the buildout capacity hotel facilities in the City would be 2,077 rooms (i.e., an addition of 200 rooms). Based on contemporary sizing standards for full-service hotel facilities, the increment of 200 rooms would essentially represent one new hotel in the City. Although it is beyond the scope of this study to provide a specific forecast of hotel demand (which tends to be somewhat site/project specific), TNDG believes that the incremental hotel demand of 200 rooms (one new hotel) is likely to be highly achievable by the 2035 horizon considered in the FIM. Thus, the FIM assumes that the City will achieve 100% of its hotel development capacity. This assumption is premised on the following indicators of hotel demand strength in the City: • According to data from Smith Travel Research (a leading provider of hotel market information globally), no new hotels have been constructed in the City since 1989, suggesting that there is likely pent up demand for new facilities. • Based on the 2014 and 2015 annual reports of the Costa Mesa Conference and Visitor Bureau, hotel occupancy rates in Orange County and Costa Mesa are strong and getting stronger. The City's hotel occupancy rate in 2014 (the year reported in the 2015 report) was approximately 80%. The hotel industry generally regards an occupancy rate above 70% as indicative of pent up demand. That is, hotels can typically operate profitably at an average annual occupancy level of 70%. Thus, existing demand (without even considering potential demand growth) would be sufficient to support additional rooms 24835 E. La Palma Avenue, Suite I, Yorba Linda, California 92887 Phone: (714) 692-9596 . Fax: (714) 692-9597 -1-16— Memorandum to Daniel Inloes April 18, 2016 Page 7 in the City. The existing occupancy level of 80% (applied to the inventory of 1,877 rooms) translates to demand of approximately 548,000 occupied room nights per year. At the industry standard occupancy level of 70%, this number of room nights could support a total inventory of approximately 2,144 rooms. Thus, TNDG believes that the General Plan development capacity of 2,077 rooms will be readily achievable by 2035. Please feel free to contact us if you have questions about our market projections. 24835 E. La Palma Avenue, Suite I, Yorba Linda, California 92887 Phone: (714) 692-9596 . Fax: (714) 692-9597 Table A-1 Sample of Current Housing Projects Used to Estimate Average Price by Density Level City of Costa Mesa Fiscal Impact Model Source: The Natelson Dale Group, Inc. (TNDG). Number of Price Used Name Units Price Low Price High Price Midpoint in FIM Low Density Residential 1053 Regatta Run 1 $854,900 $854,900 $854,900 1963 Rosemary PI 1 1,100,000 1,100,000 1,100,000 2040 Paloma Dr 1 1,425,000 1,425,000 1,425,000 274 Virginia PI 1 995,500 995,500 995,500 262 Esther St 1 1,690,000 1,690,000 1,690,000 LDR Average $1,213,080 $1,213,080 $1,213,080 $1,200,000 Medium Density Residential Units Westreef 17 $800,000 $800,000 $800,000 Easthaven 14 1,000,000 1,100,000 1,050,000 The Edge 19 806,647 823,389 815,018 Latitude 11 1,000,000 1,250,000 1,125,000 312 Nautica Way 949,000 949,000 949,000 MDRAverage $911,129 8984,478 $947,804 $950,000 High Density Residential Units Seabright 26 $600,000 $650,000 $625,000 Brickyard West 14 675,000 690,000 682,500 Maple Crossing 37 675,000 690,000 682,500 Palmllla 11 675,000 690,000 682,500 Superior Pointe 49 775,000 790,000 782,500 Brickyard East 15 575,000 590,000 582,500 Poet's Place 6 740,000 760,000 750,000 Seahouse 33 575,000 800,000 687,500 The Collective Eastside 8 900,000 1,000,000 950,000 Bungalow 7 30 500,000 650,000 575,000 City Common 28 700,000 800,000 750,000 West Place 38 540,000 560,000 550,000 HDR Average $660,833 $722,500 $691,667 $700,000 Source: The Natelson Dale Group, Inc. (TNDG). Table B-1 Calculation of Current (2013) Per Capita Taxable Sales by Retail Category California and Costa Mesa Projected Projected 2013 Future Incremental Per Capita Taxable Sales In 2013 Actual/ Attraction Taxable Sales Expected Factor Per Capita Costa Mesa California (Costa Mesa) (Costa Mesa) (Costa Mesa) Retail Category Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers 5,306 1,788 297% 100% 1,788 Home Furnishings and Appliance Stores 3,075 668 460% 250% 1,670 Bldg. Matrl. and Garden Equip. and Supplies 1,172 780 150% 100% 780 Food and Beverage Stares 1,269 665 191% 100% 665 Gasoline Stations 2,349 1,495 157% 100% 1,495 Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores 9,213 918 1003% 500% 4,591 General Merchandise Stores 3,700 1,352 274% 150% 2,029 Food Services and Drinking Places 3,714 1,651 225% 150% 2,476 Other Retail Group 2,651 1,264 210% 150% 1,897 Total Retail and Food Services 32,448 10,582 17,391 Source: State Board of Equalization; State Department of Finance, Tl Table S-2 Projected Growth in Retail Sales (dollars) City of Costa Mesa 2013.2035 ..-.-. 14J 2 `® Growth Population by Year; 2013 2035 2013-2035 Costa Mesa 111,568 131,208 19,640 Growth Future Demand by Category (total taxable sales) 2013 2035 2013-2035 Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers 591,944,000 627,053,972 35,109,972 Home Furnishings and Appliance Stores 343,121,000 375,928,271 32,807,271 Bldg. Mold. and Garden Equip. and Supplies 130,765,000 146,092,555 15,327,555 Food and Beverage Stores 141,609,000 154,669,005 13,060,005 Gasoline Stations 262,069,000 291,433,292 29,364,292 Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores 1,027,837,000 1,117,999,930 90,162,930 General Merchandise Stores 412,815,000 452,655,541 39,840,541 Food Services and Drinking Places 414,328,000 462,957,028 48,629,028 Other Retail Group 295,712,000 332,962,030 37,250,030 Total Retail and Food Services 3,620,200,000 3,961,751,623 341,551,623 Growth Future Demand Growth (Food sales adjusted to include non-taxable sales) 2013.2035 Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers 35,109,972 Home Furnishings and Appliance Stores 32,807,271 Bldg. Mold. and Garden Equip. and Supplies 15,327,555 Food and Beverage Stares 45,710,018 Gasoline Stations 29,364,292 Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores 90,162,930 General Merchandise Stores 39,840,541 Food Services and Drinking Places 48,629,028 Other Retail Group 37,250,030 Total Retail and Food Services 374,201,636 Source: TNDG ..-.-. 14J 2 `® Table B-3 New Supportable Retail Space (in square feet) City of Costa Mesa 2013.2035 Sales Per Square Foot Support Factors 13,482 (1) Auto Parts Stores $250 Home Furnishings and Appliance Stores $600 Bldg. Matrl. and Garden Equip. and Supplies $300 Food and Beverage Stores $500 Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores $600 General Merchandise Stores $500 Food Services and Drinking Places $600 Other Retail Group $500 Additional Supportable Retail Space Auto Parts Stores 13,482 (1) Home Furnishings and Appliance Stores 54,679 Bldg. Matrl. and Garden Equip. and Supplies 51,092 Food and Beverage Stores 91,420 Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores 48,940 General Merchandise Stores 180,326 Food Services and Drinking Places 66,401 Other Retail Group 97,258 603,598 (1) Assumes that auto parts sales account for 9.6% of total Motor Vehicle and Parts sales category. Source: TNDG Table C-1 Employment Forecasts by Industry Group 2015.2035 Orange County Industry Group 2015 2020 2035 Natural Resources, Mining, & Construction 78,438 90,683 116,407 Manufacturing 155,974 152,333 146,300 Wholesale Trade 82,192 91,834 111,129 Retail Trade 150,850 163,187 186,773 Transportation & Utilities 28,614 29,668 31,565 Information 25,164 26,672 29,473 Financial Activities 114,954 127,162 151,247 Professional & Business Services 280,464 318,418 396,117 Eduoatlonal & Health Services 185,589 207,040 249,876 Leisure & Hospitality 191,432 210,948 249,244 Other Services 44,600 44,600 44,600 Government 147,900 152,363 157,292 Total Nonfarm 1,486,171 1,614,906 1,870,025 Source: The Natelson Dale Group, Inc. (TNDG) based on estimates and forecasts prepared by the California Employment Development Department Table C-2 Allocation of Employment by Land Use Category Orange County Percentage Distribution of Employees by Land Use: Source: The Natelson Dale Group, Inc. Office Industrial Industry Group Space Space Other Natural Resources, Mining, & Construction 20.0% 30.0% 50.0% 100.0% Manufacturing 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% Wholesale Trade 20.0% 80.0% 0.0% 100.0% Retail Trade 5.0% 5.0% 90.0% 100.0% Transportation & Utilities 20.0% 30.0% 50.0% 100.0% Information 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% Financial Activities 90.0% 0.0% 10.0% 100.0% Professional & Business Services 50.0% 20.0% 30.0% 100.0% Educational & Health Services 25.0% 0.0% 75.0% 100.0% Leisure & Hospitality 5.0% 0.0% 95.0% 100.0% Other Services 25.0% 50.0% 25.0% 100.0% Government 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% Source: The Natelson Dale Group, Inc. Table C-3 Projected Employment by Land Use Category 2015.2035 Orange County Source: The Natelson Dale Group, Inc. —19k)— Employment by Year: Land Use Category 2015 2020 2035 Office 381,365 424,380 510,894 Industrial 339,778 356,048 390,457 Other 765 028 834`479 968.673 Total Nonfarm Employment 1,486,171 1,614,906 1,870,025 Source: The Natelson Dale Group, Inc. —19k)— Table C-4 Projected Change in Employment by Time Period 2015.2035 Orange County Land Use Category Office Industrial Other Total Nonfarm Employment Source: The Natelson pale Group, Inc. Change in Employment by Time Period: 2015-2020 2020-2035 43,015 86,515 16,269 34,409 69_,451 134194 128,735 255,118 19q— Table C-5 Projected Demand for New Office Space 2014.2035 Orange County Square Feet per Employee: 250 Demand in Square Feet (SF) 2014-2020 2020-2035 Office Demand Demand for New Space 10,753,675 21,628,69: Construction Demand @ 110% 11,829,043 23,791,561 Net Demand for New Space 11,819,043 23,791,561 Source: The Natelson Dale Group, Inc. Total 35,620,604 35,620,604 Table C-6 Projected Demand for New Office Space - Costa Mesa 2014.2035 Projection Factors Share of Employment, 2012 5.5% Share of Population, 2012 3.6% Share of Employment, 2035 4.9% Share of Population, 2035 (SCAG) 3.4% Share of Employment Growth 2.4% Share of Population Growth 1.5% Share of Office Space, 2015 6.4% 20142020 2020-2035 Total Office Space @ 6.0% 709,743 1,427,494 2,137,236 Office Space @ 5.0% 591,452 1,189,578 1,781,030 Office Space @ 4.0% 473,162 951,562 1,424,824 MEMORANDUM TO: Daniel Inloes, AICP DATE: April 18, 2016 Senior Planner City of Costa Mesa FROM: Roger Dale, Managing Principal FILE: #4034 The Natelson Dale Group, Inc. (TNDG) SUBJECT: Costa Mesa General Plan Update— Summary of Fiscal Impact Model The attached report ("User's Manual") provides detailed documentation of the Fiscal Impact Model (FIM) that TNDG has developed as part of the General Plan Update process. This memorandum provides an overview of the FIM forecasts and projection methodology. Executive Summary The Fiscal impact Model forecasts changes in the City's General Fund revenues and costs that will result from future development in the City. The primary purpose of the model is to ensure that the proposed General Plan update will result in a Citywide land use mix that is fiscally balanced for the City. The model can also be used to evaluate the fiscal impacts of individual development projects. Market Validation of General Plan Land Uses. TNDG has evaluated the fiscal impact of the General Plan based on a horizon year of 2035. For residential, industrial and hotel/motel development, TNDG has projected (based on market research summarized in a separate memo) that the City would achieve full buildout of the General Plan development capacity by 2035. However, for retail development TNDG projects that the City would only achieve 85% of buildout capacity by 2035, and for office development TNDG projects that the City would only achieve 78% of buildout capacity by 2035. Current General Fund Cash Flow. During FY 2014-2015, the City's general fund had a $3.6 million surplus (i.e., revenues exceed expenditures by $3.6 million)'. Projected General Fund Cash Flow at Buildout. Based on the General Plan land use mix (adjusted, as noted, for retail and office market constraints), TNDG projects that the General Fund will achieve a surplus of $3.1 million per year at buildout. This number is projected in constant (2015) dollars (i.e,, it reflects "real" dollar increases over and above inflation). Thus, 1 Per the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) dated June 30, 2015. FY 2014-2015 is the latest year for which "actual" historic data are available. 24835 E. La Palma Avenue, Suite I, Yorba Linda, California 92887 Phone: (714) 692-9596 . Fax: (714) 692-9597 —@qo. Memorandum to Daniel Intoes April 18, 2016 Page 2 TNDG projects that the proposed General Plan land use mix will have a positive fiscal impact on the City. Land Use Assumptions The fiscal projections summarized in this memorandum reflect General Plan buildout, and are based on the following land use, demographic and traffic assumptions: Land Use Existing Development Theoretical Buildout Market Adjustment Factor Evaluated Bulldout Low density residential (DU's) 14,210 14,791 100% 14,791 Medium density residential (DU's) 4,370 4,992 100% 4,992 High density residential (DU's) 23,593 31,661 100% 31,661 Age -qualified housing (DU's) 450 450 100% 450 Retail square feet 10,232,000 12,737,000 85% 10,826,450 Office square feet 7,224,000 11,004,000 78% 8,583,120 Industrial square feet 13,087,000 13,078,000 100% 13,078,000 Hotels (rooms) 1,877 2,077 100% 2,077 Motels (rooms) 2,272 946 100% 946 Parks (acres) 592 618 N/A 618 Demographic/ Traffic Factors Existing Evaluated Buildout Resident Population 110,524 131,690 Jobs 87,657 92,823 Traffic (Citywide ADT)3 944,853 1,042,726 ' The buildout population of 131,690 residents assumes a residential vacancy rate of 5.14%, At full (100°%). This assumed vacancy factor is based on the current vacancy rate in the City and is consistent with normal housing market conditions. 3 The projected ADT is based on factors from the General Plan traffic analysis completed by Stantec. However, the projected ADT for the FIM's "evaluated buildout" is lower than Stantec's buildout forecast since the FIM assumes that the City would achieve only 85% of buildout for retail development and 78% of buildout for office development. 24835 E. La Palma Avenue, Suite I, Yorba Linda, California 92887 Phone: (714) 692-9596 . Fax: (714) 692-9597 ---- I(q p Memorandum to Daniel Inloes April 18, 2016 Page 3 The "evaluated buildout" numbers reflect reductions in the projected amounts of retail and office development based on market constraints. For example, whereas the theoretical buildout numbers would accommodate 12.7 million square feet of retail space (an addition of 2.5 million square feet over the existing base of 10.2 million square feet), the adjusted buildout number for retail (based on TNDG's market analysis) would be 10.8 million square feet. This adjustment is critical to the reasonableness of the model results since the theoretical buildout numbers could potentially overstate retail development (and related sales tax revenue) by approximately 1.9 million square feet. Fiscal Projections Based on the above land use, demographic and traffic assumptions, the fiscal forecasts for General Plan buildout are as follows: During FY 2014-2015, the City's general fund had a $3.6 million surplus (i.e., revenues exceed expenditures by $3.6 million).Based on the General Plan land use mix (adjusted, as noted, for market constraints), TNDG projects that the General Fund will achieve a surplus of $3.1 million per year at buildout. This number is projected in constant (2015) dollars (i.e., it reflects "real" dollar increases over and above inflation). As described further below, the indicated General Fund cash flow at buildout is based on relatively conservative revenue assumptions. The attached printout includes selected tables from the General Plan component of the model; these tables summarize the major assumptions utilized to derive the revenue and cost projections. The projection methodology is documented in detail in the attached User's Manual. "Per capita" forecasting methodology As noted on the attached tables, certain revenue and cost line items are projected using a per capita forecasting methodology, based on existing per capita factors derived from the City's 24835 E. La Palma Avenue, Suite I, Yorba Linda, California 92887 Phone: (714) 692-9596 . Fax: (714) 692-9597 .—l_12® Projected Percentage Budget at Change FY 2014-2015 Buildout Through General Fund Actual (2015$) Buildout Total Revenues $113.0 million $128.1 million 13% Total Expenditures $109.4 million $125.0 million 14% Net Fiscal Cash Flow $3.6 million $3.1 million During FY 2014-2015, the City's general fund had a $3.6 million surplus (i.e., revenues exceed expenditures by $3.6 million).Based on the General Plan land use mix (adjusted, as noted, for market constraints), TNDG projects that the General Fund will achieve a surplus of $3.1 million per year at buildout. This number is projected in constant (2015) dollars (i.e., it reflects "real" dollar increases over and above inflation). As described further below, the indicated General Fund cash flow at buildout is based on relatively conservative revenue assumptions. The attached printout includes selected tables from the General Plan component of the model; these tables summarize the major assumptions utilized to derive the revenue and cost projections. The projection methodology is documented in detail in the attached User's Manual. "Per capita" forecasting methodology As noted on the attached tables, certain revenue and cost line items are projected using a per capita forecasting methodology, based on existing per capita factors derived from the City's 24835 E. La Palma Avenue, Suite I, Yorba Linda, California 92887 Phone: (714) 692-9596 . Fax: (714) 692-9597 .—l_12® Memorandum to Daniel Inloes April 18, 2015 Page 4 budget. Given that some revenues and costs are affected by both residential and non- residential development, the analysis considers employee and visitor "populations" in addition to the resident population. For purposes of estimating population "equivalents" the following factors are applied to the employee and visitor populations: • 1 employee is equivalent to 0.24 full-time residents • 1 visitor (hotel guest) is equivalent to 0.75 full-time residents These factors are consistent with generally accepted methodologies for this type of analysis and have been calibrated to Costa Mesa's budget for purposes of this FIM. Key Factors Affecting the Fiscal Impact Projections Conservative Orientation of Projections. In developing the General Plan fiscal impact forecasts, TNDG has endeavored to be conservative from the standpoint of potential budgetary impacts to the City. In this context, "conservative" means that the assumptions are intended to err on the side of under -estimating revenues and over -estimating costs. Key assumptions in this regard include the following: • The FIM assumes full buildout (by 2035) of the residential development capacity indicated in the General Plan. This assumption is conservative (i.e., errs on the side of overstating fiscal costs) in that it represents that maximum potential impact in terms of population growth and related demands for municipal services. • The FIM assumes that, by the 2035 horizon year for the analysis, the City will achieve only 85% of the General Plan capacity for retail development. This assumption is based on the focused market analysis (summarized in a separate memorandum) completed by TNDG, which conservatively assumes that growth of the City's retail base will be constrained by projected population growth. Given Costa Mesa's well established status as a retail "powerhouse," it is conceivable that retail development will be added at a rate higher than population growth. Hypothetically, if the City achieved full buildout of the General Plan's retail development capacity, it would increase the projected annual surplus by approximately $8.6 million (i.e., instead of the projected General Fund surplus of $3.1 million per year, the General Fund would have a surplus of $11.7 million per year). However, for purposes of budget forecasting, it would be highly speculative to predict how long it would take for the City to achieve full buildout of its retail 24835 E. La Palma Avenue, Suite I, Yorba Linda, California 92887 Phone: (714) 692-9596. Fax: (714) 692-9597 1 Memorandum to Daniel Inloes April 18, 2016 Page 5 development capacity. TNDG has therefore relied on the more conservative projection of new retail space supportable by 2035. • The FIM reflects relatively conservative assumptions regarding future growth in the City's assessed valuation (the basis for property tax calculations). Two major factors will contribute to future increases in the assessed valuation: 1) new development, and 2) periodic ownership changes of existing properties (allowing the sold properties to be re- assessed pursuant to Proposition 13 provisions). For new housing development, TNDG believes that the FIM's assumed valuations are relatively conservative (sales prices ranging from $700,000 for new high-density units to $1.2 million for new low density units). With respect to assessed value changes resulting from property turnovers, TNDG has assumed that 7% of properties will change ownership annually and that these turnovers will result in the sold properties being re -assessed at valuations 3% higher than their pre -sale (i.e., Proposition 13 -restricted) assessed values. Overall, the growth in total (Citywide) property tax revenue between now and buildout translates to an average annual growth rate of 1.3% (this is a "real" rate of increase over and above inflation). In comparison, the real average annual growth rate of the City's property tax revenue for the 16 -year period between FY 1998-1999 and FY 2014-2015 was 2.6%. Thus, at approximately half the historic growth rate, the FIM projections are relatively conservative (which TNDG believes is appropriate for budgeting purposes given potential volatility in real estate prices). One-time Budget Adjustments. Whereas most of the revenue and cost projections represent continuations of existing "trend lines" (adjusted as appropriate for changes in development, population, etc.), two key cost factors reflect major one-time shifts based on changing circumstances in the future: The model includes a cost adjustment of $4.1 million to cover anticipated increases in the City's retirement (pension) obligations. This is assumed to be an annually -recurring additional cost. By buildout, the model assumes that the City's annual debt service costs will be reduced by $3.7 million. This cost reduction reflects retirement of debt obligations between now and buildout. 24835 E. La Palma Avenue, Suite I, Yorba Linda, California 92887 Phone: (714) 692-9596 . Fax: (714) 692-9597 — 1q4— Memorandum to Daniel Inloes April 18, 2016 Page 6 Please feel free to contact us if you have questions or would like to discuss any aspect of the Fiscal Impact Model, 24835 E. La Palma Avenue, Suite I, Yorba Linda, California 92887 Phone: (714) 692-9596 . Fax: (714) 692-9597 Table 1 FV 2015 Data Inputs City of Costa Mesa Facet Impact Model Population Factors Low Density Replaced tlal 311Ji Medium Density R.aldentlel ?20E High Density Residential ?288 Age Qualified Housing Vacancy Rate City of Costa Mesa Assessed Valuation' I85J0 B41':OgO Property Tax Revenue Factors Property Tax Rate (City. Share)' :0:148535051. New Low Density Residential Value' ..:$1200 DO New Medium Density Residential Valve" - 950000. New High Density Residential Value" :' $70000O New Age Qualified Housing Value" `$ 0 00R; New Retall Space (AV/Sq. FQ' $'205. New Offce Space(AV/Sq. Ft )" $15 New Industrial Speed (AV/Sq.FL)" $400 New Hotel Space(AV/Room)" SIOD New Motel Space (AV/Room)" $50,000 New Taxable Sales Rates General commercial" T $$0600 Rai Commeml.l" 9960,05 Retell, $40092 Office" $9 nduatdal" $15 OQ Property Transfer Tax Revenue Factors Property Transfer Tax Rate OLD SM,. Property Turnover Rate 3009 Transient Occupancy Tax Revenue Factors Vis tore per Room' T]p, Motel Occupancy Rate' ;00% Hotel Occupancy Rate' 75,11% Motel Room Rate' $50.00 Hotel Room Rate' $150.00 Source. (1) Orange County Assessor, AnoiPoll; (2)City of Cost. Mesa, Finance Department: (4)TNOG. Notes. (2) Property Tax Rate is the average rate of all the tax rate areas In the City. (3) Estimate based on current transient occupancy tax levels. (4) Esdmom based on current assessed value and sales tax totals. (5)Weighted Average Table 2 Units/SF/Rooms 14,210 Existing Land Uses by Category 23,593 E42,623 City of Costa Mesa Fiscal Impact Model Current Year Population' 110,524 Average LDR Persons per DU2 3.19 Average MDR Persons per DU2 2.30 Average HDR Persons per DU2 2.30 Average AQH Persons per DU' 2.30 Current Year Employees° $7,857 Residential Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Age Qualified Housing Subtotal, Residential Units/SF/Rooms 14,210 4,370 23,593 E42,623 450 Commercial General Commercial Regional Commercial Retail Office Industrial Subtotal, Commercial Overnight Lodging Hotel Rooms Motel Rooms Subtotal, Overnight Lodging Parks (Acnes) Landscaped Medians (Acres) Existing Assessed Value Factors' $330,000 $28$,000 $288,000 $250,000 a�2 Existing Sales Source: (1) MIG Consulting; (2) TNDG; (3) California Department of Finance, E-5 Poulation Tables; (4) Southern California Association of Governments, Local Area Profiles. Notes: (2) Estimates based on current population, assessed value, and sales tax totals. p-j- $100 000 A$50,000', a�2 Existing Sales Source: (1) MIG Consulting; (2) TNDG; (3) California Department of Finance, E-5 Poulation Tables; (4) Southern California Association of Governments, Local Area Profiles. Notes: (2) Estimates based on current population, assessed value, and sales tax totals. p-j- Table 3 Derivation of Other Revenue Projection Factors City of Costa Mesa Fiscal Impact Model Clty of Costa Mesa Population 110,524 City of Costa Mesa, Daytime Employee Population 87,657 City of Costa Mesa, Overnight Lodging Visitor Population 1,314 Electric Franchise Fee Employee Weighting Factor 0.24 132,547 $9.60 Visitor Weighting Factor 0.75 R 110,524 Effective Daytime Employee Population 21,038 $250,000 R+E+V Effective Overnight Lodging Vlsltor Population 985 Solid Waste Hauler Franchise Fee Citywide R+E+V GF Budget Allocation Relevant Per Capita Budget Category FY 2014/15 Basis' Population Revenue Electric Franchise Fee $1,272,000 R+E+V 132,547 $9.60 Cable Television Franchise Fee $1,300,000 R 110,524 $11.76 Gas Franchise Fee $250,000 R+E+V 132,547 $1.89 Solid Waste Hauler Franchise Fee $1,945,000 R+E+V 132,547 $14.87 Business License $954,000 E 87,857 $10.88 Licenses and Permits $139,100 R 110,524 $1.26 Fines and Forfeitures $1,190,000 R+E+V 132,547 $8.98 Use of Money and Property $276,300 NO CHANGE PROJECTED Fees and Charges $2,027,600 R 110,524 $18.35 Other Government Agencies $1,045,300 R 110,524 $9.46 Other Revenues $787,300 NO CHANGE PROJECTED Table 4 Derivation of Projection Factors for Police Protection Costs City of Costa Mesa Fiscal Impact Model City of Costa Mesa Papulation 110,524 City of Costa Mesa, Daytime Employee Population 87,657 City of Costa Mesa, Overnight Lodging Visitor Population 2,904 Employee Weighting Factor 0.24 !Visitor Weighting Factor 0.75 '.Effective Daytime Employee Population 21,036 Effective Overnight Lodging Visitor Population 2,178 Budget Category Police Protection Citywide GF Budget Allocation Relevant Per Capita FY 2015 Basis Population Cost $41,016,560 R+E+V 133,740 $306.69 Table 5 Derivation of Projection Factor for Parks & Community Services Costs City of Costa Mesa Fiscal Impact Model City of Costa Mess Population 110,524 Citywide GF Budget Allocation Relevant Per Capita Budget Category FY 2015 Basis Population Cost Total Perks & Community Services Budget $4,958,298 Less: recreation fees and facility rentals (4,021,300) Net City cost $936,998 R 110,524 $8.48 Table 6 Derivation of Projection Factors for Development Services Costs 7-1 City of Costa Mesa Fiscal Impact Model f City of Costa Mesa Population 110,524 City of Costa Mesa, Daytime Employee Population 87,657 City of Costa Mesa, Overnight Lodging Visitor Population 2,904 Employee Weighting Factor 0.24 Visitor Weighting Factor 0.75 Effective Daytime Employee Population 21,038 Effective Overnight Lodging Vlsltor Population 2,178 Budget Category Citywide OF Budget FV 2015 TOTAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES (106,000) Development Services Administration $645,891 Planning (227,000) Planning 1,627,561 Planning Commission 27,600 Building Safety (147,500) Code Enforcement 879,310 Building Safety 2,025,030 Allocation Relevant Per Capita Basis Population Cost OFFSETTING REVENUES Fire Permits (106,000) Building Permits (1,460,000) Electrical Permits (227,000) Plumbing/Mechanical Permits (279,600) Street Permits (269,800) Zoning/Variance/CUP Fees (147,500) Subdivlslon/Map Fees (31,100) Environmental Impact Fees (29,000) Plan Checking Fee (408,000) HOME/CDBG Funds (1) 338,902 NET DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COST $2,586,394 R+E+V 133,740 $19.34 (1) HOME/CDBG funding in excess of current year Housing & Community Development budget. Table 7 Derivation of Projection Factors for Fire Protection Costs City of Costa Mesa Fiscal Impact Model Occupancy Type Single Family Unit Multi -Family Unit Retail (in 000's) Office (in 000'x) Industrial (in 000's) Overnight Lodging Total Fire Department 2015 Budget Total Incidents per year Cost per Incident Existing Number of Units, SF, or Rooms 17,756 25,304 9,456 7,429 12,352 4,123 Number of Incidents Incidents per per Year Unit 2,328 0,1310 2,294 0.0907 774 0.0818 439 0.0591 201 0.0163 445 0,1078 6,481 $20,379,286 6,481 $3,145 Table 8 Estimate of Existing (2015) Traffic Trips 6y Land Use City of Costa Mesa Fiscal Impact Model Total Trips ADT/Unit (2015) 9.52 8.09 6,65 3.44 40.35 11.42 6.97 8.17 5.63 N/A 1.90 N/A 203 2015 ADT 135,290 35,349 156,896 1,548 412,814 82,489 91,217 15,335 12,793 N/A 1,122 N/A 944,853 Totalfor General Plan Land Uses 140,822 40,380 210,549 1,548 436,797 98,008 91,154 16,969 5,327 N/A 1,171 N/A 1,042,726 Development Land Use Category Units (2015) Low Density Residential 14,210 Medium Density Residential 4,370 High Density Residential 23,593 Age Qualified Housing 450 Retail (000's square feet) 10,232 Office (000's square feet) 7,224 Industrial (000's square feet) 13,087 Hotel Rooms 1,877 Motel Roams 2,272 Institutional N/A Parks (acres) 592 Other N/A Total Trips ADT/Unit (2015) 9.52 8.09 6,65 3.44 40.35 11.42 6.97 8.17 5.63 N/A 1.90 N/A 203 2015 ADT 135,290 35,349 156,896 1,548 412,814 82,489 91,217 15,335 12,793 N/A 1,122 N/A 944,853 Totalfor General Plan Land Uses 140,822 40,380 210,549 1,548 436,797 98,008 91,154 16,969 5,327 N/A 1,171 N/A 1,042,726 Table 9 Public Services Expenditures City of Costa Mesa Fiscal Impact Model —20.1- Citywide Percentage/ Budget Projection Number of Per Unit Budget Category FY 2015 Basis Units Costs Administration $1,139,355 %Factor N/A 8.55% Engineering 2,184,274 Per Capita(R+E+V) 133,740 $16.33 Transportation 2,027,273 Per Traffic Trip 944,853 $2.15 Maintenance Services 11,299,619 Administration 288,016 % Factor N/A 2.84% Parkway& Median Maintenance 868,040 Per Acre 12 $72,337 Park Maintenance 3,120,565 Per Acre 592 $5,271 Streets 1,294,758 Per Traffic Trip 944,853 $1,37 Graffiti Abatement 190,289 Per Capita(R+E+V) 133,740 $1.42 Storm Drain Maintenance 97,816 Percentage Input N/A 10% See Table 01-7 Signs and Markings 524,329 Percentage Input N/A 1.0% See Table DI -7 Facility Maintenance 1,555,672 Percentage Input N/A 1.0% See Table 01-7 Fleet Services 3,360,135 Percentage Input N/A 1,0% Sea Table Dk7 Total Public Services Expenditures $16,650,521 —20.1- Table 10 Administrative and Overhead Expenditures City of Costa Mesa Fiscal Impact Model 205— Citywide Budget Budget Category FV 2015 City Council $378,408 CEO's Office 7,872,268 Francs 2,843,051 City Attorney's Office 1,000,000 Information Technology 3,328,366 Non-Cepartmental 11,231,747 Total Administrative/Overhead Functions $26,653,840 Other General Fund Expenditures $81,569,759 Percentage of Administrative/Overhead Costs of Total General Fund 32.68% 205— Table 11 Existing and Projected Citywide Development by Land Use City of Costa Mesa Fiscal Impact Model Market Percentage Theoretical Adjustment Evaluated Change Through Existing Buildout Factor Buildout Buildout Residential (Dwelling Units) Low Density Residential' 14,210 9¢791 100% 14,791 4% Medium Density Residential' 4,370 4 992 100/d 4,992 14% High Density Residential' 23,593 31,661 100% 31,661 34% Age Qualified Housing' 450 - 450 10 % 450 0% Subtotal, Residential 42,623 51,894 51,894 22% Commercial (Square Feet) Retail' 10,232,000 12 737,000 85°(0. 10,826,450 6% Office' 7,224,000 11,0©4,000 78°('. 8,583,120 19% Industrial' 13,087,000 13 QY8 R00 100% 13,078000 0% Subtotal, Commercial 30,543,000 38,819,000 32,487,570 6% Overnight Lodging (Rooms) Hotels' 1,877 '.2077 100% 2077, 11% Motels 2,272 04@J 946 -58% Subtotal, Overnight Lodging 4,149 3,023 3,023 -27% Parks (Acres)' 592 = - 01&' 4% Landscaped Medians (Acres)' 12 ;..5.. 12:" 0% Population: Residents' 110,524 131,690 19% Employees° 87,657 92,823 6% Overnight Lodging Visitors (average daily) 4,831 3,167 -34% Total Population Equivalent' 135,185 156,343 16% Traffic (Citywide ADT)' 944,853 1,042,726 10% Source: (1) MIG Consulting; (2) TNDG; (3) California Department of Finance, E-5 Poulation Tables; (4) Southern California Association of Governments, Local Area Profiles, Notes: (1) Retail Category includes General Commercial, Regional Commercial, and Auto Dealership space (2) Hotel visitor totals are estimated by current transient occupancy tax levels in the City. — 206p— Table 12 Existing and Projected General Fund Budgets City of Costa Mesa Fiscal Impact Model (1) The negative cash flow in FY 2015-2016 does not reflect a structural deficit for the General Fund. The indicated "deficit' is due to the one-time use of fund balance from the prior year (related to the partial prepayment of a park loan and designation of some of those funds for capital projects). * The amounts for these line items have been adjusted to exclude revenues that are cost -recovery fees and/or facility rental income (see Table DI -2). ** The amounts for these line items have been adjusted to exclude costs that are directly offset by user fees and/or facility Income (see Table DI -4). Percentage Existing Budget Projected Budget Change Through General Fund FY 2015 at Buildout Buildout Revenues Property Tax $24,051,900 $36,057,794 50% Property Tax in lieu of MVL 9,567500 14,232,971 49% Property Transfer Tax 621,700 959,468 54% Transient Occupancy Tax 8,107,500 7,990,116 _1% Sales and Use Tax 52,862,000 55,719,494 5% Electric Franchise Fee 1,303,800 1,514,103 16% Cable Television Franchise Fee 1,315,700 1,564,612 19% Gas Franchise Fee 252,200 293,603 16% Sold Waste Hauler Franchise Fee 2,167,900 2,489,270 15% Business License Fees 943,900 1,000,107 6% Licenses and Permits 139,100 165,769 19% Fines and Forfeitures 1,190,000 1,386721 17% Use of Money and Property ^ 276,300 276,300 0% Fees and Charges" 2,027,600 2,415,996 19% Other Government Agencies 1,045,300 1,245,530 19% Other Revenues 787,300 787,300 0% Total Revenues $106,659,700 $128,099,155 20% Expenditures Police Protection $41,016,560 $47,735,090 16% Fire Protection 20,379,286 23,199,663 14% Public Services 16,650,521 18,839,919 13% Parks & Community Services'" 936,998 1,116,486 19% Development Services*" 2,586,394 3,010,067 16% Overhead and Administration 26,653,840 30,683,286 15% Incremental Retirement Obligations - 4,122,416 N/A Reduction in Debt Service(3,738,618) N/A Total Expenditures $108,223,599 $124,968,307 15% Net Fiscal Cash Flow ($1,563,899) (1) $3,130,847 (1) The negative cash flow in FY 2015-2016 does not reflect a structural deficit for the General Fund. The indicated "deficit' is due to the one-time use of fund balance from the prior year (related to the partial prepayment of a park loan and designation of some of those funds for capital projects). * The amounts for these line items have been adjusted to exclude revenues that are cost -recovery fees and/or facility rental income (see Table DI -2). ** The amounts for these line items have been adjusted to exclude costs that are directly offset by user fees and/or facility Income (see Table DI -4). THE NATELSON DALE GROUP, INC. Overview The Natelson Dale Group, Inc. (TNDG) is a real estate economic and financial consulting firm established in southern California in 1974. TNDG provides services to public and private sector clients in the following basic areas: • Fiscal impact analysis and modeling • Real estate market forecasts and development feasibility studies • Economic development strategic plans • General plan economic development elements • Downtown and corridor revitalization strategies • Deal structuring and negotiation of public/private development agreements • Park, recreation and open space master planning General Plan Economic Studies. TNDG has served as the project economist for General Plan processes for jurisdictions of all sizes. These assignments typically involve market demand forecasts (for all land use types), pro forma financial analyses to define feasible development densities, fiscal impact evaluations and preparation of Economic Development Elements. TNDG's General Plan clients include the following cities in California: • City of Agoura Hills • City of Malibu • City of Alhambra • City of Ontario • City of Beaumont • City of Port Hueneme • City of Calabasas • City of Rialto • City of California City • City of Redondo Beach • City of Chino • City of San Bernardino • City of Fontana • City of San Clemente • City of Garden Grove City of Santa Monica • City of La Quinta City of Santa Paula • City of Los Angeles City of Yorba Linda TNDG is dedicated to the direct involvement of its principals in all phases of the firm's work and maintains a highly qualified staff of senior professionals to assist the principals in the conduct of each assignment. The company regularly participates on multi -disciplinary consulting teams, both as a prime and a subcontractor. The firm is headquartered in southern California and has satellite offices in Phoenix, Arizona. Its main office is located at: 24835 E. La Palma Avenue Suite I Yorba Linda, California 92887 Phone: (714) 692-9596 THE NATELSON DALE GROUP, INC. Qualifications of Project Manager Roger A. Dale, Managing Principal. Mr. Dale has been affiliated with TNDG for 28 years (since 1988) and currently serves as the firm's managing principal. His background encompasses the fields of real estate development, economic development, regional economic analysis, environmental and land use policy, financial forecasting, and renewable energy. His project experience with TNDG includes real estate market forecasting, demographic research and modeling, fiscal impact analysis, cost/benefit assessment, redevelopment, business retention/attraction, workforce development program assessments, and preparation of regional - scale economic development strategic plans. Mr. Dale has completed numerous fiscal impact analyses and developed customized software models to enable municipalities to assess the fiscal impacts of proposed general plan updates, annexations, and individual development projects. He has also prepared real estate forecasts for municipal planning efforts throughout California and Arizona. He served as the lead economist for the City of Los Angeles General Plan Framework study. This work included long-range demand forecasts for each of the City's 35 planning areas for residential, retail, office and industrial land uses. In addition to his public sector work, Mr. Dale also has extensive experience in preparing market and financial feasibility analyses for private developers. Key projects include a 4,200 -acre subdivision in Moorpark, California; an 885 -acre mixed use development on the Big Island of Hawaii; a tourist -oriented retail/restaurant complex in Honolulu; several regional shopping centers in southern California; a 3,200 -unit residential development in the Santa Clarita Valley; and a master planned community in Yokohama, Japan. Reflecting his longstanding interest in sustainability issues, he serves on the Board of the Roberts Environmental Center — a leading publisher of global climate change research and the nation's foremost analyst of corporate sustainability reporting. Mr. Dale received his B. A. cum laude in Economics from Claremont McKenna College in Claremont, California. He also holds a master's degree in Resource and Environmental Economics from the University of California at Riverside. ® Stantec To: Laura Stetson From: Daryl Zerfass MIG Stantec File: 2073007190 Date: April 20, 2016 Reference: Costa Mesa General Plan -Traffic Study Overview ATTACHMENT memo These technical notes provide an overview of the traffic study conducted by Stantec Consulting Services Inc. (Stantec) for the City of Costa Mesa 2015-2035 General Pian. The traffic study, which is included as an appendix to the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan update, analyzes existing and future traffic conditions in the city and identifies future roadway circulation system improvements that are needed to accommodate the future land uses envisioned in the General Plan. The findings of the traffic study are applied to define the roadway circulation plan that is included in the General Plan Circulation Element. A key planning tool that was utilized in the traffic study is a computerized travel demand forecasting model that was prepared specifically for the City of Costa Mesa. The city traffic model is a derivative of a countywide model maintained by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). The city model covers the same regional area as the OCTA model, but compared to the OCTA model, the city model incorporates a much greater level of detail within Costa Mesa in terms of the specification of land use information and the definition of the roadway circulation system. A notable component of the city traffic model is a land use database for existing and future conditions. For the General Plan update, two future land use scenarios were analyzed, one based on the current General Plan Land Use Element and the other based on the Land Use Element proposed in the General Plan update. The land use database is applied in the traffic model to produce AM peak hour, PM peak hour and daily vehicle traffic generation estimates. The traffic generation estimates are based according to the type of land use (e.g., housing, retail, office, hotel, schools, recreational, etc.) and are organized by defined zones to account for the specific location of each type of land use in the city. Table 1 on the following page summarizes the land use and daily vehicle trip generation for existing conditions and for buildout of the City under the previous General Plan and the proposed General Plan. In the traffic model, the specific citywide trip generation estimates are combined with trip generation estimates for the remainder of the region that is covered by the model. Procedures established in the OCTA model are then used to create a set of trip patterns by connecting generated trips together, for example, a work trip generated by a household is connected with a workplace trip, a retail trip generated by a household or a workplace is connected with a trip generated by a retail site, a school trip generated by a household is connected with a trip generated at a school site, etc. The resulting "trip patterns" are distributed by the model onto the Design with community in mind -2_i0- .m c:\users\ashab_m\oppdata\local\microsoFt\wintlows\fempwary infemet files\con}eM.outt ok\a91 w d3\mem_kaffic_overview 20160420.doc ® Stantec April 20, 2016 Laura Stetson Page 2 of 3 Reference: Costa Mesa General Plan - Traffic Study Overview existing and future roadway network to produce traffic volume estimates for the City's roadways and intersections. Table 1 - Land Use and Trip Generation Summary Land Use Type Exist ng Conditions Previous General Plan Buildout Proposed General Plan Buildout Amount Daily Tris Amount Daily Tris Amount F Daily Trips Residential 42,623 DU 329,083 48,859 DU 372,815 51,894 DU 393,297 Increase vs. Existing 6,236 DU 43,732 9,271 DU 64,214 Commercial a 31,847TSF 593,164 37,139TSF 733,690 37,446 TSF 740,071 Increase vs. Existing 5,292 TSF 140,526 5,599 TSF 146,907 Miscellaneous b - 96,543 - 122,620 110,772 Increase vs. Existing 26,077 14,229 Total Daily Trips 1,018,790 1,229,125 1,244,140 Increase vs. Existing 210,335 +21% 225,350 +22% (a) Includes retail, office and industrial land uses. Abbreviations: DU - dwelling unit (b) Includes schools, colleges, hotels, motels, hospitals, TSF -thousand square feet churches, golf courses, parks, fairgrounds, agriculture, etc. The resulting future traffic forecasts are the basis for evaluating and sizing a General Plan roadway circulation plan to support the General Plan Land Use Element. The specific process involved a series of analyses to test various land use and circulation plans during the evolution of the General Plan update. With each step a land use and circulation plan was tested using the future traffic forecasts to calculate levels of traffic congestion at intersections and roadways throughout the city. Roadway and/or intersection improvements were then identified for locations where forecasted congestion levels were considered unacceptable. The traffic analysis of the final citywide land use plan was used to define the proposed General Plan Circulation Element roadway plan, which includes future improvements to widen or add arterial roadways and to improve intersection locations by adding and/or modifying intersection lanes. The traffic analysis also evaluated and provided recommendations regarding the potential downgrade and deletion of various roadways on the General Pian roadway plan. The City of Costa Mesa is required to initiate a process with OCTA to amend the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPRH) for each of the following roadway downgrades and deletions that are proposed in the updated General Plan: • West 17th Street west of Placentia Avenue - Downgrade from a four -lane secondary arterial roadway to a two-lane divided collector roadway. Design with community in mind am c\users\ashab_m\oppdota\local\microsotf\windows\temporary internet files\content.outlook\a9lrwvd3\mem toffs -ove iew_2016 420.tlocz ® Stantec April 20, 2016 Laura Stetson Page 3 of 3 Reference: Costa Mesa General Plan -Traffic Study Overview • West 19th Street west of Placentia Avenue - Downgrade from a four -lane primary arterial roadway to a two-lane divided collector roadway. • East 22nd Street between northbound Newport Boulevard and Orange Avenue -Downgrade from a four -lane secondary arterial roadway to a two-lane collector roadway. • Baker Street between Mesa Verde Drive and Royal Palm Drive - Downgrade from a four -lane secondary arterial roadway to a two-lane collector roadway. • Bluff Road between Victoria Street and West 19th Street- Delete from the General Plan roadway plan. STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES INC. Daryl Zerfass, PE, PTP Principal, Transportation Planning & Traffic Engineering Phone: (949) 923-6058 Daryl.Zerfass@stantec.com c. Raja Sethuraman, City of Costa Mesa Minoo Ashabi, City of Costa Mesa Design with community in mind — �Z am c\users\ashob_m\apptlafa\tocol\microsoR\wintlows\temporary Internet files\content.outlook\o9lrwvd3\mem_troffc_overview _20160420docx T^e S,an'' c mm, - CCO eroplo lees v`rork!rg r over 2Y0 Ieca?Ions Ja cotlabnr ^cress disc.pdnes and induo'ries tc here wi lu gs. _ r.i esourceand ini-aatruc.ure crojec-� C) lite, Our wer< profes;icnoi consudna r planningang:-eer g -_ r design, andscape :v nitedurs purveying, en,ironrnxtai sciercai prc'pet mo�ager- „,.t, ana Y cls _ _ �egirs a* i- s in+ersec'lon or cor*rmun ty, :reotiv f,/ ;,;na Elie.�t relatlon;cJps Founded: -9x'. Ownership. P „ c,/ 0,hr&:i Stock Exchange. NYSE/TSX, STN Gross Revenue: CG-ni S2.5 81 l�r 20'C) Corporate Headquarters '0-50 - - I2 Street Edmcn`:�r, Alberta, Canada, TSK 2L6 Leadership: Bob Gomes—&CEO DanI j DINT _ -t �, Nie=s--_- Boo Se-g�� Sta^.'�..s Sm r _ Sectors: Airport. -. --ns-Acs & En'er'cirr oeveloprren' "ctlities > �rnrrer` Hs,,,- _-._ "Ings Regions: Alberta Central & Temtcrles A:berta So,ih Alber -i Nor -h) Arrerl-was Gnt',sh C !u—cG —, �aiG�mlC1 $Oc'h c,rag:a Gul` fda,it=�ba P' 2nc. `did'r:est "de Br.^.aro Cu & ?.= MA,riciccv Gc„emr-sni nd Gas >2r'y S nee & n clog'r SperrS and recrea-:Dr STJ9"Provnr 'aiGcv--Inrpent Trans` & kali Water ,`le�;v=nglarC Pdcva Scota & Nerofcun.�arc O^_ .ro GTA Onc�;ro Ncr-n & -as °adFc Nor•"h 3ue'cec S:]ska'- Scc�,eas. Stantec Daryl Zerfass -- --_ g = - ® Stantec Daryl is a California registered traffic engineer and a certified professional transportation planner with 25 years of experience in multiple aspects of traffic engineering and transportation planning. He has a proven record of managing large-scale traffic studies efficiently and effectively. His projects include traffic impact studies for large-scale development projects, freeway facility and interchange studies for PSRs and PRs, General Plan updates, areawide transportation studies, traffic model development, and land -use related circulation studies. EDUCATION BS, Civil Engineering, University of California, Irvine, California, 1990 REGISTRATIONS Professional Engineer #TR 1824 (Traffic), State of California Professional Transportation Planner #454, Transportation Professional Certification Board Inc. Member, Orange County Traffic Engineers Council Member, Institute of Transportation Engineers Associate Member, American Society of Civil Engineers PROJFCT EXPERIENCE Transportation Planning City of Lake Forest Transportation Mitigation Program - 2014 Update, Lake Forest, California (Project Manager) One Valley One Vision General Plan Traffic Study* County of Los Angeles, California (Project Manager) t-Iary l a us p, oject myna y: -,.Jur thr eumurehen,m, 0 11 tufic unaty,is used in the prepurutiun urthe One t alley One 1 -iron t 0 Ol7 County dreu Plun and City nJSur is Clarity General Plan updute. The OHOPeffor! uas undertaken by theComrhy mrd the City to creare a single vision and guidetine,po the future 9rou th of the Sanm Clarity L-ulley and the it, orcuh_rralre,ources. Tngeir,,, these plans adpLL fora 93`, incl rose in lousing unit o -.r' a i>u"n increase in iobr. sub.aunficdly in to .. iap ads iuh. - housing bulance. The sbnteyy of eacn LA. _ _. io m (,(is neur e _ myJoh cr terra. trvn rt<<-,. _ _ udy ;Mott included un update to Nr . _ '...1 nurde-l. u-hiclucu, redtldehrn Re _ 'I+_gincu_p Plan hosed on next trip pc , crornpuet Ol OC fund usr r esou , e docmmentfor , . docmnentahnn us well Li . _� ........ ry _ i uatiorr Flements_ the OHO!; project leas awarded ry wlloll,zi ehwfo all F_rcelfvnce-laUldfLo L _ planning Sustuinahilin,_ John Wayne Airport EIR Traffic Impact Analysis', Orange County, California (Project Engineer) Ouryl tca; tine land payed enyirteer fill fire prelmraaarr ortr EIR truyji, vnpcu tunalysis thateesfuated rhe ectea,,ior mut mud cuaun ofthe dettlemen-t ay rrcment pertaining to uperunnrs f,fuhrl 41 u}/ne-lir_oolt Ull_A) in Orange County. C.A. ('Itrer pr.I2-`,;cewrir plus hcu lruiu'tu,trnr 7-eeLee! e ecahruLd u r ent of the ahrdy-Fr-xh he 1 'yfi 'entin�rn'cafimr; wiNr respect to air p<axn_ger coWrnzs utJ41{{. �cid� pas,enger e -phone. rntgirrg Jrore 3.y tiGl P br t,9.9 �f.{P. anal rhe rr9Wting _. d'r 4ltpuet= m Ghe su"ruu drq i. :dafinn_ eeuiuuted. Thestudy included if u<didannn of � lr�h r t 1, yenerc un rate? by oL'eetiny nni ti -clay t ,noun[-ut each afrhr It pi 't; ttcc f_rltnn.:. 2►q_ Daryl Zerfass =- - Bridge and Major Thoroughfare Construction Fee District Traffic Volume Forecasts', Los Angeles County, California (Task Manager) iJ �l"3pC r y hIntl 1 ) _Cy CI tir - �:undc(andp)r pr epuriny hey c u ucu,t=m he cLpmentof truTi c intpuc[lc .for, mtdaulc _ .. : lu •reel La {rnx(as Col) � and in tr:..- - , �:aL the C;ridge and 4rajor' Thor mt q ur- uction Fen PiAntr. pion ideml equitable JI tdn"rly e 'h ism bg Bauch nuc decclupment it Ithrn an idennfiert ..Fli Ltll:hare n < t: ofpr"+ Idiny 7-dI r,1--yifiun 71P? IL elnvuts. Daryl pr"pmed (Imy-image -ufht forecast: 5used an the p4rnned land derelupmenr,p:oject. and drterrnined ruadtcny and fatersertiun impruaerr¢'nr Char -_.:rorarnocate rhe agnfieartt anu)unl ajjuture trujte in th,� +dng urea of Loo Ange!er- County. Costa Mesa SOBECA/Westside General Plan Amendment', Costa Mesa, California (Task Manager) ..: �u prepm rd Cha ❑ u upw'h Con c nulysb,")_ tmu urbml plum t as'hur: 're subatuju Genm'aI P(unAmendment, 4y -ne City oj Co.. to lfes<r. The South un Bei C1 FnteI n-nent ' Air, I Snt FC a r Distric and the N "ride Ptun.a r"a - •lrpedtoprocidefoI nicer!-t:.e loamy oppartas r. ?neat u, ! pilhunce eCcsriny -recelopmenr. OttI - i�e projcet tea. to eourdinute udth City staff and the lint[;- . -- -o wr , utr _:;kjil cut (g-ir in Newhall Ranch Master -Planned Community', Santa Clarita Valley, California (Project Manager) lin. trJ-r' -^Imy _ .• __ Spec ,.a PI -.n •!r ect tr -_. LWZ%41,Gd 1' X&1 neer ::: !1 .. :hu i. 'L eiyntndt!iun ,ym r-l=e[oj "Dion ,r�.a(de'<-t __. In sup) I, 9 '.. plain yand ec .a^tlno Ihere include tRe dct !q ncr n''Ilphc -irg ter lilfur rr I 1,11CICAUh_ r'�s rho. < 7j Cti2.4 our i -3((I _ _ -.tcet shaL.. afindit td Lu. ,.... a. Ea -q'- _ ,t :+ ofncul I u scut. i u • 'd r s=e > Traffic Operations State Route 241 Tesoro Extension Regional Benefits and Independent Utility Analysis, Orange County, California (Project Manager) l Interstate 5/EI Toro Road Interchange (PSR) Traffic Study, Orange County, California (Traffic Task Manager) maneger I i„ PSR tr'a)'HI n di•d urulr ef:Erq ..erirtp Pe f)rnwna•.;�e> meat rTEP_41 preparedfor the proposed recurL.-b'nction a,fth-v t--g_`R! Toro Road interchange. The stadg eff rrt ira lud._'d th,e (let eloprnen[ of rrzu?dp4' inhsrchenge c oareprs that ¢ere eculuared u Ing a micro n tuiuoon root! ! C)uiyn Le u'L"ftn /n ecm:t; ml r e derdred u my r .e Cru n; t C lusty I ran<pnrtuRur ars:ysis tlodel:OCI Lau and the local _-uh- urea models iftite Citic= )f Luke Fbre�tund Lm7mlu HilL'. State Route 126 Feasibility Study Traffic Study, Los Angeles County (Project Manager) Interstate 5 NOV Lane Access Conversion Project from State Route 57 to State Route 39 (PSR/PR) Traffic Study, California (Project Manager) -21S- ., ltciihm^.eiag the SK r26 cm mlor and the Cenruru Comae !ina •,ge)ee /'.c. ,. drea_ Ln)proremisrit: sut'h as . pocket- instullution _fn'ut4c ratel<un(1-UlmL naeded li 't I, ... �. ru ':dor pmn teas dv[eluprd. icer tune rt=ed>n Ill u"11' nary(: -i ) I r"lull f"th,, more :,meat -Ica: :,e.mined I �;nru..e 1. ok'th,?let-E )ns. The study I)), I'd I'll, ') (', L_.J aCv1y: L: o f hhp lightta y. . ee, ntrr:ech .;..d ire i t'-r(C. .dy ;uiria. Interstate 5 NOV Lane Access Conversion Project from State Route 57 to State Route 39 (PSR/PR) Traffic Study, California (Project Manager) -21S- ATTACHMENT Public Comments Received at Planning Commission Hearings: (The following are verbal comments that were not followed by a written letter) Name Meeting Date Comment Jay Humphrey 3/14/2016 Should consider bike paths on Adams similar to Anton Blvd. Rick Huffman 3/14/2016 Provide examples of project densities and what they will look like when built Diane Russell 3/14/2016 40 du/acre for Fairview Developmental Center Housing Coalition Resident 3/14/2016 Not include Harbor Blvd. and 19th Street new commercial in the General Plan update Oppose parking plans at Methodist Church at 420 W. 19`h Street Wendy Leece 3/28/2016 Page HCR -8 to clarify how the historical and archeological resources are going to be preserved Page HCR -10 to include all 60 properties not just 29. Policy HCR -1, on page HCR -21 through A22, to have details of historical or archeological findings so nothing will be destroyed in new construction. Jay Humphrey 3/28/2016 Cumulative impact of density Policy LU 2.8 referring to four -stories and addition of language unless otherwise approved by a General Plan Amendment. Kristine Nulf 3/28/2016 Increase the density from 25 -units per acre to 40 - units per acre at the Fairview Developmental Center site so more affordable units will be available Rick Huffman 3/28/2016 The projected 20 year build out if no new overlays took place in the current General Plan versus the proposed General Plan. Robert Graham 3/28/2016 Elevators and built in vacuum systems should be required in new three-story developments, and patios on a roof for privacy. Resident 3/28/2016 Stop using roof top decks as open space, eliminate the small lot ordinance, have an updated traffic study in the proposed General Plan and new sewers in the City. Flo Martin 4/11/2016 Inclusion of policies prepared by the Walkability and Bikability Committee Jay Humphrey 4/11/2016 Remove language with respect to repurposing Fairview Park Resident 4/11/2016 Include added trips by rehab homes and impacts on City resources Andrea Marr 4/11/2016 The City not having a Climate Action Plan and lack of affordable housing