HomeMy WebLinkAbout96-01 - Adopting General Plan Amendment GP-95-03, Incorporate the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Master PlanRESOLUTION NO. 96 - /
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP -95-03, AMENDING
THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA
TO INCORPORATE THE PARKS, RECREATION, AND
OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN INTO THE GENERAL
PLAN AS AN OPTIONAL ELEMENT AND MAKING
MINOR TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS TO THE OPEN
SPACE SUBELEMENT TO MAINTAIN INTERNAL
CONSISTENCY.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS, the General Plan was adopted by the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa
by Resolution No. 92-27 on March 16, 1992; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan is a long-range, comprehensive document which serves as
a guide for orderly development of the community; and
WHEREAS, by its very nature, the General Plan needs to be updated and refined to
account for current and future community needs; and
WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment GP -95-03 proposes to amend the General Plan
by incorporating the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan as an optional element of
the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment GP -95-03 also proposes to amend the Open Space
Subelement of the General Plan to maintain internal consistency within the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, an Initial Study was prepared pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act; and
WHEREAS, although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, according to the Initial Study and Negative Declaration, which reflect the
independent judgement of the City of Costa Mesa, there will not be a significant effect because
mitigation measures have been added to the project; and
WHEREAS, the environmental review for the project was processed in accordance with
the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA
Guidelines, and the City of Costa Mesa Environmental Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, duly noticed public hearings on the Draft Negative Declaration and proposed
General Plan Amendment were held by the Planning Commission on November 13, 1995, and
by the City Council on December 18, 1995, in accordance with Section 65355 of the
Government Code of the State of California, all persons having been given the opportunity to
be heard both for and against said Amendment to the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, this Council deems it to be in the best interest of the City that said
Amendment to the General Plan be adopted;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Costa Mesa that the Negative Declaration prepared for General Plan Amendment GP -95-03 be
adopted.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Costa Mesa General Plan is hereby
amended by adoption of General Plan Amendment GP -95-03 to incorporate the Parks,
Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan as an optional element, as shown on attached Exhibit
"A", and to amend the Open Space Subelement to maintain internal consistency, as shown on
attached Exhibit "B".
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of January, 1996.
ATTEST:
�21�� T.
���
Deputy City C rk of the City of Costa Mesa
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss
CITY OF COSTA MESA )
1-
Ma�oj of the City of Costa Mesa
AP ROVED AS TO FORM
Ey
I, MARY T. ELLIOTT, Deputy City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City Council of
the City of Costa Mesa, hereby certify that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 9'6 _ I
was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof
held on the 2nd day of January, 1996.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Seal of the City
of Costa Mesa this 3rd day of January, 1996.
f
Deputy City Jerk and ex -officio Clerk of
the City Couilcil of the City of Costa Mesa
EXHIBIT "A"
Resolution No. 96-1
City of
COSTA MESA
PARKS,
RECREATION
AND
OPEN SPACE
MASTER PLAN
PARKS, RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE
MASTER PLAN
,JANUARY 1996
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Background.......................................................... 1
Standards and Objectives ................................................. 2
► Neighborhood Parks ............................................... 2
► Community Parks ................................................. 3
► Community Centers ................................................ 4
► Active Recreation Sites ............................................. 4
► Recreation Facilities ............................................... 5
► Recreation Programs & Services ....................................... 6
► Bikeways....................................................... 7
Open Space & Recreation Facility Inventory .................................. 7
► Neighborhood & Community Parks ..................................... 9
► Community Centers ................................................ 9
► Regional Parks ................................................... 9
► Institutional Uses ................................................. 9
► Open Space Easements ............................................. 9
► Golf Courses ................................................... 12
► Bikeways...................................................... 12
Needs Analysis & Assessment ............................................. 12
► Neighborhood & Community Park Service Areas .......................... 12
► School Service Areas .............................................. 15
► Vacant Land Analysis ............................................. 15
► Surplus and Potential Surplus School Site Analysis ......................... 18
► Recreation Programming Needs ...................................... 24
► Recreation Facility Needs Assessment .................................. 24
► Active Recreation Facility Siting Analysis ............................... 34
► Bikeways...................................................... 41
► Costa Mesa River - Bay Trail ........................................ 43
Action Plan ......................................................... 43
► Recreation Facility & Park Improvements ............................... 43
► Future Recreation Facility & Park Sites ................................. 59
A'�..M.v.{..:..................:. \.5:; :.,.: vvv.,vy.:v,vv .:.. v.}:.v:;.v;{nvv.:.:..:. vnw: w:.,.v vvvnv:.:,.vvin,. .: v......vv.;.,.:........................................v:......,
..vm ..,rv, \..., 'i.A......v..+:.hk�}.,..,vn 4t. 'ri�V 1 %.. •:v:, 4.. :nlr+� .vv\b:i 4 .....i.:v::�iiii.%v:. 4. v.�.
(PRROS.MP)rec
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Implementation Plan ................................................... 60
► Alternative Funding Mechanisms ..................................... 61
► Maintenance.................................................... 64
► Implementation Priorities ........................................... 67
> Capital Improvement Program and Funding Plan .......................... 68
Concltisions......................................................... 69
s':'e:C% w. ..
(PR&OS,MP)rec
PARKS, RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN
The Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan is the primary implementation tool for the goals,
objectives and policies included within the Open Space Subelement of the General Plan. The Master
Plan includes a more detailed analysis of the -community's current and long-range open space and
recreation needs, establishes priorities for meeting these needs and identifies a range of
implementation measures.
BACKGROUND
This Master Plan is based upon the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan Study accepted
by City Council in 1994. The study was prepared by the consulting firm of Wallace, Roberts and
Todd (WRT) and was used as the primary resource guide for this Master Plan.
The Master Plan Study was previously used as the background report and supporting documentation
for General Plan Amendment GP -94-02B which incorporated the key recommendations of the study
into the 1990 General Plan. These recommendations included the increase in the park dedication
standard from 3.0 acres of local park land per 1,000 population to 4.26 acres, the joint use of other
public land (primarily schools) to meet the active recreation needs of the community and the
designation of a new pocket park on surplus City land at the corner of Charle Street and Hamilton
Street.
The Master Plan Study was the subject of considerable public scrutiny and debate. While the focus
of the debate centered around the future development of Fairview Park (active versus passive open
space), several other concerns were also raised. These included the heavy reliance on park and
recreation in -lieu fees to support the recommended capital improvement plan, the lack of new park
sites to serve the open space needs of the eastside neighborhood and the discrepancies between the
identified recreation needs and recommended capital improvement plan. As such, this Master Plan
will build on the groundwork laid by the study and will correct the identified deficiencies that were
raised during the public review of, and City Council action on, the study.
_ While the Master Plan Study was not fully supported by the community or City Council, one of its
key recommendations to utilize existing school yards for active recreation facilities is being
implemented. This plan will identify the progress which has been made in this area and will update
the recommended inventory of active recreation facilities and sites and implementation costs based
upon the experience with developing facilities.
Another factor which will be addressed by this Master Plan is the changed conditions which have
evolved since the drafting of the Master Plan Study. Chief among these is the decision by the
4 Newport -Mesa Unified School District to declare a number of existing public school sites as surplus.
Depending upon the specific sites which are declared surplus, this decision will have far-reaching
implications for future park and recreation opportunities. Strategies to maximize the open space and
recreation benefits of these sites will be included as a major focus of this Master Plan.
(PR&OS.MP)rec
STANDARDS AND OBJECTIVES
The Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan is guided by the overall goals, objectives and
policies contained in the Open Space Subelement of the General Plan. Paramount in the list of
policies is Policy 1, which sets a goal of providing 5.76 acres of permanent, public open space for
every 1,000 residents. Of this total, 4.26 acres are to be provided by local neighborhood and
community parks, while the remaining 1.5 acres will be provided in open school yards. Policies and
standards within other sections of the General Plan (especially bikeway policies in the Public
Facilities Subelement and density standards in the Land Use Element) are also important, as they
influence growth and development patterns, intensities of use and recreational opportunities.
The purpose of the Master Plan is to translate the broad policy language of the General plan into
more specific, action -oriented statements. Also, to be effective, the programs and policies of this
Master Plan must be based on a well-defined set of standards and objectives. The following sections _
include both standards and objectives related to neighborhood and community parks, community
centers, active recreation sites and recreation facilities. Objectives are also provided for overall City
recreation programs and services and bikeways. —
Neighborhood Parks: Neighborhood parks provide the base level of the City's park and open space
network. Existing neighborhood parks are distributed throughout the community and serve the basic
open space and recreation needs of surrounding residential areas. The following standards have been
developed for neighborhood parks, including pocket parks:
Purpose: Generally, neighborhood parks provide informal, general -use play areas
developed with small playgrounds, multi-purpose open turf areas and other
amenities used for small social gatherings (i.e., picnic tables, shelters, _
bar-b-ques, etc.). While not intended for organized, active recreation
activities, some of the larger neighborhood parks have been used for such
purposes because of the high demand for these type of facilities.
Pocket parks can be considered a specialized component of the
neighborhood park system. Generally, pocket parks are located in areas
where existing development patterns preclude the acquisition of sufficient
land to provide open play areas. Typically, these facilities include small tot
lots, benches and limited play equipment. They are designed to meet the —
open space needs of a concentrated and limited service area.
Size: Neighborhood parks are generally one to ten acres in size. Pocket parks are
generally one acre or less in size. The average size of neighborhood parks
in Costa Mesa is 3.8 acres.
Service Area: The service area for neighborhood parks two acres or larger is one-half
mile. The service area for neighborhood parks less than two acres and for
pocket parks is one-quarter mile. _
The following objectives have been developed for the City's neighborhood park network:
(PR&OS.MP)rec
1. All residential neighborhoods should be provided with neighborhood park service.
2. Neighborhood parks should be designed and located to be easily accessible to the
residential area which it serves.
3. New neighborhood parks should not be less than two acres in size.
4. Pocket parks of less than one acre in size should be considered in underserved areas
where existing development patterns preclude the acquisition of larger park sites.
5. Neighborhood parks should not be utilized for active, organized sports activities unless
the park is of sufficient size and includes sufficient facilities (parking, rest rooms, etc.)
to support these activities.
6. New neighborhood parks or substantial redevelopment of existing parks shall be designed
'- with input from surrounding property owners and residents.
7. Freestanding pocket parks should be planned primarily as hardscape urban parks with low
maintenance landscape that provide meaningful neighborhood service but minimize
maintenance requirements.
— 8. Explore use of a portion of schools' play yards for pocket parks in service -deficient areas
through joint -use agreements with the Newport -Mesa Unified School District.
9. Monitor the status of non -City owned public facilities, in the case of closure or sale,
especially surplus school sites in service -deficient areas, for future opportunities for
neighborhood park sites.
Community Parks: Community parks provide the broadest range of open space and recreational
facilities and opportunities within the City. Because of their size and diversity, community parks are
designed for use by all City residents. The following standards have been developed for community
parks.
�- Purpose: Community parks serve community purposes and provide facilities of city-
wide interest and use. Community parks can be intensely developed with
active recreation facilities for organized sports leagues, large group
activities or natural areas for passive recreation and environmental
preservation and enhancement efforts. Community centers and other public
facilities may also be located in community parks. Active community parks
include Lions and TeWinkle Parks, while passive parks include Fairview
and Canyon Parks. Community parks can also serve as neighborhood parks
for residential areas surrounding these sites.
Size: Typical community parks range from 10 to 50 acres. However, one
exception can be found in Costa Mesa - Fairview Park is in excess of 200
acres. The average size, excluding Fairview, is 22 acres.
tip•\•:ti v{.v ti O:• v n, t:.v; }t:.;:
2tii�:tintiti<inattiti,.,,..... •.vv..v.....u.....v.........: ti:4i:... Qti`..h��tinvM1 ''?QtiCv ^^vY'•\'•:
(PR&OS.MP)rec
Service Area: While Costa Mesa's community parks are designed to meet the service
needs of the entire City, the typical service boundary is one-half to three
miles.
The following objectives have been developed for the City's community park network:
1. Costa Mesa's community parks should provide opportunities for city-wide use and
enjoyment.
2. Active recreation uses shall be limited to Lions Park and TeWinkle Park.
3. Fairview and Canyon Parks shall be limited to natural parks and used for passive
recreational uses and environmental preservation and enhancement.
4. Continue to monitor County planning and construction activities for the Talbert/Fairview
and Upper Newport Bay Regional Park sites to ensure compatibility of use and intensity
of use with surrounding developments in the City, especially Fairview and Canyon Parks.
Community Centers: Community centers serve many purposes. They can provide a location for a
variety of social and recreational services and also act as active recreation facilities. The following
standards have been developed for community centers:
Purpose: Community centers are multi -use facilities which house a variety of social
service and support organizations, nonprofit groups and recreation services.
Open play areas surrounding community centers can be used for active
recreational purposes and organized sports activities. Community centers can
also provide neighborhood park services to residential neighborhoods
surrounding the facility. Two community centers currently operate on
property owned by Newport -Mesa Unified School District: Rea Center and
Balearic Center. Two other community centers, the Downtown Community
Center and the Neighborhood Community Center, are located in Lions Park.
Size: Community centers are typically located on parcels of land 10 to 15 acres
in size.
Service Area: As with community parks, community centers can serve the entire
community. However, the typical service area is one-half to three miles.
The following objectives have been developed for the City's community centers:
1. Community centers shall be located in proximity to areas of identified service needs.
2. The type and intensity of uses permitted in community centers shall be compatible with
surrounding residential neighborhoods.
Active Recreation Sites: Active recreation sites are areas specifically designed for organized group
sports and recreational activities. These sites can be located in community parks, school sites and
other publicly -owned land. The following standards have been developed for active recreation sites:
4
(PR&OS.MP)rec
Purpose: Active recreation sites are large areas set aside for organized group sport
and recreation activities. These may include softball and baseball diamonds,
soccer and football fields, volleyball and basketball courts, pools,
gymnasiums and related facilities. Some facilities may be lighted to allow
night use. Active recreation sites can also provide neighborhood park
service to surrounding residential areas when not in use.
Size: Because of the land -area needed for active recreation uses, active recreation
sites should be 5 to 20 acres in size. The size will vary depending upon the
type and combination of facilities that will be provided.
Service Area: The service area for active recreation sites varies depending upon the type
of activities conducted and the sponsoring organization. However, the
typical service boundary is one-half to three miles.
The following objectives have been developed for the City's active recreation facilities:
1. Provide sufficient active recreation facilities to serve the broad range and demand for such
facilities within the community.
2. Locate active recreational facilities, especially those with night lighting, away from
sensitive residential neighborhoods, or provide sufficient mitigation to protect surrounding
uses from spillover effects of active recreation activities.
3. Establish with the Newport -Mesa Unified School District and other appropriate authorities,
long-term planning efforts to develop feasible, joint -use facilities that would serve
identified existing and future community active recreation needs.
4. Monitor the status of non -City owned public facilities, in the case of closure or sale, for
future opportunities for active recreation facilities.
Recreation Facilities: The National Parks and Recreation Association and other reference sources
have published standards for a variety of recreation facilities. Generally, these standards are presented
as per capita ratios based on national surveys and demand analyses. While useful in assessing the
general demand for each type of facility, the national standards must be viewed and adjusted to fit
local conditions and needs when applied to an individual city. The following national standards have
been established as general planning references for each type of the identified recreation facility for
an estimated ultimate buildout population of approximately 107,350. It should be noted that while
these are recommended standards, they must be evaluated for relevancy within each local jurisdiction
and modified accordingly to each community's needs.
Swimming Pools: Published standards for swimming pools recommend one 25 -meter pool
per 10,000 or one 50 -meter pool per 20,000 population. This would equate to some
combination of up to ten 25 -meter or five 50 -meter pools at buildout.
Baseball Fields: Published standards for baseball fields recommend one regulation field per
6,000 population and one lighted regulation field per 30,000 population. This would equate
to eighteen unlighted and three to four lighted fields at buildout.
Softball Fields: Published standards for softball fields recommend one field per 6,000
population, with one-fourth of the fields lighted. This would equate to eighteen unlighted and
four to five lighted fields at buildout.
. yw. f .�:.�\ ^#Sow• •S. '^C fi \ ....:., ::::.,,
,.'.v n•:.......0 4 s. ,. - <:n ...... an:.> .tiJ.... ....... ...v...T. \ vav2�}.G 4....... ..' ...
1
(PR&OS.MP)rec
Soccer Fields: Published standards recommend one combination soccer/football field per
10,000 population, with half of the fields lighted. This would equate to six unlighted and five —
lighted fields at buildout.
Football Fields: Published standards recommend one field per 20,000 population. This _
equates to five fields•at buildout.
Tennis Courts: Published standards- recommend a need for 54 courts (of which 27 are
lighted) at buildout. —
Basketball Courts: Published standards recommend one court per 500 population. This
equates to 215 courts at buildout.
Volleyball Courts: Published standards recommend one court per 5,000 population. This
equates to 21 courts at buildout. _
Running Tracks: Published standards recommend one 1/4 -mile running track per 20,000
population. This equates to five tracks at buildout.
Gymnasium Buildings: There are no published standards for gymnasium buildings.
Golf Course: The national average for public golf courses is 43 holes per 100,000 population
This equates to 46 holes at buildout.
Rollerblade/Skateboarding: There are no published standards for rollerblade or skateboard _
facilities.
The following objectives have been established for the City's recreation facilities:
1. Utilize established, nationally -recognized recreation facility standards as a general
reference guide or benchmark in planning future recreation facility needs.
2. Modify nationally -recognized recreation facility standards to account for local conditions
(i.e., local recreation preferences, availability of similar or replacement public and private
recreation facilities, etc.) and needs when analyzing and planning specific facility needs
within the community.
Recreation Programs and Services: The City offers a broad range of recreational programs and
services. These include adult and youth athletic, creative/performing arts, social service and
instructional programs. The following objectives have been developed for the City's recreation
programs and services:
1. Provide a broad range of recreation programs and services which recognizes the diversity
of needs within the community.
2. Assist other organizations that provide recreation programs and services important to the
City by providing access to City and joint -use facilities.
3. Continue to provide quality recreation programs and services in the most cost-effective —
means possible and, to the extent possible, recover the costs of programs and services
through user and/or participant fees.
(PR&OS.MP)rec
4. Continue to balance the desire for full -cost recovery with the needs and ability of targeted
or disadvantaged groups to pay for needed programs and services.
Bikeways: The General Plan contains a Master Plan of Bikeways to satisfy both recreational and
commuter bicycling needs. The plan incudes a range of facilities including onstreet bike lanes as well
as offstreet bike trails. Connections are also provided to major county -wide bicycle facilities, such
as the Santa Ana River Trail. The following objectives have been developed for the recreational needs
of bicycle facilities:
1. To the extent possible, link all major open space and recreation facilities within and
adjacent to the City with a comprehensive and integrated bicycle network.
2. Coordinate bicycle facility improvements with surrounding jurisdictions and the County
to maximize access to adjacent and nearby regional recreation attractions (i.e., Upper
Newport Bay Regional Park and local beaches).
3. Prepare and make available at public information outlets and centers, a plan showing the
City's existing and planned bicycle network, including linkages to regiomal bicycle
facilities. Public information programs should stress both recreational and alternative
commuter transportation benefits of the bicycle network.
4. Continue to review, evaluate and update the Master Plan of Bikeways in light of changing
community needs and future opportunities and constraints affecting the Master Plan.
OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION FACILITY INVENTORY
Costa Mesa's inventory of open space and recreation opportunities includes a diversity of facilities,
ranging from highly developed, active recreation sites to low activity, passive open spaces. While the
focus of this Master Plan is on local open space and recreation facilities, there are significant county -
owned regional facilities within and adjacent to the City limits and a large amount of institutional
land. The existing network of open space and recreation facilities is illustrated in Figure 1 and
inventoried in Table 1.
TABLE 1: OPEN SPACE INVENTORY
Type of Facility Acreage
Neighborhood and Community Parks 381.24
Community Centers 23.87
Regional Parks 210.00
Institutional Uses 696.20
Open Space Easements 6.19
Golf Courses 373.00
Total: 1,690.50
.- The total inventory of open space and recreation land comprises approximately 20 percent of the total
land area of the City. While it is recognized that not all of the institutional uses are readily available
for public recreational uses, this inventory is considerable and offers a wide variety of opportunities
_ and benefits to the residents of the community. The following sections provide a more detailed
description of the various components of the community's open space and recreation inventory.
7
(PR&OS.MP)rec
�
O
�Z
a
Z
i
¢
Fz
Q
a
41
N
a
us
LU
Le ob
11,�
W v
'
V
i
UW
N
m
W
S
z
Q
Z
W
y
W
W
K X
Q .W..
RO
m
cc
Q
U
a
<
y
z
Z N
~Q~ Q
3
O
(_�
=
Q U
C07
O
2 W
N m
(PR&OS.MP)rec
Neighborhood and Community Parks: The backbone of the community's local open space network
is the neighborhood and community park system. Currently, the 377.30 acres of park land comprise
approximately 22 percent of the total inventory. This acreage is spread between 27 sites, ranging in
size from 0.60 acres to 211 acres. Table 2 identifies the size of each park site and provides an
inventory of the number and type of recreation facilities provided.
Community Centers: Although the Rea and Balearic Community Centers also serve as
neighborhood or community parks and have traditionally been included in the inventory of the local
park system, they have been separated for discussion purposes in this plan because of the specialized
services they provide. While comprising only 1.5 percent of the total inventory, they do provide
significant opportunities for active recreation facilities in addition to their existing social service and
community recreation programs. Table 2 also lists the type of recreation facilities provided at the
community centers. As noted earlier, the other community centers are included in the Lions Park area
as a community park.
Regional Parks: County -owned regional park land includes 210 acres (approximately 12 percent of
the total inventory) of passive open space in the southwest corner of the City along the -Santa Ana
River lowlands. The Talbert and Fairview Regional Parks will combine with the City's Canyon and
Fairview Parks to provide a unique linkage of restored and enhanced natural environments totalling
over 450 acres when completed.
Another major regional open space feature which will be available to Costa Mesa residents (but not
included in the above inventory) is the 138 -acre Upper Newport Bay Regional Park, to be developed
east of the City limits along Irvine Avenue, south of University Drive. Actual development of the site
will be limited to an interpretive center, trails, and park and habitat stabilization and enhancement.
Institutional Uses: The inventory of institutional land uses is as varied as the entire open space and
recreation inventory. Institutional uses included in this category include public and private school
sites, the Orange County Fair and Exposition Center and Harbor Lawn cemetery. When the specific
use (i.e., cemetery) or ownership (i.e., private college) precludes use of these sites for public
recreation, they do provide the benefits of visual open space or relief from typical urban development
patterns. This category is the largest component of the open space inventory, approximately 41
percent.
Schools and colleges make up nearly three-fourths of the total inventory of institutional uses (506.52
acres). Because these facilities often provide local and community level recreation needs when not
in use during school hours, they play a critical role in the city-wide open space and recreation
inventory. These facilities can augment those provided by the neighborhood and community system
and can combine, through formal joint -use agreements, to meet the overall open space and recreation
needs of the community. The type and range of recreation facilities provided by each of the schools
and colleges is identified in Table 3.
Open Space Easements: While comprising the smallest portion of the total open space inventory
(0.4 percent), the two existing open space easements provide significant open space benefits because
of their location in the most densely developed section of the City. The 2.9 -acre easement within
Town Center provides a grassy, park -like, open space feature which bisects the development in an
east -west direction. The Lakes easement provides a more urban feel of hardscape and an open water
— element which unifies the individual components of this mixed use area.
..4u4.:.Y�_.s5:5:.,,4`.. ti'C,a3\.; r•C hhi�i�`:,',•:: \\0,'4.45.,...♦.... �: .::. _.... "" _
(PR&OS.MP)rec
Table 2 Park Facility Matrix
t y
� h •�
W( ` r F —
f� kr i U os o ao 0o = _ as ., O o0
u
e1eL q 4 V U L .0 da Nof YO Y�„ Y•_ .hk adi t= upl o Y�
.���.� fO as d�N Y4
CC
:1::^}:.t' .: vv'.\ v"tivvi: '•n't+.v?v
10
(PR$OS.MP)rec
Brentwood
1.45
1
1
3
1
2
Street
1
Canyon
35.00
1
1
Civic Center
2.49
1
Park
Civic Center
9.48
Del Masa
2.46
1
1
1
1
8
1
1
2
Street
1
2
Estancia
10.00
4
1
47
1
Fairview
11 Devel.1
1
102
'
1
200 Undev.
Gisler
3.15
1
1
2
1
10
1
1
Harper
1.00
1
2
Street
Haller
2.61
1
1
1
3
1
1
Street
3
2
Lindbergh
1.00
1
2
street
1
1
Lions
8.26
1
6
23
1
1
1
99
2
2
470
1
Marina View
2.29
1
1
4
2
treet
1
Eesa Verde
2.66
1
4
1
scree
Paularino
2.23
1
1
2
2
None
Pinkley
2.58
1
1
10
street
1
1
Smallwood
3.38
1
1
1
1
3
1
street
I
Shiffer
6.72
1
1
2
2
2
1
6
1
1
21
1
Suburbia 1
1.20
1
4
8
1
Suburbia 11
0.60
Tanager
7.42
1
1
1
2
1
2
Street
1
TeWinkle
44.67
1
2
1
1
12
1
1
22
2
3
109
4
1
1
1
1
Vista
6.02
1
1
10
1
1
12
1
Wakebam
9.91
1
1
1
1
1
1
10
3
1
2
24
1
3
Willard T.
2.48
1
1
2
1
Street
1
2
Jordan
Wilson
3.45
1
1
4
1
1
2
St—et
1
Wimbledon
3.36
1
1
1
1
7
street
1
COMMUNITY CENTERS
Balearic
9.97
2
1
2
2
2
2
32
2
Rea
13.90
1
1
1
TOTAL 410.74 1 3 4 13 9 25 12 10 13 6 140 18 1 12 10 27 1 9 5 470 1 1 1 1 -F27 1
:1::^}:.t' .: vv'.\ v"tivvi: '•n't+.v?v
10
(PR$OS.MP)rec
Table 3 School Facility Matrix
Public Schools Acreage acilities
Baseball
Softball
Soccer
Turf
asketbalMUlti-USE
Track
Play
Climbing
Handball
Volleyball
Tennis
Swim
Area
Courts
Equipment
Apparatus
Pool
Coastline Community
,
Adams School 10.00
Back Bay High School 6.00
California School
(2)
,
(12)
College Park School 8.00
,
(2)
Costa Mesa High 67.00 (4)
(3)
(8)
,
School
Davis Intermediate 19.00
,
School
Estancia High School 40.00 (2)
(8)
,
Harper School/ 2.11
(2)
,
Newport Mega
Support Services
Kaiser School 18.00 (2)
(3)
,
Killybrooke School 10.00
,
Lindbergh School 9.20
,
Mesa Verde School 3.00
Parsons School 10,00
Paularino School 9.00
,
Pomona School 7.00
,
Sonora School 10.00
,
TeWinkle 30.00 (3)
(2)
(3)
(4)
,
Intermediate School
Victoria School 7.00
,
Whittier 9.00
Wilson 9.00
,
Woodland School 9.00
,
Colleges Acreage FacilitieB
Baseball
Softball
Soccer
Turf
asketbalMulti-Us(
Track
Play
Climbing
Handball
Volleyball
Tennis
Swim
Area
Courts
Equipment
Apparatus
Pool
Coastline Community
,
College
Orange Coast College
(indoor)
(12)
So. California College
,
TOTAL 13 11 1 22 1 22 1 21 1 15 1 7 3 12 12 2 28 1 3
(PR&OS.MP)rec
Golf Courses: The two golf courses within the City provide the final 22 percent of the total city-
wide open space inventory. The courses include the public Costa Mesa Golf and Country Club (238 _
acres) and the private Mesa Verde Country Club (136 acres). An additional 129 acres of private golf
course area is provided by the Santa Ana Country Club, located outside of existing City limits but
within the City's sphere of influence. _
Bikeways: Although not included in the open space inventory, the City's bikeway network is a
significant recreation facility. The network includes a series of local bike lanes, routes and trails as —
well as the regional Santa Ana River Bike Trail. The bikeway system provides access between a
majority of the existing local open space and recreation sites and opportunities to access surrounding
regional facilities, especially local beaches. Bikeways also offer opportunities for an alternate —
transportation mode for commuters.
NEEDS ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
The preceding sections of this plan have provided a foundation for a more thorough analysis of the
effectiveness of the current inventory of open space and recreation facilities in meeting the full range
of needs for these facilities within the community. Additional support for this analysis is provided
by the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan Study and the public comments provided
during the review of the study in 1994.
This section will include an analysis of the service area of existing neighborhood and community
parks and public schools, the availability of vacant land and potential surplus school sites to meet
future open space and recreation needs, and a recreation facility needs assessment and siting analysis.
Neighborhood and Community Park Service Areas: The effectiveness of a local park network is
based on a number of factors. These include the number and size of parks, the type of facilities
offered and the level of maintenance provided. Other key factors include the distribution of parks
throughout the community and the level to which all areas of the City are served. The degree to _
which the latter factors are effective can be analyzed in two ways. One is to compare the amount of
park acreage provided against an established service standard, such as the current park dedication
standard of 4.26 acres per 1,000 population. While this is an important yardstick to attain city-wide,
it is also necessary to look at how well the various subareas and neighborhoods within the larger City
context are being served.
Two methodologies have been employed to determine the service area effectiveness of the existing
neighborhood and community park system. The first relies on a mathematical comparison of the
amount of park land provided and population served, both city-wide and within the six established
planning areas within the City (see Figure 2). Because of the availability of data, 1990 census data
will be used in this analysis. City-wide, Costa Mesa met the established park standard. However, there
is wide variation at the planning area level, with only one area having surplus acreage. Table 4
provides this comparison.
12
(PR&OS.MP)rec
TABLE 4: PARK SERVICE BY PLANNING AREAS
Total Park Surplus/
Planning Area Acreage Population Ratio Deficiency
1 69.32 28,371 2.31 -51.58
2 246.23 13,901 17.93 +187.01
3 11.12 19,609 0.57 -72.42
4 65.47 24,061 2.72 - 37.15
5 13.27 5,069 2.62 - 8.33
6 9.18 5.346 1.72 - 13.68
Totals 414.59 96,357 4.26 +1.85
While this mathematical comparison is useful in determining the degree to which areas of the City
-- are served by the current park system, there are drawbacks and assumptions which distort the results.
One of these factors relates to the boundary of the planning areas in relation to existing parks. As an
example, all of Fairview Park is located in Planning Area 2, but it also abuts Planning Area 1.
Although Fairview does provide service to Area 1, the above table does not recognize this practicality.
Also, the table does not recognize the policy that community parks provide service to the entire City.
One alternative to this approach is to do a similar analysis without including community park acreage
in the standard or park area calculations. This may be more meaningful, as it will focus on the
provision of neighborhood park service. Table 5 provides the results of this alternative.
TABLE 5: NEIGHBORHOOD PARK SERVICE BY PLANNING AREAS
Neighborhood Surplus/
Planning Area Park Acreage Population Ratio Deficiency
1 8.31 28,371 0.29 - 14.68
2 25.26 13,901 1.82 + 13.90
3 11.12 19,609 0.57 - 4.83
_ 4 11.32 24,061 0.47 - 8.19
5 13.27 5,069 2.62 + 9.05
6 9.18 5.346 1.72 + 4.75
Totals 78.46 96,357 0.81 0.00
A final means to evaluate the service effectiveness of the park system is to do a spatial analysis based
on the service area assumptions and standards established earlier in this document. The service radius
of parks varies with the size of the park. Typically, larger sites have the opportunity to serve a larger
area because of the variety of recreational opportunities and services which can be provided when
compared to a smaller park. For this analysis, it was assumed that parks less than two acres in size
should be expected to have a service radius of one-quarter mile, while parks larger than two acres
should have a one-half mile service radius.
}:}:::.. :4:Qiii\�.va'i+h�,C\4:Mv4}�x�N�zi% \ L w �:$�. � i.} •:C
(PR&OS.MP)rec
6
i.
NEIGHBORHOOD
PL A NNING A REA S
Figure 2
14
(PR&OS MP)rec
The service levels discussed above must be modified in some cases to reflect the impact of major
barriers which hinder access. For Costa Mesa these barriers are limited to freeways and major
arterials. For the purposes of this study, it was assumed that no service boundary would cross a major
barrier, such as the freeways or Newport Boulevard, and that service boundaries crossing arterials
which carry daily volumes in excess of 20,000 vehicles would be reduced by 50 percent.
The results of this spatial analysis is illustrated by Figure 3. The results confirm the results presented
in Table 5 in that Planning Areas 1, 5 and 6 are well served by the current park system, while Areas
1, 3 and 4 have large areas which are not served. The areas of good and poor service coincide with
the age of residential neighborhoods, with the newer areas being better served than the older areas.
This is largely the result of the correlation of development timing with increasing awareness of the
need to preserve long-term open space opportunities and code requirements for park dedications or
the payment of in -lieu fees from new residential subdivisions to acquire park land as the City's
resident population increases.
—" School Service Areas: As local public school sites do act as neighborhood park and recreation
facilities when not in use, it is important to consider these sites as components of the community's
overall open space network. Because of this, a spatial analysis of the service area of local public
schools was also performed (Figure 4).
The results of this analysis are nearly the opposite of the park spatial analysis. In the case of the
schools, the southwest, central and east portions of the City ( Planning Areas 1, 3 and 4) are among
the best served, while the northern and northeast portions (Planning Areas 5 and 6) are not served.
Planning Area 2 appears well served in both analyses.
While this analysis would appear to correct the deficiencies noted in the park analysis, this is only
partially true. As the school sites are only available at limited times and not under control of the City,
they cannot be considered to be full components of the local park network unless they can be secured
through lease and joint -use agreements with the school district. However, the location of the sites in
relation to areas of high park demand does provide opportunities for potential park sites if they are
declared surplus property by the district. This issue is discussed more fully in a following section of
this plan.
Vacant Land Analysis: Vacant land has the best potential for meeting local park and recreation
needs. However, in a developed community such as Costa Mesa, this potential is constrained by the
size, location and availability of suitable parcels. This is particularly significant in Costa Mesa
because only 3 percent of the City is vacant land or not already included in the inventory of park land
(undeveloped portions of Fairview and Talbert/Fairview Parks).
While the prime opportunities for new park sites are residential parcels, commercial or industrial sites
may have potential for specialized or intensely -developed active recreation facilities. Table 6 lists
currently vacant residential properties while Table 7 lists vacant nonresidential sites. All vacant
parcels are located in Figure 5.
15
(PR&OS.MP)rec
M
m
LL
O � �
O Q
W co
O V N w
MM
c
Z e A a a
(PR&OS.MP)rec
W
cc
x
.f
17
(PR&OS.MP)rec
As can be seen in both Tables 6 and 7, the majority of remaining vacant land is located north of the
San Diego Freeway in the Segerstrom Home Ranch and Sakioka Farms properties. Together, these
land holdings account for 76 percent (182.28 acres) of the total inventory (240.03 acres).
With just a few exceptions, the inventory of vacant residential land consists of scattered sites of 6,000
to 8,000 square feet. The City owns two sets of contiguous properties on Del Mar; one of which
contains 1.04 acres. This site (150-170 Del Mar) has been designated as a community garden.
However, both of these sites were acquired for the future widening of Del Mar Avenue and, —
depending upon the roadway alignment, all or a large portion of the sites will be needed for the
proposed widening.
The City also owns surplus property associated with the Victoria Street widening. Although a number
of parcels are surplus, some as small as 190 square feet, Table 6 only lists those individual sites or
contiguous sites in excess of 6,000 square feet. In 1992, the Engineering Division proposed that the _
contiguous sites at 2136 Raleigh/2135 Sterling (9,500 sq. ft.) and 2150 Maple/570 and 574 Victoria
(14,960 sq. ft.) be retained as pocket park sites. However, this recommendation was not accepted
because of the small size of the parcels. _
The sites with the highest potential for park or active recreation sites remain the larger land holdings
in north Costa Mesa and the 12.50 -acre site at the corner of Mesa Verde Drive East and Adams
Avenue. A more detailed analysis of this potential is included in the following Recreation Facility
Siting Analysis.
Surplus and Potential Surplus School Site Analysis: As noted earlier, one of the most significant
actions which have taken place since the preparation of the Master Plan Study was direction from the
Newport -Mesa Unified School District Board of education to consider a number of existing school
sites for potential sale or lease as surplus property. Since these sites are publicly -owned and are —
already used to some degree for recreation facilities and activities, they can provide opportunities for
future park or active recreation facility sites. The sites which have been included in this review are
analyzed below and are located in Figure 6.
Balearic Center - Balearic Center has been declared surplus by the District Board (available
only to another public agency), contains 9.97 acres and is currently leased by the City for a —
community center. The athletic fields are also heavily used as an active recreation facility.
Because of its current use, this is a priority for possible acquisition. Although the site is
located immediately adjacent to Estancia Park and in the planning area with the highest park- —
to -population ratio, the service provided by the center and open athletic field area are
important parts of the City's community service programs.
Mesa Verde School - Mesa Verde School contains 10.18 acres and is located adjacent to
Mesa Verde Park. The site is in an area well served by the existing park system in terms of
total park -to -population ratio and proximity to existing neighborhood parks. The site is less
than 1/3 mile from Mesa Verde Park and less than 600 feet from Smallwood Park. Because
of these factors, acquisition does not appear warranted in light of the relative park -to -
population ratio of this planning area when compared to others with park land deficiencies. _
As such, from a park and recreation needs standpoint, acquisition of this site is not a priority.
1
(PR&OS.MP)rec
Costa Mesa High School - The northerly 18 acres of the Costa Mesa High School site was
formerly used for the school's farming education program, which was recently discontinued.
The area has also been the subject of consideration as a joint -use active recreation facility
between the district and City. Because of the need for additional active recreation facilities
and the joint -use benefits of the site, realization of this concept should be a high priority.
Monte Vista/Back Bay High School„- This site has been declared surplus by the District
Board and is relatively small (6.25 acres) when compared to other school sites within the
community. However, it is located in a portion of Planning Area 3 which is deficient in park
service.
Lindbergh School - The Lindbergh site includes two parcels totalling 9.2 acres. One parcel
(4.55 acres) is owned by the Mesa Consolidated Water District and is occupied by an
underground reservoir and associated pumping equipment. The second parcel is owned by the
school district. The City currently leases one acre of the site for Lindbergh Park from the
school district. The school facilities will be leased to the Orange County Board of Education
to house programs which will be relocated from the Bear Street School site. The site is
located midway between the service radius of Tustin and Brentwood Parks. Expansion of the
existing park, through acquisition or lease, would expand the service radius of the current park
and, like Monte Vista/Back Bay High School, provide additional park land and service to an
area currently deficient in park service.
Harper Administrative Services Center - Although originally developed as a school, the
facility is currently used for School District administrative services. The site contains 9.11
acres, including the 1 -acre Harper Park site which the City leases from the district.
Conditions regarding this site are very similar to those at Lindbergh in that both are located
in Planning Area 3 and are partially used as a neighborhood park site. The surrounding area
is in the fringe of the service area of Pinkley Park, but generally lacking in full neighborhood
park service. Also, the open play areas are regularly used for league soccer games and
practice. Because of these facts, expansion of the current park site to include the play areas
should be a priority.
(PR&OS.MP)rec
TABLE 6: VACANT RESIDENTIAL PARCELS
Address Zoninc Size (Acres)
1641 Adams
PDR -MD
12.50
258/260 Albert
R2
0.17
150 Del Mar*
R2
0.13
158 Del Mar*
R2
0.14
170 Del Mar*
R2
0.77
282 Del Mar*
R2
0.21
286 Del Mar*
R2
0.21
East of 258 Esther
R1
0.17
East of 268 Esther
R1
0.17
East of 277 Esther
R1
0.17
Behind 2865 Fairview
R3
0.96
514 Hamilton
R2
0.45
2150 Maple*
RI
0.12
570 Victoria*
R1
0.11
574 Victoria*
R1
0.11
North of 2191 Pacific
R2
1.19
1848 + Placentia
R3
0.10
2329 Purdue*
R1
0.13
2335 Purdue*
R1
0.13
2330 Purdue*
R1
0.14
2336 Purdue*
R1
0.14
2136 Raleigh*
R1
0.11
2135 Sterling*
RI
0.11
1891 Santa Ana
R1
0.14
2529 Santa Ana
R2
0.33
South Coast to Sunflower
PDR -MD
30.48
Sunflower & Sakioka
PDR -NCM
40.30
2064 Wallace
R2H
0.23
2136 Wallace
R1
0.15
688 Wilson
R2
0.25
NW corner 16th and Santa Ana
R2H
0.31
278 E. 21st
R1
0.38
129 E. 23rd
R2
0.19
Total Acreage 91.20
* Designates contiguous parcels.
Bold designates City -owned property.
2 :::..:. .::.::::::::.................. .................................
(PR&OS.MP)rec
TABLE 7: VACANT NONRESIDENTIAL PARCELS
Address
Zoninp,
Size (Acres)
Anton, east of Sakioka
PDC
21.50
- 2765 Bristol _
CL
0.76
2800 Bristol
C1
0.52
2801 Bristol
CL
1.25
2937 Bristol
C2
1.58
110+ Del Mar
C1
0.34
2209 Fairview
Cl
0.17
_ 2953 Fairview
C1
1.61
2007 Harbor
C2
0.42
2041 Harbor
C2
0.41
_ 3352+ Harbor
MP
5.70
3599 Harbor
MP
0.33
3570 Hyland
PDI
6.06
_
100 Kalmus
MP
0.82
1604 Newport
Cl
1.31
1765 Newport
C2
0.12
1801 Newport
PDC
2.06
2101 Newport
Cl
3.73
1609 Orange
C1
0.21
- 1721 Orange
C2
0.17
1810 Park
PDC
0.24
1643 Placentia
MG
0.89
- 1819 Placentia
MG
0.39
708 Randolph*
CL
0.23
- 714 Randolph*
CL
0.23
South Coast, Harbor -Fairview
PDI
57.00
_ Sunflower & Anton
PDC
33.00
625 Town Center
TC
4.00
1741 Whittier
MG
3.87
_ 174 W. Wilson
C1
0.42
204 E. 17th
C1
0.20
Total Acreage
149.54
* Designates contiguous parcels.
Bold designates City -owned property.
FtYc:\'? atie. ^c.:ck�+ ... s. a ;cn•.w n�•r.ssh�t?ati�sas�e,.,cc�.ro. sw^es�:c.r':?'e*�"c
21
(PR&OS.MP)rec
WO 22 —
(pnxoo.Mp)re"
(PR&OS.MP)rec
Recreation Programming Needs: The City currently offers a variety of youth, adult and senior
programs, and team sports activities. Most of these programs are offered at the four community —
centers and two active community parks. Youth activities are also offered at school district facilities.
Recreation programming will have to be expanded over time as the population grows. This in turn
will lead to increased demand for use of facilities to accommodate these programs. As new programs
are introduced, the current facilities may not be sufficient and could constrain the amount of new
programming and sports activities the City cap introduce. Future program facility needs will have to
be coordinated with school site/college facility development. Specific program -related facility needs —
include the provision of additional active sports fields for youth programming and organized sports
leagues.
The Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan Study included a survey and assessment of the
current and long-term recreation program needs of the community. The survey's information included
a range of methodologies including personal telephone interviews, community workshops and —
meetings with organized sports league administrators. The results of this effort indicated that the City
should consider developing or enhancing the following activities as priorities:
► Group walking activities
► Bicycling field trips
► Basketball play —
► After-school programs
► Tennis lessons, play and tournaments
► Soccer play —
► Swimming time and lessons
► Volleyball play
► Aerobics and fitness classes —
In terms of team sports programming, youth baseball and soccer were the most popular, closely
followed by basketball. Since nationally affiliated private youth organizations already provide baseball
and soccer league activity, it was suggested that the City should concentrate on the following:
► Youth and adult basketball leagues
► Adult softball leagues
► Youth and adult volleyball leagues
Recreation Facility Needs Assessment: Identifying long-term facility needs establishes a framework
within which the City can determine the community facility goals and how, when, and where facility
goals can be met. —
The need for each major facility type which should be provided at buildout can be determined by
comparing what's currently provided with the assessment of community facility needs as determined —
by relevant factors. The factors include evaluating the level of current and future facility demand by
analyzing the current use of existing facilities and identifying, as best as possible, unmet needs. This
demand can be determined by input from the telephone survey, special interest groups, and the —
general community. These survey techniques were used in the Master Plan study and were used in
(PRSOS.MP)rec
this assessment. A comparative review of national recreation standards' can also help identify facility
requirements.
As noted on page 6, the National Recreation Facility Standards have been modified to account for
local conditions (i.e., local recreation preferences, availability of similar or replacement public and
private recreation facilities, etc.) and needs when analyzing and planning specific facility needs within
the community.
Baseball Fields:
Current Provisions: The City operates one lighted, regulation baseball field at
TeWinkle Park. In addition, there are two unlighted, regulation
fields available for Little League (senior division) and twelve
newly constructed or renovated in 1994 youth fields (fences
ranging from 100' to 200') used by Little League and Pony
League on various school district sites.
Facility Demand: When survey respondents were asked about the level of support
for various facilities, baseball fields appeared fifth in a list of 12
categories. The percentage of support was 40 percent strongly
supportive and 35 percent partly supportive. In addition,
respondents were asked to identify three of the most important
team activities for their household. Of the team sports provided for
response, baseball received the highest percentage of support.
Results from the Special Interest Group Survey indicate:
► Little League - six lighted fields, four at the same location,
—' with 100' to 200' fences and pitcher's mounds as well as
practice fields.
Comparative Standards: National standards previously described suggest the need for 18
unlighted fields and three to four lighted fields at buildout.
Needs Assessment: The City and schools combined should provide two additional
lighted fields, for ages 12 and under, to meet the estimated needs
at buildout. Additional fields should be grouped to facilitate
' operations and maintenance, as well as to accommodate other
sports field layout.
Facility standards are best used as a guideline for determining whether a City's facilities are generally sufficient to meet the recreational
needs of the community. The experience of other communities and the recommendations of authorities concerned with recreation, are
an essential part in determining the facilities which will be necessary to meet the City's future recreational needs. Standards referred
to in this section are gathered from a collection of standards published by S. Gold and the National Recreation cued Parr;. Association.
25 Ji'
(PR&OS.MP)rec
Basketball Courts:
Current Provisions: The City operates ten basketball courts for the residents of Costa
Mesa. These facilities are spread among the locations listed below.
In addition there are 57 outdoor courts and four indoor courts
within the City schools.
1 at Del Mesa
1 at Downtown Comm. Ctr. (indoor)
1 at Smallwood
1 at Shiffer
1 at Tanager
1 at Wakeham
1 at Wimbledon
2 at Balearic
1 at Rea
A total of 71 courts are available at various times to the citizens
of Costa Mesa.
Facility Demand: When survey respondents were asked to identify the five most
important recreation activities for their household, basketball rated
third on a list of 27 activities. In addition, respondents had to
identify the most important organized team sports. In this question
basketball rated third; another strong response.
Comparative Standards: National standards previously described suggest the need for 215
courts at buildout.
Needs Assessment: The survey results indicate strong support for basketball as a
nonleague pick-up sport as well as a popular team sport. Based on
community needs and not on population standards, the City should
provide, as a general rule, one full court or half court at its
neighborhood park sites, not adjacent to a school facility, for
nonleague play. This results in an additional 9 courts distributed
throughout the City. An additional court should be planned with
the new gymnasium facility for organized indoor play.
Football:
Current Provisions: One combination soccer/football game field is provided at Costa
Mesa High School. The school district offers four additional
combination soccer/football fields.
Facility Demand: Football was addressed in the survey but did not receive
outstanding support. When asked to identify a level of support for
specific facilities, football rated tenth on a list of twelve
categories. When asked to identify from a list of 27 nonleague
activities, only 5 percent chose football.
Results from the Special Interest Group Survey indicate:
► Pop Warner Football - one practice football field.
► Flag Football - two football fields in the same location.
26 :i:?}.::v Cv: `:v+�'iv.:. <4titi\��'�Cfi:i\:{!<v.v.n ..v :':tiL i:N.: :btiC: •.:{i•.:
(PR&OS.MP)rec
Comparative Standards: National standards previously described suggest the need for five
fields at buildout.
Needs Assessment: Input from the survey does not indicate that football facilities are
a priority to the residents of Costa Mesa but the user groups do
identify a need. The City should overlay three of the 18
recommended soccer fields for football.
Golf Courses:
Current Provision: The City owns two public, 18 -hole golf courses at the Costa Mesa
Country Club. In addition, one private, 18 -hole golf course, Mesa
Verde Country Club, is located in Costa Mesa and one private, 18 -
hole course, Santa Ana Country Club, adjacent to Costa Mesa.
There are also two 18 -hole courses available within a 10-15
minute drive in the surrounding cities of Fountain Valley and
Newport Beach.
Facility Demand: The telephone survey asked the respondent to identify the existing
facilities used in Costa Mesa. Golf courses were used by 9 percent
of those surveyed. When asked to identify the five most important
_ recreation activities from a list of 27, golf activities rated 13.
Comparative Standards: Published standards for public golf courses recommend 43 holes
per 100,000 population. This equates to 46 holes at buildout.
Needs Assessment: As the City already has 36 holes available for resident use and an
additional 36 holes available in adjacent cities, and with no
exceptional demand expressed in the telephone survey or
workshops, additional holes are not a need priority at this time.
Play Apparatus:
Current Provision: The following parks in the City of Costa Mesa provide play
apparatus: Balearic, Brentwood, Canyon, Del Mesa, Gisler,
Harper, Heller, Willard T. Jordan, Lindbergh, Lions, Marina View,
Mesa Verde, Paularino, Pinkley, Smallwood, Shiffer, Suburbia 1,
Tanager, TeWinkle, Vista, Wakeham, Wilson and Wimbledon. In
addition to these parks, 11 school sites in the City provide play
equipment available for resident use.
Facility Demand: The telephone survey asked the respondent to identify the
activities participated in while visiting local parks. Playground use
was the fifth most popular category for households. When asked
to identify the five most important recreation activities from a list
of 27, playgrounds and after-school activities rated fifth.
27 ... kcr3:•^'R:.v 6\. _. ... .:..:. :. �;..:
(PR&OS.MP)rec
Comparative Standards: National standards previously described suggest a need for one
area per 500 population in high density neighborhoods.
Needs Assessment: There should be a minimum of one set of play apparatus within
one-half mile radius of all residents. Costa Mesa currently
provides play equipment at 19 of its 20 neighborhood parks and
three of its -four community parks. As of June of 1995, the City is
in the process of replacing play apparatus at 12 of its 20
neighborhood parks and one of its four community park sites. Play
apparatus is also available at 11 elementary school sites.
Rollerblade/Skateboard Facility:
Current Provision: The City does not currently provide a rollerblade or skateboard
facility.
Facility Demand: When survey respondents were asked to identify the ,five most
important recreation activities from a list of 27, skateboarding
rated 22 and rollerblading rated 25.
Comparative Standards: There are no published standards for rollerblading and skateboard
facilities.
Needs Assessment: Since there was no outstanding support for City development of
either facility, future development has been encouraged through
the private sector.
Soccer Fields:
Current Provisions: The City provides two fields at Balearic Center, one lighted at
TeWinkle Park, two at Rea Center, three (two lighted) at
TeWinkle School, two at California School, three at Costa Mesa
High School, and three at Kaiser School. In addition, there are two
fields available at Harper School, one field at Monte Vista/Back
Bay High School, and four combination soccer/football fields
within the City's school sites. A total of 21 soccer fields (three
lighted) are available.
Facility Demand: When survey respondents were asked which are the three most
important organized team sports for their households, soccer was
the second most supported. This sport is experiencing a strong
popularity now and will most likely increase in the future. The
Federation Soccer League, a local adult soccer organization,
currently has 2,500 members and forecasts a membership of 5,000
within five years.
28 Q
1L i.}:: {• :�.. s. .(• }... '"� }v iii_.. .... :J. : \.:>:� �`�� .�.:. _ .\\i9�:\ _.�\e.��� {.\\{. _. ..v. ._. .v.
.n
(PRSOS.MP)rec
Results from the Special Interest Group Survey indicate:
► AYSO - eight additional soccer fields, one that is lighted, all
100' X 50', as well as the need for practice fields.
► AYSO - additional soccer fields for the east side of the City.
► Adult Soccer - one soccer field.
Comparative Standards: National standards previously described suggest the need for six
unlighted and five lighted fields at buildout.
Needs Assessment: The demand for additional soccer fields must be balanced with the
limited availability of land. The need for additional fields may be
met by the development of other sports fields, including baseball
or softball fields; fields should be overlapped to maximize land
utilization. Although the comparative standards indicate the City
should provide a minimum of ten fields (four lighted), current
demand indicates a need for more fields. Therefore, it is
recommended that a total of 18 fields (five lighted) be provided.
These fields could overlap with the football field requirements.
Softball Fields:
Current Provisions: The City currently operates one lighted softball field at Lions Park
and two lighted fields at TeWinkle Park.
Facility Demand: In the survey, softball was addressed along with baseball which
received 40 percent strong support and 35 percent partial support.
Results from the Special Interest Group Survey indicate:
► Adult Softball - four additional fields with 250' fence.
► Senior Softball - one additional field.
Comparative Standards: National standards previously described suggest the need for 18
unlighted fields and four to five lighted fields at buildout.
Needs Assessment: Considering the national standards and the user group
requirements, the City should provide an additional three lighted
fields. It was also apparent in the demographic survey that the
City has a prominent population of adults and their recreation
needs must be considered. Adult softball leagues are a popular
form of group adult recreation. The location of these fields must
be carefully considered as the lighted fields may have an impact
on the bordering properties.
Au..:C:n��J.�.v..+%:Jin:v..:.... v2%:�i�4�•rivi:'4�i:'v:i4��'nv4 •nu •\::.:............29
........ ...."+1 x \.�.�n.:......'�:T�.. 4i�.' .............:..........:...
. �'�. •: :n''}.: n.•ti^.���:Y:n.... nva. Z..... :::•': : i �: � is n' : h ..\. ti�1t>O ♦ �
(PR&OS.MP)rec
Swimming Pools:
Current Provisions: The City operates one outdoor swimming pool at Lions Park. In
addition, there are three pools in the City's schools, but these
facilities are not readily available for resident use. —
Facility Demand: When survey respondents were asked to express their support for
various facilities, a City swimming pool was the third most _
supported facility, with 48 percent strongly supportive and 29
percent partly supportive.
Comparative Standards: National standards described previously suggest the need for some
combination of up to ten 25 -meter pools or five 50 -meter pools at
buildout.
Needs Assessment: Considering the fairly strong support apparent in the survey results
and a comparison to the standards, it seems the City should
provide a minimum of one additional pool for resident use. Efforts —
should be made to provide this pool through a joint -use
agreement.
Tennis Courts:
Current Provisions: There are currently 12 (lighted) tennis courts provided by the City,
all located at TeWinkle Park. Within the school district there are
an additional 16 courts; eight at Costa Mesa High and eight at
Estancia High. Orange Coast College has an additional 12 courts.
Facility Demand: When survey respondents were asked to identify support for
various facilities within the City, tennis received 33 percent strong
support and 35 percent partial support. —
Comparative Standards: National standards previously described suggest the need for 54
courts, of which 27 are lighted at buildout. —
Needs Assessment: As the City already has 40 tennis courts available for resident use
and there has been no exceptional demand expressed in the —
telephone survey or workshop, additional courts are not a facility
needs priority at this time.
Track/Jogging:
Current Provisions: The City does not operate any formal track or jogging facility
although several exist within the school district serving the City.
There are four tracks at the school sites and one each at Orange
Coast College and Southern California College.
Facility Demand: When survey respondents were asked to identify the existing City
facility used most at present, walking trails rated second with a 28
percent support. Jogging and walking rated number one in30
r'
t:^;1- .. ti:.. '....... \\`b.S'•:3i4 K'%n'•k�vLttt}:cS '�\`\'^^oYo'o- )....... :::: : e. 3:,.{y".n'p.`,�.V QCs\�'C:;:3`£Io3C`.A`2Ut"S.F?'.`i. wt%,,... :.•. :;.
(PR&OS.MP)rec
response to the question asking for the five most important
recreation activities for the household. Finally, respondents were
asked to indicate what activity they participated in while visiting
City parks. Half (50 percent) of the respondents indicated walking.
Comparative Standards: National standards previously described suggest the need for five
tracks at buildout.
Needs Assessment: The strong support identified above is directed toward passive
walking and not in the interest of a running track. The existing
facilities at the schools is most likely sufficient. But the City
should concentrate on the need for additional trails in Costa Mesa
and could consider the Institutional Corridor as a location for a
combination walking/jogging/par course trail.
Volleyball Courts:
Current Provisions: The City operates 13 volleyball courts at the locations listed
below. There is one additional court at each of the following
schools: TeWinkle, Costa Mesa and Estancia High School.
1 at Heller 1 at Smallwood
2 at Shiffer 2 at Tanager
1 at TeWinkle 1 at Wakeham
1 at Wilson 1 at Brentwood
_ 1 at Gisler 1 at Paularino
1 at Del Mesa
There are a total of 16 volleyball courts available at various times
to the citizens of Costa Mesa.
Facility Demand: When survey respondents were asked to identify the three most
important organized team sports activities for their household,
volleyball rated fourth amongst team activities.
-- Comparative Standards: National standards previously described suggest the need for 21
courts at buildout.
Needs Assessment: As the survey identifies the popularity of volleyball and the
comparative standards suggest additional courts, the City should
provide five more courts. These facilities could be implemented
throughout the neighborhood park sites and consist of a sand court
area and posts.
Assessment of the City's existing active recreation facilities compared to existing and projected
recreational demands reveals a need for the following facilities. Table 8 lists the individual facilities
and their respective costs, dimensions, and acreage requirements. Table 9 identifies the number of
facilities needed and lists the costs and acreage required to develop them. Table 10 identifies specific
site locations, acreage available, and recommended facility(ies).
+n\L•:N vtii::t
.... . vE..: .... ..t•.•.,•,::::.,•. :.. :,.•:ti :.v'ni•ib,:Ju4:k. •vv:: ��t '\'{:`.":'a".'��*ic:�::Y:l:
. ..... ... .. x..4b>.. '. '.'\.:�\. ...:..vp 4$ .\tnv....4 : t......... ?i.'ity •v \:�. .: � h4 tit
(PFROS.MP)rec
TABLE 8:
ACTIVE RECREATION FACILITIES
Number
Facility
Dimension
Acreage
Cost
50 -Meter Swimming Pool
45' x 165'
0.75 acre
$ 1,400,000 _
Baseball Field
250' x 250'
1.5 acres each
238,000
Lighting
648,000
Soccer Fields, Lighted
58,000
Softball Field
225' x 225'
1.5 acres each
158,000
Lighting
705,000 _
1/2 Basketball Court
58,000
Soccer Field
195' x 330'
1.5 acres each
235,000
Lighting
50,000 —
60,000
Football Field
195' x 330'
1.5 acres each
232,000 `
Basketball Court, Full
114' x 70' clear
8,000 sq. ft.
15,000
Half Court
$ 5,575,000
10,000 —
Volleyball Courts
50' x 80' clear
1,800 sq. ft.
10,000
Gymnasium Building
0.5 acre
1,500,000 _
TABLE 9: RECREATION FACILITY COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Facility
Number
Acreage
Cost
50 -Meter Swimming Pool
1
0.75 acre
$ 1,400,000
Baseball Fields, Lighted (12 and under)
2
3.0 acres
592,000
Softball Fields, Lighted
3
4.5 acres
648,000
Soccer Fields, Lighted
2
3.0 acres
590,000
Soccer Fields, Unlighted
3
4.5 acres
705,000 _
1/2 Basketball Court
9
(distributed)
90,000
Volleyball Courts
5
4,000 sq.ft.
50,000 —
(0.25 acre)
Gymnasium Building
1
0.5 acre
1,500,000 _
Total
16.5 acres
$ 5,575,000
i::.`::" .........................................
(PRSOS.MP)rec
Table 10: Active Recreation Facility Siting Needs
The combination of sites in the above table provides for all the active recreation facilities identified in the
Recreation Facility Needs Assessment section Page 24) of this report and is in accordance with the results
of the City -School Liaison Subcommittee recommendations. Additional soccer fields and turf areas are
located throughout the City in school and park sites available for alternative use and practice while the
primary locations are in rehabilitation.
33
(PR&OS.MP)rec
Acreage
Acreage
Facilities
Site
Existin2
Available
(A) New or (B) Improved
Costa Mesa High School
67.0
3.0
(A) Soccer fields, 2 lighted
Parsons School
10.0
1.5
(A) Soccer fields, 1 unlighted
Estancia High School
40.0
3.0
(A) Soccer fields, 2 unlighted
TeWinkle Park
44.67
1.5
(B) Softball field, 2 lighted
Lions Park
8.26
1.5
(B) Baseball field, 1 lighted
Unidentified Location
(A) Softball fields, 1 lighted
Unidentified Location
(A) Baseball fields, 2 lighted (12
and under)
Unidentified Location
(A) Soccer field, 1 lighted
Civic Center Park
2.49
.25
(A) 1/2 Basketball court, 1
Gisler Park
3.15
.25
(A) 1/2 Basketball court, 1
Heller Park
2.61
.25
(A) 1/2 Basketball court, 1
Marine View Park
2.29
.25
(A) 1/2 Basketball court, 1
.25
(A) Volleyball court, 1
Mesa Verde Park
2.66
.25
(A) Volleyball court, 1
Pinkley Park
2.58
.25
(A) 1/2 Basketball court, 1
.25
(A) Volleyball court, 1
Suburbia I Park
1.20
.25
(A) 1/2 Basketball court, 1
Vista Park
6.02
.25
(A) 1/2 Basketball court, 1
.25
(A) Volleyball court, 1
Wilson Park
3.45
.25
(A) 1/2 Basketball court, 1
Wimbledon Park
3.36
.25
(A) Volleyball court, 1
Estancia/Costa Mesa High/Orange Coast College
(A) 50-M Swimming pool, I
Unidentified Location
(A) Gymnasium building, 1
Total
13.75
The combination of sites in the above table provides for all the active recreation facilities identified in the
Recreation Facility Needs Assessment section Page 24) of this report and is in accordance with the results
of the City -School Liaison Subcommittee recommendations. Additional soccer fields and turf areas are
located throughout the City in school and park sites available for alternative use and practice while the
primary locations are in rehabilitation.
33
(PR&OS.MP)rec
Active Recreation Facility Siting Analysis: As part of the Master Plan preparation, a land analysis
was conducted to identify potential locations for active recreation facilities within the City of Costa --
Mesa.
The analysis provides few opportunities for new development as the City is near buildout, but the —
following sites were identified as having potential available acreage. As noted in the vacant land
analysis, there are additional small parcels di$tributed throughout the City but they are too small for
developing any suitable facilities and not economically feasible. —
► Fairview Park
► Sakioka Farms Property
► Segerstrom Home Ranch
► Mesa Verde Drive East/Adams Avenue Site
► Orange Coast College
► Costa Mesa High School
► Estancia High School
► Harper School
► Lindbergh School
► Mesa Verde School
► Monte Vista School
► Wilson School
► Fairview Developmental Center
Each of the individual sites are evaluated below:
Site: Fairview
Available Area: 211 Total Acres, (200 undeveloped)
Potential Facilities: The inclusion of these facilities, "lighted baseball fields, lighted softball
fields, and a gymnasium," on the park site is contingent not only on the agreed upon
development concept but on available space, use of the adjacent school properties, —
environmental concerns, and City Council approval.
Acquisition Costs: None —
Zoning: Institutional and Recreational District
General Plan Land Use Designation: Public Use
Location Suitability: Fairview Park is centrally located and easily accessible by all residents.
Although this site is a candidate to house the potential facilities based on acreage alone, City
Council has agreed with the Fairview Park Committee recommendation that the park should
remain in a natural state.
Administrative Suitability: City owned, no scheduling conflicts
34 x;::...>`.pati^RcY<Y'.........,,,.....,....4....,7h7.'w:Y;....
(PRSOS.MP)rec
-- Site: Sakioka Farms
Available Area: 73.34 Acres; 47.00 Acres (Metro Center site)
Potential Facilities: The development of the two Sakioka properties will generate the
dedication requirement of 12.4 acres. As this part of town is deficient in neighborhood parks
the City should require that some portion of this requirement be developed as a neighborhood
park, with the remaining requirement to be satisfied through in -lieu fees. Some portion of
these fees could be used for park improvements to the park to be provided as part of the
development, or to the City's existing community parks. The 12.4 acres is not sufficient
acreage to develop an isolated active recreation facility and the purchase of 27.6 additional
acres to meet the minimum 40 -acre requirement is not financially feasible.
Improvement Costs: None
Acquisition Costs: 1,411 units planned x 2.07 persons per unit = 2920 _persons -
2,920 persons @ 4.26 ac/1,000 = approx. 12.4 acres.
There are three approaches the City could take to the acreage dedication requirement of this
site:
The City could accept the 12.4 acres and purchase an additional 27.6 acres to meet the
minimum 40 -acre requirement for full recreation facilities.
The City could develop the dedicated 12.4 acres with some of the required recreation
facilities.
The City could require the development of a neighborhood park to serve the new residents
and accept the remaining dedication requirement through in -lieu fees.
Zoning: PDR -NCM and PDC
General Plan Land Use Designation: High Density Residential and Urban Center
Commercial
Location Suitability: This site is difficult in the planning of a community sports complex as
— access would be difficult for community members in southern Costa Mesa. These residents
have already voiced concern about the lack of accessibility to existing facilities. In addition,
the location may tend to attract more people from surrounding communities north of Costa
Mesa than from the City itself.
(PR&OS.MP)rec
Site: Segerstrom Home Ranch
Available Area: 95 Acres
Potential Facilities: As the 5egerstrom property ties within the service area of Wimbledon —
Park, its neighborhood park needs will already be served. The City should accept in -lieu fees
from the development of this property, as 2.79 acres is not sufficient acreage to develop any
active recreation facilities. —
Improvement Costs: None
Ac uisition Costs: 317 units planned x 2.07 person per unit = 656 persons; 656 persons
@ 4.26 ac11,000 = approx. 2.79 acres
There are three approaches the City could take to the acreage dedication requirement of this
site:
The City could accept the 2.79 acres and purchase an additional 37.21 acres to meet the
minimum 40 -acre requirement for full recreation facilities.
The City could require the development of a 2.79 -acre neighborhood park to serve the
new residents.
As this portion of town is already sufficiently served by neighborhood parks, the City
could accept in -lieu fees in replacement for park land dedication.
Zo. nigg: PDI and PDR -MD
General Plan Land Use Designation: Medium Density Residential and Industrial Park
Location Suitability: This site would be difficult to include in the planning of a community
sports complex as access would be difficult for community members in southern Costa Mesa. -.
These residents have already voiced concern about the lack of accessibility to existing
facilities. In addition, the location may tend to attract more people from surrounding
communities north of Costa Mesa than from the City itself. —
C. -m'-.:.:. :v..<4::<s: :::, >:::»mak>n:::;::<nx �WQ 36
(PF&OS.MP)rec
Site: Mesa Verde Drive East/Adams Avenue
Available Area: 12.5 Acres
Potential Facilities: None
Improvement Costs: None
Acquisition Costs: 250 units permitted x 2.07 persons/unit = 518 persons; 518 persons
�- @ 4.26 ac/1000 = 2.21 acres
Although the required park dedication is of sufficient size for a neighborhood park, it is well
— short of that required for a full active recreation site. Even the entire 12.5 acre site is deficient
in size. However, the City could develop the site with some of the required recreation
facilities.
Zoning: PDR - MD
General Plan Land Use Designation: Medium Density Residential
Location Suitability: The site is well located and easily accessible from surrounding street
— system. The site is located adjacent to an existing shopping center to the east and bordered
by additional commercial uses to the north. Multi -family apartments are located across the
street to the west and south.
Site: Orange Coast College
Available Area: Approximately 20 acres of farmland
Existing Facilities: Lighted football fields; baseball fields; softball fields; soccer field; pool;
gymnasium; indoor handball/racquetball; track.
Potential Facilities: Varied
Acquisition Costs: None, Joint -Use Agreement
Zoning: Institutional and Recreational District
General Plan Land Use Designation: Public Use - School
Location Suitability: Pending the establishment of a Joint -Use Agreement, the City could
consider the development of facilities that are not permanent structures because of the nature
of a lease agreement versus full ownership. Sufficient acreage exists to develop a soccer
complex in conjunction with recreational activities and soccer fields onsite already.
Administrative Suitability: The development of an active facility at this location may result
in scheduling conflicts between the numerous groups wanting use of the fields.
37 v.....v.v...vi}+\titi..jK:.i:::i:tti;;4si.,4..±.ti_tiR�'ti`M1 "Y ♦ ............. 4
(PR&OS.MP)rec
Site: Costa Mesa High School
Available Area: 14.0 acres undeveloped; 18.0 potential availability
Existing Facilities: Track; baseball fields (6); soccer fields (3); softball field; large turf area;
swimming pool; outdoor asphalt multi-purpose courts.
Potential Facilities: Lighted soccer fields (2)
Acquisition Costs: None, Joint -Use Agreement
Zoning: Institutional and Recreational District
General Plan Land Use Designation: Public Use - School
Location Suitability: The remaining 18 acres of agricultural land would be most appropriate
for the development of soccer fields, as a Joint Powers Agreement and Site Specific
Agreement already exists between the School District and the City for the use of existing
baseball and soccer fields.
Administrative Suitability: The difficulty in establishing a joint -use facility lies in scheduling
and use conflicts.
Site: Estancia High/Parsons School
Available Area: 5.0 Acres —
Existing Facilities: Track; baseball fields (2); softball field; tennis courts (8) and handball
courts; large turf area; swimming pool; outdoor asphalt multi-purpose courts; soccer fields,
(3) (to be improved in 1996).
Potential Facilities: Softball fields
Acquisition Costs: None, Joint -Use Agreement
Zoning. Institutional and Recreational District
General Plan Land Use Designation: Public Use - School
Location Suitability: This schools adjacency to Fairview Park and Parsons School could
possibly provide for shared use amongst the three sites. —
Administrative Suitability: The difficulty in establishing a joint -use facility lies in scheduling
and use conflicts.
(PR&OS.MP)ree
Site: Harper School
Available Area: 9.11 Acres
Existing Facilities: Soccer fields (3)
Potential Facilities: Although this site is small, it could provide for an active recreation
center on the east side of town along with neighborhood park services. The fields are
presently being used for soccer games and practice.
Acquisition Costs: None unless the property is declared surplus by the School District and
Council determines that current and potential use warrant its purchase.
Zoning: Institutional and Recreational District
General Plan Land Use Designation: Public Use - School
Site: Lindbergh School
Available Area: 9.2 Acres
Existing Facilities: Large turf area; climbing apparatus.
Potential Facilities: This site is too small for consideration of an isolated active recreation
center and is more suitable for the provision of local neighborhood park facilities and to serve
as alternative fields while main facilities rehabilitate.
Acquisition Costs: None
Zoning: Institutional and Recreational District
General Plan Land Use Designation: Public Use - School
Site: Mesa Verde School
Available Area: 3.0 Acres
Existing Facilities: Large turf area
Potential Facilities: This site is too small for consideration of an isolated active recreation
center but is more suitable to provide an alternative field for use while main facilities
recuperate from heavy use.
Acquisition Costs: None
Zoning: Institutional and Recreational District
General Plan Land Use Desi ng ation: Public Use - School
39 ,.....,. \ r . «ac. x•:: , r...'i4e.. ... s. �:� .. . x �.`fi.L'iiS�t:D:E. . \..:. S::`v;Y u.:!:.. ». `, n
(PR&OS.MP)rec
Site: Monte Vista School
Available Area: 6.25 acres
Existing Facilities: Large turf area
Potential Facilities: This site has been declared surplus by the District.
Acquisition Costs: Education Code
Zoning: Institutional and Recreational District
General Plan Land Use Designation: Public Use - School
Site: Wilson School
Available Area: 9.0 Acres
Existing Facilities: Large turf area; climbing apparatus; multi -use courts; handball courts;
basketball.
Potential Facilities: This site is too small for consideration of an isolated active recreation
center and is more suitable for the provision of local neighborhood park facilities, especially
as the area has been identified as deficient in parkland, and to serve as a rest field while
major facilities recuperate.
Improvement Costs: $0
Acquisition Costs: None, Joint -Use Agreement
Zoning: Institutional and Recreational District
General Plan Land Use Designation: Public Use - School
(PR&OS.MP)rec
Site: Fairview Developmental Center
Available Area: 4.5 acres
Existing Facilities: Vacant surplus land
Potential Facilities: None
Improvement Costs: None
Acquisition Costs: Ninety (90) units permitted x 2.07 persons/unit = 186 persons;
186 persons @ 4.26 ac/1,000 = 0.81 acres
Both the required park dedication and the total site area are well below that required for a
full, active recreation site and, therefore, not suitable for acquisition for this purpose.
Zoning: PDR -HD
General Plan Land Use Designation: High Density Residential
Location Suitability: Although the site area is not suitable for a full, active recreation facility,
it is suitable for a neighborhood park. However, its isolated location adjacent to a major
arterial barrier severely limits its potential service area and desirability for neighborhood park
use.
Bikeways: The General Plan includes a Master Plan of Bikeways. In addition to a local bikeway
network, the plan also shows regional trails which cross the community. The most recent (November
1994) plan is shown in Figure 7.
4 _. ::::. w... .. :.. .. :',\.,vet^.....•<:i4{ J. :v\v is .. v:::
(PR&OS.MP)rec
W
m
UL
Q
?Ln'2: `2 'xaa.'t�SG�.Lv,^S <.�Ci:#b:'h°f�:e:;:)-`-�:sa" uw .':\S �S A` '.c'v-t Y.•.
42 �e�`,:.:�#:�1.c > �.£A. �:ts l�:a"^.tizci:�.r:G�:��:�'a\v.�.\C�:.'�h^Utivn7d�.-�Z.titiu:o��': �'•:tak
(PR&OS.MP)rec
,c
yy
U -
=
Z
?Ln'2: `2 'xaa.'t�SG�.Lv,^S <.�Ci:#b:'h°f�:e:;:)-`-�:sa" uw .':\S �S A` '.c'v-t Y.•.
42 �e�`,:.:�#:�1.c > �.£A. �:ts l�:a"^.tizci:�.r:G�:��:�'a\v.�.\C�:.'�h^Utivn7d�.-�Z.titiu:o��': �'•:tak
(PR&OS.MP)rec
Costa Mesa River - Bay Trail: Located on the west and east sides of Costa Mesa are two very
unique water resources which are important recreation amenities for the residents of Costa Mesa. A
trail linkage across the town, utilizing sites within the Institutional Corridor, would provide a linear
route for recreation and transportation purposes between the two bordering amenities. This proposal
is in support of the Master Plan of Bikeways where many of the links are already existing. The
establishment of a continuous connection will involve the identification of existing trails and lanes
along the route and a series of signage and markings provided to identify the Trail. Figure 8 shows
the potential route and identifies the three areas of priority in planning the trail.
► A link should be planned during the development of Fairview Park and the
County's North Talbert/Fairview Regional Park which will make the connection
between the City's trail system and the Santa Ana River Trail. The City will have
to coordinate with the County in the planning of the regional park to insure the
implementation of a trail linkage.
► The crossing at Costa Mesa Freeway should be addressed to insure a safe crossing
between the east and west sides of the City.
— ► The only location where a trail or bike lane does not yet exist along this route is
along Del Mar Avenue and Fair Drive. The road is wide and could accommodate
a bicycle lane. When planning this link, the City should design the trail to have
some separation from the road through the use a planting strip and to provide a
landscape buffer between it and the bordering residents. The segment will then
serve to link the corridor to an existing trail in Newport Beach and the Newport
Bay.
It should be noted whenever planning new sections of trails, that provision should be made, where
possible, of separate lanes or pathways for commuter bicycle use in order for such improvements to
— potentially qualify for Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) and Caltrans' funding.
The City should investigate the opportunities for obtaining easements or right-of-ways along the
properties that border the planned route of the River -Bay Trail. There may be some method to get
portions of the trail away from the road. However, if this is not possible along Del Mar/University
Drive, onstreet parking will need to be removed to provide onstreet bike lanes.
ACTION PLAN
The previous sections of this Master Plan have established the base for a proactive action plan to
meet the community's needs for parks, recreation facilities and open space through buildout. This
section contains specific recommendations to improve existing neighborhood and community parks
— and joint -use active recreation facilities and recommendations for potential new neighborhood park
sites.
_ Recreation Facility and Park Improvements: The following inventory describes proposed
improvements to existing recreation facilities and parks. For each park and community center, existing
improvements, as described in the Existing Facilities Inventory, are listed. At the end of the section,
Table 11 summarizes the sites and their respective improvement costs. Facility improvement costs
are taken from Kerr's Cost Data for Landscape Construction, 11 th Edition; by Norman Dietrich, 1991.
(PR&OS.MP)rec
-----------
•
•
to z *06404000#
•
Oc' Cf C^ O_c C.,: r vs.*** f
rr
10 4
to
%
00
0 0Safe crossing
:mat freeway
A,
1 """0006*0900
4., '—. mt
1 4000000 . 06.: * •
•
o C
•
Connectiont to•
Santa AnA River Trail
-
and NArfh!Talbert!
Fairview Park
vnvvso* o n 6naoac
Qo o
oo
New segment along
Del Mar Avenue
(Link to Newport Bay)
4-1
COSTA MESA
%04r%wp
RIVER_ MA
Lj�fllY,TRA IL -
Figure 8
............. .
(PR&OS.MP)rec
Community Centers and Parks:
Balearic Community Center: This park site is currently leased from the Newport -Mesa Unified
School District and provides a community center and park facilities for the residents. The City uses
the building facilities to house classes organized by the Recreation Programming Section, while the
field area is divided into two soccer fields which are used primarily by AYSO.
Location: 1975 Balearic Drive
Acreage: 9.97 acres
Existing Facilities: Rest rooms; picnic table (1); playground; soccer fields (2); drinking
fountains (2).
Program: Soccer Field Improvements, 2 ............................ $ 5,000
Picnic Tables, 2 @ $750 each ............................ . $ 1,500
Repair Play Apparatus ............................... $ 5,000
Replace Backstops, 2 @ 2,200 ........................... $ 4,400
Two Full Basketball Court Renovation ...................... $25,000
Security Entrance Gates ................................ $ 5,000
New Bleachers ...................................... $ 2,000
Total ............................................. $47,900
Improvement Costs: $47,900
Canyon: This park site provides a natural area for passive recreation opportunities. The site is unique
in that the park fills the bottom of a canyon, surrounded by walls covered in natural vegetation. A
creek runs through the west end which continues south to drain into Victoria Pond. The opportunity
to link with South Talbert Regional Park should be addressed when the County parkland is
completely developed.
Location: 970 Arbor Street
Acreage: 35.0 acres
Existing Facilities: Play equipment/tot lot; walking trails; picnic tables.
Proms: Fencing ........................................... $35,000
Bridge ............................................$10,000
Planting ........................................... $25,000
Total............................................. $70,000
Improvement Costs: $70,000
45 ::...;>
(PR&OS.MP)rec
Rea Community Center: The Rea Community Center is leased by the City from the Newport -Mesa
Unified School District. The school grounds and buildings provide space for nonprofit organizations
to conduct business activity. Although the future use of this center is uncertain, the open turf area can
provide for active sports facilities and parkland in the southwestern section of town.
Location: 661 Hamilton Drive
Acreage: 13.9 acres
Existing Facilities: Soccer field; basketball court; par course; parking.
Program: Tot Lot ............................................ $40,000
Soccer Field Improvements, 2 ............................ $ 5,000
Climbing Apparatus ................................... $10,000
Total ........................................... . . $55,000
Improvement Costs: $55,000
Downtown Community Center: There are no proposed improvements to the Downtown Community
Center.
Senior Center. There are no proposed improvements to the Senior Center.
(PR&OS.MP)rec
Fairview: This site could be planned as the City's premier park, to include a wide diversity of
recreational opportunities encompassing natural passive parkland. The Master Plan for this site must
address the distinctive character of the location and its adjacencies providing a park with unique city-
wide significance. The Santa Ana River, North Talbert/Fairview County Regional Park, and the
bordering school properties all should influence the park design and layout. In addition, the site
contains important cultural and natural features which should be planned for future protection. An
Interpretive Center should be incorporated which will serve to represent and educate users about the
character of this park. To improve the appearance of the existing model railroad and enhance the
experience riding the train, future park planning should incorporate passive parkland within and
around the track loop and station.
Based on the size of this park and the anticipated number of regular visitors, it has been determined
that permanent rest room facilities will be required, the number, size, and location(s) to be determined
through the Fairview Park Master Plan process.
Due to city-wide needs for youth athletic fields, the Fairview Park Master Plan should examine design
options and, if possible, cost estimates for fields at the southwest area adjacent to Estancia High
School and Parsons School. The development of active fields should be minimal and shall only be
considered in conjunction with Estancia and Parsons Schools. Tot lots should also be considered for
the area surrounding the parking lot as an optional item.
Location: 2525 Placentia Avenue
Acreage: 11.0 developed and 200.0 undeveloped acres
Existing Facilities: The site is primarily undeveloped, with the exception of 11 acres which
provide, through a 25 -year agreement with the Orange County Model Engineers, parking,
small turf areas, and the model railroad track and station.
Proms: Park Master Plan ................................... $ 175,000
Total ........................................... $ 175,000
Improvement Costs: $ 175,000
:......:::::........................::::::::::...... ,::...47:.:::.::::::.::.:::::::::::::::::::.:.:.:::::.::::.:............................................ .
(PR&OS.MP)rec
Lions: This site is the location for many large group functions for the City and serves as a kind of
central park for the residents. The City should concentrate on improving the athletic field rest rooms.
Location: 570 W. 18th Street
Acreage: 8.26 acres
ExistinQ Facilities: Rest room; picnic tables (28); playground; softball diamond (1);
grandstand seating (470 seats); handball courts (6); pool; drinking fountain; electrical outlets;
sinks (2); cooking facility; shelter/trellis; gymnasium.
Program: Demolish Downtown Community Center $40,000
(only if replacement gymnasium is scheduled)
Convert Davis Softball Field to Baseball .................... $25,000
(contingent on baseball field conversion to softball at TeWinkle Park) _
Total............................................ $ 65,000
Improvement Costs: $ 65,000
TeWinkle: TeWinkle park is one of the City's primary active parks, providing an opportunity for
a variety of sports, and includes a 2 -acre parcel adjacent to the tennis courts, set aside for off -leash
socialization and exercising of dogs - a "bark park." The park is well used by the residents and should
be a center that reflects the character of the City of Costa Mesa. The park's adjacency to Davis
Intermediate School provides an opportunity for use of the school's track course and large turf area.
The TeWinkle Park Master Plan should include the possible conversion of the softball fields, baseball
field, and utility field to a four -field softball complex with rest room and snack bar facility and
additional parking.
This conversion would necessitate the removal of lighted facilities utilized by Pop Warner football
and AYSO. It has been suggested that arrangements be made to provide the use of Lions Park and _
Luke Davis field (18th and Anaheim Streets) for football practice. The addition of lighted soccer
fields at Costa Mesa High School will assist AYSO.
Location: 970 Arlington Drive
Acreage: 44.67 acres
Existing Facilities: Rest rooms (8); picnic tables (10); playgrounds; baseball diamond (1),
lighted; softball diamonds (2), lighted; tennis courts (12), lighted; volleyball court; bleachers;
par course; amphitheater; lake/waterfall; gazebo (covered); utility field, (1) lighted; _
shelters (2); electrical outlet (1); drinking fountain.
Program: Security Entrance Gates ............................... $ 8,000
Master Plan, Athletic Fields$ 40,000 —
............................
Provide a Four -Field Softball Complex
including Rest Rooms, Snack Bar, and Additional Parking
(Contingent on Lighted Soccer Field Replacement) ............ $632,000 _
Total ............................................$680,000
Improvement Costs: $680,000
::...
4 —
(PR&OS.MP)rec
Neighborhood Parks:
Brentwood: The City should investigate the opportunity for a shared -use agreement with the
neighboring school. At this time the two properties are separated by a large fence with little
accessibility or interaction between the two sites.
Location: 265 East Brentwood
Acreage: 1.45 acres
Existing Facilities: Picnic tables (2); playground; volleyball court (1); shelter (1); cooking
facilities (2); drinking fountain (1).
Program: Drinking Fountain .................................... $ 2,000
Total...........................................�. $2,000
Improvement Costs: $2,000
Civic Center Park: This park's location is ideal for serving all the neighboring places of employment
during the day. Additional tables and a shelter for shade should be provided for lunch breaks. The
City should also consider a loop path with par course providing an exercise opportunity.
Location: 77 Fair Drive
Acreage: 2.49 acres
Existing Facilities: Picnic Table
Program: 1/2 Basketball Court ................................... $10,000
Picnic Tables, 2@ $750 ................................ $ 1,500
Shelter ............................................ $ 8,000
Perimeter Path ....................................... $15,000
Par Course with Ten Stations ............................ $10,000
Total............................................. $44,500
Improvement Costs: $44,500
-- Civic Center: This site is located adjacent to the City Hall and contains various City facilities and
services such as the police and fire station. There are no park or recreation facilities available for the
community, but the site is listed as its maintenance and upkeep fees are covered by the Community
Services Maintenance budget.
4
(PR&OS.MP)rec
Del Mesa: Neighboring residents are primarily housed in multi -family apartments, making this park
site an important source of large community greenspace.
Location: 2080 Manistee Drive
Acreage: 2.46 acres
Existing Facilities: Rest room (1); playground; basketball court; shelter; sinks (2); drinking
fountain; picnic tables (8); cooking facilities (2); volleyball court (1).
Program: Resurface Basketball Court .............................. $5,000
Total............................................. $5,000
Improvement Costs: $5,000
Estancia: This park is an important part of the City's recreation system as it provides a unique
community gathering space for the residents. A historical building, originally a way station and shelter
for the traveling missionaries, is located within the park and provides a backdrop for community
functions and private gatherings such as weddings. The nature of the park should continue to be
passive in order to support the museum and educational center currently existing within the historical
structure.
Location: 1900 Adams Avenue
Acreage: 10.0 acres
Existinc Facilities: Rest rooms; picnic tables (7); drinking fountain; green area; historical
building and museum; electrical outlets.
Pro,gram: None
Improvement Costs: None
Gisler: The City may wish to investigate the opportunities for better interaction with the surrounding
neighborhoods by way of public access through the bordering fence along the south boundary of the
park.
Location: 1250 Gisler Street
Acreage: 3.15 acres
Existing Facilities: Picnic tables (2); playgrounds; volleyball court; fire ring; shelter (1);
drinking fountain; parking; large turf area for informal play.
Program: Security Entrance Gates ................................ $ 3,500
1/2 Basketball Court ................................... $10,000
Total ............................................. $13,500
Improvement Costs: $13,500
%`..50 .OY\gM. ". 1'b5k.�
(PR&OS.MP)rec
Harper: This site is adjacent to Harper School which is currently used by the Newport -Mesa Unified
School District for administration. The City should continue to pursue the option for a shared -use or
a lease agreement that would enable them to develop programs using the building facilities and soccer
fields.
Location: 425 E. 18th Street
Acreage: 1.0 acres
Existing Facilities: Picnic tables (2); drinking fountain; sinks.
Program: Picnic Tables, 2 @ $750 ................................ $1,500
Total............................................. $1,500
Improvement Costs: $1,500
Heller: The City should focus on providing more activities for older children through the provision
of a one-half basketball court.
Location: 257 East 16th Street
Acreage: 2.61 acres
Existing Facilities: Rest rooms; picnic tables (2); playground; volleyball; drinking fountain;
sinks (2); shelter.
Program: 1/2 Basketball Court ................................... $15,000
Total.............................................$15,000
Improvement Costs: $15,000
Lindbergh: This facility is a one -acre vest pocket type park which was remodeled in late 1995 to
include climbing structures and a swing set. Adjacent to this facility is approximately 4.5 acres of
open turf area that was improved as part of the MCWD Underground Reservoir Project and is
available as an open field area.
Location: 220 East 23rd Street
Acreage: 1.0 acres
_ Existing Facilities: Picnic tables (2); playground; cooking facilities (1); sink (1); drinking
fountain.
Program: New Benches, 2 @ $500 ............................... $1,000
Drinking Fountain .................................... $2,000
Total............................................. $3,000
Improvement Costs: $3,000
-MI* 4RvM. M0<Y': V--A::iiii: ri�i•: >isi.:};,^..: �v'.k:rit}•:iti•..,v;}}};.}}•vv;..:vn.:.:i•}•J:.:ii<.::o:{v:t.i:
\�... \......Y ... E_ _.. J4v..... ..... .....4.... 51
(PA&OS.MP)rec
Marina View: This park site is well maintained and provides a good location for neighboring young
children. Improvements consist of the addition of two picnic tables, one 112 basketball court and one --
volleyball court.
Location: 1036 West 19th Street
Acreage: 2.29 acres
Exisfin.e Facilities: Picnic table (1); playground; shelters (2).
Program: Picnic Tables, 2 @ $750 ....................... I ........ $ 1,500
112 Basketball Court ................................... $10,000
Volleyball Court ..................................... $10,000
Total . $21,500
Improvement Costs: $21,500
Mesa Verde: This park site borders Adams School. There are soccer fields and basketball courts on —
the school property which are available for shared use during nonschool hours.
Location: 1795 Samar Drive
Acreage: 2.66 acres
Existing Facilities: Picnic tables (4); playground/tot lot; shelter and storage area.
Program: Volleyball Court ..................................... $10,000 _
Total............................................. $10,000
Improvement Costs: $10,000 —
Paularino: This park site is located next to Paularino School which includes the following facilities:
turf area, multi -use courts, climbing apparatus, and handball courts. These facilities are available to —
residents during nonschool hours.
Location: 1040 Paularino Avenue _
Acreage: 2.23 acres
Existing Facilities: Playground; volleyball court; shelters (2).
Program: New Picnic Facility ................................... $50,000
Total .... .........................................$50,000
Improvement Costs: $50,000
52 vf:'R:4:kkid'A'66CiR.`P�3:74"5.^.�9`t3Yh.#9' `.`uU1. •••'
jPRBOs.MP)rec
Pinkley: As this site is just adjacent to 17th Street, a busy commercial strip, the park should serve
as a recreation opportunity for the population employed in this area as well as the neighboring
residents. In addition, the park should better serve the local older children by providing volleyball and
basketball courts. As the park directly borders commercial parking and strip development on the north
side, a landscape buffer should be planted to provide some separation.
Location: 360 East Ogle
Acreage: 2.58 acres
Existing Facilities: Picnic tables (6); playgrounds; fire ring; drinking fountain (1); install
concrete walks; new tot lot equipment.
Program: 1/2 Basketball Court ................................... $10,000
Volleyball Court ..................................... $10,000
Landscape Buffer ................................... . . $8,000
Total ............................................. $28,000
Improvement Costs: $28,000
Smallwood
Location: 1656 Corsica Place
Acreage: 3.38 acres
Existing Facilities: Rest rooms; picnic tables (3); playground; softball field; volleyball court;
basketball court; drinking fountain.
Program: None
Improvement Costs: None
' 'C'*h . \ \ . u : 'v ...�`:s \Syav'i7\{:Q :+ v..ti�i .::X'+iiivvv4'4�'A`t�t'�i: h \ ... i'.t ✓ 3
(PR&OS.MP)rec
Shiffer: This park site provides a variety of active and passive recreational opportunities. The City
may wish to establish some group activities or programs at this site, as the combination of acreage
and facilities could easily serve large groups.
Location: 3143 Bear Street
AcrAcrage: 6.72 acres
Existing Facilities: Rest rooms; picnic tables (6); playgrounds (2); volleyball courts (2);
handball courts (2); basketball court; par course; turf area; shelter; cooking facilities (2);
drinking fountain.
Program: Security Entrance Gates ................................ $3,500
Total............................................. $3,500
Improvement Costs: $3,500
Suburbia I
Location: 3377 California Street
Acreage: 1.2 acres —
Existing Facilities: Picnic table (1); playground; drinking fountain.
Program: 112 Basketball Court ................................... $10,000
Total.............................................$10,000 —
Improvement Costs: $10,000
Suburbia II: The City should consider this park site as a pocket park and future development be
aimed at limiting maintenance requirements. No improvements have been sited for this park at this
time.
Location: 3302 Alabama Circle
Ac_. reage: 0.60 acres
Existing Facilities: None
Program: None
Improvement Costs: None
(PR&OS.MPIrec
— Tanager: This park site provides both passive and limited active recreational opportunities for those
residents living north of the golf course, south of Adams Avenue, west of Harbor Boulevard and east
of Placentia Avenue.
Location: 1780 Hummingbird Drive
Acreage: 7.42 acres
Existing Facilities: Picnic tables (4); playground; volleyball court (2); basketball court (1);
par course; drinking fountain (2).
Prom: None
Improvement Costs: None
Vista: This neighborhood park is unique in its proximity to the Santa Ana River and North
Talbert/Fairview Regional Park. The City should develop a connection between the two by way of
a hillside trail. In order to better provide for group gatherings, the City should implement a picnic
shelter and tables.
Location: 1200 Victoria Street
AcreaQe: 6.02 acres
Existing Facilities: Picnic tables (2); playground; turf area; rest rooms; cooking facility;
drinking fountain.
~ ProQram: Shelter or Trellis for Group Picnic ......................... $ 8,000
Picnic Tables, 4 @ $750 ................................ $ 3,000
Hillside Trail, 500' @ $24 per L.F. ........................ $12,000
Security Entrance Gate ................................. $ 3,000
w
1/2 Basketball Court ................................... $10,000
Volleyball Court ..................................... $10,000
Total.............................................$46,000
Improvement Costs: $46,000
::.. ....:.. ..kt�k:: •�...,.. c�"a.� .., ..55�. �c\:3> 4. .worn;:\ '3E.. •ia"a.. _ M. k .::: ♦ .. � E,�.. <: ..
(PRSOS.MP)rec
Wakeham: This park site is the major facility serving the City north of the 405 Freeway. A large
percentage of the residents surrounding the park are housed in multi -family apartments, making this
park an important central recreation facility.
Location: 3400 Smalley Street
Acreage 9.91 acres
Existing Facilities: Rest rooms (1); picnic tables (7); playgrounds (2); volleyball court;
basketball court; par course; utility field; shelters (3); drinking fountain.
Program: Security Entrance Gates ................................ $3,500
Total............................................. $3,500
Improvement Costs: $3,500
Willard T. Jordan: This park is adjacent to Kaiser School which includes the following facilities:
soccer and baseball fields, turf area, multi -use courts, and climbing apparatus. These facilities are
available for resident use during nonschool hours.
Location: 2141 Tustin Avenue
Acreage: 2.48 acres
Existing Facilities: Picnic tables (2); playground; shelter; cooking facilities (2); sink (2);
drinking fountain.
Program: Security Entrance Gates ................................ $3,500
Picnic Tables and Benches .............................. $2,500
Total............................................. $6,000
Improvement Costs: $6,000
(PRSOS.MP)rec
Wilson: This park offers full facilities for group picnic functions and play equipment for young
children. The City should consider the leveling of turf to allow more room for informal field games.
Location: 360 Wilson
Acreage: 3.45 acres
Existing Facilities: Rest rooms (1); picnic tables (2); playgrounds; volleyball court (1);
shelter (1); cooking facilities (2); drinking fountain (1).
Program: 1/2 Basketball Court ................................... $10,000
Total.............................................$10,000
Improvement Costs: $10,000
Wimbledon: The City should consider this site as a potential location for programming and
recreation classes providing group activities for the local children.
Location: 3440 Wimbledon Way
Acreage: 3.36 acres
Existing Facilities: Picnic tables (7); playgrounds (2); basketball, 2-12 courts; par course;
drinking fountains (2).
Program: General Park Improvements ............................. $ 3,000
Volleyball Court ..................................... $10,000
Total .............................................$13,000
Improvement Costs: $13,000
Joint -Use Facilities:
Costa Mesa High School: Eighteen (18) acres of undeveloped agricultural land is available and
would be appropriate for the development of lighted soccer fields and outdoor basketball courts.
Development of the fields would be contingent on amending Site Specific Agreement 1 which already
exists between the School District and the City.
Location: 2650 Fairview Road
Acreage: 18 acres
Existing Facilities: Multipurpose building (classroom, rest room, equipment storage).
Program: Lighted Soccer Fields and
Basketball Courts, Parking Lot, Building Improvements ....... $1,558,000
Total .......................................... $1,558,000
Improvement Costs: $1,558,000
(PR&OS.MP)rec
TABLE 11: COMMUNITY CENTER AND PARK
IMPROVEMENT COSTS
Improvement
Site Costs
Community Centers:
Balearic _
$
47,900
Rea
55,000
Subtotal
$
102,900
Community Parks:
Canyon
$
70,000
Fairview
175,000
Lions
65,000
TeWinkle
680,000
Subtotal
$
990,000
Neighborhood Parks:
Brentwood
$
2,000
Civic Center Park
44,500
Del Mesa
5,000
Estancia
0
Gisler
13,500
Harper
1,500
Heller
15,000
Lindbergh
3,000
Marina View
21,500
Mesa Verde
10,000
Paularino
50,000
Pinkley
28,000
Smallwood
0
Shiffer
3,500
Suburbia I
10,000
Suburbia II
0
Tanager
0
Vista
46,000
Wakeham
3,500
Wilson
10,000
Willard T. Jordan
6,000
Wimbledon
13,000
Subtotal
$
286,000
Joint -Use Facilities:
Costa Mesa High School
$
1,558,000
Estancia High School/Parsons
25,000
Subtotal
$
1,583,000
Unimproved Sites:
Park north of I-405
$
600,000
Pocket Park at Charle and Hamilton
150,000
Riverbay Trail
58,000
Unidentified Locations - 50 M. pool,
3,527,000
gymnasium, soccer fields (1), softball fields
(1), baseball fields (2)
Subtotal
$
4,335,000
TOTAL $ 7,296,900
��\:4i'n...i{h4'4:\\{ti:\4'.'.•�L�C>: i. iSt�$u*y:}::6:)Cyi. .. : ... :^%•}i4i�4*58
•n .y :.v •xvv
<" :: ...-..... _... tii:.>::: iv.::: n.: iiiii.; }:�:.:::. K\ .�:: �ivt .:.x" •.t\\�'
(PR&OS.MP)rec
Future Recreation Facility and Park Sites: In addition to the recommended improvements to
existing sites and facilities, new park and recreation sites will be needed to meet the long-term park,
recreation and open space needs of the community. The following recommended actions have been
developed to secure these sites and facilities.
Planning Area I - 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/Fairview Regional Park and immediately adjacent 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.
The Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan Study recommended development
of the City -owned property at the southeast corner of Charle Street and Hamilton
Street as a neighborhood pocket park. Although limited in size (approximately 1/2
acre), the pocket park can provide park service to the surrounding high density
neighborhood. Due to the small size of the site, it should be developed to minimize
maintenance and maximize usefulness. The design should be primarily hardscape,
incorporating a 1/2 basketball court, tot lot, sand play area and low maintenance
landscape. Estimated cost of developing this 1/2 park is $150,000.
Additional opportunities to increase service are Wilson School and Rea Center.
Although too small to be considered isolated, active recreation centers, these sites are
suitable for the provision of neighborhood park facilities.
Planning Area 2 - Planning Area 2 is currently well served and exceeds the park -to -
population standard for neighborhood and community parks. As such, no new park
sites have been identified. However, as noted in the discussion of potential surplus
school sites, the City should consider continued availability of Balearic Center as a
community center and active recreation fields.
A potential site for additional active recreation facilities may be the vacant 12.5 -acre
site at the corner of Mesa Verde Drive East and Adams Avenue. Although not
proposed for this use at this point in time, it may be viable if the City is not
successful in negotiating joint -use agreements at all of the sites recommended,
particularly those sites where lighted fields are recommended.
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 has is the availability of existing school sites
to augment the local park network and the potential availability of three school sites.
To meet the neighborhood park service needs of the area, the City should consider
acquiring, through purchase or long-term lease agreements, all or a part of at least two
of the surplus or potential surplus sites. It is recommended that these sites encompass
at least two to three acres each. Lindbergh School is considered a high priority
.Eyn v:ti^: v.?CL `i"•`i4'i :'tiC:
So C`\' vC' v:•\W
. nx.n ..v. m..v......:v4n.v«iii�.......... .\'•S'.L>. .m. \.....:.. ✓ / :.i 4 v�ili4inx.vvti\ii: v..vv •. :'Q vabiv�.\�`:: .`vim{:4n.m.vn...n
(PR&OS.MP)rec
because of the existing one -acre neighborhood park and the permanent open space
provided by the Water District's underground reservoir. Harper Administrative Center —
offers the same advantage in terms of the existing neighborhood park. Monte Vista/
Back Bay High School is advantageous in that it has the greatest potential to expand
service to a currently unserved area. —
Costs to acquire and improve the new park sites will vary depending upon the type
of acquisition (fee title or long-term lease), the actual size of the sites to be acquired
and the type of improvements to be made. In terms of actual development/
improvement costs, the recommended four to six acres of additional neighborhood
park land would cost between $480,000 and $720,000. Based on the sale of the Bear
Street School site, acquisition costs (approximately $490,700/acre) would be between
$1,962,800 and $2,944,200.
Planning Area 4 - Planning Area 4 is the third area with deficient neighborhood park
land. One site that has been the subject of considerable interest is the northernmost
18 acres of Costa Mesa High School. This site has been proposed as a major joint -use —
active recreation area which can provide the community with additional lighted
athletic fields. Additional discussion regarding the types of potential facilities and
improvement costs are included in the Active Recreation Facility Siting Needs
Analysis.
Planning Area 5 - Planning Area 5 has a surplus of neighborhood park land in —
Wakeham and Wimbledon Parks. The more urbanized residential development east
of Town Center is served by private onsite recreation facilities and The Lakes open
space easement. However, with the development of the Sakioka Farms residential site,
this area is expected to have the highest potential for new residential development, up
to 1,411 dwelling units and 2,920 population.
As noted in the Active Recreation Facility Siting Analysis, a new five -acre
neighborhood park would meet the park needs of the future residents. It is
recommended that this park be developed with turf areas for informal games, play --
equipment and picnic areas. No acquisition costs have been assumed for this site as
it will be obtained as a part of the park dedication requirement for the future
residential development. Improvement costs are estimated at $600,000. If improved
by the developer, these costs will be credited against the remaining park in -lieu fee
balance for the project.
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Realization of the recommendations from the previous sections of this Master Plan depends upon a —
solid implementation plan. This section will review alternative funding mechanisms for the
recommended improvements, will present implementation priorities based upon public review and
comment on the original Master Plan Study, and will discuss and recommend a financing plan for _
the capital improvement program.
(PR&OS.MP)rec
Alternative Funding Mechanisms:
Alternative Capital Funding_ Options: It is estimated that the park facility improvements
recommended in this plan will total over $7 million (in 1992 dollars). Assuming a 4 percent annual
inflation rate, this estimated capital improvement budget by phase in future dollars is as follows:
_ In 1992
In Future $
1996-2000 $ 2,959,400
$ 4,050,143
_ 2001-2005 3,984,500
6,634,415
2006-2010 353,000
715,113
Total $7,296,900*
$11,399,741
*Total does not include funding for Fairview Park which
could range up to $15,000,000.
As shown above, the actual expenditure will be greater due to inflation, and could reach over $11
million during the 15 -year phasing period. City revenue, however, should also be greater, though,
because of Proposition 13's 2 percent limitation on annual increases in assessed valuation (unless
property changes ownership or undergoes substantial renovation), the City budget may not keep up
with inflation proportionately. It is important to have a source of funding that can keep up with
inflation.
Since capital cost expenditures are not evenly distributed over time, the City may also need to finance
park improvements rather than rely on annual General Fund allocations to the capital improvement
program. Debt financing could also allow the City to expedite the implementation schedule, although
interest and issuance costs would be incurred. The following financing scenario is recommended for
consideration:
Sources:
► Park In -Lieu Fees
► Impact Fees
► General Fund
► Dedication
► Grants
► General Obligation Bonds
► Certificates of Participation (Optional)
Park In -Lieu Fees:
Park in -lieu fees are the primary source for funding capital improvements. Normally these
fees, or equivalent dedication, would be required to fund parkland acquisition. However, since
this Master Plan Study relies primarily on joint -use agreements with school districts, using
existing public land, substantial land acquisition will not be required. Therefore, the City may
use the fees it collects for capital improvements to existing parks and joint -use facilities.
Park in -lieu fees are based on two factors: the standard which defines the number of acres per
1,000 population required, and the land value basis for establishing the fee. The City can
-' clearly increase its current in -lieu fee due to changes in both factors.
61 •:::-: ..... �"§7'vY`.v`A':'�S'i{CbkS'uCtit'y�\0�\`S.v:4:2'#t-Ait\.f _. k . \ 'u
(PR&OS.M P)rec
The current park standard is 4.26 neighborhood and community park acres per 1,000
population. The City anticipated approximately 9,000 people between 1992 and buildout.
Assuming this growth occurs in new residential development subject to the City's park in -lieu
fee, the equivalent of 38.34 acres could be required for parks. Because the City will achieve
most of its future park requirements through joint use of land already held by the school
district, the City could require payment of the in -lieu fee instead of land dedication.
Approximately five acres of new land dedication will be required from development north of
I-405 for a neighborhood park, leaving the equivalent of 33.34 acres in fees which the City _
could apply to facility improvements at the joint -use and community parks.
Based on the City's most recent land value basis for its in -lieu fee ($761,500 per acre) and
the higher park standard of 4.26 acres per 1,000 population, the City could receive
$25,388,000 in fees ($761,500 x 33.34 acres), which would be almost enough to cover the
anticipated capital costs if the fee is regularly increased to keep up with inflation.
Since the City would be using most of the fees collected for park improvements instead of
land (except for the approximately five acres of new land dedication that will be required
north of I-405 for a neighborhood park), a more appropriate alternative would be to amend _
the City's current fee requirement to one that is based on estimated capital improvement costs
rather than land costs. This may require a new fee ordinance based on the City's power to
assess impact fees rather than a revision of the existing ordinance that is based on the Quimby _
Act enabling law (Government Code 66477).
Assuming an average household size of 2.57 persons (as reported in the 1990 Census), this
fee would equal approximately $8,337 per unit. Since these fees must be used to develop
facilities that serve the population who pays the fees, their use should be restricted to
community park, joint -use parks, and community centers that benefit the whole community,
and improvements to neighborhood parks within the service area of these new residences.
Neighborhood park improvements at existing parks that primarily serve existing residents
should be funded out of general funds. The City will grant credit against the in -lieu fee for
additional improvements developers make to dedicated parkland. Also, the City will consider _
granting credit against the fee for private park and recreation facilities provided.
Impact Fees:
Some of the units developed between now and buildout will be small developments that do
not require subdivision approval to be built. Fees cannot be collected from these in -fill
developments under the Quimby enabling legislation. Since some portion of residential —
development between now and buildout will fall into this category, it is recommended that
the City establish a park impact fee for these types of residential developments that is
equivalent to the in -lieu fee. The City may also wish to consider impact fees on industrial and _
commercial development for park use since workers also use the park system.
General Funds:
General funds currently finance incidental park improvements. It is recommended that general
funds continue to be used to fund park improvements to existing neighborhood parks that
serve existing residents. The $860,000 budgeted for neighborhood park improvements —
(excluding neighborhood park improvements funded by in -lieu fees) over a 15 -year period is
deemed feasible without unduly burdening the General Fund.
.ex,.•:ar�c62
(PR&OS.MP)rec
Dedication:
Dedication is the anticipated method for acquiring the new five -acre neighborhood park
proposed north of I-405. The land and improvements can be obtained through the City's park
dedication ordinance.
Grants:
State and regional grants may be available for the bikeway trail improvements and a portion
_ of the natural park improvements to Fairview Park, depending on the eventual design and
habitat plan for the natural portion of the park.
General Obligation Bonds:
The other option is to propose to the voters of Costa Mesa a general obligation bond to fund
the balance of the improvement costs not covered by in -lieu fees. Bond markets consider this
the most secure form of financing because the debt obligation is backed by the full faith and
credit of the City and its ability to raise taxes to cover the debt obligation. The General
Obligation Bond would require a two-thirds vote. However, it is expected that the debt
obligation would be low (especially if in -lieu fees cover a majority portion of development
costs) and, based on the experience of other cities such as Escondido, San Juan Capistrano,
and Laguna Beach, is passable. This should be considered for large capital expenditures to
provide park service for deficient areas such as acquisition of surplus school sites in Planning
Area 3 (eastside).
Certificates of Participation (Optional):
Certificates of Participation (COP's) is a method for the City to raise money for capital
improvements in advance of receiving the impact fees. Assuming population growth of
approximately 1,000 people per year, annual in -lieu and impact fees collected should average
$3.2 million (in 1992 dollars), which is more than enough to cover the capital costs incurred
on a pay-as-you-go basis under the phasing program proposed (if the fees are annually
increased to keep up with inflation). The City could consider issuing COP's if it desires to
raise the capital earlier and expedite the implementation process only if there is a
corresponding increase in future fee and general fund revenue to enable the City to fund the
COP debt service annually. The trade-off is that the City would incur financing and issuance
costs that it otherwise would not incur.
Other Recommended Options: While the financing strategy presented above should be sufficient to
cover all of the costs presented in this plan, the City should consider alternative methods if it decides
not to rely so heavily on in -lieu and impact fees, as follows:
Infrastructure Financing District:
An infrastructure financing district that includes all undeveloped land in Costa Mesa, outside
_ of redevelopment project areas, might be considered. This would require approval of the land
owners that comprise the district. Since the funding comes from tax increment generated by
the property's development, given existing tax rates, property owners would not pay anymore
taxes than they would without the district. A bond could be issued against the increment, with
the proceeds used to finance improvements to the City's community parks and joint -use
facilities.
(PR&OS.MP)rec
The primary disadvantage of this method is that it will probably not generate any new revenue
for the City, depending on the policies and current tax share of the other taxing jurisdictions. —
It simply allows the City to dedicate a portion of future fiscal surplus revenue to park
development, and raise the capital up front through bonds, without requiring a city-wide vote.
The State Attorney General has released an opinion that this form of financing is
unconstitutional according to the State of California Constitution because the State
Constitution only allows tax increment financing to reduce blight in redevelopment project
areas. However, clean-up legislation is being proposed in the State legislature.
City Land Exchange/Sale:
The City will evaluate its land holdings to determine if any of the property it owns is surplus
or underutilized. The City will then consider exchanging any surplus property for private
property it desires to acquire for the park system. Alternatively, the City may sell or lease its
surplus property and use the proceeds to buy additional parkland.
Transfer of Development Rights:
The City will explore the possibility of allowing private property owners to buy the
development rights to parcels the City desires to preserve for open space and transferring the
development rights to property already owned by the purchasers. This would result in higher —
densities on the parcels receiving the development rights.
The City could establish a city-wide benefit assessment district for capital improvements —
utilizing the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972. Although a public vote is not required
to approve the district, one is often held for a city-wide district in order to register voter
approval and overcome a potential majority protest at a hearing. Since the assessment is not _
a special tax, a simple majority vote of approval is sufficient. Voters in Los Angeles County
recently approved a county -wide benefit assessment district for parks and open space.
Again, it appears that these alternatives are not needed since in -lieu and impact fees should —
be sufficient to fund the capital improvements recommended in this plan. However, they are
reasonable alternatives if the fees projected are deficient.
Maintenance:
Implementation of the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan will increase annual park _
maintenance costs by an estimated $3.9 million (in 1992 dollars) by the year 2010 when the park
element recommendations are completed. This increase is proportionately more than the increase in
park acreage since some existing park acreage (such as portions of Fairview Park) will be converted _
from undeveloped land with lower maintenance costs to improved parkland with higher maintenance
costs. The projected increase in park costs assumes that the City will be responsible for its
proportional share of joint -use facility time (70 percent), and not the full cost of maintaining joint -use
facilities. Also, it is assumed that as the park system becomes larger, there will be economies -of -scale —
and maintenance costs per acre will fall almost 10 percent from $8,944 to $7,944 (in 1992 dollars).
Other community facility maintenance costs are projected to increase by $283,000 due to population
growth.
(PRSOS.MP)rec
_ Program costs are estimated to increase by $337,000, proportionate to the anticipated population
growth, plus a 15 percent increase for adult sports, youth sports, aquatics, and playground programs
to account for a potential increase in programming due to enhanced park facilities. Earned revenues
from user fees should also increase proportionately.
Therefore, the total increase in annual maintenance and program costs is $4.5 million (in 1992
dollars) by buildout of the system.
Recommended Funding: The recommended sources of funding maintenance and program costs are
as follows:
_ ► General Fund
► User Fees
► Concession Revenues
General Fund:
The General Fund is the primary source for funding existing maintenance and net program
costs and are expected to be the primary source of future funding. Currently, the General
Fund supports approximately 74 percent of the annual Leisure and Community Services
budget, with the balance of the budget funded by users fees. Since the anticipated proportional
increase in maintenance costs (due to increased acreage) is greater than population growth,
it is estimated that the Leisure and Community Services budget will have to receive a greater
proportion of the City's General Fund budget. The Leisure and Community Services budget
now comprises approximately 8 percent of the City's budget. Assuming the balance of the
City budget increases proportionately with population growth, the Leisure and Community
Services share of the City budget should increase to 12 percent. Since Leisure and
Community Services receives some revenue from user fees, its share of the General Fund
budget should be less than the 16 percent.
User Fees:
The City has recently increased its reliance on user fees to recover program and facility
maintenance costs. User fees should continue to be used aggressively, with the objective of
full cost recovery for most programs except those the City deems should be subsidized for
the general public benefit or the limited ability of users to pay fees that cover the full cost of
providing the program. User fees should be charged for classes, league play, facility rentals,
park use permits for organized events, gymnasium use, and pool use.
Concession Revenue:
Concessions and land leases to private recreation providers using public land, such as the train
ride at Fairview Park, may generate modest revenue to the City which it may apply to
maintenance costs. Concessions may be explored at TeWinkle Park, Fairview Park, the pool
facility, the gymnasium, and the community centers. Concessions and land leases, however,
are not expected to be a major source of maintenance financing.
65
(PR&OS.MP)rec
Other Methods: Other alternative maintenance and operations funding methods include privatization,
benefit assessment district funding, and new development charges.
Privatization:
Private operation of recreation facilities could be explored. Private operators would_maintain
the facilities for the City and operate programs, earning revenue from facility rentals, league
fees, programs, user fees, and onsite concessions. Normally, the fees charged would be greater
than the fees cities often charge, since each facility would operate as an enterprise fund
without any subsidy. Normally, these operators would only pay a nominal lease to operate the
facility under contract with the City, since the revenue generated usually is not sufficient to
support land costs and facility capital costs.
Maintenance Assessment Districts:
The City could establish either a city-wide or several neighborhood -based maintenance
assessment districts to maintain some or all of the park maintenance costs. The assessment
vehicle most often considered for park maintenance financing is the 1972 Landscaping and
Lighting Act of 1972. No vote is required to approve the district, although a majority protest
of property owners could prohibit district formation unless overridden by four-fifths of the —
City Council. The assessment district raises new revenue for financing park maintenance and
could be used to finance capital improvements as well. The assessment district could be
placed on all property in the City, or just a portion of the City, such as all currently developed —
properties (since undeveloped properties will be paying impact fees and might fund their share
of maintenance costs separately, as explained below).
New Development Charges:
Some larger scale, new development in the City may rely on Mello -Roos community facility
district financing, their own separate benefit assessment district, or homeowners association
fees to pay for capital and maintenance costs of public facilities needed to serve their new
developments, including parks. If new development pays for their facility's maintenance —
separately, this would reduce the cost burden to the City. The park facility funded by new
development may be considered public or private depending on the source of financing - for
example: homeowner association maintained facilities are normally considered private
facilities.
Land Availability Monitoring:
The City will monitor the availability of private land for purchase and will periodically
evaluate whether the City should purchase an available parcel for the park and open space —
system.
Eminent Domain:
It is the City's intention that eminent domain will not be utilized to acquire parkland.
:.:.....v.,.. 6b:,..h:.—
c c^.:::':44....,..e....
(PR&OS.M P)rec
Implementation Priorities:
_ The City of Costa Mesa intends to provide more park and recreation facilities to serve the new
residents anticipated between now and buildout. The City has not met all of its current population's
needs, therefore, additional parks and facilities must be provided to serve existing constituents. Since
not all of the needs can be addressed at once, priorities must be established.
The priorities described below correspond to selected time periods to facilitate phasing and
coordination with the City's Capital Improvement Program.
Completed Projects: FY 1992-95
Amount Percent
Neighborhood Parks $ 605,000 52.5%
Joint -Use Facilities 501,500 43.6%
Community Parks 45,000 3.9%
Community Centers 0 0.0%
Pocket Parks 0 0.0%
River Bay Trail 0 0.0%
Total $1,151,500 100.0%
During the first four years of a 20 -year capital improvement program, priority was given to
developing youth athletic fields on joint -use recreation facilities at local schools and replacement of
tot lot equipment at community and neighborhood parks.
Priority 1: FY 1996-2000 (in 1992 $)
Amount Percent
Community Parks $ 982,000 33.2%
_ Joint -Use Facilities 1,583,000 53.5%
Neighborhood Parks 190,500 6.4%
Pocket Parks 75,000 2.5%
Community Centers 70,900 2.4%
River Bay Trail 58,000 2.0%
Total $2,959,400 100.0%
The highest priority is given to park facilities that serve the unmet needs of existing residents. A
majority of this budget is allocated towards athletic facility development at parks and joint -use
recreation facilities at local schools. Emphasis is given to facilities that serve individual and team
sports, such as softball, baseball, basketball and soccer. Some facility improvements at existing
neighborhood parks are recommended during this phase, as well as improvements to Balearic and Rea
Community Centers and implementation of the pocket park at Charle and Hamilton.
67
(PR&OS.MP)rec
Priority 2: FY 2001-2005 (in 1992 $)
Amount Percent
Community Parks
$ 8,000
.2%
Joint -Use Facilities
1,400,000
35.1%
Neighborhood Parks
- 342,500
8.6%
Pocket Parks
75,000
1.9%
Community Centers
32,000
.8%
River Bay Trail
0
0.0%
Unidentified Locations
2,127,000
53.4
Total
$ 3,984,500
100.0%
Priority 2 provides for a 50 -meter swimming pool to be developed under a joint -use agreement. A
gymnasium facility, one lighted softball field, two youth baseball fields, and one lighted soccer field
will also be phased in. Neighborhood parks continue to be improved, and a new neighborhood park
on the site north of the I-405 will be developed. -
Priority 3: FY 2006-2010 (in 1992 $)
Amount Percent
Neighborhood Parks
$ 353,000
100%
Community Parks
0
0.0%
Joint -Use Facilities
0
0.0%
Pocket Parks
0
0.0%
Community Centers
0
0.0%
River Bay Trail
0
0.0%
Total
$ 353,000
100.0%
This last priority provides for minor improvements to existing neighborhood parks.
It should be noted that costs of improvements to meet ADA requirements are not included in this
study's capital improvements program. The City's adopted ADA Transition Plan estimates
accessibility improvement costs for existing parks and community centers to be $2,386,500.
Alternative funding sources outside of this study's capital improvement program will be used to
complete these projects. Where possible, construction of ADA improvements will be coordinated with
the improvements recommended in this Master Plan.
Capital Improvement Program and Funding Plan:
The purpose of this section of the Master Plan is to consolidate the various recommendations for
improvements to existing parks and recreation facilities, for new site acquisition and improvement,
development priorities, and funding mechanisms. This information is included in Table 12.
Table 12 includes all of the recommended improvements except those related to the acquisition and
development of potential new park sites in Planning Area 3. The reason for this is the uncertainty of
(PR&OS.MP)rec
the time in which the recommended sites may be available for acquisition and the means of
acquisition (extended lease or fee purchase). However, these costs can be refined after further review
_ and discussions with the Newport -Mesa Unified School District and Mesa Consolidated Water
District, and included in future financing plans, adjustments to the park dedication ordinance and in -
lieu fee schedule or general obligation bond issues.
CONCLUSIONS
The Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan is designed as a road map to guide future
improvements to the City's local park and recreation system. It is designed to address current system
deficiencies and to meet the long-term community's needs through buildout of the City's General
Plan. As conditions change over time, the Master Plan should be viewed as a living document which
must be continually monitored and evaluated. This review should occur with the annual review of the
General Plan and/or budget process.
One of the key recommendations for funding the identified improvements is a combination of Quimby
Act park in -lieu fees and development impact fees. As the Master Plan suggests, the current Quimby
in -lieu fee ordinance and fee schedule should be amended to reflect the shift in emphasis from a land
acquisition based fee to a fee based on the recommended capital improvement program. At the same
time, the City should proceed with the prerequisite study to establish an impact fee for those projects
not covered by the provisions of the Quimby Act. The establishment of such a fee program was
adopted as a Community Objective by City Council during its 1995-96 budget adoption process.
,:. ::.:t.
(PRROS.MP)rec
R
w
N
a �
H �
0
O
6. a
0
Q
Go
0
O
a
a
W
z
a 0
N E
� u
H O
�] a
� F w
� H
a
H U a
a
N
E
z
0
0
O
U U
W
H
a
w
w
a
o
.4 E
70
a
0
O
a
m
a
T4
Q
R
w
o c
oc
o c
C U
u
C.
r
N
u
a
Nm
NI
-H
y'N
U
M
-wHt7P
•w
-
a
N
L
Iloi
�
-
i
�.
'
O
u
y
.
W
o.71
u
a
a
•11
a
9
a
a
u
a
.0a
o
.+
0
u
.w
a
0
9.4
A
4J
w
a.
a
o
o
w
.i
A
y
.a
o
4
u
u
o
a
u
m
.0
0
uAu
0
a
w
w
ax
a
a
0
a
s
a
.i
al
0
a
a
x
H
x
7
u
L
a
q
a
H
x
q
ro'
„
w
„
x
or
a
ro
u
•.1
a
0
O
Ua
ro
y
rl
q
0
'H
U
a
a
T�
O
U
O
,p
a
u
u
O
O
M
oo
a
a
-.+
a
pq
H
X
al
•.i
o0
at'
H
H
W
m
H
H
'
N-
4J
'>
0
I
I I
E W
2
IZ z O
W
>I
iza M
.Z� 7 �� .CjI
2 2
W
0z
>
a
o
ys
�S
a
H
W
W
to
H
o
a
W
x
H
a
a
.E
W
D
R
a
H
a
m m
71
0
VZ
O
E
R
m c
F
D) F
O
u O 2
9
S
0
0
w
a
O
U
M
10.
r1
rl r,
•C .0
H H
m m
a
w
m �w
z� �
H
0) v]i
>
NI`
0 0
0 0
0 0'
Ln Ln
V V
N N
o o o 0 o.c
o o 0 o o c
o In in Ln o u
tf ll a rn ui r
V Ar, -w N V u
N M N
I
O I
E
I
m m 0
W N C
d C7 C9 W F
�a
C.a7 tbi Yui W o
ai V4J r
0
.Ol R
to4J L u I F
F H -H
' E' E.
i
z" ca m z `a
dz
A
a
O
n
F
a
a a
72
o� o
o�o
olo
of o
0 0
N� N
0
V
w
0
z u
O H
z w z°
o a
a , al m,
a m
C
O
F
N N
0 �
O E
U F
z
0
E
4
u
0
a
F
U
oa
a
0
a
o
0
F
73
di
UI
coal NI
N
H m H H
7 w Q
F m u H
N 4 It 4
a w
O tl
H O H N
a a u u+
N 11
r�
0
O
W
O
u
m
z
0
E-
0 0
S
E
U
0
a
a
n
m
'-I
d
04
W
H
N
u
0
ul
o i Ln
'O
H
F
A
N J^
0
1411
0
a
u
m a
w
C
ri
u
0
z
0
H
F
w
u
u3i
a
W
a
m oo
H
F4
]
s u
d
F
m
a
H
o
m wa
o H
0
h
U x
U 4U7
o i Ln
m
'O
a
N
0
a
M
F
R
C
ri
u
0
a
a
w
d
w
u3i
d w
0
W
g
p
d
d
G�1
0 Q
0
m
o
in
0 q
m W I
vi o
x a
0
0
m
W
a
m 0 O
E u
a
a
u
u m
a
x o
uO
F
m m
0 0
o
x U
4
U U
u
rj'
ou
c a
W
H En
U z
W
U b
{�
m
z O
0
0 H
W
1
•C {m�
m rj
e O
m H
m
S
a
w a
o
W o
14
74
m
z
0
M
F
R
u
0
a
a
w
w
0
W
g
p
Ip
EXHIBIT B
Fa s, 9/ -I
OPEN SPACE
The importance of open space in today's increasingly urban
environment led the State legislature to require the inclusion of
an open space element in all local government general plans
(Government Code Section 65302(e)). This requirement was based on
the concept that open space is a limited and valuable resource
which must be conserved wherever possible. It was noted by the
legislature that the preservation of open space land is necessary
not only for the maintenance of the State's economy, but also for
assurance of the continued availability of land for the production
of food and fiber, for enjoyment of scenic beauty, for recreation
and for the use of natural resources. Open space land and uses
also contribute to neighborhood identity, provide• visual and
psychological relief from intense urban environments and control or
direct new growth and development.
Open space lands and uses can be defined in relation to the
functions which these lands serve and to the benefits derived from
the use of these lands. Section 65560 of the Government Code
identifies four specific definitions of open space uses as noted
below:
(1) Open space for the preservation of natural resour—
ces including, but not limited to, areas required
for the preservation of plant and animal life,
including habitat for fish and wildlife species;
areas required for ecologic and other scientific
study purposes; rivers, streams, bays and estu—
aries; and coastal beaches, lakeshores, banks of
rivers and streams, and watershed lands.
(2) Open space used for the managed production of
resources, including but not limited to, forest
lands, rangeland, agricultural lands and areas of
economic importance for the production of food or
fiber; areas required for recharge of groundwater
basins; bays, estuaries, marshes, rivers and
streams which are important for the management of
commercial fisheries; and areas containing major
mineral deposits, including those in short supply.
(3) Open space for outdoor recreation, including but
not limited to, areas of outstanding scenic, his—
toric and cultural value; areas particularly suited
for park and recreation purposes, including access
to lakeshores, beaches, and rivers and streams; and
areas which serve as links between major recreation
and open space reservations, including utility
easements, banks of rivers and streams, trails, and
scenic highway corridors.
(4) Open space for public health and safety, including
but not limited to, areas which require special
management or regulation because of hazardous or
special conditions such as earthquake fault zones,
unstable soil areas, flood plains, watersheds,
areas presenting high fire risks, areas required
for the protection of water quality and water
reservoirs and areas required for the protection
and enhancement of air.quality.
Examples of each of these open space uses can be found in Costa
Mesa. In some instances, an individual open space facility may
perform a variety of functions. As an example, the development of
the City's Fairview Park will preserve and upgrade an existing
wildlife habitat, provide outdoor recreational uses, protect a
significant archaeological site and offer an ideal development
alternative compatible with the flood and geologic hazards
associated with the lowlands adjacent to the Santa Ana River.
The commitment of the City of Costa Mesa to meet the intent and
goals established by the State Legislature is evident in many
governmental actions. In 1973, the City Council adopted the
Environmental Management System which included the Open Space,
Conservation and Scenic Highways Elements of the General Plan.
Later in the same year, the citizens of Costa Mesa approved two
bond issues totalling $3.9 million to acquire and develop ad-
ditional parkland. All of the bond money was spent to purchase
portions of" Fairview Park and to acquire and develop Pinkley,
Shiffer, Brentwood, Wakeham, and Wilson Parks. The City has also
preserved open space by receiving land dedication or park ac-
quisition fees from developers or by securing easements from
private construction projects. Acquisition and improvement of
Wimbledon, Fairview and Canyon Park sites are major. projects
acquired and improved by this program.
INVENTORY AND STANDARDS -
In 1989, Costa Mesa's inventory of open space lands and uses
totaled 2,240 acres - approximately 28 percent of the total area of
the City and unincorporated sphere of influence. This inventory is
presented on Table 11 and Figure 16. All of these features can be
classified into three primary categories: (1) Permanent Open Space
(1,673 acres), (2) Interim Open Space (304 acres), and
(3) Institutional Open Space (263 acres). Each of these categories
is defined and discussed in detail in the following sections.
Permanent Open Space
Permanent open space facilities are those uses which can be
expected to remain committed to open space usage through the life
of the plan. These uses are predominantly publicly -owned facili-
ties and available, or proposed for public recreational enjoyment.
Exceptions which are in private ownership are two golf courses, one
private college, one private park and a memorial park/cemetery.
cw
• p.w
,y o
�tol 0 0000 0000000 000000000000 0o
L
Y
A Y
• O
Ow
Um
0 00
r C
W A C
Z d •
O 7
6
F
U
2
u C
U 4 O
O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 7 Y
� ou
o �
0 0u
4 y
0 U
c
C O 7
S O O
y' 4
O.
01 0
> A U
4 4 4
0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
n u O O O
V a V O O
42 V
0. o:
c
O N m
O b e'1
fIf V ry N
C
Up
Y
C
O
fi
4 V O
a, O r NOmgbOONO.-.O .O q.OnmOmNON1�mNtiMIM � tl
�0���00.r O.00NN.ONhgtl f�mf.p�pgfn Mf�bN� .-.q�ONO1�ONmNN�
M. Nf�O . . .-. .b ONOC! rIm.�gq
{ V O •A.ngNNO... pf ^.N.+mNNNN111'1bAr�Nbg1.�A f • �
" ,bgmb0. mgnOmOO. I�OVgmm
u
u
c
tl
P
•
O 0
r
A
ry.S SN N
Y
2r 0
a ar4G N G G N G N �G 4 Nr.G G G N.G G 4 G N G N G N G G 4\G 4 itG G G G G •
o
Y
B
0
4
• • w
~ v O O
m r q O tl
V u •
� Y F b O
O A
+9 y Nd Or O-oY co
a
4 o C• NN. in UL 4YH L O O AA A
'C C 44 4 O V O �j0 "OHO 2H L•mP 6ZL.MgLALAA00A 0 •
w 2V uu y t H a• iw C0 { OL OSi..O A.=CYyL�tCgHC U C
G C
U Y..Optl O Y tltl3 q P >E C O • OH NO.O CC NHL 6tlL • YOLUOYU U M
3 C V U O r 0 O r A O N r 4 A 3 m U A C U Y U• m 0 PN CNN tl 4 N c
O VrY44O •> 4 V 3 tlatlXE MC• 6+tli4 OmmOPI U- V 4d o" tl4rCA O
O• 4 •uODUxC y O.0 eC tlA AW 4Pe a.I O,y `�>• G 10�
V% "C >1 .�� 8A'b Cr tlA�e AW •rAYtl• HN• 6a tlJ(r�1YrYtlI�;AQ •.�OOYYQO
AtlCiiAYr •4 AC ON07Ctltlr�CSA wJ(A� F.rA pptlUAA tli tlMYr.yCN7■0
r q O r r q tl .� r O Q L 7 tl Orr ./ r r 2 q• y pp �c
HO]mVVUCIW G.USSaaSi0. 0, O: N H NI+Hi>iii DG.F aS9mUVVCG
0 u V
_�
O
Ov
6
�
�
�
C
p
V
�y
US
y
p O
0 0
O O
o A �
i
4 �
V
C
0
9
O
G1
< C
N m r
N
u
7R(
N
01
r1Nm
aw
V���jjj
Omm
m a0
N
N
eu
w dW
O
N O r1 t'f N 2
m�O�n
V
O 0, •�
b NO. I
O e'f N I
V
tl 4
^ ..
-2.
O
U
+ O
C O
0 0 0
O 0 0 0 0
O p 0 0
^
<
C
w
6
d d
m..1y
Y
\
ZZ
L
C
0,
U•
a
o
�U>,UU
OW
S
\
O
4
zu.tO
U N
o 0
0
O1
ti
C
t2�01�Y
.TL.
2
O
L
�
\
(Oj
V
F
d
h��
Oi8OY
z .Z
N
v
z
4.
FNKFOw n
cw
\yN
Wc
U
Y O
O
CwtlO
2
Yr
<
a
Or
of
tj
-60wax
N\
0 0 0
0 0 0
O O
/u)CC
j
z
5
7 4
o u
\oL3OC4•
0 0 0 0
14O
o
s
Im;
a
a
c
O
tl u-
p
C
c .0
ti F
S O
O O
Z
� �
O
C L
6
F m
Ed
N
> < V
Y 4 4
O
O
O
L
O
w n
yj tl
y �
O
�
6
�
2 S 6
N
47 U
US
41
O: c C
o A �
4 �
I
9
< C
N m r
N
C
7R(
N
01
r1Nm
N
m m
V���jjj
Omm
m a0
N
N
^I
N O r1 t'f N 2
m�O�n
V
O 0, •�
b NO. I
O e'f N I
V
tl 4
C
^
2 S 6
N
47 U
US
o A �
0
C
7R(
Q
Y
tl 4
tl
<
C
w
'O
d d
m..1y
Y
\
ZZ
C
0,
U•
ee
�U>,UU
4
zu.tO
4. f.1
Y
t2�01�Y
.TL.
C
(Oj
V
Cw
<
h��
Oi8OY
z .Z
N
Valli cw
FNKFOw n
cw
\yN
O
CwtlO
2
Yr
tj
-60wax
S
/u)CC
j
F
\oL3OC4•
14O
Im;
pO
S
O
k
T
Q
Z
a
J
W
W
U
U
a
aa
ILW
N
�
<<
CO
Ix
W <
p
o
c
W
o
d G
O
U
LL Qi
Y<
OLLJ
O U W
=L
CC W h
t=
�-
OV
d F
>>
2 2►-
= J J;
o
J
W a .,
C
V>>
O m¢
z
a
2
U) IML
a 2c
0w
m
d�
yll
'
In adopting the Environmental Management System in 1973, the City Council
established a policy to provide 4.0 acres of permanent open space for
every 1,000 residents. This minimum standard was further defined as 2.5
acres per 1,000 population of public neighborhood and community parks and
1.5 acres per 1,000 population of recreation related land which is
typically provided in conjunction with the public schools system. As
part of the 1990 General Plan, the City Council established two new
policies to gradually increase the ratio of permanent public open space
for every 1,000 residents. Policy 1 raises the standard to 4.5 acres per
1,000 population (3.0 acres of neighborhood and community parkland and
1,5 acres of school yards). Policy 2 required adjustment of the standard
to reflect the actual ratio of parkland to population once the results
of the 1990 Federal Census were available. This latter action results
in an increase to 4.26 acres of neighborhood and community parks per
1,000 population.
The amount of land allocated to meet these standards and the extent to
which the standards are met are noted in the following subsections.
Parkland: Costa Mesa's inventory of parkland includes a variety of
public and private, and developed and undeveloped parcels. Totalling
approximately 631 acres, this represents the largest portion of the
City's permanent open space facilities.' The following table provides
further detail regarding ownership arrangements and development status.
TABLE 12: PARKLAND INVENTORY
The private parkland identified in Table 12 is occupied by the Halecrest
Tennis and Swim Club and two open space easements in northeast Costa
Mesa. The Halecrest Club is a 4.49 acre facility, located immediately
south of Killybrooke School, which provides a variety of recreational
facilities for its members. The public open space easements account for
the remaining 6.19 acres and are located in the Town Center (2.9 acres
north of the Westin South Coast Plaza Hotel) and The Lakes mixed use
project (3.29 acres at the corner of Avenue of the Arts and Anton
Boulevard). The easement within The Lakes project was used to fulfill the
park dedication requirements of the residential portion of the project.
Approximately one-quarter of Costa Mesa's inventory or permanent open
space is included in the City's community and neighborhood park system.
It is this acreage which is applied to the interim standard of 4.26 acres
of public parkland for 1,000 inhabitants.
The parkland dedication standard is established to maintain the ratio of
parkland to population through the life of the 1990 General Plan. As it
is based upon the actual average which existed at the time of the 1990
Federal Census, annual increases in population will require comparable
increases in open space facilities. As Costa Mesa is nearly built -out,
this will be a major challenge as the remaining vacant or underutilized
land is developed for residential purposes. Based upon an expected build-
Acres
Acres
Total
Developed
Undeveloped
Acres
City Parkland
(Owned)
210.74
200
410.74
(Leased)
(201.67)
(11.97)
(200)
(0)
(401.67)
County Parkland
0
210
(11.97)
Private Parkland
.
10.68
0
210
10.68
TOTAL PARKLAND
22�.42
410
631.42
It should be noted
owned by the County
that this inventory includes approximately 210 acres
of Orange adjacent to
as the Fairview and
the Santa Ana
Talbert Regional Park site.
River, designated
The private parkland identified in Table 12 is occupied by the Halecrest
Tennis and Swim Club and two open space easements in northeast Costa
Mesa. The Halecrest Club is a 4.49 acre facility, located immediately
south of Killybrooke School, which provides a variety of recreational
facilities for its members. The public open space easements account for
the remaining 6.19 acres and are located in the Town Center (2.9 acres
north of the Westin South Coast Plaza Hotel) and The Lakes mixed use
project (3.29 acres at the corner of Avenue of the Arts and Anton
Boulevard). The easement within The Lakes project was used to fulfill the
park dedication requirements of the residential portion of the project.
Approximately one-quarter of Costa Mesa's inventory or permanent open
space is included in the City's community and neighborhood park system.
It is this acreage which is applied to the interim standard of 4.26 acres
of public parkland for 1,000 inhabitants.
The parkland dedication standard is established to maintain the ratio of
parkland to population through the life of the 1990 General Plan. As it
is based upon the actual average which existed at the time of the 1990
Federal Census, annual increases in population will require comparable
increases in open space facilities. As Costa Mesa is nearly built -out,
this will be a major challenge as the remaining vacant or underutilized
land is developed for residential purposes. Based upon an expected build-
E
N
w
4
Z
out population of 107,350, the required inventory of neighborhood and
community parks would be 457.31 acres, an increase of 47.57 acres over
the current inventory.
Recognizing the challenges to meet future open space needs, the City
Council retained a consultant to prepare a comprehensive parks and
recreation needs assessment and implementation strategy in 1991. The
resultant study (the Parks, Recreation and Opens Space Master Plan Study)
recommended a change in the City's policy toward the acquisition of new
public park lands. Rather than focus on the actual acquisition of land
for new park sites, the master plan study recommended a focus on the
joint use of existing public school facilities to meet new recreation
needs, especially in the area of active recreation and sports facilities.
The master plan study only recommended the addition of two new parks
sites. One would be a small pocket park (approximately 1/2 acre) on
current city -owned land at the southeast corner of Charle Street and
Hamilton Street. The second would be an approximately 5 -acre park to be
developed in conjunction with the build -out of the Sakioka Farms
residential site in northeast Costa Mesa.
In order to fulfill the park dedication standard, the master plan study
relies on the use of excess school play areas as active recreation sites
or tot lots to partially satisfy the 4.26 acre per 1,000 population goal.
If all recommendations of the master plan are implemented, a total of
467.49 acres of public park and recreation land could be provided. Table
13 identifies the components which comprise this total.
TABLE 13: FUTURE PARKLAND INVENTORY
Facility Acreage
Existing Public Parks 410.74
Charle St. Pocket Park 0.50
Sakioka Farms Park Site 5.00
School Joint Use Sites 47.05
Orange Coast College Joint Use 4.20
Total Acreage 467.49
The school joint use sites are recommended for two primary uses. The
majority of the acreage (40.25 acres) would be utilized for active sports
and recreation fields. The remaining 6.8 acres would be utilized for tot
lots and informal field games. The sites recommended for joint use and
the acreage at each site are listed in Table 14.
TABLE 14: SCHOOL JOINT USE FACILITIES
School Site Acreage
Active Recreation:
Costa Mesa High School
19.60
Estancia High/Parsons
7.00
California/TeWinkle School
5.60
Davis School
1.40
Mesa Verde School
1.05
Kaiser School
5.60
Tot Lots/Informal Field Games:
Killybrooke School
1.00
Wilson School
1.00
Pomona School
2.40
Whittier School
2.40
Total Acreage 47.05
Ti
H
W
W
Z
T
L
above recommendations could result in an approximate 10 -acre excess
entory of parkland when compared to the demand generated by the 4.26
e per 1,000 population standard. However, the master plan study
ommendations have the built-in cushion in case some of the recommended
nt use facilities prove to be infeasible or are not implemented.
Schools: Public and private educational facilities occupy approximately
545 acres in Costa Mesa. As noted in the following table, the majority
of this land is owned by the Newport -Mesa Unified School District (NMUSD)
and is developed as elementary, intermediate or high schools. The total
area occupied by schools within Costa Mesa is noted below:
TABLE 15: SCHOOL INVENTORY (JANUARY 1988)
Newport -Mesa Unified School District 294.54 AC
Coast Community College District 178.13 AC
Southern California College 41.60 AC
TOTAL 514.27 AC
Of the total area owned -by the NMUSD, two acres are leased for public
park purposes (Lindbergh and Harper School Parks) and 10 acres (Balearic
School) are leased as a recreation center by the City. Also, the school
district has declared the Bear Street Elementary School site as surplus
land and has indicated its intention to dispose of the site to make it
available for private development. These areas are not included in the
preceding inventory.
As noted in a previous section, the s=andard of 1.5 acres of recreation
land per 1,000 population is typically provided by the public school
system. However, since many school facilities are not readily accessible
for such use, the amount of land allocated to meet this standard is
limited to the open play yards and fields of the total school area. On
the average, one-third of the total area is occupied by buildings and
parking lots, -while the remaining two-thirds are devoted to recreational
activities. Table 16 identifies the amount of recreational area required
based on 1988 and General Plan buildout population estimates.
TABLE 16: SCHOOL YARDS
Existing Required Acreage
School Yard* Based on 1.5 Acre Excess
Acreage Population** Standard Acreage
201 1994 - 102,360 154 47
Post 2010 - 107,350 161 35
*Assume 66 percent of total school acreage is available for
recreational use.
As noted in the preceding discussion of public park and recreation
facilities, the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan Study has
recommended that the City utilize portions of school. district property
for active recreation facilities to meet the projected demand for
parkland through build -out of this plan. The ultimate amount of school
yards available to meet the 1.5 -acre per 1,000 population standard will
be adjusted based upon the number of joint use agreements executed
between the City and the School District. If all recommended joint use
sites are successfully negotiated, the amount of school yards area would
be decreased to 154 acres, seven fewer than required based upon the 1.5
acre per 1,000 population -standard. Again, this number is subject to
change based on the ability of the city and the district to successfully
negotiate joint use agreements for all of the recommended locations.
However, the combined inventory of available open space will meet the
total required open space standard of 5.76 acres per 1,000 population
(621.44 available vs. 618.54 required).
As land within this inventory is not under direct control of the City,
the City must carefully monitor this inventory to maintain adequate land
to meet the adopted standard in the event of school closures or the sale
Of surplus school sites for private development.
The remaining acreage within this category is used for higher educational
facilities; Orange Coast College (a 2 -year community college) and
Southern California College (a private, 4 -year college). Approximately
220 acres are occupied by these institutions.
Cemeteries: Only one cemetery (the Harbor Lawn Mount
Cemetery). Olive Mortuary
is located in Costa Mesa. This 29 -acre facility, located south
of Gisler Avenue and west of Harbor Boulevard, provides a source of
visual open space.
Golf Courses: Golf courses provide both visual open space and
recreational benefits. Two courses are located within the existing City
limits. The Costa Mesa Golf Course and Country Club (237 acres) is
operated by the City and leased from the State of California while the
Mesa Verde Country Club (136 acres) is a private club. Additionally, the
Santa Ana Country Club (129 acres) is privately -owned and located within
the City's sphere of influence. These three facilities total 502 acres.
_Parkways and Medians: Landscaped medians and parkways along major
streets provide visual relief in the form of linear open space. Such
facilities can be used to reduce the visual impact of large expanses of
roadway, to direct and control traffic flow and to screen or orient views
from public streets. In addition to City -maintained medians and
parkways, landscaped setbacks adjacent to public rights-of-way in private
developments contribute to this type of open space. Because of the
location of such features within many of Costa Mesa's major
transportation corridors, they are often the form of open space which
provide the greatest impact on those persons travelling in and through
the City. As such, the development of such facilities can significantly
add to the City's overall image and appearance.
Interim Open Space
Interim open space contains privately -owned land which is vacant or used
for agricultural production. Property in this category is designated as
interim open space because of the anticipated conversion of these lands
to urban development at some future date. As such, Costa Mesa's
inventory is in a constant state of flux as vacant parcels are developed
and agricultural fields are converted to commercial, industrial or
residential uses. Also, portions of this inventory may eventually be
allocated for permanent open space use through acquisition or dedication.
Agricultural Fields: A portion of Costa Mesa north of the San Diego
Freeway is used for agricultural production. In 1989, approximately 222
acres of land were devoted to active agricultural use. This compares to
540 acres in October 1978 and 890 acres in 1970. Since 1970, the General
Plan has anticipated ultimate conversion of the remaining agricultural
land to urban development. All of these fields have been designated as
Prime Agricultural land by the California Land Conservation Act of 1965.
Small portions of Orange Coast College and Costa Mesa High School are
used for agricultural related education programs. The area used for such
purposes is included in the educational facilities totals and is not
reflected in the total acreage allocated to agricultural production noted
in the.preceding paragraph.
Vacant Land: Although Costa Mesa's inventory of vacant land is rapidly
being depleted through construction activity, the remaining inventory at
any point in time provides a source of open space. In 1990 the inventory
of vacant land, including the agricultural acreage, was approximately 265
acres (excluding undeveloped parkland). Of this total, 90 acres were
designated for ultimate commercial development, 75 acres for industrial
development and 100 acres for residential development.
Institutional Open Space and Trails
Costa Mesa is nearly bisected in an east/west direction by a broad belt
of public and semi-public uses identified as the Institutional Open Space
Corridor. This corridor contains approximately 1,500 acres which extend
from the Santa Ana River to Upper Newport Bay. Primary elements of the
corridor include the Santa Ana River Greenbelt Trail, Fairview and
Talbert and Fairview Regional Park site, Estancia High School, the Costa
Mesa Golf and Country Club, Fairview Developmental Center, Orange Coast
College, Costa Mesa High School, Davis School, TeWinkle Park, the
National Guard Armory, the Orange County Fairgrounds, Civic Center Park,
the Civic Center complex, Southern California College and the Santa Ana
Country Club. Major uses outside of the City represent potential
linkages to extend this corridor through Newport Beach and into Irvine.
Key pieces of this potential greenbelt and linkages between the pieces
are identified in Figures 17 and 18.
_Santa Ana River/Santiago Creek Greenbelt: The Santa Ana River/Santiago
Creek Greenbelt, a major regional open space corridor and trail system,
forms the western boundary of the Institutional Open Space Corridor.
That portion of the greenbelt system within Costa Mesa contains many of
the same facilities as the Institutional Open Space Corridor (the
Fairview and Talbert Regional Park site, Fairview Park site, Estancia
High School, the Costa Mesa Golf and Country Club and Fairview Hospital).
Other facilities in the greenbelt include Vista Park, the Mesa Verde
Country Club, Suburbia Park and a number of bikeways leading to the Santa
Ana River Trail. This trail provides for both bicycle and equestrian
use. The entire greenbelt system extends along the Santa Ana River from
the Pacific Coast, through Orange County and into Riverside and San
Bernardino counties as well as along Santiago Creek through central
Orange County.
Fairview Developmental Center: In spite of the intensely developed
nature of the interior portion of the 102 -acre Fairview Developmental
Center, a portion of the property is undeveloped or landscaped for open
space usage. Much of the interior open space is available for the
Center's use. The large setbacks from all property lines incorporate an
off-street bicycle trail which was developed in conjunction with the
Harbor Village apartment project in the northeast portion of' the site.
This trail also extends along the east, north and south edges of the
Costa Mesa Golf Course. The trail will eventually connect to the Santa
Ana River trail with additional extensions through Fairview Park.
Orange County Fair and Exposition Center: Portions of the 150 -acre
Orange County Fairgrounds site are not developed with buildings and are
used as overflow parking for Costa Mesa High School and Orange Coast
College as well as temporary parking for the weekend. Other portions of
the Fairgrounds are occupied by the Santa Ana Army Air Base Memorial
Gardens, an outdoor amphitheatre and picnic area. An off-street bicycle
trail has been constructed on the east and south sides of the site. The
1991 Master Plan for the facility will result in an enhanced edge
treatment around the site.
Civic Center: The 9.5 -acre Civic Center Complex is occupied by the
Police Facility, City Hall, a Fire Station, and Communications Center.
Approximately 1.5 acres of the complex are landscaped and devoted to open
space use.
National Guard Armory: Although this site is publicly owned, the open
space benefits of the site are severely limited because of the large
portion allocated to vehicle and equipment storage.
Libraries: While not a part of the Institutional Open Space
Corridor, the Mesa Verde Branch Library provides a source of visual
open space through generous setbacks from Mesa Verde Drive and
Baker Street. The Donald Dungan Branch Library is located within
the Lions Park area.
OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS
Land in public ownership and committed to long term open space use
provides many positive assets to Costa Mesa. Public parks not only
serve the recreational needs of the citizens but also contribute
significantly to the visual image and quality of life of the City.
These same facilities can contribute to mental and physical well-
being by providing aesthetic and inspirational enjoyment. Passive
recreation areas or visual open spaces act as a buffer or relief
from intense urban settings. To provide the maximum benefits,
these facilities should be developed to offer the highest degree of
visibility and accessibility. These criteria should be stressed in
the evaluation and design of future park sites. The only qualifi-
cation which applies to these criteria should be to the sensitive
habitat and resource conservation areas in the Fairview and Talbert
Regional Park site.
Permanent open space areas can have significant positive environ-
mental benefits. Such areas can be used to protect wildlife
habitats, provide space for air recharge, preserve historical,
cultural and archaeological resources and control development in
areas subject to geologic or hydrologic hazards. Certain open
space uses within Costa Mesa provide such benefits. As an example,
Estancia Park provides the Diego Sepulveda Adobe with the ap-
propriate setting for a landmark of its importance in Costa Mesa's
history. Also, the Mesa Verde Country Club and the development of
the Fairview Park are compatible land uses for designated flood
plains.
In order to reduce the fiscal impacts of providing additional
parkland to maintain the established_ acre per population ratio, the
City requires dedication of land for future parks or the payment of
fees to acquire such land from residential subdivisions under
authority of the Quimby Act. While reducing initial acquisition
costs for the City, such requirements can be passed on to consumers
in the form of higher housing costs.
The land dedication and fee amount requirements are revised
periodically to accommodate shifts in per household population
sizes (as determined by census counts) and land values (as
determined by periodic appraisal reports). Extension of the
program to nonsubdivided residential developments will also provide
additional means to ensure that the City's parkland inventory keeps
pace with increased demand.
REGIONAL GREENBELT LINKAGES
•�o
�c
re 1"Nllr•n -�
m ' 8
8� C
e e
/
to
i �` _ • 8
� N i ►G y i
� e
- c O
i 'Ctl rainy \ i
1
Y
'WY loyN
1
1
5 1
2 � 1
R : . . • Y t
• . 3 5
N N • i " r
V pN
j N N g g
1 I' � ► G W W 6 W J
FIGURE 1Lu7
W 1 Y
J m a
N
One method to relieve the increased economic burdens of acquiring
and maintaining a viable park network may be to place greater ational
responsibility on the private market to supply needed recre
facilities in new developments. To implement this action, the City
may waive the park fee or dedication requirement for new develop-
ments if more than the required open space or certain recreational
facilities are provided in the development to meet the needs of the
prospective tenants. Private tennis, racquetball or athletic clubs
may be encouraged to provide needed recreational facilities. Also,
other forms of open space preservation may be employed to provide
additional parkland. An open space easement, has been used to
provide an approximate 3 -acre park in the Town Center and a similar
sized water amenity in The Lakes mixed use project in north Costa
Mesa. This has the advantage of eliminating public acquisition
costs and reducing the tax burden of the underlying property owner.
Other easements may be employed to preserve scenic vistas and limit
development in flood areas or wildlife habitats. Alternatives such
as these may be employed to provide the east side with sufficient
park and recreation facilities because of the limited amount of
parcels available for park land development.
While the public park system provides long term, continuing
benefits, the inventory of privately -owned open space provides
important temporary benefits. Effective management and regulation
of agricultural and vacant parcels can be used to control and guide
development while also providing temporary visual relief. However,
because of the surrounding urban development and relatively limited
amount of agricultural land in active production, the conversion of
Costa Mesa's agricultural land to urban development is expected to
occur in the near future.
These interim benefits must be balanced with the liabilities of
open space uses. For example, agricultural production in proximity
to residential developments results in conflicts associated with
dust, pesticides, fertilizers, and rotting of unharvested crops.
Also, agricultural fields are subject to vandalism and plant damage
from nearby residents. Dust from agricultural and vacant fields is
a major source of particulate air pollution. Undeveloped land can
also be overgrown with weeds and grasses which, if left unattended,
can present significant fire hazards. -
Fire hazards associated with overgrown, vacant or underdeveloped
parcels can be controlled through periodic discing or plowing under
of weeds and grasses. In large -open areas such as the Fairview
Park site, the cutting of firebreaks may be required to protect
adjacent uses until the park is fully improved.
The Institutional Open Space Corridor represents a valuable
resource which has yet to be tapped. Although the corridor has the
potential of becoming a part of a major multi-purpose greenbelt of
regional significance, current development does not project a
Positive, unified image. This situation is the result of in-
dividual development by the various agencies without the benefit of
strong physical linkages, common design elements, or inter -agency
cooperation..
A primary factor which detracts from the present image of the
corridor is the visual appearance of the streetscapes within the
corridor. The absence of streetscape improvements along the Harbor
Boulevard frontage of the golf course and a portion of the Fairview
Development Center detract from the corridor. Landscaping in the
medians along Fairview Road -and Harbor Boulevard, as well as on-
site landscaping on the Orange Coast College campus are examples of
public improvements which enhance and unify the corridor.
Additional programs of this nature are needed to further unify the
separate elements into a recognizable district.
An important linking element to the corridor is an identifiable
"spine" or primary linkage between the individual elements. The
sensitive habitat concerns regarding Upper Newport Bay preclude a
major roadway linkage through the corridor. However, the pos-
sibility of bicycle trail or pedestrian linkages remains and
excellent opportunity.
Major educational facilities and recreational opportunities within
the greenbelt create a high demand for bicycle -related facilities.
These demands will be met by an extensive bicycle trail network.
As can be seen on Figure 18, a number of these trails are already
in existence.
Implementation of the regional greenbelt system will require a
coordinated effort on behalf of a number of governmental agencies.
This coordination is needed to ensure conformity and to resolve
existing potential conflicts.
ACTION PROGRAM
Preservation of existing open space resources require a comprehen-
sive and coordinated approach. For this reason, Section 65564 of
the Government Code requires the inclusion of an action program in
all open space plans.
Implementation of the open space plan is largely guided by the
goals, objectives and policies contained in the General Plan.
These broad policy statements provide direction for the development
of more detailed action programs. Key programs include:
1. General Plan Land Use Element
In addition to providing overall policy direction, the Land Use
Element of the General Plan preserves existing open space resources
by designating such uses for Public and Semi -Public Use. This
broad land use category is further refined by site-specific
designations reflecting the actual use of the property (i.e., park,
institutional or resource conservation).
2. ZoninQ Ordinance
Further regulation of open space resources is provided by the
zoning ordinance. All lands designated for Public and Semi -Public
Use by the Land Use Element are zoned I & R (Institutional and:
Recreational) or I & R -S (Institutional and Recreational
Schools). The use of the I & R zones also seek to implement
Section 65910 of the Government Code which requires cities to
establish open space zoning districts. The zoning ordinance also
contributes to the overall open space inventory by requiring
W
F-
UJ
W
Z
minimum open space standards in all residential zoning districts
and minimum landscape standards in nonresidential districts.
3. Park Dedication and'In-Lieu Park and Recreation Fee Ordinance
As authorized by the Quimby Act, the City has adopted and imple-
ments an ordinance to require the dedication of land for park sites
or the payment of fees in lieu of dedication to acquire or
rehabilitate park sites in conjunction with new residential
subdivisions. The initial ordinance and fee program were adopted
in the early 1970's and have been amended and updated periodically.
During the 1990 update of the General Plan, the City Council
directed staff to explore the expansion of this program to include
nonsubdivided residential developments.
4. Capital Improvement Program
The most direct action. program may be the City's Capital Improve-
ment Program. Adopted as a part of the City budget, the Capital
Improvement Program plans and allocates funds to acquire, develop
and rehabilitate parks within the community.
5. Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan Study
In early 1991, the City Council directed staff to update the Master
Plan of Parks and Recreation. The primary purpose of this update
was to develop a detailed and comprehensive plan to address the
long term park and recreational needs of the community. The draft
Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan Study was completed in
late 1993 and accepted by the City Council in 1994.
As noted earlier, the master plan study provides a new strategy to
meet the majority of the community's long range open space and
recreation needs through joint use of existing public school
facilities. This strategy from the master plan study and the
policies contained within this subelement of the General Plan will
serve as the basis for a long range action program to meet the open
space and recreation needs of the community through the life of
this plan.
6. Intergovernmental Cooperation
The large amount of publicly owned land in Costa Mesa requires
close coordination to ensure that existing land used for open space
or recreational purposes are maintained. Cooperation is also
required to ensure that future improvements to public lands are
compatible with adjacent private uses. Examples of the need for
this cooperation are the current plans for the improvement of the
Fairview and Talbert Regional Park by the County of Orange; the
Master Plan for the Orange County Fair and Exposition Center by the
Fair Board; the possible school closures or sale of surplus land by
the Newport -Mesa School District and Coast Community College
District; and the continued use and development of the Fairview
Development Center. Intergovernmental coordination is also
necessary to realize the benefits of the regional Institutional
Open Space Corridor and the joint use facility recommendations
contained in the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan
Study.
GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES
The goals, objectives, and policies of the Costa Mesa General Plan
that address open space are as follows:
GOAL I: ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND RESOURCE CONSERVATION
It is the goal of the City of Costa Mesa to provide its citizens
with a high quality environment through the development and
conservation of resources, including land, water, minerals,
wildlife, and vegetation; the protection of areas of unique natural
beauty and historical, social, cultural, and scientific interest;
the integration of natural features into the man—made environment;
and the preservation of open space.
Objective I—A: Preserve the City's open space lands and provide
additional community and neighborhood parkland in conjunction with
future population increases to provide adequate recreational
opportunities and relief from the pressures of urban development.
I. Provide a minimum of 5.76 acres of permanent public open
space (consisting of 4.26 acres of neighborhood and
community parks and 1.5 acres in school yards) for every
1000 residents.
2. Reserved.
3. Reserved.
4. Provide maximum visibility and accessibility for future
public parks by locating such facilities adjacent to
existing or planned public streets.
5. Encourage the acquisition of land for neighborhood or
community parks for active recreational use.
6. To the extent legally possible, require other local,
regional, State, or Federal agencies to maintain and
adequate inventory of open space lands within Costa Mesa.
7. Review alternative means to acquire open space lands to
reduce the fiscal impact of providing such facilities. The
acquisition mechanisms can include lease or cooperative
agreements with other public agencies regarding surplus
land, dedication or easements in conjunction with planned
commercial, industrial or mixed use development,
acquisition of land by fee, development of City—owned
surplus property as parkland, or other mechanisms.
8. Encourage, through development rights transfers or other
incentives, the development of private permanent open
space, and recreation facilities to meet the needs of the
City's residents.
9. Encourage, through open space easements, development
rights transfers or acquisition, zoning regulations, or
other incentives, the long—term maintenance of existing
open space lands.
10. Require, through development standards and planned
development review criteria, the integration of open space
uses (plazas, courtyards, landscaped areas, etc.) into
major commercial and industrial development or redevelop-
ment projects.
11. Continue to require, through development standards, the
integration of open space and recreational uses and
facilities into all multiple -family residential projects.
12. Review the possibility of incorporating an Arts in Public
Places program in City parks.
13. Strongly encourage improved maintenance of City and school
district facilities used for recreation and organized
sports activities. Strongly support recreation programs
that benefit the youth of the community.
14. Retain all existing open space in Lions Park.
152. Strongly encourage protection and preservation of existing
but underutilized school sites for future recreational,
social or educational uses.
REFERENCES
1. General Plan (City of Costa Mesa), 1981
2. Draft Fairview and Talbert Regional Park Master Plan, County of
Orange, 1991
3. Final Environmental Impact Report for the Draft Updated Master
Plan for the Orange County Fair and Exposition Center, 32nd
District Agricultural Association, 1991
4. Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan Study, City of
Costa Mesa,,1993
5. Persons and Organizations Consulted:
David Alkema, Park Superintendent, City of Costa Mesa
Charles Carr, Recreation Superintendent, City of Costa Mesa
Newport—Mesa Unified School District
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP -95-03
OPEN SPACE SUBELEMENT
INSERT A
Recognizing the challenges to meet future open space needs, the
City Council retained a consultant to prepare a comprehensive parks
and recreation needs assessment and implementation strategy in
1991. The resultant study (the Parks, Recreation and Open Space
Master Plan Study) recommended a change in the City's policy toward
the acquisition of new public park lands. Rather than focus on the
actual acquisition of land for new. park sites, the master plan
study recommended a focus on the joint use of existing public
school facilities to meet new recreation needs, especially in the
area of active recreation and sports facilities. The master plan
study only recommended the addition of two new parks sites. One
would be a small pocket park (approximately 1/2 acre) on current
city -owned land at the southeast corner of Charle Street and
Hamilton Street. The second would be an approximately 5 -acre park
to be developed in conjunction with build -out of the Sakioka Farms
residential site in northeast Costa Mesa.
Because of concerns over the lack of park service to Eastside Costa
Mesa, City Council directed staff to reanalyze the results of the
study to identify potential bark sites in this area As a result
staff Prepared the Parks Recreation and Open Space Master Plan
which recommended the acquisition of at least 4 to 6 acres of hark
land on at least two Potentially surplus school sites The Master
Plan was adopted as an optional element of the General Plan in
1995.
In order to fulfill the park dedication standard, the master plan
study relies on the use of excess school play areas as active
recreation sites or tot lots to partially satisfy the 4.26 acres
per 1,000 population goal. If all recommendations of the master
plan are implemented. a total of 4-67.49 464.08 to 466.08 acres of
public park and recreation land could be provided. Table 13
identifies the components which comprise this total.
TABLE 13: FUTURE PARKLAND INVENTORY
Facility Acreage
Existing Public Parks 41�4. 414.33
Charle St. Pocket Park Site 0.50
Sakioka Farms Site 5.00
Eastside Park Sites 4.0 to 6.0
School Joint Use Sites 47.05 40.25
Grange -Ge asz e l l eg eease 4.2G
Total Acreage 46T49
464.08 - 466.08
be utilized fer tet 3:ets
• The sites
recommended for joint use and the acreage at each site are listed
in Table 14.
TABLE 14: SCHOOL JOINT USE FACILITIES
School Sites Acreage
Costa Mesa High School 19.60
Estancia High/Parsons 7.00
California/TeWinkle 5.60
Davis School 1.40
Mesa Verde School 1.05
Kaiser School 5.60
Total Acreage 4:7.9
40.25
The above recommendations could result in an approximate 19- 6- to
8 --acre excess inventory of parkland when compared to the 4.26 acre
per 1,000 population standard. However, the master plan stay
recommendations have the built-in cushion in case some of the
recommended joint uses facilities prove to be infeasible or are not
implemented.
INSERT B
Of the total area owned by NMUSD, two acres are leased for public
park purposes (Lindbergh and Harper School Parks) and 3-8 24 acres
(Balearic School and Rea Center) are leased as a recreation and
community centers. Ais Te-seheel distriet has dee}area-the -Bear
develepmen These areas are not included available
in the preceding
inventory.
INSERT C
As noted in the preceding discussion of public park and recreation
facilities, the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan Study
has recommended that the City utilize portions of school district
property for active recreation facilities to meet the projected
demand for parkland through build -out of this plan. The ultimate
amount of school yards available to meet the 1.5 acre per 1,000
population standard will be adjusted based upon the number of joint
use agreements executed between the City and the School District.
If all recommended joint use sites are successfully negotiated, the
amount of school yards would be decreased to 154 acres, seven fewer
than required based upon the 1.5 acre per 1,000 population
standard. Again this number is subj aet to ehange-based en the
ability €-th,e-ems- and the -distrie t t e --s u e eess€uii}neg elate
e int—arse--agrevents—€eras—of the reeemmended l eeatiens-
However, the combined inventory of available open space will meet
the total required open space standard of 5.76 acres per 1,000
population (621.44 618.08 to 620.08 available vs. 618.34 required) .
INSERT D
5. Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan Stag
In early 1991, the City Council directed staff to update the Master
Plan of Parks and Recreation. The primary purpose of this update
was to develop a detailed and comprehensive plan to address the
long term park and recreation needs of the community. The draft
Parks, Recreation Master Plan Study was completed in late 1993 and
accepted by the City Council in 1994. Upon acceptance of the
_study, Citv Council also directed staff to revise the study based
on community input and Councilmanic concerns and to incorporate the
master plan into this General Plan as an optional element This
was accomplished in 1995
As noted earlier, the master plan study provides a new strategy to
meet the majority of the community's long range open space and
recreation needs through joint use of existing public school
facilities. This strategy from the master plan st�tdy and the
policies within this subelement of the General Plan will serve as
the basis for a long range action program to meet the open space
and recreation needs of the community through the life of this
plan.