Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 - - Additional Documents - 10/1/2019Costa Mesa City Council 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 citycouncil@costamesaca.gov (714) 754-5107 September 30, 2019 Mayor Foley and the Costa Mesa City Council, This past Saturday, the Costa Mesa Alliance for Better Streets ran a booth at the Costa Makers Block Party, and talked with festival participants and passersby about walking and bicycling in the area around Triangle Square. We had the following petition available for people to sign: Petition to Rethink Newport Blvd. We, the undersigned, ask our Costa Mesa leaders to work toward giving us our downtown back, by making Newport Blvd. safe, comfortable, and pleasant for everyone. Rather than dedicating more public right of way to car traffic, we request that City Council direct staff to look into improvements that will help build a sense of place, enhance local businesses, foster a healthy community, and make our city more walkable, bikeable, and livable. Attached to this letter are the 62 signatures that we obtained on the petition during the event. We believe that making walking, bicycling, and other modes of transportation safer and easier will help build community and make our city healthier, more vibrant, more sustainable, and more beautiful. Here are a few reasons why we think that walking and bicycling improvements are especially important for Newport Boulevard between 19th and 17th: Newport Blvd. between 17th and 19th Streets is currently very dangerous for pedestrians. 14 people walking in Costa Mesa have been hit and killed by drivers in the last 10 years; 7 of those people (half of the total!) were killed just along this half-mile stretch of Newport Blvd (CMPD data). Costa Mesa’s General Plan identifies Newport Blvd. as a Pedestrian Opportunity Zone. The General Plan states, “Pedestrian Opportunity Zones [are] areas where the City will pursue street enhancements to create pedestrian-friendly environments.” GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENTS The 2018 Costa Mesa Active Transportation Plan includes a protected bike lane on Newport Blvd. The protected bike lane is indicated to run from 19th all the way to the southern city border. Biking and walking improvements are good for local businesses. People who bike and walk to businesses often spend more or visit more frequently than people who drive, and the addition of bike lanes and better walking infrastructure has been found to increase sales at businesses in multiple areas ( New York City DOT , Transportation for London , Seattle , Portland , Davis ), or at least not decrease sales even if parking was removed ( Los Angeles , CityLab annotated bibliography ). Studies, including of the London congestion zone when it was first implemented, have shown that only 5% of people switching to biking, walking, or transit can cut traffic congestion up to 25% ( StreetsBlog ). 21% of all driving trips in the US are less than one mile, and 46% are less than three miles, meaning that walking, bicycling, and other transit choices could replace many driving trips if we provided people with safe, easy-to-use infrastructure ( 2017 National Household Travel Survey ). While we are not proposing any particular solution to the problem of how to improve the experience of walking, bicycling, or otherwise using Newport Boulevard outside of personal vehicles, here are a few suggestions for possible improvements to consider: Add amenities such as benches, shade structures, tables, and trees to make walking and spending time in the area more pleasant. Widen sidewalks to make walking more comfortable and allow businesses to have a sidewalk presence (for example, outdoor tables). Make it easier for people to cross the street safely by installing crosswalks on all four sides of each intersection, adding features such as curb bulb-outs and pedestrian islands, and removing slip lanes that allow drivers to make high-speed turns without stopping for pedestrians. Increase the time allotted for pedestrians to cross the street, and reduce the time they need to wait for a signal. Install protected bike lanes that travel in both directions. Make mass transit, such as buses or trolleys, convenient and easy to use. Consider bike or scooter share programs, plus supporting infrastructure such as parking areas and bike lanes, to make it easier for people to take short trips without a car. These are not novel ideas; many come directly out of our City’s General Plan. For example, this figure is included in the General Plan to illustrate a Complete Street design: We thank you very much for your service to our community, and look forward to working together to make Newport Boulevard, and all of our city’s streets, better for everyone. Let us know how we can help. Sincerely, The Costa Mesa Alliance for Better Streets Board of Directors Russell Toler, President Flo Martin, Treasurer Marc Perkins, Secretary Michelle Fay Mike Lingle Attached: Seven pages of petitions with signatures. These can be electronically accessed at the following URL: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1rwRNmJ09q2DoB0-sBC6tDfVPlX9W9FNf?usp=sharing From:jcmerrill@gmail.com To:CITY CLERK Cc:ROSALES, JENNIFER; SETHURAMAN, RAJA; BARLOW, KIMBERLY HALL; lori.harrison@costamesaca.gov Subject:Paularino Channel Trail - City FAILED to serve proper notice to residents within 500 feet for10/3/19 Open House Date:Monday, September 30, 2019 10:29:46 PM ** Note to City Clerk – this subject is for General Public Comment, and not on the agenda. Councilmembers, It’s now Monday at 10pm on 9/30/19, and you’ve scheduled a Public Open House for Paularino Channel Trail on Thursday, 10/3/19 – yet not one resident I’ve talked to has received notice from the City. Even if it arrives in tomorrow’s mail, that is less than 2 days’ notice. At the Newport Ave Public Meeting, I spoke with Jennifer Rosales, who let me know that the date location was set, and the notices were printed. So what happened between then and today? It’s been almost 2 weeks since that conversation. It is extremely disappointing and disturbing that at least 7 days’ notice has not been provided for the 10/3/19 Paularino Chanel Trail Open House. People need at least 1 week to make arrangements for babysitters, to arrange for ADA-accessible transportation, and request time off from their work shifts. This project is of great concern to the residents near the channel, and that fact is well known. It shows a lack of leadership and competence from all levels – all the way to Mayor Katrina Foley. Failure to properly notice public hearings affects disadvantaged community members the most. I’m writing you this letter today to demand that this material fact be entered into the record for this project. It is unacceptable, and hard to believe this failure could have been by accident. This material fact is a major promise broken to the residents of Mesa del Mar and Crofton Estates, further evidence that the public process for Paularino Channel Tail is not sincere, and that the City does not want to listen to the residents it would affect the most. John C. Merrill, PE, TE 2893 El Rio Circle Costa Mesa, CA 92626 GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENTS From:Alison Wright To:CITY CLERK Cc:REYNOLDS, ARLIS; CITY COUNCIL Subject:Tonight’s City Council Meeting Date:Tuesday, October 01, 2019 11:26:33 AM Attachments:No Small Matter Invite - 10.10.19 - r2.jpg My name is Alison Wright. I am a resident in Costa Mesa. My local district City Council Representative is Council Member Reynolds. I would like to attend tonight’s meeting and share during public comments about upcoming events at our new Donald Dungan Library and events supporting our Library that will be held at the Costa Mesa Women’s Club this month. I read in the agenda for this evening’s City Council Meeting that any written communications, photos, or other materials for copying and distribution to the City Council that are 10 pages or less, should be submitted to you before 12pm. Please let me know if there is anything else I need to provide. Thank you. Alison Wright Below is my email address for those interested to reach out with questions and/or comments, the Costa Mesa Friends of the Library website, and a few social media links and flyer with information regarding the event on October 10th sharing about the importance of early childhood in our city. Cmfolevents@gmail.com https://friendscmlibraries.org/news-%26-events https://www.facebook.com/UnitedWayOC/photos/a.10150294646482252/10156766514002252/? type=3&theater https://www.instagram.com/p/B24_Cf-lUbI/ https://twitter.com/unitedwayoc/status/1177680837938044928 https://www.eventbrite.com/e/no-small-matter-screening-tickets-70548016015 Sent from my iPhone GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENTS ADDITTIONAL DOCUMENTS ITEM # NB-1 A Resolution Amending and Adopting theCity’s Small Cell Telecommunication Facility Design Guidelines CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 1, 2019 ITEM NUMBER: NB-1 SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION AMENDING AND ADOPTING THE CITY’S SMALL CELL TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITY DESIGN GUIDELINES DATE: SEPTEMBER 30, 2019 FROM: PLANNING DIVISION / DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PRESENTATION BY: JENNIFER LE, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES/ BARRY CURTIS, DIRECTOR OF ECONOMIC AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: JENNIFER LE (714) 754-5617 Jennifer.Le@costamesaca.gov The purpose of this memo is to transmit proposed minor revisions to the Design Guidelines and a supplemental diagram to illustrate the Design Guidelines. 1) Final draft of the Design Guidelines. Minor clarifying revisions were made to the following sections and are shown in underline strike through format. a. Section 1 (a) – Rule: Preferred Support Structures and Locations b. Section 1 (a)(3) – Additional Location Preferences c. Section 2 (a) – Finishes d. Section 2 (h)(1)(B) – Side-Mounted 2) A visual diagram for “Section 2 – Design Standards” of the Design Guidelines. The diagram is intended to illustrate acceptable design configurations and would be available at the Planning Counter. Attachments: 1. Design Guidelines for Small Cell Telecommunications Facilities 2. Design Guidelines Diagram JENNIFER LE BARRY CURTIS, AICP Assistant Director of Development Services Director of Economic and Development Services From:Monica Draghici To:CITY COUNCIL; BARLOW, KIMBERLY HALL; LE, JENNIFER; CURTIS, BARRY C.; CITY CLERK Cc:Julie Allione Subject:Comments on Proposed Small Cell Design Guidelines Date:Tuesday, October 01, 2019 11:09:43 AM Dear City Council, City Attorney and Planning Department, I am writing to provide comments regarding the proposed small cell design guidelines on behalf of the many residents who signed the change.org petition on this topic (364 currently). These guidelines do not adequately address citizen concerns and are actually curtailing existing established democratic processes. Additionally, the overall interpretation of parameters of what is within the city's discretion is needlessly conservative and detrimental to the rights of residents, especially given the numerous examples we have provided of other city ordinances (none of which have been challenged in court). Why aren't we doing more and taking a stronger stance to protect kids, property values and address resident issues? Notification Process: We strongly disagree with the proposed notification process. Doing away with public hearings altogether and making the matter discretionary at the planning department level is a significant curtailment of our democratic rights to freely and publicly speak out our concerns. WE OPPOSE IT! If the proposed site is compliant with pre-defined design requirements, the decision would be minesterial and not be appealable. It is alarming that we would base a decision on a narrow predefined checklist. There are other factors to be considered, including specific location considerations unique to that structure (how would the staff know about them?). Additionally, there are medical reasons not related to EMF but due to existing conditions that would be exacerbated by EMF (like cancer, pacemakers, etc.). We have residents who can provide doctor's notes. People should be able to give additional context and not be boxed in by narrow procedures. Not only are public hearings going to be taken away but the proposed guidelines curtail the notification process from 500 feet radius to 100 feet!!! "Review by a Commission at a noticed public hearing will create an expectation that the Commission has broad discretion to consider public concerns (which up to this point have been primarily related to concerns regarding RF emissions)." This is not accurate as many of us also expressed concerns about depressed property values. The Department of Housing and Urban Development classifies these structures as hazards and nuisances and instructs its FHA appraisers to discount the value of the house accordingly. We are entitled to our democratic right of public hearings! We demand that a public hearing with the existing notification process of 500 ft radius remain in place (regardless of whether or not it is led by the Planning Commission). It is unclear what constitutes clear and convincing evidence from the applicant to ensure there are no better locations within the 500 ft radius. What is the basis of this evidence? How is that going to be determined? Clauses: The design guidelines propose the addition of new standalone small cells. This will lead to increased proliferation of small cells, not less and closer to homes than existing SCE poles. They also include clauses of setbacks like 25 feet from a residence and 50 feet away from a driveway for schools, police stations, fire stations, etc. The setbacks and delineation of a driveway as the point of reference do not make sense. In some cases, this would result in small cells being CLOSER to kids, teachers and schools, not farther and provide an increased aesthetic blight. An example is St. John the Baptist. We urge the City Council to adopt increased setback distances that are not defined by driveways. Additionally, many new high density construction sites have smaller setbacks than traditional single home residences. Are they be going to be granted exemptions? What is missing: The staff specifically recommends to delay addressing the 5G issue at this time. We know that 5G is coming quickly. It is not clear what would be the triggering event for 5G to be considered at a later point given the significantly curtailed notification process that is being proposed. We demand for that to be addressed with the appropriate change in permitting and notification in place to residents when the technology changes. There is no minimum distance between small cell facilities at all. There are no clauses to overturn permits if new legislation passes. The lawsuit against the FCC by 100 cities is pending, as is newly introduced legislation. Why are we not covering ourselves in case there are changes to the law? These permits are good for 10 years with another possible extension of 10!!! A lot will change in that time. No requirement for insurance of wireless carriers (if a tower falls, catches fire, etc.) as well as bonds for liability. PG&E poles caused the Camp Fire! There is no mention of third party RF emission testing. How would we know if the facilities are operating beyond the FCC limits? A story in the WSJ from 5 years ago found that across thousands of sites, 1 in 10 violated FCC rules. Where is our protection? https://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/one-10-cell-sites-violate-fcc-rules-aimed-at-limiting- rf-impacts-says-report We urge you to not approve these proposed guidelines. We deserve better representation. Thank you. From:TRAYLOR, MARIAN To:BENNETT, STACY Subject:FW: Small cell ordinance Date:Friday, September 13, 2019 9:27:07 AM Attachments:image001.jpg Marian B. Traylor Deputy City Clerk City of Costa Mesa - City Clerk's Office 77 Fair Dr. Costa Mesa, CA 92626 (714) 754-5213 From: HAUSER, JANET <JANET.HAUSER@costamesaca.gov> Sent: Monday, September 09, 2019 11:13 AM To: GREEN, BRENDA <brenda.green@costamesaca.gov>; TRAYLOR, MARIAN <MARIAN.TRAYLOR@costamesaca.gov> Subject: FW: Small cell ordinance Janet Hauser Executive Secretary to Costa Mesa City Council City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Desk: 714-754-5107 Cell: 714-949-3693 Janet.hauser@costamesaca.gov Note:  Using the “Reply All” option may inadvertently result in a Brown Act violation. Image result for costa mesa city seal From: Megan Dilmore <medilmore@hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, September 09, 2019 9:40 AM To: CITY COUNCIL <CITYCOUNCIL@costamesaca.gov>; BARLOW, KIMBERLY HALL <KIMBERLY.BARLOW@costamesaca.gov>; FARRELL HARRISON, LORI ANN <LoriAnn@costamesaca.gov>; LE, JENNIFER <JENNIFER.LE@costamesaca.gov> Subject: Small cell ordinance Costa Mesa City Council, City Attorney, City Manager and Planning Department, We are writing to express our strong concern on the rollout of small cells. We want our wireless ordinance to include a minimum 500 foot setback from the property line of residences, schools and playgrounds. In 2009, the Los Angeles Unified School District banned cell towers on or near school property due to safety and health concerns to the students. We expect Costa Mesa to do the same to protect our kids! The health concerns of wireless technology are vast, and it is a known carcinogen. This new technology has not been properly tested over time. I urge you to consider public health when addressing this matter. Thank you, Megan Dilmore MACKENZIE & ALBRITTON LLP 155 SANSOME STREET, SUITE 800 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104 TELEPHONE 415 / 288-4000 FACSIMILE 415 / 288-4010 October 1, 2019 VIA EMAIL Mayor Katrina Foley Mayor Pro Tem John B. Stephens Council Members Manuel Chavez, Andrea Marr, Arlis Reynolds, Allan R. Mansoor and Sandra L. Genis City Council City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, California 92626 Re: Draft Revised Small Cell Design Guidelines Council New Business Agenda Item 1, October 1, 2019 Dear Mayor Foley, Mayor Pro Tem Stephens and Council Members: We write on behalf of Verizon Wireless to provide comment on the draft revisions to the City’s small cell design guidelines (the “Draft Guidelines”). Verizon Wireless appreciates certain revisions that remove subjective criteria and several infeasible standards. However, the revisions include several new standards that contradict the 2018 Federal Communications Commission order addressing appropriate small cell approval criteria. For example, location preferences that could steer small cells up to 500 feet distant from a proposed location may leave a targeted high-use area unserved. The blanket requirement to place all associated (non-antenna) equipment underground is unreasonable because small equipment components are not out-of-place among typical utility infrastructure in the right-of-way. Verizon Wireless participated in a meeting this week to discuss the Draft Guidelines, and is willing to continue efforts with staff to develop workable regulations. To that end, we encourage the Council to defer action on the Draft Guidelines. The FCC’s Small Cells Order To expedite deployment of small cells and new wireless technology, the FCC adopted its September 2018 order to provide guidance on appropriate approval criteria for small cells. See Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order, FCC 18-133 (September 27, 2018) (the “Small Cells Order”). Among other topics, the FCC addressed appropriate aesthetic criteria for approval of qualifying small cells, concluding that they must be: “(1) reasonable, (2) no more burdensome than those applied to other types of infrastructure deployments, and (3) objective and published in advance.” Small Cells Costa Mesa City Council October 1, 2019 Page 2 of 4 Order, ¶ 86. “Reasonable” standards are “technically feasible” and meant to avoid “out- of-character deployments.” Id., ¶ 87. Objective standards must “incorporate clearly- defined and ascertainable standards, applied in a principled manner.” Id., ¶ 88. As we explain, several requirements of the Draft Guidelines contradict the FCC’s directives and must be removed or revised. Our comments are as follows. Location Standards Should Be Modified to Better Accommodate Small Cells Where They Are Needed. The Draft Guidelines obligates applicants to show that any higher-preference structures or locations within a 500-foot radius are technically infeasible. Draft Guidelines § 1(a). This would require evaluation of all poles in all rights-of-way within an 18-acre area. Steering small cells up to 500 feet distant from a required location could result in a target coverage area remaining underserved or unserved. This would thwart the small cell objectives of densifying wireless networks and providing enhanced service as described by the FCC, and it would pose an effective prohibition of service in violation of the Telecommunications Act. Small Cells Order, ¶¶ 37-40. One unintended consequence of the 500-foot threshold is that numerous small cells could end up clustered together instead of distributed along a right-of-way. Due to conflicts with federal regulation as well as common sense, the 500-foot radius should be reduced to a practicable distance. At most, applicants for right-of-way facilities should demonstrate unavailability or technical infeasibility of any reasonable higher-preference structures locations within 200 feet along the subject right-of-way. California Public Utilities Code Section 7901 grants telephone corporations such as Verizon Wireless a statewide right to place their equipment along any right-of-way, including new poles. While the Draft Guidelines allow siting in discouraged locations if there are no feasible alternatives nearby, the discouragement of sites within 25 feet of residences should be removed to better accommodate Section 7901. Draft Guidelines § 1(a)(3)(A). This is because many homes in Costa Mesa are built at the minimum residential setback of 20 feet, and the standard could bar small cells along many rights- of-way. Costa Mesa Municipal Code § 13-32. Draft Guidelines Sections 1(a)(3)(A) should be stricken. We note that the federal Telecommunications Act bars cities from regulating wireless facilities based on concern over environmental effects of radio frequency emissions if facilities fall under the FCC’s exposure limits. 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv). Mandatory setbacks from residences may constitute an effective regulation based on such concerns that is preempted. The standard discouraging sites within 10 feet of any driveway (or 50 feet of certain driveways) may lead to more intrusive siting, and it should not apply to replacement poles. Draft Guidelines § 1(a)(3)(C). Where driveways are near or flush to property lines, the required 10 feet of separation may steer small cells to poles that are in front of homes, leading to more visual impact. Occasionally, a utility pole must be Costa Mesa City Council October 1, 2019 Page 3 of 4 replaced to increase structural capacity to support a small cell. Unlike new poles, replacement poles support equipment and lines of other public utilities which would be affected by this provision, and the City cannot require relocation of those utilities. The reference to replacement poles should be stricken from Draft Guidelines Section 1(a)(3)(C). Blanket Undergrounding Requirements Are Unreasonable. The FCC determined that undergrounding requirements, similar to aesthetic requirements, must be reasonable, non-discriminatory and objective. Small Cells Order, ¶¶ 86, 90. The Draft Guidelines impose a blanket requirement that all small cell accessory equipment be placed underground, regardless of location. Draft Guidelines § 2(i)(1). While there is an exception if evidence shows that this is technically infeasible, undergrounding is generally infeasible due to sidewalk space constraints and undue environmental and operational impacts for required active cooling and dewatering equipment. Feasibility aside, this requirement is also unreasonable because small equipment boxes on the side of a pole are not “out-of-character” among typical infrastructure in the right-of-way. For a reasonable criterion, the City should permit up to nine cubic feet of associated equipment on the side of a utility pole, or five cubic feet on a street light, traffic signal or new pole, before any undergrounding is considered. Technically Infeasible Design Standards Must Be Revised To Be Reasonable. The requirement to contain all small cell antennas, radios and other equipment within a single pole-top shroud is infeasible in several ways. Draft Guidelines § 2(h)(1). For many small cells, including those on utility poles, antennas, radio units and other network gear available from manufacturers cannot fit within the very strict dimensions (66 inches high and 120 percent of pole diameter). The alternative to place equipment within a pole is of course impossible for wood utility poles. 4G and 5G antennas must be vertically separated to avoid interference, rendering a single shroud to be infeasible due to excessive size. Further, in most circumstances, shrouds or radomes impede frequencies that Verizon Wireless recently licensed from the FCC for new wireless technology including 5G service, and such coverings are infeasible for signal propagation. Any antenna standards for right-of-way facilities must accommodate new higher-frequency facilities that integrate antennas and radios in one small box, and cannot impose shrouding. Draft Guidelines Section 2(h)(1) should be revised to remove references to radio units and other associated equipment, and to excuse antenna shrouding requirements if technically infeasible. One provision should be revised to better comply with safety regulations of California Public Utilities Commission General Order 95. The allowed height increase should be modestly expanded from five to six feet (plus any required separation distance as drafted). Draft Guidelines § 2(h)(2). This is because small cells on utility poles generally require a four-foot antenna plus a mount underneath the antenna that is up to two feet in height, for a total of six feet. Antenna mounts also conceal cables and improve appearance, and as elements associated with antennas, they are subject to Costa Mesa City Council October 1, 2019 Page 4 of 4 General Order 95 separation requirements as well. We suggest slightly increasing five feet to six feet in Draft Guidelines Section 2(h)(2). Southern California Edison may require a ground-mounted meter pedestal for certain small cells. This type of meter installation should be included as an option for the electric meter standards. Draft Guidelines § 2(j)(3). As discussed in your staff report, the Council should consider code amendments at a future date that would allow for administrative approval of small cells. Administrative approval is appropriate for review under objective design standards that leave no room for discretion. Further, by streamlining the process, it would ensure that the City processes small cell applications within the FCC’s new “Shot Clock” timeframes for approval (e.g., 60 days for a small cell on an existing pole). Verizon Wireless appreciates the City’s thoughtful approach to revising its small cell regulations and the opportunity to provide feedback on the Draft Guidelines. We urge the Council to defer action, and direct staff to continue working with wireless carriers on needed revisions. Very truly yours, Paul B. Albritton cc: Kimberly Hall Barlow, Esq. Johnwilly Aglupos ADDITTIONAL DOCUMENTS ITEM # NB-4 SB 127 Costa Mesa City Council 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 citycouncil@costamesaca.gov (714) 754-5107 October 1, 2019 Mayor Foley and the Costa Mesa City Council, We submit this letter in strong support for SB 127 (Transportation funding: active transportation: complete streets) and ask that you send a letter to Governor Newsom with a formal position in favor of this measure. SB 127 would: ...require the California Transportation Commission to adopt performance measures that show progress, or lack thereof, on the conditions of bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and on how easy or safe it is to for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit riders to navigate them. It would require that the SHOPP incorporate pedestrian and bicyclist needs into the projects it funds. It [also] would require clear reporting on how much money is spent on bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure–something that is currently very difficult to separate out in project budgets and therefore very difficult to measure and account for. (​StreetBlog​) More information is also available in the ​Senate Floor Analysis​. Newport Blvd., SR 55, slices through the heart of our historic downtown, cutting the city in two. Many people avoid crossing this street outside of a car, and this is not due to distance, topography, crime, or climate. It is because the street is currently a dangerous and unpleasant place to cross, or even be near, thanks to the design priorities of CalTrans that prioritize vehicle throughput at the expense of any other considerations. Our General Plan Circulation Element makes it clear that our ultimate vision for Newport Blvd. is one of an enhanced downtown experience, with more landscaping, and “facilities that support other modes of transportation.” Further, much of Newport Blvd. is within what the General Plan has identified as “Pedestrian Opportunity Zones,” which, according to the Circulation Element are “areas where the City will pursue street enhancements to create pedestrian-friendly environments.” SB 127 will get the State to do this for us, so that we can focus our resources on improving other areas of the City. For the sake of the physical integration of our community, and to facilitate the realization of our stated vision, we ask that you voice your support of this bill on behalf of our City. SB 127 will also apply to Pacific Coast Highway and Beach Blvd., two roads that do not run through Costa Mesa per se, but that many Costa Mesa residents undoubtedly travel on. Pedestrian and bicycling improvements on these streets will benefit any Costa Mesans who venture out of their cars in these other parts of Orange County. Sincerely, The Costa Mesa Alliance for Better Streets Board of Directors Russell Toler, President Flo Martin, Treasurer Marc Perkins, Secretary Michelle Fay Mike Lingle