The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About- Item 1 - Attachment 2 - 1/14/2014EI r OVERVIEW Great Reach Visioning Workshop City of Costa Mesa August 21,, 2013 EVENT SUMMARY ATTACHMENT 2 As part of the General Plan Update program, the City of Costa Mesa hosted a community workshop on Wednesday, August 21, 2013. The workshop included three sessions: introductory session, visual preference survey, and a question and answer session. The workshop's purpose was to build on prior exercises at workshops in June and July, and to obtain input and receive comments regarding residential densities and land use types. Mr. Gary Armstrong, Deputy CEO/Development Services Director and Ms. Laura Stetson, Principal for MIG I Hogle-Ireland (the consultants assisting the City with the General Plan update) moderated the workshop sessions. The introduction session took place on the City Hall front lawn. In order to increase attendance over previous workshops, the event was extensively publicized and included a child -oriented activity during the initial one hour of the workshop, allowing parents to attend the workshop. During the transition to the City's Emergency Operations Center for the other workshop sessions, participants were asked to comment on boards that asked a series of questions regarding housing density. On the following page are the comments as they appeared on the boards recorded during the workshop (edited for clarity and grammar). The second portion of the workshop took place in the City's Emergency Operations Center and involved a visual preference survey using a PowerPoint presentation. Every attendee received a remote control device (clicker) where they could use the device to vote for a particular land use preference for eight different nodes throughout Costa Mesa. The three land use choices were residential, commercial, and mixed use. The secondary question for each node related to the density and scale of the residential projects, if the participant originally selected residential. As each node was presented, attendees could vote on the type of land use and density range using their clicker. The results of the voting were shown live for each land use node. The third portion of the workshop involved questions and answers from workshop participants. Gary Armstrong and Laura Stetson fielded the questions. Questions and answers were recorded on a wall graphic included at the end of this summary. COMMENTS FROM INTRODUCTORY SESSION What does "high density" mean to you? • 5a to 100 dwelling units per acre • High density is having any particular lot as full as possible. Currently too many variances for this type of building. ■ High density to me means Big money for City and developers without regard to quality of life for present residents and ultimately even the new residents. ■ A lot of people in a small space. Overcrowding, Lack of choice as to how one lives. Greed for extra taxes and landlord profit, • I love the mixed use live/work concept. Especially redevelopment of existing. • Around commercial corridors —good planning. W. 19th 5t./E. 17th 5t. ■ High Density - parking in neighborhood -on streets. Traffic. $ [money] for developers. • High density appears to be open doors for crime, DUI's, and unfavorable living conditions. • Need steps to preserve mobile home parks - special zoning? Encourage more senior parks to provide low/moderate housing for seniors. ■ Density is an efficient use of a very precious resource, land. • Infrastructure burdens -traffic, crowded parks, etc. • I want to see affordable rental housing for low income families. • Need higher density in certain areas in order to attract the right retail and entertainment businesses. ■ High Density means loss of open spaces, nature, and healthy living conditions. • Costa Mesa is 35th most dense city - do not make it worse! ■ Density = vibrant, eclectic community homes at reasonable prices. • Costa Mesa already high density, don't need more. ■ Avoid constant use of variance to allow developers to squeeze in more and more units in less and less space. 211, 3J: • High Density should include transforming undesirable hotels/motels into homeless care. Our city does nothing for the homeless, except drive them further into homelessness, shame, and degradation. • Kids and gra ndkids need open air and so do you! • Less waste, less parking, more traffic, less natural light. • Westside does not need "upgrading"- current usage just fine - no underutilized properties - you don't need to fool around with it - will have a detrimental effect. ■ High density seems to be calling forth smog, noise, pollution, traffic- unfavorabie conditions. ■ We want more parks, less concrete! ■ Keep existing requirements for Rl, R2 and parking. Do not allow more homes in smaller spaces. • High density sha€1 not be an excuse to raid Banning Ranch. ■ High density is the opportunity to have a vibrant downtown where people can walk to restaurants and shops. ■ Transient residents. High Crime, Overcrowding due to variances. • Anything over two stories equals high density. • High Density equals profit for some and headaches and unpleasant city for many. 1 don't want the Westside to be in "High density". • High Density is greater than eight living units per acre. ■ More crime, more problems all the way around (from sewer, water, schools, etc.) Reinvestment into the Westside should be for the benefit of the citizens on the Westside. Not to attract those into the city so as to drive those that live there out. • High-density equals traffic congestion, school overcrowding, noise, trash cans, taxpayers footing the bill for public services and infrastructure. • 7,000 people per square mile maximum. • High density needs to be planned properly and only in specific areas. Traffic impacts must be considered, as well as current residents needs. • Don't focus on Westside. ■ High-density -too many cars, too many people, smog, pollution, noise. • First, High Density is, in part, a function of usage, and how much you may want can depend on how much you have — Costa Mesa is already a high density city, I question the need for any more, except perhaps low income senior housing. • No open space = bad. • Crime, without more protection. • Any density approaching the 333 story units on 1.6 acres is too high. • Lack of community accountability. • Depends on where. We need to change the current definition in general plan to be higher and consistent with neighboring cities. • More space. Less Density. Less Burger Joints. • Urban redevelopment is key to revitalizing the economy and providing the community with assets that we need. • Convert hotels into homeless shelters. • Lack of open space. Further worsening of already horrible traffic, especially NB and 19th, NB and 17th. • Too much traffic/pollution! ■ 1 don't mind high density as long as there is enough open space per resident. ■ 100% Support! High Density Development is necessary for infill markets. Costa Mesa could be a great city like San Diego with proper planning. Other General Plan Comments/Questions ■ Make a priority of preserving Banning Ranch as open space. • Remove 17th and 19th St from MPAH. • Take the 10 parking spaces off of general plan - no parking needed there. • No more development at Fairview Park. ■ General Plan less parking per unit. Why have "guest" parking spaces? ■ Leave Fairview Park naturall No ball fields or other constructions. • No flashing signs. • Changing the zoning from R-1, R -Z to R-16+. • l don't like voting on pictures without knowing where they are planning to locate them within our city. 41 i- 1 • The city is built -out, so new development/projects in place of old projects is the only way to attract the best and bright to Costa Mesa! • Get 17th and 19th Streets off the arterial plan of highways. • Pay attention to noise impacts and minimize them. ■ No more parking lots at Fairview Park. • Motel/Hotels Solutions are needed. No Zone? Other Solution. • No widening of 17th St. or 19th Street on Westside! + Why not consider rehabilitation centers for the homeless- places where Costa Mesa jobless can have jobs in the centers, and the homeless be united with their families. • Need more housing for no/low income homeless - in the Eastside and South Coast metro. • Don't go wreck our neighborhoods with high density and cut through traffic. ■ Safe bike trails - for bikes and cars i ■ More housing closer to the shore, easy access to business districts and Newport/Huntington Beaches. ■ No homes on end of Whittier- leave it quiet and pleasant and safe as it is. ■ Keep 17th St. a 2 -lane road -do not expand to more lanes. Thanks. ■ No Electronic Billboards. ■ Dpen space - take steps to preserve Banning Ranch as open space. • Take 17th and 19th St W. of Placentia off the Orange County Map of Arterial Roads. ■ Provide public transportation and bike paths to ease circulation- especially if you're going to increase density. ■ Eliminate widening of W. 17th St. west of Placentia. • Why are there only white folk here? ■ Any plans for Vista Center? (EI Matate, etc.) on Placentia and 19th? Don't want to change the character of the area but the Westside needs a nicer retail Center with, perhaps, small family sit- down restaurants and better shops. ■ Do nothing - leave as open space -natural state, everything doesn't need to be filled up_ ■ We need smart development, not variances that create imbalances in neighborhoods. • For new development, need a ratio of community recreation space to built space. • Nice, modern looking condos, multi -family townhomes, etc. that appeal to younger population. • No privatization of public resources at Tewinkle Park or anywhere else! * Maintain open space! Keep Fairview wildl Keep development out of Banning Ranch! • Love the Urban Plans. They are encouraging land sales and bringing smart, successful people to our town. • Any redevelopment upgrades the city across the board. • Need to maintain current overlays and urban plans. They are starting to work. • A specific bicycle plan that enables travel to and from existing trails in addition to creating new, safe lanes on streets. ■ These residential areas look like Irvine or Santa Ana - that is why we live in Costa Mesa. We need our own style. • No Variances. • Greenways! Connecting non -vehicular travel paths and parks. • Need more bikeability - East/West. ■ Bike trails... more of them! ■ Urban Pians could help the motel issues! ■ More/better Parks! • Bike Paths, more connecting North to South. • Save the wildlife, • l would be willing to tolerate more traffic on Newport/Westside for a number of years to find a solution long term. 1 want a real downtown with apartments, great restaurants and things to do. ■ Bike trails Master Plan. • Improve shopping center at 19th and Placentia. • Recreation use/Green Areas. ■ Connecting bike trails in the best possible thing! ■ Newer, modern medium to high density communities along western Costa Mesa. ■ Allow more traffic on Newport Blvd that will allow Westside to redevelop. • In order to redevelop we understand density is required. We just want smart, reasonable development. ■ More police needed to control crime in motels. • Let's all follow the rules and not change things because we want to. ■ Support for Westside overlays. 6 1 �. r; - IJ Comment Cards • Implement medium to higher density residential, mainly apartments, for both affordable tenants and market rate tenants. Senior housing - 50 units per acre. Multifamily density - 30 units per acre. Three to four stories works fine along W. 19th St, Harbor Blvd., Newport Blvd. 1) Westside Overlay, 2) Get rid of motels, 3) 55 Freeway -Ending. • No talk about the rights, voice, and views of the citizens involved in any change. We must have the right to vote not just be heard on land use as it affects our quality of life. Also, no talk about added tax burden on the average citizen of Costa Mesa in any change. ■ Commercial/choice needs three options: retail, light industrial, and mixed use. Residents per 7 :. bedroom needs to be codified to control density in multifamily structures. f,A 6.- ci �` UPGR'rG 4 oeofm`�ix P'. W, ;i11S-4? 'y�suy+uo-. tSNrtsIfL�C y6RrrA L r rm K r kjE" rtr ►lr+auy�i 7u�Fum+a PRacE55 . TiEra[rGU nl C091A. +M65a � ur r .sc too --t,,, ras��ivro+t �,- „ �• r `'` H' j �`A OTIELS 1 - r:r.. - f ". 5EE • (-05r PWA -L`4515 (riouea ru pary-aj V u �F {�cY&c 1s 4Esr,rr7At �V�TFgrAI[S 1 M ORP C err-,mMr_�Ar - Qpl�Dflr • 7 p�IaGRC -� LlVI►Jb iu fROEL �fflSrr•7 Ri+lr �+RPFaFi N6ft FGA $olll6 ixp•l'Es to GpGr 1pef,U 6H7- 1AjDUrtRje, etc pQLiC.Efl"a7CRf�i`CV c.a� cotes �fN[7] � 54afClF,f. CO.�!`�I251h1J 1❑EA aPilDH� � A�NS�*-1 ALb�! + �„ `[aRpkT-j i.r�R mm�t iIQI rip M7r5Gs L� m IN R ligegrb w * �� re�l�v Cary Ig 6 T��er- �� ? � � ��s M�� !_ J1ou• yz,F�r +sh or mac$ �k+br � D�r�r+i5 d[wfr4uc+� .i 4bAnv� �+ee fi rh qt- rx n srir1 m c�c-t5 Res mr3 rr [ paoo�s«� ,�,�nJ j NOWOSOlp C- YIP444W, • U6xrs 1'4 1i 1u4�f9mPldk-N 10 W -4L maTe[.s � - L� �' otFlGl� �fitz°'act '..►',°,t�x�' � [r�ctt,+- Ac*+u r � Orwa-� +per ur ww•- , r� ��RDTS O�j�LI� r i'Q QSY�Gaf�1�1�{� rv�oo _]QST 6GT X[n OFF 5 -raee.s7■ Av�arr ►+► _ [fin! ��w+s 4Esr UR.,,ry >�OrCY� C�I.]7ii l7P S —^7 PlCSra49�tE PSA{yr k'JZ< y� � � CREEP 1M'D rC-�,�,y Pia arw , of V T r E77 qDrgCrfy,,�,,V ��r57Z`fp w�yoRb yu0r 00 +�aK b ,ate amu COTh%ww- usrr �w VbLr krke, c w0.r V 401m Visual Preference Survey Meeting Costa Mesa General Plan Update — The Great Reach August 21, 2013