2. Draft Pedestrian Master Plan — Costa Mesa City Council, May 7, 2024

June 2022
ATTACHMENT 2

CITY OF COSTA MESA PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLANII
This plan was funded by a grant from the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG).
*The Committee is formerly known as the Bikeway and
Walkability Committee.

Mayor and City Council
John Stephens, Mayor
Andrea Marr, Mayor Pro Tem
Manuel Chavez, Council Member
Loren Gameros, Council Member
Jeff Harlan, Council Member
Don Harper, Council Member
Arlis Reynolds, Council Member
City of Costa Mesa
Raja Sethuraman, Public Services Director
Jennifer Rosales, Transportation Services Manager
Seung Yang, City Engineer
Ramin Nikoui, Associate Engineer
Brett Atencio Thomas, Active Transportation
Coordinator
Southern California Association of Governments
(SCAG)
Cory Wilkerson
Hannah Keyes
Active Transportation Committee *
Cynthia McDonald, Chair
Jim Erickson, Vice Chair
Bryan Estrada, Member
Bridget Gleason, Member
Richard Huffman II, Member
Flo Martin, Member
David Martinez, Member
Michael Moses Nolf, Member
Ralph Taboada, Member
Emily Webb, Member
Trace Yulie, Member
John Lux, Alternate Committee Member
Jimmy Vivar, Alternate Committee Member
Consultant Team
KOA Corporation, Prime Consultant
Katherine Padilla & Associates
Rock E. Miller & Associates

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

IIITABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 3: Existing Conditions
Chapter 4: Policy Recommendations
Chapter 5: T oolbox
Chapter 2: Community Engagement

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.1 Introduction 6

1.2 Plan Location 6

1.3 Project Context 7

2.1 Introduction 12

2.2 Public Outreach And Information Sharing 14

2.3 Walk Audits 15

2.4 Community Workshops 15

2.5 Active Transportation Committee 16

2.6 Community Feedback & Input T ools 16

2.7 Findings From Outreach Effort 17

3.1 Introduction 22

3.2 Demographic characteristics 23

3.3 travel characteristics 26

3.4 Land use and destinations 29

3.5 Roadway Characteristics 31

3.6 Pedestrian Infrastructure 35

3.7 Pedestrian Safety 42

4.1 Introduction 52

4.2 Policy recommendations 53
Chapter 6: Infrastructure Projects
Chapter 7: Implementation Strategy

5.1 Introduction 74

5.2 Sidewalk-Related Treatments 75

5.3 Crossing-Related Treatments 77

5.4 General Trafﬁ c Behavior and Other Concerns 81

5.5 Cost Estimates 83

6.1 introduction 85

6.2 Pedestrian Project Corridors 86

6.3 Project Factsheets 86

7.1 Introduction 113

7.2 Project Prioritization 113

7.3 Time and cost 115

7.4 funding Opportunities 116
Appendices
Appendix A: Plan And Policy Review
Appendix B: Walk Audit Event Summaries
Appendix C: Community Workshop Summaries
Appendix D: Project Survey
Appendix E: T oolbox Reference
Appendix F: Pedestrian Counts

CITY OF COSTA MESA PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLANIV
List of Figures
Figure 2.1 Process Diagram 13
Figure 3.1 T otal Population by Census Block 24
Figure 3.2 Median Household Income 25
Figure 3.4 Pedestrian Count Locations 28
Figure 3.5 Land Use Map 30
Figure 3.6 Average Daily Trafﬁ c Volumes 32
Figure 3.7 Posted Speed Limits in the City of Costa Mesa on MPAH Streets of Collector Arterial and Higher 34 Figure 3.8 Sidewalk Coverage in North Pedestrian Opportunity Zone 36 Figure 3.9 Sidewalk Coverage in South Pedestrian Opportunity Zone 37 Figure 3.10 Crosswalk Types 38
Figure 3.11 OCTA Bus Stops 40
Figure 3.12 OCTA Bus Ridership Heat Map 41
Figure 3.13 Heat Map of Pedestrian Collisions 43
Figure 3.14 Heat Map of Police Citations 47
Figure 6.1 Pedestrian Project Corridors 86

VTABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables
T able 2.1 Overview of Walk Audits 15
T able 2.2 Overview of Community Workshops 15
T able 2.3 Overview of Bikeway and Walkability Committee Presentations 16 T able 2.4 Summary of Comment Themes, Sub-themes, and Number of Comments 19 T able 3.1 Population Distribution by Median Household Income 23 T able 3.2 Age Distribution 23
T able 3.3 Commute to Work 26
T able 3.4 Commute to Work - Five Year Trend 26
T able 3.5 Pedestrian Counts at Selected Locations 27
T able 3.6 Average Daily Trafﬁ c (ADT) within the Opportunity Zones 31 T able 3.7 Percentage of Posted Speed Limit on MPAH Streets of Collector Arterial and Higher 33 T able 3.8 Summary of Sidewalk Coverage in Pedestrian Opportunity Zones 35 T able 3.9 T op Five Collision Hotspots, Citywide and at Pedestrian Opportunity Zones, from July 2015 to June 2020 44 T able 3.10 T op Five Collision Corridors, Citywide and at Pedestrian Opportunity Zones, from July 2015 to June 2020 45 T able 3.11 Summary of Citations Given 48
T able 5.1 Pedestrian Treatment Cost Estimates 83
T able 6.1 Pedestrian Project Corridors Details 86
T able 6.2 Crosswalk Improvement Locations On Minor Streets Along Major Corridors 109 T able 7.1 Project Prioritization Criteria 113
T able 7.2 Ranked Projects List 114
T able 7.3 Infrastructure Cost and Time Continuum 115
T able 7.4 Funding Opportunities 116

CITY OF COSTA MESA PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLANVI
This page left intentionally blank
Executive
Summary
CITY OF COSTA MESA PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN2

PURPOSE
The Costa Mesa Pedestrian Master Plan, also known as
the Plan or CMPMP, offers additional support to the City’s 2018 Active Transportation Plan (ATP). The ATP provides a bold vision for active transportation in the city: “The City of Costa Mesa will have a comprehensive and visible active transportation network and will promote safety, education, health, recreation and access to important locations within the City while connecting to the larger regional network.” The CMPMP supplements the ATP by providing additional
infrastructure, programs, and policy recommendations
speciﬁ c to improving the pedestrian experience in the city.

PLAN STRUCTURE
The Plan contains seven chapters and seven supporting
appendices.

Chapter 1: Introduction provides a Plan overview and a
summary of the City’s policy, program, and existing/planned infrastructure projects.

Chapter 2: Community Engagement discusses the
strategies used to gather community input for the planning process and outcomes of the community engagement
effort.

Chapter 3: Existing Conditions documents the planning
context through different analyses that pertain to the
pedestrian environment in the city.

Chapter 4: Policy Recommendations provides a list of
goals, objectives, and recomm endations to help achieve the vision identiﬁ ed in the ATP, offering additional long-term recommendations to enhance the pedestrian environment.

Chapter 5: Pedestrian Infrastructure Toolbox provides a starting point on what infrastructure treatments (tools) can be considered for ongoing and planned projects that would enhance the pedestrian environment and increase the
safety and accessibility for pedestrians.

Chapter 6: Infrastructure Projects discusses a set
of infrastructure projects the City can begin work on
to help advance the CMPMP and ATP Vision. These
recommendations provide a short-term roadmap that
complement the recommendations discussed in Chapter
4, Policy Recommendations, and Chapter 5, Pedestrian
Infrastructure Toolbox, by providing Project Factsheets for ﬁ ve identiﬁ ed pedestrian project corridors.

Chapter 7: Implementation Strategy offers a list of
prioritized projects that the City could start with to
implement the Plan and a list of grant opportunities that the City could seek to fund the projects.
3EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PLANNING CONTEXT
The project team analyzed ﬁ ve categories of data to better understand the existing conditions of the study corridors and to help identify and develop new recommendations to help enhance the pedestrian environment:
• Demographic statistics & travel characteristics
• Land use and destinations
• Roadway characteristics
• Pedestrian infrastructure
• Pedestrian safety
The analysis was concentrated in the Pedestrian
Opportunity Zones. The opportunity zones were ﬁ rst
discussed in the General Plan and were included in the
Active Transportation Plan. According to the General
Plan, the City will pursue street enhancements to create pedestrian-friendly environments in the Pedestrian
Opportunity Zones.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Community outreach and engagement played a central
role in the Plan development. A combination of in-person public events, electronic and in-person surveying, and
online mapping exercises were employed to help the project planning team (the team) understand community sentiment on pedestrian infrastructure. The engagement strategy was continuously adapted to challenges stemming from the
COVID-19 pandemic.

Community members participated in the planning efforts
through the following opportunities:
• Six (6) walk audits
• Three (3) Community workshops
• Five (5) Active Transportation Committee presentations • One (1) Project survey
• One (1) Online mapping tool
A qualitative analysis was conducted from the comments
gathered in the outreach effort to identify common
concerns and input shared by community members.

Community members provided a total of 547 location-
speciﬁ c comments.

RECOMMENDATIONS
The Plan provides four separate, yet interrelated
components of recommendations for pedestrian
improvements that the City could implement to realize the vision for the Plan.

Plan goals and long-term program and policy
recommendations: The Plan has six (6) goals and 62
objectives and policies that were adapted from the Active Transportation Plan and 35 new recommendations to
CITY OF COSTA MESA PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN4
enhance and better support the ATP vision.

Pedestrian project corridors: The Plan contains ten
Pedestrian Project Corridors. The corridors were identiﬁ ed through the Existing Conditions Analysis and comments
received from the community engagement effort and the
Active Transportation Committee. These project corridors revolve around the Pedestrian Opportunity Zones identiﬁ ed in the City’s General Plan.

Pedestrian infrastructure framework: The Pedestrian
Infrastructure Framework is a toolbox that provides
guidance on a variety of infrastructure treatments that could be incorporated in ongoing and planned projects to enhance the pedestrian network and increase pedestrian
safety.

Priority project factsheets:

The Plan provides project factsheets for ﬁ ve Pedestrian Project Corridors. Each factsheet contains a description of the corridor, along with a summary of existing
conditions and concerns as well as proposed treatment
recommendations including photos and a sample concept
plan of a speciﬁ c treatment for the corridor.

01 Introduction
CITY OF COSTA MESA PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN6

1.1 INTRODUCTION
Walking is an important form of transportation and a
valuable recreation activity. As a transportation mode, it allows people to access destinations with minimal
assistance from mobility devices, unlike a vehicle or bicycle.

As a recreational activity, walking brings many health
beneﬁ ts.

The Costa Mesa Pedestrian Master Plan, also known as the Plan or CMPMP, offers additional support to the City’s 2018 Active Transportation Plan (ATP) and the Circulation Element of the General Plan. The ATP provides a bold vision for active transportation in the city, “The City of Costa Mesa will have a comprehensive and visible active transportation network and will promote safety, education, health, recreation
and access to important locations within the City while connecting to the larger regional network.”
The Plan also contains a policy framework with many goals, objectives, policies, and reco mmendations that would help the city achieve the Vision.

The Circulation Element of the General Plan identiﬁ ed four Pedestrian Priority Areas, also known as Pedestrian Opportunity Zones, where the City will pursue street
enhancements to create pedestrian-friendly environments.

The CMPMP supplements the ATP and the General Plan
by providing additional infrastructure, programs, and
policy recommendations that are speciﬁ c to improving the pedestrian experience in the city. In particular, the CMPMP focuses on improvements at the Pedestrian Opportunity
Zones.

1.2 PLAN LOCATION
The City of Costa Mesa is home to more than 113,000
residents according to the 2019 America Community
Survey. It is located in central Orange County and shares a border with the cities of Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley, Santa Ana, Irvine, and Newport Beach, as well as the John Wayne (JWA) Santa Ana Airport. The City is well-connected via three major freeways – Interstate 405 (I-405), State Route 55 (SR-55), and State Route 73 (SR-73), and has a network of existing pedestrian facilities. The City is host to major employers in Orange County, including: the Auto Club of Southern California, Fairview Developmental Center, South Coast Plaza, and OC Fair and Event Center. The City is comprised of different neighborhoods, which include
Eastside Costa Mesa, South Coast Metro, Mesa Verde, and Westside Costa Mesa. Each neighborhood features unique
roadway characteristics and built environments, which
range from high-density residential units surrounded by wide roadways (such as in South Coast Metro) to single- family residential housing with curvilinear residential streets like those found in the Mesa Verde neighborhood.
01 INTRODUCTION 7

1.3 PROJECT CONTEXT
The Pedestrian Master Plan builds upon many local and
regional planning and engineering efforts. These are
summarized below while Appendix A, Plan And Policy
Review contains more detailed information.

CITYWIDE PLANNING EFFORTS
Costa Mesa General Plan Circulation Element (2015)
The Circulation Element of the General Plan includes goals, objectives, and policies that th e City uses to make decisions about transportation network improvements. The Plan
emphasizes expanding travel mobility for bicycles and
pedestrians, as well as implementing complete streets
strategies in the city.

Costa Mesa Active Transportation Plan (2018)
The Costa Mesa Active Transportation Plan (ATP), provides strategies and actions that will improve the active
transportation experience in Costa Mesa. It analyzes
existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the city, provides a policy framework behind the City’s active transportation vision, and proposes facilities for future funding.

Complete Street Safety Assessment (2021)
The assessment was completed as a collaboration between the City and SafeTREC at UC Berkeley. It reviewed several corridors in the City and provided recommendations for
infrastructure improvements.

CITY OF COSTA MESA PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN8
Multi-Purpose Trails Plan (2016)
Completed in June 2016, the Costa Mesa Multi-Purpose
Trails Plan analyzes the strategies needed for implementing a multi-use trail system within the City, focusing on the area between the Santa Ana River Trail and Newport Bay in the middle of the City.

Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
The City's Local Road Safety Plan identiﬁ es safety
countermeasures for all travel modes including walking and bicycling. The Plan helps ongoing efforts to make safety improvements by analyzing cr ash data, selecting emphasis areas, and identifying countermeasures through public
outreach and diverse stakeholder collaboration.

LOCAL PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS
Go Human Explore Merrimac (2018)
On April 21, 2018, Costa Mesa hosted a SCAG Go Human
demonstration project on Merrimac Way from Harbor
Boulevard to Fairview Road to explore potential pedestrian and bicycle improvements. The demonstration project led to the construction of pedestrian and bicycle facilities in 2021.

Reimagining 19th Street
In the summer of 2020, the Costa Mesa Alliance for Better Streets, a community organization, collaborated with the Costa Mesa community and the City on the “Reimagine 19th Street” project. The project resulted in a tactical urbanism

01 INTRODUCTION 9
demonstration on 19th Street to showcase potential new
infrastructure improvements along the corridor and to
gather community feedback
Costa Mesa Community Pedestrian & Bicycle Safety
Training
The Costa Mesa Active Transportation Committee,
California Walks, and the University of California, Berkeley’s Safe Transportation Research and Education Center
(SafeTREC) collaboratively planned a training on August 28, 2020, which included walking and biking assessments.

Assessments were conducted along three routes: Newport
Boulevard from 17th Street to 19th Street, 19th Street from the western city limit to Harbor Boulevard, and Fairview Road from Baker Street to Fair Drive (adjacent to Orange Coast College)
Other Planned and Funded Active Transportation
Projects Within Costa Mesa
The City is currently working on many projects with
pedestrian elements. Examples of such projects include:

Mesa Del Mar multi-modal access and circulation
improvements, Mesa Drive and Santa Ana Avenue bicycle
facility improvements, Randolph Avenue parking and
pedestrian improvements, W 18th Street at Lions Park HAWK Signal, Wilson Street HAWK Signal, and Adams Avenue and Pinecreek Drive Intersection Project.

REGIONAL & ADJACENT CITY EFFORTS
OC Active (2019)
OC Active is Orange County’s Bike and Pedestrian Plan. It provides a framework for bikeway and pedestrian planning across the county. OC Active replaces the Orange County Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan developed in 2009.

Connect SoCal (2020):

Connect SoCal is the 2020 Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategy from Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). The Plan includes
a technical report outlining the existing state of active transportation and the impacts of active transportation investments within the SCAG region.

City of Newport Beach Bicycle Master Plan (2014)
The Plan guides the development and maintenance of a
comprehensive bicycle network and set of programs until 2034. The City contains 18.9 miles of Class I Shared-Use Paths which allow joint pedestrian and bicycle use. In 2014, there were 93 miles of existing bikeways, which include 26 miles of sidewalks that allow bicycling.

City of Irvine Strategic Active Transportation Plan (2020) The 2020 Plan seeks to balance new technologies,
innovative pedestrian treatments, and bicycle
transportation options to establish an environment that is CITY OF COSTA MESA PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN10
comfortable and convenient for users. On-street facility connections are planned via Red Hill Avenue and along Main Street.

City of Huntington Beach Bicycle Master Plan (2013)
The Bike Master Plan discusses opportunities for pedestrian travel via off-street shared-use paths. Connections are made to Costa Mesa via the Santa Ana River Trail. The Santa Ana River Trail is maintained and operated by the County of Orange.

City of Santa Ana Active Transportation Plan (2019)
The goal of the Santa Ana Active Transportation Plan (2019) document is to create a City that provides multi-modal
access for walking, biking, and rolling. Santa Ana forms the northern boundary with the City of Costa Mesa along Sunﬂ ower Avenue.

City of Fountain Valley General Plan Update (forthcoming) The City is currently working on updating its General Plan, and it may include discussions on active transportation. The City shares a short border with Fountain Valley.
02 Community
Engagement
CITY OF COSTA MESA PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN12

2.1 INTRODUCTION
Interactive community feedback outlets were foundational to the development of the Plan. A combination of in-person public events, electronic and in-person surveying, and
online mapping exercises were employed to help the project team understand community sentiment on pedestrian
infrastructure. The engagemen t strategy was continuously adapted to challenges from the COVID-19 pandemic.

Opportunities made available for community members to
participate in included:
• Walk audits
• Community workshops
• Active Transportation Committee presentations
• Project survey
• Online mapping tool
The engagement effort was conducted between November
2020 and April 2022. It focuse d on two primary audiences:
the general public and key stakeholders as represented by the Bikeway and Walkability Committee.

Figure 2.1, Process Diagram, shows how the engagement
effort aligned with the overall development of the Plan.

02 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT 13
Figure 2.1 Process Diagram

CITY OF COSTA MESA PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN14

2.2 PUBLIC OUTREACH AND

INFORMATION SHARING
The project team employed many strategies to inform the Costa Mesa community about opportunities to participate in the planning effort.

Project Branding
A logo and branding style were created to establish a project identity. The logo and branding style were used across all project communication materials.
/gid00023/gid00010/gid00019/gid00021/gid00022/gid00002/gid00013/gid00004/gid00016/gid00014/gid00014/gid00022/gid00015/gid00010/gid00021/gid00026 /gid00014/gid00006/gid00006/gid00021/gid00010/gid00015/gid00008 /gid00021/gid00035/gid00032/gid00001/gid00004/gid00036/gid00047/gid00052/gid00001/gid00042/gid00033/gid00001/gid00004/gid00042/gid00046/gid00047/gid00028/gid00001/gid00014/gid00032/gid00046/gid00028/gid00001/gid00036/gid00041/gid00049/gid00036/gid00047/gid00032/gid00046/gid00001/gid00052/gid00042/gid00048/gid00001/gid00047/gid00042/gid00001 /gid00047/gid00035/gid00032/gid00001/gid00046/gid00032/gid00030/gid00042/gid00041/gid00031/gid00001/gid00049/gid00036/gid00045/gid00047/gid00048/gid00028/gid00039/gid00001/gid00030/gid00042/gid00040/gid00040/gid00048/gid00041/gid00036/gid00047/gid00052/gid00001/gid00040/gid00032/gid00032/gid00047/gid00036/gid00041/gid00034/gid00001/gid00047/gid00042/gid00001 /gid00045/gid00032/gid00049/gid00036/gid00032/gid00050/gid00001/gid00017/gid00032/gid00031/gid00032/gid00046/gid00047/gid00045/gid00036/gid00028/gid00041/gid00001/gid00014/gid00028/gid00046/gid00047/gid00032/gid00045/gid00001/gid00017/gid00039/gid00028/gid00041/gid00001/gid00043/gid00045/gid00042/gid00043/gid00042/gid00046/gid00032/gid00031/gid00001 /gid00045/gid00032/gid00030/gid00042/gid00040/gid00040/gid00032/gid00041/gid00031/gid00028/gid00047/gid00036/gid00042/gid00041/gid00046/gid00163 /gid00186/gid00001 /gid00013/gid00032/gid00028/gid00045/gid00041/gid00001/gid00028/gid00029/gid00042/gid00048/gid00047/gid00001/gid00047/gid00035/gid00032/gid00001/gid00033/gid00032/gid00032/gid00031/gid00029/gid00028/gid00030/gid00038/gid00001/gid00030/gid00042/gid00039/gid00039/gid00032/gid00030/gid00047/gid00032/gid00031/gid00001/gid00031/gid00048/gid00045/gid00036/gid00041/gid00034/gid00001/gid00047/gid00035/gid00032/gid00001 /gid00050/gid00028/gid00039/gid00038/gid00001/gid00028/gid00048/gid00031/gid00036/gid00047/gid00046/gid00164/gid00001/gid00042/gid00041/gid00039/gid00036/gid00041/gid00032/gid00001/gid00046/gid00048/gid00045/gid00049/gid00032/gid00052/gid00164/gid00001/gid00028/gid00041/gid00031/gid00001/gid00046/gid00028/gid00033/gid00032/gid00047/gid00052/gid00001/gid00028/gid00041/gid00028/gid00039/gid00052/gid00046/gid00036/gid00046/gid00163/gid00001 /gid00186/gid00001 /gid00017/gid00045/gid00042/gid00049/gid00036/gid00031/gid00032/gid00001/gid00036/gid00041/gid00043/gid00048/gid00047/gid00001/gid00036/gid00041/gid00047/gid00042/gid00001/gid00043/gid00045/gid00042/gid00043/gid00042/gid00046/gid00032/gid00031/gid00001/gid00045/gid00032/gid00030/gid00042/gid00040/gid00040/gid00032/gid00041/gid00031/gid00028/gid00047/gid00036/gid00042/gid00041/gid00046 /gid00186/gid00001 /gid00013/gid00032/gid00028/gid00045/gid00041/gid00001/gid00028/gid00029/gid00042/gid00048/gid00047/gid00001/gid00041/gid00032/gid00051/gid00047/gid00001/gid00046/gid00047/gid00032/gid00043/gid00046 /gid00021/gid00035/gid00032/gid00001/gid00031/gid00032/gid00049/gid00032/gid00039/gid00042/gid00043/gid00040/gid00032/gid00041/gid00047/gid00001/gid00042/gid00033/gid00001/gid00028/gid00001/gid00017/gid00032/gid00031/gid00032/gid00046/gid00047/gid00045/gid00036/gid00028/gid00041/gid00001/gid00014/gid00028/gid00046/gid00047/gid00032/gid00045/gid00001/gid00017/gid00039/gid00028/gid00041/gid00001/gid00033/gid00042/gid00045/gid00001 /gid00004/gid00042/gid00046/gid00047/gid00028/gid00001/gid00014/gid00032/gid00046/gid00028/gid00001/gid00036/gid00046/gid00001/gid00048/gid00041/gid00031/gid00032/gid00045/gid00050/gid00028/gid00052/gid00001/gid00047/gid00042/gid00001/gid00046/gid00032/gid00045/gid00049/gid00032/gid00001/gid00028/gid00046/gid00001/gid00028/gid00001/gid00045/gid00042/gid00028/gid00031/gid00001/gid00040/gid00028/gid00043/gid00001 /gid00047/gid00042/gid00001/gid00036/gid00031/gid00032/gid00041/gid00047/gid00036/gid00033/gid00052/gid00001/gid00046/gid00042/gid00039/gid00048/gid00047/gid00036/gid00042/gid00041/gid00046/gid00001/gid00047/gid00042/gid00001/gid00036/gid00040/gid00043/gid00045/gid00042/gid00049/gid00032/gid00001/gid00050/gid00028/gid00039/gid00038/gid00028/gid00029/gid00036/gid00039/gid00036/gid00047/gid00052/gid00001/gid00036/gid00041/gid00001/gid00047/gid00035/gid00032/gid00001 /gid00004/gid00036/gid00047/gid00052/gid00163/gid00001/gid00021/gid00035/gid00032/gid00001/gid00017/gid00039/gid00028/gid00041/gid00001/gid00050/gid00036/gid00039/gid00039/gid00001/gid00043/gid00045/gid00042/gid00043/gid00042/gid00046/gid00032/gid00001/gid00043/gid00032/gid00031/gid00032/gid00046/gid00047/gid00045/gid00036/gid00028/gid00041/gid00001 /gid00036/gid00041/gid00033/gid00045/gid00028/gid00046/gid00047/gid00045/gid00048/gid00030/gid00047/gid00048/gid00045/gid00032/gid00001/gid00036/gid00040/gid00043/gid00045/gid00042/gid00049/gid00032/gid00040/gid00032/gid00041/gid00047/gid00046/gid00001/gid00028/gid00036/gid00040/gid00032/gid00031/gid00001/gid00028/gid00047/gid00001 /gid00030/gid00042/gid00041/gid00041/gid00032/gid00030/gid00047/gid00036/gid00041/gid00034/gid00001/gid00030/gid00042/gid00040/gid00040/gid00048/gid00041/gid00036/gid00047/gid00036/gid00032/gid00046/gid00001/gid00047/gid00042/gid00001/gid00046/gid00030/gid00035/gid00042/gid00042/gid00039/gid00046/gid00164/gid00001/gid00043/gid00028/gid00045/gid00038/gid00046/gid00164/gid00001 /gid00029/gid00048/gid00046/gid00036/gid00041/gid00032/gid00046/gid00046/gid00032/gid00046/gid00001/gid00028/gid00041/gid00031/gid00001/gid00042/gid00047/gid00035/gid00032/gid00045/gid00001/gid00031/gid00032/gid00046/gid00047/gid00036/gid00041/gid00028/gid00047/gid00036/gid00042/gid00041/gid00046/gid00001/gid00036/gid00041/gid00001/gid00004/gid00042/gid00046/gid00047/gid00028/gid00001 /gid00014/gid00032/gid00046/gid00028/gid00163/gid00001/gid00010/gid00041/gid00001/gid00047/gid00035/gid00032/gid00001/gid00031/gid00032/gid00049/gid00032/gid00039/gid00042/gid00043/gid00040/gid00032/gid00041/gid00047/gid00001/gid00042/gid00033/gid00001/gid00047/gid00035/gid00032/gid00001/gid00017/gid00032/gid00031/gid00032/gid00046/gid00047/gid00045/gid00036/gid00028/gid00041/gid00001 /gid00014/gid00028/gid00046/gid00047/gid00032/gid00045/gid00001/gid00017/gid00039/gid00028/gid00041/gid00164/gid00001/gid00046/gid00036/gid00051/gid00001/gid00050/gid00028/gid00039/gid00038/gid00001/gid00028/gid00048/gid00031/gid00036/gid00047/gid00046/gid00001/gid00050/gid00032/gid00045/gid00032/gid00001/gid00030/gid00042/gid00041/gid00031/gid00048/gid00030/gid00047/gid00032/gid00031/gid00001/gid00042/gid00041/gid00001 /gid00004/gid00042/gid00046/gid00047/gid00028/gid00001/gid00014/gid00032/gid00046/gid00028/gid00001/gid00046/gid00047/gid00045/gid00032/gid00032/gid00047/gid00046/gid00001/gid00036/gid00041/gid00001/gid00014/gid00028/gid00045/gid00030/gid00035/gid00001/gid00028/gid00041/gid00031/gid00001/gid00002/gid00043/gid00045/gid00036/gid00039/gid00001/gid00050/gid00036/gid00047/gid00035/gid00001 /gid00003/gid00036/gid00038/gid00032/gid00050/gid00028/gid00052/gid00001/gid00028/gid00041/gid00031/gid00001/gid00024/gid00028/gid00039/gid00038/gid00028/gid00029/gid00036/gid00039/gid00036/gid00047/gid00052/gid00001/gid00004/gid00042/gid00040/gid00040/gid00036/gid00047/gid00047/gid00032/gid00032/gid00001/gid00040/gid00032/gid00040/gid00029/gid00032/gid00045/gid00046/gid00164/gid00001 /gid00004/gid00036/gid00047/gid00052/gid00001/gid00046/gid00047/gid00028/gid00126/gid00164/gid00001/gid00043/gid00045/gid00042/gid00037/gid00032/gid00030/gid00047/gid00001/gid00030/gid00042/gid00041/gid00046/gid00048/gid00039/gid00047/gid00028/gid00041/gid00047/gid00001/gid00047/gid00032/gid00028/gid00040/gid00001/gid00040/gid00032/gid00040/gid00029/gid00032/gid00045/gid00046/gid00164/gid00001/gid00028/gid00041/gid00031/gid00001 /gid00040/gid00032/gid00040/gid00029/gid00032/gid00045/gid00046/gid00001/gid00042/gid00033/gid00001/gid00047/gid00035/gid00032/gid00001/gid00030/gid00042/gid00040/gid00040/gid00048/gid00041/gid00036/gid00047/gid00052/gid00163/gid00001/gid00010/gid00041/gid00001/gid00028/gid00031/gid00031/gid00036/gid00047/gid00036/gid00042/gid00041/gid00164/gid00001/gid00028/gid00041/gid00001 /gid00042/gid00041/gid00039/gid00036/gid00041/gid00032/gid00001/gid00046/gid00048/gid00045/gid00049/gid00032/gid00052/gid00001/gid00050/gid00028/gid00046/gid00001/gid00030/gid00042/gid00041/gid00031/gid00048/gid00030/gid00047/gid00032/gid00031/gid00001/gid00036/gid00041/gid00001/gid00002/gid00043/gid00045/gid00036/gid00039/gid00001/gid00028/gid00041/gid00031/gid00001/gid00014/gid00028/gid00052/gid00001/gid00033/gid00042/gid00045/gid00001 /gid00028/gid00031/gid00031/gid00036/gid00047/gid00036/gid00042/gid00041/gid00028/gid00039/gid00001/gid00036/gid00041/gid00043/gid00048/gid00047/gid00001/gid00047/gid00042/gid00001/gid00047/gid00035/gid00032/gid00001/gid00017/gid00032/gid00031/gid00032/gid00046/gid00047/gid00045/gid00036/gid00028/gid00041/gid00001/gid00014/gid00028/gid00046/gid00047/gid00032/gid00045/gid00001/gid00017/gid00039/gid00028/gid00041/gid00163/gid00001 /gid00023/gid00036/gid00045/gid00047/gid00048/gid00028/gid00039/gid00001/gid00004/gid00042/gid00040/gid00040/gid00048/gid00041/gid00036/gid00047/gid00052/gid00001/gid00014/gid00032/gid00032/gid00047/gid00036/gid00041/gid00034/gid00001 /gid00023/gid00036/gid00028/gid00001/gid00027/gid00042/gid00042/gid00040 /gid00050/gid00050/gid00050/gid00163/gid00001/gid00053/gid00042/gid00042/gid00040/gid00163/gid00048/gid00046 /gid00016/gid00045/gid00001/gid00037/gid00042/gid00036/gid00041/gid00001/gid00029/gid00052/gid00001/gid00043/gid00035/gid00042/gid00041/gid00032/gid00165/gid00001/gid00337/gid00132/gid00183/gid00137/gid00137/gid00140/gid00183/gid00140/gid00131/gid00131/gid00183/gid00137/gid00139/gid00134/gid00134/gid00001/gid00042/gid00045/gid00001 /gid00337/gid00132/gid00183/gid00134/gid00135/gid00137/gid00183/gid00133/gid00135/gid00139/gid00183/gid00138/gid00138/gid00140/gid00140/gid00001/gid00042/gid00045/gid00001/gid00337/gid00132/gid00183/gid00133/gid00136/gid00134/gid00183/gid00133/gid00132/gid00136/gid00183/gid00139/gid00138/gid00139/gid00133/gid00001 /gid00024/gid00032/gid00029/gid00036/gid00041/gid00028/gid00045/gid00001/gid00010/gid00005/gid00165/gid00001/gid00140/gid00139/gid00133/gid00001/gid00136/gid00132/gid00136/gid00136/gid00001/gid00138/gid00131/gid00140/gid00138 /gid00017/gid00028/gid00046/gid00046/gid00030/gid00042/gid00031/gid00032/gid00165/gid00001/gid00136/gid00131/gid00137/gid00131/gid00136/gid00135 /gid00013/gid00036/gid00049/gid00032/gid00001/gid00020/gid00043/gid00028/gid00041/gid00036/gid00046/gid00035/gid00001/gid00036/gid00041/gid00047/gid00032/gid00045/gid00043/gid00045/gid00032/gid00047/gid00028/gid00047/gid00036/gid00042/gid00041/gid00001/gid00050/gid00036/gid00039/gid00039/gid00001/gid00029/gid00032/gid00001/gid00043/gid00045/gid00042/gid00049/gid00036/gid00031/gid00032/gid00031/gid00163/gid00001 /gid00017/gid00032/gid00031/gid00032/gid00046/gid00047/gid00045/gid00036/gid00028/gid00041/gid00001/gid00014/gid00028/gid00046/gid00047/gid00032/gid00045/gid00001/gid00017/gid00039/gid00028/gid00041 /gid00004/gid00042/gid00046/gid00047/gid00028/gid00001/gid00014/gid00032/gid00046/gid00028 /gid00011/gid00042/gid00036/gid00041/gid00001/gid00048/gid00046/gid00001/gid00036/gid00041/gid00001/gid00040/gid00028/gid00038/gid00036/gid00041/gid00034/gid00001/gid00028/gid00001/gid00040/gid00042/gid00045/gid00032/gid00001/gid00050/gid00028/gid00039/gid00038/gid00183/gid00033/gid00045/gid00036/gid00032/gid00041/gid00031/gid00039/gid00052/gid00001/gid00030/gid00036/gid00047/gid00052 /gid00050/gid00036/gid00047/gid00035/gid00001/gid00052/gid00042/gid00048/gid00045/gid00001/gid00036/gid00041/gid00043/gid00048/gid00047/gid00163 /gid00016/gid00030/gid00047/gid00042/gid00029/gid00032/gid00045/gid00001/gid00137/gid00164/gid00001/gid00133/gid00131/gid00133/gid00132/gid00164/gid00001/gid00137/gid00165/gid00131/gid00131/gid00001/gid00017/gid00014/gid00001/gid00183/gid00001/gid00138/gid00165/gid00134/gid00131/gid00001/gid00017/gid00014 Project logo Event ﬂ yer using project branding
Communication Channels
Project communications and outreach content such
as press releases, ﬂ yers, and social media messages
were developed to inform community members about
opportunities to provide input on the Costa Mesa Pedestrian Master Plan. The ﬂ yers and social media messages were in both English and Spanish, allowing more community
members to participate in the planning process. The project team worked collaboratively with the City’s communications team to deliver the information through various
communication channels.
02 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT 15
Event # Event Date Focus Area
1 Wednesday, March 31, 2021
1:00 pm - 3:00 pm
The Triangle
2 Saturday, April 3, 2021
10:00 am - 12:00 pm
19th Street Commercial
3 Wednesday, April 7, 2021
1:00 pm - 3:00 pm
North Harbor Commercial
(Adams)
4 Saturday, April 10, 2021
10:00 am - 12:00 pm
Baker Street and Fairview
Road
5 Wednesday, April 14, 2021
1:00 pm - 3:00 pm
South Harbor Commercial
(Wilson)
6 Thursday, April 15, 2021
9:00 am - 11:00 am
LAB Anti-Mall
Event # Event Date Topic
1 Tuesday, July 27, 2021
6:00 pm - 7:00 pm
Project overview and
potential pedestrian
treatments
2 Wednesday, October 6, 2021
6:00 pm - 7:30 pm
Draft recommendations
3 Wednesday, April 27, 2022
6:00 pm - 7:30 pm
Draft report
Table 2.1 Overview of Walk Audits
Table 2.2 Overview of Community Workshops

2.3 WALK AUDITS
A Walk Audit is an event that allows participants to walk along a predeﬁ ned route and discuss opportunities and barriers to walking along the route with the project team members leading the walk audits.

The project team conducted in-person Walk Audits at six focus areas. The focus areas were identiﬁ ed during Bikeway and Walkability Committee meet ings and in the Pedestrian Opportunity Zones in the General Plan Circulation Element. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, a project website was created with information detailing how community members could conduct a self-guided Walk Audit. Table 2.1 offers an overview of the Walk Audits while Appendix B provides a summary of each Walk Audit.

2.4 COMMUNITY WORKSHOPS
The project team conducted three community workshops
to gather input from community members for the Plan. The workshops were held virtually via Zoom due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Workshop participants included community
members, members of the Bikeway and Walkability
Committee, elected ofﬁ cials, and commissioners.

Table 2.2 provides a snapshot of the Community Workshops.

Appendix C offers a summary of each event.

CITY OF COSTA MESA PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN16

2.5 ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION

COMMITTEE
The project provided ﬁ ve presentations to the Active
Transportation Committee, formerly the Bikeway and
Walkability Committee (BWC), to update committee members on key milestones and gather feedback on the next steps.

The committee provided valuable comments and input that helped shape the Plan. Table 2.3 gives an overview of the presentations.

Event
# Event Date Presentation Topics
1 Wednesday, November 4,
2020: 3:00 pm - 4:00 pm
Expectations from the BWC, Strategic
objectives, Project schedule, and
Outreach & engagement
2 Wednesday, January 6,
2021: 3:00 pm - 4:00 pm
Project recap, Preliminary collision
analysis, and Potential Walk Audit
locations
3 Wednesday, March 3,
2021 3:00 pm -4:00 pm
Project update, walk audit events,
bicycle racks,
4 Wednesday, July 7, 2021
4:00 pm - 6:00 pm
Project overview, Update on outreach
& engagement, and Sample of
pedestrian treatments
5 Wednesday, December 1,
2021: 6:00 pm -7:30 pm
Draft recommendations
6 Wednesday, January 19,
2022: 6:00 pm -7:30 pm
Draft report
7 Wednesday, June 22,
2022: 4:00 pm -6:00 pm
Updated report review
Table 2.3 Overview of Active Transportation Committee
Presentations

2.6 COMMUNITY FEEDBACK & INPUT
TOOLS
A project survey and online mapping tool were created to allow community members to share their input.

Project Survey
Between February and May, 2021, the project team
administered an online survey offering community members an opportunity to participate in the planning process on their own time. It also allowed Walk Audit participants to provide additional detailed feedback after each event. All materials were available in English and Spanish.

Appendix D, Project Survey, provides a discussion of the survey results.

Online Mapping Tool
An online mapping tool was developed for community
participants to identify active transportation-related
concerns or desired areas of improvement in the Pedestrian Opportunity Zones. The team received more than 350
comments from the online mapping tool.
02 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT 17

2.7 FINDINGS FROM OUTREACH
EFFORT
A qualitative analysis was conducted from the comments
gathered in the outreach effort to identify common
concerns and input shared by community members. The
analysis was focused on location-based comments in order to identify potential infrastructure improvements that could address the concerns.

The data used in this analysis focused on comments
received from the following sources:
• Walk audits
• Online mapping tool
• Virtual workshops
• Project survey
• Bikeway And Walkability Committee (BWC) meetings
Top Corridors and Spot Locations/Destinations
Community members provided a total of 547 location-
speciﬁ c comments. Of these comments, 68 pertained to
corridors and 479 were associated with a particular location or destination. The most popular corridors and intersections are shown in the following lists.

Note: The number of comments associated with the corridor is in the parentheses.

Top corridors, with comments:

1. Newport Boulevard (6)

2. Harbor Boulevard (5)

3. Bristol Street (5)

4. Wilson Street (4)

5. Baker Street (4)

6. Fairview Road (4)

7. Paularino Avenue (3)

8. Pomona Avenue (2)

9. W 19th Street (2)

10. W 17th Street (2)
Top intersections or destinations, with comments:

1. Fairview Road and Adams Avenue (12)

2. Bristol Street and Paularino Avenue (9)

3. Bristol Street and Hotel Way (9)

4. Fairview Road and Village Way (9)

5. Harbor Boulevard and Adams Avenue (9)

6. Harbor Boulevard and Gisler Avenue (9)

7. Victoria Street and Maple Street (8)

8. Wilson Street and Center Way (8)

9. Bristol Street and Sobeca Way (8)

10. Baker Street and Jeffrey Drive (8)
CITY OF COSTA MESA PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN18
Common Themes
Comments provided by community members can be
categorized into four major themes and many sub-themes.

The major themes are:
• Sidewalk-related infrastructure
• Crossing-related infrastructure
• Other crossing improvements
• Other roadway infrastructure
The most popular theme is "other infrastructure" with
250 comments. This is followed by sidewalk-related
infrastructure with 153 comments and crossing-related
infrastructure with 131 comments. Other items with high number of comments include the sub-themes "lack of
crossings (at intersections)" and "missing ramps/not ADA compliant" under the "crossing-related infrastructure
characteristics" theme, and "d estinations" under the "other" theme.

Table 2.4, Summary of Themes, shows the themes, sub-
themes, and the total comments received. A detailed
summary of the majority of comments received, along
with their locations, is available in Appendix B, Walk Audit Summaries.

Note: Some comments fall into multiple themes; as a result, the total number of comments evaluated in this section of the analysis exceeds the total comments received in the outreach effort.

02 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT 19
Theme Sub-Theme Comments Received
Sidewalk-related
infrastructure
• Missing sidewalk/connection
• Narrow sidewalk
• Buckled (raised) sidewalk
• Sidewalk obstructions
• Bicyclists on sidewalk 153
Crossing-related
infrastructure
• Lack of crossings (in-between long
roadway stretches)
• Lack of crossings (at intersections)
• 3 legged crosswalk intersection
• Half-delta ramps
• Not ADA compliant ramps/missing
ramps
• Other curb issues
• Trafﬁ c control: insufﬁ cient
countdown/push button
• Trafﬁ c control: insufﬁ cient signal
timing
• Visibility
131
Crossing
Improvements
• Lack of crossings
• No right turn on red
• Pedestrian refuge island
• Lead pedestrian interval
• Curb extension 17
Other roadway
infrastructure
• Road diet/trafﬁ c calming/speeding
• Destination
• Compliment
• Project-relevant notes
• Non-project related
• General walking
• Other speciﬁ c comments
• Landscaping/shade
• Trafﬁ c volume
• Bike improvement
• Motorist behavior
• Driveway issues
• Roadway rehabilitation
• Lighting
• Drainage
• Transit
250
Table 2.4 Summary of Comment Themes, Sub-themes, and Number of Comments CITY OF COSTA MESA PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN20
This page left intentionally blank
03 Existing
Conditions
CITY OF COSTA MESA PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN22
The existing city fabric presents many opportunities and constraints for improving walkability in Costa Mesa. The City has an area of 15.81 square miles, which includes 0.96 square miles of park and outdoor spaces. On average, it also has a walk score of 65, which means residents can travel to some destinations by walking.

This section examines some of the essential existing
conditions that pertain to walking. Many datasets were also analyzed to position the city for a future application for the Walk Friendly Community designation.

3.1 INTRODUCTION
The project team analyzed ﬁ ve categories of data for the effort:
• Demographic statistics & travel characteristics
• Land use and destinations
• Roadway characteristics
• Pedestrian infrastructure
• Pedestrian safety
The analysis is concentrated on the Pedestrian Opportunity Zones. The opportunity zones were ﬁ rst discussed in the General Plan and were included in the Active Transportation Plan.
03 EXISTING CONDITIONS 23

POPULATION
The population in the city serves as a proxy for
understanding the origins of walking trips and possible community needs for walking in frastructure improvements and programs. According to the 2019 American Community
Survey (ACS), the City is home to 113,011 residents, with a population density of 7,148 person per square mile. The Median Household Income (MHHI) in the city is $84,138,
which is higher than the state MHHI ($75,235), but lower than the MHHI for Orange County ($90,234). Approximately a quarter of residents are under the age 20 (24.5%).

According to the 2019 ACS, the areas with the highest
populations (3,001 to 4,000 people) are located north of Interstate 405 (I-405), around Anton Boulevard, where
large townhomes and apartment developments are located.

Several areas in Westside Costa Mesa also have a large
number of townhomes and apartment developments.

Table 3.1, Population Distribution by Median Household
Income, Table 3.2, Age Distribution, Figure 3.1, Total
Population by Census Block, and Figure 3.2, Median
Household Income provide additional detail about each
demographic characteristic.

Note: The level of analysis used for this portion of the analysis is Census block groups, which are smaller units of area than Census tracts.

3.2 DEMOGRAPHIC

CHARACTERISTICS
Age Percent of Households (citywide)
Under 20 24.5%
20-64 63%
65-84 10.8%
Over 85 1.8%
Median Household
Income Group
Total
Households
(Estimate)
Percent of Households
(citywide)
< $50,000 1,981 4.76%
$50,001 - $75,000 8,338 20.04%
$75,001 - $100,000 1,8261 43.9%
$100,001 - $125,000 6,048 14.54%
> $125,000 5,832 14.02%
No MHHI data 1,138 2.74%
Table 3.2 Age Distribution
Table 3.1 Population Distribution by Median Household Income Note: The total % is over 100 (100.1) because these are rounded estimates.

Note: For Census block groups within Costa Mesa that extend outside city boundary, a ratio was applied to estimate total number of households in the Census block group (based on percent area of Census block group that exists within Costa Mesa city limits).

CITY OF COSTA MESA PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN24
Figure 3.1 Total Population by Census Block

SANTA ANA

NEWPORT BEACH

FOUNTAIN
VALLEY
COSTA
MESA
IRVINE

HUNTINGTON
BEACH
§¨¦
405
§¨¦
405
55 73
1 Irvine Av
Santa Ana Av
22nd St
Wilson St
Harbor Blvd
Fairview Rd
Victoria St
Adams Av
M
esaVerdeDr
Gisler Av
Paularino Av
MacArthur Blvd
Newport Blvd
Fair Dr
17th St
Baker St
19th St
Red Hill Av
Placentia Av
Bear St
Anton Blvd
Legend
Waterways
Costa Mesa City Boundary
Railway
Total Population - Census Block Group
0 - 1,000
1,00 1 - 2,000
2,00 1 - 3,000
3,00 1 - 4,000
Pedestrian Opportunity Zone
Source: American Commmunity Survey 20 1 9
0 0.5 1
Miles
N
03 EXISTING CONDITIONS 25
Figure 3.2 Median Household Income

SANTA ANA

NEWPORT BEACH

FOUNTAIN
VALLEY
COSTA
MESA
IRVINE

HUNTINGTON
BEACH
§¨¦
405
§¨¦
405
55 73
1 Irvine Av
Santa Ana Av
22nd St
Wilson St
Harbor Blvd
Fairview Rd
Victoria St
Adams Av
M
esaVerdeDr
Gisler Av
Paularino Av
MacArthur Blvd
Newport Blvd
Fair Dr
17th St
Baker St
19th St
Red Hill Av
Placentia Av
Bear St
Anton Blvd
Legend
Waterways
Costa Mesa City Boundary
Railway
Median Household Income
Pedestrian Opportunity Zone
Source: 20 19 American Community Survey
$1 00,00 1 - $1 25,000
> $1 25,000
< $50,000
$50,00 1 - $75,000
$75,00 1 - $1 00,000
No Data
0 0.5 1
Miles
N
CITY OF COSTA MESA PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN26

MODE SHARE
Mode share is a breakdown of the travel modes that
travelers take to reach a destination. The U.S. Census
Bureau collects data on the travel mode share for
commuters. According to the 2010 Census, 3.4% of people walk to work in Costa Mesa, while 73.8% drive to work in single-occupancy vehicles, as shown in Table 3.3 Commute to Work. A review of the ﬁ ve-year trend since 2010 shows that a slightly lower percentage of people were walking to work, as shown in Table 3.4, Commute to Work- Five Year Trend. The information will be useful in the application for the Walk Friendly Community designation.

Data collected for the CMPMP, however, suggests that
many community members walk in the opportunity zones.

Of the 63 responses collected, 74.6% selected walking as an option for how they most frequently get around within the opportunity zones. This was followed by 60.3% of the participants who preferred getting around by car. The third most popular selection was bike at 41.3%. Lastly, scooter and bus were the two least po pular selections which only

3.2% of participants used to get around. Figure 3.3, Travel Mode Preferences in the Opportunity Zones summarizes this ﬁ nding.

Mode Percent of Households (citywide)
Walking 3.4%
Bicycling (and other means) 3.7%
Public Transit 3.4%
Single Occupant Vehicles 73.8%
Carpool 10.5%
Mode Percent of Households (citywide)
Walking (2006-2010) 3.4%
Walking (2010-2014) 2.1%
Public transit (2006-2010) 3.4%
Public transit (2010-2014) 2.9%
Table 3.3 Commute to Work 3.3 TRAVEL CHARACTERISTICS
Table 3.4 Commute to Work - Five Year Trend
Figure 3.3 Travel Mode Preferences in the Opportunity Zones Walk 74.6%

60.3%
Bike 41.3%
Bus
Car
Scooter 3.2%

3.2%
03 EXISTING CONDITIONS 27

PEDESTRIAN COUNTS
Pedestrian counts were conducted at 10 locations to better assess pedestrian sidewalk trafﬁ c along major corridors across the city. The counts were collected on a typical weekday in Fall 2021 during morning and afternoon peak
#L o c a t i o n S i d e s o f S t r e e t North/East - AM Peak
North/East - PM
Peak
South/West - AM
Peak
South/West - PM
Peak
1 Paularino Avenue btwn Garﬁ eld
Avenue and Madison Avenue N/S 62 19 13 10
2 Baker Street btwn Jeffrey Drive and
Century Place N/S 12 11 9 5
3 Wilson Street btwn Maple Street and
Miner Street N/S 31 34 26 25
4 Wilson Street btwn College Avenue
and Fordham Drive N/S 11 15 29 42
5 Placentia Avenue btwn Wilson Street
and Congress Street E/W 95 54 56 18
6 Victoria Street btwn San Michel Drive
and Maple Street N/S 17 12 33 30
7 19th Street btwn Federal Avenue and
Placentia Avenue N/S 30 28 12 19
8 19th Street btwn Park Avenue and
Harbor Boulevard N/S 12 25 43 64
9 Harbor Boulevard btwn 19th Street
and Newport Boulevard E/W 18 63 4 16
10 17th Street btwn Orange Avenue and
Westminster Avenue N/S 10 23 4 8
Table 3.5 Pedestrian Counts at Selected Locations
intervals (7-9 AM and 4-6 PM, respectively). The counts documented pedestrian activities for either side of the street at the locations listed in Table 3.5. Appendix G:

Pedestrian Counts provides a more reﬁ ned breakdown of the pedestrian counts collected.

CITY OF COSTA MESA PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN28
Figure 3.4 Pedestrian Count Locations
! !
!!! !
! !!
!

SANTA ANA

NEWPORT BEACH

FOUNTAIN
VALLEY
COSTA
MESA
IRVINE

HUNTINGTON
BEACH
§¨¦
405
§¨¦
405
55 73
1 55
Irvine Av
Santa Ana Av
22nd St
Wilson St
Harbor Blvd
Fairview Rd
Victoria St
Adams Av
M
esaVerdeDr
Gisler Av
Paularino Av
MacArthur Blvd
Newpo
rt Blvd
Fair Dr
17th St
Baker St
19th St
Red Hill Av
Placentia Av
Bear St
Anton Blvd
Legend
Parks and Recreation
Waterways
Costa Mesa City Boundary
Railway
Pedestrian Screenline Counts
School Boundaries
!! Count Locations
Pedestrian Opportunity Zone11
#
2 1010
3 45
6 7 89
0 0.5 1
Miles
N
03 EXISTING CONDITIONS 29

LAND USE
Existing land uses within the City identify the locations of where people live, work, and play. Land uses such as low, medium, and high-density residential areas highlight population centers. Meanwhile commercial and public/
institutional land uses suggest typical destinations for shopping and entertainment.

Comparing land uses in opportunity zones to the city as a whole, citywide distributions show a higher allocation of residential uses, while opportunity zones are largely comprised of commercial and industrial uses. Land within the opportunity zones accounts for 22% of all city land.

Figure 3.5 Land Use Map shows the spatial distribution of existing land uses at a citywide scale.

3.4 LAND USE AND DESTINATIONS

ACTIVITY CENTERS
Activity centers are destinations that community members can reach through non-motorized transportation. Examples of activity centers include schools, parks, commercial areas, and municipal facilities.

The City of Costa Mesa has many local and regional
destinations. Some of the popular attractors include South Coast Plaza, Segerstrom Center for the Arts, Downtown, The Triangle, commercial areas on 19th Street and 17th Street, the LAB Anti-Mall, the Camp, Orange Coast College, Herzog Community Center and the OC Fair and Event Center.

CITY OF COSTA MESA PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN30
Figure 3.5 Land Use Map
Costa Mesa General Plan | LU-25

03 EXISTING CONDITIONS 31

ROADWAY NETWORK
The roadway network in the City of Costa Mesa provides
inter-and intra-city multimodal connectivity. Major and primary arterials such as Harbor Boulevard, Fairview
Road, Placentia Avenue, and Bristol Street offer access in the north-south direction. Meanwhile, roadways such as
Sunﬂ ower Avenue, Baker Street, Adams Avenue, Victoria Street, 19th Street, and 17th Street allow travelers to move in the east-west direction. Local streets form the bulk of the roadway network and offer access to predominately
residential land uses.

AVERAGE DAIL Y TRAFFIC VOLUME
The Average Daily Trafﬁ c (ADT) volumes shows the vehicular trip volume along a corridor on a given date. It gives an understanding on where roadways have higher or lower
vehicular usage. ADT data was sourced from the City of
Costa Mesa, Transportation Services Division for the years 2014 to 2020.

The roadways with the highest ADT volume mirror the
roadway classiﬁ cations for major and primary arterials.

These include Harbor Boulevard, Fairview Road, Adams
Avenue, Victoria Street, and Bristol Street.

3.5 ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS
ADT Category Length (mi) %
0-3,500 1.57 9.54
3,501-10,000 4.31 26.2
10,001-20,000 1.99 12.1
20,001-30,000 4.4 26.75
30,001-40,000 2.1 12.77
40,001-55,000 0.72 4.38
> 55,000 1.36 8.27
Grand Total 16.45 100%
Table 3.6 Average Daily Trafﬁ c (ADT) within the
Opportunity Zones
Within the Pedestrian Opportunity Zones, slightly more
than a third (39.51%) of all centerline miles where ADT data was available had vehicular volumes between 20,001 and
40,000.

ADT volumes are shown in more detail in Table 3.6 Average Daily Trafﬁ c within Pedestrian Opportunity Zones and Figure

3.6 Average Daily Trafﬁ c Volumes.

CITY OF COSTA MESA PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN32
Figure 3.6 Average Daily Trafﬁ c Volumes

SANTA ANA

NEWPORT BEACH

FOUNTAIN
VALLEY
COSTA
MESA
IRVINE

HUNTINGTON
BEACH
§¨¦
405
§¨¦
405
55 73
1 Irvine Av
Santa Ana Av
22nd St
Wilson St
Harbor
Blvd
Fairview Rd
Victoria St
Adams Av
M
esa Verde Dr
Gisler Av
Paularino Av
MacArthur Blvd
Newport Blvd

Fair Dr
17th St
Baker St
19th St
Red Hill Av
Placentia Av
Bear St
Anton Blvd
Legend
Parks and Recreation
Waterways
Costa Mesa City Boundary
Railway
Average Daily Trip Volume (Veh., 201 4+)
School Boundaries
1 0,00 1 - 20,000
20,00 1 - 30,000
30,00 1 - 40,000
40,00 1 - 55,000
> 55,000
Pedestrian Opportunity Zone
< 3,500
3,50 1 - 1 0,000
Source: City of Costa Mesa, Transportation Services Division 0 0.5 1
Miles
N
03 EXISTING CONDITIONS 33

POSTED SPEED LIMIT
Posted speed limits indicate how fast motorists are legally allowed to drive, with optimal conditions in place, along each roadway. Data on posted speed limits were sourced from
the 2019 City of Costa Mesa Speed Map. The dataset shows primary corridors that represent non-residential roadways where the speed limit is over 25 Miles Per Hour (MPH), and only refers to streets on OCTA’s Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) with classiﬁ cations of Collector Arterial, Secondary Arterial, Primary Arterial, and Major Arterial.

The roadways with the highest speed limits are along Red Hill Avenue between SR-73 and I-405 (50 MPH) and Adams
Avenue where the speed limit is 45 MPH. Except for a short portion of Adams Avenue, speed limits within the Pedestrian Opportunity Zones are 40 MPH.

The distribution of speed limits across the City roadways is shown in Table 3.7, Percentage of Posted Speed Limit on Speed Limit Total Centerline (ft) %
Blank 2,433 0.87%
25 2,755 0.99%
30 11,785 4.24%
35 64,777 23.28%
40 144,423 51.91%
45 42,367 15.23%
50 9,692 3.48%
Total 278,231 100%
Table 3.7 Percentage of Posted Speed Limit on MPAH Streets of Collector Arterial and Higher
Primary Corridors and Figure 3.7 Posted Speed Limits in the City of Costa Mesa on MPAH Streets of Collector Arterial and Higher.

CITY OF COSTA MESA PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN34
Figure 3.7 Posted Speed Limits in the City of Costa Mesa on MPAH Streets of Collector Arterial and Higher

SANTA ANA

NEWPORT BEACH

FOUNTAIN
VALLEY
COSTA
MESA
IRVINE

HUNTINGTON
BEACH
§¨¦
405
§¨¦
405
55 73
1 55
Irvine Av
Santa Ana Av
22nd St
Wilson St
Harbor Blvd
Fairview Rd
Victoria St
Adams Av
M
esaVerdeDr
Gisler Av
Paularino Av
MacArthur Blvd
Newport Blvd
Fair Dr
17th St
Baker St
19th St
Red Hill Av
Placentia Av
Bear St
Anton Blvd
Legend
Parks and Recreation
Waterways
Costa Mesa City Boundary
Railway
Posted Speed Limit
School Boundaries
30 MPH
35 MPH
40 MPH
45 MPH
50 MPH
Pedestrian Opportunity Zone
25 MPH
0 0.5 1
Miles
N
03 EXISTING CONDITIONS 35

SIDEWALKS
Sidewalks provide a designated right-of-way for pedestrians and separate pedestrian activities from other travel
modes. Sidewalk coverage was analyzed in the Pedestrian Opportunity Zones.

Overall, there are 42.77 miles of roadway curb edges on both sides of roadways in the Pedestrian Opportunity Zones.

Of these, 39.06 miles (91.33%) have sidewalk infrastructure and 3.71 miles (8.67%) have missing sidewalks. Table 3.8 Summary of Sidewalk Coverage in Pedestrian Opportunity
Zones illustrates the sidewalk coverage discussed in this section.

The Northern Pedestrian Opportunity Zones, as shown
in Figure 3.8, Sidewalk Coverage in North Pedestrian
Opportunity Zones, has 20.3 miles of sidewalk, and 0.88 miles of missing sidewalks. Most of the missing sidewalks are clustered around South Coast Plaza, particularly along Sunﬂ ower Avenue. Several roadway segments along Bristol Street also lack sidewalk facilities.

The Southern Pedestrian Opportunity Zones, as shown
in Figure 3.9, Sidewalk Coverage in South Pedestrian
Opportunity Zones, contain more areas with missing
sidewalks. Of the 21.56 roadway curb miles in the area, 2.83 miles have missing sidewalk infrastructure, which account for 13.11% curb space. Many of the missing sidewalks are located around the intersection of Newport Boulevard and

3.6 PEDESTRIAN INFRASTRUCTURE 17th Street and along Superior Avenue. The area offers several retail options and could generate more pedestrian trafﬁ c with enhanced sidewalk coverage.

There are also several key missing sidewalk segments along Harbor Boulevard. Just south of the intersection of Harbor Boulevard and Victoria Street , southbound Harbor Boulevard is missing small portions of sidewalks from Victoria Street to Hamilton Street, where parking overﬂ ow of adjacent auto-related businesses use the space. This is an important pedestrian corridor, linking some of the highest-trafﬁ c OCTA bus stops along Harbor Boulevard to relatively dense residential areas.

Another area with limited sidewalk connectivity is
the Westside neighborhood. Roadways such as Arbor
Street, Whittier Avenue, and Continental Avenue in the
neighborhood have front yards that extend to the end of the curb.

Table 3.8 Summary of Sidewalk Coverage in Pedestrian Opportunity Zones
Opportunity
Zone
Length -
Sidewalks
(Miles)
Length –
Sidewalks
Missing (Miles)
Sidewalk
Availability (%)
North 20.30 0.88 95.85%
South 18.76 2.83 86.89%
Total 39.06 3.71 91.33%
CITY OF COSTA MESA PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN36
Figure 3.8 Sidewalk Coverage in North Pedestrian Opportunity Zone

NEWPORT
BEACH

SANTA ANA
§¨¦405
73 55
Orange Coast
College
Costa Mesa
High School
TeWinkle Park
Vanguard
University
College Park
Elementary
School
TeWinkle
Middle School
Killybrooke
Elementary
School Paularino
Elementary
School
Wakeham
Park
Wimbledon
Park
Sonora
Elementary
School
Red Hill Ave
Anton Blvd
Sunﬂower Ave
Bristol St
Bear St
Sakokia Dr
SOUTH
COAST
PLAZA
South Coast Dr
Baker St
Fairview Rd
Harbor Blvd
Newport BlvdFair Dr
Merrimac Way
Adams Av
Gisler Av
Legend
Parks and Recreation
Waterways
Costa Mesa City Boundary
Railway
Sidewalk Coverage
(North Pedestrian Opportunity Zone)
School Boundaries
Sidewalk Present
Sidewalk Missing
Pedestrian Opportunity Zone
0 0.45 0.8
Miles
N
03 EXISTING CONDITIONS 37
Figure 3.9 Sidewalk Coverage in South Pedestrian Opportunity Zone 1 NEWPORT BEACH
E 19th St
W 19th St
Harbor Blvd
Placentia Ave
W 17th St
Victroria St
Wilson St
Newport Blvd
Fairview Rd
22nd St
Lions
Park
Fairview Park
Canyon Park
Wilson
Street
Park
Lindbergh
Park
Irvine Ave
Harper
Park
Pinkley
Park
Heller
Park
Kaiser
Elementary
School
Woodland
Elementary
School
Rea
Elementary
School
Pomona
Elementary
School
Estancia
High
School
Wilson
Elementary
School
Victoria
Elementary
School
Whittier
Elementary
School
College Park
Elementary
School
Vanguard
University
Legend
Parks and Recreation
Waterways
Costa Mesa City Boundary
Railway
Sidewalk Coverage
(South Pedestrian Opportunity Zone)
School Boundaries
Sidewalk Present
Sidewalk Missing
Pedestrian Opportunity Zone
0 0.45 0.8
Miles
N
CITY OF COSTA MESA PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN38

CROSSWALKS
Crosswalks clearly delineate the pedestrian right-of-way at areas where crossings may likely occur, and they are typically located at intersections. Figure 3.10, Crosswalk Types details the different kinds of crosswalks available.

Currently, the City has four types of crosswalks that
help facilitate pedestrian crossings: continental, ladder, decorative, and standard crosswalks. There are many
intersections that have marked crosswalks on three legs of four-leg intersections. The lack of a fourth leg may present additional barriers for pedestrians to cross the intersection.

Several of these three-legged crosswalk intersections
are in high pedestrian trafﬁ c areas, such as The Triangle and along Harbor Boulevard. The City is in the process of upgrading all crosswalks to either ladder or continental for arterials and high pedestrian volume intersections and school crossings.

PEDESTRIAN COUNTDOWN SIGNALS
Pedestrian signals with countdown timers show the
remaining time left for pedestrians to cross the roadway.

Pedestrian countdown signals exist at intersections where new construction or signal improvements have been
made (typically in the last ﬁ ve years). In situations where signal upgrades have yet to take place, these pedestrian countdown signals ﬂ ash without a countdown. It is a
City and ADA standard to upgrade any signal heads with
pedestrian countdown ﬂ ashers for all new construction Figure 3.10 Crosswalk Types
Source: CA MUTCD
03 EXISTING CONDITIONS 39
or signal upgrades. Over time the City will have more
widespread offerings of such features.

TRANSIT ACCESS
Walking is an important mode of transportation for travelers to travel to/from transit hubs. It allows transit users to complete their “First/Last Mile” trips. The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) is the primary service
provider within the city. Bus transit stop locations are shown in Figure 3.11, OCTA Bus Stops.

There are 215 OCTA bus stops within the city. Of these, 94 (44%) are located within the Pedestrian Opportunity
Zones. From the average daily boarding bus ridership data acquired from OCTA for June 2019, the major hubs of bus ridership can be found in the opportunity zones. Ridership is particularly concentrated near South Coast Plaza (Bristol Street), major retail destinations along Harbor Boulevard between Wilson Street and Victoria Street, and along
19th Street in Westside Costa Mesa. Figure 3.12, OCTA Bus Ridership Heat Map, further highlights the higher bus
ridership in these major destinations.

Despite the opportunities available for community members in Costa Mesa to take transit, there are some constraints.

Bus ridership is much lower in low-density residential
(single-family home) neighborhoods such as Victoria Street, around Mesa Verde, and along E 17th Street near Newport Beach. For certain routes such as the ones along Wilson Street and Harbor Boulevard, transit users must walk a long distance to transfer between routes. Additionally, there are minimal transit connections between Downtown Costa
Mesa and the Newport Pier area, a popular local destination.

CITY OF COSTA MESA PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN40
Figure 3.11 OCTA Bus Stops

SANTA ANA

NEWPORT BEACH

FOUNTAIN
VALLEY
COSTA
MESA
IRVINE

HUNTINGTON
BEACH
§¨¦
405
§¨¦
405
55 73
1 Irvine Av
Santa Ana Av
22nd St
Wilson St
Harbor Blvd
Fairview Rd
Victoria St
Adams Av
M
esaVerdeDr
Gisler Av
Paularino Av
MacArthur Blvd
Newport Blvd
Fair Dr
17th St
Baker St
19th St
Red Hill Av
Placentia Av
Bear St
Anton Blvd
Legend
Parks and Recreation
Waterways
Costa Mesa City Boundary
Railway
OCTA Bus Stops
School Boundaries
! OCTA Bus Stop
Pedestrian Opportunity Zone
0 0.5 1
Miles
N
03 EXISTING CONDITIONS 41
Figure 3.12 OCTA Bus Ridership Heat Map

SANTA ANA

NEWPORT BEACH

FOUNTAIN
VALLEY
COSTA
MESA
IRVINE

HUNTINGTON
BEACH
§¨¦
405
§¨¦
405
55 73
1 Irvine Av
Santa Ana Av
22nd St
Wilson St
Harbor Blvd
Fairview Rd
Victoria St
Adams Av
M
esaVerdeDr
Gisler Av
Paularino Av
MacArthur Blvd
Newport Blvd
Fair Dr
17th St
Baker St
19th St
Red Hill Av
Placentia Av
Bear St
Anton Blvd
Legend
Parks and Recreation
Waterways
Costa Mesa City Boundary
Railway
Pedestrian Opportunity Zones
OCTA Average Daily
Boarding and Alighting
(20 19 Heat Map)
HighLow
1/4-Mile Transit Daily Boarding Density
School Boundaries
Transit Data Source:

Orange County Transit Authority (OCTA)
0 0.5 1
Miles
N

CITY OF COSTA MESA PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN42
To understand pedestrian safety, the project team evaluated vehicular collisions and police citations given to motorists who exhibited behaviors that could create an unsafe
environment for pedestrians. Trafﬁ c collisions are incidents where a vehicle collides with a bicyclist, pedestrian, and/ or vehicle. For this study, pedestrian-involved collisions were assessed. Pedestrian-involved collisions typically result from a vehicle or bicyclist colliding with one or more pedestrians. Police citations could be interpreted as “near- miss” collisions. While not all citation indicate a collision, the locations of police citations can indicate hotspots that may be prone to collisions. A full report of pedestrian safety in the city is available in Appendix E: Pedestrian Safety Analysis.

PEDESTRIAN COLLISION ANAL YSIS
Citywide vehicular collision data from July 1, 2015 to
June 30, 2020 was obtained through the Statewide
Integrated Trafﬁ c Records System (SWITRS) published by the California Highway Patrol. This analysis focused on pedestrian-involved collisions. At the citywide scale, a total of 175 collisions over the 5-year timeframe involved a pedestrian. Within opportunity zones, 83 collisions involved a pedestrian.

3.7 PEDESTRIAN SAFETY Top Collision Hotspots
Collision hotspots are classiﬁ ed as intersections with high collision density within 250 feet of the intersection.

Pomona Avenue and 19th Street had the highest number
of pedestrian-involved collisions at the citywide scale and within the opportunity zones. Figure 3.13, Heat Map of Pedestrian Collisions and Table 3.9, Top Five Collision Hotspots, Citywide and at Pedestrian Opportunity Zones, shows the top ﬁ ve collision hotspots across the city and in the Pedestrian Opportunity Zones, with the corresponding collision severity.

Top Collision Corridors
A “corridor” is deﬁ ned as the primary road of travel where a collision occurs. The collisions may occur at intersections along the corridor or outside of an intersection. The top ﬁ ve collision corridors are showcased in Table 3.10, Top Five Corridors. Harbor Boulevard had the highest pedestrian- involved collision density across all scales of analysis.

Newport Boulevard also had high collision density at the citywide scale and within opportunity zones.
03 EXISTING CONDITIONS 43
Figure 3.13 Heat Map of Pedestrian Collisions
!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!! !!!!!!
!! !!!!!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!! !!
!!!!
!! !!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!! !!
!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!! !!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!! !!
!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!! !!
!!
!!!!

SANTA ANA

NEWPORT BEACH

FOUNTAIN
VALLEY
COSTA
MESA
IRVINE

HUNTINGTON
BEACH
§¨¦
405
§¨¦
405
55 73
1 Irvine Av
Santa Ana Av
22nd St
Wilson St
Harbor Blvd
Fairview Rd
Victoria St
Adams Av
M
esaVerdeDr
Gisler Av
Paularino Av
MacArthur Blvd
Newport Blvd
Fair Dr
17th St
Baker St
19th St
Red Hill Av
Placentia Av
Bear St
Anton Blvd
Legend
Parks and Recreation
Waterways
Costa Mesa City Boundary
Railway
Pedestrian Opportunity Zones
Citywide Ped-Involved Collisions
20 1 5-2020
HighLow
1/4-Mile Collision Density
Fatal and Severe Injury
Other Injury
Property Damage Only
School Boundaries
0 0.5 1
Miles
N

CITY OF COSTA MESA PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN44
Corridor Fatal or Severe Injury Visible Injury Complaint of Pain Property Damage Only Total 1 Citywide
Pomona Avenue and
19th Street 02406
Harbor Boulevard and
Merrimac Way 013 0 4
Gisler Avenue and
Harbor Boulevard 210 0 3
19th Street and Harbor
Boulevard 00303
Fairview Road and
Merrimac Way 02 1 03
Opportunity Zones
Pomona Avenue and
19th Street 02406
Harbor Boulevard and
Merrimac Way 013 0 4
Harbor Boulevard and
Victoria Street 0 111 3
19th Street and
Newport Boulevard 03003
Broadway and
Newport Boulevard 020 1 3
Table 3.9 Top Five Collision Hotspots, Citywide and at Pedestrian Opportunity Zones, from July 2015 to June 2020 03 EXISTING CONDITIONS 45
Corridor Fatal or Severe Injury Visible Injury Complaint of Pain Property Damage Only Total 1 Citywide
Harbor Boulevard1 41 09 12 4
Newport Boulevard2 975 1 2 2
Bristol Street 3 5 2 0 10
19th Street 2 4 4 0 10
Fairview Road 0 5 4 0 9
Opportunity Zones
Harbor Boulevard1 389 12 1
Newport Boulevard2 963 11 9
19th Street 2 4 4 0 10
Bristol Street 0 4 2 0 6
17th Street 1 1 1 0 3
Table 3.10 Top Five Collision Corridors, Citywide and at Pedestrian Opportunity Zones, from July 2015 to June 2020 1- A safety improvement project on Harbor Boulevard was completed in 2019, which installed medians and landscaping between sidewalks. 2- Includes Caltrans Right of Way.

CITY OF COSTA MESA PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN46

POLICE CITATION ANAL YSIS
Police citation data from January 2016 to January 2021 was acquired from the City of Costa Mesa Police Department. A total of 20,419 citations were recorded citywide between January 2016 and January 2021. Within the Pedestrian
Opportunity Zones, 11,141 citations were recorded, which account for approximately 54% of all citations. The major clusters of citations were centered around 19th Street and Newport Boulevard, and alon g Harbor Boulevard between
Baker Street and Adams Avenue.

The top ﬁ ve locations with police citations are:
• Harbor Boulevard & Village Way
• Newport Boulevard & W 19th Street
• Newport Boulevard & W 18th Street
• Placentia Avenue & Swan Circle
• Harbor Boulevard & Victoria Street
Figure 3.14, Heat Map of Police Citations, illustrates the hotspots where police citations were issued. Table 3.11, Summary of Citations Given shows a list of the citations given out based on different violation categories.

03 EXISTING CONDITIONS 47
Figure 3.14 Heat Map of Police Citations

SANTA ANA

NEWPORT BEACH

FOUNTAIN
VALLEY
COSTA
MESA
IRVINE

HUNTINGTON
BEACH
§¨¦
405
§¨¦
405
55 73
1 Irvine AvSanta Ana Av
22nd St
Wilson St
Harbor Blvd
Fairview Rd
Victoria St
Adams Av
M
esaVerdeDr
Gisler Av
Paularino Av
MacArthur Blvd
Newport BlvdFair Dr
17th St
Baker St
19th St
Red Hill Av
Placentia Av
Bear St
Anton Blvd
Legend
Parks and Recreation
Waterways
Costa Mesa City Boundary
Railway
Citywide Citations
(Jan 2016 - Jan 202 1)
HighLow
1/4-Mile Citation Density
School Boundaries
Pedestrian Opportunity Zone
0 0.5 1
Miles
N

CITY OF COSTA MESA PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN48
Table 3.11 Summary of Citations Given
Violation Code Description Count Percent
Cell Phone Use 6364 31.17%
23123-5A Prohibit text-based communication while driving 4566 22.36% 23123A Using wireless phone while driving 1798 8.81%
Speeding 5463 26.75%
22350 Unsafe speed for prevailing conditions 5225 25.59% 22349A No person should travel at speeds greater than 65 mph 226 1.11% 21703 Vehicle follow too closely 12 0.06%
Signals and Signs 5140 25.17%
22450A Failure to stop at stop sign limit line, crosswalk, or entrance of intersection 1757 8.60% 21453A Driver failing to stop at trafﬁ c signal limit line 1223 5.99% 21461A Failure to obey sign or signal 1184 5.80%
22101D Disobeying the directions of a trafﬁ c control device 330 1.62% 21453C Failure to obey red arrow signal 264 1.29%
21950 Crosswalks, failure to yield to pedestrians within. 158 0.77% 38300 Failure to obey sign 67 0.33%
21802 Fail to yield right of way at stop sign/intersection 75 0.37% 38300 Failure to obey sign 67 0.33%
21451A Driver shall proceed straight through or right, left, or U-turn on green signal unless U-turn sign is present 11 0.05%
21457B Driver shall stop at ﬂ ashing red signal 4 0.02% 03 EXISTING CONDITIONS 49
Violation Code Description Count Percent
DUI 1177 5.76%
23152A Unlawful for a person under the inﬂ uence of alcohol to operate a vehicle 1102 5.40% 23153A Unlawful for a person under the inﬂ uence of alcohol to operate a vehicle and concurrently do any act forbidden by law 75 0.37%
Wrong Side of Road 483 2.37%
21650 Failure to drive on right half of roadway 483 2.37% Pedestrian 935 4.58%
21955 Jaywalking 412 2.02%
21954A Pedestrian failing to yield to trafﬁ c (not in crosswalk) 183 0.90% 21456 Pedestrian failing to abide to pedestrian control signal at crosswalk 159 0.78% 21456B Pedestrian failing to obey to "DON'T WALK" or "WAIT" or approved "Upraised Hand" symbol with a countdown 152 0.74%
21453D Pedestrian failing to obey to red or red arrow signal 24 0.12% 21956A No pedestrian may walk upon any roadway 5 0.02%
Unsafe Turning 681 3.34%
22107 Unsafe turn and/or without signal 244 1.19%
21804A Driver of vehicle about to enter or cross a highway from public/private property or an alley shall yield the ROW to all trafﬁ c 132 0.65%
21651A2 Improperly making left, semicircular, or U-turn on divided highway 121 0.59% 21801A Vehicle intending to turn left or to complete a U-turn shall yield the ROW to trafﬁ c in the opposite direction 105 0.51%
Table 3.11 Summary of Citations Given (Cont.)
CITY OF COSTA MESA PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN50
Table 3.11 Summary of Citations Given (Cont.)
Violation Code Description Count Percent
21453B Failing to properly turn right or left from a one-way street onto a one-way street 74 0.36% 21800A Driver of vehicle approaching an intersection shall yield the ROW to any vehicle which has entered the intersection from a different highway 2 0.01% 21803A Driver of vehicle approaching an intersection controlled by a yield ROW sign shall yield to the ROW to any vehicles that have entered the intersection 2 0.01% 21952 The driver of any motor vehicle, prior to driving over or upon any sidewalk, shall yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian approaching thereon 1 0.00% Unsafe Lane Change 171 0.84%
21658A Vehicle shall not move from a lane until movement can be made with reasonable safety 163 0.80%
21750 Overtake vehicle/bike:left pass violation 4 0.02% 21755 Use shoulder/etc to pass on right 4 0.02%
24400B Vehicle headlamps not equipped or improperly equipped 72 0.35% Lights 72 0.35%
24400B Vehicle headlamps not equipped or improperly equipped 72 0.35% TOTAL 20,419 100%
04 Policy
Recommendations
CITY OF COSTA MESA PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN52

4.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter provides a list of goals, obje ctives, and recommendations that will help the City achieve the vision identiﬁ ed in the Active Transportation Plan: “The City of Costa Mesa will have a comprehensive and visible active transportation network and will promote safety, education, health, recreation, and access to important locations within the city while connecting to the larger regional network.” The goals, objectives, and recommendations mirror those in the Costa Mesa Active Transportation Plan (ATP) by offering additional long-term programs and policy recommendations that would enhance the en vironment where pedestrian activities occur.

Adapted from the ATP, the Costa Mesa Pedestrian Master Plan, has the following goals:
• Goal 1.0: Promote a pedestrian-friendly system in Costa Mesa • Goal 2.0: Create a safer place to walk
• Goal 3.0: Integrate pedestrian elements into the circulation system and land use planning
• Goal 4.0: Promote a culture of walking
• Goal 5.0: Promote the positive air qual ity, health, and economic beneﬁ ts of walking
• Goal 6.0: Monitor, evaluate, and pursue funding for implementation of the Pedestrian Master Plan
Objectives and policies that are identiﬁ ed in blue-green are adapted from the Active Transportation Plan, while the objectives and policies in orange are additional recommendations from the Pedestrian Master Plan.

04 POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS 53
GOAL 1.0: PROMOTE A PEDESTRIAN-FRIENDLY SYSTEM IN COSTA MESA
Create a pedestrian-friendly environment for users of all types, ages, and abilities.

The pedestrian-friendly environment will be designed in accordance with the six “Es":

Education, Encouragement, Enforcement, Engineering, Evaluation, and Equity.

OBJECTIVES & RECOMMENDATIONS
Pedestrian Network
A pedestrian network offers pedestrians a protected right-of-way for walking activities to occur. It also allows pedestrian s to safely reach their destinations within and outside of the city.

ATP Objective 1.1
Expand, enhance, and protect the existing pedestrian network to provide a comprehensive system to increase connec tivity between homes, jobs, schools, transit, and recreational resources in Costa Mesa.

ATP Policy 1.1
Develop an extensive pedestrian backbone network through the use of standard and appropriate innovative treatments.

4.2 POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
CITY OF COSTA MESA PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN54
ATP Policy 1.4
Prioritize safe access to major regional trails such as the OC Loop/ Santa Ana River Trail and the Newport Back Bay Trail System. Where feasible, plan and provide a continuous low-stress Class I and/or Class IV facility from east to west across the City between these facilities.

ATP Policy 1.8
Designate walkable districts in the city.

ATP Policy 1.9
Pursue the following mode split goal for walking: 20%.

ATP Recommendation 1.4
Identify citywide infrastructure needed to create the interconnected multi-trail system.

ATP Recommendation 1.5
Low-stress design techniques should be considered where necessary to attract a wide variety of users.

ATP Recommendation 1.9
Improve the quality, aesthetics and safety of high-use pedestrian corridors.

ATP Recommendation 1.10
Establish a goal for all trips of less than 1 mile to be 30 percent by walking.

ATP Recommendation 1.14
Establish designated suggested routes to schools for biking and walking.

04 POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS 55
Recommendation 1.1
Develop an annual list of pedestrian projects to be proposed as part of the city’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Use the Pedestrian Project Corridors Map and the project factsheets in Chapter 6 Infrastructure Projects as a starting point.

Recommendation 1.2
Leverage the tools discussed in the Pedestrian Infrastructure Toolbox (e.g. sidewalk connectivity, curb ramps, and crosswalks) to continue to develop a pedestrian network that is accessible by users of all ages and abilities.

Recommendation 1.3
Continue to work with the ADA Coordinator (or someone in a similar role) to ensure that new roadway projects, particularly pedestrian infrastructure projects, are ADA compliant.

Recommendation 1.4
Collaborate with adjacent jurisdictions and Caltrans to develop and seek funding for pedestrian projects along corridors that promote intercity connectivity. Examples of such projects include Bristol Street which provides access to South Coast Plaza, commercial centers, residential neighborh oods within Costa Mesa, and adjacent jurisdiction (Santa Ana); Victoria Street which provides access to commercial centers, schools, residential neighborhoods within Costa Mesa, and adjacent jurisdiction (Huntington Beach); 17th Street which offe rs connectivity to commercial areas, residential neighborhoods within Costa Me sa, and adjacent jurisdiction (Newport Beach); and Newport Boulevard along Caltrans jurisdiction.

Recommendation 1.5
Conduct an analysis to identify roadways that have excess vehicle capacity. For roadways with excess vehicle capacity, consider the reduction of travel lanes and use the reclaimed space for other purposes. Examples include widening the sidewalk

CITY OF COSTA MESA PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN56
and expanding the frontage zones (as identiﬁ ed in the General Plan, Circulation Element), adding in street landscaping, offering more transit amenities, providing diagonal parking, and converting the space in to a small parklet or other public space.

Examples of such corridors could include Placentia Avenue and South Coast Drive.

Recommendation 1.6
Collaborate with Caltrans, OCTA, and other local agencies to re-envision the future of Newport Boulevard in the area between and adjacent to 17th Street and 19th Street as a destination that facilitates placemakin g and pedestrian activities with enhanced pedestrian infrastructure that provide for connectivity in the east-west direction.

First and Last Mile Programs
“First/Last Mile” refers to the ﬁ rst and last-mile connections that transit users typically have to take to reach a transit stop or hub from the trip origin to the ﬁ nal destination.

Walking is an important mode of transportati on that allows transit users to complete the trip.

ATP Objective 1.3
Encourage walking to ﬁ ll gaps between the ﬁ rst and last miles of trips.

Lighting
Pedestrian-scaled lighting provides additional visibility for pedestrians walking along the roadway. Nicely designed lighting could also enhance the character of the roadway.

Recommendation 1.7
Conduct a study on pedestrian network lighting conditions with a focus to increase the presence of pedestrian-scaled lighting across the city's pedestrian network.

Corridors that could beneﬁ t from more pedestrian-scaled lighting include: Wilson Street, Pomona Avenue, Orange Avenue, and Santa Ana Avenue.

04 POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS 57
Street Canopies
Street trees and landscaping offer many beneﬁ ts that enhance the pedestrian environment. They provide shade for pedestrians and can contribute to a more comfortable and pleasant environment for pedestrian activities to occur.

Recommendation 1.8
For new pedestrian infrastructure projects, incorporate street trees that provide shade whenever possible.

Recommendation 1.9
Address areas where the pedestrian infrastructure is disrupted by street trees.

Examples of such concerns include buckl ed sidewalks and sidewalk obstruction caused by street trees. Corridors identiﬁ ed from the Walk Audits that had concerns include Fairview Road and Wilson Street.

Refer to Appendix F: Toolbox Reference for recommendations on how to address concerns related to street trees and landscaping.

GOAL 2.0: CREATE A SAFER PLACE TO WALK
Provide a safe, convenient, and attractive pedestrian environment. Apply design standards, equitable enforcement of trafﬁ c laws, maintenance practices, and safety awareness campaigns to encourage and incr ease the use of pedestrian facilities.

OBJECTIVES & RECOMMENDATIONS
Design & Wayﬁ nding
There are many manuals that contain approved uniform design standards, as well as guidance for pedestrian infrastructure treatments. Examples include the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and California Manual on Uniform Trafﬁ c Control

CITY OF COSTA MESA PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN58
Devices (CAMUTCD), Caltrans Highway Design Manual (HDM), Public Right of Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG), ADA Guidance, and National Association of City Transportation Ofﬁ cials (NACTO) Urban Street Design Guide.

ATP Objective 2.1
Develop pedestrian facilities with approved uniform design standards, and implementation of way-ﬁ nding signage providing information on various destinations.

ATP Policy 2.1
Utilize Complete Streets elements as demonstrated in most recent version of National Association of City Transportation Ofﬁ cials (NACTO) Urban Street Design Guide.

ATP Policy 2.2
Develop, install, and maintain a pedestrian wayﬁ nding signage program to indicate route turns, the presence of intersecting bikeways, streets and distances to nearby local and major destinations.

ATP Policy 2.5
Where feasible reduce or eliminate conﬂ ict points such as driveways that cross the sidewalk.

ATP Recommendation 2.1
Require that all facilities be designed in accordance with the latest federal, state, and local standards.

ATP Recommendation 2.2
Provide and maintain pedestrian signal dete ctors, informational signage, and lighting, along city bikeways.

04 POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS 59
ATP Recommendation 2.3
Crosswalks will include high-visibility treatments.

Safe Roadway Conditions
Safe roadway conditions provide a more comfortable environment for pedestrian activities to occur. Many infrastructure tools are available to create a safer walking environment.

ATP Objective 2.3
Maintain pedestrian facilities that are clear of debris and provide safe conditions for all users.

ATP Recommendation 2.4
Establish an expedited process to report maintenance and safety concerns.

ATP Recommendation 2.5
Establish routine maintenance schedule/standards for pedestrian facilities for sweeping, litter removal, landscaping, repa inting of striping, signage, and signal actuation devices.

ATP Recommendation 2.12
Promote efﬁ cient reporting mechanisms for behaviors that endanger pedestrians.

ATP Recommendation 2.15
Encourage and empower citizens to report maintenance issues that impact pedestrian safety including, but not limited to, potholes, sidewalk lifting, and overgrown vegetation.

ATP Recommendation 2.16
Establish procedures for responding to citizen reports in a timely manner.

CITY OF COSTA MESA PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN60
Recommendation 2.1
Identify trafﬁ c calming infrastructure improvements in areas with high collision frequencies across the city. Reference the Local Road Safety Plan for projects.

Examples of such corridors could includ e Harbor Boulevard, Newport Boulevard, Bristol Street, 17th Street, 19th Street, and Fairview Road.

Recommendation 2.2
Identify opportunities to update signal timing and phases in different areas across the city.

Recommendation 2.3
At regular intervals, conduct a study to re-evaluate speeds along the city’s roadways in response to AB 43.

Recommendation 2.4
Assess and implement enhanced crossing treatments to reduce pedestrian- automobile collisions at multi-lane cros sings, including median refuge islands, rapid-rectangular ﬂ ashing beacons, pedestrian hybrid beacons, raised crosswalks and other treatments. Reference Chapter 5 Pedestrian Infrastructure Toolbox for treatments that address different concerns.

Recommendation 2.5
Conduct analysis to identify intersections to prohibit or regulate right-turn-on-red (RTOR) movement at intersections with high frequencies of this collision/citation type.

Consider the use of blank-out signs and add Lead Pedestrian Interval (LPI) where feasible.

Recommendation 2.6
Develop a program to help maintain clear zones for pedestrians waiting and crossing areas, including increased parking setbacks.

04 POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS 61
Recommendation 2.7
Develop a program to review trafﬁ c signal locations with prohibited pedestrian crossings and where feasible and appropriate, modify to restore prohibited crossings.

Education
Educational programs help educate the public on how to safely walk and use pedestrian facilities along the City’s roadways. For example, a pedestrian trafﬁ c safety program for school children may teach students on when to safely cross an intersection. It is important that all program materials are available in both English and Spanish to accommodate the City’s large Hispanic population.

ATP Objective 2.4
Increase education of bicycle and pedestrian safety through programs and training of school children and the public.

ATP Policy 2.6
Support marketing and public awareness ca mpaigns aimed at improving pedestrian safety.

ATP Recommendation 2.19
Develop and distribute education material regarding pedestrian responsibilities and laws.

Recommendation 2.8
In tandem with new pedestrian or multi-modal projects, promote a campaign to educate roadway users of all modes on new active transportation infrastructure projects and how the projects will promote safety for all users.

CITY OF COSTA MESA PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN62
Safety Data
An important component of evaluating pedestrian safety is analyzing pedestrian collisions along the City’s roadways. The California Highway Patrol maintains the Statewide Integrated Trafﬁ c Record System (SWITRS), a statewide database of vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle collisions that is accessible for to the public.

ATP Objective 2.5
Monitor and analyze bicycle and pedestrian safety.

ATP Recommendation 2.9
Request pedestrian collision reports from local law enforcement periodically and consider improvements to address problem areas.

ATP Recommendation 2.10
Conduct Roadside Safety Audits (RSAs) on a regular basis to provide periodic snapshots of roadway safety, including bicycle, pedestrian, equestrian, skateboard, and other non-motorized modes of travel.

Recommendation 2.9
Develop a program to regularly collect and share citywide pedestrian count data, and add as a requirement for all trafﬁ c studies/impact analyses conducted within the city's jurisdiction.

GOAL 3.0: INTEGRATE PEDESTRIAN ELEMENTS INTO THE

CIRCULATION SYSTEM AND LAND USE PLANNING
Provide walkway facilities that are integrated with other transportation systems and land use planning decisions.

04 POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS 63

OBJECTIVES & RECOMMENDATIONS
ATP Objective 3.1
Consider pedestrian facilities during land use planning process.

ATP Objective 3.2
Integrate pedestrian facility improv ements during planning, design and implementation of transportation projects.

ATP Policy 3.1
Require new developments to provide adequate pedestrian access.

ATP Recommendation 3.1
Provide a fully integrated network of modern pedestrian facilities to and from major activity centers and residential centers.

ATP Recommendation 3.2
Identify areas where an increase in the need for pedestrian activities can reasonably be anticipated due to housing/ business growth.

ATP Recommendation 3.4
Improve the safety of all road users through the implementation of neighborhood trafﬁ c calming treatments.

ATP Recommendation 3.5
Make commercial and recreational areas more enjoyable for pedestrians by implementing measures such as providing sh ade, planting trees, eliminating visible parking lots and vacant lots, and long stretches of bland building façade.

ATP Recommendation 3.6
Support the incorporation of pedestrian facilities into capital improvement projects, where appropriate to maximize leveraging of funds.

CITY OF COSTA MESA PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN64
ATP Recommendation 3.8
Proactively seek new opportunities for ac quisition of abandoned rights-of-way and other lands for the development of new multi-use pathways that integrates with the planned network.

ATP Recommendation 3.10
Detours through or around construction zones should be designed for safety and convenience, and with adequate signage for pedestrians.

Recommendation 3.1
Encourage new developments to provide pedestrian access that serves their intensity of use and complements the existing pedestrian network.

Recommendation 3.2
Study the potential to establish “transition zones” (an area which is communicated to motorists that the roadway environment is changing and their travel speeds or behavior should change as well) between major commercial and employment centers, and residential areas to better support pedestrian access.

Recommendation 3.3
Whenever feasible, incorporate pedestrian improvements to the public right-of-way as a part of the conditions of approval or development agreement with the city.

Recommendation 3.4
At commercial corridors (such as 19th Street and Harbor Blvd), update design standards on surface parking and driv eways to reduce surface parking and driveways along the pedestrian infrastruc ture network. Whenever possible, have storefronts face the street to encourage pedestrian trafﬁ c.

04 POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS 65
GOAL 4.0: PROMOTE A CULTURE OF WALKING
Develop engagement, encouragement, an d promotional programs to increase pedestrian usage that respects and accommodates all users to foster a more balanced transportation system.

OBJECTIVES & RECOMMENDATIONS
ATP Objective 4.1
Encourage more people to walk by supporting programs that foster community support for walking, and raise pu blic awareness about walking.

ATP Policy 4.1
Support marketing and public awareness campaigns through a variety of media aimed at promoting walking as a safe, he althy, cost-effective, environmentally friendly transportation choice.

ATP Policy 4.3
Support programs aimed at increasing walk trips by providing incentives, recognition, or services that make walking a more convenient transportation mode.

ATP Policy 4.4
Promote walking at city-sponsored and publ ic events, such as Earth Day, Bike to Work Day/Month, farmers’ markets, public health fairs, concerts in the park, art walks, craft fairs, civic events, etc.

Safe Routes to School
Safe Routes to School is an approach that focuses on infrastructure treatments that improve safety on routes to school and non-infrastructure programs that educate and encourage students to walk and bike to school.

CITY OF COSTA MESA PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN66
ATP Recommendations 2.7
Develop a partnership with the school community to establish and update suggested routes to schools for bicycling and walking.

Recommendation 4.1
Expand student and school participation in Walk to School Week events with the Newport-Mesa Uniﬁ ed School District.

Recommendation 4.2
Seek funding for a permanent citywide Safe Routes to School non-infrastructure program.

Recommendation 4.3
Develop a Safe Routes to School Plan for all elementary, middle, and high schools located in Costa Mesa.

Recommendation 4.4
On a regular basis, have meetings with school representatives and active parents to discuss opportunities to improve pedestrian safety and connectivity to schools and school facilities.

Recommendation 4.5
Encourage the Safe Routes and Accessibility Subcommittee from the Active Transportation Committee to continue to actively participate in projects related to schools.

Engagement and Encouragement Programs
Engagement and encouragement programs help promote new walking routes and changes to the existing roadway. Programs such as tactical urbanism demonstrations and quick-builds allow community members to experience

04 POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS 67
infrastructure change on the roadway on a temporary basis and provide feedback. "Open Streets" events close down a portion of a roadway altogether for the public to reclaim the roadway as an open space. Me anwhile, walking tours and walking groups encourage community members to enjoy the experience of being a pedestrian.

ATP Recommendation 4.4
Promote walking events in Costa Mesa to raise awareness and encourage walking, including, but not limited to, those that may involve temporary road closures, historic walks, and ciclovias.

ATP Recommendation 4.6
Encourage participation in pedestrian promotion activities by education facilities, arts programs, active transportation clubs, and entertainment providers.

Recommendation 4.6
Plan and install tactical urbanism demonstr ations and/or quick-build projects along corridors or at areas with high pedestrian activity to showcase potential new trafﬁ c calming and pedestrian infrastructure treatments to improve the pedestrian environment. Potential projects could be located on Park Avenue, Arlington Drive, Mesa Verde Drive, and various residential roadways near commercial centers.

Recommendation 4.7
Host "Open Streets" events where a portion of the roadway is closed off from vehicular trafﬁ c and converted into a public space. Collect and evaluate public feedback and conduct trafﬁ c operational and other studies to consider closing the streets for longer period of time or even permanently for pedestrian activities.

Recommendation 4.8
Develop a network of walking paths in different commercial districts and neighborhoods to encourage community me mbers to walk. The walking paths could

CITY OF COSTA MESA PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN68
be artistic and each path could have its own wayﬁ nding signs and stylistic ﬂ air to create a sense of place.

Recommendation 4.9
Build partnerships with local businesses and community groups such as Parks and Community Services, R.O.C.K.S Afterschool Program, Costa Mesa Historical Society, and Costa Mesa Walk Tour to host regu lar walk tours and other walking-related activities, and promote walking as a form of physical exercise.

GOAL 5.0: PROMOTE THE POSITIVE AIR QUALITY, HEALTH, AND

ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF WALKING
Encourage active transportation by prom oting air quality, he alth, and economic beneﬁ ts.

OBJECTIVES & RECOMMENDATIONS
ATP Objective 5.1
Improve air quality and public health and reduce ambient noise by promoting walking programs.

ATP Policy 5.1
Coordinate with appropriate federal, state, and county health agencies on active transportation/ pedestrian programs to achieve health beneﬁ ts.

ATP Policy 5.2
Encourage developers to include features, amenities and programs that are proven to increase walking.

ATP Policy 5.3
Encourage the Chamber of Commerce and the business community to promote active transportation in commercial areas to stimulate economic vitality. 04 POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS 69
ATP Recommendations 5.1
Determine baseline emissions levels, th en track and communicate changes in emissions as modes of transportation trips shift to encourage more walking.

ATP Recommendations 5.3
Offer incentives for businesses whose employees walk to work.

ATP Recommendations 5.4
Incentivize the business community to support pedestrians in tangible ways.

ATP Recommendations 5.5
Improve the quality of life in Costa Mesa by reducing neighborhood trafﬁ c and noise.

ATP Recommendations 5.6
Increase pedestrian trips, thereby reducing vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled.

Recommendation 5.1
Provide economic incentives for expandin g and enhancing pedestrian facilities.

Recommendations 5.2
Collaborate with major employers and civic institutions such as Orange Coast College and the OC Fair and Event Center to increase multi-modal access.

GOAL 6.0: MONITOR, EVALUATE, AND PURSUE FUNDING FOR

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Observe and assess the usage of pedestrian facilities periodically and pursue funding for projects that will help ac hieve the overall implementation of the Pedestrian Master Plan.

CITY OF COSTA MESA PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN70

OBJECTIVES & RECOMMENDATIONS
ATP Objective 6.1
Continuously monitor and evaluate Costa Me sa’s implementation progress on the Pedestrian Master Plan policies, programs, and projects.

ATP Objective 6.2
Pursue grants and other sources of funding for pedestrian projects.

ATP Policy 6.1
Establish a monitoring program to measure the effectiveness and beneﬁ ts of the Plan by tracking citywide trends in walking through the use of Census data, pedestrian counts, travel surveys, and online surveys as part of annual reviews of the General Plan.

ATP Policy 6.2
Ensure that programs and projects ar e implemented in an equitable manner, geographically, socioeconomically, an d serving disadvantaged communities.

ATP Policy 6.3
Consider designating a portion of development trafﬁ c impact fees to fund pedestrian facilities.

ATP Recommendations 6.1
Strategize the use of resources on developing effective and efﬁ cient grant application and program administration.

ATP Recommendations 6.2
Pursue multiple sources of funding and support efforts to maintain or increase federal, state and local funding for the implementation of the Pedestrian Master Plan.

04 POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS 71
Recommendations 6.1
Develop a program to evaluate the citywide collected pedestrian count data and identify areas of increased pedestrian activity to evaluate the potential development of new pedestrian-related improvements to further enhance the pedestrian environment.

Recommendations 6.2
Develop a program to evaluate new technologies and infrastructure treatments on a regular basis that will support a safe pedestrian environment. Update the Pedestrian Infrastructure Toolbox with any new ﬁ ndings.

CITY OF COSTA MESA PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN72
This page left intentionally blank
05 Pedestrian
Infrastructure Toolbox
CITY OF COSTA MESA PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN74

5.1 INTRODUCTION
Costa Mesa has many improvements and features
that improve walkability. Although Costa Mesa has won
awards for walkability in recognition of its historical efforts, improving walkability continues to be an ongoing goal of the City.

This chapter is meant to provide a starting point on what infrastructure treatments (tools) can be considered when designing safer and connected streets for pedestrians. It complements the policy recommendations discussed in
Chapter 4, Policy Recommendations.

The tools were selected to help address many of the
comments received from the community engagement
process.

They fall into in following three categories:
• Sidewalk-Related Treatments: Infrastructure that could enhance the pedestrian right-of-way on the sidewalk
realm.
• Crossing-Related Treatments: Infrastructure that could improve pedestrian crossings on the roadway.
• General Trafﬁ c Behavior and Other: Discussions
of strategies to address broader concerns that
tangentially impact walkability in the city.

Oftentimes, pedestrian infrastructure is available on the roadway; however, the infrastructure could be better
designed to better accommodate pedestrians’ needs. Cost estimate for each type of treatments are provided at the end of the chapter to serve as a guide for approximately how much each treatment cost. Appendix E, Toolbox
Reference builds upon this chapter to include discussions of the beneﬁ ts of each tool and their design considerations.

05 PEDESTRIAN INFRASTRUCTURE TOOLBOX 75

5.2 SIDEWALK-RELATED TREATMENTS
Many comments from the community engagement efforts
refer to the general condition of sidewalks and the function of the overall sidewalk network. Many principles of sidewalk design can apply to all sidewalks, while others apply based upon the land use in the area, with commercial, high-density residential, and heavily used sidewalks requiring more area for walking than lower density residential areas.

SIDEWALKS
Sidewalks are perhaps the most important component of
the pedestrian network. Whenever feasible, they should
be provided on both sides of all roadways within the city.

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) sets minimum
requirements for width and grades, but wider sidewalks can improve walkability.

PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SIDEWALK

NETWORK
Improve sidewalk connectivity: Address gaps in the
sidewalk network, and through retroﬁ t of existing sidewalks when adding new developments, widen the pedestrian
right-of-way and limit the size and frequency of curb cuts along major corridors to increase pedestrian comfort and reduce conﬂ icts between pedestrians and motorists.

Provide for a clear, continuous sidewalk: For new
construction, any required obstructions for streetlights, utilities, poles, and other above-ground features should be located within the parkway area (street side) so that the sidewalk is generally continuous and does not require pedestrians to be watchful to follow the clear, direct path.

Improve the bicycle network: To reduce the use of bicycle riding on sidewalks, it is necessary to examine and improve the bicycle network so that bicyclists of all ages and skill levels would be comfortable riding in the dedicated facilities.

Improve sidewalk connectivity to land uses: When
evaluating the site plans for development proposals, include an analysis of the condition and directness of walking
routes. Providing direct walking paths from street corners to the commercial areas can reduce the overall walking
distances and time needed to travel to and from these
destinations, while also encouraging pedestrians to more frequently opt for walking trips.

Address buckled, lifted, stained, physical defects
on sidewalks: Develop a citywide program to identify
sidewalk locations that are buckled, lifted, or have physical defects, such as cracks and voids, and scheduled remedial repairs. In areas with ongoing root issues, conduct routine inspections to monitor the situation.

Redesign driveways: Every driveway that crosses
a sidewalk is a potential location for conﬂ ict between motorists and pedestrians. Driveways should be designed to be no wider than necessary. The rise from street level to curb level should be kept as short as possible so that the walking surface can be preserved as a level surface
Incorporate new sidewalk treatments into the existing
network: Consider including some of the tools identiﬁ ed in the following section to improve the sidewalk realm.

CITY OF COSTA MESA PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN76
Bus Stops and Amenities
Bus stops are locations where
sidewalks experience multiple
uses, such as walking, waiting
for buses, and bus boarding and
alighting. Amenities are often
provided at bus stops, including
benches, shelters, trash disposals,
and system service information.

Street Trees and Landscaping
Street trees and landscaping
are typically located between
the curb and the sidewalk within
the landscaped parkway. They
are typically planted at regular
intervals in a thematic manner.

Many varieties of street trees
provide shade for sidewalk users.

Pedestrian Lighting
Tall streetlights can provide
adequate illumination to permit
walking after dark. Lower-
level lighting is often provided
in commercial areas. These
treatments increase the
illumination level along the
sidewalk and provide for a more
constant level of illumination.

Curb Extension / Bulb-out
Curb extensions / bulb-outs
generally narrow the roadway
at intersections or at mid-block
locations, primarily to reduce the
crossing distance for pedestrians,
widen the sidewalk, and/or slow
down vehicular right turns.

Curb Ramp
Curb ramps are required by
ADA at all street corners where
sidewalks are present and where
pedestrians may cross. ADA
guidelines encourage provision of
directional ramps at corners rather
than a single diagonal curb ramp.

Destination Wayﬁ nding Signs
Pedestrian wayﬁ nding signs are
often used in walkable areas to
help visitors and locals know
where to go. They can also be
helpful in advising that the walking
travel time may be lower than
expected.

Photo Credits: Wayﬁ nding Signage –
Downtown Long Beach Alliance

05 PEDESTRIAN INFRASTRUCTURE TOOLBOX 77

5.3 CROSSING-RELATED TREATMENTS
Many comments received from the community engagement
process also discussed the general condition of crossings and the function of crossings overall in the pedestrian infrastructure network. Many principles of crosswalk design apply to all crossings, while others may be applied based upon the land use in the area. Heavily us ed pedestrian crossings require additional visibility and improvements than lower-density residential areas.

PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS FOR PEDESTRIAN

CROSSINGS
Consider appropriate design for uncontrolled pedestrian crossings: An appropriate design will consider the
surrounding context, roadway cross-section, volume of
pedestrians crossing, vehicular Average Daily Trafﬁ c, and prevailing speeds. Reducing the number of travel lanes
and crossing distance for an uncontrolled crossing helps reduce pedestrian exposure in the roadway. Crossings
may be enhanced with other treatments discussed in this section such as median refuge islands, advance yield lines, Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB), Pedestrian
Hybrid Beacons (HAWK signal), signalized crosswalks, and street lights.

Maintain crosswalk markings: Develop a citywide program to identify faded/poorly maintained crosswalks and other pavement markings, and routinely maintain them.

Improve sight distances at crosswalks and intersection
corners: Use strategies such as prohibiting parking along the curb approaching the cr osswalk and providing curb
extensions (bulb-outs) that allow pedestrians to have better visibility of motorists.

CITY OF COSTA MESA PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN78
Add missing crosswalks at trafﬁ c signals: Conduct a
study to evaluate for adding crosswalks at trafﬁ c signals where crosswalks are not provided across all legs of the signalized intersection.

Improve pedestrian crossing times: Minimum crossing
times are speciﬁ ed in the California MUTCD. Often the minimum times are present and adequate, but pedestrians may not fully understand the operation. Pedestrian
Countdown Signals could better communicate how much
time is left for pedestrians to cross.

Provide Pedestrian Push Buttons (PPBs) at appropriate
locations: Pedestrian Push Buttons are generally
prescribed to be located near the crosswalk and at a
location that meets ADA requirements, and per MUTCD
guidelines, preferably near the level landing. The location should be intuitive and generally allow for actuation while standing or waiting near the beginning of the crosswalk.

Regulate Right Turn on Reds: Conduct a study to evaluate for Right Turn on Red restrictions and explore using the red turn arrows, extinguishable (blank out) message signs, or regular signs to seek compliance for the restrictions.

Prohibiting right turns on red can improve safety for
pedestrians.

Redesign Slip Turn Lanes: Uncontrolled free right turn lanes, also known as slip lanes, are not friendly to pedestrians, because they help vehicles make the turns at much higher speeds, take motorists’ eyes off of the pedestrian crosswalk within the slip lane, and do not provide pedestrian signals to facilitate the crossing. Programs to remove or modify these turn lanes are common, and design approaches that minimize their future need are preferred.

Manage Pedestrian Delays: Pedestrians experience
substantial delays at signalized intersections. The average delay per pedestrian is equal to about one-half of the
amount of time that the signal does not display a WALK
indication. It can amount to 45 seconds or more at typical large intersections.

Incorporate pedestrian crossing treatments into the
existing network: The tools identiﬁ ed in the following sections can improve the experience of pedestrian
crossings. Consider including some of the tools in new
projects, and reference Appendix E, Toolbox Reference, on the design considerations of the treatments.
05 PEDESTRIAN INFRASTRUCTURE TOOLBOX 79
High Visibility Crosswalks
Marking of crosswalks more
clearly indicates where
pedestrians are given the right-
of-way. Their presence may
better remind drivers to watch for
pedestrians, and there also may
be a trafﬁ c calming effect.

Advanced Stop Bars
Advance stop bars help improve
the visibility of pedestrians
by motorists as it provides an
indication of where the vehicle
must stop at the intersection
approach.

Advanced Yield Lines
Advanced yield lines are roadway
markings that provide guidance as
to where drivers should wait while
a pedestrian is crossing. They
are placed in advance to provide
separation between the crossing
pedestrians and vehicles.

Pedestrian Scramble
A crosswalk scramble operation
is a special trafﬁ c signal
operation and phasing design
that stops motor vehicle trafﬁ c
in all directions while allowing
pedestrians to cross between all
corners at the same time.

Median Refuge Islands
Median refuge islands are
protected spaces placed in the
center of the street to facilitate
pedestrian crossings. The median
refuge islands help shorten the
crossings, especially at large
intersections.

Mid-Block Crosswalk
Mid-block crosswalks facilitate
crossings to places that people
want to go but are not well served
by the existing trafﬁ c network.

Photo Credits: Raised Crosswalk-Jeff Gulden |
Mid-Block Crosswalk - Josh Mello | Advanced
Yield markings – ATS Trafﬁ c
CITY OF COSTA MESA PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN80
Countdown Pedestrian Signals
Pedestrian countdown signals
indicate how many seconds of
DON'T WALK remain before the
trafﬁ c signal turns to yellow. The
use of countdown indications
is required for all signalized
crosswalks except for extremely
short crossings.

Accessible Pedestrian Signal
(APS) Push Buttons
Accessible Pedestrian Signal (APS)
push buttons are devices that
communicate information about the
“WALK” and “DON’T WALK” intervals
at signalized intersections in non-
visual formats (audible tones and
vibrotactile surfaces) to pedestrians
who are visually impaired.

Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon
(HAWK Signal)
A pedestrian hybrid beacon
provides trafﬁ c control to existing
uncontrolled or newly proposed
marked crosswalk locations. It
is only activated by pedestrians
when the push button is pressed.

Flashing Yellow Arrows (FYA)
Flashing Yellow Arrows (FYA) are
implemented on trafﬁ c signals
for left turn movements. The FYA
indicates to motorists that they
may turn left only when there is no
oncoming trafﬁ c and crosswalks
are clear of pedestrians and
bicyclists.

Leading Pedestrian Interval
(LPI)
This trafﬁ c signal operation
technique provides a head start
for pedestrians at crossings,
allowing them to leave the curb
and establish a presence in the
crosswalk before conﬂ icting trafﬁ c
is given a green to proceed. Typical
leading pedestrian intervals (LPIs)
range from 3-7 seconds.

Rectangular Rapid Flashing
Beacon (RRFB)
RRFBs are a trafﬁ c control device
that uses a strobing LED light bar
and pedestrian warning signs
to inform motorists that there is
someone at the crosswalk and
that they must yield. They are
activated through a pedestrian
push button or by passive
pedestrian detection.

Photo Credits: Flashing Yellow
Arrows - City of Roseville
05 PEDESTRIAN INFRASTRUCTURE TOOLBOX 81
Speed Feedback Sign
A dynamic message sign that
uses radar or laser technology
to determine the speed of an
approaching vehicle and then
displays the speed to the driver.

If motorists are speeding, the
sign ﬂ ashes the exceeded speed
along with “SLOW DOWN” or “YOUR
SPEED”.

Roadway Pavement
Rehabilitation
Paving in pedestrian crossing
areas can be important to
providing a safe walking surface
and should be monitored.

Pavement condition in the travel
way that does not serve walking
is less important to walkability. But
when streets are repaved, it is an
appropriate time to review issues
regarding how the street is used.

Photo Credits: Roadway Pavement
Rehabilitation - City of San Mateo | Speed
Feedback Sign - Richard Drdul

5.4 GENERAL TRAFFIC BEHAVIOR AND

OTHER CONCERNS
A majority of comments received from the community engagement pr ocess were either related to the sidewalk realm or pedestrian crossings. However, there were a handful of comments that pertain to general motor vehicle trafﬁ c behaviors or that are well beyond the scope of the Plan. The following tools could improve general trafﬁ c behavior on the roadway. Reference Appendix F , Toolbox, on the design considerations of the treatments.

Roadway Reconﬁ guration
In many communities, multilane arterials have been modiﬁ ed to reduce the number of through travel lanes. It is especially common for roadways with 4-lanes undivided (no left turn lanes) to be reduced to 2 lanes (with left turn lane), where trafﬁ c needs are clearly met by fewer lanes. Roads that carry fewer than 20,000 vehicles per day and have no more than 4 lanes are the best candidates. The ﬁ gure below shows an example of a roadway reconﬁ guration.

Travel Lane Center Left
Turn Lane
Travel Lane
After
Travel Lane Travel Lane Travel Lane Travel Lane
Before
CITY OF COSTA MESA PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN82

OTHER CONCERNS HEARD FROM THE
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT EFFORT:

Transit access: Walking is an important consideration in encouraging or using transit. A typical walkshed of ¼ mile is considered in transit planning around each bus stop.

Special attention to the walkability for all potential routes to bus stops is appropriate. Walking routes from bus stops to nearby shopping centers should be reviewed to ensure that the route is direct and relatively free of high-trafﬁ c aisles.

Excessive trafﬁ c volumes: Trafﬁ c volume, high speeds, and trafﬁ c noise detract from a positive walking environment.

However, achieving reductions in trafﬁ c is difﬁ cult.

Agencies who have removed trafﬁ c lanes or taken action to discourage trafﬁ c have often encountered intense public resistance. It is generally more successful to increase the separation between pedestrians and motor vehicles,
provide buffers to add to the separation, ensure that
convenient crossing locations are available to meet walking needs, and improve overall conditions for walking.

Motorist Behavior: Some of the most common concerns
heard from the community engagement effort pertained
to vehicle speeds, improper turns, and disregard for trafﬁ c controls. Many of the strategies in this Plan could help to reduce these behaviors. Police enforcement can help
reduce speeds in regulating improper motorist behavior.

Drainage: Urban road systems are generally designed to
incorporate a drainage system that carries water along the curb line to storm drain inlets. On occasions, the roadway will develop a condition that causes pools of water to persist in areas that are desirable for walking. When concerns over standing water are received, the location should be researched to determine if it can be corrected through
routine maintenance.

05 PEDESTRIAN INFRASTRUCTURE TOOLBOX 83

5.5 COST ESTIMATES
Cost estimates were derived from similar recent projects across Southern California in 2022. Each pedestrian treatment has two cost estimates: a low-range estimate and a high-range estima te to account for the variability in existing conditions. When developing cost estimates for a project, it is recommended to include additional costs for design, environmental, construction management, mobilization, construction, an d a 30% contingency to ensure that cost estimates cover the full ﬁ nancial expectations of each project.

Treatment Unit of
Measurement Low-Range High-Range Average Cost
Advanced Yield Lines each $75 $300 $188
Mid-Block Crosswalk square foot $5.00 $7.00 $6
Median Refuge Islands/ Pedestrian Refuge Islands square foot $10 $15 $13 Pedestrian Scramble (includes signal equipment and
signing and striping) each $50,000 $100,000 $75,000
Countdown Pedestrian Signals (includes removal
and replacement) each $2,000 $2,500 $2,250
Accessible Pedestrian Signal (APS) Push Buttons each $750 $1,500 $1,125 Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (HAWK Signal) each $21,000 $128,000 $74,500 Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) each $4,500 $8,000 $6,250 Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) lump sum $500 $5,000 $2,750 Flashing Yellow Arrows (FYA) (includes retroﬁ t
installation) each $1,500 $1,650 $1,575
Roadway Reconﬁ guration linear foot $16 $26.10 $21
Roadway Pavement Rehabilitation square yard $1.50 $2.25 $2 Speed Feedback Sign each $1,900 $7,500 $4,700
Table 5.1 Pedestrian Treatment Cost Estimates
06 Infrastructure
Projects
06 INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS 85

6.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter discusses a set of infrastructure projects that the City can start to help advance the Plan vision. The recommendations identiﬁ ed are short-term treatments
that the City can install in a small amount of time. They complement the recommendations discussed in Chapter
4, Policy Recommendations, and Chapter 5, Toolbox.

Infrastructure projects are comprised of two components:

Pedestrian Project Corridors and Project Factsheets.

Pedestrian Project Corridors (PPC): PPCs are corridors that would beneﬁ t from pedestrian improvements, such as those identiﬁ ed in the toolbox. The corridors are concentrated in the Pedestrian Opportunity Zones to directly address the General Plan’s priority of pursuing street enhancements to create pedestrian-friendly environments within the zones.

Project Factsheets: Project factsheets provide more
information about recommende d pedestrian improvements
for the projects. Each factsheet contains a project
description, roadway characteristics of the project location, and pictures. The projects were selected based on the
feasibility of completion within a short time frame.

CITY OF COSTA MESA PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN86

6.2 PEDESTRIAN PROJECT

CORRIDORS
Nine [9] corridors citywide are designated as Pedestrian Project Corridors. The corridors provide connectivity
throughout the Pedestrian Opportunity Zones, and
they were identiﬁ ed based on the Walk Audits that were conducted as part of the community engagement effort.

Figure 6.1, Pedestrian Project Corridors and Table 6.1, Pedestrian Project Corridors Details, show the location and extent of each corridor.

6.3 PROJECT FACTSHEETS
The following section presents factsheets for six projects.

The projects include ﬁ ve corridors and a citywide project.

Projects with factsheets include:
• 19th Street Corridor
• Baker Street Corridor
• Harbor Boulevard Corridor (North)
• Harbor Boulevard Corridor (South)
• Wilson Street
• Citywide: High-Visibility Crosswalk Markings
Corridor From To Length (Miles)
19th Street Whittier Avenue Santa Ana Avenue 2.28
Wilson Street Canyon Drive Newport Boulevard 2.51
Baker Street Mesa Verde Drive Bristol Street 2.99
Harbor Boulevard Gisler Avenue Newport Boulevard 3.84
Bristol Street Sunﬂ ower Avenue Bear Street 1.63
Fairview Road McCormack Lane Merrimac Way 1.45
Adams Avenue Mesa Verde Drive Fairview Road 0.84
Newport Boulevard 19th Street 17th Street 0.44
17th Street Superior Avenue Irvine Avenue 1.27
Table 6.1 Pedestrian Project Corridors Details
06 INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS 87
Figure 6.1 Pedestrian Project Corridors

SANTA ANA

NEWPORT BEACH

FOUNTAIN
VALLEY
COSTA
MESA
IRVINE

HUNTINGTON
BEACH
§¨¦
405
§¨¦
405
55 73
1 Irvine AvSanta Ana Av
22nd St
Wilson St
Harbor Blvd
Fairview Rd
Victoria St
Adams Av
M
esa Verde Dr
Gisler Av
Paularino Av
MacArthur Blvd
Newport Blvd

Fair Dr
17th St
Baker St
19th St
Red Hill Av
Placentia Av
Bear St
Anton Blvd
Bristol St
Legend
Parks and Recreation
Waterways
Costa Mesa City Boundary
Railway
Pedestrian Project Corridors
School Boundaries
1 7th Street
1 9th Street
Adams Avenue
Baker Street
Bristol Street
Fairview Road
Harbor Boulevard
Newport Boulevard
Wilson Street
0 0.5 1
Miles
N
CITY OF COSTA MESA PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN88

PROJECT LOCATION
The 19th Street corridor is located between Whittier Avenue and Santa Ana Avenue in the southern portion of the city. The corridor is classiﬁed as a Primary Arterial* west of Newport Boulevard and a Collector Arterial east of Newport Boulevard.

Average Daily Trafﬁ c (ADT) volumes are noted to be in the 3,500 – 40,000 vehicles per day range. The corridor provides direct access to State Route 55 (SR-55) at Newport Boulevard. The posted speed limit along this corridor is 35 MPH.

The corridor is located in the Westside Costa Mesa area and adjacent to the Downtown area to the south. Some local
destinations include Canyon Park, Talbert Regional Park, Marina View Park, The Triangle Square, Lions Park, Costa Mesa-Donald Dungan Library, Downtown Recreation Center, and several commercial centers.
19TH STREET CORRIDOR
Sidewalk interrupted by driveway on 19th StreetPedestrian activity at 19th Street and Pomona AvenuePedestrian crossing on a yellow light * OCTA's 2021 Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) and City of Costa Mesa General Plan 19th Street
06 INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS 89
19TH STREET CORRIDOR

EXISTING CONDITIONS & CONCERNS
No Bicycle Facilities: Corridor is not cyclist-friendly as there is signage indicating that cyclists are not allowed on the sidewalk, yet the corridor does not provide on-street bike lanes.

Sidewalks: Some areas along the corridor provide sidewalks that are not wide enough for two pedestrians to walk side by side. Obstructions in the sidewalk network were noted to be present throughout the corridor.

Intersection Crossings: The intersection of 19th Street and Meyer Place provides high visibility crosswalks, but does not provide a crossing on the east leg of the intersection.

Pavement Markings: Crosswalk markings at the
intersection of 19th Street and Pomona Avenue show signs of wear, which can be less visible to motorists.

Pedestrian Crossing Times and Right Turns: Motorists
have been observed to make right turn movements on red
in front of pedestrians that are in the crosswalk. Pedestrian crossing times have been observed by the community to be too short for pedestrians of all ability levels.

High Vehicle Speeds: Vehicles traveling at higher than the posted speed limit were observed along the corridor.

Street Trees: Community members noted there is a lack of shade along areas of the corridor.

Sidewalk Conditions: Lifted and cracked sidewalks.

PROPOSED TREATMENTS
Bicycle Facilities: Reconﬁ gure the roadway to install Class II bike lanes on West 19th Street from Sundance Drive to Pomona Avenue and Class III bike sharrows from Pomona
Avenue to Park Avenue, according to the West 19th Street Improvement project. Providing bicycle facilities along the corridor will provide separation between cyclists and pedestrians along the corridor.

Sidewalks: Evaluate the sidewalk network along the corridor to identify, remove, and/or relocate obstructions that may create challenges for pedestrians of all ability levels to navigate around.

High-Visibility Crosswalks: Install high-visibility crosswalks at existing marked crossings along the corridor (Fullerton Avenue, Orange Avenue, Whitter Avenue, Monrovia Avenue, and Orange Avenue). Additionally, install high visibility crosswalks at Sundance Drive, Whittier Avenue, Monrovia Avenue, Federal Avenue, and Wallace Avenue, according to the West 19th Street Improvement project.

Curb Ramps: Install new ADA-compliant curb ramps at
locations where new crossings are installed.

Pavement Markings: Conduct a study to evaluate adding
crosswalks at trafﬁ c signals where crosswalks are not provided across all legs of the signalized intersection, such as Meyer Place, and at unsignalized intersections such as Fullerton Avenue and Santa Ana Avenue.

CITY OF COSTA MESA PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN90
Improved Pedestrian Crossing Times: Evaluate trafﬁ c
signal timing to adjust/improve pedestrian crossing times, as needed at all signalized intersections.

Countdown Pedestrian Signals: Install countdown
pedestrian signals at the intersection of 19th Street and Newport Boulevard.

Leading Pedestrian Intervals: Evaluate trafﬁ c signal timing to include a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI), especially for pedestrian crossings adjacent to high vehicle right-turn movements.

Regulate Right Turn on Reds: Consider installation of a "blank out" No Right Turn changeable message sign that
activates during the LPI WALK interval, then simply shuts off once pedestrians are in the crosswalk and can be seen.

Pedestrian Lighting: Install pedestrian lighting/safety lighting at intersections where new pedestrian crosswalks are to be provided and where pedestrian activities are
present.

Speed Feedback Signs: Consider installation of vehicle speed feedback signs on 19th Street between Pomona
Avenue and Meyer Place, and between Orange Avenue and
Westminster Avenue to help maintain vehicle speeds within the speed limit. (See concept plan on following page)
Street Trees: Evaluate the corridor to install new street trees within the City parkway areas where there are gaps in the sidewalk network. City to collaborate with developers to 19TH STREET CORRIDOR
install new street trees adjacent to the new developments and within the City parkway areas to eliminate any gaps along the corridor.

Corridor-wide Improvements/Maintenance: Evaluate the
corridor on a six-month or yearly basis to identify and repair sidewalk areas that have physical defects such as buckled or lifted pavement, stains, cracks, voids, or ongoing tree root issues to eliminate potential hazards for pedestrians of all ability levels.
06 INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS 91
19TH STREET CORRIDOR SAMPLE CONCEPT PLAN
CITY OF COSTA MESA PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN92

BAKER STREET CORRIDOR

PROJECT LOCATION
The corridor is located on Baker Street between Mesa Verde Drive and Bristol Street. It is classiﬁ ed as a Secondary Arterial from Mesa Verde Drive to Harbor Boulevard, Primary Arterial from Harbor Boulevard to Bear Street, and Major Arterial from Bear Street to Bristol Street. Average Daily Trafﬁ c (ADT) volumes are noted to be in the 3,500 – 30,000 vehicles per day range. Baker Street provides access to State Route 73 (SR-73) via Bear Street and access to State Route 55 (SR-55) via Newport Boulevard.

The posted speed limit along this corridor is 30 MPH from Mesa Verde Drive to Harbor Boulevard and 40 MPH from Harbor
Boulevard to easterly city limit.

The corridor is located in the Halecrest area and adjacent to the Mesa Del Mar area to the south. Some local destinations include commercial areas such as the LAB Anti-mall and The Camp.

Multi-lane STOP controlled intersection on Baker StreetSidewalk on Baker StreetBicyclist crossing Fairview Road at Baker Street Baker Street
06 INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS 93

BAKER STREET CORRIDOR

EXISTING CONDITIONS & CONCERNS
Sidewalks: Some areas along the corridor provide sidewalks that were noted to not feel wide enough for two pedestrians to walk side by side, and felt narrower especially at
locations with utility poles, guy wires, utility boxes, and other obstructions.

Intersection Crossings: The Baker Street corridor contains high pedestrian activity, especially at several intersections such as Mesa Verde Drive, Harbor Boulevard, College Avenue, Fairview Road, Coolidge Avenue, Randolph Avenue, and
Bristol Street crossings. Additionally, intersections where crosswalks are not provided at all legs were noted to have a desire for additional crossings to be added.

Pedestrian Crossing Times: Pedestrian crossing times
have been noted by the community to be too short for
pedestrians of all ability levels.

Pedestrian Crossing at Signalized Intersections: The
intersection of Baker Street and Fairview Road is lacking pedestrian countdown signal heads.

High Vehicle Speeds: Vehicles traveling at higher than the posted speed limit were observed along the corridor.

Mid-Block Crossings: Community members noted
there is a need for mid-block crossings on Baker Street between College Avenue and Fairview Road. High mid-block pedestrian and bicyclist crossing activity at Loren Drive, across Baker Street
Sidewalk Conditions: Lifted and cracked sidewalks.

Bus Stop Shelters & Amenities: Various bus stops along the corridor do not provide shelters for transit riders.

PROPOSED TREATMENTS
Bicycle Facilities: Evaluate Baker Street from Royal Palm Drive to Coolidge Avenue to design and install a Class II bike lane as identiﬁ ed in the City's Active Transportation Plan to complete the bicycle network on Baker Street and reduce conﬂ icts between pedestrians and bicyclists on the sidewalk.

Sidewalks: Evaluate the sidewalk network along the corridor to identify, remove, and/or relocate obstructions that may create challenges for pedestrians of all ability levels to navigate around.

Marked Crosswalks: Evaluate the trafﬁ c operations at
signalized intersections where marked crosswalks are not provided at all legs to install new marked crosswalks at intersection legs where not currently provided.

Curb Ramps: Install new ADA-compliant curb ramps at
locations where new crossings are installed.

High-Visibility Crosswalks: Install high-visibility crosswalks at existing marked crossings along the corridor to improve motorists visibility of the crossings and potential pedestrians within the crosswalks (Mesa Verde Drive, Labrador Drive, Harbor Boulevard, College Avenue, Fairview Road, Coolidge Avenue, Babb Street, Milbro Street, and Bear Street).

CITY OF COSTA MESA PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN94

BAKER STREET CORRIDOR
Improved Pedestrian Crossing Times: Evaluate trafﬁ c
signal timing to adjust/improve pedestrian crossing times, as needed at all signalized intersections.

Countdown Pedestrian Signals: Install countdown
pedestrian signals at the intersection of Baker Street and Fairview Road.

Leading Pedestrian Intervals: Evaluate trafﬁ c signal timing to include a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI), especially for pedestrian crossings adjacent to high vehicle right-turn movements.

Speed Feedback Signs: Consider installation of vehicle speed feedback signs between Bear Street and Century
Place to encourage motorists to reduce speeds within the posted speed limit.

Mid-Block Crossing: Evaluate corridor between College
Avenue and Fairview Road to install a mid-block crossing with RRFB and push buttons to provide additional crossing areas along this segment of the corridor (potentially at Donnybrook Lane).

BAKER STREET CORRIDOR SAMPLE CONCEPT PLAN
CITY OF COSTA MESA PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN96

HARBOR BOULEVARD CORRIDOR (NORTH)

PROJECT LOCATION
The corridor is located on Harbor Boulevard between Gisler Avenue and Adams Avenue. It is classiﬁ ed as a Major Arterial based on OCTA’s 2021 Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH).

Average Daily Trafﬁ c (ADT) volumes are noted to be over 55,000 vehicles per day. Harbor Boulevard provides direct access to Interstate 405 (I-405) at the northern end of the corridor. The posted speed limit along this corridor is 40 MPH.

The corridor is located in the Halecrest Neighborhood and adjacent to the Mesa Del Mar area. Some nearby local
destinations include Fairview Development Center, Orange Coast College, Early College High School, and Costa Mesa Golf Course.

Sidewalk on Harbor Boulevard south of Adams AvenueDecorative Crosswalk at Adams AvenueSidewalk on Harbor Boulevard north of Adams Avenue Harbor Boulevard
06 INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS 97

HARBOR BOULEVARD CORRIDOR (NORTH)

EXISTING CONDITIONS & CONCERNS
Sidewalks: Some areas along the corridor provide sidewalks that are narrower than four feet, especially in front of commercial areas north of Adams Avenue, where wider
sidewalks are provided south of Adams Avenue.

Intersection Crossings: Various crosswalk markings are
faded, causing visibility issues for motorists approaching the crossings. These faded crosswalk markings have been noted to be at various intersections along the corridor.

Pedestrian Crossing Times & Right Turns: Pedestrian
crossing times have been noted by the community to be
too short for pedestrians of all ability levels. Also, many motorists make right turn movements at intersections
while pedestrians are starting to cross the street or in the crosswalk, violating the pedestrian right-of-way.

Bus Stop Shelters & Amenities: Various bus stops along the corridor do not provide shelters for transit riders or amenities such as trash receptacles.

Street Trees: The community expressed support for more
street trees and landscaping along the corridor.

Sidewalk Conditions: Lifted and cracked sidewalks.

PROPOSED TREATMENTS
Bicycle Facilities: Evaluate Harbor Boulevard from Gisler Avenue to Newport Boulevard to design and install Class II bike lanes as identiﬁ ed in the City's Active Transportation Plan to complete the bicycle network on Harbor Boulevard and reduce conﬂ icts between pedestrians and bicyclists on the sidewalk.

Sidewalks: Evaluate the sidewalk network along the corridor to identify, remove, and/or relocate obstructions that may create challenges for pedestrians of all ability levels to navigate around.

Curb Ramps: Install new ADA-compliant curb ramps at
locations where new crossings are installed.

High-Visibility Crosswalks: Install high-visibility crosswalks at existing marked crossings along the corridor to provide motorists better visibility of the crossings and potential pedestrians within the crosswalks.

Improved Pedestrian Crossing Times: Evaluate trafﬁ c
signal timing to adjust/improve pedestrian crossing times, as needed at all signalized intersections.

CITY OF COSTA MESA PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN98

HARBOR BOULEVARD CORRIDOR (NORTH)
Regulate Right Turn on Reds: Consider installation of a "blank out" No Right Turn changeable message sign that
activates during the LPI WALK interval, then simply shuts off once pedestrians are in the crosswalk and can be seen.

Leading Pedestrian Intervals: Evaluate trafﬁ c signal timing to include a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI), especially for pedestrian crossings adjacent to high vehicle right-turn movements.

HARBOR BOULEVARD CORRIDOR (NORTH) SAMPLE CONCEPT PLAN
CITY OF COSTA MESA PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN100

HARBOR BOULEVARD CORRIDOR (SOUTH)

PROJECT LOCATION
The corridor is located on Harbor Boulevard between Adams Avenue and Newport Boulevard. It is classiﬁ ed as a Major Arterial.

Average Daily Trafﬁ c (ADT) volumes are noted to be in the 10,000 – 55,000 vehicles per day range. Harbor Boulevard provides direct access to State Route 55 (SR-55) at Newport Boulevard at the south end of the corridor. The posted speed limit along this corridor is 40 MPH.

The corridor is located in the Westside Costa Mesa and
Downtown area and adjacent to the College Park area to the east. Harbor Boulevard terminates at Newport Boulevard. Some local destinations include Fairview Development Center, Estancia High School, Orange Coast College, Early College High School, Fairview Park, and Lions Park.

East leg crossing at Mesa Verde Dr./ Peterson PlaceStandard crosswalks at Wilson StreetNorth leg of Harbor Boulevard at Fair Drive, looking west Harbor Boulevard
06 INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS 101

HARBOR BOULEVARD CORRIDOR (SOUTH)

EXISTING CONDITIONS & CONCERNS
Sidewalks: Street furniture such as landscaping and utility boxes create obstructions on the sidewalk and reduce the sidewalk width. Additionally, more sidewalk and bicycle infrastructure is desired throughout the corridor to complete gaps in the network and provide a better experience for pedestrians and bicyclists.

Intersection Crossings: The intersections of Harbor
Boulevard with Fair Drive, as well as Bay Street and
Newport Boulevard do not provide a crossing at all legs of the intersections. The community desires more marked crosswalks at these intersections to facilitate pedestrian crossings from various directions.

Pedestrian Countdown Signals: The intersection of Harbor Boulevard and Newport Boulevard is lacking pedestrian
countdown signals.

Right Turns vs Pedestrians: Many motorists make right
turn movements at intersections while pedestrians are
starting to cross the street or in the crosswalk, violating the pedestrian right-of-way.

Pedestrian Visibility: On-street parking has been noted to present visibility concerns for pedestrians crossing the roadway.

Bus Stop Shelters & Amenities: Various bus stops along the corridor do not provide shelters for transit riders.

Sidewalk Conditions: Lifted and cracked sidewalks.

Sidewalks: Evaluate the sidewalk network along the corridor to identify, remove, and/or relocate obstructions that may create challenges for pedestrians of all ability levels to navigate around. Widen sidewalks along the corridor where right-of-way is available.

Curb Ramps: Install new ADA-compliant curb ramps at
locations where new crossings are installed.

Countdown Pedestrian Signals: Install countdown
pedestrian signals at the intersection of Harbor Boulevard and Newport Boulevard.

High-Visibility Crosswalks: Install-high visibility
crosswalks at existing marked crossings along the corridor to improve motorists visibility of the crossings and potential pedestrians within the crosswalks (Fair Drive, Wilson Street, Victoria Street, Hamilton Street, and Bay Street).

CITY OF COSTA MESA PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN102

HARBOR BOULEVARD CORRIDOR (SOUTH)
Improved Pedestrian Crossing Times: Evaluate trafﬁ c
signal timing to adjust/improve pedestrian crossing times, as needed at all signalized intersections.

Leading Pedestrian Intervals: Evaluate trafﬁ c signal timing to include a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI), especially for pedestrian crossings adjacent to high vehicle right-turn movements.

HARBOR BOULEVARD CORRIDOR (SOUTH) SAMPLE CONCEPT PLAN
CITY OF COSTA MESA PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN104

WILSON STREET CORRIDOR

PROJECT LOCATION
The corridor is located on Wilson Street between Canyon Drive and Newport Boulevard in the southern portion of the City. It is classiﬁ ed as a Secondary Arterial. Average Daily Trafﬁ c (ADT) volumes are noted to reach 10,000 vehicles per day. Major arterial roadways in the vicinity include Harbor Boulevard perpendicular to Wilson Street and Fairview Road at the east end of the corridor. The posted speed limit along this corridor is 35 MPH.

The corridor is located in the Westside Costa Mesa and College Park areas of the city. It provides access to State Route 55 (SR- 55) via Newport Boulevard on the east side of the corridor. Some local destinations include Wilson Elementary School, Wilson Street Park, and various residential communities and commercial areas along the corridor.

Cracked and buckled sidewalks near Wilson ParkPedestrians crossing College Avenue on Wilson StreetPedestrian signage south of Harbor Blvd without mid- block marked crosswalks
Wilson Street
06 INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS 105

WILSON STREET CORRIDOR

EXISTING CONDITIONS & CONCERNS
Sidewalks: Street furniture such as landscaping and
utility boxed create obstructions on the sidewalk and
reduce the sidewalk width. Pedestrians were observed to share the sidewalk with bicyclists, despite Wilson Street’s designation as a bike route. Additionally, more sidewalk and bicycle infrastructure is desired throughout the corridor to complete gaps in the network, provide a better experience for pedestrians and bicyclists, and provide better access to local destinations, such as Wilson Park.

Intersection Crossings: The intersection of Wilson Street and Pomona Avenue does not provide a crossing at the east leg and the intersection of Wilson Street and Center Way does not provide a crossing at the west leg. The community desires an additional marked crosswalk at these locations to facilitate pedestrians crossing from various directions.

Additionally, more marked crosswalks are desired throughout the corridor to facilitate pedestrian crossings.

Pedestrian Crossing Times: Pedestrian crossing times
have been noted by the community to be too short for
pedestrians of all ability levels.

Street Lighting: Community members expressed the desire for better street lighting along the corridor.

High Vehicle Speeds: Vehicles traveling at higher than the posted speed limit were observed along the corridor and the desire for trafﬁ c calming features along the corridor was noted.

Pedestrian Visibility: On-street parking has been noted to present visibility concerns for pedestrians crossing the roadway.

Bus Stop Shelters & Amenities: Various bus stops along the corridor do not provide shelters for transit riders (Wilson- Anaheim and Wilson-College).

Sidewalk Conditions: Lifted and cracked sidewalks.

PROPOSED TREATMENTS
Bicycle Facilities: Evaluate Wilson Street west of Placentia Avenue and from Harbor Boulevard to Newport Boulevard to design and install Class II bike lanes as identiﬁ ed in the City's Active Transportation Plan to complete the bicycle network on Wilson Street and reduce conﬂ icts between pedestrians and bicyclists on the sidewalk.

Marked Crosswalks: Evaluate the trafﬁ c operations
at Wilson Street and Pomona Avenue where marked
crosswalks are not provided at all legs to install new marked crosswalks at intersection legs where not currently provided.

Curb Ramps: Install new ADA-compliant curb ramps at
locations where new crossings are installed.

CITY OF COSTA MESA PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN106
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (HAWK Signal): Install a
pedestrian HAWK signal at the west leg of Wilson Street and Fordham Drive intersection. (see concept)
Pedestrian Lighting: Install pedestrian lighting/safety lighting at intersections where new pedestrian crosswalks are to be provided and where pedestrian activities are
present. Evaluate the corridor to install additional street lighting in areas where there is a gap in street lighting along the corridor.

Countdown Pedestrian Signals: Install countdown
pedestrian signals at Placentia Avenue, Fairview Road, and Newport Boulevard.

High-Visibility Crosswalks: Install high-visibility crosswalks at existing and new marked crossings along the corridor to improve motorists visibility of the crossings and potential pedestrians within the crosswalks.

Speed Feedback Signs: Consider installation of vehicle speed feedback signs on Wilson Street, National Avenue, and Continental Avenue.

Mid-Block Crossing: Evaluate the segment of Wilson Street between Maple Street and Miner Street for the design and installation of a new mid-block crossing with RRFB and push buttons.

Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB): Evaluate the segment of Wilson Street between Maple Street and Miner Street for the design and installation of RRFBs and push buttons to accompany the new mid-block crossing.

Improved Pedestrian Crossing Times: Evaluate trafﬁ c
signal timing to adjust/improve pedestrian crossing times, as needed at all signalized intersections.

Leading Pedestrian Intervals: Evaluate trafﬁ c signal timing at signalized intersections to include a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI), especially for pedestrian crossings adjacent to high vehicle right-turn movements.

Advance Yield Lines: Install advance yield lines at
approaches to existing and new mid-block crossings.

WILSON STREET CORRIDOR
06 INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS 107

WILSON STREET CORRIDOR SAMPLE CONCEPT PLAN
CITY OF COSTA MESA PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN108
(CITYWIDE) HIGH-VISIBILITY CROSSWALK LOCATIONS

PROPOSED TREATMENTS
Install high-visibility crosswalk
markings parallel to the major street
and across the minor street, within all
commercial corridors and near schools,
parks, and regional attractors (such
as the OC Fair & Event Center). A list of
the locations is illustrated in Table 6.2,
Crosswalk Improvement Locations On
Minor Streets Along Major Corridors.
06 INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS 109
Street Name Corridor Orientation Minor Street Signalized Intersection On Ramps Total Crosswalks Sunﬂ ower Avenue
Northside 3 6 0 9
Southside 0 8 0 8
Bear Street
Eastside 1 4 0 5
Westside 0 4 0 4
South Coast Drive
Northside 2 2 0 4
Southside 0 4 0 4
Bristol Street
Eastside 1 10 1 12
Westside 0 13 2 15
Baker Street
Northside 4 6 0 10
Southside 5 5 2 12
Randolph Avenue
Eastside 0 2 0 2
Westside 1 2 0 3
Arlington Drive
Northside 2 1 0 3
Southside 1 1 0 2
Fair Drive
Northside 3 6 1 10
Southside 2 6 0 8
Harbor Blvd
Eastside 5 14 0 19
Westside 3 13 0 16
Adams Avenue
Northside 1 6 1 8
Southside 2 4 1 7
Table 6.2 Crosswalk Improvement Locations On Minor Streets Along Major Corridors CITY OF COSTA MESA PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN110
Street Name Corridor Orientation Minor Street Signalized Intersection On Ramps Total Crosswalks Mesa Verde Drive E
Eastside 1 2 0 3
Westside 2 2 0 4
19th Street
Northside 6 6 0 12
Southside 2 5 0 7
17th Street
Northside 5 8 0 13
Southside 1 8 0 9
Baker Street and Fairview
Road
Eastside 4 11 0 15
Westside 4 12 0 16
Newport Boulevard and Del
Mar Avenue
Eastside 8 7 0 15
Westside 0707
Bay Street
Northside 1 2 0 3
Southside 1 2 0 3
Ford Road
Northside 3 0 0 3
Southside 3 0 0 3
Park Avenue
Eastside 1 1 0 2
Westside 2 1 0 3
Orange Avenue
Eastside 3 2 0 5
Westside 0 2 0 2
Table 6.2 Crosswalk Improvement Locations On Minor Streets Along Major Corridors (Cont.) 06 INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS 111
This page left intentionally blank
07 Implementation
Strategy
07 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 113
This chapter discusses ﬁ ve approaches the City can
take to implement the infrastructure and long-term
recommendations discussed in Chapters 4-6. The
approaches, both proactive and reactive, could be used
together or individually, depending on the resources
available. They include:
• Project prioritization: Implement the infrastructure
projects by order of priority using a data-driven
approach.
• Project cost and time: Construct the infrastructure
projects based on the available time and ﬁ nancial
resources.
• Funding availability: Develop infrastructure projects based on available funding opportunities. Many
funding sources are available for pedestrian
improvements.
• Collaboration with different city departments and
community stakeholders: Work with city departments
and community stakeholders to implement the long-
term recommendations.
• Project options: Certain circumstances, such as
ﬁ ndings from a new study or community members
voicing their concerns, may prompt the City to take a
reactive approach to implement the recommendations
identiﬁ ed in the Plan.

The purpose of project prioritization is to develop a
list of ranked infrastructure projects based on the
recommendations that offer the greatest potential beneﬁ t that supports pedestrian activities within a short time frame.

The speciﬁ c measures for each category, along with the weights, are shown in Table 7.1, Project Prioritization Criteria.

Table 7.2, Ranked Projects List, shows the list of prioritized projects, with their respective score out of 100.

7.1 INTRODUCTION 7.2 PROJECT PRIORITIZATION
Group Item Weight
Need and
Equity
Disadvantaged Community (DAC) 20%
Median Household Income (MHHI)
Safety Bicycle and Pedestrian Collisions 30%
Vehicle Citations
Community
Support
Community Support 30%
Network
Connectivity
Transit Accessibility 20%
Connects to priority destinations including
commercial areas, parks, and schools
Total 100%
Table 7.1 Project Prioritization Criteria
CITY OF COSTA MESA PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN114
Rank Corridor From To Length (in Miles) Score
1 Newport Boulevard 19th Street 17th Street 0.44 62.8
2 Fairview Road McCormack Lane Merrimac Way 1.45 53.3
3 Adams Avenue Mesa Verde Drive Fairview Road 0.84 52.0 4 Bristol Street Sunﬂ ower Avenue Bear Street 1.63 51.1 5 Harbor Boulevard Gisler Avenue Newport Boulevard 3.84 46.0 6 Wilson Street Canyon Drive Newport Boulevard 2.51 30.8 7 17th Street Superior Avenue Irvine Avenue 1.27 27.3
8 19th Street Whittier Avenue Santa Ana Avenue 2.28 24.2 9 Baker Street Mesa Verde Drive Bristol Street 2.99 19.6 Table 7.2 Ranked Projects List
07 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 115
Infrastructure improvements roughly follow along a time/cost cont inuum. Small-scale projects such as signing and striping can be completed in a short amount of time with relatively low co st. On the other hand, large-scale projects such as a roadway conﬁ guration and new trafﬁ c signals could require more time and cost more. Table 7.3, Infrastructure Cost and Time Continuum, provides some examples of pedestrian improvements that fall in to three categories: short-term/low-cost, mid-term/mid-cost, and long-term/high cost.

7.3 TIME AND COST
Type Description Estimated Time
Frame and Cost
Example of Infrastructure
short-term/low cost
These types of infrastructure
improvements present
opportunities for more rapid
implementation to address
community concerns.
0-2 years
$500 - $50K
• ADA-compliant curb ramps
• high visibility crosswalks
• pavement markings
• signage
• rectangular rapid ﬂ ashing
beacons (RRFB)
• pedestrian intersection
enhancements
• neighborhood trafﬁ c calming
measures (e.g curb extensions,
speed humps, and raised
crosswalks)
mid-term/mid cost
These types of projects either
require additional research or
are ready for implementation,
but roadway impacts such as
vehicular right-of-way, utility
easements, and/or other
constraints must be considered.
2-5 years
$50K - $200K
• sidewalk (with curb and gutter)
• curb extensions at major
intersection and arterial street
• protected intersection
• minor trafﬁ c control signal
improvements
long-term/high cost
This type of projects can be
considered as planned projects
and require added resources
prior to implementation. These
projects require more studies,
right-of-way acquisition, and/or
include the need for coordination
with adjacent agencies or
county governing bodies.
5+ years
>$200K
• trafﬁ c signals
• roundabouts
• projects that require modifying
or adding hard wiring
infrastructure
Table 7.3 Infrastructure Cost and Time Continuum
CITY OF COSTA MESA PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN116
The following section presents potential federal, state, region al, and local funding sources that the City can seek for Plan implementation. Table 7.4, Funding Opportunities, lists differen t grant programs by source, agency, program name, and project eligibility, with a brief description for context. The City can consider applying for a variety of funding opportunities to imp lement the recommendations.

7.4 FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES
Source Program Administering
Agency
Program Description
Federal
Congestion
Mitigation and Air
Quality (CMAQ)
Program via F AST
Act
OCTA The program funds transportation projects likely to contribute to the attainment or maintenance of a national ambient air quality standard, with a high level of effectiveness in reducing air pollution, and are included in the MPO's current transportation plan and transportation improvement program. OCTA directs these funds mainly to transit and high occupancy vehicle lane projects, but 10% is set aside for bike and pedestrian projects.

Federal
Highway Safety
Improvement
Program (HSIP)
Caltrans Projects that improve safety for any public road, bicycle facility, pedestrian pathway, or trail.

Federal
Community
Development Block
Grant (CDBG)
Orange County
Housing and
Community
Development
CDBG is a ﬂ exible program that provides communities with resources to address a wide range of unique community development needs. The federally-funded program is administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). On the local level, these funds are administered by the Orange County Housing and Community Development and can fund a range of projects including transportation services, public safety programs, ﬂ ood and drainage facilities, water/sewer improvements, street improvements/sidewalks, etc.

Federal
(Forthcoming) Safe
Streets and Roads
for All (SS4A) Grant
Program
US Department of
Transportation
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) established the new Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) discretionary program with $5 billion in appropriated funds over the next 5 years. In ﬁ scal year 2022 (FY22), up to $1 billion is available. The SS4A program funds regional, local, and Tribal initiatives through grants to prevent roadway deaths and serious injuries.

Table 7.4 Funding Opportunities
Note: The program descriptions are retrieved from the program websites. 07 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 117
Table 7.4 Funding Opportunities (Cont.)
Source Program Administering
Agency
Program Description
Federal/State
Ofﬁ ce of Trafﬁ c Safety
(OTS) Grants
California Ofﬁ ce of
Trafﬁ c Safety
Bicycle and pedestrian projects have been funded through this program. Promotes trafﬁ c safety education.

State
Affordable Housing
and Sustainable
Communities Program
(AHSC)
Strategic Growth
Council
and Department
of Housing and
Community
Development
The program funds land-use, housing, transportation, and land preservation projects to support inﬁ ll and compact development that reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

State
Active Transportation
Program (ATP)
Caltrans Funds active transportation-related infrastructure projects, plans, and education/ encouragement/enforcement activities. Consolidates previous programs (Transportation Alternatives Program, Bicycle Transportation Account, and Safe Routes to Schools).

State
Sustainable
Transportation Planning
Grant Program
Caltrans Projects that plan for reductions in GHG and VMT, and/or integrate Land Use and Transportation planning are eligible. This includes: SRTS, ATP, trail master plans, pedestrian master plans, bicycle master plans, Vision Zero, bike parking facilities planning, educational outreach, trafﬁ c calming, health equity studies, ﬁ rst mile/last mile, station area planning, etc.

Regional/Local
Sustainable Planning
Grant
SCAG The Sustainability Planning Grant Program (formerly known as the Compass Blueprint Grant Program) provides technical support to members in SCAG’s jurisdictions. Grants can be used toward planning and policy efforts that allow for the implementation of the regional RTP/SCS. Grants in the program falls into three categories:

Integrated Land Use – Sustainable Land Use Planning, Transit Oriented Development (TOD) and Land Use & Transportation Integration.

Active Transportation – Bicycle, Pedestrian and Safe Routes to School Plans.

Green Region – Natural Resource Plans, Climate Action Plans (CAPs) and Green House Gas (GHG) Reduction programs.

Note: The program descriptions are retrieved from the program websites.

CITY OF COSTA MESA PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN118
Table 7.4 Funding Opportunities (Cont.)
Source Program Administering
Agency
Program Description
Regional/Local
Comprehensive
Transportation Funding
Program (CTFP) Project
O Regional Capacity
Program
OCTA Approximately $32 million in M2 funds that are available through the RCP (Project O) for Arterial Capacity Enhancements, Intersection Capacity Enhancements, and Freeway Arterial/Street Transitions.

Regional/Local
Comprehensive
Transportation Funding
Program (CTFP) Project
P Regional Trafﬁ c
Signal Synchronization
Program (RTSSP)
OCTA Competitive funding from M2 funds that are available for trafﬁ c signal synchronization updates.

Note: The program descriptions are retrieved from the program websites. 07 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 119

Costa Mesa City CouncilMay 7, 2024

Costa Mesa City Council
May 7, 2024