Agenda packet — Costa Mesa City Council, September 15, 2026 (part 4 of 7)

S - 28 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n

Figure S-9: Public Safety Facilities and
Emergency Evacuation Routes

Figure S-9: Public Safety Facilities and
Emergency Evacuation Routes
-236-
1062
S a f e t y E l e m e n t

C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | S - 29

Evacuation Constraints
Figure S-10, SB-99 Constrained Access Roads and Parcel Groups identify both constrained access roadways (single ingress/egress conditions) and parcels that use these roadways (constrained parcels). These constrained locations are required to be identified by California Government Code Section 65302(g)(5) [SB99].

A constrained access analysis was conducted consistent with Public Resources Code Section 4290.5. Using the standard of 30 dwellings per single access roadway (consistent with PRC 4290.5), the following conditions were identified within the City:
▪ Constrained Access Roads (Single Ingress/Egress Roadways) – these roadways are identified in red and include cul-de-sacs, roadways with a single connection to the roadway network, and roadways that may have secondary connections that are not publicly accessible due to a gate or other constraint.
▪ SB 99 Constrained Access Parcel Groups –These parcels are identified in orange and include areas where at least 30 parcels are located along a constrained access road.
▪ SB 99 Constrained Access Parcel Groups of Concern, where a total of 20-29 parcels are located along a constrained access road. These areas have been identified as areas that may see additional residences due to infill development or accessory dwelling units (ADUs). If additional development were to occur in these areas, they could surpass the PRC 4290.5 standard of 30 parcels.

This analysis identified a total of 18 constrained access parcel groups that include 1,143 parcels and 23 parcel groups of concern that include 523 parcels.

-237-
1063
S a f e t y E l e m e n t

S - 30 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n

Figure S-10: SB-99 Constrained Access Roads and Parcel Groups -238-
1064
S a f e t y E l e m e n t

C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | S - 31

Special Areas of Concern Within the City
Costa Mesa is bordered by the Santa Ana River and the City of Huntington Beach to the west, and the cities of Santa Ana, Irvine, and Newport Beach to the north, east, and south, respectively. Like many other cities in southern California, Costa Mesa contends with hazards associated with flooding (including dam inundation), and geologic/seismic events (liquefaction).

FEMA 100-Year and 500-Year Flood Zones
Two constrained access parcel groups (identified in orange) totaling 131 parcels are located within the FEMA 100-year flood zone. Three constrained access parcel groups (identified in orange), totaling 269 parcels, and Three parcel groups of concern (identified in green), totaling 73 parcels, are located within the FEMA-identified 500-year flood zone.

Dam Inundation
Six constrained access parcel groups (identified in orange) totaling 435 parcels and four parcel groups of concern (identified in green) totaling 89 parcels Are located within or immediately adjacent to the mapped dam inundation zones within the City. For each zone, the following applies:

Santiago Creek – Five constrained access parcel groups and four parcel groups of concern located within or immediately adjacent to the Santiago Creek inundation zone and could be affected in the event of a dam failure. Total parcels at risk 490.

Prado Dam – Six constrained access parcel groups and three parcel groups of concern located within or immediately adjacent to the Prado Dam inundation zone and could be affected in the event of a dam failure. Total parcels at risk 504.

Villa Park – Five constrained access parcel groups and three parcel groups of concern located within or immediately adjacent to the Villa Park inundation zone and could be affected in the event of a dam failure. Total parcels at risk 470.

Liquefaction
Eight constrained parcel groups (identified in orange) totaling 565 parcels and three parcel groups of concern (identified in green) totaling 69 parcels are -239-
1065
S a f e t y E l e m e n t

S - 32 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n

located within or immediately adjacent to the mapped liquefaction zones within the City.

Wildland and Urban Fires
The fire hazard severity of an area is determined based on the type and amount of vegetation (termed “"fuel loading”),"), slope gradient, and weather. Fire hazards increase in the summer and fall when the weather is hot and dry—, and especially when Santa Ana wind conditions occur. Areas identified as having a fire hazard are referred to as State Responsibility Areas (SRAs) because the State has the primary financial responsibility of preventing and suppressing fires. The agency responsible for suppressing fires in SRAs is the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire). No part of Costa Mesa is listed as an SRA or located within the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. Thus, urban and grassland fires within open space areas (such as Talbert Regional Park) represent the only fire risks in the City.

The city recently adopted the CalFIRE Local Responsibility Area (LRA) map that included Moderate and High Severity Zone additions to the west side of the city in and around the Fairview and Talbert Regional Park areas (see figure S- 11).” Thus, urban and grassland fires within the open space areas (such as Talbert Regional Park) do represent a Fire Risk in the City. The Costa Mesa Fire & Rescue Department’s firefighters are cross trained and professionally certified in wildland fire suppression tactics and strategy. This capability is also augmented by specialized Wildland capable fire apparatus that are designed to meet the needs of the community.

The LHMP contains detailed technical analyses and mitigation actions related to fire and emergency response coordination. Please refer to the LHMP for details.

Emergency Medical Services
In addition to fire suppression, rescue, and community risk reduction duties, the Fire Department provides 9-1-1 emergency medical services and ambulance transportation to the community. AllDepartment fire engines in Costa Mesa double as paramedic engines and provide advanced life support.

The ladder, rescues and trucks are staffed with emergency medical technicians trained to provide basic life support.either Advanced Life Support (ALS) or Basic Life Support (BLS) depending on the nature of an incident, while ambulances provide BLS level care and transport to hospital emergency -240-
1066
S a f e t y E l e m e n t

C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | S - 33

departments. The program strives to satisfy the goal of respondingrespond to 80 percent of emergency calls for service requests within five minutes.

Police Protection
The primary responsibilities of the Costa Mesa Police Department are crime prevention, field patrol, crime investigation, and traffic enforcement. Police Department staff includes sworn officers and civilian support personnel. As of 2014,2026 the ratio of police officers to civilians in Costa Mesa was approximately one police officer for every 1,000775 persons.

The Police Department maintains headquarters at 99 Fair Drive in the Civic Center and two substations located at:
▪ South Coast Plaza
▪ 567 West 18th Street
The Police Department currently contracts with the Huntington Beach Police Department for airborne law enforcement patrols and related services.

-241-
1067
S a f e t y E l e m e n t

S - 34 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n

Figure S-11: Costa Mesa Fire Hazard Severity Zones 3/24/25 -242-
1068
S a f e t y E l e m e n t

C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | S - 35

Emergency Response and Operations
The Costa Mesa Disaster Plan serves as the community’sMesa’s Emergency Operations Plan (EOP), which) provides guidance during emergency situations and natural disasters. The plan addresses potential large-scale disasters that require a coordinated and immediate response.

The EOP identifies key personnel and agencies in the Costa Mesa Emergency Management Organization that are organizedorganize to protect life and property in the community. The EOP also identifies sources of outside support that may be provided by State and federal agencies, the private sector, and through mutual aid by otherfrom local jurisdictions. In addition, the EOP specifies emergency operations to be implemented during an emergency, assigns responsibilities, and provides an explanation of how the plan is to be administered. These activities involve a number ofall City departments and facilities, including the Police Department, Fire Department, public health officials, and care and shelter operations.. The City's emergency evacuation routes are shown in Figure S-7, Public Facility Facilities, and Emergency Evacuation Routes.

The Police Chief coordinates all emergency evacuation activities and issues evacuation orders based on information gathered from emergency experts.public safety. Evacuation operations are also managed by law enforcement agencies, and supported by highway/road/street departments, and public and private transportation providers.

Terrorism/National Security Emergency
Since the terrorist incidents of September 11, 2001, and subsequent terrorist events on U.S. soil, public concern regarding terrorist acts in the United States has understandably increased. The State and federal governments have established protocols and programs for dealing with the aftermath of a terrorist act. In 2001, the State of California published the California Terrorism Response Plan, which identifies and describes how the State and local governments are to plan for and respond to terrorism incidents. The tasks and responsibilities of emergency management are based on two terms: Crisis Management and Consequence Management. Crisis Management refers to the response to people committing an act of terrorism. Consequence Management refers to the response to the potential or actual effects of terrorism. According to the California Terrorism Response Plan, local -243-
1069
S a f e t y E l e m e n t

S - 36 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n

governments have primary responsibility for responding to an incident to protect public health and safety (Consequence Management). The Costa Mesa EOP is the City's plan to ensure the most effective and economical allocation of resources for the maximum benefit and protection of the civilian population in time of emergency.

Key Emergency Protection and Response
Issues
Crime Prevention and Response
Costa Mesa has set high standards for public safety and protection. As a result, it is one of the safest cities of its size in the nation. To maintain these high levels of public safety, it will be important to continue to evaluate programs, meet response time goals, and support crime prevention through education and sensible project design practices.

City leaders have recognized that particular land uses, and poorly maintained properties create conditions conducive to criminal activity. By developing and implementing targeted efforts among all City departments to address problem properties and uses, the City can continue to demonstrate its commitment to maintainmaintaining community safety standards.

Fire and Medical Safety
The Costa Mesa Fire Department is the first responder to medical emergencies. The request for emergency medical services is the most common response made by the Fire Department, and service demands have increased over time. As the City's population ages and new residents and employees locate in the City, adequate emergency medical response funding, staffing, and station locations will continue to require focused attention.

Emergency and Disaster Preparedness
The City excels in preparing for emergency or natural disasterdisasters by having clear, up-to-date plans to expedite response, together with conducting regular training for staff and providing ongoing public outreach and education regardingon emergency preparedness. Continuing these for the community.

These ongoing efforts willhelp to mitigate adverse effects associated with natural and human-caused catastrophes.
-244-
1070
S a f e t y E l e m e n t

C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | S - 37

Hazardous Materials
Hazardous materials and chemicals are used daily by industries, businesses, and residents. Hazardous material sources include service stations, medical labs, drycleanersdry cleaners, and photo processing centers. Certain businesses may generate larger quantities of hazardous waste, such as chemical manufacturers and electroplating companies. In addition, commonly used household products such as paints, cleaners, oils, batteries, and pesticides contain potentially hazardous materials. Accidental spills or leaks, illegal dumping of hazardous waste, illegal storage, or a transportation accident also could release hazardous materials into the community.

The federal government and the State of California require all businesses that store hazardous materials in excess of specified quantities to report their chemical inventories in a Hazardous Materials Management Plan. Businesses are required to report releases of toxic chemicals into the air, water, and land, as well as off-site transfers of waste to another location. Facilities that store hazardous materials are also required to report on pollution prevention activities and chemical recycling. All of these businesses operate under stringent regulations governing the storage, use, manufacturing, and handling of hazardous materials.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) maintains and publishes a database of properties that handle or produce hazardous materials. The EPA defines a small-quantity waste generator as one that produces between 100 and 1,000 kilograms of hazardous waste per month. Small businesses like drycleanersdry cleaners, auto repair shops, hospitals, and metal plating shops usually are defined as generators of small quantities of hazardous waste. As of 2014, approximately 245 small-quantity generators operated in Costa Mesa.

The EPA defines a large quantity generator as a business that produces over 1,000 kilograms of hazardous waste per month. Large quantity generators include large manufacturing facilities and businesses like chemical manufacturers. As of 20142026, 28 large-quantity generators were located in Costa Mesa. In addition, the City has four registered transporters of hazardous waste, five leaking underground storage tanks, and one incident listed on the EPA’sEPA's Toxic Release Inventory database.

Additional hazard vulnerability information and mitigation actions related to flooding are provided in the City’s adopted Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. -245-
1071
S a f e t y E l e m e n t

S - 38 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n

Hazardous Waste Management
The Costa Mesa Fire Department is the first responder for any hazardous material emergencies in the community. However, the City contracts with the County of Orange Hazardous Materials Team to respond to major hazardous materials emergencies. The City participates in a countywide interagency coalition to better utilize the expertise and equipment that exists within all participating fire districts. The City also adopted the Orange County Hazardous Waste Management Plan to respond to chemical emergencies, and utilizes collection centers operated by the County for residents to drop off household hazardous waste items.

The Orange County Hazardous Waste Management Plan provides policy direction and action programs to address hazardous waste management issues that require local responsibility. The plan analyzes long-term hazardous waste generation and focuses on the development of programs to equitably site needed hazardous waste management facilities. The plan promotes on-site resource reduction, treatment, and recycling of hazardous materials; and provides for the collectioncollecting and treatment oftreating small quantity hazardous waste generators. Another important plan component is the monitoring of hazardous waste management facilities to ensure compliance with federal and State regulations.

Key Hazardous Materials Issues
Release of Hazards Materials
The release of explosive, reactive, corrosive, toxic, and flammable materials posespose a hazard to life and property and may necessitate evacuations.

Federal, State, and local laws, plans, and programs are well in place to guard against upset. Emergency plans and trained personnel provide therespond most appropriate responseappropriately to hazardous materials emergencies.

-246-
1072
S a f e t y E l e m e n t

C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | S - 39

Climate Adaptation
The City of Costa Mesa recognizes that climate change is expected to increase the frequency, intensity, and severity of natural hazards affecting the community, including extreme heat, drought, flooding, poor air quality, and other climate-related risks. To proactively address these challenges and strengthen long-term community resilience, the City has prepared both a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) and a Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP). These documents include detailed vulnerability assessments, hazard identification, risk analyses, climate adaptation strategies, and implementation measures intended to reduce risks to people, property, infrastructure, natural resources, and the local economy. Pursuant to Government Code Sections 65302(g) and 65302(g)(4), the City’s adopted LHMP and CAAP, as amended from time to time, are incorporated into the Safety Element by reference. The Safety Element utilizes and builds upon the technical analyses, adaptation strategies, and resilience measures contained in these plans to support coordinated hazard mitigation, climate adaptation, emergency preparedness, and sustainable long-range planning efforts throughout the community.

Climate Effects on Costa Mesa
Although climate change is not a hazard, variations in environmental conditions can impact some of the natural hazards affecting Costa Mesa.

Projections of future conditions include increased temperatures, increased extreme heat days, changes in precipitation, sea level rise, and more prolonged droughts. Table S-1 identifies the current/historical conditions and projected future conditions associated with climate change that could occur in Costa Mesa.

Table S-1: Potential Climate Change Effects for Costa Mesa Historic/Current Conditions Future Conditions
Annual Mean Temperature
(1961-1990)
Annual Mean Temperature
(2070-2099)

73.1° F 77.6° to 80.5° F
Extreme Heat Days (93.0° F) Extreme Heat Days (2070-2099) 2 days per year 10 to 22 days per year
Annual Mean Precipitation Annual Mean Precipitation (2070-2099)

11.8 inches 11.8 to 11.5 inches
Source: https://cal-adapt.org/tools/local-climate-change-snapshot -247-
1073
S a f e t y E l e m e n t

S - 40 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n

Climate-Related Hazards
Temperature
Increasing temperatures associated with climate change can act as a hazard multiplier. By the end of the century, annual mean temperatures are projected to increase between four and a half and seven and a half degrees, impacting city residents and businesses. These increases are also anticipated to increase the number of extreme heat days, two days to 10-22 days per year. These potential temperature increases may impact residents living in poorly insulated structures, or structures that do not have air conditioning.

For residents living in these structures temperatures above 85 may cause discomfort. By the end of the century, the number of days over this temperature threshold could be nearly five times what the City typically experiences.

While climate change is projected to exacerbate many of the hazards already affecting the City, many of these hazards may interact with each other.

Increased temperatures can affect both water supplies and vegetation growth. With drier conditions, vegetation growth may be reduced, and soils may dry out, making them less capable of absorbing moisture. If this condition persists, areas of the City may be more prone to flooding if the soil is less absorbent.

Precipitation
While temperatures are anticipated to increase in the coming decades, climate change projections suggest that annual mean precipitation may decrease slightly. While an annual decrease is projected, it is anticipated that future rain events may be more intense than what is currently experienced within the City, which could increase flooding. Recent events have generated rain totals of more than three inches in a five-day period, with two of these inches occurring in a 24-hour period. With changes in future precipitation, it is expected that changes to local vegetation may also occur, which could impact drainages and increase the need for flood management activities and drainage infrastructure in some areas. With future temperature increases coupled with fluctuating precipitation amounts, City services and infrastructure may require retrofitting if adequate capacity is not available. -248-
1074
S a f e t y E l e m e n t

C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | S - 41

Increased rainfall could increase the amount of flooding within the community or introduce flooding into areas that have not experienced flooding before.

With greater and more intense precipitation, the City could also experience an increase in landslides/mudslides. Extreme precipitation events could destabilize hillsides and drainages, causing more erosion along drainage courses and resulting in landslides/mudslides.

-249-
1075
S a f e t y E l e m e n t

S - 42 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n

Goals, Objectives, and Policies
The following policies provide strategic directions for City staff and partners, highlighting where time and resources should be focused.

Goal S-1: Risk Management of Natural and
Human-Caused Disasters
Minimize the risk of injury, loss of life, property damage, and environmental degradation from seismic activity, geologic hazards, flooding, fire, and hazardous materials. Promote a sustainable approach to reduce impacts of natural disasters, such as flooding and fire.

Objective S-1A: Work to mitigate and prevent potential adverse consequences of natural and human-caused disasters.

Geologic and Seismic Safety
Policy S-1.1: Continue to incorporate geotechnical hazard data into future land use decision-making, site design, and
construction standards.

Policy S-1.2: Enforce standards, review criteria, and ensure that structures on or adjacent to bluffs are set back sufficiently to preserve the natural contours and aesthetic value of the bluff line and to provide sufficient access for fire protection.

Policy S-1.3: Require geologic surveys of all new development located on or adjacent to bluffs.

Policy S-1.4: Encourage retrofitting of structures—particularly older buildings—to withstand earthquake shaking and
landslides consistent with State and historical building codes.

Policy S-1.5: Enforce applicable building codes relating to the seismic design of structures to reduce the potential for loss of life and property damage.

C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | S - 43

owners once those buildings have been identified., with priority for assistance given to building owners located within designated environmental justice area boundaries.

Liquefaction and Landslides
Policy S-1.7: Continue to implement the Seismic Hazard Mapping Act, which requires sites within liquefaction hazard areas to be investigated for liquefaction susceptibility prior to
building construction or human occupancy.

Policy S-1.8: Consider site soils conditions when reviewing projects in areas subject to liquefaction or slope instability.

Localized Flooding
Policy S-1.9: Continue to consult with appropriate local, State, and federal agencies to maintain the most current flood
hazard and floodplain information; use the information as a basis for project review and to guide development in
accordance with federal, State, and local standards.

Policy S-1.10: Regularly review and update Article 10 - Floodway and Floodplain Districts of the City's Municipal Code
consistent with federal and State requirements.

Policy S-1.11: Improve and maintain local storm drainage infrastructure in a manner that reduces flood hazards.

Policy S-1.12: Continue to develop hazard preparedness plans to prepare for large storms that could bring flooding hazards and other related issues.

Policy S-1.13: Actively promote public education, research, and information dissemination on flooding hazards.

Tsunami and Sea Level Rise
Policy S-1.14: Minimize flood hazard risks to people, property, and the environment by addressing potential damage caused by
tsunamis and sea level rise.

Policy S-1.15: Consult with regional agencies and study strategies that employ engineering defensive methods along the Santa
Ana River that limit potential flooding hazards from sea level rise.

-251-
1077
S a f e t y E l e m e n t

S - 44 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n

Dam Inundation
Policy S-1.16: Develop emergency response, early warning notification, and evacuation plans for areas that are within dam
inundation areas, where feasible.

Aviation Safety and Protection
Policy S-1.17: Utilize the John Wayne Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) as a planning resource for the evaluation of land use compatibility and land use intensity in areas affected by airport operations. In particular, future land use
decisions within the Safety/Runway Protection Zone will be evaluated in light of the risk to life and property
associated with aircraft operations.

Policy S-1.18: Comply with Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) and the John Wayne AELUP requirements relative to Objects
Affecting Navigable Airspace.

Policy S-1.19: Use the Federal Aviation Regulations as a guideline to establish the ultimate height of structures as defined in FAR Part 77.

Policy S-1.20: Minimize hazards to aeronautical operations by ensuring land uses do not emit excessive glare, light, steam, smoke, dust, or electronic interference in compliance with FAR regulations and the John Wayne AELUP.

-252-
1078
S a f e t y E l e m e n t

C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | S - 45

Goal S-2: High Level of Police and Fire
Services and Emergency Preparedness
Provide a high level of security in the community to prevent and reduce crime, and to minimize risks of fire to people, property, and the environment.

Objective S-2A: Plan, promote, and demonstrate a readiness to respond and reduce threats to life and property through traditional and innovative emergency services and programs.

Crime Prevention and Response
Policy S-2.1: Promote crime prevention strategies and provide a high level of response to incidents.

Policy S-2.2: Emphasize and prioritize crime prevention strategies, such as pedestrian-scale lighting in targeted areas.

Policy S-2.3: Timely response to incidents and monitoring areas with high crime rates should be part of a comprehensive strategy to reduce crime in the community.

Police and Fire Level of Service
Policy S-2.4: Provide a high level of police and fire service in the community. Secure adequate facilities, equipment, and
personnel for police and fire.

Policy S-2.5: Consult with neighboring jurisdictions and partner agencies to respond appropriately to emergencies and incidents in all parts of the City.

Policy S-2.6: Require that water supply systems for development are adequate to combat structural fires in terms of location and minimum required fire-flow pressures.

Policy S-2.7: Require development to contribute its fair share toward funding the provision of appropriate fire and emergency medical services as determined necessary to adequately
serve the project.

Policy S-2.8: Partner with community-based organizations, neighborhood watch programs, and other neighborhood
groups to promote awareness, safety, and security, with focus on designated environmental justice communities.
(New Policy)
-253-
1079
S a f e t y E l e m e n t

S - 46 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n

Fire and Medical ServicersServices
Policy S-2.89: Regularly update regulations that will protect the community from fire hazards.

Policy S-2.910: Emphasize prevention and awareness of fire safety guidelines to minimize risk and potential damage to life, property, and the environment. In areas designated by
the Costa Mesa Fire Department as having a high fire
hazard, ensure adequate fire equipment, personnel,
firebreaks, facilities, water, and access for a quick and efficient response in any area.

Emergency and Disaster Preparedness
Policy S-2.1011: Maintain staff and facilities that will continue to support a coordinated and effective response to emergencies and
natural disasters throughout the City.

Policy S-2.1112: Consult with neighboring jurisdictions, local employers, and industries to ensure that emergency preparedness
and disaster response programs equitably serve all parts of the City.

Policy S-2.1213: Continue to maintain adequate police and fire staffing, facilities, equipment, and maintenance sufficient to
protect the community.

Hazardous Materials Operations
Policy S-2.1314: Continue to consult with the County of Orange in the implementation of the Orange County Hazardous Waste
Management Plan.

Policy S-2.1415: Ensure that appropriate in-depth environmental analysis is conducted for any proposed hazardous waste materials treatment, transfer, and/or disposal facility.

Policy S-2.1516: Continue to consult with the County of Orange to identify and inventory all users of hazardous materials and all
hazardous waste generators, and prepare clean-up action plans for identified disposal sites.

Policy S-2.1617: Require the safe production, transportation, handling, use, and disposal of hazardous materials that may cause air, water, or soil contamination.
-254-
1080
S a f e t y E l e m e n t

C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | S - 47

Policy S-2.1718: Encourage best practices in hazardous waste management, and ensure consistency with City, County, and federal
guidelines, standards, and requirements.

Policy S-2.1819: Consult with federal, State, and local agencies and law enforcement to prevent the illegal transportation and
disposal of hazardous waste.

Policy S-2.20: Promote public awareness of best practices for participation in household hazardous waste management and disposal.
(New Policy)
Climate Adaptation
Policy S-2.21: Support policies and programs to help residents and businesses be prepared for extreme heat conditions. (New Policy)
Policy S-2.22: Maintain guidelines for the monitoring and disseminating public information related to extreme heat; maintain
cooling centers and update their locations annually, with consideration given to locating such centers within the boundaries of designated environmental justice areas. (New Policy)
Policy S-2.23: Require new development within a designated floodplain to submit a flood safety plan for approval by the Floodplain Administrator. (New Policy)
Policy S-2.24: Continue to ensure emergency alert/notification capabilities meet the City's future needs by providing alerts about potential, developing, and ongoing emergency
situations. (New Policy)
Policy S-2.25: Collaborate with local, regional, state, and/or federal jurisdictions and agencies on climate resiliency and
adaptation strategies. (New Policy)
a. Develop a climate resiliency plan that integrates and builds upon the strategies identified in City, County, and regional climate action/adaptation efforts.
b. Monitor climate change -related effects with local,
regional, state, and/or federal partners to provide
-255-
1081
S a f e t y E l e m e n t

S - 48 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n

information about the effectiveness of existing
infrastructure and programs.
c. Coordinate with regional, state, and federal agencies to monitor the indicators and impacts of climate change.

Evacuation
Policy S-2.27: Ensure adequate evacuation capacity and infrastructure is available for existing and new development. (New
Policy)
a. Implement evacuation measures locally as outlined
within City and County Evacuation Planning efforts.
b. Develop an Evacuation Master Plan that identifies
routes, potential hazard incidents, and criteria
regarding capacity, safety, and viability.

Policy S-2.28: In areas with inadequate access or without at least two means of ingress/egress, provide adequate mitigation
actions to address the deficiencies required by the Fire Code and State law. (New Policy)
Policy S-2.29: Require all residential developments that do not have at least two ingress/egress routes, identify alternate
evacuation options, implement earlier evacuation
notifications, and develop protocols for future
evacuations that consider the constraints associated with these areas. (New Policy)

-256-
1082
S a f e t y E l e m e n t

C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | S - 49

This page intentionally left blank.

-257-
1083
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | C D - 1

Chapter 9:

Community Design Element
Introduction
Costa Mesa understands the value of promoting and creating a cohesive community and unique civic identity. Costa Mesa supports and nurtures smaller communities and districts within the City that seek to establish and retain their unique sense of place. This is accomplished by establishing a policy framework for design standards and guidelines the City will use to review development applications, as well as standards the City will set for the public realm. These policy directives will ensure that continued investment in our community will enhance vitality, context, form, and function.

In Costa Mesa, the public realm is characterized by streetscapes (trees, medians, parkways, benches, lights, signage, etc.). The private realm refers to building architecture, site planning, private landscaping, and business signage.

The positive identity, functionality, and aesthetic of the City and its Outdoor areas at the South Coast Collection (SOCO) and the OC Mix -258-
1084
C o m m u n i t y D e s i g n E l e m e n t
CD - 2 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
constituent communities are elevated by interweaving the design of the public and private realms.

Purpose
The Community Design Element promotes quality design for every aspect of a community, such as buildings, structures, paths, corridors, districts, nodes, landmarks, natural features, and significant landscaping. It ensures each development in the private or public realm enhances the sense of place for the City, district, and the site itself. The goals, objectives, and policies in this element aim to express the City’s parameters for quality design and development. While this element does not dictate specific design guidelines, it does provide policies to ensure projects meet the community’s expectations for quality design and development.

Relationship to Other General Plan Elements
The policies of the Community Design Element relate primarily to the policies in the Land Use and Open Space and Recreation Elements. Foremost, this element establishes the three-dimensional built form projection of land use objectives.

Baseline Conditions-2015
The main elements of Costa Mesa’s physical environment include major paths and corridors; districts; entries, internal, and activity nodes; destination and landmarks; and edges. These elements contribute to the urban form and character of the City. They identify how visitors observe information about the City and understand their physical surroundings.

Paths and Corridors
Paths are passages (streets and sidewalks) that people use to get from one place to another. A path provides for vehicular and pedestrian movement within the community. Costa Mesa has three major types of paths: Primary Paths, Secondary Paths, and Corridors. Primary Paths are the circulation -259-
1085
C o m m u n i t y D e s i g n E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | C D - 3
passages that carry large volumes of traffic and typically cross community boundaries. Secondary Paths carry reduced traffic volumes and often originate or terminate within the City limits. Corridors are paths or sections of paths that have a concentration of a special use or activity. Figure CD-1 identifies the location of Primary and Secondary Paths. The specific corridors are discussed below and presented in Figure CD-2.

Harbor Boulevard Corridor
Harbor Boulevard, which extends from Costa Mesa to the City of Anaheim, serves as a primary commercial corridor, with a mix of vehicle-oriented uses, auto dealerships, neighborhood commercial centers, entertainment uses, and residences. The Land Use Element provides for the south end of the Harbor Boulevard corridor to transition to a mixed-use district.

East 17th Street Corridor
The East 17th Street corridor, while auto oriented, has a distinctive neighborhood feel. This corridor is characterized by small businesses and multi-tenant retail centers, restaurants, and offices that largely serve local residents.

North Newport Boulevard Corridor
This section of Newport Boulevard parallels SR-55 from I-405 south to where SR-55 ends at 19th Street. Prior to construction of SR-55, Newport Boulevard was the primary corridor leading through Costa Mesa into Newport Beach, and its historic character as a tourist-oriented travel route is evident in the motels and auto-oriented uses lining the corridor. While residential uses have been developed as infill with extension of SR-55, the predominant character is that of a commercial corridor.

South Newport Boulevard Corridor
Newport Boulevard continues south from 19th Street to 15th Street into Newport Beach. This section of Newport Boulevard has a strong pedestrian scale and commercial character, with retail frontage on the east side of Newport Boulevard directly abutting the sidewalk and the larger shopping centers on the west side of Newport Boulevard providing extensive infrastructure for the accommodation and movement of pedestrians on and off, and through the sites. Despite the breadth of Newport Boulevard and the volume this arterial supports, the collection of businesses creates a strong concentration of active uses.
-260-
1086
C o m m u n i t y D e s i g n E l e m e n t
CD - 4 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
Figure CD-1: Paths
-261-
1087
C o m m u n i t y D e s i g n E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | C D - 5

Figure CD-2: Corridors
-262-
1088
C o m m u n i t y D e s i g n E l e m e n t
CD - 6 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
Bristol Street Corridor
Bristol Street stretches between the Sunflower Avenue and SR-55. Located in this corridor are two unique shopping and entertainment centers: The CAMP and the LAB, which the developer/operator has defined as “anti-mall” venues.

These unique centers provide small retail and restaurant spaces for start-up and edgy businesses, together with indoor-outdoor social areas. The CAMP has a central green gathering area surrounded by shopping, dining, and styling businesses. The operators regularly host art, film, and music events.

Anton Boulevard Corridor
Anton Boulevard extends from Sunflower Avenue to Bristol Street, with an entrance to South Coast Plaza. This corridor is a fusion of luxury apartments and hotels, combined with professional headquarters and multi-tenant office spaces in mid-rise settings. This includes the Experian Headquarters, Metro Center at South Coast Office complex, Plaza Tower, the Enclave Apartments, the Westin South Coast Plaza, and Costa Mesa Marriott Hotel. To the north of this corridor, the 3400 Avenue of the Arts apartment complex and Wyndham Hotel are within walking distance to these major regional shopping and business destinations. The Noguchi Garden (a 1.6-acre public art project) sits to the south of the corridor. A new, 250-unit luxury apartment complex is under construction within this corridor that will provide additional housing.

John Wayne Airport Industrial Corridor
This corridor runs through the industrial district that abuts John Wayne Airport. While this district contains multiple secondary businesses that support the airport, the center of this corridor supports a much wider collection of industrial and offices uses. The scale is predominantly vehicular.

Major uses include educational and religious institutions, wholesale and specialty service for automobiles, small, light industrial spaces for startup businesses, boutique manufacturing, and supporting services.

Placentia Industrial Corridor
This is the major industrial corridor within the Westside district of the City, which encompasses Placentia Avenue south of Victoria Street and north of West 16th Street. This corridor historically was an enclave for yacht manufacturing. While this industry and automobile service still have a presence, new tenants along the corridor are that of action sports development and manufacturing. Development of live/work units for the -263-
1089
C o m m u n i t y D e s i g n E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | C D - 7
creatives who find this edgy environment and its proximity to industry suitable for their business and lifestyles has added new vibrancy. While this location will remain an industrial center, the boutique manufacturing, entrepreneurial environment, and action sports industry niches make it a unique corridor.

Fairview Park Corridor
As Placentia Avenue continues north of Victoria Street, this industrial corridor transitions into a residential one. The corridor provides access to several residential communities, as well as access to Estancia High School, Fairview Park, and Estancia Park, which is home of the oldest building in Costa Mesa, the Diego Sepulveda Adobe. Along this stretch of Placentia Avenue, residential and institutional uses represent the only development types from Victoria Street to Adams Avenue.

West 19th Street Corridor
This corridor supports a diverse mix of uses that include destination locations (public parks, amenities, and the Senior Center) and an array of local services to meet the needs of residential communities around this corridor. West 19th Street includes an eclectic collection of commercial uses which predominantly address the corridor at a pedestrian scale. Mixed-use development would continue the character and vision of this central commercial corridor, which will continue to transition.

Civic Center Corridor
Fair Drive from Newport Boulevard to Fairview Road and Fairview Road from Fair Drive to Adams Avenue accommodate one of the densest collections of civic, institutional, and educational uses in Orange County. Within a mere 1.5 miles, you find Orange Coast Community College, Costa Mesa High School, the Orange County Fair & Event Center, Vanguard University, Civic Center Park, the Jack R. Hammett Sports Complex, and the Civic Center. This corridor provides a collection of uses of great civic pride that benefit students who attend one of the many educational facilities along the corridor.

South Coast Corridor
This corridor spans from the South Coast Plaza on the east to the South Coast Collection on the west. It links two major commercial destinations and provides access to Metro Pointe at South Coast Plaza. This location has -264-
1090
C o m m u n i t y D e s i g n E l e m e n t
CD - 8 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
opportunity for further growth and development, as it abuts several of the few remaining large, vacant lots in Costa Mesa.

Santa Ana Residential Corridor
Santa Ana Avenue is a residential corridor that runs through the Eastside District; development along this corridor consists largely of low- and medium- density housing, with a few traditional single-family subdivisions taking direct access. The grid-like and elongated spatial layout of the Eastside District makes Santa Ana Avenue a major path of travel for various modes of transportation heading north or south. This residential corridor remains residential all the way into Newport Beach.

Districts
Districts are those areas of Costa Mesa that have an identifiable character due to building architecture, neighborhood design, streetscape, and land use. A district is an integral part of a larger urban area, with common characteristics that make it unique from other areas of the community. Distinguishing features may include building type, use, activity, and/or topography. Figure CD-3: Districts illustrates these districts’ fuzzy boundaries. Specific descriptions of these districts are provided below.

Eastside
The district contains a mix of single-family and multifamily homes on large lots. Many neighborhoods have experienced substantial private redevelopment, with the original homes replaced by larger homes. In other areas, developers have purchased properties, torn down the original residence(s), and built townhomes or small-lot developments. The Land Use Element discusses issues associated with this district related to the typical narrow, deep lots and lot consolidation.

Westside
This area is characterized by a mix of residential, commercial, and industrial uses. The Westside District is also the origin and home for the action sports industry which incubated and matured within Costa Mesa. This district includes a variety of traditional housing, as well as non-traditional live/work developments that support the edgy creatives who desire to live in this confluence of production, design, and manufacturing uses. -265-
1091
C o m m u n i t y D e s i g n E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | C D - 9

Figure CD-3: Districts
-266-
1092
C o m m u n i t y D e s i g n E l e m e n t
CD - 10 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
Mesa Verde
Mesa Verde has an eclectic mix of residential densities and housing types.

Homes closer to the Mesa Verde Golf Course are much larger and at lower residential densities than those closer to Harbor Boulevard and I-405. The commercial uses along Adams Avenue and Harbor Boulevard provide the personal service uses and retail and food spaces for residents living in this district.

College Park
The homes within this district are a mix of residential densities and architectural types. The majority of the units are higher residential density complexes located along Newport Boulevard, Wilson Street, and Victoria Street. This district also includes College Park, an older single-family residential tract.

Mesa del Mar
This district contains mostly single-family residential tracts, with higher residential densities near arterial roadways. Pockets of commercial uses have been developed along Baker Street.

SoBECA
This district consists of programmatic spaces that allow for experiential shopping and dining activities at the LAB and the CAMP. It is a unique area in transition, with a variety of residential housing options encircling multiple destination locations, including microbreweries, nightclubs, “anti-malls”, hotels, and artisanal restaurants.

North Costa Mesa
This district is the major economic heart of the City. South Coast Plaza and other commercial and office establishments provide shopping, entertainment, hospitality, and high-rise office space that serve local, regional, national, and international markets. Key developments include Plaza Tower, Center Tower, South Coast Metro Center, South Coast Metro Pointe, South Coast Repertory, and the Segerstrom Center for the Arts. This district is Costa Mesa’s primary commercial and cultural center. The residential areas in this district include mostly single-family residential neighborhoods, with some multi-family developments as well.
-267-
1093
C o m m u n i t y D e s i g n E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | C D - 11 Theatre Arts District
This well-defined district exhibits a collection of the finest theatrical venues in Orange County. This rare clustering of art venues consists of the South Coast Repertory Theater, as well as the Segerstrom Center for the Arts, which consist of five venues: Renee and Henry Segerstrom Concert Hall, Samueli Theater, Segerstrom Hall, Judy Morr Theater, and the Arts Plaza. The Theater Arts District provides access to art with art installations throughout the district, including the Noguchi Garden and the Orange County Museum of Art.

Supporting uses include several professional office towers such as the Center Tower and Plaza Tower, the two tallest buildings in Costa Mesa.

Downtown/Triangle
The Triangle is located at one of the busiest intersections in Costa Mesa, where Newport Boulevard and Harbor Boulevard intersect. The Triangle is an activity hub intended to draw both local and regional visitors. It sits in the heart of Costa Mesa’s downtown, which runs along Newport Boulevard and 19th Street. This area includes a variety of pedestrian scale retail spaces, fine restaurants, a movie theatre, and nightclubs.

Harbor Gateway
This district is characterized by large-sized industrial and office buildings, including the Automobile Club and Whittier Law School. It is vehicular in scale and has an office park character, with ample landscaping and large multi-story building complexes. In 2015, Vans acquired an office building in this district to become the corporate headquarters of one of the nation’s top lifestyle retailers.

South Coast Plaza is located in
the North Costa Mesa district.
-268-
1094
C o m m u n i t y D e s i g n E l e m e n t
CD - 12 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n

Airport Industrial/Business Park
John Wayne Airport is located in unincorporated Orange County, just east of Costa Mesa. Given the presence of the airport and abutting freeways, this location provides industrial and office space with excellent access and circulation. Land uses within this area are industrial, office, and commercial in nature, housed in low-scale buildings due to the presence of the airport.

Civic Center District
This area is the primary cultural, educational, and civic center district of Costa Mesa. The OC Fair & Event Center, which includes the OC Fairgrounds, Pacific Amphitheatre, OC Marketplace, and Centennial Farm in addition to the Civic Center and Orange Coast College, represents major institutional uses that encompass significant open spaces and active recreation area. Vanguard University, adjacent to the Civic Center, includes private open spaces on the campus.

Nodes
A “node” is an important point where people gather and/or where paths converge, thus providing higher-than-typical levels of activity. Costa Mesa has three classifications of nodes:
1) Entry nodes, which function as focal points of identity between Costa Mesa and adjacent cities
Whittier Law School is located
in the North Industrial/Business
Park district at the southwest
corner of Sunflower Avenue and
Harbor Boulevard.
-269-
1095
C o m m u n i t y D e s i g n E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | C D - 13 2) Internal nodes, which identify locations of two major converging paths and destinations
3) Activity nodes, which are focal points of highest activity, provide immediate access to destination locations, and/or have a concentration of specialty uses
All of these nodes are identified and displayed on Figure CD-4: Nodes.

Destinations and Landmarks
A “destination” is a particular use which generates special purpose trips and increases regional attraction. A destination can be a successful retail cluster or rare specialty use. Destination locations are shown on Figure CD-5:

Destinations and Landmarks.

A “landmark” is a physical element that provides a point of reference or serves as a community identity marker. A landmark can be a structure, space, or natural feature that helps identify a particular area in the City. Most landmarks are also main destination locations within the City as well.

-270-
1096
C o m m u n i t y D e s i g n E l e m e n t
CD - 14 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n

Figure CD-4: Nodes
-271-
1097
C o m m u n i t y D e s i g n E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | C D - 15

Figure CD-5: Destinations and Landmarks
-272-
1098
C o m m u n i t y D e s i g n E l e m e n t
CD - 16 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
Almost all important landmarks in Costa Mesa are also destination locations (see Table CD-1: Landmarks).

Table CD-1: Landmarks
Landmark Name
Sign, Covered Pedestrian Bridge,
Carousel South Coast Plaza
Unique and Identifiable Architecture
Segerstrom Center for the Arts:

Segerstrom Hall, Renée and Henry
Segerstrom Concert Hall, Samueli
Theater, Judy Morr Theater, Arts Plaza
Unique and Identifiable Architecture South Coast Repertory Tallest Building in Costa Mesa The Center Tower
Unique and Identifiable Architecture The Plaza Tower
Artistic Common Space Noguchi Garden
The Sign and Mall Design The LAB and The CAMP
The Freeway Sign and Mall Design South Coast Collection (SOCO) Diego Sepulveda Adobe Estancia Park
Clock Tower, Logo Orange Coast College
Ferris Wheel, Centennial Farms, Sign OC Fair and Event Center Tower Vanguard University
City Hall Civic Center
The Dome and Spire The Triangle
Natural Wetlands, Pedestrian Bridge,
Goat Hill Train Station Fairview Park
Edges
Edges are linear elements that serve as a visual or physical boundary, barrier, or transition between districts and that define the boundaries of a place.

Elements such as freeways, flood channels, natural features and landforms may be considered edges (See Figure CD-6: Edges). Edges within or abutting Costa Mesa include:
▪ Santa Ana River
▪ San Diego Freeway (I-405)
-273-
1099
C o m m u n i t y D e s i g n E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | C D - 17

Figure CD-6: Edges
-274-
1100
C o m m u n i t y D e s i g n E l e m e n t
CD - 18 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
▪ Corona Del Mar Freeway (SR-73)
▪ Costa Mesa Freeway (SR-55)
▪ John Wayne Airport (Unincorporated Orange County)
▪ Mesa Landforms (Costa Mesa and Newport Beach)
Public Realm Focus
The public realm focuses on the physical features and design that occurs on public rights-of-way, including public streets, sidewalks, medians, parks, and other public spaces. These spaces provide efficient and aesthetically pleasing paths and corridors, create context for existing districts, soften existing edges, provide access to destinations and landmarks, and enrich all nodes throughout the City. The City has adopted streetscape and median development standards designed to build a public realm that is aesthetically pleasing and creates efficient paths throughout the City. This also includes the development and maintenance of welcoming signs at entry nodes and way- finding signs at internal and activity nodes.

Monument sign on Newport
Blvd at 19th Street greets
residents and visitors to Costa
Mesa.

-275-
1101
C o m m u n i t y D e s i g n E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | C D - 19 Design Strengths and Opportunities
Design Strengths
▪ Along the City’s western boundary and looking south toward the Pacific Ocean, the coastline creates a distinctive visual background.

Views of the Pacific coast enhance the visual quality of districts within the viewshed.
▪ Talbert Regional Park and its extensive natural areas provide an important visual reminder of the local landscape prior to urbanization and create a soft western edge of the City.
▪ Fairview Park works together with Talbert Regional Park to soften the urban landscape. The park’s trails and recreational facilities are a community strength.

▪ Neighborhood parks and the golf courses provide open spaces and recreational opportunities.
▪ South Coast Plaza, The Triangle, and the OC Fair & Event Center are major visual landmarks.
▪ The Segerstrom Center for the Arts and South Coast Repertory provide focal points for the local performing arts community and serve as a major culture and arts hub for all of Orange County. ▪ The Santa Ana River’s strength is a potential enhanced water resource. It offers recreation along the multiuse trail that extends along the western edge of the City.

Fairview Park includes
expansive open spaces
accessible by trails.
-276-
1102
C o m m u n i t y D e s i g n E l e m e n t
CD - 20 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n

Design Opportunities
▪ Streetscape enhancements in the public realm can contribute significantly to improving and maintaining the visual quality of major arterial and secondary arterial streets through implementation of the City’s Streetscape and Median Development Guidelines. The Guidelines include a comprehensive street tree palette and development standards.
▪ Improve the design of signs along major corridors and the public realm by adopting sign design guidelines and putting in place incentives for the removal of nonconforming signs.
▪ Continue to add new gateway treatments at City entry nodes. ▪ Continue to implement adopted specific plans, urban plans, design guidelines, and other policy documents that contribute to the design quality of new development.
▪ Consider preparation of design guidelines for new developments along major corridors and the public realm to ensure that such development contribute to the overall enhancement of Costa Mesa’s image.

South Coast Metro includes a
collection of high-rise office
towers and the Segerstrom
Center for the Arts venues.
-277-
1103
C o m m u n i t y D e s i g n E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | C D - 21 Key Issues
Lack of Visual Interest
Overall, Costa Mesa lacks a strong visual image in terms of definition as a distinct place. Some of the districts lack a clear identity that distinguishes them from other areas in the City. Districts should be unified through design approaches. Paths are challenged by sign clutter, blank walls, and absence of streetscape amenities. Commercial paths should have a unified identity that promotes a positive image of the City. More emphasis should be given to enhancing the image of neighborhoods that lack sufficient visual interest in building elevations, massing, landscaping, and lighting. Natural viewsheds are not optimized.

Residential Transition and Neighborhood Character
Within the Eastside Residential District, the transition of properties from single-story homes on large lots (with architectural styles dating to the 1950s and ‘60s) to two-story houses, as well as townhome developments, has changed the character of many neighborhoods. Some long-time residents have remarked that residential densities, building architecture, and massing that define the overall character of the district should be preserved.

Lack of Corridor Continuity
Harbor Boulevard lacks continuity of visual quality and has multiple identities.

The commercial path is fragmented and contains a mix of land uses with no identifiable character. Even though new landscape medians have been installed, in several areas in the City, landscaping remains substandard along many stretches. Along many of the City’s commercial corridors, inconsistent sign styles, colors, and sizes create visual obstructions and clutter.

Entry Nodes
The multiple entry nodes to Costa Mesa do not effectively announce arrival into Costa Mesa. The City’s signage needs a conceptual redesign and evaluation of the most effective approach to entrance signage into the City.

Entry nodes in need of signage enhancement include Newport Boulevard/15th Street, Bristol Street/Sunflower Avenue, and East 17th Street/Irvine Avenue.

Industrial Properties
Industrial uses, particularly on the west side of the City, occupy prominent locations with proximity to the coast. Some industrial uses are adequately -278-
1104
C o m m u n i t y D e s i g n E l e m e n t
CD - 22 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
maintained or participate in valued industrial niches like the Westside’s action sports industry. These businesses require this proximity to effectively conduct business. Screening and rehabilitation should be implemented in a strategic manor so as to not negatively impact this area’s successful industrial niches and continue to support the maturing trend of creative enhancement to industrial districts.

-279-
1105
C o m m u n i t y D e s i g n E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | C D - 23 Goals, Objectives, and Policies
Physical elements such as landscaping, architecture, signs, streets, and open spaces collectively form Costa Mesa’s visual environment and character.

Through the implementation of these goals, objectives, and policies, the City aims to gradually improve the visual environment and character of Costa Mesa to achieve the high level of quality desired.

Goal CD-1: Vehicular and Pedestrian
Corridors
Strengthen the image of the City as experienced from sidewalks and roadways.

Objective CD-1A Contribute to City beautification by enhancing the visual environment of Costa Mesa’s vehicular and
pedestrian paths and corridors.

Policy CD-1.1 Implement the City of Costa Mesa Streetscape and Median Development Guidelines in all new
streetscape corridor and parkway projects.

Coordinate with new development adjacent to public
rights-of-ways to integrate landscape features and
design elements consistent with the streetscape
standards and recommendations.

Policy CD-1.2 Coordinate street furniture elements (benches, bus shelters, newspaper racks, trash receptacles, kiosks,
etc.) whenever possible. Develop design standards
and guidelines for the street furniture within and
adjacent to public rights-of-way to complement the
specific recommendations provided for streets in the
City of Costa Mesa Streetscape and Median
Development Guidelines.

Policy CD-1.3 Promote treatments for walls and fences and utility cabinets along public rights-of-way that contribute to
an attractive street and sidewalk environment.

Require that new walls and fences complement the
style and character of the local district and adjacent
buildings. Newly constructed or reconstructed walls
and fences adjacent to sidewalks and roadways
-280-
1106
C o m m u n i t y D e s i g n E l e m e n t
CD - 24 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
should incorporate architectural treatments such as
pilasters, masonry, or wrought iron, and should
integrate tiered plantings to soften their appearance.

Policy CD-1.4 Promote a consistent landscape character along City streets to reinforce the unique qualities of each
corridor and district, including the development of
landscaped medians. Support implementation of the
recommended street tree palette for each City street,
as identified in the City of Costa Mesa Streetscape
and Median Development Guidelines.

Policy CD-1.5 Encourage electric and communication lines to be placed underground and electrical substations and
telephone facilities to be screened to minimize visual
impacts from sidewalks, streets, and adjacent
properties. Support utility undergrounding through
conditions of project approval, preparation of
undergrounding plans, and the formation of
assessment districts.

Objective CD-1B. Encourage clear connections between districts within the City.

Policy CD-1.6 Promote linkages between separate districts using bike trails, pedestrian paths, common medians or
parkway landscaping, and other location-appropriate
physical improvements. Through conditions of
approval, public improvement projects, and other
measures, support development of new connections
and the enhancement of existing connections
between districts.

Goal CD-2: Cohesive and Identifiable
Districts
Enhance the existing character and strengthen the identity of Costa Mesa’s districts.

Objective CD-2A Encourage future development and redevelopment to reinforce district scale, identity, and urban form.
-281-
1107
C o m m u n i t y D e s i g n E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | C D - 25 Policy CD-2.1 Consider urban design guidelines for each identified district in Costa Mesa that recognizes, maintains, and
enhances the character and identity of each district;
integrate existing specific plans’ policies and design
guidelines as applicable.

Policy CD-2.2 Support and seek land uses and development that correspond or enrich our existing districts.

Goal CD-3: High Quality and Visually
Interesting Nodes
Heighten the design quality and visual interest of nodes within Costa Mesa.

Districts should include
identifiable and consistent
design themes through
architecture, landscaping, and
signage.
-282-
1108
C o m m u n i t y D e s i g n E l e m e n t
CD - 26 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
Objective CD-3A. Create a sense of arrival to Costa Mesa, and develop prominent community focal points at key nodes
within the City.

Policy CD-3.1 Introduce entry monument signs at key gateway locations, as identified in Figure CD-4. Utilize the
standard design specifications for entry signs included in the City of Costa Mesa Streetscape and Median
Development Guidelines.

Policy CD-3.2 Reinforce a sense of arrival into the City by promoting architecturally significant development and significant landscape plantings at key nodes. Undertake a
visioning process to develop specific design guidelines that articulate the desired character for each node
within Costa Mesa.

Policy CD-3.3 Design and development of entry and internal wayfinding signage to be located throughout the City
in areas that correspond to the existing nodes and
districts.

Goal CD-4: Identifiable and Protected City
Landmarks.

Objective CD-4A. Promote the maintenance, use, and improvement of landmarks to enhance the visual image and identity
of Costa Mesa.

Policy CD-4.1 Support efforts to introduce new monuments and landmarks, and preserve, maintain, and improve the
condition of Costa Mesa landmarks.

Goal CD-5: Edges
Utilize Costa Mesa’s edges as opportunities to enhance the City’s image along its boundaries.

Objective CD-5A. Develop and implement programs that preserve and enhance City edges.

Policy CD-5.1 Preserve and optimize natural views and open spaces in Costa Mesa.
-283-
1109
C o m m u n i t y D e s i g n E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | C D - 27 Policy CD-5.2 Control the visual impacts of new development on natural views of the coast and the wetlands.

Policy CD-5.3 Develop open space corridors and trails along the edges of Costa Mesa where feasible and connect
these trails to existing and potential future trails
throughout the City.

Policy CD-5.4 Continue to preserve natural open space, including restoration of the natural areas of Talbert Regional
Park.

Policy CD-5.5 Continue protection of Fairview Park as an open space and recreation area.

Policy CD-5.6 Continue to work with Caltrans to improve the design quality of freeway edges.

Goal CD-6: Image
Enhance opportunities for new development and redevelopment to contribute to a positive visual image for the City of Costa Mesa that is consistent with the district image.

Objective CD-6A. Establish development policies and design guidelines that create an aesthetically pleasing and functional
environment.

Policy CD-6.1 Encourage the inclusion of public art and attractive, functional architecture into new development that
will have the effect of promoting Costa Mesa as the
“City of the Arts”.

Policy CD-6.2 Encourage the use of creative and well-designed signs that establish a distinctive image for the City.

Policy CD-6.3 Continue to work with Code Enforcement to ensure continued maintenance of properties and compliance
with adopted development standards.

Policy CD-6.4 Promote urban greening and expansion of the tree canopy throughout the City to create more physical
comfort and encourage walking, with consideration
-284-
1110
C o m m u n i t y D e s i g n E l e m e n t
CD - 28 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
on greening within designated environmental justice
areas boundaries.

Goal CD-7: Quality Residential
Promote and protect the unique identity of Costa Mesa’s residential neighborhoods.

Objective CD-7A Encourage excellence in architectural design.

Policy CD-7.1 Ensure that new and remodeled structures are designed in architectural styles that reflect the City’s eclectic quality, yet are compatible in scale and
character with existing buildings and the natural
surroundings within residential neighborhoods.

Continue to update and maintain the Costa Mesa
Residential Guidelines.

Policy CD-7.2 Preserve the character and scale of Costa Mesa’s established residential neighborhoods where
possible; when new residential development is
proposed, encourage that the new structures are
consistent with the prevailing character of existing
development in the immediate vicinity, and that new
development does not have a substantial adverse
impact on adjacent areas.

Objective CD-7B. Encourage the use of native plant palettes in the creation of landscaping plans used to establish a
sense of place in neighborhood identification efforts.

Policy CD-7.3 Ensure that California native plants are used to support the local ecology and save water. Develop
landscaping guidelines that reflect the local
community.

Goal CD-8: Quality Commercial
Development
Achieve a high level of design quality for commercial development.

Objective CD-8A. Encourage a high level of architectural and site design quality.
-285-
1111
C o m m u n i t y D e s i g n E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | C D - 29 Policy CD-8.1 Require that new and remodeled commercial development be designed to reflect architectural
diversity, yet be compatible with the scale and
character of the district.

Policy CD-8.2 Use distinctive commercial architectural styles to reinforce a positive sense of place. Commercial
architectural design elements and materials must be
of high quality and style as well as suitable for long- term maintenance. Consistent architectural design
should be considered in choosing materials, finishes,
decorative details, color, accent features and include
the following elements and materials appropriate for
their context (see Table CD-3: Elements and
Materials):

Table CD-3: Elements and Materials
Design Elements Design Materials
▪ Simple, multi-planed pitched
roofs
▪ Open rafters/tails with large
overhangs
▪ Appearance of “thick” walls
▪ Courtyards, arcades, and intimate
spaces
▪ Tile details
▪ Deep-set window and door
openings
▪ Offset wall planes
▪ Fountains and other unique
details
▪ Building masses with the
incorporation of one and two
story architecture
▪ Sequencing of enclosed
space/arches
▪ Stucco, smooth, sand or light
lace finish
▪ Wood, as an exposed structural
material
▪ Clay or concrete roof tiles
▪ Native fieldstone
▪ Wood window casements
▪ Wood, as an accent material
▪ Brick, as an accent material
▪ Wrought iron (rust proof;
anodized aluminum)
▪ Tile, as an accent material
▪ Slumpstone garden walls

-286-
1112
C o m m u n i t y D e s i g n E l e m e n t
CD - 30 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n

Policy CD-8.3 Encourage the use of entrance patios, courtyards, plazas, arcades, fountains, porches, tower elements,
covered walks, and other features in commercial
areas. Promote pedestrian amenities.

Policy CD-8.4 Ensure that common areas, walkways, driveways, and parking spaces be landscaped consistent with
landscaping standards contained in the Planning,
Zoning, and Development Code. Utilize landscaping to
provide project amenities for new and remodeled
commercial uses, and to screen parking and
equipment areas. Landscaped areas generally should
incorporate planting utilizing a three-tiered system: 1) grasses and ground covers, 2) shrubs and vines, and 3)
trees.

Policy CD-8.5 Ensure that site access, parking, and circulation for commercial uses are designed in a logical, safe
manner. Parking should not dominate the site in areas
adjacent to street, and should be well landscaped
with a clear hierarchy of circulation. Wherever
possible, parking lots should be divided into a series
of connected smaller lots utilizing walkways and
raised landscape strips. Parking lots should also
include landscaping that accents the importance of
driveways from the street, frames the major
circulation aisles, and highlights pedestrian pathways.

Commercial spaces should
promote pedestrian amenities,
including outdoor dining areas.
-287-
1113
C o m m u n i t y D e s i g n E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | C D - 31 Policy CD-8.6 Require that areas for outside equipment, trash receptacles, storage, and loading areas be located in
the least conspicuous part of the site. Utility and
mechanical equipment (e.g. electric and gas meters,
electrical panels, and junction boxes) should be
concealed from view from public streets, neighboring
properties, and nearby higher buildings. Trash
enclosures should be architecturally compatible with
the project. Landscaping should be incorporated into
the design of trash enclosures to deter graffiti.

Policy CD-8.7 Encourage decorative paving treatments to be incorporated throughout commercial developments,
including driveway entries, pedestrian walkways,
plazas, and other areas. The design, materials, and
colors of decorative paving treatments (e.g., stamped
concrete, stone, brick or granite pavers, exposed
aggregate, or colored concrete) should complement
the architectural style of the primary buildings and
make a positive contribution to the aesthetic and
function of the site.

Policy CD-8.8 Require that exterior lighting on commercial properties be consistent with the architectural style of the commercial building. On each commercial site, all
lighting fixtures should be from the same family of
fixtures with respect to design, materials, color,
fixture, and color of light. Lighting sources should be shielded, diffused or indirect to avoid spillover on
adjacent properties, nighttime sky light pollution, and glare to pedestrians and motorists. To minimize the
total number of freestanding light standards, wall-
mounted and pathway lights should be utilized to the
greatest extent possible.

Objective CD-8B Preserve the scale and character of established neighborhoods near commercial uses.

Policy CD-8.9 Ensure that new commercial development utilize site planning and design features that optimize
compatibility with adjacent residential
neighborhoods. The following guidance should be
considered:
-288-
1114
C o m m u n i t y D e s i g n E l e m e n t
CD - 32 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
▪ When adjacent residential and nonresidential uses
can mutually benefit from connection, appropriate
linkages (e.g., walkways, common landscape areas,
and building orientation) are encouraged. Successful
interaction between commercial and residential uses
may be achieved through adequate setbacks,
landscape buffers, screening, decorative masonry
walls, berms, building orientation, and limitations of
commercial activities.
▪ Loading areas, access and circulation driveways, trash and storage areas, and rooftop equipment should be
located as far as possible from adjacent residences.
▪ Building orientation and landscaping of commercial
buildings should minimize direct lines of sight into
adjacent residential private open space.

Goal CD-9: Mixed Use
Promote development of mixed-use projects that seamlessly integrate multiple uses both functionally and aesthetically.

Objective CD-9A Design mixed use development projects to achieve a high quality character.

Policy CD-9.1 Require that mixed-use development projects be designed to mitigate potential conflicts between uses.

Consider noise, lighting, and security.

Policy CD-9.2 Provide adequate parking, open space and
recreational facilities to serve residents in mixed-use development projects. Design parking and other areas
to acknowledge different users (residents versus
shoppers) and to be compatible with the architectural
character of the building(s).

Objective CD-9B Provide for the development of projects that integrate housing with commercial uses and other
compatible uses.

Policy CD-9.3 Encourage mixed-use development along the east side of Newport Boulevard between Mesa Drive and
-289-
1115
C o m m u n i t y D e s i g n E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | C D - 33 Walnut Street. Establish incentives for the
development of projects in planned development
zones that integrate housing with retail and office
uses.

Policy CD-9.4 Encourage the development of mixed-use urban villages along specified areas of West 17th Street, West 19th
Street, and Superior Avenue that integrates residential with office, retail, business services, personal services, public spaces and uses, and other community amenities in a single building (vertical mixed-use development) or in proximity on the same site (horizontal mixed-use
development).

Policy CD-9.5 Promote new types of urban housing that could be target- marketed to people seeking alternative housing choices in proximity to a major commercial area.

Policy CD-9.6 Support efforts to mix compatible uses and activities.

Encourage the siting of community-oriented services,
businesses, and amenities in and near mixed-use
neighborhoods, including schools, libraries, open space, and parks.

Goal CD-10: Industrial and Business Parks
Promote quality design approaches for the redevelopment of existing industrial buildings, encourage the design to incorporate or provide flexibility for the needs of emerging types of industrial uses, and strive to match design with overall character of nodes, corridors, or districts if applicable.

Objective CD-10A Require that industrial and business park projects meet high-quality design standards.

Policy CD-10.1 Require that industrial projects be designed to convey visual interest and a positive image. Architectural
qualities and design elements encouraged for
industrial uses are:
▪ Building modulation indentations and
architectural details
▪ Building entry accentuation
▪ Screening of equipment and storage areas
-290-
1116
C o m m u n i t y D e s i g n E l e m e n t
CD - 34 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
▪ Landscaping to soften building exteriors and to
serve as a buffer between uses
Policy CD-10.2 Encourage that the design of industrial buildings considers the visual and physical relationship to
adjacent uses. An industrial structure which
dominates its surrounding environment by its relative
size shall generally be discouraged.

Policy CD-10.3 Encourage adaptive reuse of existing industrial structures which results in rehabilitated buildings with distinctive and attractive architecture.

Policy CD-10.4 Promote the use of materials and colors that produce diversity and visual interest in industrial buildings. The use of various siding materials (i.e., masonry, concrete texturing, cement, or plaster) can produce effects of
texture and relief that provide architectural interest.

Policy CD-10.5 Require that landscaping be used to define areas such as entrances to industrial buildings and parking lots;
define the edges of developments; provide transition
between neighboring properties; and provide
screening for outdoor storage, loading, and
equipment areas. Landscaping should be in scale with
adjacent buildings and be of an appropriate size at
maturity to accomplish its intended purpose.

Policy CD-10.6 Require that the design of lighting fixtures and their structural support be of a scale and architectural
design compatible with on-site industrial buildings.

Large areas should be illuminated to minimize the
visual impact and amount of spillover light onto
surrounding projects.

Objective CD-10B Ensure that the development of industrial projects are positive additions to the City’s community setting
and do not result in adverse impacts with adjacent
uses.

Policy CD-10.7 Require industrial projects to incorporate landscape setbacks, screening walls, and/or other elements that
mitigate negative impacts with adjacent uses.
-291-
1117
C o m m u n i t y D e s i g n E l e m e n t
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | C D - 35 Policy CD-10.8 Protect transitional areas between industrial and other uses.

Policy CD-10.9 Storage yards, parking areas, and service areas should be screened from public view.

Goal CD-11: Attractive Signs that Reflect
Costa Mesa
Ensure that signs contribute positively to Costa Mesa’s image and overall economic development.

Objective CD-11A Facilitate the installation of signs that contribute to a positive image of the public realm.

Policy CD-11.1 Encourage homeowners' associations and
neighborhoods to maintain housing tract entrance
signs in an attractive condition, and encourage the
placement of such signs at the entrance of major
developments which do not have such identification.

Policy CD-11.2 Encourage the use of common design elements in signs for commercial and industrial centers through
the development of planned sign programs to
improve center identity by publicizing the benefits of
such programs to developers and local business
operators.

Policy CD-11.3 Encourage citywide sign design guidelines that promote creativity and flexibility while upholding
design quality. Design guidelines could include the
design and placement of business signs, public street
graphics, street signs, locational and directional signs, traffic signs, etc.

Policy CD-11.4 Introduce distinctive entry signage within the Costa Mesa Streetscape and Median Development
Guidelines which effectively announces arrival to
unique districts and neighborhoods.

Policy CD-11.5 Develop and design signage that helps with way- finding throughout the City so visitors and residents
-292-
1118
C o m m u n i t y D e s i g n E l e m e n t
CD - 36 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n
can easily access destination locations and identify
landmarks.

Goal CD-12: Public Safety through Design
Use design approaches to enhance public safety.

Objective CD-12A Incorporate public safety considerations into community design.

Policy CD-12.1 Decrease the opportunity for criminal activity by addressing high-risk circumstances (e.g., dark alleys,
enclosed stairwells, and dark entrances). Involve the
Police and Fire Departments in reviewing and making
design recommendations during the project review
process.

Policy CD-12.2 Continue to implement and refine development standards and/or guidelines based on Crime
Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) for
new development and redevelopment with emphasis
on site and building design to minimize vulnerability
to criminal activity.

Policy CD-12.3 Continue to provide CPTED training to City staff and local planning and design professionals to optimize
public safety through community design.
-293-
1119
C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | O S R - 1

Chapter 10:

Open Space and Recreation
Element
Introduction
Open spaces, recreation programs, and cultural arts contribute significantly to the quality of life in Costa Mesa. With its high-quality park facilities and comprehensive community service programs, Costa Mesa offers many opportunities for residents and visitors to practice healthy living and engage in community-building activities.

Parks and community-serving facilities enhance the quality of life for residents and are important components of complete and sustainable neighborhoods.

Accessible parks provide places to play, exercise, spend time with friends and neighbors, or just relax and reflect. This Open Space and Recreation Element provides the policy framework to ensure that open space and recreation TeWinkle Park
-294-
1120
O p e n S p a c e a n d R e c r e a t i o n E l e m e n t O S R - 2 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n resources in the City are preserved and maintained. Open space in Costa Mesa includes neighborhood and community parks, County-owned regional recreation facilities, institutional land uses, and golf courses.

Purpose
The purpose of the Open Space and Recreation Element is to sustain the network of open space and recreation resources for today’s residents and future generations. The goals, policies, and objectives contained in this element aim to protect, maintain, and enhance open spaces for all purposes and to meet recreation needs. This also describes how Costa Mesa can promote the City’s identity as a “City of the Arts”.

Recreational Sites and Facilities
Costa Mesa’s inventory of open space and recreation resources includes a diversity of facilities, ranging from highly developed, active recreation sites to low-activity, passive open spaces. The existing network of open space and recreation facilities is illustrated in Figure OSR-1, Recreational Sites and Facilities, and inventoried in Table OSR-1, Parks and Open Space Inventory.

Table OSR-1: Parks and Open Space Inventory
Facility Name Acreage
Neighborhood and Community Parks 415.19
Regional Nature Preserve (Talbert Regional Park) 244
Institutional Uses 1 871.94
OC Fair & Event Center 150.04
Open Space Easements 6.19
Golf Courses2 379.70
Total 2,067.06
Notes: 1) Includes schools, colleges, public facilities, Civic Center, Santa Ana River right-of-way, Fairview Developmental Center, and other public and institutional uses.
2) Includes acres of golf courses within the City of Costa Mesa only.

Acreages do not include Santa Ana Country Club and Newport Beach Golf Course.
-295-
1121
O p e n S p a c e a n d R e c r e a t i o n E l e m e n t C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | O S R - 3 Figure OSR-1: Recreational Sites and Facilities
-296-
1122
O p e n S p a c e a n d R e c r e a t i o n E l e m e n t O S R - 4 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n Neighborhood and Community Parks
The neighborhood and community park system represents the foundation of Costa Mesa’s open space and recreation network. Approximately 415 acres of developed neighborhood and community parks provide places for residents and visitors to enjoy themselves. As shown in Table OSR-2, Neighborhood and Community Parks Inventory, Costa Mesa has 25 neighborhood parks and seven community parks. These parks are shown on Figure OSR-1. The largest City-owned park is Fairview Park, encompassing approximately 210 acres. The smallest park is 0.18-acre Shalimar Park. Parks within the City are classified based on size. The classification system is as follows. ▪ Neighborhood Parks. Neighborhood parks are 10 acres or smaller in size and are intended to serve the daily recreational needs of residents in the immediate park vicinity. Primary uses include passive and active open space, tot lots, and picnic facilities. Community gardens are also included under this classification.
▪ Community Parks. Community parks are 10 acres or larger in size and are intended to provide a wide variety of recreation amenities, including lighted athletic fields and courts and other wide-serving recreational uses.

Fairview Park
Fairview Park is the largest park in the City encompassing approximately 210 acres. This passive open space consists of bluffs, vernal pools, trails, native plant communities, and wildlife. Park visitors can also enjoy special events that occur at the park, as well as take a train ride on the Goat Hill Junction Model Railroad.

In 1998, the City Council approved the Fairview Park Master Plan. Pursuant to the Master Plan, a series of improvements to wetland and riparian habitats were accomplished consisting of enhancement of 17 acres of riparian habitat, rehabilitation of ponds and streams, and installation of a new irrigation system. In 2013, the City restored six acres of wetland ponds, five acres of native grasslands, three acres of native oak trees, and nine acres of coastal sage scrub habitat.

-297-
1123
O p e n S p a c e a n d R e c r e a t i o n E l e m e n t C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | O S R - 5

In April 2013, the Costa Mesa City Council voted to reconvene the Fairview Park Citizens Advisory Committee (FPAC) to examine several issues regarding the park, and to evaluate the Fairview Park Master Plan relative to the City’s needs. Based on those needs, the FPAC will recommend the addition, reduction, elimination, and modification of park uses and master-planned elements. As part of the citywide Open Space Master Plan of Parks and Recreation initiated in 2015, the community will be engaged in further discussion of improvement plans for Fairview Park.

Costa Mesa Community Gardens
Community gardens provide opportunities for Costa Mesa residents to nurture their physical and social health. As of 2015, the City managed two community gardens. The Del Mar Community Garden has 60 plots, each measuring 15 feet by 15 feet. Hamilton Community Garden has 42 plots with the same dimensions. The City rents garden plots to residents to grow vegetables, flowers, fruits, and plants for personal consumption. Both community gardens are immensely popular and have long waiting lists for new urban farmers to participate.

Fairview Park encompasses
over 200 acres of open space
and passive park areas
consisting of bluffs, vernal pools,
trails, native plant communities,
and wildlife. Park visitors also
can enjoy community events, fly
model aircrafts, or take a train
ride at Goat Hill Junction
Railroad Station.
-298-
1124
O p e n S p a c e a n d R e c r e a t i o n E l e m e n t O S R - 6 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n Table OSR-2: Neighborhood and Community Parks Inventory Name Acres
Baseball
Softball
Soccer Field
Utility Field
Basketball
Playground
Tennis Courts
Handball
Volleyball
Par Course
Neighborhood Parks
Brentwood Park 2.60 1 1
Civic Center Park 2.50
Del Mar Com. Garden 0.77
Hamilton Com. Garden 0.45
Del Mesa Park 2.47 1 1 1 1
Estancia Park 9.03
Gisler Park 4.59 1 1
Harper Park 1.06 1
Heller Park 2.61 1 1
Jordan Park 2.48 1
Ketchum-Libolt Park 0.34
Lindbergh Park 2.00 1
Marina View Park 2.29 1 1
Mesa Verde Park 2.73 1
Moon Park 1.67 1
Paularino Park 2.23 1 1
Pinkley Park 2.57 1 1
Shalimar Park 0.18 1
Shiffer Park 7.09 1 1 2 2 2 1
Smallwood Park 3.39 1 1 1 1
Suburbia Park 0.53
Tanager Park 7.41 1 1 1 2 1
Vista Park 5.92 1 1
Wilson Park 3.61 1 1
Wimbledon Park 3.29 1 1 1 1
-299-
1125
O p e n S p a c e a n d R e c r e a t i o n E l e m e n t C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | O S R - 7 Table OSR-2: Neighborhood and Community Parks Inventory Name Acres
Baseball
Softball
Soccer Field
Utility Field
Basketball
Playground
Tennis Courts
Handball
Volleyball
Par Course
Neighborhood Park 73.81 0 1 0 9 5 19 0 2 10 3
Community Parks
Balearic Park 10.06 2 1 2 2 2
Canyon Park 35.96 1
Jack R. Hammett
Sports Complex 18.50 6
Fairview Park 210.04 1
Lions Park 12.82 1 6
TeWinkle Park 43.67 1 2 1 1 12 1 1
Wakeham Park 10.33 1 1 1 1 1 1
Community Park 341.38 1 2 9 4 3 6 12 8 2 2
Grand Total 415.19 1 3 9 13 8 25 12 10 12 5
Parks and Recreation Commission
The Parks and Recreation Commission acts in an advisory capacity to the City Council with respect to:
▪ Park and recreation facility locations
▪ Park site planning and facility design
▪ Development, operation, maintenance, and redevelopment of facilities
▪ Fiscal policy recommendations regarding development priorities, grants, and fees
The Parks and Recreation Commission also advises the City Council on matters pertaining to the provision of quality recreational services and activities -300-
1126
O p e n S p a c e a n d R e c r e a t i o n E l e m e n t O S R - 8 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n programs, as well as park and recreation matters referred to the Commission by the City Council or brought to the Commission's attention by stakeholders.

Other Recreational Facilities
Institutional Uses
Costa Mesa is home to many public schools, a community college, and a private university—as well as the OC Fair & Event Center—that have open space and recreational facilities. While not all facilities are available for public recreational use, the inventory of institutional uses is considerable. These facilities contribute substantially to the citywide open space and recreation inventory, and can augment open space provided by the neighborhood and community park system. Although not a party to the use-agreements between schools and sports leagues, the City does provide support to community organizations seeking joint-use agreements and improvements to school sites. Table OSR-3, School Recreational Facilities, identifies institutional facilities located within the City, operated by the Newport-Mesa Unified School District (NMUSD).

As of 2015, the Newport-Mesa Unified School District facilities included 32 utility fields and 18 baseball/softball diamonds. The City utilizes NMUSD elementary and middle school facilities for after-school programs, and all elementary, middle, and high school athletic fields, with the exception of Jim Scott Stadium, for youth and adult sports programming.

Youth Sports. Children
participating in a Pop Warner
Football game.

-301-
1127
O p e n S p a c e a n d R e c r e a t i o n E l e m e n t C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | O S R - 9 Table OSR-3: School Recreational Facilities
School Name Acres
Baseball
Softball
Soccer
Turf Area
Basketball
Multi-Use Courts
Track
Play Equipment
Handball
Volleyball
Tennis
Swimming Pool
Adams Elementary School 10.36 ◼ ◼
Back Bay High School 6.25 ◼ ◼ ◼ ◼
California Elementary School 9.81 ◼ 2 ◼ ◼ ◼ ◼ ◼
College Park Elementary School 7.98 ◼ ◼ ◼ ◼ ◼ ◼ 2
Costa Mesa High School 67.30 4 ◼ 3 ◼ ◼ ◼ ◼ ◼ 8 ◼
Davis School 16.64 ◼ ◼ ◼
Early College High School 10.00
Estancia High School 39.98 2 ◼ ◼ ◼ ◼ ◼ ◼ ◼ 8 ◼
Harper Preschool 2.00 2 ◼ ◼ ◼ ◼
Kaiser Elementary School 17.76 2 3 ◼ ◼ ◼ ◼
Killybrooke School 10.01 ◼ ◼ ◼ ◼
Paularino Elementary School 9.07 ◼ ◼ ◼ ◼
Pomona Elementary School 7.52 ◼ ◼ ◼ ◼
Everett Rea Elementary 13.91
Sonora Elementary School 10.56 ◼ ◼ ◼ ◼
TeWinkle Intermediate School 20.00 3 2 3 ◼ 4 ◼ ◼
Victoria Elementary School 7.37 ◼ ◼ ◼ ◼
Waldorf School of Orange County 10.15 ◼ ◼ ◼ ◼ ◼ ◼
Whittier Elementary School 9.11 ◼ ◼ ◼ ◼ ◼
Wilson Elementary School: 8.93 ◼ ◼
Woodland Elementary School 8.88 ◼ ◼ ◼ ◼ ◼
Total 303.59
Source: City of Costa Mesa and Newport-Mesa Unified School District Note: 1) All schools identified in this table are included in the Joint Use Agreement (JUA) between Newport - Mesa Unified School District (UNMD) and the City of Costa Mesa. The JUA pertains to athletic facility use, maintenance, and program oversight, and is updated periodically. Some schools are subject to third-party agreements.
-302-
1128
O p e n S p a c e a n d R e c r e a t i o n E l e m e n t O S R - 10 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n Surplus School Sites
Student enrollment throughout the Newport-Mesa Unified School District fluctuates over time, and NMUSD makes long-range projections for facility needs. In the past, NMUSD has closed elementary schools due to low enrollment, with the facilities available for many uses.

OC Fair & Event Center
In the late 1940s, the State of California obtained the current fairgrounds property, formerly occupied by the Santa Ana Army Air Base, and used the fairgrounds for over 60 years. In 2010, the County of Orange acquired the site from the State, with the core objective to preserve and promote the fairground and event uses. The OC Fair & Event Center is a major entertainment, recreational, cultural, and educational asset to Orange County. In addition to the OC Fair, which occurs every summer, over 100 events occur every year supporting cultural and nonprofit organizations, and attracting over 4.1 million visitors annually.

The 150-acre property includes these components:
▪ Centennial Farm. An approximately 3.5-acre outdoor agricultural and livestock area on the southwest corner of the property. This working farm includes livestock barns and fruit and vegetable gardens, and showcases educational programs for school-aged children.

Centennial Farm is a three-acre
working farm at the OC Fair &
Event Center created to educate
youth about agriculture and its
importance to daily life.
-303-
1129
O p e n S p a c e a n d R e c r e a t i o n E l e m e n t C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | O S R - 11 ▪ Equestrian Center. Approximately 14.5 acres, the equestrian center facility provides year-round, privately operated horse boarding and training. The area includes riding arenas, hot walkers, turnout pens, storage lockers, and ample parking.
▪ Grandstand Arena. The Grandstand, per the Master Plan, is anticipated to expand to hold 10,000 seats. The area is used for rodeos, circuses, motorcycles races, and other outdoor events. ▪ Orange County Market Place. A weekly outdoor swap meet held on the property's southeast corner attracts people from throughout the region.
▪ Pacific Amphitheatre. An outdoor arena that seats up to 8,500 patrons, this venue hosts entertainers of local, national and international renown.
▪ Showroom Buildings. Buildings totaling 148,000 square feet are rented for various shows, with the possibility of expanding to 275,000 square feet per the Master Plan.
▪ Festival Fields (Multipurpose Area). The Festival Fields consist of an outdoor theater, camping, and Kid’s Carnival.
▪ Mall Areas. Three areas adjacent to the outdoor area are used primarily as show areas for automobiles, outdoor social events, and other similar uses.

Golf Courses
Located adjacent to the Fairview Park is the Costa Mesa Country Club, a municipal golf course with two 18-hole golf courses, a pro shop, coffee shop, banquet facility, and driving range. The Mesa Verde Country Club golf course is a private facility that includes an 18-hole golf course, tennis and pool complex, and club house. Additionally, the private Santa Ana Country Club and Newport Beach Golf Course, both located outside City limits but within the City’s sphere of influence, offer additional recreation opportunities.

Dog Park
Bark Park is a two-acre fenced off-leash dog park located at TeWinkle Park, adjacent to the Costa Mesa Tennis Center. The park has a separate area for small, elderly, and disabled dogs. Dog park amenities include trees, benches, water dispensers for dogs, dog waste bags, and a restroom. Bark Park is administered through the non-profit Costa Mesa Bark Park Foundation.

-304-
1130
O p e n S p a c e a n d R e c r e a t i o n E l e m e n t O S R - 12 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n

Costa Mesa Tennis Center
The Costa Mesa Tennis Center is located in TeWinkle Park at 880 Junipero Drive. This special use facility includes twelve lighted courts, fifty-five parking spaces, landscaped walkways, and a pro-shop with professional tennis staff.

The Costa Mesa Tennis Center offers lessons, tournaments, leagues, open play, and monthly classes and activities to participants of all ages.

Costa Mesa Skate Park
Built in 2005, the Costa Mesa Skate Park is open daily to skate boarders and inline skaters of all ages. The 15,000 square foot facility is free to the public, although all participants are required to wear their own helmet and pads. This specialty facility is located inside of TeWinkle Park. It features street elements, a kidney-shaped pool, and a bowl. Finally, the facility also hosts the City’s Parks and Community Services Department skateboarding classes.

Park Level of Service
Level of Service is a method used to calculate the level of service standards for parks and recreation to determine if it meets the City’s needs and expectations.

With a changing population, the City must continually assess how park facilities satisfy the needs of a changing demographic. Park standards determine how many parkland acres the City should develop based on population levels, locations of parks, and existing parks. The City’s goal is to attain and maintain a park standard of 4.26 acres of parkland for every 1,000 Costa Mesa Country Club is a
public golf course with 36 holes
of golf, a practice facility and
driving range, and a banquet
facility.
-305-
1131
O p e n S p a c e a n d R e c r e a t i o n E l e m e n t C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | O S R - 13 residents. Pursuant to State law (State Government Code Section 66477), the City may collect up to 3.0 acres of parkland or in-lieu fees from new residential subdivisions for every 1,000 residents. Accordingly, the City adopted a Local Park Ordinance to implement its park and recreational land dedication requirements (Title 13, Chapter XI, Article 5 – Park and Recreation Dedications). However, to reach the goal of 4.26 acres per 1,000 residents, the City must pursue alternative funding sources for the additional park acreage and/or park improvements that exceed the State standard.

Alternative funding sources include general fund revenues, development impact fees, federal and State grants, user group contributions, and school district joint-use contributions. Other methods for supplementing the City’s park system include encouraging the development of private open space and recreational amenities (beyond public park requirements) within large residential projects, and pursuing the joint use (or ultimate use) of utility district lands, such as those owned by County of Orange Flood Control District, for parks and open space.

As of 2015, the City had an estimated population of 111,276 residents. Based on the City’s park standard goal of 4.26 acres for every 1,000 persons, approximately 474 acres of parkland are required to meet the City’s goal.

Assuming a build-out population of 134,984 residents, 575 acres would be required to achieve the goal.

This total does not include private open space and recreation facilities, golf courses, the OC Fair & Event Center, or joint use of facilities at school sites.

The City’s policies and implementation actions emphasize the need to pursue all means to expand and maximize benefits of the parks and recreation system.

Neighborhood and Community Park Accessibility
Figure OSR-2, Park Access, utilizes the street network system to identify areas within a one-quarter-mile and one-half-mile walking distance to park pedestrian-access points (service area). The figure identifies areas within neighborhoods that do not have ready access to City parks and thus helps assist in the strategic approach to identify and prioritize locations for parkland to meet the community goals and objectives.

-306-
1132
O p e n S p a c e a n d R e c r e a t i o n E l e m e n t O S R - 14 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n

Figure OSR-2: Park Access
-307-
1133
O p e n S p a c e a n d R e c r e a t i o n E l e m e n t C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | O S R - 15 Park Level of Service and Accessibility by Planning Area An estimate of population to park ratios has been conducted by “Planning Areas” to evaluate deficiencies in the City’s allocation of parkland. Table OSR- 4, 2015 Park /Population Ratios, indicates these estimated ratios. Planning Area 2 exceeds the park-to-population standard of parkland, but includes some areas that lacks park accessibility. Planning Area 3 is the area with the most deficient neighborhood parkland with a ratio of 0.62 acres of parkland, for every 1,000 persons. Figure OSR-3 identifies the Planning Areas.

Table OSR-4: 2015 Park /Population
Ratios
Planning
Area Population1 Existing Park
Land (2015)
Estimated Park/
Population Ratio
1 23,244 54.43 2.34/1,000
2 24,122 248.39 10.30/1,000
3 22,874 14.09 0.62/1,000
4 26,574 75.10 2.83/1,000
5 8,176 13.62 1.67/1,000
6 5,534 9.56 1.73/1,000
Total 110,524 415.19 3.76/1,000
Notes: 1) Population based on U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 5 - Year Estimates for 2014 by Census Tract and by Table LU-2: Established Land Uses (2015).

Planning Area 1
Planning Area 1 is unique in a number of ways. First, it is the location of major public open space features, including Canyon Community Park and the Talbert Regional Park and it is in close proximity to Fairview Community Park.

However, these facilities are located along the easternmost boundary of the planning area, creating an uneven distribution of neighborhood park service.

Secondly, the area is the most densely populated and highly developed in the City, leaving very limited opportunities for sites to fulfill this service deficiency. There are several park priority areas within the Westside neighborhood, just south of Victoria Street.

-308-
1134
O p e n S p a c e a n d R e c r e a t i o n E l e m e n t O S R - 16 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n

Figure OSR-3: Planning Areas and Underserved Park Areas -309-
1135
O p e n S p a c e a n d R e c r e a t i o n E l e m e n t C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | O S R - 17 Planning Area 2
Planning Area 2 is well served and exceeds the park-to-population standard for neighborhood and community. Nearly 250 acres of parkland are provided in this Planning Area. However, the Mesa Verde neighborhood around Gisler Avenue still lacks park accessibility as it is located more than a one-half mile from a park. The Westside neighborhood north of Victoria Street is also identified as being farther than one-half mile walking distance from a park.

Planning Area 3
Planning Area 3 is similar to Area 1 in that it is an older neighborhood which is nearly fully developed without an adequate neighborhood park system. One advantage that the Eastside neighborhood has is the availability of operating school sites and surplus school sites to augment the local park network.

Regarding park access, the neighborhood area east of Downtown and along 19th Street is identified as being located beyond a one-half-mile walking distance from a park. This planning area is deficient by both park-to- population standards and accessibility standards.

Planning Area 4
Planning Area 4, although it does not meet the park-to-population standard for parks, it is generally well served by City parks. The acquisition of the Jack R. Hammett Sports Complex helped improve the park deficiency within the entire Planning Area. However, the Halecrest and College Park neighborhoods lie beyond the desired one-half mile.

Planning Area 5
Planning Area 5 is identified as park deficient. Several residential complexes are served by private on-site recreation facilities and open space easements.

However, with the development of the Sakioka Farms residential site, this area is expected to have the potential for new residential development that could include new public (or private) park space.

Planning Area 6
Planning Area 6, which consists of the Bristol and Paularino neighborhoods, is identified as park deficient in terms of the park-to-population standard. Park accessibility is generally good to Shiffer Park and Del Mesa Park by surrounding residential neighborhoods. Large residential complexes that are not within a one-half-mile walking distance to a public park generally have -310-
1136
O p e n S p a c e a n d R e c r e a t i o n E l e m e n t O S R - 18 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n private park facilities dedicated to their residents. New residential development associated with the SoBECA Urban Plan will also increase the current population in this Planning Area and the need for additional public parks.

Key Park System Issues
Limited Availability of Park Sites
Costa Mesa is a mature, well-developed city with very little land available for new parkland. Few vacant parcels exist, and those that do may not be useful in terms of size, location, or other factors. The few remaining large vacant lands are located north of I-405 and planned for urban-intensity development, as outlined in the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan. As part of any master planning process, the City has the ability to require provision of public open space for parks and similar purposes.

The other major potential site for parkland is the Fairview Development Center, which the State may choose to downsize or relocate, thus making these public lands possibly available for transfer to the City. Any new parks the City acquires within established neighborhoods will be small infill parks.

Several contiguous sites will need to be acquired to provide an active sports park facility to meet the community’s recreational needs.

Further, the demands on capital funds are highly competitive, potentially creating further limitations for acquisition of new City parkland.

Balance of Passive and Active Recreation
As the population in the City continues to changes, the demand for parks and open spaces will increase and change based on the population’s composition.

In response, the City may find it necessary to repurpose current parks and open spaces to accommodate residents’ needs. As a result, preserving the established uses of parks and open spaces and balancing between passive and active recreation use may become a challenge. However, a balance between passive and active open space opportunities will continue to be a key consideration.
-311-
1137
O p e n S p a c e a n d R e c r e a t i o n E l e m e n t C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | O S R - 19 Demand for Sports Field
Organized sports programs have created a demand for more baseball, softball, and soccer fields. Many neighborhood parks provide space for organized sports but typically have insufficient parking, lighting, and facilities to meet this demand. Sports parks within neighborhoods require a balancing act for the City to meet the needs of private athletic organizations and neighborhood residents. Residents often express concerns regarding parking spillover into neighborhoods, lighting, noise, and the general unavailability of facilities to residents.

Adequate Space for Community Gardens
Costa Mesa owns and operates two community garden sites in the City. As of 2015, long waiting lists to lease garden parcels to community members prevented many residents from having garden plots. As the population and popularity of gardening continues to grow, the demand for community gardens will grow as well.

Park Level of Service
As of 2015, Costa Mesa had 3.66 acres of parkland per 1,000 persons (based on population of 111,276 and 415.19 park acres), well under the 4.26 acres per 1,000 persons this element identifies as the minimum parkland ratio. With the planned population growth identified in the Land Use Element, demand per the standard will increase to 575 park acres per 1,000 persons, again below the threshold identified in this element. The City of Costa Mesa will have to acquire additional park acres to meet the citywide goal of 4.26 acres per 1,000 persons.

Park Accessibility
Several residential neighborhoods in Costa Mesa are more than one-quarter and one-half-mile pedestrian walking distance to public neighborhood and community parks. These neighborhoods include the Westside residential district generally along Victoria Street and Placentia Avenue, the Eastside residential district along 19th and 20th Streets, the residential area northeast of the Mesa Verde Country Club, and the Halecrest residential neighborhood.

The Halecrest area does include a private park, Halecrest Park, which requires a membership to access the recreation facilities. These areas should be considered priorities areas for future parks. Other small underserved areas -312-
1138
O p e n S p a c e a n d R e c r e a t i o n E l e m e n t O S R - 20 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n should also be considered as well. Additionally, large apartment and condominium complexes provide private recreational facilities for their residents and are maintained under management groups or homeowner associations.

Recreational Facilities and
Programs
Community Facilities
The City operates and maintains four community centers: Balearic Community Center, Downtown Recreation Center, Neighborhood Community Center, and Costa Mesa Senior Center. Each facility provides recreational activities and room rentals.
▪ Balearic Community Center. Located at 1975 Balearic Drive, the facility comprises two rental rooms that can accommodate up to 100 people. Year round, these rooms are used for the City's Day Camp Program, Recreation on Campus for Kids (ROCK) program, and Early Childhood Program. Adjacent to the center is Balearic Park, which features a fenced playground with play equipment, playground, basketball courts, and a large athletic field.
▪ Downtown Recreation Center. Located at 1860 Anaheim Avenue, this center includes an indoor gymnasium, gymnastics room, a 25-yard outdoor pool, and a designated room and office for the Childs-Pace day-care program. The facility offers a multipurpose room equipped with a kitchen, and provides open gym time for youth and adult basketball. During the summer, the multipurpose room is also used as a ROCKS program site.
▪ Neighborhood Community Center. Located at 1845 Park Avenue, this 24,000-square-foot facility consists of a large multipurpose hall, stage, dance floor, and full-service kitchen. Three smaller meeting and conference rooms are available for meetings and classes. In 2015, the City approved a $34.5 million plan to build a new library building to house the new Donald Dungan Library, renovate the existing Donald -313-
1139
O p e n S p a c e a n d R e c r e a t i o n E l e m e n t C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | O S R - 21 Dungan library to serve as the new Neighborhood Community Center (NCC), demolish the old NCC, and propose parking and landscape developments in several phases. A community-driven process has guided design and service plans.
▪ Costa Mesa Senior Center. Located at 695 West 19th Street, the senior center provides a day facility for Costa Mesa’s older residents to gather and participate in social, recreational, and personal development programs. The facility also provides seniors access to free transportation for medical-related appointments and other transportation needs.

Community Services Programs
Community Services programs encompass the diverse recreational and social services activities provided by the City to residents. These programs can be classified in one of the following categories:
▪ Recreational and Physical Activities
▪ Action Sports
▪ Cultural and Performing Arts
▪ Youth Programs
▪ Human Services
▪ Older Adult Programs and Services
The City provides a diverse selection of recreational and sports activities, programs, and services that utilize the extensive network of parks and recreation facilities. A number of nonprofit organizations within the community also provide programs and services, including the Newport-Mesa Family YMCA, Costa Mesa United, and youth sports organizations such as AYSO, Little League Baseball, and Pop Warner Football. The City facilitates the use of its recreational facilities and outdoor school grounds by these groups.

Youth Programs
The City offers a variety of recreation programs for local youth, including gymnastics, basketball, soccer, tee-ball, skateboarding, martial arts, and horseback riding. The programs aim to provide children and teenagers with effective tools to learn and grow through well-planned curriculum, activities, -314-
1140
O p e n S p a c e a n d R e c r e a t i o n E l e m e n t O S R - 22 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n field trips, and socialization. Youth and teen programs include the Costa Mesa Day Camp, Early Childhood Program, Recreation on Campus for Kids (R.O.C.K.S), Recreation Leadership Training Program, and Teen Camp.

Human Services
Human services programs provide social and financial aid to community members, and can enhance quality of life, promote civic involvement and volunteerism, foster partnerships with private organizations, and create a sense of belonging. The City coordinates with a variety of human services providers such as the Orange County Rescue Mission and the Orange County Interfaith Shelter to assist residents and their families.

Older Adult Programs and Services
Residents over age 50 represent a growing demographic in Costa Mesa. As a result, the City’s services and programs need to address the growing demands of residents who are 50+ by providing social events, expressive arts, nutrition, fitness, and educational and recreational classes that focus on health and wellness. Older residents who face mobility, economic, and medical care challenges can find support and referrals through the programs, services, and classes held at the Costa Mesa Senior Center. The Costa Mesa Senior Center also organizes activities, trips, and special events throughout the year.

Costa Mesa’s Community
Services Department provides
a wide range of programs and
activities for youth and teens.
-315-
1141
O p e n S p a c e a n d R e c r e a t i o n E l e m e n t C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | O S R - 23 Key Recreational Facilities and Programs
Issue
Adequate Community Services to Serve Changing
Community
Historically, the City has provided high levels of recreation, community, youth and family, and older adult services that meet changing community needs.

Maintaining and improving this level of service may be challenging given limited funding resources and demographic changes.

Open Space
Open space land, as defined by California Government Code Section 65560, is any parcel or area of land or water that is essentially unimproved and devoted to an open-space use, including open space for the:
▪ Preservation of natural resources
▪ Managed production of resources
▪ Outdoor recreation
▪ Public health and safety
Preservation of open space resources, including habitat areas, wildlife, and water resources are addressed in the Conservation Element.

Costa Mesa Open Spaces
Canyon Park
Canyon Park’s name refers to its location within a canyon just north of 19th Street. This approximately 36-acre natural open space park includes meandering trails which connect to several surrounding neighborhoods, a small playground and picnic green-space, and Talbert Regional Park.

Talbert Regional Park
The County of Orange preserves and maintains the 211-acre Talbert Regional Park, which encompasses the Talbert Nature Preserve. This open space is located in the southwest portion of the City, north and south of Victoria Street -316-
1142
O p e n S p a c e a n d R e c r e a t i o n E l e m e n t O S R - 24 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n along the Santa Ana River lowlands, and provides passive recreation opportunities, including walking, picnicking, and hiking. The trail system allows for observation of natural resources and links to other parks along the Santa Ana River. Group use within the habitat areas is permitted by guided walks, and individual use is facilitated by interpretive signage. When combined, Canyon Park, Fairview Park, and Talbert Regional Park provide almost 490 acres of restored and enhanced natural open space.

Santa Ana River
The Santa Ana River forms the western boundary of Costa Mesa. Although not included in the open space inventory, the Santa Ana River Trail provides a major recreation and circulation element that extends from the Pacific Ocean to the Inland Empire. The bikeway has been designated by Congress as a “National Recreational Trail.” OC Parks owns and manages the nearly one mile of the mouth of the Santa Ana River, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers controls the river area above the mouth.

Open Spaces Adjacent to Costa Mesa
Newport Banning Ranch
Newport Banning Ranch is an approximately 401-acre site partially located in unincorporated Orange County and partially within the City of Newport Santa Ana River Open Space
includes trails and access to
Costa Mesa’s Fairview Park and
Talbert Regional Park.
-317-
1143
O p e n S p a c e a n d R e c r e a t i o n E l e m e n t C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | O S R - 25 Beach, adjacent to Costa Mesa. Plans for the property include approximately 174 acres of permanent open space to be reserved and protected for lowland and upland habitat, a nature center, vernal pool interpretive area, and a diverse system of public interpretive trails connecting to the Talbert Nature Preserve and Santa Ana River Trail in Costa Mesa.

Upper Newport Bay
Upper Newport Bay is located just east of Costa Mesa in the City of Newport Beach. It is the largest of only a few remaining natural estuaries in Southern California. An estuary is a coastal wetland where saltwater from the ocean mixes with nutrient-rich fresh water from inland sources to provide a fertile feeding area for birds, fish, and other animals. The Upper Bay is a recreational and educational resource for the area, with a multipurpose trail and many wildlife viewing stations.

Open Space Conservation Efforts
Orange Coast River Park, Inc. is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit independent organization originally founded as a committee by the Friends of Harbors, Beaches, and Parks (FHBP). Orange Coast River Park’s mission is to facilitate coordination among stakeholders, agencies, landowners, and the public to create a 1,000-acre Open Space Master Plan at the mouth of the Santa Ana River between the Mesa Verde residential community in Costa Mesa and the Pacific Ocean. The organization’s major goals are to “restore the historic ecological staircase, extend a seamless passageway to the coast from inland, and create access for residents and visitors to an oasis of tranquility.” Key Open Space Issues
Open Space Preservation and Management
Open space lands within Fairview Park, Canyon Park, and Talbert Regional Park need to be managed to prevent impacts to sensitive habitat and wildlife.

Wetlands, vernal pools, and other sensitive habitats need to be protected from human activity and accidental and intended damage. Invasive plant and wildlife species and hazardous material from pesticides, pollution, trash, and other toxic materials need to be controlled and/or restricted to prevent -318-
1144
O p e n S p a c e a n d R e c r e a t i o n E l e m e n t O S R - 26 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n severe damage to these resources. Unauthorized trails by bicyclists and hikers can also damage sensitive habitat areas. Public agencies need to continue to provide and enforce management and educational strategies to protect, preserve, and steward these limited resources.

Open Space Acquisition
As a built-out community, Costa Mesa will face challenges acquiring new open space land due to high land costs and the limited availability of land.

Open Space Access
Open spaces in Costa Mesa are primarily located along the Santa Ana River.

Adjoining residential neighborhoods can easily access the Santa Ana River Trail and Banning Channel Bikeway. Eastside Costa Mesa neighborhoods may encounter difficulties in accessing these open spaces through the City’s established bikeway system. Talbert Regional Park is primarily accessed by surrounding residential neighborhoods; it can also be accessed through trail connections and access points. Careful consideration must be given to increase access to open spaces while protecting sensitive habitat.

Cultural Arts Resources
Costa Mesa's motto is "City of the Arts.” Over the past decades, regionally and nationally recognized organizations have established the City as their home, and they continue to grow. The Segerstrom Center for the Arts, South Coast Repertory Theater, Arts Plaza, and Noguchi Sculpture Gardens are some of the significant cultural resources based in Costa Mesa. The Costa Mesa Playhouse also thrives in the City, along with a wide array of art galleries and a contemporary music scene.

Costa Mesa Theater and Arts District Plan
The 57.3-acre Costa Mesa Theater and Arts District includes high-rise office buildings, internationally recognized cultural facilities, hotels, restaurants, and high-end commercial uses. Located along the Avenue of the Arts and with ready access to I-405, the district attracts visitors from throughout Southern California and beyond. To guide the coordinated development of the district, in 2004 the City the Costa Mesa Theater & Arts District Plan was established. -319-
1145
O p e n S p a c e a n d R e c r e a t i o n E l e m e n t C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | O S R - 27 Cultural Arts Committee
The Cultural Arts Committee coordinates with the City Council to support cultural arts programs and increase awareness of the arts to Costa Mesa residents. The Committee’s overarching goal is to establish programs, organize events, and distribute information that promote arts and culture.

Programs and events organized by the Committee include the Artist Showcase, Arts in the Park, Art Walk, and Youth Art Gallery.

Key Cultural Arts Issue
Limited Public Access to to Public Art
Public art refers to works of art in any media located in a public setting, with the purpose of beautifying public spaces and buildings, drawing attention to the message the artwork may communicate, and educating the public. Public art can increase the intrinsic and monetary values of the places it graces; and it can express a civic and corporate pride. Many of Costa Mesa’s public art pieces are located at the Segerstrom Center of the Arts, which has limited public access.

Segerstrom Hall and the
Renee & Henry Segerstrom
Concert Hall located within the
Segerstrom Center for the Arts.
-320-
1146
O p e n S p a c e a n d R e c r e a t i o n E l e m e n t O S R - 28 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n

Public art located at the main
entrance of the Segerstrom Hall.
-321-
1147
O p e n S p a c e a n d R e c r e a t i o n E l e m e n t C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | O S R - 29 Goals, Objectives, and Policies
These goals, objectives, and policies guide policy decisions regarding open space and recreation in Costa Mesa, and allow for the continued expansion, improvement, and maintenance of community facilities and services for the enjoyment of current and future residents. Additional opportunities include integrating public art throughout the community to highlight predominant themes in Costa Mesa’s history.

Goal OSR-1: Balanced and Accessible
System of Parks and Open Spaces
Provide a high-quality environment through the development of recreation resources and preservation of open space that meets community needs in Costa Mesa.

Objective OSR-1A: Maintain and preserve existing parks, and strive to provide additional parks, public spaces, and recreation facilities that meet the community’s evolving needs.

Adequate Neighborhood and Community Park Recreational Facilities Policy OSR-1.1: Maintain a system of Neighborhood and Community Parks that provide a variety of active and passive
recreational opportunities throughout the City.

Policy OSR-1.2: Provide parks and recreation facilities appropriate for the individual neighborhoods in which they are located
and reflective of the needs and interests of the
population they serve.

Acquisition of New Parkland
Policy OSR-1.3: Pursue the acquisition and development of pocket and neighborhood parks within park-deficient areas, as
identified in Figure OSR-3: Planning Areas and
Underserved Park Areas.
-322-
1148
O p e n S p a c e a n d R e c r e a t i o n E l e m e n t O S R - 30 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n Policy OSR-1.4: Prioritize the acquisition of land for parks in underserved neighborhoods, with consideration placed
on designated environmental justice communities.

Policy OSR-1.5: Maximize public space by requiring plazas and public gathering spaces in private developments that can serve multiple uses, including recreation and social needs.

Policy OSR-1.6: Provide maximum visibility and accessibility for future public parks by locating facilities in close proximity to public streets.

Policy OSR-1.7: Adjust and update development fee programs to accumulate funds for the acquisition and improvement of parks and recreation facilities commensurate with
identified need and population growth.

Balance of Passive and Active Recreation
Policy OSR-1.8: Require that parks and recreation facilities reflect new trends and population changes, and are developed
with facilities appropriate to all ages, including athletic fields, active play areas, passive open space, tot lots, and picnic areas.

Policy OSR-1.9: Conduct a sports facility study to review current outdoor facility locations and resources and a
demographic study for future facility requirements as
they relate to planned growth within the City.

Policy OSR-1.10: Pursue urban agriculture opportunities in both private developments and public spaces, including urban farms
and additional community gardens, and home gardens
lots and spaces to meet demand and need by the
community, and explore opportunities to promote and
incentivize farmer’s markets, especially those that are readily accessible to designated environmental justice
communities.

Policy OSR-1.11: Coordinate with local organizations to promote urban greening and urban gardening programs, including the
-323-
1149
O p e n S p a c e a n d R e c r e a t i o n E l e m e n t C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | O S R - 31 planning, operations, and maintenance of community
gardens, and to educate the public on the benefits of
healthy foods.

Park Maintenance and Retrofit
Policy OSR-1.121: Perform regular maintenance of facilities to ensure proper working order of all recreation facilities and
equipment.

Policy OSR-1.132: Retrofit parks and recreation facilities to provide disability access as required by law.

Policy OSR-1.143: Design and reform parks to reflect the latest recreational features that respond to demographic
changes and community needs.

Policy OSR-1.154: Consult with law enforcement agencies, surrounding cities, community policing groups, and OC Parks to create a safe and healthy environment at Talbert Regional Park, Fairview Park, and along the Santa Ana River.

Long-Term Planning of Institutional Uses
Policy OSR-1.165: Continue to pursue opportunities to create joint-use community space at facilities owned by private
organizations such as private schools, faith-based groups, service clubs, and hospitals.

Policy OSR-1.176: Continue to coordinate with the Newport-Mesa Unified School District to supplement City park facilities through joint-use agreements.

Policy OSR-1.187: Consult with Orange County Fairgrounds in implementing OC Fair & Event Center Master Plan.

Level of Service and Access
Policy OSR-1.198: Provide a minimum of 4.26 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents.

Policy OSR-1.2019: Update the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan every 10 years, as feasible.
-324-
1150
O p e n S p a c e a n d R e c r e a t i o n E l e m e n t O S R - 32 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n Policy OSR-1.210: Enhance pedestrian, bicycle, and transit linkages to meet the needs of residents and to provide better access to parks, recreation, and public spaces.

Policy OSR-1.221: Provide opportunities for public access to all open space areas, except where sensitive resources may be
threatened or damaged, public health and safety may be
compromised, or access would interfere with the
managed production of resources.

GOAL OSR-2: Community Services
Programs Meeting Community Needs
Enhancing the community through the delivery of innovative recreational programs, quality parks and facilities and services that promote social, physical, and emotional well-being. High-quality community services programs demonstrate the City’s commitment to providing opportunities for recreational, physical, and educational activities for residents of all ages.

Objective OSR-2A: Provide activities, classes, and a variety of programs to meet the year-round recreational needs of
all residents: children, adult, seniors, and persons with special needs.

High-quality Community Services
Policy OSR-2.1: Provide high-quality community services programs that are flexible and responsive to the community’s
changing needs.

Policy OSR-2.2: Plan and conduct citywide special events that bring residents together to create an enhanced quality of life and promote economic development.

Policy OSR-2.3: Continue to consult with nonprofit sports organizations and recreational groups to support their offering of
diverse recreational programs that complement and
supplement those offered by the City.
-325-
1151
O p e n S p a c e a n d R e c r e a t i o n E l e m e n t C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | O S R - 33 Policy OSR-2.4: Update existing facilities for senior citizens, youth, adults, and overall community use, with consideration
given to areas that are underserved and/or within
designated environmental justice area boundaries..

Policy OSR-2.5: Encourage recreational, cultural, and community services programs and activities that are of local interest and inclusive and affordable to all residents.

Policy OSR-2.6: Support efforts to connect residents to local and regional cultural, recreational, and educational assets.

Community Services to Support Community Needs
Policy OSR-2.75: Monitor and research the ever-changing community services needs of the community, and develop action
plans to address those needs through partnerships with
service agencies.

Policy OSR-2.86: Continue to provide rental opportunities at community facilities and parks for residents, nonprofit groups, and businesses to meet their recreational and professional
needs.

Policy OSR-2.97: Continue broad-based public outreach activities that inform residents of all available community services
programs, and obtain input from the community
regarding program and service needs.

Policy OSR-2.108: Encourage resident input and utilize demographic data, partnerships, volunteers, and existing resources to identify the needs of community.

Policy OSR-2.119: Identify innovative funding and development opportunities to support and sustain a responsive
community services network.

Policy OSR-2.120: Continue and expand the development of community partnerships to offer both standard and innovative
services to meet residents’ needs.
-326-
1152
O p e n S p a c e a n d R e c r e a t i o n E l e m e n t O S R - 34 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n Policy OSR-2.113: Develop and implement community services programs and activities that meet the needs of specialized populations through the development of community
partnerships.

Policy OSR-2.142: Provide support for volunteer groups that conduct special activities open to the entire community.

GOAL OSR-3: Conserved Open Space
Costa Mesa is committed to open space conservation to ensure that the network of parklands, trails, hillsides, and undeveloped natural areas remain viable for supporting biological communities and providing sanctuary for future generations. This commitment includes expanding public access to open space, where appropriate, and acquiring additional lands where feasible.

Objective OSR-3A: Preserve the City’s open space lands and provide additional community and neighborhood
parkland in underserved areas.

Open Space Preservation and Stewardship
Policy OSR-3.1: Preserve open space areas along The Santa Ana River, large open space parks, and along the mesa formations to protect natural habitat and to maintain the integrity of the natural environment.

Policy OSR-3.2: Encourage the preservation of coastal views from City and County parkland and public streets within Costa Mesa.

Policy OSR-3.3: Identify current open space areas for protection, management, and potential enhancement to maintain
and, if possible, increase its value as wildlife habitat.

Management and Maintenance of Open Space
Policy OSR-3.4: Encourage the long-term maintenance and management of open space lands through open space easements,
development rights transfers or acquisition, zoning
regulations, and other incentives.
-327-
1153
O p e n S p a c e a n d R e c r e a t i o n E l e m e n t C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | O S R - 35 Policy OSR-3.5: Encourage the greening and beautifying of the Santa Ana River.

Policy OSR-3.6: Encourage opportunities for recreation, history, education, interpretive materials, and art associated with the Santa Ana River open spaces.

Policy OSR-3.7: Promote water quality strategies to improve water quality along the Santa Ana River.

Coordination and Organization Development
Policy OSR-3.8: Consult with State and regional agencies and the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC),
regarding open space planning efforts.

Policy OSR-3.9: Consult with the Orange Coast River Park, Inc. and surrounding cities and other government agencies in
maintaining and rehabilitating open space lands along the Santa Ana River.

Policy OSR-3.10: Consult with OC Parks over the enhancements and management of Talbert Regional Park without adversely
impacting surrounding residential neighborhoods.

GOAL OSR-4: Extensive Arts and Culture
Programs and Services
Provide comprehensive and multifaceted arts and culture programs and services that provide education and entertainment to the community and a broader audience.

Objective OSR-4A: Support performing and visual arts programs, facilities, and activities that stimulate the minds and intellectual thinking of community members to increase awareness
of the City’s motto, “The City of the Arts.”
Cultural Arts Venues
Policy OSR-4.1: Continue to support the mission of the Segerstrom Center for the Arts and associate venues and facilities.

Policy OSR-4.2: Support the development and operations of an arts museum at the Segerstrom Center for the Arts.
-328-
1154
O p e n S p a c e a n d R e c r e a t i o n E l e m e n t O S R - 36 | C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n Policy OSR-4.3: Encourage additional indoor and outdoor facility spaces citywide to display public art and host arts and culture special events.

Leader in the Arts
Policy OSR-4.4: Expand the City's role as a supporter of the arts.

Policy OSR-4.5: Encourage financial support of the arts by supporting non-profit groups and foundations.

Policy OSR-4.6: Consider preparation of an arts and culture master plan for the City.

Policy OSR-4.7: Consult with local agencies and surrounding cities to address the creation and implementation of arts-friendly policies.

Policy OSR-4.8: Enhance Costa Mesa’s position as a leader in the arts in Southern California and its recognition nationally as a city devoted to arts institutions of superior quality.

Policy OSR-4.9: Engage community members in arts activities, and utilize the arts to provide educational and cultural awareness
opportunities.

Policy OSR-4.10: Continue the City’s commitment to its arts in cooperation with the private sector.

Policy OSR-4.11: Provide opportunities for local artists to create and display their work.

Arts Programs and Events
Policy OSR-4.12: Support arts activities, programs, events, and facilities for patrons to enjoy and share experiences, and that enhance the City’s economic vitality.

Policy OSR-4.13: Designate Community Services Department staff with the responsibility for expanding and implementing activities related to recreational arts programming.

Policy OSR-4.14: Pursue cooperative educational cultural programs enlisting the aid of public and private institutions.

Arts in Public Places and in Private Development
Policy OSR-4.15: Continue to review adopting an Arts in Public Places Program.
-329-
1155
O p e n S p a c e a n d R e c r e a t i o n E l e m e n t C o s t a M e s a G e n e r a l P l a n | O S R - 37 Policy OSR-4.16: Pursue the placement of public art in prominent locations, particularly along major travel corridors to enliven and beautify the public realm.

Policy OSR-4.17: Develop incentives or programs that encourage art in new developments.
-330-
1156
August 10, 2026 PC - Attachment 2 - PDF Page 1 through 81 Task
Reduce Pollution
Exposure
Provide Safe &
Sanitary Homes
Enhance Community
Assets
Increase Physical
Activity
Ensure Access to
Healthy Foods
Address
"Compounded" Risks
Promote Civic
Engagement
Policy
Policy LU-1.6: Promote sustainable development patterns that consider negative economic and health impacts on existing residents and businesses.

Policy CON-2.A.9: Encourage waste management programs that promote waste reduction and recycling to minimize materials sent to landfills. Maintain robust programs that encourage residents and businesses to reduce, reuse, recycle, and compost, prioritizing education programs directed toward designated environmental justice communities.

Policy LU-2.6: Encourage increased private market investment in declining or deteriorating neighborhoods, prioritizing neighborhoods located within designated environmental justice area boundaries.

Objective LU-3A: Establish policies, standards, and procedures to minimize blighting influences, and maintain the integrity of stable neighborhoods.

Policy LU-3.1: Protect existing stabilized residential neighborhoods, including mobile home parks (and manufactured housing parks), from the encroachment of incompatible or potentially disruptive land uses and/or activities.

Policy LU-3.2: Actively enforce existing regulations regarding derelict or abandoned vehicles, outdoor storage, and substandard or illegal buildings, and establish regulations to abate weed-filled yards when any of the above are deemed to constitute a health, safety, or fire hazard.

Policy LU-3.3: Continue code enforcement as a high priority with regard to the regulation of property maintenance standards citywide.

Policy LU-3.7: Promote development/design flexibility that encourages older or poorly maintained high-density residential uses to be rehabilitated.

Policy LU-4.1: Ensure that appropriate watershed protection activities are applied to all new development and significant redevelopment projects that are subject to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Stormwater Permit during the planning, project review, and permitting processes.

Policy LU-4.3: Preserve or restore areas that provide water quality benefits and/or are necessary to maintain riparian and aquatic biota.

Policy LU-4.5: Promote integration of stormwater quality protection into construction and post-construction activities, as required by the NPDES Stormwater Permit and the City’s Local Implementation Plan.

Policy LU-4.6: Incorporate the principles of sustainability into land use planning, infrastructure, and development processes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions consistent with State goals.

Objective LU-5A: Ensure availability of adequate community facilities and provision of the highest level of public services possible, taking into consideration budgetary constraints and effects on the surrounding area.

Policy LU-5.2: Strongly encourage protection and preservation of existing but underutilized school sites for future recreational, social, or educational uses.

Existing Policy
Revised Policy
City of Costa Mesa
Environmental Justice Policies: LAND USE ELEMENT

EJ TOPICS
ATTACHMENT 6
-1-
1157
August 10, 2026 PC - Attachment 2 - PDF Page 82 through 142 Task
Reduce Pollution
Exposure
Provide Safe &
Sanitary Homes
Enhance Community
Assets
Increase Physical
Activity
Ensure Access to
Healthy Foods
Address
"Compounded" Risks
Promote Civic
Engagement
Policy
Objective C-1A : Create a transportation network that meets the mobility needs of all Costa Mesa residents, businesses, and visitors.

Po
licy CON-2.A.9: Encourage waste management programs that promote waste reduction and recycling to minimize materials sent to landfills. Maintain robust programs that encourage residents and businesses to reduce, reuse, recycle, and compost, prioritizing education programs directed toward designated environmental justice communities.

Po
licy C-1.
2: Allow for flexible use of public rights-of-wa
y to accommodate all users of the
street system while maintaining safety standards.

Po
licy C-1.
5: Implement road diets on street segments with excess capacity to enhance bicycle and pedestrian facilities. For roadways with excess vehicle capacity, consider the reduction of travel lanes and use the reclaimed space for active modes of transportation including pedestrian and bicycle.

Po
licy C-1.
7: Encourage community participation in City processes and programs focused on improving mobility and transportation facilities. Outreach should facilitate participation of underserved populations.

Po
licy C-1.
9: Implement traffic calming measures that discourage speeding and cut-through traffic on residential streets. Identify opportunities to update signal timing and phases with high collision frequencies.

Policy C-1.10: Encourage non-motorized transportation in residential areas by providing sidewalks, implementing pedestrian and bicycle friendly design of local streets, and incorporating street trees in new projects wherever feasible. Provide additional consideration in implementing such enhancements within designated environmental justice area boundaries.

Policy C-1.15: Implement neighborhood approved traffic-calming measures in residential n
eighborhoods and appropriate commercial areas, such as street narrowing, curb extensions, roundabouts, landscaped medians, and radar speed feedback signs. Additional consideration should be given to working with neighborhoods located within designated environmental justice area boundaries to identify and implement appropriate measures.

Po
licy C-1.18: Leverage the tools discussed in the Pedestrian Master Plan Infrastructure Toolbox (e.g. sidewalk connectivity, curb ramps, and crosswalks) to continue to develop a pedestrian network that is safe and accessible by users of all ages and abilities.

Policy C-1.19: Develop a network of walking paths in different commercial districts and neighborhoods to encourage community members to walk. The walking paths could be artistic and each path could have its own wayfinding signs and stylistic flair to create a sense of place
Objective C-2A : Implement policies that encourage and accommodate all users while maintaining the safety and efficiency of the circulation system.

City of Costa Mesa
Environmental Justice Policies: CIRCULATION ELEMENT

EJ TOPICS
-2-
1158
Policy C-3.14: Coordinate with other responsible agencies the planning, funding, prioritization, and implementation of bicycle, pedestrian, and transit programs and supporting infrastructure.

Objective C-4B: Promote regional and local transit services as an alternative to automobile travel.

Policy C-4.13: Provide transit stop amenities that facilitate access to and from transit stops a
nd transfer locations. These may include pedestrian pathways approaching stops, high- quality benches and shelters, traveler information systems (real-ti me transit arrival
information), and bike storage and bicycle connections. Bus stops should accommodate timed transfers between buses and other transit services where necessary.

Policy C-4.18: Coordinate with OCTA to improve transit services in the City, including strategies such as bus rapid transit, express services, community circulators, and other strategies.

Objective C-6A: Pursue funding sources to maintain and enhance the transportation and infrastructure system.

Policy C-6.3: Develop an annual list of Active Transportation projects to be proposed as part of the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP), including identification and additional consideration of such projects within designated environmental justice area boundaries.

Objective C-7C: Encourage sustainable modes of transportation to fill gaps between the first and last miles of trips (walking, biking, ride sharing, transit, taxi and car-sharing).

Policy C-9.2: Ensure that all current and proposed land use planning is consistent with the Costa Mesa Active Transportation and Pedestrian Master Plan.

Policy C-9.6: Provide a fully integrated network of modern active transportation facilities to and from major activity centers and residential centers.

Objective C-10A: Encourage more people to walk and bicycle by supporting programs that foster community support for bicycling and walking, and raise public awareness about active transportation.

Objective C-11A: Improve air quality and public health and reduce ambient noise by promoting Active Transportation programs.

Policy C-12.3: Ensure that Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan programs and projects are implemented in an equitable manner geographically, socioeconomically, and serving disadvantaged communities, with additional consideration on implementation of such programs and projects within designated environmental justice areas boundaries.

Existing Policy
Revised Policy
New Policy
-3-
1159
August 10, 2026 PC - Attachment 2 - PDF Page 143 through 185 Task
Reduce Pollution
Exposure
Provide Safe &
Sanitary Homes
Enhance Community
Assets
Increase Physical
Activity
Ensure Access to
Healthy Foods
Address
"Compounded" Risks
Promote Civic
Engagement
Policy
Housing Goal #1: Preserve and enhance the City’s existing housing supply.

HO
U-1.2: M
inimize the displacement risk for existing residents when considering approval of future redevelopment and public projects.

HO
U-1.3: P
rioritize enforcement of City regulations regarding derelict or abandoned vehicles, outdoor storage, substandard or illegal construction and establish regulations to abate blighted or substantially unmaintained properties, particularly when any of the above is deemed to constitute a health, safety, or fire hazard.

HO
U-1.4: E
stablish housing programs and code enforcement as a high priority and provide adequate funding and staffing to support those programs.

Hou
sing Goal #2: Facilitate the creation and availability of housing for residents at all income levels and for those with special housing needs.

HO
U-2.1: F
acilitate the development of housing that meets the needs of all segments of the population including affordable housing and households with specialized needs.

HOU-2.2: Promote the use of State density bonus provisions to encourage the development of affordable housing for lower and moderate-inc ome households, as well as senior housing through the dissemination of informational materials and discussions with project applicants.

HOU-2.3: M onitor the implementation of the City’s ordinances, codes, policies, and procedures to ensure they comply with State requirements for “reasonable accommodation” for disabled persons and all fair housing laws.

HOU-2-4: Encourage housing programs and future actions that address the need for affordable housing options as well as the housing needs of Costa Mesa’s senior resident population and the large households population.

Housing Goal #3: Identify adequate, suitable sites for residential use and development to meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) at all income levels and promote a range of housing types to meet the needs of all segments of the Costa Mesa community.

Housing Goal #4: Provide housing opportunities to residents of all social and economic segments of the community without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, disability/medical conditions, national origin or ancestry, marital status, age, household composition or size, source of income, or any other arbitrary factors.

HOU-4.1: Support equal housing opportunities as expressed in Federal and State fair housing laws.

City of Costa Mesa
Environmental Justice Policies: HOUSING ELEMENT

EJ TOPICS
-4-
1160
HOU-4.2: P romote actions and programs that provide fair housing and counseling services and other housing assistance programs for all Costa Mesa residents in an effort to remove barriers and promote access to affordable housing in the City as funding is available.

HO
U-4.3: E
ncourage and support the construction, maintenance and preservation of residential developments which will meet the needs of families and individuals with specialized housing requirements, including those with developmental disabilities.

HOU-X.X: Promote community involvement in the development and implementation of housing programs and actions. Outreach should facilititate participation of residents within designated environmental justice communities.

Existing Policy
Revised Policy
New Policy
-5-
1161
August 10, 2026 PC - Attachment 2 - PDF Page 186 through 225 Task
Reduce Pollution
Exposure
Provide Safe &
Sanitary Homes
Enhance Community
Assets
Increase Physical
Activity
Ensure Access to
Healthy Foods
Address
"Compounded" Risks
Promote Civic
Engagement
Policy
Policy CON-1.A.X: Work with applicable regional agencies to discourage the use of herbicides and pesticides within the community's natural areas and especially its riparian corridors, and to educate the public on the impacts of their use.

Objective CON-3.A: Work towards the protection and conservation of existing and future water resources by recognizing water as a limited resource that requires conservation.

Policy CON-3.A.5: Work with public and private property owners to reduce stormwater runoff in urban areas to protect water quality in storm drainage channels, the Santa Ana River, and other local water courses that lead to the Pacific Ocean.

Objective CON-4.A: Pursue the prevention of the significant deterioration of local and regional air quality.

Policy CON-4.A.1: Support regional policies and efforts that improve air quality to protect human and environmental health, and minimize disproportionate impacts on sensitive population groups.

Policy CON-4.A.2: Encourage businesses, industries and residents to reduce the impact of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of stationary and non-stationary pollution sources.

Policy CON-4.A.3: Require that sensitive uses such as schools, childcare centers, parks and playgrounds, housing, and community gathering places are protected from adverse impacts of emissions.

Policy CON-4.A.4: Continue to participate in regional planning efforts with the Southern California Association of Governments, nearby jurisdictions, and the South Coast Air Quality Management District to meet or exceed air quality standards.

Policy CON-4.A.6: Enhance bicycling and walking infrastructure, and support public bus service, pursuant to the Circulation Element’s goals, objectives, and policies.

Policy CON-4.A.8: Develop long-term, community-wide strategies and programs that work at the local level to reduce greenhouse gases and Costa Mesa’s “carbon footprint”.

Policy CON-4.X.X: Assess consistency with the Climate Action & Adaptation Plan (CAAP) in major land use decisions and investments in public infrastructure.

Existing Policy
Revised Policy
New Policy
City of Costa Mesa
Environmental Justice Policies: CONSERVATION ELEMENT

EJ TOPICS
-6-
1162
August 10, 2026 PC - Attachment 2 - PDF Page 226 through 251 Task
Reduce Pollution
Exposure
Provide Safe &
Sanitary Homes
Enhance Community
Assets
Increase Physical
Activity
Ensure Access to
Healthy Foods
Address
"Compounded" Risks
Promote Civic
Engagement
Policy
Objective N-1A: Control noise levels within the City for the protection of residential areas, park areas, and other sensitive land uses from excessive and unhealthful noise.

Policy N-1.3: Encourage Caltrans to construct noise attenuation barriers along I-405, SR-55, and SR-73 where these freeways adjoin residential and other noise-sensitive areas.

Objective N-2A: Plan for the reduction in noise impacts on sensitive receptors and land uses.

Policy N-2.4: Require that all proposed projects are compatible with adopted noise/land use compatibility criteria
Policy N-2.5: Enforce applicable interior and exterior noise standards.

Existing Policy
Revised Policy
New Policy
City of Costa Mesa
Environmental Justice Policies: NOISE ELEMENT

EJ TOPICS
-7-
1163
August 10, 2026 PC - Attachment 2 - PDF Page 252 through 300 Task
Reduce Pollution
Exposure
Provide Safe &
Sanitary Homes
Enhance Community
Assets
Increase Physical
Activity
Ensure Access to
Healthy Foods
Address
"Compounded" Risks
Promote Civic
Engagement
Policy
Objective S-1A: Work to mitigate and prevent potential adverse consequences of natural and human-caused disasters.

Policy S-1.6: Identify through a study the issue of unreinforced masonry buildings and soft stories and other structures not meeting earthquake standards in Costa Mesa. Provide assistance if necessary to unreinforced masonry building owners once those buildings have been identified, with priority for assistance given to building owners located within designated environmental justice area boundaries.

Policy S-1.9: Continue to consult with appropriate local, State, and federal agencies to maintain the most current flood hazard and floodplain information; use the information as a basis for project review and to guide development in accordance with federal, State, and local standards.

Policy S-1.11: Improve and maintain local storm drainage infrastructure in a manner that reduces flood hazards.

Policy S-1.12: Continue to develop hazard preparedness plans to prepare for large storms that could bring flooding hazards and other related issues.

Policy S-1.13: Actively promote public education, research, and information dissemination on flooding hazards.

Objective S-2A: Plan, promote, and demonstrate a readiness to respond and reduce threats to life and property through traditional and innovative emergency services and programs.

Policy S-2.1: Promote crime prevention strategies and provide a high level of response to incidents.

Policy S-2.3: Timely response to incidents and monitoring areas with high crime rates should be part of a comprehensive strategy to reduce crime in the community.

Policy S-2.4: Provide a high level of police and fire service in the community. Secure adequate facilities, equipment, and personnel for police and fire.

Policy S-2.6: Require that water supply systems for development are adequate to combat structural fires in terms of location and minimum required fire-flow pressures.

Policy S-2.8: Partner with community based organizations, neighborhood watch programs, and other neighborhood groups to promote awareness, safety, and security, with focus on designated environmental justice communities.

Policy S-2.10: Maintain staff and facilities that will continue to support a coordinated and effective response to emergencies and natural disasters throughout the City.

Policy S-2.12: Continue to maintain adequate police and fire staffing, facilities, equipment, and maintenance sufficient to protect the community.

City of Costa Mesa
Environmental Justice Policies: SAFETY ELEMENT

EJ TOPICS
-8-
1164
Policy S-2.15: Continue to consult with the County of Orange to identify and inventory all users of hazardous materials and all hazardous waste generators, and prepare clean-up action plans for identified disposal sites.

Policy S-2.16: Require the safe production, transportation, handling, use, and disposal of hazardous materials that may cause air, water, or soil contamination.

Policy S-2.19: Support policies and programs to help residents and businesses be prepared for extreme heat conditions.

Policy S-2.20: Promote public awareness of best practices for participation in household hazardous waste management and disposal.

Policy S-2.21: Support policies and programs to help residents and businesses be prepared for extreme heat conditions.

Policy S-2.22: Maintain guidelines for monitoring and disseminating public information related to extreme heat; maintain cooling centers and update their locations annually, with priority given to locating such centers within the boundaries of designated environmental justice areas.

Policy S-2.23: Require new development within a designated floodplain to submit a flood safety plan for approval by the Floodplain Administrator.

Policy S-2.24: Continue to ensure emergency alert/notification capabilities meet the City's future needs by providing alerts about potential, developing, and ongoing emergency situations.

Policy S-2.25: Collaborate with local, regional, state, and/or federal jurisdictions and agencies on climate resiliency and adaptation strategies. a. Develop a climate resiliency plan that integrates and builds upon the strategies identified in City, County, and regional climate action/adaptation efforts. b. Monitor climate change-related effects with local, regional, state, and/or federal partners to provide information about the effectiveness of existing infrastructure and programs.
c. Coordinate with regional, state, and federal agencies to monitor the indicators and impacts of climate change.

Policy S-2.26: Explore opportunities to locate emergency services and response centers within or near underserved neighborhoods to support preparedness, rapid response, and recovery across a range of neighborhood threats, including natural disasters, climate hazards, and other emergencies
Policy S-2.27: Ensure adequate evacuation capacity and infrastructure is available for existing and new development. a. Implement evacuation measures locally as outlined within City and County Evacuation Planning efforts.
b. Develop an Evacuation Master Plan that identifies routes, potential hazard incidents, and criteria regarding capacity, safety, and viability.

Policy S-2.29: Require all residential developments that do not have at least two ingress/egress routes, identify alternate evacuation options, implement earlier evacuation notifications, and develop protocols for future evacuations that consider the constraints associated with these areas.

Existing Policy
Revised Policy
New Policy
-9-
1165
August 10, 2026 PC - Attachment 2 - PDF Page 301 through 336 Task
Reduce Pollution
Exposure
Provide Safe &
Sanitary Homes
Enhance Community
Assets
Increase Physical
Activity
Ensure Access to
Healthy Foods
Address
"Compounded" Risks
Promote Civic
Engagement
Policy
Objective CD-1B: Encourage clear connections between districts within the City.

Policy CD-6.3: Continue to work with Code Enforcement to ensure continued maintenance of properties and compliance with adopted development standards.

Policy CD-6.4: Promote urban greening and expansion of the tree canopy throughout the City to create more physical comfort and to encourage walking, with consideration on greening within designated environmental justice areas boundaries.

Policy CD-10.5: Require that landscaping be used to define areas such as entrances to industrial buildings and parking lots; define the edges of developments; provide transition between neighboring properties; and provide screening for outdoor storage, loading, and equipment areas. Landscaping should be in scale with adjacent buildings and be of an appropriate size at maturity to accomplish its intended purpose.

Objective CD-10B: Ensure that the development of industrial projects are positive additions to the City’s community setting and do not result in adverse impacts with adjacent uses.

Policy CD-10.7: Require industrial projects to incorporate landscape setbacks, screening walls, and/or other elements that mitigate negative impacts with adjacent uses.

Policy CD-10.8: Protect transitional areas between industrial and other uses.

Policy CD-10.9: Storage yards, parking areas, and service areas should be screened from public view.

Existing Policy
Revised Policy
New Policy
City of Costa Mesa
Environmental Justice Policies: COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT

EJ TOPICS
-10-
1166
August 10, 2026 PC - Attachment 2 - PDF Page 337 through 373 Task
Reduce Pollution
Exposure
Provide Safe &
Sanitary Homes
Enhance Community
Assets
Increase Physical
Activity
Ensure Access to
Healthy Foods
Address
"Compounded" Risks
Promote Civic
Engagement
Policy
Objective OSR-1A: Maintain and preserve existing parks, and strive to provide additional parks, public spaces, and recreation facilities that meet the community’s evolving needs.

Policy OSR-1.3: Pursue the acquisition and development of pocket and neighborhood parks within park-deficient areas, as identified in Figure OSR-3: Planning Areas and Underserved Park Areas.

Policy OSR-1.4: Prioritize the acquisition of land for parks in underserved neighborhoods, with consideration placed on designated environmental justice communities.

Policy OSR-1.8: Require that parks and recreation facilities reflect new trends and population changes, and are developed with facilities appropriate to all ages, including athletic fields, active play areas, passive open space, tot lots, and picnic areas.

Policy OSR-1.9: Conduct a sports facility study to review current outdoor facility locations and resources and a demographic study for future facility requirements as they relate to planned growth within the City.

Policy OSR-1.10: Pur
sue urban agricultural opportunities in both private developments and public spaces, including urban farms and additional community gardens lots and spaces, and home gardens to meet demand and need by the community, and explore opportunities to promote and incentivize farmer's markets, especially those that are readily accessible to designated environmental justice communites.

Policy OSR-1.11: Co ordinate with local organizations to promote urban greening and urban gardening programs, including the planning, operations, and maintenance of community gardens, and to educate the public on the benefits of healthy foods.

Policy OSR-1.13: Design and reform parks to reflect the latest recreational features that respond to demographic changes and community needs.

Policy OSR-1.20: Enhance pedestrian, bicycle, and transit linkages to meet the needs of residents and to provide better access to parks, recreation, and public spaces.

Policy OSR-1.21: Provide opportunities for public access to all open space areas, except where sensitive resources may be threatened or damaged, public health and safety may be compromised, or access would interfere with the managed production of resources.

City of Costa Mesa
Environmental Justice Policies: OPEN SPACE & RECREATION ELEMENT

EJ TOPICS
-11-
1167
Objective OSR-2A: Provide activities, classes, and a variety of programs to meet the year- round recreational needs of all residents: children, adult, seniors, and persons with special needs.

Policy OSR-2.1: Provide high-quality community services programs that are flexible and responsive to the community’s changing needs.

Policy OSR-2.4: Update existing facilities for senior citizens, youth, adults, and overall community use, with consideration given to areas that are underserved and/or within designated environmental justice area boundaries.

Policy OSR-2.5: Encourage recreational, cultural, and community services programs and activities that are of local interest and inclusive and affordable to all residents.

Policy OSR-2.6: Support efforts to connect residents to local and regional cultural, recreational, and educational assets.

Policy OSR-2.7: Monitor and research the ever-changing community services needs of the community, and develop action plans to address those needs through partnerships with service agencies.

Policy OSR-2.9: Continue broad-based public outreach activities that inform residents of all available community services programs, and obtain input from the community regarding program and service needs.

Policy OSR-2.10: Encourage resident input and utilize demographic data, partnerships, volunteers, and existing resources to identify the needs of community.

Policy OSR-2.13: Develop and implement community services programs and activities that meet the needs of specialized populations through the development of community partnerships.

Objective OSR-3A: Preserve the City’s open space lands and provide additional community and neighborhood parkland in underserved areas.

Existing Policy
Revised Policy
New Policy
-12-
1168
P.O. Box 15333 Newport Beach, CA 92659 (949) 216-0880 CoastalCorridor.org 1 August 4, 2026
Comments submitted via email to: [email protected] City of Co
sta Mesa
Economic and Development Services Department
77 Fair Drive 2nd Floor
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
RE: Comm
ents on City’s Draft Climate Action and Adaptation Plan Dear Econ
omic and Development Services Department,
Coastal C
orridor Alliance (CCA) respectfully submits these comments on the City of Costa Mesa’s draft Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP). We request to be notified of any and all future comment opportunities on the CAAP or its elements. Please add: [email protected] to the distribution list.

We received notice from the City staff today that some of our comments will be incorporated into the Planning Commission staff report due out on Friday, August 7th.

Since the comment deadline for the Draft CAAP precedes that date and we are not privy to what those edits will be, and the current document does not reflect our previous suggestions, we would be reiterating many of our points here.

Some comments in this letter are new after reading the Draft CAAP, some comments reiterate previous points, but our original comment letter should be considered our main contributions, as they remain relevant (Attachment A).

We also respectfully request a meeting with staff to go through our areas of concern, see how our comments have been addressed and discuss elements of the plan.

ATTACHMENT 7
-1-
1169
P.O. Box 15333 Newport Beach, CA 92659 (949) 216-0880 CoastalCorridor.org 2 Comments
CCA’s comments on the 2026 Draft CAAP below are grouped by Plan Sector, with Sectors ordered by priority related to our comments. Each comment is referenced by Plan Sector, Location (PDF page), Plan Objective, Plan Action, and CCA’s comment.

Chapter 1: Introduction
Location: Pg. 18
Text: “Urban Forestry, Open Space, and Nature-Based Resilience. The City continues to invest in urban greening and ecosystem health.”
Comment: We do not see examples or plans in this document of ecosystem investments. We recommend examples be incorporated to strengthen the document.

Chapter 1: Introduction
Location: Pg. 19
Text: Co-benefit definition: “Enhances the Natural Environment. Efforts that positively impact the ecosystems, biodiversity, and natural resources within Costa Mesa.” Comment: We cannot find examples in the Draft Plan where a solution accomplishes this goal. It is listed as a co-benefit of some of the CAAP efforts, but is not shown how actions accomplish this specific co-benefit. Only natural resources (water and atmosphere) seem to be considered here, for human benefits. There is no mention of biodiversity elsewhere in the plan, and mentions of ecosystem benefits are not explained in the few places it appears (using less toxic chemicals, etc.). What do ecosystems here need, and how will the City provide that? Chapter 5: Climate Action And Adaptation Strategy
Location: Natural and Urban Lands, Pg. 73
General Comment: As stated in our last comment letter (Attachment A), we feel Natural Lands should be treated fully and separately from Urban Lands. The following comments would apply to an individual Urban Lands Sector:

Chapter 5: Climate Action And Adaptation Strategy
Location: Natural and Urban Lands, Pg. 73
Text: “The natural and urban lands sector focuses on enhancing carbon sequestration across parks, open spaces, and urban landscapes. This sector advances strategies that capture and store CO
2 in vegetation while expanding nature-based solutions to strengthen climate resilience.”
Comment: Focusing solely on carbon sequestration to mitigate human impacts by further -2-
1170
P.O. Box 15333 Newport Beach, CA 92659 (949) 216-0880 CoastalCorridor.org 3 human engineering (even planting ‘drought tolerant’ gardens) is not ultimately effective.

The focus should be on restoring natural carbon cycles or natural carbon distribution systems provided by naturally evolving ecosystems. More carbon should be stored in terrestrial biology (plants) and geology (soil) because humans have extracted and burned so much of it, but only when carbon is returned to native biological and geological systems will the naturally moderated carbon cycle exchanges be restored and balanced for a stable atmosphere. In short, we suggest the City consider ways to restore and improve the natural carbon cycle and distribution systems.

Chapter 5: Climate Action And Adaptation Strategy
Location: Table 5-1. Sectors, Objectives, and Actions Pg. 81-82 Actions: NU1.a.-e.; g.-h.: Build upon and implement the City’s Urban Canopy and Land Assessment to encourage equitable tree canopy expansions.

Comment: Please include strong guidance and City commitments or ordinances to plant only native or edible plants and trees. Planting non-native trees works to further destroy native pollinators, plants, fungi, and other animals that create a stable environment. Planting non- natives should not a long term solution. It creates more of the problem it tries to solve with only short term human relief. Native plants are naturally drought tolerant and provide the needed shade to help with urban heat island effect. Utilitarian plants help with greening, community wellbeing, and food security. We support community garden and urban farming initiatives alongside native plant landscaping.

We also suggest:
● Adding incentives for participation in Homegrown National Park (https://homegrownnationalpark.org/ ).
● Working with the Orange County Chapter of the California Native Plant Society. ● Finding solutions to organize and consciously scale urban regenerative food production. ● Establishing restrictions against the propagation, sale, and planting of non-native invasive plants. To see a list of non-native invasive plants go to the California Invasive Plant Council website (https://www.cal-ipc.org/).

General Comments
Goals of the Plans
Text:
“The CAAP reflects an integrated approach to align multiple priorities while moving forward with -3-
1171
P.O. Box 15333 Newport Beach, CA 92659 (949) 216-0880 CoastalCorridor.org 4 local climate action and adaptation. It provides clear opportunities to reduce emissions, prepare for climate impacts, and support a resilient, thriving community into the future.” (pg. 15)

and,

“…forward-looking community, one where environmental responsibility and quality of life go hand in hand well beyond 2045.” (pg. 65)
Comment: We agree with the goals, but what it would take to truly accomplish this needs further definition. If this plan were carried out fully, is the promise that true environmental responsibility and sustainability would be achieved? If not, what else is needed? Terms & Topics
Term/Topic: “Growth”
Text:
“The City of Costa Mesa CAAP is a roadmap for the community to thrive, supporting continued growth and quality of life while preparing for and addressing climate change.” (pg. 15)

and,

“The CAAP is designed to work with, not against, continued growth and development by supporting smart, sustainable land use, transportation, and infrastructure decisions. The City recognizes that the goal is not to slow progress but to ensure it happens responsibly and equitably.” (pg. 15)

Comment: Please facilitate building a City-wide framework for how “growth” can be measured and discussed. Break down all categories of growth, quantify goals, and prove with research how competing goals are possible to be addressed concurrently.

What are the City’s categories, definitions, and goals for “growth” and how they relate to each other.” Define each growth category’s trajectory and its impacts on true local regenerative ecological sustainability. Define goals, or what numbers / increase is acceptable, for how long. Is there a cap, threshold, or benchmark for each category? ○ Natural World (re-growth)
■ biodiversity
■ natural lands
■ habitat
○ Human World
-4-
1172
P.O. Box 15333 Newport Beach, CA 92659 (949) 216-0880 CoastalCorridor.org 5 ■ economic
■ population
■ “Costa Mesa’s strong economy and relatively low exposure to climate hazards as compared to the region may make it an attractive destination for climate- displaced populations from other parts of Southern California. While this may bring economic opportunities, it could also exacerbate existing housing affordability pressures.” (pg. 47)
■ human land use expansion
■ building expansion (out or up?)
■ other?
We did a keyword search with the following results
Native landscaping (three uses, one page, one sector: Water and Wastewater. Not found in Natural and Urban Lands)
Native plants (0 mentions)
Wildlife (0 mentions)
Habitat (0 mentions)
Natural lands: No definition or discussion is in the plan Ecosystem (some nominal mentions, with no specific actions attached) Glossary (Pg. 101 -110): Please include comprehensive and specific definitions for the following:
● Natural environment: This is purported to be enhanced, but is never defined (pg. 19) ● Natural lands: What does this mean to the City?
● Nature -based solutions: how does this include or not include naturally evolving systems? ● Urban greening:
○ drought tolerant landscaping
○ shade trees (native?)
○ native plant / pollinator landscaping
○ edible or usable plants landscaping for food security and carbon cycles ● Environmental Responsibility:
○ to humans?
○ to pets?
○ to native plants and animals?
● Growth / Smart Growth
-5-
1173
P.O. Box 15333 Newport Beach, CA 92659 (949) 216-0880 CoastalCorridor.org 6 Conclusion
We would like to see the City’s CAAP plans include more specificity for steering the community toward harmony with the natural world as the only long term effective solution to anthropogenic climate change. We wish for a base level of intention in Costa Mesa’s CAAP that matches other cities’ CAAPs, like San Diego, Santa Cruz, and others. Notably missing is a plan and framework for the necessity of recovering local native species and habitats as our only long-term nature-based solution for climate change.

We hope that any efforts made in the name of ‘urban greening’, ‘green industry workforce opportunities,’ ‘nature-based solutions,’ ‘green business programs,’ put native plants and
ecosystems in its primary position of priority. Without this, these programs will only make nominal temporary living improvements for humans while continuing to contribute to the underlying problem of imminent ecosystem collapse.

We ask that all communications and outreach to the public be honest, realistic, and carefully researched. Please avoid greenwashing or presenting false positivity or a false narrative of the reality of our environmental impacts and the real world consequences in City communications and outreach.

We appreciate the work of City staff to increase sustainability in Costa Mesa. Should you have questions, please reach out to Paul Waggoner at: (949) 820-9094.

Sincerely,

Terry M. Welsh, MD
Board President

Attachments: 1 - CCA Letter to Costa Mesa on CAAP dated May 26, 2026 -6-
1174

May 25, 2026
Comments submitted via email to: [email protected]

City of Costa Mesa
Economic and Development Services Department
77 Fair Drive 2nd Floor
Costa Mesa, CA 92626

RE: Comments on City’s Draft Climate Action and Adaptation Plan Policies

Dear Economic and Development Services Department,

Coastal Corridor Alliance (CCA) respectfully submits these comments on the City of Costa Mesa’s draft Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP). We request to be noti ﬁed of any and all future comment
opportunities on the CAAP or its elements. Please add: [email protected] to the distribution list.

Background
CCA, formerly the Banning Ranch Conservancy, led the decades-long eﬀort to protect and create a permanent public open space of the 400-acre Banning Ranch property located between the borders of Costa Mesa, Newport Beach, and Huntington Beach, along the tidal in ﬂux zone of the Santa Ana River.

Escrow closed in December 2022, permanently protecting 387 acres of Banning Ranch. The title was transferred to the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority (MRCA), a local joint powers authority that manages over 85,000 acres of parkland in Southern California. The property is now known as the Frank and Joan Randall Preserve/Genga (or simply Randall Preserve/Genga).

Our vision of conservation extends beyond the Randall Preserve/Genga to encompass the entire Coastal Corridor from the Paci
ﬁc Ocean up the Santa Ana River to Adams Street in Costa Mesa. We seek to restore our natural lands, ensure functional habitat for wildlife, and promote the critical need for native biodiversity survival through education and built-environment reform in today’s context of late-stage ecological destruction.

P.O. Box 15333 Newport Beach, CA 92659 (949) 216-0880 CoastalCorridor.org 1 Attachment 1
-7-
1175

Comments
General Comments
We would like to see climate and sustainability planning in Costa Mesa, or any location, ﬁrst inventory and prioritize the needs of the preexisting and preeminent local native ecosystems. Local, regional, and global ecosystems serve as Earth's irreplaceable, self-regulating life-support systems.

Climate change, environmental injustice, and resource collapses are not just emissions, pollution, and human resource e
ﬃciency problems—they are symptoms of a deeper root cause: the destruction of native biodiversity by the expanding built human environment. Climate science points to the biodiversity crisis at the center, and prioritizes restoration over innovation (Attachment 1).

While decarbonizing Costa Mesa should be a goal the City strives for in this CAAP, our primary and most e
ﬀective focus would be to shift our relationship with nature and cede land and resources back to local, regional, and global native living systems. Engineering, technology, and green planning cannot eﬀectively reduce human impacts to accommodate all of what modern human populations want and need, and eﬀectively replicate or replace the natural systems that regulate our air, water, and carbon cycles.

Global, Regional, Local: To make our local air, water, and soil cleaner is crucial. But for as long as our populations require remote resources for support, we simply push our air, water, and soil impacts elsewhere. This is just another form of (out of sight and out of mind) environmental injustice for humans, and reinforces the ecological destruction that drives the global climate crisis that local CAAPs try to address. Those global impacts come back around at larger scales to a ﬀect all local places too, even if local
areas end up with cleaner resources. Climate action in this frame looks like taking responsibility for all of our local and remote impacts, reducing or ending our reliance on remote water, air, mineral, and food resources, and reorienting our local in
ﬁll spaces for food, sustainable goods production, and native biodiversity recovery.

Climate action based on ecology prioritizes the restoration of all of our suitable natural areas to native habitats, and creating/ceding massive amounts of local, regional, and global space back for wildlife and habitat connectivity.

We hope our comments encourage Costa Mesa’s CAAP toward actions that help recover biodiversity as a ﬁrst and most eﬀective priority.

P.O. Box 15333 Newport Beach, CA 92659 (949) 216-0880 CoastalCorridor.org 2 -8-
1176

Prioritized Comments
Our comments on the 2026 Draft CAAP below are grouped by Plan Sector, with Sectors ordered by priority related to our comments. Each comment is referenced by Plan Sector, Location (PDF page), Plan Objective, Plan Action, and CCA’s comment.

Sector: Natural and Urban Lands
Location: Pg. 9
Comments: We respectfully request that this Sector gets careful and robust reframing. Natural and Urban lands are very di
ﬀerent, which should warrant separate Sectors. The existing action items apply almost exclusively to Urban Lands and their orientation for human beneﬁts rather than prioritizing Natural Lands and (local, native) nature-based solutions. - We request Natural Lands become a new, banner ‘Sector’ of the CAAP plan focusing on clearly de
ﬁned, legally bound native biodiversity goals. Actions should support ecosystem recovery on Natural Lands, as this is our best and most eﬀective action to take to mitigate anthropogenic climate change.
- We request, Costa Mesa add speciﬁc restoration and rewilding goals, actions, and ordinances as the European Union does, that remove invasive plants, restore already-available open spaces to functioning locally native habitats, and remove human infrastructure that blocks otherwise available native habitats. - Please include consideration of Costa Mesa’s position within our bioregion and within the California Floristic Province, acknowledging our City’s impact on the fragmentation of native habitats, and its e
ﬀects on the climate and livability of our built world, as Santa Barbara does in its CAAP.
- Other documents for reference:
- CAAPS from San Diego, Santa Cruz
- Costa Mesa General Plan, Conservation Element
- Fairview Park Master Plan’s California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Appendices B-1 and C-3.

- Urban Lands (Existing Sector):
- Native or edible plants: We request all rules, references, outreach, educational or community programs related to the use of plants (Plan-wide) including tree canopies, tree planting, tree replacements, urban greening, shade plants, drought tolerant plants, or landscaping, make a clear prioritization for either locally native plants or edible cultivars for local food production. Please clearly deprioritize or ban planting non-native or non-edible plants in CAAP actions and policies, as they contribute to biodiversity loss. Instead, please share the bene
ﬁts of locally native plant species and local food production as solutions.

P.O. Box 15333 Newport Beach, CA 92659 (949) 216-0880 CoastalCorridor.org 3 -9-
1177

Native plants provide drought tolerance, shade / canopy, sequestration, and more, while also supporting native pollinators, wildlife, natural soil composition, natural water treatment for the watershed (except for Action d., see Water and Wastewater comment). - Consider adding an action to include public promotion and incentives for residents and developments to participate either in ‘homegrown national park’ native landscapes (https://homegrownnationalpark.org/) (CCA would be glad to help strategize), or micro-farmed food production for locals.
- We support all initiatives that incentivize and expand local food production within inﬁll spaces. Please specify that no additional natural lands encroachments should occur for the sake of food production. We have some other incentivized ideas that support job creation that we can share upon request.
- All civic tree installations or replacements must be to native trees or food production. See Pasadena’s urban forestry information:
https://www.cityofpasadena.net/public-works/urban-forestry/ - Consider policies to block the sale of known invasive plant species from nurseries, garden centers, and more. Look to California Native Plant Society (CNPS), California Invasive Plant Council (CAL-IPC), and Ron Vanderho
ﬀ at Roger’s Gardens for consultation
(rvanderhoﬀ@sbcglobal.net).
- Please deﬁne ‘Urban Greening’ to include recovery for locally native species, Dark Sky, bird safe windows, invasive honeybee and other invasive pollinator management, and more.

Sector: Water and Wastewater
Location: Pg. 6
Comment: We hope this Sector gets a more robust nature-ﬁrst framework. Local watersheds and dependent native ecosystems must be primary considerations, as they comprise the foundation of all human and nonhuman life of a place.
- We request that all references, examples, and methods related to the use of plants for shade, drought tolerance, or any other bene
ﬁts be focused exclusively on diverse locally native plant palettes, or cultivars that provide local human food production. We ask the City to commit to working with consultants from groups such as the CNPS, CAL-IPC, and others to create native wildlife friendly landscapes. Ornamental plant palettes support invasive pollinators and other non-native species, whose presence displaces and competes with native biodiversity. - Local watersheds are engineered to cut oﬀ dependent ecosystems through hardened walls and barriers, which would need to be prioritized for removal to recover biodiversity. Please consider forming a framework for long term watershed infrastructure removal. - Add an action item focused on low-impact development (LID) that mimics natural hydrology.

Ensure stormwater capture basins, bioswales, and daylighted drainage systems are designed as P.O. Box 15333 Newport Beach, CA 92659 (949) 216-0880 CoastalCorridor.org 4 -10-
1178

living wetlands rather than concrete or synthetic retention cells. This ﬁlters urban runoﬀ naturally before it reaches the ocean while providing immediate avian and amphibian habitats.

Sector: People and Community
Location: Pg. 10 - 11
Comment: We generally support the action items, with a few critiques listed below. We urge the City:
- To prioritize implementing long term solutions like native habitat and watershed restoration that decrease the needs for short term solutions.
- Not to promote ‘Green’ jobs or businesses that might trade local immediate improvements for global or long term impacts.
- Prioritize sustainably sourced natural materials in eﬀorts to provide relief, and avoid plastics which harm native ecosystems’ ability to thrive and regulate the planetary temperatures.

Sector: People and Community
Location: Pg. 11
Objective: PC3: Build City and Regional Capacity for CAAP Implementation Action: “d. Coordinate with the following agencies on dam operational planning and related ﬂood risks:
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Los Angeles District
• Irvine Ranch Water District
• County of Orange”
Comment: Our watersheds are highly engineered, which cuts oﬀ their natural functions to support the ecosystems’ environmental regulatory systems. Watershed infrastructure might protect human homes from
ﬂoods, but they accelerate the trajectory toward a warming environment. Watershed infrastructure must be removed, not added for short term climate relief. City policies should reﬂect this priority, and City involvement in regional planning should promote this practice. Instead of cutting oﬀ river and tide functions to protect infrastructure, infrastructure should move out of the way of rivers and tides (Attachment 2).

Sector: People and Community
Location: Pg. 11
Objective: PC4. Foster Local Sustainable Practices
Action: “e. Engage local Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and compile a list relative to their interests and capabilities on a variety of topics related to climate action and adaptation, such as distributing related news or grant opportunities, or participating in or facilitating volunteer events such as clean ups or tree plantings.”
Comment: CCA is available and willing to engage with the City on these topics and activities.

P.O. Box 15333 Newport Beach, CA 92659 (949) 216-0880 CoastalCorridor.org 5 -11-
1179

Sector: On-Road Transportation
Location: Pg. 2
Objective: T1. Transition to Electric Vehicles
Comment: We generally support the listed action items. Please add actions to incentivize and plan electriﬁcation deployment within a closed-loop second-life framework to reduce rare earth mining impacts. Local improvements should not come with additional global impacts (Attachment 3).

Sector: On-Road Transportation
Location: Pg. 2
Objective: T2. Promote Walking and Biking
T3. Reduce Single-Occupancy Vehicle Trips
T4. Increase Public Transportation Use
Comment: We generally support the action items, though not at the expense of more use of plastics or other environmentally harmful materials or activities. We request the City limit materials to sustainably sourced natural materials and focus on design e
ﬃciency, biodegradation, and simpliﬁcation.

Sector: On-Road Transportation
Location: Pg. 2
Objective: T5. Support Smart Growth
Comment: We urge the City to consider how biodiversity is already too constrained, and how continued growth works against climate adaptation.

Sector: Energy and Buildings
Location: Pg. 4
Objective: E1. Reduce Energy Demand in Buildings
Action: “c. Seek grants to oﬀer incentives for cool roofs and walls during roof replacements or renovations.”
Comment: Please consider policies / building requirements which include other passive cooling and heating systems of various types (air towers, trombe walls, etc.) for all new construction. Consider hybrid local-earth building materials to reduce resource needs, plastic use, promote in-ground in ﬁll building, and
more.

Sector: Energy and Buildings
Location: Pg. 4
Objective: E2. Decarbonize Building Energy Use
Comment: We support actions a. - c. However, for d., we recognize that Green Building standards still have major tradeo
ﬀs, particularly in the proliﬁc use of plastic and other harmful materials. Consider celebrating those that go beyond Green Building by sustainably sourcing natural building materials.

P.O. Box 15333 Newport Beach, CA 92659 (949) 216-0880 CoastalCorridor.org 6 -12-
1180

Sector: Energy and Buildings
Location: Pg. 4
Objective: E3. Increase Carbon-Free Energy Supply
Comment: We provide our general support. Find incentives / ways to keep electriﬁcation circular, engage in second-life platforms (See comment above).

Sector: Solid Waste
Location: Pg. 7
Objective: SW1. Reduce Waste Generation
Comment:
- We provide our support for all, with special support for Action b. - Consider adding actions for easy City-supported e-waste drop-oﬀ / recycling, and facilities for handling fats, oils, and grease waste.
- Please consider having City Departments join the OC Trash and Debris Task Force quarterly meetings CCA participates in. Email [email protected] to participate.

Sector: Oﬀ-Road Equipment
Location: Pg. 8
Objective: OR1. Accelerate Zero-Emission Oﬀ-Road Equipment Adoption Comment: We provide our general support. However, see the above comments on circular electriﬁcation and second-life programs to reduce mining impacts.

Sector: Municipal
Location: Pg. 12 - 13
Comment: We can provide our general support for action items, with relevant above comments for other Sectors applied: native-
ﬁrst plantings, second-life electriﬁcation, embargo on plastic infrastructure, etc.

Conclusion
We appreciate the City’s work on the draft CAAP. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this plan. We understand that ecosystem centrality with its needs and limits have not made its way into widespread public discourse or planning solutions. It's a change in paradigm compared to what most of P.O. Box 15333 Newport Beach, CA 92659 (949) 216-0880 CoastalCorridor.org 7 -13-
1181

us were raised to think and believe about what we humans can or can’t sustainably do. We respectfully submit our comments with this in mind.

Should you have questions, please reach out to Paul Waggoner at: (949) 820-9094.

Sincerely,

Terry M. Welsh, MD
Board President

Attachments: 1 - UN: Biodiversity - our strongest natural defense against climate change 2 - Restoring Free-ﬂowing Rivers in Europe
3 - Project Closed Circuit: Helping Cities Lead on EV Battery Circularity P.O. Box 15333 Newport Beach, CA 92659 (949) 216-0880 CoastalCorridor.org 8 -14-
1182
Attachment 1
Source: https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/science/climate- issues/biodiversity
Attachment 1
Source: https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/science/climate- issues/biodiversity
-15-
1183
-16-
1184
-17-
1185
-18-
1186
-19-
1187
-20-
1188
-21-
1189
-22-
1190
-23-
1191
-24-
1192
-25-
1193
-26-
1194
-27-
1195
-28-
1196
-29-
1197
-30-
1198
-31-
1199
-32-
1200
-33-
1201
-34-
1202
-35-
1203
-36-
1204
-37-
1205
-38-
1206
-39-
1207
-40-
1208
-41-
1209
-42-
1210
-43-
1211
-44-
1212
-45-
1213
-46-
1214
-47-
1215
-48-
1216
-49-
1217
-50-
1218
-51-
1219
-52-
1220
-53-
1221
-54-
1222
-55-
1223
-56-
1224
-57-
1225
-58-
1226
-59-
1227
-60-
1228
-61-
1229
-62-
1230
-63-
1231
-64-
1232
-65-
1233
-66-
1234
-67-
1235
-68-
1236
Apr 10
The New York Climate Exchange recently launched , a new project to put cities at the center of electric vehicle (EV) battery circularity.

Batteries are at the heart of the effort to
electrify the economy and move away from
fossil fuels. From powering EVs to storing
electricity generated by wind and solar,
global battery demand has surged by around
33% per year over the past 30 years. Nearly
95% of recent growth is driven by EVs. In
2013, there were only 100,000 electric
vehicles on the road worldwide; just 10 years
later that number reached 40 million!
Figure: Global EV Stock vs. forecasted
demand (2018-2023 forecasts, 2024 actual)
Get Involved Our Work About Us Press
joins The Exchange as Chief Executive Officer! ×
-69-
1237
All batteries require rare earth materials—
85% of the world’s lithium, 70% of its cobalt,
and 10% of its nickel go to battery production
—and we’ll need hundreds of new mines to
meet growing demand. Many of these mines come with environmental and human rights concerns and increase the world’s dependence on unstable supply zones.

Still, EVs are much less harmful to the environment than gas-powered vehicles, however high upfront costs and ques
tions about battery life contributes to slow adoption. Like cell phones, EV batteries degrade over time. Around 7-12 years into an EV battery’s life, it loses about 25% of its original strength. At this stage, the battery may struggle to maintain peak performance, despite having 70-80% of its charging capacity.

Disposing these batteries in landfills risks contamination from toxic materials and re cycling
them prematurely wastes their remaining value.

Without a better way recycle and repurpose batteries, the growing EV market could turn a climate solution into an environmental crisis.

A circular strategy maximizes a vehicle’s
lifecycle using intelligent battery
management. This first stage involves using
data to optimize battery performance so it
can be used longer before being discarded.

Once a battery’s charging capacity degrades
to 70-80%, it can be reused or repurposed.

These second–life batteries can be used in
building energy systems or electrical grid
storage. This approach transforms a battery,
once considered garbage, into a valuable
asset, and allows EV owners to earn money
from their used batteries. These circular
[International Energy Agency, Annual Energy
Outlooks 2018-2024]
-70-
1238
economy principles make EV ownership more
affordable and environmentally responsible.

Finally, at the end of its life, the battery can
be recycled. Recycling processes extract and purify raw materials and send them back to manufacturers for new batteries. This closed-loop approach dramatically reduces the need to mine new materials, creating a sustainable cycle that minimizes waste and environmental impact.

Current estimates value the battery circularity market to be $7 billion by 2033. According to The International Energy Agency, battery cir
cularity could decrease the need for critical mineral
mining by up to 40% and decrease greenhouse gas emissions by up to 80%. EV batteries that are suitable for second-life applications could create more than 200 GWh of power—enough energy to power around
18,500 American homes for a year—by 2030 Plus, local circular economies for batteries reduce dependence on foreign sources of raw materials Cities are already at the forefront of the battery revolution: they are home to the majority of EV fleets and owners, charging infrastructure, and the bulk of the growth in energy storage systems – making them ideal innovation grounds for battery circularity. This deployment ecosystem means the potential for demonstrating battery circularity is at our fingertips. It just
needs some support and coordination.
leverages The New York Climate Exchange’s partner network of battery experts and resources, business and public–sector engagement, convening, and thought leadership to deliver:
• Framing and analytical content
• Key industry events that facilitate learning and collaboration • Technology and regulation across and beyond our partners to advance a circular economy for batteries
Figure: A Circular Economy for EV Batteries.

Credit: Wyatt Williams
-71-
1239
Sign up to receive news and periodic updates from The Exchange. • : Expanding the network of individuals who are advancing battery circularity by sharing its importance with new audiences — from city officials to fleet operators, waste management professionals to insurers and financiers, and national security and supply chain logisticians to sustainability advocates.
• : Developing communities of practice across and beyond the Exchange’s partner network to ensure that local lessons from the battery ecosystem extend across geographies. These convenings will focus on researchers, city officials, regulators, startups and private sector businesses, fleets, and energy system developers. • : Project Closed Circuit will initially focus on The Exchange’s home — New York City. With a regulatory and economic framework that informs cities worldwide, NYC is poised to become a leading hub and global model for resource–efficient battery innovation, investment, and safe deployment. This will be achieved through policy, local access to battery data and end-of-life battery assets, and the development of a replicable roadmap for battery circularity in urban environments.

Email us at [email protected] with the subject line “Project Closed Circuit”. -72-
1240
Search
10 South Street, Slip 7
New York, NY 10004
Questions? Visit our or email us at [email protected] -73-
1241

May 25, 2026
Comments submitted via email to: [email protected]

City of Costa Mesa
Economic and Development Services Department
77 Fair Drive 2nd Floor
Costa Mesa, CA 92626

RE: Comments on City’s Draft Climate Action and Adaptation Plan Policies

Dear Economic and Development Services Department,

P.O. Box 15333 Newport Beach, CA 92659 (949) 216-0880 CoastalCorridor.org 1 -74-
1242

We hope our comments encourage Costa Mesa’s CAAP toward actions that help recover biodiversity as a ﬁrst and most eﬀective priority.

P.O. Box 15333 Newport Beach, CA 92659 (949) 216-0880 CoastalCorridor.org 2 -75-
1243

P.O. Box 15333 Newport Beach, CA 92659 (949) 216-0880 CoastalCorridor.org 3 -76-
1244

Ensure stormwater capture basins, bioswales, and daylighted drainage systems are designed as P.O. Box 15333 Newport Beach, CA 92659 (949) 216-0880 CoastalCorridor.org 4 -77-
1245

living wetlands rather than concrete or synthetic retention cells. This ﬁlters urban runoﬀ naturally before it reaches the ocean while providing immediate avian and amphibian habitats.

P.O. Box 15333 Newport Beach, CA 92659 (949) 216-0880 CoastalCorridor.org 5 -78-
1246

P.O. Box 15333 Newport Beach, CA 92659 (949) 216-0880 CoastalCorridor.org 6 -79-
1247

us were raised to think and believe about what we humans can or can’t sustainably do. We respectfully submit our comments with this in mind.

Should you have questions, please reach out to Paul Waggoner at: (949) 820-9094.

Sincerely,

Terry M. Welsh, MD
Board President

Attachments: 1 - UN: Biodiversity - our strongest natural defense against climate change 2 - Restoring Free-ﬂowing Rivers in Europe
3 - Project Closed Circuit: Helping Cities Lead on EV Battery Circularity P.O. Box 15333 Newport Beach, CA 92659 (949) 216-0880 CoastalCorridor.org 8 -81-
1249
Attachment 1
Source: https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/science/climate- issues/biodiversity
Attachment 1
Source: https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/science/climate- issues/biodiversity
-82-
1250
-83-
1251
-84-
1252
-85-
1253
-86-
1254
-87-
1255
-88-
1256
-89-
1257
-90-
1258
-91-
1259
-92-
1260
-93-
1261
-94-
1262
-95-
1263
-96-
1264
-97-
1265
-98-
1266
-99-
1267
-100-
1268
-101-
1269
-102-
1270
-103-
1271
-104-
1272
-105-
1273
-106-
1274
-107-
1275
-108-
1276
-109-
1277
-110-
1278
-111-
1279
-112-
1280
-113-
1281
-114-
1282
-115-
1283
-116-
1284
-117-
1285
-118-
1286
-119-
1287
-120-
1288
-121-
1289
-122-
1290
-123-
1291
-124-
1292
-125-
1293
-126-
1294
-127-
1295
-128-
1296
-129-
1297
-130-
1298
-131-
1299
-132-
1300
-133-
1301
-134-
1302
-135-
1303
Apr 10
The New York Climate Exchange recently launched , a new project to put cities at the center of electric vehicle (EV) battery circularity.

Batteries are at the heart of the effort to
electrify the economy and move away from
fossil fuels. From powering EVs to storing
electricity generated by wind and solar,
global battery demand has surged by around
33% per year over the past 30 years. Nearly
95% of recent growth is driven by EVs. In
2013, there were only 100,000 electric
vehicles on the road worldwide; just 10 years
later that number reached 40 million!
Figure: Global EV Stock vs. forecasted
demand (2018-2023 forecasts, 2024 actual)
Get Involved Our Work About Us Press
joins The Exchange as Chief Executive Officer! ×
-136-
1304
All batteries require rare earth materials—
85% of the world’s lithium, 70% of its cobalt,
and 10% of its nickel go to battery production
—and we’ll need hundreds of new mines to
meet growing demand. Many of these mines come with environmental and human rights concerns and increase the world’s dependence on unstable supply zones.

Still, EVs are much less harmful to the environment than gas-powered vehicles, however high upfr
ont costs and questions about battery life contributes to slow adoption. Like cell phones, EV batteries degrade over time. Around 7-12 years into an EV battery’s life, it loses about 25% of its original strength. At this stage, the battery may struggle to maintain peak performance, despite having 70-80% of its charging capacity.

Disposing these batteries in landfills risks contamination from toxic materials and r ecycling
them prematurely wastes their remaining value.

Without a better way recycle and repurpose batteries, the growing EV market could turn a climate solution into an environmental crisis.

Once a battery’s charging capacity degrades
to 70-80%, it can be reused or repurposed.

These second–life batteries can be used in
building energy systems or electrical grid
storage. This approach transforms a battery,
once considered garbage, into a valuable
asset, and allows EV owners to earn money
from their used batteries. These circular
[International Energy Agency, Annual Energy
Outlooks 2018-202
4]
-137-
1305
economy principles make EV ownership more
affordable and environmentally responsible.

Current estimates value the battery circularity market to be $7 billion by 2033. According to The International Energy Agency,
battery circularity could decrease the need for critical mineral mining by up to 40% and decrease greenhouse gas emissions by up to 80%. EV batteries that are suitable for second-life applications could create more than 200 GWh of power—enough energy to power around
18,500 American homes for a year—by 2030 Plus, local circular economies for batteries reduce dependence on foreign sources of raw materials Cities are already at the forefront of the battery revolution: they are home to the majority of EV fleets and owners, charging infrastructure, and the bulk of the growth in energy storage systems – making them ideal innovation grounds for battery circularity. This deployment ecosystem means the potential for demonstrating battery circularity is at our fingertips. It just
needs some support and coordination.
leverages The New York Climate Exchange’s partner network of battery experts and resources, business and public–sector engagement, convening, and thought leadership to deliver:
• Framing and analytical content
• Key industry events that facilitate learning and collaboration • Technology and regulation across and beyond our partners to advance a circular economy for batteries
Figure: A Circular Economy for EV Batteries.

Credit: Wyatt Williams
-138-
1306
Sign up to receive news and periodic updates from The Exchange. • : Expanding the network of individuals who are advancing battery circularity by sharing its importance with new audiences — from city officials to fleet operators, waste management professionals to insurers and financiers, and national security and supply chain logisticians to sustainability advocates.
• : Developing communities of practice across and beyond the Exchange’s partner network to ensure that local lessons from the battery ecosystem extend across geographies. These convenings will focus on researchers, city officials, regulators, startups and private sector businesses, fleets, and energy system developers. • : Project Closed Circuit will initially focus on The Exchange’s home — New York City. With a regulatory and economic framework that informs cities worldwide, NYC is poised to become a leading hub and global model for resource–efficient battery innovation, investment, and safe deployment. This will be achieved through policy, local access to battery data and end-of-life battery assets, and the development of a replicable roadmap for battery circularity in urban environments.

Email us at [email protected] with the subject line “Project Closed Circuit”. -139-
1307
Search
10 South Street, Slip 7
New York, NY 10004
Questions? Visit our or email us at [email protected] -140-
1308
1 SPRINGER, CHARLES
From: Chris Ganiere <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2026 10:08 PM
To: sustainability
Subject: CAAP
Government is not equipped to deal with "Climate Change". Not Costa Mesa Government, not State of California Government. Not Federal Government hundreds of billions have been spent and yet the climate is exactly as destructive as before the money was spent.

The City of Costa Mesa is not required to help the Federal Government in any way because of the anti commandeering doctrine. We don;t have to spend a single City resource for FEDERAL goals.

Just take this document and file it away and say it is for the citizens & residents of Costa Mesa to decide to voluntarily do something. No enforcement. No record keeping. Just let the people do what they think is right.

Less Government = More Liberty = More Cash in the hands of the People.

Electrons from the mind of Christopher Ganiere
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
-141-
1309
1 SPRINGER, CHARLES
From: cheri messerli <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2026 12:51 PM
To: sustainability
Subject: Feedback on CAAP
Categories: CAAP
The City’s Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Plan also ensures the health of Costa Mesa’s ecosystems.

Adopted in 2019, the IPM Plan prioritizes organic and least-toxic treatments, reduces fertilizer use, and focuses on prevention first. This balanced, eco-friendly approach protects community health, supports local ecosystems, and goes beyond the regulatory requirements of Federal, State, and Orange County agencies.

Then why was it ok for glyphosate to be sprayed in a park that is designated a nature preserve, within 500 ft or less of two schools currently in session, with guys spraying in full hazmat suits? For some sort of wildflower project, or at least so I was told.

Get rid of grass, regulate how often grass only yards can be watered, get rid of grass in parks, kids don't need grass, they need nature to play in and explore. Other than sports fields, it is not needed, and drastically guzzles up too much of our water, which we are already going to have to use less of, Colorado river water rights are being renegotiated because it is does not have the water it once did, and too many people/states need it.

page 56, great! Please implement it. Trees need to be big to create shade, this take years, it needed to start years ago, but now it better than never.

You talk about fire hazards and risks of wildfires, but fireworks are STILL legal here, which is ridiculous.

People are CONSTANTLY setting them off throughout the year, and on the 4th of July it is horrific how much pollution, and fire risk is going on. My street alone was nuts. The air quality index the day after is terrible.

p68 is suggestions to people, not noting any actions by the city, what is the city doing besides making these suggestions in this document?

p. 69 Unless the city is changing the codes so that new buildings need to implent these things, these are just suggestions, and not actions in any way. Update building codes, offer rebates for homes and businesses who upgrade to a grey water system. Promote Grey water systems... these are the only ways to get people to change, along with education on Why it Matters, Why it is DIRE.

A huge way to mitigate urban fires is to underground the old electrical lines, especially in Costa Mesa where they are old, and not properly maintained and often buzzing very loudly. Look at what happened with the Eaton fire. Put pressure on the companies who are not maintaining their lines. The consequences can be deadly and devastating.

-142-
1310
2 p. 71 Host mending events, events teaching about composting in different ways, events teaching about reusing, and wasting less, buying less etc..

p.72 Information about how much gas leaf blowers pollute such as 1 hour of lawn mowing is the equivalent of a car driving 3,000 miles in emissions. Public education is key. Have this kind of information as visuals during city events, even if not related to the event, just as public service announcements, or as bus stop billboards, etc..

p. 73 Planting more trees is great, but please stop planting non native plants and trees that are highly flameable. Native plants use less water, survive the heat more easily, and are more fire resistant. We need oaks to be planted, maybe not along sidewalks as they get so large, but they are needed for survival of so many species. There is the Fairview nature preserve, please get some native oaks planted there.

They are essential to our ecosystems.

Please host events where people can learn about natural pest control with things like neem oil. Where people can learn about amending their soil naturally, not with horrible chemical based products. Worm bins are a very easy low maintenance way people can amend their soil, and compost at the same time.

Events where native plant landscapers can educate people on ways to make their gardens more water wise, save money, and be beautiful, as well as supporting local wildlife.

We need to be a sponge city, to mitigate flood risks, it would be great to work towards making it more of a 15 minute city as well, difficult in a suburban area, but still can have things implemented to help. Look up both terms if not familiar.

Look at what Paris did in a very short amount of time. The city's outgoing Mayor regreened the city by digging up paved areas and planting tons of trees, closed off streets to traffic to make them kids, families, walkers, bicyclists, put in more protected bike lanes, and drastically reduced air pollution.

Another idea is to have maps of all the great bike paths in the area for people to access online to encourage biking vs driving. Make Costa Mesa more bike safe and friendly.

One last note, please do a better job of adding signage that is CLEAR to educate the public in Fairview park, that they are in a delicate ecosystem. 90% of California's vernal pools have been destroyed, these ones in Fairview park are extremely important to protect. That information right there should be on signs in the park by each one. People and dogs are running through them, damaging those essential habitats.

This has been captured on camera by the staff who maintain these grounds, which is where I lea rned this
when I was volunteering with them. There needs to be a sign with some ordinance which would mean people would be fined for trespassing in these protected zones within the park. Otherwise, no one takes it seriously. The educational sign for it also matters, because many people probably have no idea what a vernal pool is or that is is an eco system in danger of being lost in California.

Happy to see the objectives on pages 81-83.

Please also prioritize the banning of all use of glyphosate, on both public lands and waterways, as well as on private property. It should be the number one priority. Be a leader in this respect. It only significantly increases fire risk, as well as cancer rates. The group of advocates known as OC Creek Team have brought to light the intense use of this horrific chemical in Orange County. Going against wildlife -143-
1311
3 protections, not to mention causing immense irreparable damage to soil, air, water, and human health.

This should be priority number one for Costa Mesa, to eliminate its use entirely.

Also, stop spraying pesticides in the gutters on the streets of Costa Mesa. I was horrified to see a truck with a guy spraying out the window into the gutters all along the street. This is a backwards practice. No more spraying. It's lazy, it's toxic, it causes cancer, and is completely irresponsible. It goes against anything you're doing as a city to build a better safer, cleaner, sustainable environment. What goes into the soil, goes into the air, the water, and the people.

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
-144-
1312
From: Dominic Bendinelli
To: sustainability
Subject: Draft CAAP Comments
Date: Sunday, August 2, 2026 6:16:50 PM
The Costa Mesa draft Climate Action and Adaptation Plan is an excellent document. The team who crafted this has done amazing work and I look forward to the city adopting it. Below I have some suggestions on how (in my opinion) it could be improved even more.

A General Comment: The draft CAAP appears to be missing major milestone dates and metrics to measure against next to each Objective/Action. For example M1.B "Transition the City’s non-emergency light-duty gasoline- and diesel-powered fleet to EV". The state of California is aiming for a fully electric state-owned fleet by 2030 , are you planning to meet or
beat that goal? Each of the Actions listed needs to have a complete by date projected. If you take a look at the Los Angeles or San Diego Climate Action Plans they have five year increments with targets set along each milestone. A closer to home and smaller city, Buena Park's CAAP has 2030 and 2045 targets set for each action. To be clear this plan has great goals, but it means nothing if in 15 years a resident stands up at council and asks why you haven't "Install solar PV systems as shade structures at City owned parking lots and facilities" (M2.E) and the council of this future says there is no obligation to do so since the timeline was undefined.

Comments by Objective:

TR1 - Consider incentives to auto dealers for selling electric vehicles over internal combustion engine vehicles. Potentially a local tax break on the purchase of EVs.

TR1 - The city should be exploring and favoring V2G capabilities especially when looking at medium and heavy-duty charging facilities which will tie into Objective E3.

TR1 - It could be considered parts of T1.C/T1.D/T1.E, but its vital that the city prioritizes access to EV chargers at multifamily residences where renters are often not able to have a choice in the right to charge their EV. If rules can be changed to require a minimum number of chargers via landlords or programs rolled out to use state funds to provide those, either way its a bottleneck that should be addressed sooner than later.

TR.1 - There should be explicit language for partnership with school districts for ZE school buses and infrastructure. (This is a very well known program, but this comment and my previous comment are inspired by this
.)
TR2.A/B - Please stress the need for protected bike and pedestrian infastructure.

TR4 - Support efforts to revive the OC Centerline rail project or similar proposals that could connect Costa Mesa to the county and the LOSSAN corridor via heavy or light rail. Similarly consider studying a streetcar route like the OC Streetcar especially on existing ROW.

E3 - Consider adoption of policy that requires businesses with an excess of X number of
parking spaces to develop solar canopy parking. For example, if a business has over 100 parking spots, 30% must be covered by solar canopy. Not only does it support the E3 measure, but also reduces dangerous heat island effects.

-145-
1313
OR1 - Consider offering financial incentives (when funding available) to switch to ZE equipment and follow that up with non-voluntary restrictions on gas-powered lawn equipment such as neighboring Irvine.

NU1 - Include an action to maintain existing green space in the city and incorporate new green space if the opportunity presents itself.

NU1.C - Adopt a policy where a tree is planted in each parkway, unless explicitly rejected by homeowner. Public Works can go door to door with flyers/knocking in a neighborhood to notify residents they will be planting trees and give opportunity, with amply time, for rejection.

NU1.H - " Amend the municipal code to limit the removal of mature trees" add 'unless causing unavoidable property damage'
Great plan! Props to the whole team who worked on developing this and the Commissioners and Councilmembers supporting it!
Thank you,
Dominic Bendinelli
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department. -146-
1314
From: Eric Engle
To: sustainability
Subject: comment on the CM draft
Date: Saturday, August 1, 2026 11:55:44 PM
Hello, would it be better if more people took alternative transportation option besides just using electric cars because it wouldn't solve the over-reliance on the cars (gas or electric) throughout the city. The best way to reduce emissions is to provide viable alternative like the cool bike lines going around town. its a start. I feel The city needs a dedicated bus route that loops around within the city limits on a 10-15 minute frequency to the cities biggest destination hotspots. The Goat service is nice until the wait times are over an hour. wouldn't it be nice to have some kind of high capacity vehicle performing the service. Thanks CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department. -147-
1315
1 SPRINGER, CHARLES
From: Jeff Gibbs <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 3, 2026 6:21 PM
To: sustainability
Subject: Smart Traffic???
I reviewed the document and noticed not a single comment about smart traffic. Lot's of info about pedestrian paths, bicycle paths, electric vehicles, though not a mention about keeping traffic moving. Idling cars are terrible for the air, and as long as we keep putting in stop lights, taking away lanes, traffic is going to idle more and more. And reducing speed for potholes and speed bumps, cannot be good either, as most of the time, cars accelerate away from them. My suggestion is to hire a traffic engineering department, to keep the major streets moving, such as Fairview, Harbor, Placentia, Adams, Victoria, 17th, 19th and other major thoroughfares. Keeping traffic moving alone would help the air, not to mention city workers would become more efficient. If the city has a traffic engineering department, tasked to help residents move safely, then I am not aware of that, and perhaps should replace them with participants from the Early Childhood Program. My guess is the results would be identical, traffic stopped throughout the city.

The other item that must be looked at to keep traffic moving, is the 55. How does that highway end at 19th street?
Figure out how to get it to Newport, and make it our neighbors problem, or, get revenue from Newport for all of the idling vehicles.

We also have a lot of asphalt in Costa Mesa. Time to plant more trees. The OC Fair parking Lot, OCC parking lot as well as City Hall, should have many more trees, and those are public facilities which you control. .

My greater question is how is this going to be paid for? This endeavor will cost a lot, so what is going to get cut in order for this plan to be put in place. The new bike lanes look amazing, too bad they are unused and still look brand new. As for busing, unless you start building high rises up and down the thoroughfares, it is not in our culture to walk 2 blocks to a bus stop, pay $2 and ride a bus for 2 miles to the grocery store and then back on the bus, another $2 to get back home. Southern Californians are too independent, and love their cars, you know that, the study just does not want to call that out.

Good luck with your expensive plan. I would prefer you would fix the potholes, clean up the trash on the streets/sidewalks/parking lots, plant more trees and fields, and make it a better community rather than dream of one,
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
-148-
1316
1 SPRINGER, CHARLES
From: Le Wentz <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2026 7:16 AM
To: sustainability
Subject: Sustainable life
I have been to mulƟple planning commiƩee meeƟngs and each Ɵme I have come away disappointed that climate change is not addressed in building plans! Not once was requiring solar panels on new construcƟon even addressed! This is unacceptable!
Sent from my iPad
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizaƟon. Do not click links or open aƩachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious acƟviƟes to the InformaƟon Technology Department.
-149-
1317
1 SPRINGER, CHARLES
From: Mike Draganza <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2026 4:44 PM
To: sustainability
Subject: Comments on the CAAP
How much CM taxpayer dollars went into creating this plan and what is the overall cost of implementation? Is that anywhere in the document?

What is the point of all this? if it's reducing CO2 in the atmosphere, that will make no difference at all in the total amount in the atmosphere, since China will continue to spew out massive amounts that swamp any savings from CM, California or the U.S.

This plan references a climate model. The problem is that these models have been wildly inaccurate.

Since they have been wrong in every prediction up to this point, what makes you think they will correctly forecast 50-100 years out? We can't even tell what the weather will be 2 weeks out!

No taxpayer dollars should ge to funding EV infrastructure. If EVs were popular, private dollars would fund it. Sales of EVs have plummeted since the $7500 rebate was cancelled. For good reason. They're expensive, have limited range and have a tendency to catch on fire. Creating expensive infrastructure at taxpayer expense will not make people change their minds.

I strongly disagree with the city spending our dollars on this. The city should concentrate on basic services and get out of the green new deal scam.

Mike Draganza
Costa Mesa resident

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
-150-
1318
1 SPRINGER, CHARLES
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2026 5:40 PM
To: sustainability
Cc: 'Paul Waggoner'
Subject: Comments on the Costa Mesa Draft CAAP
Attachments: CCA Letter to Costa Mesa on Draft CAAP 080426 FINAL.pdf Greetings,

Please ﬁnd Coastal Corridor Alliance’s comments on the Draft Climate Action and Adaptation Plan. We understand some edits have been made and request a brief meeting to walk through those edits and outline our concerns on the document. We look forward to hearing from you!

Please conﬁrm receipt.

Thank you,

Melanie Schlotterbeck
Stewardship Consultant
Cell: (714) 501-3133
Available: Mon - Fri
To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Follow: Website, Subscribe, Facebook, Instagram, BlueSky, LinkedIn

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
-151-
1319
1 SPRINGER, CHARLES
From: R M <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 3, 2026 6:51 PM
To: sustainability
Subject: Re: Costa Mesa CAAP Constituent Comment - Permeable Paving I forgot to include who I am --

Rob Miller - Costa Mesa District 5 Resident
1076 Townhouse Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92627

On Mon, Aug 3, 2026 at 6:44 PM R M <[email protected]> wrote:

As your constituent in District 5, I'd like to see policy implemented that encourages the use of permeable paving in construction, as shown in the inserted photo below.

Permeable paving stones allowing grass to grow up while allowing water to drain down and through are already in use all over the world.

They have a lovely aesthetic, are supremely functional, and are somehow simultaneously classic, innovative, ancient and forward-thinking.

It seems that encouraging permeable tiling would be pursuant to "Policy CON-3.A.5: Work with public and private property owners to reduce stormwater runoff in urban areas to protect water quality in storm drainage channels, the Santa Ana River, and other local water courses that lead to the Pacific Ocean."

Thank you for the consideration.

-152-
1320
2 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
-153-
1321
1 SPRINGER, CHARLES
From: Steve Klein <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2026 12:13 AM
To: sustainability
Subject: Feedback on CAAP
CAAP Feedback:

1. These documents and policies are developed with very little real community engagement. They claim to be based on “bringing together a range of perspectives” but when your own documents state they’ve “engaged 340+ participants” and collected “158 survey responses”, that’s a trivial number compared to the 100,000+ residents. This tries to give the appearance of soliciting broad input but in practice no one takes the time. If you really wanted input, then put it to a vote.

2. The CAAP document says “While state policies are expected to reduce emissions over time, these actions alone are not suƯicient to meet the City’s long-term climate goals” – however, it does not appear to describe how the city’s goals were chosen and why o
ur goals are apparently greater than that mandated by
state policies.

3. I oppose state-mandated reductions in GHG

4. It is my preference that the City actively work against state control, as Huntington Beach does

5. To the degree which the state compels the city to act, we should be doing the absolute minimum and obstructing the state as much as possible.

6. I object to the amount of money, time, and leadership focus spent on these proposals.

7. I will actively vote against, and campaign against, councilmembers who are promoting increased wasted money and eƯort on these topics

Steven Klein
1936 Flamingo Dr
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
-154-
1322
1 SPRINGER, CHARLES
From: Sarita Plata <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2026 7:29 PM
To: sustainability
Subject: Climate Action & Adaptation Plan
Hello,

It makes me super excited to see that Costa Mesa is developing a Climate Action & Adaptation Plan. I was born and raised in Costa Mesa, so it’s beautiful to see how the City can implement strategies.

After reading the plan, I wanted to share my thoughts. Overall, my greatest recommendation is to be more explicit with environmental justice. Several sections failed to showcase how these climate actions interconnect with racial & economic inequalities. The Environmental Justice Policies that the City developed in 2026 should speak directly to the Climate Action Plan. They cannot be seen as separate, but rather as a joint effort; this includes more explicit mentions of EJ in the Climate Action Plan.

Chapter 3: Local Hazards
I found the explanations of climate hazards easy to understand and engaging. The use of map visualizations also helped me visualize where these local hazards occur. However, I was disappointed to see the lack of representation for environmental justice. The impacts of climate change are deeply interconnected with racial and economic inequalities. Latino and low-income communities face the brunt of climate change impacts. I would recommend more explicit mention of which populations are vulnerable. Showcasing this relationship with maps, including an overlay of racial and income status, is crucial!

Chapter 4: Community Engagement
I’d be interested to know how many Disadvantaged Communities/EJ communities participated. How many of the pop-ups were in these neighborhoods? Underserved and minority communities should be a major stakeholder group!

Chapter 5:

The objectives listed for transportation are strong, especially in decarbonization. Yet, the transition to electrification raises barriers such as affordability and reliability. These barriers are more pronounced in environmental justice neighborhoods that already face barriers to paying electricity bills. Renewable energy is not cheap. Not all households, especially low-income households, have the budget to adopt EVs. Yet many of these communities rely on personal vehicles for work. I would like to see a m ore explicit
strategy and outline about how the City expects to address these barriers. Furthermore, historically marginalized communities often have a lot of skepticism towards EVs. How is the City hoping to address that?
-155-
1323
2 Thank you

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA

MESA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF COSTA MESA ADOPT THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, INCLUDING THE SAFETY ELEMENT UPDATE (PCTY-25-0002) AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE POLICY UPDATE (PCTY-26-0002)

THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY' OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA FINDS AND DECLARES AS FOLLOWS:

WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa is processing amendments to the Costa Mesa General Plan to comply with state law requirements applicable to the Safety Element and environmental justice policies, including Government Code Sections 65300 through 65303.4; and
WHEREAS, California law requires every city to adopt a general plan, which must include specified mandatory elements, and may include additional optional elements, in furtherance of State policy to provide a comprehensive, long-term plan for the physical development and use of property within the City's jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 65350 et. seq., the Safety Element update and Environmental Justice Policy amendments constitutes a General Plan Amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Safety Element establishes policies to protect the community from natural and human-caused hazards and improving emergency preparedness and resilience, and California has adopted new legislation requiring local governments to incorporate climate adaptation and updated hazard information into their General Plans including Senate Bill 379 which requires cities to evaluate how climate change may affect future hazards, and Senate Bill 1035 which requires cities to review and revise their Safety Elements using updated flood and fire hazard information as it becomes available; and WHEREAS, the City adopted a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan on November 4, 2022, following a comprehensive evaluation of hazards, vulnerability assessment, emergency preparedness capabilities, and hazard mitigation strategies, and contains the City's most current hazard assessments and mitigation planning, by amending the Safety Element to incorporate the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan ensures that the General Plan reflects the most up-to-date technical information and maintains consistency among the City's long- Resolution No. PC-2026-23 Page 1 of 371
ATTACHMENT 8
-1-
1325
range planning and emergency management documents bringing it into compliance with state law; and
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65302(h), enacted through Senate Bill 1000, requires cities to incorporate Environmental Justice goals, policies, and objectives into the General Plan upon the adoption or substantial revision of two or more General Plan elements; because the City previously updated its Housing Element and is now updating its Safety Element, the City is required to identify and incorporate environmental justice policies throughout the General Plan; and WHEREAS, the City identified numerous existing General Plan policies that support Environmental Justice objectives and developed targeted revisions to existing policies and several new policies to address areas where additional policy direction was needed to satisfy state requirements; and
WHEREAS, on July 1, 2026 through August 4, 2026, the draft Safety Element update and Environmental Justice Policy were made available for public review and comment; and
WHEREAS, at its regular meeting on July 27, 2026, the Planning Commission held a study session to receive an introductory presentation on the Safety Element update and Environmental Justice Policy and after public comment the Planning Commission received and filed the report and provided feedback on the documents; and WHEREAS, on August 10, 2026, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing at which all interested persons had the opportunity to speak for and against the proposed amendments;
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the state CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Safety Element update and Environmental Justice policies are exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption), as it can be seen with certainty that adoption of these policy documents will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable significant effect on the environment. The proposed documents establish goals, policies, and implementation strategies related to hazard mitigation, climate adaptation, greenhouse gas reduction, emergency preparedness, and community resilience, but do not authorize or approve any specific development or physical improvements.

Resolution No. PC-2026-23 Page 2 of 371
-2-
1326
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Costa Mesa Planning Commission, in its independent judgment and affer fully considering all testimony and evidence presented at the public, hearing hereby recommends as follows:

SECTION 1 : That the City Council find that the proposed Safety Element update and Environmental Justice Policy update are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 (b)(3).

SECTION 2: That the City Council adopt the General Plan Amendment included within Exhibit A, which reflects both the Safety Element update and the Environmental Justice Policy update.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Costa Mesa Planning Commission does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon the activity as described in the staff report, and compliance of all applicable federal, state, and local laws.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if any section, division, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this reso(ution, or the document in the record in support of this resolution, are for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of August, 2026.

J
Costa
Resolution No. PC-2026-23 Page 3 of 371
-3-
1327

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE )ss

CITY' OF COSTA MESA )
1, Carrie Tai, Secretary to the Planning Commission of the City of Costa Mesa, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. PC-2026-23 was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City of Costa Mesa Planning Commission held on August 10, 2026, by the following votes:

AYES: Harlan, Zich, Andrade, Klepack, Martinez
NOES: Dickson
ABSENT: Rojas
ABSTAIN: None
C"ffiidetary
Costa Mesa Planning Commission
Resolution No. PC-2026-23 Page 4 of 371
-4-
1328

EXHIBIT A
Resolution No. PC-2026-23 Page 5 of 371
-5-
1329
-1-

PLANNING COMMISSION

AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: August 10, 2026 ITEM NUMBER: PH-2 SUBJECT: CITY OF COSTA MESA SAFETY ELEMENT UPDATE (PCTY -25- 0002), CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN (PCTY -25-
0009), AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE POLICY REVIEW (PCTY -
26-0002)
FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT/ADVANCED

PLANNING AND HOUSING DIVISION
PRESENTATION BY: AMBER GREGG, CONTRACT PROJECT MANAGER, AND

ANNA MCGILL, PL ANNING MANAGER

FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT:

AMBER GREGG
[email protected]
RE

COMMENDATION
St
aff recommends the Planning Commission:

1. Fi
nd that the proposed Safety Element Update and Environmental Justice Policy Update are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3); and

2. Ad
opt a Resolution r ecommending that the City Council amend the General Plan to update the Safety Element and incorporate Environmental Justice Policy Update.

APPL

ICANT OR AUTHORIZED AGENT
City-
initiated request.

CKGROUND
The
City of Costa Mesa is advancing three coordinated long-range planning initiatives:
• Clim
ate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP) - Costa Mesa’s first comprehensive climate planning document, it establishes a long-range framework for reducing ATTACHMENT 9
1330
-2-

greenhouse gas emissions while preparing the community for anticipated climate- related conditions;
• Safety Element Update - Modernizes the City’s General Plan policies related to natural and human -caused hazards, emergency preparedness, infrastructure resilience, and climate adaptation; and
• Environmental Justice Policy Update - I dentifies and strengthens policies addressing community health, environmental burdens, access to public facilities and services, infrastructure investment, and meaningful public participation.

Over the past several years, California has adopted legislation requiring local jurisdictions to address climate adaptation, natural hazards, emergency preparedness, and environmental justice through their General Plans and related planning documents. In addition, Costa Mesa’s 2021 –2029 Housing Element includes Program 2G, which commits the City to updating its Safety Element and incorporating EJ policies into the General Plan by December 2026. Separately, on October 14, 2024, the City Council authorized preparation of Costa Mesa’s first CAAP.

Although the CAAP, Safety Element, and EJ Policies are separate documents, they rely on common technical information and address many related community issues. The City therefore coordinated preparation of the three documents to improve consistency, reduce duplication, and establish a more comprehensive policy framework. The table below identifies the purpose, requirement, and outcome of each document.

Table 1 – Documents Purpose, Requirements, and Outcome
Project Primary Purpose State Requirement Primary Outcome CAAP Reduce greenhouse
gas emissions and
prepare for changing
climate impacts
Although not required
by state law, it
supports state and
local climate goals
Climate mitigation and
adaptation strategies
Safety
Element
Update
Protect the community
from natural and
environmental hazards
Government Code
Section 65302(g), SB
379 and SB 1035
Updated General Plan
safety policies consistent
with the City’s Local
Hazard Mitigation Plan
EJ Policies Promote healthy,
equitable, and
resilient communities
Government Code
Section 65302(h) (SB
1000)
Identifying existing EJ
policies in the General
Plan and new policies
implementing state law

The Safety Element Update and EJ Policy Update require amendments to the City’s General Plan. Pursuant to Zoning Code Section 13-10, amendments to the General Plan are subject to Planning Commission review and a recommendation to the City Council.

The City Council is the final decision -making authority for the proposed General Plan amendments.

1331
-3-

Although the CAAP is not a General Plan amendment or regulatory document, it was prepared in coordination with the Safety Element and EJ Policy updates and includes implementation actions that support both documents. Because the three planning efforts are closely related, the CAAP is being presented to the Planning Commission concurrently to provide context for the proposed General Plan amendments and to facilitate a comprehensive discussion of the City's overall climate, resilience, and environmental justice strategy. As a policy document, the CAAP is provided to the Planning Commission for informational purposes and discussion only and does not require a formal recommendation to the City Council. The City Council, as the final decision-making authority, will consider the CAAP at a future public hearing together with the proposed Safety Element Update and Environmental Justice Policy Update.

On July 27, 2026, the Planning Commission conducted a study session to receive an introduction to the purpose, technical foundation, policy framework, and relationship among the three documents. Staff summarized the technical analyses supporting the documents, described the proposed policy direction, and explained how the three planning efforts work together to address greenhouse gas reduction, climate adaptation, hazard mitigation, emergency preparedness, and environmental justice.

The study session provided the Planning Commission and the public with an opportunity to review the draft documents, ask questions, and provide preliminary comments before the formal public hearing. The July 27, 2026, Study Session Agenda Report contains a detailed discussion of the statutory background, technical analyses, preparation process, and relationship among the three planning efforts. For additional information on these topics please refer to the Study Session Agenda Report. A link to the July 27 , 2026, Planning Commission Agenda Report is provided below; the draft minutes are provided under Attachment 3.

July 27, 2026, Agenda Report:
https://costamesa.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=8144196&GUID=A28F54A5- 01D9-497A-B1B2-503B19901944&Options=&Search=

The Planning Commission expressed overall support for the three efforts, asked clarifying questions, and provided suggested revisions. Requested revisions included moving key information to the forefront of the CAAP, such as the short-term implementation priorities and the information in Appendix D regarding the quantified benefits of individual actions.

Additionally, the Commission asked clarifying questions and provided recommendations about alternative actions (in the event an action isn’t pursued or fully met) and ongoing implementation and annual review. The Planning Commission also provided recommendations for Environmental Justice p olicies including incentivizing access to healthy foods through farmers markets in or near EJ communities, recycling program education materials for EJ communities , and prioritization of emergency response centers within EJ communities.

1332
-4-

Following the Planning Commission Study Session, the public review period concluded on August 4, 2026. The public review period for the draft Safety Element Update and Environmental Justice Policy Update began on July 1, 2026, and the public review period for the completed draft CAAP began on July 20, 2026. Twelve letters were received, all pertaining to the CAAP. Three comments were in opposition of a CAAP and the others were in support with recommendations. All letters received to date are provided under Attachment 5.

Since the study session, staff and the consultant team have reviewed comments received from Commissioners, community members, and interested organizations and refined the documents in preparation for the formal adoption process. Details of what was modified are provided later in this report.

DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP)

Preparation of the CAAP included a comprehensive greenhouse gas inventory, emissions forecast, climate vulnerability assessment, and implementation strategy.

Together, these analyses identify the City’s largest sources of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, evaluate anticipated climate -related hazards, and provide the technical basis for practical and measurable implementation actions within the City’s authority.

GHG Inventory and Emissions Forecast

Figure 1 – Costa Mesa 2023 GHG Community Inventory Baseline

1333
-5-

The GHG inventory determined that on -road transportation is Costa Mesa's largest source of communitywide GHG emissions, accounting for approximately 63% of total emissions. Building energy is the second largest source at approximately 31%, while emissions from off-road equipment, solid waste, and water and wastewater collectively account for the remaining 6%.

These findings indicate that the greatest opportunities for reducing community GHG emissions are through improvements in transportation and mobility, increased building energy efficiency, renewable energy, and continued investment in sustainable municipal operations and community programs.

The emissions forecast further demonstrates that existing state regulations and programs, including cleaner vehicle standards, renewable electricity requirements, and building energy regulations , are expected to substantially reduce community emissions over time. However, the analysis also identifies a remaining local emissions gap that cannot be closed through state actions alone. The CAAP therefore identifies locally appropriate implementation actions intended to complement statewide efforts and further reduce GHG emissions over the next 20 years.

Figure 2 – Costa Mesa Forecasted GHG Emissions

Climate Vulnerability Assessment

The CAAP includes a Climate Vulnerability Assessment that evaluate s the City's exposure to climate -related hazards, including extreme heat, drought, flooding, changing precipitation patterns, poor air quality, and wildfire smoke, while also considering community characteristics that may influence vulnerability to these hazards.
1334
-6-

Based on these findings, the CAAP includes adaptation strategies intended to improve Costa Mesa's resilience to future climate conditions. The Plan emphasizes actions that strengthen public infrastructure, improve emergency preparedness, expand urban tree canopy and shade, promote water conservation, protect vulnerable populations, and incorporate climate resilience into future planning, capital improvement projects, and municipal operations. Together, the GHG reduction and adaptation strategies provide an integrated framework that enables Costa Mesa to reduce emissions while preparing the community for future climate-related impacts.

CAAP Framework

The CAAP establishes a coordinated framework for reducing communitywide greenhouse gas emissions and improving Costa Mesa’s resilience to climate -related hazards. The CAAP is organized around eight sectors
that address both
communitywide emissions and municipal operations:

Figure 3 – CAAP Sectors

The Plan emphasizes practical implementation strategies, including municipal leadership, education, incentives, partnerships, infrastructure investment, grant funding, and voluntary community participation. It does not directly regulate private property or require residents or businesses to undertake specific improvements.

The primary objectives and implementation actions include:

• Transportation and Mobility: Expand electric vehicle charging infrastructure; support the transition to zero-emission vehicles; improve sidewalks, bicycle facilities, and active transportation connections; reduce single -occupancy vehicle trips; improve transit access; and support land use patterns that reduce vehicle travel.
1335
-7-

• Energy and the Built Environment: Improve building energy efficiency; promote renewable and carbon -free energy; encourage energy conservation; support electrification where feasible; and improve the efficiency of municipal buildings and facilities.

• Water and Wastewater: Promote water conservation, drought -resilient landscaping, stormwater management, recycled water opportunities, and coordination with local water providers.

• Solid Waste: Support waste prevention, reuse, recycling, composting, organic- waste diversion, and public education to reduce material sent to landfills.

• Off-Road Equipment: Encourage the transition to lower - and zero -emission construction, landscaping, and other off -road equipment through education, incentives, partnerships, and equipment-replacement opportunities.

• Natural and Urban Lands: Expand and maintain the urban tree canopy, increase shade, reduce urban heat -island effects, support habitat and open space, and increase carbon sequestration where feasible.

• People and Community: Improve public awareness and preparedness for extreme heat, drought, flooding, poor air quality, wildfire smoke, and other climate-related hazards; support vulnerable populations; and strengthen community and regional partnerships.

• Municipal Operations: Lead by example through energy - and water-efficient City facilities, fleet and equipment modernization, waste reduction, sustainable purchasing and operations, grant pursuits, and ongoing implementation monitoring.

Although organized by sector, many CAAP actions provide multiple benefits. For example, expanding tree canopy can reduce heat exposure, improve air quality, increase shade, support habitat, and sequester carbon. Improvements to walking, bicycling, and transit can reduce emissions while improving mobility, public health, safety, and access to community resources.

The CAAP’s implementation matrix identifies proposed actions, anticipated timing, responsible City departments or partners, and performance indicators.

Implementation of individual actions will remain subject to future City Council direction, available funding, staffing, technical feasibility, and any additional approvals or environmental review required at that time.

1336
-8-

Co-Benefits and Fiscal Benefits

Many CAAP actions can also reduce long -term operating and maintenance costs, improve the efficiency of City facilities and infrastructure, enhance public safety, and leverage outside funding.

Costa Mesa’s prior sustainability initiatives demonstrate these potential benefits. For example, the City’s conversion of approximately 6,150 streetlights to energy -efficient LED fixtures is projected to save approximately $1.63 million in electricity cost s over the first 20 years and approximately $204,443 annually thereafter. The project also reduces maintenance needs and improves nighttime visibility and public safety. LED lighting upgrades at TeWinkle, Wakeham, Heller, and Bark parks provide an additional estimated $5,694 in annual energy -cost savings while reducing maintenance demands.

The City has also successfully used grants, rebates, and partnerships to reduce local project costs. Examples include $148,210 in grant funding and a $70,000 rebate for the City Hall electric vehicle charging project, $25,670 toward the purchase of three electric municipal vehicles, and $180,000 toward a zero-emission shuttle for the Senior Center. These projects illustrate how sustainability investments can improve municipal operations, enhance public services, reduce long -term costs, and position the City to compete for future funding opportunities.

Revisions/Clarifications Following the Study Session Public Review

The City conducted multiple public review periods to provide opportunities for community input on the proposed policies and completed draft documents . Draft CAAP policies were released for public review on April 23, 2026, and closed May 26, 2026. This was followed by release of the draft Safety Element Update and Environmental Justice Policy Update on July 1, 2026, and the completed draft CAAP on July 20, 2026. All public comment periods ended on August 4, 2026. As noted previously, 12 comment letters were received pertaining to the CAAP. The comment letters can be found under Attachment 5.

The following are revisions to address comments from the Planning Commission Study Session and public comments:

• Twenty Actions in Two Years – At the Commission’s request, the ‘Twenty Actions in Two Years’ initiative has been incorporated into Chapter 5, Climate Action and Adaptation Strategy. The initiative highlights 20 strategic priority actions intended to provide a clear and understandable i mplementation focus for the next two years. The initiative does not replace the complete implementation matrix or prevent the City from pursuing other actions. Instead, it identifies a manageable set of priorities while allowing the City to respond to avai lable 1337
-9-

funding, new technology, legislative changes, partnerships, and future City Council direction.

• Environmental Benefit Metrics – Several Planning Commissioners requested additional information on how implementation actions can be quantified.

Appendix D, Table 2, Community Green house Gas Reduction Summary, includes metrics or indicators describing the anticipated environmental benefits of implementing action items. This table is now included in Chapter 5 for ease of review.
• Coastal Corridor Alliance Comment Letter - Staff and the Consultant reviewed the public comment letter submitted by the Coastal Corridor Alliance and evaluated its recommendations for consistency with City Council direction, the scope of the CAAP, technical feasibility, and existing City policies. Applicable implementation recommendations have been incorporated into CAAP action items (see Attachment 4 for action language refinements). These revisions clarify or strengthen the implementation language without changing the overall voluntary, incentive-based, and partnership-oriented direction of the Plan.

• Neighboring Jurisdiction Inventor ies - While many Southern California jurisdictions rely on the same industry -standard greenhouse gas accounting protocols and many use common data sources and tools (including ICLEI's U.S.

Community Protocol, ClearPath, SCAG transportation forecasts, and CARB emissions models) each jurisdiction develops its inventory using city specific locally available data, baseline years, and assumptions. As a result, greenhouse gas inventories are intended to measure each community's emissions and track local progress over t ime rather than provide direct comparisons between jurisdictions.

• Implementation Measures – Several Planning Commissioners and members of the public requested modifications to specific implementation measures . A complete list of modifications can be found under Attachment 4.

• Additional Revisions - Minor technical, organizational, and editorial revisions were also made to improve readability, correct references, and maintain consistency throughout the document.

Safety Element Update

The Safety Element establishes the General Plan’s policies for protecting the community from natural and human-caused hazards and improving emergency preparedness and resilience.

1338
-10-

The update incorporates information from the City’s 2022 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP), the CAAP vulnerability assessment, and current s tate and federal hazard information. The revisions also address current s tate requirements related to climate adaptation, flooding, wildfire, emergency preparedness, and periodic review of the Safety Element. The principal updates include:

• Integrates the 2022 LHMP
• Incorporates climate adaptation planning
• Updates hazard data and technical information
• Addresses flooding, drought, extreme heat, and wildfire • Strengthens emergency preparedness and infrastructure resilience • Aligns the Safety Element with the CAAP and current state requirements

The only revisions to the Safety Element update are in relation to feedback received on the EJ policies. Key revisions to the Safety Element include revising proposed policies to prioritize public information and education related to extreme heat and cooling centers in EJ communities , and prioritizing opportunities to locate cooling centers and emergency service response center s in EJ communities and/or underserved neighborhoods.

Environmental Justice (EJ) General Plan Policy Update

Government Code Section 65302(h), established through Senate Bill 1000, requires qualifying jurisdictions to address EJ within their General Plans. Rather than preparing a separate EJ Element, the City evaluated its existing General Plan to identify current policies that address the state-required topics and determine where additional policy direction was needed. Required EJ policy topics include:

1. Reduce Pollution Exposure

2. Provide Safe & Sanitary Homes

3. Enhance Community Assets

4. Increase Physical Activity

5. Access to Healthy Foods

6. Address Compounded Health
Risks

7. Promote Civic Engagement

The review found that Costa Mesa’s General Plan already includes numerous policies
supporting EJ objectives. The proposed update would add an EJ symbol, shown in Figure 4, next to existing General Plan policies that address EJ topics and therefore qualify as Environmental Justice policies. Proposed amendments to existing policies and several new policies would also provide greater emphasis and prioritization for EJ communities. The amendments are depicted as strikethrough text which denotes text being removed, and underline text for text being added, within the General Plan elements listed below. The complete General Plan update, including existing policies proposed for identification as EJ policies, is provided as Attachment 1.

1339
-11-

General Plan Elements updated to include EJ Policies:

• Land Use Element
• Circulation Element
• Housing Element
• Conservation Element
• Noise Element
• Safety Element
• Community Design Element
• Open Space and Recreation Element

Figure 4: Symbol used in the General Plan Elements
to identify Environmental Justice Policies

Although Costa Mesa's General Plan already includes numerous policies that support EJ objectives, amendments are needed to fully meet the requirements of Senate Bill 1000. The proposed amendments strengthen existing policies and add new policies, where necessary, to ensure the General Plan comprehensively addresses state law requirements. The proposed amendments build upon those policies and place additional emphasis on:
• Improving access to parks, trails, and recreational facilities. • Expanding tree canopy and reducing urban heat island effects. • Improving walking, bicycling, and transit connections. • Supporting access to healthy food.
• Reducing pollution exposure where feasible.
• Encouraging meaningful public participation.
• Prioritizing infrastructure improvements within EJ communities, when appropriate.

A complete reference guide list of the proposed new and amended policies is provided under Attachment 2.

State screening tools currently identify six census tracts in Costa Mesa as Environmental Justice communities. These designations do not change zoning, establish new development regulations, or require improvements to private property. They serve as a planning tool to help the City evaluate community needs, pursue grants, conduct targeted outreach, and prioritize future programs and investments when appropriate. 1340
-12-

No substantive changes to the EJ policy framework were requested during the study session. The following revisions were made to address Planning Commission and public input:

• Revising an existing policy in the Open Space and Recreation Element to prioritize and promote urban agricultural opportunities, including urban farms and community gardens, as well as farmer’s markets, in EJ communities • Revising an existing policy in the Conservation Element related to maintaining education programs around recycling to prioritize these programs in and/or readily accessible to EJ communities.
• Revising a proposed policy and including a new policy in the Safety Element to prioritize public information and education related to extreme heat and cooling centers in EJ communities and prioritizing opportunities to locate cooling centers and emergency service response center in EJ communities and/or underserved neighborhoods.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

The City implemented a comprehensive public engagement program consisting of community outreach events, public workshops, stakeholder meetings (internal and external), surveys, digital engagement, and targeted outreach to gather input throughout the planning process. Key public engagement activities included:

• Three community pop-up outreach events were held: the 2025 and 2026 Earth Day events and a 2025 Concert in the Park. These events generated approximately 400 community contacts, including:
o Approximately 150 visitors at the 2025 Earth Day event, with over 65 participants providing direct feedback,
o 40 participants at the 2025 Concert in the Park outreach event, and o Over 200 participants at the 2026 Earth Day event.
• Survey: 226 community members participated in the survey , with 158 fully completing the online surveys , regarding transportation, energy, water conservation, solid waste, and climate resilience priorities. • Employee Engagement: Multiple internal Sustainability Working Group meetings and staff collaboration sessions were conducted with representatives from City departments to identify operational opportunities, implementation strategies, and climate priorities.
• External Focus Group: Representatives from the development community, utilities, nonprofit organizations, educational institutions, and community 1341
-13-

advocacy groups participated in a stakeholder workshop to identify implementation opportunities, barriers, and partnership strategies. • Joint CAAP and Environmental Justice Open House: Approximately 30 community members attended the April 30, 2026 open house, resulting in 37 written comments and 80 prioritization votes on proposed goals and implementation strategies.
• Additional Targeted Outreach: Staff provided a presentation and workshop with the Coastline Regional Occupational Program Sustainability Cohort, site visits with Mesa Water District and Orange County Water District, maintained a dedicated project website, distributed e-blasts and City Hall Snapshot newsletters (reaching more than 10,000 subscribers), utilized social media, and posted informational flyers throughout the community.

Community feedback consistently emphasized improving active transportation, expanding tree canopy and green space, increasing renewable energy opportunities, enhancing water conservation, supporting vulnerable populations, and ensuring implementation strategies are practical, equitable, and financially feasible. Input received throughout the outreach process directly informed refinement of the proposed Climate Action and Adaptation Plan and Environmental Justice policies.

GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY

Government Code Section 65300.5 requires the General Plan and its elements to comprise an integrated, internally consistent, and compatible statement of City policy.

The Safety Element Update is consistent with the other elements of the General Plan and modernizes existing policies concerning hazards, public safety, emergency preparedness, infrastructure, and climate resilience. The Environmental Justice amendments build upon existing policies throughout the General Plan. The amendments do not change land use designations or zoning and are consistent with the General Plan’s existing direction related to housing, transportation, parks, public services, community health, public safety, and neighborhood quality.

The CAAP is not a General Plan element or amendment. However, its goals and implementation actions support existing General Plan policies concerning transportation, resource conservation, water, waste reduction, public safety, community health, infrastructure, and intergovernmental coordination. Preparation of the three documents together has allowed staff to coordinate their policies and improve consistency among the City’s climate, hazard mitigation, emergency preparedness, and community planning efforts.

1342
-14-

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION

In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the s tate CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Safety Element Update, Climate Action and Adaptation Plan, and Environmental Justice Policies are exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption), as it can be seen with certainty that adoption of these policy documents will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable significant effect on the environment. The proposed documents establish goals, policies, and implementation strategies related to hazard mitigation, climate adaptation, greenhouse gas reduction, emergency preparedness, and community resilience, but do not authorize or approve any specific development or physical improvements.

In addition, the CAAP is also categorically exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15307 (Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of Natural Resources) and Section 15308 (Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment) as they are regulatory actions intended to protect and enhance the environment and natural resou rces through climate action, hazard mitigation, sustainability, and resilience planning. Furthermore, none of the exceptions to the categorical exemptions set forth in C EQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply to the proposed actions, as the adoption of these planning and policy documents will not result in cumulative environmental impacts, impacts to scenic highways, hazardous waste sites, historical resources, or any unusual circumstances that could cause a significant effect on the environment. Any future projects or physical improvements resulting from implementation of these plans will be subject to separate environmental review, as required by CEQA.

PUBLIC NOTICE

Pursuant to Title 13, Section 13- 29(d) of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code, public notification has been completed no less than 1 0 days prior to the date of the public hearing:

1. On-site posting. A public notice was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website on July 29, 2026.

2. Newspaper publication. A public notice was published in the Daily Pilot newspaper on July 31, 2026.

As of the date of this report, 12 written public comments have been received, ten since the July 27, 2026, study session, and are provided under Attachment 5 . Any public comments received prior to the August 10, 2026, Planning Commission meeting will be provided separately.

1343
-15-

CONCLUSION

The draft CAAP, Safety Element Update, and EJ Policy documents represent the culmination of a comprehensive planning effort involving technical analysis, interdepartmental coordination, stakeholder collaboration, and extensive public engagement. Together, these documents establish an integrated framework to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, prepare for the impacts of climate change, strengthen emergency preparedness and community resilience, protect public health and safety, and ensure that environmental benefits and investments are considered throughout Costa Mesa.

Since the Planning Commission Study Session on July 27, 2026, staff has refined the documents to incorporate Commission feedback and comments received during the public review period. Staff finds that the proposed plans and policies are consistent with state law, support implementation of the General Plan and Housing Element, and provide a comprehensive roadmap for advancing environmental sustainability, public safety, climate resilience, and environmental justice.

Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolutions recommending that the City Council approve the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan and adopt the Safety Element Update and Environmental Justice General Plan Policy Update.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Draft Planning Commission Resolution recommending City Council adopt the Safety Element Update and Environmental Justice General Plan Policy Update Exhibit A: General Plan Amendment (Clean)

2. Reference Guide – Modified and New Environmental Justice Policies

3. Draft Planning Commission Minutes, July 27, 2026, Study Session

4. CAAP edits since Planning Commission Study Session

5. Public Comments Received

LINKS

1. General Plan Amendment (Strikeout)
Link:https://www.costamesaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/64127

2. Draft CAAP Links:
https://www.costamesaca.gov/government/departments-and- divisions/economic-and-development-services/planning/climate-action- adaptation-plan
a. Appendix A, Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory, Forecasting, and Target Setting:
1344
-16-

https://www.costamesaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/63947/63 9201437560048937
b. Appendix B, Vulnerability Assessment:
https://www.costamesaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/63949/63 9201438011357871
c. Appendix C, Community Engagement and Outreach Materials:
https://www.costamesaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/63951/63 9201438017373476
d. Appendix D, Greenhouse Gas Reduction Supporting Material:
https://www.costamesaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/63953/63 9201438027819436
e. Appendix E, Implementation Plan:
https://www.costamesaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/63955/63 9201438040840778
1345
M
inutes – Costa Mesa Planning Commission Meeting – August 10, 2026- Page 1 R

EGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, AUGUST 10, 2026 - MINUTES
C
ALL TO ORDER - The Regular Planning Commission Meeting was called to order by Chair Harlan at 6:00 p.m.

P
LEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG – Chair Harlan led the Pledge of Allegiance.

OLL CALL

Present: Chair Jeffrey Harlan , Vice Chair Jon Zich, Commissioner Angely Andrade , Commissioner Robert Dickson (arrived 6:08 p.m.), Commissioner Karen Klepack, Commissioner David Martinez (remotely)
Ab
sent: Commissioner Johnny Rojas.

A
NNOUNCEMENTS AND PRESENTATIONS: None.

P
UBLIC COMMENTS – MATTERS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA: None.

PL
ANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS:

C
ommissioner Klepack welcomed the members of the public in attendance and expressed appreciation for the strong turnout. She emphasized the importance of public participation and thanked attendees for taking the time to participate in the Planning Commission meeting.

Co
mmissioner Andrade echoed Commissioner Klepack's comments, welcomed the members of the public to the Planning Commission meeting, and stated that she looked forward to hearing their comments and perspectives.

C
ommissioner Martinez thanked the members of the public for attending the meeting and provided the following announcements:
• The City's GIS Strategic Plan Survey was scheduled to close on August 11, 2026.

He encouraged interested members of the community to participate and provide input regarding GIS and its relationship to various City functions. • A free Symphony on the Go performance was scheduled for August 11, 2026, at 6:30 p.m. at Heller Park. He noted that additional performances were expected to take place at other City parks in the following weeks.

ATTACHMENT 10
1346

Minutes – Costa Mesa Planning Commission Meeting – August 10, 2026- Page 2

Vice Chair Zich thanked the members of the public for attending and encouraged them to participate when the opportunity for public comment was provided. He emphasized the importance of hearing directly from community members regarding the matters before th e Commission. He also requested that the Consent Calendar item be pulled for discussion.

CONSENT CALENDAR:

1. JULY 27, 2026 UNOFFICIAL MEETING MINUTES

Vice Chair Zich requested discussion regarding the July 27, 2026, unofficial Planning Commission meeting minutes.

Vice Chair Zich expressed concern regarding the summary of his comments pertaining to the 15-unit development considered at the previous meeting. After reviewing the meeting recording, he stated that several comments attributed to him in the draft minutes did not accurately reflect his statements.

Specifically, Vice Chair Zich stated that he had not commented about "activating" the property or characterized the site as having been underutilized for years. He noted that those statements may have represented opinions regarding the property but were not comments he had made during the meeting.

Vice Chair Zich requested that staff review the meeting recording and revise the minutes to accurately reflect his comments.

Commissioner Andrade also requested a minor correction on page 15 regarding the pronoun used in the summary of her comments.

MOVED/SECOND: ZICH/ANDRADE
MOTION: Moved to continue consideration of the July 27, 2026, meeting minutes to the next Planning Commission meeting to allow staff to review the recording and make the requested corrections.

The motion carried by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Chair Harlan, Vice Chair Zich, Commissioner Andrade, Commissioner Klepack, Commissioner Martinez
Nays: None

Absent: Commissioner Dickson and Commissioner Rojas
Recused: None
Motion carried: 5-0

1347

Minutes – Costa Mesa Planning Commission Meeting – August 10, 2026- Page 3

ACTION: The Planning Commission continued consideration of the July 27, 2026, meeting minutes to the next Planning Commission meeting to allow staff to review the recording and make the requested corrections.

PUBLIC HEARINGS:

1. FAIRVIEW DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN (PCTY-25-0003)

Presentation by Principal Planner Melinda Dacey; PlaceWorks consultants Karen Gulley, Jennifer Kelley, and Paul Hermann; and additional City staff members.

Commissioner Dickson arrived at the meeting during the beginning of staff’s presentation.

Commission Questions and Discussion:

Commissioner Dickson asked whether staff had reviewed the SAFER letter and its concerns regarding the adequacy of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Staff confirmed that the letter was reviewed and determined that it did not introduce new information or change the EIR’s previously identified environmental impacts.

Staff explained that revisions to the Final EIR were limited to minor refinements and corrections and did not require recirculation under CEQA.

Staff also addressed comments from California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES), noting that City staff met with Cal OES and the Department of General Services to discuss their concerns. Certain operational and regulatory matters, including issues related to the Emergency Operations Center, would continue to be addressed during the f uture entitlement process through conditions of approval, regulatory agreements, or other appropriate measures.

Vice Chair Zich asked whether comments received on the EIR introduced new information that would alter the previously identified environmental impacts. Staff confirmed that the comments did not change the EIR’s conclusions or require recirculation.

Vice Chair Zich also requested clarification regarding the timing of the secondary access road. Staff explained that the Specific Plan requires the secondary access once development reaches 2,300 units, although it could be constructed earlier.

The specific timing could be negotiated with a future developer through a development agreement.

Lastly, Vice Chair Zich asked about the lease affecting Merrimac Way, and staff confirmed that the current lease expires in December 2036.

1348

Minutes – Costa Mesa Planning Commission Meeting – August 10, 2026- Page 4

Commissioner Andrade asked questions regarding traffic, open space, financial feasibility, project timing, and the consequences of delaying the Specific Plan. Staff explained that traffic is projected to operate at Level of Service (LOS) B during the morning peak and LOS D during the evening peak, with LOS D meeting the City’s minimum acceptable standard.

Regarding open space, staff explained that reducing the number of units could create opportunities for additional open space, although the Specific Plan allows flexibility in how open space is provided. Staff also confirmed that higher unit counts were generally considered more financially feasible based on analysis and consultation with affordable and market-rate housing developers.

Staff estimated that full buildout could take 12 to 20 years, with approximately 18 years considered likely, emphasizing the long-term nature of the planning effort.

Lastly, Commissioner Andrade asked about the consequences of delaying action.

Staff explained that the FDC property is a designated Housing Element site necessary for Housing Element certification and that continued delays could result in further legal pro ceedings. Staff also noted that the City’s agreement with the State, which included $3.5 million for planning and community outreach, extends through December 2026. Because the property is State-owned, failure to complete the local planning process could p otentially result in the State pursuing its own process for the property resulting in the loss of local control for the site.

Chair Harlan requested clarification regarding the litigation filed by the California Attorney General and the referenced 120 -day period for the City to address its Housing Element requirements. He emphasized the importance of clarifying for the public whether the City was currently subject to a court-ordered deadline.

Assistant City Attorney Tarquin Preziosi confirmed that the City is not currently under a court order and that the litigation has not yet been adjudicated. Although a court order may ultimately result from the litigation, there is presently no pending court order requiring the City to take action within the referenced 120-day period.

Commissioner Martinez asked about the overall project timeline and responsibility for maintaining utility infrastructure. Staff explained that the Specific Plan is a long- range planning document that could remain in effect for approximately 25 years, with development anticipated to occur over 12 to 20 years and approximately 18 years estimated for full buildout.

Commissioner Martinez also requested clarification regarding maintenance of the project's water and sewer systems. City Engineer Seung Yang explained that maintenance responsibility would rest with the agency that owns the infrastructure.

Mesa Water District would maintain water facilities under its ownership, while the 1349

Minutes – Costa Mesa Planning Commission Meeting – August 10, 2026- Page 5

Costa Mesa Sanitary District would maintain sewer facilities it owns, rather than the City.

Commissioner Martinez thanked staff for incorporating his previous comments and noted that many of his questions had already been addressed at the prior meeting.

Commissioner Dickson requested clarification regarding the conceptual site plan, emphasizing that it represents only one possible development scenario and does not establish the final location or design of buildings, recreational facilities, parking areas, or other site features.

Staff confirmed that the plan is conceptual and represents the City’s best estimate of how the property could potentially develop based on the proposed roadway infrastructure, walkability goals, and overall framework of the Specific Plan.

Commissioner Klepack asked staff to clarify the approximately $5 million financing gap associated with the 3,450-unit development scenario. Staff explained that the gap represents the additional funding needed for the project to achieve the anticipated fin ancial return and could potentially be addressed through minor revisions to the projects, tax credits, State assistance, bridge financing, additional developer investment, or other financing mechanisms.

Staff noted that increasing the project to approximately 3,500 units or changing to unit mix or type (i.e. rental vs for sale) could potentially eliminate the financing gap.

Financial feasibility could also vary depending on the housing mix, including the amount of for-sale housing.

Staff emphasized that the analysis represents the City’s best estimate based on current information and that the actual financial performance would depend on a future developer’s financing structure, housing mix, costs, and expected returns.

Commissioner Andrade asked whether the project would be subject to the City’s Community Workforce Agreement and whether workforce requirements could be incorporated to create employment opportunities for Costa Mesa residents.

Staff explained that the project would not be covered by the current Community Workforce Agreement because it would be a private development. However, affordable housing components utilizing Low -Income Housing Tax Credit financing would likely be subject t o applicable skilled and trained workforce requirements.

Commissioner Dickson asked whether park in -lieu fees associated with the Fairview Developmental Center project would be restricted to improvements within the Specific Plan area or could be used elsewhere in the City. 1350

Minutes – Costa Mesa Planning Commission Meeting – August 10, 2026- Page 6

Staff explained that a nexus study would determine the applicable fees for the future master developer. Park in -lieu fees could potentially fund improvements within or outside the Specific Plan area, provided there is an appropriate connection to the needs created by the new development.

Staff noted that the ultimate use of the funds would be based on identified community needs through the City’s parks planning process.

Public comments:

A College Park resident expressed frustration that community concerns had not been adequately addressed and raised concerns regarding public awareness, building heights, and the proposed 4,000 units. He requested greater transparency and urged the Commissi on to represent the interests of existing residents and surrounding neighborhoods.

Scott Grady, a Costa Mesa property owner and commercial real estate executive, discussed Merrimac Way as a potential secondary access point, noting that historical records may indicate a public easement. He urged the City Attorney to further review the Harbor Village lease and work with the State to explore Merrimac Way as an alternative access route.

Tim Cromwell, a Costa Mesa resident, expressed concerns regarding the proposed density, impacts to the golf course, and traffic. While supporting affordable housing, he encouraged lower -scale development and consideration of potential impacts to surrounding neighborhoods, businesses, and City tax revenue.

Perry Clifro expressed support for the Specific Plan, emphasizing the need to address the housing shortage and rising costs. He noted that many working -class residents are being priced out of Southern California and encouraged the Commission to consider th e project’s potential to provide housing opportunities for future residents and families.

Speaker five, stated he has experience in master -planned community development, supported housing but expressed concerns regarding secondary access, traffic, and impacts to surrounding neighborhoods. They encouraged the City to explore Merrimac Way as an alternative access route and consider more cost-effective affordable housing options.

Scott Tarno w, a Costa Mesa resident, teacher, and high school golf coach, expressed concern that the proposed secondary access road could impact Mesa Linda Golf Course and youth golf programs. While not opposed to development, 1351

Minutes – Costa Mesa Planning Commission Meeting – August 10, 2026- Page 7

he urged the City to consider alternative access routes that would preserve the golf course and recreational opportunities.

An Affordable Housing Organization representative supported the Specific Plan, emphasizing the need for additional affordable housing. The speaker encouraged the City to maximize affordable and permanent supportive housing and urged the Planning Commission to recommend approval of the draft Specific Plan.

Natalie King, a longtime Costa Mesa resident, expressed concerns regarding limited access, school capacity, and recreational opportunities. She encouraged the City to provide additional recreational space and adequately plan for the needs of future residents and youth sports programs.

Aaron Clem, a Westside Costa Mesa resident, supported the Specific Plan, emphasizing the importance of Housing Element compliance and maintaining local land-use control. He encouraged expanding housing opportunities citywide and stated that increased housi ng could benefit future generations and provide additional City revenue.

Steve Smith opposed the Specific Plan as proposed, citing unresolved concerns regarding traffic, schools, water, and infrastructure. He urged the Commission to consider revisions that would result in a better project for Costa Mesa.

Maryann Plunkett, a 26-year Mesa Verde resident and homeowner, expressed opposition to the project and concerns regarding the proposed amount of extremely low -income housing and potential impacts associated with a large residential development. She specifically questioned whether the proposed housing mix could place additional demands on the Costa Mesa Police Department and other public services.

Kevin Fitzgerald, Director of Public Affairs for the Southern California Golf Association, expressed concern regarding the proposed secondary access road through the golf course, citing potential costs and operational impacts. He urged the City to explore alternative access routes and preserve the 36-hole golf course.

Christine Nolf, a 50-year Costa Mesa resident, local pastor, and member of the Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition, supported the Specific Plan and praised the City’s community outreach. She emphasized the need for affordable housing and encouraged creative solutions to balance project challenges with housing needs.

Kevin Krone expressed concerns regarding the project’s financial feasibility, traffic, public safety, commercial space, and long -term impacts. He requested greater transparency regarding the financial analysis and further evaluation of traffic, 1352

Minutes – Costa Mesa Planning Commission Meeting – August 10, 2026- Page 8

emergency response times, and commercial needs. He encouraged the City to carefully consider the project’s overall long-term impacts and return on investment.

Mary Hannah, a 58- year-old Costa Mesa resident, opposed the project and questioned the City’s ability to manage a development of this scale. Citing concerns from a previous Fairview Park project, she urged the City to reevaluate the proposal before proceeding.

Michael Jacobs, assistant coach for the Newport Harbor High School golf teams, urged the City to preserve Mesa Linda Golf Course and pursue an alternative secondary access route. He emphasized the course’s importance to youth golf programs and the community.

John Rice, a 26-year Mesa Verde resident, opposed the Specific Plan as proposed, citing concerns regarding the 4,000-unit density, public awareness, and limited recreational facilities. While recognizing the need for affordable housing, he encouraged a compromise t hat would reduce density and provide additional sports fields and recreational opportunities.

Marilyn Packer, a College Park resident, opposed the project as proposed, citing concerns regarding construction impacts, traffic, limited access, and demands on public safety services. She encouraged the City to reduce the number of units and consider the cumulative impacts of other planned development.

Kathy Esfahani, a lifelong Costa Mesa resident, supported the Specific Plan and proposed 4,000 units, emphasizing the need for affordable housing for working residents, families, and seniors. She acknowledged concerns regarding recreational space and encouraged creative solutions while urging approval of the plan.

Diane Russell supported moving the Specific Plan forward, emphasizing the need for market-rate and affordable housing. She urged the City to secure the proposed 40% affordable housing requirement through the future development agreement and ensure its timely implementation.

Betsy Densmore, a retired Costa Mesa business owner and resident, supported the project, emphasizing the need for workforce and affordable housing. She also noted the extensive public outreach and stated that some project details could be addressed during later planning and development stages.

Reverend Dr. Monica Corsaro supported moving the project forward, emphasizing the need for affordable housing for working residents. She believed the City could 1353

Minutes – Costa Mesa Planning Commission Meeting – August 10, 2026- Page 9

balance housing with the golf course, parks, and recreation while addressing traffic and other challenges throughout the development process.

A Costa Mesa resident expressed support for welcoming new families but raised concerns regarding limited green space, recreational opportunities, school capacity, and traffic impacts associated with the FDC project.

Forest Flaherty, a Cornerstone resident, expressed concerns about traffic, neighborhood access, and public safety, noting that existing congestion at Harbor Boulevard and Fair Drive already makes it difficult for residents to exit the area. He feared additional project traffic could further restrict access. He urged the City to consider community requests for more open space and fewer housing units.

Bob Abbott, a Mesa Verde resident, expressed concern that the planning process was placing too much emphasis on financial feasibility and developer returns rather than the overall benefit to Costa Mesa. While recognizing the need for affordable housing, he urged the Commission to prioritize the interests of the City, surrounding neighborhoods, and existing residents when determining the appropriate number of housing units.

Steve McNally, a Costa Mesa resident and member of the Orange County Behavioral Health Advisory Board speaking in his individual capacity, requested greater clarity regarding the project’s housing mix, financial feasibility, and developer interest. He questioned whether the proposal represented the best use of the property and expressed concerns regarding the overall planning process.

Steve Dzi da, a longtime Mesa Verde resident, expressed strong support for maximizing housing and affordable housing within the Fairview Developmental Center project. While acknowledging the importance of preserving the City's golf courses, he believed housing for younger generations, teachers, first responders, and service workers should be a higher priority. He described the project as a significant opportunity to address local housing affordability and encouraged the Commission to approve as many residential and affordable units as feasible.

Erica DiCioccio, a Costa Mesa resident and Newport -Mesa Unified School District facility planning coordinator speaking in her individual capacity, emphasized that school fields and recreational facilities are already heavily used for school programs, athle tics, after -school activities, and community recreation. She encouraged the City to recognize existing demand and limitations when considering school fields as additional recreational space for the project.

Maria Dzida, a 40-year-old Mesa Verde resident, whose home backs onto the golf course, expressed strong support for using the FDC property to address Costa Mesa’s affordable housing needs. She acknowledged the concerns regarding the 1354

Minutes – Costa Mesa Planning Commission Meeting – August 10, 2026- Page 10

golf course, parks, sports fields, and traffic. She described the FDC property as a rare opportunity to provide housing for current and future residents, particularly those who work in Costa Mesa but cannot afford to live there.

Jack Forte, a lifelong Costa Mesa resident, acknowledged the need for additional housing and described the difficulty younger residents face in being able to afford to remain in the City. However, he expressed concerns regarding traffic and the concentration of a large amount of development at the FDC site. Mr. Forte questioned whether housing growth could be distributed throughout the City and encouraged careful planning to create a sustainable community that addresses housing needs while considering long-term impacts on future generations.

Cynthia McDonald, a Costa Mesa resident, acknowledged the need for affordable housing but expressed concern that the Specific Plan prioritized housing density over a balanced community. She encouraged the City to consider alternatives that provide housing while addressing parks, recreation, community facilities, transportation, open space, and impacts on City services.

Jim Bowlinger, a College Park homeowner, expressed concerns regarding the number of vehicles and traffic that could be generated by up to 4,000 residential units. He questioned whether sufficient parking and access would be provided given the site's limited ingress and egress points. Mr. Bowlinger also raised concerns about increased congestion on Harbor Boulevard and Fair Drive and stated that the additional vehicle traffic could negatively affect the surrounding community and Costa Mesa.

Speaker 33 (via Zoom) expressed concern that the Specific Plan focused heavily on housing without adequately addressing the elements of a complete community.

While supporting affordable housing, the speaker raised concerns regarding its long-term commitment, traffic impacts, and uncertainty surrounding the project’s final design. The speaker urged the City to develop a more comprehensive plan that better reflects the community’s vision.

Speaker 34 (via Zoom) expressed concern that State priorities had taken precedence over community interests and cited significant environmental and traffic impacts identified in the EIR. While supporting affordable housing and recent outreach efforts, she urged the City to conduct additional analysis and review before moving the project forward.

Jen Tanaka, a Costa Mesa resident, expressed concerns regarding the number of housing units needed for financial feasibility and potential impacts to the golf course. She encouraged the City to explore alternatives that balance housing, open space, recreation, and preservation of community assets before moving the Specific Plan forward.
1355

Minutes – Costa Mesa Planning Commission Meeting – August 10, 2026- Page 11

Continued Commission questions:

Following closing public commen ts, the Commission asked staff additional questions regarding State Density Bonus Law, parking, site access, and potential impacts to the golf course.

Commissioner Dickson asked how establishing a maximum of 2,300 units in the Specific Plan would affect the potential number of units permitted under State Density Bonus Law. Staff explained that 2,300 units would establish the base density and that, given the required affordable housing component, a future developer could potentially obtain a density increase of approximately 40 to 50 percent or more. Staff noted that physical and financial constraints could limit the site's practical capacity to approximately 4,000 units. Staff further stated that if the Specific Plan did not provide a financially feasible development option, a future developer would likely utilize State Density Bonus Law to achieve a financially feasible unit count.

Chair Harlan requested clarification regarding the City's ability to control a project developed under State Density Bonus Law. Staff explained that the law significantly limits the City's discretion and requires approval of qualifying concessions and waivers unless the City can demonstrate adverse health or safety impacts. Staff and the Assistant City Attorney Mr. Preziosi emphasized that State law establishes a high threshold for denying such requests and places the burden of proof on the City.

Chair Harlan also asked whether use of State Density Bonus Law could reduce the City's negotiating ability through a development agreement, including its ability to obtain community benefits. Staff explained that while a developer might still seek a development agreement for matters such as project phasing and entitlement duration, the City's ability to negotiate certain development standards could be reduced because the developer could instead utilize concessions and waivers available under State law.

Commissioner Dickson also asked about residential parking requirements, particularly for the affordable housing units. H e noted that the City does not require residential parking minimums and questioned whether a developer could provide little or no parking for affordable units as part of making the project financially feasible. Staff confirmed that this was a possibility.

Commissioner Andrade asked whether Merrimac Way could be considered as an alternative access point once the existing lease becomes available for renegotiation. Staff confirmed that language had been added to the Specific Plan 1356

Minutes – Costa Mesa Planning Commission Meeting – August 10, 2026- Page 12

identifying Merrimac Way as a potential alternative access point if future lease negotiations with the State allowed such access.

Commissioner Andrade also requested confirmation regarding the proposed secondary access road and its potential effect on the golf course. Staff confirmed that a golf course design expert had evaluated the concept and that the proposed approach would reconfigure or relocate golf holes rather than reduce the total number of holes.

Commissioner Dickson subsequently asked whether staff had determined if a public access easement existed on Merrimac Way. Staff stated that, to their knowledge, no public access easement existed and that Merrimac Way was currently private.

MOVED/SECOND: ANDRADE/MARTINEZ
MOTION: Move staff’s recommendation presented at the hearing.

Commission comments after the motion:

Commissioner Andrade expressed support for the Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan, emphasizing its importance in addressing Costa Mesa’s housing needs, particularly affordable rental and first -time homebuyer opportunities for working residents. Sh e acknowledged community concerns regarding traffic, access, parks, and schools and encouraged further exploration of a third access point that could minimize impacts to the golf course.

Commissioner Andrade also supported providing additional parks and recreational opportunities, including expanded joint use of school facilities. She concluded that, given limited opportunities for affordable housing elsewhere in the City, the FDC property represented an important opportunity to provide housing for current and future residents.

Commissioner Martinez expressed support for the Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan, emphasizing the need to address Costa Mesa’s long-term housing affordability challenges. He noted that insufficient housing production over many years had contribu ted to rising costs and acknowledged that concentrating significant housing development at one location may not be ideal but reflected the City’s current circumstances.

Commissioner Martinez thanked staff and consultants for their work and highlighted provisions addressing mobility, open space, public safety, and housing. He emphasized that the project would be implemented over approximately 20 years, allowing continued p lanning and refinement as development occurs. He concluded that the project would provide needed 1357

Minutes – Costa Mesa Planning Commission Meeting – August 10, 2026- Page 13

housing, including affordable housing, for future generations and working residents and stated his support for the plan.

Commissioner Dickson made a substitute motion.

MOVED/SECOND: DICKSON/ZICH
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: To postpone adoption of the Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan to allow additional analysis and public engagement. His motion included direction to:
• re-engage with the State and the Department of General Services (DGS) regarding the appropriate percentage of affordable housing for the site; • re-engage the community through additional public participation and outreach;
• reassess the applicability and feasibility of the proposed 40% affordable housing requirement, particularly in relation to the 2,300-unit baseline and potentially higher overall unit counts;
• evaluate the cumulative impacts of potential Measure K buildout scenarios; and • further evaluate mobility and traffic impacts, particularly intersections projected to operate at unacceptable levels of service.

Commissioner Dickson acknowledged the significant work completed by staff and consultants but believed the planning process needed additional time and analysis. He emphasized that, given the project's lengthy implementation period, the City should take additional time to address these issues before adopting the Specific Plan.

Vice Chair Zich expressed support for postponing the Specific Plan, emphasizing that the FDC property represented a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity that should be carefully planned. He believed the current proposal did not adequately reflect community priorities regarding housing density, affordable housing, preservation of the golf course, parks and open space, traffic, and environmental impacts.

Vice Chair Zich questioned the financial feasibility assumptions supporting the 4,000-unit capacity and favored a lower base density, potentially allowing additional units through State Density Bonus Law. He also called for further evaluation of Merrimac Way as an alternative access point and expressed concern about insufficient parkland and significant environmental and traffic impacts. He concluded that additional work was necessary to develop a plan that better balanced housing with the long-term needs of the community.

Chair Harlan acknowledged Commissioner Dickson’s desire for additional time to refine the Specific Plan but stated that he would not support the substitute motion.

He emphasized that the Planning Commission’s role was to provide a recommendation to the City Council rather than develop a final or perfect plan. 1358

Minutes – Costa Mesa Planning Commission Meeting – August 10, 2026- Page 14

Chair Harlan recognized the competing community interests regarding housing and affordable housing, traffic, parking, open space, and preservation of the golf course, as well as the City Council’s priorities related to housing, environmental sustainability, and fiscal health. Given the many uncertainties surrounding future development, he believed the most practical approach was to forward a recommendation to the City Council and allow the Council to determine whether additional review or time was necessary.

Commissioner Dickson expressed concern that the Specific Plan contained unresolved issues and potential vulnerabilities that could leave it open to legal challenge. He questioned several assumptions underlying the plan, including affordable housing requirements, access issues involving Merrimac Way, and the basis for certain policy decisions.

Commissioner Dickson emphasized that his substitute motion was intended to provide additional time to address outstanding questions before forwarding the plan to the City Council, stating that he did not believe the Specific Plan was ready to move forward in its current form.

The motion failed by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Vice Chair Zich, Commissioner Dickson

Absent: Commissioner Rojas
Nays: Chair Harlan, Commissioner Andrade, Commissioner Klepack, Commissioner Martinez
Recused: None
Motion failed: 2-4

The substitute motion failed so the Commission voted on the original motion.

MOVED/SECOND: ANDRADE/MARTINEZ
MOTION: Move staff’s recommendation.

The motion carried by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Chair Harlan, Commissioner Andrade, Commissioner Klepack, Commissioner Martinez
Nays: Vice Chair Zich and Commissioner Dickson

Absent: Commissioner Rojas
Recused: None
Motion carried: 4-2

ACTION: The Planning Commission:

1. Adopted a resolution recommending that the City Council incorporate the August 10, 2026, Memorandum to the Planning Commission and take the following actions, including:
1359

Minutes – Costa Mesa Planning Commission Meeting – August 10, 2026- Page 15

a. CEQA: Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), and adopt the Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP); b. General Plan Amendment: Adopt a Resolution to amend the General Plan Land Use Element to change the Land Use Designation of the project site from “Multi-use Center” to “FDCSP” and other updates to implement the Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan (FDCSP); and
c. Zoning Code Amendments: Adopt an Ordinance amending Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code (Zoning Code) to adopt the Fairview Development Center Specific Plan (FDCSP), update the Zoning Map to change the zoning designation of the 95 acres of the 110-acre site located at 2501 Harbor Boulevard from “Institutional and Recreational Multi -use (I&R -MLT)” to “FDCSP” and change the remaining 15 acres to “Institutional and Recreational” zoning designation, and make other associated updates to the Zoning Code to implement the FDCSP.

2. CITY OF COSTA MESA SAFETY ELEMENT UPDATE (PCTY-25-0002), CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN (PCTY -25-0009), AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE POLICY REVIEW (PCTY-26-0002)

Presentation by Contract Planning Manager Amber Gregg and Advanced Planning Manager Anna McGill.

Commission Questions and Discussion:

Vice Chair Zich asked how the State identifies Environmental Justice (EJ ) communities, how the City would know when a census tract no longer qualifies, and whether the State reviews the City’s EJ policies for adequacy. Staff explained that EJ designations are established by the State and generally updated annually by California Environmental Protection Agency , with the City planning to update its maps accordingly. Staff also noted that State law is not highly prescriptive regarding how EJ topics must be addressed and that HCD could provide additional comments when reviewing , as EJ policies are included as an implementation program of the City’s Housing Element.

Vice Chair Zich also questioned why the City developed a Climate Action & Adaptation Plan (CAAP) when it is not required by State law, how the CAAP’s greenhouse-gas reduction and extreme-heat goals would be measured, and why the City approves housing -only projects when mixed -use development is identified as a strategy for reducing transportation emissions. Staff explained that the CA AP is encouraged as a local roadmap that coordinates climate, safety, hazard mitigation, and EJ efforts; its goal is to reduce emissions and prepare for 1360

Minutes – Costa Mesa Planning Commission Meeting – August 10, 2026- Page 16

climate impacts. Staff further explained that State housing laws can limit the City’s ability to require mixed-use development, although the City can employ incentives and mechanisms to encourage it. Finally, staff confirmed that reducing building emissions includes transitioning from natural gas to electricity-based appliances.

Commissioner Klepack asked how the City would support and encourage building electrification, including whether incentive programs would be offered. Staff explained that the City would promote existing State and utility rebate programs and help residents a ccess available incentives rather than providing City -funded rebates. Commissioner Klepack also suggested providing residents with information on local contractors and installers experienced with electrification projects, such as heat-pump water heaters.

Commissioner Dickson asked how the CAAP’s 106 actions would be implemented and whether they could result in regulatory requirements or additional costs for residents and developers without further public review. He also questioned the need for a City-specific CAAP and expressed concern that its aspirational policies could eventually become burdensome requirements.

Staff clarified that the CAAP has regulatory requirements for the municipality (i.e. the City), but it is intended to be incentive-based for the broader community rather than regulatory, consistent with City Council direction. Staff stated that projects would not be denied for failing to fully electrify or meet individual CAAP measures.

Instead, applicants would be encouraged to demonstrate consistency with the CAAP through various options. Staff also explained that implementation would be reviewed annually, providing opportunities for further review and refinement.

No public comments.

Commissioner questions and discussion continued:

Commissioner Andrade asked whether the Climate Action & Adaptation Plan was grant funded and whether its measures would apply only to Environmental Justice (EJ) areas or citywide. Staff confirmed that the City received some grant funding for the CAAP and explained that C AAP measures apply citywide . The City also received grant funding (REAP) for EJ policies that are incorporated into the General Plan with additional priority given to identified EJ areas.

Commissioner Andrade emphasized the importance of expanding green space, providing cooling centers and shaded areas, improving pedestrian and bicycle safety, and increasing access to affordable, healthy and nutritious food, particularly in neighborhoods where residents may lack air conditioning or convenient access to grocery stores. She stated that these efforts would help build a healthier City and improve residents’ overall quality of life. Staff also clarified that EJ census tracts 1361

Minutes – Costa Mesa Planning Commission Meeting – August 10, 2026- Page 17

were identified using State criteria, with community outreach used to gather residents’ concerns, priorities, and objectives.

The Chair reopened public comment:

The speaker (on Zoom) thanked the Planning Commission and staff for their work and reflected on the community planning process that began in 2024. The speaker acknowledged the value of the public input received and emphasized the importance of understanding the State’s requirements and what the City can realistically accomplish in response.

Commissioner questions and discussion continued:

Commissioner Martinez asked when Appendix F of the CAAP, which contains the fiscal analysis, would be available. Staff explained that it is still being prepared and will evaluate implementation costs and potential grant opportunities before being presented to the City Council.

Commissioner Martinez also asked how changes to Environmental Justice (EJ) community designations would be communicated. Staff stated that updated EJ maps and information would be maintained on the City’s website.

Lastly, Commissioner Martinez sought clarification regarding Safety Element policies requiring two ingress and egress routes. Staff confirmed that these policies apply to neighborhood access, rather than individual buildings, while noting that the Fire Department has separate access requirements for certain buildings based on factors such as size and unit count.

Commissioner Comments after the motion:

Commissioner Andrade thanked staff for their work and acknowledged the community outreach and public input incorporated into the plans. She also appreciated the redline formatting, which clearly identified the proposed changes, and recognized the involvement of key stakeholders and experts in the process.

Commissioner Martinez expressed support for the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan, updated Safety Element, and Environmental Justice policies, stating that they would help the City address climate change and support environmental justice communities. He e mphasized that the CA AP’s implementation measures are recommendations rather than mandates and would require further discussion before implementation. He highlighted mixed-use development, reduced vehicle travel, and active transportation as strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and noted that the C AAP complements the City’s other transportation and pedestrian plans.
1362

Minutes – Costa Mesa Planning Commission Meeting – August 10, 2026- Page 18

MOVED/SECOND: ANDRADE/MARTINEZ
MOTION: Move staff’s recommendation.

The motion carried by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Chair Harlan, Vice Chair Zich, Commissioner Andrade, Commissioner Klepack, Commissioner Martinez
Nays: Commissioner Dickson

Absent: Commissioner Rojas
Recused: None
Motion carried: 5-1

ACTION: The Planning Commission:

1. Found that the proposed Safety Element Update and Environmental Justice Policy Update are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3); and

2. Adopted a Resolution recommending that the City Council amend the General Plan to update the Safety Element and incorporate Environmental Justice Policy Update.

OLD BUSINESS: None.

NEW BUSINESS: None.

DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS:

1. PUBLIC WORKS REPORT – None.

2. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT – Ms. McGill announced that a special Planning Commission meeting would be held the following Monday. She stated that staff would present a Housing Element Amendment and conduct a study session on the Neighborhoods Where We All Belong (NWWAB) initiative.

CITY ATTORNEY REPORT:

1. CITY ATTORNEY REPORT – None.

ADJOURNMENT AT 10:37 p.m.

Submitted by:

1363

Minutes – Costa Mesa Planning Commission Meeting – August 10, 2026- Page 19

________________________________

CARRIE TAI, SECRETARY

COSTA MESA PLANNING COMMISSION
1364
-1-

PLANNING COMMISSION

AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: July 27, 2026 ITEM NUMBER: NB-1 SUBJECT: CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN (CAAP), SAFETY

ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE POLICY
UPDATE – PCTY-25-0009, PCTY-25-0002, AND PCTY-26-000X
FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT/ PLANNING

DIVISION
PRESENTATION BY: AMBER GREGG, CONTRACT PROJECT MANAGER,

AND ANNA MCGILL, PL ANNING MANAGER

FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION
CONTACT:

AMBER GREGG
[email protected]
RE

COMMENDATION
Staf
f recommends the Planning Commission:

1. Re
ceive the staff presentation, and provide comments on the policy direction and draft documents for the City’s Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP), Safety Element Update, and Environmental Justice Policy Update.

APPL

ICANT OR AUTHORIZED AGENT
City-
initiated requests to comply with state law (including programs identified in the City’s Housing Element) and help advance the City’s strategic priorities including improving the quality of life and advancing climate resiliency.

TRODUCTION
Ove
r the past several years, California has adopted numerous laws requiring local agencies to address climate change, community resilience, public safety, and environmental justice through their General Plans and related policy documents.

While each statute has its own requirements, they share a common objective of preparing communities for future environmental challenges while promoting healthy, safe, and resilient neighborhoods.

ATTACHMENT 11
1365
-2-

In response to these State requirements, furthering the City Council’s strategic priorities and City Council direction, Costa Mesa is currently advancing three closely related long- range planning initiatives:

• Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP)
• Safety Element Update
• Environmental Justice (EJ) General Plan Policy Update

Although each project has its own purpose, they rely upon much of the same technical information, community outreach, and policy framework. Preparing the three documents concurrently allows the City to develop a coordinated and internally consistent set of policies while avoiding duplication of work and maximizing public participation.

The projects also implement several Housing Element programs adopted as part of the City's 2021–2029 Housing Element. Specifically, Housing Element Program 2G commits the City to updating its Safety Element and incorporating Environmental Justice policies into the General Plan by December 2026. Concurrently, the City-initiated preparation of its first Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP) to establish a comprehensive strategy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improving climate resilience throughout the community.

DISCUSSION

An Integrated Policy Framework

Although the three projects are separate planning documents, they address many of the same community issues and have been developed in coordination to create a consistent policy framework for future planning decisions.

Each document addresses a different aspect of community resilience. The table below identifies the purpose, requirement and outcome of each document.

Table 1 – Documents Purpose, Requirements and Outcome

Project Primary Purpose State Requirement Primary Outcome Climate Action
and Adaptation
Plan
Reduce greenhouse
gas emissions and
prepare for changing
climate impacts
While not required by
state law, it supports
State climate goals and
CEQA guidance
Climate mitigation and
adaptation strategies
Safety Element
Update
Protect the community
from natural and
environmental hazards
Government Code
Section 65302(g), SB
379 and SB 1035
Updated General Plan
safety policies to be
consistent with our
Local Hazard Mitigation
Plan
1366
-3-

Project Primary Purpose State Requirement Primary Outcome Environmental
Justice Policy
Update
Promote healthy,
equitable, and resilient
communities
Government Code
Section 65302(h) (SB
1000)
Identifying exiting EJ
policies in the General
Plan and new policies
implementing state law

Rather than preparing each project independently, the City coordinated the efforts so that technical studies, public outreach, and policy development could inform one another.

For example:

• The CAAP identifies future climate hazards and adaptation strategies. • The Safety Element incorporates those climate hazards into the City's General Plan to strengthen emergency preparedness and hazard mitigation policies. • The Environmental Justice Policy Update ensures that future implementation of both documents considers the needs of communities that may experience disproportionate environmental or health burdens.

This coordinated approach reduces dupl icative efforts by staff and the community , provides a more transparent and comprehensive community engagement process, improves consistency among General Plan elements, and results in a more comprehensive policy framework for future decision-making.

Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP)

Purpose

The CAAP is the City's first comprehensive climate planning document. It establishes a long-range strategy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions while preparing Costa Mesa for the anticipated impacts of climate change over the coming decades.

Although California has established statewide greenhouse gas reduction targets, local governments play an important role in achieving these goals through land use planning, transportation planning, municipal operations, infrastructure investments, and community partnerships. The CAAP provides a strategic framework for reducing community-wide greenhouse gas emissions while improving resilience to future climate impacts through coordinated policies, programs, and partnerships.

Unlike regulatory documents such as the Zoning Code, the CAAP is a policy document. It does not directly regulate development or require individual property owners to undertake specific actions. Instead, it establishes long -term goals, objectives, strategi es, and implementation actions that will guide future City programs, capital improvements, operational practices, partnerships, and policy decisions.
1367
-4-

Recognizing the importance of climate resilience and the City's role in achieving State climate goals, the City Council authorized preparation of Costa Mesa's first CAAP on October 14, 2024 with chosen consultant Dudek. The Council directed that the CAAP emphasize practical implementation strategies focused on municipal leadership, education, incentives, and partnerships rather than broad new regulatory mandates.

October 14, 2024, Agenda Report:
https://costamesa.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=6891884&GUID=23ED8B 9D-86C9-460B-B0C6-0C976B6B7B60&Options=&Search=

In addition to retain ing Dudek to prepare the CAAP, t he City retained consultant Community Catalyst to lead project coordination, policy development, public engagement, and integration with related General Plan initiatives, and oversee Dudek project milestones, including the technical analyses, such as the greenhouse gas inventory, climate vulnerability assessment, and draft CAAP. Working collaboratively with City staff, the consultant team developed a comprehensive planning document that combines technical analysis with implementable policy recommendati ons tailored to Costa Mesa.

Technical Analysis

Preparation of the CAAP included several major technical studies designed to better understand both current greenhouse gas emissions and the community's vulnerability to future climate conditions. These studies are included in the CAAP Appendices and include:

• A community-wide greenhouse gas inventory
• Future greenhouse gas emissions forecasting
• Greenhouse gas reduction scenario analysis
• Climate vulnerability assessment
• Climate adaptation strategy
• Implementation and monitoring framework

The greenhouse gas inventory found that transportation and building energy use are the largest contributors to community greenhouse gas emissions. The vulnerability assessment evaluated how changing climate conditions may affect Costa Mesa through hazards such as extreme heat, drought, flooding, changing precipitation patterns, poor air quality, and wildfire smoke. The assessment also considered which populations may be more vulnerable to these hazards based upon age, income, housing conditions, health status, and other community characteristics.

Using this information, the CAAP identifies a balanced set of mitigation strategies intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions together with adaptation strategies 1368
-5-

that improve the City's ability to prepare for and respond to changing climate conditions.

Proposed Climate Action Framework

Based on the greenhouse gas inventory, emissions forecasting, vulnerability assessment, public outreach, and technical analysis, the CAAP establishes a series of goals, objectives, and actions intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while improving Costa Mesa's resilience to climate change. The Plan is organized into eight primary sectors that collectively address both community -wide emissions and municipal operations.

Rather than prescribing detailed implementation measures through the General Plan, the CAAP establishes a policy framework that will guide future City work programs, capital improvements, partnerships, grant opportunities, and operational decisions.

Each sector includes a series of objectives supported by specific implementation actions that can be evaluated and refined over time as technologies, funding opportunities, and State requirements evolve. Table 2 below details the sectors , objectives and actions.

Table 2 – Sectors, Objectives, and Actions Summary

Sector Purpose Objectives and Actions
Municipal
Leadership
Demonstrate leadership
through City operations.

Improve energy efficiency in municipal
facilities, transition City fleet vehicles,
incorporate sustainability into City operations,
pursue grant funding, and monitor
implementation progress.

Transportation
and Mobility
Reduce transportation-
related greenhouse gas
emissions while expanding
mobility options.

Support walking, bicycling, transit, electric
vehicle infrastructure, transportation demand
management, complete streets, and safe
mobility options for all users.

Energy Improve building energy
efficiency and increase the
use of renewable energy.

Encourage energy-efficient buildings,
electrification where appropriate, renewable
energy generation, and energy conservation
programs for both municipal facilities and the
community.

Water Improve water conservation
and long-term water supply
resilience.

Promote water-efficient landscaping, water
conservation measures, recycled water
opportunities, and sustainable stormwater
management practices.

Waste
Reduction
Reduce solid waste
generation and increase
material recovery.

Support waste reduction, recycling,
composting, circular economy initiatives, and
public education regarding sustainable waste
management practices.

Natural
Systems and
Improve environmental
quality while increasing
resilience to climate change.

Expand urban tree canopy, preserve open
space, improve habitat, reduce urban heat
1369
-6-

Sector Purpose Objectives and Actions
Carbon
Sequestration
island effects, and increase carbon
sequestration where feasible.

Climate
Adaptation
and
Community
Resilience
Prepare the community for
future climate impacts.

Increase preparedness for extreme heat,
flooding, drought, poor air quality, emergency
response, infrastructure resilience, and
protection of vulnerable populations.

Community
Education and
Partnerships

Encourage community
participation and
collaboration.

Expand public education, support local
businesses, collaborate with regional
agencies, schools, utilities, and community
organizations to achieve shared sustainability
goals.

Although each sector addresses different aspects of climate action, the sectors are intentionally interconnected. For example, expanding the City's urban tree canopy not only helps sequester carbon but also reduces urban heat island effects, improves air quality, enhances neighborhood aesthetics, and supports Environmental Justice objectives. Similarly, investments in active transportation improve mobility while reducing greenhouse gas emissions, improving public health, and increasing community resilience.

Collectively, the CAAP includes numerous implementation actions distributed among these eight sectors. Many actions focus on municipal leadership and voluntary community programs, while others establish long -term policy direction that will be evaluated and implemented through future City initiatives, capital improvement projects, grant opportunities, and partnerships. Consistent with City Council direction, the Plan emphasizes collaboration, incentives, education, and strategic investment rather than broad regulatory mandates.

Relationship to Other Projects

Because climate adaptation is now required to be addressed within the General Plan Safety Element, much of the technical analysis completed for the CAAP directly supports the Safety Element Update. Likewise, many implementation strategies identified in the CAAP informed development of the Environmental Justice policies by emphasizing investments that improve neighborhood health, resiliency, and access to community resources.

Safety Element Update

Purpose

1370
-7-

The General Plan Safety Element serves as the City's primary policy document for protecting residents, businesses, and infrastructure from natural and human -caused hazards. State law requires every city to maintain a Safety Element addressing hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, fire, emergency preparedness, and disaster response.

Since adoption of Costa Mesa's current Safety Element, California has adopted new legislation requiring local governments to incorporate climate adaptation and updated hazard information into their General Plans. Senate Bill 379 requires cities to evaluate how climate change may affect future hazards, while Senate Bill 1035 requires cities to review and revise their Safety Elements using updated flood and fire hazard information as it becomes available.

In addition to incorporating updated hazard information and climate adaptation strategies, State law encourages local agencies to improve consistency between the General Plan Safety Element and the jurisdiction's adopted Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP). The City of Costa Mesa adopted its most recent Local Hazard Mitigation Plan in 2022, following a comprehensive evaluation of natural hazards, community vulnerabilities, emergency preparedness capabilities, and hazard mitigation strategies. Because the LH MP contains the City's most current hazard assessments and mitigation planning, incorporating its findings into the Safety Element helps ensure that the General Plan reflects the most up -to-date technical information and maintains consistency among the Cit y's long -range planning and emergency management documents.

City of Costa Mesa LHMP
https://www.costamesaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/52032/6379927965 96200000

To comply with these requirements, the City's Housing Element includes Program 2G, committing the City to updating the Safety Element by December 2026.

Update Process

As part of the update, City Departments completed a comprehensive review of the existing Safety Element document , along with recommend modifications from the consultant that developed the LHMP, Atlas Planning, to determine where revisions were needed to reflect updated hazard information, changes in State law, and current best practices for hazard mitigation and emergency preparedness.

The update incorporated information from numerous technical sources, including:

• Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
• California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) 1371
-8-

• California Geological Survey
• Orange County Hazard Mitigation planning documents
• Costa Mesa’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP)

A primary objective of the update was to better integrate the City's adopted 2022 LHMP into the General Plan Safety Element. Government Code Section 65302(g), together with Senate Bills 379 and 1035, requires the Safety Element to incorporate current hazard information, climate adaptation planning, and updated flood and fire hazard information. Because the City's 2022 LHMP contains the City's most current hazard assessments, vulnerability analyses, and hazard mitigation strategies, it served as a primary technical foundation for the Safety Element update.

The LHMP serves as the City's principal emergency planning document for identifying natural hazards, evaluating community vulnerabilities, and establishing hazard mitigation actions intended to reduce long-term risks to life, property, infrastructure, and essential public services. The Plan was developed through an extensive technical analysis involving local, regional, State, and Federal agencies and includes detailed assessments of hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, severe weather, drought, extreme heat, wildfire, hazardous materials incidents, and other emergency events that could affect Costa Mesa.

While the LHMP focuses primarily on emergency management, hazard mitigation, and maintaining eligibility for Federal disaster mitigation funding, the Safety Element establishes the City's long-term land use and public policy framework for addressing those same hazards through future planning decisions. Integrating the LHMP into the Safety Element ensures that both documents rely upon a common technical foundation and support one another during future implementation.

The proposed revisions primarily modernize existing policies by updating technical information, incorporating climate adaptation, improving consistency with current emergency planning practices, and strengthening policies addressing flooding, wildfire, extreme heat, infrastructure resilience, and emergency preparedness.

Revisions that the General Plan accurately reflects current hazard information while improving coordination among multiple City planning documents. Table 3 , on the following page, shows the interconnected objectives of the LHMP, CAAP, and Safety Element.

TABLE 3 – Safety Element Update Support Summary

Document Primary Purpose How it Supports the Safety Element 1372
-9-

Local Hazard
Mitigation Plan
2022
Emergency management,
hazard assessment, FEMA
hazard mitigation planning
Provides current hazard analysis,
vulnerability assessment, mitigation
actions, and emergency preparedness
framework
Climate Action
and Adaptation
Plan
Climate mitigation and
adaptation planning
Provides climate science, greenhouse gas
analysis, future climate projections, and
adaptation strategies
Safety Element
Update
General Plan policy document Integrates findings from both documents into the City's long-range planning
framework

Relationship to Other Projects

The Safety Element update builds upon two significant planning efforts: the City's 2022 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) and the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP). Together, these documents provide the technical foundation for the proposed Safet y Element update while addressing different aspects of community resilience.

The 2022 LHMP serves as the City's primary hazard mitigation and emergency management planning document, identifying natural hazards, evaluating community vulnerabilities, and recommending mitigation actions to reduce long -term risks to people, property, a nd infrastructure. Because it contains the City's most current hazard assessments and mitigation strategies, the LHMP served as the primary technical resource for updating the Safety Element. Incorporating the LHMP into the General Plan improves consistenc y between the City's long-range planning policies and emergency management efforts, reflecting both State planning requirements and planning best practices.

The CAAP complements the LHMP by evaluating future climate conditions, greenhouse gas reduction strategies, and climate adaptation measures. The climate vulnerability assessment and adaptation strategies developed through the CAAP informed updates to the Safety Element related to extreme heat, drought, flooding, and other climate-related hazards.

By integrating both documents, the updated Safety Element establishes a coordinated policy framework that aligns hazard mitigation, climate adaptation, emergency preparedness, and long-range planning to improve the City's overall resilience.

Environmental Justice General Plan Policy Update

Purpose
1373
-10-

Environmental Justice (EJ) planning seeks to ensure that all residents have equitable access to clean, healthy, and safe environments and meaningful opportunities to participate in public decision -making. California law recognizes that some communities experience disproportionate environmental burdens due to a combination of environmental conditions, infrastructure deficiencies, and socioeconomic factors. EJ planning focuses on promoting equitable access to clean, healthy and safe environments, including identifying policies that improve community health, reduce pollution exposure, expand access to public facilities, encourage active transportation, improve access to healthy food, and promote meaningful public participation. The City of Costa Mesa General Plan includes policies related to all eight State-mandated EJ topics:

• Reducing pollution exposure,
• Provide safe and sanitary homes,
• Extending public services and facilities,
• Increasing physical activity,
• Improving access to healthy foods,
• Addressing compounded health and safety risks, and
• Promoting civic engagement.

The City strives to address EJ throughout the community, but especially in areas disproportionately impacted by environmental pollution and degradation, as well as social and economic factors. EJ communities are defined by communities that are disproportionately impacted by environmental pollution, hazards and degradation and residents that are burdened by social and economic factors. While EJ mapping typically occurs and is updated annually, six census tracts in Costa Mesa are currently considered EJ commu nities, as illustrated in the EJ census tract maps provided as Figures 1 and 2 on the following page.

These designations do not establish new land use regulations or create additional development requirements. Instead, they provide a planning tool that helps the City prioritize future investments, grant opportunities, infrastructure improvements, and implementation efforts in areas where community needs may be greatest.

FIGURES 1 & 2 – Costa Mesa EJ Census Tract Maps

1374
-11-

Senate Bill 1000 requires cities to incorporate EJ policies into their General Plans whenever two or more General Plan elements are adopted or substantially revised at 1375
-12-

the same time. Because Costa Mesa is concurrently updating both its Housing Element and Safety Element, Government Code Section 65302(h) requires the City to identify and incorporate Environmental Justice policies throughout the General Plan.

Existing Policy Audit

The City was awarded a Regional Early Action Planning (REAP) grant through the Orange County Council of Governments (OCCOG), in partnership with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), to support implementation of the Housing Element, including the development of Environmental Justice policies.

Through the grant, the City retained Interwest Consulting Group to conduct an audit of the General Plan, reviewing each element and identifying existing policies that addressed one or more of the eight Environmental Justice topics required by Government Code Section 65302(h).The audit also evaluated where existing policies could be strengthened, and identified policy gaps where new Environmental Justice policies were needed to satisfy State requirements.

The audit determined that Costa Mesa already contains numerous General Plan policies that support Environmental Justice objectives, particularly within the Housing, Circulation, Land Use, Parks and Recreation, Public Services, and Safety Elements.

Building upon this strong policy foundation, the project team developed targeted revisions to existing policies and proposed several new po licies to address areas where additional policy direction was needed.

Public input received through the CAAP outreach process, including the joint Climate Action and Environmental Justice Open House, further informed refinement of the proposed Environmental Justice policies and helped ensure the recommendations reflected community priorities.

Environmental Justice Policies Audit
https://www.costamesaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/63753/6391832157 49100000

Proposed Policy Direction

The proposed amendments build upon existing General Plan policies by strengthening the City's commitment to healthy neighborhoods and equitable investment throughout the community.

The proposed revisions place additional emphasis on:
• Improving access to parks, trails, and recreational facilities. • Expanding tree canopy and reducing urban heat island effects. • Improving walking, bicycling, and transit connections. • Supporting access to healthy food.
1376
-13-

• Reducing pollution exposure where feasible.
• Encouraging meaningful public participation.
• Prioritizing infrastructure improvements within Environmental Justice communities, when appropriate.

The draft EJ policies were posted to the City’s website for public review on July 1, 2026, and are open for public review and comment until August 4, 2026.

Draft Environmental Justice Policies
https://www.costamesaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/63751/6391832155 60270000

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Public engagement has been an integral component of developing the documents .

Because the CAAP serves as the foundation for many of the climate resilience and Environmental Justice recommendations, the majority of the City's outreach efforts were conducted as part of the CAAP planning process, with Environmental Justice outreach coordinated whenever possible.

Figure 3 – Earth Day Events 2025 & 2026

Throughout development of the CAAP, the City implemented a comprehensive public engagement program that included: internal and external stakeholder working groups, community workshops, pop -up outreach events, community surveys, social media campaigns, newsletters, and a dedicated project website (www.costamesaca.gov/sustainability).

These efforts provided multiple opportunities for residents, businesses, community organizations, and partner agencies to learn about the project, identify community 1377
-14-

priorities, and provide input on proposed goals, objectives, and implementation strategies.

Public outreach for the Environmental Justice Policy Update was coordinated with the CAAP to maximize community participation and highlight the relationship between the two initiatives. Draft Environmental Justice policies were first introduced during the City's Earth Day event in April 2026 and were subsequently presented during a joint Climate Action and Adaptation Plan and Environmental Justice Open House held on April 30, 2026. Approximately 30 community members attended the open house, where participan ts reviewed the proposed policies and action items, attended a presentation on both planning efforts, and provided feedback through a variety of interactive activities. Input received during these outreach efforts helped refine the proposed policy recommen dations included in both the CAAP and Environmental Justice Policy Update. A summary of the CAAP outreach efforts are included in the CAAP under Chapter 4 and Appendix C. EJ outreach efforts from the April 30, 2026, event is provided in the link below.

Environmental Justice Policies Outreach Summary (4.30.26) https://www.costamesaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/63755/6391832159 25970000

Following completion of the draft documents, the City initiated formal public review periods to provide additional opportunities for public comment. Draft CAAP policies were released for public review on April 23, 2026 and closed May 26, 2026. This was followed by release of the draft Safety Element Update and Environmental Justice Policy Update on July 1, 2026, and the completed draft CAAP on July 20, 2026. The City advertised these public draft review opportunities through the newspaper notices, e-blasts to the interested parties lists for CAAP, Safety Element and EJ, the City Hall snapshot, which is delivered to over 10,000 recipients and social media posts.

Figure 4 – Open House Event Photographs

All public review drafts are still available online through August 4, 2026, at the following websites:
1378
-15-

• Draft Safety Element and EJ Policies: www.costamesaca.gov/sustainability • Draft CAAP: www.costamesaca.gov/caap

As of the preparation of this report, the City has received one public comment letter from the Coastal Corridor Alliance, which is attached for reference and is currently being reviewed by staff.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION

The purpose of this study session is to introduce the draft policy documents and receive preliminary Planning Commission feedback. No formal action is being taken to adopt any of the documents at this time.

The study session is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 because it involves only the exchange of information and direction to staff. Prior to adoption, the City will complete the appropriate environmental review for each of the proposed policy documents in accordance with CEQA.

PUBLIC NOTICE

There is no public notice requirement for a Planning Commission study session. However, notice was provided in the newspaper on June 26, 2026, with notice of the public review draft periods for Safety Element, EJ and CAAP, the Planning Commission study session on July 27, 2026, and the upcoming Planning Commission public hearing on August 10, 2026. As noted above, the City also advertised the public draft review opportunities through the newspaper notices, e-blasts to the interested parties lists for CAAP, Safety Element and EJ, the City Hall snapshot, which is delivered to over 10,000 recipients , and social media posts. The agenda and supporting materials were made available on the City’s website in advance of the meeting.

CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS

The Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP), Safety Element Update, and Environmental Justice Policy Update represent three coordinated planning initiatives that establish an integrated policy framework for climate resilience, hazard mitigation, public safety, and environmental justice. Together, these efforts implement Housing Element Program 2G, update the General Plan to address current State requirements, and position the City to better prepare for future environmental and community challenges.

Following this study session, staff will consider Planning Commission feedback, evaluate all public comments received during the review period, and prepare any 1379
-16-

necessary revisions prior to formal adoption hearings. The current schedule is as follows:

Milestone Date
Planning Commission Public Hearing August 10, 2026
City Council Public Hearing (Tentative) September 15, 2026

LINKS:

1. Draft CAAP:
https://www.costamesaca.gov/government/departments-and- divisions/economic-and-development-services/planning/climate-action- adaptation-plan
a. Appendix A, Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory, Forecasting, and Target Setting:
https://www.costamesaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/63947/63 9201437560048937
b. Appendix B, Vulnerability Assessment:
https://www.costamesaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/63949/63 9201438011357871
c. Appendix C, Community Engagement and Outreach Materials:
https://www.costamesaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/63951/63 9201438017373476
d. Appendix D, Greenhouse Gas Reduction Supporting Material:
https://www.costamesaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/63953/63 9201438027819436
e. Appendix E, Implementation Plan:
https://www.costamesaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/63955/63 9201438040840778

2. Draft Safety Element Update:
https://www.costamesaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/63749/6391832 16180170000

3. Draft Environmental Justice Policies
https://www.costamesaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/63751/6391832 15560270000

ATTACHMENT:

1. Coastal Corridor Alliance Comment Letter
1380

REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, JULY 27, 2026 - MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER - The Regular Planning Commission Meeting was called to order by Chair Harlan at 6:00 p.m.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Allegiance.

Vice Chair Zich led the Pledge of

ROLL CALL

Present: Chair Jeffrey Harlan, Vice Chair Jon Zich, Commissioner Angely Andrade, Commissioner Robert Dickson, Commissioner Karen Klepack, Commissioner David Martinez, and Commissioner Johnny Rojas

Absent: None.

ANNOUNCEMENTS AND PRESENTATIONS: None.

PUBLIC COMMENTS - MATTERS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA:

Liz Parker, President of Coast Community College District Board of Trustees, requested that the City consider redesignating district-owned property on Adams Avenue from institutional to high density residential. She explained that the property has historically been used for administrative purposes rather than instructional use and that the district has no plans to develop student housing on the site. Ms. Parker stated the property is well suited for residential development due to its proximity to existing multi-family housing, public transportation, bicycle facilities, and Orange Coast College. She noted that redesignating the property could support the City's housing needs and allow the site to be considered as part of the Housing Element.

PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS:

Commissioner Martinez announced several upcoming community events, including the final Concerts in the Park, the Majestic Cycling Tournament, National Night Out, and the Motor Home Madness Demolition Derby benefiting Children's Hospital of Orange County. He also encouraged residents to participate in the City's GIS Strategic Plan survey to provide input on mapping and location-based services. Commissioner Martinez advised that he would attend the August 10 Planning Commission meeting Minutes - Costa Mesa Planning Commission Meeting - July 27, 2026- Page I ATTACHMENT 12
-1-
1381
remotely due to work obligations and apologized for missing the recent Fairview Developmental Center community event because ofillness.

Commissioner Andrade recognized the Costa Mesa Alliance for Better Streets for hosting a free bicycle repair event at Lions Park and commended the volunteers and community organizations that participated. She also encouraged residents to attend National Night Out, noting it provides an opportunity to strengthen relationships between the community and the Costa Mesa Police Department.

Vice Chair Zich advised the Coast Community College District to formally submit its rezoning request to the Community Development Director and City Council. He noted that inclusion of the property in the City's Housing Element would require the site to be developed for housing. He also encouraged residents to subscribe to the City's e- notification system to stay informed about Planning Commission meetings, City Council meetings, City news, and community events.

CONSENT CALENDAR:

1. JULY 13, 2026 UNOFFICIAL MEETING MINUTES
MOVED/SECOND: MARTINEZ/DICKSON
MOTION: Move to approve.

The motion carried by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Chair Harlan, Vice Chair Zich, Commissioner Andrade, Commissioner Dickson, Commissioner Klepack, Commissioner Martinez, Commissioner Rojas Nays: None

Absent: None
Recused: None
Motion carried: 7-0
ACTION:

Planning Commission approved the minutes.

PUBLIC HEARINGS:

1. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 2026-129 (PTPM-26-0006), AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR A4-UNIT COMMON INTEREST DEVELOPMENT AT 215 AND 223

MESA DRIVE
Presentation by Senior Planner, Chris Yeager.

Josh Martinez, Obsidian Development representative, stated he has reviewed and agreed to the conditions of approval.

Minutes - Costa Mesa Planning Commission Meeting - July 27, 2026- Page 2 -2-
1382
No public comments.

Commission comments:

Vice Chair Zich expressed support for the project, describing it as a well-designed developmentthatwould provide much-needed ownership housing within the City.

Commissioner Dickson commended the thoughtful site design, noting that locating the garages behind the homes created a more attractive streetscape while preserving landscaping and open space. He observed that the project reflected the continued evolution of residential development along Mesa Drive and expressed confidence that it would be a successful addition to the neighborhood.

Commissioner Martinez proposed a friendly amendment to update references within the Conditions of Approval from "Development Services" to "Community Development," which was accepted by the maker of the motion. He stated that while he supported the project because it provided additional housing opportunities, he remained concerned that current parking requirements dedicated substantial site area to vehicle storage that could otherwise accommodate additional housing or open space.

MOVED/SECOND: ZICH/DICKSON
MOTION: Move staff's recommendation.

The motion carried by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Chair Harlan, Vice Chair Zich, Commissioner Andrade, Commissioner Dickson, Commissioner Klepack, Commissioner Martinez, Commissioner Rojas Nays: None

Absent: None
Recused: None
Motion carried: 7-0
ACTION:

The Planning Commission adopted a resolution to:

1. FindtheprojectcategoricallyexemptfromtheCaliforniaEnvironmentalOuality Act (CEOA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15315 (Minor Land Divisions) and 15332 (lnfill Development); and

2. Approve Tentative Parcel Map No. 2026-129; and Development Review, subject to the Conditions of Approval, as amended to update references from Development Services to Community Development.

2. DEVELOPMENTREVIEWPDVR-25-0013,TENTATIVETRACTMAPN0.19458, AND DENSITY BONUS FOR A 15-UNIT RESIDENTIAL COMMON INTEREST DEVELOPMENT AT 2075 HARBOR BOULEVARD
Minutes - Costa Mesa Planning Commission Meeting - July 27, 2026- Page 3 -3-
1383
Four ex-parte communications: Vice Chair Zich, Commissioner Andrade, Commissioner Martinez, and Chair Harlan each disclosed that they had previously met with the applicant regarding the proposed project.

Presentation by Senior Planner, Victor Mendez.

Brian Cunningham, The 01son Company representative, stated that he had reviewed and agreed to the conditions of approval.

Public comments:

A member of the public who resides near the project site expressed support for the proposed development. The speaker stated that limiting Harbor Boulevard to an exit-only driveway would improve neighborhood circulation and safety because Harbor Boulevard experiences heavy traffic.

A second speaker expressed support for redevelopment of the vacant commercial property and the inclusion of affordable housing. The speaker asked whether the homes could incorporate rooftop solar panels to improve long-term affordability for future homeowners.

Kathy Esfahani (on Zoom), representing the Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition, expressed support for the inclusion of affordable ownership units. She requested clarification regarding the duration ofthe affordability covenant, noting the importance of maintaining affordability over the long term. Ms. Esfahani also commented that while the community's greatest need remains lower-income rental housing, the proposed affordable ownership units represented a positive addition to the City's housing supply.

Commissioner Comments:

Commissioner Dickson expressed strong support for the project, describing it as well designed and appropriate for the challenging site. He noted that the development would complement the previously approved nearby project, which had initially been contentious but ultimately proved successful. He appreciated the project's affordable housing provisions and the thoughtful design features used to make the development work within the constraints of the property. Although the project required several exemptions, he believed the overall design was successful and appropriately addressed the site's limitations.

Commissioner Dickson also highlighted theimportance of providing adequate on- site parking due to limited surrounding street parking. He recognized additional amenities, including bicycle parking, common areas, and usable private backyards, noting that the backyard areas appeared more functional upon closer Minutes - Costa Mesa Planning Commission Meeting - July 27, 2026- Page 4 -4-
1384
review. He concluded that the project would help address Costa Mesa's housing needs, was particularly well suited for Harbor Boulevard, and thanked the applicant for bringing the development forward. He expressed hope that the project would be successful.

Commissioner Andrade expressed support for the project and praised the inclusion of affordable first-time homebuyer opportunities, emphasizing the importance of providing homeownership opportunities within the community and especially within the district where the project would be located.

She stressed the need for the City to prioritize affordable housing opportunities whenever possible, noting that developers do notfrequently propose projectsthat include affordable homeownership options. She expressed appreciation to the applicant for incorporating affordable housing into the project.

Vice Chair Zich expressed support for the project, noting that the proposal was consistent with discussions held in March. He acknowledged that the site presented significant development challenges and that certain aspects, including the driveway configuration and aesthetics, were not ideal, but stated that the applicant had developed a strong design given the site constraints.

He indicated that additional residential development to the south would have been beneficial but recognized that the adjacent property owner was unwilling or unable to participate. He supported the proposed exit-only access onto Harbor Boulevard as a practical approach given existing and anticipated traffic conditions.

Vice Chair Zich raised one concern regarding the gate near Harbor Boulevard, noting that drivers could mistakenly turn into the driveway, encounter the gate, and have difficulty backing out. He suggested adding appropriate signage to clearly indicate that vehicles should not turn into that area.

Chair Harlan expressed supportforthe project and stated that it demonstrated the intent of Measure K by providing additional housing along a major corridor. He acknowledged that the site presented significant development challenges and commended the applicant for designing a project that provided needed housing while addressing circulation concerns.

Chair Harlan mentioned the applicant's restraint in utilizing the density bonus, noting thatthe project could haveincluded substantially more units. He stated that the applicant's previous experience in Costa Mesa demonstrated an understanding of the community and its housing needs.

He also recognized that the project provided more parking than required and believed the proposal successfully addressed several important planning Minutes - Costa Mesa Planning Commission Meeting - July 27, 2026- Page 5 -5-
1385
considerations. He concluded that the development was a high-quality project and welcomed the applicant's continued investment in Costa Mesa.

Commissioner Andrade provided additional comments regarding circulation and limited access to the development. She suggested that additional crosswalks, stop signs, or traffic signals along Harbor Boulevard could help slow traffic and improve pedestrian accessibility, particularly with nearby commercial uses such as Starbucks. She emphasized that traffic speed should not be the sole reason for limiting accessibility to the development. She concluded by praising the project's inclusion of green space and private backyard areas.

MOVED/SECOND: DICKSON/ANDRADE
MOTION: Move staff's recommendation.

The motion carried by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Chair Harlan, Vice Chair Zich, Commissioner Andrade, Commissioner Dickson, Commissioner Klepack, Commissioner Martinez, Commissioner Rojas Nays: None

Absent: None
Recused: None
Motion carried: 7-0
ACTION:

The Planning Commission adopted a resolution to:

1. Find that the project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.66 (Assembly Bill 130); and,

2. Adopted a Resolution taking the following actions:
a. Development Review: Approve the Development Review for the development of the project including 15 dwelling units with a maximum height of 3 stories/38 feet, six inches;
b. Tentative Tract Map No. 19458: Approve the Tentative Tract Map to subdivide the property into a residential common interest development; and
provide twoc. Density Bonus: Approve the density bonus request which will moderate income units.

OLD BUSINESS: None.

NEW BUSINESS:

1. CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN (CAAP), SAFETY ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE POLICY UPDATE - PCTY-25-0009, PCTY-25-0002, AND PCTY-26-000X
Minutes - Costa Mesa Planning Commission Meeting - July 27, 2026- Page 6 -6-
1386
Planning Manager Anna McGill introduced the study session item and presented members of the project team, including Contract Project Manager Amber Gregg, Energy and Sustainability Services Manager Charles Springer, consultant Jennifer Reid of Dudek, and consultant Kurt Nagel oflnterwest. She explained thatthe team would provide an overview of the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP), Safety Element Update, and Environmental Justice Policy Update, all of which had been prepared concurrently because they share common technical analyses, community outreach efforts, and policy objectives.

Commission Discussion:

Commissioners asked questions regarding the public review process, community outreach and survey results, the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan's relationship to CEOA, greenhouse gas reduction targets and implementation strategies, updates to the Safety Element, Environmental Justice policies, and how implementation measures and greenhouse gas reductions would be monitored and quantified. Commissioners also provided recommendations to strengthen the proposed documents, including additional emphasis on nativelandscaping, urban greening, climate resilience, environmental education, healthy food access, and public outreach. Staff responded to the commissioners' questions and clarified the proposed implementation approach.

No public comments.

Commissioner Comments:

Commissioner Martinez expressed support for the overall direction of the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan but encouraged staff to clearly identify measurable greenhouse gas reductions associated with each implementation action rather than relying on broad or exploratory policy language. He also recommended periodic public reporting to monitor implementation progress and suggested including electric bicycles among municipal fleet transportation options.

Staff responded that Appendix D quantifies greenhouse gas reductions for each implementation measure and explained that annual monitoring would allow implementation strategies to be adjusted over time while maintaining progress toward the City's emissions reduction targets.

Vice Chair Zich thanked staff for the presentation and requested additional information regarding implementation responsibilities, long-term costs, and how Environmental Justice policies would be incorporated into future General Plan updates. He also requested additional discussion regarding the Climate Action Minutes - Costa Mesa Planning Commission Meeting - July 27, 2026- Page 7 -7-
1387
and Adaptation Plan during the formal adoption hearing to better understand how the document would guide future City actions.

Chair Harlan agreed with Commissioner Martinez that the relationship between implementation actions and anticipated greenhouse gas reductions should be more clearly presented. He encouraged staff to highlight measurable implementation priorities and demonstrate how municipal actions would contribute toward achieving the City's overall greenhouse gas reduction goals.

Commissioner Dickson requested additional information comparing Costa Mesa's greenhouse gas inventory and reduction assumptions with Orange County and neighboring jurisdictions to provide context regarding the City's methodology and reduction targets.

MOVED/SECOND: DICKSON/ANDRADE
MOTION: Receive and file.

The motion carried by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Chair Harlan, Vice Chair Zich, Commissioner Andrade, Commissioner Dickson, Commissioner Klepack, Commissioner Martinez, Commissioner Rojas Nays: None

Absent: None
Recused: None
Motion carried: 7-0
ACTION: Planning Commission received and filed the item.

2. FAIRVIEW DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN STUDY SESSION Principal Planner Melinda Dacey introduced the study session item and presented the consultant team, including Planning Manager Anna McGill, Transportation Services Manager Paul Martin, representatives from PlaceWorks, Fehr & Peers, and environmental consultants. Staff explained that the purpose of the study session was to provide an overview of the Public Hearing Draft Fairview Developmental Center (FDC) Specific Plan, the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR), communit9 outreach efforts, and the anticipated review process before formal public hearings.

Commission Discussion:

Commissioners asked questions regarding the proposed land use plan, housing density, financial feasibility, affordable housing requirements, transportation circulation, secondary roadway access, environmental analysis, infrastructure improvements, open space, historic preservation, public outreach, implementation procedures, and long-term maintenance responsibilities.

Minutes - Costa Mesa Planning Commission Meeting - July 27, 2026- Page 8 -8-
1388
Commissioners also discussed traffic impacts, public safety, compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods, and opportunities to improve connectivity, recreation, and community amenities within the redevelopment area. Staff and the consultant team responded to the commissioners' questions and provided additional clarification regarding the proposed Specific Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Report.

Public comments:

Speaker one agreed with previous public comments and expressed concern that the proposed landscaped medians would provide limited recreational value because they are located between traffic lanes. The speaker encouraged dedicating more of the available land to usable green space that would better serve future residents and visitors.

Speaker two requested that the traffic analysis include impacts associated with the annual Orange County Fair, stating that the project's size and proximity to the fairgrounds create unique transportation conditions that should be evaluated, particularly for nearby Environmental Justice communities. The speaker also expressed concern that the proposed residential density would likely result in predominantly studio and one-bedroom units rather than family-oriented housing and urged the City to be transparent about the types of housing that are realistically expected to be developed.

Steve Smith shared concerns raised during the community town hall regarding the project's limited access and anticipated traffic impacts on Harbor Boulevard and surrounding neighborhoods. He also expressed concern that increased congestion could undermine the City's active transportation goals and urged the Commission to carefully reconsider and revise the proposal before moving forward.

Brian Emestin, a College Park Costa Mesa resident and youth sports coach, urged the Commission to limit development to 2,300 housing units to preserve open space and expand recreational facilities. He highlighted the City's shortage of athletic fields, the growing demand for youth sports, particularly girls' programs, and encouraged the creation of a community park with athletic fields and other recreational amenities to better serve current and future residents.

Speaker five expressed concerns regarding emergency access, police and fire services, and public safety, questioning whether existing emergency response resources could adequately serve the proposed development. The speaker suggested additional public safety facilities may be needed and also noted increasing traffic congestion and concerns regarding electric bicycle safety throughoutthe community.

Minutes - Costa Mesa Planning Commission Meeting - July 27, 2026- Page 9 -9-
1389
John Troder, a longtime Costa Mesa resident, expressed concern that the proposed development would rely on only two access points despite its large size.

He stated that the limited access would increase traffic congestion, greenhouse gas emissions, and public safety risks during emergencies, and urged the Commission to reconsiderthe project's access configuration.

Diane Russell thanked City staff for conducting the public O&A held in July and expressed support for the proposed Specific Plan. She emphasized the ongoing need for affordable housing and urged the City to ensure affordable units are constructed concurrently with market-rate housing through provisions in the Development Agreement.

Gary Bennett, Costa Mesa resident, expressed concern about the impacts of reconstructing the Costa Mesa Country Club golf course, including potential revenue losses and the effect on local high school golf programs. He also suggested evaluating Merrimac Way as an alternative access road to improve circulation while minimizing impacts to the golf course and recreational open space.

Wendy Leece, alongtime Costa Mesa resident, expressed concern overthe State's housing requirements and the project's significant and unavoidable environmental impacts identified in the Environmental Impact Report, including air quality, biological resources, and traffic. She supported reducing the project to approximately 2,300 units, increasing park space, and encouraged the Commission to consider a scaled-back alternative that would reduce impacts while still meeting State housing requirements.

Speaker ten, longtime west side Costa Mesa resident, expressed concern that adding 4,000 housing units would significantly worsen traffic congestion on Harbor Boulevard, Placentia Avenue, and Victoria Street, negatively affecting emergency response times. While supporting affordable housing, the speaker urged the Commission to reduce the project's scale, citing concerns that it would strain City resources and delay needed infrastructure improvements, including flood mitigation projects.

Speaker eleven (on Zoom), a Mesa Del Mar resident and lifelong Costa Mesa resident, advocated for a development that reflects existing Costa Mesa neighborhoods by incorporating a mix of single-family, affordable, and senior housing, along with connected walking and bicycle paths. She also expressed concerns about existing traffic congestion and urged the Commission to prioritize green space, sports fields, and recreational amenities while addressing residents concerns about traffic and quality oflife.

Minutes - Costa Mesa Planning Commission Meeting - July 27, 2026- Page 10 -10-
1390
Kathy Esfahani (on Zoom), a lifelong Costa Mesa resident and representing the Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition, expressed support for the proposed Specific Plan and the inclusion of up to 4,000 housing units to address the City's affordable housing shortage. She acknowledged concerns regarding traffic and recreation but encouraged the City to pursue creative transportation solutions, expand bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, establish joint-use agreements for athletic fields, and approve the proposed plan.

Forest Flarity (on Zoom), a Cornerstone Lane Costa Mesa resident, expressed concern that additional development would worsen traffic and further restrict access to his neighborhood. He questioned the shift from earlier concepts emphasizing parks and open space to a plan with substantially more housing and urged the Commission to preserve recreational amenities to protect residents' quality oflife.

Cynthia McDonald, Costa Mesa resident, expressed concern that increasing the project from 2,300 to 4,000 units would primarily add market-rate housing while providing little additional affordable housing or open space. She questioned the City's ability to accommodate the increased demand for public services and infrastructure and urged the Commission to pursue a more balanced development that better reflects smart growth principles and protects the community's long- term quality oflife.

Commissioner Comments:

Commissioner Martinez provided extensive comments and recommendations on the draft Specific Plan, focusing on increasing flexibility, improving clarity, and ensuring consistency throughout the document. He questioned the need for certain General Plan amendments, requested clarification regarding the Specific Plan's zoning framework, and asked how the Emergency Operations Center influenced the site layout. He suggested expanding flexibility for commercial development, simplifying land use categories, revising development standards, and encouraging additional homeownership opportunities. He also offered numerous recommendations regarding mobility, including reducing roadway widths, improving bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, enhancing transit connections, increasing park space, updating parking standards, and incorporating additional complete streets improvements. Throughout his comments, Commissioner Martinez requested several technical corrections and clarifications to the Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report.

Commissioner Andrade focused on the project's financial feasibility and full build- out (i.e. 4,000 units) of the Specific Plan (previously referred to as Land Use Concept 3). She asked questions regarding the financial assumptions supporting the preferred development concept and the likelihood that projected returns Minutes - Costa Mesa Planning Commission Meeting - July 27, 2026- Page ll -11-
1391
would accurately reflect future market conditions. She expressed support for the opportunities the Specific Plan provides, including homeownership, affordable housing, senior housing, and permanent supportive housing. Commissioner Andrade also encouraged maximizing public open space where feasible, sought clarification regarding project access and circulation, and asked staff to continue exploring opportunities for additional bicycle and pedestrian connections to surrounding neighborhoods while acknowledging the constraints posed by the Emergency Operations Center. She also supported considering creative transportation solutions, including trolley service, to help reduce future traffic impacts.

Vice Chair Zich expressed significant concerns regarding the overall direction of the Specific Plan, stating that he believed the project no longer reflected the extensive public outreach conducted over several years. He questioned the increase from earlier planning concepts to a proposal containing up to 4,000 residential units and argued that the project would substantially worsen traffic, reduce park space, and negatively affect surrounding neighborhoods. He expressed concern regarding the proposed secondary access road, questioned the City's justification for its necessity, and encouraged continued evaluation of Merrimac Way as an alternative. Vice Chair Zich also questioned the City's approach to affordable housing, parkland requirements, environmental impacts, and financial feasibility, stating that he believed the proposal did not adequately respond to community input or prior City Council direction.

Commissioner Dickson acknowledged the difficult task assigned to staff but expressed concern that the proposed Specific Plan was not adequately planned for Costa Mesa's long-term transportation and infrastructure needs. He questioned assumptions regarding reduced parking requirements, future travel behavior, and the relationship between the Specific Plan and future Measure K rezoning efforts.

Commissioner Dickson also questioned the assumptions used in the financial feasibility analysis, including the selected internal rate of return, and asked whether additional alternatives had been evaluated to better reflect previous City Council direction and community input. He emphasized the importance of balancing multimodal transportation with realistic vehicle demand and expressed concern that the proposed project placed too much emphasis on financial feasibility while giving insufficient consideration to public engagement and the City's historical planning objectives.

Chair Harlan acknowledged the community's concerns regarding whether a single primary ingress and egress point would adequately serve a project of this size. He agreed with Vice Chair Zich that the City should further explore Merrimac Way as a potential secondary access point and engage more directly with the State regarding that option. He stated that the City should not initially bear the burden of providing a secondary easement through the golf course. He suggested further Minutes - Costa Mesa Planning Commission Meeting - July 27, 2026- Page 12 -12-
1392
examining the State's land lease with the Harbor Village operator and noted that renegotiating the lease to allow secondary access could potentially increase the value of the property.

MOVED/SECOND: MARTINEZ/DICKSON
MOTION: Receive and file.

The motion carried by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Chair Harlan, Vice Chair Zich, Commissioner Andrade, Commissioner Dickson, Commissioner Klepack, Commissioner Martinez, Commissioner Rojas Nays: None

Absent: None
Recused: None
Motion carried: 7-0
ACTION: Planning Commission received and filed the item.

DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS:

1. PUBLIC WORKS REPORT - None

2. DEVELOPMENTSERVICESREPORT-DirectorTaithankedmembersofthepublic for attending the recent Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan Town Hall.

She reported that the Zoning Code Amendments considered by the Planning Commission would be presented to the City Council on August 4, 2026. She also advised that the Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan and the Climate Action Plan would return to the Planning Commission on August 10, 2026, and reminded the Commission of the special meeting scheduled for August 17, 2026, regarding the Neighborhoods Where We All Belong initiative.

CITY ATTORNEY REPORT:
'1. CITY ATTORNEY REPORT - None
ADJOURNMENT AT 11:15 p.m.

Submitted by:

COSTA MESA PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes - Costa Mesa Planning Commission Meeting - July 27, 2026- Page 13 -13-
1393

CITY OF COSTA MESA
Agenda Report
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
File #: 26-381 Meeting Date: 9/15/2026
TITLE:

PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF THE FAIRVIEW DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER

SPECIFIC PLAN AND RELATED AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING CODE, LAND USE ELEMENT

OF THE GENERAL PLAN AND CERTIFY THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT / ADVANCED

PLANNING AND HOUSING DIVISION
PRESENTED BY: MELINDA DACEY, PRINCIPAL PLANNER; ANNA MCGILL, ADVANCED PLANNING MANAGER; KAREN GULLEY AND MOLLY MENDOZA, PLACEWORKS CONTACT INFORMATION: MELINDA DACEY, PRINCIPAL PLANNER, (714) 754-5611 RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council:

1. Adopt Resolution No. 2026-XX titled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, California, Certifying the Environmental Impact Report and Adopting the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan Project;” and

2. Adopt Resolution No. 2026-XX titled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, California, Amending the Land Use Element of the General Plan and Update the Land Use Map to Change the Land Use Designation of the 110 Acre Fairview Developmental Center (FDC) Site Located at 2501 Harbor Boulevard from Multi-Use Center to Refer to the 95 Acre FDC Specific Plan (FDCSP) and Change the Remaining 15 Acres to Public/Institutional;” and

3. Introduce Ordinance No. 2026-XX titled “AnOrdinance of the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, California, Adopting the Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan (FDCSP) and Amend Sections 13-20, 13-28, 13-30, Chapter V, Article 7, and Add Chapter XVIII “Specific Plans” to Title 13 of the Zoning Code, and Amend the Zoning Map to Change the Zoning Designation of the 110 Acre Fairview Developmental Center (FDC) Site Located at 2501 Harbor Boulevard to Refer to the 95 Acre FDCSP and Change the Remaining 15 Acres to Institutional and Recreational (I&R).”

Page 1 of 1 ends

Costa Mesa City CouncilSeptember 15, 2026

Costa Mesa City Council
September 15, 2026