Community in Motion - Re:Imagine Garden Grove

RE:Imagine Garden Grove Community in Motion Non-Motorized Mobility Network Open Space Network Enhancement 2060 Downtown Concept Plan

tm

f la nd

STUDIO

e

ar

606

to

ct

dep en

ur

califor nia

California State Polytechnic University, Pomona

Department of Landscape Architecture I College of Environmental Design

ytechnic uni pol ve rs te ta

mona po ity

606 Studio

s

“Gardens and Groves� Theme

rc scape a

h it

e

June 2015

Re:Imagine Garden Grove: Community in Motion Non-Motorized Mobility Network, Open Space Network Enhancement, 2060 Downtown Concept & “Gardens and Groves� Theme Plans

Prepared for: 606 Studio Team: Principal Investigators: Faculty Advisor:

City of Garden Grove Joseph Gonzalez, Hieu Nguyen, Elena Tucci, & Kevin Yuan Lee-Anne S. Milburn (Ph.D., FASLA) & Weimin Li (Ph.D., ASLA) Doug Delgado

606 Studio Department of Landscape Architecture College of Environmental Design California State Polytechnic University, Pomona

Acknowledgement & Thanks Our gracious thanks to the City of Garden Grove, its residents and visitors, MindMixers, students, senior citizens, bicycle enthusiasts, and faith leaders who took the time to participate in meetings and activities, provided feedback in public forums, shared their knowledge, and took an active interest in shaping the future of the City and their communities. The City of Garden Grove’s Mayoral Office and City Council, with acknowledgement to Councilman Steven R. Jones for his support of an examination into the potential of the City’s Civic Center–Downtown. Thank you to the City of Garden Grove staff and officials for providing information, helping to initiate community participation activities, and their invaluable assistance and input: Susan Emery, Director, Community Development Department Karl Hill, Planning Manager, Community Development Department Erin Webb, Senior Planner, Community Development Department Lee Marino, Senior Planner, Community Development Department Andrew Kanzler, Planning Commissioner, City of Garden Grove Janet Pelayo, Supervisor, Community Services Department John Montanchez, Recreation Manager, Community Services Department Lori Ochoa, Coordinator, Senior Center & Human Services, Community Services Department Anand Rao, IT Manager, Information Technology Department We also thank the following City of Garden Grove staff for their interest and media support: Marie Moran, Production Coordinator, Cable Division, Community Services Department Jeff Davis, Senior Program Specialist, Cable Division, Community Services Department Thanks to the following public officials for their help in enabling us to conduct community participation activities: Thomas Finch, Regional Branch Manager, Garden Grove Regional Library, OC Public Libraries Dr. Gabriela Mafi, Superintendent, Garden Grove Unified School District Amy Steven, Public Information Officer, Garden Grove Unified School District Robin Repp, Instructor, Garden Grove High School, Garden Grove Unified School District The support staff at Garden Grove City Hall, the Garden Grove Community Development Center, the Garden Grove Courtyard Center, and the Garden Grove Sports & Recreation Center for helping us house and host community participation activities. Thank you to our 606 “family” for their advise, assistance, and expertise: the 2014 MLA class; faculty advisors and consultants Karen Hanna, Doug Delgado, and Kristi Weber; and principal investigators Dr. Lee-Anne Milburn and Dr. Weimin Li. Heartfelt thanks to our friend Ed Shin for his gracious GIS assistance; he was a positive presence in the studio and formidable table tennis player. And finally, thank you to our families and loved ones for their enduring patience and support.

Executive Summary Introduction The Re:Imagine Garden Grove: Community in Motion was developed to support the revitalization of the heart of Garden Grove—its mid-city district. Four project objectives were identified to support Downtown redevelopment. They include the development of: • • • •

A non-motorized mobility (NMM) network that connects the neighborhoods and disparate districts of the City, as well as neighboring cities in the greater Orange County region to one another; with the Civic Center–Downtown District serving as its hub. An open space vision plan that serves to expand and enhance the City’s existing open space and provide physical infrastructure for the NMM network. A Civic Center–Downtown District plant palette, along with design interventions based on the theme of “gardens and groves” that will unify, redefine, and reinvigorate the City brand. Design strategies and performance assessment standards for the NMM and open space networks as they pertain to enhanced access for a greater number of residents to the Civic Center–Downtown District.

Figure i.i. Cover. Proposed Main Street plaza. Figure i.ii. Left. Historic Main Street entry sign. Figure i.iii. Right. Gateway to Historic Main Street at Garden Grove Boulevard.

RE:Imagine Garden Grove | v

Project Method and Process To determine strategies that would best address the needs of the current and future population of Garden Grove, information was needed on non-motorized mobility (NMM) needs, open space use, factors that define the identity of Garden Grove, and sources of economic draw. Information needs were matched with methods and targeted groups. Methods of data collection (Tables i.i & i.ii) included questionnaires, small focus group, and other non-traditional methods.

Public Participation Applied Methods Methods

Definitions

Crowdsourcing

To acquire input, comment, or to solicit feedback by enlisting the services of people online (New Oxford American Dictionary, 2010); e.g., the MindMixer interface

Small Focus Group

Allows researchers to learn group views, insights, and stances toward an activity, service, concept, or idea in a more relaxed setting than typically occurs in a one-on-one interview or public forum (Marshall & Rossman, 1999)

Participation Urban Assessment (PUA)

Adapted from participatory rural assessment; enables participants to share and analyze individual knowledge of their life and conditions (Village Volunteers, 2011)

Questionnaire

A list of specially designed questions for a select group to answer individually (New Oxford American Dictionary, 2010)

Photovoice

Participants are asked to represent their community or point of view by taking photographs, developing narratives to go with their photos, and discussing them at a community forum, in person or online (Wang & Burris, 1994); may also be applied in conjunction with participatory study strategies such as crowdsourcing, mapping, collaging, and/or drawing (Mannay, 2013)

Delphi

A structured process for collecting and distilling knowledge by means of a series of questionnaires, facilitating the formation of a group consensus (Günaydin, n.d.; Helmer-Hirschberg, 1967)

Table i.i. Top Left. Public participation applied methods. Figure i.iv. Top Right. High school students participating in mapping exercise. Figure i.v. Bottom Right. Senior citizens participating in small focus group.

vi | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

Public Participation By Method(s) Used Participants

Method(s) Used

MindMixer Public, digital interface; 287 active members

Crowdsourcing Delphi Photovoice

Number of Participants Participant numbers varied by topic type and question asked

MindMixer In-Person Community member event; mapping activity and dissemination of an opinion sheet

Participatory Urban Assessment (PUA)

23

Questionnaire

18

Public Mapping Installations Mapping activities at three public locations

Participatory Urban Assessment (PUA)

67

Bicyclist Coalition Mapping activity

Participatory Urban Assessment (PUA)

6

High School Students Mapping activity and dissemination of a take-home activity package

Participatory Urban Assessment (PUA)

53

Questionnaire

41

Photovoice Senior Citizens Facilitation of a round table discussion and dissemination of an opinion sheet

Small Focus Group Questionnaire

Public Participation Results Summary Identity Participants cited several reasons for living and remaining in Garden Grove. A common, general response was the ďŹ ne weather and the close proximity to entertainment destinations and natural areas (such as the ocean and mountains). When pressed about features speciďŹ c to the City, three of the most popular characteristics were an appreciation of its cultural diversity, friendly atmosphere, and agrarian, farming village heritage. The most common reason given was intimate relationships and living near family and friends.

1 11 3

Table i.ii. Top. Public participation by method(s) used. Figure i.vi. Bottom. High school students in Annual Strawberry Festival Parade.

Destinations

Pedestrian Routes

Bicycle Routes 57

57

57

5

5

5

22

22

Rive r

Santa A na

0

1

2

0

Destinations Identified One hundred and forty-nine people participated in the Participatory Urban Assessment and identified their most popular destinations and routes (Figures i.vii, i.viii, i.ix & i.x). The routes identified by participants for inclusion in the mobility network included: Existing • • • •

Santa Ana River Trail San Gabriel River Trail Coyote Creek Trail Pacific Coast Highway Trail and Lanes

Non-existing • OCTA / PE ROW (selected across demographics and group types) • Anaheim-Barber City Channel

1

Local streets that are currently used, should be included, and/or completed • Garden Grove Boulevard • Harbor Boulevard • Brookhurst Street • Euclid Street • Chapman Avenue • Lampson Avenue • Magnolia Street • Haster Street • Westminster Avenue Along with general improvements to the mobility network on the popular streets and greenways identified above, participants also want: • • •

Promenades incorporated into existing and future commercial developments Wider pedestrian paths and sidewalks Improved lighting for those using nonmotorized forms of transportation

Figure i.vii. Top Left. Combined public participants’ popular destinations. Figure i.viii. Top Middle. Combined public participants’ popular pedestrian routes. Figure i.ix. Top Right. Combined public participants’ popular bicycle routes. Figure i.x. Next page. Combined public participants’ popular destinations and routes.

viii | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

405

Miles

The Non-Motorized Mobility Network

Santa Ana Riv er

405

405

Santa Ana Riv er

22

2

0

Miles

LegendLegend Civic Center-Downtown District Freeways Major Streets Santa Ana River Attractions Area of Most Popular Destinations Destinations Responses

Routine

1 2-5 6 - 10 11 - 15 16 + Routes Used & Desired Routes Pedestrian Bicycle

Occasional

1

2

Miles

Cypress

Los Alamitos Army Airfield

cifi

Stanton

tric

Rig

ht-

Harbor Blvd

Brookhurst St

Euclid St

5

Anaheim

lec

57

Disneyland

Haster St

Pa

cE

Katella Ave

Magnolia St

Beach Blvd

Knott St

Valley View St

Combined Public Participants’ Popular Destinations + Routes

Honda Center City National Grove of Anaheim

of-

W ay

ARTIC

Angel Stadium

Orangewood Ave

Christ Cathedral

Chapman Ave

Orange Outlets at Orange

Lampson Ave

Memory Lane

Garden Grove Blvd

22 Trask St

Trask Ave

17th St

Huntington Beach

405

Hazard Ave

Westminster Mall

1st St

Bolsa Ave

Westminster

Little Saigon

Santa Ana Riv er

Westminster Ave

Santa Ana

McFadden Ave

0

Bella Terra

Fountain Valley

Mile Square Regional Park

1

2

Miles

i - Executive Summary | ix

Option 1: OCTA Planned Network

Option 2: Public Participation Network

5

5

22

405

Rive r

405

0

1

2

Miles

Option 3: GIS Generated Network

Miles

Option 4: Citywide Connection Network 57

57

5

5

22

22

405

Rive r

405

Santa An a

•

2

Rive r

•

1

Santa An a

•

Option one served as a baseline. It is the OCTA’s proposed network and was developed by experts who felt confident this network could be implemented. Six percent of the participants preferred this network. Option two was developed solely through public participation. Sixteen percent of the participants preferred this network. Option three was developed by inputting geospatial data with an emphasis on selecting Class I paths and trails, and making connections to regional facilities. Thirteen percent of the participants preferred this network. By far the most progressive, option four combined all data and research to create a network that caters to all types of cyclists of varying experience and offers the most citywide access and connections. Sixty-five percent of the participants preferred this network.

Santa Ana Riv er

22

0

•

57

57

Santa An a

Once a few alternatives for the NMM network were developed (based on existing, planned, and proposed routes developed through geospatial modeling and additional public participation), the Delphi method was used to solicit MindMixer Interface participant feedback on the four options presented (Figures i.xi, i.xii, i.xiii & i.xiv). NMM facilities were illustrated as a complete network, in a nondiscriminatory way (types of user and/ or facility classification). The focus of the activity was threefold: (1) to discover whether participants preferred a limited or extensive active mobility network; (2) to measure the proportion of participants’ affinity for each option to quantify margin of support; and (3) to confirm preferential mobility routes.

0

1

2

Miles

0

1

2

Miles

Figure i.xi. Top Left. Option 1: OCTA planned network. Figure i.xii. Top Right. Option 2: Public participation network. Figure i.xiii. Bottom Left. Option 3: GIS generated network. Figure i.xiv. Bottom Right. Option 4: Citywide connection network. Figure i.xv. Next Page. Night market at Asian Garden Mall in Little Saigon, Westminster.

Open Space Network Enhancement Participants want existing park spaces to be improved as well as more open space in general, in the form of parks, plazas, promenades, greenways, pocket parks, and roof gardens. Participants across demographics and group types want to see unused and underutilized spaces transformed into open space (such as roof tops and parking lots). In particular, they want the old Pacific Electric Right-of-Way (PE ROW) transformed into a greenway and developed as a ‘green spine’ for citywide mobility and open space use.

x | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

2060 Downtown Concept Plan Popular ideas for the revitalization of downtown included using unifying architectural and vegetative elements in the downtown, enhancing façades and improving public right-of-ways to offer social areas in addition to access. They also want elements that beautify the area through public art, trees, planters, roof gardens, and signage. Participants wanted more contemporary and varied commercial spaces throughout the Downtown area that included retail, food, and beverage offerings. They also wanted commercial areas that integrate open space as a feature of new and upgraded retail areas in the form of promenades, plazas, retail kiosks, and food carts, as well as spaces for food trucks to set up and spaces for people to sit and eat outdoors. Healthy sources of food and more market options was also a popular topic, with the request of attracting a Trader Joe’s and having a greater number and presence of Farmers’ Markets making the top of the list.

The “Gardens and Groves” Theme Participants advocated two categories of vegetation more strongly than any other. The first was edible plants and the second was flowering plants. Supporting concepts that were also popular included the use of drought-tolerant and California native vegetation, as well as the integration of plantings through English garden-style layering. Sophisticated concepts such as protecting mature trees, providing vegetative variety, and avoiding monocultures were advocated as well.

Proposed Plans Non-Motorized Mobility Network The final non-motorized mobility network proposal (Figure i.xvii) was developed through data driven geospatial modeling, which was informed by public participation as well as the inventory of existing street conditions (including width, speed, the presence of adjacent non-motorized facilities, safety, etc.). This process was performed in six major steps. • • • • • •

Step One: Preparing a baseline network Step Two: Identify regional network connections Step Three: Assigning priority levels to destination factors Step Four: Weighting network components Step Five: Ranking streets by access and proximity of destinations Step Six: Routing of the network

Legend Legend Civic Center-Downtown District Freeways Major Streets Metrolink Santa Ana River Attractions Non-Motorized Network Existing Class I Class II Class III

xii | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

Figure i.xvi. Local residents on proposed Class I trail along PE ROW during Open Streets Event. Figure i.xvii. Right. Existing and proposed non-motorized network.

Proposed

Existing + Proposed Non-Motorized Network

Harbor Blvd

Euclid St

Brookhurst St

Magnolia St

Beach Blvd

Stanton Anaheim

Disneyland

5

Haster St

Cypress

Knott St

Valley View St

57

Honda Center City National Grove of Anaheim

Katella Ave

ARTIC

Angel Stadium

Orangewood Ave

Christ Cathedral

Chapman Ave

Orange

Outlets at Orange Lampson Ave

Memory Lane Garden Grove Blvd

22 405

Trask St

Trask Ave

17th St

Westminster Ave

Hazard Ave

1st St

Bolsa Ave

Little Saigon

Westminster

McFadden Ave

Bella Terra

k. Fountain Valley

Mile Square Regional Park

Santa Ana

Rive r

Westminster Mall

Santa An a

Huntington Beach

0

1

2

Miles

Open Space Network Enhancement Plan Planning the green space accessibility needs of residents must take a number of factors into consideration. Factors should include the location of existing parks and recreation areas, as well as the socio-demographic characteristics that are suggestive of the general needs of residents (including available leisure time, age, gender, income, ethno-racial identity, etc.) (Byrne & Sipe, 2010). Another important consideration is the spatial distribution of the study area’s existing open space and whether areas targeted for increased density will be sufficient to meet the recreational demands of present and future residents (Talen & Anselin, 1998). Assessment of green space resources within Garden Grove began with an audit of existing parks and open space facilities. It was necessary to catalog parks and open spaces present, determine their size, the variety and number of amenities they contain. GIS was utilized to characterize the socio-demographic attributes of the City’s population and the biophysical attributes of the area. The distance people are prepared/capable of travelling to access various forms of green space is a significant factor in open space resource assessment. The plan (Figure i.xviii) was developed through the application of two major considerations. The first was to develop a hierarchy of focuses and applied objectives that address Garden Grove’s most pressing open space issue—park poverty. The second was to inventory potential sites that could be used to enhance the City’s existing open space network.

channels, schoolyards, and public agency properties. Private facilities include service clubs and organizations, places of worship and private religious schools, hospital and health care facility campuses, business parks and plazas, and mixeduse, residential, and commercial developments. Acquisitions include sites that have been otherwise abandoned or properties that show explicit signs of neglect and blight.

LegendLegend

Two-thirds of the City is within a quarter mile walk and a vast majority of the City is within a half mile walk of existing, planned, and proposed open space resources (Table i.iii). Most City residents are within a quarter mile walk of existing, planned, and proposed open space resources, and the majority of them are within a half mile walk (Table i.iv).

Civic Center-Downtown District

City Owned Park Facilities

Existing Parks in the Region

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

Existing Parks

Civic Center Park Eastgate Park Faylane Park Garden Grove Park Gutosky Park Magnolia Park Village Green Park Westgrove Park West Haven Park Woodbury Park Harbor Mini Park Jardin de los Ninos Trask Mini Park Spirit of 76

Freeways Major Streets Santa Ana River Attractions

Existing Mini Parks / Open Spaces Under One-Acre Existing Joint Use Parks Existing Joint Use Mini Parks / Open Spaces Under One-Acre Planned Joint Use Parks Proposed Joint Use Parks Proposed Joint Use Mini Parks / Open Spaces Under One-Acre Proposed Parks

Because Garden Grove does not have much in the way of available, undeveloped open space, creative solutions are applied to identify sites that have the potential to expand the City’s existing open space network. A number of potential joint use sites are identified, as well as the proposed acquisition of a few red-, brown-, and greyfield sites.

Joint Use Park Facilities School Owned & City Maintained

Proposed Joint Use Mini Parks / Open Spaces Under One-Acre

15. 16. 17. 18. 19.

Proposed Joint Use Greenways

Joint use types include public facilities such as abandoned rail right-of-way, utility easements, stormwater

County Owned & City Maintained

xiv | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

20.

Chapman Sports Park Edgar School Park Hare School Park Lake School Park Pioneer Park

Twin Lakes Park

Figure i.xviii. Right. Complete open space network.

Proposed Regional Joint Use Greenways Proposed Greenway Links Proposed Gateways

Figure #.#. Complete open space network.

SP Stanton-Los Alamitos Ranch

Los Alamitos Army Airfield

Harbor Blvd

Disneyland

Southern California Edison Electrical Easement

Katella Ave

57

Haster St

Anaheim

Euclid St

Brookhurst St

Magnolia St

Stanton

Cypress

Beach Blvd

Knott St

Valley View St

Complete Open Space Network

5

City National Grove of Anaheim Angel Stadium

18

Stanton Storm Channel

Anaheim-Barber City Channel

6

Orangewood Ave

Chapman Ave

2 City of Garden Grove S0-1

15

3

Pa

cifi

5

lec

17

tric

Rig

ht-

Lampson Ave

8

Christ Cathedral

19

cE

W ay

Orange

1

7

16

11

20 Memory Lane

Hazard Ave

4

Trask St

13

10 12 17th St

Westminster Channel/ Morningside Drain

Westminster Mall 1st St

Bolsa Ave

Huntington Beach

Westminster Bella Terra

Little Saigon urg rsb e t in -W ove r nG

Channel McFadden Ave

e

st

Ea

rd Ga

Fountain Valley

Mile Square Regional Park

Santa Ana

Rive r

405

22

Santa An a

Westminster Ave

Union Pacific Railway

Trask Ave

Rosalia Storm Drain

Bolsa Chica Channel

Garden Grove Blvd

US Navy Rail

ARTIC

Outlets at Orange

9

of-

14

Honda Center

0

1

2

Miles

i - Executive Summary | xv

Open Space Network Enhancement Impact by Accessible Area Description

Scale

Existing

+ Planned

+ Proposed

Open Space Network Enhancement Impact by Population Served Description

Expressed as a percentage of total area in Garden Grove (17.96 square miles)

Expressed as a percentage of total population in Garden Grove (192,728)

Accessible Area

Population Served

Scale

Existing

+ Planned

+ Proposed

Within Walking Distances of

1/4 mi.

21%

26%

66%

Within Walking Distances of

1/4 mi.

33%

43%

86%

Within Walking Distances of

1/2 mi.

55%

67%

91%

Within Walking Distances of

1/2 mi.

57%

68%

91%

Within Cycling Distances of

1 1/2 mi.

98%

99%

100%

Within Cycling Distances of

1 1/2 mi.

97%

98%

100%

Table i.iii. Left. Park accessibility impact. Table i.iv. Middle. Open space network enhancement impact by population served. Figure i.xix. Right. Proposed 2060 Downtown concept plan.

2060 Downtown Concept Plan The 2060 concept plan aims to transform the downtown area into a more integrated, attractive, livable, safe, bike-accessible and pedestrian-friendly environment that supports sustainable living and working for both the local community and regional visitors. Inspired by Garden Grove’s location, regional function, and transportation system characteristics, the concept of urban patch, corridor, and transect was selected as the underlying basis for the Downtown revitalization plan. As a planning concept, various open spaces, landmarks, and nodes are designed as different patches throughout the Downtown area. Pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, trails, walks, promenades, paths, lanes, and routes, create a continuous network of urban corridors. The new plan will enhance the Downtown area by providing more open spaces and generating greater business attraction throughout the area. The proposed development zones include Main Street, the Education District, and the Civic Center District, as well as proposed mixed-use, residential, and open space areas (Figure i.xix). This revitalization plan proposes to add approximately five miles of new pedestrian facilities (in the form of paths, promenades, etc.) to connect the Downtown’s various districts and open spaces.

xvi | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

Major Destinations & Attractions 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

Acacia Adult Day Services Enhanced Civic Center Park Coastline Community College Community Center & H. Louis Lake Senior Center Concorde Career College Proposed Adaptive Reuse Marketplace Courtyard Center Proposed Downtown Station Proposed Euclid Bridge Park Enhanced Festival Amphitheatre Proposed Adaptive Reuse Community /Sports Center Garden Grove High School Garden Grove Regional Library Enhanced Gem Theater Enhanced Historic Main Street Proposed Parking Structures with Green Roofs Proposed PE ROW Development Saint Columban Catholic Church Seventh-Day Adventist Church United Methodist Church Enhanced Village Green Park

Legend Legend Main Street Commercial District Civic Center District Education District Mixed-Use Development Adaptive Reuses Existing Structures to be Retained, Enhanced and/or Reused Entry Gateways and Signs Non-Motorized Network Proposed Class I Class II Class III

Ninth St

Proposed 2060 Downtown Concept Plan

16

9

18

7 20

Nelson St

17

Nutwood St

13

21 11

16

4

10 2

16 14

16 Acacia Pkwy

19 12

1

3 15

6

5

Garden Grove Blvd

8 6

Single-Family Residences

16 17

Ce

ntu

Blv

d

Euclid St

Taft St

Single-Family Residences

ry

16

0

0.2

0.4 Miles

Trask Ave

22

Pa Rig ciďŹ c ht- Ele of- ctr W ic ay

The “Gardens and Groves” Theme Within the City, district identifiers will support navigation into and around the City. This will be accomplished through the citywide use of selective colors, textures, and forms to link each district. The Gardens and Groves theme uses aspects of the biological context of the region, the City’s historical agricultural past, its present conditions as a diverse community, and contemporary considerations of the environment and ecology to create a landscape palette that integrates agricultural characteristics, uses the landscape to clean the local air, soil and water through phytoremediation, and incorporates native, drought tolerant, flowering and fruiting plants, as well as ornamental sedges and rushes. The “gardens and groves” theme is carried throughout the City through the development of different districts, plant palettes, and gateways (Figure i.xxi).

LegendLegend Civic Center-Downtown District Freeways Major Streets Santa Ana River Attractions City-Wide Palette PE Row Palette Pavilion Plaza and Promenade District Downtown District The Grove District Korean Business District - Asian Agricuture Little Saigon - Asian Agriculture Latin Section - Agriculture Middle Eastern Section - Agriculture Monumental Gateway Minor Gateway Wayfinding and Identity Markers

xviii | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

Figure i.xx. Left. Garden Grove Historical Society, Stanley Ranch Museum. Figure i.xxi. Right. “Gardens and Groves” districts, palettes, and gateways.

Cypress Los Alamitos Army Airfield

Haster St

5

Anaheim

Stanton

57

Harbor Blvd

Euclid St

Brookhurst St

Magnolia St

Beach Blvd

Knott St

Valley View St

“Gardens and Groves” Districts, Palettes, + Gateways

Honda Center City National Grove of Anaheim

Disneyland

Katella Ave

ARTIC

Angel Stadium

Orangewood Ave

Orange

Chapman Ave

Christ Cathedral

Outlets at Orange

Lampson Ave

Memory Lane

Garden Grove Blvd

Trask Ave

Trask St

22 17th St

Huntington Beach

405

Hazard Ave

Westminster Mall

1st St

Bolsa Ave

Westminster

Little Saigon

Santa Ana Riv er

Westminster Ave

Santa Ana

McFadden Ave

0

Bella Terra

Fountain Valley

Mile Square Regional Park

1

2

Miles

i - Executive Summary | xix

Recommendations Non-Motorized Mobility Network 1. Convert PE ROW to Class I trails and greenways (and possibly public transit) in the short to long-term. 2. Implement NMM facility connections to regional (ocean loop) network: • Create or complete Class II lanes on Lampson Avenue from Lewis Street to the City’s west boundary (Bolsa Chica Channel) and Garden Grove Boulevard from the Santa Ana River to Western Avenue. • Develop potential Class I connections to the coast utilizing enhanced stormwater channel corridors that will provide dual use for both utilitarian access to roads and trails for pedestrians and cyclists in the short to long-term. They include: Bolsa Chica Channel, Anaheim-Barber City Channel, Westminster Channel, and East Garden Grove Wintersburg Channel (segments within Garden Grove). 3. Implement connectivity-suitability network: • Complete the incomplete NMM Class II lanes on the following streets: Lampson Avenue, Chapman Avenue, Orangewood Avenue, Western Avenue, and Brookhurst Street. • Create Class II lanes on the following streets: Euclid Street, Magnolia Street, Lewis Street, Knott Street, Springdale Street, Valley View Street, Westminster Avenue, and portions of Katella Avenue (see proposed NMM network).

xx | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

•

Supplement neighborhood streets identified for Class III routes by adding sharrows and signs, prioritizing those near the downtown, that are popular routes to schools, and that connect or support other NMM facilities: 9th Street, Acacia Parkway, Stanford Avenue, Taft Street, Gilbert Street, Nutwood Street/Palmwood Drive, Dale Street, and Newland Street (among others, see proposed NMM network). 4. Convert Garden Grove Boulevard and Harbor Boulevard into multimodal corridors, offering protected NMM trails and integrated public transit services in the long-term.

Open Space Network Enhancement 1. Preserve all existing parks and publicly owned open spaces. 2. Negotiate joint use partnerships with local schools to maximize the availability of existing open space to the public. 3. Create linear parks using land associated with existing stormwater channels and drains, abandoned rail right-of-ways, and the Hoover Street utility easement. Identify opportunities to develop adjacent sites for open space benefits. 4. Create opportunities for the community to converted vacant city-owned land to public space. 5. Sell or exchange non-vital City-owned properties to acquire or provide funds for the acquisition of properties in key areas. 6. Initiate discussions for the adaptation to publicly accessible, joint use sites of the following public facilities: the abandoned rail right-of-ways; stormwater channels and drains; the Hoover Street utility easement; 22 Freeway corridor, entrances and exits easements; additional Garden Grove Unified School District sites; Orange County Water Department West Street Basin; Orange County Transit Authority Maintenance, Garden Grove Base.

7.

Plant buffer “groves” along the edge of school properties adjacent to the 22 Freeway to collect dust and other fine particulates, reduce heat island effect, and as a tactic for carbon dioxide and ozone mitigation. These include: Eisenhower Elementary, Mitchell Elementary, Sunnyside Elementary, Bolsa Grande High School, Excelsior Elementary, and Jordan Intermediate and Secondary schools.

2060 Downtown Concept Plan 1. Locate a new sign at the intersection of Main Street and Garden Grove Boulevard to enhance visibility of Historic Main Street; at Civic Center Drive and Garden Grove Boulevard to better highlight the Civic Center area; and at Trask Avenue and Euclid Street to indicate the direction to Downtown. 2. Turn Main Street into a pedestrian promenade and enhance the landscape in the Main Street corridor to provide more space for social activities using benches, tables, planting, public arts, water features, kiosks, etc. 3. Create regulations and design guidelines that require preservation or enhancement of the historic character of the Downtown. 4. Enhance Village Green Park and Civic Center Park by providing sport facilities such as multipurpose pads and walking trails (in Village Green) as well as seating, shade, planting, and children’s play areas. 5. Convert existing vacant lots to pocket parks with trees, benches, vegetation, water fountains and/ or small children’s play areas. 6. Develop the PE ROW following the proposed NMM network medium- and long-term guidelines. 7. Zone land immediately adjacent to the PE ROW for mixed-use or open space uses.

8. Designate the districts and their associated land uses to ensure long-term development is supportive of Downtown growth and sustainability. 9. Identify and develop parking structures throughout the Downtown to ease parking demand and allow for more open spaces. 10. Provide various small to large outdoor spaces and urban plazas for social gatherings and special events.

The “Gardens and Groves” Theme 1. Implement the district structure and the proposed plant palettes and design elements to create a sense of place and support wayfinding in the City. 2. Gardenesque areas should include climate appropriate Mediterranean native and droughttolerant vegetation. Depending upon the district, the style can be either formal and symmetrical or loosely layered and informal. 3. Ensure that the district signature characteristics are reinforced by signs, lighting style, pavement, site furniture (benches, fountains, garbage and recycling cans), and vegetation. 4. Plant the Caltrans 22 Freeway easement areas along the corridor and at Freeway entrances and exits to create a sense of entry into the City. Use tall, narrow trees (such as evergreens and tall palms) through the corridor easements. Wider planting areas at entrances and exits should feature tall trees with canopies (eucalyptus and flowering trees such as pink trumpet, mimosa, and/or silk floss trees).

Conclusion This document is the result of participation by members of the community that envision Garden Grove as a cohesive, integrated City with a Downtown that serves as a center of business and culture. This project proposes an incremental, responsive approach to planning: creating a structure within which small, individual projects can develop organically and respond to changing demands from the public and resource availability as they occur. Existing infrastructure and plans, current knowledge and information, as well as strong public input, will make this vision a reality. A key component is the set of strategies that will lead to change—a process that builds on success and encourages private investments is crucial to the viability of this revitalization plan proposal.

i - Executive Summary | xxi

Table of Contents i ii iii iv v

Acknowledgements Executive Summary Table of Contents List of Figures List of Tables

1

Introduction

1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4

Project Project Project Project

Overview Issues, Goal and Objectives Method and Process Timeliness and Project Importance

6

Open Space Network Enhancement

10

Appendices (DVD)

6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5

10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5 10.6 10.7 10.8 10.9

Project Overview Motivations to Improve Open Space Access Active Mobility and Open Space Users Types of Non-Motorized Facilities Types of Park Facilities Open Space Provisions and Assessment Plant List Case Studies Public Participation: Questionnaires and Results

6.8

Introduction Open Space Issues and Objectives Open Space Considerations and Opportunities Open Space Planning Process Open Space Network Enhancement Types and Design Considerations Open Space Network Enhancement Vision Plan (and Design) Open Space Network Enhancement Strategies, Prioritization, and Implementation Open Space Network Enhancement Summary

11

The 606 Studio

7

2060 Downtown Concept Plan

7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8

Introduction Benefits Civic Center-Downtown Existing Conditions Issues and Objectives Civic Center-Downtown Analysis Concept Plan Development 606 Studio Downtown Concept Site Design Proposed Phase Goals and Recommendations

11.1 11.2 11.3

About the 606 Studio About the Principal Investigators and Advisor About the 606 Studio Team

6.6 6.7

2

Project Context

2.1 2.2 2.3

Location History of Orange County History of Garden Grove

3

Project Area Inventory and Evaluation

3.1 3.2 3.3

Biophysical Inventory Sociocultural Inventory and Evaluation Inventory and Evaluation Summary

4

Public Participation

4.1

8

The “Gardens and Groves” Theme

4.2 4.3

Overview of Public Participation Data Collection Methods Overview of Public Participation Activities Combined Public Participation Summary

8.1 8.2

5

Non-Motorized Mobility Network

8.3

5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6

Introduction Issues, Goal and Objectives Non-motorized Mobility Network Evaluation Change Proposal Non-motorized Mobility Network Impact Non-motorized Mobility Network Design Guidelines

Introduction “Gardens and Groves” Design Development and Considerations “Gardens and Groves” Plant Palette and Design Element Recommendations and Programming Maintenance Recommendations

xxii | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

8.4

Conclusion 9

References

List of Figures Figure i.i

Proposed Main Street Plaza.

Figure 1.6

Integrated design process: hybrid Steinitz-Lyle method.

Figure i.ii

Historic Main Street entry sign.

Figure 1.7

Bicyclist coalition participating in mapping exercise.

Figure i.iii

Historic Main Street at Garden Grove Boulevard.

Figure 1.8

High school art students participating in questionnaire.

Figure i.iv

High school students participating in mapping exercise.

Figure 1.9

Figure i.v

Senior citizens participating in small focus group.

Residents participating in mapping exercise at Garden Grove Regional Library.

Figure i.vi

High school students in Annual Strawberry Festival Parade.

Figure 1.10

Civic Center Park.

Figure i.vii

Combined public participants’ popular destinations.

Figure i.viii

Combined public participants’ popular pedestrian routes.

2

Project Context

Figure i.ix

Combined public participants’ popular bicycle routes.

Figure i.x

Combined public participants’ popular destinations and routes.

Figure 2.1

Garden Grove regional context (USGS, 2014).

Figure i.xi

Option 1: OCTA planned network.

Figure 2.2

Garden Grove local context (USGS, 2014).

Figure i.xii

Option 2: Public participation network.

Figure 2.3

Garden Grove Downtown-Civic Center context (USGS, 2014)..

Figure i.xiii

Option 3: GIS generated network.

Figure 2.4

Acjachemen village (from missionsjc.tumblr.com).

Figure i.xiv

Option 4: Citywide connection network.

Figure 2.5

Figure i.xv

Night market at Asian Garden Mall in Little Saigon, Westminster.

Approximate area historic Tongva (Gabrielino) settlements (from http://historylosangeles.blogspot.com/2011_05_01_archive.html and http://socalstorytelling.blogspot.com/).

Figure i.xvi

Local residents on proposed Class I trail along PE ROW during Open Streets Event.

Figure 2.6

Don Gaspar de Portolá expedition (from sfbaytimetraveler.files. wordpress.com).

Figure i.xvii

Existing and proposed non-motorized network.

Figure 2.7

Mission San Gabriel Arcángel (from www.missionscalifornia.com).

Figure i.xviii

Complete open space network.

Figure 2.8

Mission San Juan Capistrano (from www.missionscalifornia.com).

Figure i.xix

Proposed 2060 concept plan.

Figure 2.9

Figure i.xx

Garden Grove Historical Society, Stanley Ranch Museum.

Figure i.xxi

“Gardens and Groves” districts, palettes, and gateways.

The Old Spanish and Mexican Ranchos of Orange County California (from www.RareMaps.com-Barry Lawrence Ruderman Antique Maps Inc).

Figure 2.10

Orange groves in the Tustin foothills (from www. orangecountyhistory.org).

Figure 2.11

La Habra oil field (from ochistorical.blogspot.com).

Figure 2.12

Orange County c. 1920 (from ochistorical.blogspot.com).

Figure 2.13

Santa Ana River and 22, 55, and 57 freeway interchanges in 1965 (from www.socalregion.com).

Figure 2.14

22 Freeway at Garden Grove and Beach Boulevards in 1965 (from www.socalregion.com).

Figure 2.15

Disneyland in 1955 (from latimesphoto.files.wordpress.com).

1

Introduction

Figure 1.1

Historic Main Street entry sign.

Figure 1.2

Village Green Clock Tower.

Figure 1.3

Garden Grove Open Streets Event.

Figure 1.4

Comprehensive project process diagram.

Figure 1.5

Overall data collection process.

i i- -Executive Table of Contents Summary ||xxiii xxiii

Figure 3.3

Damage from the 1933 Long Beach Earthquake to the Rossmore Hotel in Santa Ana (from www.orangecountyhistory.org).

Aerial sketch of Garden Grove (from Orange Illustrated and Its Surroundings,1886, as shown in Images of America: Garden Grove, 2005).

Figure 3.4

Regional fault lines (USGS, n.d.).

Figure 3.5

Damage from the 1933 Long Beach Earthquake to Main Street in Compton (from i26.photobucket.com).

Figure 2.19

Pacific Electric Railway station in Downtown Garden Grove in 1917 (from Images of America: Garden Grove, 2005).

Figure 3.6

Regional liquefaction (USGS, n.d.).

Figure 3.7

Figure 2.20

Chili pepper field in Garden Grove c. 1920 (from Images of America: Garden Grove, 2005).

North Orange County Watershed Management Area (NOC WMA) (National Hydrology Dataset, 2015).

Figure 3.8

Figure 2.21

1916 flood in Downtown Garden Grove (from Images of America: Garden Grove, 2005).

Regional Coastal Plain and Basin (Municipal Water District of Orange County, n.d.).

Figure 3.9

Regional watershed (National Hydrology Dataset, 2015).

Figure 2.22

1949 map of Garden Grove (from Images of America: Garden Grove, 2005).

Figure 3.10

Regional hydrology (National Hydrology Dataset, 2015).

Figure 2.23

1933 earthquake in Downtown Garden Grove (from Images of America: Garden Grove, 2005).

Figure 3.11

Regional groundwater wells (USGS, n.d.).

Figure 3.12

West Street Basin.

Figure 2.24

Aerial of Downtown Garden Grove c. 1950s (from Images of America: Garden Grove, 2005).

Figure 3.13

Santa Ana River in dry season.

Figure 3.14

Garden Grove area map, 1956 incorporation and 1976 expansion boundaries (from Doig, 1977).

Annual precipitation trend from 2000 to 2013 column chart (adapted from National Weather Service).

Figure 3.15

Modern day boundary of Garden Grove and its neighboring cities.

Regional open space (California’s Protected Area Database, 2012).

Figure 3.16

Laguna Beach, CA.

Figure 3.17

Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve (from latrailhikers.com).

Figure 3.18

Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge (from friendsofsealbeachnwr. org).

Figure 2.16

Abel Stearns (from www.mysanpedro.org).

Figure 2.17

Alonzo Cook (from www.charlesbrownhouse.com).

Figure 2.18

Figure 2.25 Figure 2.26 Figure 2.27

Population growth and projections from 1950 to 2030 (from the Garden Grove Housing Element, 2013).

Figure 2.28

Garden Grove age group distribution in 1990, 200 and 2010 (from the Garden Grove Housing Element, 2013).

Figure 3.19

Talbert Marsh (from bp1.blogger.com).

Figure 2.29

Garden Grove ethnicity distribution in 1990, 2000 and 2010 (from the Garden Grove Housing Element, 2013).

Figure 3.20

Huntington Beach State Park (from 1.bp.blogspot.com).

Figure 2.30

Owner vs. renter-occupied residences in 1990, 2000 and 2010 (from the Garden Grove Housing Element, 2013).

Figure 3.21

Talbert Nature Preserve (from www.panoramio.com).

Figure 3.22

Huntington Beach Central Park (from static.panoramio.com).

Figure 3.23

Fairview Park (from ocbirderca.blogspot.com).

Figure 3.24

Santa Ana River (from upload.wikimedia.org).

Figure 3.25

Irvine Lake.

Figure 3.26

Chino Hills State Park (from www.chinohillsstatepark.org).

Figure 3.27

Chaparral (from www.laspilitas.com).

Figure 3.28

Coastal Sage Scrub (from www.laspilitas.com).

3

Project Area Inventory and Evaluation

Figure 3.1

The Santa Ana River.

Figure 3.2

Damage from the 1933 Long Beach Earthquake at the corner of Rose and Anaheim Avenues in Long Beach (from farm7.staticflickr. com).

xxiv | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

Figure 3.29

Riparian Woodland (from upload.wikimedia.org)

Figure 3.56

Santa Ana River Trail (from www.travelcostamesa.com).

Figure 3.30

Coyote (from www.duiops.net).

Figure 3.57

Figure 3.31

Opposum (from www.itsnature.org).

Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve ((by Nhan Khai Hoang from www.panoramio.com).

Figure 3.32

Racoons (from 1.bp.blogspot.com).

Figure 3.58

San Gabriel River Trail.

Figure 3.33

Skunks (from www.spca.bc.ca).

Figure 3.59

Local park size and amenities (City of Garden Grove, 2012).

Figure 3.34

Squirrel (from spirit-animals.com).

Figure 3.60

Joint-use schools.

Figure 3.35

Rooster at Garden Grove Regional Library pond.

Figure 3.61

Figure 3.36

Ducks at Garden Grove Regional Library pond.

Regional park score of Orange County cities (adapted from Greenlife Network, 2011).

Figure 3.37

Least Bell’s Vireo (from nathistoc.bio.uci.edu).

Figure 3.62

Park access and proximity.

Figure 3.38

Least Tern (from upload.wikimedia.org).

Figure 3.63

Park ranking by amenities provided and population served.

Figure 3.39

Brown Pelican from phillanoue.files.wordpress.com.

Figure 3.64

Elementary schools (City of Garden Grove, 2012).

Figure 3.40

West Street Basin.

Figure 3.65

Middle schools (City of Garden Grove, 2012).

Figure 3.41

Garden Grove Regional Library pond.

Figure 3.66

High schools (City of Garden Grove, 2012).

Figure 3.42

Strawberry Festival Parade.

Figure 3.67

Schools in Garden Grove (City of Garden Grove, 2012).

Figure 3.43

Existing land use profile (adapted from City of Garden Grove, 2008).

Figure 3.68

Elementary schools access and proximity.

Figure 3.69

Middle schools access and proximity.

Figure 3.44

Existing land uses (City of Garden Grove, 2012).

Figure 3.70

High schools access and proximity.

Figure 3.45

General Plan Focus Areas (City of Garden Grove, 2012).

Figure 3.71

Schools access and proximity.

Figure 3.46

Hyatt Hotel in The Grove District.

Figure 3.72

Discovery Science Center.

Figure 3.47

Fire and police department in Civic Center-Downtown District.

Figure 3.73

South Coast Plaza.

Figure 3.48

Brookhurst Triangle on Garden Grove Boulevard and Brookhurst Street..

Figure 3.74

Regional landmarks and attractions.

Figure 3.75

Anaheim Angel Stadium.

Figure 3.49

Garden Grove Boulevard (Korean Business District).

Figure 3.76

Anaheim Angel Stadium.

Figure 3.50

Promenade Shopping Center on Brookhurst Street and Chapman Avenue.

Figure 3.77

Honda Center.

Figure 3.78

Segerstrom Center (from www.southcoastmetro.com).

Figure 3.51

Mall of Fortune shopping center in Little Saigon.

Figure 3.79

Irvine Spectrum (from petersonimages.com).

Figure 3.52

Night market at Asian Garden Mall in Little Saigon, Westminster.

Figure 3.80

Anaheim Convention Center (from used-piano.com).

Figure 3.53

Local residents waiting in front of food trucks during Garden Grove Open Streets Event.

Figure 3.81

Santa Ana Zoo.

Figure 3.54

Regional open spaces (California’s Protected Area Database, 2012).

Figure 3.82

Anaheim GardenWalk (from tasteofanaheim365.com).

Figure 3.83

Bowers Museum (from static.panoramio.com)..

Figure 3.55

Mile Square Regional Park (from funorangecountyparks.com).

Figure 3.84

Asian Garden Mall in Little Saigon.

i i- -Executive Table of Contents Summary ||xxv xxv

Figure 3.85

The Outlets at Orange.

Figure 3.113

Street classification (OCTA, 2015).

Figure 3.86

Local landmarks and attractions.

Figure 3.114

Traffic on Garden Grove Boulevard and Ninth Street.

Figure 3.87

Christ Cathedral.

Figure 3.115

Figure 3.88

Stanley Ranch Museum.

Street deficiencies and average daily traffic (Street deficiencies adapted from Garden Grove, 2008, ADT from OCTA, 2013).

Figure 3.89

Civic Center Clock Tower.

Figure 3.116

Freeway proximity: air quality constraint.

Figure 3.90

Korean Business District (from jstudentboard.com).

Figure 3.117

Figure 3.91

Historic Main Street.

Pedestrians and bicyclists on Acacia Parkway during Open Streets Event.

Figure 3.92

Convenience stores access and proximity.

Figure 3.118

Density of pedestrian and bicyclist collisions, 2002 - 2011 (Safetrec).

Figure 3.93

Restaurants access and proximity.

Figure 3.119

Figure 3.94

Healthy food access and proximity.

Pedestrian and bicyclist collision fatalities near schools from 2002 to 2011(Safetrec).

Figure 3.95

Food options (Business Analyst, 2012).

Figure 3.120

Figure 3.96

Garden Grove Community Garden.

Population change from 1950 to 2030 (adapted from City of Garden Grove, 2013).

Figure 3.97

Vietnamese Cao Dai Temple.

Figure 3.121

Garden Grove residents waiting for Strawberry Festival Parade.

Figure 3.98

Places of worship, public and health services (Business Analyst, 2012).

Figure 3.122

Orange County ethnicity distribution in 1990, 2000, and 2010 (adapted from Census, 2010).

Figure 3.99

Commuting trend in Orange County (OCTA 2009).

Figure 3.123

Figure 3.100

Regional multimodal transportation (OCTA, 2013).

Garden Grove ethnicity distribution in 1990, 2000, and 2010 (adapted from Census, 2010).

Figure 3.101

Regional existing non-motorized network breakdown (OCTA, 2009, p. 3).

Figure 3.124

Garden Grove household type distribution in 1990, 2000, and 2010 (Census, 2010).

Figure 3.102

Regional existing and OCTA planned non-motorized network (OCTA, 2013).

Figure 3.125

Owner- vs. renter-occupied residences in 1990, 2000, and 2010 (Census, 2010).

Figure 3.103

Regional OCTA bike network priority (OCTA, 2015).

Figure 3.126

Garden Grove Strawberry Festival on Main Street.

Figure 3.104

Regional railway (OCTA, 2013).

Figure 3.105

PE ROW on Orangewood Avenue and Magnolia Street.

4

Public Participation

Figure 3.106

Railway along Hoover Street.

Figure 3.107

ARTIC Station in Anaheim (from cdn.anaheimoc.org).

Figure 4.1

High school students participating in questionnaire.

Figure 3.108

Public transit (OCTA, 2015).

Figure 4.2

Mindmixer interface user statistics.

Figure 3.109

Average waiting time in minutes by bus routes (adapted from OCTA, 2013).

Figure 4.3

Local residents at Civic Center Park during Open Streets Event.

Figure 4.4

Local residents on Historic Main Street during Open Streets Event.

Figure 3.110

Local bus stops on Garden Grove Boulevard.

Figure 4.5

MindMixer Interface photovoice responses.

Figure 3.111

Local shuttle.

Figure 4.6

Flowering plants by BeeBee B. (from MindMixer Interface).

Figure 3.112

Street intersection at Garden Grove Boulevard and Euclid Street.

Figure 4.7

MindMixer members participating in the mapping exercise.

xxvi | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

Figure 4.8

MindMixer In-Person participants’ popular destinations.

Figure 4.36

Option 3: GIS generated network.

Figure 4.9

MindMixer In-Person participants’ popular bicycle routes.

Figure 4.37

Option 4: Citywide connection network.

Figure 4.10

MindMixer In-Person participants’ popular pedestrian routes.

Figure 4.38

MindMixer members participating in mapping exercise.

Figure 4.11

MindMixer In-Person participants’ popular destinations and routes.

Figure 4.39

Public participants’ popular destinations.

Figure 4.12

MindMixer In-Person at public meeting.

Figure 4.40

Public participants’ popular pedestrian routes.

Figure 4.13

Map installation instructions.

Figure 4.41

Public participants’ popular bicycle routes.

Figure 4.14

Local residents participating in mapping exercise at Garden Grove Regional Library.

Figure 4.42

Public participants’ popular destinations and routes.

Figure 4.43

Figure 4.15

Public forum popular destinations.

Interactive “Before I Die” art installation on Historic Main Street during Open Street Event.

Figure 4.16

Public forum popular pedestrian routes.

Figure 4.44

Mural at Gem Theater.

Figure 4.17

Public forum popular bicycle routes.

Figure 4.18

Public forum popular destinations and routes.

5

Non-Motorized Mobility Network

Figure 4.19

Bicyclist coalition members participating in mapping exercise.

Figure 4.20

Bicyclist coalition used and desired bike routes.

Figure 5.1

Proposed NMM Pacific Electric Right-of-Way.

Figure 4.21

Mrs. Robin Repp and her art students.

Figure 5.2

Pedestrian and bicyclist on Euclid Street.

Figure 4.22

Garden Grove Unified School District Board Representative Committee.

Figure 5.3

Bicyclist on bridge crossing at Santa Ana River.

Figure 5.4

PE ROW adjacent land uses (adapted from SCAG, 2013).

Figure 4.23

Mrs. Robin Repp’s art students participating in mapping exercise.

Figure 5.5

Figure 4.24

Garden Grove Unified School District Board Representative Committee.

Street level of service (F) and average daily traffic (adapted from City of Garden Grove, 2012).

Figure 5.6

Figure 4.25

High school students’ popular destinations.

GGPD Safe City Bike Course, a local safe-street education campaign.

Figure 4.26

High school students’ popular pedestrian routes.

Figure 5.7

Figure 4.27

High school students’ popular bicycle routes.

GGPD safe city bike course at the Garden Grove Open Streets Event.

Figure 4.28

High school students’ popular destinations and routes.

Figure 5.8

Existing non-motorized network (OCTA, 2013).

Figure 4.29

Senior citizens participating in small focus group.

Figure 5.9

Santa Ana River Trail.

Figure 4.30

Introduction of 606 Team and project to senior citizens.

Figure 5.10

Figure 4.31

Senior citizens’ popular activities.

Bicyclist on Orangewood Avenue.Bicyclist on Orangewood Avenue.

Figure 4.32

Local faith leader.

Figure 5.11

Non-motorized network constraints (SafeTrec 2002 - 2011 & City of Garden Grove, 2012).

Figure 4.33

Introductory meeting with local faith leaders.

Figure 5.12

Figure 4.34

Option 1: OCTA planned network.

Children riding bicycles on Euclid Street during Open Streets Event.

Figure 4.35

Option 2: Public participation network.

Figure 5.13

Number of collisions with pedestrian-bicyclist fatalities by streets from 2002 to 2011, Garden Grove (from SafeTREC).

i i- -Executive Table of Contents Summary ||xxvii xxvii

Figure 5.14

Number of collisions with injuries and pedestrian-bicyclist fatalities by streets from 2002 to 2011, Garden Grove (from SafeTREC).

Figure 5.37

Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge.

Figure 5.15

Pedestrians on Katella Avenue.

Figure 5.38

Local connections to regional networks (adapted from OCTA, 2013 & National Hydrology Dataset, 2015).

Figure 5.16

Truck routes (Adapted from City of Garden Grove, 2012).

Figure 5.39

PE ROW on Brookhurst Street.

Figure 5.17

5 freeway southbound.

Figure 5.40

PE ROW on Harbor Boulevard.

Figure 5.18

Freeway proximity air quality constraint (adapted from OCTA, 2013).

Figure 5.41

Stormwater channel at Euclid Street and Orangewood Avenue.

Figure 5.42

Figure 5.19

Existing and proposed non-motorized network (OCTA, 2013).

Local Class I paths: arterial streets as multimodal corridors, in Long Beach.

Figure 5.20

Utility easement along Hoover Street in Garden Grove.

Figure 5.43

Santa Ana River.

Figure 5.21

Typical stormwater channel in Garden Grove.

Figure 5.44

Primary destination (OCTA, 2013).

Figure 5.22

Arterial roads (OCTA, 2013).

Figure 5.45

Rancho Alamitos High School.

Figure 5.23

Existing non-motorized network (OCTA, 2013).

Figure 5.46

Secondary destinations (CIty of Garden Grove, 2012).

Figure 5.24

Existing infrastructure (OCTA, 2013 & National Hydrology Dataset, 2015).

Figure 5.47

Asian Garden Mall in Little Saigon, Westminster.

Figure 5.48

Figure 5.25

Active rail right-of-way at Beach Boulevard in Garden Grove.

Tertiary destinations (City of Garden Grove, 2012 & Business Analyst, 2012).

Figure 5.26

Existing infrastructure on Magnolia Street and Orangewood Avenue in Garden Grove.

Figure 5.49

St. Columbian Catholic Church.

Figure 5.50

Quaternary destinations and routes.

Figure 5.27

Local Connections to Regional Networks (adapted from OCTA, 2013 & National Hydrology Dataset, 2015).

Figure 5.51

Valley View shopping center.

Figure 5.28

Participatory Urban Assessment (PUA) at Garden Grove Regional Library.

Figure 5.52

Quinary destinations (Business Analyst, 2012).

Figure 5.53

Class II lane on Orangewood Avenue.

Figure 5.29

Community-identiďŹ ed popular routes and destinations.

Figure 5.54

Figure 5.30

Non-motorized suitability network: street ranking by access and proximity of destinations.

Non-motorized suitability network: street ranking by access and proximity of destinations.

Figure 5.55

Suitability routing to prioritized connections.

Figure 5.31

Existing and proposed Class I and Class II non-motorized network with regional connection points (adapted from OCTA, 2013 & National Hydrology Dataset, 2015).

Figure 5.56

Members of bike coalition participating in mapping exercise.

Figure 5.57

Community-identiďŹ ed non-motorized network.

Figure 5.58

Bicyclists on San Gabriel River Trail.

Figure 5.32

Pedestrians on Brookhurst Street near Katella Avenue.

Figure 5.59

Figure 5.33

Proposed NMM Class I trails (adapted from OCTA, 2013 & National Hydrology Dataset, 2015).

Local connections to regional (ocean loop) networks (adapted from OCTA, 2013 & National Hydrology Dataset, 2015).

Figure 5.60

Existing Class III route on Orangewood Avenue.

Figure 5.34

Proposed NMM Class II lanes (adapted from OCTA, 2013).

Figure 5.61

Proposed Class III network (adapted from OCTA, 2013).

Figure 5.35

Proposed NMM Class III routes (adapted from OCTA, 2013).

Figure 5.62

Final non-motorized mobility network.

Figure 5.36

Regional network and corridor types (OCTA, 2013 & National Hydrology Dataset, 2015).

Figure 5.63

Existing non-motorized network (OCTA, 2013).

xxviii | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

Figure 5.64

Existing and OCTA planned non-motorized network (OCTA, 2013).

Figure 5.88

Typical Class III route (adopted from Caltrans, 2012).

Figure 5.89

Signage along Class III route in Long Beach.

Figure 5.65

Existing and proposed non-motorized network (OCTA, 2013).

Figure 5.90

Sharrow along Class III route in Long Beach.

Figure 5.66

Recreational non-motorists on San Gabriel River Trail.

Figure 5.91

Bike Rack on First Street in Long Beach.

Figure 5.67

Lengths of non-motorized network.

Figure 5.92

First Street and Linden Avenue in Long Beach.

Figure 5.68

Proposed NMM Class I trails (adapted from OCTA, 2013 & National Hydrology Dataset, 2015).

Figure 5.93

Proposed NMM PaciďŹ c Electric Right-of-Way.

Figure 5.69

Proposed NMM Class II lanes (adapted from OCTA, 2013).

Figure 5.94

Proposed NMM Class III routes (adapted from OCTA, 2013).

Figure 5.70

Proposed NMM Class III routes (adapted from OCTA, 2013).

Figure 5.95

Proposed NMM Class II lanes (adapted from OCTA, 2013).

Figure 5.71

Percentage of population in proximity to existing, OCTA planned, and and NMM non-motorized network.

Figure 5.96

Proposed NMM Class I trails (adapted from OCTA, 2013).

Figure 5.72

Percentage of population in proximity to NMM non-motorized network.

6

Open Space Network Enhancement

Figure 5.73

Non-motorized network connections to desired destinations.

Figure 6.1

Figure 5.74

Runners at Mile Square Regional Park in Fountain Valley.

The social, economic, and environmental beneďŹ ts of providing open space.

Figure 5.75

Bicyclists riding on Acacia Parkway.

Figure 6.2

Civic Center Park pond and Garden Grove Regional Library.

Figure 5.76

Local connections to regional networks (adapted from OCTA, 2013 & National Hydrology Dataset, 2015).

Figure 6.3

Civic Center Park.

Figure 6.4

Street view, cul-de-sac cut-through in Ft. Collins, CO.

Figure 5.77

Number of population in proximity to schools.

Figure 6.5

Neighborhood view, cul-de-sac cut-through in Ft. Collins, CO.

Figure 5.78

Young cyclists on a shared roadway along Orangewood Avenue.

Figure 6.6

Open Streets Event participants gathered at Civic Center Park.

Figure 5.79

Santa Ana River Trail near 57 Freeway.

Figure 6.7

Neighborhood commute to Edgar Park.

Figure 5.80

Typical Class I trail (adapted from Caltrans, 2012).

Figure 6.8

Public participatory activity conducted at the Open Streets Event.

Figure 5.81

Shared use path intersection crossing scenarios (adopted from VTerra Pedestrian & Bicycle Facility Planning and Design Manual, 2006).

Figure 6.9

A view of the PE (OCTA) ROW at Harbor Boulevard.

Figure 6.10

High school student participating in a questionnaire.

Figure 6.11

Existing park accessibility within a half (1/2) mile walk.

Figure 6.12

Village Green Park.

Figure 5.82

Bicyclists on the Santa Ana River trail at Westminster Avenue trail entrance.

Figure 5.83

Existing Garden Grove Boulevard.

Figure 6.13

Downtown park values.

Figure 5.84

Proposed Garden Grove Boulevard.

Figure 6.14

People meditating at The High Line Park in New York, NY.

Figure 5.85

Pavement marking along Class II lane.

Figure 6.15

Seating options in a public space in Denver, Colorado.

Figure 5.86

Typical Class II lane (adopted from Caltrans, 2012).

Figure 6.16

Dutch Kills Green (DKG) Parklet (from Sam Oberter Photography).

Figure 5.87

Class II lanes at intersections (adapted from City of San Leandro Pedestrian & Bicycle Design Guidelines, 2010).

Figure 6.17

Indianapolis Cultural Trail (from Lavengood Photography).

Figure 6.18

Decorative pavement at Indianapolis Cultural Trail street intersection (from gaytravelherald.com).

i i- -Executive Table of Contents Summary ||xxix xxix

Figure 6.19

Mid-street crossing on Main Street in Seal Beach.

Figure 6.46

John F. Enders Elementary School.

Figure 6.20

Light structure and art installation along Indianapolis cultural Trail (from indianapolismonthly.com).

Figure 6.47

Bolsa Grande High School.

Figure 6.48

Jordan Intermediate School.

Figure 6.21

Aerial view of the High Line Park (from lifeblog79.blogspot.com).

Figure 6.49

OCTA Maintenance, Garden Grove Base.

Figure 6.22

View of the elevated walkway at the Highline Park.

Figure 6.50

West Street Basin.

Figure 6.23

Uptown Normal Circle and Streetscape (from normal.org.).

Figure 6.51

Complete joint use open space network.

Figure 6.24

Proposed, planned and existing open space network composite.

Figure 6.52

Coventry Court Health Center on Euclid Street.

Figure 6.25

Chapman Sports Park.

Figure 6.53

Kiwanis Land, Kiwanis Club of Garden Grove.

Figure 6.26

Primary open space focus.

Figure 6.54

Figure 6.27

City of Garden Grove S0-1 stormwater channel is adjacent to three local schools.

Community gathering in front of Garden Grove United Methodist Church during Open Street Events.

Figure 6.55

Christ Cathedral.

Figure 6.28

Secondary open space focus.

Figure 6.56

Figure 6.29

Lincoln Education Center.

School bus “float” on Euclid Street during the Strawberry Festival Parade.

Figure 6.30

Tertiary open space focus.

Figure 6.57

Proposed property acquisitions.

Figure 6.31

Bolsa Grande High School.

Figure 6.58

Cyclist en route to Eastgate Park.

Figure 6.32

Quaternary open space focus.

Figure 6.59

Existing park accessibility within quarter (1/4) mile walk.

Figure 6.33

Shaded bench seating at Magnolia Park.

Figure 6.60

Figure 6.34

Quinary Open Space Focus.

Planned and existing park accessibility within a quarter (1/4) mile walk .

Figure 6.35

The Galleria Project.

Figure 6.61

Figure 6.36

Seneary Open Space Focus.

Proposed, planned, and existing park accessibility within a quarter (1/4) mile walk.

Figure 6.37

Proposed short- to medium-term PE (OCTA) ROW.

Figure 6.62

Existing park accessibility within a half (1/2) mile walk .

Figure 6.38

Proposed medium- to long-term PE (OCTA) ROW.

Figure 6.63

Planned and existing park accessibility within a half (1/2) mile walk.

Figure 6.39

Bolsa Chica Channel.

Figure 6.64

Figure 6.40

East Garden Grove-Wintersburg Stormwater Channel.

Proposed, planned, and existing park accessibility within a half (1/2) mile walk.

Figure 6.41

Electric Avenue Median Park, Seal Beach. Former Red Car rail easement.

Figure 6.65

Existing park accessibility within a one and one-half (1-1/2) mile cycle.

Figure 6.42

Frank G. Fry Park and SCE utility easement.

Figure 6.66

Figure 6.43

Proposed Caltrans 22 Freeway allée and grove gateways.

Planned and existing park accessibility within a one and one-half (1-1/2) mile cycle.

Figure 6.44

Before and after, reimagined Caltrans allée along the 22 Freeway.

Figure 6.67

Proposed, planned, and existing park accessibility within a one and one-half (1-1/2) mile cycle.

Figure 6.45

Before and after, reimagined gateway grove at Magnolia Street and 22 Freeway entrance.

Figure 6.68

Turf field at Edgar Park.

Figure 6.69

Vacant lot on Garden Grove Boulevard.

xxx | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

Figure 6.70

Surface parking lot and adjacent vacant building in the Korean Business District.

Figure 7.26

Proposed Civic Center Drive.

Figure 7.27

Courtyard at Pasadena City Hall (from alikgriffin.com).

Figure 6.71

Public mural at the Gem Theater for the Open Streets Event.

Figure 7.28

Shade structure at Simon Helen Director Park (from www.zgf.com).

Figure 7.29

Civic Center District.

Figure 7.30

Proposed Education District.

7

2060 Downtown Concept Plan

Figure 7.31

Emerson College (from archiscene.net).

Figure 7.1

Local residents on Historic Main Street during Open Streets Event.

Figure 7.32

Segerstrom Center for the Arts (from southcoastmetro.com).

Figure 7.2

Local residents on proposed Class I trail along PE ROW during Open Streets Event.

Figure 7.33

Caltrans District 7 Headquarters (from eeiphoto.com).

Figure 7.3

Low impact planting at 17th Street Triangle rest area.

Figure 7.34

Education District.

Figure 7.4

Planned and proposed boundaries.

Figure 7.35

Mixed-use development (from kearch.com).

Figure 7.5

Single family residents on Civic Center Drive.

Figure 7.36

Proposed mixed-use development.

Figure 7.6

Existing land uses (City of Garden Grove, 2012).

Figure 7.37

Mixed-use development in Naples, FL (from lh3.googleusercontent. com).

Figure 7.7

Vehicular traffic on Garden Grove Boulevard and Euclid Street.

Figure 7.38

Figure 7.8

Gem Theatre on Historic Main Street.

Del Mar Station Transit Village in Pasadena (from mparchitects. com).

Figure 7.9

Local residents at the Annual Strawberry Festival Parade.

Figure 7.39

Mixed-use development.

Figure 7.10

Costco across the street from Main Street.

Figure 7.40

Mixed-use development (from static.dpr.com).

Figure 7.11

Civic Center-Downtown constraints.

Figure 7.41

The High Line Park (from paulcpw.blogspot.com).

Figure 7.12

Civic Center-Downtown opportunities.

Figure 7.42

Dutch Kills Green (from Sam Oberter Photography).

Figure 7.13

Urban patches, corridors and transect.

Figure 7.43

Proposed open spaces and parks.

Figure 7.14

Annual Strawberry Festival.

Figure 7.44

Dutch Kills Green (from Sam Oberter Photography).

Figure 7.15

Proposed 2060 Downtown concept plan.

Figure 7.45

Figure 7.16

Proposed Main Street Commercial District.

Lurie Garden in Millennium Park, Chicago (from enchicago.about. com).

Figure 7.17

Downtown Burlingame (from elpaseolimo.com).

Figure 7.46

Uptown Normal Circle (from mcac.wildapricot.org).

Figure 7.18

Galena, IL Main Street (from galenabedandbreakfast.com).

Figure 7.47

Simon Helen Director Park (from www.oregonlive.com).

Figure 7.19

Galena, IL Main Street (from spotlightontravel.files.wordpress.com).

Figure 7.48

Millennium Park (from dutchdialogues.com).

Figure 7.20

Faribault, MN Main Street (from faribaultmainstreet.org).

Figure 7.49

Figure 7.21

Downtown Crystal Lake, IL (from visitmchenrycounty.com).

Commercial street with separated bike lane in Canada (from ibiketo.ca).

Figure 7.22

Main Street Commercial District.

Figure 7.50

Residential street with bioswale (from asla.org.com).

Figure 7.23

Third Street Promenade in Santa Monica.

Figure 7.51

First street in Downtown Long Beach (from studio-111blog.com).

Figure 7.24

Adaptive reuse marketplace.

Figure 7.52

Designed planter and seating walls along commercial street (from spur.org).

Figure 7.25

Indoor food court at Anaheim Packing House.

i i- -Executive Table of Contents Summary ||xxxi xxxi

Figure 7.53

Major commercial street.

Figure 7.54

Minor residential street section.

Figure 7.55

Green wall on parking structure in Miami Beach (from buildabetterburb.org).

Figure 7.56

Facade screens on Civic Center parking structure in Santa Monica (from archello.com).

Figure 7.57

Millennium Park above underground parking structure (from flickr. com).

Figure 7.58

Light installation on parking structure (from timhaahs.com).

Figure 7.59

Proposed parking structures.

Figure 7.60

Proposed Downtown station and Main Street.

Figure 7.61

Proposed Main Street.

Figure 7.62

Proposed adaptive reuse marketplace.

Figure 7.63

Proposed Downtown station and plaza.

Figure 7.64

Proposed Civic Center plaza and steps.

Figure 7.65

Proposed urban plazas.

Figure 7.66

Proposed Garden Grove Regional Library pond.

Figure 7.67

Proposed Central Green Park.

Figure 7.68

Proposed short-term concept plan.

Figure 7.69

Cyclists on the proposed Class I trail along PE ROW during Open Streets Event.

Figure 7.70

Cyclists on Historic Main Street during Open Streets Event.

Figure 7.71

Art and signage along Indianapolis, IN (from www.reasite.com).

Figure 7.72

Visitors at public park in New York.

Figure 7.73

Proposed medium-term concept plan.

Figure 7.74

Proposed 2060 Downtown concept plan.

Figure 7.75

Children participating in an art workshop during Open Streets Event.

xxxii | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

8

The “Gardens and Groves” Theme

Figure 8.1

Crowd waiting for the Strawberry Festival Parade, May, 28th, 2014.

Figure 8.2

Naturalized planting and designed paving (from landezine.com).

Figure 8.3

Parking lot converted to community garden (from tclf.org/blog/ parking).

Figure 8.4

Bilbao Jardin garden steps (from architizer.com/blog/gardensworth-saving).

Figure 8.5

Rooftop garden (from asla.org/2010awards).

Figure 8.6

Native grass planting style (from pinterest.com).

Figure 8.7

Ornamental gardens setting (from theguardian.com/lifeandstyle).

Figure 8.8

Greenwall (from pinterest.com).

Figure 8.9

Vancouver urban farming (from urbanfarmers.ca).

Figure 8.10

A grove of trees in urban park.

Figure 8.11

The “Groves” at Shake Shack in New York.

Figure 8.12

“Gardens and Groves” core values.

Figure 8.13

San Luis Obispo’s restored riverwalk with low impact water channel.

Figure 8.14

Garden Grove’s Historical Society agricultural farm shed with red corrugated metal finish.

Figure 8.15

California Buckwheat: native planting that attracts butterflies.

Figure 8.16

Local residents at Civic Center Park during Open Streets Event.

Figure 8.17

Gateway element in Athens (from flickr.com).

Figure 8.18

PE ROW development in Seal Beach.

Figure 8.19

Proposed NMM PE ROW in Garden Grove.

Figure 8.20

“Gardens and Groves” districts, palettes, and gateways (adapted from City of Garden Grove, 2012).

Figure 8.21

OC Mart Mix in Costa Mesa with drought tolerant planting (from cdn.anaheimoc.org).

Figure 8.22

Allee of Washingtonia robusta in Huntington Beach.

Figure 8.23

Pedestrian gateway signage at Fashion Island Shopping Center in Newport Beach.

Figure 8.24

Wall cap detail on Korean garden wall (from cybercake. deviantart.com).

Figure 10.4

Dutch Kills Green by Sam Oberter Photography (from samoberter. com).

Figure 8.25

Lily pond with pagoda as architectural accent (from wikipedia. org).

Figure 10.5

Dutch Kills Green by Sam Oberter Photography (from samoberter. com).

Figure 8.26

Circular planter with tree and shrubs within a geometric water feature (from bonvoyage.ireneeng.com).

Figure 10.6

Dutch Kills Green Site Plan (from landscapeperformance.org).

Figure 10.7

The Hight Line (from lifeblog79.blogspot.com).

Figure 8.27

Colorful architectural facades in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam (from hitchhikershandbook.com).

Figure 10.8

High Line diagrammatic amenities (from thehighline.org).

Figure 8.28

Typical Vietnamese fruit groves (from ipsard.gov.vn).

Figure 10.9

The Hight Line (from manhattan.about.com).

Figure 8.29

Public plaza with outdoor dining, planters, sculptures, and low wall seating in Denver, CO.

Figure 10.10

The Hight Line (from healthytastebuds.wordpress.com).

Figure 10.11

The Hight Line (from manhattan.about.com).

Figure 8.30

Vines lining street trellis at Huntington Garden in San Marinca, CA.

Figure 10.12

The Hight Line (from cmkoch.com).

Figure 10.13

The Hight Line (from paulcpw.blogspot.com).

Figure 8.31

Urban plaza with community garden plots in downtown Detroit (from asla.org/2012awards).

Figure 10.14.

Indianapolis Cultural Trail bike path (from vimeo.com).

Figure 10.15

Canal walk Indianapolis Cultural Trail (from www.cleveland.com).

Figure 8.32

Restored naturalized planting in San Luis Obispo Riverwalk.

Figure 10.16

Indianapolis Cultural Trail (from skyscrapercity.com).

Figure 8.33

Urban art designed in religious ceremonial ring.

Figure 10.17

Indianapolis Cultural Trail (from www.discovermassave.com).

Figure 8.34

Wooden bench on Highline Park in New York.

Figure 10.18

Figure 8.35

Urban plaza with stone paving and raised planter in Abu Dhabi (from Dezeen.com).

Light sculpture at Indianapolis Cultural Trail (from indianapolismonthly.com).

Figure 10.19

Figure 8.36

Geometric water feature with vegetation around the edges (from magij.co.uk/the-persian-garden).

Colored pavement at Indianapolis Cultural Trail crosswalk (from urbanindy.com).

Figure 10.20

Indianapolis Cultural Trail (from reasite.com).

Figure 8.37

Middle eastern inspired staircase.

Figure 10.21

Figure 8.38

Formal spanish courtyard and planting (from southcoastarchitects. com).

Bus shelters with poetry and colors at Indianapolis Cultural Trail (from archinect.com).

Figure 10.22

Public arts at Indianapolis Cultural Trail (from reasite.com).

Figure 8.39

City crews planting new landscape in street median.

Figure 10.23

Indianapolis Cultural Trail by (from hufďŹ ngtonpost.com).

10

Appendices (DVD)

Figure 10.24

Millennium Park (from som.com).

Figure 10.25

Millennium Park (from som.com).

Figure 10.1

Dutch Kills Green by Sam Oberter Photography (from samoberter. com).

Figure 10.26

Lurie Garden Millennium Park (from enchicago.about.com).

Figure 10.27

Millennium Park (from ickr.com).

Figure 10.2

Dutch Kills Green by Sam Oberter Photography (from samoberter. com).

Figure 10.28

Lurie Garden Millennium Park (from enchicago.about.com).

Figure 10.3

Dutch Kills Green by Sam Oberter Photography (from samoberter. com).

Figure 10.29

Sculpture and light show at Millennium Park (from happynaturally. com).

i i- -Executive Table of Contents Summary ||xxxiii xxxiii

Figure 10.30

Water feature at Millennium Park (from icwtravelphotographyblog. com).

Figure 10.56

Stormwater treatment and filtering system at Uptown Normal Circle (from archpaper.com).

Figure 10.31

Portland Master Plan (from www.portlandoregon.gov).

Figure 10.57

Garden Grove senior citizen survey.

Figure 10.32

Increase of bicycle use in Portland (from traveloregon.com).

Figure 10.58

Garden Grove High School art class survey.

Figure 10.33

Portland Master Plan (from traveloregon.com).

Figure 10.59

Garden Grove Unified School Committee survey.

Figure 10.34

Portland Master Plan (from traveloregon.com).

Figure 10.60

Garden Grove Unified School District destination mapping survey.

Figure 10.35

Community participation in drafting the Seattle Biciycle Master Plan (from scribd.com).

Figure 10.61

Garden Grove Unified School District destination mapping survey (continued).

Figure 10.36

Conceptual vision of the Seattle Biciycle Master Plan (from seattlebikeblog.com).

Figure 10.62

Mind Mixer in-person survey.

Figure 10.63

Garden Grove public forum mapping installation instructions.

Figure 10.37

Children riding bicycles by www.seattle.gov.

Figure 10.64

Figure 10.38

Seattle Biciycle Master Plan (from seattlebikeblog.com).

Garden Grove public forum mapping installation local destinations.

Figure 10.39

Rental bikes (from seattlemet.com).

Figure 10.65

Figure 10.40

Seattle Biciycle Master Plan (from seattle.gov).

Garden Grove public forum mapping installation regional destinations.

Figure 10.41

Water feature (from zgf.com).

Figure 10.66

Garden Grove Bike Coalition local desitnations.

Figure 10.42

Public gathering at Simon and Helen Director Park (from theolinstudio.com).

Figure 10.67

Mind Mixer Interface.

Figure 10.68

Mind Mixer Interface preliminary NMM Network options.

Figure 10.43

Public seating at Simon and Helen Director Park (from landscapevoice.com).

Figure 10.44

Night light at Simon and Helen Director Park (from zgf.com).

Figure 10.45

Simon and Helen Director Park (from moviecuriosities.fmuk.org.uk).

Figure 10.46

Conceptual bike path (from temple-city.ca.us).

Figure 10.47

Conceptual street front (from ci.temple-city.ca.us).

Figure 10.48

Conceptual bike path (from ci.temple-city.ca.us).

Figure 10.49

Conceptual bike path (from ci.temple-city.ca.us).

Figure 10.50

Conceptual street front (from ci.temple-city.ca.us).

Figure 10.51

Community bicycle uses (from maketchappen.com).

Figure 10.52

Water feature at Uptown Normal Circle (from cityparksblog.org).

Figure 10.53

Public gathering at Uptown Normal Circle (from mcac.wildapricot. org).

Figure 10.54

Uptown Normal Circle (from architype.org).

Figure 10.55

Uptown Normal Circle (from architype.org).

xxxiv | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

List of Tables Table i.i

Community participation applied methods.

Table 8.4

Asian plant palette.

Table i.ii

Public participation by method(s) used.

Table 8.5

Downtown plant palette.

Table i.iii

Park accessibility impact.

Table 8.6

Edible/Agriculture plant palette.

Table ii.iv

Open space network enhancement impact by population served.

Table 8.7

Middle Eastern/Latin plant palette.

Table 1.1

Public participation by method(s) used.

Table 10.1

Basic park types (Adapted from Byrne & Sipe, 2010; who adapted from Baud-Bovy and Lawson, 1998).

Table 4.1

Public participation breakdown.

Table 10.2

Parking policy types adapted from Wilson, 2013 (p. 17).

Table 4.2

MindMixer In-Person top ten responses from public participation.

Table 10.3

Popular destinations from public participation responses.

Table 4.3

Popular regional and local destinations top ten responses from public participation.

Table 10.4

Popular destinations from public participation responses (continued).

Table 10.5

Table 4.4

Prospective changes from top ten public participation responses.

Open space enhancement from public participation responses (continued).

Table 4.5

Identity from top ten responses from public participation.

Table 10.6

Open space enhancement from public participation responses (continued).

Table 5.1

Non-motorized network impact analysis.

Table 10.7

Open space enhancement from public participation responses (continued).

Table 6.1

MindMixer Interface; Public participation responses of proposed PE (OCTA) ROW use and design.

Table 10.8

Open space enhancement from public participation responses (continued).

Table 6.2

Existing park assessment.

Table 10.9

Garden Grove city identity from public participation responses.

Table 6.3

Regional stormwater channels from California Environmental Protection Agency, State Water Resources Control Board, n.d.

Table 10.10

Prospective changes from public participation responses.

Table 10.11

Prospective changes from public participation responses (continued).

Table 6.4

Open Space enhancement impact by accessible area.

Table 10.12

Prospective changes from public participation responses (continued).

Table 6.5

Open Space enhancement impact by population served.

Table 10.13

Prospective changes from public participation responses (continued).

Table 6.6

Policies for managing urban growth and protecting open space. (Adapted from Bengston, Fletcher & Nelson, 2004, p. 275.).

Table 10.14

Prospective changes from public participation responses (continued).

Table 7.1

Open space design guidelines.

Table 8.1

Citywide plant palette.

Table 8.2

Wildlife plant palette.

Table 8.3

Native/drought-tolerant plant palette.

i i- -Executive Table of Contents Summary ||xxxv xxxv

1 - Introduction 1.1 Project Overview The Re:Imagine Garden Grove: Community in Motion traces its origins to a charrette carried out by City staff members to support the revitalization of Garden Grove’s Downtown District. Staff developed ideas in four areas: land use, design, transportation, and branding. The Department of Landscape Architecture, 606 Studio at California State Polytechnic University, Pomona was brought in to conceptualize and communicate the City’s vision. The capstone project of its graduate program, the 606 Studio has over 35 years of award-winning tradition serving municipalities, NGOs, community organizations and other agencies to solve complex relationships between human and natural systems. 606 Studio projects must address significant issues concerning resources, the physical and social environment, with broad implications that go beyond project site boundaries. Every planning and design decision was meant to reinvigorate the energy of the City in general, and the Downtown District in particular. Four project objectives were identified: •

•

•

A non-motorized mobility (NMM) network that connects the neighborhoods and disparate districts of the City, as well as to neighboring cities in the greater Orange County region to one another; a network with the Downtown District serving as its hub. An open space vision plan that serves to expand and enhance the City’s existing open space and provide physical infrastructure for the NMM network. A Downtown District plant palette, along with design interventions based on the theme of “gardens and groves” that will unify, redefine,

Figure 1.1. Historic Main Street entry sign.

•

and reinvigorate the City brand. Design strategies and performance assessment standards for the NMM and open space networks as they pertain to enhanced access for a greater number of residents to the Downtown District.

The availability of active mobility infrastructure is increased through the identification of tenable routes where NMM facilities should be introduced. The establishment of an enhanced NMM network will result in the connection of residential communities to public parks, schools, commercial districts, and other destinations within the City, with Garden Grove’s Downtown District serving as the network’s hub. Active transportation improvements stretch beyond the City’s boundary through proposed routes and connections to regional facilities. In addition, the project provides network performance standards—as opposed to developing a rigid, singular, prescriptive route—that allow for flexible connections.

neighborhoods (and land use) within and adjacent to it. The City’s existing open space network is enhanced and expanded not only in the Downtown but also throughout the City. The project creates a vision for Garden Grove integrating the theme of “gardens and groves”. Specialized plant palettes were developed and site amenities (e.g., street furniture, signs, lighting, etc.) were proposed as a means to unify the City and to differentiate districts and special areas for place making and orientation purposes. The “gardens and groves” theme is also applied through proposed gateway locations and treatments.

Enhancement to existing parks and the identification of corridors and sites to expand and connect open space resources via active mobility are proposed. The vision plan was developed through the application of two major considerations. The first was to develop a hierarchy of focuses and applied objectives that address Garden Grove’s most pressing open space issue—park poverty. The second was to inventory potential sites that could be used to enhance the City’s existing open space network. The revitalization of the Downtown District is envisioned with a special focus on identifying distinguishable areas within the District and unifying them through nonmotorized access and open space. The Downtown District vision plan focuses on the branding and identity of the Civic Center District and its immediate surroundings. The revitalization of the Downtown District addresses the branding and identity of the various

RE:Imagine Garden Grove | 3

1 - Introduction 1.2 Issues, Goals, & Objectives Garden Grove reflects a suburbanization approach that was popular in the 1950s, often exemplified by a distinct separation of land uses. Residential tract housing developments were often separated from city centers, commercial and industrial districts. This type of zoning and infrastructural approach to development was auto-centric and resulted in the dominance of auto transportation as the most viable means to traverse the community. A consequence of this type of development was an over-reliance on the automobile and a tendency to view city streets as solely for the car, rather than as a shared transportation network for use by pedestrians and cyclists, among others (Jacobs, 1961). Automobile passengers are removed from the experience of the neighborhood on a human-scale (Jacobs, 1961). It has been argued that the convenience of the automobile and the removal of its driver from being vested in areas closer to home have contributed to the disintegration of city centers and main streets (Jacobs, 2005). Getting people to claim streets for human-scale use and interaction is one part of the solution; offering desirable destinations is another. As part of the public right-of-way, city streets should serve more than just one type of user and offer viable non-car transportation alternatives. NMM network development must provide users with a greater sense of accessibility, convenience, and safety.

Issues The issues this project attempts to address include: •

• • •

Regional issues include: •

•

•

4 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

The need for an appealing, safe, and wellintegrated NMM network that connects the disparate areas of Garden Grove; The need for a clear and prominent Downtown District core identity; The need for a heterogeneous open space network; and, The need for a cohesive, easily recognizable City identity.

Minimal links between the local and regional NMM network, limiting opportunities for access to recreation, landmarks, attractions, and open space, as well as utilitarian connections to mass transit hubs; Decreasing biological resources and presence of wildlife (including urban appropriate species) in dense, urban environments; and, The requirement to provide infrastructure that promotes the slowing, cooling, detention, and filtration of stormwater and irrigation runoff.

Goal

Objectives

Develop a revitalization plan that includes: a NMM network that will improve Garden Grove’s public access; enhance the City’s open space network through the identification of opportunities for new open spaces and guidelines for improvements to existing greenspace; revitalize the Downtown to connect and unify the area; and highlight the City’s identity using the theme of “gardens and groves”.

Objectives identified in the Scope of Work (Milburn & Li, 2013) include:

They aim to: •

•

•

•

•

Development of a NMM network plan that links the disparate areas of Garden Grove to the downtown area and increases opportunities for non-motorized transit. Integration of Garden Grove’s sociocultural context into the mobility, open space and downtown revitalization plan, which can serve to promote economic revitalization. Identification of key existing open space resources that may be enhanced and the recommendation of opportunities to add to the existing open space network. Design interventions conceptualized using the theme of “gardens and groves” as central to the identity of the City.

Four sub-objectives have been identified to broaden the regional impact of the improvements proposed in the City of Garden Grove. Additionally, these sub-objectives will boost the City’s profile, augment its brand in distinct, positive ways, and add social, environmental, and economic value to the City and the region, in quantifiable and qualitative ways.

•

•

•

Ensure the NMM network offers safe and convenient links to the wider, regional pedestrian and bicycle networks; connecting residents to regional transit hubs, landmarks, attractions, and open spaces and vice-versa— linking neighboring municipalities to the Garden Grove network; Promote open spaces that enhance placemaking through social gathering, recreation, and distinctive landscapes, further improving the physical health and mental well-being of residents; Add biological value to the “gardens and groves” theme through gestures of urban rewilding and vegetation that is urbanappropriate, aesthetically attractive, and serves as habitat, attracting urban-adaptive wildlife (such as birds and pollinators), providing unique experiential and educational programming opportunities; and, Introduce green infrastructure design interventions to work in conjunction with the development of open space and NMM networks to cool, cleanse, and replenish groundwater sources.

Figure 1.2. Village Green Clock Tower.

1 - Introduction | 5

on this information; the data compiled was inclusive of the project’s scale(s) and pertinent to the goal and objectives of the project.

1 - Introduction 1.3 Project Method & Process Inventory, public participation, and geodesign methods were the principal means of collecting information and input for the project. Inventory intelligence and statistics were collected and evaluated; public participation feedback was solicited, collected, and aggregated; and the data was used to inform issues and objectives, opportunities and constraints relative to the NMM network, the open space network enhancement, the 2060 Downtown concept plan, and the “gardens and groves” theme. Any methods specific to the development of the network, vision plan and concept proposals are addressed in their respective sections. Impact assessments were conducted to anticipate the results and/or effects of proposed changes, and are discussed in each respective section.

Comprehensive Project Method

The sociocultural inventory forms the basis of data to be evaluated. A rational evaluation model is required to assess the City’s existing conditions. Sociocultural investigations and data were inputted in order to further identify issues and constraints. Here again, the Lyle method was applied in the process of identifying constraints, as well as opportunities that would be used to inform the change models. Once a fundamental appreciation of the elements, systems, and constraints of the study area has been developed, opportunities to alter the study area become evident. Change models are a series of alternatives that result from data from the geospatially-developed representation, process, and evaluation models, along with data collected from the community and stakeholders. The objectives, opportunities, and constraints developed by integrating information from the client, community input, and professional expertise are used to evaluate alternative NMM networks. This process results in alternative scenarios or change models. Through suitability rankings, the change model scenarios are weighted and used to support the determination of the phases of desired design changes (Li et al., 2014). These results become most pertinent to the impact models, which serve to anticipate the effects of the design changes (Steinitz, 2012). Multiple solutions are compared and the generation of data that results may be applied to typify future conditions of the study area, as assessed by access and population served. Once every proposed change and corresponding impact assessment has been completed, the design team can answer how the area should be changed (Steinitz, 2012). The chosen alternative forms the basis of the recommended course of action, including policy changes.

Method Hybridization The Steinitz’s method of geodesign (2012) largely determined the process used in this project. To inform some of the Steinitz “Model” processes, certain aspects of the Lyle ecosystemic method and design process (1999) were applied (Figures 1.4, 1.5 & 1.6).

Process The inventory section of this document is presented as representation models and process models. Representation models describe the study area in make-up, proportion and period or duration of time (Steinitz, 2012). Process models chronicle how the study area operates by establishing the functional and structural systems and explaining their relationships and/ or the interplay between them (Steinitz, 2012). The Lyle process of biophysical and sociocultural inventory collection was used to inform the types and scale of data illustrated in the geospatial models. The study relies 6 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

Figure 1.3. Top. Garden Grove Open Streets Event. Figure 1.4. Right. Comprehensive project process diagram.

Inventory

Analysis

+ Sociocultural + Biophysical + Planning Context

+ + + +

Network Suitability Social Equity Priority Space and Factors Non-Motorized Network

+ Priority Destinations + Existing Open Space Network + Value Ranking + Connectivity Network Routing

Public Participation + Participatory Urban Assessment + Crowdsourcing + Delphi + Photovoice + Small Focus Group + Questionnaire

Revitalization Plan Development + Non-Motorized Mobility Network + Open Space Network Enhancement

+ 2060 Downtown Concept Plan + “Gardens and Groves� Theme

Site Design Interventions + Planning Recommendations + PE ROW + Stormwater Channels + Caltrans 22 Fwy Allee

+ Adaptive Reuse Marketplace + Garden Grove Gateway + Historic Main Street

+ Civic Center Plaza + Central Green Park

Data Collection Process

Goal

Objectives

Issues Lack of Regional Connection

Links Disparate Areas

NMM Network Plan

Increases Non-motorized Transit

Lack of o Connection to Open Space

ite Serves a Limited Population

aging, Lack of Engaging, Citywide Planting ting

Improves Accessibility

Open Space Network Enhancement

Auto-oriented or Layout / Poor ity Connectivity

Imp Improves the City’s Character a and Charm

Includes a Variety of Land es Uses /Activities

Lack of Cohesive Identity

mun Lack of Community Ass / Cultural Assets

2060 Downtown Concept Plan

Connects Activities within a Cohesive Neighborhood / Improves Equity Creates a Beautiful Plant Palette

“Gardens and Groves” Theme 8

Creates a Variety of Gardens and Intimate Spaces

Lack of Universal Design Appeal

Stakeholders

Research Methods

Findings

Bicyclist Coalition Potential Non-motorized Streets

Participatory Urban Assessment High School Students

Popular Destinations

Crowdsourcing Public Participants

NMM Network

City of Garden Grove

Small Focus Group Plant Palette

Questionnaire Favorite Activities Downtown Businesses Community Initiative Programs Photovoice Senior Citizens Civic Center / Downtown Identity

Faith Leaders

Geospatial Inventory, Analysis, and Modeling

Downtown Revitalization

Case Studies 9

Figure 1.5. Overall data collection process. Open Space Opportunities

Integrated Design Process: Steinitz-Lyle Hybrid Method

Steinitz Method (2012)

Understand Study Area

Representation Models

Steinitz-Lyle Hybrid Method

Process Models

Identify Goal

Inventory + Data Collection

Data Evaluation

Identify Issues

Site Visits

Synthesis of Information

Identify Objectives

Community Participation

Constraints Analysis

Geospatial Modeling

Opportunities Analysis

Inception

Information

Research + Analysis

Lyle Method (1999) 10 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

Evaluation Models

Figure 1.6. Integrated design process: Steinitz-Lyle hybrid method.

Modeling

Specify Methods

Change Models

Perform Study

Impact Models

Decision Models

Program Development

Concept Plan Development

Final Plans + Design

Case Studies

Concept Plan Alternatives

Evaluate Final Plans + Design

Literature Review

Assess Concept Plan Alternatives

Cross Evaluate - Hone for Consistency - ReďŹ ne Study - Provide Multiple Iterations - Finalize All Inputs on Timeline

Development of Alternatives

Comparative Evaluation of Alternatives

Plan

Implementation + Management

Continuous Extension / Evolution of Design

1 - Introduction | 11

Public Participation Data Collection Methods

Methods Used

Required Data

Methods of data collection included:

Information was needed on NMM needs, citywide connectivity, open space use, factors that define the identity of Garden Grove, and sources of economic draw. Information needs were matched with methods and targeted groups. Evaluating methods and method application was determined by asking: • • • • • •

What are the big picture questions that need to be answered? What big picture questions should be asked of each group? Are these questions better in an individual or group setting, in-person or online? Which is the best method to apply to gather this data? How will the knowledge be used? How will that knowledge contribute to the project?

•

•

•

•

•

•

12 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

Figure 1.7. Bicyclist coalition participating in mapping exercise.

Crowdsourcing: acquires information by enlisting the services of people online (New Oxford American Dictionary, 2010); for the purposes of this project, the MindMixer interface was used as the crowdsourcing online tool. Small Focus Group: allows researchers to learn group views, insights, and stances toward an activity, service, concept, or idea in a more relaxed setting than typically occurs in a oneon-one interview; “an advantage is their fairly low cost as one can get results relatively quickly and increase the sample size of a report by talking with several people at once” (Marshall & Rossman, 1999, p. 115). Participatory Urban Assessment (PUA): adapted from participatory rural assessment; enables participants to share and analyze individual knowledge of their life and conditions (Village Volunteers, 2011). Questionnaire: a list of specially designed questions for a select group to answer individually (New Oxford American Dictionary, 2010). Photovoice: participants are asked to represent their community or point of view by taking photographs, developing narratives to go with their photos, and discussing them at a community forum, in person or online (Wang & Burris, 1994); may also be applied in conjunction with participatory study strategies such as mapping, collaging, and/or drawing (Mannay, 2013). Delphi: an organized process of gathering and refining knowledge by means of a series of questionnaires, facilitating the emergence of a group consensus (Günaydin, n.d.; HelmerHirschberg, 1967).

MindMixer Interface: An Online Community

Public Participation By Method(s) Used Participants

Method(s) Used

MindMixer Public, digital interface; 287 active members

Crowdsourcing Delphi Photovoice

Number of Participants Participant numbers varied by topic type and question asked

MindMixer In-Person Community member event; mapping activity and dissemination of an opinion sheet

Participatory Urban Assessment (PUA)

23

Questionnaire

18

Public Mapping Installations Mapping activities at three public locations

Participatory Urban Assessment (PUA)

67

Bicyclist Coalition Mapping activity

Participatory Urban Assessment (PUA)

6

High School Students Mapping activity and dissemination of a take-home activity package

Participatory Urban Assessment (PUA)

53

Questionnaire

41

Photovoice Senior Citizens Facilitation of a round table discussion and dissemination of an opinion sheet

Small Focus Group Questionnaire

The MindMixer interface is on online resource for soliciting community feedback that utilizes the crowdsourcing method but is adaptable to other public participation tools, such as photovoice and delphi methods. The website was set up and administered by City of Garden Grove staff members. The site had been active for approximately six months before the initiation of this project and many relevant topics had been explored already. Questions specific to this project were developed related to: •

•

•

1 11 3

•

Identity and civic pride (motivations for living and staying in Garden Grove; favorite places and activities). The NMM network (preferred routes; ideas of what trails and paths might look like; activities that would promote walking and cycling). The “gardens and groves” theme (preferred plant palettes; examples of favorite plants; attractive planting design ideas for the Downtown). Instituting change (prioritizing changes to the Downtown; activities and events that promote change in and perception of the Downtown).

Table 1.1. Public participation by method(s) used.

MindMixer: An In-person Event

Community and Activity Types, Method Application, Questions Asked, and Participation Rates

The MindMixer in-person event invited online participants to “step out from behind their computers”, meet the 606 Team and Re:Imagine Downtown staff, participate in the Participatory Urban Assessment (PUA), and provide feedback through the use of questionnaires. The PUA was conducted using large-scale, regional and local maps. At this event, a total of four maps were used (two local and two regional) to identify connection points and routes for the mobility network. The questionnaires asked participants to rank the ideas that experienced the most “traffic” (comments, visits, hits, etc.) on the MindMixer interface to prioritize suggestions to enhance the Downtown.

Numerous community groups were solicited to give input to and provide feedback on the project (Table 1.1). Public participation group types, activities, method(s) used, questions developed, process, observations, results, and application details are discussed at length in the Public Participation section of this document (see Section 4).

1 - Introduction | 13

Public Institutions: Mapping Installation Activity In order to solicit input from a broad, socially and ethnically-diverse sample of the community, the PUA local and regional maps were installed at the following three locations: the Garden Grove Library (Figure 1.9), Garden Grove City Hall, and the Garden Grove Sports and Recreation Center in Garden Grove Park. This method was used to identify connection points and routes for the mobility network. Bicycle Coalition: Cyclists Map a Mobility Network The bicycle coalition participated in a PUA mapping activity (Figure 1.7) that was designed to identify routes used, routes desired, and problem areas that would represent constraints in the development of the mobility network. Four local and two regional large-scale maps were used in the activity. High School Students: Garden Grove High School (GGHS) Art Students and Garden Grove Unified School District’s Board Representative Committee (GGUSD BRC) These two groups of high school students were invited to participate in three types of activities: the PUA, selfadministered questionnaires, and photovoice. Both groups received similar take-home activity packages that contained a questionnaire and photovoice assignment. All activity packages contained a series of questions that asked students where they like to go, what they like to do, what would attract them to the Downtown, and what types of features and activities would encourage their use of open space; and an image collection assignment that involved photographing favorite places and spaces. The GGHS art students (Figure 1.8) participated in a facilitated PUA activity, using two large-scale maps (local and regional), while the GGUSD BRC had their maps (in this case, one map was site-scaled to their respective high schools and the other, a local map of the City and vicinity surroundings) included in the take-home package. GGHS art students were given an additional, urban

14 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

art-related, image collection assignment: to provide examples of urban art they like and to identify places in the City where urban art could be sited. These activities were used to inform the development of the NMM network and Downtown vision plan, as well as identifying features and activities pertaining to the enhancement of the City’s open space network.

Senior Citizens: A Roundtable Discussion Senior citizens participated in a facilitated small focus group and were given a questionnaire at the conclusion of the activity. The discussion focused on the identity of Garden Grove, with particular attention paid to changes in the City over time. Participants were asked why they chose to live in Garden Grove, what made

the City and the region unique, and what were its strongest attractions. The questionnaire asked about mobility, Downtown attractions, favorite open spaces and open space activities, as well as desired changes to the Downtown and open spaces. The results of these activities were used to inform the mobility network, open space enhancements, and Downtown redevelopment.

Figure 1.8. Left. High school art students participating in questionnaire. Figure 1.9. Right. Residents participating in mapping exercise at Garden Grove Regional Library.

1 - Introduction | 15

1- Introduction 1.4 Project Timeliness & Project Importance Integrated planning has been identified as a useful best practice for achieving sustainable infrastructure. Integrated planning or joint planning includes the participation of stakeholders and affected City departments to examine all economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits in order to identify opportunities to meet multiple planning, infrastructure, and facility goals, to determine the most appropriate option(s) and to plan a suitable course of action (Business Dictionary, 2014). Integrated planning can shape and influence the location and type of growth that occurs by optimizing or maximizing the use of existing infrastructure (e.g., infill and compact design goals in land use plans with related instruments to target development in certain areas), as well as plan for optimal enhancement of facilities and infrastructure (i.e., recognizing and combining functions and opportunities). Planning may also manage the demand on infrastructure through the establishment of programs that modify user behavior (e.g., promoting alternative transportation such as public transit, cycling or rail to manage road infrastructure demand, or water conservation programs to manage water demand). Good planning methods promote efficient and effective municipal spending by providing a framework to focus financial and staff resources where they are most needed.

16 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

Simply planning for City improvements will not necessarily lead to its success—change requires a concerted, integrative effort by City leaders, local businesses and residents, as well as new investors. Fortunately, some of the tools that can help create renewed infrastructure are already in place (such as appropriate regulations and partnerships with the public sector), while others will need to be developed (e.g., key strategic public investments). The final product will be the result of past plans and public workshops that envision Garden Grove as a cohesive, integrated community with a Downtown that serves as a center of business and culture. Existing infrastructure and plans, current knowledge and information, as well as strong public input, will make this vision a reality. A key component is the set of strategies that will lead to change—a process that builds on success and encourages private investments is crucial to the viability of this vision plan proposal.

Figure 1.10. Civic Center Park.

2 - Project Context

Downey

Context Map | Regional

La Habra

105

La Mirada

Compton

Brea

Norwalk Bellflower

Y Fullerton Cerritos

San Gabriel

Carson

110

Buena Park

ek

91

605

Creek

te

River

Lakewood

Coyo

710

e Cr

Placentia

Cypress

C

57

on arb

5 Anaheim

Stanton Los Alamitos

Orange

Garden Grove Long Beach Westminster

22

River

Seal Beach

Huntington Beach

Pacific Ocean

405

na

Santa Ana

San

Fountain Valley

ta A

Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge

55

Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve

1

Costa Mesa Newport Beach

73

71

Chino Hills State Park

15 Prado Dam

Yorba Linda

2 - Project Context 2.1 Location

Anaheim Hills

Villa Park

241

Santiago Peak Irvine Lake

Santiag

o

Cr ee k

Tustin

261

Irvine

Garden Grove is located approximately 30 miles from Downtown Los Angeles, in the northwest region of Orange County, California. Founded in the relatively flat Coastal Plain of Orange County (OCPW, 2011), the City is centrally located between many natural geographical features of Southern California, including the Santa Monica Mountains to the northeast, the Coyote, Puente and Chino Hills to the north, the Santa Ana Mountains to the east, and famous state beaches to the southwest. Garden Grove is within the Anaheim Bay-Huntington Harbour Watershed, surrounded by the Santa Ana River to the east, the San Gabriel River to the west, and the Coyote Creek and Carbon Creek to the northwest. The cities bordering Garden Grove consist of Anaheim and Stanton to the north, Orange to the northeast, Santa Ana to the southeast, Fountain Valley to the south, Westminster and Seal Beach to the southwest, Los Alamitos to the west, and Cypress to the northwest (Figure 2.1). The City is accessible by multiple interstate and intrastate freeways, including the 91 Freeway, just north of Garden Grove’s boundary; the 5 Freeway that runs north–south diagonally, adjacent to the City’s northeast boundary; the 57 and 55 Freeways to the east of the City’s boundary; the 605, adjacent to the City’s western boundary; the 405 Freeway that touches the southwest tip of Garden Grove runs north–south diagonally further south of the City; and the 22 Freeway, starting at the junction point of the 405 Freeway at the southwest tip of Garden Grove, the 22 Freeway runs west–east and essentially bisects the City (Figure 2.2). As a sociocultural hub, Downtown Garden Grove is approximately eight miles from Knott’s Berry Farm and four miles from Disneyland (to the north); five miles from Angel Stadium and six miles from the Honda Center of the Anaheim Ducks (to the east); 11 miles from John Wayne Airport (to the southeast); and 12 miles from Huntington Beach Pier to the south (Figure 2.3) (City of Garden Grove, n.d.).

133 0

Figure 2.1. Garden Grove regional context.

Lake Forest

5

10 Miles

19

Buena Park

2 - Project Context

ek

Context Map | Local

Car

Cre bon

ek 57

te

5

yo

Anaheim

Co

Stanton Cypress

605

Rossmoor

cifi

cE

lec

tri

cR

igh

Garden Grove

405

ong Beach

t-o

f-W

ay

Civic Center Downtown

er

Pa

22

Riv

Los Alamitos

a

Westminster Sa

nta

An

San Gabriel River

Cre

Lakewood

Cerritos

Seal Beach

Huntington Beach

Pacific Ocean

1

Fountain Valley

Santa Ana

Anaheim Hills

57

Villa Park

Sa

g ntia

o

Cr

ee

k

241

Orange

Santiago Peak

55

Garden Grove is approximately 11,471 acres in area (City of Garden Grove, 2008). It spans approximately 10.25 miles from east to west and 5.86 miles from north to south. In plan, the boundary of Garden Grove is interrupted by the City of Stanton in the northwest. The City is laid out in a grid-system that runs north to south and east to west. Due to the two separate surveys taken in the 1860s and 1870s, north and south of Garden Grove Boulevard respectively, many major streets that run north to south were disconnected at Garden Grove Boulevard (including Knott Street, Beach Boulevard, Magnolia Street, Brookhurst Street, Euclid Street, and Harbor Boulevard) (Garden Grove Historical Society, 2005). Streets were realigned in the 1960s, resulting in the curvilinear strands of road that emanate from Garden Grove Boulevard observed today (Garden Grove Historical Society, 2005). Additionally, Garden Grove is dissected by two transportation corridors: the 22 Freeway running west–east and a right-of-way corridor that runs diagonally from the northwest to southeast—a remnant of the old Pacific Electric Red Car system (referred to as the PE ROW in this report). The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) currently owns the majority of the corridor.

Tustin

The City is primarily composed of single-family residences with a wide distribution of landmarks, attractions, commercial districts and parks. Disneyland Resort (near the border of Anaheim and Garden Grove), arguably Southern California’s principal tourist attraction, has resulted in The Grove District becoming one of the major commercial districts in the City, attracting thousands of visitors annually. Near the southwestern border of the City, Little Saigon has also become a major social, cultural, and commercial attraction for both residents and visitors to Garden Grove. In addition, the Korean Business District along Garden Grove Boulevard is a large commercial district that provides rich cultural diversity and attractions within the City (Figure 2.2).

0

Irvine 261

Figure 2.2. Garden Grove local context.

133

2.5

5 Miles

21

Village Green Park

Stanford Ave

Courtyard Center

Main St

Coastline Community College Concorde Career College

Civic Center Park

Office Depot Costco Ce

ntu

ry

d

Ninth St Police & Fire Department

Garden

Lincoln Education Center

Dalat Supermarket Ce

Blv

City Hall

ntu

ry

Seve Adv Ch

Community & Senior Center

Regional Library

First Baptist Church

United Methodist Church Home Depot

Garden Grove High School

Civic Center Dr

St. Columban Catholic Church

Nelson St

Blv

d

Pa

cifi

cE

Taft St

Nutwood St

Context Map | Civic Center-Downtown Pa cifi cE lec tri cR igh US Post t-o Garden f-W Office Grove ay Unified School District

Euclid St

2 - Project Context

lec

tri

cR

igh

t-o

Mitchell Elementary School Trask Ave 22

f-W ay

West St

Great Wolf Lodge Water Park

Seventh Day Adventist Church

Harbor Town & Country Shopping Center

El Prado Mobile Home Park

r rbo

Twin Lakes

Garden Grove Hospital & Medical Center

d

Blv

Ha

rden Grove Blvd

Harbor Plaza Shopping Center

Newhope St

Peters Elementary School

Based on the 2008 General Plan, the Civic Center boundary extends north to the edge of Village Green Park and along Stanford Avenue; east to Ninth Street; south to Garden Grove Boulevard, along Euclid Street to Trask Avenue and Century Boulevard; and west to Home Depot (City of Garden Grove, 2013). The Civic Center may be divided into four quadrants by Euclid Street (running north to south) and Garden Grove Boulevard Harbor (running east to west). The northeast or Civic Center quadrant includes Garden Grove City Hall, the Police and Grove Center Fire Departments’ headquarters, a regional public library, the community and senior center, as well as the Civic Center Park. The southeast quadrant includes office buildings and small professional services extending along Euclid Street between Garden Grove Boulevard and Trask Avenue. The southwest quadrant contains mostly big-box stores, supermarkets, and strip malls, including Costco, Office Depot, Dalat Supermarket, and small mom-and-pop retail shops, restaurants, and professional services. The northwest quadrant is uniquely mixed with various land uses, including historic Main Street, Concorde Career College, medium density housing, scattered professional service offices, the United Methodist Church, as well as the historical Gem Theater, Festival Amphitheatre (home to Shakespeare Orange County), and Garden Grove Courtyard Center housed on Village Green Park (Figure 2.3).

0

0.25

Figure 2.3. Garden Grove Civic Center-Downtown context.

0.5 Miles

23

2 - Project Context 2.2 History of Orange County

Native Settlement Human existence in Orange County may be traced back thousands of years (Orange County Historical Society, 2014) when clans related to the Shoshonean settled in the area (Figure 2.5). These people were the ancestors of the native Acjachemen and Tongva, which the Spanish renamed the Juane単o and the Gabrielino, respectively (Orange County, n.d.). Prior to the colonization of the Spanish, these tribes subsisted off the land as hunter-gathers (Orange County Historical Society, 2014).

LegendLegend Civic Center-Downtown District City of Garden Grove Adjacent Cities Orange County Coastal Plain and Basin Freeways Major Streets Waterbodies Rivers Creeks 1

Chokishgna

2

Hutukgna

3

Lukupangna

4

Motuucheyngna

5

Moyogna

6

Nacaugna

7

Pasbengna

8

Pubugna

9

Shiishongna

10

Suangna

11

Tibagna

Figure 4.#. Tongva (Gabrielino) settlement. 24 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

Figure 2.4. Left. Acjachemen village (from missionsjc.tumblr.com). Figure 2.5. Right. Approximate locations of historic Tongva (Gabrielino) settlement.

Tongva (Gabrielino) Settlement 6

105

57

Long Beach Cypress

Gabriel

11

k Cree n

rbo

Ca

9

Anaheim Hills

Anaheim 2

5

Ball Rd Katella Ave

Stanton

Irvine Regional Park 241

Villa Park

San

Orange 8 Lampson Ave

Garden Grove Blvd

Westminster Ave

Los Alamitos

Garden Grove

Seal Beach

Chapman Ave

Irvine Lake

17th St

nt

Sa

Westminster

PaciďŹ c Ocean

er Ana R iv

Sant a

Beach Blvd

Bolsa Chica St Miles

55

Fountain Valley

1

k

5

Cree

2.5

261 Warner Ave

3 0

Tustin

Santa Ana

405

go

Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve

Huntington Beach

ia

1st St

7

Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge

Santiago Peak

22

Bolsa Ave

4

Prado Dam

Chino Hills State Park

91

Valley View St

River

10

Harbor Blvd

yo

Co

Euclid St

te

Magnolia St

Buena Park

1

k

ee

Cr

Brookhurst St

605

State College Blvd

Fullerton

Newport Beach 5

Irvine

Costa Mesa

133

73 73 2 - Project Context | 25

Spanish Colonization The Spanish Empire had claimed the territory known as Las Californias (present day California and Baja California) by right of discovery in 1542 (Treutlein, 1968). For nearly 200 years thereafter, Spain was not compelled to defend its claim to the new land (Orange County Historical Society, 2014). By the middle 18th Century, other European rulers recognized the strategic importance and economic value of the Pacific Coast (Treutlein, 1968) and in 1769, the first recorded land entry and exploration of Las Californias (Figure 2.6) was led by newly appointed Governor Don Gaspar de Portolá (Orange County Historical Society, 2014). The expedition included Spanish soldiers, tradesmen and Franciscan friars, who established a chain of forts, ports, and missions that anchored colonization of the Virreinato de Nueva España (Viceroyalty of New Spain) (Treutlein, 1968). During the second leg of the expedition from San Diego to San Francisco Bay, exploration of the area that would become Orange County took place (Orange County Historical Society, 2014). Father Junípero Serra established Mission San Gabriel Arcángel (Figure 2.7) in 1771 and five years later, founded Mission San Juan Capistrano (Figure 2.8) (Engelhardt, 1908); the former located in present-day northeast Los Angeles County and the latter in southwest Orange County. For a half-century, these two missions combined formed the basis and bounds of common mission lands held by the Spanish crown in Orange County (Engelhardt, 1908). As a fringe benefit of service to the crown, a few retired soldiers were permitted grazing rights (Orange County Historical Society, 2014). Manuel Nieto was the first of three men to be awarded a land concession in 1784. He was the sole tenant rancher of the land between the Los Angeles and Santa Ana Rivers, from the coast to as far north as the Puente Hills (Orange County Historical Society, 2014). After Nieto’s death, Rancho Los Nietos was divided into five separate ranchos—Las Bolsas, Los Alamitos, Los Cerritos, Los Coyotes, and Santa Gertrudes—granted to his heirs (Orange County Historical Society, 2014).

26 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

Figure 2.6. Top. Don Gaspar de Portolá Expedition (from sfbaytimetraveler.files.wordpress.com). Figure 2.7. Top Right. Mission San Gabriel Arcángel (from www.missionscalifornia.com). Figure 2.8. Bottom Right. Mission San Juan Capistrano (from www.missionscalifornia.com).

Mexican Territory By 1821, Mexico had successfully seceded from Spain, annexed Las Californias to Mexico, and changed the name of the territory to Alta California (Orange County Historical Society, 2014). The Mexican government initiated the secularization of California’s missions beginning with Mission San Juan Capistrano in 1834 (Engelhardt, 1922), restricting the religious order to their spiritual duties and charged territorial bureaucrats with the operation and distribution of mission lands (Orange County Historical Society, 2014). The new government permitted land grants of up to 44,000 acres to Mexican citizens on the condition that they inhabit the land and put it to productive use. By 1846, virtually the whole of Orange County was part of the rancho system (Figure 2.9) (Orange County Historical Society, 2014). Cattle ranching drove the local economy and merchant vessels sailed the California coast trading manufactured goods in exchange for cattle hides and tallow (Orange County, n.d.).

Early History as a Territory of the United States After the conclusion of the Mexican War in 1848, California was ceded to the United States to complete the continuous continent (Orange County, n.d.). California experienced its first population boom when tens of thousands of frontiersmen were lured to California during the Gold Rush of 1849. Beef, sold to nourish hard-working miners, presented rancheros with a more lucrative market for their cattle—a heyday for the local economy (Orange County Historical Society, 2014). The ruin of many ranchos resulted from the burden of proving ownership rights in American courts, and hazards such as a cycle of droughts, floods, and disease. A few of the failing ranchos were sold to Americans, such as Stearns, Irvine, and Bixby (locally well-known surnames that would become the founding families of southern Los Angeles County and later, Orange County). Other ranchos were divided and sold off to homesteaders, land speculators, and developers (Orange County, n.d.). 2 - Project Context | 27

Statehood and Settlements In 1850 California officially became a state. At that time, Orange County was part of Los Angeles County (Orange County, n.d.) but towns were emerging across the area that would later be known as North Orange County. Anaheim was the first American town to be established in the area in 1857 (Orange County Historical Society, 2014). In 1868, vast areas on either side of the Santa Ana River were placed on the market, and the village-towns of Santa Ana, Tustin, Orange, Westminster, and Garden Grove were soon founded. Farming was the primary economic driver of the region during this period. Agricultural crops such as grapes for the production of wine and raisins, barley, wheat, and corn were all successful commodities. New irrigation systems were built during the 1870s, supporting orchard plantings that included walnuts, apricots, and oranges (Figure 2.10).

Figure 2.9. Left. The Old Spanish and Mexican Ranchos of Orange County California (from www.RareMaps.com -- Barry Lawrence Ruderman Antique Maps Inc). Figure 2.10. Middle. Orange groves in the Tustin foothills (from www.orangecountyhistory.org). Figure 2.11. Right. La Habra oil field (from ochistorical.blogspot.com).

28 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

The Transition to County The first commercial ship sailed into Newport Bay in 1870 (Orange County Historical Society, 2014). Shortly thereafter, Newport Harbor became an established point of entry along the Pacific coastal shipping route. In 1875, the Southern Pacific Railroad Company constructed the first regional railroad tracks linking Anaheim to Los Angeles. Two years later, an additional line was extended to Santa Ana. The Southern Pacific Railroad monopolized Southern California’s rail market for a decade; rail company competition was introduced once the Santa Fe Railroad Company extended its tracks through the Cajon Pass. Competition brought a surge of regional travel advertisement, a steep decline in the cost of train tickets to Southern California destinations, and prompted the first real estate boom throughout the Southern California region (Orange County, n.d.). During the period between 1870 and 1900, a number of established communities expanded and sleepy farm villages transformed into legitimate towns. Parcels were sold and subdivisions of large tracts of land begat new settlements, as newcomers arrived to stake their claims. This initial boom began in the midst of a nationwide, economic ‘Long Depression’ (1873-1879 or 1896, according to some scholars), which played a role in the collapse of newer settlements and planned towns (Glasner & Cooley, 1997). Wage cuts, currency deflation, labor turmoil (i.e., the Great Railroad Strike of 1877), and general market volatility made securing financing to build, sustain, and attract new rail stations a difficult prospect for new settlements during this period (Glasner & Cooley, 1997). Established, well-populated, financially independent villages were better poised to capitalize on the influx of settlers: Fullerton, Buena Park, and El Toro survived, while “paper town” ventures such as Carlton, San Juan-by-the-Sea, and St. James folded (Orange County Historical Society, 2014). As early as 1870, local residents attempted to annex their towns from Los Angeles County to form a new county (Orange County Historical Society, 2014). In 1889, the California Legislature passed a bill that sanctioned voting on county division (Orange County, n.d.). The recommended county line was originally drawn at the San Gabriel River, but the line was relocated south to Coyote Creek in order to gain greater support in the State Legislature. Anaheim and a few other northern communities that had hoped to either be located more centrally in the proposed county or preferred to remain as part of Los Angeles County voted against the measure, though the majority of cities in the region voted for division. The County of Orange was officially formed on August 1, 1889 and the City of Santa Ana was selected as the seat of the new County (Orange County Historical Society, 2014).

Historical County Economics While dairy farms were distributed throughout the north and cattle continued to graze on the expansive ranchlands in the southern end of Orange County (Orange County Historical Society, 2014), agriculture remained the most important part of Orange County’s economy until the 1950s (Orange County, n.d.). Unable to recover from a devastating blight that occurred from 1886 to 1887, the grape industry collapsed (Orange County Historical Society, 2014). In the 1890s, growers began planting lima beans, celery, and sugar beets. By 1920, apricots ceased to be pursued as a commercial crop (Orange County Historical Society, 2014). Citrus orchards eventually dominated the area. By the 1930s, one-sixth of the Valencia oranges distributed in the United States were produced in the County of Orange (Figure 2.10) (Orange County, n.d.). Orange County was also shaped by the presence of its natural resources—namely that of oil (Orange County, n.d.). In the 1890s, the oil industry operated wells along the County’s northern boundary (Orange County Historical Society, 2014). Shortly after, La Habra, Brea Canyon, and Olinda sought to develop their own oil fields (Figure 2.11). In 1919 and 1920, Placentia and Huntington Beach experienced their own major oil strikes (Orange County Historical Society, 2014). Across the County, these events initiated an upswing in the pursuit of oil. Numerous, albeit intermittent, oil wells are still pumping today, while the presence of agriculture is all but extinct (Orange County, n.d.).

Transportation and Growth in the Region Novel developments in transportation spurred much of the County’s progress during the first half of the 20th Century. From 1904 to 1910, the Pacific Electric Railway, with its “big red cars”, established three branches to serve the County (Orange County, n.d.). The Coast Line, the Santa Ana Line, and the La Habra Line connected and improved access across the region. As a result, coastal communities from Seal Beach to Corona del Mar grew, the communities of Cypress and Stanton were founded, and access stretched as far east as the recently established community of Yorba Linda (Figure 2.12) (Orange County Historical Society, 2014). Another tract housing community development boom in Orange County resulted from the construction of highways and freeways. The State highway system plan was developed in 1896 and construction began shortly after the bond measure was approved in 1915 (California Department of Transportation, 2014). One of the earliest completed areas included portions of Orange County, from La Habra to San Juan Capistrano (Orange County Historical Society, 2014). The majority of new freeway construction began in 1956 and freeway projects continued into the 1970s (Orange County Historical Society, 2014). Like rail, greater road access and connectivity encouraged land development in Orange County. The highway and freeway system ultimately resulted in cities planned around the personal automobile (Melosi, n.d.) and contributed to urban sprawl (Mieszkowski & Mills, 1993).

30 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

Figure 2.12. Orange County c. 1920 (from ochistorical.blogspot.com).

Recent History A few significant military bases were sited in Orange County during World War II. They included the Los Alamitos Naval Weapons Station, the Santa Ana Army Air Base, and the El Toro Marine Corps Air Station (Orange County, n.d.). A significant number of veterans decided to settle in Southern California upon the conclusion of the war and Orange County grew at record rates (Orange County Historical Society, 2014). The population increase resulted in Orange County agricultural lands being sold off, subdivided, and replaced by tract housing, largely during the mid-1950s (Orange County, n.d.). Established cities annexed whatever territories were available and new cities were incorporated virtually every year between 1953 and 1962. Newly incorporated cities included (in order of incorporation): Buena Park, Costa Mesa, La Palma, Stanton, Garden Grove, Cypress, Fountain Valley, Westminster, Los Alamitos, San Juan Capistrano, and Villa Park (Figures 2.13 & 2.14) (County of Orange, n.d.). By 1963, Orange County’s population exceeded one million residents (Orange County, n.d.). From the mid-1950s on, the dominant economic drivers of the regional economy included tourism, hospitality, the service industry, and manufacturing (Orange County Historical Society, 2014). In 1955, the City of Anaheim welcomed the opening of the Disneyland Theme Park and its subsequent success made Orange County an international tourism destination (Figure 2.15) (County of Orange, n.d.). Aerospace firms and light industry expanded throughout the region in the late 1950s, accompanied by a rise in population, and opportunities for employment in the health and service industries also increased (Orange County, n.d.). During the 1960s, south Orange County development increased (Orange County, n.d.). Master planned communities included Irvine, Mission Viejo, and Laguna Niguel, incorporated in 1971, 1988, and 1989, respectively (County of Orange, n.d.). From the 1980s through the 1990s the communities of Rancho Santa Margarita, Aliso Viejo, and Ladera Ranch were established (County of Orange, n.d.). As one of the smaller counties in Southern California, today Orange County contains 34 incorporated cities and has a population of just over three million (Orange County, n.d.).

Figure 2.13. Left. Santa Ana River and 22, 55, and 57 freeway interchanges in 1965 (from www.socalregion.com). Figure 2.14. Middle. 22 Freeway at Garden Grove and Beach Boulevards in 1965 (from www.socalregion.com). Figure 2.15. Right. Disneyland in 1955 (from latimesphoto.files.wordpress.com). 32 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

2 - Project Context 2.3 History of Garden Grove

throughout Southern California, by 1860 Abel Stearns had acquired over 200,000 acres extending from Los Angeles County (which at that time included Orange County) to San Bernardino County (Doig, 1962). Stearns’ cattle empire, influence and wealth reached as far south as Mexico (Doig, 1962). During the winter of 1861 to 1862, the Santa Ana Valley was hit with one of the biggest floods in history (Doig, 1962). The rain began on December 24, 1861 and continued for thirty days straight with only two breaks, causing the Santa Ana River to flood into the Coyote Hills; in some areas it was seven miles wide (Doig, 1962). The flood was soon followed by two successive years of drought, which resulted in only four inches of rain or less annually (Doig, 1962). The cycle of floods and droughts during the early 1860s caused catastrophic damage to Stearns’ cattle empire and properties (Doig, 1962). The number of cattle in Los Angeles County dropped by more than 70 percent between 1860 and 1870, and the cost of land decreased from twenty-five cents per acre in 1862, to ten cents per acre in 1864 (Doig, 1962). Due to his financial hardships, Stearns was forced to subdivide his land, which was sold to farmers, smaller ranching operations, and land companies (Doig, 1962).

Figure 2.16. Abel Stearns (from www.mysanpedro.org).

Abel Stearns: The Rise and Fall of an Empire Abel Stearns (Figure 2.16) was an eastern trader who, in order to settle and own land, became a naturalized Mexican citizen in 1826 (Fedewa, 1970). Three years later, he settled in Pueblo de Los Angeles (what would become the City of Los Angeles) and became a major landowner, cattle rancher and one of the area’s wealthiest citizens (Fedewa, 1970). Having purchased land from Spanish, Mexican, and American owners 34 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

per acre (City of Garden Grove, n.d.). With the development of railway systems in the region and an increase in settlement, Garden Grove experienced its first population boom during 1875 (Doig, 1962). By the end of the year, the village had grown by an estimated two hundred residents and the construction of fifty new homes (Figure 2.18) (Doig, 1962). Cook donated some of his land, located north of Main Street and Garden Grove Boulevard, for the first schoolhouse and post office (Garden Grove Historical Society, 2005). He also assisted in establishing the first church, blacksmith shop, and general store (Doig, 1962). Cook coined the village (and future City’s) name, Garden Grove (Garden Grove Historical Society, 2005). Some people questioned whether the name was well suited to the open plain character of the land, to which Cook replied, “We’ll make it appropriate by planting trees and making it beautiful” (Garden Grove Historical Society, 2005, p. 7).

“We’ll make it [Garden Grove] appropriate by planting trees and making it beautiful” (Alonzo Cook)

Alonzo Cook and the Establishment of Garden Grove Alonzo Cook (Figure 2.17) was one of the earliest settlers in Garden Grove and is regarded as the “Father of Garden Grove” due to his founding of its village (City of Garden Grove, n.d.). In 1874, he purchased 160 acres of land for approximately fifteen dollars

Figure 2.17. Alonzo Cook (from charlesbrownhouse.com).

Figure 2.18. Aerial sketch of Garden Grove (from Orange Illustrated and Its Surroundings, 1886, as shown in Images of America: Garden Grove, 2005).

2 - Project Context | 35

Garden Grove: Village to Town Because of the fertile sandy loam soil deposited by the Santa Ana River, gentle slopes towards the west and south, and temperate climate, Garden Grove was ideal for almost all types of farming activities (Figure 2.20) (Doig, 1962). It maintained its sleepy, agricultural village identity into the turn of the twentieth century (Doig, 1962). The introduction of the Pacific Electric Railroad in 1905 activated the village as rail passed through the heart of Garden Grove, supporting the conveyance of agricultural goods, as well as delivering tourists, visitors and additional settlers to the village (Figure 2.19) (City of Garden Grove, n.d.). The farming industry flourished, supplemented with packinghouses, processing plants, and shipping centers. Along with the founding of shopping districts and the increase in residential dwellings, the railroad and ensuing agricultural boom produced a bona fide town (Doig, 1962). Although Garden Grove continued to grow as a farming town, it experienced a couple of significant natural disasters. The first, a 1916 flood (Figure 2.21), caused damage to the town but the second, a 1933 earthquake (Figure 2.23), destroyed most the downtown area (City of Garden Grove, n.d.).

Figure 2.19. Pacific Electric Railway station in Downtown Garden Grove in 1917 (from Images of America: Garden Grove, 2005). 36 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

Figure 2.20. Chili pepper field in Garden Grove c. 1920 (from Images of America: Garden Grove, 2005).

Figure 2.21. 1916 flood in Downtown Garden Grove (from Images of America: Garden Grove, 2005).

Figure 2.22. 1949 map of Garden Grove (from Images of America: Garden Grove, 2005).

Figure 2.23. 1933 earthquake in Downtown Garden Grove (from Images of America: Garden Grove).

Garden Grove: Town to City The abundance of available land and low property prices drew many servicemen back to the area to settle with their families after World War II (Garden Grove Historical Society, 2005). This surge in population growth resulted in a dramatic increase in land subdivisions to accommodate residential development and an increased need for community services, public facilities, and infrastructure (Garden Grove Historical Society, 2005). Although one could make the argument that Garden Grove had transitioned from town to city shortly after World War II (Figure 2.22), it was not ofďŹ cially incorporated until June 18, 1956 (Figure 2.24) (Doig, 1977). The incorporation process started in 1916, lasted forty years, and took six attempts (Doig, 1977). Every previous attempt had been blocked by agricultural land holders who did not want to pay the increased taxes incorporation. This contributed to years of contention over city boundaries (Doig, 1977). Many small farm and orchard owners rejected the incorporation of Garden Grove, arguing that the beneďŹ ts to them were minimal while their taxes would be increased two-fold (Doig, 1977). Some landowners went so far as to

Figure 2.24. Aerial view of Downtown Garden Grove in 1950s (from Images of America: Garden Grove).

request that their farms be excluded from the city boundary (Doig, 1977). In the meantime, Anaheim, Orange, and Santa Ana began to acquire land from the north, east, and southeast, respectively (Doig, 1977), pinching territory as the varied interests in Garden Grove extended the incorporation process over decades. To counter the potential loss of territories from the north, east, and south, Garden Grove began to seek and entice neighboring communities to the west (Doig, 1977). Western villages and residential communities, including Sun Garden Village, Joy Homes, and Blue Bell, petitioned to join the City of Garden Grove (Doig, 1977). By the time 2 - Project Context | 37

Contemporary Garden Grove Today, Garden Grove measures approximately 11,471 acres in size (City of Garden Grove), while extending approximately 10.25 miles from east to west and approximately 5.86 miles from north to south. The City is located between two rivers, the Santa River on the east and San Gabriel River on the west. It is easily accessible by multiple freeways, including the 91, 5, 57, 55, 605, and the 405 Freeways as well as the 22 Freeway running east to west through the City. The former Pacific Electric right-of-way/West Santa Ana Branch corridor (PE ROW/WSAB) is largely vacant and underutilized, running diagonally through the City from the northwestern boundary (bordering Stanton) to southeastern boundary (bordering Santa Ana) (Figure 2.26). (Although the corridor is currently overseen by OCTA and publicly and privately owned, it will continue to be referred to as the PE ROW). In addition, the City is comprised primarily of single-family residential units, several shopping centers, a few light industrial sites, and a small number of parks.

Figure 2.25. Garden Grove area map, 1956 incorporation and 1976 expansion boundaries (from Doig, 1977).

the city was incorporated, Garden Grove had a total area of 11.2 square miles and a population of 41,238 (Doig, 1977). After incorporation, Garden Grove attempted over one hundred annexations in order to continue to expand its boundary (Doig, 1977). Many annexations succeeded, while adjacent cities and protestors blocked others. The result is the irregular, dual area shape of the City boundary observed today (Figures 2.25 & 2.26) (Doig, 1977).

38 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

Figure 2.26. Right. Modern day boundary of Garden Grove and its neighboring cities.

Politically, the City is made up of six council seats divided into areas that serve a relatively equal distribution of people (City of Garden Grove, n.d.). Run by a “council-manager” form of government, there are seven elected councilmembers, including the Mayor (City of Garden Grove, n.d.). The City has one City Manager and eight City departments, including the Community Development, Community Services, Finance, Fire, Human Resources, Information Technology, Police, and Public Works (City of Garden Grove, 2013).

ew

Be

P

ek

Buena Park

Car

Cre bon

ek 57

te

5

yo

Anaheim

Co

Stanton Pa

Cypress

605

Rossmoor

cifi

cE

lec

tri

cR

igh

t-o

f-W

Garden Grove

405 Beach

ay

Civic Center Downtown

er

Los Alamitos

22

Riv

San Gabriel River

Cre

ewood

Cerritos

Sa

nta

An

a

Westminster Seal Beach

Fountain Valley

Huntington Beach

Pacific Ocean

1

0

Santa Ana

2.5

5 Miles

100K

143,050

Legend

33%

Preschool (0-4 Years) 35%

29% 25%

School Age (5-17 Years) College Age (18-24 Years) Young Adults (25-44 Years)

21%

84,238

150K

123,307

121,155

200K

181,771

Garden Grove Age Group Distribution in 1990, 2000 & 2010 179,402

Population Change from 1950 to 2030 170,883

Age Groups

165,196

Population Trend

19%

19% 18%

Middle Age (45-64 Years) Senior Adults (65+ Years)

18% 10% 9% 10%

12%

50K 3,762

9%

9%

8%

10% 7%

0 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030

1990

2000

2010

(Projection)

Figure 2.27. Population change from 1950 to 2030.

Figure 2.28. Garden Grove age group distribution in 1990, 2000 and 2010.

Based on the 2010 Census, Garden Grove has an estimated 170,833 residents (Figure 2.27) (City of Garden Grove, 2013). The City has a very unique and diverse culture with 36 percent of the population identifying themselves as Asian/Pacific Islanders, 38 percent Hispanic, 22 percent Anglo, and 4 percent as either Black or “other” (City of Garden Grove, 2013) (Figure 2.29). With different ethnic backgrounds, 45 percent of the City population currently speaks a language other than English (City of Garden Grove, 2013). The City is largely made up of professionals (54 percent) between the ages of 25 and 64 and families either with children (57 percent) or without children (43 percent) (City of Garden Grove, 2013) (Figure 2.28). Since a large portion of the population (52 percent) makes $50,000 to $100,000 annually (similar to the rest of Orange County) (City of Garden Grove, 2013), the City has a higher number of owner-occupied (57 percent) residential units than renter-occupied units (43 percent) (City of Garden Grove, 2013) (Figure 2.30).

40 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

Ethnicity Garden Grove Ethnicity Distribution in 1990, 2000 & 2010 Hispanic 24%

White 22%

White 33%

Hispanic 33% Other 3%

Black 1%

White 55%

Asian/Pacific Islander 20%

Hispanic 38%

Black 1%

Other 2%

Other <1%

Asian/Pacific Islander 31%

1990

Black 1%

Asian/Pacific Islander 36%

2000

2010

Owner Vs. Renter Owner Vs. Renter-Occupied Residences in 1990, 2000 & 2010

Renter 40.4%

Owner 59.6%

Owner 57.0%

Owner 59.6%

1990

Renter 43.0%

Renter 40.4%

2000

2010

Figure 2.29 Top. Garden Grove ethnicity distribution in 1990, 2000 and 2010. Figure 2.30. Bottom. Owner vs. renter-occupied residences in 1990, 2000 and 2010.

2 - Project Context | 41

3 - Inventory + Evaluation 3.1 Biophysical Inventory Topography and Soils The topographic features of the region include the Coyote, Puente, and Chino Hills, as well as the coastal plain. The uplift expanses of hills in the north and east gently slope from their base toward the low-lying, relatively flat coastal plain, eventually flattening to sea level toward the south and west (Orange County Watersheds, 2011). Regional topography ranges from approximately 1,700 feet above mean sea level to sea level. The City of Garden Grove is relatively flat and slopes gently toward the southwest (Orange County Watersheds, 2011). The City’s elevation ranges from between 130 feet above sea level in the northeast to its lowest point in the southwest of 25 feet (Malcolm Pirnie Incorporated, 2011). The City sits in what was historically the Santa Ana River floodplain. Prior to the channelization of creeks and streams, the area would experience infrequent but substantial flooding that would cause the waters of the Santa Ana and San Gabriel Rivers to merge on the alluvial plain (Masters, 2012). Historically, soils in Garden Grove were predominately sandy loam, but there is also loamy sand and loam (Natural Resources Conservation Services, n.d.). Due to the degree of development in the area, the City is currently comprised of primarily urban soils.

Figure 3.1. Santa Ana River.

43

Figure 3.2. Top Left. Damage from the 1933 Long Beach Earthquake at the corner of Rose and Anaheim Avenues in Long Beach (from farm7.staticickr.com). Figure 3.3. Bottom Left. Damage from the 1933 Long Beach Earthquake to the Rossmore Hotel in Santa Ana (from www.orangecountyhistory.org). Figure 3.4. Right. Regional fault lines.

LegendLegend Civic Center-Downtown District City of Garden Grove Adjacent Cities Freeways Major Streets Waterbodies Rivers Creeks Orange County Coastal Plain and Basin Elsinore Fault Peralta Hills Fault El Modeno Fault Newport-Inglewood Fault

Figure #.#. Regional fault lines. 44 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

Regional Fault Lines

105

57

Anaheim 5

Los Alamitos Stanton Army Airfield Los Alamitos Lampson Ave

Garden Grove

Garden Grove Blvd

k Cree

State College Blvd Ball Rd

241

Santiago Peak

Chapman Ave

17th St

Westminster

Beach Blvd

261 Warner Ave

k

Fountain Valley

Santa Ana

Cree

405

go

Huntington Beach

iv er

1st St

ia

Bolsa Chica St

Villa Park

Katella Ave

nt

1

Pacific Ocean

Anaheim Hills

Sa

Bolsa Ave

n

22

Westminster Ave

Seal Beach

Prado Dam

rbo

Ca

Orange

Sa nta An aR

Gabriel

San

Cypress

Chino Hills State Park

91

Valley View St

River

Long Beach

Harbor Blvd

yo

Co

Euclid St

te

Cr

Brookhurst St

k

ee

Buena Park

Magnolia St

605

Fullerton

55

Irvine

133

John Wayne Airport 0

2.5

5

Miles

73 3 - Inventory + Evaluation | 45

The Orange County area is susceptible to liquefaction (Figure 3.6). Liquefaction potentially occurs in soils that are water-saturated. The sediments lose strength and begin to compact or shift from seismic activity, which may cause damage to buildings, bridges, and other infrastructure (Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology [DCDMG], 1997). Garden Grove and many of the surrounding cities are situated on coastal plain soils, which often have liquefaction sediment (DCDMG, 1997). Garden Grove has high potential for seismic-induced liquefaction, which is a concern for structural development.

LegendLegend

Fault Lines and Liquefaction There are no active fault lines within the City of Garden Grove. Regionally, the nearest active fault lines are located in the Seal Beach, Long Beach, and Newport Beach areas. This area, referred to as the ‘Quadrangle’, contains a portion of the larger Newport-Inglewood Fault line that stretches as far north as Culver City and ends in Newport Beach (Figure 3.4) (US Department of Conservation, 2014). The last major incident on record that involved the Newport-Inglewood Fault occurred in 1933 (Fatemi & James, 1997). Known as the Long Beach earthquake, the event registered a magnitude of 6.4 and devastated many properties in and around Long Beach (Figure 3.2). Damage was extensive due to water-saturated soils, in-filled foundations, and poorly designed buildings (United States Geological Survey, 2012).

“...Downtown, along Garden Grove Boulevard, shows more earthquake damage. The initial estimated damage in 1933 was over $100,000. Cleanup started immediately, and repairs to the less-damaged buildings were well along within a week. The quake caused considerable damage to many other towns and cities in Orange and Los Angeles Counties.” (Images of America: Garden Grove, Garden Grove Historical Society, p. 76 ).

Civic Center-Downtown District City of Garden Grove Adjacent Cities Freeways Major Streets Waterbodies Rivers Creeks Orange County Coastal Plain and Basin Very High Liquefaction Threat High Liquefaction Threat Moderate Liquefaction Threat

Figure #.#. Regional liquefaction. 46 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

Figure 3.5. Top. Damage from the 1933 Long Beach Earthquake to Main Street in Compton (from i26.photobucket.com). Figure 3.6. Right. Regional liquefaction.

Regional Liquefaction

105

57

Long Beach

Westminster Ave

Los Alamitos

Cree

k

State College Blvd

Harbor Blvd

Santi

22 17th St

Westminster iv er 1

Costa Mesa

261 Warner Ave

Santa Ana

ek

Huntington Beach

405

Cre

Bolsa Chica St

1st St

Fountain Valley

Miles

Santiago Peak ago

Seal Beach

5

241

Chapman Ave

Garden Grove

Pacific Ocean

2.5

Villa Park

Katella Ave

Orange

Bolsa Ave

0

Euclid St

Ball Rd

Stanton

Prado Dam

Anaheim Hills

Anaheim

Sa nta An aR

Garden Grove Blvd

Los Alamitos Army Airfield

91

on

Carb

Beach Blvd

San

Gabriel

Cypress

Valley View St

River

y Co

Brookhurst St

Cr

ote

Lampson Ave

k

ee

Buena Park

Magnolia St

605

Fullerton

Chino Hills State Park

55

Irvine

133

John Wayne Airport

Newport Beach 73 3 - Inventory + Evaluation | 47

Regional NOC WMA River

Creek

Chino Hills State Park

n

rbo

Ca 91

Gabriel

605

5

San

241

Santiago Peak

Garden Grove 22

go

ia

nt

261

405

55

er

133

0

2.5

5

Legend Legend

Ana R iv

1

Civic Center-Downtown District

Miles

73

City of Garden Grove

Pacific Ocean

Adjacent Cities

Regional OC Coastal Plain and Basin k 57

y

River

Co

Orange County Coastal Plain and Basin

Chino Hills State Park

Creek

ee

Cr ote

Freeways

n

rbo

Ca 91

605

Gabriel

Major Streets 5

San

241

Waterbodies

Santiago Peak

Garden Grove

Rivers

22

go

ia

nt

Sa

55

1

Ana R iver 2.5

5

Stormwater Channels

133

North Orange County Watershed Management Area (NOCWMA)

Sant a

0

Creeks

Creek

261

405

Miles

73

Pacific Ocean

Anaheim Bay-Huntington Harbour Watershed

Regional Watersheds

The NOC WMA addresses three watersheds, including the Lower San Gabriel/Coyote Creek, Anaheim Bay-Huntington Harbour and the Santa Ana River watersheds (OCPW, 2011) (Figures 3.9 & 3.10). These three watersheds supply water to 1.5 million residents (OCPW, 2011). They also carry approximately one-third of Orange County’s stormwater runoff (OCPW, 2011).

57

te

yo

River

Co

Newport Bay Watershed

n Creek

k

ee

Cr

Chino Hills State Park

San Gabriel River/Coyote Creek Watershed

Carbo

The San Gabriel River Hydrologic Unit consists of 45,395 acres of land and 828 miles of waterways. Approximately 106,138 acres of land in the North Orange County region drains into the Coyote Creek watershed, which then drains into the San Gabriel River (OCPW, 2011).

Creek

The Santa Ana River Hydrologic Unit encompasses various portions of Orange, Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties, which measure a total of approximately 1,728,00 acres. It covers the entire Santa Ana River watershed as well as the sub watersheds such as the Anaheim Bay-Huntington Harbour watershed. Within the North Orange County Region alone, the hydrologic unit spreads over approximately 134,701 acres (OCPW, 2011).

57

te

yo

Co

Sa

The NOC WMA is situated between Los Angeles County and San Bernardino County (Orange County Public Works [OCPW], 2011) (Figure 3.7). The area covers a total of 241,000 acres in the northern Orange County region (OCPW, 2011). The NOC WMA falls within two hydrologic units, the Santa Ana River Hydrologic Unit and the San Gabriel River Hydrologic Unit (OCPW, 2011).

k

ee

Cr

North Orange County Watershed Management Area (NOC WMA)

Sant a

Hydrology

91

605

Gabriel

Santa Ana River Watershed 5

San

241

Santiago Peak

Garden Grove 22

Anaheim-Barber City Channel

2

Bolsa Chica Channel

3

East Garden Grove Wintersburg Channel

4

Ocean View Channel

5

Westminster Channel

go

ia

nt

Sa

1

0

2.5

5

55

Ana R iver

133

Sant a

1

Miles

Creek

261 405

73

Pacific Ocean

Figure #.#. Regional hydrology. 48 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

Figure 3.7. Top Left. Regional North Orange County Watershed Management Area (NOC WMA). Figure 3.8. Middle Left. Regional Orange County (OC) coastal plain and basin. Figure 3.9. Bottom Left. Regional watersheds. Figure 3.10. Right. Regional hydrology.

Regional Hydrology

105

57

Gabriel

Cypress

Stanton

San

Los Alamitos

Garden Grove Blvd

on Creek

Harbor Blvd

Euclid St

Carb

241

Santiago Peak

Irvine Lake

22 17th St

5

1st St

Westminster 3

Ana R iver

55 405

Irvine

133

Costa Mesa

Sant a

Beach Blvd

Warner Ave

k

Fountain Valley

261

Cree

1

Tustin

Santa Ana 4

go

Bolsa Chica St

Villa Park

ia

5

Orange Katella Ave

Chapman Ave

Garden Grove

Huntington Beach

Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve

Ball Rd

nt

Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge

Anaheim Hills

Sa

Bolsa Ave

2.5

Anaheim

Seal 2 Beach 1

Westminster Ave

5

Prado Dam

Chino Hills State Park

91

Valley View St

River

y Co

Long Beach

0

ote

Magnolia St

Buena Park

Lampson Ave

k

ee

Cr

Brookhurst St

605

State College Blvd

Fullerton

Miles

PaciďŹ c Ocean

Newport Beach

73 3 - Inventory + Evaluation | 49

Anaheim Bay-Huntington Harbour Watershed Garden Grove is located within the Anaheim BayHuntington Harbour watershed (Figure 3.10). The watershed covers a total of 80.35 square miles between the San Gabriel watershed in the northwest and the Santa River watershed in the southwest (OCPW, 2011). Located in the northwest of Orange County, the watershed encompasses all of Garden Grove as well as Westminster and parts of Anaheim, Orange, Santa Ana, Fountain Valley, Huntington Beach, Seal Beach, Los Alamitos, Cypress, and Stanton (OCPW, 2011). In the watershed, three main channels, including the Bolsa Chica, Anaheim-Barber City, and Westminster channels, drain into Anaheim Bay-Huntington Harbour near the Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge. The fourth channel, the East-Garden Grove Wintersburg Channel, drains into the Bolsa Chica Channel near the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve, which ultimately drains into Huntington Harbour (OCPW, 2011). The watershed also contains a number of percolation basins and two lakes, Lake Huntington and Talbert Lake in Huntington Beach, which allow stormwater to percolate into the ground and recharge the Orange County Groundwater Basin (OCPW, 2011). Lake Huntington is a 12-acre man-made lake that maintains a constant water level all year round while the 16-acre Talbert Lake water level fluctuates throughout the year based on the groundwater level, which is often low to completely dry during the summer months due to drought (OCPW, 2011).

Orange County Groundwater Basin As the sediments erode from the surrounding mountains and collect in the NOC WMA region, they mix with the existing layers of marine sediments to create groundwater basin storage for percolated surface water (Orange County Public Works [OCPW], 2011). Naturally, stormwater percolates through the rivers’ substrates (OCPW, 2011) and available pervious surfaces within the watersheds. However, as population growth and urban development continued throughout the region, stormwater increasingly became retained and directed

50 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

via channels to water collection basins and reservoirs to allow controlled water storage and percolation (OCPW, 2011). The Orange County Groundwater Basin (OCGB) covers approximately 224,000 acres (OCPW, 2011) within the lower Santa Ana River watershed, located in north and central Orange County (Woodside & Westropp, 2004). OCGB is defined by the Coyote, Puente and Chino Hills in the north, the Santa Ana Mountains in the east, the San Joaquin Hills in the south, and the Pacific Ocean and Newport-Inglewood fault zone in the southwest (Woodside & Westropp, 2004) (Fig. 3.11). The Los Angeles Central Basin and OCGB are separated along the county border and Coyote Creek, with the Newport–Inglewood fault zone acting as a physical barrier that prevents ocean water intrusion into the OCGB, except at ancient river-crossing gaps (the Alamitos Gap at the mouth of the San Gabriel River, along the Los Angeles County boundary and the Talbert Gap at the mouth of the Santa Ana River, between the Huntington Beach and Newport Beach City boundaries) (Woodside & Westropp, 2004). The OCGB is subdivided into three smaller basins, including Yorba Linda, Main (which covers the City of Garden Grove), and Irvine (OCPW, 2011). The NOC WMA falls on top of the Yorba Linda and Main subbasins (OCPW, 2011). With the stormwater recharge coming from the Chino Hills from the north, the Main subbasin produces the majority of the groundwater for the northern Orange County region (OCPW, 2011). The OCGB is approximately 2,000 feet deep (OCPW, 2011). The estimated fresh groundwater capacity of the Orange County Groundwater Basin is approximately 66 million acre feet (AF), though only between 400,000 and 500,000 AF is useable before increased potential of seawater intrusion, colored water upwelling, and subsidence (Woodside & Westropp, 2004). Orange County

Figure 3.11. Right. Regional groundwater wells.

Water District (OCWD) has been managing the groundwater basin beneath northern and central Orange County since 1933 (OCWD, 2013). Currently, it is limiting the region to a maximum overdraft volume of 500,000 AF through approximately 450 production wells within the basin (OCPW, 2011). However, only 200 of the OCGB wells are operating at full capacity, pumping 97 percent of the regional municipal water supply (OCPW, 2011) (Figure 3.11). Basin managed by the Orange water supplies is projected to stay the same until 2035 (Malcolm Pirnie Incorporated, 2011).

Legend Legend Civic Center-Downtown District City of Garden Grove Adjacent Cities Orange County Coastal Plain and Basin Freeways Major Streets Waterbodies Rivers Creeks Groundwater Wells

Figure 4.#. Regional groundwater wells.

Regional Groundwater Wells

105

57

Creek

Cypress

Anaheim Hills

91

Valley View St

Gabriel

Long Beach

Anaheim Ball Rd

5

Orange Katella Ave

Villa Park

241

Stanton Los Alamitos

San

Prado Dam

Chino Hills State Park

Carbon

Harbor Blvd

River

y Co

Euclid St

Magnolia St

ote

Lampson Ave

k

ee

Cr

Buena Park

Brookhurst St

605

State College Blvd

Fullerton

Garden Grove

Santiago Peak

Irvine Lake

Chapman Ave

Garden Grove Blvd

22

Westminster Ave Bolsa Chica St

261

Cree

Sant a

1

Fountain Valley

Miles

55

Ana R iver

Beach Blvd

Warner Ave

k

5

go

2.5

Tustin

Santa Ana Huntington Beach

Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve

0

405

ia

Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge

1st St

nt

Bolsa Ave

17th St

Westminster

Sa

Seal Beach

Irvine

Costa Mesa

133

Newport Beach 73

PaciďŹ c Ocean

3 - Inventory + Evaluation | 51

Garden Grove Water Resources Annually, the City provides a total of 27,500 acre-feet of potable water to its retail customers (Malcolm Pirnie Incorporated, 2011). Based on the estimated ten percent population growth within the next 25 years, the City is projected to increase its water demand by approximately seven percent (Malcolm Pirnie Incorporated, 2011). The City of Garden Grove currently obtains its treated water from two major sources, the Orange County Groundwater Basin managed by the Orange County Water District (OCWD) and imported water managed by the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) (Malcolm Pirnie Incorporated, 2011). While 38 percent of the water is imported and treated at the Diemer Filtration Plant in Yorba Linda before being delivered to the City, Garden Grove draws 62 percent of its water supply from 11 active wells located within the City (Malcolm Pirnie Incorporated, 2011). This mix of groundwater and imported water supplies is projected to stay the same until 2035 (Malcolm Pirnie Incorporated, 2011).

Water Resources Management Challenges Orange County’s regional water use needs have changed dramatically over time. Some 86 percent of groundwater was used for agricultural irrigation in 1933, whereas today agriculture consumes less than four percent (OCWD, 2013). In the 1930s, the main water quality challenge was ocean water intrusion, which occurs when the basin’s water level falls below sea level (OCWD, 2013). Another challenge was addressing nitrate contamination from the legacy of agriculture (OCWD, 2013). As the region industrialized, new issues arose when cleaning compounds, insecticides, and discarded hydrocarbons began contaminating the groundwater basin (OCWD, 2013). A comprehensive Groundwater Management Plan (1989) established OCWD programs to increase water supply, clean up contamination, and improve the basin’s management (OCWD, 2013). 52 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

Similar to the rest of Southern California, the NOC WMA faces many challenges in water sources management, including: Water Supply: Currently, the northern Orange County region is receiving most of its water from groundwater resources, but continues to import one-third of its water supply from outside sources, which also have their own water deficiency challenges. Droughts and the costs associated with water extraction and delivery pose threats to the region’s imported water resources and force agencies to develop better water conservation strategies (OC Public Works, 2011).

Aging Infrastructure: Old and degrading sewer systems can affect surface water runoff, groundwater, and ocean water quality due to leaks and spills (OC Public Works, 2011). The OCWD has developed three strategies and projects that will ease Orange County’s reliance on imported water. •

• Population Growth: Because the region is constantly growing, potable water demand and wastewater generation also increase. As a result, land-use planning and site design must address conservation of the region’s water supply as well as developing more sustainable cities in the area (OC Public Works, 2011). Water Quality: The Clean Water Act challenges local agencies in the region to manage and regulate urban water runoff to high standards (OC Public Works, 2011). Loss of Natural Ecosystems: Urbanization has caused destruction of natural ecosystems due to polluted stormwater runoff, wastewater spills, invasive species and erosion throughout the region. Ecosystems can be rehabilitated and preserved to support water resources and wildlife habitat (OC Public Works, 2011) (Figure 3.12).

•

One thousand six hundred acres in and around the Santa Ana River are used for water conservation, water storage and water quality improvements. The Green Acres project, developed in 1991, is aimed at recycling water for the irrigation of parks, golf courses, and schoolyards. The Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) facility in Fountain Valley has been treating wastewater and producing high quality drinking water since 2008 (GWRS, 2014). As the world’s largest water purification plant for groundwater recharge, the OCWD is now permitted to inject 100 percent recycled wastewater directly into the groundwater basin since it is able to meet all drinking water standards. This was the first permit of its kind issued by the California Department of Health Services (OCWD, 2013).

Loss of Habitat: Remaining regional habitat needs to be protected and preserved, not only to provide refuge for wildlife species but also as natural open spaces and recreational areas for residents. These habitats include: Bolsa Chica wetlands, Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge, Coyote Creek, Carbon Creek, Brea Creek, Fullerton Creek, Huntington Beach State Park and wetlands, coastal shoreline habitat, Orange Coast River Park, the Santa Ana River’s 1,000-acre preserve, Santiago Creek parks, and the Santa Ana River mainstem (OC Public Works, 2011). Figure 3.12. West Street Basin.

3 - Inventory + Evaluation | 53

Climate Regional Southern California typifies a temperate climate. In the west, transported from Alaska via the California current, the cool ocean waters of the Pacific provide a dependable source of moisture that stabilizes air temperatures (Masters, 2012), while the eastern mountain ranges block severe temperatures from the Mojave Desert from reaching coastal communities (Masters, 2012). Santa Ana winds are the result of a cool, dry mass of air that lingers within the continental interior of the American West (Masters, 2012). Once that air flows downhill from higher-elevation basins to sea level, it warms and becomes even drier (Masters, 2012). The Santa Ana winds are seasonal but may occur at any point when the Great Basin is cooler than regional Southern California, typically manifesting between September and March (Fovell, n.d.). Santa Ana wind conditions may be prolonged or abbreviated depending on climate conditions. The winds receive greater attention in the autumn season because they enhance the fire danger that results from the distinctive characteristics of Southern California’s climate (Fovell, n.d.) and vegetation types. Santa Ana winds access Orange County through the Santa Ana Canyon. El Niño and La Niña events are another weather occurrence significant to the region. Both events result in increased precipitation throughout the Southwestern United States from atypical climate conditions in the equatorial Pacific (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2013). However, the two events differ in the following ways: El Niño events are caused by atypically warm temperatures and La Niña events result from atypically cool temperatures. La Niña is characterized by a negligible decrease in precipitation when compared with the El Niño events (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2013). An El Niño event may last six months to two years and

54 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

occurs every two to seven years (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2013). California Assembly Bill 1881, the Water Conservation in Landscaping Act (2006) begat the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, used in cities across the State to conserve water by limiting the propagation of water thirsty landscapes and by extension, reducing water applied for landscape needs (State of California, 2010). Evapotranspiration (ETo) rates help planners and landscape professionals determine the type of landscape to install and the amount of irrigation that should be applied to landscape plantings. Annual ETo rates in the Orange County region include: Irvine (49.6), Laguna Beach (43.2), and Santa Ana (48.2) (Goldhamer & Snyder, 1989; The City of Garden Grove, n.d.).

Local Within the western United States, Garden Grove is in climate zone 23, which is characterized by inland thermal belts mixing with Southern California’s coastal

climate (Sunset Western Garden Book, 1995). Average daytime temperatures range from 69 to 85 degrees Fahrenheit; August is typically the warmest month (Western Regional Climate Center, 2008). Average nighttime temperatures range from 46 to 64 degrees Fahrenheit; December tends to be the coolest month (Western Regional Climate Center, 2008). Average annual precipitation is 14.35 inches, with February often being the wettest month (Orange County Government, n.d.). Compiled precipitation data (Figure 3.14) shows that annual rainfall varies greatly from year-to-year between drought and deluge years. Annual rainfall ranges from as low as four inches to as high as nearly 29 inches (Orange County Government, n.d.). While Garden Grove experiences regular breezes from the influence of the coast and occasional gusts from the inland Santa Ana winds, the annual average wind speed is 11.5 miles per hour (National Weather Service, 2010; data calculated from weather stations from 1980 to 2010). In 2010, wind speed ranged from just over 7 miles per hour to gusts that resulted in speeds of almost 18 miles per hour.

Relevance of Hydrology and Climate As watersheds are urbanized, much of the natural vegetation is replaced by impervious surfaces, reducing the area where infiltration can occur (Perlman, 2014). Consequently, more stormwater runoff occurs—runoff that must be collected by extensive drainage systems that combine curbs, storm drain outlets, storm sewers, and channels to carry it to channelized streams, rivers, bays, constructed wetlands and ultimately, the Pacific Ocean. In a developed watershed more water arrives at a stream more quickly, resulting in an increased likelihood of flooding (Perlman, 2014). The Center for Watershed Protection attributes as much as 65 percent of total impervious cover to streets, parking lots, and driveways or “habitat for cars” (Frazer, 2005), the remainder consists of rooftops, sidewalks, other imperviously designed landscape spaces such as patios and plazas, and compacted soils, among others (Arnold & Gibbons, 1996). Under natural groundcover conditions, 50 percent of stormwater is infiltrated (25 percent shallow; 25 percent deep), with only 10 percent ending up as runoff and the remainder returning to the

atmospheric cycle in the form of evapotranspiration (Arnold & Gibbons, 1996). Compare this with the water cycle changes associated with urbanization: under 75 to 100 percent impervious surface conditions, stormwater achieves only 10 percent shallow infiltration and a mere 5 percent reaches deep infiltration with a majority (55 percent) running off impervious surfaces and into the storm drain system at an accelerated rate (Arnold & Gibbons, 1996 and Frazer, 2005). Other issues associated with the urban water cycle include surface temperature issues and pollutants collected upon impervious surfaces. Atmospheric particulate matter, nitrogen oxides from car exhaust, rubber particles from tires, debris from brake systems, oil and coolant leaks from cars and machinery, nitrates and phosphates from residential and agricultural fertilizers, and dozens of other pollutants and surface litter are typically washed off surfaces in the first flush (first downpour). “On a road of opengraded aggregate… much of that material would seep down into the pavement and soil, and the community of microorganisms living there would begin a rapid breakdown process” (Frazer, 2005, p. A456). Pollutants

Annual Precipitation Trend Precipitation Change from 2000 to 2013 23.9

25 21.6 20 14.9

15

12.1

11.5 10

11.1

8.5

8.2

7.2

5.1

4.1

5

8.7

8.0

3.3

cannot penetrate an impervious surface and collect in runoff that ends up in water bodies damaging the health and integrity of the resource, making water unfit for consumption, recreation, and the natural systems (flora and fauna) dependent upon it (Frazer, 2005). Typical impervious surfaces found in a city, particularly roads and parking lots, are made of asphalt or concrete. Dark and heat absorbent, the microclimate asphalt creates heats rainwater and can easily yield a 10°F increase in rainfall temperature (Frazer, 2005). This condition is intensified by the entirety of the “habitat for cars” infrastructure (multiplied by the numerous urbanized areas of the region). Stormwater runoff does not cool in the pipes or concrete channels that convey it to its ultimate destination: wetlands, bays, and ultimately, the ocean. Heated runoff results in an overall increase in water temperatures, decreasing the water’s ability to hold oxygen (Frazer, 2005). This results in algae blooms, which further decrease oxygen and cause a variety of problems for the endemic species living in and those species reliant upon the fresh-, brackish-, and oceanwater habitat. The availability and supply of freshwater is one of the most pressing issues in the State, affecting the Southern California region more severely than the rest of the State. As the OCWD is managing and balancing the ground water supply, imported water resources, and regional water demands, local agencies have the responsibility to implement local and site design strategies to ensure the long-term health and quality of the regional water supply. Often facing multiple years of drought, it is incumbent upon the cities of Orange County, including the City of Garden Grove, to implement low impact development (LID) strategies and green infrastructure. Directing, slowing, cooling, cleansing, and infiltrating as much stormwater into the groundwater basin as possible increases stores and prevents pollutants from entering the surface water system—thereby protecting ecological resources downstream.

0 2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

Figure 3.13. Left. Santa Ana River in dry seasons. Figure 3.14. Top. Annual precipitation trend from 2000 to 2013.

3 - Inventory + Evaluation | 55

Regional Open Space, Ecological, and Biological Resources The northern Orange County region is heavily developed with residential, commercial and industrial land uses (OCPW, 2011). Many of the rivers, streams, and creeks throughout the region are channelized, characterized by long, uninterrupted, concrete-lined, hard-bottom beds with intermittent, soft-bottom section breaks for water filtration opportunities (OCPW, 2011). This condition limits the survival of healthy riparian habitat (OCPW, 2011). Many of the remaining habitat areas are concentrated in small patches within urbanized city centers, including city parks, golf courses, residential gardens, transportation right-of-ways and easements, and waterways (OCPW, 2011). Some protected wildlife habitat and natural open spaces still remain within the watershed today (OCPW, 2011), especially near the remote hillsides, Santa Ana and San Gabriel riverbeds and the Pacific Ocean coastline. These areas provide diverse habitat for a wide range of wildlife species, such as native birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and fish (OCPW, 2011). These open spaces also provide natural habitat for the remaining native plant communities, such as the coast live oak woodlands, California walnut woodlands, native grasslands, riparian woodlands, wetlands, coastal sage scrub, coastal dunes, and salt marsh (OCPW, 2011) (Figure 3.15). Regional open spaces and ecological resources present opportunities for residents of Garden Grove to spend time in Orange County’s native, natural places. There are opportunities to make regional connections from the proposed Garden Grove NMM network to existing and planned regional trails that can deliver residents to some of these areas and their biological resources.

Regional Parks & Open Spaces 1

Chino Hills State Park

2

Crystal Cove State Park

3

El Dorado East Regional Park

4

Fairview Park

5

Huntington Beach Central Park

6

Huntington Beach State Park

7

Irvine Regional Park

8

Laguna Coast Wilderness Park

9

Limestone Canyon Regional Park

10

Mile Square Regional Park

11

Peters Canyon Regional Park

12

Prado Regional Park

13

Santiago Oaks Regional Park

14

Talbert Marsh

15

Talbert Nature Preserve

16

Whiting Ranch Wilderness Park

17

William R. Mansion Regional Park

Legend

Regional Trails

Civic Center-Downtown District

18

Bolsa Chica–Huntington Beach Trail (BCHBT)

City of Garden Grove

19

Coyote Creek Trail

Adjacent Cities

Lower San Gabriel River Parkway, Nature and Bicycle Trail

Freeways

20 21

Santa Ana River Trail

Waterbodies

Major Streets

Rivers Creeks Orange County Coastal Plain and Basin Class I Trails Open Spaces

56 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

Figure 3.15. Right. Regional open spaces.

Regional Open Spaces

Lampson Ave

Cypress

Garden Grove Blvd

Westminster Ave

20

n

rbo

Anaheim 5

Stanton

Anaheim Hills

Ball Rd

Garden Grove

Seal Beach

7

Chapman Ave

22

Westminster

241

Santiago Peak

Irvine Lake

11 17th St

261

Santa Ana Warner Ave

Ana R iver

Sant a

6

14

9

55

Fountain Valley

1

Irvine

k

Beach Blvd

Tustin

Cree

Bolsa Chica St

go

Miles

10

ia

5

5

405

nt

18

Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve (Bolsa Bay)

1st St

21

Huntington Beach

Sa

2.5

13

Orange

Los Alamitos

Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge

0

Villa Park

Katella Ave

Bolsa Ave

PaciďŹ c Ocean

1

91

3

San

Gabriel

Long Beach

Prado Dam

Chino Hills State Park

Ca

Valley View St

River

19

Euclid St

y

Co

Brookhurst St

ote

Cr

Harbor Blvd

k

ee

Buena Park

Magnolia St

605

57

k

Fullerton

Cree

105

State College Blvd

12

133

Costa Mesa

16

4 17

15

Newport Beach

73 3 - Inventory + Evaluation | 57 2

8

Regional Open Space and Ecological Resources Nearshore Waters and Open Ocean Orange County’s nearshore waters provide a rich and diverse habitat for marine life; kelp forests, many types of algae, invertebrates, fish, seabirds, and mammals inhabit the gently sloping, relatively shallow waters of the continental shelf (California Coastal Commission [CCC], 1987). Where the shelf drops off to the deep sea floor, the open ocean begins. Gradually becoming deeper, sunlight is unable to penetrate to the ocean floor. Further from the shore, species diversity becomes much more limited. The fertility of nearshore waters depends on the patterns of currents and tides and the ability of these waters to retain their natural functions and their protection from non-point source pollutants entering the hydrological delivery stream. Beaches and Coastal Bluffs Regional beaches are located along the County’s southwestern coast. Coastal communities include Seal Beach, Huntington Beach, Newport Beach, Laguna Beach (Figure 3.16), Dana Point, and San Clemente. In each of these communities, there are between six and ten distinct beaches, bays, wetlands or brackish marshlands. All coastal development permit decisions and local coastal programming is overseen by the California Coastal Commission and these natural areas may be overseen by distinct or even multiple agencies, including the State or a State agency (such as the California Department of Fish and Wildlife), a County or a County department (such as OC Parks), a municipality, or even a federal agency (such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), in conjunction with a State, County, or municipal entity.

Figure 3.16. Laguna Beach, CA.

species (OC Public Works, 2011) (Figure 3.17). Composed of the Bolsa Chica Lowlands and Ecological Reserve, Bolsa Bay houses a large number of marine species and waterfowl in residency and migration as well as more than 30 sensitive species designated on federal and state lists (OC Public Works, 2011). Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge The Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge consists of more than 950 acres of protected coastal wetlands in the Anaheim Bay-Huntington Harbour (OC Public Works, 2011) (Figure 3.18). The wetlands are home to a variety of fish and wildlife species as well as other endangered species and over 200 birds in migration and winter residency along the Pacific Flyway (OC Public Works, 2011).

Bolsa Bay Talbert Marsh Founded in the Anaheim Bay-Huntington Harbour Watershed, Bolsa Bay is one of the most important ecological resources in Southern California and is considered a nationally significant area for wildlife 58 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

The Talbert Marsh is owned by the Huntington Beach Wetlands Conservancy (OC Public Works, 2011). The 25acre marsh is located on the northern side of the Pacific Coast Highway between Brookhurst Street and the Santa Ana River (OC Public Works, 2011) (Figure 3.19). The marsh water level fluctuates as high as 8 feet throughout

Figure 3.17. Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve (from latrailhikers.com).

Figure 3.18. Left. Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge (from friendsofsealbeachnwr.org). Figure 3.19 Bottom Right. Talbert Marsh (from bp1.blogger.com).

3 - Inventory + Evaluation | 59

the year as salt water flows from the ocean and fresh water drains from the stormwater channels during rainy seasons, creating a rich ecosystem for many wildlife species (OC Public Works, 2011). Along with other Huntington Beach wetlands, the marsh supports over 75 species of birds in the region (OC Public Works, 2011).

in the park include wrens, loons, tanagers, flycatchers, pelicans, egrets, ducks, coots, falcons, owls, kingfishers, woodpeckers, larks, vireos, sparrows, finches and so on (OC Public Works, 2011).

Talbert Nature Preserve

The Fairview Park is located in the City of Costa Mesa (Figure 3.23). It has ten protected vernal pools and one vernal marsh, which were once common along the Southern California coastline but have become rare ecological resources (OC Public Works, 2011). Efforts to combine and restore the pools and marsh to pristine condition began in October 1996 (OC Public Works, 2011).

Owned by OC Parks, the Talbert Nature Preserve is separated into two sections: the northern section covers approximately 91.5 acres and the southern section has approximately 88.5 acres of land (OC Public Works, 2011). The preserve is a unique ecological resource that provides a number of habitat types, including wetlands, dunes, native grasslands, and alluvial woodlands (OC Public Works, 2011) (Figure 3.19). The Talbert Nature Preserve also features a botanical preserve and a small area for recreational activities (OC Public Works, 2011).

Fairview Park

Santa Ana River The Santa Ana River runs between the San Bernardino and San Gabriel Mountains and the Orange County Coastal Plain and ends at the Pacific Ocean between the Cities of Newport Beach and Huntington Beach (OC Public Works, 2011) (Figure 3.24). Although huge sections of the river are channelized for flood management, the river provides habitat for many wildlife species as well as a green corridor between various habitats along the river (OC Public Works, 2011). A trail is provided along the river for active and passive recreational activities, including bicycling, jogging, walking, and bird watching (OC Public Works, 2011).

Huntington State Beach The Huntington State Beach runs for two miles between Beach Boulevard and the Santa Ana River (OC Public Works, 2011) (Figure 3.20). The beach not only provides recreational activities, such as surfing, skating, surf fishing, and bicycling for regional and local residents, but also serves as a natural habitat for the threatened snowy plover and endangered California least tern (OC Public Works, 2011). Huntington Beach Central Park The Huntington Beach Central Park, located in the City of Huntington Beach, is one of the biggest passive parks in west Orange County, covering approximately 190 acres of land (OC Public Works, 2011) (Figure 3.22). The park includes multiple public amenities and lakes, including Talbert Lake, Huntington Lake, Shipley Nature Center, an equestrian center, and more than four miles of trails (OC Public Works, 2011). It is a home for over 12,000 trees, 300 bird species as well as monarch butterflies, creating a natural open space for wildlife and bird watchers (OC Public Works, 2011). Birds found 60 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

Figure 3.20. Huntington Beach State Park (from 1.bp.blogspot.com).

Figure 3.21. Left. Talbert Nature Preserve (from www.panoramio.com). Figure 3.22. Right. Huntington Beach Central Park (from static.panoramio.com).

Figure 3.23. Left. Fairview Park (from ocbirderca.blogspot. com). Figure 3.24. Right. Santa Ana River (from upload. wikimedia.org).

Irvine Lake The Irvine Company and the Serrano Water District began construction of a dam in 1929 (Irvine Lake, 2014). After the dam was complete, the Irvine Lake was ďŹ lled and became a 750 acre recreational ďŹ shing and family park space (Irvine Lake, 2014) (Figure 3.25). It is nestled at the foot of the Cleveland National Forest. Annual runoff comes from the Santiago Creek. This lake also provides potable water for Villa Park and parts of the City of Orange (Irvine Lake, 2014). Chino Hills State Park The Chino Hills State Park is a large natural open-space that sits in the foothills between Corona, Chino Hills, Yorba Linda, and Brea (State of California, 2013) (Figure 3.26). The Chino Hills State Park is a large, natural open space and wildlife refuge almost completely surrounded by urbanized areas. With over 90 miles of trails, the state park provides multiple recreational options such as scenic vistas, hiking, bicycling, and horseback riding (State of California, 2013). In addition, visitors can camp, picnic, and view historic structures within the 14,102 acres (State of California, 2013).

Figure 3.25. Top. Irvine Lake. Figure 3.26. Bottom. Chino Hills State Park (from www.chinohillsstatepark.org).

Southern California Plant Communities Two dominant plant communities that best describe the natural, native characteristic of the region are coastal sage scrub and chaparral. Other plant communities that once thrived under their ideal conditions include: riparian woodland, freshwater marsh, brackish marsh, coastal salt marsh, and coastal strand. Of these four less dominant communities, only the riparian woodland will be discussed, given Garden Grove’s proximity to the Santa Ana River, previously dominated by this plant community. The later three occur on or near the coast, which is most applicable to Garden Grove in how it treats and delivers runoff. Chaparral Chaparral (Figure 3.27) is dominated by woody, drought-hardy shrubs and derives its name from the Spanish word chaparro, which means ‘little oak’ and refers to a thicket of scrub oaks (California Chaparral Institute [CCI], n.d. and Charters, n.d.) Chaparral is adapted to areas with a Mediterranean-type climate, unique to only five areas of the world—the Mediterranean, California, Chile, Australia, and South Africa—and characterized by long, dry summers with limited rainfall occurring almost exclusively in the mild winter, and infrequent wildfire (CCI, n.d. and Charters, n.d.). It is during the winter that plant growth occurs, while during the dry season most chaparral shrubs merely endure (Charters, n.d.). Species survive through drought-tolerant adaptations that efficiently conserve resources and prevent waste, “such as being tough and woody, having small leathery evergreen leaves that habitually orient vertically to minimize exposure to the sun, and by crown sprouting immediately after fires without having to wait for rainfall to germinate seeds” (Charters, n.d., para. 8). This community may be found from southern Oregon, through California, and into northern Baja California, as well as a handful of unique places in Arizona (although subject to summer monsoons) (CCI, n.d.). Chaparral inhabits dry, gravelly or rocky slopes containing

Figure 3.27. Left. Chaparral (from www.laspilitas.com). Figure 3.28. Right. Coastal Sage Scrub (from www.laspilitas.com).

either heavy or light soils and the substrate is typically moister and rockier than the substrate of coastal sage scrub communities (Charters, n.d.). Although chaparral establishes at elevations typically above that of coastal sage scrub, they are normally adjoining, so much so that the boundary between chaparral and coastal sage scrub creates an ecotone in which many species intermingle and may be found on either side (Charters, n.d.). Chaparral shrubs range from six to twelve feet in height and their root system runs deep to collect moisture from the substrate (Charters, n.d.). Chaparral shrubs form a dense system and are so close together that a vegetated understory is almost nonexistent— another mechanism to prevent competition for limited groundwater sources (Charters, n.d.). Understory may only emerge after fires: when succession begins there is a high density of spring and summer annuals that last only until chaparral scrub can reestablish and dominate the area once again (Charters, n.d.). Coastal Sage Scrub Coastal sage scrub is aromatic, semi-woody, semi-dormant, drought-tolerant, shrub-dominated and often referred to as ‘soft chaparral’ because its shrubs are not as densely spaced nor are they as rigid as those of true chaparral (CCI, n.d. and Charters, n.d.) (Figure 3.28). Established communities extend from northern–central California south to Baja RE:Imagine Garden Grove | 63

California (CCI, n.d.). Coastal sage scrub is primarily found below elevations of approximately 3,000 feet and generally occupies more arid conditions than chaparral, given its adaption to predominantly west-facing slopes above beaches; on steep, south-facing wind-exposed slopes; or in areas where the marine layer penetrates further inland to foothills and canyons (Charters, n.d.). This community can survive on an average of 10 to 20 inches of annual rainfall and is able to survive sporadic frost conditions (Charters, n.d.). Deciduous or semi-deciduous through the dry season, they may drop leaves or produce smaller leaves on secondary shoots during the summer to slow the evapotranspiration process (Charters, n.d.). Other defensive mechanisms include the storage of water in succulent leaves and stems, and the production of aromatic oils on the leaf surface that reduce water loss and make them less appealing to grazing animals (Charters, n.d.). These aromatic oils may increase flammability and as a result, coastal sage scrub shrubs are predominantly fire adapted and genetic diversity is retained through seed germination by scarification. Often there are individuals of all ages represented in coastal sage scrub communities (Charters, n.d.). Riparian Woodland A fairly restricted plant community, riparian woodland is dependent upon the presence of or proximity to a constant source of water, either surface water or groundwater (Charters, n.d.). Where non-seasonal streams flow out of the mountains and onto flatter grasslands, the riparian woodland community may be relatively broad (Charters, n.d.). However, in higher elevations in which water flows down a narrow passageway confined by steep hillsides, this community may be only a few feet in width (Charters, n.d.). Riparian woodland may also occupy areas including the margins of man-made lakes, reservoirs, and channels (Charters, n.d.) (Figure 3.29).

64

Urban-Adapted Wildlife of the Orange County Region Residents of Orange County can expect to experience visits from local wildlife from time to time (OC Animal Care [OCAC], n.d.), especially from those species adapted to urban environments. Exposure can become more frequent during springtime, the breeding season for a majority of wildlife. Although some residents recognize wildlife adaption to suburban and urban environments and take pleasure in these visits, others consider these animals to be a nuisance (OCAC, n.d.). Urban adapted wildlife will stay in certain geographical areas as long as the three life sustaining elements are present: food, water, and shelter. Urbanization greatly affects the behavior of wildlife. Artificial food sources, such as birdseed, garbage, and pet food, reduce the need for many animals to compete or forage to the extent of their traditional ranges (OCAC, n.d. and Adams, 1994). Common to urban populations, individuals that are in closer proximity to each other than would be expected in wild areas exhibit “clumped dispersion patterns” (Adams, et al. 2005, p. 84). Experts believe this is a result of concentrated food sources in urban settings that attract large groups of individuals to a singular, common location (Adams, 1994 and Adams, et al. 2005). Urban heat island effect also induces behavioral changes in many wildlife species. Warmer environment extends breeding seasons and cause traditional migration activity to disappear in certain species (Adams, et al. 2005).

Coyotes

Opossum

Coyotes (Canis latrans) are distributed throughout all areas of Orange County (Figure 3.30). Contrary to popular assumptions, they do not require much open space or “wild area” to survive (OCAC, n.d.). In fact, the majority of coyotes in urban areas are the offspring of generations of coyotes that thrived in the developed areas of Orange County (OCAC, n.d.). Urban areas are often reliable sources of food; by feeding on feral animals such as opossum, skunks, and rodents, coyotes keep populations of urban wildlife in check. Though coyotes are far from domesticated, they are at ease living in close vicinity to human beings. They have little fear of people and in the early morning hours they may be observed trotting within a few feet of joggers and cyclists (OCAC, n.d.). While it is unusual for coyotes to display aggressive behavior toward humans, coyotes will display defensive behaviors if cornered, harassed, or if they feel their pups are under threat (OCAC, n.d.).

A poster animal for urban adaption, opossum (Didelphis virginiana) are found throughout Orange County (Figure 3.31). Though some people have concerns about the opossums’ nightly foraging in their yards, they effectively pose no threat to human or pet populations (OCAC, n.d.). Although common, they are often not seen due to their nocturnal habits. The only marsupial species in North America, the opossum is the size of a domestic cat. Its face is long and pointed with dark, round, paper-thin, hairless ears, somewhat long white to dark grey fur, and it has a long, hairless tail used for grasping. An opossum has 50 teeth, readily displayed when it is afraid—though baring its teeth is generally the extent of its posturing (OCAC, n.d.). Playing “possum” is another defensive mechanism used to trick predators into interpreting that the possum is sick or injured. They eat a wide variety of food including fruit, vegetables, nuts, bird eggs, the meat of rodents, birds, reptiles,

Urban wildlife displays greater human tolerance, some species are often not startled by the presence of humans (Adams, 1994). Many animals simply go about their day completely undisturbed by human activity. A partial list of urban adapted wildlife found in the region and potential wildlife that the City of Garden Grove may want to include is described below.

Figure 3.29. Left. Riparian Woodland (from upload. wikimedia.org). Figure 3.30. Right. Coyote (from www. duiops.net).

65

amphibians, shellfish, insects, mollusks, carrion, pet food, and garbage (OCAC, n.d.). In urban areas, opossums will den in the abandoned burrows of other animals, hollow stumps, logs and trees, rock crevices, woodpiles, attics, garages, under buildings and decks, or in any other place that seems secure (OCAC, n.d.). Racoons The presence of raccoons (Procyon lotor) has long been part of Orange County life (Figure 3.32). Traditionally found in wild and relatively undeveloped areas, once that habitat was lost to urban sprawl, they were able to adapt to life in cities (OCAC, n.d.). Clever and resourceful animals, raccoons are one of the most versatile and persistent urban wildlife adaptors. Nocturnal creatures, raccoons are omnivores and are usually seen foraging for food at dusk into the early morning hours. Raccoons eat berries, other fruits, nuts, grains, and vegetables. They also eat insects, eggs, poultry, rats, squirrels, opossums, birds, fish, snakes, crawfish, worms, frogs, and mollusks. They are also opportunistic feeders and sources of sustenance may be derived from garbage cans, outdoor pet dishes and pet food storage, gardens, and other human-provided sources. Females or sows generally give birth at the end of winter into mid-spring (OCAC, n.d.). Sows only have one litter per year and typical litters consist of three to five cubs (OCAC, n.d.). Raccoons do not construct their own dens. Instead they will shelter in hollow trees, rock, wood or brush piles, and in the abandoned dens of other animals. In urban areas, “abandoned habitat” sometimes includes human spaces and urban infrastructure: attics, garages, storage sheds, or other locations such as storm drains (OCAC, n.d.).

Figure 3.31. Top. Opossum (from www.itsnature.org). Figure 3.32. Bottom. Racoons (from 1.bp.blogspot.com).

Skunks Skunks are adapted to many areas of Orange County. The common striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis) is roughly the size of a portly, domestic cat (Figure 3.33). Skunks do not typify the “fight or flight” animal response; instead they possess an odorous gland at the base of their tail (OCAC, n.d.). When harassed or cornered, as a warning they stamp their front feet and aim their gland at the source of distress. The oils from this gland can be ejected up to ten feet and the scent may be picked up for a mile. If left alone, skunks will scamper away in the opposite direction of the source of confrontation (OCAC, n.d.). Skunks are nocturnal and are rarely seen during daylight hours. Skunks are omnivores and find sustenance in a variety of foods. In the spring and summer seasons they consume fruit, berries, eggs, a variety of insects, small rodents and reptiles; during wintertime, they dig small insects and rodents out of the ground (OCAC, n.d.). Along with raccoons, they are efficient snail predators, keeping populations in check through the consumption of adult snails and snail larvae by digging them out of the ground. A semifossorial creature, if the ground is soft, they will dig underground burrows but they are also adaptable and advantageous, occupying the vacated homes of other rodents, hollow logs, rock piles, or under houses (OCAC, n.d.).

Figure 3.33. Skunks (from www.spca.bc.ca).

RE:Imagine Garden Grove | 67

Urban Water Fowl Many species of waterfowl migrate through Orange County. The most ubiquitous specie is the mallard duck (Anas platyrhynchos) (OCAC, n.d.). During mating season, from January through February, nesting areas are selected (OCAC, n.d.). Because mallards usually nest close to water, in urban areas nests may be located in ponds, swimming pools, fountains, flood control channels and other non-traditional or unusual locations (OCAC, n.d.). Females lay approximately eight to ten eggs and both parents remain near the nest to protect it (OCAC, n.d.). After four weeks, the eggs hatch and the mother takes her ducklings to the nearest body of water, even if that entails waddling across a busy intersection (OCAC, n.d.). Females aggressively protect their ducklings so the entire brood should be avoided. At 10 to 12 weeks, ducklings can sustain flight and will soon leave the nest and complete the cycle (OCAC, n.d.).

Squirrels Squirrels may be found throughout Orange County. One efficient urban adapter, the Eastern fox squirrel (Sciurus niger) is one of the most visible urban mammals in the region (Figure 3.34). The Western grey squirrel (Sciurus griseus) is native to deciduous, coniferous, and mixed oak forests but has adapted to the naturalistic conditions found in the fringes between natural and urban areas (Adams, 1994). Most urban adapted squirrels prefer to locate their dreys (nests) above ground in tree crevices or amongst tree branches, typically selecting tree species that provide both food and shelter (Adams, 1994). The exception is the California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi), terrestrial and semifossorial, it requires habitat with loose soils so they can burrow (Lima, 2003). Just like their rural counterparts, urban squirrels store food, such as nuts and berries, underground for use during the winter season when food is scarce (Adams, 1994). 68 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

The Federal Migratory Waterfowl Act protects waterfowl from interference and harassment during the course of nesting and breeding (OCAC, n.d.). Substantial fines may be levied against those who violate this law. Once a nest has been prepared, nature must be allowed to take its course.

Figure 3.34 Top Left. Squirrel (from spirit-animals.com). Figure 3.35. Top Right. Rooster at Garden Grove Regional Library parking lot. Figure 3.36. Bottom Right. Ducks at Garden Grove Regional Library pond.

Other Notable Bird Species – Migratory and Fixed Annually, at least one billion birds migrate along the Pacific Flyway, a chain of assorted habitat types—from Arctic tundra and northwestern rainforest to tropical beaches and mangroves—stretching from as far North as the Arctic-Alaskan region to as far south as the southern tip of Argentina in South America (National Audubon Society [NAS], n.d.). Present day migration numbers on the Flyway have dwindled over the last century. Some migratory species, such as the Snowy plover and the Least tern, both species once common to areas in and near the Santa Ana River, are now endangered (Hoffman, 2004), and many other once-common seasonal birds are showing diminished counts (NAS, n.d.). Habitat loss and water shortages due to diversion for agriculture and development contribute to diminishing sources of sustenance. Furthermore, climate change threatens much of the breeding ranges used today, affecting all of the bird species of the Pacific Flyway (NAS, n.d.). There are a number of bird species that live permanently or spend a significant amount of time breeding and weaning in Orange County. Raptors or birds-of-prey, such as hawks and falcons, will build their nests in the parks and residential neighborhoods of urban environments if the security of tall, mature trees and adequate proximity to water sources are available, often returning on an annual basis. One such nest was observed in the tallest tree in Eastgate Park. Locally fixed species of regional concern include the Least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica), and the Brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) (Hoffman, 2004) (Figures 3.37, 3.38, & 3.39). All three species were also once common to portions of the riparian areas adjacent to the Santa Ana River. In some cases, they can be found in grassland or coastal sage scrub areas within close proximity of the Santa Ana River (Hoffman, 2004). Habitat and sustenance losses have directly contributed to the majority of dwindling bird populations. Garden Grove, being located in such close proximity to the Santa Ana River and featuring two stormwater runoff catch basins, is uniquely poised to offer supplemental patch habitat in wildlife friendly, naturalistically-oriented spaces. These spaces would not only contribute to the habitat needs of focal bird species but also benefit other species that enjoy similar conditions (Hoffman, 2004). Additionally, landscapes with wildlife and bird populations offer greater stimulation to people using them than sterile landscapes without habitat (Alter, 2013; Louv, 2013; University of Rochester, 2010; Maller, et al., 2006).

Figure 3.37. Left. Least Bell’s vireo (from nathistoc.bio.uci.edu). Figure 3.38. Middle. Least tern (from upload.wikimedia.org). Figure 3.39. Right. Brown pelican (from phillanoue.files.wordpress. com).

3 - Inventory + Evaluation | 69

Observed Wildlife and Potential Focal Species of Garden Grove Many residents and visitors spend time observing and feeding the wildlife, harbored by the Civic Center Park pond. Species of duck, loon, grebe, geese, and coot have been observed, and domestic rabbits and chickens have also been abandoned in Civic Center Park. This space offers shelter and water but the sources of food naturally occurring on site could not sustain the population of wildlife without the supplemental food provided by humans. Spaces that sustain wildlife are popular among human visitors and wildlife due to their positive interactions—wildlife feel safe and are provided with sustenance, which make them more apt to settle in the space, and human visitors get the opportunity to observe and feed wildlife in an intimate setting. Hester Basin Recreational Park (also referred to as Twin Lakes Park) and West Street Basin are equipped to sustain wildlife, which should be an integral part of any future planning. Other types of wildlife that are well-adapted to urban areas include numerous bird species such as raptors, songbirds, hummingbirds, as well as other species of pollinators (such as butterflies), provided habitat needs are met. Raptors keep populations of rodents in check, often a welcome function in urban environments. Songbirds often prey on populations of insects (many of them considered nuisance species) and act as pollinators for many larger plant species. The presence of smaller pollinating species such as hummingbirds, butterflies, and Anthophila ensure an increased number of blooms and fruiting on vegetative species. These types of species could be attracted to and accommodated in Garden Grove through wildlife-oriented programming in existing and future parks, urban forestry, and other green spaces and sites by providing habitat. In a recent National Survey on Recreation and the Environment (2012), ‘birding’ as a hobby ranks 15th on the list of most popular outdoor activities (Cordell) and is on trend to increase in popularity (Bowker, et al., 2012). If the Library pond is any indication, increasing the presence of wildlife will be a successful approach to increasing the use of parks and open spaces by providing opportunities to observe wildlife. Figure 4.40. Left. West Street Basin. Figure 4.41. Right. Man relaxing at Garden Grove Regional Library pond.

The Benefits of Enhancing Biological Resources in Urban Areas A carefully selected introduction of native, Southern California plant species would increase biological resource value in Garden Grove. Improved ecosystems are environmentally and ecologically beneficial for plant and wildlife species. Exposure to natural settings also increase human quality of life, health, and wellbeing (Alter, 2013; Louv, 2013; University of Rochester, 2010). Research has shown that people who spend 20 minutes in natural surroundings significantly boost vitality—a heightened sense of well-being, more energy, and a greater resistance to physical illness (University of Rochester, 2010). Environmental psychologists call this process attention restoration theory (ART) and the difference between natural and urban landscapes is how they command

our attention (Alter, 2013). ART is based upon the concept that urban environments are a source of directed attention and tend to be an assault on the senses, demanding large amounts of mental energy for making quick decisions, tasks (such as navigating through a landscape primarily comprised of “car habitat”) and distractions that cause varying degrees of mental presence and stress (Alter, 2013). These demands are often draining and they are predominantly absent in natural environments (Alter, 2013). Natural settings vie for involuntary attention; they are captivating, constant and fitful, yet they do not demand much mental effort because the brain is well-adapted to these types of environments (Alter, 2013). While the man-made environment is a barrage of stress-inducing stimuli, the stimulation found in the natural landscape offers respite that regenerates the brain (Alter, 2013). Even in the urban context, the opportunity to replenish exhausted mental resources is present in clean, safe,

“...people who spend 20 minutes in natural surroundings significantly boost vitality—a heightened sense of well-being, more energy, and a greater resistance to physical illness.” (University of Rochester, 2010)

and comfortable natural settings (University of Rochester, 2010). An increased body of primarily correlative evidence indicates that, “even in the densest urban neighborhoods, negative stress, obesity and other health problems are reduced, while psychological and physical health is improved when children and adults experience more nature in their everyday lives” (Louv, 2013, para. 8). Studies have found evidence that the presence of natural views stimulate students’ learning abilities and decrease symptoms of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. There are a host of outdoor therapies that have shown clinical improvement in psychological health, patient recovery times, and mental function (Alter, 2013 and Louv, 2013). The most positive impacts on mental wellbeing and opportunities for social bonding appear to be linked to representation of biodiversity in parks and open spaces (Louv, 2013).

71

3 - Inventory & Evaluation 3.2 Sociocultural Inventory & Evalutation In order to adapt an innovative design proposal with the input from stakeholders and existing and planned projects in Garden Grove, a rational ‘Evaluation Model’ was required to assess the City’s existing conditions. Sociocultural investigations and data are required in order to identify existing opportunities and constraints.

Figure 3.42. Strawberry Festival Parade.

73

Land Use The land use element of Garden Grove’s General Plan establishes the framework for the next five to ten years of development in the City. It is the visual representation of the City’s goals and policies (City of Garden Grove, 2008). The General Plan sets the tone for how the City will evolve over the short- and mid-term and is the basis for capital improvement programs throughout the City (City of Garden Grove, 2008). It describes the basic distribution of land uses, defining the type and intensity of housing, business, industry and open space (City of Garden Grove, 2008). Most of the City’s land has been developed (over 99 percent) leaving limited vacant land but many land-use designations are being reformed, such as the new mixed-use neighborhood corridors and the development of a hotel row (City of Garden Grove, 2008). Garden Grove (Figure 3.43) consists mostly of low-density (4,695 acres – 80 percent) to medium-density (1,183 acres – 20 percent) residential areas (5,878 acres total), with a diverse mix of older homes to newer residential development (City of Garden Grove, 2008). A small percentage of the City consists of commercial areas and mixed commercial-professional zoning (1,249 acres), including retail, business, and professional centers that are well distributed. Most of the commercial districts fall along the major streets and intersections in Garden Grove, including the Civic Center-Downtown District; The Grove District extending from Chapman to Westminster on Harbor Boulevard; the Garden Grove Boulevard (Korean Business District) runs the span of Garden Grove Boulevard from Beach Boulevard to Brookhurst Street; and Little Saigon is located around the intersection of Brookhurst Street and Westminster Avenue; as well as other small commercial plazas at the intersection of Brookhurst Street and Chapman Avenue and on Valley View Street. Garden Grove also has small concentrations of light industrial areas (818 acres) between Knott Street and Beach Boulevard; between Magnolia Street and Harbor Boulevard on Trask Avenue; and south of the 22 Freeway between Newhope Street and Harbor Boulevard (City of Garden Grove, 2008) (Figure 3.44).

LegendLegend Civic Center-Downtown District

Land Uses Medium-Density Residences 20.1%

Commercial 15.7%

Freeways Streets Santa Ana River

Industrial 10.3%

Attractions Commercial

Residential 74.0%

Low-Density Residences 79.9%

Industrial Residential

Figure #.#. Existing land uses. 74 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

Figure 3.43. Left. Existing land use profile. Figure 3.44. Right. Existing land uses.

Cypress Los Alamitos Army AirďŹ eld

Haster St

5

Anaheim

Stanton

57

Harbor Blvd

Euclid St

Brookhurst St

Magnolia St

Beach Blvd

Knott St

Valley View St

Existing Land Uses

Honda Center

Disneyland

City National Grove of Anaheim Angel Stadium

Katella Ave

Orangewood Ave

Christ Cathedral

Chapman Ave

ARTIC

Orange

Outlets at Orange Lampson Ave

Memory Lane

Garden Grove Blvd

Trask Ave

Trask St

22 17th St

Huntington Beach

405

Hazard Ave

Westminster Mall

1st St

Bolsa Ave

Westminster

Little Saigon

Santa Ana Riv er

Westminster Ave

Santa Ana

McFadden Ave

0

Bella Terra

Fountain Valley

Mile Square Regional Park

1

2

Miles

3 - Inventory + Evaluation | 75

Commercial Districts and General Plan Focus Areas Garden Grove has several distinct commercial districts scattered throughout the City as well as small mom-andpop retail shops, professional services, and restaurants developed along major intersections and arterial roads. These districts have become vital economic resources and generators for the City and residents of Garden Grove. In 2008, the City of Garden Grove drafted its 2030 General Plan to anticipate and capitalize on future growth opportunities, with a special focus on mixed-use development throughout the City (City of Garden Grove, 2008). Since Garden Grove is predominantly lowdensity residential with small commercial and industrial areas, the City has shifted focus to combining land uses through mixed-use development (City of Garden Grove, 2008) to create a more efficient and sustainable urban living environment for residents. The majority of the City’s Focus Areas are concentrated along major arterial roads and intersections, which take advantage of existing commercial districts for future mixed-use development (City of Garden Grove, 2008) (Figure 3.45). It is important to understand the planning context that is currently guiding Garden Grove land use decisions. These districts and focus areas are representatives of: • •

•

Connection nodes that should be included in the non-motorized mobility (NMM) plan; Areas where the open space network will have to be enhanced and/or expanded to serve existing and projected population growth; and The Citywide “gardens and groves” theme, yet given distinctive identifiers that designate the unique identities of each district, in the form of their own respective gateways and enhanced plant palettes.

General Plan Focus Areas A

The Grove District (Harbor Boulevard)

D

Mobile Park Area

E1

Civic Center - Downtown District

E2

Civic Center (Stanford Avenue)

F

Brookhurst Triangle

G

Garden Grove Boulevard (Korean Business District)

H

Trask Avenue

I

Brookhurst Street (Chapman Avenue)

L

Industrial District

M

Valley View Boulevard (Chapman Avenue)

N

Valley View Boulevard (Lampson Avenue)

O

Brookhurst Street (Katella Avenue)

P

Little Saigon

Q

Euclid Street (Chapman Avenue)

S

Euclid Street (Katella Avenue)

Destinations

LegendLegend

1

City Hall

Civic Center-Downtown District

2

Civic Center Park

Freeways

3

Community Center / H. Louis Senior Center

Major Streets

4

Garden Grove Promenade Shopping Center

Santa Ana River

5

Historic Main Street

Attractions & Destinations

6

Pavilion Plaza Shopping Center

General Plan Focus Areas

7

Village Green Park

Pacific Electric Right-of-Way

Figure #.#. Planned redevelopment zones. 76 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

Figure 3.45. Right. General Plan Focus Areas.

Los Alamitos Army AirďŹ eld

Haster St

Euclid St

Brookhurst St

Magnolia St

Beach Blvd

Harbor Blvd

Honda Center

Disneyland

City National Grove of Anaheim Angel Stadium

Katella Ave

O

S

Orangewood Ave

4

M Chapman Ave

N

5

Anaheim

Stanton

57

Lampson Ave

I

Christ Cathedral

I6

ARTIC

Orange

Outlets at Orange

L

F

G

Garden Grove Blvd

H

Trask Ave

405

E2

7 5

2 3 E1 1

A

D

Memory Lane

Trask St

22 P

Westminster Ave

Huntington Beach

Q

17th St

Hazard Ave

Westminster Mall

1st St

Bolsa Ave

Westminster

Little Saigon

Santa Ana Riv er

Cypress

Knott St

Valley View St

General Plan Focus Areas

Santa Ana

McFadden Ave

0

Bella Terra

Fountain Valley

Mile Square Regional Park

1

2

Miles

3 - Inventory + Evaluation | 77

Civic Center–Downtown District The Civic Center—considered the “Heart of the City”— covers approximately 130 acres (City of Garden Grove, 2008) (Figure 3.47). It extends as far north as Village Green Park, west to Ninth Street, south along Euclid Street to Trask Avenue, and east to the corner of Century and Garden Grove Boulevards (City of Garden Grove, 2008). This District is connected to the 22 Freeway via Euclid Street. The Civic Center-Downtown can be described as separated into four distinct areas by two arterial roads, Garden Grove Boulevard and Euclid Street. The area includes a variety of socioeconomic land uses, including park space and civic, educational, service, commercial, and retail uses (City of Garden Grove, 2008). The 2030 General Plan (2008) includes two designated focus areas in the Civic Center.

The Grove District This commercial area, which measures approximately 235 acres, is known as The Grove District (formerly International West) in the Anaheim Resort area (City of Garden Grove, 2008). Generally, it is located along Harbor Boulevard extending from Chapman Avenue to the 22 Freeway (City of Garden Grove, 2008) (Figure 3.46). Taking advantages of its close proximity to the Disneyland Theme Parks and Resort to the north, this area features tourist attractions and entertainment (City of Garden Grove, 2008). Several hotels and restaurants have been developed near the intersection of Chapman Avenue and Harbor Boulevard to cater to tourists demands (City of Garden Grove, 2008). Further south, near the intersection of Garden Grove and Harbor Boulevards, a concentration of chain retail stores, shops and restaurants provide a diverse variety of shopping and dining options for locals residing in the eastern portion of Garden Grove. The 2030 General Plan (2008) identified The Grove District as Focus Area A and its development has already begun (City of Garden Grove, 2008). In the General Plan this area had been designated for the development of a water park (currently under construction), hotels, dining, entertainment, shopping centers, and some mixed-use residential (City of Garden Grove, 2008). Once completed, the area is projected to have 400 new residences and over 4.5 million square feet of commercial space (City of Garden Grove, 2008). 78 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

Focus Area E1 – Civic Center (Area 1) is a 130-acre area that includes the civic buildings (City Hall, police and fire department headquarters, and a center for community and senior use), Civic Center Park, colleges, Historic Main Street, residences, retails, and Village Green Park (City of Garden Grove, 2008). The area is intended to blend civic, commercial, open space, and residential uses into a cohesive downtown district with the new development of five- to seven-story, mid-rise, mixed-use buildings (City of Garden Grove, 2008).

W RO PE t

ee

Str

Brookhurst Triangle

rst

Korean Business District

hu

Focus Area F is the 50-acre area located at the intersection of Brookhurst Street and Garden Grove

Stanford Ave

ok

Brookhurst Triangle (Garden Grove Boulevard and Brookhurst Street)

Garden Grove Unified School District

Bro

Focus Area E2 – Civic Center (Area 2) is one of the oldest industrial sites in Garden Grove. Comprised of a 62-acre industrial area, this focus area is located on Stanford Avenue, west of Nutwood Street (City of Garden Grove, 2008). This area can be redeveloped to include small businesses and mixed-use units for artists’ studio lofts (City of Garden Grove, 2008). Also, due to its unique location adjacent to the Pacific Electric rightof-way (PE ROW), the development provides a starting point for a linear park with a trail connecting Main Street with the Brookhurst Street and Chapman Avenue commercial district (City of Garden Grove, 2008). The General Plan for this area includes 425 new residential units, 25,000 square feet of commercial space, and 55,000 square feet of industrial space (City of Garden Grove, 2008).

Promenade & Pavilion Plaza

Brookhurst Way

The development is projected to have over 1,000 new residential units as well as more than 322,500 square feet of new commercial and office space and 157,500 square feet of institutional space (City of Garden Grove, 2008).

Civic CenterDowntown

Garden Grove Blvd

Galleria Project

22 Freeway & Little Saigon

0

250

500 Feet

Boulevard and is an important gateway between the Korean Business District and the Civic Center area (City of Garden Grove, 2008) (Figure 3.48). Due to its strategically valuable position, the City intends to redevelop this area with eight- to ten-story, mixed-use, contemporary architectural structures (City of Garden Grove, 2008). North of Garden Boulevard and west of Brookhurst Street, the Brookhurst Triangle development is projected to offer 800 residential units and as much as 300,000 square feet of commercial space (City of Garden Grove, 2008). The Galleria project, south of Garden Grove Boulevard, was planned to have eight stories with two levels of retail space and 66 residential units on the top six levels (City of Garden Grove, 2008). However, recession and funding issues brought the project to a halt and the site has stood in a state of incompletion for a number of years. Other development at this intersection will include over 1,000 new residential units and 550,000 square feet of commercial and office space (City of Garden Grove, 2008). Garden Grove Boulevard (from Brookhurst Street to Beach Boulevard) Focus Area G along Garden Grove Boulevard, covers approximately 144 acres between Beach Boulevard and Brookhurst Street, is another leg of the Brookhurst Triangle (City of Garden Grove, 2008) (Figure 3.49). Garden Grove Boulevard was historically a major transportation route between Orange County and Los Angeles (City of Garden Grove, 2008). However, after the development of the 22 Freeway, the boulevard decreased in its Figure 3.46. Left. Hyatt Hotel in The Grove District. Figure 3.47. Middle. Fire and police department in Civic CenterDowntown District. Figure 3.48. Right. Brookhurst Triangle on Garden Grove Boulevard and Brookhurst Street.

significance and use (City of Garden Grove, 2008). It often appears disjointed due to the lack of a distinct character and identity in its streetscape, signs, and architectural elements (City of Garden Grove, 2008). Nonetheless, this area provides unique cultural diversity, entertainment, and attractions for local residents within the Korean Business District (City of Garden Grove, 2008). The two-mile stretch of Garden Grove Boulevard between Brookhurst Street and Beach Boulevard contains the western leg of the Korean Business District (City of Garden Grove, 2008). This District is home to the highest concentration of Korean businesses in Orange County (Morino, 2013 and has various names (Koreatown, Little Seoul) but in 2002, the City of Garden Grove officially designated it as the Korean Business District (City of Garden Grove, 2008). Korean immigrants settled in the area in the late 1970s when Garden Grove still had a number of fruit groves (Morino, 2013). The Korean population grew steadily over 30 years but in the past 10 years this population has been declining, however many Korean-owned and Korean80 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

influenced businesses remain. There are nearly 2,000 businesses including barbeque and seafood restaurants, bakeries, markets and car dealerships (Morino, 2013). The City’s General Plan allows this area to include highdensity, mixed-use units with eight- to ten-story buildings at major intersections, including Brookhurst Street, Magnolia Street, and Beach Boulevard along Garden Grove Boulevard (City of Garden Grove, 2008). The street will also have a combination of five- to seven-story, mixed-use buildings, retail centers, low-rise mixed-use structures, and one- to two-story residential units (City of Garden Grove, 2008). The overall development is projected to house a total of 15,000 new residential units and 1.5 million square feet of commercial and office space (City of Garden Grove, 2008). Chapman Avenue, Brookhurst Street to Gilbert Street This 43-acre intersection includes two of the largest shopping centers in Garden Grove: the Garden Grove Promenade Shopping Center and the Pavilion Plaza Shopping Center (City of Garden Grove, 2008) (Figure

3.50). The Promenade, located north of Chapman Avenue (City of Garden Grove, 2008) has become a popular attraction for many local residents and features a variety of chain stores, entertainment, and restaurants. The Pavilion Plaza, located south of Chapman Avenue (City of Garden Grove, 2008) includes smaller-scale stores, restaurants, and professional services. The two shopping centers, including the previous “Costco” site, were originally developed to revitalize the economic vitality of the area (City of Garden Grove, 2008). Although the centers showed initial success and promise as commercial attractions, many retailers and shops lost their appeal as a result of newer, expanded mall and promenade development in adjacent cities (City of Garden Grove, 2008). Designated Focus Area I, the area is unique given its proximity to the PE ROW, which connects this commercial area to the City’s downtown Main Street (City of Garden Grove, 2008). If rail is re-introduced, the City will revitalize the area through mixed-use, transitoriented development. These new developments are projected to offer 500 new residential units as well as

Figure 3.49. Left. Garden Grove Boulevard (Korean Business District). Figure 3.50. Middle. Promenade Shopping Center on Brookhurst Street and Chapman Avenue. Figure 3.51. Right. Mall of Fortune shopping center in Little Saigon.

400,000 square feet of commercial and office space (City of Garden Grove, 2008).

Focus Areas highlighted in the General Plan (2008), and two other Focus Areas that are not associated with established City commercial districts. They include:

Valley View Boulevard Two retail nodes are located along Valley View Boulevard, on two separate intersections; the first on Chapman Avenue and the second on Lampson Avenue (City of Garden Grove, 2008). These two multi-tenant commercial areas provide a variety of shops, restaurants, and entertainment for the majority of the Garden Grove residents residing in the western portion of the City. Focus Areas M and N run along Valley View Boulevard. The General Plan fosters the revitalization of all underutilized commercial buildings as well as introduce new mixed-use residential units (City of Garden Grove, 2008). Together, the two areas are estimated to have 225 new residential units with 45,000 square feet of commercial and office space (City of Garden Grove, 2008). There is one commercial district unassociated with the

Little Saigon (Garden Grove Section, at Brookhurst Street and Westminster Avenue) Located at the border of the City of Westminster, Little Saigon, Focus Area P (Figures 3.51 & 3.52) provides unique cultural diversity and attractions to both local and regional visitors. The Garden Grove section of Little Saigon is a commercial area concentrated at the corner of Brookhurst Street and Westminster Avenue. It stimulates the local economy through a variety of Vietnamese supermarkets, restaurants, shops, and professional services. Focus Area D – Mobile Park Area Located on West Street, between Stanford Avenue and Garden Grove Boulevard, this area is most closely associated with the Del Prado Mobile Home Park (City of Garden Grove, 2008). Approximately 23 acres in

size, the area currently features 171 mobile home lots (Mobile Home Park Store, 2014). The City proposes to maintain the single-family units on Stanford Avenue but to develop new two- to three-story, mixed-use units along Garden Grove Boulevard (City of Garden Grove, 2008). Focus Area L – Industrial District This industrial area runs the length of Garden Grove’s section of Western Avenue and is approximately 111 acres in size (City of Garden Grove, 2008). A significant feature of the area is an adjacent existing, unused railway easement starting from Anaheim to the north, running through Garden Grove and terminating in Huntington Beach to the south (City of Garden Grove, 2008). The City will maintain the existing commercial and industrial land and aims to attract new, mixeduse residential development (City of Garden Grove, 2008). This area is projected to provide an additional 600 residential units plus 95,000 square feet of new commercial and office space (City of Garden Grove, 2008). 3 - Inventory + Evaluation | 81

Revitalization Zoning Evaluation Commercial districts, mixed-use, and high-density zoning areas provide opportunities to promote transit-oriented development, walking, and cycling. Increasing mixed-use zoning density creates opportunities to locate employment, transit routes, schools, shopping, entertainment, services, and recreation within close proximity to where people live (National City, 2011). This type of planning results in increased physical activity and reduction in vehicular trips, lessening trafďŹ c congestion and the discharge of greenhouse gasses. Identifying parcels in close proximity suggests which streets present opportunities for further smart growth development. This strategy also informs the NMM network. Routes can be sited along commercial and mixed-use corridors to provide ease of access and connections can be made to commercial districts that serve as nodes. 82 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

Figure 3.52. Left. Night market at Asian Garden Mall in Little Saigon, Westminster. Figure 3.53. Right. Local residents waiting in front of food trucks during Garden Grove Open Streets Event.

Parks and Open Space

Regional Parks & Open Spaces

Regional Parks & Regional Greenway Connections to Natural Open Space Natural open spaces provide health and psychological beneďŹ ts for people (Shores & West, 2008; Maller, et al., 2006). Garden Grove is surrounded by large natural spaces via the Chino Hills, the Santa Ana Mountains, wetland areas and beaches (discussed in length in section 4.1 Biophysical Inventory, Regional Ecological Resources) (OC Parks, n.d.). The creation of green corridors (greenways) will increase green space and provide the City with safe access to regional green resources, biological landmarks and natural attractions. By providing more green space and active recreation, there is potential to improve environmental and ecological conditions, community health, and the economic value of adjacent land (University of Rochester, 2010; Crompton, 2007; Bedimo-Rung, et al., 2005). The following parks and open spaces (Figure 3.54) are popular regional destinations that feature recreational opportunities and have the potential to be accessed by pedestrians and cyclists.

1

Chino Hills State Park

2

Crystal Cove State Park

3

El Dorado East Regional Park

4

Fairview Park

5

Huntington Beach Central Park

6

Huntington Beach State Park

7

Irvine Regional Park

8

Laguna Coast Wilderness Park

9

Limestone Canyon Regional Park

10

Mile Square Regional Park

11

Peters Canyon Regional Park

12

Prado Regional Park

13

Santiago Oaks Regional Park

14

Talbert Marsh

15

Talbert Nature Preserve

16

Whiting Ranch Wilderness Park

17

William R. Mansion Regional Park

Legend

Regional Trails

Civic Center-Downtown District

18

Bolsa Chica–Huntington Beach Trail (BCHBT)

City of Garden Grove

19

Coyote Creek Trail

Adjacent Cities

Lower San Gabriel River Parkway, Nature and Bicycle Trail

Freeways

20 21

Santa Ana River Trail

Waterbodies

Major Streets

Rivers Creeks Orange County Coastal Plain and Basin Class I Trails Open Spaces 84 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

Figure 3.54. Right. Regional open spaces.

Regional Open Spaces

Lampson Ave

Cypress

Garden Grove Blvd

Westminster Ave

20

n

rbo

Anaheim 5

Stanton

Anaheim Hills

Ball Rd

Garden Grove

Seal Beach

7

Chapman Ave

22

Westminster

241

Santiago Peak

Irvine Lake

11 17th St

261

Santa Ana Warner Ave

Ana R iver

Sant a

6

14

9

55

Fountain Valley

1

Irvine

k

Beach Blvd

Tustin

Cree

Bolsa Chica St

go

Miles

10

ia

5

5

405

nt

18

Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve (Bolsa Bay)

1st St

21

Huntington Beach

Sa

2.5

13

Orange

Los Alamitos

Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge

0

Villa Park

Katella Ave

Bolsa Ave

PaciďŹ c Ocean

1

91

3

San

Gabriel

Long Beach

Prado Dam

Chino Hills State Park

Ca

Valley View St

River

19

Euclid St

y

Co

Brookhurst St

ote

Cr

Harbor Blvd

k

ee

Buena Park

Magnolia St

605

57

k

Fullerton

Cree

105

State College Blvd

12

133

Costa Mesa

16

4 17

15

Newport Beach

73 3 - Inventory + Evaluation | 85 2

8

Mile Square Park The Mile Square Park is located just south of Garden Grove in the City of Fountain Valley (Figure 3.55). It is a 607-acre urban park that includes three regulation golf courses, three soccer ďŹ elds, three baseball and three softball diamonds, an archery range and a naturalized area (OC Parks, 2013). It is a popular destination for joggers and recreational bicyclists, which makes it an ideal regional destination. Santa Ana River Trail Running parallel with the channelized river system, the Santa Ana River Trail is a greenbelt in wildland-adjacent areas and a greybelt through more urbanized areas (Figure 3.56). Upon completion, the trail will connect San Bernardino, Orange, and Riverside Counties (Santa Ana River Trail & Parkway, n.d.). In Orange County, trails may be accessed as far north as Yorba Linda, following the river through communities in between, extending as far south as Huntington Beach (Santa Ana River Trail & Parkway, n.d.). Once the entire the Santa Ana River Trail is completed, it will provide 110 miles of trails and bikeways. It also features varied viewsheds, which range from urban parkland to quiet willow forests (Santa Ana River Trail & Parkway, 2010). Other notable open spaces and regional parks that are accessible along the southern end of the Santa Ana River Trail include the Talbert Nature Preserve, the Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge, and Orange Coast River Park, a 1,000-acre open space (OC Public Works, 2014).

Figure 3.55. Top Left. Mile Square Regional Park (from funorangecountyparks.com). Figure 3.56. Bottom Left. Santa Ana River Trail (from www.travelcostamesa.com). Figure 3.57. Top Right. Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve (by Nhan Khai Hoang from www.panoramio.com). Figure 3.58. Bottom Right. San Gabriel River Trail. 86 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

Bolsa Chica–Huntington Beach Trail (BCHBT) The BCHBT Class I trail is one of the best places to ride a bicycle in California (Figure 3.57). Spanning approximately seven and one-half miles, it runs continuously from Bolsa Chica through the length of the City of Huntington Beach ending at the Santa Ana River (McKinney, 2012). From there connections may be made to the Santa Ana River Trail or to the City of Newport Beach’s bike network. Coyote Creek Trail Coyote Creek River Trail is a Class I trail that is less than two miles long (OCTA, 2009). It is located at the northwest border of Orange County and intersects the cities of La Mirada, Fullerton, and Buena Park (OC Public Works, 2014). This path sits on the eastern embankment of the Coyote Creek channel from La Mirada Boulevard to Hillsborough Drive (OC Public Works, 2014). This trail serves an important role in bridging the gaps in Orange County’s regional bike network. Lower San Gabriel River Parkway, Nature and Bicycle Trail The last ten miles of the San Gabriel River (SGR), from the City of Lakewood to the Pacific Ocean, marks the boundary between Los Angeles and Orange Counties via Long Beach and Seal Beach (Figure 3.58). It is the most natural looking stretch of the river trail, not only because the concrete river bed is replaced by rip rap and plants as the river nears the ocean, but also because it features a number of quality parks and nature centers (Liberty Park and El Dorado Park, standout as examples of such parks). This trail also features connections to regional NMM networks such as the Coyote Creek Trail in the northeast (about six miles from the ocean) and to the south where the SGR trail ends, the connection forks at Long Beach and Seal Beach networks. A loop can be made to deliver Garden Grove users back to the City via Seal Beach to the Pacific Coast Highway trail, through Bolsa Chica and Huntington Beach, and onto the Santa Ana River Trail (Los Angeles Bike Paths, n.d.).

Local Parks

City Owned Park Facilities

The City of Garden Grove has 157 acres of parks that support a range of active and passive recreational activities (City of Garden Grove, 2008). According to the U.S. Census Bureau (2010), the City of Garden Grove has a population of 170,883, allowing for less than one acre of parkland per 1,000 residents. Recommendation standards for recreational facilities range from four to ten acres per 1,000 residents in urban cities (Moeller, 1965). The City has fourteen park properties and programs, including six joint use facilities (City of Garden Grove, 2008) (Figure 3.59). The City of Garden Grove classifies its parks into three types: community parks, neighborhood parks, and mini parks (City of Garden Grove, 2008). Garden Grove’s parks are categorized by weighing the amenities provided on-site as opposed to focusing on park acreage (City of Garden Grove, 2008). Community parks range from three to forty acres in size and provide active and passive recreation to the greater community. Neighborhood parks range from one to ten acres, providing flexible and passive recreation amenities, while serving neighborhoods nearby. Mini-parks are considered less than one acre in size. Though no park in Garden Grove has been left in a naturalized state, County-owned, joint use Twin Lakes Park has 23 acres and stormwater catchment basins. Some of the Garden Grove parks are heavily programmed (Figure 3.63). For instance, Chapman Sports Complex offers seven sports fields (including a baseball field, six tennis courts, six handball courts, two basketball courts), various hobby courts and recreational amenities, all on an 11-acre site. Twin Lakes Park conversely, provides some naturalized area within the City. These two parks represent the extremes in the range of facilities within parks in Garden Grove. Additionally, three different parks in the City offer public pools, which is a luxury amenity because of their cost and maintenance requirements. Six other parks offer multi-purpose buildings as amenities, which reflect greater investment. Such considerations enrich the understanding of the quality of the open spaces of these parks rather than simply focusing on size as the sole determinant of park amenities and facilities within the City. Park resources and accessibility will be further investigated in the evaluation section.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

Civic Center Park Eastgate Park Faylane Park Garden Grove Park Gutosky Park Magnolia Park Village Green Park Westgrove Park West Haven Park Woodbury Park Harbor Mini Park Jardin de los Ninos Trask Mini Park Spirit of 76

Joint Use Park Facilities School Owned & City Maintained 15. 16. 17. 18. 19.

Chapman Sports Park Edgar School Park Hare School Park Lake School Park Pioneer Park

County Owned & City Maintained 20.

Twin Lakes Park

Legend Civic Center-Downtown District Freeways Major Streets Santa Ana River Attractions Existing Parks in the Region Existing Parks Existing Mini Parks / Open Spaces Under One-Acre

88 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

Figure 3.59. Right. Existing parks.

Cypress Los Alamitos Army AirďŹ eld

Disneyland

City National Grove of Anaheim

Chapman Ave

Angel Stadium

3

Christ Cathedral

15 19

9

14 7

16

Orange

Outlets at Orange

17

1 11

20 Memory Lane

Garden Grove Blvd

Trask Ave

22 4

Trask St

13

10

12 17th St

405

Hazard Ave

Westminster Mall

1st St

Bolsa Ave

Westminster

Little Saigon

Santa Ana Riv er

Westminster Ave

Huntington Beach

ARTIC

18

6

Orangewood Ave

Lampson Ave

8

Honda Center

Katella Ave

5 2

Haster St

5

Anaheim

Stanton

57

Harbor Blvd

Euclid St

Brookhurst St

Magnolia St

Beach Blvd

Knott St

Valley View St

Existing Parks

Santa Ana

McFadden Ave

0

Bella Terra

Fountain Valley

Mile Square Regional Park

1

2

Miles

3 - Inventory + Evaluation | 89

Joint Use Schools ‘Joint use’ is a limited partnership agreement formed by two or more entities—typically a city and a school, or a city and a private organization—as a tool to increase park space and recreational opportunities for children and adults (Joint Use, n.d.). Two or more entities may share indoor and outdoor facilities such as playgrounds, athletic fields, and gymnasiums. The motivation for these types of agreements is to share resources to keep costs down and communities healthy. In the City of Garden Grove, five school campuses have partnered with the City to provide joint use parks. They include Hare School Park, Lake School Park, Edgar School Park, Pioneer Park, and Chapman Sports Complex, the adult education facility (City of Garden Grove, 2008) (Figure 3.60). Garden Grove has already prioritized the next school sites that meet the criteria for joint use in the City’s 2030 General Plan (2008). School lot sizes, adjacencies, and recreational facilities were reviewed during this process to differentiate which school sites to prioritize for joint use efforts to add to the existing open space network. This information will be used in conjunction with community input to inform the NMM network.

Legend Legend Civic Center-Downtown District Freeways Major Streets Santa Ana River Attractions Existing Parks in the Region Existing Joint Use Schools Planned Joint Use Schools Other Schools Figure #.#. Joint-use schools. 90 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

Figure 3.60. Right. Joint use schools.

Cypress Los Alamitos Army AirďŹ eld

Haster St

5

Anaheim

Stanton

57

Harbor Blvd

Euclid St

Brookhurst St

Magnolia St

Beach Blvd

Knott St

Valley View St

Joint Use Schools

Honda Center

Disneyland

City National Grove of Anaheim

Katella Ave

Orangewood Ave

Angel Stadium

Christ Cathedral

Chapman Ave

ARTIC

Orange

Outlets at Orange Lampson Ave

Memory Lane

Garden Grove Blvd

Trask Ave

Trask St

22 17th St

Huntington Beach

405

Hazard Ave

Westminster Mall

1st St

Bolsa Ave

Westminster

Little Saigon

Santa Ana Riv er

Westminster Ave

Santa Ana

McFadden Ave

0

Bella Terra

Fountain Valley

Mile Square Regional Park

1

2

Miles

3 - Inventory + Evaluation | 91

Park Equity Access Evaluation Parks are vital nodes in the NMM network. National Recreation Association (NRA) (1954) standards state that a total of 10 acres per 1000 residents is necessary for residents of small cities; 2.5 acres per 1000 people dedicated to active recreation, 7.5 acres dedicated to passive recreation (Moeller, 1965). Other planning standards suggest ten acres of natural land for recreation are needed per 100,000 residents in urban areas (Moeller, 1965). National standards take into account the localized cultural, socioeconomic and physical setting of a city or place (Moeller, 1965). Garden Grove has less than one acre of parks per 1,000 residents. Many cities adjacent to Garden Grove have slightly more than one park acre per 1,000 people: Santa Ana (1.05), Orange (1.48) and Westminster (1.05) (Figure 3.61).

LegendLegend Civic Center-Downtown District City of Garden Grove Freeways Waterbodies Rivers Creeks Orange County Coastal Plain and Basin Parks and Open Spaces City with Less Than 1 Acre per 1,000 People City with 1 - 2 Acres per 1,000 People City with 2 - 3 Acres per 1,000 People City with 3 - 10 Acres per 1,000 People City with More Than 10 Acres per 1,000 People

Figure #.#. Regional park score of OC cities. 92 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

Figure 3.61. Right. Regional park score of Orange County cities.

Regional Park Score of OC Cities

105

57 605

k

ee

Buena Park

te

Cr

Fullerton

yo

River

Co

91

k

Cree Long Beach

Anaheim Hills

n

rbo

Ca

Cypress

Gabriel

Prado Dam

Chino Hills State Park

Villa Park

5 Stanton

San

Los Alamitos

Anaheim

Orange

Irvine Regional Park

241

Irvine Lake

Garden Grove Seal Beach

Santiago Peak

22

Westminster

go

ia

nt

Sa

2.5

5

Miles

55

Fountain Valley 1

261

Tustin

Santa Ana R iver

0

Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve

Santa Ana

405

k

PaciďŹ c Ocean

Huntington Beach

Cree

Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge

133

Costa Mesa

Irvine

Newport Beach 73 3 - Inventory + Evaluation | 93 6

The baseline for assessing the concentration of the population served by existing parks was developed by measuring appropriate service radii, such as a quartermile, half-mile, and over half-mile distances to park facilities from neighborhoods and communities (Figure 3.62). The weighted, park accessibility map reveals areas that lack sufďŹ cient access to parks. Ideally, a neighborhood park should be within a quarter- to a half-mile (0.4 to 0.8 kilometers) walking distance of the neighborhood it serves (McCormack, et al., 2006). If accessing by bicycle, that distance can increase to two and one-half miles, a distance at which elementary aged children can ride to school (National Center for Safe Routes to Schools, n.d.). Moeller (1965) suggests that parks and playgrounds be located centrally in a neighborhood or adjacent to elementary schools in order to ensure accessibility and increase the safety of young children.

Legend Legend Civic Center-Downtown District Freeways Major Streets Santa Ana River Attractions Existing Parks in the Region Existing Parks Existing Joint Use Parks Existing Mini Parks / Open Spaces Under One-Acre Equal to / Less Than Four Block Walking Distance Quarter (1/4) Mile Walk Half (1/2) Mile Walk Outside Half (1/2) Mile Walk (Indicates Poor Accessability)

Figure #.#. Existing park accessibility within half (1/2) mile walk (18.04% city coverage). 94 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

Figure 3.62. Existing park access and proximity.

Cy ypr pres esss Cypress Los Alamitos Army AirďŹ eld

Haster St

5

An Anah ahei eim m Anaheim

Stan St anton Stanton

57

Harbor Blvd

Euclid St

Brookhurst St

Magnolia St

Beach Blvd

Knott St

Valley View St

Existing Park Access + Proximity

Hond n a Honda Cent Ce nter er Center

Disneyland Disn Di sneyla and

Cityy National Grove N tiion Na onal al G ro ove Anaheim of A nahe na heim im A gel An Angel Sttadium Stadium

Katella Ave

Orangewood Ave

Christ Chri Ch rist st Cath Ca C thed edra rall Cathedral

Chapman Ave

ARTIC A AR TIC C

Oran Or ange g Orange

Outletss at Oran nge g Orange Lampson Ave

Memory Lane

Garden Grove Blvd

Trask Ave

Trask St

22 17th St

Huntington Beach Hu Huntingt g on B each ea ch

405

Hazard Ave

Westminster West We stmi mins nste terr Mall Mall Belllla Terra Be Terr Te rra a Bella

1st St

Bolsa Ave

Westminster W West We stmi tmins inste t r ter

Littttle Li le S aigo g n Little Saigon

Santa Ana Riv er

Westminster Ave

Santa Ana Sa S Sant nta ta An A a

McFadden Ave

0

Fountain Foun Fo unta tain in Valley Vall Va llley ey

Mile Square g Regional Park

1

2

Miles Mi Mile l s les

3 - Inventory + Evaluation | 95

Park accessibility analysis revealed that almost half of Garden Grove’s residents are within one-quarter mile of a park. This analysis reveals that many of the park poor neighborhoods are along Garden Grove Boulevard and communities near the 22 Freeway, between Brookhurst Street and Euclid Street south of Garden Grove Boulevard (Figure 3.62). Wherever feasible, a more equitable distribution of parks and recreational amenities should be provided (Figure 3.63). Garden Grove’s General Plan (2008) re-interprets park inventory standards, heavily factoring in park amenities, to create community park, neighborhood park and mini-park categories. Using Garden Grove’s measurement system, the City has eleven community parks, five neighborhood parks, and three mini-parks, but no major or regional parks. Translated through National Park Association (NPA) standards, all but one of Garden Grove’s parks are neighborhood parks, with only Garden Grove Park and County-owned Twin Lakes Park meeting the community park standards. Further review of park amenities when compared with acreage reveals that three parks in Garden Grove show potential for benefiting or positively affecting the entire City: Garden Grove Park, Chapman Sports Park and Twin Lakes Park. These parks are either large in size or contain numerous or unique amenities. Garden Grove Park, for example, is a 40-acre park with 26 amenities. Evaluating parks by their layout, size and number of amenities establishes the extent to which a park space can effectively influence an area. There are three categories of a park’s range of influence as defined by the NPA: • • •

Neighborhood park – one half acre to 25 acres and serves one neighborhood; similar to how an elementary school serves one neighborhood population. Community park – large recreation areas, 25 to 50 acres, serving several neighborhoods; not unlike a high school serves multiple neighborhoods. Major park –over 50 acres and serve an entire city (NPA, 1954 and Moeller, 1965).

LegendLegend Civic Center-Downtown District Freeways Major Streets Santa Ana River Attractions Existing Parks in the Region Existing Parks with High Number of Amenities Existing Parks with Medium Number of Amenities Existing Parks with Low Number of Amenities Existing Mini Parks / Open Spaces Under One-Acre 9 - 10 Amenities 7 - 8 Amenities 4 - 6 Amenities 2 - 3 Amenities 0 - 1 Amenity

Figure #.#. Park ranking by amenities provided and population served. 96 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

Figure 3.63. Right. Park ranking by amenities provided and population served.

Cypress Los Alamitos Army AirďŹ eld

Haster St

5

Anaheim

Stanton

57

Harbor Blvd

Euclid St

Brookhurst St

Magnolia St

Beach Blvd

Knott St

Valley View St

Existing Park Amenities

Honda Center

Disneyland

City National Grove of Anaheim

Katella Ave

Orangewood Ave

Angel Stadium

Christ Cathedral

Chapman Ave

ARTIC

Orange

Outlets at Orange Lampson Ave

Memory Lane

Garden Grove Blvd

Trask Ave

Trask St

22 17th St

Huntington Beach

405

Hazard Ave

Westminster Mall

1st St

Bolsa Ave

Westminster

Little Saigon

Santa Ana Riv er

Westminster Ave

Santa Ana

McFadden Ave

0

Bella Terra

Fountain Valley

Mile Square Regional Park

1

2

Miles

3 - Inventory + Evaluation | 97

Schools Middle Schools

High Schools

57

5

5

5

22

22

22

0

405

1

2

Miles

Five public school districts and three community college districts serve residents of Garden Grove. They include: Garden Grove Unified School District (GGUSD), Westminster School District (WSD), Anaheim City School District (ACSD), Huntington Beach Unified School District (HBUSD), Orange Unified School District (OUSD), Rancho Santiago Community College District, North Orange County Community College District, and Coast Community College District (City of Garden Grove, 2008). There are 34 elementary, six intermediate, two academy, one continuation, and six high schools (Figures 3.64, 3.65, 3.66, & 3.67). There is one college and a handful of other types of schools, including private, day schools, and special centers.

405

Santa Ana Riv er

Santa Ana Riv er

405

57

57

0

1

2

0 Miles

LegendLegend Civic Center-Downtown District Freeways Major Streets Santa Ana River Attractions Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools Adult Education Centers Figure #.#. Schools.

98 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

Santa Ana Riv er

Elementary Schools

Figure 3.64. Top Left. Elementary schools. Figure 3.65. Top Middle. Middle schools. Figure 3.66. Top Right. High schools. Figure 3.67. Right. Schools in Garden Grove.

1

2

Miles

Cypress Los Alamitos Army AirďŹ eld

Haster St

5

Anaheim

Stanton

57

Harbor Blvd

Euclid St

Brookhurst St

Magnolia St

Beach Blvd

Knott St

Valley View St

Schools

Honda Center

Disneyland

City National Grove of Anaheim Angel Stadium

Katella Ave

Orangewood Ave

Christ Cathedral

Chapman Ave

ARTIC

Orange

Outlets at Orange Lampson Ave

Garden Grove Blvd

Memory Lane

22

Trask St

Trask Ave

17th St

Huntington Beach

405

Hazard Ave

Westminster Mall

1st St

Bolsa Ave

Westminster

Little Saigon

Santa Ana Riv er

Westminster Ave

Santa Ana

McFadden Ave

0

Bella Terra

Fountain Valley

Mile Square Regional Park

1

2

Miles

3 - Inventory + Evaluation | 99

Middle Schools Access & Proximity

High Schools Access & Proximity 57

57

5

5

5

22

Santa Ana Riv er

405

0

1

2

22

Santa Ana Riv er

22

405

57

0

405

1

Miles

2

0

Miles

School Equity Access Evaluation Mapping the proximity of populations served by local schools reveals the mix of schools as well dispersed throughout Garden Grove. Three-quarters of the population are within one-quarter mile of an elementary school, though as children progress through the school system, the student population becomes concentrated in fewer schools. Thus, only one-quarter of the population is within one-quarter mile of a middle or high school. Residents farthest from local schools are located on the western boundary of Garden Grove (Figures 3.68, 3.69, 3.70, & 3.71). Schools in Garden Grove serve as nodes to be connected to the NMM network through the inclusion of Safe Routes to Schools. The Safe Routes to Schools program was created in response to the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users Act (SAFETEA-LU) (National Center for Environmental Health [NCEH], 2010). SAFETEA-LU is a Federal-Aid program overseen by the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration (NCEH, 2010). The objectives of the program are to: provide access and encourage children to walk or cycle to school; ensure bicycling and walking to school are safe and appealing; and facilitate the planning, development, and implementation of projects and programming that will improve the health and safety of students walking and cycling to school through the reduction of traffic, fuel consumption, and air pollution in the vicinity of primary and middle schools (approximately two miles) (NCEH, 2010).

LegendLegend Civic Center-Downtown District Freeways Major Streets Santa Ana River Attractions Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools Adult Education Centers Within 1/4 Mile Within 1/2 Mile Outside 1/2 Mile Figure #.#. School access and proximity.

100 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

Santa Ana Riv er

Elementary Schools Access & Proximity

Figure 3.68. Top Left. Elementary schools access and proximity. Figure 3.69. Top Middle. Middle schools access and proximity. Figure 3.70. Top Right. High schools access and proximity. Figure 3.71. Right. Schools access and proximity.

1

2

Miles

Cypress Los Alamitos Army AirďŹ eld

Haster St

5

Anaheim

Stanton

57

Harbor Blvd

Euclid St

Brookhurst St

Magnolia St

Beach Blvd

Knott St

Valley View St

Schools Access + Proximity

Honda Center

Disneyland

City National Grove of Anaheim Angel Stadium

Katella Ave

Orangewood Ave

Christ Cathedral

Chapman Ave

ARTIC

Orange

Outlets at Orange Lampson Ave

Garden Grove Blvd

Memory Lane

22

Trask St

Trask Ave

17th St

Huntington Beach

405

Hazard Ave

Westminster Mall

1st St

Bolsa Ave

Westminster

Little Saigon

Santa Ana Riv er

Westminster Ave

Santa Ana

McFadden Ave

0

Bella Terra

Fountain Valley

Mile Square Regional Park

1

2

Miles

3 - Inventory + Evaluation | 101

Regional Landmarks & Attractions 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.

Arden: Helena Modjeska Historical House and Garden Anaheim Convention Center Anaheim GardenWalk Angel Stadium Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve Bowers Museum Bella Terra Brea Mall Cerritos Town Center Chino Hills State Park Christ Cathedral City National Grove of Anaheim Discovery Science Center Disneyland Downtown Santa Ana Historic Districts El Dorado East Regional Park Fashion Island Center Honda Center Huntington Beach Pier Irvine Lake

21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46.

Irvine Regional Park Irvine Spectrum Korean Business District Knott’s Berry Farm Little Saigon Long Beach Towne Center Los Alamitos Race Course Mile Square Regional Park Old Orange County Courthouse Orange Circle Antique Mall Orange County Fairgrounds Prado Dam Ramona Peralta Adobe Santa Ana Zoo Santiago Oaks Regional Park Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge Segerstrom Center for the Arts South Coast Plaza The CAMP The Outlets at Orange University of California, Irvine Upper Newport Bay Nature Preserve Verizon Wireless Amphitheater WestďŹ eld MainPlace Mall Westminster Mall Yorba Cemetery

Legend Civic Center-Downtown District City of Garden Grove Adjacent Cities Orange County Coastal Plain and Basin Freeways Major Streets Waterbodies Rivers Creeks

Figure 3.72. Top Left. Discovery Science Center (from discoverycube.org). Figure 3.73. Bottom Left. South Coast Plaza (from Coolcaesar at en.wikipedia.org). Figure 3.74. Right. Regional landmarks and attractions.

Regional Landmarks + Attractions

105

Gabriel

Cree

k

State College Blvd

Harbor Blvd

Euclid St

Stanton

14

Los Alamitos

Orange

4

Chapman Ave

11 40

30

37

38

Ana R iver

Beach Blvd

Santa Ana

Fountain Valley

Sant a

Bolsa Chica St

28

Costa Mesa

Newport Beach

261 Warner Ave

55

John Wayne Airport 42

133

Irvine

39 31

k

Miles

405

Tustin

Cree

5

34

go

19

1st St

15 29

25

1

17th St

ia

Huntington Beach

20

44 13

nt

5

6

Westminster

7

Santiago Peak

21

22 45

241

12

Sa

36

Villa Park

18 Katella Ave

3

Garden Grove

Bolsa Ave

Anaheim Hills 35

Ball Rd

2

Seal Beach

Westminster Ave

2.5

33

23

Garden Grove Blvd

46

Anaheim

Los Alamitos 27 Army Airfield

32

n

rbo

Ca

91

Valley View St

River

San

Cypress

10

24

5

16 Lampson Ave

te

yo

Co

9

26

Cr

Magnolia St

e

Buena Park

Long Beach

ek

Brookhurst St

Fullerton

605

0

57

8

22 1

41 43

73

Pacific Ocean

RE:Imagine Garden Grove | 103

17

24

Landmarks and Attractions Regional Landmarks and Attractions Located at the center of seven different freeways, Garden Grove allows residents to access a variety of commercial, cultural, entertainment, historic, and recreational landmarks and attractions throughout Orange County (Figures 3.75-3.85). They provide an abundance of options for shopping, dining, and recreational activities for both regional visitors and local residents. These destinations include the following: Commercial • Anaheim Convention Center • Anaheim GardenWalk • Bella Terra • Brea Mall

• • • • • • • • • •

Cerritos Town Center Fashion Island Center Irvine Spectrum Little Saigon Orange Circle Antique Mall South Coast Plaza The CAMP The Outlets at Orange Westfield MainPlace Mall Westminster Mall

Cultural • Bowers Museum • Discovery Science Center • Segerstrom Center for the Arts

Entertainment • Angel Stadium • City National Grove of Anaheim • Honda Center • Los Alamitos Race Course Historic • Arden: Helena Modjeska Historical House and Garden • Old Orange County Courthouse • Ramona Peralta Adobe • Yorba Cemetery Recreational • Disneyland • Knott’s Berry Farm • Orange County Fairgrounds • Santa Ana Zoo

This Page: Figure 3.75. Left. Anaheim Angel Stadium (from slagshouseofstats.com). Figure 3.76. Right. Disneyland. Next Page: Figure 3.77. Top Left. Honda Center (from beeeper.net). Figure 3.78. Top Middle. Segerstrom Center for the Arts (from southcoastmetro.com). Figure 3.79. Top Right. Irvine Spectrum (from petersonimages.com). Figure 3.80. Middle Left. Anaheim Convention Center (from used-piano.com). Figure 3.81. Middle Middle. Santa Ana Zoo (from findsantaanahomes.com). Figure 3.82. Middle Right. Anaheim GardenWalk (from tasteofanaheim365.com). Figure 3.83. Bottom Left. Bowers Museum (from static.panoramio.com). Figure 3.84. Bottom Middle. Asian Garden Mall in Little Saigon. Figure 3.85. Bottom Right. The Outlets at Orange (from mngirlinla.com).

105

Local Landmarks and Attractions Landmarks are unique, place-making features that help establish the character of a city (City of Garden Grove, 2008). There are ďŹ ve distinctive landmarks in Garden Grove: the Clock Tower, Christ Cathedral, Korean Business District, Historic Main Street, and Stanley Ranch Museum Historical Village (City of Garden Grove, 2008) (Figures 3.87-3.91). Civic Center Clock Tower The 43-foot tall tower, also known as the Tower on the Green, is located in the City’s oldest park, Village Green, at the northern corner of Main Street and Euclid Street (Garden Grove Community Foundation, n.d.) (Figure 3.89). Proposed by the Garden Grove Community Foundation, designed by Miles Fulson Architect, and funded through $118,000 in private donations, the tower was completed and dedicated to Garden Grove residents on April 18, 2002 (GGCF, n.d.). The Tower represents the proud spirit of the community and residents of Garden Grove (GGCF, n.d.). Christ Cathedral Previously founded by Dr. Robert Schuller for the Evangelical Christian Congregation and originally known as the Crystal Cathedral, the church was later sold to the Roman Catholic Diocese of Orange County in 2011 (Hill, 2012). Christ Cathedral is a 10,000-panel glass mega-church designed by architects Philip Johnson and John Burgee and completed in 1980 (Hill, 2012). The church is located on a 30.9-acre lot at the northeastern corner of Garden Grove, at the intersection of Chapman Avenue and Lewis Street (Hill, 2012) (Figure 3.87). Christ Cathedral shares a campus with the Arboretum and a number of structures. Notable on-campus buildings include the Tower of Hope designed by Richard Neutra, and the Center for Possibility Thinking, designed by Richard Meier. These three structures create an uplifting and spiritual experience for visitors and church attendees (Hill, 2012).

LegendLegend Civic Center-Downtown District

Korean Business District

Freeways

A commercial district, located along Garden Grove Boulevard between Beach Boulevard and Brookhurst Street, Korean merchants founded the Korean Business district over 20 years ago (Orange County Register, 2009) (Figure 3.90). As the only Korean Business district in Orange County, the area contains nearly 1,000 ethnic mom-and-pop shops and restaurants, representing about half of the business types found in this district (Orange County Register, 2009).

Major Streets Santa Ana River Regional Attractions 1

Christ Cathedral

2

Civic Center Clock Tower

3

Historic Main Street

4

Korean Business District

5

Stanley Ranch Museum

Figure #.#. Local lankmarks and attractions. 106 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

Figure 3.86. Right. Local landmarks and attractions.

Cypress Los Alamitos Army AirďŹ eld

Haster St

5

Anaheim

Stanton

57

Harbor Blvd

Euclid St

Brookhurst St

Magnolia St

Beach Blvd

Knott St

Valley View St

Local Landmarks + Attractions

Disneyland

Honda Center City National Grove of Anaheim Angel Stadium

Katella Ave

Orangewood Ave

ARTIC

Orange

Chapman Ave

1 Outlets at Orange

5 Lampson Ave

2 3

4

Garden Grove Blvd

Memory Lane

Trask Ave

Trask St

22 17th St

Huntington Beach

405

Hazard Ave

Westminster Mall

1st St

Bolsa Ave

Westminster

Little Saigon

Santa Ana Riv er

Westminster Ave

Santa Ana

McFadden Ave

0

Bella Terra

Fountain Valley

Mile Square Regional Park

1

2

Miles

3 - Inventory + Evaluation | 107

Historic Main Street Established in 1874, Historic Main Street is one of the oldest and most identifiable streets in the City. Main Street is a one-block length of old-fashioned storefronts located in the Civic-Center Downtown District. Much of Main Street was destroyed in the 1933 earthquake and many of the buildings were reconstructed during the following years (Garden Grove Historical Society, 2005). With an old town atmosphere, the street provides a variety of specialty shops, professional services, and restaurants, as well as weekly classic car shows and a farmers’ market (HMSGG, 2014) (Figure 3.91). Some of the oldest restaurants in Garden Grove are on Main Street, such as Kaye’s Kitchen and Azteca (HMSGG, 2014).

108 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

Stanley Ranch Museum Stanley Ranch Museum (Figure 3.88) includes a two-acre lot donated by Agnes Stanley in 1970 and currently owned and managed by the Garden Grove Historical Society, a nonprofit organization (City of Garden Grove, n.d.). Today, the property houses some of the City’s oldest residences as well as public and private buildings, such as the Ware-Stanley House, Garden Grove’s first post office and a barber shop, among other historic structures (City of Garden Grove, n.d.). Financial support and maintenance of the museum and historic village are performed through volunteer fundraising efforts and private donations (City of Garden Grove, n.d.).

Figure 3.87. Top Left. Christ Cathedral. Figure 3.88. Top Middle. Stanley Ranch Museum. Figure 3.89. Top Right. Civic Center Clock Tower. Figure 3.90. Bottom Middle. Korean Business District (from jstudentboard.com). Figure 3.91. Bottom Right. Historic Main Street.

Food Options and Sustenance Restaurants Access & Proximity

Healthy Food Access & Proximity

57

5

5

5

22

22

22

0

405

1

2

Miles

405

Santa Ana Riv er

Santa Ana Riv er

405

57

57

0

1

2

0 Miles

One way to include food options in a land use analysis is to categorize food as healthy options, versus lesshealthy and non-healthy food options. Healthy food options were categorized to include any store or market that provides access to fresh produce. Garden Grove has 32 grocery stores and markets, one weekly farmer’s market, and one community garden (ESRI Business Analyst, n.d.) (Figure 3.95). Restaurants are not categorized, as there are varying types and choices. Less-healthy eating options include fast food, liquor stores, and gas stations. In total, Garden Grove has 186 restaurants, 15 gas stations, and 30 liquor stores (ESRI Business Analyst, n.d.). Grocery stores, markets, and community gardens are sources of healthy foods that should be used as destinations for the NMM network.

Food Options and Sustenance Evaluation The food options inventory maps have been identified separately in order to gain an overarching sense of the availability of healthy food versus less-healthy food in and within a half-mile of the City of Garden Grove (Figures 3.92, 3.93, & 3.94). Access to healthy food options was ranked by population density and income level. A comparison of the number of fast food and convenience stores versus the number of and access to grocery stores and other stores with fresh produce (a ratio of 2:1 is common) demonstrates areas that are healthy food rich and areas that are healthy food poor (Raja, et al., 2008).

LegendLegend Civic Center-Downtown District Freeways Major Streets Santa Ana River Attractions

Mapping the results demonstrate that there are a number of middle-class and more affluent, west side residential neighborhoods that are beyond a half-mile to sources of healthy food. Limited healthy food availability (beyond a half-mile distance) is also experienced by mixed-income neighborhoods through the center of Garden Grove, between Brookhurst Street and Euclid Avenues north of the 22 Freeway (Figure 3.94). A number of large, low-income neighborhood patches along the 22 Freeway are also beyond the half-mile radius from healthy food options. Many of these neighborhoods have higher concentrations of fast food chains, convenience and

110 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

Santa Ana Riv er

Less-Healthy Food Access & Proximity

Healthy Food Locations Restaurant Locations Less-Healthy Food Locations

Figure #.#. Food options.

Figure 3.92. Top Left. Less-healthy food access and proximity. Figure 3.93. Top Middle. Restaurants access and proximity. Figure 3.94. Top Right. Healthy food access and proximity. Figure 3.95. Right. Food options.

1

2

Miles

Cypress Los Alamitos Army AirďŹ eld

Haster St

5

Anaheim

Stanton

57

Harbor Blvd

Euclid St

Brookhurst St

Magnolia St

Beach Blvd

Knott St

Valley View St

Food Options

Honda Center

Disneyland

City National Grove of Anaheim Angel Stadium

Katella Ave

Orangewood Ave

Christ Cathedral

Chapman Ave

ARTIC

Orange

Outlets at Orange Lampson Ave

Memory Lane

Garden Grove Blvd

Trask Ave

Trask St

22 17th St

Huntington Beach

405

Hazard Ave

Westminster Mall

1st St

Bolsa Ave

Westminster

Little Saigon

Santa Ana Riv er

Westminster Ave

Santa Ana

McFadden Ave

0

Bella Terra

Fountain Valley

Mile Square Regional Park

1

2

Miles

3 - Inventory + Evaluation | 111

liquor stores than elsewhere in the city, particularly the southwest and southeast portions of the city (Figure 3.92). Ensuring access to fresh and nutritious food is one of the aims of a well-planned non-motorized network (Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice, 2013). Making healthy foods more accessible, including fresh produce from stores, farmers’ markets and community gardens, can impact the consumption rates of fruits and vegetables (National City, 2011). Also, the high consumption of fast food or formula restaurants often correlates to weight gain along with other significant health problems (Li et. al, 2009). Level of income often affects healthy food choices. High calorie foods tend to be the least expensive, and the highest rates of obesity often correlate to limited economic means (Routers Health, 2008). Additionally, recent studies have made connections to dining out and weight gain (Raja, et al., 2000). Therefore, walking or cycling to restaurants and other less nutritious sources of food mediate this dynamic. Healthy food access issues are addressed by ensuring healthy food establishments are nodes that are included in the NMM network. Identifying sites to locate urban farms and community gardens—along with exploring the feasibility of creating collaborations or partnerships that result in dual use on private property and institutional sites—can create opportunities to expand the open space network and provide recreational activities. This model will be used in conjunction with community input to identify routes for the NMM network and to inform which communities would be most amenable to urban farms and community gardens.

Figure 3.96. Left. Garden Grove Community Garden. Figure 3.97. Right. Vietnamese Cao Dai Temple. 112 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

Places of Worship Garden Grove currently has 58 established places of worship (ESRI Dataset, n.d.). These include a wide range of services that cater to many different cultures and religious views. Garden Grove has the state’s highest number of places of worship per capita (Garden Grove, 2014).

Places of Worship Evaluation Places of worship have the potential to provide social value that extends beyond traditional religious services. These sanctuaries offer a quasi-public space where everyone is welcome. Garden Grove is fortunate to have many houses of worship dispersed throughout the City. Over half the population is within one-quarter mile of a religious center, although not necessarily to the resident’s own congregation. Many of these private institutions may be appropriate to partner with the City as joint use sites, expanding and enhancing the park and open space network (Figure 3.97).

Public Resources Public resources include municipal services (e.g., libraries and postal services) and health care facilities. Public resources are used by a large cross-section of the public and therefore are important destinations to include in a NMM network. Some public resources can be used for joint use sites, expanding and enhancing the park and open space network (Figure 3.98).

Libraries There are three library facilities located in Garden Grove: County of Orange Garden Grove Regional Library located in the Civic Center–Downtown District (Stanford Avenue and Euclid Street), Chapman Branch Library (Chapman Avenue near Magnolia Street), and Garden Grove West Library (Bailey Street and Chapman Avenue) (Figure 3.98). Garden Grove Regional Library is centrally located in the Civic Center District and popular amongst residents, as observed in the community mapping activities. This library is sited next to a community park with a pond (which has a large variety of water fowl, chickens, roosters and rabbits) and the building itself contains a large children’s section, computer areas, and a sizeable collection of material, including films. There are other libraries in the vicinity just outside Garden Grove. To the north, there is Stanton Library off Beach Boulevard and Euclid Library off Euclid Street in Anaheim. To the south in Santa Ana, there are two libraries close to Garden Grove: Neally Library (at Santa Ana College off Westminster Avenue) and Newhope Library Learning Center off Newhope Street. South-southwest from Garden Grove is the Westminster Branch Library off Beach Boulevard. To the west is the Los Alamitos–Rossmoor Library (just north of the Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach). To the northeast is the Stanton Library on Beach Boulevard.

Post Offices and Postal Service Facilities There are seven post offices within the City (ESRI Dataset, n.d.). One post office is located on the western end of Garden Grove near Valley View Street and Chapman Avenue. Four are centrally located in the City, two of which are near the Civic Center–Downtown District area on Stanford Avenue and Nutwood Street, one near the southern border of the City at Capital Avenue, and one near Harbor Boulevard and Garden Grove Boulevard (ESRI Dataset, n.d.).

Municipal Services Evaluation City services, such as public libraries and post offices, are public amenities that are meant to be accessible to everyone and should be nodes within a NMM network. The popular Garden Grove Regional Library is one example of such a node, which has been confirmed through community input. Given its popularity with residents of Garden Grove, accessibility to this type of public institution through means of NMM is imperative.

Hospitals and Health Care Facilities Regionally, there are several hospitals near Garden Grove: Kindred Hospital in southwest Santa Ana; University of California Irvine Medical Center directly west of Garden Grove on Westminster Avenue; Children’s Hospital of Orange County (in the same area as the UC Irvine Medical Center); Kindred Hospital Westminster, in south Westminster; and Woman, Infant Children Health Clinic (WIC) located in Stanton between west and central Garden Grove (Google Maps, 2014). There are three major hospitals in Garden Grove: Kaiser Permanente, on Euclid Street near Chapman Avenue; Garden Grove Hospital, on Garden Grove Boulevard near Harbor Boulevard; and St. Jude Children’s Hospital—a research institute and cancer treatment center—on Lewis Street and Lampson Avenue (ESRI Business Analyst, n.d.). All of these medical facilities are located in the east portion of Garden Grove, just east of central Garden Grove near Euclid Street.

114 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

Figure 3.98. Places of worship, public and health services.

LegendLegend Civic Center-Downtown District Freeways Streets Santa Ana River Attractions Health Services Libraries Places of Worship Post Offices Senior Centers

Figure #.#. Places of worship, public and health services.

.

Cypress Los Alamitos Army AirďŹ eld

Haster St

5

Anaheim

Stanton

57

Harbor Blvd

Euclid St

Brookhurst St

Magnolia St

Beach Blvd

Knott St

Valley View St

Places of Worship, Public + Health Services

Disneyland

Honda Center City National Grove of Anaheim Angel Stadium

Katella Ave

Orangewood Ave

ARTIC

Orange

Chapman Ave

Outlets at Orange Lampson Ave

Memory Lane

Garden Grove Blvd

Trask Ave

Trask St

22 17th St

Huntington Beach

405

Hazard Ave

Westminster Mall

1st St

Bolsa Ave

Westminster

Little Saigon

Santa Ana Riv er

Westminster Ave

Santa Ana

McFadden Ave

0

Bella Terra

Fountain Valley

Mile Square Regional Park

1

2

Miles

3 - Inventory + Evaluation | 115

Transportation The Southern California Association of Governments’ (SCAG) regional inventory of road, rail, and air transportation systems resulted in 21,630 miles of highways and arterial roads, 470 miles of passenger rail, and six air carrier airports in SCAG territory (SCAG, 2012). The mode share breakdown of commuting habits in Orange County: Driving Alone 77% Other 4% Ride Bicycle 1%

Carpool 13%

Walk 2% Use Public Transportation 3%

Multimodal transportation planning breaks from traditional, automobile-centric forms of transportation planning, acknowledging and underscoring the need for transportation options that move people through cities and connect regions through the development of flexible, integrated transportation infrastructure that supports pedestrian, bicycle, bus, rail, and automotive travel (Walkable & Livable Communities Institute, n.d.). Multimodal transportation planning and design function in unison with existing transportation infrastructure and in tandem with developing new infrastructure to bolster commuter options (Walkable & Livable Communities Institute, n.d.). The current situation in Southern California presents numerous challenges to adapting existing transportation infrastructure for a variety of reasons. Challenges include: •

Figure 3.99. Commuting trends in Orange County (OCTA, 2009).

In an effort to reverse trends such as these across the State, California Assembly Bill 1358, the Complete Streets Act of 2008, compels cities and counties to integrate the notion of ‘Complete Streets’ in their general plan updates to ensure that transportation planners address and provide a variety of commuting options (SCAG, 2012). SCAG’s (2012) regional imperatives for multimodal transportation strategies include addressing air quality and population growth. The SCAG region has the worst air quality in the nation with serious adverse health effects and thousands of premature deaths every year. According to the South Coast Air Quality Management District (2011), the monetary valuation of air pollution in Southern California is estimated to be at least $14.6 billion annually. Projected population growth will intensify the region’s prevailing mobility challenges.

•

•

Integration: the ability to make transitions between multiple modes depends on the level of integration among the modes of transportation, overall safety, convenience, and comfort of an area’s internal circulation facilities (Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning [CMAP], 2014). Safety and convenience: the actual and perceived safety and convenience of an area’s internal circulation network (CMAP, 2014). Financing: the costs of multimodal transportation needs exceed anticipated revenues available from the gas tax, which is the traditional transportation funding source (SCAG, 2012).

LegendLegend Civic Center-Downtown District City of Garden Grove Adjacent Cities Orange County Coastal Plain and Basin Freeways Major Streets Waterbodies Rivers Creeks Goods Transport Rail (Active) Passenger Transit Rail (Active) Inactive Rail Non-Motorized Network Existing

Providing a more cohesive transportation network in Garden Grove will require a link between the existing local network to proposed regional networks.

Class I Class II Class III

Figure 4.#. Regional multimodal transportation. 116 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

Figure 3.100. Right. Regional multimodal transportation.

Regional Multimodal Transportation

105 57

k ee

River

Cree

Fullerton

Buena Park

n

te

o oy

91

Carbo

Anaheim Hills 241

Cypress Los Alamitos Stanton Army AirďŹ eld Los Alamitos

5 Garden Grove

Irvine Regional Park

Villa Park

Anaheim

San

Gabriel

C Long Beach

k

Cr

605

Prado Dam

Chino Hills State Park

Orange

Santiago Peak

Irvine Lake

22

Tustin 261

k

Cree

Miles

PaciďŹ c Ocean

55

Ana R iver

Fountain Valley

Sant a

5

go

2.5

Santa Ana

405

Huntington Beach Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve 1

0

Westminster

ia

Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge

nt

Sa

Seal Beach

Costa Mesa

Newport Beach

Irvine

133

John Wayne Airport

73 3 - Inventory + Evaluation | 117

Bicycle Networks

Class II – Lanes

The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) provides a general guideline for the various levels of bicycling skill (2009). Three cyclist types were developed: A, B, and C and it is important to provide route options that serve all three types of rider.

On-street, striped, and signed lanes are located in the street right-of-way and delineated by painted stripes (OCTA, 2013). Although such lanes are designated for cyclist use, the occasional jogger or skater may be observed using the right-hand shoulder of the lane.

•

•

•

A, or Advanced Riders are cyclists who use their bicycle for utilitarian purposes. These types of riders prefer routes for convenience and speed, and therefore require quicker and more direct access to their destinations with limited delays and street distractions. They are also typically more comfortable riding with vehicular traffic. B, or Basic Riders may also commute to key destinations, but would prefer to ride without vehicular traffic. These riders are characterized as unwilling to share roads and ultimately avoid roads with heavy vehicular traffic, unless wider road widths improve perceived safety. C, or Children Riders include students who require access to specific points of interest. The points of interest or destinations are often schools, recreational facilities, and convenience stores, which children and students typically use on a routine basis (OCTA, 2009). They prefer or are advised to ride on residential streets with low vehicular speeds, shared-use paths, and busier streets with clear pavement separations between bicyclists and motor vehicles to avoid riding in traffic on arterial streets (OCTA, 2009).

In order to understand mobility facility planning, one must understand the categories of routes to be traditionally expected. There are three classes of bicycle facilities: Class I – Paths or Trails

Class III – Routes On-street, shared-lane routes are designated by signs but may include sharrow lane marking or bike route stamps to raise driver awareness for traffic calming purposes (OCTA, 2013). The OCTA took an inventory of all existing and planned bikeway data submitted by all of the County’s local jurisdictions. Local jurisdiction stakeholders included all 34 Orange County cities, the County of Orange, and Caltrans. Results show that as of 2009, Orange County has more than 1,000 miles of bikeways (Figure 3.102), with an additional 700 planned miles (OCTA, 2009).

Civic Center-Downtown District City of Garden Grove Adjacent Cities Orange County Coastal Plain and Basin Freeways

Class III Bike Routes 26%

Major Streets Waterbodies Rivers

Class II Bike Lanes 65%

Creeks

Class I Off-street Paths 9%

Attractions Non-Motorized Network Existing

Figure 3.101. Regional existing non-motorized network breakdown (OCTA, 2009, p. 3).

OCTA Planned

Class I Class II

Trails and paths are physically separate from road rightof-ways, usually offering both bicycle and pedestrian facilities (SCAG, 2013). These shared paths serve multiple purposes, offering a range of activities for different ability levels (OCTA, 2013). 118 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

LegendLegend

Figure 3.102. Right. Regional existing and OCTA planned non-motorized network.

Class III

Figure 4.#. Regional existing and OCTA planned non-motorized network.

Regional Existing + OCTA Planned Non-Motorized Network

Cerritos Towne Center

Knott’s Berry Farm

Gabriel

Long Beach

Stanton

k

Ball Rd

17th St

Rive r

Newport Beach

Miles

PaciďŹ c Ocean

261

Santa Ana

Warner Ave

k

Costa Mesa

Tustin

Cree

Fountain Valley

go

405

ia

1st St

Westminster

Huntington Beach Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve 1

nt

Bolsa Chica St

Main Place Mall

22

Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge

5

Santiago Peak

Irvine Lake

Chapman Ave

Sa

Bolsa Ave

Orange

Garden Grove

Sa nta An a

San

Seal Beach

Irvine Regional Park

Villa Park

5

Los Alamitos

Westminster Ave

2.5

Anaheim Hills

The Anaheim Resort

Garden Grove Blvd

0

n Anaheim Canyon Business Center

rbo

Ca

241

Katella Ave Lampson Ave

Prado Dam

Chino Hills State Park

91

Beach Blvd

River

y Co

Euclid St

Magnolia St

ote

Cr

Harbor Blvd

k

ee

Buena Park

Brookhurst St

605

State College Blvd

Fullerton

57

Cree

Brea Mall

105

55

Segerstrom Center John Wayne Orange Airport County Fairgrounds 73

Fashion Island Center

Irvine

133

Irvine Spectrum Irvine Business Complex 3 - Inventory + Evaluation | 119

Orange County Transit Authority Comprehensive Bikeways Masterplan The OCTA began developing a comprehensive Orange County Bikeways Masterplan (OCBMP) (OCTA, 2009). Initiated in 1995, the OCBMP was adopted in 2009 and puts forth a proposed bike network (OCTA, 2009). OCTA (2009) hopes to achieve a reduction in automobile dependency. The OCBMP focused on delivering priority bike lanes to regional destinations (OCTA, 2009). OCTA identified regional employment centers, existing Orange County transit stations, colleges and universities, regional attractions, and shopping centers as key destinations (OCTA, 2009) (Figure 3.103). Improving bicycle facilities in these focus areas was intended to make bicycle commuting a more viable and promotable option (OCTA, 2009). In addition, studies show that the average cyclist is willing to commute roughly five miles to work, which makes destinations within that vicinity a priority (OCTA, 2009). It should be noted that the City of Garden Grove is only partially inside of the priority zone adjacent to the Anaheim Resort District and Downtown Santa Ana. Garden Grove’s existing and proposed NMM network should be considered as an additional priority zone for regional bicycle connectivity. Existing and OCTA–Planned Bicycle Network Evaluation Existing bicycle facilities and the OCBMP were evaluated for accessibility as measured by a one-quarter or halfmile parameter nominal distance proximity and inputted into a ranking system (to be discussed further in Section 5) (Figure 3.103). These models show which neighborhoods are underserved and in greater need of access to destinations in the City of Garden Grove. The basis for evaluation was two-fold: (1) access to bicycle paths by population served; and (2) proximity to existing and planned bike paths. An inventory of route classifications was also inputted into the model to address safety. Class I paths are considered safest, offering facilities separated from the street network, Class II lanes have markings that indicate preferential use by cyclists, and routes that have signs but are not required to be marked for the exclusive use of cyclists are categorized under Class III (International Bicycle Fund, n.d.) and perceived as the least safe, hence the recent popularity of sharrow marking.

LegendLegend Civic Center-Downtown District City of Garden Grove Adjacent Cities Orange County Coastal Plain and Basin Freeways Major Streets Waterbodies Rivers Creeks Attractions Regional OCTA Planned Non-Motorized Network Priority Areas College or University Metrolink Station Bus Station

Figure 4.#. Regional OCTA planned non-motorized network priority. 120 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

Figure 3.103. Right. Regional OCTA planned non-motorized network priority.

Regional OCTA Planned Non-Motorized Network Priority

Brea Mall

105

Los Alamitos Army Airfield Los Alamitos

k

State College Blvd

Magnolia St

Cree Orange Katella Ave

Main Street Area

17th St

Sant a

Ana R iver

Bolsa Chica St

Pacific Ocean

261 Warner Ave

Irvine Irvine Business Complex

k

Miles

Costa Mesa Orange County John Fairgrounds Wayne Airport Newport Beach

55

Tustin

Cree

Fountain Valley

Segerstrom Center South Coast Plaza

1st St

go

1

Mile Square Regional Park

Downtown Santa Santa Ana Ana

ia

Huntington Beach

Santiago Peak

Irvine Lake

Chapman Ave

Main Place Mall

Westminster

405

Irvine Regional Park

Villa Park

nt

5

241

Sa

2.5

Ball Rd

Garden Grove

Westminster Mall Bella Tera

Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve

Anaheim Hills

22

Bolsa Ave

0

Stanton

Seal Beach

Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge

n Anaheim Canyon Business Center

rbo

Ca

Anaheim The Anaheim 5 Resort

Prado Dam

Chino Hills State Park

91

Knott’s Berry Farm

Beach Blvd

Gabriel Westminster Ave

Cypress

Valley View St

River

Cerritos Towne Center

San

Garden Grove Blvd

ote

Cr

y Co

Long Beach

Lampson Ave

k

ee

Buena Park

Euclid St

605

Brookhurst St

Fullerton

Harbor Blvd

57

133

Irvine Spectrum

73

Fashion Island Center

3 - Inventory + Evaluation | 121

Rail There are four different railroad lines in and around Garden Grove. Union Pacific and Burlington Northern–Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) are the two largest freight railroad networks in North America, with the Union Pacific line passing through Garden Grove parallel to Western Avenue and the BNSF line running north to east of Garden Grove (Union Pacific, 2013; BNSF, 2013). The US Navy Railway and Pacific Electric Railroad are no longer in use. Parts of the Metrolink 512-mile system operate on tracks owned by Union Pacific, BNSF, and North County Transportation District (NCTD), which also serve interstate passenger commuters through Amtrak (Progressive Railroading, 2014) (Figure 3.104). US Navy Railway The US Navy railway utilized a section (e.g., portion of track) of the Union Pacific Rail to connect to the Naval Station. In 2010, the Naval Weapons Station (NWS) Seal Beach decided to suspend use of their locomotive operations, instead converting to an all-truck operation (Navy, 2010). The rail system in NWS had been in use since WWII and continued to utilize the railcars and locomotives from that era until its suspension (Navy 2010). Upon exceeding its service life twice over, an estimated $12 million in recapitalization costs were needed to repair the line, so the Navy discontinued its use (Bero, 2010).

LegendLegend Civic Center-Downtown District City of Garden Grove Adjacent Cities

Union Pacific Railway

Orange County Coastal Plain and Basin

A small section of Union Pacific-owned tracks run through the west side of Garden Grove. Parts of the Navy-owned railway in Westminster connect two stretches of Union Pacific’s rail lines along Hoover Street (Figure 3.104). One stretch is utilized by Union Pacific and terminates at the Seal Beach Naval station (Union Pacific, 2013). The other terminates in Huntington Beach (Union Pacific, 2013). This combined railway section (owned by Navy and Union Pacific) along Hoover Street is also an energy corridor with high voltage transmission lines running parallel and adjacent to the rail. A portion of this stretch is dedicated to a Class I path (OCTA, 2012).

Freeways Major Streets Waterbodies Rivers Creeks Goods Transport Rail (Active)

Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) Burlington Northern Incorporated merged with Santa Fe Pacific Corporation to become the secondlargest freight railroad network in the United States, after Union Pacific (Hightower & Belden, 1994). Adjacent to Garden Grove (in Anaheim), BNSF railways are utilized by Metrolink in addition to freight trains throughout Los Angeles, Orange and Riverside counties. While BNSF railways do not directly enter Garden Grove, they do connect to the newly built ARTIC station in Anaheim in order to serve Metrolink customers.

Passenger Transit Rail (Active) Inactive Rail 1

US Railways

2

Union Pacific Railways

3

Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway (BNSF)

4

Pacific Electric Right-of-Way (PE ROW)

5

Metrolink

Figure 4.#. Regional railways. 122 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

Figure 3.104. Right. Regional railways.

Regional Railways

105

k ee Cr

Buena Park

k

Fullerton

e

ot

y Co

River

57

Cree

605

n

Carbo

91

Anaheim Hills 3

241

Cypress 5

Stanton Los Alamitos Army Airfield Los Alamitos

2

Villa Park

Irvine Regional Park

Anaheim 5 Orange

22

Ana R iver

Sant a

5

1

Miles

Pacific Ocean

261

k

Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve

Fountain Valley

Tustin

55

Irvine Costa Mesa

Newport Beach

Cree

Huntington Beach

Santa Ana

go

405

ia

Westminster

Seal Beach Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge

nt

Sa

1

2.5

Santiago Peak

Irvine Lake

4

San

Gabriel

Long Beach

0

Prado Dam

Chino Hills State Park

133

John Wayne Airport

73 3 - Inventory + Evaluation | 123

Pacific Electric Railway The Pacific Electric Rail system was launched in 1901 (Kunstler, 1993) and by 1905 it had extended its reach to the City of Garden Grove (City of Garden Grove, n.d.). By the 1920s it had become the largest electric trolley system in the world, connecting cities in Los Angeles County, Orange County, San Bernardino County and Riverside County via 1,000 miles of track (Kunstler, 1993). According to Kunstler (1993), in the 1930s, 80 million passengers per year rode the Red Line when Los Angeles County’s population nearly doubled and gasoline was being rationed. Much of the Pacific Electric’s urban area track was at-grade (the same level as the street) and with increased automobile traffic the trains ran progressively slower (Adams, 1986). A conversion to buses, which are cheaper to operate and maintain than trolleys, began as early as 1917 and by the 1950s, most of the tracks had been removed (Adams, 1986). The remaining rail—including sections connecting Garden Grove to Los Angeles—was disconnected in 1961, leaving the region without public-transit rail until the 1990s (SCAG, 2012) (Figures 3.105 & 3.106). Pacific Electric Right-of-Way (PE ROW) Plan The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) drafted an analysis report for the PE ROW, connecting Downtown Los Angeles to Downtown Santa Ana (2013). The PE ROW would end at the Orange County/Los Angeles border, continue via streetcar on a Fixed Guideway Corridor starting at Harbor Boulevard in Garden Grove,

124 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

and end at the Santa Ana Regional Transportation Center (SARTC) (SARTC Masterplan, n.d.). SCAG has estimated that the core of the PE ROW/West Santa Ana Branch corridor (WSAB) will be 20 miles in length, extending diagonally from Paramount in the northwest to Santa Ana in the southeast, with an average width of 100 feet (30.5 meters) (SCAG, 2013). As plans to complete the PE ROW section in northern Orange County have stalled indefinitely, this corridor could become more than just a transportation easement. Metrolink There are seven major Metrolink routes in the SCAG region (Southern California Regional Rail Authority, 2014) The most significant route that connects Orange County to the greater Southern California region (to Los Angeles to the north, Oceanside to the south, and all of the cities in between) is the Orange County line. Another important regional route is the Inland Empire-Orange County line, which runs from the Orange Metrolink station to the San Bernardino Metrolink station. Currently, Garden Grove has a connection to the existing Metrolink station via bus route 54, which will probably serve the ARTIC station once it comes online (OCTA, 2013) (Figure 3.107). It is important that Garden Grove’s NMM network links to neighboring community routes that connect to the nearest stations (the Anaheim, Orange, and Santa Ana Metrolink stations) so that this mode of regional transportation is available to Garden Grove residents.

Figure 3.105. Left. PE ROW on Orangewood Avenue and Magnolia Street. Figure 3.106. Middle. Railway along Hoover Street. Figure 3.107. Right. ARTIC Station in Anaheim (from cdn.anaheimoc.org).

Bus Regional Lines There are only a select number of regional bus stops located in Garden Grove (OCTA, 2013) (Figure 3.108). Route 701 is located on the western edge of Garden Grove on Valley View Street and two routes are located near the eastern edge, Route 543 is located on Harbor Boulevard and Route 454 on Chapman Avenue (OCTA, 2013). Average wait times are 25 minutes, 11½ minutes, and 24 minutes for Routes 701, 543, and 454 respectively (OCTA, 2013). Local Bus Stops Garden Grove currently has an adequate number of existing bus stops. Bus stops are located on all major streets with Bolsa and McFadden Avenues having only a few stops. North to south bus travel has the highest frequency of bus stops (OCTA, 2013) (Figure 3.109), while the highest number of physical bus stops exist from east to west. This may be in part due to the greater access of north to south major streets and fewer major streets running east to west. Busses are a consideration for a NMM network for two reasons; first, to examine routes that present the opportunity to make connections for multimodal transportation users, and second, as a constraint when considering potential conflict-of-use and safety issues. The bus routes extend from the mountains in the east to the Navy Base, Los Alamitos airport, and the Pacific Ocean in the west. Bus routes traveling from north to south connect Garden Grove to the wider region, such as the ARTIC station and other regional destinations. It also connects to bus lines (via the 701 bus) that reach the greater Los Angeles County and northern Orange County.

LegendLegend Civic Center-Downtown District Freeways Major Streets Santa Ana River Attractions Community-Identified Destinations Non-Motorized Network Existing

Proposed

Class I Class II Class III Community Identified Routes

Figure #.#. Community-identified non-motorized network. 126 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

Figure 3.108. Right. Public transit.

Disneyland

5

Haster St

Anaheim

57

Harbor Blvd

Euclid St

Magnolia St

Beach Blvd

Knott St

Valley View St

Honda Center City National Grove of Anaheim

Katella Ave

Orangewood Ave

ARTIC

Angel Stadium Christ Cathedral

Chapman Ave

Orange

Outlets at Orange

Lampson Ave

Memory Lane

Garden Grove Blvd

Trask Ave

Trask St

22 17th St

Westminster Ave

Hazard Ave

Westminster Mall 1st St

Bolsa Ave

Huntington Beach

Westminster

Little Saigon McFadden Ave

Bella Terra

Fountain Valley

Mile Square Regional Park

Santa Ana

Rive r

405

Santa An a

Cypress

Stanton

Brookhurst St

Community-IdentiďŹ ed Routes and Destinations

0

1

2

Miles

127 To Ocean Via Santa Ana River Trail

Bus Frequency Average Waiting Time in Minutes by Bus Routes 59

Route 21 Via Valley View St 47

Route 25

61 61

Via Goldenwest St 20

Route 29 Via Beach Blvd

23 23 33

Route 33

67 66

Via Magnolia St 38

Route 35

45

Via Brookhurst St 32

Route 37/A

41

Via Euclid St 22

Route 43 Via Harbor Blvd

23

60

25

19

Route 47/A

60

26 26

Via Fairview St

38

Route 50

55 55

Via Katella Ave 26

Route 54 Via Chapman Ave

39

43 42

Route 56

69 69

Via Garden Grove Blvd 15

Route 60

22

Via Westminster Ave

Route 64

Local East-West Routes

12

Regional North-South Routes

Via Harbor Blvd

Route 701

25

Via Valley View St

Route 454 Via Lampson Ave

Legend Local North-South Routes

18 18 17

Via 1st St

Route 543

24

Regional East-West Routes Monday-Friday Routes

24 Saturday Routes Sunday and Holiday Routes

Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) The past few decades have seen heavy investment in multimodal transportation. The Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) station (Figure 3.107) is an example of a project that will serve as a major transit node connecting an important economic zone in the City of Anaheim but serving the greater region. The multiple transit modes that connect to ARTIC include: Metrolink, Amtrak, OCTA Bus, Anaheim Resort transportation, taxi services, intercity buses, international buses, tour and charter buses, private vehicle/parking, pedestrian, and bicycle access (City of Anaheim, 2010). ARTIC also has a planned ‘Streetcar Alignment’ down Katella Avenue that would connect to Disneyland and the Anaheim Convention Center (City of Anaheim, 2010). This station could also serve as the terminus of the California High-Speed Rail system (City of Anaheim, 2010).

Figure 3.109. Left. Average waiting time in minutes by bus routes. Figure 3.110. Middle. Local bus stop on Garden Grove Boulevard. Figure 3.111. Right. Local shuttle.

RE:Imagine Garden Grove | 129

Automobile Transportation When planning for NMM network facilities, road infrastructure must be inventoried in order to understand potential Class II and Class III locations. Existing and potential numbers of street lanes, street speeds, and street parking are considerations when identifying opportunities and constraints for adding NMM network facilities. Street Classification Arterial Highway Classification is the basis for planning the street hierarchy network in Garden Grove (City of Garden Grove, 2008). The classification is primarily based on arterial size and provides the typical cross-section for roads based on number of lanes and approximate street widths (City of Garden Grove, 2008) (Figure 3.113). The street grid network is aligned to the cardinal directions: north, east, south, and west. Major and primary roads are spaced at one to one and one-half mile intervals (City of Garden Grove, 2008). The Arterial Highway Classification considers safety, use, and location within the network when determining classification (City of Garden Grove, 2008). Considerations that the street classification does not take into account include speed limit, street parking, medians, and sidewalk widths.

LegendLegend Civic Center-Downtown District Freeways Major Streets Santa Ana River Attractions Principal Streets Major Streets Primary Streets Secondry Streets

Figure #.#. Street classifications. 130 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

Figure 3.112. Left. Street intersection at Garden Grove Boulevard and Euclid Street. Figure 3.113. Right. Street classification.

Cypress Los Alamitos Army Airfield

57

Disneyland

5

Haster St

Harbor Blvd

Euclid St

Magnolia St

Anaheim

Brookhurst St

Stanton

Beach Blvd

Knott St

Valley View St

Street Classification

Honda Center City National Grove of Anaheim Angel Stadium

Katella Ave

Orangewood Ave

ARTIC

Orange

Chapman Ave

Lampson Ave

Memory Lane

Garden Grove Blvd

Trask Ave

Trask St

22 17th St

Huntington Beach

405

Hazard Ave

Westminster Mall

1st St

Bolsa Ave

Westminster

Little Saigon

Santa Ana Riv er

Westminster Ave

Santa Ana

McFadden Ave

0

Bella Terra

Fountain Valley

Mile Square Regional Park

1

2

Miles

3 - Inventory + Evaluation | 131

Average Daily Travel Regional Average Daily Travel (ADT) statistics suggest regional transportation challenges (City of Garden Grove, 2008). Local ADT 24-hour traffic volumes reveal similar patterns, with heavier traffic congestion running north and south, and heaviest traffic congestion around the freeways (City of Garden Grove, 2008). The streets with heaviest traffic in the City are: Valley View Street, Knott Street, Beach Boulevard, Brookhurst Street, Euclid Street, and Harbor Boulevard, which run north and south (City of Garden Grove, 2008). Beach Boulevard and Valley View Street in particular accommodate over 50,000 cars per day on average. On the 22 Freeway segments in Garden Grove, an average of 158,000 to 215,000 vehicles travel westbound and 187,000 to 237,000 vehicles travel eastbound. Freight trucks make up a total of five percent (7,700 – 10,800) of freeway use in either direction (Caltrans 2011) (Figure 3.115). Street Deficiencies Streets that function at greater than 90 percent of the street capacity receive a Level of Service (LOS) deficiency score of E or F (Figure 3.115). Streets running north–south functioning at deficient levels are: Harbor Boulevard, Euclid Street, Brookhurst Street at the 22 Freeway, Magnolia Avenue at the 22 Freeway, Beach Boulevard, and Valley Street. Those running east–west include: Garden Grove Boulevard and Chapman Avenue (City of Garden Grove, 2008). These segments are considered for build-out expansion. Many are currently undergoing roadway improvements or are earmarked for future enhancements. This data may influence Class II and III NMM network street selection, especially when considering street width, speed, and safety.

LegendLegend Civic Center-Downtown District Freeways Major Streets Santa Ana River Attractions Street Level of Service (F) Average Number of Vehicles per Day 50,000 - 99,640 25,000 - 50,000 12,500 - 25,000 0 - 12,500

Figure #.#. Average daily traffic. 132 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

Figure 3.114. Left. Traffic on Garden Grove Boulevard. Figure 3.115. Right. Street Level of Service (F) and average daily traffic.

Cypress Los Alamitos Army Airfield

Harbor Blvd

57

Disneyland

5

Haster St

Anaheim

Euclid St

Brookhurst St

Magnolia St

Stanton

Beach Blvd

Knott St

Valley View St

Street Level of Service (F) + Average Daily Traffic

Honda Center City National Grove of Anaheim Angel Stadium

Katella Ave

Orangewood Ave

Christ Cathedral

Chapman Ave

ARTIC

Orange

Outlets at Orange Lampson Ave

Memory Lane

Garden Grove Blvd

Trask Ave

Trask St

22 17th St

Huntington Beach

405

Santa Ana Riv er

Westminster Ave

Hazard Ave

Westminster Mall

1st St

Bolsa Ave

Westminster

Santa Ana

Little Saigon McFadden Ave

0

Bella Terra

Fountain Valley

Mile Square Regional Park

1

2

Miles

3 - Inventory + Evaluation | 133

Health and Safety Health and safety benefits justify the development of a NMM network as well as enhancement of the open space network. Health considerations include air quality and obesity, while unsafe considerations include crime, collisions, and traffic speeds.

Air Quality The Southern California region has the worst air quality in the nation, which has resulted in adverse health effects and the premature deaths of thousands every year (SCAG, 2012). California Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, set statewide greenhouse emission limits and mandated reporting (SCAG, 2012). California Senate Bill 375 (SB 375), Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act, further establishes regional targets for greenhouse emissions, specifically for transportation (SCAG, 2012). The new law is a “bottom-up” approach, a collaboration between state, regional, and local agencies, to provide incentives through the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process for developments that comply with the area’s regional plan (Garden Grove, 2008). Each region’s metropolitan planning organization creates a plan to meet the target. This ties the allocation of transportation funding to SCAG’s Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) (Garden Grove, 2008). Freeway Proximity

Cypress Los Alamitos Army Airfield

Haster St

5

Anaheim

Stanton

57

Harbor Blvd

Euclid St

Brookhurst St

Magnolia St

Beach Blvd

Knott St

Valley View St

Air Quality Constraint

Honda Center

Disneyland

City National Grove of Anaheim Angel Stadium

Katella Ave

Orangewood Ave

Christ Cathedral

Chapman Ave

ARTIC

Orange

Outlets at Orange Lampson Ave

Memory Lane

Garden Grove Blvd

Legend

Trask Ave

Trask St

22

Civic Center-Downtown District Freeways

17th St

Westminster Ave

Santa Ana River Attractions Within 300 Feet of the Freeway Within 500 Feet of the Freewaty

Huntington Beach

405

Hazard Ave

Westminster Mall

Westminster

Within 1000 Feet of the Freeway

Figure #.#. Freeway proximity.

134 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

1st St

Bolsa Ave

Little Saigon

Santa Ana Riv er

Major Streets

Santa Ana

McFadden Ave

0

Bella Terra

Fountain Valley

Mile Square Regional Park

1

2

Miles

The SCS is an element of the State’s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) prepared to address SB 375 (California League of Conservation Voters [CLCV] & National Resources Defense Council [NRDC], n.d.). The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is the agency that certifies that the SCS will achieve the region’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction targets. Transportation projects that are incompatible with the SCS do not qualify for transportation funding (CLCV & NRDC, n.d.). A SCS must: •

• •

•

Designate a development pattern for the region including housing areas for all of a region’s projected population, which includes employment generated growth and represents all economic sectors of the population; Identify a transportation network to meet the region’s anticipated transportation needs; Achieve GHG emission reductions from modifications in land use and/or transportation to meet the region’s GHG reduction target set by CARB to the extent feasible; and Gather and consider the best available information on the region’s farmland and habitat resources (CLCV & NRDC, n.d.).

Siting sensitive land uses and active transportation routes adjacent to freeways and roads with over 100,000 vehicles per day is not recommended by California’s Environmental Protection Agency Air Resource Board (CARB) for health reasons. A buffer of 500 feet is recommended from such areas (CARB, 2005). Trafficcreated air pollutants have been found to affect health as far as 1,000 feet from a highway and impacts are strongest within 300 feet (CARB, 2005). CARB freeway studies show that particulate pollution drops 70 percent after 500 feet, which is their recommended minimal buffer (CARB, 2005) (Figure 3.116).

Obesity According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the leading cause of preventable death in the United States is obesity (CDC, 2012). In 2005, over one million adults (aged 18 or older) in Orange County had a body mass index score of 25 or higher, which means at that time, 53 percent of the County’s population were overweight or obese (Alexander, 2005). A 2004 survey conducted by the Orange County Health Needs Assessment (OCHNA), found that 50 to 69.9 percent of the adults in Garden

Grove were either overweight or obese (Alexander, 2005). A 2010 childhood obesity study, conducted by the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research and the California Center for Public Health Advocacy (CCPHA), examined over 250 California cities. While Orange County’s childhood obesity rates are lower than the State of California’s (33 percent and 38 percent respectively), the County’s cities range from as high as 52 percent in Stanton to as low as 14 percent in Laguna Beach (CCPHA, 2010). The City of Garden Grove’s children are above the County average, coming in at the State average of 38 percent (CCPHA, 2010). In general, increased physical activity plays an important role in weight management and the reversal of obesity trends. For example, increasing physical activity levels by walking briskly for one to one and a half miles a day could offset the estimated imbalance of net daily caloric intake by 100 to 150 calories (Cutler, et al., 2003). Enhanced NMM options in the built environment will provide Garden Grove residents more options to increase physical activity.

If CARB determines that a region’s SCS will not achieve the GHG emission reduction targets, SCAG must prepare an Alternative Planning Strategy (APS), separate from the RTP identifying alternative development patterns, transportation projects or transportation policies to achieve the targets (CLCV & NRDC, n.d.). Given that the RTP must be internally consistent, action items and financing decisions called for in the RTP must be congruous with the SCS as well. Roughly 15 to 20 billion dollars per year of local, state and federal funding will flow to transportation projects contained in an SCS (CLCV & NRDC, n.d.). A significant reduction or capture of carbon emissions will lower the risk of Garden Grove residents developing asthma and emphysema, as well as protecting the health of those who frequently participate in outdoor activities such as walking and cycling. Figure 3.116. Left. Freeway proximity: air quality constraint. Figure 3.117. Right. Pedestrians and bicyclists on Acacia Parkway during Open Streets Event.

3 - Inventory + Evaluation | 135

Vehicular Considerations In transportation planning and engineering, arterial roads are designed to move the largest number of vehicles possible with a minimum of delay over long distance (Smart Growth America [SGA] & National Complete Streets Coalition [NCSC], 2014). Often built wide, fast, and flat, an arterial road’s primary purpose is to make automobile travel as quick as possible (SGA & NCSC, 2014). The bike-ability and walkability of Garden Grove streets can be determined by assessing street widths, street volume, and number of lanes, as well as the presence, frequency, length and width of medians. These street features may have space that could be allocated to non-motorized modes of transportation, to accommodate pedestrians and cyclists as well as address safety and traffic calming. Streets at volumes that are over-capacity with car traffic have been marked for future expansion based on Measure M road funding, which may be leveraged to include expanded transportation options and NMM network facilities. Collisions Pedestrian-vehicular collision is a major problem in the United States. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reported that while only 11.6 percent of trips are made on foot, pedestrians account for 11.4 percent of all traffic fatalities (2003). While Southern California’s roadways are amongst the safest in the nation, 21 percent of regional traffic-related fatalities involve pedestrians, emphasizing a need for safe complete streets (SCAG, 2012). According to the Federal Highway Administration (FHA), factors that contribute to pedestrian injuries and fatalities include a combination of pedestrians acting in an unsafe manner (such as jaywalking), vehicle and driver considerations, and physical settings which are not conducive to safety (FHA, 2004). The time of day and day of the week also contribute to collision rates. Pedestrian injuries occur most often between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m., peaking between 3 to 6 p.m., while pedestrian fatalities more often occur at night between 5:30 and 11 p.m. (FHA, 2004). More pedestrian injuries occur on Friday and Saturday, and are least likely on Sunday (FHA, 2004). The majority (60 percent in urban areas) of pedestrian-vehicular collisions occur outside of street intersections, while 74 percent occur where there are no traffic controls (FHA, 2004). To evaluate the safety of existing and planned non-motorized transit routes, an inventory of vehicular collisions with pedestrians and bicycles was used to develop a comparison of streets with the most collisions, factoring accident per volume (Figure 3.118). In order to develop a Safe Routes to Schools network, schools experiencing unsafe conditions as measured by near-by collisions were determined. Areas that have experienced high levels of vehicular collisions with pedestrians and cyclists—the types of collisions most likely to be fatal—should be prioritized for improvements to increase safety through traffic calming interventions.

Legend Legend Civic Center-Downtown District Freeways Streets Santa Ana River Attractions Area of High Pedestrian-Bicyclist Collisions Low to High Density of Collisions (2002 - 2011)

136 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

Figure 3.118. Density of pedestrian and bicyclist collisions, 2002 - 2011.

Cypress Los Alamitos Army AirďŹ eld

Haster St

5

Anaheim

Stanton

57

Harbor Blvd

Euclid St

Brookhurst St

Magnolia St

Beach Blvd

Knott St

Valley View St

Density of Pedestrian + Bicyclist Collisions, 2002 - 2011

Honda Center

Disneyland City National Grove of Anaheim

Katella Ave

Orangewood Ave

Angel Stadium

Christ Cathedral

Chapman Ave

ARTIC

Orange

Outlets at Orange Lampson Ave

Memory Lane

Garden Grove Blvd

Trask Ave

Trask St

22 17th St

Huntington Beach

405

Hazard Ave

Westminster Mall Bella Terra

1st St

Bolsa Ave

Westminster

Little Saigon

Santa Ana Riv er

Westminster Ave

Santa Ana

McFadden Ave

0

Fountain Valley

Mile Square Regional Park

1

2

Miles

3 - Inventory + Evaluation | 137

The Safe Routes to School Resources (SRTS) Collision Map Viewer, developed by the traffic safety research lab at UC Berkeley to investigate pedestrian and bicycle collisions with vehicles near public schools in California (TIMS, 2013), identified school areas that have an unsafe traffic history. Between 2002 and 2011, over 5,972 collisions occurred within Garden Grove City boundaries (TIMS, 2002-2011). Three thousand one hundred (52 percent) of collisions occurred within a quarter-mile of a school (TIMS, 2002-2011) (Figure 3.119). One thousand seventy-six (18 percent) of collisions involved pedestrians or cyclists. While only 84 (1 percent ) collisions resulted in fatalities, 42 (50 percent) involved pedestrians and cyclists (TIMS, 20022011). Sixteen (38 percent) of pedestrian and cyclist fatalities were within a quarter-mile of a school (TIMS, 2002-2011).

The term ‘traffic calming’ is applied to design interventions that make streets safer by reducing opportunities for illegal speeding, aggressive driving, and collisions, and enhancing pedestrian and cyclist comfort and flow (New York City Department of Transportation [NYC DOT], n.d.). Measures may include a singular or mix of interventions, such as the installation of traffic calming devices including speed bumps, curb extensions, roundabouts, raised crosswalks, and design interventions such as surface material changes, pedestrian-scaled lighting, median and parkway landscaping and street furniture. Traffic calming devices are part of a toolbox of measures used to enhance safety, along with engineering and signal timing changes, and education and enforcement initiatives (NYC DOT, n.d.).

The streets with the most vehicular collisions with nonmotorists in Garden Grove include: Garden Grove Boulevard, Westminster Boulevard, Chapman Avenue, and Lampson Avenue (running east to west) and Euclid Street, Harbor Boulevard, Brookhurst Street, and Magnolia Street; all roads classified as arterial highways (TIMS, 2002-2011). Traffic collisions, between 20022011, occur 85 percent on roads classified arterial highways, with almost all collisions involving pedestrians and cyclists occurring on arterials; 96.5 percent (TIMS, 2002-2011). Furthermore, most of the collisions in Garden Grove occur outside of an intersection or illuminated crosswalk, with 64 percent of traffic-related, non-motorist fatalities occurring outside an intersection (TIMS, 2002-2011). This underscores the need for design interventions that improve pedestrian and bicyclist safety by prioritizing streets according to level of risk.

Pedestrian + Bicyclist Collision Fatalities Number of Pedestrian and Bicyclist Collision Fatalities Near Schools from 2002 to 2011 10

7

5 4

4

4

4

2 2 1 2002

1

1 2004

2005

1

1

2010

2011

1 2006

2007

2008

2009

Figure 3.119. Pedestrian and bicyclist collision fatalities near school from 2002 to 2011.

138 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

Legend

1

2

2

1

2003

3

Total City Wide Pedestrian and Bicyclist Collision Fatalities Total School-Adjacent Pedestrian and Bicyclist Collision Fatalities

150K

100K

181,771

179,402

170,883

165,196

50K 3,762

Currently, the City is highly urbanized with 66 percent single-family housing (City of Garden Grove, 2013). However, with a projected population growth of more than 10,000 people in the next two decades, the City needs to address future housing demands for various types of households, especially medium and high density, mixed-use housing units, possibly in the downtown area. Population growth will also have a significant impact on the existing transportation network, including the citywide NMM network.

143,050

200K

123,307

By 1950, Garden Grove had a total population of 3,762 (City of Garden Grove, 2013). Shortly after World War II, between 1950 and 1960, the City experienced significant population growth as servicemen returned to Southern California to settle with their families in newly developed, affordable housing units (City of Garden Grove, n.d.). In just one decade, the City’s population increased to 84,238 people (City of Garden Grove, 2013). Between 1960 and 1970, Garden Grove enjoyed another population boom of approximately 43.8 percent to 121,155 people (City of Garden Grove, 2013). Since 1970, the population has been increasing steadily by 41 percent with an estimated 170,883 residents in 2010 (City of Garden Grove, 2013). Garden Grove is projected to have a total population of 179,402 people by 2020 and an estimated 181,771 people by 2030 (Figure 3.120) (City of Garden Grove, 2013). Based on the 2010 Census, Garden Grove has an average household size of 3.67.

Population Change from 1950 to 2030

121,155

Population Growth

Population Trend

84,238

Demographics

0

Figure 3.120. Top Right. Population change from 1950 to 2030. Figure 3.121. Bottom. Garden Grove residents waiting for Strawberry Festival Parade.

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 (Projection)

Ethnicity Based on the 2010 Census, the population of Garden Grove is comprised of 36 percent Asian/Pacific Islanders, 38 percent Hispanic, and 22 percent Anglo. In the past two decades, the Anglo population has decreased by about 40 percent, while the Asian/Pacific Islander population has increased by 80 percent. The Hispanic population has increased by 58 percent (City of Garden Grove, 2013) (Figure 3.122). While the percent of Hispanic residents in Garden Grove is similar to Orange County (34 percent), the county as a whole has a smaller proportion of Asian/Pacific Islander population (18 percent) and a higher percent of Anglos (44 percent) when compared to the City (City of Garden Grove, 2013) (Figures 3.121 & 3.122). The ethnic make-up of Garden Grove will be influential in determining the success of downtown revitalization efforts, especially when proposing housing types, the variety of commercial and retail businesses, public facilities, and recreational and educational activities.

Ethnicity Orange County Ethnicity Distribution in 1990, 2000 & 2010 Hispanic 23% Black 2% Asian/Pacific Islander 10% Other <1%

White 65%

Hispanic 31% White 51%

Hispanic 34% White 44%

Black 2% Other 2%

1990

Black 1%

Asian/Pacific Islander 14%

Other 3%

2000

Asian/Pacific Islander 18%

2010

Garden Grove Ethnicity Distribution in 1990, 2000 & 2010 Hispanic 24%

White 22%

White 33%

Hispanic 33%

Black 1%

White 55%

Asian/Pacific Islander 20% Other <1%

1990

Hispanic 38%

Other 3%

Black 1%

Other 2%

Asian/Pacific Islander 31%

2000

Black 1%

Asian/Pacific Islander 36%

2010

Figure 3.121. Top. Orange County ethnicity distribution in 1990, 2000, and 2010. Figure 3.122. Bottom. Garden Grove ethnicity distribution in 1990, 2000, and 2010.

140 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

Languages Spoken The City has a high percent of foreign-born persons (45 percent) and persons speaking a language other than English at home (67 percent) (City of Garden Grove, 2013). The City has a higher proportion than Orange County, which has 30.5 percent foreign-born persons and 45 percent of persons speaking a language other than English at home (City of Garden Grove, 2013). The plan needs to address the needs of non-English speaking groups.

Age Groups In 2010, 29 percent of the population of Garden Grove was made up of adults aged 25 to 44, representing the largest proportion of citizens—though it is important to note that this age group has declined since 1990 (City of Garden Grove, 2013). Middle-aged citizens (aged 45 to 64) made up 25 percent of the population, however the population of this cross-section has been

steadily increasing by 66 percent since 1990 (City of Garden Grove, 2013). Children and teenagers represent 19 percent of the city’s population, and display stable representation with moderate rises and declines, with an overall increase of 27 percent from 1990 to 2010 (City of Garden Grove, 2013). Young adults and senior citizens each make up 10 percent of Garden Grove’s population. Both groups show stable representation, while young adults aged 18 to 24 have increased by four percent, senior populations have increased by 48 percent (City of Garden Grove, 2013). Infants and toddlers (less than four years of age) represent the smallest cross-section of the population. While their representation has shown stability over time, their actual numbers have decreased by seven percent from 1990 to 2010 (City of Garden Grove, 2013) (Figure 3.123). Plans must not only engage the elderly and youth populations of the city, especially with concern to daily uses and activities, but also cater to the needs of all age groups, particularly adult groups.

Age Groups Garden Grove Age Group Distribution in 1990, 2000 & 2010 Legend

33%

Preschool (0-4 Years) 35%

29% 25%

School Age (5-17 Years) College Age (18-24 Years) Young Adults (25-44 Years)

21% 19%

19% 18%

Middle Age (45-64 Years) Senior Adults (65+ Years)

18% 10% 9% 10%

12% 9%

9%

1990

8%

2000

Household Types The majority of Garden Grove households (20,958 or 57 percent) are families with children, while 16,155 (43 percent) families are without children (City of Garden Grove, 2013) (Figure 3.124). Since Garden Grove is a family-oriented city, plans need to include public spaces, recreational activities, and educational programs that will appeal to both newcomers and established households, with or without children.

Household Income Garden Grove has a relatively similar average household income compared to the rest of the County (City of Garden Grove, 2013). Households in Garden Grove have an average income between $50,000 (18 percent) and $150,000 (16.6 percent) (City of Garden Grove, 2013). While the City has a slightly higher population with an average household income under $100,000 as compared to the County, Orange County has a higher population with an average household income above $150,000 (City of Garden Grove, 2013). Any proposed housing development in the City should meet the financial capacity of the general population and offer affordable housing options to low-income families.

Owner- Versus Renter-Occupied Garden Grove has a relatively even distribution of owner-occupied (57 percent) and renter-occupied (43 percent) housing units (City of Garden Grove, 2013) (Figure 3.125). Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) presents a series of future development scenarios at various degrees of sustainability in the Sustainable Communities Strategies (SCS) (SCAG, 2012).

10% 7%

2010

Figure 3.123. Garden Grove age group distribution in 1990, 2000, and 2010.

3 - Inventory + Evaluation | 141

Household Types Garden Grove Household Type Distribution in 1990, 2000 & 2010

Non-Families (Others) 5%

Non-Families (Others) 7%

Families (with No Children) 35%

Non-Families (Singles) 14% Non-Families (Others) 5%

Non-Families (Singles) 15%

Non-Families (Singles) 17%

Families (with No Children) 37%

Families (with No Children) 43%

Families (with Children) 43%

Families (with Children) 41%

Families (with Children) 57%

Owner Vs. Renter Owner Vs. Renter-Occupied Residences in 1990, 2000 & 2010

Owner 57.0%

Owner 59.6%

Owner 59.6%

Renter 43.0%

Renter 40.4%

Renter 40.4%

1990

2000

2010

Figure 3.124. Top. Garden Grove household type distribution in 1990, 2000, and 2010. Figure 3.125. Owner- vs. renter-occupied residences in 1990, 2000, and 2010.

The factors that affect sustainable communities are: • • • • •

Development location Dispersed versus focused development Community/neighborhood design Multimodal transportation options, including transportation investment Housing options, including mixed-use (SCAG, 2012)

The most sustainable scenario includes a mixture of elements that maximize growth in urban settings through mixed-use configurations in existing, developed, and near high transit areas (SCAG, 2012). In this optimal scenario, transportation infrastructure is heavily invested in active transportation—alternatives such as bicycle and pedestrian zones, with the vast majority of new housing being multi-family (SCAG, 2012). This reflects a smart land use initiative, which integrates land use with transportation.

142 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

3 - Inventory & Evaluation 3.3 Inventory & Evalutation Summary Geographical, natural, and biological entities make up the physical attributes of the study area. The study area is relatively flat with no presence of earthquake faults. Issues to be noted include portions of the city with liquefaction considerations and a high water table. Garden Grove is in a temperate climate that allows for outdoor activities. The Santa Ana winds create dry, hot air. Biophysical conditions are considerations for tailoring the designs recommendations for open space network development and enhancement, the “gardens and groves” theme, as well as proposed solutions for the NMM network and 2060 Civic Center-Downtown concept plan. The sociocultural inventory examined past, present, and potential future social issues as well as drew upon contextual history and cultures engrained in the City’s development and continued growth. The city currently has a diverse group of cultures, including Anglo, Latino, Vietnamese, and Korean people. Opportunities to integrate multiple elements that draw from each culture’s history and tradition will create more vibrant design solutions. Garden Grove is looking to expand its economic development to increase social activity near and around the downtown. With open and green spaces scattered through the City, creating a more cohesive greenspace network plan by integrating these spaces using a non-motorized mobility network is an imperative. All sociocultural conditions will provide links that can help create a strong web-like network to increase connections from developments and destinations to the downtown. Garden Grove is surrounded by many opportunities for connection with nature. Biophysical and sociocultural considerations, as well as public participation (the following section) are combined and analyzed to inform the planning approaches, design concepts, public use and programming that are incorporated into the design phase.

Figure 3.126. Garden Grove Strawberry Festival on Main Street.

4 - Public Participation

Public Participation By Method(s) Used

4.1 Overview of Public Participation Data Collection Methods

Participants

Method(s) Used

Required Data

MindMixer Public, digital interface; 287 active members

Crowdsourcing

Information was needed on non-motorized mobility (NMM) needs, connectivity across the City, open space use, identity of Garden Grove, and sources of economic draw. Information needs were matched with methods and targeted groups. Evaluating methods and method application was performed by asking: • • • •

What knowledge was needed? What knowledge could be acquired of each group? Are these questions better in an individual or group setting, in person or online? Which is the best method to apply to gather this data?

Methods Used

Number of Participants Participant numbers varied by topic type and question asked

Delphi Photovoice

MindMixer In-Person Community member event; mapping activity and dissemination of an opinion sheet

Participatory Urban Assessment (PUA)

23

Questionnaire

18

Public Mapping Installations Mapping activities at three public locations

Participatory Urban Assessment (PUA)

67

Bicyclist Coalition Mapping activity

Participatory Urban Assessment (PUA)

6

High School Students Mapping activity and dissemination of a take-home activity package

Participatory Urban Assessment (PUA)

53

Questionnaire

41

Photovoice Senior Citizens Facilitation of a round table discussion and dissemination of an opinion sheet

Small Focus Group Questionnaire

1 11 3

Identified methods of data collection included: •

•

•

Crowdsourcing: acquires information by enlisting the services of people online (New Oxford American Dictionary, 2010), e.g., the MindMixer interface. Small Focus Groups: allows researchers to learn group views, insights, and stances toward an activity, service, concept, or idea in a more relaxed setting than typically occurs in a oneon-one interview; “an advantage is their fairly low cost as one can get results relatively quickly and increase the sample size of a report by talking with several people at once” (Marshall & Rossman, 1999, p. 115). Participatory Urban Assessment (PUA): adapted from participatory rural assessment, and enables participants to share and analyze individual knowledge of their life and conditions (Village Volunteers, 2011).

Figure 4.1. Left. High school students participating in questionnaire. Table 4.1. Right. Public participation by method(s) used.

• •

•

Questionnaires: a list of specially designed questions for a select group to answer individually (New Oxford American Dictionary, 2010). Photovoice: the representation of a community or point of view by participants taking photographs, developing narratives to go with their photos, and discussing them at a community forum, in person or online (Wang & Burris, 1994); may also be applied in conjunction with participatory study strategies such as mapping, collaging, and/or drawing (Mannay, 2013). Delphi: an organized process of gathering and refining knowledge by means of a series of questionnaires, facilitating the emergence of a group consensus (Günaydin, n.d.; Helmer-Hirschberg, 1967).

RE:Imagine Garden Grove | 145

4 - Public Participation 4.2 Overview Of Public Participation Activities

MindMixer: Interface MindMixer is an on-line interface that employs a research method known as Crowdsourcing. Launched in August of 2013, it was the first community outreach effort used by the City of Garden Grove for the Re:Imagine Downtown Garden Grove project. The interface allows community members to voice their opinions about the future development of Garden Grove as well as proposing new and creative ideas for the revitalization of the Downtown District. Topics and questions were posted on a monthly basis. “Getting to know you” was the initial topic introduced in February 2014 and pertained to identity-related questions, such as: why people choose to live and remain in Garden Grove; their favorite thing about living in the City; and three destinations that are not-to-bemissed, both locally and regionally. The topic in March was the NMM network and incorporated the use of the photovoice method. Seven questions were asked under this topic heading including: the use and look of the Orange County Transportation Authority/Pacific Electric right-of-way (PE ROW), what types of amenities and facilities it should include, and images of what that trail might look like; which streets should be included in a NMM network, and images of what those paths, trails, and lanes might look like. April’s topic explored the identity and branding of the City through the theme of “gardens and groves”. MindMixer participants were asked what single plant epitomized Garden Grove; what plant theme would best suit the unique identity of the Downtown area and to provide images (photovoice method) of the plants and types of design that best express that theme; and finally, how and to what extent participants would want to see urban agriculture expressed.

146 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

The topic in May revolved around identity, nostalgia, and pedestrian activities. Participants were asked to share their favorite story about a past occurrence that took place in the City, what happened and where. They were also asked, if they were to conduct a walking tour of Garden Grove, where they would take people, what key aspects of the City’s history, culture, and/or environment would they highlight, and why. June’s topic sought to find if there would be a consensus on the proposed mobility networks. MindMixer participants were asked to participate in this form of the Delphi method by evaluating four networks, which included one existing, one planned, and two proposed network alternatives. MindMixer participants were asked to vote for their favorite network, and share their thoughts on the strengths and weaknesses of the networks.

The final topic had to do with promoting civic pride and instituting change, including the types of activities that are community-driven. Participants were asked to provide: input on the most important action the City should take to implement the Re:Imagine Downtown initiative; examples of programs and events that would promote the use of a NMM network; and what type of community-led activities or events could be introduced in the Downtown, who is involved, and how they might be accomplished. These questions were asked to get the public to start thinking about the pace of change and what role public and private organizations, and individuals might play in initiating those changes.

Summary Table Who: 287 active members, primarily from Garden Grove; responses vary depending on popularity of the topic or question posed What: An online website used to solicit feedback and fill knowledge gaps in research, inventory, analysis, programming, planning and design Where: Online website set up and administered by the City (Lee Marino and Erin Webb) When: The MindMixer was launched August of 2013 and the team developed questions from February to June of 2014 Why: Provided a forum for Garden Grove community members to voice their opinions on the future development of Garden Grove through various topics introduced by the 606 Team and the City How: Crowdsourcing method

287 Active Participants

Average Age 33 Users

43

121 Users

38 Users

Results Topics in public arts, movies, film festivals, and shows were most popular with participants. The participants were also highly interested in the expansion and enhancement of downtown Main Street by introducing more local businesses, small kiosks, attractive storefront designs, public seating, shades, landscaping, water features, etc. The public would also like to further embrace the City’s diverse cultural identities by bringing in more ethnic food, activities and events into the downtown. Other popular ideas included providing more public parks, plazas, gardens and playgrounds throughout the Downtown District and connecting the green open space networks with safer and more attractive mobility routes.

67% Average User: Female

13

Au

0 r2

Identity

gu

be

em

st

20

14

ov

N

0

60

0

60

0

0

30

0

30

Daily Page Views

Figure 4.2. MindMixer interface user statistics.

0

The MindMixer participants identified the City’s location as its main attraction. The participants also indicated that they enjoyed the small town feel of the City’s agricultural history, and its mid-century suburban-style homes. In general, the participants liked the fact that Garden Grove has good neighborhoods with large lots and affordable housing. The participants mentioned many good public amenities and services offered in the City, such as parks, schools, Gem Theater, and Kiwanisland. Many members also appreciated the City’s commercial areas in Historic Main Street (Downtown), shopping centers, diverse restaurants, and coffee shops. In addition, some participants said that they had a lot of personal connections with the City through their close relationships, as well as the friendly people and cultural diversity of Garden Grove. For MindMixer Interface identity results, see “Top Ten Responses” (Table 4.5) in the Senior Focus Group segment.

Active Participants Within City

4 - Public Participation | 147

Downtown Revitalization Responses and Trends Many participants would like to see more visitors in Downtown and on Main Street by enhancing promotion, access, and connections to the surrounding communities as well as improved wayfinding and signage throughout the Downtown. One prevailing idea was for Main Street to be extended and become a one-way street with open plazas. While many stated that the architecture of Main Street should be enhanced and unified, participants would also like to preserve the historical style and agrarian cultural history of the area. Many wanted to see the utilization of vacant lots and buildings, using building rooftops to increase open space, and outdoor spaces enhanced and beautified with appropriate landscaping. The majority of the participants would like to see more mixed-use development in the Downtown area with multi-family and mid- to high-rise condos as well as artist studios. However, a cross-section of participants are opposed to the idea of additional housing, condos, and lofts, preferring to retain Garden Grove’s existing character through small-scale community development. Some participants wanted more parking in the downtown area; however, the majority would like the parking areas consolidated using parking structures, hidden underground, screened or softened by vegetation or other means. Some suggested that the parking structure should be LEED certified with potential opportunities for rooftop gardens, plazas and open spaces. Many participants agreed that Main Street should have more businesses, shops, and restaurants to bring in more visitors and widen the customer base. A number of participants commented that mom-and-pop businesses should be retained and promoted on Main Street. Many would like to see more retail shops that sell clothes, artand-crafts, books and comics, gifts, antiques, flowers, music, and so on to enhance the local economy. Some commented that the stores should also be kid-friendly

148 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

and teen-friendly, as well as eco-friendly, including more frequent and larger public Farmers’ Markets that feature fresh, healthy produce. Many thought that outdoor shopping and kiosks were also attractive venues for many visitors. Restaurants and food shops were also identified as popular attractions for downtown Garden Grove. The participants were particularly interested in bakery and dessert shops, such as ice cream, frozen yogurt, and candy. Other people mentioned the introduction of outdoor restaurants, food stands and trucks on Main Street. Local mom-and-pop as well as farm-to-table and healthy organic restaurants were also very popular among MindMixer participants. Some also indicated that they wanted a wine shop with tastings and more bars to augment downtown dining and entertainment experiences. Others would like to see the downtown area embracing the diverse ethnic food options found throughout other parts of Garden Grove. Most online participants were very interested in seeing more public arts, including murals, light shows, sculptures, environmental artwork, garden art, and yarn bombing (etc.). Some art events, like an art walk and festival,

should also be introduced in the City. In addition, local artists and ethnic arts should be featured to embrace Garden Grove’s identity and cultural diversity. Participants also suggested that live shows could be great attractions for the downtown. Many participants wanted to introduce and promote the local movie theater with a film festival, live music, plays, and comedy shows. Street performances and affordable entertainment were also considered for the enhancement of the Downtown’s nightlife. Similar to ethnic arts, performances and entertainment by various ethnic cultures should be integrated and promoted in the City as well. Comments also showed that participants wanted more recreational activities in the downtown area, especially the community center. Highly favored public education suggestions included the introduction of programs such as: children’s education, a culinary school, professionalinstitutional partnerships, landscape education, horticulture, urban farming, sustainable and green living, as well as education that would promote a bicycling culture. For MindMixer Interface Downtown revitalization responses and trends, see Table 4.4 in High School Students segment.

Figure 4.3. Left. Local residents at Civic Center Park during Open Streets Event. Figure 4.4. Right. Local residents on Historic Main Street during Open Streets Event.

Open Space Input In terms of outdoor spaces and uses, the participants would like to see more public parks and existing parks enhanced for more recreational activities and familyoriented spaces. Participants agreed that Garden Grove could improve its open space network by utilizing the Pacific Electric right-of-way (PE ROW) and extending the Civic Center Park and Village Green Park. Many of the participants wanted more botanical gardens, pocket parks, urban parks, skate parks, and dog parks, as well as multi-use urban plazas. Agricultural themes—such as community gardens, urban farming, edible gardens, and vertical farms—were also popular, largely demonstrated in comments prior to Team involvement but confirmed in subsequent Delphi reviews. In general, they would like more trees, water features, exercise machines, shade, and seating in the parks. They also wanted more activities in the parks, including concerts, outdoor theater, and kid-friendly activities. The landscape should

be designed to incorporate the “gardens and groves” theme with a diverse landscape palette, edible plants, California natives, and drought tolerant species. Most importantly, the majority of the participants felt that the City should keep and improve the pond for outdoor activities and close interaction with wildlife. Participants were asked about use of the PE ROW. Many responded that they would use it for both recreational and utilitarian biking and walking. Many also indicated that they would like to see the space turned into a park or botanical garden that include drought tolerant or California native landscaping with trees, shade, seating, water features, and kiosks. The right-of-way should connect the Downtown to surrounding destinations as well as to the regional NMM network. For MindMixer Interface open space enhancement responses and trends, see Tables 10.5-10.8 in the Appendix.

Mobility Feedback When asked to identify potential streets that could be improved for a citywide NMM network, some identified the PE ROW as having great potential for a trail. Other suggestions included north to south arterial streets, such as Knott Street, Magnolia Street, Brookhurst Street, Euclid Street, and Harbor Boulevard. Major east to west streets were also mentioned, including Chapman Avenue, Lampson Avenue, and Garden Grove Boulevard. Many suggested collector streets as ideal options for routes. With regard to a potential walking network, Euclid Street and Main Street were the most popular north to south routes. Running east to west, participants identified Chapman Avenue, Lampson Avenue, Garden Grove Boulevard, and other collector streets as pedestrian routes with the most potential.

MindMixer Interface Photovoice Responses Activities

Active

Bike Network

Educational

Pedestrian Network

Historic

Progressive

Businesses

Sustainable

Downtown

Fun/Trendy

Open Space

Vivid

OCTA ROW

Architectural

Identity

Pet-Friendly

Cultural

Image/Safety

Plant Palette

Social

Public Parks

Cultural

Urban Agricultural

Urban Art

Water Conditions

All-Age/Kid-Friendly Figure 4.5. MindMixer Interface photovoice responses.

RE:Imagine Garden Grove | 151

“Gardens and Groves” Preferences When asked which single plant epitomized Garden Grove, the majority of responses cited trees, vines, and groundcovers that fruit, expressing their appropriateness to the City’s agricultural past. Because the topic of edibles and the City’s agricultural roots had come up in MindMixer discussions previously and for the most part, were positively embraced as a concept, participants were asked how and to what extend urban agriculture should be expressed. Responses varied and while this topic generated a fair amount of discussion, there was no consensus. Solicitations for ideas of which types of planting themes to use in the Downtown resulted in a majority of responses suggesting edible plants and fruit-bearing trees. Trees were another popular topic; responses included providing more of them, keeping the mature specimens, and selecting orchard species. Aside from the introduction of agricultural plants and a greater presence of trees, the use of native and Californiaappropriate plants in the Downtown area was also a popular response. As a follow-up, participants were asked to provide images of plants that would best express their chosen plant palette (theme). Despite the popularity of an edible/agricultural theme, the majority of images posted featured flowering plants, primarily in colors of purple, pink, and burgundy.

Figure 4.6. Flowering plants by BeeBee B. (from MindMixer Interface).

MindMixer: In-Person Methods Used, Questions Asked and Tools Employed 1Introduction Participatory Urban Assessment Participants were asked to share their information through PUA, a mapping exercise created to identify: the neighborhoods that they reside in; the places they go on a regular and occasional basis; routes that they would take by auto, biking and walking; and routes that they would like improved in a NMM network. Four large format maps (36 by 72 inches)—two local and two regional—were mapped with colored dots, and markers to perform these tasks. Each team member manned a table containing one of the maps, conducted the activity, answered questions and took notes as required. Questionnaire A questionnaire was prepared using the 21 ideas that received the most ‘traffic’ on the MindMixer interface, organized under five topic headings. The questionnaires, along with self-addressed stamped envelopes, were distributed at the MindMixer event (see Appendix for a copy of the questionnaire). Topics and ideas were listed on a letter size sheet, front and back. Likert scale options included, “love it,” “like it,” and “leave it” and a space for comments was included at the conclusion of every topic.

Summary Table Who: Garden Grove community members that were involved in the MindMixer Interface What: An in-person meeting set up by Erin Webb on behalf of the City Where: Garden Grove Courtyard Center When: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 Why: An opportunity for MindMixer participants “to get out from behind their computers”; allowed the MindMixer participants to ask additional questions and provide comments and feedback How: PUA and Questionnaire methods were used to help identify connection points, routes used/desired, and to further solidify MindMixer suggestions for redevelopment in Garden Grove

Figure 4.7. MindMixer members participating in the mapping exercise.

RE:Imagine Garden Grove | 153

Bicycle Routes

Pedestrian Routes

5

5

5

22

Santa Ana Riv er

405

0

1

2

22

Santa Ana Riv er

22

405

57

57

57

0

405

1

Miles

Results

2

Santa Ana Riv er

Destinations

0 Miles

1

2

Miles

LegendLegend Civic Center-Downtown District

Participatory Urban Assessment

Freeways

Twenty-three people participated in the PUA mapping activity. Based on the initial observations, most participants’ routine stops were located within the City boundaries, while many of their occasional and recreational activities take place outside of Garden Grove (Figure 4.11 and for combined regional destination results, Figure 10.65 in the Appendix). The maps showed that most participants drove to their local and regional destinations by car. However, when they decided to use the NMM network for errands and recreation, they tended to choose the shortest, least congested routes. Some of the participants even stated that they ride their bikes less or stopped riding altogether due to the lack of safe routes in Garden Grove or the experience of having been involved in a collision (in a rare instance, on more than one occasion). Participants occasionally or regularly traveled outside of the City to the Westminster Mall, Bella Terra, Mile Square Regional Park, Historic Downtown Santa Ana, Outlets at Orange, Angel Stadium, Honda Center, and Disneyland. Regionally, they also identified popular places, such as Irvine Spectrum, South Coast Plaza, Segerstrom Center, Orange County Fairground, State Beaches, Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve, Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge, and Knott’s Berry Farm. Participants also indicated that they shopped, dined and entertained in commercial districts located inside Garden Grove as well. In addition to the Downtown area, the Promenade and Pavilion at the corner of Chapman Avenue and Brookhurst Street were identified as popular destinations in Garden Grove. Other popular destinations included the commercial districts at the intersections of Figure 4.8. Left. MindMixer In-Person participants’ popular destinations. Figure 4.9. Middle. MindMixer In-Person participants’ popular bicycle routes. Figure 4.10. Right. MindMixer In-Person participants’ popular pedestrian routes. Figure 4.11. Next page. MindMixer In-Person participants’ popular destinations and routes.

Major Streets Santa Ana River Attractions Area of Most Popular Destinations Destinations Responses Routine Occasional 1 2-5 6 - 10 11 - 15 16 + Routes Used & Desired Routes Pedestrian Bicycle

Figure #.#. MindMixer popular destinations and routes. 154 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

Cypress Los Alamitos Army AirďŹ eld

Disneyland

Haster St

5

Anaheim

Stanton

57

Harbor Blvd

Euclid St

Brookhurst St

Magnolia St

Beach Blvd

Knott St

Valley View St

MindMixer Popular Destinations + Routes

Honda Center City National Grove of Anaheim

Katella Ave

ARTIC

Angel Stadium Orangewood Ave

Christ Cathedral

Chapman Ave

Orange Outlets at Orange

Lampson Ave

Memory Lane

Garden Grove Blvd

Trask St

22

Trask Ave

17th St

Huntington Beach

405

Westminster Mall

Hazard Ave

1st St

Bolsa Ave

Westminster

Little Saigon

Santa Ana Riv er

Westminster Ave

Santa Ana

McFadden Ave

0

Bella Terra Figure #.#. MindMixer members’ top ten questionnaire responses. Mile Square Fountain Regional Park Valley

1

2

Miles

4 - Public Participation | 155

Chapman Avenue and Euclid Street, Chapman Avenue and Harbor Boulevard, and Garden Grove Boulevard and Harbor Boulevard (Figure 4.11). The majority of the participants accessed their local and regional destinations by personal vehicle. However, active bicyclists often used Lampson Avenue, Garden Grove Boulevard, and a section of Westminster Avenue as their east to west routes. They rarely used the major north to south arterial roads, except for portions of Valley View Street, Magnolia Street, Brookhurst Street, Haster Street, and the entire length of the collector road, West Street. Many participants also chose sections of Magnolia Street, Brookhurst Street, Euclid Street and West Street as their preferred north to south walking routes and Lampson Avenue as their main east to west route. Many would like to see the PE ROW incorporate new bicycle and pedestrian trails (Figure 4.11). The majority of destinations in Garden Grove that participants chose are located along or in very close proximity to the PE ROW, highlighting its value as an instrument for non-motorized access.

Many participants supported the addition of active recreational spaces, sports parks and water playgrounds as well as improving the Civic Center pond and transforming Main Street into a pedestrian plaza. A few participants were disinterested in these types of improvements. Participants were evenly divided on the topic of integrating parking structures into the downtown area.

Public Participation Top Ten MindMixer In-Person Responses MindMixer In-Person

Love It

Like It

Murals

12

6

Restore Classic Water Tower & Red Line Train

11

5

Local Concert

17

1

Urban Agriculture

17

1

Film Festival

15

3

Childrens' Theatre

14

3

15

1

No Answer

Public / Urban Art

2

Community Activities

Questionnaire

Downtown Revitalization

Eighteen people completed the questionnaires. The survey results reiterate the interests posted on the MindMixer interface. Most of the participants agreed that they would like to see a more attractive and vibrant Main Street and Downtown with more public art, shows, activities, public parks and playgrounds for children. The majority of participants responded positively to the idea of incorporating urban agriculture into the Downtown, public art being integrated throughout Garden Grove, and highlighting the existing historic buildings as well as the City’s cultural diversity. To revitalize Main Street, many responded positively to the idea of bringing more nighttime activities in the form of live shows and performances into the downtown area including children’s theatre, local concerts, comedy shows, and film festivals. Furthermore, the participants responded well to the idea of educational programs for school-aged children.

Downtown Nightlife

156 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

Leave It

Questionnaire

1

2

Community Education & Identity Highlight Historic Buildings

15

Programs for School-Aged Children

10

Highlight Cultural Diversity

13

1

2

2

6 3

2

Table 4.2. Left. MindMixer In-Person top ten responses from public participation. Figure 4.12. Right. MindMixer In-Person at public meeting.

Participatory Urban Assessment: Public Forum Mapping Installations Methods Used, Questions Asked and Tools Employed Map installation activities were based on the PUA method and consisted of mapping exercises that took place at three locations in Garden Grove—City Hall, the Garden Grove Regional Library, and the Sports and Recreation Center. At each location, two 36-inch by 48-inch maps were used for mapping and placement of dots. One map represented a detailed local map of the City of Garden Grove, while the second represented a regional map of Garden Grove and surrounding cities and attractions. The information was divided between different colored dots (stickers) and markers. The dots were used to map neighborhoods that the participants resided in (red dot), the locations of regular destinations (green dots), and occasional locations that participants would visit for entertainment or special events (yellow dots). In addition, markers were used to map routes used to get to and from their neighborhoods by driving, biking, and walking. Orange lines mapped vehicular travel, blue lines mapped bicycle travel, and green lines mapped pedestrian travel. After setting up the maps, staff were educated on the mapping process by participating in the process themselves, which allowed staff the ability to provide guidance to participants should they have any questions or require any assistance. The mapping exercise was available for eight days, from February 17th, 2014 to February 25th, 2014. While the first date of setup and team interaction with participants yielded excellent results, a second visit on February 22nd, 2014, to see progress on the mapping exercise revealed little to no additional participants since the last visit. When participation was actively solicited and instructions were given in-person, participation improved.

Summary Table Who: Garden Grove community members present at one of three locations What: Mapping exercise; arranged with City Planning and Community Service staff and Team solicitation of the managing Librarian, Thomas Fitch Where: Three locations in Garden Grove: City Hall, the Garden Grove Regional Library, and the Sports and Recreation Center at Garden Grove Park When: Over a span of eight days, beginning on February 17, 2014 through February 25, 2014; the 606 Team facilitated the activity in-person on February 17, 2014, February 22, 2014 and February 25, 2014 Why: To identify community members’ personal points of interest and preferred cycling and pedestrian routes in order to provide input and generate data points for the development of the NMM network How: PUA; two 36-inch by 48-inch maps to be used for mapping and placement of dots; written instructions (in five languages: English, Spanish, Vietnamese, Korean, and Chinese) were provided for independent participation; in-person facilitation of the process was also used when possible

158 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

Map Installation Instructions

Results Sixty-seven people participated in the PUA mapping activity. Initial observations showed that the majority of residents’ routine stops and destinations are within the city boundaries of Garden Grove. However, when asked about special occasions and destinations, many participants noted that their destinations were in the region outside of Garden Grove. A majority of the participants drove their automobiles to and from different locations and did little bicycling or walking. At the local scale, the majority of the participants went to downtown Garden Grove on a regular basis. Participants dined, shopped, and entertained in many major commercial districts throughout Garden Grove. Outside of the Downtown, many participants identified the Promenade and Pavilion as one of their favorite commercial destinations in the City. Other regularly visited areas included The Grove District along Harbor Boulevard as well as the corners of Westminster Avenue and Brookhurst Street, Garden Grove Boulevard and Brookhurst Street, Lampson Avenue and Valley Street, and the corner of Katella Avenue and Euclid Street (Figure 4.18). Outside of Garden Grove, many participants also identified major landmarks and attractions in the adjacent cities as their most visited regular and occasional destinations. Some of these nearby destinations included Disneyland, the Outlets at Orange, Angel Stadium, Honda Center, Little Saigon and Miles Square Park. Farther out of Garden Grove, the participants also identified regional shopping centers, attractions, and natural open spaces. These places included Knott’s Berry Farm, the Orange Circle Antique Mall, Westfield MainPlace Mall, Irvine Spectrum, South Coast Plaza, Orange County Fairgrounds, State Beaches, Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve, and Seal Beach Regional Wildlife Refuge (Figure 4.18).

Figure 4.13. Top. Map installation instructions. Figure 4.14. Bottom. Local residents participating in mapping exercise at Garden Grove Regional Library.

4 - Public Participation | 159

Destinations

Pedestrian Routes

Bicycle Routes 57

57

57

5

5

5

22

22

22

405

1

2

0

Rive r 1

Miles

The majority of the participants drove to their local and regional destinations. When the participants walked in Garden Grove, their desired north to south routes included Harbor Boulevard, Gilbert Street, Brookhurst Street, Euclid Street, and West Street; and desired east to west routes included Garden Grove Boulevard, Orangewood Avenue, Chapman Avenue, Lampson Avenue, and Westminster Avenue. However, when asked which routes participants preferred to use, the majority of people identified smaller residential streets with less vehicular traffic.

2

Santa A na

Santa A na

Rive r Santa A na

0

405

Rive r

405

Miles

0

1

2

Miles

LegendLegend Civic Center-Downtown District Freeways Major Streets

Many participants identified the major arterial roads as their desired bike routes due to their direct access to the main destinations in the City. Some of these north to south routes included Magnolia Street, Gilbert Street, Brookhurst Street, Ward Street, Euclid Street, Newhope Street, West Street and Harbor Boulevard. The east to west routes also included Orangewood Avenue, Chapman Avenue, Lampson Avenue, Garden Grove Boulevard, Westminster Avenue, and Bolsa Avenue (Figure 4.18). However, many also identified smaller residential streets as their preferred routes due to perception of safety because of lower traffic volume. Most participants indicated that they usually drove to regional destinations, such as Mile Square Regional Park, Irvine Regional Park, State Beaches, and El Dorado East Regional Park, and they walked around the destinations. However, some people also cycled regional facilities such as the Santa Ana River Bike Trail, State Beaches, and Long Beach. This activity was the first of the public forums to be facilitated in-person. The PE ROW had not been identified on any of the maps, nor was it brought up by any of the participants during the exercise. When the PE ROW was offered as an option in subsequent PUA activities, the majority of forum participants chose it as a route to include in the NMM network. While conducting the PUA activities this way may have skewed the aggregated results of all off the activities combined, this shows that if the PE ROW is presented as a viable option, the public will be in favor of it. Figure 4.15. Left. Public forum popular destinations. Figure 4.16. Middle. Public forum popular pedestrian routes. Figure 4.17. Right. Public forum popular bicycle routes. Figure 4.18. Next page. Public forum popular destinations and routes. 160 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

Santa Ana River Attractions Pacific Electric Right-of-Way (PE ROW) Area of Most Popular Destinations Destinations Responses Routine Occasional 1 2-5 6 - 10 11 - 15 16 + Routes

Used & Desired Routes

Pedestrian Bicycle

Figure #.#. Public forum popular destinations and routes.

Cypress

Los Alamitos Army Airfield

Rig

ht-

Harbor Blvd

tric

of-

W ay

57

5

Anaheim

Disneyland

Haster St

Knott St

Valley View St

lec

Euclid St

cE

Beach Blvd

cifi

Magnolia St

Pa

Brookhurst St

Public Forum Popular Destinations + Routes

Honda Center City National Grove of Anaheim

Stanton Katella Ave

ARTIC

Angel Stadium Orangewood Ave

Orange

Chapman Ave

Christ Cathedral

Lampson Ave

Outlets at Orange

Memory Lane

Garden Grove Blvd

22 Trask St

Trask Ave

17th St

Westminster Ave

Hazard Ave

Westminster Mall

1st St

Bolsa Ave

Westminster

Little Saigon McFadden Ave

Bella Terra

Fountain Valley

Mile Square Regional Park

Santa Ana

Rive r

405

Santa A na

Huntington Beach

0

1

2

Miles

4 - Public Participation | 161

Public Participation Top Ten Regional and Local Destination Responses Destinations Questionnaire + Mapping Installation

Senior Citizens 11 Participants 3 Surveys

Mapping Installations 67 Participants No Survey

High School Students

MindMixer In-Person

70+ Participants 30+ Participants 18 Surveys 41 Surveys

REGIONAL Outlets at Orange

MindMixer Interface

Bicyclist Coalition

214 Days 255 Active Participants 706 Topics 1284 Comments

6 Participants No Survey

Total

25

20

14

59

11.5

14

3.5

30

Disney Theme Parks, Resort & Downtown Disney

16

5

3

24

Little Saigon

14

1

Main Place Mall

15

Westminster Mall

14

1

End of Santa Ana River Bike Trail (South)

3

2

Huntington Beach (Main Street)

6

Knott's Berry Farm

7

Angel Stadium

4

Promenade Shopping Center Anaheim Resort (Chapman & Harbor)

Mile Square Park

1

15 15

2

15

5

10

2

10

2

9

1

2

7

12.5

12.5

11

36

20

8.5

3

31.5

7

5.5

6.5

13

3

2

18

Pavillion Plaza Shopping Center

2

10

3

15

Garden Grove Shopping Plaza

3.5

8

1

12.5

9

2

LOCAL

Main Street Target (Harbor)

Garden Grove Regional Library OfďŹ ce Depot/Dalat Supermarket Shopping Center Twin Lakes Park

1

5.5 7

Table 4.3. Popular regional and local destinations (top ten responses from public participation).

23

12 4.5

3

4

1

2

12 11

Bicyclist Coalition Methods Used, Questions Asked and Tools Employed In response to contact from Andrew Kanzler (currently a Planning Commissioner but then a Parks, Recreation, and Arts Commissioner), a group met to discuss cyclist concerns and routes in the area. The activity lasted approximately one and a half hours. Participants were shown an overview presentation describing the issues, goals, and objectives of the project, as well as detailing the PUA mapping activity. The activity featured a local and regional map with the existing and planned network. Six area cyclists participated in the activity. Each cyclist was paired with a member of the 606 Team, with two team members assisting two participants at once. The exercise differed from the mapping installation exercises; since the bicyclists had intimate knowledge of the street network, they provided comments and observational solutions exclusive to the bicycling network. Tasked with marking routes and connections, participants were asked to identify routes they currently use for bicycling. They also helped identify gaps in the existing bike network, areas for future bicycle route development, as well as problematic areas that need to be addressed.

Summary Table Who: Bike enthusiasts that live or cycle in Garden Grove What: Mapping exercise of current and desired cycling routes in the existing bicycling network; arranged by Andrew Kanzler, Commissioner of Parks for Garden Grove Where: Garden Grove’s Community Meeting Center When: February 25, 2014 Why: Identify potential problematic zones, used and desired routes within Garden Grove and regionally How: PUA; cyclists were tasked with marking routes they currently use for cycling, identifying gaps in the existing bike network, areas for future bicycle route development, and areas that are currently problematic for cycling

Figure 4.19. Top. Bicyclist coalition members participating in mapping exercise. RE:Imagine Garden Grove | 163

Results Initial observations showed that these cyclists were a mix of utilitarian cyclists and recreational cyclists. Planning and design solutions differed somewhat between the two types of riders. Utilitarian cyclists, those who cycle to work or to run errands, displayed characteristics and preferences that typify the type A, or Advanced Rider. These participants favored routes that have the most direct access to destinations. Some routes identified by utilitarian riders included streets characterized by high volume vehicular traffic. By contrast, recreational cyclists (those who ride for exercise or for fun, cycle less frequently, often on weekends, riding trails exclusive to cyclists, walkers and joggers) epitomize type B, or Basic Rider behaviors. Recreational cyclists indicated both direct and indirect routes to access Class I paths. Their primary concern was accessing the safest routes to get to the Santa Ana River Trail and the development of a complete bike loop (30 miles or more). In general, all participants wanted to achieve a riding experience that could create greater regional connections. Participants also noted the lack of bicycle safety training, automobile driver awareness of bicycle rights, local bicycle support facilities, as well as bike-friendly, commercial stops in the City. Utilized Bike Routes The bicyclists traveled mostly east to west along Katella Avenue, Chapman Avenue, and Lampson Avenue, a portion of Garden Grove Boulevard between downtown and the Santa Ana River, and a portion of Trask Avenue between 22 Freeway and the Santa Ana River (Figure 4.20). They also rode along north to south routes, including Valley View Street, Springdale Street, Gilbert Street, Brookhurst Street, West Street, Newhope Street, and Haster Street. Recreational bicyclists also used the Santa Ana River Trail for training, exercise, and access to the beaches. Although most existing routes had gaps, the participants often took the most direct paths between point A and B. Regionally, the bicyclists also took Garden Grove Boulevard to the Santa Ana River Trail or the San Gabriel River Trail. They also rode around Seal Beach along Westminster Avenue and Bolsa Chica Street between the San Gabriel River Trail and the Pacific Coast Highway.

LegendLegend Civic Center-Downtown District Freeways Major Streets Santa Ana River Attractions

Desired Bike Routes Some bicyclists indicated that they would like to add new east to west bike routes along Stanford Avenue and Garden Grove Boulevard connecting the downtown area to the western boundary of the City. They also proposed new north to south paths along Beach Boulevard and Harbor Boulevard, Valley View Street, Knott Street, Euclid Street, and West Street. Some participants wanted Class I paths along the Anaheim-Barber City Channel and the PE ROW to access regional trails along the Santa Ana River in the east and Coyote Creek in the west (Figure 4.20).

Used & Desired Bike Routes Non-Motorized Network Existing Class I Class II

Planned OCTA Bike Routes

Class III

Most of the bike routes proposed by the participants matched the planned OCTA bike routes. However, some streets, including Springdale Street, Gilbert Street, and West Street, were only planned as Class III bike routes. Also, Stanford Avenue, Garden Grove Boulevard and the PE ROW were not included in the OCTA bike network.

Figure #.#. Bicyclist coalition used and desired bike routes.

164 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

Figure 4.20. Right. Bicyclist coalition used and desired bike routes.

Disneyland

5

Haster St

Anaheim

57

Harbor Blvd

Euclid St

Brookhurst St

Knott St

Beach Blvd

Magnolia St

Bicyclist Coalition Used + Desired Bike Routes

Honda Center

Cypress City National Grove of Anaheim Angel Stadium Christ Cathedral

Orangewood Ave

Stanton

Chapman Ave

ARTIC

Orange

Outlets at Orange

Lampson Ave

Memory Lane Garden Grove Blvd

Trask Ave

Trask St

22 17th St

Westminster Ave Hazard Ave

Santa Ana 1st St

Bolsa Ave

Little Saigon

Westminster

McFadden Ave

Bella Terra

Huntington Beach

405

Fountain Valley

Mile Square Regional Park

Ana Riv er

Westminster Mall

San ta

Valley View St

Katella Ave

Los Alamitos Army AirďŹ eld

0

1

2

Miles

4 - Public Participation | 165

High School Students: Garden Grove High School (GGHS) Art Students Methods Used, Questions Asked and Tools Employed Art classes at Garden Grove High School were invited to participate during two periods. The classes consisted of students between the ages of 15 and 17 with diverse ethnic backgrounds. Two brief presentations were made: the first on the Re:Imagine Downtown Garden Grove project, and the second on examples of urban art in the landscape. The PUA mapping activity, the questionnaire and two photovoice journaling take-home activities were explained. The PUA followed a similar format to the map installation activity. The mapping exercise was conducted in-class with the maps remaining in the class for a week so all students would be able to participate. The activity asked the students to identify their neighborhoods and regular destinations. They then mapped the routes to those destinations by car, bike, and/or walking as well as identifying which routes they had concerns about and would like to see improved. The questionnaire asked students to identify their favorite destinations both inside and outside of Garden Grove, fun and exciting places and activities they would like to see in Downtown, and things that would encourage them to spend more time outdoors. The first photojournaling activity asked students to identify places and activities that reflect the identity of Garden Grove. The second activity was an “urban art challenge” that asked students to provide examples of urban art they respond to (what it is and what they like about it) and to identify locations in Garden Grove that they believed would benefit from public art. A Facebook page was created so they could post their identity and urban art challenge photojournals, as well as ask questions, comment on each others’ submittals, and share their opinions regarding the project.

166 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

Summary Table Who: High school students in Mrs. Robin Repp’s art classes What: In-class mapping activity along with a take home, two-part assignment on open space (desired use and activities), downtown revitalization (desired activities and appeal) and urban art (appreciated and desired artistic expression in cities); a 606 Team member with a connection to GGHS solicited Mrs. Repp Where: Garden Grove High School When: February 24, 2014 Why: To identify pedestrian and cycling routes, and generate data on motivations for spending more time outdoors and in the downtown; input aggregated to identify and connect safe routes to school within the NMM network How: PUA, Questionnaire and Photovoice; students were asked to identify their favorite destinations both inside and outside of Garden Grove, to identify activities, enticements and spaces that would encourage them to spend more time outdoors and in the Downtown, and to take photos of their favorite destination in Garden Grove, as well as images that reflect the kind of urban/public art pieces students like and to identify spaces in the City that would benefit from the presence of public art

Figure 4.21. Top. Mrs. Robin Repp and her art students.

High School Students: Garden Grove Unified School District Board Representative Committee (GGUSD BRC) Methods Used, Questions Asked and Tools Employed On March 4th 2014, the Garden Grove Unified School District Board Representative Committee (GGUSD BRC) met at the District Annex Building in Garden Grove. The GGUSD BRC is a select group of high school students representing various high schools located across the City of Garden Grove. The committee consists of students ranging in age from 15 to 17 years with diverse cultural backgrounds. The Re:Imagine Downtown Garden Grove project was presented to the committee, and student activity packages were distributed and explained. The student activity package consisted of the PUA mapping exercise and instructions, a questionnaire, and a photojournaling activity. The questions in the questionnaire pertained to where students like to go, what they like to do, what would attract them to the Downtown, and what types of features and activities would encourage them to use open spaces. There was only one photojournaling exercise for the BRC. Students were asked to identify places and activities that reflect the identity of Garden Grove. The BRC was encouraged to share the package with their respective Associated Student Body as well as their friends and classmates. They were asked to return the package to their high school administrators to be forwarded to Ms. Stevens. They were given until March 21, 2014 to complete and submit the activity package, and to upload the photojournal images to the 606 Team’s Facebook page.

Summary Table Who: Garden Grove Unified School District Board Representative Committee which includes a select group of high school students representing various high schools located in Garden Grove What: A packet, including two mapping exercises (high school adjacent neighborhoods and a City map), a questionnaire, and a photojournal assignment; arranged through City staff member Susan Emery with the cooperation of GGUSD Superintendent Dr. Gabriel Mafi and Amy Stevens, GGUSD Public Information Officer Where: Garden Grove School District Headquarters, Annex Building When: March 4, 2014 Why: To collect data from City youth through the identification of bike and walking routes currently used, the proposal of new routes, and input regarding the types of attractions and uses students felt were needed in the City’s parks and downtown How: PUA, Questionnaire and Photovoice; students were asked to complete the PUA (mapping exercise), questionnaire, and photojournaling activity and encouraged to share the packet with their Associated Student Body as well as other students.

Figure 4.22. Top. Garden Grove Unified School District Board Representative Committee.

4 - Public Participation | 167

High School Students: Combined Results In total, 53 students participated in the mapping exercise and 41 students completed the questionnaires. Photovoice failed to generate responses and in total, only one image was submitted. General comments indicated that the students feel there is a lack of teen-friendly businesses, activated public gathering spaces, and activities in downtown Garden Grove. Many students mentioned the Outlets of Orange and Bella Terra as their favorite recreational destinations but some noted that they perceived these destinations as too far for biking and walking from their neighborhoods. The students commented on the desire to have more outdoor sport parks and indoor recreational activities that would attract them to the downtown area. Students tended to and were willing to bike and walk to most of their destinations on a regular basis. However, they would often take the most direct and shortest routes from point A to point B even if it meant crossing through parking lots, small streets, vacant areas, or large open spaces (Figure 4.28). Destinations Based on the surveys, a small percent of the students identiďŹ ed parks, open spaces and beaches as their regional and local destinations. Some of the parks they mentioned included the Civic Center Park, Twin Lakes Park, Garden Grove Park, Village Green Park, and Mile Square Park. Many students listed Mile Square Park as their most popular park even though it is located in Fountain Valley, approximately four miles from Downtown Garden Grove. Christ Cathedral and Disneyland are also popular destinations for high school students (Figure 4.25).

Figure 4.23. Top. Mrs. Robin Repp’s art students participating in mapping exercise. Figure 4.24. Bottom. Garden Grove UniďŹ ed School District Board Representative Committee.

The majority of the students identiďŹ ed shopping malls, commercial plazas and restaurants as their regular and occasional visits. Some of the most visited commercial plazas inside of Garden Grove include Main Street, Mall of Fortune, Garden Grove Shopping Plaza, Promenade and Grove Pavilion Plaza shopping centers. The students often visit other nearby shopping centers outside of Garden Grove, such as the Outlets at Orange, the City National Grove of Orange, and Little Saigon, as well as South Coast Plaza in Costa Mesa, which is approximately eight miles from downtown Garden Grove. They also mentioned chain restaurants and coffee shops, such as The Boiling Crab, In-N-Out, and Starbucks, as well as many teen-friendly dessert and drink shops, including Tastea, Jamba Juice, and Yogurtland. The majority of these places are located outside of the Downtown area.

Public Participation Top Ten Prospective Change Responses Prospective Changes Questionnaire

Senior Citizens 11 Participants 3 Surveys

Public Art

High School Students

70+ Participants 30+ Participants 41 Surveys 18 Surveys

5

Protected Bike Trails (eg. PE ROW) Live Music Retail/Shops

2 2

Film Festival

Some high school students would like to enhance Downtown Main Street by introducing more public art, beautifying the architecture and outdoor spaces, as well as improving access and connections to the area. However, most students wanted to see more teen-oriented commercial spaces, including retail shops, clothing stores, book and comic shops, outdoor shops, restaurants, cafĂŠs, dessert shops, and ethnic foods. Many students also wanted to see more teen-friendly activities and recreational attractions added to the downtown area. Entertainment was mentioned, such as the addition of a movie theater and the promotion of live performances aimed at the teenage demographic. The majority of the students would like to see more indoor recreational activities, such as rock climbing, an arcade, laser tag, skating, and karaoke, as well as gathering spaces for community activities and studying. In general, the high school students would like to see more and enhanced non-motorized trails, parks, and outdoor recreational spaces in downtown Garden Grove and throughout the City. Trails should not only

MindMixer Interface

Total

214 Days 255 Active Participants 706 Topics 1284 Comments

19

78

102

2

80

82

17(1)

27

47

33

40

15

33

33

33

5 15(3)

Underground/Parking Structure

Changes

MindMixer In-Person

Pedestrian Walkways/Plaza

1

2

26

29

Restaurants/Food Shops

2

2

25

29

Urban Agriculture

3

17(1)

8

29

29

29

More Trees/Planters Table 4.4. Prospective changes (top ten responses from public participation).

serve cyclists and pedestrians, but also allow skateboarding and roller-skating. Some touched on the addition of small gardens for more quiet and tranquil activities. Most wanted more teen- and family-friendly outdoor open spaces and plazas with active recreational activities, such as skating, exercising, and sports. With regard to the existing parks and pedestrian paths, many students raised concerns about safety, lack of public amenities, and aesthetics. The majority of the students would like to see improvements in lighting, sidewalk widths, and landscaping for a better and safer walking environment. Some included residential streets and the PE ROW as opportunities for additional non-motorized trails. In existing public parks, the students wanted to add more trees, shade structures, seating, and cleaner restrooms for better outdoor experiences. Results from the mapping exercise indicated that the high school students generally liked to go to the major commercial centers in Garden Grove, including Main Street, the Promenade and Pavilion at the intersection of Chapman Avenue and Brookhurst Street, the Korean Business District along Garden Grove Boulevard, and the The Grove District on Harbor Boulevard. Many students often traveled outside the City to shop, eat, and entertain. Some of these places included Little Saigon, Mile Square Park, Disneyland, Angel Stadium, Honda Center, and the Outlets at Orange (Figure 4.28).

RE:Imagine Garden Grove | 169

Destinations

Pedestrian Routes

Bicycle Routes 57

57

57

5

5

5

22

22

22

405

1

2

0

Rive r 1

Miles

Figure 4.25. Left. High school students’ popular destinations. Figure 4.26. Middle. High school students’ popular pedestrian routes. Figure 4.27. Right. High school students’ popular bicycle routes. Figure 4.28. Next page. High school students’ popular destinations and routes.

2

Santa A na

Santa A na

Rive r

Santa A na

0

405

Rive r

405

Miles

0

LegendLegend Civic Center-Downtown District Freeways

Many students indicated that they were willing to walk and bike in the area of their homes as well as to nearby commercial areas. Occasionally, some students walked to and from Downtown Garden Grove, as far south as Mile Square Park, and southwest to Westminster; west to Springdale Street, north to Katella Avenue, and east to Fairview Street (Figure 4.26).

Major Streets Santa Ana River Attractions

When students were asked to identify new bike paths that they would like to see added to the existing network, they included most of the north to south and east to west arterial roads that run the length of Garden Grove. North to south streets included Harbor Boulevard, Magnolia Street, Brookhurst Street, Euclid Street, and Haster Street. The east to west streets consisted of Garden Grove Boulevard, Orangewood Avenue, Chapman Avenue, Lampson Avenue, Westminster Avenue, and Bolsa Avenue. Some students even commented on the addition of a bike and pedestrian trail along the PE ROW between downtown Main Street and the Promenade and Pavilion shopping centers at the corner of Chapman Avenue and Brookhurst Street (Figure 4.27).

Pacific Electric Right-of-Way (PE ROW) Destinations Responses

Routine

1 2-5 6 - 10 11 - 15 16 + Routes Used & Desired Routes Pedestrian Bicycle

170 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

Figure #.#. High school students’ popular destinations and routes.

1

2

Miles

Cypress Los Alamitos Army Airfield

Rig

ht-

Harbor Blvd

tric

of-

W ay

5

Anaheim

Stanton

57

Disneyland

Haster St

Knott St

Valley View St

lec

Euclid St

cE

Beach Blvd

cifi

Magnolia St

Pa

Brookhurst St

High School Students’ Popular Destinations + Routes

Honda Center City National Grove of Anaheim

Katella Ave

ARTIC

Angel Stadium Orangewood Ave

Christ Cathedral Chapman Ave

Orange

Outlets at Orange

Lampson Ave

Memory Lane

Garden Grove Blvd

22 Trask St

Trask Ave

17th St Westminster Ave

Westminster Mall

Hazard Ave

1st St

Bolsa Ave

Westminster

Little Saigon

McFadden Ave

Bella Terra

Fountain Valley

Mile Square Regional Park

Santa Ana

Rive r

405

Santa A na

Huntington Beach

0

1

2

Miles

4 - Public Participation | 171

Senior Citizens Methods Used, Questions Asked and Tools Employed On February 12th 2014, eleven senior citizens from the City of Garden Grove met at the Garden Grove Community Center. There were ten female participants and one male participant, including Anglos, Caribbean Islanders of African decent, and Hispanics. The focus group involved three detailed questions regarding the perception of the identity of Garden Grove, as well as an introductory question. The first two questions related to describing the identity of Garden Grove and what makes it unique among other cities in Orange County. The final question encouraged participants to offer memories of what they would miss most if they had to leave Garden Grove and encouraged suggestions that would help improve the City. After the focus group, participants were asked to take home a questionnaire that included various questions regarding identity, mobility, use of open space, and activities that would draw them into the downtown. Only three questionnaires were returned (to view the questionnaire, see Appendices).

Results The majority of participants stated that Garden Grove was not their first city of residence. Virtually all participants had moved from other states earlier in their lifetime. The main reasons for moving to Garden Grove involved family, economic considerations, location, and weather. While participants were initially skeptical of discussing different ways to improve the City, by the last focus group question, participants were passionately discussing ideas and sharing memories from the past 30 years. They noted that the loss of Garden Grove’s agricultural fields had resulted in a loss of open spaces to play in. The majority of participants had embraced multi-cultural living; some noted that the multi-cultural establishments within the City had a positive influence on identity of Garden Grove. A few were critical of

172 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

Figure 4.29. Left. Senior citizens participating in small focus group. Figure 4.30. Right. Introduction of 606 Team and project to senior citizens.

Summary Table Who: Senior citizens with ties to the H. Louis Lake Senior Center in the City of Garden Grove. What: Facilitation of a round table discussion and dissemination of a questionnaire (take-home optional); arranged by City staff members Susan Emery and Janet Pelayo Where: Garden Grove Community Center When: February 12, 2014 Why: To understand the concerns and priorities of senior citizens related to mobility, open space, and future development in Garden Grove How: Small focus group with questions that drew upon experiences and memories; the take-home questionnaire was used to supplement the experiential information provided during the activity

the architectural changes related to home additions within some of the residential neighborhoods that are inconsistent with the scale and perceived charm of Garden Grove’s endemic architecture. There was also a perceived lack of services and programming that catered to senior citizens. A number of participants also wanted to see improvements to nighttime access to public transportation that would allow senior citizens to participate in evening activities. Identity With regard to Garden Grove’s identity, the senior citizens had strong connections with their neighborhoods and positive opinions about the City’s qualities and its commercial appeal. Many of the participants agreed that Garden Grove’s proximity to the ocean and mountains and fine weather are some of its greatest strengths. Participants also enjoy its small-town feel:

intimate neighborhoods, large properties, affordable housing options, and mixture of newer housing developments and mid-century, range-style homes. The senior citizens also enjoy many public amenities offered in the City, such as the H. Louis Lake Senior Center, public library, parks, and Gem Theater. They also liked the activities and events hosted in Garden Grove, including the Strawberry Festival and Parade, Vietnamese Têt Festival, weekly car show, and senior social events. The participants also praised the City’s public services, mentioning the good public schools in the City, the fire and police departments, and the many churches that help disadvantaged community members. Participants also liked the City’s proximity to many regional and local shopping and entertainment centers around Orange County. Ease of access to Historic Downtown Main Street as well as Little Saigon,

many cultural markets, and other shopping malls was remarked upon as a positive feature of Garden Grove. The participants mentioned that a variety of nearby entertainment options, such as Disneyland, Knott’s Berry Farm, sporting events, and concerts, allow for a great living experience within the City. (More information is available in the Appendix). Lastly, participants also had very strong personal and emotional connections with the City, its neighborhoods, homes, families, and friends. Many commented on how much friendlier the community has become in general. The majority of participants enjoy the cultural diversity of the City. Many commented on Garden Grove’s familyfriendly, peaceful, and quiet atmosphere. Although the City is continuingly changing to cater to population growth demands, it still encourages a sense of nostalgia and good memories.

Destinations

Public Participation Top Ten Identity Responses Garden Grove Identity Questionnaire Top Ten Responses

Senior Citizens 11 Participants 3 Surveys

High School Students

MindMixer In-Person

70+ Participants 30+ Participants 41 Surveys 18 Surveys

MindMixer Interface

Total

214 Days 255 Active Participants 706 Topics 1284 Comments

City Qualities

Activities

Location

4

12

16

Home/Neighborhood

1

6

7

3(6)

1

7

3

4

7

1

9

10

Strawberry Festival & Parade Good Schools Commercial Appeal Historic Downtown Main Street Proximity to Entertainment

3(10)

10

3(5)

3

8

Relationships

7

4

11

Friendly People

4

7

11

Cultural Diversity

5

3

8

Diversity of Restaurants

Other than shopping centers, grocery stores, and restaurants, the senior citizens listed the Senior Center and Civic Center Park as their most popular destinations. This makes the Civic Center a central hub for the senior age group, while the less popular or visited destinations are more widely spread throughout and outside of the City. (More information is available in the Appendix).

Based on the questionnaires, most of the senior citizens preferred passive recreational activities, including walking, people watching, bird watching, picnicking, and family gathering (Figure 4.31). Family Gathering 10% Picnic / BBQ 18%

Walk 27%

Personal/Emotional Responses

Table 4.5. Identity (top ten responses from public participation).

Bird Watch 18%

People Watch 27%

Figure 4.31. Senior citizens’ popular activities.

Changes Some of the senior citizens would like to improve Garden Grove’s Downtown by preserving Historic Main Street; enhancing its access, connections and aesthetic appeal; and introducing more shops, restaurants, art galleries, entertainment, and activities. However, most participants were interested in seeing more public parks, open spaces, and community gardens in Garden Grove with more and improved pedestrian trails, landscaping, lighting, signage, seating, shade and exercise equipment. (More information is available in the Appendix).

174 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

Faith Leadership Methods Used, Questions Asked and Tools Employed It was theorized that the leadership of faith-based institutions would be an ideal link to under-represented groups as some houses of faith conduct worship in languages other than English, making them ideal connections to these communities. While the three faith leaders who attended the meeting were supportive of the aims of inclusivity, all their congregations had a firm grasp of the English language. They were given Re:Imagine Downtown business cards with all of the pertinent site and email addresses, and encouraged to invite their congregations to partake in the public participation process, even if just through the MindMixer interface. Ideally, additional focus groups would have been conducted with representatives from the different congregations, but time limitations precluded this occurring as part of the research for this project. Figure 4.32. Left. Local faith leader. Figure 4.33. Right. Introductory meeting with local faith leaders.

Summary Table Who: Faith Leaders What: Introductory meeting arranged by Susan Emery Where: Garden Grove’s Community Meeting Center When: February 25, 2014 Why: In order to meet and connect with some of the underrepresented factions of the community—such as recent immigrants who speak little to no English, minority groups that tend to be more insular or less acclimated to the community, and those who may not be aware of, have access to, or be comfortable using the MindMixer interface. It was thought that the local faith leadership would be able to help connect the Team with those groups

4 - Public Participation | 175

4 - Public Participation 4.3 Combined Public Participation Summary Aggregated results from all of the public participation methods and activities are organized under the following topic: identity, the NMM network, open space enhancements, 2060 Downtown concept plan, and the “gardens and groves” theme. It should be noted that public participation activities took place in the Civic Center-Downtown area and turnout mostly consisted of residents that live in and around that area. Future master-planning efforts should supplement the research documented in this report with consultation with a comprehensive cross-section of City residents.

Identity Participants cited several reasons for living and remaining in Garden Grove. A common, general response was the fine weather and the close proximity to entertainment destinations and natural areas (such as the ocean and mountains). When pressed about features specific to the City, the primary characteristics were an appreciation of the: • • • • •

Cultural diversity Friendly atmosphere Agrarian, farming village heritage Intimate relationships Proximity to family and friends

These qualities, both broad and specific, identify certain values held by participating residents and inform some of the types of decisions that should be made regarding the NMM network, open space enhancements, 2060 Downtown concept plan, and the “gardens and groves” theme. Proximity to destinations and natural areas inform connections to be made in the mobility network. The appreciation of cultural diversity communicates that participants see cultural differences as something to be celebrated, and may be capitalized on through the

176 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

expression of public, cultural arts and commerce (retail and restaurants). An appreciation of Garden Grove’s agrarian, farming village heritage may be exhibited in architectural and design decisions pertaining to the Downtown and citywide amenities and fixtures, as well as expressed in the “gardens and groves” theme.

Non-Motorized Mobility Network Destinations Identified One hundred and forty-nine people participated in the PUA. Of these responses, the majority of local destinations identified by participants included: • • • • • • • • • • • •

Civic Center-Downtown area (commercial areas and parks) Garden Grove High School Grocery stores and food markets Garden Grove Promenade Shopping Center Anaheim Resort (at Chapman Avenue, along Harbor Boulevard) Pavilion Plaza Garden Grove Shopping Plaza Little Saigon (located in both Garden Grove and Westminster) Twin Lakes Park Garden Grove Park Mile Square Park Santa Ana River Trail

Streets and Greenways Identified The majority of regional greenways and local streets identified by participants for use in the mobility network included: Existing • • • •

Santa Ana River Trail San Gabriel River Trail Coyote Creek Trail Pacific Coast Highway Trail and Lanes

Non-existing • OCTA / PE ROW (selected across demographics and group types) • Anaheim-Barber City Channel Local streets that are currently used, should be included, and/or completed: • • • • • • • • •

Garden Grove Boulevard Harbor Boulevard Brookhurst Street Euclid Street Chapman Avenue Lampson Avenue Magnolia Street Haster Street Westminster Avenue

The majority of regional destinations identified included: • • • • • • • • •

The Outlets at Orange Disney Theme Park and Downtown Disney South Coast Plaza Main Place Mall Westminster Mall Bella Terra Huntington Beach Main Street and Pier Huntington Beach State and City beaches Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve

Figure 4.34. Top Left. Option 1: OCTA planned network. Figure 4.35. Top Right Option 2: Public participation network. Figure 4.36. Middle Left. Option 3: GIS generated network. Figure 4.37. Middle Right. Option 4: Citywide connection network. Figure 4.38. Bottom. MindMixer members participating in mapping exercise.

Option 1: OCTA Planned Network

Option 2: Public Participation Network 57

57

5

5

22

Santa Ana Riv er

22

405

Santa An a

Rive r

405

0

1

2

0

1

2

Miles

Once a few alternatives for the NMM network were developed (based on existing, planned, and proposed routes developed through geospatial modeling and additional public participation), the Delphi method was used to solicit MindMixer Interface participant feedback on the four options presented (Figures 4.34, 4.35, 4.36 & 4.37). NMM facilities were illustrated as a complete network, in a nondiscriminatory way (types of user and/ or facility classification). The focus of the activity was threefold: (1) to discover whether participants preferred a limited or extensive active mobility network; (2) to measure the proportion of participants’ affinity for each option to quantify margin of support; and (3) to confirm preferential mobility routes.

Miles

•

Option 3: GIS Generated Network

Option 4: Citywide Connection Network 57

57

5

5

• 22

22

•

Santa An a

Santa An a

Rive r

405

Rive r

405

0

1

2

Miles

0

1

2

Miles

•

Option one served as a baseline. It is the OCTA’s proposed network and was developed by experts who felt confident this network could be implemented. It is fairly progressive in its introduction of new bike paths, though it is missing some important connections. Six percent of the participants preferred this network. Option two was developed solely through public participation. While it does provide for many connections, it does not offer equitable access. Sixteen percent of the participants preferred this network. Option three was developed using the Network Connectivity-Suitability routing model (see page 234). This network connects proposed Class II lanes and Class III routes to the existing and proposed Class I regional trail system. Thirteen percent of participants preferred this network. By far the most comprehensive, option four elaborates on the network suitability routing process by completing Class II lanes (identified through public participation) and by identifying neighborhood Class III routes as alternatives to major streets. This network caters to all types of riders of varying experience and offers the most citywide access and connections. Sixtyfive percent of the participants preferred this network. 4 - Public Participation | 177

Destinations

Pedestrian Routes

Bicycle Routes 57

57

57

5

5

5

22

22

Rive r

Santa A na

0

1

2

0

405

1

Miles

Along with general improvements to the mobility network on the popular streets and greenways identified above, participants also want: • • •

Santa Ana Riv er

405

405

Santa Ana Riv er

22

2

0

Miles

LegendLegend Civic Center-Downtown District Freeways

Promenades incorporated into existing and future commercial developments Wider pedestrian paths and sidewalks Improved lighting for those using non-motorized forms of transportation

Major Streets Santa Ana River Attractions Area of Most Popular Destinations Destinations Responses

Routine

1 2-5 6 - 10 11 - 15 16 + Routes Used & Desired Routes Figure 4.39. Top Left. Combined public participants’ popular destinations. Figure 4.40. Top Middle. Combined public participants’ popular pedestrian routes. Figure 4.41. Top Right. Combined public participants’ popular bicycle routes. Figure 4.42. Next page. Combined public participants’ popular destinations and routes.

178 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

Pedestrian Bicycle

Occasional

1

2

Miles

Cypress

Los Alamitos Army Airfield

cifi

Stanton

tric

Rig

ht-

Harbor Blvd

Brookhurst St

Euclid St

5

Anaheim

lec

57

Disneyland

Haster St

Pa

cE

Katella Ave

Magnolia St

Beach Blvd

Knott St

Valley View St

Combined Public Participants’ Popular Destinations + Routes

Honda Center City National Grove of Anaheim

of-

W ay

ARTIC

Angel Stadium

Orangewood Ave

Christ Cathedral

Chapman Ave

Orange Outlets at Orange

Lampson Ave

Memory Lane

Garden Grove Blvd

22 Trask St

Trask Ave

17th St

Huntington Beach

405

Hazard Ave

Westminster Mall

1st St

Bolsa Ave

Westminster

Little Saigon

Santa Ana Riv er

Westminster Ave

Santa Ana

McFadden Ave

0

Bella Terra

Fountain Valley

Mile Square Regional Park

1

2

Miles

4 - Public Participation | 179

Open Space Network Enhancement

2060 Downtown Concept Plan

Participants want existing park spaces to be improved as well as more open space in general, in the form of parks, plazas, promenades, greenways, pocket parks, and roof gardens. Participants across demographic categories and group types want to see unused and underutilized spaces transformed into open space, such as roof tops and parking lots. In particular, they want the PE ROW: • •

Transformed into a greenway Developed as a ‘green spine’ for citywide mobility and open space use

In these open spaces, feedback highlighted the following enhancements: • • • •

Shade, seating, and nighttime lighting for safety Family-oriented spaces Water features More trees and garden spaces that include flowering, native, drought tolerant, ediblebaring, and wildlife attracting plants

According to participants, popular activities and uses included: •

• • •

Active recreation and sports facilities • Basketball • Skate parks (for skateboarding and roller skating) Dog parks Water parks and/or water play areas Outdoor theatre (for concerts, plays, shows, screenings, etc.)

180 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

Popular ideas for the revitalization of downtown included using unifying architectural and vegetative elements in the downtown, enhancing façades, and improving public right-of-ways to offer social areas in addition to access. Residents also want elements that beautify the area through public art, trees, planters, roof gardens, and signage. Participants wanted more contemporary and varied commercial spaces throughout the Downtown area that include retail, food, and beverage offerings. They also wanted commercial areas that integrate open space as a feature of new and upgraded retail areas in the form of promenades, plazas, retail kiosks, and food carts, as well as spaces for food trucks to set up and spaces for people to sit and eat outdoors. Healthy sources of food and more market options was also a popular topic, with the request of attracting a Trader Joe’s and having a greater number and presence of Farmers’ Markets. A number of popular ideas that were offered and then supported by others included: •

•

•

The extension of Main Street and preserving its unique history while introducing updated architectural elements; More sources of entertainment—especially at night and on weekends—included movies and films, live music, plays and performances, comedy shows, etc.; and Offering more parking in the form of both underand above- ground parking structures and making sure those structures were aesthetically pleasant (using vegetation and interesting façades).

Figure 4.43. Left. Interactive “Before I Die” art installation on Historic Main Street during Open Street Event. Figure 4.44. Right. Mural at Gem Theater.

The “Gardens and Groves” Theme Participants advocated two categories of vegetation more strongly than any other. • •

Edible plants Flowering plants

Supported concepts that were also popular included the use of: • • •

Drought-tolerant California native vegetation Integration of plantings through English gardenstyle layering

Advocated sophisticated concepts: • • •

Flowering plants came in at a close second behind edible/agricultural plants. Images posted by MindMixer participants included: • • • •

Flowering trees (including orchard species that flower) Perennials Vines Groundcovers

Submitted images included flowers that were large and impactful as well as blooms that were small and clustered, primarily in colors of: • • •

Purple Pink Burgundy

Protecting mature trees Providing vegetative variety Avoiding monocultures

The City’s agricultural roots seemed to be the primary motivation of participants’ predilection for edible plants and urban agriculture as a popular planting theme for the Downtown. Edible plants suggested for “groves” included fruiting trees. The most popular trees suggested were: • • • •

Orange tree and other types of citrus Avocado Pomegranate Fig

Suggestions for other edibles included the strawberry as a ground cover, the use of vining plant material (such as chili pepper vines), and the use of various herbs.

4 - Public Participation | 181

5 - Non-Motorized Mobility Network 5.1 Introduction

Introduction Southern California is renowned for its traffic jams. In order to create more active, healthy, and sustainable communities, a number of cities are making strategic investments in alternative transportation infrastructure to achieve a long-term vision of a more commutable region (SCAG, 2012). Cities are also investing in improvements to existing and the development of new non-motorized mobility (NMM) facilities. Streets are the primary civic space and public realm of urban residents. Streets represent the last refuge of civic design in the absence of integrated city squares, parks, and other types of public open spaces. Integrating NMM facilities benefits cities in a number of ways. Providing active transportation alternatives to driving is more economical and sustainable than car travel, promotes a healthier, active lifestyle, and provides a means for social interaction. Improvements to a city’s NMM facilities promote a high quality of life for its residents, often making neighborhoods more desirable, attracting new residents, and increasing home values (Crompton, 2005; Peiser & Schwann, 1993). Studies have shown that the presence of NMM trails encourages people to walk, cycle, and use public transportation (Boston Region MPO, 2007). U.S. and European research have also found that green spaces that are accessible to other open spaces via walking and cycling trails or greenways (linear parks) encourage physical activity, promote higher frequency of visits, and encourage more time spent in open spaces (Lindsey et al., 2001; Reynolds et al., 2007; Troped, Saunders & Pate, 2005). Active lifestyles and time spent outdoors improves peoples’ energy levels and mental health, and reduces stress (Bedimo-Rung et al., 2005; Kaplan, 2001; Louv, 2013; Maller et al., 2006).

182 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

Although Garden Grove road network is extensive, it is primarily dedicated to supporting motorized transit. A renegotiation of these roads into shared or complete streets can help support and encourage more active mobility. Furthermore, public right-of-way enhancements provide residents with more mobility options and the opportunity to experience their community on a more intimate scale. One of the goals of this project (certainly the goal of this section) is to develop a NMM network that provides safe, direct, convenient routes through neighborhoods, connections to desirable destinations (including transit stations, schools, open spaces, business centers, and commercial areas), and links to nearby regional NMM facilities. The development of the NMM network was informed by inventory data (e.g., existing infrastructure, current plans, etc.) and public input, and constructed through a suitability-connectivity routing process. The result is a NMM network that strategically connects the optimal number of desired locations, transit hubs and regional NMM facilities. The purpose of the proposed NMM network is to provide a framework for increasing NMM facilities in Garden Grove. The proposed NMM network should be implemented through partnerships with local, state, and federal agencies, in an incremental, responsive approach that is receptive to the needs of the public, amenable to balancing the demands of motorized and non-motorized traffic, and attuned to the physical requirements of improving existing and introducing new NMM facilities. A summary of this project’s NMM recommendations is included at the conclusion of this section.

Figure 5.1. Right. Proposed NMM Pacific Electric Right-of-Way.

NMM is largely a marginalized mode of transportation in Garden Grove with only one percent of commuting residents using active forms of transportation to get to work (Smith, 2010). This reflects how the existing NMM network in Garden Grove shows room for improvement. This proposal attempts to expand the NMM network citywide by providing more local trails, lanes, and routes to connect the City to local destination and regional NMM facilities and by encouraging dialogue about active mobility through community outreach. The central location of Garden Grove within Orange County provides excellent opportunities for residents to access many local and regional destinations using nonmotorized means. Garden Grove is adjacent to two important regional transit stations, the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) and the Santa Ana Regional Transportation Center (SARTC), and the regional bus system has a number of stops in the City. Garden Grove is also located between three regional waterway trails, along the Santa Ana River, Coyote Creek, and the San Gabriel River, which offer exclusive NMM use.

Overview of Development Process of the NMM Network This section’s systematic method was applied—modeled after the traditional 606 process developed by John T. Lyle (1999) as folded into the contemporary Steinitz framework for geospatial design (2012)—to generate a new NMM network that adapts and integrates the existing mobility infrastructure of Garden Grove. These processes, both data-driven and value-based, are modeled in Geographic Information System (GIS) using ArcGIS (Li et al., 2014). The analysis synthesis or change proposal utilizes physical, social, and cultural investigations, combined with research on NMM network case studies, to identify destination-based factors for the evaluation of the suitability of each street segment for the NMM network (Li et al., 2014). These factors are value weighted based on NMM network facility suitability measures. Suitability measures aim to increase ridership, improve safety, add value, increase accessibility and connections to desired locations, and are indicative of the quantifiable impacts of the NMM network. The NMM network is compared to the City’s existing and OCTA’s planned networks. The impact of the NMM network is assessed by comparing facilities added and residential accessibility to both the City’s existing network and OCTA’s planned, nonmotorized network. The positive impacts of increased non-motorized network in other cities are also used to predict potential outcomes in Garden Grove. Design guidelines seek to achieve the objectives of increasing the accessibility and safety of non-motorized facilities.

5 - Non-Motorized Mobility Network | 183

Site reconnaissance and analysis focused on the prioritized values of destinations and potential non-motorized routes. During this process, different methods and criteria were used for each of the non-motorized Classes I, II, and III facilities. Class I: Trails and paths that provide a completely separate right-of-way for the exclusive use of cyclists and often other forms of active mobility (e.g., pedestrians, joggers, others on self-propelled wheeled items, etc.). Trails are difficult to accommodate on most streets due to the required physical separation between the non-motorized path and vehicular traffic. Garden Grove has three potential types for Class I trail facilities: rail-to-trail conversions, stormwater channel trails, and multimodal street corridors. Class I trails are the spine of the City’s non-motorized network. They also function to connect local residents to regional trails and destinations. Class II: Lanes that are generated using a data-driven, value-based GIS approach. They are typically located on arterial and some collector streets. Class II lanes use painted striping to separate the bicyclists, scooters and skaters from vehicular traffic. These lanes connect to Class I regional corridors, as well as to local destinations within Garden Grove, identified through project research (see Inventory, Section 3.2; see NMM case studies in the Appendix, Section 10.8) and public participation (see Public Participation, Section 4.3). The nexus for Class II lanes are the intersections of NMM Class I trails and potential Class II lanes. The lanes start from the Class I intersection points and draw the most direct routes to the maximum number of prioritized destinations based on the suitability-connectivity matrix (see page 234, Network Suitability Routing). The Class II system connects to local districts, neighborhoods, and destinations and to Class I regional trails to form a complete network with equitable, citywide accessibility. Class III: Routes are neighborhood or secondary streets identified for connecting isolated or lower represented local neighborhoods (such as those in between major arterials) to the greater non-motorized network and also serve as alternatives to Class II lanes. Class III routes share the road with motorized traffic. These routes are usually on smaller collector and neighborhood streets, often with less vehicular traffic and a lower perceived risk of collision. The process utilized for this project identifies and designs a prioritized, non-motorized network. However, it also requires further data collection, analysis, and synthesis on specific elements and segments of the NMM network. Considerations that contributed to the development of the network include: •

•

•

Policy Framework. Important players with jurisdiction over transportation planning in Garden Grove include the City of Garden Grove, Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). SCAG sets the overarching vision for the region, OCTA sets transportation policy and regulation for Orange County, and Garden Grove plans, initiates, and implements local transportation infrastructure projects. Evaluation. Current non-motorized facility conditions (e.g., pedestrian lighting and maintenance needs for both sidewalks and bicycle lanes) should be catalogued. Evaluation of current user patterns, such as bicycle and pedestrian counts, should be conducted to ascertain need and measure the impact of change to be applied to future need and development. Change Proposal / Suitability Analysis. Identification of roadway segments with less active mobility accommodations but high connection and desirability rating. This should be accomplished by processing

184 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

Figure 5.2. Pedestrian and bicyclist on Euclid Street.

•

•

•

•

destinations through a defined ranking system. Network improvements should be chosen and prioritized based on greatest need and most decisive impact. Impact. Affect of the proposed NMM network are measured by comprehensiveness (quantified by length added), equitable access (quantified by proximity to number of residents, citywide), and connections made to priority destinations and regional facilities. Active mobility counts are encouraged both before and after changes are made to the NMM network to quantify use and to anticipate infrastructural requirements. Design Guidelines. Improvements to nonmotorized transit should use the most appropriate and desirable facility type for each corridor and section. Best management practice development and design should be applied to each type. Implementation. Prioritization of NMM project’s implementation should work in coordination with local, county, and state agencies. Also, supplemental education and traffic enforcement programs for drivers and active mobility users will help to ensure proper use of facilities and increase safety (Caltrans, 2012). Assessment, Maintenance, and Future Planning. Developments and improvements to nonmotorized facilities should be monitored and made publicly available. The success of NMM facilities can be evaluated by collecting user feedback and conducting active mobility counts. Future improvements should be responsive to user feedback and predictions of current and new use patterns.

While this NMM plan offers a suggested approach and criteria for evaluating and proposing non-motorized facilities, it acknowledges that Garden Grove’s Planning Department and Engineering Division will need to further investigate all of the nuanced details involved in executing any of the NMM street and non-motorized, mobility projects and their programs.

5 - Non-Motorized Mobility Network | 185

Policy Framework The Orange County Transit Authority (OCTA), Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), and the City of Garden Grove (CGG) are all trying to make their jurisdictional regions less dependent on automobiles. Transportation plans and policies by each level of government have recommended a balance of transportation systems where vehicular traffic is not the only or primary focus (SCAG, 2012; OCTA, 2006; City of Garden Grove, 2008). In addition, SCAG’s and OCTA’s transportation plans are creating regional momentum to support cycling, walking and other transit options in and around Garden Grove (SCAG, 2012; OCTA 2006). This project’s non-motorized network seeks to capitalize on this momentum by proposing a more active and pedestrian-friendly streetscape.

vision and guidance for the future development of Southern California (SCAG, 2012). Entitled Destination 2030, the RTP looks strategically at land-use and future transportation system costs and estimates that Southern California’s transportation system investment will exceed $500 billion over the next 25 years (SCAG, 2012). The region’s current road, rail, and air transportation systems include 21,630 miles of highways and arterial roads, 470 miles of passenger rail, and six air carrier airports (SCAG, 2012). The RTP was developed through cooperation from local agencies, elected officials, the business community, community groups, private and public institutions and citizens throughout the region (SCAG, 2012). Benefits to the region can be expected in transportation and mobility, air quality, economic activity and job creation, sustainability, and environmental justice (SCAG, 2012). Additional long-term initiatives include zero-emission transportation strategies; new operational improvements; expanded transit investments and high-speed rail systems; as well as increased commitment to active transportation (SCAG, 2012).

Expanding transportation options in Garden Grove needs to be consistent with regional transportation planning in order to synchronize mobility goals and funding resources. The following are transportation plans that relate to Garden Grove’s NMM network and describe the relationship of the regions governmental framework for developing NMM facilities in cities:

Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) 20122035 The Southern California Association of Government (SCAG), a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), provides long-range transportation planning guidance for six counties, including Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura Counties. The current situation in Southern California presents numerous challenges to the integration of non-motorized facilities into the existing transportation infrastructure for a variety of reasons. These challenges include safety, financing, air quality, and population growth (SCAG, 2012). SCAG has spent the last 30 years creating a Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) for the region, providing

186 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

Figure 5.3. Bicyclist on bridge crossing at Santa Ana River.

Sustainable Communities Strategies Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) presents a series of future development scenarios at various degrees of sustainability in the Sustainable Communities Strategies (SCS) (SCAG, 2012). The factors that affect sustainable communities include: • • • • •

Development location Dispersed versus focused development Community/neighborhood design Multimodal transportation options, including transportation investment Housing options and mix (SCAG, 2012)

The most sustainable scenario includes a mixture of elements that maximizes growth in urban settings through mixed-use configurations in existing, developed areas, and near high transit areas (SCAG, 2012). In this optimal scenario, transportation infrastructure is heavily invested in active transportation alternatives such as bicycle and pedestrian zones, with the vast majority of new housing being multi-family (SCAG, 2012). This reflects a smart land use initiative, which integrates land use with multimodal transportation. Complying with sustainable communities strategies stresses the importance of connecting NMM and transit strategically near higher-density development areas to create more sustainable scenarios in Garden Grove. Therefore, based on this strategy, connecting the City’s General Plan (2008) focus areas to NMM networks is a necessary consideration when proposing a nonmotorized network. Complete Streets Act

traditional, automobile-centric transportation planning by acknowledging and underscoring the individualized need to have the ability to move through cities and connect to regions utilizing flexible transportation options that support pedestrian, bicycle, bus, rail, and auto travel infrastructure (Walkable & Livable Communities Institute, n.d.). Multimodal transportation planning can provide commuter options within the context of existing transportation infrastructure, and at other times, by developing new infrastructure (Walkable & Livable Communities Institute, n.d.). The purpose of California Assembly Bill 1358 is to promote the expansion of high-quality non-motorized infrastructure. Garden Grove can work in tandem with these aspirations by approving a NMM, non-motorized network and starting to work towards that vision and goal. Orange County Transit Authority (OCTA) Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) 2006 OCTA is the agency in Orange County that creates the framework for maintaining the County’s transportation planning in a document called Outlook 2035, constituting OCTA’s LRTP (2006) (City of Garden Grove, 2008). Projecting the future needs of the population, the LRTP establishes three over-arching goals for transportation planning in the region into the future: to improve mobility, to protect transportation resources, and to enhance the quality of life (City of Garden Grove, 2008). Measure M funds the implementation of the LRTP, with goals, beyond road improvements, to include expanded transit choices and supporting sustainability (City of Garden Grove, 2008). The non-motorized network seeks to work within transportation planning guidelines to promote alternative modes of transportation.

Growth Management Program and Measure M and Renewed Measure M Compliance By 2008, Garden Grove had already received $30 million and is projected to receive another $98 million from its participation in the inter-jurisdictional forum known as Measure M (began in 1991) and the Renewed Measure M Growth Management Plan (City of Garden Grove, 2008). This fund is utilized for inter-jurisdictional transportation projects, which include freeway, transit and local street projects, to coordinate cumulative traffic improvement for projects that cross multiple city boundaries (City of Garden Grove, 2008). According to the city’s 2008 General Plan, other policy requirements imposed on Garden Grove for eligibility to receive Measure M funds include: “Traffic level of service standards; A development mitigation program; Participation in Inter-Jurisdictional Planning Forums; Development of a Seven Year Capital Improvement Program; and a TDM (Transportation Demand Management) Ordinance…Adopt and fund a Local Pavement Management Plan” (City of Garden Grove, 2008, Section 5.3). Compliance to Measure M requirements by Garden Grove is achieved through overlapping management plans. Long-range transportation plans stress the challenges of the current transportation situation and the planning challenges and opportunities for the future. Mutual themes of transportation planning at each level of government support expanded non-motorized, mobility facilities in all cities in the region.

California Assembly Bill 1358, the Complete Streets Act of 2008, compels cities and counties to integrate the notion of ‘Complete Streets’ into their general plan updates to ensure that transportation planning will address and ultimately meet the needs of a variety of commuting options (SCAG, 2012). Multimodal or integrated transportation planning breaks from RE:Imagine Garden Grove | 187

Pacific Electric Right-of-Way (PE ROW) Relating to increased public transit in Garden Grove, SCAG developed an alternative analysis report (2012) entitled Pacific Electric ROW/West Santa Ana Branch Corridor (PE ROW/WSAB). (Although the PE ROW easement is currently overseen by OCTA, and some portions are privately owned, it will continue to be referred to as the PE ROW). The PE ROW is a 34-mile, diagonal stretch that runs from the City of Paramount, in Los Angeles County, to the City of Santa Ana, in Orange County, which includes the section that runs diagonally through Garden Grove (SCAG, 2013). The report considered four transportation mode alternatives—bus rapid transit, streetcar, light rail transit, and low speed magnetic levitation (SCAG, 2013). It also identifies rail station locations and projected potential impact to surrounding land-use patterns (SCAG, 2013) (Figure 5.4). Four stations were identified in Garden Grove, including the intersections of Magnolia Street and Orangewood Avenue, Brookhurst Street and Chapman Avenue, Euclid Street and Garden Grove Boulevard, and Harbor Boulevard and Westminster Avenue (SCAG, 2013). Streetcars have several advantages and disadvantages over other transportation options that must be weighed. Operating expenses for streetcars (sometimes called trolleys or trams) are more than double those of buses and have larger upfront capital costs (Boothe, 2014). These include infrastructure improvements, such as the development of a fixed track, among other upgrades (Boothe, 2014). As part of the proposed, concept plan, streetcars are usually heavily subsidized and often require approval for changes in zoning (Boothe, 2014). If added to existing streets, trams can add to traffic congestion and sometimes travel less than 12 miles per hour between stops (Boothe, 2014). Advantages of having streetcars include the creation of a long-term, commitment to rail transit. Streetcars are also cheaper than other rail projects (Boothe, 2014). In some cases, that streetcars can attract many businesses and raise housing values far in excess of their construction costs (Boothe, 2014). Streetcars are also opportunities for investment to revitalize urban development and reduce carbon emissions (Boothe, 2014). The PEROW/WSAB draft plan (2012) presents an ambitious vision of increased mobility through the PE ROW, however the analysis report and its recommendations are still under review. SCAG’s draft Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) 2012-2035: Sustainable Community Strategy (2011) includes two planned projects, which are also described in the PEROW/WSAB draft. The first is a light rail project located on the Los Angeles County section of the PE ROW, from the City of Paramount to the Orange County border. The second, a streetcar project along the southeastern leg of the PE ROW corridor, extending from the intersection of Harbor Boulevard and Westminster Avenue, in Garden Grove to the Santa Ana Regional Transportation Center (SARTC) in Santa Ana, planned for completion within the next 20 years (SCAG, 2012). The SARTC terminal is considered the focal point of the Orange County transportation system, combining Amtrak, Metrolink, OCTA, intercity and interstate bus transportation, taxi services, and airport access all in one place (SCAG, 2013). Therefore, the Santa Ana streetcar station at Harbor Boulevard and Westminster Avenue will be an important link between Garden Grove and the region.

Legend Legend Civic Center-Downtown District Freeways Major Streets Santa Ana River Attractions PE ROW SCAG Planned Transit Stations Quarter-Mile Perimeter Planned Redevelopment Zones Schools Parks Places of Worship

Figure #.#. PE ROW adjacent land uses. 188 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

Figure 5.4. Right. PE ROW adjacent land uses.

Haster St

5

Anaheim

Stanton

57

Harbor Blvd

Euclid St

Magnolia St

Knott St

Beach Blvd

Los Alamitos Army AirďŹ eld

Valley View St

Cypress

Brookhurst St

PE ROW Adjacent Land Uses

Disneyland

Honda Center City National Grove of Anaheim Angel Stadium

Katella Ave

Orangewood Ave

Christ Cathedral

Chapman Ave

I

ARTIC

Orange

Outlets at Orange

Lampson Ave

Memory Lane

Garden Grove Blvd

Trask Ave

Trask St

22 17th St

Westminster Ave

Hazard Ave

Westminster Mall

1st St

Bolsa Ave

Westminster

Little Saigon McFadden Ave

Bella Terra

Fountain Valley

Mile Square Regional Park

Santa Ana

Rive r

405

Santa A na

Huntington Beach

0

SARTC

1

2

Miles

Congestion Management Plan

Traffic

Proposition 111, the Congestion Management Program (CMP), passed on June 1990, established a nine cents per gallon gas tax to support regional mobility and air quality objectives, and also for reducing traffic congestion (SCAG, 2012). Eligibility for gas tax funding provides a mechanism for coordinating land use and developing decisions that support the regional economy (SCAG, 2012). The legislation mandates participating counties to adopt their own CMP to improve mobility, to protect transportation resources, and to enhance the quality of life (SCAG, 2012). Local agencies must require traffic impact assessments for individual development projects that cause Levels of Service to decline to “F”, which is a full breakdown of traffic conditions with long queues of traffic and requiring deficiency plans to improve traffic efficiencies (City of Garden Grove, 2008). Another program, the Smart Street Program, seeks to improve traffic capacity and to smooth the rate of traffic as part of a city’s CMP (SCAG, 2012). Measures include: traffic synchronization, bus turnouts, and driveway consolidation (SCAG, 2012).

One strategy for reducing traffic congestion is to promote access to different forms of transportation and to increase the appeal for pedestrian and non-motorist on the streets. High traffic volumes can create unattractive and unsafe environments for pedestrians and cyclists. Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) is used to analyze the traffic flow and trends for the planning and design of arterial streets throughout Garden Grove (City of Garden Grove, 2008) (Figure 5.5).

Streets whose traffic efficiency operates with prolonged periods of extreme congestion, with tremendous delays and long traffic queues at intersections, and with volume capacities exceeding designed capacities, are given the worst Level of Service rating of “F” (City of Garden Grove, 2008). Street segments with Levels of Service “F,” according to Garden Grove’s 2008 General Plan include: (north to south orientation) all of Valley View Street and Beach Boulevard in Garden Grove, plus segments of Magnolia Avenue, Brookhurst Street, Euclid Street, and Harbor Boulevard, among other segments; and (east to west orientation) segments of Garden Grove Boulevard, Lampson Avenue, Chapman Avenue, and Westminster Avenue (City of Garden Grove, 2008). Referring to the Congestion Management Plan guidelines, these streets segments are prioritized for traffic improvement strategies. This report encourages expanding active and multimodal transportation options when upgrading these streets.

190 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

A vehicular-centric network also increases air pollution. Key factors in determining air pollution by vehicles include traffic volume, traffic composition (gasoline vehicles versus heavy diesel vehicles), and traffic patterns (Sewant et al., 2004). The streets with the highest levels of air pollutants are the busiest streets with a large percentage of diesel truck traffic. This conflicts with active transportation and a healthier lifestyle within the City. The streets with heaviest traffic in the City are: Valley View Street, Knott Avenue, Beach Boulevard, Brookhurst Street, Euclid Street, and Harbor Boulevard, which run north and south (City of Garden Grove, 2008). Beach Boulevard and Valley View Street in particular accommodate over 50,000 cars per day on average. All of these streets are simultaneously truck routes as well, compounding the undesirability factors of the street. Level of Service (LOS) In order to comply with Orange County’s Congestion Management Plan and be eligible for gas tax funding, the City must help reduce traffic congestion and coordinate land-use and development decisions to support regional and citywide transportation goals (SCAG 2012). Local traffic impact assessments identify traffic capacity

Figure 5.5. Right. Street level of service (F) and average daily traffic.

LegendLegend Civic Center-Downtown District Freeways Major Streets Santa Ana River Attractions Street Level of Service (F) Average Number of Vehicles per Day 50,000 - 99,640 25,000 - 50,000 12,500 - 25,000 0 - 12,500

Figure #.#. Average daily traffic.

Cypress Los Alamitos Army AirďŹ eld

Harbor Blvd

57

Disneyland

5

Haster St

Anaheim

Euclid St

Brookhurst St

Magnolia St

Stanton

Beach Blvd

Knott St

Valley View St

Street Level of Service (F) + Average Daily TrafďŹ c

Honda Center City National Grove of Anaheim Angel Stadium

Katella Ave

Orangewood Ave

Christ Cathedral

Chapman Ave

ARTIC

Orange

Outlets at Orange Lampson Ave

Memory Lane

Garden Grove Blvd

Trask Ave

Trask St

22 17th St

Huntington Beach

405

Santa Ana Riv er

Westminster Ave

Hazard Ave

Westminster Mall

1st St

Bolsa Ave

Westminster

Santa Ana

Little Saigon McFadden Ave

0

Bella Terra

Fountain Valley

Mile Square Regional Park

1

2

Miles

5 - Non-Motorized Mobility Network | 191

deficiencies. The prioritization of street improvement projects is determined by a street’s traffic efficiency, assessed by their ‘Level of Service’ or volume to capacity ratio (SCAG 2012). Streets with traffic volumes exceeding their operational capacity are given priority for improvements, which is based on Measure M and CMP funding requirements. Streets with an “F” rating for its ‘Level of Service’ is the lowest rating given to streets with traffic volumes regularly exceeding 90 percent capacity or higher (City of Garden Grove, 2008) (Figure 5.5). Street improvement and expansion are also opportunities to improve mobility facilities simultaneously. By synchronizing street improvement projects to include the implementation of NMM facilities, City maintenance can function in tandem to achieve active mobility facility and public right-of-way infrastructure improvements. City of Garden Grove Capital Improvement Program The City’s Engineering Department is responsible for complying with Measure M’s Capital Improvement Program requirement (City of Garden Grove, 2008). They also create the annual Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for the city, detailing citywide transportation projects (City of Garden Grove, 2008). Integration of a non-motorized network will need to be evaluated and developed through the Engineering Department. Planning for multimodal transportation needs to be integrated into standard improvement procedures to make it as viable as possible. Neighborhood Traffic Safety Program In order to address neighborhood traffic concerns, Garden Grove adopted traffic management devices with the goal of: “Reducing the number of car crashes, deaths, and injury on our streets; Reducing the number of motorists who drive at excessive speeds; Reducing speeding by providing a hotline number; Improving the use of safety belts and enforcing the State’s Child Passenger Safety Law; Developing community support for this program; and Reducing cut-through traffic” (City of Garden Grove, 2008, Section 5.4-4). As Section

192 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

5.4: Traffic and Circulation of Garden Grove’s General Plan (2008) describes that the most effective neighborhood traffic management technique is to provide adequate capacity on major roads for vehicular traffic so as to reduce the need for motorists to utilize alternative routes, such as neighborhood streets. Community safety programs should also incorporate community input in order to personalize NMM facilities to meet local needs, instead of solely depending on minimum design standards (City of Garden Grove, 2008).

Figure 5.6. Left. GGPD Safe City Bike Course, a local safe-street education campaign. Figure 5.7. Right. GGPD safe city bike course at the Garden Grove Open Streets Event.

Existing Conditions: Non-Motorized Mobility Facilities While it is not impossible to bike or walk as an alternative to driving in Garden Grove, only 902 of the 75,086 total workers in the City, or 1.2 percent, use a bicycle to commute (Census, 2010). A reprioritization focusing on pedestrian and non-motorists on city streets could help to reverse this trend and change attitudes regarding other modes of transportation. The limited extent of existing non-motorized facilities and regional transit services in Garden Grove suggests room for improvements. Increasing active transportation infrastructure could greatly increase the viability of alternative modes of transportation for many commuters. The majority of pedestrian right-of-way in Garden Grove are the public sidewalks located along the streets. Through public participation mapping exercises with high school students, it was learned that not all neighborhood streets have sidewalks. For this reason, as well as to emphasize areas that serve a greater number of and broader user type, sidewalk estimates only included those located on collector roads, and major, primary and secondary arterial roads. There are 63.22 miles of arterial and collector roads located within Garden Grove and it can be presumed that 90 percent of City residents are within 1/8 mile (201 meters) of sidewalks (as the crow flies). (This does not reflect the quality of sidewalks or predict the safety and use of the pedestrian right-of-way, which would require further site observation, public participation forums on specific corridors, and ground-truthing.) Sidewalks allow multimodal commuters access to mass transit, which allows further regional access. Most of the arterial roads are also bus routes (except Orangewood Avenue, Lampson Avenue, Trask Avenue, and Hazard Avenue, all east-west streets). Twenty percent of City residents live within 1/4 mile (402 meters) from a regional bus or tram. Only six percent of residents are 1/8 mile (201 meters) away from regional buses. Of the 1,469 miles of roads in Garden Grove, only 23.75 miles (or 1.6 percent) contain bicycle facilities (City of Garden Grove 2008) and 53 percent of Garden Grove residents live within 1/8 mile from existing bicycle facilities (Figure 5.8).

Legend Civic Center-Downtown District

Class II lanes represent 96 percent of the existing non-motorized facilities in Garden Grove. They are typically 4 feet wide (from striping to curb) on roads with street parking and 12 feet wide (from striping to curb) on roads with on-street parking (City of Garden Grove, 2008). The City’s non-motorized facilities include: • •

•

Class I trails: 0.5 mile on Knott Avenue. Class II lanes: 22.75 miles on Chapman Avenue, Lampson Avenue, Brookhurst Street, Trask Avenue east of Euclid Street, Orangewood Avenue between Gilbert and Dale Streets, Newhope Street between Westminster Avenue and Garden Grove Boulevard, and Western Avenue. Class III routes: 0.5 miles along portions of Lampson and Trask Avenues (City of Garden Grove, 2008).

While this is a good starting point, there is potential for increasing active mobility opportunities in Garden Grove by expanding alternative transit options. Garden Grove’s existing, non-motorized network needs to be more extensive and connect to more local and regional destinations in order to be viable. Currently, the existing nonmotorized network connects to only 53 percent of schools and 41 percent of parks. Providing non-motorized facilities promotes safety and increases use (further detailed in the impact section of this vision plan proposal, Section 5.5).

194 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

Figure 5.8. Right. Existing non-motorized network.

Freeways Major Streets Santa Ana River Attractions Non-Motorized Network Existing Class I Class II Class III

Figure #.#. Existing non-motorized network.

Existing Non-Motorized Network Harbor Blvd

5

Anaheim

Haster St

Stanton

Euclid St

Brookhurst St

Magnolia St

Beach Blvd

Valley View St

Cypress

Knott St

57

Honda Center

Disneyland City National Grove of Anaheim

Katella Ave

Los Alamitos Army AirďŹ eld

Orangewood Ave

Angel Stadium

Christ Cathedral

Chapman Ave

ARTIC

Orange

Outlets at Orange Lampson Ave

Memory Lane Garden Grove Blvd

Trask Ave

Trask St

22 17th St

Hazard Ave

Huntington Beach

Westminster Mall

1st St

Bolsa Ave

405

Westminster

Little Saigon

Santa Ana Riv er

Westminster Ave

Santa Ana

McFadden Ave

0

Bella Terra

Fountain Valley

Mile Square Regional Park

1

2

Miles

5 - Non-Motorized Mobility Network | 195

5 - Non-Motorized Mobility Network 5.2 Issues, Goal and Objectives

Issues

Goal

The development of a successful comprehensive NMM plan starts with identifying issues, opportunities and constraints of the existing network. It then makes recommendations, suggests solutions, and establishes priorities for improving the network. This section identifies and summarizes existing NMM network issues and obstacles:

The goal of the project is to develop a NMM network that provides safe, direct, convenient connections to transit stations, schools, business centers, public spaces, recreational opportunities, and popular service hubs like commercial and retail centers.

• • • •

•

•

Lack of comprehensive non-motorized mobility facilities in Garden Grove. Lack of enough connections to regional transit. Not enough connection to regional NMM trails. Lack of a complete inventory about important socio-cultural assets in the city for rational decision making toward a sustainable NMM network. Lack of a comprehensive measurement on the performance of existing non-motorized network, such as its accessibility by residents, its comprehensiveness, and its connectedness to desirable locations. Non-motorized/bicycle facility accommodations are not a part of standard operating procedure for street improvement projects.

Objectives Formal planning efforts are increasingly incorporating a broader array of transportation planning options. This has been spurred by policy recommendations and changes by local, regional, state and federal governments supporting alternatives to automotive transportation, and by the increased popularity and visibility of active transportation (Boston Region MPO, 2007). Active transportation, such as bicycling, is a viable mode of transportation and the vision to accommodate bicyclist and improving bicycle facilities is ultimately to encourage more people to bicycle (Boston Region MPO, 2007). Developing a new prioritized network starts with an assessment of the needs required to reasonably accommodate active mobility on roadways, addressing the issues, and proposing suggestions. The following are the gauges towards progressively achieving a comprehensive mobility plan in Garden Grove: • • • • • • •

Strategically plan for a well-connected non-motorized network with safe, direct and convenient mobility facilities for Garden Grove. Connect non-motorized network to major regional transportation hubs and terminals. Connect Garden Grove‘s non-motorized network to regional non-motorized networks. Develop a community-based asset inventory to identify important physical and socio-cultural opportunities for the development of a comprehensive network comprised of the most suitable routes and highest level of connectivity to such opportunities. Assess the performance of existing and planned mobility resources. Propose network alternatives as recommendation to the City through a geodesign method that is data-driven and focuses on rational decision-making to integrate both scientific input and community values expressed in short-, medium- and long-term goals. Recommend NMM network accommodations as part of the street upgrading process.

Figure 5.9. Santa Ana River Trail.

RE:Imagine Garden Grove | 197

5 - Non-Motorized Mobility Network

The Existing Transportation System

5.3 Non-Motorized Mobility Network Evaluation

Improving mobility for vehicular and freight traffic is central to complying with regional, county, and local transportation plans and goals. A NMM plan also has the potential to support greater health and safety, as well as produce a more affordable, equitable and sustainable transportation system (Boston Region MPO, 2007). Certain populations, such as youth, the elderly, and members of zero-vehicular households and require better access to alternative transportation methods, such as active transportation and mass transit (Mayor’s Office of Transportation and Utilities [MOTU], 2009). Other drawbacks of personal vehicles are that they are comparatively expensive, not accessible to everyone, a source of congestion and pollution, and potentially dangerous (MOTU, 2009).

A NMM network should provide safe, direct, convenient connections to transit stations, schools, business centers, public spaces, recreational opportunities, and popular service hubs like commercial and retail centers.

Constraints Implementing multimodal transportation will require re-appropriating the public right-of-way to balance motorized and NMM options. Along with the active mobility plan for Garden Grove, this vision plan proposal will also address regional and local goals, and issues related to the accessibility, health, and safety of the existing network. Figure 5.11 partially represents some of the challenges of implementing NMM facilities, including street collisions, high traffic volume, and street speed. Challenges related to the existing transportation system are discussed.

The Cost of Owning a Car In comparison to the public transit and active transportation, owning and operating an automobile are generally expensive. The average annual cost of driving a new sedan 15,000 miles in 2012 was $8,946 per year, or $24.50 per day (AAA, 2012). This includes the cost of gas, maintenance, tires, insurance, licensing, registration, taxes, depreciation, and finance charges (AAA, 2012). At a time of increased energy, healthcare, and housing costs, owning a vehicle may be unaffordable or unreasonable for those of younger and advanced ages, lower incomes, and those with disabilities (Boston Region MPO, 2007).

Legend

Legend

Civic Center-Downtown District Freeways Major Streets Santa Ana River Attractions Street Collisions Street Deficiencies Truck Routes High Average Daily Traffic, Over 25,000 Vehicles High Average Street Speed, Over 35 MPH

Figure #.#. Non-motorized network constraints. 198 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

Figure 5.10. Left. Bicyclist on Orangewood Avenue. Figure 5.11. Right. Non-motorized network constraints.

Cypress Los Alamitos Army AirďŹ eld

Haster St

5

Anaheim

Stanton

57

Harbor Blvd

Euclid St

Brookhurst St

Magnolia St

Beach Blvd

Knott St

Valley View St

Non-Motorized Network Constraints

Honda Center

Disneyland

City National Grove of Anaheim Angel Stadium

Katella Ave

Orangewood Ave

Christ Cathedral

Chapman Ave

ARTIC

Orange Outlets at Orange

Lampson Ave

Memory Lane

Garden Grove Blvd

Trask Ave

Trask St

22 17th St

Huntington Beach

405

Hazard Ave

Westminster Mall

1st St

Bolsa Ave

Westminster

Little Saigon

Santa Ana Riv er

Westminster Ave

Santa Ana

McFadden Ave

0

Bella Terra

Fountain Valley

Mile Square Regional Park

1

2

Miles

5 - Non-Motorized Mobility Network | 199

Safety Challenges Smart Growth for America’s Dangerous by Design (2014), as part of the National Complete Streets Coalition program that Garden Grove participates in, evaluates conditions to determine which roadway conditions are the most dangerous to pedestrians. Examination of the federal Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) reveals that pedestrians were killed most often on high speed and high capacity roads (Smart Growth for America, 2014). Arterial streets, part of the National Highway System (NHS), are built wide and flat to accommodate quick vehicular travel and differentiated by the size of the right-of-way and traffic volume capacity (Smart Growth for America, 2014). There are four classifications for arterials in Garden Grove: Principal, Major, Primary, and Secondary (City of Garden Grove, 2008). Ninety-three percent of the 29 pedestrian fatalities in Garden Grove from 2002 to 2011 have occurred on arterial roads (SafeTREC). Collisions Traffic-related fatalities that involved pedestrians or nonmotorist are a major problem in the United States (Smart Growth America, 2014). From 2003 to 2012, 28.3 percent of the auto-related fatalities in the Los Angeles— Long Beach—Santa Ana region were pedestrian fatalities (SafeTREC, 2013). This number ranks second highest in ratio of pedestrian fatality rates of auto-related fatality rates in the United States, emphasizing the need for safer, more pedestrian-orientated streets in the region (Smart Growth America, 2014). In Garden Grove specifically, between 2002 and 2011, on average, pedestrian- and cyclist-related traffic collisions accounted for 18 percent of the all traffic-collisions but pedestrians and cyclist represented 50 percent of all traffic-related fatalities (SafeTREC).

200 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

Vehicular collisions involving pedestrians and cyclist were investigated to identify discernible patterns. Observable trends in Garden Grove from the years 2002 through 2011 reveal: •

•

•

•

Traffic collisions with pedestrian and cyclist have higher fatality rates than other types of traffic collisions. Traffic collisions involving pedestrian and cyclist most often occur on roads classified as arterial highways. Traffic collisions involving pedestrian and cyclist most often occur outside of a street intersection or crossing. Half of the traffic collisions involving pedestrians and cyclist occur within half a mile of a schools (SafeTREC, 2002-2011).

Collision data is used for analysis, evaluation, and to support decision-making. See Figures 5.13 & 5.14 for the listing of streets by number of vehicular collisions causing the injury or death of non-motorist. Areas in Garden Grove experiencing high levels of trafficrelated collisions with pedestrians and cyclists should be prioritized to increase non-motorist safety. In some instances, non-motorized routes should be avoided altogether on roads that are particularly hazardous. Collision information was seen as both a constraint and an opportunity for improvement. Design guidelines for safety include creating more trails and greenways, proper signage and markings for non-motorist on the streets, and utilizing street calming strategies (see Sections 5.5 & 7.6).

Figure 5.12. Right. Children riding bicycles on Euclid Street during Open Streets Event.

According to the Federal Highway Administration (FHA), a combination of factors often contributes to pedestrian injury and death (2014). Factors not conducive to safety include: pedestrians acting in an unsafe manner (such as jaywalking), driver error (e.g., distracted driving, such as talking and texting on mobile phones, etc.), and the design and layout of the physical environment (FHA, 2004). Time of day, day of the week, and pedestrian’s age are also considerations of collision rate factors. Traffic-related pedestrian injuries occur most often between 6 a.m. to 6 p.m., peaking between 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. While pedestrian fatalities occur predominantly at night, between 5:30 p.m. to 11 p.m., there are more pedestrian injuries on Fridays and Saturdays (FHA, 2004). The least amount of injuries occurs on Sundays (FHA, 2004). The majority (60 percent in urban areas) of pedestrian-vehicular collisions occur outside of street intersections; 74 percent occur where there are no traffic controls nationally (FHA, 2004). In Garden Grove, between 2002-2011, 66 percent of pedestrian- and 62 percent of cyclist- traffic fatalities occur near street intersections (SafeTREC).

Pedestrian-Bicyclist Collisions Number of Collisions with Fatalities by Streets from 2002 to 2011, Garden Grove 10

8

6

4

2

Garden Grove Blvd

Chapman Ave

Brookhurst Street

Euclid St

Katella Ave

Westminster Ave

Lampson Ave

Orangewood Ave

West Katella Ave

Cerulean Ave

Dale St

El Prado

Gilbert St

Hazard Ave

Sungrove St

Trask Ave

0

Figure 5.13. Top. Number of collisions with pedestrian-bicyclist fatalities by streets from 2002 to 2011, Garden Grove (from SafeTREC).

Pedestrian-Bicyclist Collisions Number of Collisions with Injuries and Fatalities by Streets from 2002 to 2011, Garden Grove 150

120

90

60

30

Garden Grove Blvd

Chapman Ave

Brookhurst Street

Westminster Ave

Euclid St

Lampson Ave

Harbor Blvd

Katella Ave

Trask Ave

Orangewood Ave

Magnolia St

Haster St

Valley View St

Stanford Ave

Taft St

Gilbert St

West Katella Ave

Beach Blvd

0

Figure 5.14. Top. Number of collisions with injuries and pedestrian-bicyclist fatalities by streets from 2002 to 2011, Garden Grove (from SafeTREC).

Truck Routes Truck routes present a compatibility-of-use conict with non-motorized facilities. Figure 5.16 shows the streets that are truck routes in Garden Grove. Brookhurst Street and Chapman Avenue are two streets that have both Class II lanes and truck routes on the same streets. OCTA also plans for Class II lanes on truck routes on Katella Avenue, Harbor Boulevard, Valley View Street and Springdale Street. Class II lanes in Garden Grove are 4 feet wide without the presence of on-street parking, and 12 feet wide when sharing a parking lane on the road (City of Garden Grove, 2008). Trucks take up more of the lane width and create less space for cyclist on the road. Trucks, such as 18-wheelers, have more safety issues as a result of less visibility and slower response times (due to momentum), and greater potential impact force than other forms of vehicular trafďŹ c. Opportunities for separating bike lanes from truck routes, such as alternating arterials between the two uses or creating separated bike trails, would be useful for preventing potentially deadly intersections between non-motorist and trucks.

LegendLegend Civic Center-Downtown District Freeways Major Streets Santa Ana River Attractions Truck Routes

Figure #.#. Truck routes. 202 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

Figure 5.15. Left. Pedestrians on Katella Avenue. Figure 5.16. Right. Truck routes.

Cypress Los Alamitos Army AirďŹ eld

Haster St

5

Anaheim

Stanton

57

Harbor Blvd

Euclid St

Brookhurst St

Magnolia St

Beach Blvd

Knott St

Valley View St

Truck Routes

Honda Center

Disneyland City National Grove of Anaheim

Katella Ave

Orangewood Ave

ARTIC

Angel Stadium

Orange

Chapman Ave

Outlets at Orange Lampson Ave

Memory Lane

Garden Grove Blvd

Trask Ave

Trask St

22 17th St

Huntington Beach

405

Hazard Ave

Westminster Mall

1st St

Bolsa Ave

Westminster

Little Saigon

Santa Ana Riv er

Westminster Ave

Santa Ana

McFadden Ave

0

Bella Terra

Fountain Valley

Mile Square Regional Park

1

2

Miles

5 - Non-Motorized Mobility Network | 203

Air Quality Degradation Siting sensitive land uses and active transportation routes adjacent to freeways and roads with over 100,000 vehicles per day is not recommended by CARB for health reasons. TrafďŹ c-created air pollutants have been seen to affect health strongest within 300 feet but may be present as far as 1,000 feet (CARB, 2005). CARB freeway studies show particulate pollution dropping 70 percent after 500 feet of a freeway, which is their recommended minimum buffer recommendation (CARB, 2005). Figure 5.18 shows buffer distances of 300, 500, and 1,000 feet from freeways. Fine PM sources include all types of combustion, from motor vehicles, burning wood and incinerators, natural vegetation and some industrial processes (Sewant et al., 2004). These air quality guidelines should be considered when planning an active, mobility network or siting new open space in order to avoid siting them near potentially deteriorated air quality conditions (see the Appendix, Section 10.2, for more information).

LegendLegend Civic Center-Downtown District Freeways Major Streets Santa Ana River Attractions Within 300 Feet of the Freeway Within 500 Feet of the Freewaty Within 1000 Feet of the Freeway

Figure #.#. Freeway proximity. 204 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

Figure 5.17. Left. 5 freeway southbound. Figure 5.18. Right. Freeway proximity air quality constraint.

Cypress Los Alamitos Army AirďŹ eld

Haster St

5

Anaheim

Stanton

57

Harbor Blvd

Euclid St

Brookhurst St

Magnolia St

Beach Blvd

Knott St

Valley View St

Freeway Proximity

Honda Center

Disneyland

City National Grove of Anaheim Angel Stadium

Katella Ave

Orangewood Ave

Christ Cathedral

Chapman Ave

ARTIC

Orange

Outlets at Orange Lampson Ave

Memory Lane

Garden Grove Blvd

Trask Ave

Trask St

22 17th St

Huntington Beach

405

Hazard Ave

Westminster Mall

1st St

Bolsa Ave

Westminster

Little Saigon

Santa Ana Riv er

Westminster Ave

Santa Ana

McFadden Ave

0

Bella Terra

Fountain Valley

Mile Square Regional Park

1

2

Miles

5 - Non-Motorized Mobility Network | 205

5 - Non-Motorized Mobility Network 5.4 Change Proposal

Network Connectivity-Suitability Model This project uses a Network Connectivity-Suitability Model, a geodesign approach that incorporates and analyzes data from both public and community-based data sources, to generate the NMM mobility network. Built on a neighborhood-accessibility-matrix originally developed by Dr. Weimin Li (Associate Professor of Landscape Architecture at the California State Polytechnic University, Pomona), the Network Connectivity-Suitability Model integrates the location-based and linear factors to accurately measure the route suitability to generate a prioritized network (Li et al., 2014; Li & Radke, 2012). As demonstrated previously in the Catalyzing Connectivity: Rediscovering Creeks in the East San Gabriel project (Li et al., 2014), the geodesign approach is highly useful and appropriate for the design and planning of non-motorized landscape network because it helps to analyze a very complicated human-ecological system and synthesizes information that is both sciencebased and value-based towards optimal suitability and connectivity.

Legend Legend Civic Center-Downtown District

Figure 5.19 shows the existing and Proposed, NMM network. The Network Connectivity-Suitability Model is realized through six major steps.

Freeways Major Streets Metrolink Santa Ana River Attractions Non-Motorized Network Existing

Proposed

Class I Class II Class III

Figure #.#. Existing and proposed non-motorized network. 206 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

Figure 5.19. Right. Existing and proposed non-motorized network.

Existing + Proposed Non-Motorized Network Harbor Blvd

Euclid St

Brookhurst St

Magnolia St

Beach Blvd

Stanton Anaheim

Disneyland

5

Haster St

Cypress

Knott St

Valley View St

57

Honda Center City National Grove of Anaheim

Katella Ave

ARTIC

Angel Stadium

Orangewood Ave

Christ Cathedral

Chapman Ave

Orange

Outlets at Orange Lampson Ave

Memory Lane Garden Grove Blvd

22 405

Trask St

Trask Ave

17th St

Westminster Ave

Hazard Ave

1st St

Bolsa Ave

Little Saigon

Westminster

McFadden Ave

Bella Terra

k. Fountain Valley

Mile Square Regional Park

Santa Ana

Rive r

Westminster Mall

Santa An a

Huntington Beach

0

1

2

Miles

5 - Non-Motorized Mobility Network | 207

Step One: Prepare a Baseline Network Preparation of all relevant transit infrastructure information (all roads, bikeways, easements, etc.) into a baseline network, in a vector-based, geospatial format (Li et al., 2014). This constitutes all of the relevant spatial and network information into a geodatabase (Li et al., 2014). Figures 5.22, 5.23, & 5.24 illustrate Garden Grove’s transportation network and delivery infrastructure.

Figure 5.20. Left. Utility easement along Hoover Street in Garden Grove. Figure 5.21. Right. Typical stormwater channel in Garden Grove.

Road Network

Existing Non-Motorized Network 57

5

57

5

Existing Infrastructure

22

22

22

405

405

0

1

2

405

0

Miles

1

2

0

Mile

Figure 5.22. Arterial roads.

Figure 5.23. Existing non-motorized network.

Figure 5.24. Existing infrastructure.

Legend

Legend

Legend

Civic Center-Downtown District

Garden Grove

Civic Center-Downtown District

Freeways

Civic Center-Downtown District

Freeways

Roads

Freeways

Major Streets

Santa Ana River

Santa Ana River Non-Motorized Network Existing Class I Class II Class III

208 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

57

5

Santa Ana River Attractions Stormwater Channels 220 - 287 KV Transmission Line Corridor BNSF / Metrolink / Amtrak Railway Union PaciďŹ c Railway Abandoned Railway

1

2

Miles

Step Two: Identify Regional Network Connections Identification of regional NMM network connections and routes that offer non-motorized facilities in and around Garden Grove, tied to the baseline transit infrastructure, including existing, planned, and NMM facilities. The results of which constitutes the foundation of the NMM network and identifies connection points in and around the City to regional facilities. Figure 5.27 identifies existing and NMM, regional corridors and local and regional connection points.

Class I Non-Motorized Network

Legend Civic Center-Downtown District

Figure 5.25. Left. Active rail right-of-way at Beach Boulevard in Garden Grove. Figure 5.26. Right. Existing infrastructure on Magnolia Street and Orangewood Avenue in Garden Grove.

Freeways

5

Major Streets Santa Ana River Stormwater Channels Proposed Multimodal Streets Rail Right-of-Ways (ROW)

22

Abandoned Rail ROW Transit Rail ROW

405

Attractions 0

1

2

c Priority Existing and Proposed, Local Connections to Regional Corridorss

Miles

Existing and Proposed, Regional Corridor Connection Points

Figure 5.27. Local connections to regional networks.

Non-Motorized Network Existing Class I

5 - Non-Motorized Mobility Network | 209

Step Three: Prioritize Levels of Destination Factors Interpret and integrate destinations, which were identified based on the project’s goals and objectives, from inventory and program analysis, stakeholder input (see Figures 5.28 & 5.29), expert feedback, and independent research and assessment. These identified destinations are classified and ranked based on five priority levels, from primary to quinary, with primary representing the highest priority and quinary representing the least priority in the analysis (see Figures 5.44, 5.46, 5.48, 5.50, & 5.52) (Li et al, 2014).

Step Four: Network Suitability Weighting Assimilate destination priority values into baseline network based on the accumulation of the network segment’s proximity to desirable destinations, which also reflect desired routes, to create a digitized network with weighted values for each street and infrastructure segment. Figure 5.30 is the resulting suitability network.

Legend Legend Civic Center-Downtown District Freeways Major Streets Santa Ana River Attractions Community-Identified Destinations Non-Motorized Network Existing

Proposed

Class I Class II Class III Community Identified Routes

Figure #.#. Community-identified non-motorized network. 210 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

Figure 5.28. Left. PUA (mapping activity) at Garden Grove Regional Library. Figure 5.29. Right. Community-identified popular routes and destinations.

Disneyland

5

Haster St

Anaheim

57

Harbor Blvd

Euclid St

Magnolia St

Beach Blvd

Knott St

Valley View St

Honda Center City National Grove of Anaheim

Katella Ave

Orangewood Ave

ARTIC

Angel Stadium Christ Cathedral

Chapman Ave

Orange

Outlets at Orange

Lampson Ave

Memory Lane Garden Grove Blvd

Trask Ave

Trask St

22 17th St

Westminster Ave

Hazard Ave

Westminster Mall 1st St

Bolsa Ave

Huntington Beach

Westminster

Little Saigon McFadden Ave

Bella Terra

Fountain Valley

Mile Square Regional Park

Santa Ana

Rive r

405

Santa An a

Cypress

Stanton

Brookhurst St

Community-IdentiďŹ ed Routes and Destinations

0

1

To Ocean Via Santa Ana River Trail

2

Miles

Cypress Los Alamitos Army Airfield

57

5

Anaheim

Haster St

Harbor Blvd

Euclid St

Magnolia St

Brookhurst St

Stanton

Beach Blvd

Knott St

Valley View St

Non-Motorized Suitability Network

Honda Center

Disneyland City National Grove of Anaheim

Katella Ave

Orangewood Ave

Angel Stadium

Christ Cathedral

Chapman Ave

ART

Orang

Outlets at Orange Lampson Ave

Legend

Memory Lane

Garden Grove Blvd

Civic Center-Downtown District Freeways

Trask Ave

Trask St

22

Streets Santa Ana River

17th St

Westminster Ave

Very High Suitability High Suitability Medium Suitability Low Suitability

Huntington Beach

405

Hazard Ave

Westminster Mall

1st St

Bolsa Ave

Westminster

Little Saigon

Figure 5.30. Non-motorized suitability network: street ranking by access and proximity of destinations.

Santa Ana

McFadden Ave

Very Low Suitability

Figure #.#. Non-motorized suitability network: street ranking by access and proximity of destinations.

Santa Ana Riv er

Attractions

0

Bella Terra

Fountain Valley

1

2

Mile Square Regional Park

Step Five: Street Ranking by Access and Proximity of Destinations Suitability is ranked to indicate street segments with the greatest to lowest density of destinations to be connected. Rankings are organized into five categories ranging from “very high” to “very low”, prioritizing route value. The suitability-connectivity process takes into account regional inventory, stakeholder and public input, literary research, and expert feedback. Figure 5.30 illustrates the connectivity-suitability accumulated values for each road segment in the baseline transit infrastructure database.

212 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

Miles

Existing + Proposed Class I + II Non-Motorized Networks with Connection Points

Stanton Anaheim

Disneyland

5

Haster St

Harbor Blvd

Euclid St

Magnolia St

Beach Blvd

Knott St

Valley View St

Cypress

Brookhurst St

57

Honda Center City National Grove of Anaheim

Katella Ave

ARTIC

Angel Stadium

Orangewood Ave

Christ Cathedral

Chapman Ave

Orange

Outlets at Orange Lampson Ave

Legend Civic Center-Downtown District Memory Lane

Freeways

Garden Grove Blvd

Major Streets Metrolink

Trask Ave

Trask St

22

Santa Ana River Attractions

17th St

Westminster Ave

Non-Motorized Network

Class I Class II Connection Points

Hazard Ave

Westminster Mall 1st St

Bolsa Ave

Huntington Beach

Figure #.#. Existing and proposed Class I and II non-motorized networks.

Figure 5.31. Existing and proposed Class I and Class II non-motorized network with regional connection points.

Little Saigon

Westminster

McFadden Ave

Bella Terra

Fountain Valley

Santa Ana

Rive r

405

Proposed

Santa An a

Existing

0

1

2

Miles

Mile Square Regional Park

Step Six: Suitability Connectivity Network Routing And ďŹ nally, run the landscape network routing tool in ESRI ArcGIS Environment to automatically generate the prioritized, NMM mobility network (Li et al., 2014). Dr. Weimin Li performed the Landscape Network Matrixes utilizing routing algorithms that were developed with the ESRI ArcMap Visual Basic Library (Li et al., 2014). This geodesign model was originally used to measure neighborhood accessibility to social and environmental amenities (Li et al., 2014). For more information, please refer to page 234.

5 - Non-Motorized Mobility Network | 213

Scales of Connectivity by Facility Type The Network Connectivity-Suitability Model differentiates the method by scales of connectivity: Class I = Region, Class II = City, and Class III = Neighborhood. Preparation for the Network Suitability-Connectivity analysis also required the integration of the identified potential Class I corridors, as Class I corridors are mostly determined by available separated space along a corridor. The Class I trails or paths are regional corridors that connect Garden Grove to the greater Orange County region. Potential Class I trails were identified using three criteria: • •

•

Having enough right-of-way space to accommodate a trail; Having a regional connectivity scope that connects Garden Grove to the greater Orange County region; and Demonstrating the high suitability value based on other priority factors.

The identification process is rather qualitative and experience-driven as there are only very limited land use types satisfy its requirements. Class II lanes were generated using a rather data-driven and value-based suitability-connectivity process. It was generated to improve connectivity and integration of the regional corridors down to the City’s prioritized destinations. A further synthesis of the Network Connectivity-Suitability process was required to generate a connected skeleton of the NMM network. As mentioned before, Class I trails are the identified non-motorized, regional ‘highway’ network; Class II lanes are generated for citywide access on main arterials and connection to all potential Class I nodes and desired locations. Class III routes were developed to connect the Class I trails and Class II lanes to the neighborhood communities. These routes, which are shared motorized and non-motorized roads, were identified on secondary neighborhood streets. Secondary streets are safer than arterial highways; 96 percent of pedestrian and cyclist traffic-fatalities

Figure 5.32. Pedestrians on Brookhurst Street near Katella Avenue.

in Garden Grove (2002 to 2011) occurred on arterial streets (Safetrec, 2002-2012). Being a City with many dead-ends or limited continuity streets, the Class III route network highlights neighborhood streets that connect most directly between arterials and go through those with highest suitability value. Suitability was based on length and extent of the neighborhood street, connections to schools and parks, and connectivity through and around the 22 Freeway (as it is a major barrier to non-motorized transit through the City). The three network components, Class I, II, and III, can be layer over each other to connect the different mobility scales (see Figures 5.33, 5.34, & 5.35). This process helps to ensure that the NMM mobility network is optimally connected to people, prioritized factors, and regional networks. They also necessitate an implementation timeline. Recommended short-term implementation include the Class III routes (the easiest to implement, requiring only pavement markings and signage); to medium-term Class II lanes; to longterm, Class I trails, as they are the most difficult to implement, requiring a separated right-of-way and collaboration between different jurisdictions. The process of developing this plan was informed by reviewing goals set by previous transportation plans for the region, by researching other city’s non-motorized and ‘complete streets’ plans, and by thoroughly evaluating Garden Grove’s and Orange County’s existing bike network. It took consideration of local factors, such as linking the NMM network to the downtown area and prioritized destinations. The process factored in decision-makers and public input, information identifying local and regional assets, desired routes, and NMM increased access and connectedness of the mobility network to more residents.

Proposed NMM Class I Trails

Proposed NMM Class II Lanes

57

5

57

5

22

1

2

0

Mile

Santa Ana Riv er

405

Santa Ana Riv er

Santa Ana Riv er 0

405

57

5

22

22

405

Proposed NMM Class III Routes

1

2

0

1

2

Miles

Figure 5.33. Proposed NMM Class I trails.

Figure 5.34. Proposed NMM Class II lanes.

Figure 5.35. Proposed NMM Class III routes.

Legend

Legend

Legend

Civic Center-Downtown District

Civic Center-Downtown District

Civic Center-Downtown District

Freeways

Freeways

Freeways

Major Streets

Major Streets

Major Streets

City Boundary

City Boundary

City Boundary

Santa Ana River

Santa Ana River

Santa Ana River

Class I

Class II

Class III

RE:Imagine Garden Grove | 215

Mile

Class I Trails and Paths Class I Network Method A qualitative and experience-driven method was used to identify suitable land use types for potential Class I trails and paths. All NMM paths are regional in scope, provide an adequate right-of-way space for a public trail, and connect to desired destinations. The Class I Network system is composed of three corridor types: rail right-of-ways, stormwater channels, and streets (see Figure 5.38). Combined, they form the Class I network system and the base for the NMM network. These trails constitute the regional mobility network and the baseline network for connecting the priority factors in and around Garden Grove to the greater Orange County region (see Figure 5.36). Incorporating public trails into existing infrastructure corridors is a reasonable strategy for integrating active transportation into an established city and street network. The idea is to convert underutilized, unused or abandoned land use types, like abandoned rail corridors and underutilized stormwater channels, into corridors for NMM (Figure 5.36) (Ciabotti et al., 2004). This approach promotes conservation, healthy lifestyles and environmental protection by encouraging physical fitness, recreational access for all user types, recycling, land conservation, wildlife habitat and historical preservation, and numerous other benefits (Ciabotti et al., 2004). Repurposing these corridors into public right-ofway also offers an alternative to street routes and lanes, encouraging utilization of paths and trails that are often perceived as safer by users.

traffic, often incorporating the use of curbs, flexposts, planters, and/or parking. Design guidelines details for Class I trails on arterials streets is provided in Section 5.6. These types of corridors often emphasize the pedestrian experience by providing seating, shade (through the use of street trees), and visual interest (e.g., street-oriented business, window displays, public art, etc.). This type of gesture reinforces the citywide commitment to expanding transportation options and reducing the need to use a car. It helps to create environments where people will naturally want to walk and socialize, while adding value to surrounding businesses and housing developments (see Section 5.5 Impacts).

Civic Center-Downtown District

It is important to note that Class I Trails are the most dangerous for non-motorist when they meet major vehicular street intersections. At the intersection of Class I trails and major streets, safety measures should be put in place to reduce the risk of injury to non-motorists. Solutions such as pedestrian and cyclist activated crossings, generous crossing time allowances for pedestrians especially the elderly, small children, and the physically-impaired, balanced wait times for vehicular and non-vehicular movement, and strategically sited traffic light signals should be considered.

Despite challenges such as traffic intersections and curb-cut entrances several of Garden Grove’s arterial streets could be converted to multimodal corridors, such as Garden Grove Boulevard and Harbor Boulevard, combining pedestrian and bicycle boulevards with alternative transportation options. Protected Class I paths offer a separation between cyclists and traffic, and function as a buffer between pedestrians and

216 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

Legend Legend

Figure 5.36. Right. Regional network and corridor types.

City of Garden Grove Freeways Waterbodies Rivers Creeks Stormwater Channels Rail Right-of-Ways (ROW) Abandoned Rail ROW Transit Rail ROW Regional (Ocean Loop) Network Non-Motorized Network Existing Class I Class II Class III

Regional Network and Corridor Types

105 605

ote

River

y Co

91

Anaheim Hills Orange

Gabriel

Cypress Anaheim

San

Los Alamitos

5 ARTIC

Stanton

go

ia

nt

Tustin 261

k

Cree

1

Fountain Valley Ana R iver

Huntington Beach

55 405

Irvine

133

Costa Mesa

Sant a

5

Santiago Peak

Sa

SARTC Santa Ana

Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve

2.5

241

22

Westminster

0

Villa Park

Irvine Lake

Seal Beach

Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge

Prado Dam

Chino Hills State Park

Carb

Buena Park

Long Beach

Fullerton

k

ee

Cr

on Creek

57

Miles

Newport Beach

73 5 - Non-Motorized Mobility Network | 217

Local Connections to Regional Networks Regional mobility goals include connecting Garden Grove’s NMM network to important regional destinations and landmarks, such as the Huntington and Seal Beaches (Figure 5.37), Santa Ana and San Gabriel Rivers, Santa Ana Regional Transportation Center (SARTC), and Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC). Local Class I and Class II facilities connect to regional facilities via points of access, existing off of streets or by making new trail connections (Figure 5.38). Regional facilities, often Class I trails, may be used to access regional destinations and attractions. Many of these corridors extend beyond Garden Grove’s jurisdiction. Some are already established, others present opportunities to better connect the region through the identifying and developing of more NMM facilities in the future. Further consideration and coordination with local and regional agencies will be necessary for resolving the viability of using and developing facility types (e.g., rail right-of-way, stormwater channels, utility easements, etc.) and identifying specific candidates to be included in the regional NMM network.

Legend Legend Civic Center-Downtown District Freeways Major Streets Santa Ana River Attractions Stormwater Channels 220 - 287 KV Transmission Line Corridor BNSF / Metrolink / Amtrak Railway Union Pacific Railway Abandoned Railway Priority Existing and Proposed, Local Connections to Regional Corridors Existing and Proposed, Regional Corridor Connection Points Non-Motorized Network Existing Class I

218 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

Figure 5.37. Left. Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge. Figure 5.38. Right. Local connections to regional networks.

Local Connections to Regional Networks k

ree

57

Harbor Blvd

Anaheim

Cypress

Disneyland

5

Stanton

Katella Ave

Los Alamitos Army AirďŹ eld

Honda Center City National Grove of Anaheim

Channel Orangewood Ave

Channel

Euclid St

Magnolia St

Beach Blvd

Knott St

Valley View St

PE RO W

Brookhurst St

r

Ca

Haster St

C bon

Angel Stadium

ty

i rC

e

rb

a -B

Chapman Ave

Orange

eim

ah

An

Lampson Ave

ARTIC

Outlets at Christ Orange Cathedral

Memory Lane

Garden Grove Blvd

Trask Ave

Trask St

22 17th St

Westminster Ave

Westminster Channel

405

Huntington Beach

Little Saigon Bella Terra

Wintersburg

McFadden Ave

e

v Gro

en ard G t Eas Fountain Valley

1st St

Mile Square Regional Park

Santa Ana

Riv er

Bolsa Chica

Bolsa Ave

Santa An a

Westminster

Westminster Mall

Channel

Hazard Ave

0

SARTC

1

2

Miles

5 - Non-Motorized Mobility Network | 219

Rail-to-Trail Conversions Abandoned rail right-of-ways are NMM opportunities through rail-to-trail conversions. The rail-to-trail conversion movement began in the mid-1960’s as a smart approach for re-utilizing unused rail corridors (Ciabotti et al., 2004). The collapse of the rail industry can be attributed to loss of cargo traffic to trucks in the 1950s and passenger traffic to private vehicles (Ciabotti et al., 2004). The railroad industry has declined dramatically since the middle-20th Century, leaving behind a crumbling infrastructure and abandoned stretches of track (Ciabotti et al., 2004). Abandoned railways are also associated with contamination from past railroad activities. Amongst the most common contaminants found is arsenic, which was used as an herbicide for weed control (mitigation actions for abandoned railways are discussed in further detail in the Appendix, Section 10.4) (Ciabotti et al., 2004).. Nonetheless, rail-to-trail conversions provide important mobility corridors and open space enhancement opportunities for cities. There is one abandoned railway that runs through Garden Grove, and three just outside of the City. All offering opportunities for regional mobility for Garden Grove residents (see Figure 5.38 for their locations). This type of typological transformation in Garden Grove could fuel more active transportation investments in the surrounding areas, e.g., the nearby abandoned railways. In Garden Grove, the discontinued Pacific Electric right-of-way (PE ROW) averages 100 feet wide and cuts diagonally from the northwest to the southeast through the city. This stretch of track has been unused since 1950 and it presents the perfect opportunity for a rail-to-trail conversion. An extension of the existing light rail network was once planned to run from Paramount through Garden Grove and terminate in Santa Ana (SCAG, 2013). The northwestern half of the PE ROW, from Paramount to Bellflower, may still be built in the next 20 years (SCAG, 2013). If so, Garden Grove would have a non-motorized right-of-way leading to the Bellflower Station. In the future, if light rail (or some other similar form of transportation) extends through Garden 220 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

Grove to Santa Ana, this right-of-way would become an important multimodal corridor. The other three abandoned railways around Garden Grove besides the PE ROW are: the United States Navy Railway (Westminster to Seal Beach), Los Alamitos Junction (Southern Pacific Railroad), and the Anaheim to Santa Ana Branch (not mapped) (see Figure 5.38) (Abondoned Rail, n.d.) The US Navy Railway is south of Garden Grove in Westminster. It is connected to the Union Pacific (UP) Railway that runs north to south through western Garden Grove. This Union Pacific Railway runs along Hoover Street in Westminster with a Class I trail along Garden Grove Boulevard to Bolsa Avenue. This disused Navy Railway could connect the Hoover Street trail to the Bolsa Chica Stormwater Channel, which leads to the Seal Beach Wildlife Refuge. Hoover Street ends at Garden Grove Boulevard while a 100-feet wide electrical corridor continues along with the UP Railway. Currently used as recreational-vehicle storage, this electrical corridor could also be as a Class I trail and linear park. The Los Alamitos Branch railway corridor, to the north and northwest of Garden Grove, provides an alternative connection to Coyote Creek which leads to the San Gabriel River Trail. This could also connect Garden Grove to other attractions to the northwest, like the El Dorado East Regional Park, Long Beach Towne Center, and Los Alamitos Race Track. The final abandoned rail, the Anaheim to Santa Ana route, to the northeast of Anaheim, straddles the 5 Freeway from Anaheim to Santa Ana. However, with the widening of the 5 Freeway, most of this potential trail right-of-way has disappeared. This rail is under the jurisdiction of three cities: Anaheim, Orange and Santa Ana. This route should be given consideration where available for expanding non-motorized options in the region. This will potentially create a non-motorized route adjacent to and/or underneath the motorized freeway. Figure 5.39. Left. PE ROW on Brookhurst Street. Figure 5.40. Right. PE ROW on Harbor Boulevard.

Stormwater Channel Service Roads The Santa Ana River and San Gabriel River/Coyote Creek trails (see Figures 5.36 & 5.38), located on the east and west side of Garden Grove respectively, create an active mobility loop that connects Garden Grove to the Pacific Ocean, as well as many other regional destinations along the loop. Garden Grove’s regional mobility goal is to link to this active loop, creating a 37mile, continuous Class I path from the City to the ocean (Figure 5.36). The Rivers on either side of Garden Grove provide trails to the coast, while there are other route reconfigurations and alternatives that can be explored. Potential alternative for connecting Garden Grove to the ocean is through the regional stormwater channels (Figures 5.36 & 5.38). Many of the stormwater channel corridors run parallel to major streets but are not connected to the vehicular street network except where they intersect at major arterial streets. These channels are located throughout the region, running across (and in some cases, under) cities, through a variety of land use areas, e.g., residential, commercial, and industrial zones. Many stormwater channels include a paved service road alongside it, but are gated off and not accessible (see Figure 5.41). These service roads may also serve as regional corridors, linking to other Class I river and ocean trails. Concrete channels are designed to move water away from the City quickly to prevent flooding. However, this type of outflow also contributes to water pollution if it goes into the ocean without being treated or being infiltrated into the watershed (The Ocean Conservancy, 2003). The stormwater channel could be naturalized with vegetative elements to optimize the aesthetic and environmental quality of the corridor. Plants could be used to soften many of the block walls that line the channel, improving the aesthetic and wildlife value of the space. Naturalizing concrete-lined storm channel creates a sustainable drainage system, improving the quality of stormwater that is retained and lessening the amount of stormwater runoff (The Ocean Conservancy, 2003). 222 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

There are many challenges to transforming concrete-lined stormwater channels into naturalized storm channels, primarily, satisfying flood channel’s hydrological requirements and covering the high capital costs associated with their implementation and maintenance.

Several important local corridors should be prioritized based on their connection to desirable destinations, they are:

First, changes to the roughness coefficient of a flood channel’s bottom could affect the channel’s capability to meet specific hydraulic requirements during extreme weather events (The Ocean Conservancy, 2003). Furthermore, some flood channels already do not meet the typical 100-year flood requirements, and will eventual require improvements to meet hydrological requirements (The Ocean Conservancy, 2003). Eventual, required improvements to flood channels offers opportunities for including public facilities to channel corridors, even if naturalizing the channel is not possible.

Located on the western City boundary, (see Figure 5.38) the Bolsa Chica Stormwater Channel trail could be completed to provide another alternative for connecting Garden Grove residents to the beach (via Huntington Harbour to Sunset County Beach or Bolsa Chica State Beach). This route utilizes an existing trail along Hoover Street in Westminster and connects to the Bolsa Chica Stormwater Channel via the abandoned Navy railway, which also could be converted into a trail. The channel section would provide an additional mile as part of a nine-mile trail, offering users a wider variety of options for physical activity and exploration.

Second, the capital cost of implementing and maintaining bio-retention areas and swales are often high. The potential of stromwater channels to become high-performance landscapes by increasing its environmental, ecological, and social value within its urban context is also high. To this end, the long-term proposal of naturalizing stormwater channel corridor trails should be explored and feasibility studies should be encouraged. Medium-term, vegetative softening measures may be negotiated after, or in conjunction with securing shared facility use agreements. In order to implement stormwater channel trails, the City must work with and form a joint-use agreement with stormwater governing boards, including Orange County Public Works. Joint-use is discussed at length in the Open Space Network Enhancement section, p. 203. Given a precedent for the shared-use of river channel pathways (i.e., service roads with path markings), there are already examples of agreements and existing advocates for broadening the use of these types of facilities.

Figure 5.41. Right. Stormwater channel at Euclid Street and Orangewood Avenue.

Bolsa Chica Channel

Anaheim-Barber City Channel The Anaheim-Barber City Channel runs diagonally through Garden Grove (see Figure 5.38), from the northeast to the southwest, terminating at the Bolsa Chica Channel. To the north, the channel runs adjacent to Ninth Street, along the west side of the Disneyland Theme Park and Resort. A nearby linear utility corridor and joint-use park, Poinciana Park, could provide continued Class I trail access to a back entrance on Walnut Street. Access to Disney properties, such as the shopping and dining Downtown Disney venue as well as its theme park, provide a trail-end attraction and popular destination among many residents according to PUA mapping activities.

Local Class I Paths: Arterial Streets as Multimodal Corridors Multimodal corridors accommodate non-motorized transit and public transit on the same street. These complete streets accommodate different user types on strategic arterials, providing more transportation alternatives to using cars and getting a greater number of people to use outdoor spaces. Dedicating public transit options, like streetcars and light rail on multimodal corridors, can also provide long-term support to mixed-use and transitorientated development. Principal arterials are the widest streets in the Arterial Highway Classification and are designed to carry the most traffic, with 8-lanes and 160 feet of automotive right-of-way. Major arterials have the second largest capacity, with 6-lanes and approximately 120 feet width (City of Garden Grove, 2008). Primary arterials have 4-lanes and 100 feet of automotive right-of-way (City of Garden Grove, 2008). Determining the appropriateness of introducing NMM facilities to arterial streets requires balancing traffic efficiency, safety, use, existing space and expansion potential. Providing accommodation for a separated Class I paths, cycle tracks, and expanded public right-of-way could be accomplished in two ways: by taking a vehicular and/or parking lane or by expanding the public right-of-way to include multiple, active mobility uses. Since principal arterial streets are designed to move large numbers of cars quickly, these arterials are appropriate candidates for street calming measures. Major arterials are prime candidates for multimodal corridors because safe, active mobility options are vastly underrepresented on public streets and they are opportunities for expanding mobility options. Primary roads may have to be upgraded to major arterials to help offset traffic. Synchronizing traffic signals and consolidating curb cuts among other options can also achieve greater vehicular efficiency.

224 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

Two Major arterials considered in this proposal as viable candidates for implementing public trails are Garden Grove Boulevard and Harbor Boulevard (Figure 5.38). Garden Grove Boulevard is a critical east to west route in the City. It is the only street that covers the full length of Garden Grove, travels through the Downtown, and along multiple General Plan focus areas. While the 22 Freeway was being expanded, Garden Grove Boulevard was upgraded from a primary to a major arterial road (from four lanes to six lanes). With the 22 Freeway expansion completed, Garden Grove Boulevard should be reverted back to a cruise-way rather than a rapid thoroughfare—becoming a model, multimodal corridor and the center of commerce in the City. Harbor Boulevard connects Garden Grove to Disneyland in Anaheim. A resort district has been developed on Harbor Boulevard from the northern extent of Garden Grove to the 22 Freeway. Plans for a new waterpark and hotels are currently in development on this street. To help link both ends of Harbor Boulevard, alternative transportation options should include bicycle and pedestrian paths and possibly a streetcar, in support of efficient, smart growth. Implementation of these street trails and public transportation alternatives could be a part of the future development process for new projects on Garden Grove Boulevard and/or Harbor Boulevard. Figure 5.42 demonstrates an example of a protected street trail on a busy arterial. These types of street trails provide optimal safety and separation between highdensity motorized and non-motorized facilities on streets.

Figure 5.42. Right. Local Class I paths: arterial streets as multimodal corridors, in Long Beach.

Class II Lanes Class II Network Method The NMM Class II lanes are primarily located on arterial highway roads, often stemming from regional connection points, such as those on Class I trails and paths (Figure 5.44). The generated Class II lanes were selected from the most direct routes, which maximize the connection between Class I exit and entry nodes and prioritized destinations in the City. Together, the Class I and Class II systems create a prioritized network with the highest suitability and connectivity value. Conventional non-motorized Class II lanes are commonly used for increasing the comfort and conďŹ dence of active mobility users on streets averaging more than 3,000 vehicles per day and streets with a posted speed greater than 25 miles per hour (NACTO, 2012). Adding Class II lanes increases the street capacity to include mixed-use (e.g., motorized and NMM). The presence of bicycle lanes on streets increases spatial awareness, predictability, and reaction timing between motorized and non-motorized users (NACTO, 2012). Streets traveling faster than 35 miles per hour and having high levels of trafďŹ c may require additional separation, such as buffered, non-motorized lanes (NACTO, 2012).

226 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

Figure 5.43. Left. Santa Ana River. Figure 5.44. Right. Primary destinations.

Primary Destinations Harbor Blvd

Euclid St

Brookhurst St

Magnolia St

Stanton Anaheim

Disneyland

5

Haster St

Cypress

Knott St

Valley View St

Beach Blvd

57

Honda Center City National Grove of Anaheim

Katella Ave

Angel Stadium

Orangewood Ave

Legend

ARTIC

Christ Cathedral

Chapman Ave

Orange

Outlets at Orange

Civic Center-Downtown District Freeways

Lampson Ave

Major Streets Metrolink

Memory Lane

Garden Grove Blvd

Santa Ana River Attractions

405

Class I Connection Points

Trask Ave

Trask St

22

Regional Connection Points

Non-Motorized Network

Hazard Ave

Class I Class II Class III

Westminster Mall 1st St

Bolsa Ave

Huntington Beach

Little Saigon

Westminster Bella Terra

McFadden Ave

Figure #.#. Existing and proposed, regional corridors and local

Santa Ana

Rive r

Proposed

Santa An a

Existing

17th St

Westminster Ave

Regional Bus Stops

0

SARTC

1

2

connection points.

Fountain Valley

Miles

Mile Square Regional Park

Prioritized Foci and Value Ranking System A proposed ranking system was established in order to rank priority destinations and connections in Garden Grove. Although some of the rankings were affected by focus overlap, values were summed across all priority ďŹ elds creating a hierarchical destination density map (Figure 5.54). The value rankings by focus are as follows: Primary Focus Major Concern: Connections to destinations that facilitate non-motorized transit modes, especially through existing and planned regional transit hubs. Connections that facilitate the most equitable and efďŹ cient use of active mobility and public transportation are given the highest priority. Highest priority destination areas include: existing and planned regional transit hubs and bus stops, access nodes to Class I trails, access nodes to existing bike lanes, and major entrances to the 2060 Downtown Concept Plan area (see Figure 5.44).

Cypress Los Alamitos Army AirďŹ eld

Haster St

5

Anaheim

Stanton

57

Harbor Blvd

Euclid St

Brookhurst St

Magnolia St

Beach Blvd

Knott St

Valley View St

Secondary Destinations

Honda Center

Disneyland

City National Grove of Anaheim Angel Stadium

Katella Ave

Orangewood Ave

Christ Cathedral

Chapman Ave

ARTIC

Orange

Outlets at Orange Lampson Ave

Legend

Memory Lane

Garden Grove Blvd

22

Civic Center-Downtown District Freeways

Trask St

Trask Ave

Major Streets Santa Ana River

17th St

Westminster Ave

Existing Parks Existing Mini Parks Under One-Acre Existing Joint-Use Schools Planned Joint-Use Schools

Huntington Beach

405

Hazard Ave

Westminster Mall

1st St

Bolsa Ave

Westminster

Little Saigon

Other Schools

Figure #.#. Secondary destinations.

Santa Ana Riv er

Attractions

Santa Ana

McFadden Ave

0

Bella Terra

Fountain Valley

1

2

Miles

Mile Square Regional Park

Secondary Focus Major Concern: Access to (existing and proposed) open space and schools. Access to open space was among one of the highest ranked factors because the non-motorized and open space networks should work together to activate and reinforce one another—connecting the outdoor, active spaces through active transportation. The following are considered secondary priority destinations: schools, joint-use parks (select schools), and open space (Figure 5.46).

228 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

Figure 5.45 Left. Rancho Alamitos High School. Figure 5.46. Right. Secondary destinations.

Tertiary Destinations

Harbor Blvd

Euclid St

Brookhurst St

Beach Blvd

Knott St

Valley View St

Magnolia St

57

2

5

Haster St

6

Legend Civic Center-Downtown District

7

Chapman Ave

1

Freeways Major Streets

Lampson Ave

Santa Ana River Commercial Zoning

3 Memory Lane

Garden Grove Blvd

Grocery Stores Restaurants

Trask St

22

Trask Ave

Health Services Senior Centers

1

Chapman Branch Library

2

Euclid Library

3

Garden Grove Regional Library

4

Nealley Library

5

Newhope Library Learning Center

6

Stanton Library

7

West Garden Grove Library

8

Westminster Branch Library

17th St

Westminster Ave

Post OfďŹ ces

4

8

405

Hazard Ave

Bolsa Ave

5

1st St

McFadden Ave

0

1

2

Miles

Tertiary Focus Major Concern: Access to civic institutions, routine and broadly appealing destinations. Civic and commercial services represent important considerations and routine destinations with broad appeal. Civic services, by deďŹ nition, should be easily accessible by residents since they pay for the services through taxes. Shopping centers and other commercial areas are also considered in this category as they are sources of economic growth and vitality. Healthcare services are also included because of these places should be accessible to residents. Tertiary destinations include: postal services, libraries, shopping centers, commercially zoned corridors, grocery stores, restaurants, and healthcare centers (Figure 5.48).

Figure 5.47. Left. Asian Garden Mall in Little Saigon, Westminster. Figure 5.48. Right. Tertiary destinations.

5 - Non-Motorized Mobility Network | 229

Cyypr pres esss Cypress

Disneyland Disn Di s eyla and

Haster St Haster

5

Anaheim An Anah ahei eim m

Stan St anton Stanton

57

Harbor Bl Harbor Blvd vd

Euclid Euc lid St

Bro Brookh okhurs urstt St St Brookhurst

Magnolia Magnol Mag nolia ia St

Beach Blv Beach Blvd d

Knott St Knott

Valley Vi Valley View ew St

Quaternary Destinations + Routes

Hond n a Honda Cent Ce nter er Center Cityy Nati tional G rove ve National Grove nahe na heim im of A Anaheim

Katella Katell e a Ave A

ARTIC AR A TIC C

An Ange gell Stadium St Angel

Legend Civic Center-Downtown District

Christ Chri Ch rist st

Los Alamitos Alam Al Alami A la amit miitto os Armyy A irfie ir field ld Airfield

Orange Or Oran ange ge Outlets Outlet Ou O ts at Oran ange e Orange

Freeways Lampson Lam mpso pson n Ave Ave e

Major Streets Santa Ana River Attractions

Memory Memory La Lane ne

Places of Worship Destinations Routine Occasional

Trask Trask St

Trask Trask Ave Av

1 2-5 6 - 10

17th 17th St St

11 - 15

405

16 +

Hazard Hazard Ave Ave

H ntingt Hu gton on Beach Bea each ch Huntington

Routes Used & Desired Routes

Westminster West We stmi mins nste terr Mall Mall

Westminster West We stmi mins nste terr

Pedestrian Bicycle

Figure #.#. Tertiary destinations and routes.

1st St

Bolsa Bolsa Ave

Little Sa Saig igon on Saigon

Santa Ana Riv er

Westminster Westmi Wes tminstter Ave

Santa Sa Sant nta a An Ana a

McFadden McFadd McF adden en Ave

0

Bella a Terra Terra

Foun Fo unta tain in Fountain Valllley Va ey Valley

1

2

Miles Mi Mile less

Mile Square Regional Park

Quaternary Focus Major Concern: Connection to social and cultural resources, particularly those destinations and mobility routes that were identified through public participation activities. Some quaternary destinations overlap with previous categories (such as commercial hubs, popular restaurants and schools), so priority considerations for those destinations are compounded, resulting in somewhat inflated weights (see Figure 5.50). Therefore, quaternary considerations include faith-based organizations and places of worship (as they are representative of social and cultural resources) and public participation informed assets (aggregated results from PUA, public meetings and comments, and MindMixer input and feedback), including identified destinations and suggested NMM routes (Figure 5.50).

230 | RE:Imagine Garden Grove

Figure 5.49. Left. St. Columbian Catholic Church. Figure 5.50. Right. Quaternary destinations and routes.

Cypress Cyypr pres esss

Haster St Haster

5

Anah An ahei eim m Anaheim

Stan St anton Stanton

57

Harbor Bl Harbor Blvd vd

Euclid Euc lid St

Bro Brookh okhurs urstt St St Brookhurst

Magnolia Magnol Mag nolia ia St

Beach Blv Beach Blvd d

Knott St Knott

Valley Vi Valley View ew St

Quinary Destinations

Honda Hond n a Center Cent Ce nter er

Disneyland Disn Di sneyla and

Cityy National Grove N tion Na onal al G ro ove Anaheim of A nahe na heim im A gel An Angel Sttadium Stadium

Katella Katell e a Ave A

Los Alamitos Los os Army AirďŹ eld ld

Christ Chri Ch rist st

A TIC AR C ARTIC

Oran Or ange g Orange Outletss at Oran nge g Orange

Legend

Memory Mem ory La Lane ne

Civic Center-Downtown District Freeways

Trask Trask St

Trask Trask Ave Av

Major Streets Santa Ana River

17th 17th St St

Westminster Westmi Wes tminst nster er Ave